Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 May 1938

Vol. 71 No. 5

Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill, 1938—Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to import any commodity in the preparation of which wheat or any product of wheat is used unless—
(a) such commodity is imported under and in accordance with a licence in that behalf granted by the Minister under this Part of this Act, or

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (1), line 16, to insert before the word "It" the words "Subject to the provisions of this section."

This is purely a drafting amendment. The object of the second amendment, I might mention, is to delete a sub-section that got into the Bill by inadvertence.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:—

To delete sub-section (5).

I have already explained that this sub-section got into the original draft of the Bill by inadvertence, and it is necessary now to delete it.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 11 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question Proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."

This is the section that deals with restrictions on the importation of scheduled feeding-stuffs. Would the Minister tell the House what the position will be when this section is passed? So far as restrictions are concerned, will it cut across whatever freedom there has been for the importation of feeding-stuffs?

It certainly does not make the restrictions any worse than what they are. As I explained on the Second Reading of the Bill yesterday, it provides for the importation of certain feeding stuffs across the Border by farmers, and in that respect there is, so to speak, and easing-off of the restriction there already.

Will it prevent the importation of feeding-stuffs across the Border?

It permits the importation of feeding-stuffs across the Border by farmers for their own use.

But there is restriction otherwise?

I wonder will it work out in a perfectly fair way in the long run? If we are to understand that people living in the immediate vicinity of the Border can import feeding-stuffs, what about the people living in the South and the West? Are you not inflicting a penalty on them?

We are dealing with feeding-stuffs that are prohibited to every part of the country, but we feel that farmers in the County Donegal especially are suffering a serious disadvantage because of the freights on certain feeding-stuffs from Drogheda. These place a heavy burden on them. What we are proposing here is to allow them to import certain feeding-stuffs, such as linseed meal and linseed cake, without any restriction.

Will not that affect them beneficially, if you like, to the disadvantage of people living along the West coast and in the South of Ireland?

No, because the price at Drogheda is as good as the price at Liverpool, and they are not at any disadvantage whatever.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 21, 22 and 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Question proposed: "That Section 24 stand part of the Bill."

Will this section have the effect of prohibiting the export of beet pulp?

Yes. It gives the Minister power to prohibit the export of beet pulp.

And the Minister proposes to do that?

I think so. The amount that went out this present season was very small.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 25 and 26 agreed to.
Schedules and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
Top
Share