I move—
In Section 2, page 4, lines 6 and 7, to delete the words "manufacturing exporters" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "butter factories."
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - DAIRY PRODUCE BILL, 1924 (RESUMED).
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 4, "In Section 2 after the word `includes' to insert the words `milk and'," is outside the scope of the Bill.
I accept your ruling at once, but I regret that it is not possible under the Bill to give the Minister power to prosecute in the case of any person tendering for sale milk which is dirty, whether it is to be made into butter or not.
resumed the Chair.
Mr. HOGAN
I am proposing an amendment to Section 36 which would be a similar amendment, and we can deal with it when we come to it.
SECTION 3.
On and after the commencement of this Act all premises in which dairy produce is manufactured for sale (whether such premises are or are not registered under this Act) shall comply with the following conditions (in this Act called the conditions of cleanliness and order), that is to say—
(a) the premises shall be structurally suited for the manufacture of such descriptions of dairy produce as are in fact manufactured therein and shall be provided with such plant and machinery or such appliances, and such utensils as are requisite for the manufacture of such dairy produce, and
(b) the premises, and the plant and machinery or the appliances, and the utensils therein shall be in a state of cleanliness and good repair, and
(c) the milk or cream and all other ingredients and materials used in the process of manufacturing dairy produce on the premises shall be clean, and
(d) the premises shall be situated in such a position and used in such a manner as to prevent the exposure of the dairy produce manufactured therein or any ingredients or materials used in the process of such manufacture to any effluvium from any drain, cesspool, manure heap, cow-house, pigstye or other source of contamination, and
(e) the premises shall be provided with an adequate supply of pure water.
I beg to move:—
In Section 3 (a), page 4, to delete all from the word "and" in line 33 to the word "produce" in line 36, inclusive, and to add at the end of the section a new paragraph as follows:—
"(f) save as hereinafter excepted, the premises if registered in any of the registers kept in pursuance of this Act shall be equipped with such plant and machinery as are required in respect of those premises by or under Part III, of this Act, and if not so registered shall be provided, with such plant and machinery or such appliances and such utensils as are requisite for the manufacture of dairy produce of the desscription manufactured therein: Provided always that this paragraph shall not apply to premises which comply with all the following conditions, that is to say, the premises are not registered in any of the registers kept in pursuance of this Act and are situate on a farm and dairy produce is manufactured therein only from the milk of cows belonging to the occupier of the farm."
This is introduced to meet an amendment put forward by Deputy Johnson when the Bill was in Committee.
Mr. HOGAN
I had better explain this. The words to be deleted are: "And shall be provided with such plant and machinery, or such appliances, and such utensils as are requisite for the manufacture of such dairy produce." Hence with regard to all premises, registered or unregistered, that is to say premises such as farmhouses where butter is produced for sale, all the sub-sections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) apply—Deputy Heffernan will notice that "the premises shall be provided with an adequate supply of pure water" is to apply still even to farm-houses—subject to the amendment which I will read now:—
"Save as hereinafter excepted, the premises if registered in any of the registers kept in pursuance of this Act shall be equipped with such plant and machinery as are required in respect of those premises by or under Part III. of this Act, and if not so registered shall be provided with such plant and machinery or such appliances and such utensils as are requisite for the manufacture of dairy produce of the description manufactured therein: Provided always that this paragraph shall not apply to premises which comply with all the following conditions, that is to say, the premises are not registered in any of the registers kept in pursuance of this Act and are situate on a farm and dairy produce is manufactured therein only from the milk of cows belonging to the occupier of the farm."
That excepts from the sub-section as to machinery simply small farms, and still includes premises, such as small butter factories, that are not exporting butter, but making butter for internal trade. But it does definitely exclude small farms from the machinery sub-section, sub-section (a). It does not include the big farm making 56lbs. of butter in the day. I do not believe there is such a place in Ireland. To be able to do that you would want to keep about 150 cows. In the event of some individual farmer doing that sort of thing, he has to register. It excludes particular farmers from the machinery sub-section, and the next amendment deals with the water supply.
May I ask does this exempt such farms from inspection as to cleanliness?
Mr. HOGAN
No. It does not exclude small farmers who make butter for sale.
Let us assume an instance of this kind. A small farmer might make some of his milk or cream into butter for his own use, and some of his cream may be sent on to a creamery. Is that immune from inspection?
Mr. HOGAN
Not from (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), except that it is immune from the last part of (a). It is not immune from all the regulations in regard to structural suitability, cleanliness of the premises, cleanliness of the milk or cream, location and water, but it is immune from the machinery sub-section.
I want to ask the Minister if this section as amended will mean that all the farms on which butter is made are subject to inspection?
Mr. HOGAN
For sale, yes. There was no objection to that in Committee. That is necessary in view of the butter factories.
If you pass amendment 53, though I think it will be rather hard, I do not see how you can avoid the power of inspection in case of farms of that kind.
Mr. HOGAN
Inspection for cleanliness, that is all.
We do not take power in the Bill to inspect farmhouses which send their milk to the creameries. There is rather a curious anomaly there. You inspect farmhouses which make butter on the premises, but you do not inspect those which send milk to the creamery.
Mr. HOGAN
You do, in fact.
I think this section and the amendment only deal with the inspection of the utensils, the particular kind of utensils and plant. It appeared clear to the Committee, when one spoke of inspection of plant and machinery in a farm-house which was producing butter for its own use, or for a little local sale, so long as it was not exporting, that it was asking altogether too much to expect that that farm-house should comply with all the conditions which would be required in respect to plant, machinery and utensils. It was suggested that there are farmers and dairymaids who make butter without any utensils or machinery, except their fingers and hands and cold water or even a bottle. I think the amendment meets the point I raised on the Committee Stage.
I think the Deputy is quite right as far as I can see. So far as cleanliness is concerned it refers to the dairy produce manufactured therein. It does not refer to the milk which is going to be sent to the separating stations being kept in a state of satisfactory cleanliness.
Mr. HOGAN
We are not dealing with separating stations here.
We are dealing with the people who produce the milk.
Mr. HOGAN
No. We are dealing in this section with the people who produce the butter, not the milk.
I want to know if the people who supply the milk from which the butter is produced are to have their premises subject to inspection and if they are subject to certain conditions that will ensure the cleanliness not merely of the butter produced but of the raw materials that are sent to the creameries.
Mr. HOGAN
In fact they are. Under Section 36 of this Bill we take powers to prosecute the people who supply dirty milk. We have also power under the Public Health Acts. I never had any idea we were such a well-regulated country until I read this Order under the Public Health Acts. The most stringent regulations apply to anybody who sells milk to anyone, with special reference to creameries. These regulations are the law of the land. I doubt very much if there are many farmers who comply with all the regulations, in the letter any way. There are most ample powers under the Public Health Acts to inspect premises where milk is being produced for sale to any person and for any purpose.
The section applies to cream as well as to butter?
Mr. HOGAN
It does.
I am not enamoured with this amendment as it stands. As I see it, it simply means that in the case of farmers where milk is supplied direct to the creamery there is no inspection except under the Public Health Acts. We have nothing to do at this stage with the Public Health Acts. In cases where butter is made on the farm premises for sale—for which purpose practically all butter is made—there will be inspection. Apart from the question of rights in one case as against the other, if it is a matter of inspection at all, I say that the Ministry ought to take power to inspect all farm houses.
Read the proviso of the amendment.
Yes, I am arguing wrongly, and I withdraw.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In Section 3 (e), page 4, line 51, to delete the words "pure water" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "good and wholesome water for all such purposes as may from time to time be reasonably necessary, and."
Mr. HOGAN
Deputy Heffernan raised two points in regard to this section. One was with regard to the machinery and the other was in regard to the difficulty of asking a private farmer to have an adequate supply of pure water. On consideration I drafted this amendment, which I commend to him. That does not mean that a farmer has to lay pipes, but for the purposes of making butter, he must be in the position to supply good and wholesome water. The reason I use the words "good and wholesome" is that I copied them from the section which refers to the supply of water for public purposes. The Deputy was afraid that the farmer who had not a spring well in the yard could not make butter. Clearly that is not the intention. All it sets out to do is that, if butter is made for sale, a supply of pure water must be available.
I am not quite sure that the amendment will meet the requirement, but I suppose if the Minister tells us it will it is all right. I cannot see a great deal of difference between "an adequate supply of pure water" and "good and wholesome water for all such purposes as may from time to time be reasonably necessary."
Mr. HOGAN
There is not, but all the lawyers agree that if you have a section stating that the premises are to be supplied with an adequate supply of good and wholesome water for making butter, it means that you will have to get, wherever it is to be found, sufficient water to enable you to make butter properly. No one can force you to sink a spring well in the yard. That is the difficulty that was in the Deputy's mind.
It is obvious that the question of pure water is the difficulty. I take it that in the country the water is drawn mainly from wells. The water from a well may be very pure and very good to-day but without any indication, so far as appearance goes, it may be very dangerous to-morrow. Certain percolations take place. I would like to know from the Minister if any test is required to ensure, where a large quantity of water is drawn from a well that the butter is not affected. How can the farmer detect if the water is not all right?
Mr. HOGAN
Learning by experience. If a farmer makes bad butter and we discover it, we trace it to the source, the well, to find out what is wrong. No legislation that was ever passed can provide for every difficulty.
I do not wish to raise a difficulty about this matter, but I am not quite sure that the Minister's amendment will fulfil a useful purpose. How are you going to find out that the water is not good and wholesome? There are many farmhouses where water is not available on the farm, and the only method of getting it is by hauling it long distances in a barrel. An inspector may come to the farm-house and find the barrel empty, and that there is no water supply there. I think this should be left out of the Bill altogether. As it stands it serves no useful purpose and may cause difficulty and trouble if there was a finicky inspector about.
Mr. HOGAN
A finicky inspector would have to prove his case if we had to take proceedings. If a finicky inspector got up and swore that he went into a farm-house and found there was no water, and if the owner of the premises was in a position to prove there was a well within 200 yards; that he was not making butter at the time; that he was able to get water whenever he required it; and if the inspector was unable to contradict him, how could there be any difficulty? Does the Deputy mean to suggest that butter could be made without water? If you require good and wholesome water for making butter then it had better be put into the Bill. That is all we have said. I agree that there is no difference between this provision and the provision that was in it. I am merely pointing out that this provision does not force a man to sink a pump at immense expense in his own yard. All it compels him to do is to bring the water from the nearest well. The Deputy must know that a lot of the bad butter is made because there is not sufficient pure water, and because people are too lazy to bring sufficient pure water.
Perhaps if the amendment read in this form it would meet Deputy Heffernan's objection:—
"good and wholesome water as may from time to time be reasonably necessary for all such purposes and."
Mr. HOGAN
I agree to that.
That meets my point.
Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 6.30 p.m. and was resumed at 7.20 p.m.,An Leis Cheann Comhairle in the Chair.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In Section 4 (2), page 5, after the words "carrying on" in line 2, to insert the words "on such premises," and in line 3 to delete the words "on such premises."
Mr. HOGAN
This is merely a verbal amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 8:—
In Section 4 (6), page 5, line 51, after the words "carry on" to insert the words "on the premises to which such notice relates," and in line 52 to delete the words "on the premises to which such notice relates."
I am accepting the statement of the Minister that these are verbal amendments, but I only got the amendments half an hour before the Dáil met.
It will be obvious to anybody that they are verbal amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move amendment 9:—
In Section 9 (1), page 7, line 42, after the words "exporters" to insert the words "or the register of butter factories."
Mr. HOGAN
This amendment is necessary because we are inserting a new register—a new class.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move amendment 10:—
In Section 9 (1) (d), page 7, line 59, to insert after the word "creameries" the words "or the register of manufacturing exporters."
Mr. HOGAN
It is obvious that the same regulations that apply to creameries must apply to manufacturing exporters as well.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In Section 9 (1) (d), (ii), page 7, line 65, to delete all after the word "cent." to the end of line 67, and substitute therefor the words "nor any noxious colouring matter nor any preservative other than salt of a prescribed description, and."
Mr. HOGAN
It is obvious from Section 9 (1) (d) that butter should be packed in those premises, and (d) (ii) that the butter shall be clean and shall not contain water in excess of 16 per cent., and shall be free from preservatives other than pure salt. We agreed in the Committee that the butter shall not contain any noxious colouring or anything except pure salt. It is difficult always to say what exactly is pure salt, and, as a matter of fact, it was necessary to have some laxity in the matter and to insert the word "salt other than of a prescribed description."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In Section 9 (1) (e), page 8, line 5, to delete the words "manufacturing exporters" and substitute therefor the words "butter factories."
