Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 May 1955

Vol. 44 No. 14

Fertilisers, Feeding Stuffs and Mineral Mixtures Bill, 1955—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill and the regulations to be made thereunder are intended to replace the existing law governing the sale and manufacture for sale of fertilisers, feeding stuffs and mineral mixtures, which is embodied in one statute and six Statutory Orders, namely:—

1. The Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906.

2. The Emergency Powers (Manufacture and Sale of Fertilisers) Order, 1944 [S.R. & O. No. 49 of 1944]

as amended by the

3. Emergency Powers (Manufacture and Sale of Fertilisers) Order, 1944 (Amendment) Order, 1950 [S. I. No. 263 of 1950].

4. The Emergency Powers (Manufacture and Sale of Mineral Mixtures) Order, 1944 [S.R. & O. No. 50 of 1944].

5. The Emergency Powers (Feeding Stuffs) Order, 1944 [S.R. & O. No. 196 of 1944]

as amended by the

6. Emergency Powers (Feeding Stuffs) Order, 1944 (Amendment) Order, 1953 [S.I. No. 130 of 1953]

and the

7. Emergency Powers (Feeding Stuffs) Order, 1944 (Revocation of Article 6) Order, 1954 [S.I. No. 260 of 1954].

Repeal of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906, is provided for in Section 15 of the Bill. On the bringing of the Bill into operation as an Act, the several Emergency Powers Orders which apply at present to the manufacture and sale of fertilisers, feeding stuffs and mineral mixtures will be revoked and replaced by regulations under the new Act.

In so far as the Bill replaces the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906, it largely follows the main lines of that Act, the chief features of which were, briefly, as follows:—

1. On the sale of any artificially prepared article as a fertiliser or a feeding stuff, the seller was required to give to the purchaser a written statement containing specified particulars of the composition of the article.

2. The written statement given by the seller of the article was to have effect as a warranty by the seller.

3. The purchaser of such an article was entitled, on payment of the required fee, to have a sample of the article taken, within a specified period, by an official sampler and analysed by an agricultural analyst, who would send to the purchaser of the article a certificate of analysis indicating, inter alia, whether and, if so, in what respects and to what extent the article was found to differ, to the prejudice of the purchaser, from the particulars thereof given in the seller's written statement.

4. Every county council was required to appoint one or more official samplers and an agricultural analyst for the purposes of taking and analysing samples under the Act.

That Act provided for the fixing of fees by the county councils for the sampling and analysis of articles taken under the Act at the request of purchasers. The fees were fixed at the levels necessary to cover the analyst's fee for carrying out the analysis in each case and were so high that purchasers ceased to make use of the service of sampling and analysis provided under the Act. Eventually, the lack of demand for that service resulted in the discontinuance of the local machinery for the sampling and analysis of articles to which the Act applied. The present Bill is designed to remedy that situation by providing a State service whereby any farmer who has doubts about the quality of a fertiliser or feeding stuff which he has bought may have the article sampled and analysed on payment of a moderate fee fixed by the Minister for Agriculture with the sanction of the Minister for Finance. If, on analysis, the article is found not to be of the quality and composition warranted by the seller, the purchaser may claim redress from the seller by means of an action for damages.

The Emergency Powers Orders which now apply to the manufacture and sale of fertilisers, feeding stuffs and mineral mixtures are due to expire next year. In view of the importance of securing that all articles which are manufactured for sale as fertilisers and feeding stuffs are of suitable composition, of satisfactory quality and conform to the descriptions under which they are offered for sale, it is necessary to give permanent effect to the powers of supervision and control now vested in the Minister for Agriculture by the Emergency Powers Orders cited. The Bill accordingly invests the Minister with the following powers, being powers similar to those now exercised by him under the several Emergency Powers Orders to be revoked when the Bill comes into operation as an Act:—

(1) Power to prohibit the sale or manufacture for sale of a specified fertiliser or feeding stuff (including a mineral mixture) or of a specified class of fertilisers or feeding stuffs.

(2) Power to restrict manufacture to persons licensed by the Minister and to attach conditions to licences granted to such persons.

(3) Power to prohibit, limit or regulate the use of any specified article in the manufacture for sale of a fertiliser or feeding stuff.

(4) Power to require the production of books, etc.

(5) Powers of entry, inspection and taking of samples by an authorised officer.

