Can the Minister inform us on which day he intends to make the establishment order?
Committee on Finance. - Dairy Produce Marketing Bill, 1960—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I do not think I could say that now. We will make it as soon as we can but the election machinery is cumbersome in some cases.
The election machinery must come into operation before the establishment day?
Of course it must.
Am I to understand that each of the persons scheduled under the relevant section must first be thrown up and that the Minister will then make his establishment order? I should think that he would have to establish the board first and then make elections to it.
The establishment day will be fixed by order of the Minister and will be the day on which the board will take up its duties. The members will have to be nominated by then to compose the board.
What will be an Bord Bainne then?
The election would have to precede the establishment. You would not know who was going to be elected until the election was over. How would you establish a board until you knew who was going to compose it? The reasonable thing seems to me to be that when all these steps are taken and when we know who is going to compose the board we shall then fix a date.
Then the Minister would expect a date some time in March?
Around April.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
On Section 4 I must say that I do not approve of setting up those State-sponsored bodies and giving them similar powers and functions as were given to bodies set up under other Acts. One of my main reasons for objecting is that we have found from experience, that when permission from this House was given to establish these bodies, we were informed that it might be in the interest of all concerned that they should take over the functions previously centred in this House and that they would be much better able to administer whatever authority was given to them.
The question of milk and the disposal of milk and milk products has been a very controversial one in this country for some years past. We have had frequent discussion in this House on the matter and I think that these discussions served a very useful purpose. It is only right and proper that any member of this House should, if he thought it necessary, ask questions regarding this important industry. The Minister has told us to-day that on the passage of this Bill through the House this controversy on the question of milk and milk products will never arise again because no questions will be answered on the basis that it will be a matter for the board.
We must be terribly careful in this House before we give authority to any group of persons to carry out such important duties as are being handed over under this measure. We are told that these bodies are completely autonomous and independent of the House and that they can do as they like without being required to report back to us except for an annual report which will give us little or no right to raise questions in the House.
The establishment of boards and commissions have, up to this, served useful purposes for Ministers and Governments. This is not the first time a board has been established to deal with the problem of milk. There was a previous board under the name of a commission but it had not the power or functions that the proposed board will have to deal with the price of milk. That board was in existence some four years ago, I think. The board served its purpose, so far as Ministers for Agriculture were concerned at the time, because when the question of increasing the price of milk was raised in this House we were told that the commission was sitting and that their report was awaited. After four years the Report was hatched out and we know the kind of chicken we got.
A glugger.
A costly glugger. It cost the taxpayers more than £30,000 and kept the determination of the price of milk in abeyance for more than four years. I think the actual sum was in the region of £40,000 but in any case was not less than £30,000. That was wanton waste of public funds. The Report of the Commission was never referred to by the Minister in this House in any formal fashion. No good whatsoever came out of it.
No.
And the recommendations were never implemented.
And it was never intended that they should by the man who set up the board in the first instance.
It was a measure that kept Deputies quiet for four years and kept the interested organisations throughout the country quiet, awaiting the outcome of the Commission and hoping that when the Report would be available there would be no more problems so far as milk was concerned.
A similar situation is developing at the present time. The Minister would hardly get away with setting up another commission similar to the one that was set up in 1955 or 1956.
1952.
I am sorry, 1952. He has thought out a better plan. He says, "I think we will try a board" and he has given us this Bill and established a Board to deal with this important industry. He has also made it quite clear to us that we will have no further functions in the matter and no opportunity of raising questions in the House.
If the tendency of Government in that direction continues there should be an appraisal of our whole system in this country. Some time ago we established a Minister for the Gaeltacht and a few weeks following the establishment of that post, at the usual expense to public funds, a measure was introduced in the House vesting all its functions in a State-sponsored body. Then we established a similar post of Minister for Transport and Power and at the same time vested all the functions coming within that Ministry in State-sponsored bodies who are completely independent of this House. Now, the Minister for Agriculture is following suit and is divesting himself of important functions relating to one of the most important items in the whole agricultural field and he is now saying, "We will get rid of that so far as the House is concerned and hand it over to a Board."
We all know how Boards are made up. Probably we will get some capable men and fair representation with, of course, a few political cronies thrown in. That is the usual set-up in a Board and possibly the selection of boards in that manner not confined to any particular Government and the political people may be just as good as any of the others. I do not approve of that system and I completely disagree with handing over our functions here as elected representatives of the people to bodies such as the body that it is proposed to set up under this Bill.
