At an earlier stage, I raised the question of the small dairyman who supplied, say, the local village or small town and who was not a two-season supplier. The practice at the moment is that this supplier would, in the early part of the spring, try to supplement his supplies from early calvers from neighbouring farms.
Committee on Finance. - Milk and Dairies (Amendment) Bill, 1956—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
I made a careful note of the Deputy's observation. Would it be of assistance to him if I made a short statement on the point he raised, which he should then criticise as he thinks best? On the Second Stage, Deputy Moher raised a specific point, into which I took care to look, and have recorded my considered opinion on it and would be glad of his advice in the matter.
Deputy Moher objected to the provision in Section 10 which prevents a registered dairyman from supplementing his supplies from an unregistered source in times of shortage. He suggested that this was unreasonable and that a dairyman at the same time was permitted to supplement his supplies from a creamery. The latter contention is correct only in cases where the creamery to which he goes is itself registered and fully licensed by the Minister and the creamery, like the dairyman concerned, is, under the Bill, obliged to obtain supplies from a registered farmer.
The Deputy further argued that the risk of infection from milk purchased from a creamery is much greater than from milk purchased from an individual unregistered farm. The answer is, (1), that the creamery's suppliers must be registered, and, (2), that, in any event, milk sold by the creamery will be pasteurised. As the whole object of the section is to stop the practice of registered dairymen getting milk from unregistered sources, it does not appear to me, as at present advised, desirable to allow any relaxation of these provisions. If, therefore, a dairyman runs short of milk and cannot supplement his supplies from other registered dairymen in his district, he will either have to arrange to get supplies from a registered and fully licensed creamery, or ration his customers temporarily. In practice, such rationing should only be necessary for a very short period as a man engaging in the retailing of milk as a business should be expected to make adequate provision for the known needs of his own customers.
The Minister's statement is based on the assumption that the available creamery would continue to pasteurise, whereas there is quite a possibility now, under this Bill, that many of them who now pasteurise will go out of business. I can deal with it on another section, but there is that possibility, that the local creamery may not be in a position to provide pasteurised milk and the Minister is then forcing the milk vendor to purchase milk from the creamery, even unpasteurised. Some relaxation must be made so that, in a case like that, the milk vendor would be in a position to make a choice as between the milk producer and the creamery.
I would suggest to the Deputy that he and I would agree that, unless the whole principle of seeking to secure supplies of healthy milk is to be undermined, the right procedure for the milk supplier who finds himself temporarily short is to cut down his customers until he can build up his supply. Ordinarily a person in the liquid milk business knows approximately what quantity of milk he must have every day to meet his customers' requirements. It is possible that a cow may get milk fever, something may go wrong, or a cow may calf in a certain week. Surely the right procedure in that case ought to be that he should try to get another cow. It is not a thing that will happen very often but it would be a mistake to leave the door wide open when, in fact, the purpose of this Bill is to close it as tight as we can without making the situation impossible by leaving the fellow free to go to any neighbour whether that neighbour has his dairy in a condition suitable for registration or not, or again to leave him to go and draw milk from the creamery which, as Deputy Moher says, is much more susceptible to contamination than the supply of one individual farmer.
We who are familiar with the set-up in the small towns and villages in the creamery areas know that that difficulty exists in the early spring and in the latter part of the year. I am afraid that if the Minister wants to seal off completely any attempt to obtain milk from any supplier other than a supplier registered under the Milk and Dairies Act, we will find ourselves in great difficulties at certain times of the year in different villages and towns. The suggestion of rationing is something I would not agree with in a shortage. It would be starvation in the midst of plenty. The Minister should examine the matter and try to make some concession there.
I certainly shall examine it but I do assure the Deputy I have looked into it very carefully and the furthest I can go is to say that if a really serious shortage, such as the Deputy envisages, is possible, I have power to give a special licence for a limited period to a milk supplier in such an area to have recourse to an unregistered creamery. I will use that power but I will use it with great reluctance. I think that perhaps would meet the Deputy's point and provide against the kind of emergency he is thinking of.
Completely cut off from the discussion as I am, I do agree with Deputy Moher that this clause will create a good deal of difficulty in small villages down the country. I know that, but at the risk of being irrelevant let me say that I am more alarmed about the statement made by my colleague, Deputy Moher, that creameries will refrain from pasteurising milk. I think that that is a statement of which the Minister might take very significant note because I do not see how we are ever going to overcome bovine T.B. if pasteurisation does not expand instead of decreasing.