There is nothing new in the Bill that the Minister put before us to-night. As he has very clearly explained to us it is a proposal to incorporate in a Bill many emergency Orders which it was found essential to put into operation during the emergency. For that reason we on this side of the House welcome it and are prepared to give the Bill a speedy passage to enable the things the Minister proposes to do under the Bill to be done.

In connection with this Bill I would like very briefly to raise a matter of general policy. There has been some correspondence in the newspapers recently about the new scheme for the sewerage of Dublin. Now it is a well-known fact that sewage of this kind has a most valuable fertilising quality. If the House will permit me, I will illustrate that by a story I believe to be true. A representative of a firm of artificial fertiliser manufacturers was sent to China to sell his particular product. He came back after six months very despondent, with no orders. He was a very good salesman. They asked him why he had failed. He said that he could not compete with 400,000,000 competitors in daily production, manufacturers, shall we say, by private enterprise. I hope the House will not deem that to be a frivolous story. It is a fact that every day vast quantities of valuable fertiliser are being poured into the sea, and the sea around our coasts, especially near Dublin, is being very seriously polluted. I am not going to press this point, but I could speak with considerable fervour on it because I enjoy bathing in the district of Dalkey and Killiney and I value the fertility of our country. I will only speak for another single minute. I would like an assurance from the Minister. Has he given serious consideration to the possibilities of converting town and city sewage into agricultural fertiliser? It has been done in England. It has been done elsewhere. In some cases it has saved the towns and cities in question a great deal of money and they have made profits by it. I know that there are difficulties, but I would urge the matter upon the Minister. Probably he has considered it before. I would be very much interested to hear his views on the matter. There are two things involved—the pollution of the seas and the continual waste of valuable fertilising material from our country.

As Senator Hawkins has indicated, the fact that this Bill merely seeks to remedy some defects in the original Act and to give permanence to very necessary emergency powers regulations ensures that it will not be opposed. It is essential, however, to consider a few aspects of this very important question. Senator Stanford has referred to one. There are, however, two matters of very great importance which are covered by this particular Bill, that is to say, fertilisers and feeding stuffs. Both relate to the raw materials of the agricultural industry. Agriculture might in one way be compared with industry. It might be an over simplification to say that there are two main processes in agriculture—the manufacture of our soil or a portion of it into vegetable matter, and the manufacture of vegetable matter into animal products. These are the main activities of the agricultural community. In the first place they take the raw material, which is the land of Ireland, and seek by their labour and efforts to convert it first into vegetation and then in another process they seek to convert vegetation produced here and also that imported from abroad into animal products. In this Bill we are seeking to regulate and improve the raw materials applied in the production of crops, that is artificial fertilisers, and we are also seeking to regulate and control the raw material for the production of animal produce, that is, feeding stuffs.

Looking at it from this aspect it will be seen that the Bill has a very important impact on the agricultural industry. If the farmer allows himself to be cheated or defrauded in any way in the fertilisers which he accepts for his land or in the feeding stuffs he purchases for his live stock his efficiency is thereby very seriously decreased. Any legislation which aims at safeguarding the farmer in respect of purchased fertilisers or purchased feeding stuffs is therefore of immense importance to both the farmer and the country. It is not so easy as it looks to distinguish between an inferior feeding stuff and one that is of real value, or to find out the defects which may exist in the feeding stuff.

It is equally difficult for the ordinary farmer to be sure that a fertiliser, particularly a compound fertiliser, is of the quality it purports to be. There was in the original Act—I assume it is being continued—provision for a written guarantee with the sale of fertiliser and feeding stuffs but as far as I know very few farmers have either asked for or are being supplied with such a written guarantee. There is on the sacks or containers of both feeding stuffs and fertilisers certain very limited and very vague information in regard to the contents.

Let me say that I have for a considerable time been influenced by the view that there is a lot to be said against compound fertilisers and against compound feeding stuffs. A compound fertiliser or a compound feeding stuff is like a coalition or a composite Government. It affords very great scope or cover for dishonesty and deception. For example, it is very easy in regard to a straight forward product such as barley meal, oatmeal or any other meal derived from one cereal for the purchaser to know whether it is good or bad by simply opening the sack. By the appearance, smell and taste, if you like, you will know if it is inferior. But if that barley meal, maize, or whatever it may be, is blended with meat meal or, perhaps, worse still, with fish meal a red herring is drawn across the trail and it is very, very difficult for the ordinary purchaser to know whether there is some inferior ingredient in the compound.