We must assume when the Minister feels that it is necessary to set up a Board that he is dissatisfied with the services being rendered by the officers of his Department who are dealing with these matters at the present time. I cannot see the need for the establishment of such a Board. The Minister has just told us that he will transfer the very same officers who are at present dealing with these questions in his Department to an Bord Bainne and that it is the same personnel who will be dealing with these problems, with the addition of the newly appointed members of the Board.
The constitution of the Board would arise on later amendments.
My main disagreement with this measure, which I voice as forcefully and as firmly as I can, is with the setting up of these boards and giving autonomous powers and making them completely independent of this House. That should not be the case. If the Minister found it necessary to establish a board or a body to deal with this question he could establish the board making it subordinate to this House and ensure that any question which might be troubling members of the House would be relevant to be raised here to be answered by the Minister to the best of his ability. I completely and entirely disagree with the establishment of this Board on this basis. I can envisage farmer Deputies in this House in future years raising questions about milk and milk prices and being told that it is not relevant and that the matter is entirely for the Board.
If we continue to hand over powers to State-sponsored bodies, there is no longer any need for 14 Ministers of State and a number of Ministries could be grouped. Seeing that Ministers are not utilising their functions at the present time, in the majority of cases, but are handing them over to boards, possibly the Ministry of Transport and Power and the Ministry of Agriculture could be grouped together.
That subject is not relevant for debate on this section.
I do not want to hold up the House further but I do want to say that I completely disagree that such an important industry as the disposal of milk and milk products should be handed over to a board which is not responsible to this House.
On a point of order, is it not a fact that the Board which is to be set up under the terms of this Bill is a board which has been recommended by the very competent committee that examined this whole question? I should like to point out that the committee was representative of the producers interests and they considered that this solution was worthy of experiment On Second Reading I made the point that the producers have for a long time felt that the experiment of a board is well worth undertaking. What is the point in the objection to the setting-up of a board on the part of producers when they have asked for that themselves?
It is very rarely that I agree with Deputy Murphy but I must admit that because of our recent experience of boards I am in entire agreement with him on this occasion. A stronger case can be made now for making the Board responsible to this House than ever before because we are now imposing a levy on the producers.
They are not. On a point of order, I should like the Minister again to clear that point.
Deputy Wycherley.
Deputy Moloney got a very dusty answer to that one.
A levy is here being imposed on the producers of milk so as to export the surplus produce to foreign markets. That was not the position in the past. The cost was borne 100 per cent. by the Exchequer. I want to safeguard the producers. If the producers have a case to make and if they come to me as their elected representative I feel that I should be perfectly entitled to ask questions here on behalf of the producers if they feel that the Board is not doing its duty. A case can be made to have that matter brought before Dáil Éireann. It would help the board to do a better job; it would help to keep it in its proper place instead of its being so high and mighty that you could not even ask a question. Boards are not infallible. They can and do make mistakes. We want to ensure that this board will not make mistakes and that it will be kept on the right road for the marketing of our produce. This board should be composed chiefly of good salesmen, men who will go abroad and get markets for our dairy produce.
That point might relevantly be disposed of on another section, not on this one.
It could come under Section 4. There is a heading: "Establishment and general duty of the Board." Subsection (3) provides:
It shall be the general duty of the Board to endeavour to improve and develop the marketing of milk products outside the State.
The Deputy is referring to the constitution of the Board which would arise under a different section.
In regard to the marketing of our products, if our salesmen go abroad and contact an agent who is supplying some big firm, not alone should they have the power to sell milk products but other agricultural products as well. If an agent is supplying a big firm in some English city and he wants not alone to buy butter, cheese, milk powder and other such things, but also to buy tinned beef, mutton, turkeys, chickens and he asks our salesman: "Can you supply these?", is our salesman to say: "No. I cannot supply them."
The question of marketing of products would arise on the next section, Section 5.
I thought I could discuss it under Section 4.
Section 4 relates to the establishment and general duty of the Board. The functions of the Board, including the marketing of products, will arise on Section 5.
I shall deal with that matter on Section 5. With Deputy Murphy I protest that Dáil Éireann should be informed of the activities of the Board for which, I have no doubt, we are going to pay. Now that a levy is being imposed on the producers, the producers' representatives should have the right to question the activities of the Board.
Parliament is always supreme.
It is always free until it binds itself.
