This is the Report Stage of this Bill and the amendments are numerous, many of them being of substance. The practice has been in such cases to recommit the Bill in respect of the amendments. We should have some intimation as to what it is proposed to do.
Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill, 1932—Report.
I have no objection, as I want to give reasonable facilities for disposing of the amendments. A number of the amendments down, however, were discussed at length on the Committee Stage and when withdrawn then were withdrawn, as we thought, because they had been disposed of. If it is intended that the Bill is to take its normal course and that one amendment is to be taken as governing amendments of a similar character, then I have no objection to the giving of facilities for discussing it in Committee.
This is rather a new principle. It has been the practice, as you have stated, sir, where there are a large number of amendments to have the Bill recommitted and these amendments dealt with as if we were in Committee; in other words a second Committee Stage. I do not know what the Minister means when he talks about reasonable facilities. I do not know that anybody wants to talk for the purposes of obstruction. Surely the Minister will agree that the matter is important enough and involved enough to have a second Committee Stage.
I agree fully.
I do not want to have the precedent created that we are going to have a limit upon the second Committee Stage; that we are not going to have the same facilities when a Bill is recommitted as on the original Committee Stage.
I agree fully and if the ordinary procedure is followed I would much prefer that the amendments should be discussed in Committee.
As to the point raised by Deputy Morrissey advocating an equally full discussion now as on the first Committee Stage, that could scarcely apply to amendments which were discussed very fully indeed on the first Committee Stage and which have been resubmitted.
I am not suggesting that, but I say that we ought not to limit ourselves beforehand. I think it ought to be left to the discretion of the Chair. The Chair always has discretion if there is any question of repetition.
I do not think there is any disposition to repeat the arguments already used or to go over the ground which has already been covered. I do not think it is necessary for the Minister to have any stipulations made now.
We are anxious to get through this Stage to-day or to-morrow so that we can go on to the next Stage.
I think it will be quite easy to do that.
Bill re-committed in respect of amendments.
The following amendment stood in the name of Deputy McGilligan:—
In page 5, Section 3, line 50 to insert a new definition as follows:—
the word "prescribe" means prescribe by regulations under this Act.
This amendment would not arise unless certain other amendments by Deputy McGilligan were carried, and it might, therefore, be left over for a later stage.
That procedure was adopted on the first Committee Stage. The amendment will not be necessary unless amendments 17 and 100 are accepted. The amendment is therefore postponed.
I move amendment 2:
In page 6, Section 4, to delete all words from the word "or" in line 16 to the word "birth" in line 19 and to substitute the following:—
(b) a person born outside Saorstát Eireann or the area now comprised in Saorstát Eireann, whose mother at the time of his birth was ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann or such area;
I accepted an amendment by Deputy McGilligan to the same effect as this, but the draftsman disliked Deputy McGilligan's English and proposed the form in which the amendment is on the paper. The meaning is the same.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 3:
In page 6, Section 5 (2), line 42, to delete the words "such grant being made" and substitute the words "the grant of such probate or letters of administration."
On the Committee Stage, Deputy McGilligan queried the phrase "such grant being made" in line 42. This amendment is purely drafting. It does not make any difference in the meaning of the section, but it improves the appearance of it.
Amendment put and agreed to.
On behalf of Deputy Bennett I move amendment 4:
In page 7, Section 6, line 28, to delete the word "may" and substitute the word "shall."
I should like to know if the Minister is disposed to accept it.
I should like to accept the amendment, but I consulted the draftsman on the question. I am not able to argue the question as well as he would be able to argue it, but I am told that "may" is mandatory as the section is drafted and having regard to the references all through the Bill to millable wheat. It is mandatory on the Minister to prescribe regulations defining millable wheat, but it would appear that if "shall" were put in it would be too restrictive. It appears that I have, at any rate, to fulfil what Deputy Bennett is aiming at and that I must prescribe conditions even with the word "may" there.
If the Minister is not disposed to accept the amendment I withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 5:
In page 7, Section 7 (1), to insert in lines 38 and 39, before the word "wheat" where it occurs in both lines, the word "maize."
Deputy Dillon was responsible for this although he may not recognise it for the moment. He raised the point about our making regulations with regard to the oil content of maize. This is the way we have been advised it can be done best—to include maize in Section 7 (1). We have certain cereals mentioned there that must be included in their pure state without anything being extracted and it is proposed to put maize in along with them. That will cover the point that the oil cannot be extracted from the maize.
Amendment put and agreed to.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
6. In page 8, Section 9, line 17, to delete the figure "5" and substitute the figure "6."—(Mr. Lemass).
I move amendment 7:
In page 8, Section 10 (3), line 40, to delete the words "may if he so thinks fit" and substitute the word "shall."
This is an amendment to meet a point made by Deputy Norton on the Committee Stage. I stated that it was definitely the intention to appoint such a member of the Milling Advisory Committee as the sub-section envisages. Consequently, I have no objection to "may" being changed to "shall."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 8:
In page 8, before Section 12, to insert a new section as follows:—
"(1) Every inspector of the Minister for Industry and Commerce shall be furnished by that Minister with a certificate in the form prescribed by that Minister of his appointment as such inspector and when exercising any of the powers conferred on him by this Act shall, if so required, produce such certificate to any person affected.
(2) Every inspector of the Minister for Agriculture shall be furnished by that Minister with a certificate in the form prescribed by that Minister of his appointment as such inspector and when exercising any of the powers conferred on him by this Act shall, if so required, produce such certificate to any person affected.
(3) The Minister for Industry and Commerce may by order make regulations in relation to any matter referred to in this section as prescribed by that Minister, and the Minister for Agriculture may by order make regulations in relation to any matter referred to in this section as prescribed by that Minister."
This is a new section put in to meet several amendments proposed by Deputies on the Committee Stage. It provides for inspectors having authorisation cards or cards of identity which they can be asked to produce when they visit different mills. That disposes of quite a number of amendments on the Order Paper.
Does this cover all the different sections in which this comes in—all the points raised on the Committee Stage?
Yes. It covers several amendments. It covers every occasion on which an inspector can be asked for his identity card.
Might I draw attention to sub-section (3) of the amendment? Does that give the respective Ministers the right to absolve the inspector from the necessity of producing his identification card?
No. The end of sub-section (2) says "shall if so required produce such certificate to any person affected." We can only prescribe the form of identification and so on.
You cannot override any order in the section?
Mr. Ryan
We cannot override sub-section (2).
Amendment put and agreed to.
The following amendments appeared on the Order Paper:
9. In page 9, Section 18 (1) (b), to delete all words after the word "mill" line 28 to the end of line 35.—(Patrick McGilligan.)
10. In page 9, Section 18 (1) (b), line 34, after the word "representative" to insert the words "for the time being."—(Patrick McGilligan.)
11. In page 9, Section 18 (1) (b), lines 34-35, to delete the words "in due course of administration."— (Patrick McGilligan.)
I think these three amendments might be taken together.
Yes.
I move the amendments on behalf of Deputy McGilligan. Will the Minister give an indication why he limits this?
I undertook to examine the matter when the Bill was in Committee, and it is quite clear from that examination that these amendments should not be accepted. The paragraph, as it stands, provides for the representative of a deceased miller carrying on the business during two periods: between the death of the licence holder and the raising of representation, and between the raising of representation and the winding up of the estate. The personal representative is not entitled as such to carry on the business of a deceased person for an indefinite time. The paragraph, as it stands, permits him to carry on that business under that licence while such business is being carried on by him in due course of administration. There is no power to transfer the licence to the personal representative. The personal representative can transfer the beneficial ownership in the business, but the beneficial ownership is not vested in him. The words "during the currency of such licence" are necessary, because the Minister might revoke the licence while the business was being carried on by the representative of the deceased for any of the reasons for which a licence might be revoked under the Bill. I think that Deputy McGilligan and I are trying to achieve the same thing, and I am satisfied that the best way of meeting it is the way suggested or proposed in the Bill.
If the licence is revoked is there any way of meeting the matter?
The licence can be revoked while the estate is in course of administration.
If the licence is revoked the second half of Section 18 (1) (b) does not seem to be necessary because the licence is not in currency then. Has not the holder of the licence any protection if it is revoked?
This is, of course, an involved legal matter that I am not competent to argue. What we want to secure is that the business will be passed on from one ownership to the successor of that ownership. There can be no question of a stoppage at all. This section is intended to provide for the case where the estate has been administered by the personal representative pending the passing on of the inheritance to the person entitled to it under the will or in the case of intestacy to the person entitled to it in law and in the circumstances mentioned.
Amendment 9 withdrawn, and amendments 10 and 11 consequentially withdrawn.
I move amendments 12 and 13 on behalf of Deputy McGilligan:—
12. In page 10, Section 19 (3), line 3, before the word "information" to insert the word "prescribed."
13. In page 10, Section 19 (5), line 11, before the word "information" to insert the word "prescribed."
I undertook on the Committee Stage to consider whether we could not undertake to prescribe the information that might be required under Section 19. I tried to do that and sought to frame the type of regulation that would be necessary if the word "prescribe" were inserted there, but I found it a completely impossible task to undertake. The very first requirement here is the information that is necessary in order to satisfy the Minister that the person applying for a licence is entitled to it under Section 20. It is necessary that the Minister must get any information he may need for the information of all concerned. That information would be such things as the value of the mill; the price of the machinery and the price at which other machinery could produce flour for sale or profit, and for all these other points on which information might be required, the information must be given. That must be information required for the consideration of the application. Now, if a miller is satisfied that the information asked for by the Minister is not required he can refuse to give that information and have the matter tested in court.
But if the court decides against him he is in danger of losing his licence.
Oh, no.
But the Minister says he will consider the type of information he will ask. What is the difficulty about prescribing what type of information he may require in making the application?
It would involve trying to envisage the circumstances of every mill or prospective mill in the country, and trying to determine what information the Minister would require about each mill and the persons associated with it. It would mean having all that information and prescribing the regulations that would ensure that we would get it. I tried to do it, but found it to be an almost impossible task. It is a task that should not be placed on the Minister.
I understand from the Minister that the information is such that it may be varied from mill to mill, and that he could make no general regulations—the Minister is satisfied that there is such a variation as would make general regulations impossible.
Yes. The Deputy will recognise that I was trying to devise such regulations and that I could not. That is why I am anxious to have the section in its present form.
It might be difficult for the Minister to sit down at the beginning and make sure that he prescribed regulations on every point. But it is always possible to make new regulations, if the regulations made were found inadequate, so that the task is not one of foreseeing everything.
In fact it is only just at the beginning of the working of the Bill that this difficulty will arise. It is only in the case of existing mills. As far as future persons entering are concerned we have wide powers. We can get that information in any case in so far as there is more or less discretion as to whether or not a licence should be issued. The applications that are likely to arise in respect of this information will come almost immediately following the passage of the Bill.
The difficulty I see is this—it seems to me that the Minister can ask for any information of any kind he likes.
No.
And then if that information is not forthcoming the Minister can refuse to grant a licence. I think he ought to be tied down by some words of some kind. If the Minister would put in the words "such reasonable information" it might meet the situation but here the Minister can ask for any information of any kind he likes. Under sub-section (5) of Section 19 he can refuse to grant a licence if the information that he unreasonably asks is not forthcoming. Surely there ought to be some limitation. "Prescribe" would give the limitation, because the regulations could be debated if they were found to be unreasonable. As it stands, in dealing with any case the Minister could ask for any information reasonable or unreasonable.
I considered those words "such information as the Minister may reasonably require" and I submit that that is precisely what is in the section at the moment. The words in effect are the same as the words "as the Minister may require for the consideration of such application." The words mean precisely the same thing.
Amendments 12 and 13 withdrawn.
I move amendment 14:—
In page 10, Section 20 (3), to delete all words from the word "other" in line 44 to the end of the sub-section and to substitute the following words "(if any) prescribed conditions as the Minister thinks proper and states in such licence."
This is a drafting amendment. It is preferable to what is in the section and it achieves the same purpose.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendments 15 and 16:—
In page 10, Section 21, line 57, after the word "mill" to insert the words "in Dublin, Cork and Limerick" and in line 59, after the word "mills" to insert the words "in the area."
In page 10, Section 21, at the end of sub-section (1), to add the following:—
"In towns or areas, other than Dublin, Cork or Limerick, the wages payable to a workman employed at a licensed mill shall be such as are agreed on between the mill owner and the local trade union, and, failing such agreement, then such rates as are customary in such areas."
I hope the Minister has looked into the point that I raised on the Second Reading in this connection. The intention of the section, I think, is quite clear—to establish a flat rate for mills in the industry. Deputy Norton's speech, as contained in volume 45, column 136, of the Official Report, makes the point clear when he says: "The purpose of the amendment (that is the amendment he proposed), is to ensure that the workers in the milling industry, which is being placed on a proper basis under this Bill, will be paid rates of wages in all cases on the same basis as the rates of wages which have been the subject of negotiations and agreement between certain employers in the industry and the trade unions catering for the workers in that industry." The intention of that is that supposing an arrangement is made in a particular area where a port mill is situated, and a provincial mill some distance from the port it could be held under the Bill that the rates of wages should be the same, that it is a licensed mill subject to the same conditions. If that be the intention and if that be the purport, this Bill will defeat the principle which the Minister has in view in the decentralisation of industry. The provincial mill has heretofore enjoyed the advantage of a differential rate. The reason why it was necessary that the provincial mill should enjoy that rate is first of all that it has a very much smaller output, and a heavier overhead charge in proportion to that output, which increases the cost of production. It also suffers from the disadvantage of having heavier costs of transport by reason of its position. A further burden it suffers from is that coal and other such commodities which are used in the mill have to be carried a considerable distance from the port. To meet these disadvantages, the mill has in the past enjoyed the advantage of a reduction in wages, and it is the intention of all parties, as was pointed out by Deputy Everett on the Second Reading, that these provincial mills should continue to enjoy that advantage.
Under this amendment which was accepted by the Minister, it is quite obvious that, except the trade unions in particular areas themselves come to some arrangement, the advantage that the mills now enjoy cannot be continued. I am not at all clear that, under the wording of this amendment, even if the trade unions and the employers were anxious that a differential rate should continue in a particular provincial town, they would have the power or the Minister would have the power to allow them to continue, because the clause in the Bill states that the rates to be paid in licensed mills shall be the same. To get over that particular difficulty, and to make quite clear what, I think, was the intention of the different Deputies who spoke on this matter on the Second Reading, I have put down two amendments.
The effect of the first amendment will be to make sub-section (1) of Section 21 read as follows:—"The wages payable to workmen employed at a licensed mill in Dublin, Cork and Limerick"—those are the port mills—"shall be at a rate not less than the rate generally recognised by trade unions and employers as the rate applicable to workmen employed in a similar kind of work at licensed mills in that area." That makes it quite clear that the workmen in the mills in that particular area will be paid at that agreed rate. Then we add a new sub-section following that:—"In towns and areas other than Dublin, Cork and Limerick"—this deals with the provincial towns, while the other dealt with the ports—"the wages payable to workmen employed at a licensed mill shall be such as are agreed on between the mill owner and the local trade union"—that is what is customary at the moment and we want to continue that custom—"and failing such agreement then such rates as are customary in such area." If these two amendments are adopted I think the matter will be quite clear for the future.
I would ask the Minister to oppose these amendments, because they would defeat the very object Deputy Good has in view. I am familiar with the agreements in the flour-milling industry at the present time. There are three rates of wages for mills in the various areas. There is one rate for, say, port mills like the Dublin mills, and there are others for the rural areas. Deputy Good's amendment means that while the trade unions would have the various rates of wages for the three different mills, the other mills might form into a little local combination, starting as a recognised union, with a smaller rate of wage than, say, a mill within five or six miles. By the acceptance of Deputy Good's amendment you would have various rates in various rural areas.
As there are at present.
And that would affect certain mill owners.
They are so varied at present.
At the present time there are only three rates. The union has a rate for the three various mills. They have made that agreement for various rates of wages in the rural areas, as well as wages for the city.
Could the Deputy say what is the date of the agreement?