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move amendment No. 13:—
In Section 10 (6), page 9, line 50. after the words "from the" to insert the word "lawful."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 14:—
After Section 14 (1) (a), page 10, to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"a register (to be called and known as the register of gathered cream factories) in Saorstát Eireann of premises in which the manufacture of butter from gathered cream is carried on, and."
As far as I can see, this amendment only differs from the Minister's suggestion merely in a matter of terms. I use the phrase the "register of the gathered cream factories," he calls them the "manufacturing exporters." I do not see, perhaps, that it is necessary to press this amendment.
Mr. HOGAN
I do not think it necessary in one sense. We argued it on the three first amendments, except that we did not deal with the point whether there was any advantage to these premises to allow them to get in the word "cream" in the term "gathered cream factory." The Deputy, I think, will agree that in view of the fact that for at least three years they are entitled to use the word "creamery," then for that period there is no advantage in using the word "cream" specially.
I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move Amendment 15:—
In Section 14 (1), page 11, to delete paragraph (c), and substitute therefor the following two paragraphs:—
"(c) a register (to be called and known as the register of manufacturing exporters) of all premises in Saorstát Eireann in which the business of manufacturing butter for export, but not a creamery business or a butter factory business, is carried on, and
(d) a register (to be called and known as the register of butter factories) of premises in Saorstát Eireann in which a butter factory business is carried on, and."
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move Amendment No. 16:—
In Section 14 (4), page 11, line 38, to insert after the word "stations" the words "or the register of manufacturing exporters."
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move Amendment 17:—
To add at the end of Section 14, page 11, two new sub-sections as follows:—
"(5) No premises which form part of or communicate otherwise than by a public road or street with any premises used for the manufacture of or wholesale or retail dealing in margarine, margarine cheese, milk-blended butter, or any class of butter except creamery butter shall be capable of being registered in the register of creameries or the register of cream separating stations.
"(6) No premises which form part of or communicate otherwise than by a public road or street with any premises used for the wholesale or retail dealing in margarine, margarine cheese, milk-blended butter, or any class of blended, re-worked, or renovated butter shall be capable of being registered in the register of manufacturing exporters."
Mr. HOGAN
It was generally agreed that an amendment to this effect would be required in regard to creameries, and Deputies will also agree it was necessary to be even more stringent in regard to manufacturing exporters. Creameries are less likely to adulterate their butter. At any rate we cannot afford to be any less stringent in our regulations in regard to manufacturing exporters than in regard to creameries. In fact, it was Deputy Heffernan himself who suggested that the requirements in regard to manufacturing exporters would need to be more stringent.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 18 not moved.
I move Amendment 18 (a):—
In Section 15 (1), page 11, line 42, to insert after the word "exporters," the words "or the register of butter factories."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 18 (b) not moved.
I beg to move Amendment 19:—
To insert before Section 15 (4), page 12, the following new sub-section:—
"(4) Before registering any premises in the register of manufacturing exporters the Minister shall be satisfied—
(a) that such premises are equipped with such plant and machinery as may be prescribed or as may in any particular case be required or approved by the Minister, and
(b) if any regulation under this Act is for the time being in force requiring premises registered in the register of manufacturing exporters to be equipped with plant for pasteurising milk or cream or both milk and cream, that the premises are duly equipped with such pasteurising plant as is required by such regulation, and
(c) that the manufacturing business carried on thereon is such that in the ordinary course of business the quantity of butter produced on each day on which the business is carried on exceeds fifty-six pounds in weight."
Mr. HOGAN
These are the conditions, and they are exactly the same in regard to the creameries.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move Amendment 20: "In Section 15 (4), page 12, lines 22 and 23, to delete the word "manufacturing exporters" and to substitute therefor the words "butter factories."
Mr. HOGAN
What used to be called manufacturing exporters are now called butter factories.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move Amendment 21: "In Section 16 (1) (c), page 13, line 6, to insert after the word "milk" the words "or cream."
Mr. HOGAN
I do not think that will be contentious. Section 16 deals with regulations applicable to registered creameries. Clause (c) of the section reads: "Every butter-maker on the premises and every person carrying out tests of milk on the premises for the purpose of determining the percentage of butter fat therein shall be duly qualified and the prescribed particulars of all appointments of such butter-makers and persons shall be notified to the Minister in the prescribed manner." The suggestion is to insert after the word "milk" on line 6 the words "or cream."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move Amendment 22: "In Section 16 (1) (d), page 13, line 12, and in paragraph (e), line 15, after the word "cent." in each of those lines to insert the words "or any noxious colouring matter or any preservatives other than salt of a prescribed description."
Mr. HOGAN
In Special Committee we agreed to prohibit noxious colouring matter specifically. It is inserted here for that reason. We also agreed to introduce an amendment which would get over the difficulty that it is extremely hard to get a definition of the word "salt." We are inserting in the amendment the words "or any preservative other than salt of a prescribed description."
Amendment put and agreed to.
As Amendment 23 which is in my name is consequential, I am not moving it.
Amendment not moved.
I beg to move Amendment 24:—
To add at the end of Section 17, page 13, two new sub-sections as follows:—
"(2) No milk other than cow's milk and no cream other than cream from cow's milk shall be brought on to any premises registered in the register of creameries or the register of cream-separating stations or the register of manufacturing exporters.
"(3) Any person who tenders or supplies or knowingly accepts for use or who knowingly uses in any premises registered in the register of creameries or the register of cream-separating stations or the register of manufacturing exporters any milk other than cow's milk or any cream other than cream from cow's milk shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall on summary conviction thereof be liable in the case of a first offence to a penalty not exceeding two pounds, in the case of a second offence to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, and in the case of a third or any subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds."
Mr. HOGAN
That amendment aims at the making of butter from any milk except cows' milk. With regard to suppliers, we make it an offence, specifically, and without condition, to supply goats' milk. With regard to the managers or receivers we make it an offence to receive goats' milk, but in fairness to the creameries we insert the word "knowingly" because it is obvious that in certain cases it would be extremely difficult for the creamery manager to know whether or not he was getting goat's milk mixed with other milk.
I do not like to allow this amendment to pass without saying something on it. I must say that the information available before the Special Committee on this matter was rather meagre. Since the Committee Stage of the Bill was taken, I have been making inquiries with regard to the detrimental effect of goat's milk, and the information I have received has not confirmed me in the idea that I entertained that there is any great harm, if any at all, in using goats' milk. Of course, I am taking a line now opposite to the line I took on this matter when we were on the Committee Stage of the Bill. I think it is a good thing, when one finds that one's information is not quite correct, to change one's viewpoint. I have actually heard that in certain cases goats' milk is a good thing—I mean using it in milk which is made into butter. I know of one particular place where excellent butter is made, and I have been acquainted of a fact in connection with it which I did not know before. I am informed that goat's milk is used in fairly large quantities in butter-making in that particular place, and I know for a fact that the butter made in that creamery is of very good quality indeed. It has been stated to me also that there is a real advantage in using goat's milk in the making of butter in this respect, that the melting heat of goats' milk is higher than that in cows' milk, and that, therefore, in the summer the butter made from a mixed supply of goats' milk and cows' milk does not melt as quickly as butter made from cows' milk purely. The fact that there is a certain mixture of goats' milk with the cows' milk tends to keep the butter in a sounder condition in the summer time. I would like to say, however, that that is a matter on which technical expert advice will need to be taken, especially the advice of those who are closely acquainted with the manufacture of butter. I would like to be assured that the Minister has got the best expert advice on this matter before deciding finally to incorporate it in the Bill. The reason I would like an assurance on that is this: that a provision of that kind may have a very serious effect indeed on the milk supply to a certain creamery that I know of. I can say this, that some of the best butter manufactured in Ireland comes from that particular creamery.
Mr. HOGAN
I think Deputy Heffernan will agree that his attitude now is not very far different from my attitude on this question at the beginning. We are both in agreement on this, that you can make just as good and as tasty a butter from goat's milk. And there is, perhaps, something to be said for allowing small suppliers if that is so— and my information leads me to believe that it is so—to eke out their supplies with goats' milk. On the other hand, there is at least one big difference, a difference in colour, if there is a large percentage of goats' milk used. And in a Bill aiming at uniformity, for the sake of appearance, at least, we shall have to accept the amendment as it stands. It will not prevent some goats' milk getting into the creamery. That is a thing possibly I should not say. Weighing one thing against another, the amendment should stand.
I think I moved an amendment on the Committee Stage to insert the words "cows' milk." I did it entirely on my own volition, with a view to getting a definition. I did not know myself anything at all about the deleterious or beneficial effects of goats' milk on butter, but I considered it necessary that there should be a definition of what milk was. For practical purposes, the only question is whether goats' milk should be allowed to be used. Deputy Heffernan says that it is entirely a matter for experts, for those who know the effect of goats' milk upon butter, upon the keeping qualities of butter, and upon its general qualities as regards flavour, texture and the like. And I suggest that it is the Minister who will have to provide us with the expert advice in the absence of anything very definite to the contrary from Deputy Heffernan or Deputy Hogan, unless Deputy Duffy knows something about it. It seems to me that it is entirely a matter for expert guidance. I believe that it is desirable that there should be a definition as to whether we are to exclude or include goats' milk; and if the Minister is satisfied that butter made from an admixture of goats' milk is lower in quality than butter made wholly from cows' milk, then I think the amendment should stand. If he is not so satisfied I would leave the matter open.
Mr. HOGAN
Deputy Johnson is right. It is my business to act as the conduit pipe through which expert knowledge comes. My information is that, other things being equal, butter made from goats' milk is just as good and just as tasty as butter made from cows' milk. There seems to be only one big difference, that is to say, that butter made from goats' milk is much whiter than butter made from cows' milk. That is a difference, and a considerable difference. That is the data Other things being equal, it is just as good and just as sweet. There is only one difference, and that is the colour. In practice, in this country only a very very small percentage of goats' milk will be mixed with the cows' milk, and the admixture will make no radical difference at all. But there is a possibility of development. If a very much bigger percentage of goats' milk were supplied to creameries, you might reach a time—I think it is most unlikely—when fifty per cent. of the milk supplied to creameries would be cows' milk and fifty per cent. goats' milk. If that occurred, you would get a butter which would be very much different in colour from the ordinary creamery butter and butter for which the price would be paid in England. That is an unlikely contingency. Perhaps Deputy Patrick Hogan and Deputy Heffernan are better judges than I am as to the possibility of such a contingency. Then there is the question: Is it likely that goats' milk will be as clean as cows' milk? I am no particular judge of that. Any Deputy is as good a judge of it as I am. Is it likely that the conditions surrounding the goats' milk will be as good as those surrounding the cows' milk? Goats' milk is supplied from very very much smaller houses and poorer classes of houses than the cows' milk. I am not saying that that is an argument one way or another. Deputies who know about the matter can say whether it is likely that that milk would be dirtier. I do not think that a tubercular goat has yet existed. From that point of view, the goats' milk would be cleaner. But is it likely to be cleaner from other points of view? I went into all these considerations, and I had them before me when the Bill was drafted in its original form, and that is the reason we did not insert anything about goats' milk. We left that subject open, particularly because we knew that, in practice, the percentage of goats' milk used would be extremely small, and would not make any difference whatever; and we took it for granted that no future developments would be likely to disturb that state of affairs. We recognised the difficulties of administering any provisions we might put in. Goats' milk can be used with cows' milk and it can hardly ever be detected; and it was for that reason that we inserted the provision in the amendment and that we press it in the form of making it an offence for anyone to supply goats' milk and making it an offence for anyone knowingly to accept goats' milk. I leave the matter to the Dáil.
The Minister's argument is decidedly against accepting this amendment.
Mr. HOGAN
I think so.
I imagine, in the great majority of cases, goats are milked in the open. That is so much in favour of the cleanliness. In the second place, there is a small proportion of butter made from goats' milk, and I think it is claimed that a good many people would be discommoded and damaged if we insert this amendment. There is another argument advanced— that if there was an increase in the proportion of goats' milk used the quality of the butter might deteriorate. If that day comes, then the Minister has power to remove the national brand. But, on the whole, I think the Minister's argument is decidedly in favour of leaving out the restriction.
Mr. HOGAN
It is.
Considering the point that the Minister has made, is it wise to increase offences from the point of view of public policy? The only question, apparently, that there may be any difficulty about is the want of colour. The expert advice is that, as regards flavour and otherwise, you can get as good butter from goats' milk as from cows' milk. If you pass this amendment, you are in this position: a number of people will be incommoded, and, what is still worse, you will have defined in the Act an offence which can be evaded. I think, from the point of view of public policy, it would be better not to press this amendment.
