Control of Manufactures Bill, 1932—Message from the Dáil.

Wednesday, 10 August 1932

Seanad Éireann Debate
Vol. 15 No. 32

First Page Previous Page Page of 7 Next Page Last Page

“Dáil Eireann has agreed to amendments 2, 3, 5 to 14 inclusive, 17 to 24 inclusive, and 29 made by Seanad Eireann to the Control of Manufactures Bill, 1932, and, consequential on agreement to amendment 11, has made the following amendment to the Bill:—

In page 3, line 45, the words and brackets ‘paragraph (b)’ deleted and the words and brackets ‘paragraphs (b) and c)’ inserted in lieu thereof;

it has disagreed to amendments 1, 4, 15, 16 and 25 to 28 inclusive; to which the agreement of Seanad Eireann is desired.”

[1986]Cathaoirleach: I should like to take this opportunity—and in this matter I feel I can speak for the House as a whole—to congratulate the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs on the marked ability and restraint with which he has piloted this most difficult and complex measure through the Oireachtas.

At the same time, I must express the hope that the manner in which the Bill has been rushed through this House (it may have been unavoidable in the circumstances) will not be regarded as an example to be followed in the future; so that we shall not again be driven to seek devices to overcome the designed rigidity of our Standing Orders. In order to clear up any misapprehension, I would again remind the House that the Seanad is a revising Chamber and that the rules regarding the acceptance of amendments on the Report Stage are necessarily stricter than they are in the Dáil, and that it is for the sole object of avoiding mistakes that my colleague the Leas-Chathaoirleach and myself have striven to insist on their strict interpretation.

As it is, the Bill bears certain traces of haste which are not now remediable; but there are two errors which we can perhaps correct. The first has reference to the new consequential amendment to which our consent is asked by the Dáil. The position about that is this. In Section 2, sub-section (1) of the Bill as amended in Committee of the Dáil, there were seven lettered paragraphs, (a) to (g) inclusive, of which paragraph (b) referred to bodies corporate. The whole of sub-section (2) of Section 2 was governed by this paragraph, since it begins:—

“For the purposes of paragraph (b) of the immediately preceding sub-section but not further or otherwise, the following provisions shall have effect....”

A new paragraph (b) was inserted in the Dáil on Report, referring to partnerships, and the old paragraph (b) became paragraph (c); but in the copy of the Bill as passed by the Dáil the necessary consequential alteration in the opening line of sub-section (2) was not made, i.e., (b) was not changed to (c). This omission was in no way due [1987] either to the officials of this House or to the officials of the Department from which the Bill emanates, but it proved to be an unfortunate oversight, since it gave rise to much of the misunderstanding in this House on last Wednesday and Thursday. In effect, it rendered nugatory the whole of sub-section (2). An effort has now been made to remedy this by means of the consequential amendment I have referred to, but even now it is not correct. The whole of sub-section (2) refers to bodies corporate and can have relation only to paragraph (c) of sub-section (1), which also refers to bodies corporate. It has nothing to do with paragraph (b) of that sub-section, which deals with partnerships.

In the circumstances I suggest that the House leave this consequential amendment until we have dealt with the amendments with which the Dáil has disagreed. If we insist on any of our amendments and the Bill has to go back to the Dáil in any case, we can put the matter right by changing (b) to (c). If not, we can let it go, since it is now no more than a blemish in the drafting.

Another and perhaps graver matter concerns sub-section (4) of Section 2. This reads as follows:—

“(4) Where a person is charged with having committed an offence under this section, the onus of proving the matters or any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) respectively of sub-section (1) of this section shall lie on the person so charged, and until the contrary is proved it shall be presumed that none of those matters is applicable in relation to the Act alleged to constitute such offence.”

It will be noticed that paragraphs (a) to (h) inclusive are mentioned; but a new paragraph (f) was inserted by the Seanad in sub-section (1), and a consequential amendment was presumably necessary here. The legal effect, as the Bill stands at present, is that the onus of proof is imposed as regards the new paragraph (f) and removed from the old paragraph (h), which is now paragraph (i).

[1988] After taking the best advice available—and I may say that both I and my advisers have the sole object of trying to help the Government to get over the difficulty—I have decided that a consequential amendment to sub-section (4) would go far beyond a correction of a verbal or informal nature such as is contemplated by Standing Order 95. In the circumstances, if the Government feel that an amendment is essential, it can be made here, but the Bill must go back to the Dáil. It may be, however, that the Government do not take that view, in which case we can let the matter go and the legal effect will be as I have indicated.

We shall now take seriatim the amendments with which the Dáil has disagreed, namely, Nos. 1, 4, 15, 16 and 25 to 28 inclusive, and it will be open to any Senator to move “That the Seanad do not insist on the amendment” or “That the Seanad do insist on the amendment.”

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Connolly): Information on Joseph Connolly Zoom on Joseph Connolly I want to express my appreciation of the remarks relating to myself made by the Cathaoirleach. I wish to explain, with regard to the clerical errors in the lettering of the Bill, as printed, that we do not feel that it is of vital importance, or of any real importance, to have these amendments, such as have been suggested by the Cathaoirleach, carried out. We hope that the Seanad will accept the decision taken in the Dáil and that they will complete the Bill. We are, of course, entirely in the hands of the House.

Mr. Jameson: Information on Hon Andrew Jameson Zoom on Hon Andrew Jameson I move that the Seanad do insist on amendment 1:—

Section 1, sub-section (2). Lines 26-27 deleted and the following substituted therefor:—

“(a) a person born in Ireland or a person born outside Ireland whose mother was a resident in Ireland but temporarily absent from Ireland at the time of his birth.

I would like to say that I heartily endorse the remarks of the Cathaoirleach with regard to the Minister who has charge of the Bill in this House. I do not think any of us has ever [1989] known a Minister who did more to get the opinions of the House and who endeavoured more to meet us wherever he could. If there were differences of opinion in the House—and we have had some voting—they were on matters which we could not arrange and which we could not expect the Minister to arrange. Anyway, differences are bound to arise. As regards the piloting of the Bill through the House, I think everyone will recognise how ably and considerately the Minister has carried out his duties.

I wish, in regard to this first amendment, I could ask the House to agree to its rejection, but I do not feel disposed to do so. The clause as it was originally framed struck me as being an extraordinary one to come from any Free State Government. It gives no chance to Irishmen in one portion of the country to come in here and interest themselves in our industries. Persons who do not happen to be born in Saorstát Eireann or the area now comprised by Saorstát Eireann are excluded. I am an old Unionist and I cannot imagine a Nationalist Government here saying to all their Nationalist friends in the North of Ireland: “If you were not born here you cannot come in and take part in our new industries.” I think that is a wrong attitude from every point of view. It is wrong that we should bar out our fellow-Irishmen in the North of Ireland. I could point to sundry anomalies at present in existence with regard to place of birth. I think this is by no means a trivial question. It is a matter that should not be considered lightly. This Bill is meant to last and it would be wrong for us in the Free State to declare that we will not allow any of the North of Ireland people to participate in industries here. Why should we debar them simply because they were not born in an area which was created only a few years ago? Why should they be prevented from taking part in Free State industries?

