SECTION 25.

Sub-section (5). Whenever any mark is prescribed by regulations made under this section as the mark to be placed on butter of any nature or quality, or place of manufacture, or packed or examined in any particular premises, or on packages or wrappers containing butter of any such nature or quality, or place of production, or packed in any such premises, the application of such mark to butter of any other nature or quality, or place of production, or to any package or wrapper containing any such butter or to any butter package or wrapper packed on any other premises shall be taken to be a false trade description within the meaning of the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1911, and the provisions of those Acts, including the penal provisions, shall apply accordingly.

I move amendment 37 :—

In sub-section (5), line 50, after the word " examined " to insert the words " and classified," and in lines 53 and 56, after the word " packed " wherever it occurs in those lines, to insert the words " or examined and classified."

Amendment put, and agreed to.
Question put : " That Section 25, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 26.
Sub-section (1). It shall not be lawful for any person to sell, or offer or consign for sale, on or from any premises registered in any register kept in pursuance of this Act any quantity of butter amounting to or exceeding eleven pounds unless the butter has been packed, and the butter and any package and any wrapper in which it is packed has been marked, in all respects in accordance with the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made thereunder.

There was an amendment proposed yesterday, and accepted in substitution on the part of the Minister for an amendment put forward by Deputy Heffernan. The principle was accepted, and it was simply a change in drafting.

Can we go back on that now ?

No ; but the Minister asks leave now to introduce a consequential amendment. Yesterday, in Section 14, an amendment was proposed and accepted as follows :—In sub-section 2 (a), lines 12 and 13, in sub-section 3 (a), lines 29 and 30, and in sub-section 4 (a), lines 48 and 49, to delete the words " or with such other plant or machinery as shall be " and to insert in lieu thereof in each place the words " with such additions and variations (if any) as may be prescribed or as may, in any particular case be required or." Consequential on that the Minister asks leave to propose the following to go in before Section 26 :—

Before Section 26 to insert a new section as follows :—

(1) The Minister may by order make regulations prescribing the plant and machinery with which all or any premises registered in any specified register kept in pursuance of this Act (other than the register of non-manufacturing exporters) are to be equipped in addition to or substitution for all or any part of the plant and machinery mentioned in the First or Second Schedule (as the case may be) to this Act, and may also require or authorise any particular premises registered in any of the registers aforesaid to be equipped with any particular plant or machinery in addition to or substitution for all or any of the plant and machinery with which such premises are required by or under this Act to be equipped.

(2) All premises registered in any of the registers aforesaid shall be equipped with the plant and machinery specified in the appropriate Schedule to this Act with such (if any) additions thereto or substitutions therefor as may for the time being be prescribed, required, or authorised under this section.

There has not been sufficient notice of this amendment, and the Minister asks leave of the Committee to be allowed to introduce it now.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

Section 14, points out that the Minister shall be satisfied that the equipment is so-and-so. That was agreed to yesterday. This amendment sets out specifically that the Minister may, by regulation, prescribe that such machinery shall be put in.

This amendment has not been circulated.

It seems to be rather technical.

I have no objection to discussing the amendment, but I suggest that if we discuss it now it should be with a view to its withdrawal. The Minister should not press it at this stage ; it can be introduced again. It is a very important point, because the schedule speaks of a high or low pressure boiler, a cooler, a heater and a centrifugal separator. The amendment rather gives power to any future Minister for Agriculture to prescribe any particular type of boiler or heater or machine required. The language may be too definite.

I think the Minister made it clear to us yesterday that it was not the intention of his department to stereotype a certain brand of machine from a certain firm. I raised the point which Deputy Johnson raises now on that occasion, and I understood that no firm would be chosen for a particular plant and get a monopoly in respect of that plant. The plant prescribed would be of a certain type but not necessarily from one firm. That is a thing we must carefully avoid, because I am aware that in other directions such a thing does exist—that a percentage is given in respect of certain plants from a particular manufacturer. That is a thing we must carefully avoid. Provided the machinery is adequate to do the work, I do not want any particular plant to be stereotyped but rather that it shall be open to all firms to tender for it.