I can see the difficulty to which Deputy Moher refers but is there not also another difficulty, that if there is any allowance given in these cases you will not know where to stop? If a small supplier is allowed at the scarce time of the year to go and get milk from an unregistered source, where will this thing stop ? The purpose of this Bill is to tighten up on this question. If that kind of thing were allowed, there would be no limit and the Bill would be of no use at all.
I think I can reassure Deputy Moher by saying that I have the power to relieve an urgent temporary shortage anywhere and I will relieve Deputy Hughes' mind by assuring him it is a power I shall use only in truly emergency conditions. I think the broad topic raised by Deputy Moylan may arise on a later section of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."
I want to repeat the fears I have in connection with this section. Creameries pasteurising milk at the moment do not pay a differential price for the milk they pasteurise and the fact that there is no differential price means there is no incentive to suppliers to carry out the necessary repairs to premises and the creameries will find their suppliers not anxious to co-operate in so far as a creamery must, when this section becomes operative, obtain milk from suppliers who are registered or who have been subjected to inspection and approval by health and veterinary inspectors. Some of the small creameries in East and North Cork do a fairly substantial business at certain times of the year in pasteurised milk. Some of them have contracts for the supply of adjoining towns and for the supply of institutions and hospitals.
From my own knowledge and from inquiries I have made I have found that the system they operate is a fairly satisfactory one in so far as most of the milk pasteurised is the morning's milk and it is going through the pasteurising plant, at the most, two or three hours after milking. It is only in the case where night milk is pasteurised that you may have a high bacteria build-up. I believe that this section will put many small creameries out of business. It is not an all-round-the-year business. It is a seasonal business for many of them and the fact that they will not be able to induce their suppliers to submit themselves to veterinary and health inspection will deprive them of the source of supply of milk for pasteurising.
I gathered that it will be insisted upon by the health and veterinary authorities that milk for pasteurisation must be received at separate receiving platforms. This will entail a general dislocation. Suppose the creamery manager insists that the milk for pasteurisation must be the fresh morning's milk—it is the safest thing for him—you will have the farmer arriving at one platform with the morning's milk and then going to another platform with the night's milk. It means an extra receiving officer. Whether or not the Creamery Managers' Association will insist that that receiving officer be appointed by the creamery manager, I do not know, but you will have two separate platforms and two separate receiving officers as well. I suggest that the keeping of separate receiving utensils on the same platform should suffice and thus avoid having two separate or distinct platforms. It would mean a structural addition in many instances or a structural alteration in the existing creamery.
There is too much emphasis on buildings. The Minister is aware that one can comply with all the health and veterinary regulations and, at the same time, not produce clean milk. There is an over-emphasis on buildings and, in particular, on cow byres. We know that on the other side, where the whole milk business is primarily a liquid milk business in many instances the liquid milk is not produced in what you might call even up-to-date cow byres. They are now resorting to the sned and open yard and some of the cow houses I have seen would not comply with what we have in mind in this legislation. Nevertheless, they are producers of first-class liquid milk. There are only sheds and open yards in which dehorned cattle are allowed to roam about.
The prime factors in clean milk are not so much the house as the washing and drying and the proper de-hairing of the hind quarters and other parts of all cattle as well as clean habits by those who come in contact with the milk. The houses are not a factor. You can have an ideal milking parlour with glazed tile walls and a highly polished floor, but yet—although, to the eye, it would pass any test—the Minister knows that if milk is passed through pipes or units which have not been properly cleaned or sterilised the milk can become contaminated and have a very high bacteria count.
There is always the question of water. No matter what we may do about buildings, milking parlours or cow byres, the availability of water is a major factor in the production of milk with a low bacteria count. Many of our dairy farms have to put up with water that is far from being ideal. In many instances, water is got from an adjoining stream or river and sometimes from tanks in the farmyard. This over-emphasis on the erection of cow byres and of milking units is not the factor in the production of clean milk that one would think it is, at first sight. To produce milk anywhere, provided we produce clean milk, should, I think, be the test. This section should be redrafted and the onus should be put on the creameries.