It can loosen the ties if it likes.
We have an example of that with the West Cork railway.
I did not think the Deputy had that bug, too.
This Board is just as autonomous as C.I.E.
I can understand the West Cork Deputies trying to utilise the matter of the West Cork railway. Deputy Blowick should leave it to them.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
There is a problem here which I do not think the Minister for Agriculture has resolved. When we were discussing this Bill on the Second Stage I directed the Minister's attention to the fact that he had stated in his opening speech something that was not revealed in the text of the Bill. On page 3 of the Minister's statement the various matters the Board would deal with are reviewed, and the Minister says:
I decided to increase the representation of the creamery milk suppliers, this additional member to be specially selected to represent the interests of creamery societies in the production of fresh cream.
I asked him, and I think Deputy Jones also asked him, to show us where in the relevant section, which is Section 8, provision for that purpose was made.
Section 9.
Section 8 is the section in which the provision is made.
Subsection (8) of section 9.
Do I correctly interpret that as meaning that one of the representatives of the cooperative societies must be drawn from one of the societies which is engaged in the present organisation of societies which is exporting cream?
There are three from the co-operative societies and the country is divided into two parts, north and south; the third is designated in the section as a cream representative to be elected by all the co-operatives, all of whom would be members of the Cream Exporters' Association.
Then we shall have three creamery representatives, one from the south, one from the north and one elected by the creameries who constitute the membership of the existing Cream Exporters' Association?
Yes.
Section 5 agreed?
In view of the Minister's very definite statement on Section 4 that this Board will not be responsible to the House, I oppose Section 4.
Section 4 has been agreed to and we are now discussing Section 5.
I opposed the section in my statement and you asked the question was Section 4 agreed. I made it quite clear in my statement that I was opposing Section 4 on the basis that the proposed Board would not be responsible to the House and in view of the Minister's statement that he would not be prepared to answer questions dealing with this Board once it was set up.
The Deputy gave no intimation to the Chair that he was opposing Section 4. The Chair called Section 5 and the Leader of the Opposition then spoke on Section 5. We cannot go back to Section 4.
I understood the Leader of the Opposition was speaking on Section 4.
No.
I made it very clear in relation to Section 4——
There cannot be any discussion on that now.
Section 5 (2) (b) provides that one of the functions of the Board will be to engage in the business of wholesale and retail dealing in milk and milk products. Then the second part of the section says the consent in writing of the Minister must be obtained for trading "in the State". Does the Minister visualise that this board will go into competition with the existing commercial interests in milk products in this country?
No.
I understood the board would confine itself to exports.
That is so.
But this section says "within the State". Surely that has a certain implication.
It has to do with cold storage of butter.
It says "milk and milk products", but does not mention butter.
Really that will not do for the Minister. How can he describe the cold storage of butter as wholesale and retail dealing in milk and milk products?
There is no intention that the board should be free to compete with commercial organisations within the State.
But that is the implication in the section—that the board would be free to compete with wholesalers and retailers within the State.
I cannot see that it means that.
I know to what it refers. Does the Minister want to know? I will tell him. It refers to the possibility of a strike in the Dublin or the Cork milk areas and the Minister wants the authority to be able to bring in milk to both areas to break the strike. The Minister really ought to study his brief before he comes in here.
I could do that anyway. I cannot see this board being used for that purpose.
Surely there must be some purpose.
Not that purpose.
The Minister should tell us the purpose behind this.
It refers to winter sales of butter.
Would the Minister ask himself what is the purpose of retail dealing in creamery produce?
The scope of the Bill should be widened so that the board would not be debarred from dealing in other agricultural produce than milk products should the occasion arise in the future.
But this deals with milk and milk products only.
If an agent of the board in a foreign country could make a deal about other agricultural produce while he is negotiating for milk product sales, he should not be debarred.
That does not arise.
I think the scope of the Bill should be widened to include this.
It cannot be argued here. The Bill deals with milk and milk products and only that.
It means we will have to set up another Board next year to promote the sale of other agricultural produce.
I would insist on having a clarification of this provision in the section which deals with possible competition "in the State". I think the Minister should explain how wholesale dealing in milk and milk products could mean only the cold storage of butter.
I have no other explanation except to say that it must be designed to cover the cold storage and the handling of butter for winter use.
I would ask the Minister to look at the section between this and Report Stage in order to clarify the matter for the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment A1:
In subsection (1), line 28, to delete "nine" and substitute "eleven".