The amendment seeks to include a person born in Ireland or a person born outside Ireland whose mother was a resident in Ireland but was temporarily absent at the time of the [1990] birth. Apparently it is on our mothers the whole thing depends. This matter has a direct bearing on citizenship and the right of people to interest themselves in our industries. I could not allow the amendment to go by the board. This means too much and, to me, it is another nail in the coffin put in by the Free State Government; it is another blow at the hopes of those who desire to see people and industries, north and south, joined together again. In the opinion of many people to whom I have been talking, this is an amendment which the Seanad should not let go. Its consequences are too serious to many citizens of Ireland who have probably got great traditions and who wish to come back here. Under this Bill as it stands it will mean five years' residence before a person can get over this initial difficulty. Our amendment gives every opportunity to Irishmen who want to come in here and, under the conditions laid down, take part in the establishment of new industries.

Miss Browne: Information on Kathleen Anne Browne Zoom on Kathleen Anne Browne I second the motion.

Mr. Connolly: Information on Joseph Connolly Zoom on Joseph Connolly We have discussed this at considerable length in both Houses. This Bill does not say that a citizen of the Six Counties will not be allowed to come in here. It does insist that under its provisions any person or any group coming in must get a licence. We have debated this question of citizenship at considerable length and I can add very little to what I have said before. I appreciate, perhaps more than anybody else in the House, the effect of the partition of the Six Counties from the rest of the country. Nobody would be more glad than I to see a union of the two political entities in Ireland effected. Senator Jameson and all Senators must realise what the position is, what position has been created and how impossible under present circumstances it is for us to treat the citizens of the Six Counties, for legal and for legislative purposes, as citizens of this part of the country. I have explained that this situation was not created by any desire of any element in the Six Counties nor, for that matter, was it created by any votes of any representatives [1991] of the Six Counties. We all know that the North-East Parliament is an absolute fact and that legislatively we have no control over it. By no process of legislation here can we make our writ run there, as we are circumstanced politically at the moment. I think it is illogical to argue that we can, in a measure such as this, give facilities, make provisions for, or in any way act for the citizens of that area. We are legislating here for the protection of industries within the State. We have to consider in this Bill that anybody outside the Twenty-Six Counties is, for the purposes of this Bill, not a citizen of our State at the present time. I think that has got to be admitted.

I appreciate all that Senator Jameson has in mind. I realise the undesirability of partitioning off any element or any citizen of the 32 counties from the scope of all our legislation and from the scope of all our government; but surely one has to face the facts, and surely the facts are that a partition Parliament has been created, not by us, not with any will of ours, but under circumstances which it is not necessary for me to go into now? It seems to me to be illogical, if not—if I may be permitted to say so—absurd to attempt by legislation to cover the people of that area, known as the Six Counties, over which we have no jurisdiction.

With regard to the whole question of citizenship, I have already expressed my opinion. I admit, as Senator Jameson has said, that it is not a trivial question. It is the most important question in the country. It is the most important question because it involves the whole political future of the country. It is the biggest thing, far and beyond anything we have done in this Legislature for the last ten years or that we are likely to do. To me the unity of the 32 counties is supreme and, above all other things, the thing to aim at, but we are up against a particular situation that has been created by certain means, by arrangement with the British Government and by arrangement with the people in the Six Counties, and a certain position [1992] was created as a result of the Boundary Commission. I do not think that the Seanad needs any explanation from me, or from any member of our Party, as regards that whole business, but it is the reality, it is the fact which we have to consider. If I may be permitted to say so, I think it would be absurd for us to attempt to ignore the fact that that is a separate political entity and that in our legislation we have no control over it. Why, or how, we could go outside the scope of the citizens over whom we have control and include, for one specific purpose, any element of another political entity over which we have no control, I cannot see. I think that the amendment from that point of view is illogical. With regard to the rest, it is to be hoped that the definition of citizenship which has been lying neglected for a considerable number of years—in fact, since the Free State administration came into power—will be dealt with and that the anomalies that exist, the anomalies of the Constitution itself, will be cleared up. As things are at the moment, however, and as the position stands in the Six Counties, I do submit that it is not possible in any logical way to accept this amendment, and I do not think that it could be accepted. I do not think that the Seanad would show such a lack of logic as to insist on this amendment being forced on the other House. That is my view on the matter. With regard to the other portion of it, we did, as you know, amend the term of the years of residence from seven to five years. That is the limit to which we can go. I therefore, ask the House not to insist on this amendment being forced on the other House.

Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas Following what the Minister has said with regard to the amendment being illogical, I think that I can prove to him, that the position being as it is, and accepting the fact of the existence of the Six Counties Government, this amendment is the only logical one which should be in a Bill of this kind. I entirely agree with the Minister that we should not make special provisions for citizens of the Six Counties. I agree with the Minister that we should have a [1993] proper citizenship definition provided in this State and that it is a pity that there is not such a definition. I also agree with the Minister where he says or implies that we must have control over persons who are operating here. I want you, however, to turn to the position under this Bill. This Bill does not define citizenship. It defines the conditions under which a person is to be a Saorstát national for the purpose of holding shares in a company which is to be regarded as a Saorstát company. That is the whole position. A person who resides in London or in Timbuctoo, if he was born in the Free State, may, under the Bill as proposed by the Government, hold shares here. To illustrate: Lord Carson or Mr. Bernard Shaw, both of whom I believe had the fortune or misfortune to have been born inside the area now known as Saorstát Eireann, can hold any number of shares or control any number of companies which they think fit, but the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs himself, or the President, or the Minister for Finance in this Government as well as the Minister for Finance in the last Government and many others whom I could mention are to have five years' qualification before they can be regarded as Saorstát nationals for the purpose of holding shares!

I agree with Senator Jameson that this is not a question of certain Unionists or certain Orangemen in the North who are going to put money in here and reside up there. The people who are going to put money in such companies here are going to reside here. This might have been met perhaps, by so providing; but in this Bill you are actually drawing a distinction, not of residence, but of birth only, and providing that the man born here, no matter where he resides, can be a shareholder for the purposes of this Bill. If he happens to have been born across the Border, he cannot be a Saorstát national until he resides here five years. I submit that that is not a logical position. I want to connect that with other legislation. The only definition which we have of a citizen is to be found in the Constitution. [1994] Perhaps that should be altered, but it is not altered yet. It definitely provides birth in Ireland, not birth in the Free State. If you turn to a Bill introduced by the present Government and just passed into law—the Finance Bill —and if you look at the special provision made in Section 19, under which we are to have an Irish company composed of Irish-born residents for the purpose of proving that a company is Irish so that it may receive a special remission of 7d. per lb. on the tobacco duty we find that the person must be born in Ireland and resident in the Free State. When we come to commodities other than tobacco, he must be born in the Free State. I suggest that the logical view is in accordance with our amendment. I, personally, am quite unable to follow the arguments put forward by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in which he suggests that the question of control or of citizenship in Northern Ireland arises. It does not arise, any more than the question arises of the citizenship of persons resident in France or the United States, who may be citizens of France or the United States, if they happen to be born in the Free State. They are far more likely to be people who were born in the Free State and now resident in the United States or France than of people born in the United States or France and now resident here.

