Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill, 1933.—From the Seanad. (In Committee).
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 1:—
Section 3. The word "and" deleted in line 11 and the words "and maize germ meal" added at the end of the section.
All forms of maize products were in the definition except maize germ meal, which it is thought advisable to have inserted.
Meal from the germ of maize.
Is it used for human or for animal consumption?
In some parts of the country it is used for human consumption, but on the other hand certain manufacturers make a point of advertising it for animal feeding. Of course it will not be again used for animal feeding as under this Bill whole maize is used.
Question put and agreed to.
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 2:—
Section 3. The following words added at the end of the section: "the word ‘grinding' includes crushing, breaking, kibbling, flaking and rolling".
This amendment was inserted in the Seanad for the purpose of making more clear the definition parts of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 3, 4 and 5:—
Section 7, sub-section (1), subparagraph (c) deleted.
Section 7, sub-section (1). All after the word "condition" in line 49 deleted down to the end of the sub-section.
Section 7, sub-section (3). The sub-section deleted.
In the Seanad an amendment was put down by a Senator who objected more or less to Section 7 as the Bill left the Dáil. It was to meet contentions put up by Senators that these amendments were put in. They will have the effect of leaving this section to deal more or less with the permanent characters of the maize meal mixture, taking out what might be regarded as the variable characters which appear later under Section 81.
My difficulty in dealing with these amendments is this: that the precise amendment moved in the Seanad was to delete paragraph (d), but here it is being left in. How the Minister convinced the mover of the amendment in the Seanad that he was meeting his point by removing a whole lot of paragraphs and leaving the objectionable paragraph in, I do not know, and he has not made any attempt to explain it here. The Minister's explanation in the Seanad was that it would be better to leave in what he called the permanent, basic characteristics in this part of the Bill, and to deal with matters supposed to apply to this mixture at time of sale in a later paragraph. My complaint is that the Minister should have taken out paragraph (d) altogether, or alternatively put it in a later section which deals with the requirements at the time of sale.
"At the time of sale" is the point that was emphasised in the Seanad. As I have already stated it was to meet the contentions put up in the Seanad that these amendments were put in. The paragraphs that are taken out now under amendments 3, 4 and 5 appear again in amendment 39 and will come under Section 81.
But in the Seanad the Senator moved to delete paragraph (d) and that is left in.
I do not see why paragraph (d) should be removed. On the face of it I do not see any objection to it. It defines that the constituents of the mixture will be in good condition.
What is the standard by which that is going to be judged?
The case made for the deletion of paragraph (d) in the Seanad is very short. The case was made by Senator O'Rourke, who certainly knows a good deal about this matter. He said:
"It is difficult to determine whether the cereal was clean and was up to the prescribed standard. The quality varies. There is no such thing as a standard in commercial use. It is a matter of personal judgment. This section is much the same as the one about millable wheat. If you compel a miller to do anything for what is commercially sound you will want to have a lot of commercial definitions. The paragraph should be deleted. This is not for human food, but for feeding for cattle. No miller will put anything into the mixture except what he can sell."
It seems to me that the Senator who moved the amendment was under a misapprehension. Paragraph (d) provides that the mixture must comply with this specification: "Any home grown cereal included therein was before being ground commercially clean and in sound and sweet condition."
Who is going to judge that?
I have the feeling that the difficulty raised by the amendment is not one that would seriously embarrass people engaged in the trade.
But a person engaged in the trade raised it.
Question put and agreed to.
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 6:—
Section 8, sub-section (1). After the word "stuff" in line 11 the words "or medicine" inserted.
This applies only to proprietary medicines. It does not apply to medicines that appear in the Pharmacopoeia. Sometimes one sees drenches advertised as cures for all sorts of animal illnesses. These are sometimes not value at all for the prices charged for them.
Surely the Minister is not bringing cattle drenches into a Wheat Cereals Bill?
But a drench is a liquid. Surely the Minister does not suggest that he is bringing drenches into a Wheat Cereals Bill, and surely no liquid preparation is going to be prohibited as a feeding-stuff which is not a maize meal mixture?
Yes. There is reference to medicines in other parts of the Bill too.
Is it conceivably possible that in a Bill to promote the growth of wheat we are introducing a section which prohibits the importation of cattle drenches? I would be glad if the Minister would refer me to a section of the Bill which provides for that.
The Deputy will find a reference to medicine in the Third Schedule to the Bill.
Let the Minister be clear in regard to this Third Schedule. I am pretty sure that I am right on the facts. In the Third Schedule the only reference to medicines is in Item No. 6—Articles of the nature of a food or medicine for internal use. Certainly I read that as meaning articles which might have the appearance of food. I never, nor do I believe did anyone else in the Dáil, apprehended that it included medicines of every kind. It is under the heading of scheduled feeding-stuffs. I would be interested to hear from any other member of the Dáil that he understood that Schedule comprised what is ordinarily known as proprietary medicines in the trade.
I want to call attention to this change as being a very serious matter. The Minister moved this amendment in the Seanad:—
Government amendment: After the word "stuff," in line 11 to insert the words "or medicine."
He explained that in this way:
"The provisions in the Bill are mainly to protect the farmer against victimisation by the sale of proprietary and other feeding-stuffs sold at exorbitant prices."
Where that comes from I do not know because we were left under the impression that the purport and the aim of the Bill were to increase the growing of certain cereals in this country and it was, if ever explained to us at all, only as an incidental and very much a secondary matter, that the protection of people against exorbitant prices was included. However that was the Minister's preamble: "The provisions in the Bill are mainly to protect the farmer against victimisation by the sale of proprietary and other feeding-stuffs sold at exorbitant prices. We have come to the conclusion that we may not have included certain articles that might be sold as medicine, as appetisers or as flavouring agents which would not be regarded altogether as feeding stuffs."
He is quite precise about this: "We desire to have the word medicine included in the section so as to widen it as much as possible." I think he has achieved that last aim but we have got to follow out the repercussions of this. This is the definition section as to what compound feeding-stuff is and we are told that "the expression means any article for consumption by animals which is not a maize meal mixture and which is either"—and then we come to the second paragraph in which the alteration is made—"a feeding-stuff or medicine." Afterwards certain people are prohibited from selling, unless they have a licence, these compound feeding-stuffs. We have it quite clearly from the Minister that he wants to include such things as drenches. In the title we are told that it is an Act "to make provision for the control and regulation of the businesses of milling wheat and other cereals in Saorstát Eireann with a view to the development of those businesses in the national interest and also to make provision calculated to promote and encourage the growing of certain cereals in Saorstát Eireann." I think we have wandered very far from that base in this amendment.
I know what the Minister has in his mind. There was some jade of an itinerant who came over to this country and sold round the country something which he alleged contained a high proportion of cod liver oil. He got 21/- per cwt. for it.