The substance of my amendment is to provide for an increase of the board membership from nine to eleven in order to provide that two additional members would be elected, one to represent the Irish Cream Exporters Association and one for the Irish Creamery Managers' Association.
I appreciate that the Minister pointed out that under a separate section provision is made whereby creameries generally can elect a member who would be specifically interested in the export of cream, but I would suggest that the correct procedure would be to select a member from the Cream Exporters' Association which I understand represents practically all the creameries in the country.
Having regard to the sucess of this association in a very short period of years in securing a very valuable foothold on the British market—something like eight per cent. of the total British sales of cream—a person specifically elected from that association would be a very useful addition to the Board. This association has shown very commendable initiative in establishing this outlet for a non-subsidised dairy product and by so doing has saved a considerable amount of money to the Exchequer. They have given a lead to the other sections of the dairying industry and certainly if the board is now to take over their activities—which means in effect their goodwill and the services they have given to their customers—it would be only right they should be directly represented on the board. If the Minister cannot see his way to accede to this request I suggest he should allow this successful association to continue its exploitation of the market on its own.
In relation to the second part of my contention, I would like the Minister to make room on the board for a nominee of the Irish Creamery Managers' Association. I do not know what views the Minister holds on an organisation like that being represented, but I do suggest that a body which caters for the technical and administrative side of the industry should be represented on the board. I would ask the Minister to accept my amendment in that regard.
I think it very desirable that apart from the producers and those with marketing experience and the other interests involved that there should be somebody there specifically charged with knowledge of the technical side of the business and also with the management and administrative side of it. For that reason I ask the Minister to accept as the second extra member a nominee of the Irish Creamery Managers' Association.
In connection with these two amendments, there is a great deal to be said for recognising in our legislation the success and energy of voluntary organisations that have made a material contribution to desirable economic ends by their own exertions. I told the story on the Second Stage of this Bill—and I do not propose to repeat it—of my personal conversion to the machinery that had been voluntarily set up by the cream exporters' organisation. That organisation, by its constitution, represents practically all the creameries and certainly it represents all the creameries that want to join it and share in its benefits. It is true that it was practically the only branch of the dairy produce industry that was exporting dairy produce without any State subsidy of any kind and making a profit which it was distributing to creameries.
There was a board drawn from the participating creameries who operated this down through the years. The proposal in subsection (8) of Section 9 is that the creameries in electing one of their representatives must choose one from the south, one from the north and one member representative of the cream exporting creameries. That is no more than to say that they should be representative of the creameries because all creameries, or very nearly all, are associated with the cream exporters' organisation.
I think the Minister with propriety could have gone a step further and said that one of the persons to be elected shall be a member of the cream exporters' committee or whatever that body was that actually operated the cream marketing scheme thus ensuring that there would be on An Bord Bainne a member of the voluntary body which built up that measure of co-operation within the co-operative movement and successfully exploited that market for cream in Britain to the great advantage of our own farmers, as opposed to the other system which resulted in serious losses to our farmers when fierce competition beats down the price of fresh cream in this country.
I think it would have been a suitable thing to see that one of the members of that voluntary body represented the cream exporting creameries and it would be a good headline hereafter that where a voluntary body put its shoulder to the wheel and got something done without coming and dumping their problem on the Minister's doorstep, he was prepared to recognise the public spirit and success of their exertions if and when a situation arose in which it was deemed expedient to merge their activities in a larger activity such as is envisaged in this Bill. I think the Minister would have been wise to recognise the identity of the executive that operated that cream scheme and put one of the members on the board in the initial stage.
I sympathise with the view expressed here on the second amendment—I think I mentioned it on the Second Stage of the Bill—that there is a great volume of technical experience and wisdom in the Irish Creamery Managers' Association. It may well be that this process of election will throw up some creamery manager as representative of some of the creamery groups mentioned but I do not think it would have been any harm to have some member of this board representative of the Irish creamery managers who would be in a position to advise the board on what is practical from their point of view and what is not and on the special administrative difficulties that might arise in the event of certain decisions being taken by the board.
We have all had experience of boards functioning and planning to take decisions which subsequently turned out to be in practice impossible to operate. It is not only boards that have that experience; Ministers, managing directors, executives of every kind may often contemplate embarking on a course of conduct which appears to be expeditious and efficient and, perhaps, a short cut and it is only when they consult their administrative assistants that it is pointed out to them that everybody has wanted to do that for years but that it gives rise to this difficulty and that difficulty and that, by the time you have surmounted these administrative difficulties, you discover that the remedy you are now proposing is worse than the disease you are trying to remedy.