We know that there are a few companies here in whom people in Northern Ireland are interested, some of whom reside here. Although we have done our best in this House to safeguard the position of existing companies we have to recognise that existing manufacturing companies will have to walk warily. I dare to say that a company which is not a national company, because people in the North have got money here, and have been manufacturing for ten years, is going to be placed in a different position. I hold that these are the people that we ought to favour, people who do not believe in partition—who are partitioned although they did not want it—who kept their money and manufactures here and who, at this stage, are placed in a false position. I think this is an [1995] anti-national move, and I think there is a different principle involved.

Mr. Bagwell: Information on John Philip Bagwell Zoom on John Philip Bagwell Presupposing that we all agree that this Bill is good sound legislation and desirable in order to bring about a state of affairs advantageous to the body politic of the Free State, I would say that the Minister's arguments were pretty good, but recognising that that is hardly the position, I hold that capital should be welcomed to this country, and the last thing that should be done is to make it difficult to attract it here. I also consider that it is most undesirable that business, using the term in the widest sense, should be controlled by Government—either by this Government or any other Government. Therefore, I think the whole principle of the Bill is wrong. I consider that it tends to keep away the very thing that we should welcome. Supposing that the owners of any business started in this country are not Irish, at any rate they are prepared to put their money into the country and to take some risk and start something. Even if they take the profits, or most of them, does not the country benefit? Of course it profits by the salaries and wages paid and by the general expenditure that takes place as a result of the business being here. For these reasons I cannot recognise the force of the Minister's arguments, and I hold that the Seanad amendment is a right one.

Mr. O'Neill: Information on Laurence O'Neill Zoom on Laurence O'Neill Speaking subject to correction, I take it that if any of the amendments which have been sent down by the Dáil are rejected by the Seanad this Bill will be held up for eighteen months?

Cathaoirleach: The Dáil will have an opportunity of reconsidering what we do here to-day.

Mr. O'Neill: Information on Laurence O'Neill Zoom on Laurence O'Neill Then it is a case of hide-and-go-seek, a coming back and going forward. After the encomiums which you, Sir, paid, and which have been paid by Senator Douglas and by Senator Jameson, I should like to join in paying my tribute to the ability bestowed on this Bill, both by Senator Douglas and by Senator Jameson. I [1996] think it would be a pity, after the give-and-take spirit that has been displayed by the Senators I have mentioned, and by the Minister, that that good work should go for nothing. It has just occurred to me that it might meet the situation if a small committee was appointed, consisting of three or four members of this House, to confer with the Minister. If the House adjourned for a few days there might be some means, with a give-and-take spirit, of coming to an arrangement. If not, the Bill will be held up for eighteen months. I would go the length of nominating that committee, which might consist of Senators Douglas, Jameson, Dowdall and O'Farrell, four keen, level-headed business men. I think that would be the most logical and common-sense way of dealing with the situation. If that suggestion meets with the approval of the House I would move it as an amendment. I think it would be a pity that there should be a deadlock after all the good work that this House has done in connection with this Bill. I frankly admit that I was delighted at the spirit shown by Senators when they were faced with this Bill, and I was commencing to come to the conclusion that the Seanad has justified its existence. Without being invidious we must recognise the ability that was displayed here, particularly by Senator Douglas and Senator Jameson. I think it would be a reflection on the whole of us if the four Senators I have mentioned could not sit around a table and hammer out some proposal that would get over the difficulty. Taking into account that there were between 70 and 80 amendments to the Bill, and that they have now been narrowed down to five, surely we ought to be able to reach some conclusion with reference to the others.

Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas Would it be in order to suggest that a compromise might be reached by the House insisting on amendments 15 and 16 and giving way on the rest?

Cathaoirleach: That is for the Minister to consider. Perhaps we would then know where we stand.

Mr. Connolly: Information on Joseph Connolly Zoom on Joseph Connolly We went to considerable trouble when going through the [1997] 73 amendments that were put down for the Committee Stage of this Bill, and went to the very limit of what we could do in the spirit of the Bill and the purposes that we want to achieve in getting it through. We have really said our last word on it as regards that. It is now in the province of this House to hold up this Bill, and to send it back to the Dáil, by insistence on the amendments that were put up. What the attitude will be as a result of that I am not in a position to say. The probability is that the Bill will lie in abeyance. What is the net result going to be? It is going to mean that every manufacturer and every concern that wants to go into manufactures in the Free State; that is not free to continue manufacturing without a licence or anything else, is going to be held up for the period the Bill is held up, knowing that the Bill is on the stocks, and in the offing, but not knowing what the result will be when the Bill emerges finally from the Oireachtas. Senator Douglas made various points in his speech. He did not bring out the point, though it must be well-known to him, and I am not going to elaborate it in speech after speech, that any company operating on 1st June, or within the preceding month, continues to operate without any interference, and that, in the event of any change of ownership, they have always the right to come for a licence. There is no hardship inflicted in this Bill on any existing organisations. The sole purpose of the Bill is to deal with the possibility of people coming into industry here in an undesirable way who have not been operating up to the present. I am not going to go into the undesirable ways in which manufacturers and associations of manufacturers can operate. I have done that at considerable length in this House and I do not propose to repeat it. They are all well-known to us but there is no hardship imposed on a business already in existence. Furthermore, this Bill deals with the future operations of all people outside the Twenty-Six Counties, and, as such, will have to operate equally with all people who are not residents or citizens. I admit, and have admitted all [1998] along the line, the undesirable position of citizenship in this country. That is not, in a way, our responsibility. A good many years have gone by during which citizenship might have been clearly defined, with the result that, in every piece of legislation in which citizenship had to be dealt with, it would have been dealt with by the word “citizenship” and that would have ended it.

The proposal made by Senator O'Neill is not a practicable one. If the Seanad wishes to send back their amendments, and to insist on them, it is a matter for the Seanad. We have spent considerable time, energy and patience to meet all the points of view expressed here in the Seanad amendments, numbering 73. We have tried to go to the very limit of what we could do in meeting what we thought were reasonable amendments which would not defeat the main purpose in the Bill and, as I say, we have said our last word on that. If the Seanad chooses to send it back to the Dáil, to do anything they like with it or to hold it up, as they have done with the Oath Bill, that is the Seanad's responsibility.