Some preposterous figure from some silly people. However if they were defrauded in the matter of feeding-stuffs they got their money's worth in common sense and experience. They learned once and for all the folly of dealing with tramps who call to sell them a hundredweight of Indian meal. The Minister's request however for power to license the sale of cattle medicines and veterinary medicines seems to be extravagant and to be showing no sense of responsibility at all. Some official no doubt who had heard of this itinerant merchant wandered up to the Minister and said: "Look here, give us some power by which we can have a wallop at him if he comes back."
I met him myself and bought some of it.
I hope the Minister is not seeking this power merely to vent his indignation on him.
I know a man who was sued for the price of it in court and had to pay for it. I urge that this is altogether too irresponsible.
Is this within the scope of the Bill?
That question cannot arise at this stage because the sole function of the Dáil now is to accept or reject the amendments from the Seanad.
The function of the House is confined to accepting or rejecting the amendments from the Seanad, or, of course, amending such amendments.
What was the specific point it was intended to meet?
A bag of meal the Minister bought and did not pay for.
I did not use it; I sent it back as a matter of fact. The instance Deputy Dillon has mentioned concerned feeding-stuffs, but you get medicines in liquid or solid form. I should like to point out that the very day the Bill was introduced cod liver oil was mentioned, so that the point about the thing not being in solid form does not arise at all. These drenches that are mentioned are supposed to consist of oil. If we go from cod liver oil to some other form of oil it is very hard to draw the line. Castor oil may be used in some instances. That is why I say that necessarily the thing must be wide in order to include all medicines if necessary.
Would the Minister refer us afterwards to the section in which this compound feeding-stuff is dealt with?
Section 62 (4) deals with the manufacture of compound feeding-stuffs.
So that for the future these drenches have got to be manufactured at premises which have been licensed by the Minister?
Does the Minister realise the extravagance of these proposals? Why, cattle medicines in the country are manufactured by most people.
That does not say it is right.
Does the Minister mean to say that in future a man cannot compound a drench for his cows unless he is licensed under the Act?
He may if he does not sell it under a proprietary name.
It only deals with proprietary stuff?
It is certainly a new departure that a manufacturer in this trade has to be licensed. The manufacturer of veterinary medicines in this country has never been licensed before.
It is not merely that he has to be licensed but he has got to manufacture on premises licensed in this country.
Under these sections dealing with compound feeding-stuffs, the premises must be licensed and the manufacture of the compound feedstuffs must also be licensed.
I cannot imagine anybody going to the trouble of manufacturing these things except for sale, but the word "sale" is not in either of the two sections to which we are referred. Take the definition which says:—
The expression "compound feeding-stuff" means any article for consumption by animals which is not a maize meal mixture and which is either (a) a mixture of two or more articles at least one of which is a feeding-stuff; or (b) a feeding-stuff which passes in commerce under the designation of a proprietary or protected trade name.
Later on, Section 62, sub-section (4) says:—
It shall not be lawful for any person to manufacture any compound feeding-stuff unless (a) such person is a registered manufacturer of compound feeding-stuffs and (b) such compound feeding-stuff is manufactured (1) under and in accordance with the licence ... (2) and on premises in respect of which such person is registered in the register of manufacturers of compound feeding-stuffs.
The word "sale" has been left out in all this matter.
It seems to me that the proviso, "which passes in commerce under the designation of a proprietary or protected trade name," extends the scope of the Bill far beyond the legitimate purpose of the Bill, and I do not believe for a moment that it would have been allowed to be introduced in this House as an ordinary amendment while the Bill was passing through. Apparently it can be got in by persuading the Seanad to insert it and then brought in here now. I suppose that these words "under the designation of a protected trade name" will protect the veterinary surgeon who compounds a bottle for a sick cow?
Yes, of course. That would, of course, be an ordinary medicine in the Pharmacopoeia that he uses, and it would not come under the section in any way. The import of compound feeding-stuffs and patent medicines is controlled, and the manufacture is also controlled but, in any case, the medicine must pass in commerce under the designation of a proprietary or protected trade name before it could come under this section, so that the ordinary farmer compounding his own medicine could not possibly come under it.
Unless he looked for protection or put a proprietary trade name on it.
What is the definition of a proprietary trade name?
I suggest to the Minister that this requires further consideration. Is he quite certain that it is not open to the dangers we have indicated? I do not suppose that he is going to use it that way, but is it not possible that it can be used to prevent the person who is looking after animals and breeding livestock from mixing his own medicines if they are equivalent to what passes in commerce under the designation of a proprietary or protected trade name and to prevent him mixing these in his own premises unless he gets the premises licensed? I think that the conjunction of the two clauses to which we have been referred indicates that that is the case, and it seems to me that the whole thing could be quite easily met by putting in something about selling. Section 62 (4) deals only with manufacture, and I do not think there is a definition of manufacture in this as meaning manufacture for sale. We have to fall back on the etymology of the word. It is simply a preparation of certain stuffs and, in that event, I think that the amendment widens the scope to a far greater extent than was ever intended. It is not just sufficient to say, with regard to a Bill going through this House, that it is not going to be used against such people. It may be and there is the danger.
It seems to me that, so far as part of the Bill is concerned, it has been changed in the Seanad from a Cereals Bill into an Apothecaries Supply Bill. I did not comprehend the original intention of the Minister in prohibiting proprietary articles in the nature of compound foods, which perhaps, contain some little medicinal preparations, but to suggest that a Bill such as this should be so wide in its scope as to include proprietary medicines such as cures for colic, for milk fevers in cows, of which there are a number, and various ailments of cattle, is stretching the credulity of the members of this House.
I think it is a dangerous thing to do.
I cannot see that there is any danger, because a proprietary or protected trade name surely has a definite meaning. I could not give a definition, I admit, at the moment, but we all know what it is. A proprietary or protected trade name, I presume, is a well-advertised name, and the person who has made a particular medicine owns that particular name, and has made a claim that it is his product, and so on. I cannot imagine that the ordinary farmer making medicine for his own cattle is going to trouble to put a trade name on it or have the name protected in any way, and I think it could not possibly apply to such farmers.
I do not want to press something which is impossible on the Minister. I know what a protected trade name is. It is a name registered in the Industrial and Commercial Property Office in Merrion Square, but whether a proprietary name means that or not, I do not know. If it does, well and good, but suppose you prepare a dose, the constitution of which is exactly the same as a proprietary medicine. At the present time, you have the protection societies sending inspectors around trying to trap grocers in the selling of products the sale of which is confined to chemists. Suppose a man, instead of paying a fancy price for an advertised product, found out what it was made of and made it up himself, I can well imagine that there would be gentlemen going around trying to find out if he were doing that and prosecuting him under this Act for manufacturing medicines which pass in commerce under the designation of a proprietary or protected trade name in an unlicensed premises. That is the definition of the medicine. It is the definition of a certain thing and, if you manufacture that on an unlicensed premises, I think that you render yourself liable to the law, and, if a man wants to prevent you doing that, and if he catches you making an exact duplicate of a preparation which has a registered name, can he not make you liable in law for manufacturing it on an unlicensed premises? I know that that is not what is in the Minister's mind or his intention, but could it not be done?