I would be in favour of the amendment, but if you define "butter" to be butter made from cows' milk, then practically all the butter exported from creameries would not be "butter." There is a small percentage of goats' milk supplied to every creamery, and it really makes very little difference at all, and I think the Minister's amendment would meet the case, because really that leaves it open in this way.
Mr. HOGAN
No.
A person can be prosecuted for mixing goats' milk with cows' milk, but it is still butter.
There is no change in the definition of butter.
If there is a change no butter from creameries can be exported. You certainly cannot prevent goats' milk from being mixed with cow's milk.
The Minister has said, I think, with a good deal of emphasis that the mixture of a certain amount, a small quantity, of goat's milk does not depreciate the value of the butter, but here it is strictly laid down that even the smallest admixture of goat's milk would be an offence, and that at least is quite sufficient grounds for withdrawing this amendment, especially when the Minister is taking all power in a most comprehensive way to make any regulations he likes. If he found there were abuses in this, it would be easy for him to make regulations prohibiting what is aimed at in the amendment. I am in favour of the withdrawal of the amendment.
Having regard to the views expressed by Deputies I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move Amendment 25:—
To insert immediately before Section 18, page 14, a new section as follows:—
(1) The following regulations shall apply to all premises registered in the register of manufacturing exporters, that is to say—
(a) All butter manufactured on the premises shall be made from cream which has been separated from milk on the premises or has been supplied from other premises subject to such conditions as may be prescribed;
(b) all matters relating to the manufacture of butter on the premises shall be under the control of a duly qualified manager, and the prescribed particulars of all appointments of such managers shall be notified to the Minister in the prescribed manner;
(c) every butter-maker on the premises and every person carrying out tests of milk or cream on the premises for the purpose of determining the percentage of butter-fat therein shall be duly qualified and the prescribed particulars of all appointments of such butter-makers and persons shall be notified to the Minister in the prescribed manner.
(d) butter containing water in excess of sixteen per cent. or any noxious colouring matter or any preservative other than salt of a prescribed description, shall not be packed for export, or exported, or consigned for export, in or from the premises.
(e) butter containing water in excess of sixteen per cent. or any noxious colouring matter, or any preservative other than salt of a prescribed description, shall not be packed for sale or sold, or offered or consigned for sale on or from the premises, except to a butter-factory in Saorstát Eireann;
(f) if any regulation under this Act is in force requiring the premises to be equipped with efficient plant for pasteurising milk, or cream, or both milk and cream, all milk, cream, or milk and cream (as the case may require) used for the manufacture of butter upon the premises shall be pasteurised;
(g) all butter exported from the premises and also every package or wrapper containing the butter shall before it leaves the premises be marked with the marks (if any) prescribed by regulations made under this Act;
(h) all butter packed on the premises shall be packed only in such manner and in such packages or wrappers as shall be prescribed by regulations made under this Act;
(i) no margarine or milk-blended butter, and no oil or fat capable of being used in the adulteration of butter shall be brought on to the premises;
(j) save as hereinafter mentioned no butter other than butter obtained directly from other premises registered in the register of manufacturing exporters shall be brought on to the premises.
(2) If the Minister is satisfied, on the application of the registered proprietor or duly qualified manager of any premises registered in the register of manufacturing exporters, that owing to a temporary decrease in the quantity of milk or cream available at the premises sufficient butter cannot be manufactured on the premises or obtained from other premises similarly registered to meet the immediate requirements of the business of the premises as normally carried on, the Minister may by licence issued by him to the registered proprietor of the premises authorise the bringing on to the premises of butter of such description, in such quantities, during such periods, and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the licence.
(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to be duly qualified for a position only if he either possesses a certificate issued by the Minister of qualification for such position generally or has satisfied the Minister that he is qualified for the particular position.
Mr. HOGAN
It would be well if Deputies compared these regulations with the regulations in regard to creameries. These are the regulations for the manufacturing exporters, and they are practically the same. Possibly the best thing would be for the Deputies to compare them with the regulations in regard to the creameries in Section 16. The amendment deals with manufacturing exporters. We want to avoid butter being produced; let us say, in a creamery or in the premises of a manufacturing exporter, and then sent somewhere else, perhaps to a factory to be blended, and then brought to the manufacturing exporter's premises. These are the regulations mutatis mutandis, that apply to creameries, and you will agree that they should not be less stringent.
I would like to ask the Minister with regard to (c), "every butter-maker on the premises and every person carrying out tests of milk or cream on the premises for the purpose of determining the percentage of butter-fat therein, shall be duly qualified, and the prescribed particulars of all appointments of such butter-makers and persons shall be notified to the Minister in the prescribed manner." I would like to know from the Minister is it absolutely necessary that the creamery should have the consent of the Department before a butter-maker is appointed, and that the Department must be satisfied with her qualifications.
Mr. HOGAN
It is not necessary to get the consent of the Department before a butter-maker is appointed, but it will be necessary that the butter-maker who is appointed shall have the general qualifications prescribed in the Bill, and that is one of the most important provisions. Probably the greatest safeguard to the national brand is the bettering of the general standard of the qualification of the managers and butter-makers, and other technical people in the creameries. That is essential. That is an integral portion of the whole scheme, and I think the Deputy will agree with me that inefficient officers of that sort are a very considerable cause of the present not exactly satisfactory position of the creameries. The man, after all, counts for everything, and no matter what regulations you make about creameries, and no matter how we inspect them, no creamery will produce the sort of butter which it should produce consistently unless the officers who are actually dealing with the technical work there, the managers and the butter-makers, are up to the prescribed standard of technical competence. It is not intended at all that the Department would have a veto on the appointment of A.B. instead of C.D., but it is definitely intended, and it is at the root of the whole scheme, that the Department shall say to all creameries in general: "You must have butter-makers and managers whose qualifications are so and so and such and such."
Of course it will be the business of the people who are making regulations, in the beginning, at any rate, to see that the regulations are not prepared in any narrow spirit; that, for instance, the regulations are not prepared from the point of view that a man with a degree or an associateship, or something like that, is the only person who is to be regarded as competent. We are all aware that there are other evidences of competence than mere degrees or the mere passing of examinations. Everything has to be weighed up. The Deputy may be afraid that in the beginning, as a result of stringent or rather narrow-minded regulations by the Department, good men, or tip-top men, will be ruled out because they have not certain degrees which are in fashion now. The regulations will not be made from that point of view. The regulations will be made from the point of view that the sort of manager or butter-maker you have in the creamery who knows his business will be acceptable, and that we are not going to depend solely on degrees. Full consideration will be given to the man's previous experience, and especially to successful experience in creameries.
If a butter-maker makes tip-top butter, under this regulation, he will be disqualified from applying to any other creamery.
Mr. HOGAN
Why?
He would not have the qualifications.
Mr. HOGAN
What are the qualifications?
According to this, it will be all in the hands of the Department. Their qualifications would be some training in one of the schools. I want to find out whether it would be open to a butter-maker under this rule to go from one creamery to another creamery.
Mr. HOGAN
If the Department made a regulation that nobody could be a butter-maker who had not got a doctorate of science, then you would be ruling out a great many butter-makers in the country. The Department could say that no one shall be a butter-maker in a creamery unless he is a barrister-at-law. The provision is wide enough to enable them to say that. If Deputy Hogan assumes that the Department are going to make regulations of that sort, then he is perfectly sound in his criticism. He would be also perfectly sound if he suggested that it should not be left to any Department to make any regulations they like. But if you agree that, especially at the beginning, you cannot tie yourself to degrees or examinations and that you cannot rule out past experience as butter-maker or manager in a creamery, then you cannot put anything more definite in the amendment. Supposing we had technical education in this country for a long period and that we had examinations for butter-makers which were generally accepted as sound, so that a person who went through this course and who passed the requisite examination would be unquestionably efficient as a butter-maker—if you had the thing standardised like that, it would be easy to make this more definite. But you have not it standardised, and it is for that particular reason that it would be a hardship to prescribe certain examinations or courses and rule out first-class butter-makers who got their experience by hard work in creameries for eight or ten years. It is that very thing which forces us to leave the matter in this position, and I do not see how you can improve on it.
I would ask the Minister if his own argument and the argument of Deputy Hogan is not allied to the proposition for a Dairy Council. This is quite distinctly the kind of thing that should be administered by a body in charge of the industry. If one takes the analogy of the medical register and the register of various other professional bodies, you see that it is not the Minister who decides what should be the degree of competence, but an organisation within the profession. I would suggest the Minister should bear in mind when making any regulations under this section the necessity for allying with himself a council representative of the trade which could prescribe with more expert knowledge and with the probability of creating greater confidence such qualifications as are necessary. Perhaps when we come to the discussion of his proposed Consultative Committee he might be inclined to enlarge the scope and power of that Committee in view of what he has said in respect of these qualifications.
I am in agreement with the Minister with regard to this matter, but there is one point I would like to draw his attention to. A certificate has been issued by a certain association in this country and has been accepted by a great many creameries as a certificate of qualification. That is the Creamery Managers' Association certificate. They have issued a certificate to men who went forward for examination and satisfied them that they were qualified. It is possible, as this amendment stands, for a man who has got such a certificate— and I believe the examination is pretty stringent—to be disqualified by the Ministry. I would suggest that the Minister should add to his amendment something to the effect that men who already hold these certificates should not be subject to disqualification. I might mention that the people who hold that certificate are very proud of it, and it is maintained that they are generally accepted as better qualified than all others, even those certified by the Department.
Mr. HOGAN
I do not think Deputy Johnson expects me to argue the question as to whether the council should be administrative or advisory on this particular matter. As he said himself, we will tackle that later on. Of course, it would be contemplated that in regard to regulations like this the advice of the Consultative Council would be sought and would get full consideration. That, of course, is the intention. With regard to the certificate Deputy Heffernan mentioned, it would be an extraordinary thing to make an exception of that particular qualification and to insert it in the Bill. The Department of Agriculture have courses and there are courses at the College of Science and in other places. I dare say there are various certificates connected with butter-makers and creamery managers, and it would be an extraordinary thing to pick out this particular qualification and to insert it in the Bill. I do not think we could do that. I certainly could not do it at this stage. In fairness, we would have to insert all the other qualifications which, on the face of them, are equally good. I do not see the necessity of going through all these qualifications and picking out the qualifications we think we would accept. Besides, the implication, on the face of it, is that we will not give any chance at all to people who have not got these certificates and that first-class butter-makers who are so recognised by everybody and whose experience shows clearly that they must be well qualified, will be ruled out.
This is a proposal to which several objections could be taken. The first would be that we should not take out one qualification at the expense of three or four qualifications and insert it in a statute; secondly, it would be very troublesome, and a little bit dangerous at the present stage to put in various qualifications without further consideration; and, thirdly, it would put the amendment out of perspective, because we propose to give weight, especially at the beginning, to experience and proved competence in existing creameries.
Does not the amendment, as it stands, state that if a man already possesses the certificate of the Ministry—by that I presume is meant the certificate of the Department of Agriculture—he is by right of that qualified? I take that to mean that any certificate issued by the Department of Agriculture will be regarded as a certificate of qualification. I am not aware that there has been any other certificate of qualification except the certificate of the Creamery Managers' Association. I do not think that there are three or four alternative certificates. If there are, I am willing to withdraw my objection because I see that you cannot pick out one from three or four. But if you are going to accept the Certificate of the Department of Agriculture or the College of Science as a definite certificate of qualification, without any further enquiry into the man's competency, I think we should also accept the other certificate which has been in use, and which is recognised as a certificate of adequate qualification in the country.
Mr. HOGAN
You are referring to sub-section 3, which reads:—"For the purpose of this section a person shall be deemed to be duly qualified for a position only if he possesses a certificate issued by the Minister of qualification for such position generally, or has satisfied the Minister that he is qualified for the particular position." That does not mean that anyone who has passed a certain examination and is qualified is automatically the possessor of such a certificate. Surely it means that the Department of Agriculture will go over all the qualifications, and may decide that the particular examination that Deputy Heffernan has referred to, or any examination of the Department, or any other examination is sufficient evidence of competency. They will then issue one certificate to cover all. But this is a totally different certificate. It would be the same sort of certificate if it was a creamery managers' examination or the Department's examination. The point is, this is to be a totally new certificate, based on new data.
