Public Business. - Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Bill, 1932—Committee.
Sections 1 to 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
(1) The Minister may serve notice in writing on any person who manufactures butter for sale requiring such person to pay to the Minister not later than the seventh day after the expiration of the levy month specified in such notice and every subsequent levy month on all butter (other than butter in respect of the manufacture of which a levy is required to be paid by or under any other provision of this Act) manufactured by him during such levy month, a levy at the general rate in force at the time of manufacture.
I move amendment 1:
Section 12, sub-section (1). After the word "person" in line 7 to insert in brackets the words "(other than a person who manufactures farm butter)."
The object of the amendment is quite clear and is to exclude the manufacturers of farm butter from the liability to pay a levy on the butter made by them. It is very difficult to distinguish the dividing line between farm butter and factory butter. Farm butter becomes factory butter when sold either to a factory or to a butter trader, and as the great bulk of butter manufactured on the farms is sold to butter traders, it is quite obvious that the levy on farm butter will have to be paid through the butter factory or through the butter trader. There will be practically no loss to the revenue. This section, which gives the Minister power to serve a notice on the manufacturers of farm butter, is not mandatory; it is optional, and I think the effect on the manufacturers of farm butter of putting this section into force should be very carefully considered. The manufacturers of farm butter have their difficulties as well as the farmers who supply the creameries. It would, I think, be very bad policy for the Government to antagonise the farmers who are making butter. I do not know what attitude the Minister will adopt towards this amendment, but I have been asked by several people who are engaged in the manufacture of farm butter to protest against the hardship and inconvenience they will be subjected to if they have to pay a levy on the butter produced. They are quite satisfied to be left as they are and to take the market price of the day. They fear that the Minister, by his regulations, may compel them to keep accounts and to furnish returns of the quantity of butter made by them, the people to whom they sold it and whether the levy was paid or not. I observe by a subsequent section that the levy paid on farm butter sold to a factory or butter trader may be refunded, but that is a very roundabout way of dealing with the matter. The Minister will have to be satisfied in connection with that provision, and the section does not state the method by which the factories are to prove to him that the farmers have already paid. Under all the circumstances, it would be more desirable that the farmers making their own butter should be excluded. The levy on their butter will be paid by the butter trader, and only a very small portion of their butter will be sold retail by them.
I support the amendment. I think it is a very necessary amendment to the Bill.
Section 12 docs, it is true, give us power to serve notice on any farmer who manufactures farm butter and make his subject to the levy. It also deals with other people with whom we are not concerned in this amendment —such as unregistered butter factories and those who sell butter on commission. We have no intention of compelling farmers in general to pay this levy. The butter inspectors we have are very fully occupied and have quite a good deal of work to do in connection with the Dairy Produce Act. The most we could expect from the staff we have would be to look after the creameries, the factories and a certain number of unregistered buyers. We have no intention of going down to the farmer. There is, however, the possibility that a large farmer having 50 or 60 cows—I do not think it could happen in a case smaller than that— who is at present supplying a creamery or selling his butter to a wholesale merchant for a factory, if he thought that by manufacturing the butter himself and selling it he would get a benefit of 4d. without having to contribute the 2d. levy, would be tempted to go into the business on his own. In that case we considered that it would be unfair to the factory or the creamery concerned, as the case might be. We are not anxious to injure any existing business whether it is that of a creamery, a factory or a wholesale buyer. We would like to be in a position to protect such people in their business and to prevent that big farmer from leaving them in order to get benefits which we did not mean he should get under this Bill. I can hardly see at the present time any case where it would apply. I would, however, be very anxious to have this power in this Bill so that I could apply it if necessary. I would like to disabuse the minds of Senators who have spoken, or any other Senator who may think, like Senator Linehan, that there is any danger in this. I think there is no danger whatever that farmers will be victimised under this, but, as I say, I would like very much to have the power to apply it in the case of a very large farmer where he might appear to us to be taking an undue advantage of this Bill. I would ask Senator Linehan to accept that assurance and to withdraw his amendment.
