Milk and Dairies Bill, 1934—Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 1:—
Section 7. To delete all from the word "Where" in line 28 to the word "then" in line 34, inclusive, and to substitute therefor the following:—
Whenever the Minister is satisfied that the selling of milk does not form the principal or a substantial portion of the ordinary business of a farm the Minister may make an order exempting such farm from the provisions of Part II and the provisions of Part III of this Act and.
The object of the amendment is to bring everybody engaged in the sale of milk under the Bill when it becomes an Act. When everybody is in, the Minister may then make an order excluding anybody that it may be necessary to exclude from the provisions of the Act. If the Bill passes in that form it will stop poachers, or people who produce milk when it is cheap to do so, and drop out when it becomes expensive to do so. There are two other amendments dealing with this matter, and it would be well if all were discussed together. If the amendment in the name of Senator Miss Browne were adopted it would ensure that only farmers with a cow could be supplied with milk.
I do not think you should take the wind out of Senator Miss Browne's sails in advance. It is unfair to criticise her amendment before it is moved.
It would save time if we could discuss the three amendments together.
If it saves time the House can do so, if it wishes, but I do not think it is right for one Senator to criticise the other amendments without giving the movers an opportunity of dealing with them.
I move amendment No. 2:—
Section 7. To delete paragraph (a) and to substitute therefor a new paragraph as follows:—
(a) surplus milk produced on a farm is occasionally sold to persons who themselves keep only one cow for consumption by such persons or their families, and.
Government amendment No. 3:—
Section 7. To delete paragraph (b) and to substitute therefor two new paragraphs as follows:—
(b) the occupier of such farm does not in any one day sell more than one gallon of such milk, and
(c) the selling of milk does not form part of the ordinary business of such occupier.
If amendment No. 2 were adopted it would mean that only farmers or persons keeping a cow could be supplied with milk when their own cow was dry. It is just as necessary that milk should be supplied to agricultural labourers and other classes of people as to a farmer whose cow has gone dry. It would not be wise to adopt such an amendment because it would lead to a great deal of hardship. As to the Government amendment, when discussing the Bill on the Second Stage the Parliamentary Secretary said it was very difficult to have any restrictions with regard to quantity, yet he comes along now and restricts the quantity to one gallon. There are parts of the country where agricultural labourers living in cottages keep two cows and they supply five or six other labourers in the neighbourhood. By the amendment of Senator Miss Browne or by the Government amendment they would be put out of business and could not supply milk, except to the extent of one gallon. Sometimes when milk becomes plentiful certain classes of milk vendors sell it cheaply. If they were prohibited from selling it would mean that many people would not have milk except it was bought from a T.T. dairy at a cost of 2/- a gallon. That price would be prohibitive and would create hardship in remote districts. There are mountainy districts where small farmers and labourers keep goats that supply them with milk for a great part of the year. According to the Government amendment that class of people would only be able to buy a gallon of milk. If the restrictions in this Bill are enforced very few of these farmers will go to the trouble of getting licences or preparing dairies which will pass the inspectors. Consequently the law will be broken indiscriminately or people will not be supplied with any milk. For that reason I think my amendment is the most reasonable way to deal with the question. Possibly the Parliamentary Secretary will say that the cost of administration will be high, and that it will be creating work for inspectors. However, it is better to do a thing right than to be thinking of the expense and having things done wrong.
In putting down the amendment the last intention in my mind was to deprive agricultural labourers of milk. I had in mind the insistence of the Parliamentary Secretary on the one-man cow. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed more concerned about the one-man cow than anything else. I was not thinking of that. I live in a rural area where a number of agricultural labourers have to be supplied with milk. I am aware of the urgent necessity of supplying them. For that reason I will not proceed with the amendment but I should like to argue the matter again. Senator Counihan has visions of districts where there is only one man selling a gallon of milk.
The Senator has no idea of districts in which seven or a dozen people sell one gallon each. That is the position I want to deal with. The person selling five gallons has to be registered. I tried to get figures for country areas. I know of one district where seven people sell one gallon each, so that a man with five gallons is not in competition with one person only. I agree that it is extremely difficult to word an amendment which would save the person who registered and who would have to face very unfair competition. I do not want anything unreasonable, or to deprive anyone, much less agricultural labourers, of a proper share of milk. In my opinion the children of these people never get enough milk. For that reason I do not know that we could get a perfect amendment. I should like to hear the matter further debated or some other suggestion made.