The creamery manager is the best judge of what supplier consistently supplies clean milk. I know many instances of creameries which carried out spot bacteria tests on the milk of all their suppliers. I have seen people graded grade 3 and grade 4 who did everything that one would think it reasonable for them to do in order to produce clean milk but, nevertheless, they got a very low grading. The Minister should examine this section and throw the onus entirely on the creamery manager and compel him to keep a record of the bacteria count of any milk used for pasteurisation. Forget about the production of the milk; the final test for clean milk is the bacteria count and not the visible appearance of the cow byres or the milking unit.
You can force the farmer or the milk producer to go to any expense possible; you can insist on his putting up a modern cow byre and spending an enormous amount of capital. Nevertheless, it can still happen that the milk coming from that farm has a high bacteria count. The one and only test the Minister should compel the creamery managers to apply is a regular bacteria check on the milk from all suppliers for pasteurisation.
There is no use in disguising that with much of Deputy Moher's instinctive reaction I have a good deal of instinctive sympathy. I am often inclined to say myself that health authorities will end up by putting us all in glass cases and telling us to grow old healthfully. I do not want to grow old healthfully in a glass case and I do not want to be put in glass for the rest of my life. I would sooner face out into the world. Therefore, I agree with Deputy Moher that you have to lay a restraining hand on the enthusiasts. I agree with him that, no matter how many regulations you make, you cannot provide against human fallibility. I agree with him also that a careful farmer in a reasonable cowhouse will produce much better milk than a careless farmer in a perfectly tiled and superbly equipped modern cowhouse.
We must agree that here we are dealing with the production of liquid milk for human consumption and common sense demands that we fix certain minimum standards. That is all we do and the standards fixed at present are by no means excessive. In fact, if I have any scruple at all it is that we are not drastic enough. We are spending £837,000 this year in giving grants to farmers to improve cow byres and I am faced with the fact that I have a back-log of applications sufficient to absorb a similar sum for the next two years, which, I think, should give Deputy Moher some indication of the general level of cow byre that obtains in the milk-producing areas. We are trying to correct that.
I should like, however, to reassure Deputy Moher about this. He apprehends that, if we rushed upon creameries new and drastic regulations, we might create a situation in which a creamery, having undertaken by contract to supply an institution, a hospital or some place like that, would find themselves under a legal disability to fulfil their contract. That cannot happen because I have taken powers, under Section 12 of the Bill, to exempt temporarily a creamery from the obligation of the Bill. I want to make it quite clear that that is designed for no purpose other than to provide a creamery, in the very situation envisaged by Deputy Moher, with a reasonable time to bring their amenities up to the standard set in this Bill.
Deputy Moher asks why not let the creamery manager draw from the general supply coming in the milk he wants. I think we have got to face this fact. It is not one on which I care to dwell unduly. The ideal thing—and it would simplify all our problems very considerably—would be if all milk going into the creameries in Ireland were pasteurised at the point of intake and, thereafter, separated, the cream going to make butter and the skim going back to the suppliers. The fact, however, is we all know that a considerable part of the milk supply going to the creameries would not stand up to pasteurisation.
That is not a very happy state of affairs, but we have got to face the facts of life. We are gradually trying to step up standards until all milk going to cremeries will stand up to pasteurisation. At present, it is necessary to separate the cream from the milk. Now, we are trying to persuade every creamery to pasteurise the skim before returning it. We cannot take the whole supply, pasteurise it, then pass some of it for human consumption and put the rest into churns and make butter of it. It is not technically possible.
We have got to face the fact that the class of milk suitable for human consumption has to be segregated at the point of intake. There is no reason why a creamery, which sells part of its milk supply at a higher price than it would get for it if it were used for conversion into butter, should not pay the supplier who brings his byre up to the very modest standards recuired under his Bill and other legislation for qualification as a milk producer under the local authority licence some little supplement over and above what it gives for creamery milk. I do not think it would be an unreasonable request to make to the creameries that they should give some measure of compensation to the supplier who gets himself registered under the local authority as a person licensed to sell milk for human consumption.
I have to enforce these regulations. I have discussed the matter with certain creameries already. Does any Deputy seriously believe that I can pretend it is physically possible to enforce these regulations for the protection of the liquid milk supply if the milk to be used in the liquid milk supply is coming in over the same platform, into the same entrance to the creamery as the milk coming in for conversion into butter? If I had an inspector standing on the platform of every creamery, every auxiliary creamery and every separating station in the country, it might be possible, but I have not and I cannot.