Senator Linehan's suggestion brought to my mind a rather interesting point. He suggested, in advancing his argument for the amendment, that farmers would much prefer not to have heard about any bounty Bill at all than to have the Bill under present circumstances. I would like to point out that the price of butter would be certainly 4d. a pound less than if they had to pay the levy, that the farmer would be getting 2d. per pound less than he would be getting at the present time, and surely it is hardly practical to think that farmers would prefer to compete in a market other than the controlled market we have here to-day. Consequently, even though there was a levy on the farmers—and this is apart altogether from the amendment—they are still gaining, as a result of this Bill, 2d. per pound more than the world's market price. I think, consequently, that there would be no hardship at all on the farmer who is producing butter at the present time. He has a net advantage of 2d. a pound at the very least, and I think the amendment, so far as I can judge it, from a personal point of view, would tend to complicate matters, and I do not think it advisable that it should be gone on with.
I think that Senator MacEllin, speaking from the creamery point of view——
I am speaking altogether from the point of view of the farmers who make the home butter. It would be very hard to convince them, considering the prices they have been getting—8d, and 9d. a pound—for the past two or three months, that they have got an increase in the price of their butter in consequence of the introduction of this Bill. However, I recognise that the Minister had to do something to help the butter industry, whether carried on by the creameries, the factories or the farmers, and if the Minister thinks that the power he is given in this section is necessary to enable him to carry out the plan of the Bill, I would be very reluctant to put in an amendment that would do away with it. He has mentioned that it is only in the case of a very large farmer that he intends to put this section into operation, and I would ask whether he would have any objection to stating the size of the holding or of the dairy or of the herd of cows to which the section would apply.
Whatever is to be guaranteed, I would like to have it in black and white, so that it would not be possible to go outside it. I would ask the Minister also to state what proportion of the butter sold retail by a large farmer would be regarded as bringing him within the operation of the Bill, because, in practice, only a very small proportion of the farmers' butter is sold retail. The bulk of it would be sold either to butter factories or to butter traders, and, if that is so, it will have to pay the levy when it gets into their hands. I cannot understand what is meant by "butter factories manufacturing butter" because they only purchase butter that is already manufactured by farmers. Butter factories as a rule do nothing but blend or re-work the butter, and Senators will observe that, by a section which has already been passed, persons who only blend or re-work butter are not regarded as manufacturers. The main point, however, that I desire to ask is whether the Minister would have any objection to placing in the Bill, the size of the farm or dairy or the proportion of the butter sold that he would consider as enabling him to bring farmers under the Bill?
I have a considerable amount of sympathy for the class of farmer that Senator Linehan has in mind in bringing forward this amendment, but I am influenced by what the Minister has said and I think it is safer not to restrict his powers. As I said in speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, I am certain that practically immediately, after twelve months of complete working of this Bill, considerable modifications will have been shown to be necessary and those modifications will then be made. With regard to the point that Senator Linehan makes as to the size of a farm and the number of cows, that would be relatively an easy matter, if it stood alone, but what I have in mind is the position of the farmer in some districts who buys butter from his neighbours and who really becomes a trader of a certain class and who evades the levy. I would not have any objection to that if I were assured that he was competent and had the equipment necessary to turn out a good marketable article, and not to produce an article which would lower the tone of that class of butter altogether. I think, on the whole, although I have sympathy with those whom Senator Linehan has in mind. that it is safer, at all events for the present, to leave it to the discretion of the Minister, who, I feel quite sure, will not exercise the powers unless it is really necessary.
I think that the Minister's attitude in regard to this amendment is a perfectly, reasonable one, and I am sorry to have to disagree with Senator Linehan and Senator Miss Browne. If there is anyone who is going to reap very definite advantages out of this measure before us, it is the farmer who manufactures his butter on the home farm and makes a sale of it. No man at all is going to make as much out of this legislation, as that farmer. While I can understand, in a way, Senator Linehan's fears—they are, in a way, rather relevant—what the farmer is really perturbed about is the price he is actually getting, but what he must have regard to is the price he would have been getting but for this legislation. We can ask what price he would have been getting were it not for this legislation. If the farmer manufacturing butter on his home farm gets greater advantage out of this than the creameries or the ordinary factories or anyone else, I think the Minister goes a long way towards meeting the case put forward when he definitely gives an assurance that there will be no levy imposed on the ordinary farmer, except in very specific instances, which should be easily understandable by us. We are preaching an extension of the co-operative movement, and if there are backsliders, who see an advantage in slipping away from their commitments to co-operative undertakings, I think the House should legislate and set aside such an amendment as this, which, in its way, gives them a perfect option without any penalty of getting away from their commitments. I hope the House will have nothing to do with the amendment.