In regard to sub-section (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 25, which deals with butter containing water in excess of 16 per cent., I would like to ask if the Minister would accept a verbal amendment that instead of the butter being allowed to be sold to a butter factory in the Free State, it would be allowed to be sold as creamery butter, with a brand to the effect that it contained over 16 per cent. of moisture. There are cases where an accident would occur in a creamery, where the brine-pipe might burst, and there would be an excess of water in the butter. In such a case there would be a big loss to the creamery if a half-ton of creamery butter would have to be consigned to a factory. The creamery would only have the option of reworking that with freshly-churned butter.
Mr. HOGAN
We could not possibly accept an amendment which would enable people to export creamery butter with a legend on it that it contained more than 16 per cent. of water. If an accident does occur it would be only once in a blue moon, and if a creamery gets into trouble over a matter like an accident to a brine-pipe, there would be no difficulty in explaining such a matter before any court.
The result would be that the butter would have to be sold at a loss. It would not be so much a point with regard to the law as to what the financial loss to the creamery would be.
I suggest that Deputy Hogan could find an insurance company that would insure any creamery against the danger from losses incurred through the bursting of a brine-pipe.
In the Committee Stage of the Bill I had an amendment down, to the corresponding section of the Bill as drafted, to the effect that while such licence is current no butter bearing the national mark shall be exported from such premises. The Minister gave an assurance that something of that kind would be incorporated by way of an amendment in the Bill. I notice there is no amendment of that kind down. I see that the Minister takes power by regulation. He can, by regulation, provide that a creamery cannot export butter bearing the mark when that creamery is buying butter which does not come from a creamery. I was rather definite on the matter at the time at the Committee, and I would like to hear the Minister's views on it now and if he intends to do anything about it. The point is that while a creamery is allowed to take in butter under licence during the period when the milk supply in short, that that creamery should not be allowed to export any butter bearing the national mark. My idea is that there should be no butter exported with the national mark which is below the standard. It sometimes would happen that a creamery which has got the national mark would in order to keep the supply going during the winter, send out butter which would not turn out afterwards to be up to the standard required owing to the fact that the butter came from a factory or had not been made from pasteurised cream.
Mr. HOGAN
That is rather an important thing and I will give it my consideration. You may have a creamery with the national brand and in a certain season it is short of butter and has to go to another creamery to get supplies in order to meet its customers. I suggest to Deputy Heffernan that his proposal would be going rather too far at this stage, particularly without being able to see all the possibilities. While experience might prove that he was quite right and that it was a safe thing to withdraw the national brand during that period experience might prove that it was a hardship for which there was no great justification. If the Deputy was right we would, I think, have power under the regulation to meet the case. I did not give that particular point as much consideration as I intended. I think the best way out of it is to say that I will meet it on Report.
When Deputy Heffernan moved that in Committee before you replied: "We will accept the principle of that; it is a matter of drafting."
Mr. HOGAN
I will try to manage it at a later stage.
As it stands a man who has the national mark can get butter from a creamery on the register, but the creamery from which he gets the butter need not have the national mark?
Mr. HOGAN
Yes, that is so.
Am I to take it that the Minister has given a definite promise?
Mr. HOGAN
I will give a definite promise to take another opportunity of making another definite statement.
I am not quite satisfied that this is right, because that would rule me out from putting down such an amendment.
Mr. HOGAN
Unless Deputy Johnson objects, no one will object the next time.
Amendment put and agreed to.
On that point, would the Minister say, before we leave this Committee Stage, if he would be prepared to accept this amendment—"provided that while such licence is current no butter bearing the national mark shall be exported from such premises"?
Mr. HOGAN
I would rather not say until I could give it more consideration.
My point is that if it is in the Bill it is there to be considered. If it is not in the Bill it possibly may pass observation. If it is accepted at this stage in that form I am quite sure that by Report it will be considered.
Mr. HOGAN
I am not likely to forget it a second time.
I do not mean by the Minister alone, but by other Deputies.
The Minister has given a promise, and I am sure he does not want to withdraw from his promise. I may not be here at the next stage.
There will be no further opportunity of introducing amendments here, but it can be done in the Seanad. I am sure Deputy Heffernan will have some friends there.
I do not know that I have.
We are now in Committee, and by general agreement, with your concurrence, sir, it is in order to accept a verbal amendment without previous notice, and if the Minister is prepared to accept that there should be no difficulty.
Mr. HOGAN
What section is that an amendment to?
It was on Section 15. It will be Section 18 now, I think.
Supposing the butter he gets is from a creamery that has a right to use the national brand, should we insist that he should not export with the national brand?
If you have the amendment ready for Report it can be taken up.
I have given the amendment to the Minister. I agree with Deputy O'Sullivan. I am not speaking of butter which comes from another creamery, and which has the right to use the national mark.
Mr. HOGAN
We have power to make such regulations under the Bill as it stands, in the provisions of the national brand section. What is the advantage of making it mandatory? There would be the disadvantage that Deputy Professor O'Sullivan suggests. We have just heard of one limitation to Deputy Heffernan's principle. I agree that I overlooked this, and I would like to give it further consideration.
I might point out that the amendment, as it stands to-day, says: "or obtained from other premises similarly registered." The amendment apparently implies that the licence to be granted is to take no butter that is not made on a registered premises.
We cannot discuss that amendment further.
I move:—
To insert immediately before Section 18, page 14, a new section as follows:—
(1) The following regulations shall apply to all premises registered in the register of manufacturing exporters, that is to say—
(a) all butter manufactured on the premises shall be made from cream which has been separated from milk on the premises or has been supplied from other premises subject to such conditions as may be prescribed;
(b) all matters relating to the manufacture of butter on the premises shall be under the control of a duly qualified manager, and the prescribed particulars of all appointments of such managers shall be notified to the Minister in the prescribed manner;
(c) every butter-maker on the premises and every person carrying out tests of milk or cream on the premises for the purpose of determining the percentage of butter-fat therein shall be duly qualified, and the prescribed particulars of all appointments of such butter-makers and persons shall be notified to the Minister in the prescribed manner;
(d) butter containing water in excess of sixteen per cent. or any noxious colouring matter or any preservative other than salt of a prescribed description, shall not be packed for export, or exported, or consigned for export, in or from the premises;
(e) butter containing water in excess of sixteen per cent. or any noxious colouring matter, or any preservative other than salt of a prescribed description, shall not be packed for sale or sold, or offered or consigned for sale on or from the premises, except to a butter-factory in Saorstát Eireann;
(f) if any regulation under this Act is in force requiring the premises to be equipped with efficient plant for pasteurising milk, or cream, or both milk and cream, all milk, cream, or milk and cream (as the case may require) used for the manufacture of butter upon the premises shall be pasteurised;
(g) all butter exported from the premises and also every package or wrapper containing the butter shall before it leaves the premises be marked with the marks (if any) prescribed by regulations made under this Act;
(h) all butter packed on the premises shall be packed only in such manner and in such packages or wrappers as shall be prescribed by regulations made under this Act;
(i) no margarine or milk-blended butter, and no oil or fat capable of being used in the adulteration of butter shall be brought on to the premises;
(j) save as hereinafter mentioned no butter, other than butter obtained directly from other premises registered in the register of manufacturing exporters shall be brought on to the premises.
(2) If the Minister is satisfied, on the application of the registered proprietor or duly qualified manager of any premises registered in the register of manufacturing exporters, that owing to a temporary decrease in the quantity of milk of cream available at the premises sufficient butter cannot be manufactured on the premises or obtained from other premises similarly registered to meet the immediate requirements of the business of the premises as normally carried on, the Minister may by licence issued by him to the registered proprietor of the premises authorise the bringing on to the premises of butter of such description, in such quantities, during such periods, and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the licence.
(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to be duly qualified for a position only if he either possesses a certificate issued by the Minister of qualification for such position generally or has satisfied the Minister that he is qualified for the particular position.
Amendment put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(1) The following regulations shall apply to all premises registered in the register of manufacturing exporters, that is to say—
(a) butter containing water in excess of sixteen per cent. shall not be packed for export, or exported, or consigned for export, in or from the premises;
(b) butter containing water in excess of sixteen per cent. shall not be packed for sale, or sold, or offered or consigned for sale, on or from the premises, except to a butter factory in Saorstát Eireann;
(c) all butter exported from the premises and also every package or wrapper in which such butter is packed shall before it leaves the premises be marked in the prescribed manner with the marks (if any) prescribed by regulations made under this Act;
(d) all butter packed on the premises shall be packed only in such manner and in such packages or wrappers as shall be prescribed by regulations made under this Act.
I move:—
In Section 18, page 14, line 2, to delete the words "manufacturing exporters" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "butter factories."
Mr. HOGAN
That is consequential.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
(1) The following regulations shall apply to all premises registered in the register of non-manufacturing exporters, that is to say—
(a) butter containing water in excess of sixteen per cent. shall not be packed for sale or export or sold or exported or consigned for sale or export on or from the premises except subject to and in accordance with the prescribed conditions and subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907;
(b) all butter exported or consigned for export from the premises shall, before it leaves the premises, be examined and classified subject to and in accordance with the prescribed conditions;
(c) all butter exported or consigned for export from the premises and also every package and wrapper containing the butter shall before it leaves the premises be marked in the prescribed manner with the marks (if any) prescribed by regulations made under this Act;
(d) all butter directly or indirectly obtained or brought from premises registered in the register of creameries or the register of manufacturing exporters shall (if exported) be exported without opening or unpacking the package in which it was packed in such premises and without obliterating or altering any marks placed on such package, or on any wrapper or butter therein, in such premises, save to such extent and in such manner as shall be prescribed for the purpose of enabling the provisions of this Act or any regulations made thereunder to be Complied with.
I move:—
In Section 19 (a), page 14, line 26, after the word "except" to insert the words "when permitted by regulations made under this Act and then only."
Amendment put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.
(1) Every application for the registration of any premises under this Act, or for the alteration or cancellation of any such registration shall be made in writing in the prescribed form and manner and shall contain the prescribed particulars.
(2) Whenever an application has been made under this Act for the registration of any premises, the Minister shall cause such premises to be inspected by an inspector.
(3) Every refusal by the Minister of an application for the registration of any premises under this Act shall state the reason for such refusal and no such refusal shall prevent the making of a fresh application in respect of the same premises at any subsequent time.
I move:—
To add at the end of Section 20, page 14, a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) Before refusing any application for the registration of any premises under this Act solely on the ground that the conditions of cleanliness and order are not compiled with on the premises, the Minister shall cause an appropriate notice to be served under Part I. of this Act by an inspector in respect of the failure to comply with such conditions and in the event of such notice or, if such notice is amended by the arbitrator under Part I. of this Act, such notice as so amended being complied with or the notice being annulled by the arbitrator under Part I. of this Act, the application for registration shall not be refused on the ground aforesaid.
Mr. HOGAN
I wish to draw the attention of Deputies to the point that that does not give an appeal on the question of whether premises are clean or not. It deals with appeals on general questions of cleanliness. This amendment deals with the procedure in regard to any order made under Section 3, but it does not in any way affect the fact that there is no appeal on the question of whether premises are clean or not.
Amendment put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.
(1) The Minister may at any time alter or cancel the registration of any premises under this Act upon the application of the registered proprietor or, in the case of an individual, the personal representative, or, in the case of an incorporated body, the liquidator, of the registered proprietor.
(2) The Minister may at any time, without any such application as aforesaid, alter the registration of any premises under this Act in any respect in which such registration appears to him to be erroneous or misleading.
(3) The Minister may at any time, without any such application as aforesaid, cancel the registration of any premises registered under this Act if he is satisfied—
(a) that the registration of the premises was procured by fraud or by misrepresentation whether fraudulent or innocent; or
(b) that the premises have ceased to be eligible for registration in the register in which the same are registered; or
(c) that the registered proprietor, if an individual, has died, or, if an incorporated body, has been dissolved, and no other person has, within one month after such death or dissolution, been registered as proprietor in the place of the registered proprietor so dead or dissolved; or
(d) that there has been any contravention (whether by way of commission or of omission) of this Act or any regulations made thereunder on the premises.
(4) Before altering or cancelling (otherwise than in accordance with an application in that behalf made under this section) the registration of any premises under this Act, the Minister shall give at least one fort-night's notice in writing of his intention so to cancel or alter such registration to the registered proprietor, and shall consider any representations made before the expiration of such notice by such proprietor, and may if he thinks fit cause an inquiry to be held in relation to the matter.
I move:—
In Section 21 (3) (d), page 15, line 23, to insert immediately after the word "contravention" the words "by the registered proprietor" and in line 25 to delete the words "on the premises."