Mr. Dowdall: Information on James Charles Dowdall Zoom on James Charles Dowdall This matter has been discussed at very great length before to-day. I can quite understand, and I rather respect, Senator Bagwell for the attitude he takes. I have a very different view of the attitude taken by Senator Jameson and Senator Douglas on this particular point. We have heard very little until now of the restriction put on certain classes who really do suffer restrictions in the Six Counties, when an occasion, an occasion made almost compulsory by the position of affairs existing at the present time, is afforded for manufactures to be set up here. I say, deliberately, that the action of Senator Jameson and Senator Douglas is obstructive to this and that all the talk of the disability put on those in the Six Counties is mere eyewash. We have in this country, by reason of the depression in other countries, an accumulating number of young men and women who, ordinarily, would be compelled to emigrate. These young people, if an opportunity is not afforded them for employment, such as will arise by [1999] reason of the manufactures which will promptly spring up under this Bill, will be compelled to be idle and people talk of the danger to order in this country when this measure is to be deliberately held up for eighteen months for such reasons as we have heard from Senator Jameson and Senator Douglas to-day!

Mr. Jameson: Information on Hon Andrew Jameson Zoom on Hon Andrew Jameson It is very interesting to hear Senator Dowdall saying that the restrictions in this Bill and the objections to it are mere eyewash. If he lived a yard or two outside the Boundary, or happened to have been born there, he would not hold that point of view. We are not discussing this matter from the point of view, as he seems to think, that this Bill is going to give employment to a lot of unemployed young people in the Free State.

Mr. Dowdall: Information on James Charles Dowdall Zoom on James Charles Dowdall It is going to afford them an opportunity of employment.

Mr. Jameson: Information on Hon Andrew Jameson Zoom on Hon Andrew Jameson I am quoting what I gathered from the remarks the Senator made. Our efforts are to try to increase employment, and, as Senator Bagwell said, there are things in this Bill which are directly opposed to bringing in the necessary capital to give employment in the Free State. This Bill has nothing whatever to do with the employment of these young people or with people who will be employed. It has to do with the people who will bring in money to give employment and it is in defence of their interests, and in an effort to bring the money into the Free State that will give employment, that we are bringing these things forward. As regards the holding up of Bills by the Seanad for eighteen months, I do not think that is a good argument. If we are positively convinced, as we are positively convinced, that this is a bad part of the Bill, we have no right to let it go through—none. We are making laws for all time. We are not making a law for to-day or to-morrow, and, if we believe in our hearts that a certain clause will do a great deal of damage to the Free State, we are perfectly justified in stating our [2000] opinion. I believe the people of this country will recognise that and will recognise that the Seanad cannot be frightened by threats that the Seanad is not doing its duty to the country by holding up a Bill, when we are asked to agree to conditions in that Bill which we believe are absolutely to the detriment of the country we live in. We recognise fully the dangers and difficulties of the Seanad in taking such an attitude as we are recommending them to take and it is not with light hearts that we ask them to do so. I would say that if any Senator is not convinced that this is not a bad part of the Bill and that we are, by passing it as it is, keeping out money which is wanted in this country, let him vote against us, but we are thoroughly convinced that this is not a good thing for the Free State and that it is designed to gain some temporary advantage in connection with the tariff policy, which is only on trial, and for which purpose this may be a necessity. We believe that, so far as this country is concerned, it will keep money out and prevent estimable people from coming here and assisting our industry and that our amendment is far better than the clause in the Bill.

Mr. Connolly: Information on Joseph Connolly Zoom on Joseph Connolly I want to say one word. If Senator Jameson argues that this is necessary so that money may be allowed to come into the country for industry, then I say, in the political position of the Six Counties, there is no reason that I can know of why the citizens of Great Britain as well as the citizens of the Six Counties should not be allowed in on the same terms. It is the same thing to me, looking at it in the political sense. The legislation that is passed for Great Britain and Northern Ireland clearly indicates the political entity of Northern Ireland as being associated with Great Britain. That being so, if Senator Jameson pursues the thing to its logical conclusion it means that money should be allowed in here from Great Britain as well as from the Six Counties.

Dr. Gogarty: Information on Oliver St John Gogarty Zoom on Oliver St John Gogarty Why?

Mr. Connolly: Information on Joseph Connolly Zoom on Joseph Connolly On the lines I have told you, on the same basis exactly. [2001] We cannot deal with the Six Counties as if this were a united Ireland of 32 counties. Senator Bagwell explained the whole position. He said if he were in favour of the Bill he would be with the Minister and if he were not in favour of the Bill he would be in favour of the amendment. That epitomises, to my mind, the logical argument on the amendment. If you are going to pass that and the other amendment, well then that is your decision and your decision is that the Bill is not to be operative so long as it can be held up.

Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas I am glad the Minister has made that statement because it makes the difference between us very clear. The Minister can see no difference for the purpose of this Bill between a person born in England and a person born in Northern Ireland—for the purpose of capital coming in.

Mr. Connolly: Information on Joseph Connolly Zoom on Joseph Connolly That was Senator Jameson's argument.

Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas I am not dealing with Senator Jameson's argument. I am dealing with my own position.

Mr. Connolly: Information on Joseph Connolly Zoom on Joseph Connolly But I dealt with the argument from Senator Jameson's point of view.

[2002]Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas I want to deal with it from my point of view. I want to make clear what is the vital thing in this matter. I stood for that in the time when the Constitution was being drafted and I mean to stand for it as long as I am a member of this House and that is that a person born in the Northern Counties who chooses to come in here, may come in here on the same terms as any person here. That is the political principle on which I stand. Senator Dowdall does not respect that position but I do. There is a principle which was enunciated in our Constitution, and if there is any principle enunciated in our Constitution for which I stand, it is that one. They do not come in under equal terms. If they happen to be born in the North I would let them in on equal terms as a person born here, but I would not give that privilege to a person born in England.

Mr. O'Neill: Information on Laurence O'Neill Zoom on Laurence O'Neill Would I be in order now in moving that my amendment be put?

Cathaoirleach: No.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 21.

Tá.

Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
Browne, Miss Kathleen.
Costello, Mrs.
Counihan, John C.
Crosbie, George.
Desart, The Countess of.
Douglas, James G.
Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
Griffith, Sir John Purser.
Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
Kennedy, Cornelius.
McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
Moran, James.
O'Connor, Joseph.
O'Rourke, Brian.
Parkinson, James J.
Vincent. A.R.

Níl.

Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
Comyn, K.C., Michael.
Connolly, Joseph.
Cummins, William.
Dillon, James.
Dowdall, J.C.
Farren, Thomas.
Foran, Thomas.
Garahan, Hugh.
Linehan, Thomas.
Moore, Colonel.
O'Hanlon, M. F.
O'Neill, L.
Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
Quirke, William.
Robinson, David L.
Robinson, Séumas.
Ryan, Séumas.
Wilson, Richard.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Bagwell and Douglas; Níl: Senators Comyn and S. Robinson.