The case made by the Minister against this amendment is that he does not wish the suppliers of creameries to take advantage of the Bill and to become makers of butter in future. He says that, if the amendment is inserted in the Bill, that may happen, that the farmer now supplying a creamery will be induced to keep his milk at home and make butter and will get the benefit without paying anything. If such a case will happen, that particular butter, the very instant it is sold, will come within the Minister's net because it will be levied from the factory or from what is called the blended butter. That particular class of butter will be caught and I do not see anything wrong in any man in these days taking advantage of every opportunity to better his condition, and I would not be against any man withdrawing from any commitments he has made, provided——
Cathaoirleach
That is very bad, Senator.
I do not see what restriction the Minister should put on any farmer in the disposal of his produce. Why should he? If this particular farmer has milk to sell, and if he thinks it better to make it into butter, why should the Government interfere with him? Why not let him take advantage of the chance he will get in the home market we hear so much about? There is nothing objectionable in this amendment. The butter will not escape the net if it is sold on the market and I think the farmer is entitled to conduct his business in whatever manner he likes, irrespective of what the Minister may say.
Senator Wilson may be quite right in other things but one thing he is not right in is with regard to what the farmer should do when supplying creameries. The creamery method was adopted because it was more efficient and because it was possible for creameries to extract more butter fat from a gallon of milk than any other system, and, consequently, from the national point of view, it is much more efficient for farmers to adopt the creamery method than to depend on their own separators. It takes over three gallons of milk for a pound of butter with an ordinary cream separator, and you will get a pound of butter from a little over two gallons of milk in a creamery. Look at the saving there from a national point of view. Is it right, then, to allow a farmer, who gets the advantage of the Bill, to withdraw supplies from the creameries? The national loss will be very serious and I do not think it should be allowed.
Senator MacEllin says that the loss will be greater because the farmer does not extract the butter fat. Do we not know that when the farmer uses the skim milk produced on his land, it is fed to calves and they live, whereas, if he takes the creamery skim milk, and feeds it to calves, they die, or, at least, they have a lingering existence, and that is no national loss, but a national gain? That is no argument at all.
I entirely disagree with what Senator MacEllin says as to the amount of butter which can be extracted. As a practical and scientific butter maker, I do not see how he can make out that a creamery can get a pound of butter out of two gallons of milk, and that the farmers can only get a pound of butter out of three gallons of milk. That is a most extraordinary statement. An efficient home butter maker can get just as much butter out of so many gallons of milk as any creamery can get, and also can get just as good butter. I am not arguing against the co-operative or creamery system, but I think that the statement made by Senator MacEllin is most extraordinary. It is absolutely wrong. The great advantage, to my mind, of the creameries is the making of butter of uniform quality. But you cannot convert the whole country into a country of creameries. You must always have a large number of farmers who will make their own butter at home. I wish to contradict that most extraordinary statement that an efficient home farmer cannot get as much butter out of so many gallons of milk as the creamery can.
This little discussion throws light upon what I have often suggested myself: that it is quite wrong to speak of agriculture or even of dairying as a single industry. It is quite obvious from the discussion here to-day that even as regards butter-making there are two separate and distinct industries, and that you cannot speak of it in the terms of a single industry. I should like to suggest to Senator Linehan that, if the Bill is desirable at all, his amendment is quite undesirable because it would cut at the very heart of the Bill. Senator Linehan will realise that ten farmers to-day may become one farmer tomorrow by forming themselves into a limited liability company, at very little expense, and that one corporate person would be exempted from the operation of the Bill if the ingenuity of the farmers, say in the Mallow district or in a district of West Cork, or of East Cork were to be exercised in the direction of forming themselves into a corporate entity.
Senator Wilson, who is supposed to be a supporter of this Bill, puts forward an argument that is entirely foreign to the very idea of State development of or assistance to the dairying industry, when he says that every farmer should be allowed to do what he likes with his own business, without any interference. That is a view wholly opposed to the idea of this Bill and opposed to the idea of State protection for the dairying industry.