I presume what is in the Minister's mind is to avoid the tinkering with feeding-stuffs to be sold as medicine, and, if that is so, I thoroughly agree with the Minister.
There are border-line cases like that, certainly.
But that very point is not met, I think. The Minister has put in this word "medicine" in order to widen the second paragraph in regard to articles which are sold at exorbitant prices. The word "medicine" is put in in paragraph (b) but it is not put in in paragraph (a). Supposing a man mixes for himself some medicine like that, which possesses no commercial and no proprietary or protected trade name, and adds something to it, is he not out? I think he is out, so that he completely gets away from what the Minister meant when putting in the word "medicine" in paragraph (b). It will be a mixture of two or more articles and will be a medicine.
I am not envisaging a question of sale. I was thinking of the danger it was to the ordinary person making up his own preparation for his own animals. I think he will be hit under paragraph (b). But unfortunately the man who wants to sell this deleterious mixture can do so for the future if he adds something to it. He is not caught under paragraph (b) because he adds something more than medicine "which passes in commerce" and he is not caught under paragraph (a) because he is not mixing two or more articles at least one of which is a feeding stuff, for sale, that is to say, two or more articles one of which is medicine. So I think the Minister has failed to catch the rogue he wants to, who sells this mixture; and there is a possibility that somebody hereafter may insist upon the Act being rigidly enforced and may prevent a man making up his own stuff on his own premises unless he gets a licence. I do not think that is what the Minister has in his mind.
Deputy McGilligan rather anticipated what I was going to say. It is because of the danger of an interpretation which the Minister did not intend, that we object to it. If the Minister's intention was, as I believe it was, to protect the ordinary cereals from competition with articles and compound feeding-stuffs which might be called a medicine, we agree. If the Minister meant that, he ought to put in the words that would preclude any possibility of misconception.
What about sub-section (a)?
That would include liquid medicines that would not come in competition with feeding-stuffs.
With regard to the point made by Deputy McGilligan, if it is a feeding-stuff at all it comes under paragraph (a), and if a medicine with something added how would a person, unless he gave it some name, when it would become a proprietary or protected trade medicine, be able to sell it? He would have to put some name upon the bottle to sell it.
Suppose he puts a label saying "So and So's famous drench with additions." That would be a proprietary or protected trade name.
I think proprietary would cover that.
I doubt it. Why not leave out the word "medicine"?
A person might say: "This is not a feeding-stuff; it is a medicine."
To which you could reply: "It is a mixture of two or more articles one at least of which is a feeding-stuff." What Deputy Minch means is to add "either" or something of that kind, but you have the answer to that in paragraph (a).
But we do not define feeding-stuff in this Bill.
I understand the Minister's contention is that there is nothing to prevent a man mixing a drench for his own purpose.
Only where it is some compound feeding-stuff. But it is unlawful for a man to mix a compound feeding-stuff in his own house for his own cattle.
If you read the section you will see that "It shall not be lawful for any person to manufacture any compound feeding-stuff."
Would you call that manufacture? We would hardly be so foolish as to institute a prosecution.
It never dawned on me that there would be a prosecution, but you are compelling people to do what you state to be unlawful.
There is the phrase here "feeding-stuff which passes in commerce."
I was referring to another thing which passes as feeding-stuff. The word "sell" is not referred to. It is suggested to me that a man cannot mix a compound for his own cattle under Section 62.
I was reared on a farm and mixed many things myself, but I was never told to put down a manufactured mixture for pigs. It is not a word used at all. This is not a manufacturing process.
Mixing is not manufacturing?
No, it is not, on the farm.
We are dealing with the process. The Minister's argument is that a mixing process is not a manufacturing process, but the process is not changed whether it takes place in a house with intent to sell or on a farm. The process is the same. If it is manufactured in a business house for sale that means manufacture; I suggest it must be also manufacture if a man mixes in his own house, and that is declared in the Bill to be unlawful. I would advise the Minister to think over this matter.
Would the Minister put in the word "sold"? That would get over the private manufacturer.
Yes, for the purposes of sale, that would get over that. As it stands, the Minister is making the mixing process in private houses unlawful. Whether the Minister intended it or not, unlawful it is; and he is asking people to break the law.
Or alternatively the Minister might put into Section 62 that it shall not be lawful for any person to manufacture for sale, et cetera.
I think he will have to do that in Section 62 in any case.
I think it is a small point and hardly justifies the time given to it. This thing about the medicine arose out of the question of a farmer mixing medicine for his own stock. Surely it could not apply to him because, as I said already, he would have to make it a proprietary medicine and also it would have to be passed in commerce as such. Surely a person mixing medicine on his own farm, if he was only mixing it for his own animals, could hardly pass it in commerce under a proprietary or trade name.
Your medicine be on your own head!
Question put and agreed to.
I suggest that amendment 7 be postponed until we deal with amendment No. 37. This, and a number of other amendments to which the Minister objects are practically all of them, I think, consequential on amendment No. 37.
They are all consequential on amendment 37.
Amendment 7 postponed.
Amendments 8 to 15 inclusive, and 17 to 20 inclusive, are all dealing with the one point.
Question proposed: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 8 to 15 inclusive":—
Section 47, sub-section (1). After the word "on" in line 27 the words
"or proposes to carry on" inserted.
Section 47, sub-section (1). After the word "on" in line 31 the words
"or proposes to carry on" inserted.
Section 47, sub-section (3). After the word "on" in line 36 the words
"or proposes to carry on" inserted.
Section 47, sub-section (3). After the word "on" in line 39 the words
"or proposes to carry on" inserted.
Section 47, sub-section (4). After the word "on" in line 40 the words
"or proposes to carry on" inserted.
Section 47, sub-section (4). After the word "on" in line 43 the words
"or proposes to carry on" inserted.
Section 47, sub-section (6). After the word "on" in line 50 the words
"or proposes to carry on" inserted.
Section 47, sub-section (6). After the word "on" in line 53 the words
"or proposes to carry on" inserted.
These amendments are all dealing with the one point. It would appear that, as the Bill went through the Dáil we overlooked one point with regard to applications for registration. In the section as it stands it says: "Any person who carries on the business of importing flour or wheaten meal or both may, in accordance with this section, apply to the appropriate Minister to be registered in the register of flour importers in respect of any premises at which he carries on such business." This wording is carried on through the various paragraphs of the section. They all read more or less the same dealing with the registers, but as the Bill stood leaving the Dáil and as it stands still, we would not have any power to admit a new person although permission is given in the Bill. Under this section as it stands it would appear that we could not admit a person unless he was already in the business. That is all right for the person in business at the passing of the Act, but if a person wants to come in after three or four years' time we would have to point out to him that under the Act he would have to be in business before he could come in. Therefore, to obviate this, we will have to have the words inserted "or proposes to carry on."
Would it be fair to ask the Minister why he overlooks distilleries in this?
Is it purely a personal objection on the part of the Minister or what is it? I am referring to sub-sections (2) and (5).