This is a mere matter of wording.
I think it is more than a matter of wording. If the Minister deprives himself of power to cancel the registration in a case of contravention, unless he can prove that it was contravention by the registered proprietor, he is leaving it open for the registered proprietor to hide behind his manager or any assistant. I do not think any hardship would accrue by leaving the section as it stands, inasmuch as it is within the power of the Minister to decide whether the registered proprietor has incurred liability by omission to carry on his business properly. It seems to me that the section is better as it left Committee than with this amendment, because it is a limiting one and it would impose upon the Minister the responsibility of proving that the registered proprietor was the person who contravened the regulations.
Mr. HOGAN
Or his agent.
It might be done easily by a responsible agent and yet he would not be held responsible. I think as it stands it is stronger and much safer.
Mr. HOGAN
I am not in love with the change either. It was supposed to make the section nicer looking. The agent of the registered proprietor would be liable, but as I say, I am not in love with the amendment and I will not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
To add a new paragraph at the end of Section 21 (3), page 15, as follows:—
"(e) that the registered proprietor having made a contract for the sale of butter to be exported from premises of which he is the registered proprietor has without reasonable cause failed or omitted to carry out such contract."
Mr. HOGAN
This amendment is not contentious, and it was suggested in the Special Committee. I think Deputies will agree that it is a very necessary amendment.
I think it is introducing something of an entirely new feature into the Bill, something that stands out unique in itself, because it means a definite interference with the commercial aspect of the operation, and not merely the administration of the dairy to produce butter under certain conditions. In the second place, it is an unbalanced kind of thing. For instance, when there is a rising market for butter and at a certain stage there is a very high advance, if the producer fulfils his contract he loses. I am not saying that he should not fulfil it. Supposing, on the other hand, a man is buying on a falling market and when it gets low he refuses to carry out his part of the contract, what remedy is there for the producer? I say this is not a matter which should come within this Bill. In a breach of contract the aggrieved party has the ordinary course of law at his disposal and should not figure in a Bill of this nature that has, or should have nothing whatever to do with a commercial transaction between producer and customer.
I am in agreement with the Minister in regard to this matter. I think it is very necessary to have this provision, not so much because of the sanctity of contracts but I think it is an important matter for the trade. I think that the Deputy's argument that two wrongs make a right is hardly an argument that can be accepted by this House; it is our business to see our men keep their contracts, and on this very fact of keeping their contracts depend the advantages to be gained under this Bill and the advantages to be gained in the market. It has been stated, and I believe it is a fact, that a great deal of harm has been done to the Irish butter trade in the past by the breaking of contracts by creameries sending out butter. They send butter on perhaps a wire from a dealer in England; and the creamery manager sees his way to make a considerable amount by breaking that contract and he breaks it. I do recognise that the dealer in butter has the option of taking ordinary legal proceedings against him but as a matter of actual practice they very rarely do this; they think the expense and the worry and trouble would be more than the money at stake would be worth, but the actual harm done to the Irish trade by this breaking of contracts is very considerable. Naturally I recognise that this is a very drastic step, but this drastic step has been made necessary by the actions of some of the less reputable owners and managers of creameries, and we cannot punish the good managers and the reputable managers for the default of the bad ones. On that account despite the fact that it is a very drastic amendment I wish to support it.
I hope it must not be or need not be said that the business ethics propounded by Deputy Milroy are in fact backed by him, that because there is a fear that purchasers may refuse to accept goods which they have purchased, the way to meet that is to refuse to supply goods which were sold when the market was in your favour. I think that Deputy Milroy made a good point when he suggested that the amendment went rather beyond the general purport of the Bill, more beyond it even than my amendment which was ruled out, but I hope it will be passed especially after Deputy Milroy's speech because the effect which Deputy Milroy's speech would have if broadcasted in the butter market in England and we refused to pass this amendment, would be very damaging to the reputation of the Irish Creamery Trade. I think the right safeguard against such a misuse being made of Deputy Milroy's unintended advocacy of foul ethics would be to accept this amendment.
I certainly am astonished that such a construction should be put upon what I said by the two Deputies who have just spoken. I did not suggest that the non-carrying out of contracts should be regarded as legitimate trade operations on this side because people on the other side indulge in a similar breach of contract undoubtedly. What I do contend is that the morality of trade transactions is not the purpose of this Bill, but the production of butter under proper conditions and to secure that the quality of the butter shall reach a high standard. I think there is no question that that amendment is entirely irrelevant to the purpose and the intention of the Bill and has reference to more matters of ordinary civil law than to matters of development of the butter industry. With all due respect to the contentions and the arguments of Deputy Johnson, I persist in my opinion that the way to deal with swindlers in the butter trade or in any other trade is not by the particular methods suggested here but through the ordinary civil law.
When one looks at this clause, of course in view of future legislation, one is not surprised that a peculiar attitude of mind is adopted in connection with the legislation. The only excuse for putting this clause into the Bill is that, as Deputy Milroy has said or inferred, there has been a lot of swindling in the butter trade.
I did not infer that. I said the way to deal with swindlers in this trade or any other trade was not by way of legislation of this kind, but through the ordinary course of law.
It is only right, as I have maintained on several occasions, to say that this class of legislation is novel, to say the least of it. What should happen in a big trade like the butter trade is that the members of the trade itself should protect its reputation. What happens in this amendment is that the Minister for Agriculture will necessarily have to take on judicial powers to decide on ordinary simple questions of contract and whether a man is guilty of breach of contract. You cannot decide that point without knowing all the facts and being conversant with the facts of the contract itself.
We all know in business that there are various questions arising in dispute in connection with contracts, questions so difficult and delicate that it takes a very long lawsuit to decide who is right. All the procedure in the future in connection with this trade is apparently going to be centred in the Minister for Agriculture, to decide whether the contract was made, whether it was valid, and who is right and who is wrong. That seems to me to be rather unusual in connection with a Bill which seeks to regulate a very intricate business like the butter trade. It is true that it would seem desirable that in connection with the reputation of the brand people who get a licence would not only be supervised in connection with the management of their concern but might also be supervised in connection with their code of honesty. I do not think that the Minister intends it as such, but I think the clause goes a great deal further than he thinks and would probably lead to more lawsuits in the future than if he leaves it out. I say and I ask the House to say that the proper method to control such an industry is by people themselves recognising that if any particular member of their association or body runs crooked in a business where you depend on reputation for your export and sale, he endangers not alone his own reputation but that of all the trade.
I am opposing the amendment because one reading it would believe that a lot of contracts were broken in regard to the butter trade, whereas we, who are familiar with the creamery system in the South, know that these contracts were not broken through the managers but through the wretched postal facilities. You have a butter merchant asked for a quotation in Limerick and his letter is not delivered for three days. The Minister in this amendment insinuates that a big share of the creameries take advantage of a rise in butter and do not sell at their contract price and that on the other side of the water there is no such thing as broken contracts. That is not a fact. In the Bill you cannot appoint a butter-maker or manager without notifying the Department. The amendment is altogether too drastic and I will vote against it.
I think the Minister ought to make it compulsory to see that his department will be in possession of the actual facts in connection with the contract for butter and that copies and all particulars relating to it shall be forwarded to his department. Otherwise, as Deputy Hewat says, this department is not merely going to be a Department of Agriculture but is going to enter into some of the preserves of the Attorney-General's department. I do not think that that is desirable. The Minister for Agriculture is sufficiently mixed up with various Bills already and to inflict on him the duty of giving judgment in legal matters would make his office impossible.
resumed the Chair.
Deputy Hewat pointed out that the right method of dealing with the faulty member of an industry is for the industry to take in hands the punishment or pillorying of such member. Here again we see that Deputy Hewat from his own experience leads to the conclusion that there must be a dairy council which will have to manage such proceedings. As I can see it the Minister will be head of the dairy council and it will be his authority that will control the industry, and upon which it will act. It seems to me that one would have to leave it to the authority to say whether the fault had been proved. In every well organised trade or professional guild there is machinery established for deciding whether the fault has been a venial one and to take whatever steps are necessary. I will support this on the assumption that that kind of trade or industrial organisation will follow before the Bill actually leaves the Oireachtas. I think it would perhaps be difficult to leave all this authority in the hands of a single bureaucrat in Merrion Street. I would rather have him definitely assisted in the administration of this Act by an authority representing the trade as a whole.
I rather support Deputy Johnson's view with a slight change. I believe that this amendment is necessary but I feel that the Ministry has arbitrary power under this clause. I would suggest to the Minister that in cases of cancelling the registration of creameries that the Ministry should not be the final court of appeal, and that there should be some other court to go to. I suggest that the arbitrator who is appointed under Part I might also be appointed to act under this section. I can see Deputy Hewat's point that there may be doubt as to whether a contract is broken or not and as to who is responsible. The Minister has to take upon himself the duty of deciding whether the creamery was responsible or not. I think that the Bill as it stands without the power of appeal to an arbitrator is rather drastic. I suggest to the Minister that he should include something in the nature of an appeal.
Mr. HOGAN
I am rather surprised that Deputy Heffernan has been taken in by varying reasons which have come from all parts of the House. We have Deputy Hewat, an ardent free trader, and an out and out supporter of absolute freedom of trade, joined with Deputy Milroy, a great protectionist and supporter of interference in trade. Deputy Milroy protesting against this undue interference with trade is a most extraordinary reversion of form.
Very bad form.
Mr. HOGAN
Reversion of public form. There is no use reiterating difficulties where there are no difficulties. There is no use in raising difficulties that are not there. First of all, I am to constitute judge and jury, and every single case of breach of contract in the creamery business has to come before me. That is what we mean by this amendment. According to Deputies the meaning of the amendment is, first, that the Minister for Agriculture is to try every single case of breach of contract in the dairying industry; number 2, that, according to Deputy Hogan, all the Irish creameries and creamery managers are dishonest, and that all the English creameries are not dishonest.
That was the amendment. You did not make any provision for the other side.
Mr. HOGAN
Unfortunately we have not yet power to legislate for England, but there is a good time coming. This is an unfortunate amendment, and is supposed to mean all those things. Let us read it with some amount of moderation. All the amendment means is, first, that it is injurious, and every Deputy in the Farmers' Benches knows that as regards the egg and butter trade the very constant breach of contract with our customers on the other side is doing the whole trade a tremendous amount of harm. It is doing us great harm. Things are improving, and the people are beginning to realise that honesty is the best policy. I can assure Deputy Milroy that it is not as an apostle that I am bringing forward this amendment. It is not to improve the creamery managers but to improve their business. With regard to the administration, what happens is this. The creamery would be, perhaps, convicted twice or three times. Surely we would have to take that into consideration, and without this amendment we could not. If a creamery were convicted two or three times, surely even Deputy Hewat would not object to take that into consideration when considering the question of allowing them to be registered as creameries or of cancelling their application for registration. Surely that should be taken into consideration. That is one of the purposes of this amendment. Secondly, supposing those breaches of contract are not denied. In a great many places what happens amounts to an actual cynical admission of breach of contract. There is no intention of setting up the Department of Agriculture as a judicial body to try all cases of breach of contract between a creamery on this side and the customers in England.
The point is that our creamery and egg trade has suffered an amount of damage by reason of the fact that contracts are not kept with the other side. All that should be taken into account, not only by judges administering the ordinary civil law, but also by the Minister for Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture, when considering the giving of the national brand or allowing registration. As I said before, we are not out to improve anybody's morals. This is inserted from the point of view of good business. The argument that this is an undue interference with trade and the other arguments of Deputy Hewat are all arguments against every other clause of the Bill. This Bill is an interference with trade. If one's economic belief is that no interference in trade is allowable, then Deputy Hewat's contention is sound, but very few hold that view as sound nowadays. This Bill has received the blessing of conservative Governments like those of Canada, Denmark and New Zealand, which are not suspected of radical economies.
The Minister against this amendment used arguments that seem to me to conflict and lost sight of the fact that he is dealing with an Act of Parliament. He said the interpretation surely is not that we are going to do this or that. We do not know what he is to do except as far as the clause of the Bill is concerned, and if this clause is going to occasion any actions at law the judge will not take into consideration any of the Minister's arguments.
Mr. HOGAN
What have the courts to do with it?
The Minister says he is going to over-ride the court.
Mr. HOGAN
No. How do the courts or judges come in? Perhaps the Deputy will read the amendment.