I think we should not have a discussion of the amendment but rather of the question whether we should give leave to withdraw it. Owing to the complicated character of the amendment and its legal phraseology, it might be better to postpone it to the Report Stage.

Deputy Johnson has stated the position correctly when he says that this amendment gives us power not only in respect of additional machinery to the machinery specified in the schedule but power to order substituted machinery and varied machinery. I could conceive circumstances in which it would give the Minister power to say that manufacturers would have to put in a certain definite type of separator made, perhaps, in Germany or at home. That was all discussed yesterday, and I would not have brought this amendment forward in this way but that the point was discussed on the amendment in the name of Deputy Egan, and it was accepted in substitution of another amendment. That amendment gave us power to prescribe variations of the provisions in the schedule. I will withdraw this amendment if you wish, on the understanding that it will be brought up later.

Will it be circulated ?

It will come up on Report. We shall not discuss it at this Committee at all.

Will the Minister introduce this amendment himself ?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I propose amendment 38 :—

Before Section 26 to insert a new section as follows :—

(1) The Minister may by order make regulations requiring that all or any premises registered in the register of creameries or all or any premises registered in the register of cream separating stations, or all or any premises registered in either of those registers shall be equipped with plant for the pasteurising milk or cream or both milk and cream, and may by such regulations prescribe the nature, type, and construction of such plant, and the mode and manner in all respects of pasteurising milk and cream.

(2) Where regulations have been made under this section in respect of premises registered in the register of creameries, all milk and all cream required by those regulations to be pasteurised on those premises shall be pasteurised in accordance with such regulations.

(3) Where regulations have been made under this section in respect of premises registered in the register of cream separating stations, all milk and all cream required by those regulations to be pasteurised on those premises shall be pasteurised in accordance with such regulations.

I do not think it is necessary to say very much about this amendment. It is quite evident that regulations as to pasteurising should be under very strict control.

Deputy Heffernan had an amendment defining pasteurisation, and at that stage I pointed out that we proposed to bring in an amendment giving us power to define by regulation the methods, mode and manner of pasteurisation. It was on that understanding that Deputy Heffernan withdrew his amendment.

The same question that we passed over is raised again. Deputy Heffernan's proposition was to require that pasteurisation should be effective, but the amendment introduced on behalf of the Minister allows him to define the nature, type and construction of the plant. Deputy D'Alton says that we should avoid making regulations which would, perhaps, play into the hands of a particular firm making a particular type of machine. We have not only to avoid it now, but we have to guard against its occurring in the future. We are not now concerned with the intentions of the Minister. We are concerned with making the law under which future Ministers will act. It seems to me that the course we ought to take should be to give power to make regulations to ensure efficient pasteurisation, rather than to give the Minister power to say that a creamery shall obtain a certain type of pasteurising machine. It is said that the tendency of Ministers who remain long in office is to become conservative; they would be inclined to hold to a particular type of machine that has got fixed, and would be likely to prevent the introduction of a new type, even though a progressive creamery establishment would desire to erect such a machine. If there is any fault with the proposition of Deputy Heffernan, in so far as drafting or precision is concerned, that can be amended, but I am inclined to think that the line we should take is that the regulation should provide for the Minister making sure that the pasteurisation is efficient and effective, and that he should not be given power to prescribe a type of machine for doing it. If this amendment is carried in its present form, I would certainly desire to put in a proviso preventing the rejection of the machine or plant on any other grounds than that it is inefficient. It leaves too much to the Minister, and I would much prefer to have a regulation insisting on pasteurisation, and then get a definition of pasteurisation.

I am in agreement with Deputy Johnson with regard to this. I did not quite understand the intention of the Minister when he asked me to withdraw my amendment, and I did not quite understand the effect of the new amendment. I now see that what Deputy Johnson says would result. My idea is that it does not matter what the particular machinery is, or what the particular methods of pasteurisation are, provided the results are effective. I think my original amendment, if not exactly precise, as Deputy Johnson says, contains the germ of the correct idea—that is to prescribe what the condition of the milk should be when it has been pasteurised. I rather object to this idea of giving power to the Department to regulate or specify particular machinery. I quite understand the intention of the Minister. We can depend upon him not to be unduly arbitrary or conservative, but we do not know who the next Minister will be, and we must make our laws accordingly. I rather think that this type of amendment is not acceptable.