Sub-sections (2) and (5) are left out in these amendments. What is the reason for that?
It is not necessary for distillers to be in the business actually before they make application.
But why? As the section reads any person who carries on the business of distilling may apply to be registered. It is exactly the same phrase in these two sub-sections that is being amended in the other sub-sections.
Yes, what is the difference? Why is sub-section (2) of Section 47 not amended similarly?
The distiller is in the business before it is necessary for him to register with us. He may be in the distilling business before it is necessary for him to register with us.
Supposing he wants to come into it?
But he can. He need only be on the register with us in order to buy home-grown wheat.
Can he distil without buying grain? Is this merely a reference to wheat?
The only business we have with him in this particular matter is for the buying of home-grown wheat.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 16 is one of those already referred to, which the Minister does not desire the House to agree to.
Amendment 16 postponed.
Question proposed: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 17 to 20 inclusive":—
Section 47, sub-section (7). After the word "on" in line 54 the words
"or proposes to carry on" inserted.
Section 47, sub-section (7). After the word "on" in line 57 the words
"or proposes to carry on" inserted.
Section 47, sub-section (8). After the word "on" in line 58 the words
"or proposes to carry on" inserted.
Section 47, sub-section (8). After the word "on" in line 62 the words
"or proposes to carry on" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments 21 to 30 inclusive are also, I think, consequential on 37.
Amendments 21 to 30 inclusive postponed.
Question proposed: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 31 and 32":—
Section 61, sub-section (1). The words "or cancel" deleted in lines 54-55.
Section 61, sub-section (2). A new sub-section inserted before the sub-section as follows:—
(2) The appropriate Minister shall cancel the registration of any person in any register kept by him upon the application of such person or, in the case of an individual, his personal representative or, in the case of a body corporate, the liquidator.
These are merely drafting amendments, I suppose?
Not exactly. There was an amendment in the Dáil which was not moved. It was felt that the Minister would not have the power to remove a person. It was also raised in the Seanad. Now, the Minister may at any time alter the registration but the word "cancel" is knocked out of the first sub-section, and a new sub-section is added which says that "The Minister shall cancel the registration of any person.... upon the application of such person". He must cancel if the person requires him to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 33":—
Section 68, sub-section (1). The figures "1932" deleted in line 19 and the figures "1933" substituted therefor.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 34":—
Section 80, sub-section (1). The words "under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister" deleted in lines 56-57 and the following words substituted therefor:—"such maize is sold under and in accordance with a licence granted to him by the Minister and is so sold to a person to whom a licence to purchase maize has been granted by the Minister."
This amends sub-section (1) of Section 80. It deals with the restrictions on the sale of maize. If the maize importer is also a maize miller under paragraph (a) it shall not be lawful for him to sell maize to any person. If he is not a registered maize miller, it shall not be lawful for him to sell to any person, other than another registered maize importer, or a registered maize miller or the Minister. That is how it reads in the Bill as it left the Dáil, with the words "unless under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister." Leaving that as it stood, we would have no great control over the person to whom the maize is sold, and consequently we would be compelled to attach very restrictive conditions to the licence for the sale of maize on the importer. If a person imports maize and passes it on to a second person, say, a maize dealer, we would have to put restrictions on the maize dealer. We may find that the maize dealer has been disposing of the maize in a fair and legal way and restrictions may not be necessary. The amendment is that the words "under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister" be deleted, and this portion of this paragraph would then read: "unless such maize is sold under and in accordance with a licence granted to him by the Minister and is so sold to a person to whom a licence to purchase maize has been granted by the Minister."
We need put no restrictions on the sale of maize if the person who is buying it is licensed to take maize. If the maize dealer is licensed to take maize then no further restriction is necessary. As we are working the scheme at present, the thing is rather cumbersome. We give a permit to a person to import maize and put on him the burden of seeing that the maize is passed on to a person who will use it in the way we require—that is, by mixing. That is rather unfair to the importer, because he has to be responsible to us for the person to whom he sells the maize; he has to see that that person will use the maize in a proper way. What would be much fairer to the importer would be to say: "If you import maize and sell it to a person who has a licence to buy maize, you have no further responsibility."
Supposing the importer is one who sells one-stone sacks directly to the public. Supposing the importer imports maize meal and sells it directly to the farmer in one-stone sacks. He cannot do that unless every farmer gets a licence to buy maize meal. Will that be the effect of the amendment?
He cannot import maize meal without a special licence.
Supposing he has the licence can he sell the meal to a farmer, even a one-stone sack? If he has a retail shop can he sell it to the farmer unless the farmer has a licence?
This section does not apply to maize meal at all.
Section 81 is the section that deals with that.
It now means that anyone who wants to buy a shilling's worth of maize for feeding hens must get a licence. Was that the law before the introduction of this new sub-section?
I was going to argue that this does not bring about any great change, but the Minister's statement in the Seanad would seem to show the point that we have reached. In the Seanad he said:—
The Bill, as it stands, does not give the Minister any control over the subsequent disposal of maize. The effect of that would be that the Minister would not be likely to give a licence unless he knew exactly beforehand how the maize was going to be disposed of. If, on the other hand, he had power to put in a condition with regard to the disposal of the maize afterwards he would be freer to issue those licences.
I do not know that he will. He will require now the same information from the person purchasing as was previously required from the person selling.
Certain cases cropped up during the working of this scheme provisionally ... One was that of a person who applied for whole maize for the feeding of pigeons.
And apparently he could not get it unless he had a licence. Apparently he could not get it unless the registered importer had a licence to import maize for sale to a person who kept pigeons.
Under the Bill as it stands we could not grant the application.
That is where I find great difficulty in following the Minister. I thought he could, because he could have attached the conditions to the licence.
Another case arose in connection with damaged maize that was unsuitable for grinding. A person applied for a permit to dispose of it. As the Bill stood we could not deal with that either.
I do not know where the difficulty existed. Whatever the Minister can now put in with regard to the person to whom he issues the licence to purchase the maize, he could surely have previously put in in regard to the person to whom, in respect of a certain purchase, he had granted a licence to sell. I do not see that there is very much difference, but I think the whole thing is very restrictive.
The main object is to relieve the importer from any offence that might be committed by the person to whom he sold maize. The person who buys the maize from the importer can get a general licence enabling him to sell maize for pigeon feeding or anything else for which it might be required.
He cannot sell it except he gets a licence and then he sells it to a person who has a licence to buy. That is the new situation.
I may have misunderstood the Minister, but if A imports maize and mills it, what happens then?
If A imports maize and he is a miller, he cannot sell maize——
If he is not a miller, it is a different thing.
Question agreed to.
Amendment 35 postponed.
I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 36:—
Section 81, sub-section (1). The words "forms part of a maize meal mixture" deleted in line 23 and the following words substituted therefor:—"(being the entire product of grinding maize) forms part of a maize meal mixture or of a compound feeding-stuff one of the component parts of which is a maize meal mixture."