The Minister seems to be very simple. Do you think a man is going to have his licence taken away wrongly without having an action against someone? Who is going to be judge as to whether it is rightly or wrongly? Do not think that this clause is simply got over by the Minister saying we are not dealing with morality or with this or that. You cannot interpret a clause in an Act of Parliament. The clause is there, and what you say is that the Minister for Agriculture is going to take all the powers to decide whether the man has broken his contract or not, or in that matter whether he has done right or wrong.
I do not know whether Deputy Hewat is opposing the whole section or only the amendment. He has wakened up to the effect of the amendment, but the section gives power to the Minister to cancel registration for several reasons, one of which is that the registration was procured by fraud. Does Deputy Hewat object to the Minister acting as the judge in that case, or that the premises have ceased to be eligible for registration? Does the Deputy allege that the Minister should not be the judge in that case? Or that there has been any other contravention of the Act or regulations made under the Act?
May I point out that we are only dealing with the amendment?
True, but I am pointing out the effect of what the Deputy says is an argument against the use of the powers that the Minister will have under the section as a whole. The objection seems to be that it is imposing upon the Minister the right to decide matters of fact. That objection, if it is valid, applies to all these other provisions which allow the Minister to cancel registration. The case for cancelling registration, I think, is sound in view of the fact that the complaints have been very widespread and these registrations would be registrations of premises from which butter may be exported. I agree that it is considerable power and authority to place in the hands of the Ministry; but I think that the case that is being made, the evil that has been wrought to the trade, the reputation of the trade owing to failure to market according to promise, is nearly as great, I was going to say, as the failure to supply a consistent quality of butter. That may be too strong a statement, but at least it has added to the disrepute which the Irish creamery trade has occasionally got itself into. There may be good reason for putting in certain provisos as to the extent of the Minister's power, whether there should be any appeal, or whether he should be convinced by the judgment of a court that there had been a breach. But to argue the right of the Minister, or, as I should say, the head of the Industrial Council, to cancel registration is to argue against the authority that is embodied right through this Bill.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 41; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Sir James Craig.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin, Bean.
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál OhAonghusa.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Mícheál O hIfernáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraig O Máille.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Liam Thrift.
Níl.
- William Hewat.
- Connor Hogan.
- Seán Mac Giolla 'n Ríogh.
Amendment declared carried.
I beg to move:—
To add at the end of Section 21, page 15, a new sub-section as follows:—
"(5) Before altering or cancelling (otherwise than in accordance with an application in that behalf made under this section) the registration of any premises under this Act solely on the ground that the conditions of cleanliness and order are not complied with on the premises, the Minister shall cause an appropriate notice to be served under Part I. of this Act by an inspector in respect of the failure to comply with such conditions, and in the event of such notice or, if such notice is amended by the arbitrator under Part I. of this Act, such notice as so amended being complied with or the notice being annulled by the arbitrator under Part I. of this Act, the registration shall not be altered or cancelled on the ground aforesaid."
Amendment put and agreed to.
SECTION 22.
(1) The Minister may publish in such manner as he may think fit—
(a) all or any of the matters entered in any register kept under this Act; and
(b) notice of the cancellation or alteration of the registration of any registered premises; and
(c) notice of any conviction for an offence under this Act or any section thereof or any regulation made thereunder.
(2) No individual return or part of a return furnished in pursuance of this Act shall be published or disclosed except for the purposes of a prosecution under this Act.
(3) The Minister may from time to time collect and publish such statistical information (including statistics derived from returns made pursuant to this Act) with respect to the extent and condition of the butter trade as he may think fit.
I beg to move—
In Section 22 (1) (a), page 15, line 37, to delete the word "under" and substitute therefor the words "in pursuance of."
On this stage are we allowed to deal with the section?
No, only the amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(a) inspection of a register or documents shall include taking copies thereof or extracts therefrom; and
(b) a demand for inspection of a register or other document shall be deemed to have been duly made by an inspector to the registered proprietor if such demand is made verbally on the registered premises to any person in the employment of the registered proprietor; and
I beg to move:—
In Section 25 (4) (b), page 17, lines 11 and 12, to delete the words "any person in the employment of the registered proprietor" and substitute therefor the words "the manager, secretary, book-keeper, or other member of the clerical staff."
Mr. HOGAN
There was an objection made at the Special Committee that the wording was too vague and that possibly the demand might be made to the office boy or someone equally irresponsible. It was suggested that the wording should be made more definite. I thought first that "any responsible person" would meet the case, but that would be wider, I think, than the amendment now proposed to be inserted. On the whole the words in the amendment are better than "any responsible person" and fairer to the creameries.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
SECTION 30.
I beg to move:—
Before Section 30, page 18, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister may by order make regulations prescribing the nature and general character of 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 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 efficient plant or machinery of any particular nature or character in addition to or in 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.
We had considerable discussion on what the amendment deals with on the Committee Stage. As the section stands, I think there are very considerable objections to the second, third and fourth lines of it. I think this gives power to the Minister to prescribe the nature and general character of the plant and machinery. It gives that power without any appeal from his decision, and we have to consider in dealing with matters of this kind the contingencies likely to arise. One premises may have what is prescribed to day as essential plant and machinery, and, for all practical purposes, it would be quite efficient for some years to come in producing the required article. In a couple of years or so some new machinery might come along, and the officials of the Department might insist that that new machinery would be the kind necessary to instal in the creamery or premises. I think there should be some appeal from that decision so that it could be shown by the parties concerned and responsible, that the installation of the newer plant was unnecessary because the old plant was quite efficient to produce the requisite article, and that the installation of the newer plant would impose upon the concern a heavier burden than it could bear. There should be an opportunity for the parties concerned to make that clear. And there should be some way whereby the owners of the premises would have a right to appeal against any order made in this section if necessary. I am not proposing to delete the section, but simply to show that there should be a right of appeal.
Mr. HOGAN
The objection in the special Committee was confined solely to the point that the Minister would have the power to prescribe the machinery of A instead of the machinery of B, or if you like, that he would have the power to say that the plant sold by the Dairy Company should be put in instead of the plant sold by the I.A.W.S. That was the only objection taken in the Special Committee to powers that the Minister should have to prescribe the machinery and the variation of the machinery set out in the schedule. There was no other objection raised and it was pointed out that it would be grossly unfair if the Minister could say: "You must get in this particular machinery belonging to this particular company instead of some other machinery by some other company." Now, here is the amendment: "The Minister may by order make regulations prescribing the nature and general character of the plant and machinery." That at least meets that point.
I was not suggesting or repeating the objection raised in the Committee, but I was raising a newer point of contention not provided for in the amendment.
Mr. HOGAN
Therefore it is agreed by Deputy Milroy that this amendment meets the particular point put up in Committee, and before leaving that point I would refer Deputies to the latter portion of Section 1. "And may also require or authorise any particular premises registered in any of the registers aforesaid to be equipped with efficient plant or machinery of any particular nature or character." Deputies need not be afraid of the word "particular" there because, remember, it is only of a particular nature or character. It may be necessary to prescribe a particular type of machinery for purposes required by manufacturing exporters, which would not be necessary for creameries. That may be necessary. The only danger that is suggested is that we may prescribe the machinery of some particular company. I think we serve all the purposes we want to serve, and obviate that danger by saying "equipped with efficient plant or machinery of a particular nature or character." That is all I have got to say on the point raised in Committee. But the point Deputy Milroy makes does more. It is necessary to prescribe machinery and equipment and plant. If that is so and it is agreed, Deputies must realise that times change and we may learn as we go along that what may be the prescribed machinery and up-to-date machinery, and machinery doing its particular work in a particular manner now, may be absolutely out of date in, say, 10 years time. You may have creameries, or a minority of creameries, in 10 or 15 years, working on machinery that was up to date now but out of date then, and that is the reason that a particular butter from one may not be up to the mark or standard of other creameries which are keeping ahead of the times. So you must take these general powers to prescribe even a variation of the machinery prescribed in the schedule. Otherwise there would be no point at all in taking powers to prescribe machinery. We would have to do what Deputy Hewat wants and leave it to the creameries themselves.
I think the Minister has quite unconsciously missed my point. I am not contending, in any way, that he should not, have power to order that old machinery be discarded. I simply want to have some provision made for a person or persons who have machinery which is fairly well up-to-date, or, say, as well up-to-date as machinery as a Ford car is in comparison with the Rolls-Royce. You can get quite comfortably carried in a Ford car, although some people prefer a Rolls-Royce. If a person fond of Rolls-Royce cars had the power to prescribe cars for Ministers of the Free State he would prescribe Rolls-Royce cars for them, whereas they might only be able to afford Ford cars. I just want to guard the owners of these premises or factories against the whims and caprice of officials who think one particular class of machinery is the right kind and that that and nothing else must be utilised. There should be a provision by which, in the event of such a contingency, if the owners are likely to be the victim of such caprice, they should have an opportunity of appealing to a higher authority.
I confess my sympathies are with Deputy Milroy in this. I think the amendment goes into unnecessary detail. The Minister simply desires to have power to make regulations altering the first and second schedules in a general way prescribing the nature and general character of the plant and machinery, and he can do that by adding a couple of words finishing with the word "equipped.""The Minister may by order from time to time make regulations or very the regulations prescribing the nature and general character of the plant and machinery mentioned in the first and second Schedules, and may also require or authorise any particular premises to be equipped." It seems to me that is quite enough. If you go beyond that you are suggesting that you may want to insist upon a certain character of machinery which in the fancy of the Minister—unless he is bound to follow the expert advice of the Dairy Council—or his advisers is requisite to produce high-grade butter. I contend that an examination of the product is really the best test as to whether the machinery is efficient, and I do not think that we should go much further in standardising the equipment of the creamery. In the First and Second Schedules you have indicated generally the kind of machinery that is required in creameries and on the premises of manufacturing exporters.
Mr. HOGAN
Would the Deputy be satisfied if we deleted everything after the word "Act" on the eighth line in the proposed new section?
In the first part of the proposed new section you have the words "in addition to or substitution for all or any of the plant and machinery mentioned in the First or Second Schedules," and then the section goes on, "and may also require or authorise any particular premises registered in any of the registers aforesaid." You deal there with premises which presumably must have satisfied the requirements of the Act, of having the plant and machinery set out in the Schedule. Then you say that in any premises you may order the creamery to substitute for that machinery certain other machinery. I do not think that is desirable. I think that if you take general powers to very the regulations they should apply to all creameries and not to one, and that the section as it is submitted is quite enough and is fairly extensive in itself. The power to prescribe that any premises, which may mean any single creamery, shall substitute for the machinery it already has in conformity with the Act certain other machinery is, I suggest, placing in the hands of the Minister a certain power to differentiate between one creamery and another, and I think that is quite unnecessary.
I am a little bit confused myself about this amendment. I think the wording of it is not very clear, and I find it difficult to understand it. I think that a simplification of the wording of the amendment would be required before it would be suitable from my point of view. I was largely responsible for the insertion of this amendment by the Minister, because I had an amendment down on the original stage of the Bill. The intention of my amendment was this, that the machinery prescribed in the Schedule should be mandatory on the creamery. The creamery should have that at least, but my intention was that the Minister should have power to prescribe such additional machinery as might be required. The amendment as it stands now does not meet with my intention. The Minister is taking power to vary the general type or character of the machinery. I agree with Deputy Milroy in regard to the point he raised about an arbitrator. I think that there should be some sort of a court of appeal in regard to this section if it is to remain as amended. I am sorry that the Minister did not carry this matter of having an arbitrator further than Part 1 of the Bill. I think that if the Minister is to take such drastic powers as are proposed in this new section that there should be someone between him and the creamery, and that he should not be the final arbitrator in the matter. I think someone should be appointed to whom an appeal could be made. Perhaps the Minister could suggest some change which would simplify the matter.
Mr. HOGAN
That is exactly my difficulty, that I cannot suggest a change unless I know exactly the particular point on which the Deputy is in disagreement with me. I am not asking the Deputy to put his objection in any form of words, but I would like to know what his intention is. Is it the intention to leave out everything from the word "Act"? The intention of the section is perfectly clear. I see Deputy Johnson's point, though I do not think there is much in it. The words in the new section are "equipped in addition to or substitution for all or any of the plant and machinery mentioned in the First or Second Schedule as the case may be." I could not make it any clearer than it is there. It possibly could be made clearer, but I do not see how it could be done. The idea is that we may prescribe the nature and general character of the plant and machinery. I think it is agreed that it is necessary to take such power.
Would the Minister say whether or not sub-section (2) of the proposed new section covers all that he requires?
Mr. HOGAN
Does the Deputy agree to sub-section (2) of the proposed new section?
Certainly. I would agree to that alone, because it is general.