There was a little confusion evidently as to what we mean by "manufactured butter" as regards the different classes of butter brought into the factory. If butter manufactured from milk or cream comes into the factuly in the form of butter it is defined to be manufactured butter. But if it comes into the factory and merely undergoes the process of blending or re-working, we do not say that it is "manufactured" in this Bill. I was asked what is the size of the farm that we had in view—whether it was a farm carrying 30 cows or 35 cows or 40 cows. We have not defined in our own minds what the size of the farm would be. We are going on the basis of what the farmer had been doing previously, and if we thought that he was taking an undue or unfair advantage of the Bill we should probably serve notice on him and have him levied.
I do not agree with some of the views. that Senator Wilson has expressed here. Unfortunately we have to use a little compulsion. Senator O'Hanlon said that if men who were members of a co-operative society were to leave the creameries and make butter of their own it would be very unfair. It would be very unfair to allow such a thing to happen. Unfortunately we have not in this country that high spirit of co-operation which we should have. If we had there would be no danger of farmers leaving the co-operative creameries whether they gave them a lower price or otherwise. Unfortunately not having got that spirit yet we have to use a little compulsion to make the farmers stick to their particular co-operative creameries. Senator Wilson must see that unless the levy is paid there will be no bounty to be paid on the export of butter. If we do not make provision for getting a large number of producers into the net and make them pay the levy, the bounty will go down on the export and consequently the price of butter internally will go down also, and the Bill would not be as effective as it otherwise might be.
I think that there is something inconsistent in what Senator Miss Browne and Senator Wilson have said as regards the amount of butter that may be made from a given quantity of milk in the creamery and in the farmer's home. If, as Senator Miss Browne suggests, the home-made butter takes as much milk from the cream as the creamery made butter, then the milk which would be left from the home-made butter would be no better for calves than the milk left from the creamery-made butter.
If it is better, then it takes less cream from the milk. I do not agree either that it is impossible to rear calves in the creamery districts. The best proof to the contrary is that they have been reared, and if they have been reared it is possible to rear them.
There is also the danger that Senator Johnson has drawn attention to if this amendment were accepted—the danger that what might be called the corporate farmer would take milk or butter from his neighbours and would act more or less as an agent for other people. Possibly we may get at such a man under other sections, but it would be much more difficult to get him under the other sections if this amendment were accepted.
Cathaoirleach
If a farmer, say, with 20 cows and a hand-separator is going to pay 2d. into the pool, is there any machinery by which he can get his 2d. back?
That farmer would not be asked for the 2d.
Cathaoirleach
I should have said that under this Bill there will be an advisory committee appointed, and in a case of this kind the Minister usually accepts the advice of those committees. But my own opinion is that he would not be levied.
Is it the intention of the Minister to have on the advisory committee representatives of the maker of farm butter as well as representatives of the creamery?
There will be representatives of the creameries and of the factories, and of the wholesale dealers and of the makers of farmers' butter, and also a representative of the consumers.
The amendment was put and declared lost on a show of hands.
Sections 12, 13 and 14 were put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
(1) Where a person who has paid a levy under the two next preceding sections of this Act in respect of any farm butter acquired by him proves to the satisfaction of the Minister that a levy has been already paid in respect of the manufacture of or the previous purchase of such butter, the Minister shall refund to such person a sum equal to the levy paid by such person in respect of the acquisition of such butter.
I move:—
Section 15, sub-section (1). After the word "proves" in line 27 to insert the words "within two months after the last date specified in this Act for the payment by him of such levy."
I should explain that these amendments on the white paper were prepared by me in consultation with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, and the Department was responsible for putting them in. But my Department thought that the Seanad would not meet on Tuesday.
If the Seanad would wish to postpone those amendments for the Report Stage I will be quite satisfied. It may, perhaps, be thought that the Seanad has not got sufficient time to consider them. The amendments are quite non-contentious; they are only designed to make for the smoother working of the Act.
Cathaoirleach
It would be better to defer the amendments on the white paper to the Report Stage.
Amendments deferred.
Sections 15 to 28 put and agreed to.
SECTION 29.
(6) In prescribing the rates of bounty on creamery butter, factory butter and farm butter respectively, the Minister shall have regard to the following matters, namely—
(a) the amounts credited to and the prospective amounts to be credited to the creamery butter account, the factory butter account and the miscellaneous butter account;
(b) the existing commitments on such accounts and the prospective payments thereout;
(c) the quantity of butter in Saorstát Eireann and prospective production and export;
(d) the average current and prospective prices of butter on the home and outside markets;
(e) such other matter as the Minister considers relevant.