Question declared lost.

[2003]Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas I move:—

That the Seanad do not insist on amendment 4:

Section 2, sub-section (1). After the figures “1932” in line 6 the following words and figures inserted:—“or by a body corporate formed as the result of a reconstruction without change of control of the body corporate by which it was owned on the 1st day of June, 1932.”

Although I am moving that we do not insist, I am still utterly unable to understand the reason why the Dáil refused to agree to this amendment. It was a reasonable amendment. It cannot be pretended that it cut across the principle of the Bill. It simply provided that a company, which for any reason found it necessary to reconstruct, but the control of which was not in any way changed, might be allowed to continue as a Saorstát company under the Bill. The reason why I do not think this is a matter in which there should be a quarrel between the two Houses is that I admit that the number of companies who would be likely to reconstruct are comparatively few. I tried to read in the papers the Minister's reason for asking the Dáil to disagree with this amendment, and I was totally unable to understand them, because it seems to me a perfectly reasonable amendment.

I might point out that there were 73 amendments proposed in the Seanad to this Bill, and while the Minister did his best to meet those of us who disagreed with him, a great many of us also treated him in exactly the same way, and where he showed that there was a good case, within the principle of the Bill, I, for my part, withdrew about half the amendments, almost all of which I would prefer to see passed, so that this House only insisted upon sending forward, I think it was, 29 amendments out of 73.

The Earl of Granard: Information on Earl of Granard Zoom on Earl of Granard I second the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas I suggest that we postpone the amendment to Section 11 until the end.

Cathaoirleach: Yes. I think this is one we should leave over until the end.

[2004]Mr. Connolly: Information on Joseph Connolly Zoom on Joseph Connolly I move:—

That the Seanad do not insist on amendment 15:

Section 5, sub-section (1). The words “in his absolute discretion” deleted in lines 54-55 and the words “in accordance with provisions contained in regulations made under this Act” substituted therefor.

Mr. Comyn: Information on Michael Comyn Zoom on Michael Comyn I second.

Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas It seems to me that this amendment and the one following are amendments that raise a principle of the greatest importance in this country. This is the first time, as far as I can gather, and I have looked through a number of Acts where I thought there might have been something similar, in which the House has been asked to give the Minister absolute discretion without any indication in the legislation itself as to how he was to exercise that discretion. The amendment that the Seanad introduced is a question between autocracy and democracy. The Minister under the Bill would have power to give a licence to any individual; to give a different type of licence to the next individual, and a different licence again to the next individual who came along; and these would not be published. There was an amendment down suggesting that the forms of the licences should be published, but that was opposed by the Minister—I think properly—and was not insisted upon by the House. All that the Seanad suggested was that the Minister should make regulations, publish these regulations, and act within his own regulations. There is no delay of any kind proposed in the amendment inserted by the Seanad. The Minister could make his regulations under which he will issue licences. They will have the full effect of law until rejected within twenty-one days by either House after it meets; that is, as the Bill stands, that anything done during that period will be null and void. Therefore, this will not prevent his going ahead and making his regulations immediately and giving his licences until the House meets. The whole issue between the amendment inserted by the Seanad and the attitude taken by the Government is [2005] that the Government want absolute discretion—that is the word in the Bill —and we want the rules placed openly on the Table of the House. We are not asking them not to act under the rules. We are not asking for delay. It is simply a question of discretion without any regulations whatever, except such as he might think fit to make. There has been no case before, as far as I can find, in the history of the Free State in which a Minister has been given that discretion without something in the Bill itself which would govern his exercise of the discretion. I think there is a principle here, and I frankly do not understand the Government's point of view. I cannot see why they object to making general regulations under which licences will be granted. If they find these regulations want alteration, they can make further regulations. There is no limit to the number of regulations. The only limit is that they will have to be put on the Table. In connection with amendments 15 and 16, there is also a certain amendment at the end which would provide that the regulations would have to be passed by the House. The Bill provides that the House would simply reject them. As far as I am concerned, I suggest that the House do not insist on the latter amendment, but I think that there is a principle involved here.

Miss Browne: Information on Kathleen Anne Browne Zoom on Kathleen Anne Browne I want to say a word in support of this motion moved by Senator Douglas. It seems to me that the whole tendency of the Government is inconsistent with the spirit of democracy, and tends altogether to that of dictatorship. The Government talk about partition, but they are doing everything in their power to perpetuate partition. This amendment strikes at a dangerous principle, and I hope the House will support it so that we shall at least have some opportunity of knowing how these licences are being given and how the thing is being done. We hear an awful lot about secret agreements and secrecy in Government but here again, we have inconsistency, for the Minister now wants to do a thing when neither the Dáil nor the Seanad will have an opportunity of knowing what he is doing.

Mr. Connolly: Information on Joseph Connolly Zoom on Joseph Connolly Senator Miss Browne [2006] has raised the question of secrecy, and secret agreements, and such things. I do not think that they are at all relevant to this matter. To my mind the Bill is very specific and very definite. Because the conditions that will operate in the case of one licence may not be such as will operate in another, is the only reason why discretionary powers are asked by the Minister, and the only reason why the Minister should have those powers. The terms under which a company may not operate are as clearly defined as it is possible for them to be. The laying them on the Table when an arrangement is made will give the Oireachtas ample opportunity of dealing with them without in any way reducing the powers of the Minister or nullifying what he does. Senator Miss Browne and Senator Douglas have both expressed surprise that such powers should be vested in the Minister. I have said before that such powers are already vested in Ministers.

Senator Miss Browne is of opinion that the Fianna Fáil Party have something revolutionary, something sinister in all this. The granting of licences under the Transport Act passed in the lifetime of the last Government did exactly the same thing and gave even wider powers. That is the case under an Act that I am at present administering. When that measure containing a far more drastic section than anything contained in this Bill, giving power to the Minister to see that the wages paid, etc., were sufficient, was going through the Seanad, there was no objection to it in this House. I think there is no justification for the arguments put forward by the other side in connection with this matter, and I ask the House not to insist upon amendments 15 and 16.

Mr. Bagwell: Information on John Philip Bagwell Zoom on John Philip Bagwell Notwithstanding what the Minister has said I do not think there is any analogy between the Transport Act and what is done in this Bill. We know the Act to which the Minister refers, and that what he has said is correct, but it is an entirely different Act from this, and was brought forward for special reasons. This Bill is intended to deal with quite a different business altogether.

[2007]Mr. Comyn: Information on Michael Comyn Zoom on Michael Comyn It seems to me that our friends on the other side of the House are insisting on these amendments merely for the purpose of insisting on them. If you read Section 5 (1) you will find that whenever an application is made to the Minister under this Act for a new manufacturer's licence the Minister may, in his absolute discretion “...either grant or refuse it.” That looks reasonable enough. Instead of that we are to have that the Minister “may in accordance with the provisions contained in regulations made under this Act.” I ask Senator Miss Browne to say who would decide whether the Minister had complied with the regulations. Is not the effect of the amendment here to take the policy away from the Minister and to give it to some person undefined? I think the Minister is perfectly right in insisting on the Bill as it stands and refusing this amendment.