That is the kind of advice that I think a representative of the Irish Creamery Managers' Association could advantageously be present to give at meetings of a board of this kind. I sympathise with the Minister in his desire to refrain from expanding the membership of this board indefinitely —and there is that danger. The Minister was recommended to establish a board of eight; he has himself expanded it to nine in order to make provision, as I understand it, for the cream exporters and naturally he will be reluctant to expand it to 10 for the reason that he will say: "If I add another now some other interest will come forward and claim that type of additional representation too." With that difficulty I sympathise but I think the Minister would be entitled to say "I am not giving this extra place to a representative body purely for the purpose of representation; I am giving it because I think it is desirable to have on this board a representative of the Irish Creamery Managers' Association who would be charged, not to speak for the creamery or district he was sent up to represent whether it be the south or the north or the cream exporting creameries, but who would be charged to bring before the board in the discharge of his duty the vocational and technical views of the Irish Creamery Managers' Association with all the accumulated experience they possess.
In short, I am not asking for representation for the Irish Creamery Managers' Association; I am asking for the addition of a representative of the Irish Creamery Managers' Association to the board on behalf of the board itself for I believe that the presence of such a representative would make the efficient despatch of their business easier and more successful.
I do not know that there is any grave reason for discussing at length these two amendments the purpose of which is to increase the size of the board so as to achieve or secure representation for two interests. There are a few things that have to be considered when a board is being set up. One must consider the size of it and the interests to be represented. From those two aspects alone, I think a board of nine is large enough. It certainly looks large enough when one examines the interests each member is selected, or elected, to represent.
With regard to the points made by Deputy Russell, I really do not understand their meaning or their purpose, and neither do I understand some of the publicity and some of the allegations in that publicity relative to the charge that the cream exporters are not represented on the board. As the Leader of the Opposition has stated, I deliberately increased the number in order to give such representation. Having done so, it is not easy to understand why one should be charged with denying representation to them. It is not correct to say that because the election of this representative was not confined to the 30 or 40 creameries participating in the production of cream for export they have no representation.
I made the gesture. All the creameries in the country are at liberty to be members of that association. As far as I know almost 98 per cent. of them are members. All of them, irrespective of whether or not they produce cream for export, participate in any profits that accrue from that effort. Surely it is not unreasonable—I certainly did not consider it unreasonable when I was taking the decision—that they should all be given a vote as to who would directly represent them as far as cream is concerned on a board constituted of nine members.
If one looks at the matter from that angle it is difficult to see how anyone could resist agreeing with me as to the lack of reason behind the case that is being made. I suspect that this case is really a two-edged sword. It is a two-edged weapon. It was made by Creamery Managers' Association in the first instance. As a result of my decision not to give that representation on this board, they came to see me and, in the course of our discussions, we covered this question of the representation of the cream producers and the representation for creamery managers. It was as a result of that discussion that I decided to give them representation on the board for the cream producers. We had long and protracted arguments.
With regard to the creamery managers association, I explained perhaps too briefly, my attitude in that regard in my concluding speech on the Second Reading. I had several reasons for taking the decision I did. I told the creamery managers during the course of our interview that I regarded them as a decent body of men, quite competent in the main but, as an association, they were really a trade union.
May I interrupt for a moment? May I suggest to the Minister, if he wants deputations which visit him to observe a discreet silence as to what passes, is it not only fair that he should himself eschew giving an ex parté account of what did pass between him and the Creamery Managers' Association?
I do not mind.
That is all right.
My standards of behaviour with regard to any group that visits me, either in my office or outside, are those of any man and, if I relate what transpired, it is because I would not mind——
That is all right.
I would not mind if what passed between us was chiselled out on Nelson's Pillar. I have said here on more than one occasion that I have no objection to their being an association for the purpose of looking after their own interests but I could not understand why, as an association designed for that purpose, they were entitled in any very special way to representation on a board which will have in all probability possibly two, three, or four creamery managers. I expressed my dislike the other night of, and my displeasure at, the thought that a board such as this would be controlled by a majority of creamery managers. I should not regard that as as a good thing at all.