A creamery is under no obligation to get into this liquid milk business, but, if it wants to get into the business and thinks it will be of profit to its shareholders to do so, is it not reasonable then to say: "You will need to have a separate point of intake; you will want to keep this milk separate altogether from the milk which is passed for the purposes of conversion into butter; you will want to be able to satisfy the dairy inspector who may make an occasional visitation that there is sufficient segregation; and you will want to show bottling and sterilising facilities for the preparation of liquid milk for sale under a pasteurising licence which are adequate to maintain the standards laid down in the Bill"?
Let us remember that no creamery is obliged to go into this business. There is no public duty on any creamery implied to undertake the supply of liquid milk at all, but it is only if the creamery thinks it will bring more profit to its shareholders and suppliers that it will go into this business. All I seek is that, if they go into the business, they will be expected to comply with the minimum standards that are imposed upon everybody else who sells milk for human consumption.
In this year of 1956, can it be reasonably argued that we should enforce against everybody, no matter in how small a way of business they may be, the existing regulations for controlling the sale of milk for human consumption and not enforce them against the creameries? Those creameries which consulted me as to whether they should go in for this business have all been informed that they should not go into it, unless they are prepared to conform to the regulations envisaged in this Bill. I told them that this Bill would shortly come before the Oireachtas and be passed by the Oireachtas and they would then be under an obligation to comply. Naturally, some of them said they would much prefer if they were not obliged, but they saw it was inevitable and felt that the profit of the trade they hoped to do would justify them in undertaking the proposal.
If I allowed my heart to govern my understanding, I would have much sympathy with Deputy Moher's representation, but, if I direct my heart by my understanding, as I hope Deputy Moher will proceed to do, I think he will agree with me that, if we impose conditions on any individual engaged in this trade, it is indefensibly inconsistent to declare that creameries engaged in exactly the same way should not comply with the same regulations.
The fact remains that any creamery hitherto engaged in pasteurising milk pasteurised only a mere fraction of the total intake of milk. For that reason, the manager of a creamery could afford to be selective, and, in almost all the cases that I know of, the milk was accepted for pasteurisation from certain suppliers. It was the morning's milk. What the Minister now proposes to do means that the creamery manager takes no risk whatever by accepting my milk if I, as a milk supplier, comply with the regulations set out in this Bill in regard to buildings and general set-up. No matter what premises I have, there must be the bacteria test in the final analysis. Would it not be far better that I should supply clean milk from average byres, if the creamery manager is in a position to reject my milk, if it is not suitable?
Under the Bill, all milk from registered producers can be supplied and there is nothing in the Bill, once I have complied with the necessary regulations set out, to compel the creamery manager to submit my milk to a bacteria count. If I do not comply and supply first-class milk, I am out completely. There is the question of whether or not the enormous capital which we lock up in buildings will have the desired effect. I am not in favour of the swing going that way. I would much prefer that, instead of the great lumps of concrete now being erected at enormous expense, we would have open, clean sheds which would serve their purpose better and would result in healthier animals and better milk.
I agree. I have tried to urge on farmers to build sheds with three walls but I think that Deputy Moher will agree with me that the limit of my discretion in that matter is to recommend. I cannot tell farmers that cow byres should only have three walls. I did consider carefully whether I should confine farm building grants to open buildings and I came to the conclusion that I should not. I thought it was going beyond a reasonable limit of what a Minister for Agriculture should do. I do not think that Deputy Moher will urge me on this point. There are a lot of things that we think we know are for the good of our neighbour but the worst thing to be said of any Minister for Agriculture is that he has the right to tell his neighbour that he knows what is good for him.
The second point which Deputy Moher raises goes to the very heart of this whole matter—is it not better to get clean milk than to be pasteurising? I am obliged to say, from the knowledge I have acquired from experience in the sphere of practical affairs, that I must answer "No; I do not agree." If we could attain the ideal, of course, what Deputy Moher says is true. If we could in fact realise the ideal that all milk going into the dairy is aseptic and would remain so throughout the process of bottling and distribution, I entirely agree with Deputy Moher; but I know, as I think Deputy Moher knows also, that to find milk free from bacteria content is as rare as a white blackbird. The moment the housewife takes off the aluminium cap—now that we have succeeded in eliminating the cardboard top which was always an abundant source of contamination— it all depends on her as to what quality of milk she and her husband and her children will consume, because milk can be contaminated inside the house as well as outside the house.