I want to support Deputy Johnson. The reason I support him so strongly is that a certain machine was wanted in a certain factory. The plant there was inefficient. They had to put in plant that was efficient, and that is what we want in pasteurisation and everything else. The inspector who went there insisted on certain plant being put in. They could get equally efficient plant at a lower price. He said a certain type of plant would have to go in. They said that they were prepared to guarantee and prove that the plant they proposed was just as good. He would not have it. That gentleman was getting commission amounting to £300 or £400 a year for putting in the machinery of a certain firm. What the Minister wants, to my mind, is efficient plant in pasteurisation and everything else. What I desire to see is that if there is efficient plant, no inspector will stereotype, say, Watson's machinery, or any other type. I know, of course, that the Minister would not abuse his powers, but others might.

I am in the same difficulty as Deputy Johnson and Deputy Heffernan and the other speakers. The amendment gives us very ample powers, and these powers can undoubtedly be abused. Suppose a creamery was continuing, for some vital process, with one of those out-of-date machines used in butter-making, say, fifteen or twenty years ago. If they continued doing so, and it was obvious to us that the butter was not up to the mark, we would require power to say that instead of that machine they would have to put in a different machine which would be specified. There might be only one machine of the kind being made at the time. A German firm or some other firm might bring out some machine that would revolutionise butter-making. They might have patent rights in that for a couple of years and that machine might be specified. On the other hand, there is the danger that an inspector might say : " You will have to put in Watson's instead of Burke's machine," and that he would defend that on the ground that Watson's was a more efficient machine than Burke's. There is the dilemma. How are you going to get out of it ? You will admit that we would require, in special circumstances, to be able to say that such a machine is out of date and that butter cannot be made with it. It will be admitted, too, that we should have power to say that they would have to put in another type of machine. If you are to give us power to do that, I am afraid you are opening the door to any Department or any Ministry to go further, if they are so minded. You could, perhaps, modify it by saying that the sole consideration shall be the efficiency of the machine, but is it worth it ?

I know it is not. The suggestion was that we should define what pasteurisation is and leave it at that. Suppose we accept Deputy Heffernan's definition for pasteurisation, the same question arises. There are two well-known methods of pasteurisation. There may be a third method. They may be absolutely out of date in three or four years so that no second or third class creamery would have recourse to them. In three years, when the bacteriologists get going, they may find new methods. There is very little research at present but there will be a great deal of research in this country and other countries in this matter, and there may be entirely new and better methods of pasteurisation than either of the methods in vogue at present. Certainly, I would take it that we would want to be in a position to say to a creamery using the national brand that they must use efficient methods of pasteurisation if their methods of pasteurisation are out of date. A definiton of what pasteurisation is would not touch the question of the method of pasteurisation. As we are on that question, is it sound to define exactly what pasteurisation of milk is ? That may change also. I am in the same dilemma in this matter as Deputy Johnson and Deputy Heffernan. We would have to take power to insist on better machinery and better methods for the changed times, and yet if we have that power the power can be abused.

So far as I can gather from the remarks of Deputy Johnson and Deputy D'Alton, the chief objection they have to this amendment is that some manufacturer's machine might be prescribed in preference to that of another manufacturer and that inspectors and others might perhaps be the means of doing it. The nature, type and construction of the plant is to be prescribed. Could we not make some addition to the effect that that is what is to be considered and not the machine of one particular mannufacturer as against another. Would not that, or an amendment in similar phraseology get over the difficulty ?

Supposing there are two or three people making the same class of machine, it should be open to a creamery to buy from whatever firm they wish, provided the machine is efficient.

I rather look at this question from a different point of view to that of the Minister. He rather assumes that the Ministry will be desiring to take advantage of any improvement——

I am not assuming that for a moment.

