Maher v Minister for Agriculture

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Carroll
• Judgment Date: 15 December 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] IEHC 95
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: No. 202 J.R./2000
• Date: 15 December 2000

[2000] IEHC 95

THE HIGH COURT

No. 202 J.R./2000

MAHER & ORS v. MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE & ORS

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

NICHOLAS PHILIP (OTHERWISE MARTIN) MAHER MALACHY BRETT AND RITA RYAN

APPLICANTS

AND

THE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE FOOD AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS

Citations:

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 5

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT 1972 S3

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 6

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 7

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 26

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 27

CONSTITUTION ART 29.4.7

CONSTITUTION ART 15.2.1

CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.2

CONSTITUTION ART 43

DPP V MCDONAGH 1996 IR 565

NATIONAL IRISH BANK, IN RE 1999 3 IR 145, 1999 1 ILRM 321

LAWLOR V FLOOD UNREP KEARNS 2.7.1999 1999/15/4583

CRILLY V T & J FARRINGTON LTD 2000 1 ILRM 548

HANIFIN V MIN FOR ENVIRONMENT 1996 2 IR 321

CONSTITUTION ART 29.4.3

LAWLOR V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1990 1 IR 356

EEC REG 856/84

EEC REG 857/84

EEC REG 1256/99 ART 8(b)

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 6

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 7

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 8

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 8a

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 9

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 6(1)

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 6(2)

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 7(1)

EEC REG 3950/92 ART 8a(b)

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 8

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 9

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 10

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 11

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 19

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 20

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 21

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 22

EEC REG 1256/99 ART 9(c)

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 2(1)

MEAGHER V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1994 1 IR 329

CITYVIEW PRESS LTD V ANCO 1980 IR 381

MCDAID V SHEEDY 1991 1 IR 1

LOVETT V MIN FOR EDUCATION 1997 ILRM 89

O'NEILL V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1998 1 IR 435

LAURENTIU V MIN FOR JUSTICE 2000 1 ILRM 1

EEC REG 1256/99 ART 8(a)

R V MINISTRY FOR AGRICULTURE EX PARTE BOSTOCK 1994 ECR 955

DUFF V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1996 ECR 569

EEC REG 590/85

EEC REG 1899/87

EEC REG 395/92

EEC REG 536/93 ART 8

CROTTY V AN TAOISEACH 1987 IR 713

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK LEVY) REGS 1985 SI 416/1985

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK LEVY) (AMDT) REGS 1987 SI 51/1987

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK LEVY) (AMDT) (NO 2) REGS 1987 SI 143/1987

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK LEVY) (AMDT) REGS 1989 SI 47/1989

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 1994 SI 70/1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 1995 SI 266/1995

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (ATTESTATION OF THE STATE & GENERAL PROVISIONS) (AMDT) (NO 2) ORDER 1985 SI 419/1985

ZUCCHERIFICI V MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1979 ECR 2749

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MILK QUOTA) REGS 2000 SI 94/2000 REG 5(1)

TREATY OF ROME ART 33

TREATY OF ROME ART 34

TREATY OF ROME ART 10

TREATY OF ROME ART 249

EEC REG 1255/99 RECITAL 2

EEC REG 1255/99 RECITAL 3

EEC REG 1255/99 RECITAL 4

EEC REG 1256/99 RECITAL 5

EEC REG 1256/99 RECITAL 6

Synopsis:

Administrative Law

Administrative; judicial review; milk quotas; applicants challenging validity of regulations restructuring milk quota regime made by respondent; whether discretion in Council Regulation which is left in the Member States are within the principles and policies determined by the Council of Ministers in organisation of E.U. milk market; whether implementing measures acts necessitated by obligations of E.U. membership; whether the nature of the milk quota created by European law must bear the same meaning in domestic law as in the legal order of the E.U.; whether right to a milk quota a property right within the meaning of Article 40.3.2 and Article 43 of the Constitution; Arts. 15.2.1 & 29.4.7 of the Constitution; S.I. 94/2000.

Held: Relief refused.

Maher v. Minister for Agriculture - High Court: Carroll J. - 15/12/2000 - [2001] 2 IR 139

The applicants initiated proceedings seeking to challenge the validity of certain regulations dealing with "Milk Quota." Carroll J held that the regulations in question sought to regulate milk production and had taken into account the legitimate interests of parties. The proceedings would be dismissed.

