Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Jul 1933

Vol. 17 No. 10

Agricultural Products (Regulation of Export) Bill, 1933—Committee Stage.

In this Act—

the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Agriculture; the expression "agricultural product" includes any product of agriculture or horticulture and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product, and fleeces and skins of animals.

Mr. Jameson

I move amendment No. 1:—

Section 1. To delete in lines 23-4 the words "and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product."

The House will remember that when we were discussing the Second Reading of this Bill, I drew attention to the extremely wide scope of the conditions and especially to the definitions in the first clause. If Senators will look at the amendments I have put down they will see that they all deal with the restriction of the commodities to be dealt with by the Bill to agricultural products. In moving these amendments I disclaim any idea whatever of interfering with the Minister for Agriculture in his desire to obtain powers to enable him to deal with the question of quotas with which, as he says, he has to deal and for which he has to get powers almost at once because the quota question is coming into prominence in connection with agricultural exports. As far as I am concerned, I have no intention whatever of interfering with the Bill, so far as these products are concerned. That is a matter that lies purely and simply between the Minister and agriculturists. The words, however, which I want to take out of Section 1 altogether go beyond anything really connected with agriculture. The section reads: "The expression agricultural product includes any product of agriculture or horticulture." Then come the words which I want deleted—"and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product." I am not interfering with the succeeding phrase, which deals with fleeces and skins of animals. If Senators read this section they will see that very large industries in this country which are totally disconnected with agriculture are brought under this Bill and can be dealt with by the Minister for Agriculture. If such industries are to be dealt with, they should surely be dealt with by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. One can hardly expect our Minister for Agriculture, no matter what qualifications he may possess, to be able to deal with all the intricacies of most serious and large industries.

On the last occasion on which I spoke on this Bill I mentioned the industry with which I am connected and I pointed out that the Minister for Agriculture could under this Bill proceed to deal with our industry under the regulations of this Bill. That is why I have had to put forward two other amendments, one of which is to delete paragraph (c) of sub-section (1), Section 2. That paragraph says, in dealing with these various commodities, the Minister shall have power to make an order providing "for requiring persons to export to such country during any specified period or periods a specified quantity of such product." I leave out the question of agricultural products and I hold the Minister can deal with them if he deletes the words I want omitted. Again, you will see that the other sub-section which I propose to delete is a sub-section dealing with penalties which might be very severe. I would commend the attention of agriculturists to these penalties. The sub-section runs:

"The Minister may in any export order provide that where he incurs expense under this section by reason or in consequence of the failure of any person to do any specified thing which such person is authorised or required by or under such order to do, the Minister may recover such expense from such person as a simple contract debt, and the Minister may by such order provide that the certificate of the Minister shall be conclusive evidence of the incurring of such expense and of the amount of such expense."

The Minister is to proceed to recover from the individual trader who is ordered to export these things the cost of buying and exporting them. I would ask Senators to take their minds away from such matters as pigs or cattle and apply this section to the industry which I mentioned on the last day. The Minister might approach the distillers and say that it would be a good thing to sell a certain quantity of our Irish whiskey abroad. He has powers under these three sub-sections which I have mentioned to proceed to order us to sell a quantity of whiskey abroad to some unknown country. He could not possibly have any knowledge whatever as to the effect of such an order upon our trade. He says, of course, that he will appoint a committee to deal with this section. When you come into a trade such as ours and appoint other distillers or other people to sit down and require from us the whole of the information regarding everything connected with our business and expect them to decide what we are going to do with our product, I think the House will clearly see that a situation will arise with which I doubt if even the Minister himself will be capable of dealing.

I have said the Department of Industry and Commerce is the proper Department to deal with this matter. A very strange thing has happened since the last occasion on which we debated this matter. I think the House was rather amused when I pointed out that we might have a shortage of various things in this country. I said rather jokingly that we might be even short of the product with which I deal. Sometimes strange coincidences occur. The very next day we received a very friendly letter from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is trying to do his best to assist our business. It was a confidential letter connected with the trade in America, and it asked how much whiskey could be sold in America by our firm. I do not think I am disclosing anything which is confidential, because it was really a friendly letter. The Minister in that letter wanted particulars of our stocks, the price and the age of the whiskey—in fact, every thing connected with the details of our business. I am going, of course, to take this matter up with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. We are all interested in the American business, and are doing our best to profit by it. What I am pointing out, however, is that it is a very extraordinary thing that the Minister for Agriculture should have power to do in the case of our products what he seeks to do under this Bill. I do think the Minister ought to leave us out of this. I think the Minister should define much more clearly the commodities with which he really wants to deal. I do not think the House can deal properly with the Bill unless that is done. I am sure there are included under the heading of agricultural products, sundry things which the people who deal in them would not like to be affected by this Bill, but I think it is going altogether too far to give general powers to the Minister to deal with anything which is included under the first definition clause.

I have shown that in one instance, at any rate, an industry with which I think the whole country is intimately connected can be dealt with in a way that is not desirable under this Bill. I should like to hear what the Minister's objections are to defining the articles he really wants to deal with in the Bill, and to letting the House, in these circumstances, say "yes," or "no," as regards the matters to be dealt with. I do not want to interfere with giving powers to the Minister to deal with matters with which he is competent to deal, but it is quite wrong, I suggest, to give the Minister the widespread powers which would be conferred by this Bill. Unless the Minister can explain the matter more clearly, I think we should pass these amendments and take these various articles which are connected with manufacture and not with agriculture, clean out of the Bill.

Mr. Johnson

The whole urgency for this Bill according to the Minister's statement on the last occasion was that the British Ministry are preparing a quota in reference to bacon. Is bacon an agricultural product? I suggest that it is partly manufactured. It is derived from agriculture, but bacon alone of itself is not an agricultural product.

A Senator

Is butter?

Mr. Johnson

I am speaking of bacon at the moment. If amendment No. 1 is passed, it is very questionable whether bacon will be covered by the Bill. It has to undergo a process of manufacture or derivation from agricultural product. It is not directly an agricultural product in the form of bacon. Therefore, it has to undergo some process so that the passing of the amendment would mean the rejection of the Bill in so far as it applies to bacon, which is the one item for which it is urgently required. With regard to drink, I suppose milk is a drink and might be said to be an agricultural product. Is cream an agricultural product? It is not an industrial product unless it has been treated in some way. It has to be derived from what might be admitted for the moment to be a direct agricultural product, but unless the part of the definition which the Senator desires to be deleted remains in, it is questionable whether cream could be brought within the operation of the Act. I lay stress, however, on this one item of bacon, and I say that the passing of the amendment would make the whole Bill inoperative in so far as it affects the immediate purpose of the Bill.