If we allow the Ministry for the time being to prescribe the nature, type and construction of plant, and the creameries get certain types of plant established, the result will be that pressure will be brought to bear upon the Minister to make that the type of plant that must be prescribed, as against, perhaps, a new type which would do the work more efficiently but which would require, perhaps, capital expenditure. If you have a few hundred or a couple of thousand creameries fitted with a particular type of plant, the tendency will be to make that the type of plant that will be prescribed. A New Zealander or a Canadian or a Dane may come forward with a new type of machine altogether. Perhaps some country will come forward with a new type of machine. The tendency will be to hold to that which is and to say, " So long as the work is done efficiently we are not going to allow the Minister to prescribe a type which will be more efficient." Quite apart from the undoubted danger there is in what Deputy Johnson speaks of, I believe that the test should rather be efficiency in pasteurisation, and that any power that we might give or which it may be necessary to give would be rather the negative power of ruling out inefficient machinery and admitting any other type of machinery that is efficient. That would still give the Minister any amount of power and he could by a certain process gain the same end. But there is not quite the same invitation in that method as there is in the method prescribed in the amendment.

I agree with Deputy Johnson that this amendment cannot be accepted as it stands. Already there are objections to the Bill, and if we pass the Bill in this form one of the arguments that we will be met with is, that not alone are we giving the Ministry and its officials power to inspect creameries, but also to say what type of machine must be erected in a creamery. The word " officials " will be very prominently before the public in the administration of this Bill. It is going too far altogether to give such powers to any Ministry or Government because, whether the intention would be there or not to do this, there would be the possibility of doing it, and there would certainly be an opportunity for critical minds to suggest that it could be done. The Ministry and its officials must be safeguarded against such a situation arising. There must be some alteration made in the amendment. I think it might be improved in this way :—

The Minister may by order make regulations requiring that all or any premises registered in the register of creameries or all or any premises registered in the register of cream separating stations, or all or any premises registered in either of those registers shall be equipped with plant for pasteurising milk or cream or both milk and cream, and may by such regulations prescribe—

delete all the words after and insert something like this :—

That no machine may be erected in any creamery which, in the opinion of the Ministry will not efficiently pasteurise milk.

Might I suggest that you get the intention clear if we delete the words " the nature, type and construction of such plant, and—." It would then read : " And may by such regulations prescribe the mode and manner in all respects of pasteurising milk and cream."

There is another consideration that has not been commented upon, and that is the intention of the Minister under this amendment to make pasteurisation compulsory upon all creameries.

We will come to that later.

I may say that, while we may change our minds, it is not the intention to make it compulsory in all creameries. It will be compulsory probably for the national brand.

That was the point I was going to make. As the new section stands I take it all registered creameries, whether using the national brand or not could be made to pasteurise.

It is not the intention ?

Once the power is given, some Minister may come along who will be obsessed with the idea that all creameries must have a pasteurising plant, no matter whether they are using the national brand or not. There would be no redress for the creamery whose circumstances would not enable it to put such a regulation into force. I believe there are some creameries so circumstanced and this would mean the extinction of those creameries. Of course, it reads that the Minister " may " make, but, if necessary, he can interpret that as " shall." He has the power to insist that it shall be done.

If they do not use the national brand they need not do it.

The Minister may compel them under the amendment we are now discussing. Deputy Milroy is quite correct in his interpretation, that even in the case of creameries which do not apply for the national brand the Minister may, if he thinks fit, compel them to pasteurise. That is Deputy Milroy's point, and I think it is quite sound as the proposed section stands. The Minister has no intention at present of doing this, but he may do it. Deputy Milroy is arguing against the power being given to him to do it.

There are some creameries at present so situated that the effect of an order, to pasteurise would be to put them out of business.

You can put them out of the registered creameries.

Is it desirable that creameries not pasteurising, but which are producing a good quality of butter, should be taken off the list of registered creameries?

I would like to point out to the Minister that, as the Bill stands, it does not provide for the pasteurising of cream which is used for making butter which gets the National Brand.

We take power to order pasteurisation for any class.

I have an amendment down which provides that it shall be pasteurised.

That amendment leaves us no option. It amounts to this, that we have to order pasteurisation in the case of National Brand creameries.