This section deals with restrictions on the sale of maize meal. Paragraph (a) deals with maize meal sold in the ordinary way for human consumption, and paragraph (b) deals with where it is sold under and in accordance with the licence granted by the Minister. Paragraph (c) deals with where it forms part of a maize meal mixture. It might possibly be found necessary to include maize meal mixture in compound feeding-stuffs, and in that case it will be necessary to have this amendment inserted. As the Bill stands it would not appear to be lawful to use maize meal mixture in a compound feeding-stuff unless there were some such amendment as this.
Do I understand the Minister to say that with a ten per cent. admixture of barley and maize both can together be put in a compound mixture?
Why could that not have happened before? I have read the phrase and the alternative phrase several times and I cannot see any great difference. Previously, one of the alternative conditions for sale was "such maize meal forms part of a maize meal mixture," and the Minister apparently found himself impeded to this extent, that if the maize meal mixture was one of the components of a compound feeding-stuff it lost its character of maize meal mixture and consequently the maize meal could not be sold. Is that right?
Is it contended that because you have maize meal and you then have a maize meal mixture and because that is mixed with something else in order to form a compound feeding-stuff, it loses its character and the maize could not be sold just because there is an admixture of something else? If that is so, why then introduce the second point—"(being the entire product of grinding maize)"? What is the force of that?
If the Deputy looks back to Section 7 (1) b, he will find that the whole of it is repeated there. We think it is necessary to repeat it. I do not know but the draftsman thinks it is.
Amendment agreed to.
I move: That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in amendment 37:—
New section. Before Section 82 a new section inserted as follows:—
(1) On the application of a registered maize meal dealer, the Minister may issue a licence for the sale of maize meal in containers not exceeding 20 stones under the following conditions:—
(a) Such maize shall be sold to a person who is the registered occupier of a holding of which the Poor Law Valuation does not exceed the sum of £7, or his agent;
(b) the total amount of maize meal sold to any such person shall not exceed, in any one period of three calendar months, a weight of 20 stones;
(c) a certificate in the prescribed form shall be lodged in respect of the said purchase with the registered maize meal dealer from whom the purchase is made.
(2) The Minister may revoke such licence at any time.
This is a matter that was debated at some length on the Committee Stage. I do not think that the Minister in the Committee Stage really appreciated the situation or really appreciated the burden that he was putting on the poorer classes of the population, especially in the poorer counties, my own included, and several counties in the West of Ireland. In Kerry we use maize meal for making mixed bread. We do not use it for porridge but there are counties—I think Donegal is one of them—in which it is used extensively for porridge. In Kerry, undoubtedly it is used for making very palatable bread. The Minister, in order to meet that situation, allowed the sale of meal in one-stone bags. I do not think that he has met the case made here that that regulation inflicts a serious hardship and a very severe tax on the people who buy maize meal for human consumption.
Everybody seems to have a different opinion as to what that will mean in extra cost to the consumer. The Minister has given us no view of his own on the matter but he is rather inclined to quote the lowest figure he has got from anybody opposed to this regulation. We were told here that it would increase the cost by 2d., 3d. or 4d. per stone, and the Senator who moved the amendment pointed out that the real effect of the packing would amount to 3½d. per stone. Anyone who has seen the bags in which the meal is packed can well believe that. The Minister tried to meet that situation in the Seanad. He pointed out that he did not exclude paper bags for that purpose. It is quite obvious that so far as the bulk of the farmers are concerned paper bags would be quite useless. The Minister might as well have said that he did not exclude tissue paper bags. Undoubtedly this is a great tax on people who wish to use maize meal for human food. The Seanad accepted the principle of the Bill. I think the Minister will acknowledge that they brought forward no amendments that would in any way cut across the intention of the Bill.
This amendment was brought forward to allow the Minister to carry out his purpose on the one hand and on the other hand to lighten the burden on the poorer portion of the population. To farmers with a valuation not exceeding £7 the meal would be sold in 20-stone bags. That does not go as far as many members in this House would like to have gone. But it has gone a certain distance. The Minister is safeguarded there by limiting the amount to be sold to a particular household within a particular period. That is what the mover of the amendment in the Seanad proposed. The Minister did not meet the amendment and the result is that he is leaving a very heavy burden on people in particular portions of Ireland. That is a burden that will press heavily on the people in my particular county. The Minister said there was practically no row over the matter, but he must know that so far as farmers are concerned, no matter what they suffer from, an organised expression of opinion is not what they are most noted for. That this is a burden which will press very heavily on the people there can be no doubt. The Minister cannot say that this regulation will not mean an increase in the price. He may say that the amendment will mean a difficulty in administration. I suggest that it is rather late in the day for the author of this Bill to make objections of that kind now. The whole Bill bristles with complications and I fail to see how the Minister can oppose the amendment on these grounds. It would seem as if the Minister for Agriculture has become the Minister for Public Health, because one of the arguments used in the Seanad was really that the mixture was more healthy than maize.
If Deputy Dillon will read what the Minister said in the Seanad he will appreciate what I am saying. The Minister suggested that the mixture was healthier. On that question I have only to say that the people desire this particular type of food. The Minister, possibly in his desire for the public health, may be anxious to force another kind of food on them. The main thing undoubtedly is that by this Bill the Minister is inflicting a very heavy tax on the poorer portion of the population. The amendment does not go as far as we would like it to go, but it goes some distance, and I trust the Minister will appreciate what it means to the people in a county like Kerry. I would ask him to give this amendment more favourable consideration than he gave it in the Seanad, and to give the arguments put forward there a little more attention than he then gave them. He is inflicting a hardship on the people because of the excuse of the complicated machinery that would be necessary to operate this amendment. That is what the author of the Bill is doing in opposing this amendment.
When this section was before the House in the Committee Stage the Minister gave me an express undertaking that he would introduce an amendment at a later stage in this House or in the Seanad, providing for the facilitating of persons living in my constituency to purchase pure maize meal for the making of porridge and bread for human consumption. My recollection is that he said pending permanent regulations he would arrange for some temporary expedient that would allow this to continue until he had time to consult his officials and set up a satisfactory mode of distributing pure maize meal amongst the people to whom Deputy O'Sullivan refers. Deputy McFadden will bear me out when I say that pure maize meal has been for generations a very material part of the diet of people in my constituency as well as in other Gaeltacht parts of the country. To somebody not accustomed to it, it is not a very palatable food, but there are others who like it, and there is no question of its nutritious quality. The alternative which the people have is to add meal to the flour so as to make bread. This commodity, pure maize meal, is now more extensively used. The Government's policy during the last six months has increased the price of flour in the country by 4/- a sack. This makes the burden all the heavier on the country people.