It would, therefore, be much better if, as a result of the superior and increasing agricultural advisory services which we have at the present time, farmers were all sufficiently well informed as to be able to balance their rations of feeding stuffs and blend their own compound fertilisers. I think it would be much better for the agricultural industry as a whole.

I am suggesting in a way that it might be a good thing if, through this Bill, the Minister and his Department were to lend their influence and weight in favour of selling feeding stuffs and fertilisers in their simple form. It will be remembered that in regard to fertilisers practically every farm differs in the make-up of its soil. It will be remembered that nearly every field on each farm differs in regard to the make-up of its soil. A compound fertiliser, which might have some general merit, will not be the best for each particular field or for each particular farm.

The prejudice in favour of the compound is that it contains a number of ingredients and that if there is something lacking in the soil it will be provided but against that there may be a certain surplus of one particular mineral in the soil and by applying a compound you may be merely adding to the surplus. Accordingly, the application of that compound is uneconomic.

The position in most counties at the moment is that there is one agricultural adviser to 800, 900 or 1,000 farmers. It is possible for these agricultural advisers to reach almost every farm in their areas at frequent intervals and to discuss with them the problems of soil fertility. We have an efficient soil analysis service which enables the farmer to ascertain in what particular respect his soil is deficient. I think it would be far better if, with the aid of the local agricultural adviser, the farmer, having tested his soil, were to apply the particular fertiliser in the exact proportions in which it is required on each field, rather than adopt the rather lazy method of using a compound which by nature of its all-embracing contents will meet any possible deficiency in the soil.

I would like to make a case on this Bill against compound fertilisers and compound feeding stuffs. In regard to feeding stuffs, a substantial case can be made against compound mixtures. It is this: The man who feeds live stock is usually, if not almost invariably, the owner of the land. It is highly desirable that the farmer should use the produce of his land as far as possible in the feeding of live stock. If you purchase a completely balanced ration, it is rather difficult to add anything to it. For example, if a ration for pigs is completely balanced the adding to it of home grown barley or home-grown potatoes would unbalance it. It would be much better, I think, if the farmer were to purchase whatever feeding stuffs he requires unmixed and in the simple form. There, again, with the help of the agricultural adviser he would discover the exact proportions in which to blend these feeding stuffs with his own home-produced foodstuffs.

There is also the more important point that it is much easier to discover the deficiencies or faults in a straight simple cereal meal than it is in a compound. These are considerations which I think should make us inclined to ensure, as far as possible through this Bill, that the purchase by farmers of compound fertilisers and feeding stuffs is discouraged, and that the farmer is given every incentive to use his own intelligence, and he has plenty of it, in the mixing and blending of fertilisers and of the feeding stuffs that are best adapted to his own particular needs.

There is one other matter which I think arises in regard to this Bill. It is, if you like, a very simple and practical matter. Is there not power in the Bill to enable the Minister to compel the manufacturers of fertilisers to sell them in a form that is easily used by the farmer? Fertilisers are sold at the present time in a two cwt. sack to a great extent. We all know what it means to lift a two cwt. sack, and these sacks require to be lifted at frequent intervals on the farm to be loaded on trailers or on carts or, perhaps, if they are being blended with other mixtures, to be emptied out and refilled.

I do not know how this idea of packing fertilisers in two cwt. sacks originated. It seems to have originated, not in the minds of farmers but probably in the minds of the gentlemen in the offices which control the manufacture of these commodities. If these people had to lift these sacks they would probably see to it that they were packed in one cwt. sacks. I want to suggest that, through this Bill, the Minister should see that all fertilisers offered for sale are made up in sacks or bags weighing not more than one cwt.

I think that it might even be desirable to ensure that they should be made up in paper bags rather than in jute sacks. We have been how convenient for builders the present method is of packing cement in paper bags. I am not making this suggestion on behalf of farmers only. I have in mind the manual workers in the country, in our factories and in transport as well as our agricultural workers on the farms. Why should these men be treated as if they were beasts of burden? I suggest that one cwt. of any packed commodity is quite sufficient for anyone to lift, and that it is utterly inefficient and a waste of time to have fertilisers packed in larger sacks.

