Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 23 Nov 1932

Vol. 45 No. 1

Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill 1932—Committee Stage.

The Dáil went into Committee.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
(1) In this Act—
the word "flour" means any flour obtained from wheat but does not include meal derived from wheat or offals of wheat;
the expression "body corporate" means a body corporate whether constituted before or after the passing of this Act and whether constituted within or without Saorstát Eireann; the word "shares" shall be construed as including stock but excluding debentures and debenture stock;
the expression "milling licence" means a licence granted under Part II of this Act;
the expression "licensed miller" means a person who is the holder of a milling licence;
the expression "inspector of the Minister for Industry and Commerce" means a person authorised in writing by that Minister to exercise the powers conferred on an inspector of the Minister for Industry and Commerce by this Act; the expression "inspector of the Minister for Agriculture" means a person authorised in writing by that Minister to exercise the powers conferred on an inspector of the Minister for Agriculture by this Act; the word "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made under this Act;
the expression "cereal year" means the period of twelve months commencing on the 1st day of August, in the year 1933 and every subsequent year and ending on the 31st day of July next following such 1st day of August;
the expression "home-grown" means grown in Saorstát Eireann; the word "barrel" means a barrel of twenty stones;
the words "maize""oats""barley" and "rye" mean respectively maize in grain, oats in grain, barley in grain and rye in grain;
the expression "maize meal" includes crushed maize, broken maize, kibbled maize, granulated maize, flaked maize, and rolled maize.
The following amendment stood in the name of Deputy McGilligan:
1. In page 5, before line 50, to insert a new definition as follows:—
"the word ‘prescribe' means prescribe by regulations under this Act."

I am going to suggest that this amendment be left over, because it will depend on other amendments as to whether there will be any necessity for putting in the word "prescribe" as well as "prescribed."

Amendment to be postponed.

The word "prescribe" does not seem to be required in the Bill, and it seems to be introduced to implement other amendments in the name of the same Deputy. The Deputy is waiting to see what will be decided on those amendments, what the fate of the amendments will be.

Section 3 agreed.
SECTION 4.
Each of the following persons shall for the purposes of this Act be a national of Saorstát Eireann, that is to say:—
(a) a person born in Saorstát Eireann or in the area now comprised in Saorstát Eireann;
(b) a person who at the relevant time is and for not less than five consecutive years immediately preceding that time has been ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann.

I move amendment 2:—

In paragraph (a), line 16, after the words "Saorstát Eireann" to add the words "or a person born outside Saorstát Eireann whose mother was ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann but temporarily absent from the Saorstát at the time of that person's birth.

This amendment previously came before this House, sent down by the Seanad, on the Control of Manufactures Bill. It is to make provision for what might easily happen, although it is believed that the cases would not be very many. It is to add to the definition that stands here a certain phrase, so that the whole paragraph (a), Section 4, will read: "A person born in Saorstát Eireann or a person born outside Saorstát Eireann whose mother was ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann but temporarily absent from the Saorstát at the time of that person's birth." The cases which this would affect are very few, but it is a necessary provision.

I have no objection.

Is the Minister accepting the amendment?

I am not raising any objection to it.

Amendment accepted.