I can get it for the Deputy if he wishes.
I think it was during the period of control.
Oh no, it is between the flour mills and the Irish Transport Workers' Union. Nearly all the mills have an agreement for the three different rates of wages. You would be giving facilities in respect of a particular mill to the men engaged in the mill to form themselves into a local union in competition with the mills that have a certain recognised rate of wages in a particular area. Deputy Good mentioned on the Committee Stage "The position, as I understand it, under Deputy Norton's amendment is that we are to have in the mills what we have on the railways at present under which a railway porter in Dublin and a railway porter in Skibbereen get exactly the same rate of wages." That is not correct. A railway porter engaged in Skibbereen is treated and classified as an agricultural worker, and he gets paid at the agricultural rate for that particular area, while the porter in Dublin is paid at the industrial rate—two different rates of wages for the porters engaged in the particular industry.
Provided the classification is the same the wages are the same.
The statement here is that the porter in Dublin and the porter in Skibbereen get exactly the same rate of wages. I want to tell the Deputy that a porter in Skibbereen is paid a much lower rate than the porter in an industrial area like Dublin, Cork or Limerick.
On the same class of work?
Yes, on the same class of work.
We will deal with that at another time when we have an opportunity.
I would ask the Minister not to accept the amendment for the reason I pointed out—that it would not have the effect which Deputy Good or the Minister or I intended. You are going to encourage certain people to have various agreements, and that would not be in the interests of the community or what the Minister wants. I would say it is not what Deputy Good wants either, and I appeal to him to withdraw the amendments.
I would like to ask the Minister, as to the actual wording of the section as it stands, is he sure that it does not preclude the object which I assume is the object of the Minister, was the object of Deputy Norton and is the object now proclaimed to be the object of Deputy Everett? I gathered when we had a discussion here the last day that the view was not to have an equality of wages right through the State—to recognise that there might be different wages owing to, say, conditions in Dublin, Cork and Limerick on the one hand, and in certain other areas. In fact, as Deputy Everett said, there are three rates of wages. I would like the Minister to consider this. At present there are those three rates of wages. Deputy Norton's contention on the Committee Stage was this—and it is Deputy Everett's view to-day, and I understand it was the Minister's point of view the last day—that there is no intention to have equality right through. What I would like to know is whether the clause as it stands, which is a legal interpretation, does not compel you to have equality right through. The clause as it stands lays down:—
wages payable to a workman employed at a licensed mill shall be at a rate not less than the rate generally recognised by trade unions and employers as the rate applicable to workmen employed in a similar kind of work at licensed mills.
But you have different types of work. Men performing miller's work in Dublin get the same pay as millers in the country. It does not make any allowance for a difference in area as it compels the same rate of wages to be given. As the clause stands, it seems to me that no matter what trade union regulations may be it compels the same rate of wages to be given to the man doing the same type of work no matter where he does it. I do not think mere difference in area will differentiate types of work. If that is so, I ask the Minister to carefully consider the matter. I think it runs counter to the purpose of the amendment, and now we have just listened to the speech made by Deputy Everett in favour of the clause as it stands.
It is quite clear that it is not intended there should be a flat rate of wages throughout the whole milling industry. It is intended that the rate generally recognised and generally agreed upon between employers and employees in the industry should be the rate paid in each mill—that would be the rate applicable in that mill. As I read the sub-section that is what it provides for, but as there is some doubt raised I would be disposed to have the matter examined fully, and if necessary an amendment moved on the later Stage to make it clear that where an agreement between the employers and employees permits of a differentiating rate of wages in certain types of work they will not be debarred from making such agreement by the section. If necessary, an amendment will be moved or I would ask the matter to be allowed to stand over until the Report Stage.
As it stands I do not see how you would get a differentiation in area.
Amendments 15 and 16, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 17:—
In page 13, Section 28 (1), line 2, to delete the word "very" and substitute the words "prescribe a variation of."
I think that is provided for. I do not know if it is being moved.
How is it being provided for?
If the Deputy looks at page 13 he will see the words "by further order or orders vary." Of course "by further order or orders vary" means it must be——
It must be prescribed by regulation.
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 18 and 21 go together. 18 and 21 are what Deputy McGilligan had in mind in relation to amendment 19. In other words, it merely undertakes to give notice to the Minister that he is in fact undertaking to do the milling.
Does that extend to amendment 20 too?
Yes.
The Minister cannot refuse consent. His consent is not necessary.
No.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Amendments 19 and 20 not moved.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
Amendment 22 not moved.
Perhaps the Minister would explain "appointed place."
If the Deputy would look at amendment 31 he will see: "the expression ‘the appointed place' in relation to a mill means (1) in case the office work in connection with such mill is carried on at a building in the vicinity of, but not forming part of such mill, such building, and (2), in any other case, the place at such mill where such office work is carried on." That provides for certain circumstances which I referred to in the Committee Stage. Where an office and mill are in the same town but in different buildings it would merely mean that the records should be kept in such mill referred to. If you have a mill in Donegal with the office in Dublin it would be more than an inconvenience all round. That goes a long way to meet the point raised in the Committee Stage.
Very often you might have a man an owner of a mill or you may have a company having mills in three different places and having a central office—that case does not seem to be met. It is not met in this particular amendment. I think the main objection by the Minister on the last occasion was this, that a great deal of inconvenience is caused to the official.
No, it was not really a matter of convenience.
I admit the Minister has brought in the question of evasion of the regulations to-day. On the last day it was mainly a question of the convenience of the officials in enforcing the regulations. The Minister has not made it clear yet if there was a central office, and there must be a central office if you have a number of mills running, how would that lead to an evasion of the regulations. It will certainly mean a terrific amount of work and inconvenience, whatever inconvenience may be saved to the official, to the industrialist, to the miller, or to the people who may own a number of mills in different portions of the country. Of course, the same thing applies to other industries that are dealt with in this Bill. The same would apply to the importers, but especially in the case of a person who owns a number of mills. It seems to me that the convenience of the Department, or of the officials, is being consulted and not the convenience of the person engaged in the industry.
Would the Minister consider adding on to the Third Section a clause giving him discretion to appoint the place or central office which Deputy O'Sullivan has referred to now?
There is no case I know of where the circumstances would be such, and no representation has been received by me from millers apart altogether from the representations in respect of the type of case which is met by the new amendment. It is obvious that the inspector would not wish to lose much time when comparing the records of the office and the mill. If they were a substantial distance away, and if it took a substantial time to travel from one to the other it is quite possible you would have to do something, but where they are in the same vicinity, and where it is a matter of the miller's convenience, from the miller's point of view there is no reason why he should insist on the records being kept in the mill. We must insist that they be kept somewhere. We are discussing something from a purely academic point of view, because there is no place I know of where there are certain mills associated with one another and having separate sales and separate organisations, and would not be affected by this section.
I have a case in mind. Take the case of Pollexfen's of Sligo. Their mills are in Ballina and their offices are in Sligo. All their sales are in the City of Sligo. Would it become necessary to transfer all of them to Ballina?
Oh, no, they are merely required at the mill by this Act, and as far as I know, they are doing that.
Take the case of the particular mill I have referred to. I have no official authority to mention this particular one. I just know in the ordinary course they have a mill in Ballina and an office in Sligo. There you have a case in point where it might cause very great inconvenience to that company, and I suggest to the Minister that he should add on another sub-section here, giving him power to appoint the particular place in a special case if the special circumstances suggest that that should be done.
That sounds reasonable, but I cannot agree with the suggestion. I, therefore, move amendment 23:
In page 14, Section 31 (1), line 26, to delete the words "such mill" and substitute the words "the appointed place."
Amendment 23 agreed to.
Amendment 24 not moved.
Amendment 25, being consequential, agreed to.
Amendment 26 not moved.
I move amendment 27:
In page 15, Section 31 (4), to delete all words from the word "if" in line 18, to the end of line 20 and to substitute the following words "in respect of a mill if such demand is made verbally at the appointed place to any person in the employment of such holder; and"
Under this any person in employment, holding the position of, say, a carpenter could be applied to.
Amendment No. 27 is consequential on previous amendments already passed, but it leaves that question open.
Does it? I thought it might mean any person in the "office."
That is what it means.
Amendment 27 agreed to.
Amendment 28 not moved.
Amendment 29 not moved.
I move amendment No. 30;
Amendment No. 30 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 15, Section 31 (4), to insert before paragraph (d) a new paragraph as follows:—
"(d) the expression ‘the appointed place' in relation to a mill means—
(i) in case the office work in connection with such mill is carried on at a building in the vicinity of, but not forming part of such mill, such building, and
(ii) in any other case, the place at such mill where such office work is carried on."
Amendment No. 31 agreed to.
I move amendment 32:
In page 15, Section 31 (4), in lines 33 and 38, to delete the word "mill" and substitute in both places the words "appointed place."
Amendment 32 agreed to.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
I move amendment 34:
In page 15, Section 33 (2), line 62, to delete the word "if."
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment 34 agreed to.
I move amendment 35:
In page 16, Section 33 (3), to delete all words from the word "shall" in line 5 to the end of the sub-section and to substitute the following:—
"whenever any such notice is so given the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) that Minister shall not revoke such licence until the expiration of such notice, and
(b) where any representations are made before the expiration of such notice by the person to whom such notice is given, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(i) that Minister shall consider such representations, and
(ii) unless as a result of such consideration he decides not to revoke such licence, that Minister, in case such person, before such expiration, requests that an inquiry be held in relation to the matter, shall or, in any other case if he thinks fit so to do, may cause such inquiry to be held;
(iii) where that Minister causes any such inquiry to be held, he shall not revoke such licence until such inquiry has concluded."
This is an amendment discussed on the Committee Stage. It was made as a result of a proposal by Deputy McGilligan.
That means that once the Minister has made up his mind as to the case, there will be no notice given. I have no objection to that, but it still remains that if the Minister has given his judgment and is satisfied that the licence should be revoked, that there is no time given to the miller to wind up his business.
There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Minister giving time to the miller to do that.
Surely, if a person is given notice to wind up his business, he ought to be given some period in which to do so. He should be given some opportunity to enable him to know in what time he could wind up his business. I made this point before, that some time limit should be given to the man in which to wind up his business. This amendment means that once the Minister has held an inquiry and made his decision whether rightly or wrongly, and I am not entering into the merits of that— that he does not need, under this section, to give to that person the normal time that would be required to wind up a business in the ordinary way. What I should like to know is, in what way would it interfere with the Act, or the working of the Act, if a period of two months were given to the trader to wind up his business?
As I see it, if it should happen that any milling licence were revoked—and I do not see how it could happen unless under very extraordinary circumstances—it would certainly be the normal practice to give ample time to the miller concerned to wind up his business. That should be easily possible, unless where the circumstances which required the revocation of the licence were so glaring as to demand the winding up of the business immediately. There is a month provided for the normal winding up of a business.
That does not meet the situation.
The Bill provided for a fortnight originally. We extended that period to a month. There is nothing to prevent the Minister giving ample time, but, if he is not definitely required to do so under such special circumstances, there is nothing in the Bill to compel him not to give time.
The Minister says that if he revoked a licence, the revocation, under the Bill, becomes effective immediately?
The Minister need not do that; this only means that he has the power to do it.
Amendment 35 agreed to.
Amendment 36:
In page 16, at the end of Section 33, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
If any milling licence shall be revoked under this section, for any reason other than that it has been procured by fraud or misrepresentation, the person who was the holder of such milling licence may sell his interest in the mill to which such licence was attached, and if such sale is completed within a period of three calendar months from the date of the revocation of such licence the Minister shall grant to the purchaser, if a national of Saorstát Eireann or an Irish owned body corporate a milling licence subject only to the statutory condition referred to in Section 20 of this Act and to the further condition that milling shall be resumed at the said mill within a period of not more than three months after the date of the grant of such licence.—(Deputy Bennett.)
The reason for this amendment is that the section as it stands, means that the original owner would not be able to realise the normal marketable value of the assets which he holds. Somebody else could rent or purchase the business at the nominal value.
This amendment is one which I am not disposed to accept, but, as I said with regard to a previous amendment, I think it is most unlikely that the circumstances contemplated will arise. The revocation of a milling licence is altogether different from the revocation of, say, the licence to a pedlar or an egg dealer, or somebody of that kind. To revoke the licence of a responsible miller would be a serious thing to do. It would undoubtedly lead to a discussion in the public Press and in this House, and consequently would not be embarked upon lightly. So that the Minister is unlikely to do it unless very glaring circumstances prevail. Normally, in such circumstances, if that did happen he would certainly make such arrangements as would ensure that the mill would be sold at its true value, and that the person who purchased it would be a person to whom a licence would ordinarily be given under the Act. I think it is undesirable that a provision of the kind that Deputy McMenamin suggests should be inserted in the Bill. It presupposes a condition of affairs altogether foreign to what is in my mind. We are dealing now with a miller who, for some glaring reason, has been deprived of his licence. It might be that the circumstances were such that the revocation of the licence arose out of the situation of the mill or out of something associated with the mill, in which case it would obviously be the policy of the Minister not to allow the mill to be re-started as a flour mill. In a case such as that, a provision of this kind would be a very definite handicap, because it would mean that the Minister would be required to give the licence.
It is limited to three months.
But it commits the Minister to give a licence for the mill to anybody who has purchased it from the person whose licence has been revoked.
The Minister is not compelled to do it.
Yes, under the amendment.
We have had various analogies. The Minister himself drew a number the last day between millers and egg dealers which he has withdrawn to-day to a certain extent. In the case of other licensing Bills which went through this House I remember that provision was made that a person conducting a licensed business should, practically speaking, get notice to quit. That was intended to make him realise that he was not a fit person to carry on the business: that there was some grave abuse in the way that he was carrying it on. He was, therefore, given the opportunity to clear out of the business, and to sell his interest to somebody else. Therefore, no matter what the Minister or the Government at the time may have thought, there was an opportunity given to that person to sell his licence. I gather that the Minister envisages the type of case where the man himself has been guilty of grave fault. Even so, the penalties in the Bill for that are very heavy. But why not allow him to sell in that particular case? I am speaking now of the case in which the Minister says there is no likelihood of the Minister interfering and dealing drastically with it by an immediate withdrawal of the licence to prevent the sale of the mill as a going concern to somebody else. Then there is the case where there is something wrong with the physical structure of the mill. If there is any attempt to sell to another person the Minister can step in and deal with that.
The amendment suggests that the Minister shall give the licence to the person who purchases it.
I cannot see the case against that.
Supposing the licence is revoked because the quota of the mill has, over a number of years, gone down gradually to vanishing point, either because no one will buy the flour by reason of the price charged or because the quality is so poor that no one will consume it—in a case such as that, where the licence has been revoked either upon the application of the licensee because he has given up hope or because of the action of the Minister in reducing the quota, it would surely be the best policy from every point of view not to issue a licence in the future.
In such circumstances no one would purchase the mill as a flour mill.
But we would have to hold the licence. The quota is attached to the licence for that mill.
No, you would not.
We would.
How could you? I am thinking of the case of the man who purchased it as a flour mill. If the Minister withdrew the licence for one of the reasons he has stated, then the seller in such circumstances would be guilty of misrepresentation in passing that on as a going milling concern. Of course the seller in such a case could not succeed, and no one could get a licence for the mill because the seller would have been guilty of fraud or misrepresentation in the sale.
But the person who bought it would not have bought it on misrepresentation.
He certainly would. If a notice is served on the owner of a mill that his licence is to be withdrawn either because he is not milling up to the quota, or because the price he is charging is too high, that surly is notice to him that his mill is no longer going to exist as a flour mill. For that reason he could not sell it as a going milling concern, and if he attempted to pass it on to anybody as a flour mill his contract would be invalidated.
The purpose of this Bill is to regulate the flour milling industry and the insertion of an amendment of this kind would, to some extent, defeat that purpose. If the licence of a mill is definitely revoked, the question as to whether a new licence for the mill under new ownership would be issued would have to be determined on the merits then existing, whereas the acceptance of this amendment would deprive the Minister of any discretion in the matter and would require the licence automatically to be issued.