Miss Browne

I should like to support Senator Jameson, because the industry with which he is connected is a very important one in relation to the county from which I come. We are the greatest barley growers in Ireland, and on account of that industry I should like to support Senator Jameson's amendment as far as possible. I could not agree with Senator Johnson in his arguments about cream. It is not a manufactured article. It goes through no process except merely the process of separation from the milk.

Mr. Johnson

That is manufacture.

Miss Browne

It would be stretching it very far to say that that was manufacture. Butter, of course, does go through a process of manufacture, but to suggest that the mere fact that the cream which is separated from the milk is a process of manufacture is stretching the thing very far indeed.

Mr. Counihan

I rise to suggest to Senator Jameson that he should withdraw his amendment. As Senator Johnson has said, and as the Minister has pointed out, the urgent question at the moment is the question of pigs and pig products. I do not think anybody could find fault with the Minister for seeking powers to deal with these, but those powers are very drastic. On reading this Bill, I did not at first consider it so very serious, as I had not enough time to study it carefully. Bills are coming in so fast that we cannot study them carefully or give proper attention to them, but after Senator Jameson's speech on Second Reading, I read the Bill more carefully, and I found that it was very drastic. I hope the House will not agree to give the Minister the drastic powers he seeks in this Bill with regard to articles other than pigs and pig products. For that reason, I would ask that the amendment be withdrawn and an amendment substituted to the effect that the Bill shall apply to pigs and pig products only. Senator Jameson mentioned Section 2 of the Bill——

Cathaoirleach

We will come to that later and you will have a full opportunity of discussing that matter. It is very important from your point of view, I have no doubt, but it does not arise on this section. Senator Jameson travelled a little far afield but I shall call the section again and you can then talk on it.

Mr. Counihan

Very good.

Mr. Wilson

As I understand the Bill, the Minister can only deal with a product which some other country has placed under a quota system and even if Senator Jameson's whiskey were placed under a quota system, I do not see what harm the Minister would do. I do not for a moment believe that it will be placed under a quota. As a matter of fact, at the present time the strength of alcohol allowed into America is only 3.2 per cent., and I am sure Senator Jameson's whiskey is stronger than that. Last night, I found that out. I do not think the Senator need fear that his product will be interfered with because I have never yet heard, in all that I have heard of quotas, of any country putting a quota on whiskey.

Mr. Counihan

Why not exclude it then?

Mr. Wilson

If you cut out these particular words you will exclude bacon, butter and, possibly cream.

Mr. Johnson

And pigs' heads, pigs' cheeks and brawn.

Mr. Wilson

Butter is a commodity derivable from an agricultural product and if some other form of words by which what is required can be inserted in the Bill and other things excluded, it would meet the case.

Mr. Counihan

Can the Bill not definitely define what the Minister wants to deal with?

Mr. Johnson

The Minister does not know until the other people act.

Mr. Douglas

Senator Wilson's argument shows a degree of, shall I say, innocence which is not usual to him and particularly, when he talks about the United States. I think his line of argument that because he has never heard of something it is all right to include it under a definition in the Bill is not one that you could possibly justify. I am not going to make prophecies and I certainly know nothing whatever about what is going to happen with regard to the whiskey trade but I am pretty certain that if the present attitude of the various nations continues and no kind of economic agreement is come to, you may see all kinds of devices used by nations and they will not be devices that Senator Wilson has heard of before in many cases. The argument, if I understand it correctly, put forward by certain Senators, and by Senator Johnson in particular, is that in order to include cream, pigs' heads and other things you must have this extremely wide definition. I think that is a mistake and that it is far better to go definitely for certain commodities and state them or if you are not prepared to do that, to provide as Senator Counihan suggests for the commodity you want to deal with. Instead of having the provision as set out here that an order may be made by the Minister which will set out all the various provisions including power to force a person to export etc., it would, in my opinion, be better to provide that the Minister may by order, subject to the approval of the House, extend the commodities to which this Bill will apply. That would be a much simpler form and would not create the uneasiness which would be caused by the present provisions. There are a number of us here who feel—and I know that Senator Johnson is one in spite of his attitude on this Bill—that we have in the past made mistakes through granting far too much power, in many cases, unintentionally, by passing Bill which can be used for totally different purposes altogether. I would suggest to the Minister that if he is not prepared to limit this and to make clear what it does apply to, it would be far better to apply it to pigs and to provide in the Bill that it may be extended to other agricultural products by an order laid on the Table of the House.

The Minister may reply that this can only apply when an order is made and that the Bill really provides what I am suggesting. In case he does give that answer I should like to give my reply in advance. It is that the position is quite different. Supposing, for the sake of argument, we are dealing in this Bill now with pigs and supposing we have butter or cream to deal with, say, in a fortnight's time. The Minister makes an order including cream and no one in this House will object but if he makes an order under the Bill as it stands and includes in that order all the powers which this Bill gives him with regard to cream, a great many of us may object. We may object to the power in the order to force, as he could under the Bill, persons to export cream although they did not want to. We may object to certain other things but I need not go into details. If you do as I suggest, however, the Minister will retain his power so far as the particular commodity is concerned and either House can object to the specific order and the specific provisions in it. If you leave it as it is now, you can do nothing but disapprove of the order. You cannot amend the order; you can only annul it and if the Minister makes an order applying to a new commodity and if the members of the House are satisfied that the order should be made in regard to that commodity but are not satisfied as to the details of the order, they must say: "You must not deal with that commodity at all" or they must accept the whole thing. That is what I object to—it is giving very specific executive power without any control by the House. If the Minister would include such commodities as he requires now or has reason to believe he may require in the near future and take power to extend it by order, he will get everything he wants. There will be no unreasonable delay and I think he would get over Senator Jameson's difficulty. He certainly would get over the difficulty I see.

Mr. Crosbie

Might I say that I do not think many of us thought up to this that whiskey was an agricultural product. It would not strike any of us that Jacob's biscuits, for instance, were an agricultural product and they are in exactly the same position. They are exported and they are food or drink, as the case may be.

Mr. S. Robinson

Both.

