I move amendment No. 17 :—

In sub-section (2) to delete paragraph (f).

Paragraph (f) in sub-section 2 of Section 30 has appeared, I think, in some of the earlier Cereals Bills, and it was there argued that this was necessary because the licensees under that legislation were coming in business contact with small farmers who might be inexperienced in bankruptcy procedure and who might be deluded into giving credit to men who were not worthy of it inasmuch as they had been adjudged bankrupt. It was thought desirable, therefore, to remove such persons from the business altogether lest they might impose on such people. No such element can enter into the situation provided for under Section 30 of this Bill, and I object to the amendment of the Bankruptcy Law of this country by a Pigs and Bacon Bill, because I think it is irrelevant and imposes a penalty on the act of going bankrupt which should not be imposed, seeing the legislature has decided that there is nothing criminal or reprehensible in going bankrupt, and seeing that the legislature has provided machinery so that people can go legitimately bankrupt. I say that that procedure should not operate to deprive a man of his means of livelihood if he engaged as a licensee under this Bill.

I am prepared to agree with Deputy Dillon in so far as that it is not right to amend a code like the bankruptcy code in a Bill of this kind. I think, however, that there is a danger in this Bill which could be argued to be much stronger than a similar danger in other Bills, because the licensed curer gets an allocation and, in theory at any rate, there might be some farmer who owed pigs to that man and he must give him those pigs. If a man goes bankrupt once, he may go bankrupt again. I know, of course, that the harm is usually done before he becomes bankrupt and that it is the farmer who sold him his produce a week or so before the bankruptcy who loses. However, I may tell the Deputy that I am not going to press the matter.

I suggest that it should be allowed to stand as a deterrent to a man from going bankrupt. What I mean is that if a man is a bit dishonestly inclined and allows himself to drift into bankruptcy, he has the feeling that when he gets clear of his bankruptcy he can go into business again. If, on the other hand, he has the certain fear that if he once becomes bankrupt he must get out of business altogether, it will act as a complete deterrent to his going bankrupt. In any case, are not his profits fairly well secured here ? He is allowed into a sheltered business. He has practically a monopoly of that business—a monopoly of almost 100 per cent.—and he has Boards there to protect his margin of profit. He will buy at a certain price and, allowing for costs and so on, he will sell at a certain price, which will allow him a reasonable margin of profit. I mean that, in other words, there is very little element of risk in the business, and I hold that there is no justification for a man going bankrupt in it. It is not a speculative business in the ordinary way.

I appreciate what Deputy Belton says, but I may say that I have had a good deal of experience in business of this kind. The bankruptcy law may be made the instrument of blackmail. It may be made particularly the instrument of blackmail where you are dealing with a man who has a pension or who has a licence of this kind which is revocable in the case of bankruptcy. We all know that there is many a man who could be made bankrupt on Monday who, if he were allowed a month or two, could get out of his difficulties.

If a proviso of this kind is inserted in the Bill any rascal can come to that man in his hour of difficulty and say : " Unless you are prepared to do such-and-such I will bankrupt you." Suppose this provision was not in the Bill, the man will say : " Go ahead, and bankrupt me ; if you let me hang on for a couple of months you will get 20/- in the £ ; but if you bankrupt me you will not get 10/-." If he knows the creditor is well aware that not only will he inflict upon his debtor the humiliation of going through bankruptcy, but that he will also wipe him out of business permanently, then the debtor knows that he must submit to whatever demands are made upon him in order to stave off the threat of bankruptcy. The reason why I do not want this provision under section (f) is that it puts a weapon in the hands of persons who want to blackmail debtors into payment. Further, it imposes a penalty on an act which is in no sense criminal. Thirdly, it tempts a man who ought to face his financial commitments early so as to save his creditors as much as he can, to struggle on lest his bankruptcy should wipe him out of business altogether, and very often results in a man sinking deeper into the mud than he would otherwise if he felt he could clear up his affairs and start afresh without any untoward consequences.

All this is very strong if we were not providing a sheltered business with a guaranteed profit provided a man does his work. That is what we are doing in the Bill. I cannot see where there is such an element of risk in this business which would provide instances such as Deputy Dillon referred to.

This matter has been discussed at great length with regard to a number of measures and is included in them. I do not see that there is any use in discussing it at any great length here, because we can get the arguments for and against in the Dáil Debates.

I should like to point out that it is the Minister " may." As I said in the beginning, I have no strong views on the matter.

Deputy Belton says that this is a sheltered business. It is not sheltered in regard to bad debts or losses in other respects. I do not see why the ordinary law should not operate in this respect as well as in any other, and why we should put this into the Act.

Why is it lost ?

There is no casting vote.

I move amendment No. 18 :—

In sub-section (3), paragraph (c) (i), line 28, to delete the words " a fit and proper person " and substitute therefor the words " a practising barrister of not less than ten years' standing."

Under sub-section (3) (c) (i) provision is made for the appointment of an arbitrator in the event of the Minister deciding to revoke a licence and the grounds upon which he proposes to revoke it being contested by the licensee. It is provided that the Minister shall appoint a fit and proper person to hold such inquiry. I am of opinion, in view of the fact that there is a legitimate difference between the licensee and the Minister on the true interpretation of the statute that the person to make the arbitration should approximate as closely as possible to a judicial person and, therefore, I make the same qualification for him as is made for a District Justice or a Circuit Court Judge, to wit, he should be a person of at least ten years' standing as a practising barrister accustomed to the weighing of evidence and the seeking out of relevant facts in considering the true meaning of the statute.

It is felt in many of these investigations that a technical person might be a more suitable person. I know, of course, that it is held by lawyers, constitutional experts, and so on, that a person who can weigh evidence is the proper person to adjudicate, whether he has technical knowledge or not. It is a matter upon which I have no very strong views. I would, however, prefer to accept Deputy Dillon's amendment than the next one in the name of Deputy McGovern. There would be great difficulty and great delay about having the matter transferred to a court.

This would very seldom occur, but the fact that it would be open to be transferred to a court would satisfy certain people. If the Minister accepted my amendment he would save himself from unfair charges, perhaps, that he had not given fair play, etc.

I take it that if we were to accept Deputy Dillon's amendment we would have a person who would be equivalent to a judge trying the case. That would be, in a sense, a court. It might cover both amendments, if I were to accept Deputy Dillon's amendment in principle and bring in an amendment to cover it.

Very good.

I withdraw the amendment on the undertaking from the Minister that the principle will be met in an amendment to be introduced by him on the Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 20 :—

In sub-section (1), lines 40 and 41, to delete the words " such particulars of such licence as he shall think proper " and substitute therefor the words " all particulars of such licence."

In sub-section (1), why is it that the Minister is only obliged to communicate to the Bacon Marketing Board and the Pigs Marketing Board, " such particulars of such licence as he shall think proper" ?

It is not that we want to withhold anything, but it is rather dangerous to be asked to give all particulars of a case. We might omit, through an oversight, to give certain particulars, and it might be used as a technical defence afterwards. If the Deputy took the word " all " out of his amendment we might agree to it. Leaving in the word " all " might be a bit dangerous. Somebody might say afterwards that all the particulars were not notified.

I suggest that the present form is less objectionable than that. I suggest that it is clearer to leave it as it is.

I suggest to the Minister that he should draft an amendment for the Report Stage saying " all particulars which the Bacon Marketing Board and the Pigs Marketing Board may require."

We could do that all right, if they ask us for particulars.

Might they not ask for something that you might find it objectionable to give ?

I do not think so.