The same, of course, applies to grain. We have at the present time a barrel of wheat which weighs 20 stone and a barrel of potatoes which weighs 24 stone. Now, there may have been men of great physical strength in this country in years gone by, but I rather suspect that these measures were conceived by people who had no interest whatever in the ordinary manual worker. I think it is time that an attempt were made to see the viewpoint of the manual worker, and I think that this House should be vigilant in that respect.

There is also another point in regard to which there is a great waste of fertiliser, a great waste of time and a great deal of inconvenience caused, and that is by the sale of fertiliser in powdered form. It should be compulsory on manufacturers to offer their fertilisers for sale, whether they be phosphates, potassic manures or nitrogenous manures, in a form so that they can be mixed with more fertilisers and be sown by mechanical means. We all know how the manure distributor will clog up when endeavouring to distribute powdered manures.

In regard to the regulation which compels the manufacturer or seller of those feeding stuffs and fertilisers to give a guarantee in regard to their analysis, I think that guarantee should be in the simplest form, and that, wherever possible, non-technical terms should be used. I think the Minister indicated in the Dáil that he was sympathetic to that viewpoint. It is of course, essential in regard to feeding stuffs that not only should that simple form be used, but that there should be a guarantee for the quality of the particular ingredient used. For example, it is not sufficient to say that a certain compound contains 20 or 40 per cent. of oats; there should also be some indication as to the quality of that particular grain. There is such a thing as oats and oats. You can have oats of a quality that is almost useless for feeding stuffs, or you can have oats of first-class quality.

In regard to oats offered for sale on the market, the quality is ascertained by a number of tests, one of which is bushel weight, but where oats, barley or maize are used in a compound, I think there should be some guarantee given as to the quality. There is also, as we all know, the question of whether it is whole grain or not. The offals of oats when put through a hammer mill, particularly if they are blended with meat meal or fish meal or some other ingredient in a compound feeding stuff, may have the appearance of good quality meal, even though they are altogether inferior. I think it is to safeguard us against those deceptions that this Bill is intended. I therefore commend it and would ask the Minister to give some attention to the suggestions which have been made by me as well as to those made in the discussion of the Bill in Dáil Eireann. It is a simple measure, but it is nevertheless an important one from the agricultural and national point of view. It is one in which we would all like, as far as possible, to co-operate with the Minister and with the Department in making it as effective as possible.

This seems to be eminently a Bill to be welcomed. It is practical and clear, a thing which it is not always possible to say about every Bill. Its import and intent are quite obvious to the reader, and it seems to be an admirable example of the placing of the community strength and protection at the disposal of the individual.

Section 2, which gives the gist of the Bill—the ensuring that the seller of a fertiliser or feeding stuff shall say, according to the specification, what is in it and how much of each element— is an excellent thing and affords excellent protection. The same thing applies to fertilisers and feeding stuffs, and it will be particularly valuable in relation to poultry feeding stuffs, upon which, in a certain measure at least, depends the price of eggs.

I was interested in Senator Cogan's reference to fish meal and to the introduction of red herrings. It seemed to me that a new principle and a dangerous one might be introduced, if one applied this principle in other fields, in the principle of speech analysis, for instance, the guaranteeing in a Senator's or a Deputy's speech of the red-herring-content percentage, which would have to be marked on the outside.

But seriously, I should like to say that there is another section which seems to be very useful and which has been carefully framed, Section 10, in relation to the necessity for an authorised officer—who is given certain powers under this Bill—to produce his certificate of authorisation before he exercises those powers.

There is one question I should like to put to the Minister, so as to obtain clarification. What is the purpose—it may be a technical one—of Section 14, the saver for flour milling offals? In conclusion, I would like to say that this is a Bill to be welcomed and to be put through as expeditiously as possible.

I welcome the Bill and any few remarks I have to make are intended to be helpful. I agree with Senator Cogan, who advocated putting up manures in one cwt. bags. It is a very important thing and a thing the country would be very pleased to have. At present manures are put up in two cwt. bags and it involves a good deal of slave labour in handling them. If they were put up in one cwt. bags the work would be much more pleasant. The same argument applies to meal and pollard and bran. It would be a step in the right direction if the Minister could do something to help to have manures put up in one cwt. bags and to have feeding stuffs put up also in one cwt. bags or ten stone bags.