Mr. Crosbie

After all, can there be any possible objection to naming in the Bill the different commodities which the Minister finds it necessary to export? That is the simplest way of dealing with it and the less wide these Acts are the better because, as Senator Jameson has pointed out very clearly to us, it gives the Minister the opportunity of putting searching questions to business people and business people have not got the time and certainly they have not got much inclination to answer these things. I suggest that the Senator is perfectly right when he says that we are entitled to know the various commodities which the Minister intends to regulate by quota.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I think that some of the Senators are unduly perturbed about my powers under this Bill. First of all, what Senator Johnson says is quite right. If we were to accept the amendment proposed by Senator Jameson, the Bill would be absolutely useless to us, because we would not be allowed to deal with bacon, butter, condensed milk, cheese or oatmeal. Every one of those products is going to be put under a quota system by the British Government if they carry out their present intentions. Bacon, condensed milk, cheese and oatmeal are to be put under the quota system before Christmas if they carry out their intentions and, if I were to adopt the suggestion of Senator Douglas, I would have to call the Seanad together from week to week as each matter arose.

Mr. Douglas

I think that if the Minister looks he will see that the order is effective, and can only be cancelled 21 days after the House meets. It is not necessary to call either House together.

Dr. Ryan

The Senator suggests that I should call the House together to get powers in regard to each product.

Mr. Douglas

That was not my suggestion. My suggestion was that the Minister should take powers in the Bill to extend the Bill by order to any commodity.

Dr. Ryan

That is how the Bill stands. I must issue an order for each commodity under this Bill. It is the only way it can be done. The first part of Section 2 provides: "If any country to which any agricultural product is usually exported from Saorstát Eireann establishes any system of restriction or control of the import of that agricultural product," then an order must be made. I must issue an order for each agricultural product to each country. There must be a separate order issued, and that order must be laid on the Table of the two Houses. Within the next 21 sitting days either House can annul it if they think well of doing so. With regard to the four articles that have been mentioned, I would be excluded from dealing with them if Great Britain introduced a quota system in regard to them before Christmas. I may say, too, that the definition here is exactly the same as the definition in the British Act and in the North of Ireland Act. We thought it well to have the same definition, because our Bill is more or less a reply, if you like, to the British Act. The British Act lays it down that they will not deal with any country that does not bring in the administrative machinery to deal with quotas.

Mr. Douglas

Would the Minister say if the powers are the same in the two Acts that he has referred to: that is, as regards the things that can be done by order?

Dr. Ryan

I have not gone through the North of Ireland Act, but the definition in this Bill is the same as the definition in the North of Ireland Act and in the British Act. As I said before, if we want to take a quota from Great Britain in the case of bacon then we are compelled to have an Act such as this, or some regulation, setting up the necessary administrative machinery. This Bill is the administrative machinery that we propose to set up. Unless powers are taken so that the Government can regulate the export of the global quota, then Great Britain will not give us a quota. Therefore, we are obliged to take those powers. Suppose for instance—I think it is unlikely— that Great Britain introduced a quota system for whiskey, stout or biscuits we could not take a part of the quota for these articles from Great Britain unless we had the power to deal with it in this way. Therefore, if whiskey, stout and biscuits are excluded in this Bill there will be no necessity to regulate these industries because they will not get any part of that quota. You cannot get a quota unless you have the administrative machinery to deal with it. I cannot interfere with a trade unless there is a quota adopted by some country with which we are carrying on a trade in the ordinary way. I cannot interfere unless two things occur: (1) first of all that you must have a country with which we are trading and (2) that such a country has adopted a quota system. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled I cannot intervene. If these two conditions are present, then I can make an order for each commodity exported to each country. That order must be laid on the Table of the two Houses. Either House can annul it within the next 21 sitting days, so that I think both Houses are amply safeguarded as regards any objections they wish to make to any order issued in the case of any commodity.

Suppose, for instance, there was a quota for whiskey. If I make an order I must first of all set up a consultative council. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 lays down:—

A consultative council established under this section shall consist of such persons having experience or special knowledge of the matters on which such council may give advice or assistance to the Minister as the Minister, after such consultation as aforesaid, shall from time to time nominate to be members thereof.

Therefore, in case Senator Jameson has any doubts about the matter I want to assure him that under that sub-section I would not be permitted to go out and nominate anybody I wished to act on that consultative council. I am compelled under the sub-section to nominate persons "having experience or special knowledge of the matters" dealt with under the order.

Mr. Douglas

Sub-section (1) of Section 5 says that the Minister "may."

Dr. Ryan

But the sub-section that I have quoted says "shall consist of such persons" and so on. I am advised by the draftsman that "may" there means "shall." I think Senators need not be so apprehensive about the powers taken under this Bill because the Minister cannot possibly interfere with a trade except in the circumstances I have mentioned. A trade must be organised under the Government in order to get part of the quota at all. If they are not organised then they will not get it. That is why the Bill is introduced. If, for instance, I found that the people in the whiskey trade did not want to export whiskey I could not compel them to do so. If they refused to register I cannot touch them. I cannot compel exporters to register. Therefore, I do not see where the apprehension arises at all.

Mr. Comyn

I think that my friends on the opposite side ought not to press this amendment. The Minister has said that the definition in the Bill is in identical terms with the words in the statutes relating to Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I should be very much surprised if that were not the case. I accept the Minister's word because he has said it, but I also accept it because it is a reasonable thing. Does this definition section go so far as Senator Douglas seems to think? "any article wholly or partly manufactured or derived." Senators may think that embraces almost everything, but that is not so. Did Senators observe this "and fleeces and skins of animals"?

Mr. Douglas

They are not food or drink.

Mr. Comyn

I am trying to put to my friends on the opposite side the contention that the amplitude of these words is really more apparent than real. Although it may mean whiskey, because whiskey, of course, is derived from barley, a little yeast and some brown sugar, and beer is derived from barley and yeast, I would say that whiskey, beer and biscuits would come within this section. I do not know that very much more would come within it. The Minister has called attention to sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 5. He must have a consultative council, it must consist of the leading men in the particular business that he is dealing with. Senator Douglas who reads all these Acts of Parliament with meticulous care has called attention to the fact that the word "may" is used in sub-section (1) of Section 5. Now I hope Senator Douglas will not attribute anything that I say to the Minister because that has been his practice. As a Senator I say that "may" in that case means "must" and not "shall" and that the Minister in this special legislation dealing with quotas and with the lives of the people must consult with the men engaged in the trade before he can make any order.

Mr. Douglas

Would the Senator tell us the meaning of the words that immediately follow "may"—"whenever and so often as he thinks fit"? Does that mean that the Minister "must whenever and so often as he thinks fit"?