For the excellent purpose of checkmating Joseph Rank, we have engaged in the business of assisting every miller of this country who is at present battening on the consumers and extracting from them illegitimate and scandalous profits, in excess of what he is entitled to, because he is taking advantage of the Government policy. The price of flour on these very people has been advanced from 3/- to 4/- and, some say, to 5/- per sack by the tender millers whom we have been so anxious to protect from the rapacity of Joseph Rank. The Minister is aware that the economic policy of the Government has pretty well wrecked the market for oats. It has brought the price of oats down to an unprecedentedly low level, while oatmeal is still a very expensive commodity from the point of view of poor people in the western Gaeltacht. Their alternative was maize meal and, thanks to the slaughter of the cattle-raising industry and the other feeding industries, the price of maize meal is comparatively low. They are deprived of the advantage that might accrue to them from that state of affairs by the expense that the special form of packing puts upon them. Surely the Minister will admit that he gave me an undertaking when this Bill was passing through this House that he would deal with the situation that Senator The McGillycuddy's amendment is designed to meet. Does the Minister remember that? I strongly urge him to accept the proposal of The McGillycuddy, as he has not produced an alternative himself. I should like to ask the Ceann Comhairle if, at this juncture, the Minister can propose an amendment to take the place of this amendment or if the time for that is now past.
The Dáil has power to amend these amendments.
But it can go no further than that. I take it that the Minister has no alternative scheme to propose or he would have mentioned it. In that event, I urge him most strongly on behalf of the poorest section of the community, a section of the community which is suffering gravely as a result of the added cost of flour which profiteering millers are extracting from them and the comparatively high cost of oatmeal as compared with the cost of maize meal which they were in the habit of using—I urge him most strongly to accept this proposal and make this comestible available to the people at the cheapest price possible. I remind him that he gave an undertaking to do that when the Bill was passing through here. It was on the strength of that undertaking that Deputy McMenamin and I withdrew our opposition and allowed that stage of the Bill to pass without further obstruction. I should like to hear Deputy McFadden, whose knowledge of the Gaeltacht is, of course, particularly exhaustive, confirm me in saying that this article of food is of paramount importance to the people whom he and I represent. There is no use in looking to the Fianna Fáil Party for a representative of Donegal. Though they have more members representing Donegal than any other Party in this House, none of them is here. If they were here, where they ought to be, they would be able to defend their own people's interest in respect of this matter. Deputy Brady, Deputy Hugh Doherty and Deputy Neal Blaney are in touch with areas in which the people are hard hit by the position which this amendment is designed to correct.
If there was not so much waste of time, they would, perhaps, be here.
It might be better if Deputies interested in this question were present and if members not interested stayed outside.
I do not see the necessity for this amendment at all. The Bill, as it stands, gives just as much power to the Minister as he would have if the amendment were accepted. This amendment and the amendments leading up to it make provision for the preparation of a register of maize dealers. These maize dealers would, according to this amendment, make application to the Minister for the issue of licences for the sale of maize in containers not exceeding 20 stone under certain conditions. I do not want to find fault with the way this amendment is drafted because if I had intimated to the Senator concerned that the amendment was good in principle but that the drafting might be changed, the form could have been made right. But, apart from the drafting, the amendment would include everybody with a holding under £7 valuation. Leaving out the towns and having regard only to the rural population, that would mean about 280,000 holders. If each of them were to get 20 stone of maize every three months, it would mean practically half the entire import of maize.
What on earth would all these people get 20 stone of maize for?
I do not know but that is what the amendment wants.
The only people who would get it would be people who wanted to eat it.
Even that amount could be exceeded, because there would be nothing to prevent a consumer going to the sergeant of a Gárda Síochána barrack and getting a certificate and then going to the next barrack and getting another certificate. He could then go round and do a very good trade in the selling of this maize meal for other purposes, if necessary. Leaving these matters aside and assuming that the amendment would work smoothly and well if it were confined, say, to the districts of Kerry and Donegal and those other districts where maize has been used as human food, there is nothing in the amendment to give any more power to the Minister to do what it seeks than there is in the Bill as it stands. Take Section 81 (1) (b) which says: "It shall not be lawful for any person to sell any maize meal unless.. such maize meal is sold wholesale by a registered maize miller and such maize meal is sold under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister." That, in itself, gives the Minister power to grant a licence to the dealer to sell an unlimited quantity.
If you take Section 81 (1) (a) you will find that it shall not be lawful to sell maize meal unless it is intended for human consumption, is sold in a package secured in the prescribed manner and the weight of maize meal in such package does not exceed the prescribed weight. If we like we can, under this Bill, prescribe that that package of pure maize meal shall be 20 stone. We could even go further than this amendment would allow us to go because, under this amendment, the consumer would have to go to the Gárda Síochána barracks and buy from a registered maize dealer whereas, as the Bill stands, we can, when we get going, if we find it necessary in a certain district in Kerry or Donegal to make this less restrictive—we can, if we wish, allow pure maize meal to be sold in eight-stone sacks or 20-stone sacks. As the Bill stands there is nothing to prevent us doing that and the amendment is altogether unnecessary. In fact, as I say, it is more restrictive than the Bill. The amendment gives the option to the Minister to do it and the Bill as it stands gives the option to the Minister and the whole thing is whether the Minister will do it or not. I did say to Deputy Dillon and other Deputies on one stage of the Bill that I would make it possible for the Minister to issue licences for the sale of pure maize meal in larger bags than one stone. That has been done. Section 81 (1) (a) (iii), as the Bill was originally introduced, tied us to the one-stone package, but now it says "the weight of maize meal in such package does not exceed the prescribed weight or, if no weight is for the time being prescribed, one stone." It will stand at one stone until we make regulations changing that.
Can you make regulations for each district under that or must they be national?
Under paragraph (b) we certainly can make differences regionally. I think regulations of the type mentioned in Section 81 (1) (a) (iii) would have to be general. I am not really sure of that, but under (b) the exceptions can be made. The whole point anyway is that the amendment is not necessary. If Deputies want to make the point of having this pure maize meal sold in larger packages it is really a matter to try and impress on whatever Minister may be there that it is necessary. I tried to find out some time ago through some of our inspectors what the position really was in the County Kerry, because I know that in County Kerry they use mixed meal bread very largely. It is used, I suppose more largely than any other type of bread in the County, and I was wondering if this maize meal mixture had been a great hardship upon them. The result of my inquiries was that it is very difficult to say whether there is much increase in price, because the big majority of people, at any rate, are buying the mixture. That is, they are buying maize with oatmeal mixed.
The Minister is aware that it is not oatmeal that is mixed with maize. It is ground oats.
That is a different proposition.
They are using the ground kernels. The hulls are removed in some cases.
Not in all cases. In this particular case, where the meal is used for human consumption, I had several samples sent to me by a miller who was interested, showing the mixture of maize meal with ground kernels, and a comparative sample of pure maize meal sold for human consumption, and defying anyone to say which was one-part oats and which was not. With the eye you could not tell. People appear to be either deceived or satisfied—I do not know which—but they appear to be buying the mixture in the great majority of cases.
What do you want them to do? Hold public meetings?
The point is that the pure maize is there in the stone bags, and if it is dearer—I am sure it is dearer— than it would be in cwts. under the old system, they are not buying it. They are buying the mixture instead.
It is not costing them anything more.
If they cannot afford white bread.