Mr. HOGAN
I will accept that by itself, but I hold it is more specific than the other two put together.
I read sub-section (2) to mean that if it is thought desirable at any time to extend either of these Schedules the Minister may have power to extend the Schedule, but in such a case that will apply to all the creameries, and the power given will be in general terms such as we find in the Schedule. The first sub-section seems to me to be much more specific in regard to the character of the plant and of the machinery, and in regard to the establishment generally when a change is to take place after a substitution order has been made. I think that sub-section (2) does all that is required to be done. It does not give an opportunity to discriminate between one creamery and another or between one type of plant and another.
Would sub-section (2), then, become a separate section?
Mr. HOGAN
Yes.
By what process would you, then, prescribe the words "required or authorised" in the Section? You would have to add something to make it clear.
Mr. HOGAN
You would have to add these words at the beginning of the section. I agree with Deputy Johnson that Sub-section (2) does cover the point, only he said he had in mind the case of where an order is made for certain plant to be put into one creamery that it should be put into all, and that such a regulation should apply not to one creamery but to all creameries. I think it would have to be even more elastic than that. Take the case of a creamery with five or six separating stations. They would have a pasteurising plant in the central creamery, but they would have no such plant in the separating stations. We might find it necessary to prescribe a pasteurising plant for a separating station and the question would arise then: Should we order that a pasteurising plant should be installed in each of the separating stations as well as the one in the central creamery? I would accept Section 2 with the addition of the necessary words.
There is one point I would like to be certain on and that is the effect of the words "in addition to or in substitution therefor." What I want to know is, do these words apply to the Schedule or to the plant and machinery to be installed in the creamery?
Mr. HOGAN
What is the difference?
There is a considerable difference. I want to know whether these words apply to the Schedule or to the plant and machinery, or do they apply to both?
Mr. HOGAN
Take the words "in addition to."
I want to know if these words "in addition to or in substitution for" plant and machinery would be contingent upon what the Schedule contains. May not the schedule have the additional items added to it?
Mr. HOGAN
Of course. I think the Deputy's point is this, that he wants to know whether, where machinery or plant is to be put into a creamery, we should pass an Act of Parliament to extend the Schedules. That is not the idea. The idea clearly under the sub-section is that we should have power to add any additional machinery to the machinery already specified in the Schedules.
I want to know this: if the Minister instructs an inspector to go down to a certain creamery and the inspector reports in a certain way regarding that creamery, and recommends that an order be sent to that particular creamery to instal certain plant and machinery, does this amendment cover that without any reference to the Schedule?
Mr. HOGAN
Of course.
Then I think the thing is just as objectionable. I think there should be an appeal from those arbitrary decisions, that the owner of the premises should have the right of appeal to the arbitrator against such decisions.
I think Deputy Milroy's point and Deputy Johnson's point are much the same, and are also the same as the point that I want to make. I see what Deputy Milroy is coming at. He does not want to have certain machinery specified for a certain particular creamery. He wants, to ensure by having specified machinery in the Schedule, that only general specifications can be made. Then the additions made will be applicable to all creameries. I see more or less eye to eye with him in that regard. I think that was Deputy Johnson's point, too. But I think Deputy Milroy's point is not possible, because it would not be possible to add to the Schedule of a passed Act. As I was responsible for the original amendment which brought about this, I would say that the first part of sub-section (2) as far as the word "Act" would, as far as I see, meet my requirements. But I am not satisfied with the latter portion of it.
Is it sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)?
Sub-section (2) of amendment No. 35. I am talking of the amendment, not of the Bill. What I am trying to secure is that according to the Schedule there should be a minimum amount of machinery prescribed for the use of all creameries and that the Minister should have power to prescribe other additional machinery of a general character, but that he should not have power to prescribe additional machinery of a general character for a particular creamery, and that it should be for all creameries in general. I do not think his point is very sound, that creameries differ with regard to their requirements.
Mr. HOGAN
We should not get more confused than is absolutely necessary. I did not make any such point. What I said was that you required different classes of equipment for different classes of butter-making places. You require for the premises of a manufacturing exporter equipment of a different kind from that which is required for a creamery. That is the point, and the only point I make.
The manufacturing exporter is in a different classification from the creamery?
Mr. HOGAN
Certainly.
There is a Schedule for each class?
Mr. HOGAN
Yes. That is the only point I made.
You could prescribe a general addition for the creameries and a general addition for the manufacturing exporters. I have no objection to that. What I have an obojection against is prescribing general additional machinery for one creamery as against another. I only want to give the Minister power to prescribe the absolute minimum plant. Of course, I understand that creamery managers should have power to get additional plant if they wish, but they should have a minimum plant prescribed for them; and I think it would be in the interests of the Minister not to prescribe anything but the absolutely essential plant. It is not my intention to give the Minister power to prescribe all kinds of fancy plant which he considers necessary.
Mr. HOGAN
What does the Deputy suggest by way of amendment?
I would suggest that the Minister take the first lines of sub-section (1): "The Minister may by order make regulations prescribing the nature and general character of 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"; and then go down to sub-section (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 substitutes therefor as may for the time being be prescribed, required or authorised under this section." That would ensure that any orders that are made would be general. It would mean that where we have registered creameries or manufacturing exporters under the Act, we have made general orders as regards them, because they have complied with either the one schedule or the other as passed. Then if there is any change to be made in the schedules let that change be made applicable to all creameries or to all manufacturing exporters as the case may be, and be of a general character. It seems to me that that would satisfy what was suggested by Deputy Heffernan and would satisfy what the Minister has indicated as his intention and would obviate the faults that I think Deputy Milroy has pointed out. The arbitrator would not fit in with this scheme at all because the arbitrator has to deal with a case in which a particular place is under observation and has been inspected and a complaint has been made. But where a general order is given altering the schedules, it will not be a matter for the arbitrator. But, as I suggest to Deputy Milroy and to the Minister, here again you have a case for the authority of an Industrial Council to operate. The Guild idea comes in every time.
Mr. HOGAN
The amendment would then read as follows:—"The Minister may, by order, make regulations prescribing the nature and general character of 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." Then I think we should leave out the next part: "in addition to or substitution for all or any 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 efficient plant or machinery of any particular nature or character in addition to or substitution for all or any of the plant or machinery with which such premises are required by or under this Act to be equipped."
You would have to leave the reference to the Schedules there.
Mr. HOGAN
Then it won't make sense as it reads.
I venture to suggest that it would be impossible to make sense at this juncture. The amendment is intended to meet the various points that have been put forward and it could not reasonably be done now.
I think we are practically at one as regards our intentions. I think few of our points vary.
It seems to me they vary very much. Could not the Minister proceed with the other amendments and before he completes the Committee Stage come back to this amendment and put it in a form which he has thought over?
Mr. HOGAN
Yes. My form is there in the amendment. I am trying to meet the views of Deputies. Perhaps Deputies would also put up their ideas.
We should have to take the Committee Stage to-morrow at any rate, and we could come back to this at the end.
While we are on this point I would like to suggest before we get to the Report Stage that we would have to get the Bill reprinted and placed before us in the form in which it will leave this Committee because there have been so many amendments that we have not had many opportunities of considering them, though we are considering them now.
Mr. HOGAN
That obviously would be necessary, but that is another question. An Ceann Comhairle suggested that we will be in Committee on this Bill to-morrow and that probably we might deal later on with that amendment.
What I suggested is that we should go on with the amendments before us, and then we could come back to this at the very end.
I thought you were ruling that out?
It would normally be ruled out, but for the sake of getting it clear I will not rule it out. We will call amendment 35 postponed, and go on with amendment 36.
Amendment postponed.
I move:—
Before Section 30, page 18, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister may by order make regulations for all or any of the following purposes, that is to say—
(a) requiring that the calculation of the price to be paid for all milk and cream supplied to any premises to which the regulations apply shall be made on the basis of the percentage of butter-fat or other prescribed constituent contained in the milk or cream;
(b) prescribing the method and manner in all or any respect of sampling and testing milk and cream for the purpose of determining the quantity of butter-fat or other prescribed constituent contained therein;
(c) prescribing the nature and character of the instruments and appliances to be used for the purpose of such sampling and testing;
(d) prescribing the records to be kept in premises to which the regulations apply in respect of the sampling and testing of milk and cream for the purposes aforesaid and requiring records to be kept on such premises of the name and address of the person by whom the milk or cream was supplied, the results of the sampling and testing, the quantity of milk or cream from which each sample was taken, and the price paid for such milk or cream;
(e) requiring all samples taken for the purpose aforesaid to be retained on the premises for the prescribed time after they have been tested;
(f) requiring that all or any instruments or appliances used for sampling or testing milk or cream for the purpose aforesaid shall have been tested and found to be accurate in one or other of the establishments or institutions prescribed by the regulations and shall have been certified or marked accordingly in such establishment or institution.
(2) Any inspector shall be entitled at all reasonable times to enter upon any premises to which any regulations made under this section apply and to inspect all instruments and appliances used in such premises for sampling and testing milk or cream for the purpose of determining the quantity of butter-fat or other prescribed constituent contained therein, and to inspect and take copies of or extracts from all or any records kept on such premises in pursuance of such regulations, and to observe all or any of the process of sampling and testing milk and cream for the purposes aforesaid on such premises, and to test any samples which having been already tested have been retained on the premises.
(3) Regulations made under this section shall apply to all premises, or to any class or classes of premises (whether registered or not registered in any of the registers kept in pursuance of this Act) to which milk or cream is supplied for use in the manufacture of any dairy produce for sale, as may be prescribed in that behalf by the regulations respectively.
(4) Every person who shall contravene (whether by an act of commission or by an act of omission) any regulation made under this section, and also any person who shall obstruct or impede an inspector in the exercise of any of the powers conferred on him by this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, where the offence consists only of obstructing or impending an inspector to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, and in any other case to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds.
Mr. HOGAN
These are a series of regulations in deference to suggestions put up on Committee. Deputy Hogan suggested sub-section (b). Sub-section (d) was in deference to the suggestion put up by the Farmers' Deputies, that the Department should endeavour to control the present procedure in testing milk in creameries. With reference to sub-section (e) the present time for retaining samples on the premises after they have been tested is fourteen days. Sub-section (f) was to meet a suggestion that glass-ware and other vessels used in the creameries should be of a standard pattern. These were all amendments suggested by Deputies.
I agree with that amendment. It practically falls in with the ideas suggested by Farmer Deputies at the Special Committee Stage. The only thing I see is that the Minister "may by order make regulations." I think the amendment was mine, and it was my intention when introducing it that the wording should be "shall by order make regulations" instead of "may." Our intention was that it should be mandatory that the Minister should make regulations regarding the quantity of butter-fat contained therein, and also for the retention of samples for a certain period. The Minister has power under the Bill now to refrain from making these regulations, but I want to make it mandatory that he should do so.
Mr. HOGAN
Do you still want that?
Yes, certainly.
Mr. HOGAN
In regard to every one of these?
Yes.
The Deputy will have to move an amendment to make it read "The Minister shall." The word "shall" would not go with "or any."
I am willing to move an amendment that the word "may" be deleted and the word "shall" substituted, and that the words "or any" be deleted also.
So that the Minister would be obliged to make regulations for every single one of these? Do you appreciate that?
I appreciate that.
I would oppose the second amendment, and I am not too enthusiastic about the first, because I think it, like a good many other provisions in the Bill, will result simply in the creation of a lot of superfluous officials. What is suggested here would be a very good thing if it were practicable, but the manager of a creamery, if he wishes to show a wrong test, and is a dishonest person, could easily evade this without being even detected by adding a little cream to the sample he takes, even if it is afterwards inspected by the Department's inspector. There is really no guarantee of protection for the farmer. The only sure guarantee for the farmer would be that simultaneously with the delivery of his milk to the creameries he should take a sample for himself and forward it to the Government laboratory for examination.
Mr. HOGAN
Would the Deputy propose an amendment to that effect?
If the Minister would support it I would consider it for the Report Stage. I do not want to put down an amendment to give the Minister an opportunity of making one of those speeches he is so fond of making. He makes quite enough of them. But if the Minister seriously suggests that he is willing to accept it I will move an amendment on Report.
Mr. HOGAN
There is a good deal to be said for compelling every farmer to take a sample of his milk and send it to the Government analyst. I do not suggest compelling him to do so. I suggest that this is protecting the farmer against fraud by the creamery manager. Deputy Heffernan will explain the purpose——
Deputy Heffernan is not in charge of the Bill. I suggest that as these provisions do not give full and adequate guarantee and protection to the farmer, as intended, that the only practical way to secure it would be that the farmers who desire that protection should have an opportunity of sending up samples of their milk to be tested in the Government laboratory, or otherwise. I do not suggest anything in the nature of compulsion.