I move:—
Section 29, sub-section (6). To add at the end of the section the words. "Provided that the rate of bounty on creamery butter shall not exceed a sum which, when added to the current average wholesale price of creamery butter for export to outside markets, will give a total of one hundred and forty shillings per hundredweight.
This amendment is intended to put into the Bill the assurance to the consumer which the Minister has given to the House—that the retail price of butter will not be allowed under the provisions of the Bill to go over the 1/5 per lb. that has been mentioned. There may be some fault in the construction of the amendment for the purpose of giving effect to the intention which the Minister has expressed, and he has indicated to me a certain revised form which as I read it is likely to be satisfactory. This, perhaps, is another matter which, for discussion, if discussion is necessary, might be deferred until we have seen the form which the Minister would prefer. I think it might be deferred until the Report Stage.
Cathaoirleach
That is a good idea, I think.
The Minister has expressed his willingness to accept the principle involved in this amendment, and I am prepared to withdraw this amendment in favour of the revised version which he himself may submit.
On the Second Reading I undertook to meet Senator Johnson on this point, but I should like to bring it up again on the Report Stage. I should like to consult the draftsman.
Cathaoirleach
I suggest that Senator Johnson should allow his amendment to stand over until the Report Stage.
The position then would be this: I will not move this amendment now. It will appear on the Order Paper for the Report Stage, and the Minister's revised form will also appear on the Order Paper?
Cathaoirleach
Is the House quite clear that the Report Stage of this Bill will be taken on Thursday?
Cathaoirleach
On Thursday—and also the Fifth Stage, I take it.
Amendment deferred.
Sections 29 to 41 put and agreed to.
SECTION 42.
(1) Where at the expiration of any financial year there are any moneys standing to credit in the miscellaneous butter account, the Minister may, if he so thinks fit, apply such moneys or part of such moneys towards the encouragement of dairying in accordance with regulations made by the Minister under this section, and in such case the miscellaneous butter account shall be debited with such moneys or part, and such moneys or part shall be paid out of the butter fund.
I move:—
Section 42, sub-section (1). To delete in lines 14-15 the words "Where at the expiration of any financial year there are any moneys standing to credit in" and to substitute therefor the words "When at any time there are moneys standing to the credit of."
I spoke to the Minister in reference to this amendment, and he accepts it. It simply gives him power to deal with any fund to the credit of the miscellaneous accounts at any time, rather than that he should be compelled to wait until the end of the year. There may be reactions in the working of this Act when it becomes an Act which will make that advisable.
The effect of this amendment, as Senators will see on reading it, would be that we should not be required to wait until 31st March in order to dispose of the Miscellaneous Fund. As I explained on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Miscellaneous Fund is an unknown quantity. We can give a very good forecast of what the Creamery Butter Account or the Factory Butter Account will be, but we cannot forecast the miscellaneous butter account, because it is going to come from a class of people that we do not know of very well at the present time. They are the unregistered buyers, and so on, whom we must get in as soon as the Bill is passed. There is not a great export of this form of butter, so that at the end of the year we expect there will be a certain amount available for other purposes. I agree with Senator Dowdall that there is no necessity why we should wait until the end of the year. If there should be a fair amount of money by the 1st of August or 1st of September, there is no reason why part of that money should not be transferred to another fund in order to improve the price of butter, if possible. I think the wording of the amendment is all right except that "where" instead of "when" about to advise legally would be more correct. Senator Dowdall and myself are not lawyers, but I am sure the Senator would not have any objection to changing the word to "where." Otherwise the amendment would be all right. The Minister has no power to dispose of the fund on his own initiative. He makes a proposal for the disposal of the surplus on the fund and he must lay it before the Dáil. It is not laid, like other papers, on the Table, where, if no notice is taken of it for 21 days everything is all right. In this case he must draw the attention of the Dáil to it, and actually get its approval, so that if the Minister were inclined to apply this money to any purpose that to the Dáil did not appear to be correct he would not be allowed to do so. There is an indication there that it must be applied to the improvement of dairying. Suggestions were made that we might apply part of it to the improvement of home-made butter on the farm. The suggestion was also made that we might apply part of it to the factory pool, because by raising the export price of factory butter we would in effect be raising the price of farm butter that goes to the factory which is the surplus the farmer would have to sell. If we could raise the price of the surplus butter that the farmer sold we would also raise the price of butter sold to customers, whether to retailers or direct. If there is a possibility of improving the price of farm butter by that method there is no reason why we should not do it in August or September rather than wait until April. I think the amendment handed in by Senator Dowdall is a wise one and should be accepted.