I did make the point in the Seanad that neither was it costing them anything in health; that the oats were certainly as healthy, if not more healthy. Since I practised medicine a great deal has arisen about vitamins. I am told that the vitamins are much better in oats than in maize. Apart from the feeding value, they have the extraordinary benefit of these vitamins in the oats above the maize.
Might I remind the Minister that vitamins are also more fully present in cod liver oil? I do not know whether he would like to take cod liver oil with his tea or that people would like to use oat husks. I suggest that the Minister should pour cod liver oil over his porridge.
I do not require vitamins.
Unfortunately the people on the rocky shores of Donegal do.
Anyway I think the thing may be summed up by saying that the amendment does not improve the Bill in the slightest. The argument made for the amendment is that the Minister should be more lax in the regulations and allow more pure maize to be distributed. That is a different point. The amendment will not get that for them any more than the Bill.
It is quite obvious that if the Minister wanted to meet the argument he could have amended this amendment to make it absolutely clear. I am quite sure that that was in the mind of the mover of the amendment. I think it was even pointed out in the Seanad in connection with this Bill that the word "may" means "shall" very often. Whether it means "shall" here I should not like to say. It is quite obvious, however, that the idea was to make it in normal cases compulsory on the Minister to do this. That was the purpose of the amendment. If the Minister agreed with the case made, he could have seen that that purpose was carried out and got it re-drafted to that effect. He has not met the case that that is what is behind the amendment. He may have verbal objections to the amendment.
The experience we have had of the Minister makes it all the more necessary for us to press the amendment. He says that all that will be necessary is to impress it on the Minister, whoever he may be. A certain amount of time has been spent trying to impress this on the Minister, but so far as the experience of Deputies who have dealt with this is concerned I do not know that trying to impress it on the Minister has made him anything but more obstinate in determining to inflict this hardship on the people. Some people may buy the mixture. If the mixture is 3½d. cheaper they will naturally buy it, especially at the present time, but that is no proof that they want to do it. One of the most palatable breads that I know of is the mixed bread and they like it. Really it is quite obvious from the whole tone of the Minister that this thing cannot be left in the hands of the Minister to use the discretion that he has if he wishes. Our difficulty is that it is quite clear that the Minister is not going to wish to make this concession. The Minister says that this amendment practically restricts his liberty to do what we want, but he has shown no inclination to do what we want, or even to appreciate the argument put up against the provisions in the Bill. It is obvious even from the speech he has now made that putting the case clearly to him in the House has not had any effect. It is obvious that there is no other method of convincing him to allow the 10-stone or 20-stone bags. The meal is put up in these one-stone bags costing anything from 2d. to 3d. I do not know what it costs, but in the County Kerry, as was pointed out in the Seanad, it meant an increase of 3½d per stone on the same article. That is actually the price there. Probably in some places it may mean more. When this matter was being debated before some Deputies said that the bags would cost at the rate of 3d. It is quite obvious that the last thing the House ought to do is to leave it optional to the Minister. The only thing we can do is press this amendment in the hope of making it compulsory. If the Minister does not accept the amendment but will change the word "may" into "shall" we will be quite willing to do that, and it will effect our purpose.
Will the Minister give an undertaking now that in the areas of Kerry and Donegal he will give the people the right to purchase by licence cwt. bags? I would be content if he would give an undertaking that, in those areas where he really does know that the thing was actually an habitual article of human food, he will use the powers he has under the Bill to make available for those people licences to buy pure maize meal in quantities of one cwt. I think the Deputy might then consider withdrawing his objection to the Minister's attitude on Senator The McGillycuddy's amendment, because I believe if the Minister would say now that he intends to make this meal available under licence in cwt. bags to the people in those areas the real evil of the present situation would be overcome. I am quite satisfied that if he gives that undertaking regulations will be made at the earliest possible moment.
On a previous stage of the Bill, probably on the Report Stage, Deputy Cosgrave pressed me very hard on this very point which Deputy Dillon has raised now. I said that we were putting in this sub-paragraph which I have quoted here, 81 (1) (b), so that we would have power, if we thought well at some future period, to enlarge the size of the bag of pure maize. Deputy Cosgrave asked when did we think we would consider the point. I think he brought me down to a period of six months hence. I said that as soon as we got the Bill working, as soon as we got all the regulations going and everything was in full swing so that we could see how the Bill was working in those areas, we would get our agricultural overseers in those areas, particularly in Donegal and Kerry, to give us a very full and impartial report on the whole matter of the consumption of pure maize, and we would then consider the question whether we could in certain areas enlarge the size of the bag. I can promise to do that.
To consider the report of our overseers.
Surely the Minister may go so far as to say that where of his own knowledge he knows—I will not bring him to Donegal on this point, but he admits that he knows that in Kerry the thing is a popular practice—
I can assure the Minister, and Deputy McFadden can assure him, that in West Donegal it is quite as common.
All I ask the Minister to do is to say that in those areas he will give the people permission to buy a cwt. at a time. The cwt. bag is available in the mill; no extra cost will be involved, and the difficulty will be overcome. No other Deputy is here prepared to state his authority that there is this consumption of Indian meal in any other part of the country. Deputy O'Sullivan is here for Kerry and I am here for Donegal, and the Minister knows that in both those areas there is that consumption. Surely he could say that in regard to those areas at any rate he will try the experiment for a while at least, and provide permits for people to buy cwt. bags. If the concession embarrasses the administration of the Act he can withdraw it. I am perfectly certain that if the Minister came to the House and said it would mean the breakdown of the Act neither Deputy O'Sullivan nor myself would find fault with its withdrawal. All we ask is that he would give an undertaking that in those areas he would make this concession, even if it is only an experiment. He could then survey the whole matter, and make up his mind in respect of the rest of the country at his leisure.
I think what I have said is the most I can be expected to promise, and that is to get the impartial reports of our own agricultural overseers in those two counties on the working of this scheme—it has been working in a provisional way for the last six or seven months—as to what, if any, is the extra cost inflicted on the poor classes in the small holdings, and over what areas the people are affected. Having got those reports I undertake to act on them, and on whatever general recommendations may be contained in them.
You undertake to act on the reports of responsible officers whom you would appoint for the purpose of making investigation?
I presume the Minister has already had reports, and we see the result of them. I would be quite satisfied if the Minister would give a definite promise—shall I use his own phrase?—"to think well of the matter." I wish he would think well of the matter, and give a definite promise that cwt. bags would be available in those particular cases.
Surely it would not jeopardise the success of the Act if the Minister experimented in two restricted areas, gave this facility and tried it out there? It could not possibly jeopardise the administration of the Act, and would give him the information which he proposes to collect in a hypothetical kind of way from his overseers. Let him make the experiment in those two areas, and if there is not much demand for the Indian meal, or if he finds that the concession cuts across the wheat policy, then let him withdraw it and give his reasons. I do not believe anybody is going to be unreasonable, or misrepresent the matter. It would be a gesture towards those people which would be appreciated; it could not do much harm, and might bring very great advantage to those people, who are the least vocal in the whole country. They are not going to raise a row; if the truth were known, they do not know very well why it is they cannot get Indian meal at the present time. They are not conversant with the conditions of the Wheat Bill; all they know is that from their customary suppliers their requirements are not to be had. I suggest to the Minister that he let permits be issued in any manner he likes—say through the Civic Guards—which would make them readily available to the people in those restricted areas.