Mr. Comyn

These words relate to time and to the terms of reference, but you are not giving the Minister complete authority over you. You are not making him a dictator. A dictatorship would be absolutely impossible in this country, because, as I said before, and I believe said truly, if there were 3,000,000 Irish people in Russia there could never be a dictator in Russia. If you are giving the Minister certain powers in this Bill, there is no use in unnecessarily limiting those powers. He will have to deal with countries in which the fashion for the time being is quotas. He will have to bargain and to look after his exports and his imports. I think you should give him as much authority as you think is necessary. I believe this Bill represents the minimum of what he ought to get. I know that the objection of Senator Jameson and Senator Douglas is not a factious one, but I think they are not exactly reasonable in regard to this measure.

Now we do not know where we are going. We have to deal with what is called a quota system. It is very fashionable at the present moment. I do not think this quota system will last very long, but, long or short, we are dealing with it and I think we ought to give our Minister for Agriculture all the authority that he can reasonably ask for. I do not believe that on a construction of this sub-section the Minister is getting as much authority as would appear from a first reading of it. It must be wholly or partly a product of agriculture. Senators will see that the things that are not regarded as a product of agriculture in this sub-section are "fleeces and skins of animals." I would imagine that these were a product of agriculture because animals are fed on root and other crops grown on the land. The definition shows that the wording is limited and very strictly limited in this section. Although, of course, we are not supposed to take precedents from other countries, I have always found that in those statutes passed by the Imperial Parliament the rights of the subject are all carefully looked after—I mean that Ministers are not given more power than is absolutely necessary to meet the circumstances of the case. If you limit this in the way that has been indicated by Senator Douglas, I think you will tie the hands of the Minister and prevent him from being able to do his business. The Minister must set up a consultative council. He must consult the members of that council which will be composed of the principal men in that particular trade. That being so, I think it would be wrong for the House to accept the amendment.

Mr. O'Farrell

I wonder if the Minister could tell the House what is the procedure adopted in other countries outside of Great Britain where quotas are adopted. The quota system is in operation between various European countries for quite a good while. I wonder is this Bill based upon the experience of the successful procedure adopted in these countries. The quota system is comparatively old now and there must be a certain recognised procedure adopted by countries that have had to deal with it. Is this Bill based upon the experience of the successful and satisfactory procedure adopted in these countries? To me the principal danger arising out of a Bill of this kind is the amount of graft that can enter into it. When you license exporters and give them a monopoly of export, just as when you license importers of any particular article, you are likely to have discrimination and favouritism employed, injustice done, prices ordered accordingly, and a good deal of corruption enter into it. I wonder is there a real danger, if licensed exporters in regard to any of the commodities mentioned are appointed, that they will not export a sufficient quantity. I fancy it is a very remote danger, because, obviously, the effect of the quota will be that we shall be permitted to import into Great Britain a smaller quantity of any particular commodity than is now the case. Why there should be a danger in that case of there being a shortage or a failure on the part of a licensed exporter to meet his commitment, I cannot see. This question of "may" as against "shall" is one of those puzzles and quibbles of the law that I am unable to understand. If it should be "must," I do not see why "must" should not be put down, or why we should resort to the musty precedents of always putting in a word which means the reverse of what it does in ordinary life.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator is going outside the particular section.

Mr. O'Farrell

The Minister and other Senators have gone outside the section. However, I will not follow their bad example any further. I suggest to the Minister, however, that he might say if inquiries have been made as to how the quota system has been dealt with by other nations, and if it is as a result of those inquiries that this particular form of Bill has been introduced.

Mr. Jameson

I think the Seanad is dealing with this matter rather too casually, if I might say so, and that the interests concerned are much more vital than the House seems to think. I take it from what the Minister says that he is taking powers under this Bill to deal with articles of food and drink manufactured from grain in this country—that both stout and whiskey are now being placed under the control of the Minister under the powers embodied in this Bill. These are very difficult industries to deal with, industries which require the closest attention of those engaged in them, and industries which will be broken to pieces if you put anybody in control of them who does not know the conditions under which they are carried on. If the Oireachtas choose to hand over to the State, as they are doing in this Bill, power to control those industries, you are very likely going to see those industries depart out of the Free State. The Seanad seems to think that I am talking in an exaggerated way about dangers of this kind. I shall give one or two instances from my own business to show that if the State were to issue an order to us to send away a certain quantity of whiskey to keep up the quota, and were to buy it from us, they would straight away ruin our business. Whiskey is an article which has to be kept for over seven years before it can be sold. The stocks of these old spirits are in many hands. They are in Northern Ireland; they are in Great Britain; they are in the hands both of distillers and bonders who bought them in previous years. The management of those stocks and the regulation of the product required to keep those stocks right form one of the most difficult problems that anybody has to face. If the Minister were suddenly to find out that to keep up the quota with Great Britain, say, a certain quantity of whiskey had to be sent over there, and supposing that he said to us that we must export a certain quantity of whiskey to Great Britain to complete the quota, every calculation that we had made as to the different markets to which whiskey is supplied would be upset, and it might completely ruin our trade with other countries, and even in this country. If a consultative council is set up and proceeds to demand from us details of the stocks held, before whom would the details be laid? Every competitor we have in the trade. I do not know of any surer method of ruining a business than that.

I do not like to deal with the question of porter and ales, but I was a brewer for 25 years. I know the business relations between Great Britain and various other countries. If the Minister attempted to issue orders to any individual brewer that he was at a certain time to export a certain quantity of his product to any particular country, he might quite easily ruin that individual. How could anybody know what are the private conditions connected with the business of any particular brewer? The mere disclosure of the stocks of a concern as applied to one of our greatest industries here would be one of the most dangerous things that the Free State ever touched. The Bill should not be passed without taking these particular things out and that can best be done by defining what the Bill has to deal with. I assure the Seanad that they had better ask for a short postponement until we consider the situation. I am asking that in all seriousness. It is not a thing to be dealt with casually. You are dealing with manufactures which are vital and of the greatest importance to the Free State. I would ask the Seanad not to be in a hurry and to postpone the consideration of the Bill until we see the real implications of it. I would ask the Seanad not to proceed further with the Bill to-day. It has not been adequately discussed. No speech made to-day showed that Senators really grasped the seriousness of the situation and nothing that the Minister has said has shown that he grasps the seriousness of the situation. My amendments are only put forward with the object of removing the dangers from the Bill. We should have seriously considered amendments by the Minister himself to guard against the dangers which I am referring to. How long have the various industries concerned got to come together and consider what the Bill means and to make suggestions? We have not had any time. I would ask the Seanad seriously to consider whether, under the circumstances, it is not advisable that the Bill should be postponed at least until we meet again. There has been nothing put forward to show that we do not want the Minister to get any powers which he really wants. I am warning the Seanad that the Minister is being given powers in regard to some of the industries included in this Bill that may ruin these industries. These are powers that ought to be taken out of the Bill. I do not really know what is the best way to do it, but if this amendment is rejected I warn the Seanad that they are doing a most dangerous thing. I suggest to the Minister that we should be given at least until we meet again to seriously consider this Bill, so that the industries brought under the Bill may consider the matter themselves and see what suggestions can be made to remedy the position. We should do nothing in a hurry which is going to endanger some of the industries on which the Free State depends very largely.