Mr. Jameson: Information on Hon Andrew Jameson Zoom on Hon Andrew Jameson I think the person to decide in this instance would be the court to which we would have resort. The trouble about this Bill is that no court or outside authority can interfere with the Minister, good, bad or indifferent, whereas if our amendment is agreed to the Minister lays down certain regulations under which he is to act——

Mr. Comyn: Information on Michael Comyn Zoom on Michael Comyn Who is to decide whether he complies with them?

Mr. Jameson: Information on Hon Andrew Jameson Zoom on Hon Andrew Jameson The court, and if he does not comply with them we have the court to resort to. There is a clear case. As the Bill stands there is no one but the Minister to deal with a person who comes in here as to the terms of his licence. The Minister says the terms are perfectly well known. I wonder whether that is so. If you look at paragraph (c) sub-section (2) you see that a licence will be granted “subject to such other terms and conditions as the Minister thinks proper and states in such licence.” There are no general terms such that anybody who wants to apply for a licence could come along and know he would get his licence if these terms are complied with. He has entirely to depend for the terms of his licence on the ipse dixit of the Minister, and these [2008] regulations are the one thing which he has to act on, and the applicant for a licence is not in a position to know exactly what is the wording of it. He knows the regulations under which the Minister must act and if he has any complaint to make against the Minister that he is not acting in accordance with these regulations he can go to the court and say: “the Minister is not doing what the Act says he should do.” His resource is clear. That is the view we take in trying to make this matter right. When you come to consider the absolute discretion that is being given here in regard to the huge number of industries which at one time or another may be coming into this country we have to look outside our own country to see what might happen. We know from our knowledge here that many things cannot be said of us that might be said of other countries. We never had, in the course of our existence, any member of the Executive Council about whom there was the slightest suspicion that he was in any way connected with graft. Therefore we can calmly discuss the question from the point of view that it might happen in the future that temptations would be put in their way by those who wish, for purposes of their own, to come into the Free State to do business. One does not like to mention the names of any particular country, but everyone of us who looks out on the world knows that under the system of tariffs, as applied in other countries, huge commercial interests come up for consideration and we know how tremendously legislators of every description are subjected to being approached by these big interests that are being brought out.

We know quite well that large numbers of the legislators of at least one country which I know are greatly influenced by the interests which they represent. I do think that in this country we should not take any steps which at any future time would enable one to say: “You keep an office there in your Legislature where a man can play ducks and drakes with anything and do what he likes. There is no Parliamentary control over him whatever.” That is the situation of the [2009] Bill. I think most of us know what the Minister is driving at. He and his Government have ideas as to how they should manipulate industry coming into this country. That may be all very good in the present circumstances. He can carry that out, and I do not believe that the House is going to interfere with his regulations in such a way as to prevent his carrying out the objects he has in view, but if we leave the Bill as it is, we are leaving to the future some things which he can do in his absolute discretion and which will make him available to the offers of those who wish to come in and establish industry in this country. It will leave him open, no matter how great or honest a man he may be, to the accusation that he may be influenced by these considerations. We are against giving him power of that kind. We hold that we are not interfering in the least with the real action of the Minister or the action of the Bill. We are providing that the Dáil and the Seanad may be called in to approve of the regulations and that the Minister must act under his own regulations. If anybody thinks that he was influenced in these matters they have the court of the land to appeal to. That is the case for the amendment. We are not interfering with the Bill. We are merely providing for the future as regards the probity of the Free State.

Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas When I spoke on the section I stated that I knew of no other case where absolute discretion without any regulations had been given to the Minister. The Minister, in reply, referred to the Road Transport Act. I have got a copy of the Road Transport Act here now, and I would like to draw attention to it, because it contains the very provision that we want. Section 11 of the Act says:—

Subject to the provisions of this section the Minister shall have absolute discretion to grant or to refuse an application for a passenger licence.

It goes on to state that he shall not refuse such application except on certain grounds, one of which is that in his opinion such service was not carried on efficiently with a due regard to the requirements of the public. Another [2010] is that in his opinion such existing service was not sufficient in regard to frequency of service having regard to the daily duration of the service or in regard to any other matter to meet the requirements of the public. There are other grounds with which I need not deal. Further on it states that in considering the granting or refusal of an application the Minister shall have regard to certain matters which we have detailed in five separate paragraphs. What we want is that the Minister shall by regulation do exactly what is in the Bill. We want to set out what he shall have regard to, so that the public will know what are the grounds on which a permit is refused or granted. If you say that he shall have regard to the number of existing manufacturers and the extent to which they meet demands in the Free State, that he shall have regard to the amount of capital or regard to efficient management, any of these things can be put into the regulations. This Bill which we have before us sets out every kind of condition under which the company has to act, but it sets out no condition under which the Minister has to act. I want him to set out the regulations. It is not in the Bill, but we want him by regulation to set out some conditions of this kind.

Mr. Comyn: Information on Michael Comyn Zoom on Michael Comyn I am glad Senator Douglas referred to the Road Transport Act, because from his reading of it it is perfectly apparent that no court can interfere in that case with the discretion of the Minister. You have in the early part of the section, as read by Senator Douglas, the absolute discretion of the Minister——

Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas No, excuse me. It says: “Subject to the provisions of this section the Minister shall have absolute discretion.” That is Section 11 of the Road Transport Act. Subject to the provisions of that section the Minister shall have absolute discretion to grant or refuse an application. His absolute discretion is subject to the provisions of the section.

Mr. Comyn: Information on Michael Comyn Zoom on Michael Comyn Here is what is suggested in amendment No. 15. In Section 5, sub-section (1), which I have already read, the Minister has absolute [2011] discretion to grant or refuse a licence, a proper thing in the case of an application to start a new industry by a foreigner in this country. Now what is sought to be done by the amendment? That absolute discretion is to be taken away from the Minister absolutely and in lieu thereof the Minister is to act in accordance with provisions contained in regulations under this Act. That is, there are to be regulations under which he has to act, and as Senator Jameson very fairly stated, the final judge as to whether he complies with these regulations or not, is not the Minister but a court of justice. Therefore, in every case, in a matter of business where the Minister for Industry and Commerce, on the advice of the Cabinet, comes to the conclusion that he will refuse a licence, the person whose licence is refused can say: “There are a set of regulations. You have not complied with the regulations. Now I am going into court to get a mandamus against you and to compel you to grant a licence.” So that in any case where the Minister refuses a licence it is competent for the person who is refused to go in and apply for a mandamus. I do not think that is intended.