I am inclined to support Deputy Milroy in regard to the other creameries, even as far as " may prescribe " goes. I am of opinion that with regard to the National Brand it should be compulsory to pasteurise, but with regard to the creameries which are not using the National Brand, it is maintained that they can manufacture good butter without pasteurisation. I believe it is possible to make good butter without pasteurisation, and that good butter is constantly being made without it. I am inclined to think that the powers sought are too large.

Could not the operation of this be confined for the present to creameries using the National Brand? That could be enlarged later on, if found practicable. We must have some safeguard, for premises which are not so circumstanced, against what may be the caprice or obsession of some official or Minister.

I am satisfied that we require this power. Everyone knows that you could make good butter without pasteurisation. We all make it at home occasionally. It is a question of not letting germs get into the cream. It is absolutely essential that the Ministry responsible for administering the Bill should have power to order pasteurisation where necessary. There is no question that there will have to be pasteurising plants in creameries that wish to earn the National Brand. I should say that in a very short time events will prove the necessity for having pasteurising plant in creameries even that have not the national brand. Anyway, we must have that power. I regard that power as essential. Pasteurising plant is not very costly— about £100, I am told, for a cream-separating station, and £150 for a creamery. In any event, we could not confine our powers in regard to pasteurising to the creameries that use the brand. That would leave our powers for good over the other creameries negligible. We must have power to order pasteurisation. I do not say it is the immediate intention, but we must have the powers in regard to all creameries.

Are the figures given correct. Deputy Hogan has informed me that it is £600. I think it is £300.

We will have to argue that again. That is not my information. Deputy Hogan would know more about it than I would, but that is not my information.

It is a question of the size.

If we are to improve the general status of butter in the country we must have the powers if we require to use them, and if experience shows it is necessary, powers to compel creameries to use the particular plant that cleans their cream and that removes the germs from their cream, not only in regard to the national brand creameries but also in regard to the other creameries. In the beginning the other creameries will be in the majority. We are not aiming at trying to have a minority of creameries producing really choice butter, but to improve the general standard of butter that is being produced in this country. From that point of view we must have these powers. With regard to Deputy Johnson's suggestion to leave out the words "the nature, type and construction of such plant, and," that would be a considerable safeguard, and if it meets the wishes of Deputy Baxter I would agree to that. I think that makes it plain enough that we cannot go into the particular type or the particular make of machine, and that efficiency in pasteurising is the particular angle from which the official must look at it. I will accept that amendment.

On the question of expense, the Minister says this will not be a very heavy burden, but is the cost of the plant the only expense that would be involved? Take, for instance, premises where there is not a plentiful supply of good water, which, I believe, is necessary. Would this not involve the considerable expense of sinking wells? I think this will involve a heavier burden than the Minister anticipates. He certainly has, if anything, rather increased the apprehensions I entertained as to the effect these powers will have upon such creameries.

Before we go any further, does the Committee give permission to alter the proposed section in the way that Deputy Johnson suggests, namely, after the word " prescribe," the following words to be deleted, " the nature, type, and construction of such plant, and "?

Leave to amend granted.

I would like to say that for the present compulsory pasteurisation should only apply to creameries which apply for the national brand, because if a creamery does not wish to come under the national brand the cost of this will be very considerable. Some creameries are barely able to make ends meet, and this would practically put them out of business altogether, because pasteurising plant is a very considerable item. In many creameries there will not be sufficient room for such a plant, and additions will have to be made. For that reason, I think it would be wiser to confine compulsory pasteurisation to creameries wishing to use the national brand.

The insertion of the amendment does not make it mandatory on the Minister to make these regulations immediately. It is to give him power to make such regulations. I would hope that they would be made at an early stage. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the quality of the butter, which is the main export, that is creamery butter, shall attain a certain standard in the British market, and that it shall be reliable by virtue of the name. The chief argument in favour of the Bill is, that it will enable the quality of Irish creamery butter to meet the Danish and New Zealand butter in the British market. That is to say, that its keeping quality and its regular quality will be somewhat maintained. The effect upon creameries which, assuming these regulations were made, do not then put in the pasteurising plant, would be that they would not any longer be allowed to send their butter as creamery butter. That is, in fact, the ultimate result of the adoption of this and their refusal to adopt pasteurising methods in those creameries.