Cathaoirleach

I should like to point out to the House that I have allowed Senator Jameson to debate the second amendment which he has on the paper because he considered it part and parcel of the first amendment. His second amendment deals specifically with the matters he dealt with in his speech. The amendment is to delete the subsection requiring persons "to export to such country during any specified period or periods a specified quantity of such product." He wants that excluded by the second amendment and that seems to be a proper safeguard. That is what he has been arguing in his last speech. As far as I allowed him to do that because I thought the amendments were part and parcel of one another, perhaps I did mislead the House and may have held up some Senator unwittingly from arguing further matters.

Mr. Jameson

I was trying, as far as I could, to deal with the questions raised in my first amendment. I only mentioned the other two articles in order to try to get the whole thing to run together. I was referring principally to restrictions on the articles which are dealt with in the Bill and which are covered in my first amendment.

Cathaoirleach

I think it will be found, Senator, that you are arguing on the iniquity of making people export specific quantities. You thought it necessary to develop that argument, and I allowed you to do so.

Mr. Jameson

I intended to deal only with what is mentioned in my first amendment. I did not deal so much with the other matters.

Cathaoirleach

I would not have allowed a debate regarding the regulations on exports on the first amendment.

Mr. Comyn

I should be very sorry to think that questions of the magnitude and importance of those mentioned by Senator Jameson should depend upon any rules or forms. I take it that the Senator was arguing rather to exclude beer—which is stout—and whiskey from the definition of agricultural products. Senator Jameson has said a good many things which are worthy of the most mature consideration of this House, and which ought to be debated in it. He told us something new in relation to whiskey, that it would ruin him, or men like him, if they were compelled to export a certain quantity. I presume that what he means is this, that he might be asked to export immature spirit.

Senators

No, no.

Mr. Comyn

Senator Jameson knows something about whiskey, and so do I. I would like him to elaborate what he said in regard to the injury which might be done him if he were called upon to export more whiskey than he budgeted for in a particular year. Is it that he would be compelled to export raw spirit, so as to make up the consignment? I would like to know what the Senator means. I would like to know the extent to which the trade in whiskey would be injured or might be injured. That is a matter very well worthy of consideration. If Irish distillers were placed in such a position that they would have to export immature spirit, or had to get spirit from distilleries which are not so good as Senator Jameson's distilleries, that might ruin their trade. I quite admit that it might ruin their trade. The Senator said that he was a brewer for twenty-five years. I suppose as a distiller he must have been a brewer.

Mr. Jameson

I was a brewer for 20 years before I was a distiller.

Mr. Comyn

If the Senator was a brewer 20 years before he was a distiller he has been a brewer all his life, because a distiller must be a brewer. Is not that so?

Mr. Jameson

Quite right.

Mr. Comyn

What about beer? I confess that if a serious objection is put forward on behalf of the beer trade, it ought to be fully debated and fully considered, because it is a very extensive trade, and a trade which has been splendidly conducted. In this country we produce beer which is probably the finest alcoholic product in the world, because it contains just enough and not too much. There is substance in it, eating and drinking. That being so, it would be a highly dangerous thing to interfere with that trade without adequate, full, and most ample consideration—ample consideration from the Parliament of this country, and not in any office.

Mr. Fanning

That is exactly what Senator Jameson was pleading for.

Mr. Comyn

I am agreeing with Senator Jameson. We have not originated the quota system. It is imposed on us by other countries which established quotas. Whilst I give the fullest weight to what Senator Jameson has said we should also remember the position in which the Minister is placed, and the position in which this country is placed. We have to deal with other nations, and not merely Great Britain which, I understand from the Minister, are contemplating the establishment of quotas. I have some little knowledge of Great Britain, and I imagine that it will be some little time before quotas are established there. France has a quota system, Germany has a quota system. All the nations have gone in for the new fashion. How long they are going to continue it I do not know. While that position is facing us in regard to our exports, we should be prepared to give the Minister the greatest possible facilities and the fullest powers. I wonder whether the Minister would really consider adjourning consideration of this measure until we meet again, perhaps until to-morrow.

Mrs. Costello

August 16.

Mr. Comyn

Senators ought to be able to collate all their arguments between this and the next meeting.

Mr. Counihan

There are other important matters to be considered.

Mr. Comyn

I do not think there is any more important matter in this Bill than that raised by Senator Jameson.

Mr. Counihan

The cattle trade.

Mr. Comyn

It would be the feeling of the House, if it could possibly be done, that the Minister should postpone this measure to give us an opportunity of considering it. I am sure the Seanad would be perfectly willing to meet next week to consider it.

Cathaoirleach

I do not think that is so. A number of Senators have gone on holidays. I do not think we could do what is suggested. We could adjourn it until the 16th August.

Mr. Comyn

If the Minister considers that he wants the Bill sooner I would not be in favour of adjourning it unless we were prepared to come back this day week.

Cathaoirleach

The House has already resolved to adjourn till the 16th August.

Mr. Comyn

The House is master here.

Cathaoirleach

That is your opinion, Senator.

Mr. Comyn

I am only submitting that.

Cathaoirleach

You are submitting a good many things.

Mr. Comyn

I am doing so logically and fairly. I agree with my friends when a fair case is put up, but if the Minister thinks a fortnight is too long I would not agree to the adjournment.