Does the Minister not consider that if there is any uncertainty it will interfere with the credit of the miller? If it is not certain that the licence will be permanently attached to the mill, does he not consider that will have a very serious effect on the credit of that miller? That seems to me to be a more important consideration than the question of sale.
The licence permanently attaches to the mill and can only be revoked if the licensee applies to have it revoked or in the circumstances supposed in the section to which this amendment has been moved. If that occurs or is established that he has got the licence by fraud or misrepresentation or has gone out of business, it is only in those circumstances that the licence can be revoked. Otherwise the licence attaches permanently to the mill and passes from one generation to another.
As to the three types of cases the Minister has in view, take first the unsuitability of the premises. I do not see how the fact that a sale should be compulsorily allowed will affect that. Then, as to the failure of a mill, that would have been advertised, and the Minister can deal very effectively with that by treating the mill in exactly the same way as any defective premises. Either the premises will continue defective or they will not. If they do not, the Minister's argument falls to the ground. If it is a case of a falling quota, due to the fact that no one will buy the flour of that mill, the continuance of the quota cannot possibly interfere with a sale such as is envisaged here. It surely can have no effect on the general quota system of the State as a whole. It will simply mean that the quota would have been reduced so much.
Deputy Moore asked the Minister to consider that there is hanging over all mills now the fear that the licence is something in the nature of a permanent adjunct to the mill. Will not that interfere with the value of all mills in the market? It means that the licence is a personal thing attached to the owner of the mill to a large extent. I do not think that the Minister has met the case for the compulsory sale of a mill and of giving a man an opportunity of clearing out and selling. In view of the very heavy penalties already provided in the Bill the matter as it stands now does seem to interfere very seriously with an owner in the sale of his mill. If there is deliberate mismanagement on the part of a millowner there are very heavy penalties provided. I do not think that the Minister has met the argument in favour of this amendment.
The definition section states that the licence attaches to the mill.
A person is licensed in respect of a mill.
That makes all the difference in the world because it is the person that is licensed and not the mill. If the licence attached to the mill premises it would be quite different. It would be the same as in the case of a public-house. There the licence attaches to the public-house, irrespective of the individual. If I hold a spirit licence and if I am convicted and have two endorsements on that licence I lose my licence ipso facto. In this instance the licence cannot be passed on with the premises and, as a mill, they are not a saleable entity. The moment the licence is revoked I have nothing to pass on and the premises are practically valueless. There is no provision here to give a man the full benefit of any interest he has in a licence attaching to a mill. I think some form of amendment, though not necessarily the one that is now suggested, should be adopted.
All that is required is that the person who proposes to buy the mill should come to the Department and ascertain if he will be granted a licence to engage in the flour-milling industry. If he gets a licence he can continue operations in the existing mill, he can build another mill, or do what he likes. He has, however, to be licensed in order to engage in the flour-milling industry.
The Minister has not met the case that has been made in favour of this amendment.
The Bill proposes that a certain discretion shall be exercised as to who shall engage in the flour-milling industry. If the amendment were carried, that discretion could not be exercised; anybody could come along and buy a mill, the licence to which had been revoked, and that person could not be denied a licence if this amendment were adopted. I submit that no hardship is inflicted, under the provisions of the Bill as it stands, on any person selling a mill, except to the extent that he can only sell to some person who is licensed as a flour miller; he must sell to someone who has got a licence as a flour miller. In that case he can get the full value for the mill.
Of course the position of nationals is rendered secure by this Bill. It seems to me that under the Bill the property of existing flour-millers may be unnecessarily damaged by reason of the fact that they may not be in a position to sell on terms as advantageous as would otherwise be the case. We consider the terms of the amendment extremely reasonable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 37, 38 and 39:
In page 17, Section 38 (1), line 16, and in Section 38 (3), line 25, after the word "Minister" to insert the words "and in agreement with the Milling Advisory Committee."—(Deputy McGilligan.)
In page 17, Section 38 (1), line 16, and in Section 38 (3), line 25, after the word "Minister" to insert the words "after consultation with the Milling Advisory Committee."—(Deputy McGilligan.)
In page 17, Section 38 (5), line 32, after the word "made" to insert the words "and shall include a statement as to whether the Advisory Committee agree with the rates and divisions (if any) so ordered, and if there has not been such agreement shall include a statement of the rates and divisions (if any) recommended by the Milling Advisory Committee and."—(Deputy McGilligan.)
Is the Minister prepared to accept these amendments, particularly with regard to consultations?
No, quite the reverse.
Is the Minister not prepared to have the reasons stated why he does not agree with the Milling Advisory Committee if they differ with him on any matter?
I think the effect of the amendment would be to burst up any advisory committee that I could possibly get together. Although the opinion of the Committee will undoubtedly be ascertained, I can scarcely visualise the circumstances under which the opinion of the Committee will be in favour of any proposal that the Minister may bring forward.
I quite agree that is inherent in all advisory committees of a vocational kind, especially where the expenditure of moneys is concerned. But that is no reason why the public and this House should not know when there is a difference of opinion between the Committee and the Minister. Surely the Minister will be able to stand up to any difficulties that may arise between himself and the Committee. I am not keen on committees of any kind, where they have not full responsibility; but in this case, once the Committee is appointed, it is only right that the House should know its views on matters submitted to it for consideration. I cannot see what harm it will do to the Minister to have these views definitely known.
This Committee is being set up, not to advise the House, but to advise the Minister. The Minister is prepared to take full responsibility, and he will not shelter behind the Committee.
I quite agree with that view. It has always been one of my objections to committees that there is a tendency for the Minister to hide behind them when he disagrees with them and ignore them completely when he does not. Has the Minister any objection to publicity? Is there any guarantee that he will be able to prevent publicity in regard to any advice that may be given? The Committee will not be a secret body, and that information will get out; it is bound to get out, and why should the House not have it?
If the Committee is to be formed of representative flour millers they will not have any opinion except in the sense that there will be as many opinions as there are members.
That may be one definite reason against having any committee.
Amendments 37, 38 and 39, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 40 not moved.
Amendments 41, 42, 43 and 44 agreed to:
In page 17, Section 39 (1), line 40, to delete the word "determine" and substitute the words "by order under this sub-section appoint."— (Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála).
In page 17, before Section 39 (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) The Minister may revoke or amend an order under the immediately preceding sub-section."—(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála).
In page 18, to insert at the end of Section 39 a new sub-section as follows:—
"(7) Every order under sub-section (1) of this section shall be laid before Dáil Eireann as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling such order is passed by Dáil Eireann within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which Dáil Eireann has sat annulling such order, such order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such order."— (Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála).
In page 18, Section 40 (2), line 28, to delete the word "conclusive" and substitute the words "prima facie.”—(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála).
Amendment 45:—
In page 21, Section 48 (2), line 13, to delete the words "other than Great Britain or Northern Ireland."—(Deputy McGilligan).
The Minister did not explain the meaning of this as fully as we would like.
Up to this, flour has been imported into this country by two classes of people, one, persons who were agents of flour mills in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, two, certain merchant firms who purchased flour in other countries and imported it here for sale. In the case of flour from Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we could not issue a licence to the agent of the mill and to any merchant who imported flour without having a certain duplication. What was done when the licensing provision came into effect in July was to get the agents of the various mills who had been supplying this country with flour from abroad and give them licences, the amount to be imported being calculated on their average imports over some years past. If we had given a licence to the merchants as well, it would have meant duplication. The point is that if, in respect of the same quantity of flour, two licences were to exist, the scheme would become inoperative. Consequently, licences were confined, in the case of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to agents.
In the case of Canadian and other outside mills importing flour, the importers were not agents but were firms who bought the flour from the mills and resold it in this country. A different set of circumstances applies there.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 46 and 47:—
46. In page 21, Section 48 (5) (c), line 55, after the word "registered" to insert the words "or likely so to be registered."—(Deputy Lynch.)
47. In page 21, Section 48 (5) (c), line 56, after the word "register" to insert the words "under the next subsequent sub-section."— (Deputy Lynch.)
This relates to the difference between those registered and those whom the Minister is likely to have registered.
With regard to amendment 46, the idea is fully covered. It is particularly difficult to include such an amendment as has been proposed by Deputy Lynch. At any rate, I think the whole point is already fully covered. The point about "or likely so to be registered" will naturally be taken into account by the Minister. Those in the business must automatically be registered. If an application comes in at a later date for registration, all the circumstances will be fully taken into consideration. The Minister is certain to take into account, in the case of two or three applications, the applicant most likely to fulfil the necessary conditions. It is very difficult to give the idea effect in legal form. It requires several sections and sub-sections. Amendment 47 is much on the same lines though not exactly the same. I think that it is also covered.
Amendments 46 and 47, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 48:—
In page 22, Section 49 (2), lines 8 and 9, to delete the words "in respect of additional premises in any register kept by him" and to substitute the words "in any register kept by him in respect of additional premises (not being premises attached to or adjoining premises in respect of which such applicant is already registered in such register)."
There was some discussion on this matter during the Committee Stage. The section concerned is rather an involved one. With this amendment, it means that the Minister must register premises that are attached to or that adjoin registered premises. If there is a house intervening, it would be regarded as a new premises and would come under the ordinary considerations that apply to new registration.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 49 not moved.
On behalf of Deputy McGilligan, I move amendment 50:—
In page 23, Section 55 (3), line 60, to delete the figure "II" and substitute the figure "III."
That amendment is accepted.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 51:—
In page 24, Section 56 (1) line 7, to delete the words "such premises" and to substitute the words "the appointed place."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 52 not moved.
On behalf of Deputy McGilligan, I move amendment 53:—
In page 24, Section 56 (1), lines 13, 17 and 19, to delete the word "dispositions" where it occurs and substitute the word "sales."
We had this point on Committee Stage. The Minister did not meet us beyond saying that he had not very much belief in the value of secrets. The word "dispositions" seems to give a rambling commission to the inspector of the Minister to make any inquiries he likes. We had a long discussion on the matter, and I do not know whether or not I am correct in saying that the Minister agreed to consider the point.
The question of prying into secrets will come up later. "Dispositions" includes "sales." It is a wider term. Let us take the case of a maize miller who has a retail shop. If he were to transfer part of his maize meal mixture to the retail shop, his action would be covered by "dispositions." A compound feeding stuff manufacturer might be also a maize miller. As a maize miller, he might transfer some stuff to the compound feeding stuffs department to be disposed of in that way. There is also the possibility of certain feeding stuffs being unfit for further use and having to be destroyed. "Dispositions" would cover all these things. It is a wider term than "sales" and more suitable. The point as to secrets can be raised on amendment 56.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 54:—
In page 24, Section 56 (2), line 26, to delete the words "such premises" and to substitute the words "the appointed place."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 55 not moved.
I move amendment 56:—
In page 24, Section 56 (2), (e), to delete all words after the word "stuffs," line 49, to the end of the paragraph and substitute the following:—"such records of the quantities of all raw materials brought on to the premises for the manufacture of compound feeding stuffs, of the quantities of all compound feeding stuffs manufactured on such premises, and of all disposals of such feeding stuffs as may be required for the purpose of supervising and enforcing the provisions of a licence granted under Part VI of this Act; provided that nothing hereby required shall be construed as obliging the production of any information relating to or disclosing the composition of any special mixture or any secret process used by the person registered."
This amendment raises the point as to the Minister or his inspectors stumbling across secrets which the manufacturer of compound feeding stuffs may have. In the Department, we are rather sceptical about those secrets. We do not believe that there are any such secrets but if there are and if they are of any value, I do not see that any risk is being run by the manufacturer by inspection. The inspector would be prohibited from publishing in any way any information he might get. In any event, I do not think the inspector would be looking for those secrets. He would have to find where maize was disposed of. If he found from the books of the maize miller that he brought on to the premises a certain amount of whole maize, he would require to find what became of that maize when milled. He might find that a certain part was sold and that a certain part went into the premises of the compound feeding stuffs manufacturer. Perhaps he would have to go a little further. He might have to go to the books of the compound feeding stuffs manufacturer to find if the figures there corresponded with the amount alleged to have gone in. In that way, he might have to find out what were the compound feeding stuffs made and what was the percentage of maize in the amount of compound feeding stuffs issued from the premises. In doing that, I do not think that he would necessarily discover any secret. If a manufacturer of compound feeding stuffs was making laying meal or chicken food or something like that, the fact that it was found to contain 30 per cent., 40 per cent. or 60 per cent. of maize would not be revealing a secret because our inspectors can at present go in and take a sample of that compound feeding stuff and have it analysed to find how much carbohydrates, oil and proteins it contains. From that, I think, we could all make a fair guess as to the amount of ordinary cereals contained in it—whether they be maize or barley or some of the common cereals used.
We would not have got at his secret of what exactly in that chicken food was working miracles. What is in those things is some obscure remedy, supposed to cure everything, used in very small quantities, such as iodine or iron oxide. It is these things that make the difference. We would not be very much concerned with the amount of these things contained in the stuff. We have power under another section to go more closely into this matter but, as I explained on Committee Stage, we would only do that if we came to the conclusion that the article was being sold at a ridiculously high price. If, for instance, a food for calves, as happened some time ago, was being sold at £3 per cwt. and if, on ordinary chemical analysis, we found that the amount of carbohydrates, oil and proteins contained in it was only worth 8/- or 9/-, we would have power to go into the question further. That was a case that cropped up here about two years ago. The fact was published that this food was being sold at four or five times its real value and that was all the Department could do in the matter—give publicity to it. Under a later section, we take power to take the licence to manufacture that particular article from the manufacturer in such a case. I think there is no danger that we would unnecessarily pry into the secrets of the manufacturer who is selling his stuff at the ordinary price of £10 or £12 per ton. There would be no further inquiry.
May I take it that the Minister's position is this: he gets the documents and when he finds out that a certain amount of maize is being used for a particular mixture, say, of a proprietary character, he is satisfied, and he can check up that afterwards so far as the amount of maize is concerned by the analysis, and there is no necessity for the inspector to investigate any further as to how the mixing has taken place?
Yes, that is right.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
57. In page 24, Section 56 (3), lines 60 and 61, to delete the words "at premises registered in the register of flour importers or the register of distillers" and substitute the words "by a registered flour importer or registered distiller."—(Mr. Lemass).
Amendment 58 not moved.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
59. In page 24, Section 56 (3), to delete all words from and including the word "at" in line 62 to the word "importers" in line 65 and substitute the words "by a registered wheat importer, a registered wheat dealer, a registered maize miller, a registered maize importer or a registered manufacturer of compound feeding stuffs."—(Mr. Lemass.)
Amendment 60 not moved.
I move amendment 61 on behalf of Deputy McGilligan:—
In page 25, Section 56 (3), line 4, before the word "of" to insert the word "solely."
Did the Minister consult the draftsman on this point?
I think I appealed to the Deputy on the last occasion on the ground of good English.
The English is all right, but I should like to know if the Minister has had any difficulties with the draftsman.
I have consulted the draftsman and he wants to know what is the necessity for it. The sub-section reads: "for the purpose of verifying any entry in or explaining any omission from such record." The draftsman says that "solely" does not strengthen it in the least.
When efforts are made to make Bills clearer I admit that very often these efforts have the opposite effect, because if a word that is not necessary is put in it is argued that it must be put in for some reason and, therefore, there is objection very often to putting in words that are unnecessary to the drafting. I do not see how that can happen here. This is an effort to make it clear that it has this particular limitation. I can understand that it may be held that it is not necessary, but it was merely to satisfy a number of people and make their minds easy that the suggestion was made. If the Minister assures me that putting it in would be analogous to those cases where words are proposed obviously with the intention of clarifying, and which have the opposite effect, I would be satisfied, but if it has not that effect I do not see why it should not be put in.
The word "solely" is not necessary.
It will not cause any damage if put in.
All I can say is that the draftsman resists this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
62. In page 25, Section 56 (4), line 7, to delete the word "at" and to substitute the words "in respect of."—(Mr. Lemass.)
I move amendment 63, which stands in the names of Deputy Wolfe and Deputy McGilligan:—
In page 25, Section 56 (4), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), before the word "fails" where it occurs in lines 8, 10 and 13 to insert the word "wilfully."