Section 4, as amended, agreed.
SECTION 5.
(1) In this Act the expression—
"Irish-owned body corporate" means a body corporate the issued shares of which are at the relevant time to an extent exceeding one-half (in nominal value) thereof in the beneficial ownership of a person who is or of two or more persons each of whom is at that time either a national of Saorstát Eireann or a body corporate the issued shares of which are at that time to an extent exceeding one-half (in nominal value) thereof in the beneficial ownership of nationals of Saorstát Eireann.
(2) For the purposes of the immediately preceding sub-section but not further or otherwise, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) where a national of Saorstát Eireann dies and is at the time of his death the beneficial owner of any shares in a body corporate, such shares shall, until the grant of probate of his will or letters of administration of his personal estate, be deemed to continue in the beneficial ownership of a national of Saorstát Eireann, and upon such grant being made the personal representative for the time being of such national shall, so long as he is entitled to such shares in his representative capacity, be deemed to be the beneficial owner of such shares and, if he is not a national of Saorstát Eireann, to be a national of Saorstát Eireann; and
(b) where a national of Saorstát Eireann becomes a bankrupt or carries an arrangement with his creditors and such national was at the time of his bankruptcy or arrangement the beneficial owner of any shares in a body corporate, and his interest in such shares becomes vested in his assignee in bankruptcy or a trustee of the estate of such national as an arranging debtor, such shares shall be deemed, so long as such interest remains so vested, to be in the beneficial ownership of such assignee or trustee, and such assignee or trustee shall, so long as such interest remains so vested be deemed, if he is not a national of Saorstát Eireann, to be a national of Saorstát Eireann; and
(c) where a person is for the time being entitled to the income arising from any shares in a body corporate held by a trustee, such person shall so long as he continues to be entitled to such income, be deemed to be the beneficial owner of such shares; and
(d) where two or more persons are each for the time being entitled to a proportionate part of the income arising from shares in a particular body corporate or from such shares and other property held by a trustee, each of such persons, so long as he continues to be entitled to a proportion of such income, shall be deemed to be the beneficial owner of a corresponding proportion of such shares; and
(e) where the issued shares of a body corporate are transferred to a bank, being a body corporate, by way of security for an advance and such bank is registered as the owner of such shares in the register of shareholders of such body corporate, such transfer and registration shall be deemed not to operate to transfer the ownership of such shares to such bank; and
(f) where the issued shares of a body corporate which is the holder of a milling licence or the issued shares of a body corporate holding shares in a body corporate which is the holder of a milling licence cease to be held in the manner stated in the said sub-section, such shares shall be deemed to continue to be held in accordance with that sub-section for a period of six months after they cease to be in fact so held.

I move amendment 3:—

In sub-section (2) (f), page 7, line 20, to delete the words "the said sub-section" and substitute the words "this section," and in line 22 to delete the words "that sub-section" and substitute the words "this section."

I do not know whether this is an amendment which is required, or whether it should not be an amendment referring back to Sections C and D. The text, as it is in the Bill, is clearly wrong because it means nothing. Sub-section (2) (f): To delete the words "the said sub-section." The lettered paragraph (f) of this measure reads: "Where the issued shares of a body corporate which is the holder of a milling licence or the issued shares of a body corporate holding shares in a body corporate which is the holder of a milling licence cease to be held in the manner stated in the said sub-section." There is no said sub-section. What has happened is that this particular paragraph has been lifted from the Control of Manufactures Act, and the necessary reference to a particular paragraph has been left out. It should be paragraph (c), but I am going to suggest that in addition to making it refer to paragraph (c), it should refer also to paragraphs (d) and (e). A similar amendment will have to follow later. "Such shares shall be deemed to continue to be held in accordance with that sub-section for a period of six months after they cease to be in fact so held." I have put down a different amendment, making it allude to the section, but that is because I was not clear what this particular item referred to in paragraph (f) was supposed to be relevant to. It must be relevant to something. It is not to "the said sub-section" because there is no sub-section mentioned, so the reference is clouded at the moment.

I think the Deputy has not read the Bill properly. Sub-section (2) contains the words "for the purposes of the immediately preceding sub-section." Quite obviously the immediately preceding sub-section is the one referred to in paragraph (f), and if the Deputy refers to paragraph (f) in the light of the preceding section he will see that it is quite in order.

Will the Minister agree that this paragraph is copied from the Control of Manufactures Bill, except where "sub-section" is in this particular reference a particular paragraph was named in the Control of Manufactures Bill, and the paragraph to which it has reference in the Control of Manufactures Bill is the paragraph which now stands as paragraph (c) in this Bill?

No. The purpose of the whole section is to give effect to the intention behind the Control of Manufactures Act, but the wording of paragraph (f) is quite clear: "Where the issued shares of a body corporate which is the holder of a milling licence or the issued shares of a body corporate holding shares in a body corporate which is the holder of a milling licence cease to be held in the manner stated in the said sub-section," that is sub-section 1 of the section, "such shares shall be deemed to continue to be held in accordance with that sub-section for a period of six months after they cease to be in fact so held."

Here is the Control of Manufactures Act, 1932. Section 2, sub-section 2, lettered paragraph (f) reads:

Whenever the issued shares of a body corporate cease to be held in the manner stated in the said paragraph (c), such shares shall be deemed to continue to be held in accordance with that paragraph for a period of six months after they cease to be in fact so held.

Paragraph (c) reads:

Where a person is for the time being entitled to the income arising from any shares in a body corporate held by a trustee, such person shall, so long as he continues to be entitled to such income, be deemed to be the beneficial owner of such shares.

The reference is to the paragraph. There is a corresponding paragraph here. If it is intended to make it as wide as the Minister said, then I suggest he should take my amendment and make it refer to the section.