Question put: "That the Committee disagree with the Seanad in amendment 37."
The Committee divided: Tá, 68; Níl. 43.
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Clery, Micheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Doherty, Joseph.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Houlihan, Fatrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Norton, William.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Fatrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
- Anthony, Richard.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Holohan, Richard.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
That disposes of amendments 7, 16, 21 to 30, 35 and 38.
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 39:—
New section. Before Section 82 a new section inserted as follows:—
82.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any registered maize miller to sell or offer for sale any maize meal mixture unless such maize meal mixture complies with the following specifications, that is to say:—
(a) oats (if any) included therein is, if an order under sub-section (3) of this section is not then in force, in one or other of the following forms, that is to say, the entire product derived from grinding oats or the entire product derived from grinding the kernels only of oats, or, if any such order is then in force, in the form required by such order,
(b) the amount by weight of oats (if any) included therein in the form of the entire product derived from grinding oats does not exceed the prescribed percentage of such maize meal mixture.
(c) in case such maize meal mixture does not include any oats or includes any oats in the form of the entire product derived from grinding oats, the amount by weight of the product derived from grinding maize included therein does not exceed the prescribed percentage of such maize meal mixture,
(d) in case such maize meal mixture includes any oats in the form of the entire product derived from grinding the kernels only of oats, the amount by weight of the product derived from grinding maize included therein does not exceed the appropriate prescribed percentage of such maize meal mixture.
(2) The Minister in making regulations in relation to the percentage referred to in paragraph (d) of the immediately preceding sub-section as prescribed shall, by reference to the quantity of oats contained in maize meal mixtures to which the said paragraph (d) applies, divide such maize meal mixtures into such and so many classes as he may think proper, and shall prescribe different percentages in respect of different classes, and the percentage so prescribed in respect of any such class shall for the purposes of the said paragraph (d) be the appropriate prescribed percentage in relation to every maize meal mixture which belongs to such class.
(3) The Minister may from time to time by order require any oats included in a maize meal mixture to be in the form of the entire product derived from grinding the kernels only of oats.
(4) The Minister may by order revoke any order previously made by him under the immediately preceding sub-section.
(5) If any registered maize miller acts in contravention of this section such registered maize miller shall be guilty of an offence under this section and be liable on summary conviction thereof to the penalties mentioned in Part I of the Schedule to this Act.
This is the amendment that was referred to earlier when we were discussing amendments 3, 4, and 5. Certain paragraphs that were taken out of Section 7 come back here under this new section. Paragraph (b) provides that if the kernels of oats are used then they can be used in the proportion by weight that the whole oats would yield. That is to say, that if we prescribe a 10 per cent. mixture and if we take it that the kernels of the oats would be 70 per cent. of the whole oats, then we would prescribe 10 and 90 of maize, and the kernels would be 7 and 93. Sub-section (2) of the new section makes provision for classes of mixtures. If we were to allow the whole oats and kernels to be used in the one mixture it would be very difficult to make regulations following these out. Power is taken here to take two classes. Sub-section (3) gives the Minister power to prescribe the kernels only at some future time. The reason for that is that on expert advice we are told that if a mixture contained more than 20 per cent. whole oats it would not be suitable for the feeding of small pigs or animals with delicate digestions. In the case of cattle whole oats would be quite all right up to a 90 per cent. mixture, but in the case of small pigs it should not be more than 20 per cent. There is a possibility that means will be found for taking the hulls from the oats at very low cost. There are machines on the market which are almost perfected. It is claimed that these machines will be able to do the work at low power and at very small cost. If we find that the millers are satisfied that these machines are successful for the purpose, then at some future time we may prescribe that only kernels will be used. Sub-section (4) simply gives the Minister power to revoke any Order previously made by him.
Question put and agreed to.
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 40 and 41:—
Section 83, sub-section (1), after the word "percentage" in line 46 the words "(if any)" inserted.
Section 83, sub-section (2), after the word "percentage" in line 49 the words "if any)" inserted.
Section 83 deals with moisture and fibre in maize meal mixture. During the discussion of the Bill in the Dáil Deputy Dillon was rather keen on the point about the moisture. After some discussion this new section was put in. It may not be necessary, we think, to operate this section, at least in the case of fibre, unless we find at some future time that there are some grave abuses under the mixing scheme. It may be necessary to operate perhaps the moisture part at a future date, but the section as it stands would compel us to operate both from the very commencement. Therefore, we are proposing here to insert the words "(if any)" so that we can operate the Act, when passed, without prescribing the percentage moisture or fibre, at least for some time, until we get the necessary experience to say what the percentage should be.
Question put and agreed to.
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 42 and 43:—
Section 90, sub-section (1). After the word "substance" in line 28 the words "(other than an excepted article)" inserted.
Section 90. A new sub-section added at the end of the section as follows:—
"(4) Each of the articles specified in sub-paragraphs (b) to (w), both inclusive, of paragraph 7 of the Third Schedule to this Act shall be an excepted article for the purposes of this section, but if the Minister makes an order declaring that any of the said articles shall be a scheduled feeding-stuff for the purposes of this Part of this Act, the article to which such order relates shall cease to be an excepted article for the purposes of this section."
An "excepted article" is defined in amendment 43. If we did not bring in amendment 43 the restrictions on the importation of stall feeding-stuffs would apply to cotton seed in grain because cotton seed in grain would be used for, say, the manufacture of cotton seed meal. Therefore, the amendment is necessary.
Is the Minister satisfied that with all the exceptions mentioned amendment 43 will be workable? There are four or five negatives in the amendment until, ultimately, there is a reference to the schedule in which there is also an exception. Again, there is an exception to that.
I think that has been attended to.
Why does the enumeration start from (b) to (w)? I presume there is a reason for it, but I would like to know it.
This section deals with all the articles except those under (a). These articles have been dealt with in previous sections.
Question put and agreed to.
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 44:—
Section 91, sub-section (2). After the word "feeding-stuff" in line 4 the words "or any substance used in the preparation of any scheduled feeding-stuff" inserted.
Section 90 deals with the restrictions on the importation of scheduled feeding-stuffs and Section 91 deals with import licences. Section 90 already includes these words "or any substance used in the preparation of any scheduled feeding-stuff" but it would appear that when we come to the issue of import licences, we have not included these words.
Question put and agreed to.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Agreement with Seanad on amendments 1 to 6 inclusive, 8 to 15 inclusive, 17, 20, 31 to 34 inclusive, 36, 39 to 44 inclusive, and disagreement on amendments 7, 16, 21 to 30 inclusive, 35, 37 and 38, reported.
Report agreed to.
Message ordered to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.