This is an amendment which I undertook to consider also but, on consideration, I find it could not be accepted, as the insertion of it would throw the whole onus of proof on the prosecutor under the Act. If the offence is a technical one, the court can always apply the Probation of Offenders Acts. We think it should be definitely an offence to fail to keep records or not to keep them properly as required by the Act, and that the onus of proof should be on the person charged.
Supposing it is not done wilfully the person is still guilty of the offence. He is still guilty of the offence, even though he proves it is not wilful. Why make him liable? There is, I know, one outstanding case in which a person is held to be guilty of things done on his premises even though he can show he is completely ignorant of them. Is there any necessity for that here? On the Committee Stage, the view was very definitely put up by Deputy Wolfe that the words, "wilfully or negligently"—I think he was willing to add the words "or negligently"—would not necessarily throw the onus on the prosecutor.
They do.
In a case of homicide, the onus is thrown on the accused person to show that it is not wilful. I always understood that that was the presumption of the law. How does "wilfully or negligently" put the onus on the prosecutor and not leave it where it was without the insertion of the words? Has the Minister made inquiries?
Yes, and we are advised that it would definitely throw the onus of proof on the prosecutor.
I should like to suggest to the Minister, with whom I agree in his view as to where the onus would lie in the event of the word being introduced, that in the circumstances he should consent to alter the penalties prescribed here, at least for the first offence, to those provided for in Part III of the Schedule instead of Part I. The Minister recognises that cases might very easily arise under the section which ought to be dismissed under the Probation of Offenders Act. In such cases it ought not to be open to the Bench to impose the penalty of imprisonment. Therefore, I suggest that on the Report Stage he should either make the penalties in Part III applicable to all offences under this section or at least provide that a first offence under this section would be punishable only under Part III of the Schedule.
I shall look into the question of whether we could not make it Part II or Part III of the Schedule so far as the punishment is concerned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
64. In page 25, Section 56 (4), line 8, to delete the words "such premises" and substitute the words "the appointed place."
65. In page 25, Section 56 (5), to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and substitute the following paragraphs:—
(b) a demand for an inspection of record required by this section to be kept in respect of any premises or of any other document reasonably demanded by an inspector under this section for the purpose of verifying any entry in or explaining any omission from such record shall be deemed to have been duly made to the person liable under this section to keep such record if such demand is made verbally at the appointed place to any individual in the employment of such person, and
(c) a refusal or failure to produce a record required by this section to be kept in respect of any premises of any other document reasonably demanded by an inspector under this section for the purpose of verifying any entry in or any omission from such record if made or committed at the appointed place by an individual in the employment of the person liable under this section to produce such record or account shall be deemed to have been made or committed by such person; and
66. In page 25, Section 56 (5), to insert before paragraph (d) two new paragraphs as follows:—
(d) the expression "the appointed place" in relation to any premises entered in the register of distillers or the register of maize millers or the register of manufacturers of compound feeding stuffs, means—
(i) in case the office work in connection with such premises is carried on at a building in the vicinity of but not forming part of such premises, such building, and
(ii) in any other case, the place at such premises where such office work is carried on;
(e) the expression "the appointed place" in relation to any premises entered in the register of flour importers, the register of wheat importers, the register of wheat dealers, or the register of maize importers means—
(i) where such premises are used for the storage of flour, wheat or maize (as the case may be)—
I. In case the office work in connection with such premises is carried on at a building in the vicinity of but not forming part of such premises, such building, and
II. in any other case, the place in such premises where such office work is carried on, and
(ii) where such premises consist of offices only, such premises."
67. In page 25, Section 56 (5) (d) (i) and (ii) to delete in lines 46 and 51 the words "on the premises" and substitute in both places the words "at the appointed place."—
I move amendment 68:
In page 26, to delete Section 57 (2) and (3), and substitute the following sub-sections—
"(2) Prima facie evidence of any entry in any register may be given in any legal proceeding by the production of a copy of such entry certified to be a true copy under the seal of the appropriate Minister.
(3) A certificate under the seal of the appropriate Minister that any person specified in such certificate is not registered in any specified register or registers kept by that Minister shall in any legal proceeding be prima facie evidence of the facts so certified."
This was fully argued on the Committee Stage and I think the amendment meets all the arguments raised.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendments 69 to 75 inclusive not moved.
I move amendment 75a.
In page 26 to insert at the end of Section 58 a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) So far as is reasonably practicable, no statistical information published under the immediately preceding sub-section shall contain any particulars which would enable any person to identify such particulars as being particulars relating to any individual person, business or concern without the consent in writing of that person or of the proprietor of that business or concern."
This is designed to meet the case that was raised on the Committee Stage that statistical information might be published which would give information as to a particular person's business. We have taken the sub-section which appears in the Statistics Act and inserted it here.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 76 not moved.
I move amendment 77 on behalf of Deputy McGilligan.
In page 26, Section 59 (1), line 49, after the word "times" to insert the words "during office hours."
Has the Minister relented in regard to this?
We want to keep in the words "at all reasonable times." It was pointed out that a similar phrase appears in the Factory Acts and that in many cases, where prosecutions arise under the Factory Acts they arise out of information obtained outside the ordinary working hours.
Perhaps the Minister would stress that further.
You already have the words "at all reasonable times" in the section.
Who decides what is reasonable there—is it the court?
Yes.
Then the man is undoubtedly running the risk that he will be guilty of an offence because he is taking his own view of what is reasonable as against the inspector. The miller must run the risk if he does that because he has nothing to guide him.
If the inspector comes to him and says "I want to visit these premises" he should be allowed to do so, but if the man had gone off to Lisdoonvarna and took the key of the shop with him it would be another matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 78 not moved.
Amendment 79:
In page 26, Section 60 (1), line 36, to delete the word "may" and substitute the word "shall."— (Patrick J. Little.)
This is a similar point.
It could be met partly if anybody would move it.
Amendment not moved.
Amendment 80:
In page 27, Section 60 (3), to delete in line 47 the words "he is satisfied that" and to insert the said words in line 48 immediately before the words "the registration."—(Aire Talmhaíochta.)
This amendment is moved by me. As the Bill stands the words in sub-section (3) "if he is satisfied" cover (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). In Committee it was argued that it should only cover (a).
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 81:
In page 27, Section 60 (3) (c), line 55, to delete the words "one month" and substitute the words "three months."—(Patrick J. Little, Patrick McGilligan.)
I beg to move this amendment on behalf of Deputies McGilligan and Little.
I am prepared to accept it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 82:
In page 28, Section 60 (4), line 2, to delete the word "fortnight" and substitute the word "month."—(Aire Talmhaíochta.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 83:
In page 28, Section 60 (4), to delete all words from and including the word "shall", line 5, to the end of the sub-section and to substitute the following:—
"whenever any such notice is so given the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) that Minister shall not alter or cancel such registration until the expiration of such notice; and (b) where any representations are made before the expiration of such notice by the person to whom such notice is given, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(i) that Minister shall consider such representations, and
(ii) unless as a result of such consideration he decides not to alter or cancel such registration, that Minister, in case such person, before such expiration, requests that an inquiry be held in relation to the matter, shall or, in any other case, if he thinks fit so to do, may cause such inquiry to be held,
(iii) where that Minister causes any such inquiry to be held, he shall not alter or cancel such registration until such inquiry has concluded."
—(Aire Talmhaíochta.)
That is already agreed to.
Yes, it is the very same principle as the one already agreed to.
That is where the Minister thinks he was generous.
Amendment 84:
In page 28, to delete Section 60 (6).
—(Aire Talmhaíochta.)
This sub-section gave rise to a considerable amount of discussion on the Committee Stage. On consideration we thought that the best thing would be to remove the sub-section.
Rather drastic!
Amendment agreed to.
The same applies to sub-section (7) of Section 60. I am moving amendment 87:
In page 28, to delete Section 60 (7).
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments 85 and 86 are covered by amendment 83.
Amendments 85 and 86 not moved.
Amendments 87 to 91 not moved.
Amendment 92:
In page 28, Section 61 (2), lines 53 and 54, to delete the words "carry on the business of milling" and substitute the words "to mill," and in line 56 to delete the words "business is carried on" and substitute the words "maize is milled."
—(Aire Talmhaíochta.)
The reason for this amendment is that if we leave in "carry on the business of milling" it would more or less make the farmer-miller a maize miller, and therefore he would have to comply with the conditions. But by substituting these words "to mill" it would mean that the farmer would only be licensed and would not be registered. He would get the ordinary licence to get, say, a ton of maize. He would get, whatever he got in 1931. If he got so much for 1930 and 1931, and if he made the case that in 1931 he got less than in 1930, then we could give him a little more. The only condition would be that we would allow him to take a certain amount of maize to mill, not for sale, and we would also compel him to use a certain amount of home-grown grain. The restriction would not be onerous. We do not want these farmer-millers to go on the register and comply with all the conditions about keeping books.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 93:
In page 28, Section 61 (2), line 59, to delete paragraph (b).—(Patrick McGilligan.)
This amendment looks forward to a subsequent portion of the Bill. By a subsequent portion of the Bill the Minister is to have power to engage in business. Our objection to it is not naturally to this little sub-section here, but is to some extent consequential on what goes with it, namely, the power of the Minister for Agriculture in this particular case, and in other cases the power of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to engage in business. We object very strongly to the Government without any case being shown for it, or without any case of urgent necessity for it, engaging in business. What we object to is that the Government takes it upon itself to engage in the ordinary business; not in big undertakings like railways and monopolies like that, but to engage in business—in milling, in this particular instance.
What case has the Government made or what case does the Minister make for this proposal that he and his Department shall engage in ordinary trade, ordinary business and ordinary industry, having at the same time in the State any number of other people in that particular business? Under what circumstances does the Minister intend to engage in work of that kind? Our objection is an objection to the principle and to the fact that no reasonable case has been made out for this particular part of the Bill to which this sub-section looks forward.
The Deputy knows that the Minister cannot engage in the business of maize milling unless he can take over an unworked maize mill. He could not buy an ordinary maize mill and go on with the business. As long as there are people in the country prepared to carry on the business of maize milling the Minister would not be called upon to engage in the business.
He might.
It is possible, but, of course, he would not. An unworked mill would be premises that are not entered in the register but which would be suitable for milling maize. The Deputy asks under what circumstances would we be likely to engage in the business of maize milling. I think the present Minister for Agriculture would have no intention of engaging in this business unless he was absolutely compelled to do so for the want of a maize mill in the district.
Now, first of all, I would like to say that the maize millers themselves were very reluctant, when consulted about this business of using home-grown grain, to fall in with the ideas we had on the subject. Since certain regulations were made which more or less compel them —if they want to carry on business— to use home-grown grain, I know of one at least who has closed his mill and said that he would not carry on under those conditions. If that example were to be followed to any great extent— that maize millers were not prepared to carry on—it might be possible that with collusion amongst maize millers they would make the working of the Bill absolutely impossible. Under those circumstances the Minister or somebody would have to come in and take over those mills and work them. In the last resort it may be necessary for the Minister himself to do it. I do not know. It may be.
Dealing with maize millers—some of them at any rate—is very difficult, because they are able to make a case sometimes that this mixture is not a very advisable food, and so on. I was in touch for instance with one trader in Deputy O'Sullivan's constituency who sent me up a sample of the mixture when it was at first proposed. It consisted of finely-ground maize and a considerable quantity of black oats crushed in it, which looked very bad. The only thing I could do was to ask the trader "where did you get the black oats?" because I was told there was no black oats ground in those mills in the district, so obviously the maize miller went to a considerable amount of trouble to prepare a very unsightly mixture, instead of trying to carry out the regulations to the best of his ability. A few days ago I had a complaint from the same trader that he had unwittingly supplied maize meal mixture, that is maize meal mixed with white oats, to his clients for human food, and had not known for three weeks that he was doing so, which showed that the maize miller had made up this unsightly mixture to prejudice the scheme so that if he was compelled to go on with the mixture he could detect with the naked eye. That is the sort of prejudice we have on the part of the maize miller against this scheme, and one at least has gone so far as to close his premises and say that he would not go on with it. If it only amounted to one or half a dozen closing down in isolated districts, where the area is well covered apart from them, the Minister would not have to intervene—would not have to come in to the maize milling business. I may say that from my own experience, although it is short, of working business on behalf of the State, I would be inclined to keep out of it as much as possible.
I am sorry the Minister does not give way for once to his inclinations. He envisages a case in which apparently there is going to be such conspiracy on the part of the maize millers that they would go out of business in order to embarrass the Minister in the operation of this particular Bill. That is the justification he puts forward for the power that he is taking under this Bill, a power that he grants, even though his experience as Minister is short, he does not think is a desirable power to exercise, namely, the State engaging in business. Instead of imagining conspiracy of this kind, based on the propaganda work of one particular miller he has come across, why not wait until that conspiracy has taken place, and then put up a case to the Dáil, based on mere facts and not on the fears and suspicions of the Minister?
Why should the Minister in this Bill, which is meant for an entirely different purpose, take power to engage in trade, and merely on the justification that he offer—not the normal circumstances existing, but a supposed conspiracy of such a nature that apparently a considerable number of maize millers are going to go out of existence in order to embarrass the Minister in the operation of this particular Bill? I do not think that the Minister has given a justification for these particular powers that he is taking to engage in what is ordinary business, in competition if necessary with other people in the trade, which is, as he admits, an undesirable thing for the State to do. If a crisis arises, or what the Minister considers a crisis, it can always be dealt with by getting the necessary legislation through the House. The Government have not experienced any great difficulty in getting legislation of a most drastic and revolutionary character through this House in the last five or six months. The Minister would certainly be in a position to put his case before the House if he thinks the Government ought to take the very undesirable step of engaging in business. In addition, he brought in a number of other things. It appears, in connection with the particular portion of the Bill to which this sub-section looks forward, namely, the part that gives the Minister power to engage in milling, that if the Minister does not get that power the other portion of the Bill may be so much intrigued against by the millers that it may break down altogether—that is the portion of the Bill which makes the mixture compulsory.
The Minister referred to my constituency. I already drew attention on the Second Reading to the fact that there is very strong objection on the part of the ordinary farmer as well as the trader, to this particular portion of the Bill, and on two grounds. I am referring now, not to the part to which this sub-section looks forward, but to the part that makes compulsory the sale of a mixture and limits the sale of ordinary maize meal to packets of one stone. There is very strong objection to that. The objection is very vocal and very strong in the constituency I represent. They object to it because they think that there is an unnecessary hardship, so far as the producer of maize meal for human consumption is concerned, in insisting that the packets be made up containing quantities not greater than one stone. That is an unnecessary hardship, and would be inflicted on the poorest class of the population. It would be a great inconvenience as well as everything else; people may be very desirous of purchasing more than a stone of maize meal. There is also a very strong suspicion on the part of the people of my constituency that they are not going to get a good article when they get the mixture. They know what they are getting, they say, when they are buying maize meal.
In other portions of the country, perhaps in the portion represented by the Minister, the people may be more trusting. They are not quite so trusting in the particular portion that I represent. They fear that the mixture they will get will be of an inferior quality, and the mere fact of the instance brought forward by the Minister himself that a mixture was offered for sale—a mixture of maize and oats so well disguised that it was sold as maize meal—will not tend to make their minds easier on the matter. At least so far as the unsightly mixture is concerned they had the warning that it was unsightly, but now apparently nobody will detect the mixture that they are handing out. If that fact gets published it will not tend to increase their confidence as to the article they are getting. As things stand at present they have at least a guarantee; they know they are getting a standard article, because, as has been pointed out again and again in various inquiries and here, there is a uniform standard as far as maize meal is concerned; there is not a uniform standard so far as the mixture is concerned. We can deal with the important sections themselves when we come to deal with the particular matters raised, but it is because this section refers forward to the power taken by the Minister, and similar sections so far as the Minister for Industry and Commerce is concerned, that we object to it. A hypothetical case has been put forward by the Minister, and that is the very best he can urge, to justify the Government in taking power under this section to engage in private business. As I say, we will have an opportunity later on of discussing this because there are amendments down to it. It is not that a national crisis would be caused, but there might be interference in the administration of a certain portion of this Bill, and on that account, and on a vague suspicion of that kind, the Minister proposes to take very extensive powers under this Bill, and, as the Minister himself asknowledges, it is not a desirable thing to do. If there is any basis for the case he puts forward, namely, that there may be a conspiracy, I suggest that is the time to deal with it. The Minister knows well, this House is not inclined to hold up legislation of any kind.