I got into trouble before for saving in public what I am saying in public now, that if I had to choose between the highest grade milk and pasteurised milk in an urban surrounding, I would choose pasteurised milk because I think there is so much opportunity for human fallibility between the actual production of the milk by the cow and its delivery to the potential consumer. Pasteurised milk is more likely to be free from dangerous contamination at the point of delivery than any other kind.
I do not want to dwell unduly on that aspect and I do not want in any way to belittle those who are using their best endeavours to produce T.T. milk, Grade A milk and all the rest of it. I think Deputy Moher understands my point of view just as I understand his. His point of view depends on the realisation of ideal conditions, which, so long as human beings continue to be human beings, are unlikely to be realised in the sphere of pragmatic experience. Therefore, I say to him that I prefer pasteurised milk and I think that the creamery which deliberately elects to enter this business for the benefit of its suppliers and shareholders is not being asked to undertake an unreasonable burden in providing suitable premises for the reception, pasteurisation and hygienic bottling of the product which they propose to sell at a price substantially higher than they can hope to realise by the conversion of milk into butter or other creamery products.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In paragraph (e), line 60, to delete "Section 32 of the Principal Act" and substitute "Section 15 of this Act".
This section contained in the Bill was taken from the Emergency Powers Order which the section is designed to replace but the Minister for Agriculture, let us say, did not advert to the fact that Section 32 of the Principal Act is being repealed by Section 3 of this Bill and is being re-enacted, with an addition thereto, in Section 15 of the Bill. The reference to Section 32 of the Principal Act should therefore have read: "Section 15 of this Act." That is the purpose of this amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 15 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Question proposed: "That Section 24 stand part of the Bill."
I am concerned here in regard to parasitic mange. The Minister is well aware that there is a disease commonly known in milk areas as cow pox. It is the usual sore teat thing. Now, if the treatment of that disease wore to be affected by this clause in relation to parasitic mange, that would mean that at a certain time it would be an offence to deliver any milk. There are certain teat infections which are always treated after milking. This says: "Parasitic mange affecting the udder."
Perhaps I should explain that I am advised that in recent years it has been found that the medication used——
The only one available.
——for the treatment of this condition, when it affects the udder, can be harmful to humans through the milk of the animal. I shall be perfectly frank with the Deputy: I am in no stronger position than he is to express a view on these matters, but the advice I got, medical and veterinary, is that those are the facts. In those circumstances, I think we are bound to forbid the sale of such milk for human consumption, because even pasteurisation may not serve to render it harmless if it is contaminated by a therapeutic drug.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In line 12, page 8, before "classes" to insert "persons or".
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In line 26, page 8, before "classes" to insert "persons or".
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 26 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 30.
Question proposed: "That Section 30 stand part of the Bill."
Sub-section (3) states that any milk which has an offensive taste or smell shall be deemed to be contaminated. That is a very broad definition because it all depends on how one's nose or taste is educated.
Those words are qualified.
It says any milk which has an offensive taste or smell.
"or which..."
Milk can have an offensive taste at certain times of the year. The Minister is well aware that, when cows are turned out to early grass, for a week or so afterwards the milk is anything but palatable. Again, when cattle are fed with certain types of ensilage or on turnips, one will find a very strong smell from the milk and what could be described as an offensive taste.
Here is a matter in which the Deputy is as wise as I and I agree with him that one has to be circumspect, as a general rule, in giving wide discretionary powers without defining them closely. Our experiance is that these regulations are administered usually by experienced and, indeed, sympathetic dairy inspectors. I cannot imagine that such men would turn down milk which had nothing further wrong with it than that it was from cows fed on turnips or ensilage, though I can conceive a situation where a man was so grossly careless that the milk stank to high heaven through the use of ensilage or other feeding stuffs.