Mr. Counihan

Perhaps the Minister wants the Bill. He can have the important portions of it if he accepts the suggestion I made, to apply it only to pigs and to pig products. If he will confine it to these products I think the House is prepared to give him the Bill to-day. Otherwise, I am inclined to agree with Senator Jameson that we should adjourn consideration of it until we meet again. It is a very drastic Bill. It practically makes the Minister for Agriculture a dictator as regards the products and manufactures that are to be exported. No matter how important Senator Comyn may consider whiskey and beer exports, there is a much more important consideration, the export of cattle, and the conditions under which they are to be exported. I suggest to the House, and to Senator Comyn, that many more people will be thrown out of employment or will lose their means of livelihood if the Bill is carried out in the only way that the Minister wants to do so. There are over 3,000 persons engaged in the cattle trade. There are thousands engaged in the sheep, horse and pig trades, to whom no consideration is given. The Minister stated that he consulted everyone in connection with the pig and bacon trades. There are only about 250 people connected with the pig and the bacon trades, while, according to the statistics, thousands are engaged in the cattle trade, and three-quarters of all the farmers derive their principal livelihood from that trade. Senator Jameson's suggestion should be adopted and consideration of this Bill should be adjourned for a fortnight in view of the fact that few Senators read the Bill until they heard what Senator Jameson had to say on the Second Reading. If the Minister wants the Bill he should accept the suggestion that has been made, to apply it to pigs and other produce, and to give time for consideration of other products and manufactures.

Mr. Johnson

Senator Jameson and Senator Counihan based a good deal of their criticism upon the danger of the Minister interfering unduly with the conduct of their respective businesses, or any other business which might possibly be brought within the region of the definition. I suppose we need not advert specifically to the terms of the amendment, because the whole principle of the Bill is involved in this discussion. The Minister referred to the Northern Ireland Act which is parallel with this. It is not exactly the same, because it is called the Agricultural Marketing Act (Northern Ireland), 1933, and has specific reference to British agricultural development schemes. The Minister read the definition of the Northern Ireland Act. It is very likely the same in the British Act. It reads:—

"Agricultural product" includes any product of agriculture or horticulture and any article of food or drink wholly or partly manufactured or derived from any such product, and fleeces and the skins of animals.

I read in Section 14 of the Northern Ireland Act:—

(1) The Ministry may by regulations make such provisions as appears to the Ministry to be necessary for all or any of the following purposes:—

(a) for giving full effect to this Act:

(b) for regulating the removal from Northern Ireland into Great Britain of any agricultural product—

including manufactured articles, which Senators fear would include cattle

—the marketing of which is regulated by a scheme for the time being in force under this Act or under the Act of 1931, the quantity of the product or of any description thereof which may be so removed, and the descriptions of the product which may be so removed, and in particular (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision of this paragraph) for the following matters:—

(i) the registration of persons carrying on business in Northern Ireland as dealers in the regulated product:

(ii) the exemption from registration of such classes of persons carrying on business as aforesaid as the regulations may specify:

(c) for constituting, for the purposes of this Act, committees composed of representatives of persons carrying on business as dealers in a regulated product;

(d) for subserving the purposes of any order under Part I of the United Kingdom Act regulating sales of an agricultural product; which includes whiskey, beer.

Mr. Douglas

They are very different powers to those in this Bill.

Mr. Johnson

I am just taking one portion of it.

For giving effect to the provisions of a development scheme under Part II of the United Kingdom Act in so far as that development scheme is applicable to an agricultural product the marketing of which is regulated by a scheme administered by a board under this Act.

Bear in mind, all this may be done by regulations to be made by the Minister which regulations are to be laid on the Table. Then we have Section 15 of the Northern Ireland Act which says:—

Any officer authorised by the Ministry shall have power to enter at all reasonable times and to inspect

(a) any land or premises occupied or used by any person registered as a dealer under regulations made under this Act for the purposes of his businesses as such dealer; and

(b) any land or premises which the Ministry has reason to believe to be occupied or used by any person for the purpose of producing, selling, grading, marking, packing or storing any regulated product.

The Ministry may for the purposes of this Act by order require any producer of, or a person carrying on business as a dealer in, a regulated product to make to the Ministry at such time or times and in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the order, returns as to the production, sales and stocks of the regulated product, and also, in the case of a dealer, returns as to purchasers of the regulated product.

So far as these powers are concerned, which the Northern Ministry has, and which are the powers objected to, they are rather beyond the powers given in this Bill.

Mr. Jameson

The Senator has been dealing with a lot of clauses but would he say where such powers as are given in Section 2 are given in that Act? He is wandering quite outside what we are talking about. The provision I have been objecting to is that requiring to export. Is that in the clause which the Senator has read? If he is going to deal with the matter he must deal with it fully. He must compare the powers fully in each Bill.

Mr. Johnson

The powers in the Act are entirely unknown. They are such as the Ministry in Northern Ireland may wish to make by regulation—any powers they wish to regulate the trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in respect of agricultural products. So far as I can read the Bill it is rather limiting than extending and while the specific reference to the power to export is only in this Bill, that is because of the different circumstances of the two countries. As the Minister pointed out if these powers are not taken then the power to export any commodity that is quota-ed is destroyed. The whole question seems to me to be whether an industry desires to have its export trade conserved. If we want to have it destroyed then we should refuse the powers given in this Bill.

Mr. O'Hanlon

At the outset I desire to say that I agree with the suggestion made that the Committee Stage of the Bill should be postponed until Wednesday, 16th August. One has to appreciate the manner in which Senator Jameson fought for the industry with which he has such a long and honourable association but another aspect of the case has to be cited also. The purpose apparently of the two chief protagonists of these amendments is to make a fight for the particular industries with which they are concerned. Senator Jameson is making a fight for the whiskey industry and Senator Counihan for the cattle trade. They are both inclined to disregard other industries to be covered such as cheese, butter, bacon and oatmeal. They are making a case for their specific industries and the House is led to believe by a series of inferences, that no case can be made for the other industries which would be allowed to remain under the Bill. That is not so. When we are dealing with these matters we should be perfectly fair and we should say whether we have given each industry concerned due consideration. I have given this matter full consideration and I have already made up my mind in regard to it. Senator Jameson for instance spoke of the tremendous damage that might be done to his industry by the application of the powers given in this Bill. He said that stocks of whiskey might be held in various depots outside the country and if the Minister, to complete a quota, had to call upon certain supplies to meet orders in other countries, irreparable damage might be done to the industry. Does that not apply to any other industry?