I confess that none of these amendments is satisfactory. I do not believe that it is possible to find a satisfactory solution of the type of people we are trying to cover. Of the three amendments I think the one in the name of Senator Robinson would be the most effective and the most desirable form to have. It would not be possible to make Senator Counihan's amendment effective. It would mean that farmers who occasionally sell small quantities of milk would have to apply to the Minister for exemption from registration. That would mean that the Minister in turn would have to make inquiries into the circumstances in which a man conducted his business, and whether the production of milk formed part of his ordinary business. It would mean that he would have to send inspectors in every case to report before deciding whether a man should be exempted from registration as a dairyman or not.
I believe the applications for such exemptions would run into thousands. I have no doubt that it would be an utterly impossible machine to operate if incorporated in the Bill. A gallon is an arbitrary figure. Some people say it is too much and other people say it is too little. In certain areas it is probably too much and in certain areas too little. It is just a round figure that appeared to us to be a reasonable amount. I feel in relation to this matter that if a man sells more than one gallon of milk per day, it forms part of his ordinary business, and that he should be registered as a dairyman. I think that is the answer to people who say that a gallon of milk is not enough. Senator Counihan suggested that under the Government amendment a number of people who ordinarily supplied small quantities of milk to labourers and neighbouring small farmers will cease to supply them if they do not supply more than one gallon. If that happens, Senator Miss Browne's amendment would operate. If a number of these people find it is not worth while selling any milk, because they are only allowed to sell a gallon, some of them will go out of business, and there will be room for genuine dairymen. On the whole the Government amendment is the only possible one.
Would the Minister agree to put the word "occasional" into the other amendment? That would be the best solution that could be arrived at.
Would it not be an improvement if the words were "but not for resale"? It is quite possible that a middleman might get a gallon of milk from one farmer and one from another and so on; but if you put in the words "not for resale" you would meet the difficulty.
Paragraph (a) in Section 7 remains.
Senator Counihan's amendment has only to be read in order to see that if passed it would make the Bill quite unworkable. His first amendment says "whenever the Minister is satisfied that the selling of milk does not form the principal or a substantial portion of the ordinary business of a farm" ... and so on. I ask the Seanad to consider for one moment what would happen in an individual case. A man would come up and say, "I want to sell one gallon of milk; it is not my principal business because I sell cattle and horses and barley; it is not a substantial portion of my ordinary business although it may be twenty gallons of milk." If this amendment is passed, the Minister will have no time to do anything except to answer the queries of farmers such as Senator Counihan has in mind. I was very glad to see that Senator Miss Browne was so reasonable. In her amendment she provides for the supply of milk to persons with only one cow. I am afraid that was an oversight on her part, because it would leave labouring men and others out of consideration. I ask the House to accept Government amendment No. 3 as the only amendment which can possibly deal with a difficult situation.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he has considered the phraseology of paragraph (b), which reads: provided "the occupier of such farm does not in any one day sell more than one gallon of such milk." I think we all know what is meant, but I do not know that it is clear on the face of it. I think the form is doubtful. What the man is in the habit of doing and what he has occasionally done, and what was done in the past, or may be done in the future, is not covered. I take it that what is meant is the habitual practice. I ask the Minister to look into that and see if it is watertight.
I think it is watertight.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that the Government amendment will meet the point raised by Senator Miss Browne. Everyone can sell a gallon of milk any day. Under my amendment nobody can sell milk except they have a permit from the Minister to do so. That would prevent the poachers that Senator Miss Browne wants to keep out from coming in. It will guard against the people of the country and mountainy districts being put to great disadvantage. In parts of the country that I know of, it will lead to great hardships and a terrible lot of distress if the law is carried out in the form it is in. I ask the Minister, if he does not accept my amendment, to cut out the three amendments and leave the Bill as it originally stood. If the Parliamentary Secretary does not accept my amendment I will move that the three amendments be dispensed with.
I do not think I could withdraw the amendment. I think we had better stick to the Government amendment. While it does not cover the point as satisfactorily as most people would like, still I think it is an improvement in the Bill.