Mr. Jameson: Information on Hon Andrew Jameson Zoom on Hon Andrew Jameson That is, if he breaks his own regulations. He has first to break his own regulations.

Mr. Connolly: Information on Joseph Connolly Zoom on Joseph Connolly There is one thing that has not apparently occurred to Senators who have been debating this amendment—that it is very difficult to frame such regulations as would meet the case. We have considered this very carefully. It is one of the many amendments in which I wanted to see if there was anything that would meet the views of the Opposition. So far as we could see, these were about the terms of the only regulation we could put up: “The Minister may grant a licence,” under, say, Section 5 of the Act, “if he is of opinion that the granting of such licence would not prejudice the general economic interests of Saorstát Eireann or would not prejudice existing business interests in Saorstát Eireann.” A regulation of that type would still leave the question of discretion to the Minister. It has been quoted here, [2012]apropos of the Road Transport Act, that the absolute discretion of the Minister was limited within a certain clause, but the phrase might be noted, “if in the opinion of the Minister” or “if in the absolute discretion of the Minister the service was not being carried on efficiently.” What makes an efficient service? How many people will agree as regards whether a service is efficient or inefficient? At the moment, we are up against various arguments on that particular matter. There are claims made on the one hand that bus services are efficient, and on that basis ought to get a licence. In some cases, our officials claim that the services are inefficient. Where are you going to draw the line as regards this discretionary power of the Minister? If there is a question under the Road Transport Act of frequency of service that is something that can be found out, but there are in all these measures quite a number of things on which there would be a very serious divergence of opinion. In this case, I hold that the discretion of the Minister is the only guide. Furthermore, such regulations as he will lay down will not be by any means one-sided. Assume that I am a member of a group of manufacturers who want to start an industry here. My group may require a licence to operate here. Is it not reasonable that they should go to the Minister, discuss all the possible difficulties, and agree or disagree about these difficulties before they embark on an enterprise involving capital expenditure? Remember that what is in question is not the opening of a tobacconist's stall. The capital involved is not a £5 note. This is intended for manufacturers and, with the Minister anxious to get manufactures started in the country, obviously, with intelligent and reasonable people, an attempt will be made to come to agreement. The Minister will endeavour to make conditions which will prevent friction. Once the licence is given, all the conditions will be very specific, in the interest of the manufacturer as well as the interest of the State. Assuming that some of the suggestions made by Senator Jameson were to take actual form, the manufacturer will want to know whether if [2013] he goes on for five years and there is a change of Government, he will be interfered with; he will want to know what security of tenure he will have, and whether he will be allowed to bring specialists from other countries or to have aliens employed at his factory. All sorts and conditions of things will be embodied in the licence. Different conditions will apply to different industries, and they will vary according to the nature of the concern. The regulations will have to be laid before the House, and it is argued by subsequent amendments that these regulations ought to be passed by both Houses before the licence or permission is given.

Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas That is not in any of our amendments.

Mr. Connolly: Information on Joseph Connolly Zoom on Joseph Connolly I think it was suggested.

Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas If the Minister reads the amendments, he will see that the action of the House was to be without prejudice to anything done under the regulations.

Mr. Connolly: Information on Joseph Connolly Zoom on Joseph Connolly If either House wanted to nullify anything that had been done, any regulations that the Minister would lay down could be dealt with in that way.

Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas No. The proposal was to prevent future transactions, but not to go back on anything done.

Mr. Connolly: Information on Joseph Connolly Zoom on Joseph Connolly If these things have to be submitted to the House and have to be approved, naturally the Minister's only reasonable line of action would be to get the approval of the Oireachtas before allowing any firm to negotiate with him.

Cathaoirleach: That is a question of the general regulations.

Mr. Connolly: Information on Joseph Connolly Zoom on Joseph Connolly Like many of the other amendments, this amendment has been debated at considerable length. There is nothing revolutionary about this discretionary power. There is nothing which will be abused and, in essence, the Oireachtas have control. This power is necessary, in the case of the Minister, to make the Bill effective, and I ask the House not to [2014] insist on this amendment or on the next one.

Mr. Bagwell: Information on John Philip Bagwell Zoom on John Philip Bagwell Let us get down to realities. This Bill gives the Minister power, at his absolute discretion, to refuse a licence to manufacture to any person who has been born out of this country. I do not think it is fair that that power should be given to any Minister. It represents extreme Government interference. The Minister says that the power will not be abused. But he cannot assure us of that. He does not know who is going to be in a position to exercise this power in the future. This provision gives an opening for tyranny and this House should not be a party to its enactment.

Mr. Wilson: Information on Richard Wilson Zoom on Richard Wilson When “the Minister” is spoken of in this connection, it really means the Executive Council. The Ministers have collective responsibility. As regards Senator Jameson's point, that there might be a danger of corruption and bribery, does he imagine that an Executive Council would be elected here which would be open to corruption and bribery? If an Executive Council of that kind were elected, the people would deserve no better. Every action of the Minister under this provision is simply the action of the Executive in Council.

Miss Browne: Information on Kathleen Anne Browne Zoom on Kathleen Anne Browne What I understood Senator Jameson to say was that these things occurred in other countries. We all know they do. I cannot see exactly the point of Senator Wilson's contention. We know that corruption and bribery go on in a wholesale manner in some countries where Ministers have absolute power in regard to certain matters. I am not saying for a moment that any Minister of this Government would be guilty of these practices. None of us would suggest anything of the kind. But none of us knows who may be in a position to exercise these powers in the future. The real objection to this provision is its permanency. We do not know what future Governments may be like. We may have a completely Communistic or Socialistic Government. The way things are going, one cannot say what [2015] sort of Government we will have. I object to the whole idea of control under this Bill.

Cathaoirleach: You cannot very well do that now.

Miss Browne: Information on Kathleen Anne Browne Zoom on Kathleen Anne Browne Instead of encouraging manufacturers, I think all these restrictions will mean so many obstacles to them. This legislation, instead of creating employment, which it is intended to do, will create unemployment. All this legislation is in the wrong direction and, on principle, without regard to the fine points at all, I shall vote against the motion.

Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas I think we ought to get our minds clear on this question of collective responsibility. When a Minister is given power under an Act of Parliament, it does not mean that the Executive Council takes responsibility. The Dáil may reject the Executive Council because of the Minister's act, but the signature of the Minister is, nevertheless, law where he is given power specifically. If Senator Wilson thinks that when there is a licence to be given for a bus over a certain route a meeting of the Executive Council is held to consider the whole question, he is remarkably innocent. It would be very difficult for the Minister to give a great deal of attention to matters of that kind. These things are not done, in that sense, by the Minister, but they are done according to general principles which he has adopted. I want the Minister to put the regulations on the table and to say what these general principles are. I agree that we cannot have every specific detail. The Minister has himself shown that by quoting an extremely wide regulation. That shows that the regulations he would make would be very wide. If that is so, why object to putting them on the Table and having them discussed?