With regard to compound manures, agricultural experts tell us that the manufacturer charges £4 for making up the compound manure and that the farmer, if he bought the elements, could make up the manure at a cost of £1. I do not understand the pros and cons of this matter—possibly the Minister understands them better—and I would be glad to hear if there is any explanation. It seems to me that £4 for making up a ton weight of manure is excessive. It may be that I am wrong and that there are good reasons why the price is so high. There is no doubt at all but the farmer can make it up himself at a cost of about £1. I would be glad to hear the Minister's explanation of the matter and what he thinks of it.

The producer who supplies milk to a factory is statute bound to supply milk of a certain standard. Is there anything which compels the creamery to supply him with separated milk or whey of a certain standard? I am unaware of it and I think there should be some protection in that case. We have many cases where people grumble when separated milk mixed with a good deal of water is given out to the suppliers or sold to other people. If that is happening—and I know it is happening in certain places—I do not think it should happen, but I doubt if there is any statute or law which compels the producer of creamery milk to have a certain standard. That is a matter which the Minister should investigate.

With regard to feeding stuffs, at the present time many people are going out of pig feeding. They are finding that by feeding pigs on the ration—the ration which is made up by the manufacturer and sold at a specific price— they cannot make pigs pay by feeding animals on that ration. It should be possible for pig feeders to make up a home ration properly balanced at a lesser price, at a price which might leave a profit and thereby save the pig industry. I would urge the Minister to do a little more publicity than is being done. Perhaps he could do more in the daily Press and his Department might put up samples of home-made rations for the benefit of the pig producers.

Calf rearing experiments were carried on in West Limerick in the last few years. As a result of those experiments, it would not be any exaggeration to say that we could add an extra 50,000 or 100,000 animals to our cattle population. I have personal experience of rearing calves. Nobody need lose a calf suffering from white scour at the moment. I suggest to the Minister that that is not a matter of general knowledge. I had to look for the results of those experiments and find them out for myself. It would be a good thing if they got more publicity and if the daily Press were used to publish what is undoubtedly one of the greatest discoveries made in our generation. I leave that to the Minister. I know he is as interested in the livestock population as any other person. I make the suggestion to him and leave it in his hands.

I would like to ask the Minister if the point raised by Senator Stanford comes within his jurisdiction?

It depends. I was about to reply on that point. Any urban authority can take this matter up if it wishes.

The city medical officer of Cork City did advocate that for a number of years. I was speaking to the city manager on the matter myself and he said it would be an ideal thing to do and that all they were short of was the money.

You could provide that.

I was in Birmingham and if anyone wants to see what can be done he can see it in Birmingham. There is no need to say it is a simple thing, but one can say it is a valuable thing to do.

And it is practicable to do it.

Yes. The only question is that there is no money available. It is hard to think that we can send ships over to bring the material in, whereas we have the real thing at our doors.

Why is money not available in Cork Corporation?

Would the Minister take note of what Senator Stanford said?

I think the Minister ought to see that these regulations are so framed that as much information as possible is given to the purchasers of compound fertilisers. There may be difficulties. For example, proteins will therefore be specified as one of the ingredients, what type of protein. whether it is fish meal or meat meal. I should like to see that the remainder is composed of maize or barley, or whatever else it is. Let us put down the carbohydrate content, etc., after it. There will be additions of lime and other items.

Another reason why I would like full information to be given is that we have a considerable amount of skimmed milk in the country. Many people are wont to feed pigs on a balanced ration. It is a pure waste of money to use proteins when they have adequate skim milk. I believe that very large numbers, particularly small farmers, feed their pigs on a balanced ration, even when skim milk is available. That is due to the fact that they have no knowledge. In the framing of these regulations there is a very wide scope for doing enormous benefit. It will be one of the objects of the regulations to educate as large a number of people as possible. That will be one of the duties, also, of the local committees of agriculture, and the many other organisations.

Finally, let me say, with regard to the cwt. bags, that I think it would be of great advantage if they were manufactured from paper, because everything could be very legibly printed on them. Contamination is another evil which the use of paper bags would avoid. I wish to congratulate the Minister, because I think this Bill will be a step forward.

I am grateful to the Seanad for the reception they have given to this Bill, and I would like to deal, as succinctly as possible, with the specific points raised.