If a person habitually feeds his cattle on rank ensilage so that the milk stinks very strongly, if he stores very strong-smelling ensilage in the stable where he milks his cows, the milk would be intolerable from the point of view of the buyer. I shall consider the point if the Deputy presses me on it. If a person comes in to town and buys a bag of onions cheaply, takes them home and dumps them down beside his milk, the milk will take up the smell of the onions. I can think of places where a person would be in town, and buy a paper of fish and, as the Deputy knows, people's capacity for eating fish varies; I have had cases of herrings being left on my premises the smell of which would stagger the nation. If such things are left in imprudent proximity to milk, do you not think it is unfair to the purchaser to have to tolerate it? I do not deny that I can imagine certain feeding stuffs being improvidently used but it would be improvident on our part if we did not make such a provision for such a contingency as is envisaged.
The Minister must remember that there are certain pastures which give what is called tacked milk. I know farmers who cannot graze their animals on certain pastures during certain periods of the year because of the presence of certain types of herbs.
Not giving the Deputy a short answer, how would he feel if two bottles of milk which stank to high heaven were delivered to his house in the morning?
The milk is quite good otherwise.
Oh, perfectly good.
The Minister is looking for trouble in this matter. If he could get some medium course it would be all right. If one feeds kale or other herbs immediately before milking, one will get the smell in the milk and that would be through the fault of the farmer. There should be no sympathy for a farmer who was careless. However, it may happen, through no fault of the producer, that the milk could not be called sweet milk as we understand that term. The whole thing depends on the individual inspector. There will be 200 or 300 inspectors administering the law and they will all have individual views. You will find a few cranks among them and the producer must have some safeguard. This legislation requires milk producers to do what they should do but we should not go too far in that respect. I would ask the Minister to look into the matter again and provide that the producer would not be penalised in cases where it was not his fault that milk had an offensive taste or smell.
If the Deputy asks me, of course I shall, but could we resolve the matter here and now? I am anxious to have the Deputy's help to resolve it. We are dealing with a commodity which is being offered for human consumption. If I buy a bottle of milk from a creamery, it must be, under any canon of law—the Sale of Goods Act or anything else—suitable for the purpose for which it is offered. Supposing I buy milk which has a strong smell of ensilage or of some herbs from the pasture on which the animals were fed, or of some other matter which had been left in imprudent proximity to the milk before it was brought to the creamery, have I not a grievance? I paid for the milk, I got it in the sealed bottle of the creamery but I have got something I cannot drink and something the children will not drink. I have either to pour it into the pig trough or throw it out. If the creamery offers such a product as drinkable milk I think the buyer is entitled to demand of the creamery not only that the milk will not be disease ridden—that is provided for in the subsequent paragraph of the section—but also that he is able to drink it.
It is all very well to say that obligation should not be put on the farmer, except in so far as the milk tastes or smells offensively through the farmer's fault. I am not really thinking of it from the point of view of assigning responsibility but from the point of view of the person who buys the bottle of milk. Is the buyer not entitled to get from a licensed pasteurising creamery milk which he will be able to use?
Guinness often sold a bad bottle of stout.
I am not being personal in this, but if the Deputy got a bottle of stout in which there was a deceased mouse, I think he would ask the publican to render an account of his stewardship and I think he would endeavour to impose sanctions against the publican. If the publican said: "I did not put the mouse into the bottle of stout, I did not ask the mouse to go into it," I think the Deputy would say: "I did not accuse you of putting the mouse in but there is a mouse in the stout and I will not pay." The Deputy would be a very offhand man, liberal and all as I know him to be, if he would not say that. If you got a smell from milk from which you could not escape, that would make the milk all the more unsuitable for human consumption. I want the assistance of the Deputies in this matter, but I would ask them to consider that in this section we are dealing with a problem from the point of view of the purchaser rather than from that of the vendor, and that the purchaser is entitled to get what he has paid for—a bottle of healthy and drinkable milk.
The onus is on the creamery that pasteurises the milk.
Yes. I suggest to the Deputy that it is not an unreasonable provision.
If it is put on the creamery, it is quite all right.
If the creamery manager does not keep that kind of milk out of his creamery, I shall want to know the reason why.
So long as it is not directly on the producer; so long as it is up to the creamery manager——
I am afraid I could not guarantee that the producer would go scathless, but my primary quarrel would be with the creamery which distributes the milk.
But the creamery manager may have 1,000 people bringing milk to him——
He has a duty.
The law should not be weighted unduly against the producer in any respect, because he has all the trouble.
I quite agree.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 31 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 14th November, 1956.