I think the Deputy should realise that having the power there often prevents conspiracies of that kind. I am sure it would take three or four weeks to get the Bill through both Houses and they may not be so deterred from putting up a certain amount of resistance to the working of this Bill. With regard to the other point raised, that there were some maize mills in the County Kerry and other places where a mixture was used and that something was being consumed under false pretences, that of course will be remedied as soon as this becomes an Act, because both the mixture and the pure maize must be labelled and if a person goes into a shop to buy pure maize he will see the label.
The Minister has not dealt with the matter of my objection to the mixture.
Amendment 93 withdrawn.
The following amendments were on the Order Paper:
94. In page 28, Section 61 (3), line 64, to delete the words "he thinks fit to impose" and substitute the words "may be prescribed."— (Deputy McGilligan.)
95. In page 28, Section 61 (3), line 65, and in page 29, line 1, to delete the words "the said Minister thinks proper" and substitute the words "may be prescribed."—(Deputies Anthony and McGilligan.)
96. In page 29, Section 61 (5), lines 18 and 19, to delete the words "as the Minister for Agriculture may think fit to impose" and substitute the words "as may be prescribed."—(Deputies O'Neill and T.J. O'Donovan.)
97. In page 29, Section 61 (5), line 20, to delete the words "the said Minister thinks proper" and substitute therefor the words "may be prescribed."—(Deputies Anthony and McGilligan.)
I think we discussed the subject of these amendments but perhaps we did not come to the particular point. We will take the first one, 61 (3), line 64. This deals with the question of a person who is not a registered maize miller "subject to compliance with such conditions as he thinks fit to impose to mill at any premises specified in such licence maize, either as the Minister thinks proper."
Now that reference to the farmer-maize-miller I mentioned already. It is perhaps somewhat on a par with the discussion carried on already with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. If we had a little experience in the matter we might be able to prescribe, but what we feel about it is, it is going to be very harsh on the farmer-maize-miller if we prescribe regulations. If we prescribe regulations we must make them fairly secure and watertight. Then we may find many cases coming in where we would like to be more lax in justice to the particular farmer. I think it would be against the interests of the farmer if we were to prescribe regulations. I have already given some indication of the conditions we would attach to these licences. The farmer would be permitted to bring into his premises a certain quantity of maize for twelve or six months based on the amount he had been using for the last two or three years. He would not be allowed to mill that for sale and he would be compelled to use at least an equivalent of whatever the percentage might be in the maize meal with the mixture. The ordinary maize miller would be also compelled to use the equivalent amount of home-grown grain in his milling operations. I think if we were to prescribe regulations they would inevitably be very harsh on some of the people who apply for licences. I think they would be very restrictive on these people and would hit the farmer-miller very much. I think perhaps after some time we will probably have, what I might call, unofficial prescribed regulations. The experience of the Department is that people will be writing up to know what the conditions are, and this becomes rather troublesome and you automatically give a stereotyped reply which will contain all the regulations. It will be a sort of unofficial prescribed regulation.
I can see the Minister's point in dealing with this type of question, but I think the Minister is also prone to forget the point I raised here before, that it is the right of the average citizen to demand information as to what things he must comply with in order to acquire a licence or a benefit under the Act, and it is far more his right when he is threatened with a penalty such as is set out in sub-section (6) for a breach of the Act. Here there is absolute discretion left in the Minister's hands to make ad hoc regulations, and the situation might conceivably arise in which one farmer could be prosecuted and convicted for doing the same thing which his neighbour is permitted to do by the Minister. That is not a desirable situation, and while the Minister desires a discretion as he thinks for the better working of the Bill, I have no hesitation in pressing upon him that the greater good is to secure that there will be uniformity and publicity in the matter of regulations of this kind, and that where he proposes to make regulations under this Act they shall be enforced as set out in Part II of the Schedule. When a man knows precisely where he stands, he need not depend on the beneficence or good will of the Minister. He is entitled to the letter of the law, and can get it if he deems it necessary for his own sake. I urge very strongly on the Minister that where penalties are prescribed in the Act he ought be prepared by consent to having everything done under the section where the penalty is prescribed by regulation.
Would the Minister look into that? Is he open to consider the desirability of prescribing regulations where it is proposed to enforce any penalty?
I considered that matter already, and I would prefer not to prescribe regulations in a case like this. I think any of the former Ministers will sympathise with me in that. Where you have 500 or 600 farmers who want licences to mill wheat, it would be easier to have the prescribed regulations set down. That would settle the matter. Perhaps after some time we can prescribe regulations, but in the beginning, it would be a difficult matter to deal with.
There is no reason why the Minister could not prescribe regulations to-morrow, and later, if his officials pointed out that they were unworkable, he could publish further ones. The Minister knows the Department of Agriculture better than I do, but from my knowledge of the officials, I have very little doubt that in the fullness of their wisdom they could devise a schedule and regulations which would cover any probable cases that might arise under the section.
I am afraid we could not.
If the Minister thinks, after a while, that he will be able to do it by a little hard brain work, I think he will probably be able to arrive at a workable set of regulations, and he is not precluded from amending them afterwards if it were found necessary. There is another point which is always forgotten by Ministers when they want to get freedom for themselves. If he does this he creates or sustains a precedent. I do not know if there is any precedent for doing this, and for putting complete discretion in the hands of the Minister where penalties are to be imposed. Supposing there is a precedent, it is a very bad one, and it is sustaining it to follow it now. So surely as the Minister does it in this Bill the time will come, perhaps within twelve or eighteen months, when someone will get up in his place to ask: "Did not Dr. Ryan, when Minister for Agriculture, do this, or did not Mr. Hogan, when he was Minister, do it?" I would like to arrive at the point where a definite departure from that procedure should be marked. I doubt if there is a precedent.
I am sure there is.
I think it would be useful if the Minister would recognise the right of every citizen to that degree of security which standard regulations give.
Amendments 94, 95, 96 and 97 withdrawn.
I move amendment 98:—
In page 29, Section 61, line 26, to add at the end of sub-section (6), the words "but subject always to a right of appeal in accordance with Section 18 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1928 (No. 15 of 1928)."
I am advised that the amendment is not necessary.
Is it similar to the various amendments that were dealt with previously? It was put in in order to have an assurance from the Minister that there was always an appeal.
The appeal lies.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 99:—
In page 29, to insert at the end of Section 61 a new sub-section as follows:—
(8) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the operation of the Control of Manufactures Act, 1932 (No. 21 of 1932).
If a maize mill has been working up to the 19th October it is automatically entitled to registration. Apart from that, unless it was working on the 21st June, it is entitled to operate under the Control of Manufactures Act. If a maize miller came in between June and October, and started to operate, he might be liable to be put out under the Control of Manufactures Act. Under this Bill he is being given the right to be registered and to carry on business. The section is to make it clear that if the Control of Manufactures Act puts him out he has not the right under this Bill to mill maize here.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 100:
In page 30, Section 66 (4), line 12, to delete the word "increase" and substitute therefor the words "prescribe a variation of."
There are a number of other amendments in the name of Deputy McGilligan dealing with Section 66. The Minister may remember that we had some discussion on the Second Reading Stage, and more particularly on the Committee Stage on the question of the price that was to be paid; how the Government arrived at that price, the calculation of the amount of millable wheat; the price fixed for home-grown wheat and the standard price. Has the Minister any objection to this amendment as it stands?
Yes.
It merely gives the Government power to make variations instead of making an increase.
That is the objection. "Prescribe" is not necessary. What I object to is that the Government should have power to reduce. The Executive Council stated what the standard price will be for the 1933/1934 crops. If anything were to arise, and if conditions were to change as in the days of the great war, either through war, the inflation of money, or something else, we should have power to increase the price. There should be no power to reduce it, because, having given that price two years in advance, it would be unfair to the farmers who perhaps had gone into tillage, in anticipation of that price holding for two years. I think there should be no power vested to reduce the price.
Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to answer some questions: How has he arrived at 25/- as a standard price and 23/6 as the case may be? He will remember that on a previous debate he was willing to accept the figure of 30/-. On the Second Reading he spoke of changed circumstances—and I think he almost regrets since what he said— that 25/- is now to be equivalent to 30/- then. The Minister made a general statement of that kind. In what sense would that amount be equivalent, seeing that more or less we are cutting ourselves off from outside. The outside price of wheat does not come into account, so far as the standard price is concerned. The point, I presume, is what it would cost to produce that particular barrel of wheat. How has there been a reduction, between when the Minister spoke of 30/-, and now, when he brings in 25/- and 23/6? What brought about that particular change in the Minister's mind as far as the standard price is concerned? Surely it was not the change in the world price of wheat. It would be a change internally, to justify what would be the reasonable price.
I think the Deputy will probably know if he thinks it worth his while to look at what I said.
I am relying on memory.
I said that 30/- would induce farmers to grow wheat. I gave the costings and I brought out there that the farmers would have enormous profits at 30/- a barrel. I think 25/- now is justifiable in comparison with other agricultural prices. That is the real point. In 1929, when the debate took place, if you took the prices of butter, bacon, cattle—I do not know about potatoes—I think it will be realised that they have gone down by at least 80 per cent. from what they were, so that to take that point about wheat is not unreasonable, taking into account the general prices farmers can expect to get. It would produce, I think, 25/-, which is fair at the present time. Of course, that would only be found out by the results of the acreage sown.
The Minister refers to the time when he showed how very attractive a proposition this was, but the Minister will also remember that, on that particular occasion, he painted such an attractive picture that there was no explanation at all as to why farmers got out of growing wheat. There was, I think, general agreement not that enormous profits would be made on 30/—I think that even as late as the Second Reading he went on the ground that 30/- then was equivalent to 25/- now—but his justification now is that all the farmers' prices have fallen. Farmers have been hit in other directions—why hit them now? Has the Minister shown that their costings have gone down? It is on that that the thing must be based, and not on the fact that they are losing in other matters as well, so let them lose here also. It is on their costings that the standard price ought to be based and the Minister has not shown that their costings have gone down to that extent.
On their costings in 1929, they could well grow wheat at 25/- a barrel, so far as I can gather from an examination of the costings. The same question was asked in 1929 as is asked now—why, if it was so very attractive then, did they not grow it, and it was pointed out, over and over again, that a guaranteed market and a guaranteed price are what are required.
Amendment 100 withdrawn.
As amendments 17 and 100 have been withdrawn the reason for offering amendment No. 1 has disappeared.
It is not necessary now.
I was not here for that.
It was postponed pending consideration of amendments 17 and 100. Both of those have been withdrawn, so amendment 1, I take it, is withdrawn also?
Yes.
Amendment 101 is similar to amendment 22. I take it that that is not moved either.
Yes.
Amendment 101 not moved.
I move amendment 102:
In page 31, Section 67 (1), to insert at the end of line 5 the following:—
". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and
(d) that I am the holder of a milling licence granted under Part II of the above mentioned Act, or that I am registered in the register of wheat dealers or that I am registered in the register of distillers, and
(e) that the said wheat has been or will be brought on to or dealt with at the following premises ...
This amendment has been drawn from me in response to an amendment proposed by Deputy McGilligan on Committee Stage, and which appears again in the next amendment 103 by which particulars of the registered premises are to be given. This goes a little further than his went and establishes the right of a person to take wheat.
Amendment 102 agreed to.
Amendment 103 not moved.
Section 68 stands, hence amendment 104 cannot be moved.
Amendment 104 not moved.
Amendments 105, 107 and 108 seem to me to be out of order as at least potentially increasing the bounty but I am prepared to hear the Deputy on the point.
The bounty depends, I take it, on the difference between the average price, shall I call it, and the standard price. Roughly speaking, is not that the suggestion?
That is right.
This proposes another way of getting the average price, that is, you take the average price over a year as from 1927 to 1931 and the bounty is the difference. Supposing, as the thing stands in the Bill, there is a price of 16/- and the standard price is 25/-. The bounty in that case will be 9/-. Supposing, under the proposition made in the amendment by Deputy McGilligan, the average price was 14/-, the bounty would still be 9/-because it is the higher of the two that is taken. There would be no increase, therefore, in the bounty in that particular case. Supposing, on the other hand, the price from 1927 to 1931 is 17/-, the bounty would not be increased in that case either. It would be diminished, in fact, so I suggest that there is no possible increase of the bounty envisaged under the amendment as it stands.
Or possible disappearance of the bounty?
That is possible in any case.
Does not the Bill foreshadow a bounty?
It is possible, even under the case of the Minister as it stands. It is not a question of any increased bounty or even the possibility of an increased bounty being proposed in this amendment.
There is the possible abolition of the bounty.
But I suggest that that is possible under the Bill. If the ascertained price under the Minister's section amounts to 25/-, the bounty vanishes. May I take the amendments as being in order?
Yes.
I move the three amendments standing in Deputy McGilligan's name:
In page 32, before Section 69, (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
The Minister shall as soon as may be after the commencement of this Part of this Act ascertain as accurately as possible the amount per barrel actually paid for home grown wheat sold during the years 1927-1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, and averaged over these years, and the amount as ascertained by him shall be the ascertained actual price per barrel of home grown wheat for these years.
In page 32, Section 70 (1), line 31, after the word "between" to insert the words "either the ascertained actual price per barrel for the years 1927 to 1931, or."
In page 32, Section 70 (1), line 32, after the word "barrel" to insert the words "whichever is the higher."
The Minister will remember our criticism of what seemed to us to be the very unsatisfactory state in which the Bill stands at the moment, namely, as to how the price is to be fixed, as to how he is going to make these calculations and as to when he will make these calculations. There is nothing definite and, with the distinction between the different kinds of wheat practically vanishing, it is still more difficult. The Minister spoke, a short time ago, of rings or conspiracies on the part of the maize millers. As I understand the Bill—and I should like to be corrected if I am wrong— there is nothing to prevent the millers of this country offering 10/- instead of 16/- as the price for first class wheat. I take that to be correct. They can come to an agreement of that kind amongst themselves that will immediately lower the average price. It does not cost the millers anything— they pay less for what they buy—and the farmers lose nothing either, because, supposing, in the ordinary way of commerce, the price had been 15/- and, by means of what the Minister would call a conspiracy of that kind it is reduced to 10/-, it is made up by the bounty. The farmers lose nothing and the millers lose nothing, and it is to the interest, I presume, of the millers to do that.
The farmers have no reason to protest. They lose nothing. I think I suggested on Second Reading that the general tendency of the Bill as it stands, and again the fact that if the average is depressed the farmer will lose nothing, must have the effect of gradually depressing prices, because if the average is depressed it is no loss to the seller. He is not interested in keeping it up. He is interested in keeping up his own individual price, but he is not interested in keeping up the average price. I suggest that the country, which is liable for a very considerable subsidy under the Bill, may very well become liable for a great deal more as the Bill now stands. Whether there are rings formed, or even if the Bill is allowed to operate in the ordinary way of business, I suggest that the amendment standing in the name of Deputy McGilligan is quite reasonable, and that at least the country which is asked to pay the piper so far as the Bill is concerned, should be in a position to know where it stands.
The Deputy said that each individual farmer would be interested in his own individual price.
Quite.
I think that is a sufficient incentive.
I admit it will, but I shall deal with that later.
To go a little further, let us take a group of farmers supplying one mill. They know that the mill is bound to take their wheat from them. They know that the miller must take a certain amount of wheat and they know that he will prefer to take it from them rather than from some place some distance away. They have a certain bargaining power in having that knowledge. The farmers in each group will be inclined to work collectively and individually to get the best price. The individual in these collections will be trying to get 6d. or 1/- per barrel more so that when the bounty is paid he will be getting more than the standard price. There will be an effort amongst the farmers to get more than the standard price.