I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary is not accepting the advice given to him by Senator Counihan—because in the case made in this House before, stress was laid upon the circumstance that under the Bill as it existed it was possible for poachers to come in at such times of the year and sell as much of their surplus milk as they desire. It is impossible to find an absolute remedy, but there is no doubt that if a poacher is limited to one gallon of milk at a time when he may have considerable supplies he will not continue to come in against the legitimate suppliers of milk. I think amendment No. 3 goes a long way to meet the difficulty which was stressed on the last occasion. In my opinion the Bill is much better with the amendment than in its original form, and I hope the House will accept it.
I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
I shall put Senator Counihan's amendment first.
Amendment No. 1 put accordingly and declared lost.
Amendment No. 2, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 put and declared carried.
The next is Government amendment No. 4.
Before dealing with that may I say that the object of my amendment No. 5 on the Paper is carried out better by Government amendment No. 7 to which, I think, No. 4 is consequential. I ask leave, therefore, to withdraw amendment No. 5.
Can we have a little explanation? I want the Minister to explain what the effect is.
Amendment No. 7 is the only effective one, as the others, No. 4 and No. 6, are conseqential upon No. 7. This amendment No. 7 has been drafted to meet the point raised by Senator Brown the last time we were discussing this Bill. Senator Brown made the case that when a cancellation order was decided upon by the local authority it automatically should come to the Minister for sanction. As the Bill stands, it would not come under the Minister's notice unless a person effectively appealed to the Minister against the cancellation order. Senator Brown had in mind the cancellation for a specific offence. It was felt that instead of extending the number of automatic appeals to the Minister in respect of a number of offences it would be better to bring the cancellation order under the Minister's notice without any specific appeal having been made by the person concerned to the Minister. It is partly a redraft of the existing machinery with the principle of automatic appeal to the Minister incorporated.
Amendment No. 5, by leave, withdrawn.
The following Government amendments were agreed to:—
4. Section 26, sub-section (1). After the word "may" in line 22 to insert the words "subject to the provisions of this section."—(Senator S. Robinson.)
6. Section 26, sub-section (2). After the word "may" in line 28 to insert the words "subject to the provisions of this section."—(Senator S. Robinson).
7. Section 26, sub-section (5). To delete the sub-section and to substitute the following new sub-section therefor:—
(5) The following provisions shall have effect in respect of the making by a sanitary authority of a cancellation order in relation to a person (in this sub-section referred to as the dairyman) registered in the register of dairymen kept by such sanitary authority, that is to say:—
(a) before making such order, such sanitary authority shall cause a draft of the proposed order to be prepared;
(b) such sanitary authority shall serve on the dairyman a notice in the prescribed form of their intention to apply to the Minister for his consent to the making of the proposed order, and such notice shall incorporate a copy of the said draft;
(c) the dairyman may, within fourteen days after the service of the said notice, make representations to the Minister in relation to the proposed order;
(d) as soon as may be after the service of the said notice, such sanitary authority shall apply to the Minister for his consent to the making of the proposed order, and such application shall be accompanied by a copy of the said notice having endorsed thereon the date of service thereof on the dairyman;
(e) on receipt of the said application the Minister shall, but not earlier than fourteen days after the date of the service of the said notice on the dairyman, consider the said application and any representations made by the dairyman, and shall, after such consideration, do one of the following things, namely—
(i) consent to the making of the proposed order in terms of the said draft, or
(ii) amend the said draft and consent to the making of the proposed order, in terms of the said draft, as so amended, or
(iii) refuse his consent to the making of the proposed order;
(f) such sanitary authority shall not make the proposed order if the Minister has refused his consent and shall not, if the Minister has consented to the making thereof, make the proposed order otherwise than in the terms of the said draft or the said draft, as amended by the Minister, (as the case may be). —(Senator S. Robinson).
8. Section 26, sub-section (6). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
(6) Where a sanitary authority make, with the consent of the Minister, a cancellation order they shall serve a copy of such order on the person to whom such order relates, and such order shall come into force on the seventh day after the date of such service. —(Senator S. Robinson.)
9. New section. Before Section 32 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister may, on the application of the sanitary authority of a sanitary district, from time to time by order under this sub-section prohibit the sale of milk, in case such district is an urban sanitary district, within the meaning of the Public Health Acts, 1878 to 1931, in such district or, in case such district is a rural sanitary district, within the meaning of the said Acts, either (as may be specified in such order) in such district or a specified part thereof, unless such milk is sold under a special designation, within the meaning of Part IV of this Act.