Is there any great harm done? Those creameries may suffer somewhat if they send their butter for sale by commission agents, and simply try to make a market on the name " Irish Creamery Butter." If they are trying to command a price because it is sold as Irish creamery butter, then they are taking advantage of the character created by the pasteurised butter. They are obtaining money by, shall I say, false pretences. They are obtaining it because of the more efficient methods of their competitors. In so far as their butter is lower in quality than their competitors, the general name of Irish creamery butter is thereby lowered in the market. So that, quite apart from the question of the national brand, which will have to be discussed later, the term " Irish Creamery Butter " should have a certain marketable value. If you are allowed to send into the market under that name pasteurised butter and unpasteurised butter, you are decreasing the market value of creamery butter. Consequently, I stand by the proposal of the Minister, that he should have power to make these regulations, and I will express the hope that he will make them at an early date, perhaps late enough to give the creameries that have not yet pasteurising plants an opportunity to prepare, but that it should be quite clearly understood that in the near future no butter shall go out of Ireland under the name " creamery " unless it has been pasteurised.

I cannot agree with my colleagues in their point of view on this matter, strange to say. I am inclined to think that the Minister ought to have power to make regulations, even for all creameries, as regards pasteurisation of milk. We may take it that they have a churning centre, and that practically in every case they are in a position to pasteurise cream. Where they have that centre for nine or ten creameries, seven or eight may be able to pasteurise and two may not. For these very small separating stations this regulation may certainly make difficulties. But what is the position ? If these two are permitted to send in cream without being pasteurised actually their cream must be manufactured away by itself. It cannot be manufactured on the premises where the cream of the other eight is manufactured. If it is manufactured on the same premises all the other creameries that are sending in cream to this centre would not be permitted to qualify for the national brand. I think the Minister must have some authority to make regulations to get over difficulties like that.

There are, I know, a few cases certainly in every county, and nothing less than compulsion will make the people concerned in some of the smaller separating stations fit out their creameries in the way that is necessary to have them fitted out. I take it that in making regulations discretion will be exercised by the Minister, and that he will accept the amendment whereby all regulations made will have to be left on the Table of the Dáil and Seanad. If that is so we will have a right to examine the regulations, discuss them with the people concerned, and, if there are regulations made that will not meet the situation and ought not be permitted to pass, we will have the right to hold up these regulations. It would be better, I think, to give the power to the Minister, hoping that it will be exercised with discretion, and that we should later on exercise a scrutinising eye to see that regulations are not made to be applied to conditions that are not favourable or suitable.

Having given the matter full consideration, I am still of the original opinion. This divides itself into three heads. The first is the objection to giving the Ministry so much power to do things by regulations. There is a genuine objection to that, as far as it can be avoided. It is the general tendency of a Government Department to desire to get power of that kind. There is a certain amount of opposition to this Bill. I have received letters from different places saying that they will not work the Bill when passed. I object to statements being made of that kind. But, at the same time, I think the object to be aimed at should be to give only the absolutely necessary power to the Minister. The Minister will have at his disposal, if he finds it necessary, the ordinary means of bringing in a new Bill taking power to regulate the pasteurisation plant for all creameries. Our great aim is to see that all butter bearing the national brand is above all possibility of question.

My idea is that it will be the aim of any reputable creamery in a very short time to see that it becomes entitled to the national brand. We will not be so much interested in the other creameries which are not entitled to it. The question of expense is a very important one. There will be a considerable amount of expense involved, and there are a great many creameries which will not be able to incur the expense. Of course, the argument lies that the Minister " may " prescribe. People are afraid of the Parliament in this country. They have not pleasant memories of the actions of other Parliaments in the past, and I would be very slow to give the Minister any power which is not absolutely necessary for the proper working of the Bill. I think this power is not absolutely necessary, and can be avoided.