The average price?
It amounts to the same thing. He will try to get more than the average price from the miller.
Still the general tendency which I have indicated will be there. There is no incentive so far as the average is concerned. It is inevitable that there will be a gradual diminution of the price year by year, because the average will go down, and if the average goes down the farmer is not affected. The Minister did not refer to the question of rings which could be formed very easily and with a limited number of people.
The ring would have to include all the farmers.
Oh, no. The unfortunate farmers have to sell to somebody once having grown the wheat. The average price, once it is down, will not hurt the farmer. They will see that. The Minister brought forward a point, in answer to me, which is a point that we made on more than one occasion. He admits that in practice the miller will be confined to the local farmers, and no matter what the quality of the wheat is he will have to take it from them whether it is millable or not.
That is another point.
I know that it is another point, but that is the difficulty with the Minister. He has two lines of reasoning which happen to be contradictory. That is the reason I refer to it now without any excuse. The millers will have to take the wheat whether it is sprouted wheat or not. The miller must be very often practically forced to take it. What the result will be on the character of the product, or how they can assess the price of it now that the Minister has despaired of laying down any definition of what he means by "millable," that is in the sense of wheat that can be milled, I do not know. I do not see how he can get out of the question of rings. The farmers are not hit by the rings, if there is a general depression of the average. The Bill simply brings more money out of the Exchequer and it does not cost the farmer anything.
I have now almost arrived at a definition of millable wheat and the word "sprouted" comes into it. That is we exclude sprouted wheat.
What is to happen my unfortunate county in these circumstances? If these people attempt to grow wheat how are they to dispose of it now? They had a hope that the miller might be compelled to take it even if it sprouted, because that is what happens to a great deal of the wheat grown in my county. They cannot dispose of a great deal of that wheat, yet as consumers and taxpayers they are paying for the rest of the country.
Tipperary is quite close to them.
The unfortunate farmers there cannot produce wheat, in many cases, that does not sprout. The climate is unsuitable and the fact remains that they are paying in the wheat bounty for the benefit of the people in the rest of the county. It is a very poor comfort to my constituents to know that Tipperary is not so very far from them.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 106:—
In page 32, Section 70 (1), lines 21 and 22, to delete the words "or the Minister for Industry and Commerce."
This, again, looks forward to the Minister for Industry and Commerce engaging in the lucrative trade of milling. Possibly we shall have an opportunity of discussing that matter when that particular section of the Bill comes up, but under this section as it stands not only are we to have the Minister for Agriculture but also the Minister for Industry and Commerce engaging in business. Perhaps the Minister could offer some justification for it.
I can assure the Deputy that there is no desire on my part to engage in flour milling, but it is considered that it might be necessary to have these powers there. I am not so sure that the Minister could not be held to have these powers already in another case under the Emergency Act of 1926, but it is better to be sure than sorry in these cases. What are we doing? We are breaking through an organisation that supplied, roughly, one half of the flour required in this country. That is an importing organisation. It is true, in theory, that we have power at any time, if the necessity arose, to import flour in order to meet any deficiency in the supply from the existing mills, but in fact the organisation for doing that would not be in existence and could not be very easily brought into existence. If it should happen—take the extreme case—that the flour millers of the country, because of some regulation made, or some decision arrived at, decided to go on strike and stop milling flour, it is obvious that we would have to get flour from some place, and it might be much easier to get that flour by keeping the existing mills working even though they were working under the control of the Minister, than to build up an importing organisation which might be able to get supplies from other countries.
A situation might arise in which there would be extreme practical difficulty in importing flour to meet our requirements. We are securing to the flour millers here a market but we are, also, making our people as consumers of flour dependent upon the flour millers for those supplies. If, for any reason, the flour millers decline to keep up the supply it is desirable that we should have power to go in, and keep the mills working until whatever caused the dispute interfering with the supply of flour should terminate. It is not intended to nationalise the flour milling industry, nor is this section devised to facilitate the nationalisation of the flour milling industry. It is intended as a necessary safeguard to have, in view of the fact that a supply of flour is an essential of the country. And as the supply is an essential of the country, consequently, the operation of the flour mills is an essential, and the State desires to have the power to ensure that they shall operate.
The Minister said it is not intended as the thin end of the wedge, in the way of enforcing nationalisation of the milling industry, but that it is to meet an emergency. If it is intended to meet an emergency only, why not deal with it with emergency legislation? Why ask the House to pass this objectionable legislation, to deal with a situation which might not arise for a good time to come, and which, if it does arise, could be dealt with by emergency legislation? Would not that be the proper way to deal with it? The Minister is asking the House to assent to a principle to which it is opposed and with which it is certainly not enamoured. The Minister repeated what one of his colleagues said, namely, that he is not keen in asserting this particular power. If a crisis arises, I suggest, it should be time enough to have it dealt with by emergency legislation.
I admit that the necessity for taking these powers is not quite as clear now as it was at the time the Bill was drafted. It will be recollected that the flour millers, or some of them, previous to this legislation being introduced, announced themselves as strongly opposed to it. They modified their opposition since. But there was a possibility, and there is always the possibility, that we may find some organisation of flour millers or individual flour millers deciding to shut down their mills rather than operate them. The presence of a section of this kind in the Bill will be a very strong deterrent, and will keep them going instead of shutting down. That was the reason why this section was framed along those lines. I think it is desirable, in the circumstasces, that the section should be here. If we were faced with a situation that nobody would come into the flour milling industry, if we had to contemplate a permanent deficiency in the flour milling capacity, I would not hesitate to say that the State should come in and make up the deficiency, by acquiring the existing mills or building new ones. But that situation, while regarded as a possibility at one time, has ceased since. I mentioned, on the Committee Stage of this Bill, that if we conceded all the applications to build new mills or to increase the capacity of existing mills, we would probably have double the capacity required in this country. There are any numbers of people desirous of engaging in the flour milling industry and a number of new mills will be built in the future, so we will have no difficulties on that score. But when devising our present legislation we could not have foreseen that. I prefer, now, to leave the matter as it is, though it is not intended to operate it except in very exceptional circumstances.
Why could not these exceptional circumstances be dealt with by exceptional legislation?
The period when we were bringing the scheme into operation was an exceptional one.
I suggest that the Minister should delete that section now and bring in his exceptional legislation afterwards if required. Has the Minister power, if there was a temporary stoppage, to take over the new mills? Has he power to do that now?
Yes, in Section 94, dealing with potential flour mills and upon giving to the owner at least one month's notice in writing.
For instance, if there was a strike at a mill?
The mill must be without a licence; the licence must have been revoked.
Then it would be a derelict mill. Does the Minister intend to supply the flour capacity of the country from such mills?
It must be suitable for milling. Section 92 covers that.
I ask again is it from derelict mills that he is to supply the capacity of the country?
We will have a large number of new mills.
Not operating?
They do not exist at the moment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 107 and 108 not moved.
Amendment 109 withdrawn.
Amendments 110 and 111 not moved.
I move amendment 112:—
In page 34, Section 71 (4), line 24, before the word "shall" to insert the words "shall prescribe both the minimum and maximum amount of wheat on which a bounty may be paid under this section to any person in respect of wheat disposed of in any sale (wheat) season and."
In the Bill the Minister has the option. Why should he not be able to prescribe both the minimum and the maximum?
Suppose he did not want to. Suppose wheat growing became very popular and we were faced with an acreage of one-and-a-half million acres, we might limit it to ten acres.
Is that necessary? I think between this and the Final Stage a little amendment might be introduced.
A man growing a hundred acres might think he had a vested interest?
I am speaking of the one-and-a-half millions as the figure put forward by the Minister. Whatever Government there might be in office might have to amend the Bill to deal with that particular situation.
What is the cause for this amendment?
I think that the minimum and the maximum ought to be known.
The Deputy wants the Minister to state the maximum as well as the minimum. It might not be necessary to state either. I will take a pessimistic view of the thing if you like. Supposing people began to grow ten square yards and registered themselves, we might stop that also.
The amendment prescribes both the minimum and the maximum.
But we do not want to prescribe the maximum. We might say we want to register nothing lower than half an acre. We might not want to put any limit to the maximum at that stage.
Amendment 112, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 113:
In page 34, Section 72 (2), line 49, to delete the word "conclusive" and substitute the words "prima facie."
This has been discussed already in connection with a previous amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments 114 and 115 not moved.
It was rather difficult to prescribe the conditions in this case. It might be asked how would the imported wheat be disposed of. It is suggested here that it might be disposed of through the flour millers or other people concerned, but I think it might be difficult to prescribe the conditions governing that. The import wheat might be damaged in transit or as a result of sprouting, and might have to be disposed of as feeding stuffs for animals. That would lead to certain difficulties.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy McGilligan:
117. In page 35, before Section 75 (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Where any home-grown millable wheat is on or after the 1st day of August, 1933, sold, and a sale (home-grown wheat) certificate has been made in respect of such wheat the purchaser of such wheat or any subsequent purchaser from him may offer such wheat to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who may either purchase such wheat at the price certified in the said certificate, or provide such a bounty on export as will enable such wheat to be sold abroad, or hold, store and, if possible, dispose of such wheat for such purchaser.
The objection here is that the Minister himself might be getting into the business of milling.
Amendment 117 is out of order. It is outside the scope of the Bill.
We did not take all the powers we should have taken.
Well, we will move it if it is found to be in order later on.
Amendment ruled out of order.
Amendments 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 and 123 not moved.
Amendment 124:
In page 36, Section 79 (1), (a) (ii), line 14, to delete the word "sealed" and after the word "package" to insert the words "which has been closed with a gummed label or otherwise sealed."—(Deputy Kiersey.)
I could meet this point, but I would have to bring it in again on the Report Stage. This is an amendment which proposes to delete the word "sealed."
I think the Minister should bring it in now.
I will do so, if you wish.
I think it should be done.
It is very difficult to tie ourselves down to particulars as to how these facts should be secured. We should like to have the power to vary these matters. I think that it could be done on the Report Stage, but it would require that a new section should be inserted in that part of the Bill saying that the Minister might have power to make regulations in relation to any part of this Act. If we do prescribe anything like that, we will have to bring it in in a new section.
The Minister said previously that he would look into the question of adequate costs. On that occasion I pointed out that the cost of a particular brand of Indian meal which is used for human consumption will be materially increased by the proviso contained in paragraph (iii) of Section 79. The Minister at that time said that he would look into the question as to whether this brand of Indian meal could be distributed in a larger package or, if necessary, that the package should be a sealed package. I do not know whether that is absolutely necessary for the purpose of the administration of the Act or not. I do know, however, that the usual procedure is that this meal is supplied in hundredweight packages to the distributor, who sells it in quarter or half-stone packages. I think that the meal sold for human consumption is quite different from the meal sold for animal consumption, and under this section of the Bill the proposed admixture might increase the cost so enormously that it would be economically impossible for the maize miller to sell this particular meal for human consumption. I should like to know whether the Minister has looked into that question.
Yes, that was looked into in connection with this section of the Bill. The Deputy raised the point previously, but I think that we could not allow the maize miller to send out the meal to the distributor and allow that distributor to put it into stone bags for sale. If we did so we would have to hold the maize miller responsible for the disposal of the maize meal, and we would not know whether the mixture in the sealed package was for human or animal consumption. The maize miller must take the responsibility, but we must have some machinery by which to hold him to his responsibility.
If we were to allow a maize miller to send, say, a cwt. of pure maize to a retailer and allow the retailer then to divide it up into eight one-stone packets, the inspection would become very much more difficult because the retailer would become subject to inspection also to see that he did not sell more than a one-stone weight. In the case of a retailer having a cwt. of pure maize in his shop it would be very difficult, I think, to prevent him by law from selling more than a stone weight to any person that might come in. It would be difficult to see that the law was observed if, say, people were desirous of getting five or six stones from the retailer. If the law was that only a stone was to be sold, in such case it would be very difficult to see that it was observed. It would mean, I think, that our system of inspection would be entirely inadequate.
But where is there any restriction on a retailer at the present time from selling an individual a ton of meal?
The only thing is that it must be in stone packages.
If the Minister is satisfied that it is going to cost the consumer a great deal more, why make this proviso about stone packages at all? There is no reason why a retailer should not sell a consumer 41 one-stone packages of meal. He can do that. Why then make this proviso that is going to increase the cost of this commodity considerably when the Minister is aware of an existing safeguard? He will be told by his advisers, or by any one connected with the trade, that the quality of maize meal which is suitable for human consumption is entirely different from the quality of maize meal which could conceivably compete with the maize meal mixture. Before the introduction of this Bill, the maize meal supplied for consumption by animals sold retail about 6/6 per cwt. Golden meal, which is the type of maize meal sold for human consumption, sold at about £8 10s. per ton. There would be a difference of about 2/- per cwt. between the two. I would like the Minister to look into that and satisfy himself on that point. If he is satisfied about the ordinary difference in price between the two commodities, I suggest to him that he ought to see whether that is not a sufficient safeguard without introducing this packet impost. It may be that circumstances have altered and that the maize meal mixture approaches so closely in price to Golden meal now that a difficulty would arise—that there would be no price safeguard—but if he had not that price safeguard, I cannot see that this business of packing the maize meal in stone packages will provide any safeguard against the distribution of the meal for the feeding of animals, except by reason of the price. I assume that the Minister does not want to raise the price of this commodity for the people who use it as a foodstuff.
I think it would be extremely difficult to specify any particular type of ground maize that is used for human food and not for any other purpose. This question of a maize mixture has now been before the public for three or four years. One of the big objections raised to it was that the poor people, principally in the West. found it convenient to buy a bag of ground maize, out of which they could feed the children, the chickens and the pigs. That was the principal objection raised to this mixing scheme by people up to this: that the convenience of maize meal to the household in the poorer districts was that they could use the same sack of meal to feed the children, the chickens and the pigs.
I most emphatically dissociate myself from any such objection.
I wish we had the Deputy here a few years ago.
Speaking from a pretty wide experience I do not think any person would give that as a valid objection. Goodness knows there are enough objections to the Bill without using that. I think the point that I have raised is one that deserves the Minister's careful consideration. It has been my experience that the quality of meal sold for human consumption is entirely different to the meal sold for animal consumption.
Can the Minister give the House any idea as to what the additional cost to the consumer will be as a result of having the meal put in one stone packages? First of all it will cause great inconvenience, and secondly there is the question of cost. It is quite obvious from the provisions of the Bill that there is no limit to the amount that may be bought. You can buy 3 cwt. under the Bill, the only thing being that it must be made up in one-stone packages. What does the Minister achieve by that to justify the increased cost? In the case of maize required for human consumption, is he able to give the House any estimate as to what the cost of packing is likely to amount to? The Minister must remember that this will hit the poorer classes of people very severely. It will also be a grave inconvenience to them. In the case of people who live a long distance from a town it is practically inevitable that they will buy more than a stone. It would be an inconvenience to them if they did not buy in the quantities that they have been accustomed to. If they do that now it will mean an increased cost to them.
If there is any foundation for Deputy Dillon's statement, that the meal used for human consumption is entirely different from that used for animal consumption—that it is dearer than that used for animal food—what is the justification for putting this increased cost on the public, and on the poorer sections of the public particularly? Apart from the question as to whether there is such a distinction, this will undoubtedly inflict hardship. A large number of people in my constituency use this particular kind of food for making bread, and if they are compelled now to buy it in stone packets, instead of half a sack at a time, it will undoubtedly be a distinct disadvantage to them as well as a great inconvenience and an unjustifiable cost so far as they are concerned.