In regard to the conversion of urban sewage to fertilisers, I find myself in the difficulty that if I hurry forth to do something in the country, a great many of my critics are inclined to say that I want to centralise everything in the Department of Agriculture, and interfere with the discretion of local authorities. If I sit back and say: "I want the municipality of Dublin or Cork to proceed, and the full resources of my Department will be placed at their disposal", my critics will answer: "Here you are. You are doing nothing about it." What course am I to pursue with safety? If the Cork or the Dublin municipality comes to the Department of Agriculture and says: "Here is a product which we can produce from the sewage of our respective municipalities" and gives a reference of its constituents from the Birmingham experience, we will gladly advise them as to what we think of the value of that product as a fertiliser, and how it may be used, and how far we would be prepared to recommend it. I think that, if nothing other than money is standing between the realisation of such a project and its failure, money could be found. I should be glad if Senator Hickey could get responsible authorities of the Cork municipality to come forward with a proposal on their behalf so that we might collaborate with them in bringing it to a successful issue, if that is possible. I do not want to throw cold water on it, or anything like that, but one does get a little cynical about their high hopes. There are a great many municipalities in England. If there is something in the sewage in every one of these municipalties for the relief of the ratepayer, if there is an almost unlimited demand for fertiliser in Great Britain, why does every municipality not batter away at it?

There is only one municipal bank in England too, and that is in Birmingham.

If the thing is feasible, I would like to see it fully developed. Certainly, if the municipality of Dublin, or Cork, or any other city, approaches the Department of Agriculture, with concrete proposals which do not put trouble on their inadequate staff and their financial resources, the Department will be most happy to examine them, and to supply any technical advice they can. The Minister for Agriculture will be prepared to go further, to give advice and to make money available to finance such enterprise, provided its soundness and feasibility are firmly established.

This Bill makes no provision for the control of the size of bags to be used. Senators will be glad to know that under another Act, which is at present in the process of enactment, if it has not already been enacted, the Tánaiste will have power to make regulations in that regard. I have already made representations to him that, subject to reasonable precautions as to cost and the like, the maximum size of containers normally used should not exceed 112 lb.

I agree with Senator Burke that paper containers have a very obvious advantage. They are non-returnable and, as he said, any formula which it is desirable to print on them would be very legible. They are very secure against contamination: they avoid contamination of railway wagons, and other places, because of the fact that they are so strong, secure and are not porous. But we have always to have regard, in these matters, to their cost. There are certain amenity values which we can afford, and others which we must forbear. If the cost will materially add to the cost of the raw materials of the agricultural industry —because, as I have often submitted to the Seanad before, the farmer's profit consists in a difference between what he gets for his finished product and what he has to pay for the raw materials of his industry—if you raise the cost of his raw material unduly, not accompanied by a corresponding rise in prices, you may extinguish his profit, with the result that he will cease to produce.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington asked me what was the purpose of Section 14. The provision is made at the request of the Department of Industry and Commerce. That Department has asked that the control and manufacture of feeding stuffs by my Department shall not extend to affect the operations of flour mills, or the production of such commodities as bran and pollard. That provision is made to meet that request, but it leaves intact the powers of the Minister for Agriculture under the Bill to control the use and sale of flour-milling offals as feeding stuffs and their use as ingredients of compound feeding stuffs.

This provides me with an opportunity of reminding Senators of what is the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is limited. It is designed to give the Minister power to make regulations to ensure that a farmer will get what he pays for. If he is in doubt that he is getting less than he paid for in quality or quantity, there are means made available to him readily to have what is delivered to him analysed and tested, so that he can recover from the vendor any short-fall in the quality or quantity of the delivery made to him. It is limited to that scope.

I have carefully noted the matter referred to by Senator O'Callaghan in regard to the quality of skimmed milk returned by creameries to their suppliers. He asks me if there is any power to control that under this or any other Bill. It is a bold Minister who will confess freely to a legislative assembly that he does not know. I do not know, but I rather suspect that, if such a power were to be made available to the Minister, it would more probably be made available under the Creamery Act, 1924, or one of its amending Acts, rather than under a Bill of this kind, dealing primarily with compound feeding stuffs and fertilisers. I am obliged to the Seanad for their reception of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining Stages now.
Bill put through Committee without amendment, reported, received for final consideration and passed.
Business suspended at 6.25 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Top
Share