Apart altogether from the justice of their claim for representation, there are other people who must be considered. There are the chocolate crumb interests. Provision is made for the selection of such a representative and it is quite possible that a creamery manager might be the representative of that industry. There are comparatively few people engaged in the powdered milk industry. It is possible they might select a creamery manager as their representative. That would be two creamery managers straightaway. It is possible a creamery manager might be nominated for the South or for the North. It is probable that he would secure election because of his being better known than an ordinary person.
This decision was not arrived at hastily. First of all, I met the cream producers and the Creamery Managers' Association. There is certain designated representation for them so far as the board is concerned. The representative of the cream producers will be elected by the members of the association, all of whom will benefit. Why would they not be interested in the future? I have told you of our discussions with the Creamery Managers' Association.
Did I understand the Minister to say they would be elected by the Cream Exporters' Association?
By the co-operative societies of the country. I do not think there is any case whatever. The board is large and representative enough. Not only can they elect creamery managers, but when they make a decision as to whom they will employ to run their affairs, they can employ a creamery manager if they wish. The Association is all right to serve the purpose for which it was established, but I do not think it is entitled to such special consideration as is pleaded here.
I do not know what the Minister meant when he referred to ulterior motives by the Creamery Managers' Association. I have no knowledge of those.
There is nothing ulterior about them.
I have no knowledge of them, ulterior or otherwise. The Minister is, perhaps, better advised on that than I am. I am concerned with the representations I got from constituents of mine in the most important dairying area in the country. In spite of the Minister's remarks, the Irish Cream Exporters' Association do not appear to be satisfied they are adequately represented on this board. For that reason I put down this amendment. Even though the Minister says he has met them fairly, the problem remains that the Association do not regard themselves as adequately represented.
I should like to say this to the Minister. After all, the other interests represented on the Board, the manufacturers of cheese and chocolate crumb, are mainly nominated by the manufacturers concerned, an association of the manufacturers or some organisation representing the manufacturers. Therefore, I do not think it is unfair or unreasonable to suggest that the Association, which the Minister himself says represents 98 per cent. of the interests concerned, should have the right of nomination.
They have that.
Not as an association.
They have.
Then why not write it, into the Bill?
Ninety-eight per cent. of the creameries are in the association and they will elect their representative.
They have it in a left-handed way. It would be a simple thing to write it in.
As far as I know, there are only two creameries in the country outside the Association.
The simplest way would be to write it into the Bill. In regard to the Creamery Managers' Association, I made the point, and was subsequently supported by Deputy Dillon, that the only good reason for having the representatives of the creamery managers on this board would be because of their technical knowledge, administrative experience and their general ability in management of the creamery industry, and not for any other ulterior purpose. I do not know how seriously the Minister feels that this board might be controlled by the Creamery Managers' Association. I should like to say quite explicitly that I certainly would not like to see the board controlled by the Creamery Managers' Association, but I think the Minister's fears in that regard are completely unfounded. I cannot but regard his suggestion as untenable.
The fact that the managers belong to a trade union should not preclude them from membership. If a creamery manager, as such, would be a useful adjunct to the board, he should go on the board. I quite agree the Minister may have his point of view that a board of nine is large enough. If he has that view, that is the end of it. But the expansion of the board by one or two extra members should not be prevented if, in so doing, the board can be strengthened, made more efficient and more competent to carry out the very onerous duties we all agree will fall on its shoulders. If it is not successful, it will be a very big blow to the dairy industry in general. For that reason, the board would be much improved by the addition of these two extra members. I would advise the Minister that the Advisory Committee did suggest that a nominee of the Creamery Managers' Association would be one of the representatives on the board. I would like to ask the Minister to reconsider his decision and allow these two extra representatives.
From reading the provisions of the Bill, I think the Minister has shown very great confidence in the Cream Exporters' Association. He increased the membership of the board from eight to nine in order to give that organisation an opportunity of being represented. To my mind, there appears to be only one difference of opinion. From the way subsection (8) of Section 9 is drafted, it appears the Minister is satisfied that the Cream Exporters Association would have the effective representation intended for them. Reading that section, I think there is some little doubt, which may cause trouble, about the association getting someone competent to represent it. If the Minister would re-examine that, he might be able to clear the matter up for the Report Stage. These people have the representation, but they have not got direct representation. Other organisations have got direct representation, and that is what the Cream Exporters' Association is looking for. The Minister seems to think that the other method is equitable. I think if the Minister cleared up the matter I have referred to, the Association would be quite satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.