Cathaoirleach
Do you agree, Senator Dowdall, to change the word "when" in your amendment to "where"?
There is a point that may be of some importance in the reading of the sub-sections of Section 42. Sub-section (1) provides that certain moneys may be applied in accordance with regulations which may be made by the Minister for the purpose of promoting the dairying industry. The industry may be promoted in numerous ways which the Minister has hinted at. If provided in that way under the Act this House would have something to say to the matter. Under the section the regulations which are to define how the money shall be used for the purpose of developing the dairying industry are only to be laid before the Dáil "the provisions of this Act relating to the laying of orders and regulations before Houses of the Oireachtas shall not apply to any regulation made under this section." What in effect will be a legislative act will be left entirely to the Dáil and this House will have nothing to do with it. I think that is a matter which requires some little reconsideration. If it were intended to deal with the disposal of, or the raising of money it might be accepted but, inasmuch as the regulations which the Minister has to lay before the Dáil, in order to get the approval of the Dáil, may, in fact, concern the regulation of the industry and be more than the mere spending of money, I think this House ought to have some say, and that it should not be confined to the authority of the Dáil alone. I think that should be given some consideration before the Report Stage.
Cathaoirleach
That is rather an important point.
This amendment was introduced in the Dáil. It was not made to eliminate the Seanad but in order that the Dáil should have something to say to the spending of the money, rather than leave it to the discretion of the Minister. The defence for it was that it should be treated as a supplementary estimate each year.
A supplementary estimate would come before this House through the Appropriation Act and we would have something to say to it.
Cathaoirleach
The section, as amended, will come up afterwards.
Cathaoirleach
I think it is not in order on your amendment.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
On the section, I need not repeat what I have just called attention to.
Cathaoirleach
An amendment can be brought in on the Report Stage.
As I think this is a matter that concerns the privileges of the House, I ask the Minister and the House to reconsider it.
Cathaoirleach
I move:
Section 42, sub-section (1). After the word "dairying" in line 17 to insert the words "amongst the manufacturers of farm butter."
This amendment deals with the disposal of the surplus on the miscellaneous butter account, meaning farm butter sold either directly by the farmer or his servants, or after sale to the factory. I think it is reasonable if there is any surplus in the fund after meeting liabilities that it should be applied to the improvement of dairying amongst the makers of farm butter. The Minister mentioned that if the price of factory butter were increased by the addition of the bounty it would have the effect of increasing the price of farm butter. That is so. If the Minister takes any steps to promote a scheme for encouraging dairying, I think it should be confined to the people who subscribed to this fund. Very large sums of money are being expended in training boys and girls in dairying. We have a dairying school in Cork and the University—a very costly institution—at which creamery managers are trained. The object of my amendment is to confine the surplus to some scheme that would be to the advantage of dairying amongst makers of farm butter. I think that is a reasonable request and I hope the House will accept it.
I cannot see very much against this amendment. I do not think it really amounts to anything. If it did I might be able to say more against it.
My idea was that the Minister might devote this money for the development of creameries at the expense of farmers who make butter in their homes.
There was no intention of doing any such thing. I had queried the matter because I did not know what the Senator wanted me to do. We had no intention of devoting any of the fund to the creamery pool, although people in the creamery industry said they were just as much entitled to part of the miscellaneous fund as the factory pool, because they held that if we raise the price of factory butter we raise the price of home consumed farm butter. I am not much impressed by that. There was no intention of applying any of the money to the creamery pool. The only intention was either to improve what is strictly known as farm butter produced on the farm, and sold to the consumer as such without going through the factory, or improving the price of factory butter by putting some money in the factory pool. I would like if the Senator withdrew the amendment and perhaps we would see if something could be done about it by the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 42 to 63, inclusive, the Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill with amendments reported.
Fourth Stage ordered for Thursday, 30th June, 1932.