With regard to the question raised about the increased cost, of course the scheme has not been working very long. It is very hard to get any sort of a settled cost. It has been reported that the cost will be about 2/- or 4/- per cwt. It is sometimes as low as 2/-, but has never gone above 4/-. That would be, or about, 3d. or 6d. a stone of an increase. I think, however, that will not last because certain maize millers will, I am sure, go in for this business and cut prices a bit when they go in for it properly. Deputies must see that it would be impossible to work the Bill if we allowed pure maize free for human consumption. We must control it in some way. When the mixing scheme was first introduced, the question of the meal used for human consumption in Kerry and some parts of the West was raised and it was thrown out as a sop that it should be put in stone bags. Some such method as that must be adopted. I think it would be dangerous to make provision for selling more than a stone. Of course, a person can buy a ton of pure maize if he wants to, in stone bags. That, of course, would not be an economic proposition for feeding pigs because the price is raised to a certain extent. It is necessary to raise the price slightly in order to put it above the ordinary foodstuff; otherwise the whole scheme goes.
I have already mentioned to Deputy O'Sullivan that in his constituency a complaint was made to me that they were using pure maize with white oats without knowing it. When they found it out they objected strongly, not on the ground that it tasted badly, that they got gripes or anything like that, but wholly because they had been more or less cheated and because they had a definite prejudice. I think that was the principal complaint. After some time the need for pure maize may not be necessary at all. There is one thing that it is possible to do, and that is to put No. 3 under the prescribed regulations. That, of course, has relation to weight, and we might try to raise it to two stones and see if that would be feasible. We might have to go back to one stone if two stones are considered too high.
One of my principal objections to this Bill is founded on this section. It hits my constituency pretty hard, as the Minister now admits. There is a very strong objection to it there. I do not know if, in the west, maize is used for human consumption, but it is certainly used in Kerry. Down there the people are hit also because of the unsuitability of the climate for wheat-growing purposes. Now they are hit by this section. The Minister stated that the deliberate raising of the price is a necessary part of the machinery of this Bill. It is not merely an accident that the price is raised; the price is deliberately raised in order to make the Bill work. The price is raised on the poor consumer so that the Bill may operate. There is a very strong objection to this part of the Bill in particular.
What price will the containers be?
As to the price of the paper bags. I do not know exactly.
It is obvious that this business will have to be carried on in cloth bags and that will mean a very substantial addition to the cost of this commodity.
From what the Minister says, the Bill will not be able to work properly unless there is an increase.
If what the Minister says is true, there is certainly a rather strange side presented to this picture. It would seem as if it is the object of the Minister to make Golden meal, which is used for human consumption, prohibitively expensive. By making it so dear he will prohibit people from getting it. If that is the object of the Bill—to make the foodstuff of the poorest classes of the community too dear—then I am afraid it will be further jeopardised. I will ask the Minister to keep an open mind on this question and to examine it more closely in order to see if it cannot be made operative without interfering with the supplies of people who habitually use this meal for their own consumption. I would like him to give that aspect of the matter some practical consideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move amendment 125:
In page 36, before Section 79 (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:
(2) The provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to Gaeltacht areas.
Deputy Dillon spoke about a certain meal being used for human consumption and he said that it differed from the meal used for animal feeding. There is a brand of yellow or Golden meal that is better and more expensive than the ordinary stuff used for feeding animals. So far as I understand, this meal is very extensively used in County Donegal. The same meal is used there for human consumption as is given to animals. The reason I suggest this amendment is because the Bill tends to impose a burden on the very poor people. I have made extensive inquiries into this matter and I find that when this meal is mixed with flour it makes very good bread. It is also used very generally for making porridge and that is regarded as the staple food of the poor people, of whom there are large numbers in the county. The effect of this Bill will be to increase the retail price of yellow meal from £5 15s. 4d. to £10 per ton. That is utterly indefensible and some scheme will have to be devised to avoid that course.
If the Minister carries this proposal, it will have to be changed at some future date. The proposal is utterly inhuman. It is outrageous that we who represent the people should assemble here and impose upon poor people, who cannot defend themselves, a burden to the extent of £4 5s. a ton on a commodity they use freely. It is an outrageous tax on the very article of food that constitutes an important portion of their diet. During the last twenty-two years there have been only three good harvests. Last season was a bumper season. In the other lean years this yellow meal was the staple food of many of the poor people. It is now suggested that we should meekly submit to a tax of £4 5s. a ton on the staple food of these unfortunate people. I will oppose such a proposal strongly and I will wreck it if I can. It is absolutely intolerable that the poor people should be asked to pay this outrageous tax. When this meal is mixed with flour it is quite good for feeding purposes—it is excellent stuff.
An attempt is made to put a heavy tax on this meal and I consider that attempt is nothing but an outrage. There is no use in describing this effort on the part of the Government in mild language. It is a sheer outrage, particularly at a time like the present when so much distress exists, and when the purchasing power of the people has been reduced. I will ask the Minister to hold this matter over until he has had consultations with responsible people. He should try to devise some other scheme that will avoid such an enormous tax on the poor people.
The Deputy quoted an increase in price from £5 15s. 4d. to £10. To what does that refer?
To yellow meal.
Where is it sold at £5 15s. 4d?
In the town of Castlederg, on one side of the Border, the price of yellow meal is £5 15s. 4d. per ton and on the other side, in the miserable bogs of Donegal, the poor dwellers will be charged £10 a ton— 1/3 a stone.
Does the Deputy think it is possible to get a stone of meal at the rate of £5 15s. 4d. a ton on the Border side?
It can be got.
The Deputy is talking of the poor people in the Gaeltacht. From what he says one would imagine they are prepared to buy a ton of meal, if we allow them. What is the use of comparing the price of a ton with the price of a stone? It is a most ridiculous thing.
Take the case of a poor man living in the middle of the mountains, six miles from a shop. He may have a family of from six to eight. Fourteen lbs. of Indian meal would make, approximately, two pots of porridge. We must remember that the average season with these people is a bad season, that the good season is abnormal. Fourteen lbs. of meal provides two meals—dinner and supper. That means that every day someone from that family must be on the road to carry home 14 lbs. of meal. Does the Minister suggest that that additional task should be imposed on the people?
Why must they do that? Is it not open to the people to go in once a week and bring home 7 stone if they like?
The figures Deputy McMenamin quotes for the price of meal may astonish the Minister, but they are by no means impossible.
They do not astonish me at all.
A price of £5 15s. 4d. on the far side of the Border would represent 5/9 per cwt., approximately.
Five and ninepence halfpenny.
Not quite so much. A price of £10 for Indian meal at the present time is a price that astonishes me. If the people are paying that price, as Deputy McMenamin states, the Minister would nearly make a convert to the Price Control Bill. I should not be surprised to hear that they were paying £8. The Minister seemed to be surprised that Deputy McMenamin compared a ton with a stone of meal. If the Minister knew the Indian meal trade as well as I do, he would realise that there is nothing to marvel at in that. If Indian meal is selling at £8 per ton, any person can buy a stone of Indian meal for 1s. 1d. or 1s. 2d. Indian meal is sold retail at a very narrow margin of profit. Frequently, it is sold wholesale at no profit at all. The mill gets the profit, the wholesaler gets a discount and the retailer may get ½d. or 1d. per stone. I agree entirely with what Deputy McMenamin said, that Indian meal, in one form or another, is very extensively used in Donegal as a foodstuff, particularly in the poorest localities. It is in the very poor localities that the ordinary Indian meal would be used. I thought that the finer product would be used in the other areas to which Deputy McMenamin referred. I think the case made by Deputy McMenamin should give the Minister cause to pause. I think he should make careful investigations immediately to ascertain if this Bill is calculated to increase the cost over a widespread area on the lines Deputy McMenamin indicates and if he is satisfied that this Bill is going to increase the cost of the staple foodstuff of the poorest section of the community in the congested areas, I think he will have to reconsider his position. I doubt very much if the members of his own Party, representing these counties, would be prepared to support him in putting that tax upon the people.
I entirely concur with Deputy McMenamin in his description of the circumstances under which these people live. It is very little known in the eastern parts of this country that Indian meal, in one form or another, is the staple article of diet in these districts. Indian meal porridge enters into the everyday diet of these people and, in many cases, they cannot afford oatmeal porridge. In the portions which are better off, oatmeal porridge is used. But in large parts of Donegal and in the western parts of Connacht, Indian meal is the staple article of diet of the people. Before one starts out to increase the price of a commodity like that, one ought to exhaust every conceivable possibility. What I ask the Minister to do now is to approach this question with a full appreciation of its gravity and, between now and the Report Stage, to try, with the assistance of his officials, to devise a scheme whereby these people will be spared extra expense in respect of a commodity which is their staple food.
I think that the House will recognise that the increase of price is portion of the necessary machinery of the Bill, according to the Minister. The increase in the price of this meal, used as a human food, is a necessary portion of the machinery and there is no use in the House blinding itself to the fact. The Minister has made clear that it is a portion of the machinery and if that increase is not brought about by this particular method of marketing the product, then he fears this particular portion of the Bill will fail. So far as this portion of the Bill is concerned, it is so bad and it affects these people so seriously that it is better it should fail than that this provision should be passed.
I do not want the Bill to fail.
It is better that this particular portion of the Bill should fail than that this provision should be left in. I do not see why it is necessary, but the Minister has made clear that an increase in the cost of living of these people is a necessary portion of the machinery.
I do not think that I made any such thing clear. If the Deputy can build up a case on such a small foundation, he could build up a remarkable case on better grounds. What I said was that if we lowered the price of pure maize by allowing it to be sold out in the ton below the price of the mixture, I thought it would injure the scheme.
Then we shall wait until the official report comes out. What I have said is obvious to everybody. If pure maize can be sold even by the stone at a rate lower than the mixture can be sold by the ton, the whole scheme will go. The people would buy pure maize if it was cheaper feeding for their stock.
Will you accept that paragraph and exclude the Gaeltacht, where the meal is only used for human food?
Why should I exclude the Gaeltacht?
Because the people of other parts do not want it for human food.
Deputy Dillon asked me to take seriously what Deputy McMenamin said on this subject. I should prefer to take seriously what Deputy Dillon himself said. He said that there was very little margin of profit on the sale of maize meal. He gave us the impression that it is almost sold as cheaply by the stone as by the ton.
So it is.
Then there is no hardship.
What about the cost of packing?
We are not trying to trip the Minister up. I have not the slightest desire to force a declaration from him at the moment. I strongly advise him not to make a declaration now, but to study the matter calmly with his officials in his office and to deal with it on the Report Stage. I have not the slightest desire to trip him up. There is the compulsion on the miller to put this meal into a stone bag. If the Minister will throw his mind back he will find that this all arose out of the request by me that he would allow the millers to consign the stuff to the retailers and let the retailers pack it in whatever quantity called for. That is how it arose. To compel the millers to pack it, not in a paper bag, but in a cloth bag, in stones, or less, will greatly increase the cost and make the working of the Bill difficult. The thing is full of pitfalls and I strongly counsel the Minister to leave the matter over for Report Stage and investigate it fully in the meantime. So far as I am concerned, I do not press him to make a declaration one way or the other.
This section was considered fully before it was introduced. It has been considered on the Committee Stage and again on this stage. As far as the Department of Agriculture and myself are concerned, we gave it a great deal of thought and we cannot do much better I am afraid. When Deputy McMenamin talks about maize being sold at £5 15s. 4d. he certainly bears out Deputy Dillon when he says that there is very little margin in maize, because it would appear from our own imports during the month of October that, landed at the port, maize was at least worth £5 per ton. I do not know if it is possible that in an inland town like that maize could be sold at £5 15s. 4d., taking that into account. Certainly if you take less than a ton it could not be sold at that rate.
To my mind, the Minister is misinformed with regard to the value of maize. Turned into maize meal and delivered in the town of Ballina the cost price will be £5 10s. per ton.
Who is losing on it?
Pure maize meal would be £5 10s. As a result of packing it in 14 lb. bags, the price per ton is £7. That is the wholesale price. The retail price is £7 10s. Therefore, the difference between £5 10s. and the price when packed in 14 lb. bags is £1 10s. per ton. You may refer to the fact that the mixture is being sold at £6 per ton, but that is the wholesale price, the miller's price. The difference is accounted for by the extra labour in packing maize meal in 14 lb bags. The extra cost for 14 lb. cotton bags is considerable. You can investigate these facts for yourself by referring the matter to the Department or to any miller who is milling maize meal, and at the same time producing the admixture with 10 per cent. of barley, oats or rye in the town of Ballina. I think the investigation will verify what I have said.
Does the Deputy say that the cost of putting it into stone bags is 30/-?
Yes.
That is all right. That is much lower than the figure I gave.
That is 2¼d. What will they charge for that?
The Deputy will know better than I do. The whole discussion has gone on as if a poor person in Kerry or Donegal was able to buy a ton of meal at one time.
On the contrary, he is a man with a large family and has to buy right through the year.
Deputy Davis told us that the extra cost was 30/- per ton for reducing it from a ton to a stone. Was it ever much less?
It was. We gathered from Deputy Dillon, from his own experience of the trade, that the price per stone was at the same rate as the price per cwt.
The extra cost of packing is 30/- per ton exclusive of the cost of milling. I say that the value of pure maize meal milled to-day is £5 10s. according to the present cost of maize. Therefore, the cost for packing in cotton bags is £1 10s. per ton. The value of pure maize meal would be about £5 15s. per ton packed in ordinary 2 cwt. or 1 cwt. bags.
Supposing we had not interfered with this what would a stone of maize be selling at now?
Pure maize meal would be selling at £6 per ton.
What would a stone be selling at?
On the basis of a retail price of £6 per ton, Indian meal would be sold at 10d. per stone.
And now it is 1/3.
There would be about 1d. per stone put on for dividing up the cwt. bag and that would be sold in a paper bag. Now you have to get a cotton bag which must be specially sealed and Deputy Davis said the cost will be about 30/- a ton.
It would be selling at 10d. Deputy Davis says it is selling now at £7 10s.
I said the wholesale price was £7 per ton.
The Minister will recognise that he is putting an additional cost on of about 25 per cent.
Not anything like it, according to Deputy Davis.
It will put on between 2d. and 2½d. per stone.
Perhaps 2d. per stone.
In Dáil Eireann that does not sound very much, but I can assure the Minister that in Glencolumkille it sounds a lot. Where people's weekly revenue is counted in shillings 2d. means a good deal of money. I realise that the Minister is in a difficulty because he regards it as essential, but if he would consent to take these matters into careful consideration as they have been laid before him he will come to realise just as clearly as we do the importance of 2d. to the people who buy Indian meal by the stone.
I often did realise the importance of it.
A lot of people realise it to-day. I am sure if the Minister will examine the question some scheme will present itself to him between this and the Report Stage which may meet the situation.
I support the amendment on the ground that the whole principle of this increase in price is raised. My only objection to the amendment is the restricted area.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá: 43; Níl: 57
Tá
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Brodrick, Séan.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davis, Michael.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis John.
- Hennigan, John.
- Keating, John.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Kiersey, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McDonogh, Fred.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Brien, Eugene P.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Shaughnessy, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Mrs. Mary.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Bryan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Curran, Patrick Joseph.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Gormlev, Francis.
- Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Norton, William.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Conlon; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 126:
In page 36, Section 79 (2), line 21, to delete the figure "I" and substitute therefor the figure "III."
Some of the Deputies have already referred to the fact that the punishment suggested in the Bill, measured by a fine of £100, is altogether out of proportion to the offence. If one acts on the dictum of making the punishment fit the crime, surely the offence might more easily and equitably be met by the insertion of the figure I have suggested. I think the Minister might reasonably be expected to accept that amendment.
Deputies must realise that this is one of the most fundamental points in the Bill.
Another fundamental point!
If a maize mill is held by a maize miller without mixing we must have power to inflict the maximum penalty.
I think Deputy Anthony is rather optimistic if he thinks that the Party which suggested a tax of 25 per cent. on stirabout and mixed bread is going to give way on a matter of this kind.
I think the Deputy has got sufficient propaganda out of that already.
By no means.
I quite realise that the Deputy would go further.
Amendment 126, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 127 not moved.
The following amendments stood on the Order Paper:
128. In page 36, Section 80 (1), to delete in line 23 the word "all" and to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and substitute the following paragraph:—
(b) if the weight of maize meal mixture is one hundredweight or more, there is indicated in the prescribed manner on such package particulars of the percentage by weight of each of the component parts of such mixture.—(Aire Talmhaíochta.)