This is just one of the points in the Bill that I am absolutely satisfied about. I do not think there are two sides to the question. That is, perhaps, rather tall talk, but it is my view. Of course, as Deputy Heffernan points out, we can at any time bring in further legislation ; but that argument could be used in regard to every section in the Bill, and in regard to the Bill as a whole. You do give the Ministry very big powers that would be regarded a few years ago as very drastic, but the question is, are they necessary? I wonder would it be fair to remind Deputy Heffernan that on the Egg Bill he wanted to insist that the Department officials should go into every house in the country and mark every egg that every hen laid.

It is very hard to be absolutely consistent always.

I kept that up my sleeve for an occasion like this. What are we aiming at in having a national brand? A good deal has been said about it, and it is very important that every creamery should be in a position as soon as possible— whatever time that will be—to earn the brand. What is more important is to tone up the general standard of the creameries. It will be very little consolation to us if a small minority of the creameries earn the national brand. There is a minority of the creameries at present fit for the brand, and which would be fit for the brand without this Bill. This Bill is not going to improve them very much. There are some creameries turning out butter that is unrivalled and cannot be beaten either by Danish or any other butter. What we are aiming at is to improve the general standard of the creameries.

What would our position be if we had not power to order pasteurisation ? It is no use saying you can force every farmer, or bring in regulations which will compel every farmer to keep his milk clean, or to keep this particularbacteria coli out of his milk. You cannot do that. Regulations will not do it. Education over a long period might do it, and regulations might help, but it would take a very long time. You will get cream and milk bacteriologically impure, and no regulations that you can administer would prevent that. There is only one way of doing it, and that is pasteurisation. If experience shows that it is necessary, in order to improve the general standard of the butter, to have pasteurising plants in all the creameries, we must be in a position to say they shall have them. It is not going to cost as much money as Deputy Hogan mentioned—£600. We can examine that question between this and the Report Stage.

It will be according to the capacity of the machine—£450 would be the average.

I will be surprised if my figures are very far wrong. In any case, if it is necessary it must be done, otherwise there is no use in having the Bill. If we mean to improve the general standard of Irish butter, we must take the necessary steps whatever they cost, unless the cost is absolutely prohibitive. We cannot do without this particular power. We must make it perfectly clear that we require this particular power. As Deputy Baxter points out, these regulations will be laid on the Table of the House. There will be a watchful opposition always, no matter what Government is in power, and they can examine and debate each regulation and see that each regulation gets full publicity and is fully justified on its merits before it comes into operation. I would regard the amendment that is suggested as equivalent to ruining the Bill.

I quite agree with the Minister that he ought to have full powers. We must remember that we anticipate these powers will raise the standard of our butter. If they raise the standard of the butter we will get a higher price for it, and the capital laid out for pasteurisation plant will turn into a very fair business investment. If you get better paid for your butter your interest and amortisation of capital will naturally be repaid. There is not a very great danger that there is going to be additional expenditure and over-head charges without any compensating income. The compensating income will come on the better price for Irish butter, where the average is raised.

I wish to say, as Deputy Milroy, who raised this matter is not here now, that I am not quite convinced by the Minister's arguments. Still. I can see that there is a great deal in what he says, and I am willing to withdraw any opposition at the present stage.

Deputy Milroy was speaking to me before he went out. I put my view before him, and he practically agreed. It is not the matter of pasteurisation that he has in mind, as he sees the necessity for it. His point is, that whilst the Minister would retain the power to enforce pasteurisation that the powers should not be used for a specified period, say, of a year or a year and a half. It is possible that some of the creameries will not be able at present to do this and it should not be made compulsory before a certain time. If it were amended in that way, I think it would meet all opposition. We all see the necessity for pasteurisation, but we do not want to have it made compulsory in the immediate future. We want to have a certain time allowed, say, a year or a year and a half.

There is power in the Bill to give whatever time is necessary in each case.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
Question—" That the new section, as amended, stand part of the Bill "—put and agreed to.

I move amendment 39 :—

In sub-section (1), line 8, after the word " packed " to insert the words " or examined and classified (as the case may require.")

Amendment agreed to.
Question—" That Section 26, as amended, stand part of the Bill "—put and agreed to.