I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 3, Section 3, sub-section (1), before paragraph (a), line 44, to insert the following paragraph—

(a) within seven days after the making thereof, a copy thereof shall be sent to each of the following, namely, the National Library of Ireland, the Law Library, Four Courts, Dublin; the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, the Cork Chamber of Commerce, the Limerick Chamber of Commerce, the Waterford Chamber of Commerce and the Galway Chamber of Commerce.

This is an amendment which I promised Senator Keane I would bring in.

There are two chambers of commerce in Cork. Could we add an "s" to make it read "the Cork Chambers of Commerce"?

No; it appears that they bear different titles.

It is a pity the Minister has not taken power to put a notice of the short title in Iris Oifigiúil.

The Bill itself provides for that.

It is actually what is done now. The practice at present is to put in a notice under the short title in Iris Oifigiúil within seven days.

It is achieved by Section 3 (1) (b).

That does not do it, as that is only when the printing is done. It is in the interest of the general public that it should be done. A notice of the short title should be put in Iris Oifigiúil within seven days. However, I am not pressing the point.

This is an important amendment and I hope Senator Sir John Keane is pleased that it is being passed.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 4, Section 3 (3), to delete paragraph (b), lines 6-9, and substitute the following paragraph:—

(b) the prosecutor does not prove that, at the date of the alleged contravention, notice of the making of the said statutory instrument had been published in the Iris Oifigiúil.

I think this means that, if the prosecutor fails to prove publication, the case shall be dismissed.

There is an alternative.

He must do one or other of these things—otherwise there is a dismiss.

It is an improvement on what was there before.

The House is to be congratulated on having got that amendment out of the Minister, although it took a good deal of arguing last night. We have not only solved a lot of practical difficulties to which reference was made last night, but we have preserved the principle which we had—that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty.

I did not require that to be impressed on me.

Perhaps not, but it was impressed in the Bill.

I agree with Senator Sweetman that this meets the point we raised.

I think it is fitting that something should be said before the Bill passes from our hands. In all modesty, we should congratulate the House on having achieved so much after such persistent effort. We should also express our appreciation of the manner in which the Minister has met the points of view put to him. He came here patting himself on the back that this Bill went through the other House almost without a word of criticism, until the last stage when there was a vote taken on whether it should pass or not. With all due respect, the other Chamber did nothing to amend the Bill. The Minister came in here with that knowledge and I am sure he felt pretty wroth when he discovered there were criticism and hostility here to the Bill in the form in which it was presented.

My own attitude was that the measure would determine, perhaps for very many years, the manner in which the public are to be made acquainted with the regulations and Orders made by Government Departments and other authorities under the legislation of the Oireachtas. I felt that it was not some mere transient legislation we were dealing with and that it was our duty, without embarrassing the Government Departments or the other authorities concerned, to insist that there be no short cuts and that steps be taken to ensure that where regulations and Orders were made the public would be made aware of them and have an opportunity of consulting them. That has been done, and done in a very satisfactory manner. If I were doing it, probably I would do it in a different way, but I am quite prepared to say that it has been done in a very satisfactory manner. When some future Government makes up its mind to abolish the Seanad, I feel sure that they will be bound, in strict justice, to inscribe on our tombstone some reference to the fact that we did make due provision, in the Statutory Instruments Act, for the protection of the public against autocratic and bureaucratic Departments.

I, too, should like to endorse what Senator Sweetman has said. The bulk of our practical legislation nowadays appears to be by way of Order and it appears to be a growing tendency. It is most important, therefore, that the House should be in a position to know as soon as possible when Orders are made and to be able to examine them. I appreciate the Minister's attitude in this matter. I believe the Bill as amended will result in the House itself taking a closer interest in the proceedings and in watching the trend of legislation. It provides a piece of machinery which was utterly lacking.

I appreciate the manner in which Senators have met this Bill, but I want to put it on record again that the suggestion that there was an attempt made here in this Bill to lay down the principle that a person was not innocent until proved not guilty is totally unfounded. I am certainly not going to have that suggestion uncontradicted. It was never in the Bill.

The Minister is possibly right in saying that it was not in the Bill but, unfortunately, there was a clause in the Bill which compelled the defendant to go into the box.

No such thing. That is the point I want to correct. It left a defendant with the alternative of going into the box but he was not obliged to go into it or compelled to do so.

We will have to agree to differ.

Very well.

Is not it a great thing that we can agree to differ?

It is, indeed.

The Minister for Agriculture is engaged on questions in the Dáil, and it is proposed that we should take Number 4 on the Order Paper.