129. In page 36, Section 80 (1), to delete all words after the word "unless," line 23, to the end of the sub-section, line 31, and substitute the words:—
(a) such maize mixture is contained in a package, and
(b) if the weight of the maize meal in such package is not less than one hundredweight, such package bears a label stating that the contents comply with the requirements of the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Act, 1932, in regard to home-grown cereals.— (Deputies O'Neill and O'Donovan.)
I think the amendment in my name covers both. Again, this is a point where we would prescribe a certain procedure and make it as easy as possible on the trade—probably by label or something of that nature—and see that that would be sufficient to meet requirements.
The Minister then is practically accepting the spirit of the amendment I put down?
Yes.
There is no prescribed manner?
No—that is the point. If we were to put it into the Bill I think we would have to make it perhaps too harsh. By prescribing it, we may be able to make it easy after a while, when we get experience.
My objection to the original section was that those bags are interchangeable, they come and go, and if they are stamped one way they cannot be used again.
Our intention is to try and avoid branding if we can.
Amendment 128 agreed.
Amendment 129 not moved.
I move amendment 130:
In page 36, Section 80 (2), line 35, to delete the figure "I" and substitute therefor the figure "III."
I am seeking to do the same thing in this amendment as I sought in amendment 126. I would again suggest to the Minister that that fine is altogether out of proportion to the offence. Whilst I admit that it allows of a fine of something below £100, I do feel that if he were a little more definite in the Bill with regard to fixing a fine, the working of the Bill would be facilitated. I again suggest that the Minister might see his way to reduce that fine somewhat, and that in the case of a first offence a fine not exceeding £25 and in the case of a second or any subsequent offence a fine not exceeding £50 might be substituted for Part I of the First Schedule.
Whilst the Minister is cogitating on that, do I read Section 80 aright when I get the meaning from it that you cannot sell less than a hundredweight of maize meal mixture to any one individual? Sub-section (1) says: "It shall not be lawful for any person to sell or offer for sale any maize meal mixture unless all the following conditions are complied with, that is to say:—
(a) such maize meal mixture is contained in the package, and
(b) the weight of maize meal in such package is not less than one hundredweight."
The amendment makes that right. It puts in the word "if."
Which amendment?
No. 128 on the revised sheet—"if the weight of maize meal."
So that now you can sell a lesser quantity?
Oh, yes, you can.
If it is less there is no certificate required; if it is more a certificate must be printed on the outside of the bag?
Yes.
Amendments 130 and 131, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 132:
In page 37, Section 82 (2), line 2, to delete the figure "II" and substitute the figure "III."
What is the Minister's attitude to amendments 132, 135, 137 and 138 if he likes to deal with them all together?
The penalty imposed here is No. "II" and not No. "I" on the imports of various kinds, flour, bread, wheat, maize, oats, hay and straw. On that particular one—oats, hay and straw—the penalty is No. I, which can be brought down to No. II. The only amendment that could be made would be under Section 86, that we would bring them from No. I to No. II.
What about No. 137, Section 85?
Yes, that is right. Sections 85 and 86 can be amended to Part II of the Schedule.
It is understood then that in connection with amendments 137 and 138 "II" will be substituted for the figure "I"?
Yes, that is right.
Amendment 132, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 133 not moved.
Amendment 134 is consequential, I think.
Amendments 134, 135 and 136 not moved.
Amendments 137 and 138 will be changed to "II."
You are substituting for them the figure "II" instead of "III." That is accepted. What is the Minister's view with regard to amendment 139?
I think we discussed that before, and I am still of the same view.
Amendments 137, 138 and 139 not moved.
I move amendment 140: In page 38, Section 88 (1), lines 28 and 29, to delete the words "or any substance used in the preparation of any scheduled feeding stuff."
This amendment could not be accepted, "or any substance used in the preparation of any scheduled feeding stuff." There are certain things like treacle and aniseed which are not very important but it might be necessary to control them. Of course, any food is naturally included already in the Schedule of feeding stuffs. It is only these things which are used in the preparation of feeding stuffs and they are not very important.
It is very troublesome to be getting a licence always for these things. They ought to come under the one licence.
Yes, of course, there might be a general licence without any limit.
Suppose I am going to import treacle. Unless I am conversant with all the processes and manufacture of cattle feeding stuffs how am I to know whether I require a permit or not? No. 7 in the Third Schedule reads: "All food for the use of horses, mules, jennets, asses cattle, sheep, swine, goats or poultry." Is there any list going to be published as to what these things are, or how is the public to know what the Department will hold to be material for the feeding of these animals? Then you go on to say: "Articles of the nature of a food or medicine for internal use, for the use of horses, mules, jennets, asses, cattle, sheep, swine, goats or poultry, which pass in commerce under the designation of a proprietary or protected trade name." That is perfectly sensible, because the final paragraph, "which pass in commerce under the designation of a proprietary or protected trade name," clearly warns everybody of what is required under this Act, but No. 7 in the Third Schedule is so vague that I think it will give very great difficulty in administration. Who is going to decide whether anything consigned is suitable for the feeding of this list of quadrupeds and bipeds when it arrives?
I think it is really covered under compound feeding stuffs to a great extent, and would apply only to the manufacturers of compound feeding stuffs and the big importers. I do not think it would ever apply if a private individual were to import treacle or anything of that kind.
Take treacle. Is that meant in the nature of a food for the use of animals? Would that come under Section 88?
Yes—possibly it would.
That is one case in point but there are a variety of other commodities turning up. Why was there not a Fourth Schedule attached to the Bill in which these things would be set out?
I think the Deputy will realise that it would be very difficult to specify everything. There are certain foods which if we specified by name might easily have their names changed. Under the powers we have at present we have been asked to license the import of mill sweepings and other things which should not be allowed into this country and passed off as food. There is a certain name for these things at present. We have not allowed these things to go in. If we were to put them all down by name it would be very easy to change the name and get them in in spite of our Schedule so we may hit them badly by a fairly general description.
If the Minister stated no feeding stuffs which contained cereals or molasses or a series of products of that character that would immediately give an opportunity to any trader to put a question to the consignor. He could say: "I want to order such and such a thing from you. Does it contain treacle, cereals or so forth?" If it did then he would know he should approach the Department of Agriculture and get a licence and have it ready, so that the thing would not be held up at the port of entry. But here nobody knows, until notice is received from the port, whether it is necessary to get a licence or not. I think that will create great inconvenience. If the Minister could see his way to prepare a Schedule along those lines and show the list of feeding stuffs containing cereals, treacle, oil and so forth it would be a very valuable guiding line for traders in the ordinary course of trade.
Of course, the power we have taken in this is to schedule feeding stuffs as far as possible so as to meet that point. Sub-section (2) of Section 87 reads: "The Minister for Agriculture may by order under this section declare that any article (not being already a scheduled feeding stuff) shall be a scheduled feeding stuff for the purpose of this Part of this Act and whenever any such order is made the article to which such order relates shall be a scheduled feeding stuff for the purposes of this Part of this Act."
Amendment 140 withdrawn.
Amendment 141:
In page 38, Section 88 (2), line 35, to delete the figure "I" and substitute therefor the figure "III."— (Deputy Bennett.)
We have substituted the figure "II" there.
Amendment not moved.
Amendment 142 not moved.
I move amendments 143 and 144:
In page 38, Section 89 (2), line 57, to delete the words "the said Minister thinks proper" and substitute the words "may be prescribed."
In page 39, to add at the end of Section 89 (3) the words "in accordance with conditions to be prescribed."
Any objection to "prescribe" here?
That point has been dealt with already.
A parallel point was dealt with.
The policy in the sections is different. I do not suggest that it should not be different, but the Minister has a different point of view as to how far he could prescribe in some sections compared with others.
I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce would be more concerned with the importation of certain things mentioned here. The importation of bread and buns appears to be rather difficult to prescribe. There would be other things in the second part. "Any scheduled feeding stuff" would be rather difficult because in the manufacture of compound feeding stuffs it is sometimes necessary to allow in a quantity of "scheduled feeding stuff." You have also articles necessary for other purposes, such as barley and malted barley, which it might not be difficult to prescribe. Taking everything into account I think it would be difficult to provide for all eventualities.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 145 not moved.
Amendments 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 and 151 not moved.
I move amendment 152:
In page 40 to delete Section 94 (2).
I would like to have a decision on one of the paragraphs.
I think 152 is the principal amendment.
We can have a decision on that. The principle involved is that of the Minister for Agriculture doing business.
Before passing from amendment 151, the covering new section provides for that.
That is covered.
Has the Minister any reason for taking this power, apart from the scanty one he has given already?
We have already discussed it.
There is really no justification for the Minister engaging in commerce and industry as he is doing. The principle involved in the amendments is the same. It is really a question of the Minister doing business.
There is no mention of compulsory acquisition in Section 94.
Section 95 is the real one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 153 and 154 not moved.
What about the other amendments?
We have arrived at amendment 154 and cannot revert to prior amendments.
Amendment 148 was skipped.
I announced amendments 148, 149, 150 and 151 as decided and went on to 152. It is suggested now to discuss and take a decision on one amendment out of 155 to 158.
I move amendment 155: "In page 40 to delete Section 95 (1)."
Why not take a decision on amendment 155, which proposes to withdraw power from the Minister for Agriculture?
If a decision is taken on amendment 155, 146 falls. The decision will cover the four amendments.
We want a decision on the right of the Minister to go into business.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted by amendment 155 stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá: 60; Níl: 44.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Bryan.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Curran, Patrick Joseph.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Gormley, Francis.
- Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Norton, William.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davis, Michael.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Desmond, William.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis John.
- Hennigan, John.
- Keating, John.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Kiersey, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McDonogh, Fred.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Brien, Eugene P.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Shaughnessy, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Mrs. Mary.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Question declared carried.
Amendments 156, 157, 158 not moved.
The following amendment stood in the name of Deputy Bennett:—
In page 41, at the end of Section 95 to add a new sub-section as follows:—
Before the Minister for Industry and Commerce compulsorily acquires any potential flour mill he shall serve on the owner there of a notice requiring such owner to sell any such potential flour mill either by private treaty or by public auction within a period of three calendar months, and if within such period the owner of such potential flour mill shall find a purchaser therefor the Minister shall grant to such purchaser, if a national of Saorstát Eireann or an Irish owned body corporate, a milling licence subject only to the statutory condition referred to in Section 20 of this Act and to the further condition that milling shall be commenced at such mill within a period of not more than twelve months after the grant of such licence, and on the grant of any such licence the mill shall cease to be a potential flour mill.
What does the Minister say to giving a man a chance to sell his premises?
This, I think, applies to both Ministers. It could not be accepted.
It is a little balder than usual, but still the result will be the same as usual. Would the Minister explain?
If the Deputy looks at the amendment he will see that it would take something like twelve months to take over a mill if the Minister thought he should do so. It would take twelve months to get over the provisions of this amendment before he could take it over. If there was any urgency in the case, at any rate, the thing would be very ineffective. It looks like going to the Seanad and getting the Bill held up for eighteen months.
If the Minister does not object to the principle of the amendment could he not shorten the time?
I am quite sure the Minister would allow a person to sell but he would have to approve of the person buying. That is provided for. There is a fortnight's waiting period. During that period if a buyer came on the market I do not think there would be any difficulty about it.
Would the Minister move an amendment to that effect giving a person the right to sell?
The principle of being allowed to sell to anybody has been discussed already. He is allowed to sell to a person approved.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Amendments No. 160 and 163 not moved.
The following amendments stood in the name of Deputy McGilligan:—
161. In page 41, Section 96 (e), line 34, after the word "business" to add the words "but shall not pay to any person so employed a salary in excess of £1,000 per annum."
164. In page 41, in Section 97 (e), line 48, after the word "business" to add the words "but shall not pay to any person so employed a salary in excess of £1,000 per annum."
I presume the Government is accepting these amendments?
No.
This is their own policy.
Amendments by leave withdrawn.
Amendments 162, 165 and 166 not moved.
I move amendment 167:
In page 42, Section 98 (1), lines 2-3, to delete the words "such price as he may think proper" and substitute the words "the best price obtainable."
I think the words in the section are more advisable than those suggested in the amendment. You cannot, under the amendment, take into account whether a person is going to be a good miller, or is likely to run the business properly. I think the section should be left as it is.
If a man is willing to pay a substantial price, that should be a guarantee, to some extent.
Suppose the Minister had a mill, a big combine might be willing to buy that mill, not to close it down, of course, because he could get it back from them in that event afterwards, but to knock a competitor out of the field. It might be much better to give it to a rival of theirs if he was prepared to buy it.
Surely there are plenty of powers in the Bill to enable the Minister to prevent a monopoly. This is not going to prevent a monopoly. The fact that the Minister buys up a mill does not mean that he is going to prevent a monopoly. The Minister should not be enabled by a whim to do arbitrarily as he likes because he does not like the people running the next door business.
It would not amount to that exactly.
It would not be very far from it. I think the Minister should accept this amendment. No person will put money into a mill unless he can run it.
The consideration that a person will work it to the best advantage must be taken into account.
A priori, you cannot decide that. The only way is to let a man work it. That is the only means to decide it.
Personally, I do not object to it very strongly.
Perhaps the Minister will consider it on the Report Stage?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 168:—
In page 42, Section 99 (1), lines 7 and 8, to delete the words "or the Minister for Agriculture (as the case may be)."
There seems to be overlapping in this section. A person might be required to keep two different classes of accounts. There are two Ministers involved.
The Minister for Agriculture would keep the accounts in the manner prescribed by the Minister for Finance.
There is no fear that they would be required to keep two accounts?
There cannot be any disagreement because the Minister for Agriculture must do what the Minister for Finance tells him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 169:—
In page 42, Section 99 (1), line 9, to delete the words "may be approved by the Minister for Finance" and substitute the words "shall be prescribed."
It appears to me, according to the wording of the section, that the Minister for Finance has the right to prescribe the manner in which these forms shall be kept. These forms are vitally important from the stand point of the owner of the mill. It appears to me that the method and the manner in which these accounts shall be kept should be prescribed by regulation in the same way as regulations will be drafted for the purpose of other forms in connection with the Bill.
The Deputy realises that the section applies only to mills run by the Minister?
The amendment is all the more necessary on that account.
There are many precedents for this. Whatever Minister is running the business, he is more or less controlled by the Minister for Finance in the matter of accounts. I think it would be unusual to have the forms prescribed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 170.
In page 42 to delete Section 100 (2).
The sub-section reads:—
"All losses incurred in carrying on any business under this Part of this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas."
The sting of this Bill is in the tail. It appears to me the Minister is not justified in asking the taxpayers to accept his inexperienced and amateur knowledge to run the mills of this country. Similar power may be asked by other Ministers in regard to other industries if this power is given to the Minister for Industry and Commerce on this occasion. It seems to me to be an entirely wrong principle that the Minister should approach the Dáil and ask for power to run a certain class of business in this country, particularly a business, which, the Minister himself admits, is run on most efficient lines. If that business was allowed to run in competition among its members it would continue to be run on efficient lines in the future. The Minister has admitted that it is rapidly becoming more efficient, while it has competition both at home and from outside. It is inevitable, of course, that the taxpayers will have to bear a very big loss in consequence of the powers the Minister is taking if he attempts to exercise them. I hope, for the sake of the taxpayers, he will never exercise those powers, because if he does the State will have to bear a very big loss. I do not want to labour the point. The amendment proposes to eliminate the sub-section which provides that the money lost upon this enterprise if the Minister does embark upon it should be paid out of funds provided by the Oireachtas.
I think it is very unfair for the Deputy not to propose to delete the two sub-sections. If I am not to be allowed to make a profit I should not be called upon to pay any loss. I propose to pay the loss out of the profit.
It is completely unnecessary to delete the sub-section dealing with the profits.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported with amendments.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Ordered: That the Report Stage be taken on Tuesday.
I suppose we may have the Report Stage and the Final Stage on Tuesday. There will only be about half a dozen amendments.
Will the Dáil sit on Tuesday?
The Dáil will only be sitting on Tuesday and Wednesday next.