Senator Jameson wants to restrict the application of the Bill to certain articles. I shall take the one product to which most reference has been made, bacon. I listened to a speech of a Senator during the week who is a director of a co-operative bacon undertaking in this country, an undertaking which merits every form of support, being run by farmers on a co-operative basis —an undertaking which has made good. What is their position? Their position was that at the beginning they were compelled to export but as time went on they concentrated on the home market and their entire output is now practically absorbed in the home market. They export a certain amount but not very much. If the terrible things to which Senator Jameson referred are likely to occur in respect to one industry, if the Minister disregards the best interests of the industry under this quota arrangement, what is to happen in respect to co-operative bacon undertakings? Their chief trade is in this country and the Minister may come along in an exactly parallel case to that quoted by Senator Jameson and he may compel that undertaking to export half of their output and so to neglect the home market. What is going to be the result? They are going to lose their home trade. If the Minister concentrates on that factory they must lose that trade and irreparable damage may be done to that undertaking. When we are dealing with the Bill, I think we should not apply it to certain commodities and exclude other commodities. Either the Bill is a good one or it is not. Either the Minister should not be given these powers to deal with any commodity or he should be given them to deal with all commodities. Do not differentiate between beer, cheese and cattle. Do not differentiate between cheese and whiskey. Do not differentiate between oatmeal and Senator Comyn's beer. It is said that irreparable damage may be done to some of these industries but I take it that the Seanad will deal with the Bill as a whole and, in considering the merits of the various industries, remember that they are necessary in building up the nation economically, that one is as necessary to build up the nation economically, as the other. We should have time to deal with the merits of the Bill as a whole. I want to be perfectly fair to Senator Jameson and to Senator Counihan and to give the House an opportunity of considering the matter further. I want the House to bear in mind that no case has been made out for differentiating against any industry. It is possible that the Bill should be further examined to see that no unnecessary hardships will be inflicted on any industry and accordingly I move that the further consideration of the Bill be postponed until 16th August.

Mr. Counihan

I second.

Dr. Ryan

I should just like to say that I know that the Seanad can regulate its own procedure but I would like Senators seriously to consider the very serious proposition that has been made to postpone the further consideration of the Bill for a fortnight. We have been pressed within the last few days to have our machinery brought in and to have it ready. Our representatives in Great Britain have been giving undertakings that this Bill will be through in the shortest possible time. If the Seanad decides otherwise, we shall have to take the risk of that. I cannot influence the Seanad any further but I just want to put before them that it is a rather serious step. Possibly we may not do as well in reference to the quotas as if we had our administrative machinery prepared. I am not using that as a threat. I am saying that it may possibly happen.

Mr. Counihan

You can have the Bill now for pigs.

Dr. Ryan

It is not easy to move an amendment to confine this Bill to pigs. I absolutely agree with Senator O'Hanlon that it is unfair for anybody to speak for one particular industry, to try to get that industry excluded and leave the Bill as it is for other industries, even though it is a harsh Bill. If the Seanad believe that it is harsh for one industry, they ought to try to make the Bill apply equally to every industry, so that everybody will have a fair chance under it. I think if Senator Jameson and Senator Counihan would only realise how the Bill is going to work they could not possibly object to it. I would like to say that in the first place we are only going to apply it where we have been doing a trade in a certain country in a certain commodity. We could not compel anybody to export cattle say, to Turkey, because we had not been doing that trade with Turkey before. It would be only to carry on the normal trade, as it were that this Bill, could be applied. Secondly we cannot compel anybody to register. If any person in the trade does not want to come under the Bill, he need not come under it because if he does not register we cannot touch him. I should like to say one other word in reference to the case which Senator Jameson made. Paragraph (c) which he wants deleted may not be perhaps as explicit as it should be. I am quite prepared to put in there before the word "persons" the word "registered" so that we cannot compel anybody to export except those who are registered.

Cathaoirleach

That is very important.

Dr. Ryan

So that we must have a person willing to register before we can touch him. I do not think that it can be contemplated that if a certain factory had a bacon quota of, we will say, 200 cwts. a week, any Minister would say "you must export 250 cwts." What he will say is: "If you wish to have 200 cwts. you will have to stick to that." These remarks cover paragraphs (b) and (c). I am prepared, also, to bring in an amendment to add the words "not being more than had been applied for" after the word "product." I think that should be sufficient.

Cathaoirleach

Will the Minister have these amendments ready for Report?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. But I should not like the Seanad to postpone the consideration of the Committee Stage even for the short period of their adjournment.

Cathaoirleach

There will be no postponement necessary, I think.

Mr. Jameson

It is very difficult to know. Considering the amount of time we have had to consider this Bill, I think it must be admitted that it was absolutely impossible for the various industries concerned to give it sufficient consideration. I am speaking now of the facts in my own industry and incidentally I mentioned others. The industries concerned had no opportunity of coming together to consider these matters. It would be impossible to get them together to consider the matter before to-morrow. It is quite evident that the Minister is trying to meet our difficulties as they have been indicated in the course of the debate, but I hold that we should get a little more time. Twenty-four hours are no use. If Senator O'Hanlon's proposal is adopted, we will have time to look into this and I believe from the way the way the Minister is taking it, that we will find methods of getting over our difficulties that will make it well worth the postponement. I think the right thing is to let us have time to look into it. That we are going to get in quotas that will burst up this country in the course of the next fortnight, I can hardly believe. If the Minister could name any mortal thing in respect of which the position is going to be damaged by leaving this over for a fortnight, he could, as Senator Counihan said, get his Bill quite easily, but I believe that the wisest thing is to allow us this fortnight. When we meet again, we will probably have found out methods of dealing with the difficulties and it will not be a matter of such trouble as it has been to-day. This is a very serious question and the amount of time we have had to consider it has not been at all sufficient and I would urge the adoption by the House of Senator O'Hanlon's proposal.

Colonel Moore

I would suggest that as it is not suitable for the Minister to delay for so long, and as it is desirable that there should be some considerable delay, we should take this Bill on the first day on which we could meet next week, and that we do meet next week for the purpose. The Seanad does not do so much work that it cannot extend its time. As it is important from a national point of view, I think we ought to give a week to the Senator to bring forward any suggestions he desires.

Mr. Counihan

The House has already arranged that it should adjourn for a fortnight after July 28th, and I cannot see any great urgency for the adoption of Senator Colonel Moore's suggestion. In support of Senator Jameson, I may mention that I discussed this Bill with some Senators who take a great interest in all the Bills passed through this House, and some of them did not know the drastic provisions included in it. I myself was not aware that they were quite so drastic until I heard Senator Jameson speak, and, for that reason, I suggest that we would want a fortnight to consider them. A week would do, but as we have already arranged to adjourn for a fortnight, I think that Senator O'Hanlon's motion should be accepted.

Cathaoirleach

Do you not think that the Minister made a very specific offer? He suggested that he would specifically state the amount of quota that would be imposed; he stated that he would limit it and that he would not require anybody to register. Practically all the safeguards which were referred to in the debate he was willing to put into the Bill on Report. That is, of course, only one way of looking at it.