(2) Where an order has been made under the immediately preceding sub-section in relation to any sanitary district or a part thereof, the Minister may, on the application of the sanitary authority of such sanitary district, by order under this sub-section revoke such first-mentioned order.
(3) The following provision shall have effect in relation to an application by a sanitary authority for an order under this section, that is to say:—
(a) such sanitary authority shall, before making such application, give such public notice as may be prescribed of their intention to make such application:
(b) the making of such application shall be—
(i) in the case of the county borough of Dublin or the borough of Dun Laoghaire, a reserved function for the purposes of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930 (No. 27 of 1930), and
(ii) in the case of the county borough of Cork, a reserved function for the purposes of the Cork City Management Act, 1929 (No. 1 of 1929), and
(iii) in the case of the county borough of Limerick, a reserved function for the purposes of the Limerick City Management Act, 1934 (No. 35 of 1934).
(4) If any person acts in contravention of any order made under sub-section (1) of this section and for the time being in force such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first offence under this section, to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and, in the case of a second or any subsequent offence under this section, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and, in either case, if the offence is a continuing one, to a further fine not exceeding forty shillings for each day during which the offence continues.
(5) An offence under this section may be prosecuted by or at the suit of the sanitary authority within whose sanitary district the offence was committed as prosecutor. — (Senator S. Robinson.)
10. Section 39, sub-section (1). To delete all from the word "serve" in line 26 down to the word "notice" in line 27, inclusive, and to substitute therefor the words "by the most expeditious means available inform the medical officer of such other sanitary district". —(Senator S. Robinson.)
11. Section 39, sub-section (1). To delete line 40 and to substitute therefor the words "from whom such information was received, the result of". —(Senator S. Robinson.)
12. Section 39, sub-section (8). After the word "appellant" in line 25 to insert the words "or any person who, immediately before the making of such order, was an employee of the appellant."—(Senator S. Robinson.)
13. Section 39, sub-section (9). After the word "neglect" in line 32 to insert the words "or that of any person who, immediately before the making of such order, was an employee of such dairyman."—(Senator S. Robinson.)
14. Section 39, sub-section (9). Before paragraph (b) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(b) every person who, immediately before the making of such order was an employee of such dairyman shall, unless such order was made in consequence of any neglect or default by himself or by such dairyman, be entitled to recover from the sanitary authority, full compensation for any loss or damage he may have sustained by reason of the making of the order; —(Senator S. Robinson.)
15. Section 39, sub-section (9). After the word "dairyman" in line 36 to insert the words "and every person who, immediately before the making of such order, was an employee of such dairyman". —(Senator S. Robinson.)
16. Section 39, sub-section (10). To delete the word "dairyman" in line 53, and to substitute therefor the words "the person claiming such compensation,". —(Senator S. Robinson.)
17. Schedule. In the third column opposite the reference to the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908, to delete the words and figures "Sections 16 and" and to substitute therefor the word "Section."—(Senator S. Robinson.)
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
I am afraid I missed my opportunity, but perhaps on this motion it might be opportune if the Minister told us what is in his mind regarding special designation. We know in a rough way some of the characteristics of milk that will come under that. I would like to know whether the Minister could tell us what are the characteristics of such designated milk. We have passed a section which leaves the matter quite open. Certain conditions will apply to milk that comes under the special designation, but there is nothing in the Bill to indicate what it is intended shall come within the characterisation of special designation.
You could get that on the Final Stage, Senator.
If the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us then, it will be satisfactory.
It was never intended that the special designations should be set out in the Bill. The Bill empowers the Minister to determine by order special designations. Beyond indicating, in a very general kind of way, what would probably constitute special designation milk, we cannot go any further at this stage. We will probably require a good deal of consultation, and the matter will require a good deal of thought, before actually deciding on the special designations. But the special designations would be such as would cover what are known as grade A milk. Grade A, T.T. and pasteurised milk at the present time. We shall probably have three special designations, but whether we will call them by the names by which they are popularly known at present is a question I could not answer at the moment. The Bill merely empowers us to define special designations and the conditions in regard to the standard of purity and wholesomeness which milk will have to reach in order to come into the special designation will all be set out in the Order which will be laid on the Table of both Houses and Senators will have an opportunity of discussing them, and rejecting them, if they disapprove of them.
Question put and agreed to.
Final Stage ordered for Wednesday next.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.50 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 29th May, 1935.