I ask An Ceann Comhairle and the Committee to be lenient with me, because we got the Bill only half an hour before the Dáil met, and we have not had time to study it properly. I would like to change my amendment if Ceann Comhairle would accept it. I only wish to make Clause (a) of Sub-section 1 and Clause (e) of Sub-section 1 compulsory, that is that the Minister "shall" in regard to these two clauses and "may" in regard to the remaining clauses.
Mr. HOGAN
Surely the Deputy sees that after ten minutes' consideration he was able to change his mind, and to say that only two out of the ten clauses should be compulsory. This Bill will be in operation 10 or 15 years and during that time there will be a great many changes. Why not leave it in an elastic form so that the Minister may change according to changing circumstances?
The farmers suggested this amendment, but not for the reasons Deputy Milroy stated here—for the purpose of getting a genuine test for the farmers. They did not suggest want of confidence in the managers of the creameries. That was not the idea of the farmers in suggesting this at all, but that there should be a uniform price paid for butter fat relative to the test. We found some of the creameries, according to different proprietors, were paying higher prices, and others were paying lower. That is why the Farmers' Deputies in Committee suggested this proposal, and not for the purpose of safeguarding themselves against the managers, and suggesting that the managers would not give them a genuine test, for I think they are giving them a genuine test. Neither is there any fraud known in connection with lowering the average price of milk, and raising the average price of butter fat. If this amendment is passed, it will make all creameries pay on the true, genuine average test of the creamery for butter fat.
Mr. HOGAN
Which amendment is the Deputy referring to?
I am referring to the butter fat system and the taking of samples.
Mr. HOGAN
Are you referring to Deputy Heffernan's proposed amendment or are you favouring this amendment?
I am favouring this amendment. At a conference in Limerick, where the managers and committees were represented, this proposal was not objected to. We explained that the reason we put it down was to get a uniform price paid for butter fat relative to the genuine test.
Am I getting an amendment to delete the word "may" and make it "shall" in certain of the paragraphs, or is the amendment being let go as it is?
I was rather hoping the Minister would meet us in the matter, because I did not wish to make this hard and fast. It is my idea to delete the word "may" in sub-section (1), clause (a) and clause (e), and make it "shall" and let the others be optional. That is my personal idea about the matter.
I would suggest to Deputy Heffernan that the alteration he suggests would not fill the requirements of the case at all. It would impose upon the Minister the duty of issuing those regulations the day after the Bill becomes law, and that, of course, is quite impossible. The very fact that the Minister has put in this permissive clause in the Bill indicates his mind in the matter. It then becomes a matter for the creameries and the farmers to press upon the Minister the necessity for an early regulation of this character.
Mr. HOGAN
In regard to all or any of them.
I would suggest to Deputy Heffernan that, apart from the merits of the question, it would be rather extraordinary to compel the Minister to make regulations—actually to put it in the Bill. If the Minister has power to make regulations, Deputy Heffernan is always here to press for any regulation he thinks the Minister ought to make.
I do not think we could serve any useful purpose by discussing the matter any further. It could be done in another manner by making the two points I suggest part of the Act, and not subject to regulations at all. I cannot quite see Deputy Johnson's point. I cannot see why the Minister should not make regulations and why it should not be in the Act that creameries should pay on a butter-fat basis.
You would have to put in the Act "On and after a certain date no creamery shall pay to a farmer on any other basis than on butter fat."
In other words, you would have to put the regulation into the Act.
That was my original amendment to the original Bill. The Minister did not accept the amendment, but he accepted the idea. He has rather avoided it by this power to make regulations. I always wanted to have it in the Act.
Mr. HOGAN
The Deputy has changed his mind in ten or fifteen minutes. In the beginning he wanted all to be mandatory. Now he only wants three to be mandatory. If he thought over it for ten or fifteen years—and the Act will be in operation ten or fifteen years —he might only want two instead of three to be mandatory.
The feeling of the House is not exactly in favour of my contention. I do not wish to prolong the discussion, and I am willing to withdraw my verbal amendment. I hope the Minister will make these regulations as soon as possible.
Verbal amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 36: To insert a new section before Section 30 put and agreed to.
Question put—"That the new section be added to the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 31.
(1) There shall be paid to the Minister by the person applying for the registration of any premises in any register kept in pursuance of this Act the fee specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, and the payment of such fee shall be a condition precedent to the registration of the premises.
(2) There shall be paid to the Minister in every year by the registered proprietor of every premises registered in the register of creameries or the register of manufacturing exporters or the register of non-manufacturing exporters the fee (in this Act called the annual fee) specified in the Third Schedule to this Act.
(3) The first annual fee to be paid by the registered proprietor of any of the premises mentioned in the foregoing sub-section of this section shall be payable before registration of the premises, and shall be calculated on the quantity of butter, estimated in the prescribed manner, which would normally be exported from such premises during the period between the completion of the registration and the end of the calendar year then current, and the payment of such fee shall be a condition precedent to the registration of such premises.
(4) Every subsequent annual fee shall be payable before the 17th day of March in the year in respect of which the fee is payable, and shall be calculated on the quantity of butter, estimated in the prescribed manner, which would normally be exported from the registered premises in that year.
(5) As soon as may be after the end of each year, the total amount of butter exported during that year from every premises registered in the register of creameries or the register of manufacturing exporters or the register of non-manufacturing exporters shall be ascertained in the prescribed manner, and the amount of the annual fee actually payable for that year shall be calculated, and such adjustment as may be necessary between the fee so ascertained to be payable and the fee actually paid shall be made by means of (as the case may require)—
(a) repayment to the registered proprietor or allowance against any annual fee subsequently payable by such registered proprietor; or
(b) payment by the registered proprietor or addition to any annual fee subsequently payable by such registered proprietor.
(6) Every registered proprietor of premises registered in the register of creameries or the register of manufacturing exporters or the register of non-manufacturing exporters shall make for the purposes of this section such returns, to such persons, at such times, and in such forms as shall be prescribed.
(7) If any registered proprietor by whom an annual fee is payable in respect of his registered premises under this section shall fail to pay such annual fee or any sum added to such annual fee by way of adjustment under this section, before the 17th day of March, in the year in respect of which the same is payable under this section, the registration of such registered premises shall be cancelled by virtue of this section as on and from such 17th day of March.
(8) Where the registration of any registered premises is cancelled pursuant to this section, and the fee, the non-payment of which caused such cancellation, is paid within three months after such cancellation, the Minister may restore such premises to the register as on and from the date on which such fee is so paid.
(9) In this section the expression "registered proprietor" shall be construed as referring to the registered proprietor for the time being, save that where the premises shall have ceased to be registered the said expression shall be construed as referring to the person who was the registered proprietor immediately before the cesser of registration.
I move amendment 37:—
"In Section 31 (1) page 19, line 5, to delete the words `registration of the premises' and substitute therefor the words `entertainment of the application by the Minister.' "
The effect of the amendment is that the fee shall be paid as a condition precedent to the entertainment of the application by the Minister and not as in the Bill, as drafted, as a condition precedent to registration of the premises.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 38, as follows:—
Before Section 31 (2), page 19, line 6, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) There shall be paid to the Minister by the person applying for registration of any premises in any register kept in pursuance of this Act other than the register of cream-separating stations the deposit specified in the Third Schedule to this Act on account of the first annual fee payable in respect of such premises, and the payment of such deposit shall be a condition precedent to the registration of the premises.
The deposit is £5. The payment of that will be a guarantee that the application is a serious one, and the deposit itself is a very small thing. We have changed the arrangement, so that the balance of the fee will be paid at the end of the year. As far as we could gauge, all the Deputies seemed to agree that the deposit at the beginning should be a fairly moderate one, but sufficiently big to make it quite clear that the application is serious.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In Section 31 (2), to insert in line 6, page 19, after the word "in" the words "respect of."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In Section 31 to delete sub-sections (3) and (4), page 19, and to substitute therefor the following:—
(3) The first annual fee to be paid by the registered proprietor of any of the premises mentioned in the foregoing sub-section of this section shall be calculated on the quantity of butter ascertained in the prescribed manner, exported from such premises during the period between the completion of the registration and the end of the calendar year in which the premises were registered and shall become due on the 31st day of December of that year and the difference between such fee and the deposit paid on account thereof as aforesaid shall be paid by or returned to (as the case may require) the registered proprietor before the 17th day of March in the year next following.
(4) Every subsequent annual fee shall become due on the 31st day of December in the year in respect of which such fee is payable and shall be paid before the 17th day of March in the year next following and shall be calculated on the quantity of butter, ascertained in the prescribed manner, exported from the registered premises in the year in respect of which the fee is payable.
Mr. HOGAN
That, as the Deputies will note, is a complete alteration of the old scheme. The fee is payable at the end of the year, and must be paid before March of the following year. It is due on the 31st December, and is to be paid before the 17th March following. That is more convenient for the creameries when they audit their accounts. They can be quite clear about the period for which the fee is payable. It is payable for the previous year.
I would like to have some assurance from those who are familiar with the business methods of the creameries whether it is reasonable to expect that creameries will have available, after the close of the calendar year, funds which would make it not too heavy a drain to pay this fee. I am inclined to think that some of the smaller creameries do not retain balances of any size after paying out their supplies. I still have the idea that I had at the Committee Stage, that creameries would probably prefer to pay something monthly or quarterly during the actual selling season. I would like just to have an assurance before passing from that, that the creamery practice would allow them to pay a sum of, say, £20, £30, £40, or £50 without an undue strain at the end of the calendar year.
Mr. HOGAN
These creameries get their accounts audited up to the 31st December. Trade is good up to September or October, and if they have any money at all I should say they would have more money at the end of the year than for the first four months of the following year. I do not think it would be any great advantage to any of these creameries to be allowed pay monthly or quarterly. They keep their accounts fairly well, and they know that this fee is due at the end of every year. They get their accounts audited every year, and they must be absolutely certain that they must meet this fee. It is not too much to expect them to make arrangements to put aside the small percentage they would pay quarterly as they go along. Besides, look at the amount of extra work and extra book-keeping it would entail if it is to be paid every month or quarter. Would it be worth it?
The bank will do the work for nothing.
Amendment put and agreed to.
AMENDMENT 41.
I beg to move:—
In Section 31 (5), page 19, line 30, after the word "exporters" to insert the words "or the register of butter factories."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In Section 31 (5), page 19, line 32, to delete all after the words "annual fee" to the end of line 41, and substitute therefore the words "payable in respect of that year shall be calculated accordingly."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In Section 31 (6), page 19, line 43, after the word "exporters" to insert the words "or the register of butter factories."
Amendment put and agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Sub-section (2) Every licence for the use of the national mark shall be granted subject to the conditions (which shall be expressed in the licence) that the national mark shall only be applied in butter of an approved standard and manufactured under approved conditions and in the authorised premises specified in the licence: Provided that the national mark shall not be applied to any butter not made from pasteurised cream.
I beg to move:—
In Section 32 (2), page 20, line 18, after the word "conditions" to insert the words "from pasteurised cream or milk," and in lines 19 and 20 to delete all from the word "provided" to the end of the sub-section."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
To insert after Section 32 (2) a new sub-section as follows:—
The Minister may acquire, design or otherwise establish more than one such national mark and every reference in this Act to "the national mark" shall be construed so as to mean the national marks if more than one such mark is established.
Mr. HOGAN
I am accepting that amendment not with the idea of giving a different mark to the manufacturers or exporters. But circumstances may prove that another mark may be useful.
That was my whole idea. I wanted to make provision for the possibility that at some future time more than one mark would be authorised and used, and that it need not be necessary to have to come to the Dáil for a new Act.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Mr. HOGAN
The next amendment is in the name of Deputy Heffernan. It reads:—
To add at the end of Section 33 a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) The use of the national mark shall not be granted to any registered creamery, gathered cream factory, manufacturing exporter or other person eligible to qualify for the mark until it has been ascertained by examination at specified places of all consignments exported by such person or firms that the butter manufactured by such is consistently of the quality required, and there shall be provided by the Minister at such specified places the necessary facilities for examination.
I will accept this amendment with the elimination of the following words: "at specified places of all consignments exported by such persons or firms," and also the words from "required" to the end.
I do not think that would mean anything more than a pious hope of the Minister.
Mr. HOGAN
If the Deputy will not accept it, I move to report progress.