Mr. Connolly: Information on Joseph Connolly Zoom on Joseph Connolly I quoted an example of what might be done if this amendment were passed. I did that deliberately to show how absurd it was and how the interpretation of the amendment, if passed, would amount [2016] merely to absurdity. The question of corruption and bribery has been raised. Does anybody think that if a Minister was open to bribery or corruption, all the regulations we could put in a Bill would stop him? Does anyone seriously contemplate such a state of affairs?

Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas It would make it more difficult for him.

Mr. Connolly: Information on Joseph Connolly Zoom on Joseph Connolly I do not think it would even make it more difficult. It would be a question of getting round your regulations.

Mr. Jameson: Information on Hon Andrew Jameson Zoom on Hon Andrew Jameson I think this whole discussion now really shows that we are hurrying this somewhat; we are doing this thing too fast, and I think the Minister must realise that. If the regulations had been inserted in the Bill and if there were a direction that the Minister would have to act in accordance with the regulations, then there would be a definite control by both Houses and we would not be arguing in this fashion. We would, instead, be discussing the regulations. If we were satisfied with the regulations the Minister would then have gained his point. There is an indication in the Bill that there will be regulations, but there is not a soul in the House who knows what the regulations are going to be like. We are, in fact, going blindly ahead in this matter.

I suggest that the Minister might, even at this late hour, produce his regulations. We could submit them to careful consideration and then we would be over the whole trouble. As it is, we are acting absolutely blindly. We are giving the Minister absolute discretion and we are not insisting on regulations under which he should act. If the regulations had been indicated in the first instance, there would not have been any need for this discussion at all. Of course if the Seanad likes to give the Minister a free hand and let the whole thing go in that way, that is their concern. So far as I am concerned, all I will say is that both the Dáil and the Seanad are doing something that is likely to create great [2017] trouble; they are doing a thing that they ought not to do.

[2018] Question put: “That the Seanad do not insist on amendment 15.”

The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 24.

Tá.

Comyn, Michael, K.C.
Connolly, Joseph.
Cummins, William.
Dillon, James.
Dowdall, J.C.
Farren, Thomas.
Foran, Thomas.
Linehan, Thomas.
Moore, Colonel.
O'Neill, L.
Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
Quirke, William.
Robinson, David L.
Robinson, Séumas.
Ryan, Séumas.

Níl.

Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
Bellingham, Sir Edward.
Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
Browne, Miss Kathleen.
Costello, Mrs.
Counihan, John C.
Crosbie, George.
Desart, The Countess of.
Douglas, James G.
Garahan, Hugh.
Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
Griffith, Sir John Purser.
Jameson, Right Hon Andrew.
Kennedy, Cornelius.
McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
Moran, James.
O'Connor, Joseph.
O'Hanlon, M. F.
O'Rourke, Brian.
Parkinson, James J.
Vincent, A. R.
Wilson, Richard.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Robinson and Comyn; Níl: Senators Bagwell and Douglas.

Question declared lost.

Cathaoirleach: That question being decided, there ought to be no necessity for another division on this matter. I am taking it that the Seanad does insist that the amendment shall stand.

Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas I move: That the Seanad do insist on amendment No. 16:

Section 5, sub-section (2). The words “the Minister thinks proper and states in such licence” deleted in lines 20-21 and the words “shall be in accordance with provisions contained in regulations made under this Act” substituted therefor.

This is practically consequential on the previous amendment.

Mr. Jameson: Information on Hon Andrew Jameson Zoom on Hon Andrew Jameson I second.

Question put and declared carried.

Mr. Connolly: Information on Joseph Connolly Zoom on Joseph Connolly We demand a division.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 17.

Tá.

Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
Bellingham, Sir Edward.
Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
Browne, Miss Kathleen.
Costello, Mrs.
Counihan, John C.
Crosbie, George.
Desart, The Countess of.
Douglas, James G.
Garahan, Hugh.
Gogarty, D. O. St. J.
Griffith, Sir John Purser.
Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
Kennedy, Cornelius.
McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
Moran, James.
O'Connor, Joseph.
O'Hanlon, M. F.
O'Rourke, Brian.
Parkinson, James J.
Vincent, A. R.
Wilson, Richard.

Níl.

Comyn, Michael, K.C.
Connolly, Joseph.
Cummins, William.
Dillon, James.[2019]Moore, Colonel.
O'Neill, L.
Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
Quirke, William.
Farren, Thomas.
Foran, Thomas.
Linehan, Thomas.
MacKean, James.[2020]Robinson, David L.
Robinson, Séumas.
Ryan, Séumas.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Bagwell and Douglas; Níl: Senators Seamus Robinson and Comyn.

Motion declared carried.

Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas I move: That the Seanad do not insist on amendments 25, 26, 27 and 28.

25. Section 11, sub-section (2). The word “if” deleted in line 34 and the word “unless” substituted therefor.

26. Section 11, sub-section (2). The word “either” deleted in line 34 and the word “each” substituted therefor.

27. Section 11, sub-section (2). The words “annulling such resolution” deleted in line 36 and the words “approving of the regulation” substituted therefor.

28. Section 11, sub-section (2). The words “be annulled accordingly” deleted in line 37 and the words “cease to have effect” substituted therefor.

They all stand together. Before the House takes this, I should like to protest against the suggestion that because the Seanad gives way on all amendments but two that it is holding up a Bill. We have had cases time and again where amendments have been sent back, and in this case, out of all the amendments, only two have been insisted upon. We do not insist on 25, 26, 27 and 28.

Mr. Jameson: Information on Hon Andrew Jameson Zoom on Hon Andrew Jameson I second.

Question put and declared carried.

Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas I move the following further amendment in lieu of the consequential amendment to which our agreement is requested by the Dáil, but which, as the Cathaoirleach has pointed out, is incorrect:—

Section 2, sub-section (2). To delete in line 45 the letter and brackets “(b)” and to substitute therefor the letter and brackets “(c).”

Mr. Jameson: Information on Hon Andrew Jameson Zoom on Hon Andrew Jameson I second.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Douglas: Information on James Green Douglas Zoom on James Green Douglas I move the following further amendment, which is designed to rectify the second error mentioned by the Cathaoirleach:—

Section 2, sub-section (4). To delete in line 27 the word, letters and brackets “(g) and (h)” and to substitute therefor the word, letters and brackets “(g), (h), and (i).”

Mr. Jameson: Information on Hon Andrew Jameson Zoom on Hon Andrew Jameson I second.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Cathaoirleach: Consequently on the Seanad not having insisted on amendment No. 27, and pursuant to Standing Order 95, I direct that the following verbal correction be made in the Bill:—

Section 11, sub-section (2). To delete in line 36 the word “resolution” and to substitute therefor the word “regulation.”


Last Updated: 17/08/2016 05:44:32 First Page Previous Page Page of 7 Next Page Last Page