It obviously refers to sub-section 1.

I put it that the form of the draftsmanship of Bills we get here is that where a phrase refers to a sub-section, and where it is the next preceding one, it has that reference. Now the next preceding sub-section to this section—that is not here.

It is in the covering words governing all the paragraphs.

It is not. "In the said sub-section" is what we have here.

And that relates to the words "the immediately preceding sub-section."

If it related a thousand times to that, the form of draftsmanship we get here is that where a phrase refers to the next preceding sub-section it has that reference.

And "the immediately preceding sub-section" is the phrase we use.

It is not here.

It relates back.

There is a double relation back, and it is questionable whether it is going to have that relation. I suggest, for clarification's sake, to make it a named section or "the immediately preceding sub-section." It is not in line with the ordinary form of draftsmanship we get here.

I have no objection to conveying the Deputy's suggestion to the draftsman.

I only raised it because it is not clear.

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Yes, sir. Section 5, sub-section (1), refers to "a body corporate the issued shares of which are at the relevant time". Again, this is a clause which is lifted completely from the Control of Manufactures Act, and the relevant time has particular and clear reference there. I am not so sure it has the same or any really ascertainable reference in this Bill.

I want to know further if there is any deliberation about the change that has been made or whether it is simply a mere accident of drafting. Paragraph (8) of Section 2 is taken word for word, except for one word, from the Control of Manufactures Act, and in line 32 it talks about a grant being made because the reference here is to "such grant." Now, I am not sure that "such grant" limits it to an extent that is not intended by the end of the paragraph, because "such grant" might refer merely to probate of his will or letters of administration of his estate, whereas the phrase later enlarges and talks about a representative for the "time being." That is to say, it might be all down through the ages and is only a question whether "such grant" does not tie up the thing too closely to the phrase just preceding. And the phrase used in the Control of Manufactures Act was the phrase brought in by way of amendment to make "such grant" into "a grant" and which means either that grant or any other grant. I would like that matter looked into. These are really the only points I have to make.

I do not think there would be any real significance or any real difference achieved in the meaning of the sub-section by changing the word "such" to "a."

Question—"That Section 5 stand"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
The Minister for Agriculture, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, may by order make regulations prescribing the standard to which wheat must conform in order to be classed as millable and references in this Act to millable wheat shall be construed as meaning wheat which conforms to the standard prescribed by such regulations.

I move amendments 4, 5 and 8:

4. Before the word "may," line 25, to insert the words "and in agreement with the Milling Advisory Committee to be established under this Act."

5. Before the word "may," line 25, to insert the words "and after consultation with the Milling Advisory Committee to be established under this Act."

8. At the end of the section to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(2) Where the Minister for Agriculture in accordance with the provisions of the next preceding sub-section has prescribed a standard for millable wheat different from that recommended by the Milling Advisory Committee, the order prescribing such standard shall also state the standard recommended by the Milling Advisory Committee."

I want to have it obligatory on the Minister to consult with the Milling Advisory Committee about such technical matters as the prescribed standard to which wheat must conform in order to put the class down as millable. My first amendment is that that standard can only be prescribed in agreement with the Milling Advisory Committee. If it is thought to be imposing too definite an obligation upon the Minister to submit to this outside body, then I suggest, alternatively, that the Milling Advisory Committee shall in every instance be consulted by the Minister, and if and when the Minister prescribes a standard which is one recommended by the Milling Advisory Committee, then when he comes to this House with the order which will indicate what the standard is, he shall also then indicate so as to give information to the House the point of view held by the Milling Advisory Committee. I prefer myself to have No. 4, but if the Minister is not disposed to accept No. 4, I ask him to consider accepting Nos. 5 and 8 together as an alternative.

It is provided in the Bill that the Minister for Industry and Commerce can set up an Advisory Committee. The Minister for Agriculture does not require any such power under the Act, because in the Agricultural Act that was passed a few years ago, there is power to set up an Advisory Committee on any such——

Yes, only power.