Mr. Jameson

When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?

Cathaoirleach

I take that if the Report Stage were taken to-morrow, you would not be ready, Senator. That is the trouble.

Mr. O'Farrell

Perhaps, if the House agreed to take the Report Stage to-morrow and to see the amendments the Minister would bring in, they might be able to decide then whether they should pass the Bill or have an adjournment. I am entirely in favour of all the consideration that is necessary, but I am also impressed with the fact that the matter may be urgent from the point of view of discussing quotas and that it would be a very serious consideration if we were not able to get as good a deal through not having the Bill passed as we would if we had it passed. It is a very vital consideration and I suggest that the House should not arrive at any definite decision to-day. We could take the Report Stage to-morrow when the amendments can be put down and if these are considered so unsatisfactory as not to be acceptable, the House can decide on further action. I think it would be well to wait and see what amendments the Minister has to offer.

Cathaoirleach

What shall we do with the Committee Stage?

Mr. O'Farrell

I do not know whether Senators wish to press their amendments, but they could be put down for Report Stage to-morrow.

Mr. Counihan

I move that Senator O'Hanlon's motion be put.

Dr. Ryan

I should like to point out that if the remaining stages are not taken until the 16th August, it might be difficult to get a meeting of the Dáil subsequently. It might take ten days or a fortnight, which would bring us forward a long time, and I am afraid it would be getting rather dangerous.

Mr. Jameson

How is the Dáil going to deal with all the Bills we are going to have before us when we meet after the adjournment?

Dr. Ryan

The Dáil will meet eventually, Senator, probably ten or 14 days after the Seanad finishes. That is what I would expect, anyway.

Mr. Jameson

All these difficulties arise, of course, from cramming everything into this short period, but I do not think that there is a vestige of a doubt that if the Seanad is to give a considered opinion on what I have been talking about and what the Minister says he is prepared to do, more time will be necessary. I do not think that Senator Counihan has any opportunity of knowing what the Minister proposes, or of asking those who are interested in the matter what they think about it. I could not be ready and I do not think anybody could be ready to deal with the question to-morrow.

Cathaoirleach

Senator O'Hanlon's motion is that the consideration of the Committee Stage be adjourned until the 16th August.

Colonel Moore

I propose, as an amendment, that it be adjourned until next week.

Cathaoirleach

I am really in a difficulty because to accept that amendment would be overriding a decision already come to by the House. Honestly, I find it very difficult indeed. Numbers of Senators have gone away on their holidays or have arranged for them. I grant you that that should not obstruct the business, but there is the danger that the Bill could not receive the consideration is requires owing to our previous action and I do not think that the Minister's position would be so much enhanced as you imagine, Senator, by meeting a week earlier. However, if your motion is seconded, I must put it to the House.

Colonel Moore

The Minister has said very definitely that there is a danger in postponing it for so long as a fortnight. I do not think that the private interests of Senators should override the public interest in this matter. After all, it is a comparatively small matter for people to arrange about going away for a fortnight and I think that this matter being so important, all those private interests ought to be swept away as being quite small compared with the interests of the country. The Minister stated very definitely that it will endanger his position to wait so long, otherwise I would move that we adjourn for a fortnight.

Cathaoirleach

Does any Senator second Colonel Moore's amendment?

Mrs. Clarke

I second.

Cathaoirleach

It is overriding what we have done already, but I think it is incumbent on me to take the amendment. It is for the House to decide now whether we shall so adjourn the Committee Stage or not.

Mr. Johnson

May I support the suggestion of Senator O'Farrell that a decision as to what shall finally be done——

Mr. Counihan

On a point of order, there is already a motion before the House.

Cathaoirleach

There are two motions.

Mr. Counihan

There are two motions before the House and if Senator Johnson wishes to propose an amendment——

Cathaoirleach

He is trying to smooth out the situation.

Mr. Johnson

I said nothing about proposing an amendment. I am simply trying to argue against the motion for postponement for a fortnight or for a week. I am asking that consideration should be given to the proposal of Senator O'Farrell that no decision as to these amendments should be come to, that there should be no further discussion of the amendments until the House has seen what the Minister proposes, he having heard the objections raised by those concerned. It may be that when he has consulted his draftsman, he will be able to bring draft amendments forward in a way which would meet whatever solidity there is in the objections. The House may then decide that they are not satisfactory and that further discussion of the Bill should be postponed. It seems to me, however, in view of what the Minister has said regarding urgency, that unless he is quite incapable of meeting the objections that have been raised, the House should not make itself incapable of meeting the Minister's point of view regarding urgency.

Miss Browne

That does not get over the difficulty of Senator Counihan or Senator Jameson at all. Their case is that these great important interests in the country have not had time to consider this Bill and all its implications.

Cathaoirleach

I am left without any course but to put Senator Colonel Moore's amendment. I must point out that the House has already decided to adjourn for a fortnight and, in effect, this is rescinding the decision already come to. I will ask the House to vote on that.

Question put: "That the Committee Stage of the Agricultural Products (Regulation of Export) Bill, 1933, be adjourned until Wednesday, the 2nd August."

Question declared lost.

Cathaoirleach

I will put the substantive motion now as no accommodation can be found—that the Committee Stage be adjourned until the 16th of August. That is very important. The Minister has tried to meet us as far as he could, but the protagonists say that they could not reasonably consider any amendments handed in to-morrow.

Question put and declared carried.

Mr. S. Robinson

I ask for a division. I think it should go on record.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 16.

Tá

• Browne, Miss Kathleen.
• Costello, Mrs.
• Counihan, John C.
• Crosbie, George.
• Duggan, E.J.
• Fanning, Michael.
• Granard, The Earl of.
• Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
• Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
• Kennedy, Cornelius.
• McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
• Milroy, Seán.
• Moran, James.
• O'Hanlon, M.F.
• O'Rourke, Brian.
• Staines, Michael.
• Toal, Thomas.

Níl

• Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
• Comyn, Michael, K.C.
• Cummins, William.
• Duffy, Michael.
• Farren, Thomas.
• Foran, Thomas.
• Johnson, Thomas.
• Linehan, Thomas.
• Moore, Colonel.
• O'Farrell, John T.
• O'Neill, L.
• Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
• Quirke, William.
• Robinson, David L.
• Robinson, Séamus.
• Wilson, Richard.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators O'Hanlon and Counihan; Níl: Senators S. and D.L. Robinson.

Motion declared carried.

Progress reported.