1 Ms. Justice Carroll delivered on the 15th day of December, 2000.

2 The validity of the European Communities (Milk Quota) Regulations, 2000 ( S.I. No. 94 of 2000 (referred to as "S.I. 2000") made by the Minister for Agriculture Food and Rural Development (referred to as "the Minister") pursuant to Section 3 of the European Communities Act, 1972is challenged by the Applicants. In particular they challenge Regulation 5 (restrictions on the transfer of milk quota), Regulation 6 (exemption for certain family transactions), Regulation 7 (exemption for certain transactions where Minister grants a certificate to transfer quota), Regulation 26 (restructuring of milk quota) and Regulation 27 (temporary transfer of milk quota limited to one year only, two in exceptional circumstances). The Applicants claim that S.I. 2000 is not "necessitated" within the meaning of Article 29.4.7 of the Constitution; that the making of S.I. 2000 amounts to an exercise of legislative power contrary to Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution; that the right to a milk quota is a property right within the meaning of Article 40.3.2 and Article 43 of the Constitution and that the regulations contained in S.I. 2000 constitute an unjust attack on this right.

3 It was agreed that if the making of S.I. 2000 was "necessitated" within the meaning of Article 29.4.7 the action must fail ad limine.

4 As a preliminary issue I had to decide if the Applicants were to be entitled to adduce evidence of and rely on, (1) an amendment of certain words in the wording of Article 29.4.7 in its passage through the Oireachtas preliminary to its being submitted to the people in a referendum and, (2) the speech of the mover of the amendment in the Dail explaining why the amendment was being moved.

5 Mr. Hogan S.C. Counsel for the Applicants agreed that prior to the decision of the Supreme Court given by Costello P in D.P.P. -v- McDonagh [1996] I.R. 565 the courts would not look at speeches in the Oireachtas as an aid to interpretation but would look at the Act as passed and interpret the language used. He said that since McDonagh's case it has been the practice sanctioned by the Supreme Court to look at speeches in Parliament as an aid to interpretation. He cited the decisions of Mr. Justice Shanley in Re: National Irish Bank [1991] I.L.R.M. at 339, of Mr. Justice Kearns in Lawlor -v- Flood, unreported 2nd July, 1999 and of Mr. Justice Geoghegan in Crilly -v- T & J Farrington Limited [2000] 1 I.L.R.M. 548 at 557.

6 Having considered the judgment of Costello P in the McDonagh case I am unable to conclude that it was intended that Oireachtas debates would be resorted to in the interpretation of statutes. For one thing Costello P, at 570 starts by saying:-

"It has long been established that a court may, as an aid to the construction of a statute or one of its provisions, consider its legislative history, a term which includes the legislative antecedents of the provisions under construction as well as pre-parliamentary material and parliamentary material relating to it. Irish Statutes frequently and for very good reasons adopt with or without amendment provisions of statutes enacted by the United Kingdom Parliament dealing with the same topic and so the legislative history of Irish Statutes may well include the legislative history of the corresponding enactment of the United Kingdom Parliament."

7 He could not have been referring to parliamentary debates because it is common case that prior to that judgment, parliamentary debates would not have been looked at. So whatever had been long established, it was not a practice of looking at parliamentary debates. What Costello P. goes on to consider is the legislative history of how a section in an Irish Act replicated a section in a United Kingdom Act and why the section came to be enacted in the U.K. following a controversial decision of the House of Lords followed by the recommendations of an Advisory Committee to enact declaratory provisions. Therefore it seems to me that the legislative history referred to by Costello P. was not intended to extend to or include the contents of a parliamentary debate either in this State or in the United Kingdom and did not in fact do so in the particular case. I did not accept it as authority for the admission of parliamentary debates as an aid to interpretation. Ms. Finlay SC Counsel for the Respondents further argued that neither the Dail legislative history nor the Dail debates should be admissible where the interpretation of the Constitution was involved. It is the people who enact the amendment to the Constitution and the intention of the Oireachtas cannot be presumed to be the intention of the people. She referred to Hanafin -v- Minister for the Environment [1996] 2 I.R. 321 at 430 where Hamilton C.J. stated:-

"Because of the secrecy of the ballot, it is not possible to ascertain by direct evidence the factors which influenced the people in casting their votes, what their motives were in casting their votes or the reasons why they cast their votes in a particular way."

8 In ruling on the issue I held that the Dail debates were not admissible. My reasons for doing so were that I did not consider that D.P.P -v- McDonagh was authority for their admission as an aid to interpretation and secondly, in any case where a Constitutional amendment is concerned it is the people who are the legislators and their intention could only be ascertained through the actual words...