The intention under that power will be to set up two advisory committees under this Bill, so far as agriculture is concerned, one of them to deal with maize and feedingstuffs and the other to deal with wheat. On the Wheat Committee, for instance, there will be growers of wheat, representing dealers of wheat, importers of wheat, and flour millers. That is the type of advisory committee the Minister for Agriculture would consult if he wished to consult on a matter of this sort. As a matter of fact, I know, personally, that the Minister for Agriculture did consult the flour millers on this and on previous occasions, and they were very much disinclined to prescribe any standard for millable wheat because they said it was impossible to put it in writing. They were inclined to think that it was better not to prescribe a standard of millable wheat but let a quota be prescribed and then, if they felt that the quota was too high and that sufficient millable wheat was not to be found in the country to meet that quota they would bring their case before us. That was their suggestion, and I think it is, perhaps, a just suggestion. I think to appoint the Minister for Agriculture to consult any committee on a matter of this sort would not be advisable.

So far as the Minister's argument is valid, it proposes an extremely difficult thing, that of prescribing a standard. Is not that what this section does? Does not this section deal with prescribing a standard?

I suggest the argument and the reasons given by the Minister finish this. His reason for not accepting the amendment was the practical impossibility of prescribing a standard. The reason, apparently, for not consulting this advisory committee is the impossibility and the difficulty of prescribing a standard, and yet that is precisely what the section asks the Minister to do. If you have an advisory committee, surely the House is entitled to know what their particular views are. Deputy McGilligan suggests that the advisory committee be consulted and the Minister need not follow their particular advice, as to how he should prescribe a standard. I suggest the reasons given by the Minister are not equally valid against the whole section as they are against the amendment moved.

I would point out to the Deputy that as far as our knowledge goes and as far as the knowledge of other countries goes, a satisfactory standard cannot be prescribed. Unless we learn more about it the standard will not be prescribed, but if it were to be prescribed why should the Minister be bound to consult them under this Bill any more than under any other Bill?

That is not the argument that was advanced by the Minister previously. I understand he has taken power for the future to prescribe a standard?

Why not ask advice on that particular occasion? I am not suggesting that the Minister should be compelled to follow the advice. Why not take amendment 5 instead of amendment 4? If the Minister has an advisory committee there why should he not consult them? I suggest that the Minister has made no attempt to make a distinction between the section and the amendment. Everything the Minister has said applies to the section with as much force as to the amendment.

It is very difficult for the Minister to see how this will work. If he does not accept the amendment he should accept some alternative to it. The Minister says that he is himself satisfied that it will be almost impossible to prescribe a standard. If well-known representatives and authorities on the matter find it difficult to suggest a standard, it is to me inconceivable that a Ministerial Department would be able to do so or that they would find it possible or convenient to do what the experts declare at the moment is impossible. The section, as I mentioned on the Second Reading, is vague in many respects. The Minister has given expression to the fears I expressed on the Second Reading when he says that the section may never be put into operation. Perhaps it may after some time, and possibly we may be left with no specific standard. I think on the whole that the Minister might accept one of the amendments moved by Deputy McGilligan. It is absolutely necessary that he should do so. In this case, and indeed in general, there are too many powers given to the various Ministers under these Bills. The standard of the wheat is possibly the most important matter in the Bill and some provision other than stated in this section is necessary. I think the Minister should consider one of the amendments. To my mind, the amendments do not go far enough.

Am I to understand that there is now a definite withdrawal of the idea of having wheat classed as millable?

Having it classed?

Yes, definitely classed.

The section says "prescribing the standard to which wheat must conform in order to be classed as millable and references in this Act to millable wheat shall be construed as meaning wheat which conforms to the standard prescribed by such regulations." Does the Minister despair of prescribing the standard? We have it now that he does, and therefore we are to have no description.

With the present knowledge at our disposal I do not intend to prescribe it.

That changes the character of the Bill entirely, because to my mind the references that are made to "millable wheat" and the references that are made to home-grown wheat are now parctically one. The whole argument is that there can be home-grown in this country wheat of a millable type. That has been the argument up to the present. Now the Minister despairs of getting a definition which would enable us to prescribe wheat up to the standard to be obtained here. He now despairs of getting this prescription. Let us take amendments 5 and 8. Take the case for the Milling Advisory Committee. Clearly they will not make any recommendation, and if the Minister comes in here with an order he will have to say: "That is my own order, because the Milling Advisory Committee gave me no assistance." The other arguments used do not seem to be very sound either. In two other cases power is taken to establish advisory committees. That was not for the purpose of this measure, for at that time this measure was not in contemplation. If the Minister will read Section 10 he will see the point I am making. I merely say that we should join this up with Part 2 of the measure. This seems to be a necessary item in the whole scheme which is propounded to us with regard to the increase in the acreage of wheat in this country. It is not a substitute for what is proposed in Section 10. It is no use to say that the Minister for Agriculture may appoint an advisory committee. This is all the more necessary now because of his confession that he and his Departmental experts despair of prescribing a standard. That being the case, the more assistance they can get from a Milling Advisory Committee, the better. We should discuss this now in the light of the Minister's confession.

The Deputy's amendment is merely providing that when an order prescribing the standard is published it shall contain also an indication of the standard and recommendations of the Advisory Committee. The Committee is fairly an Advisory Committee. If that fact is grasped a lot of misunderstanding will be avoided. It is not merely unnecessary but, in my view, undesirable that an order should be made—if ever an order is made—prescribing that the standard of millable wheat should contain the views or recommendations of the Committee. There is no obligation for that and it will only cause misunderstanding and confusion, which would achieve nothing.

Would the Minister read amendment 5?

Yes, that the Minister may after consultation with the Committee. Again the Deputy is only trying to extend the scope of the Committee. The Minister should not be constrained to accept their views or even to consult them. Clearly the intention is to consult them. In the event of circumstances intervening which would make it impossible for such consultation to take place, the Minister should not be debarred from making orders for the proper fulfilment of the section.

I invite the Minister to read Section 10. For the proper carrying out of Section 10 it will be essential that the Committee shall include the remainder of it. The Minister says that he thinks it wrong that the Minister for Agriculture should be constrained to accept or consult. Very good; if that is possible how is it right to subject the Minister for Industry and Commerce, under Section 10, to what is a more particularly objectionable obligation than what is sought to be imposed upon the Minister for Agriculture by my two amendments? Amendment 5 is that the Minister for Agriculture should prescribe a standard for millable wheat. If the result of the consultation is not agreed to, then under amendment 8 the House shall know, when an order is brought before it, what is the Minister's view of the standard and whether the Advisory Committee have any view on it. That does not oblige the Minister to accept. It is only letting the House know that there have been agreements. At the moment when the Minister tells us that he despairs of getting a standard it is amazing that he should so definitely turn down the suggestion of giving this House what may be useless, but giving them what assistance the Advisory Committee can give. He turns down the suggestion that that should be put before the House.

The Milling Advisory Committee will be established under Section 10 by the Minister for Industry and Commerce for the purpose of advising him in the exercise of his functions under this Act. The amendment which the Deputy seeks to insert requires the Minister for Agriculture—

After consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

The reason for submitting the words "after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce" is to ensure that the interests of the flour millers as against the interests of the farmers will be safeguarded. It is the function of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and his Department to protect the interests of industrialists. It is the function of the Minister for Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture to protect the interests of farmers. It is obvious that in certain cases the interests of farmers and flour millers will be in conflict. In that case, the Minister for Industry and Commerce will ensure that the interests of the flour millers will be considered. Under these circumstances, it is the Minister for Industry and Commerce who will consult the Advisory Committee and, having got the advice of the Advisory Committee, he will discuss the matter, as is presupposed by Section 6, with the Minister for Agriculture. It is the Minister for Agriculture who will determine what the standard is to be, but it is the Advisory Committee that will advise the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and that Minister, acting on that advice or on any assistance that may be given him by the committee, shall, as he thinks fit, consult with the Minister for Agriculture before the standard is definitely determined.

The Minister has given no reason for rejecting amendment 5 and amendment 8. He has treated us to a couple of adjectives; he says the amendments are objectionable and inadvisable, but he has not stated why. Is it the publicity that is inadvisable? Does the Minister object to publicity being given to the views of the Advisory Committee, if they are consulted? If not, what is the objection? If it is really the publicity the Minister objects to, that is rather a peculiar attitude for the Minister to take up towards an advisory body of this kind.

What did the Minister mean when he said he despaired of finding a suitable definition for the word "standard"? Does he despair of finding it possible to arrive at a definite standard for home-grown wheat? Most people are aware that there is a certain standard for millable wheat. It may be necessary, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce says, to safeguard the interests of the millers, the farmers and the general public. In the last analysis, it is the general public that we should be anxious to protect. There is no protection offered to them in this Bill. There is no protection in any section of the Bill as to the standard of wheat that will be milled. One does not expect the Minister to do the impossible, but there should certainly be found a standard under which no wheat should be milled. The Minister suggested that he had found it difficult to get a standard which could apply to home-grown wheat. It is not so difficult to arrive at such a standard. I could define a certain standard in regard to wheat that would be millable, and not too high a standard either. Is the Minister serious in suggesting that a consultation with the advisory body is not going to be helpful in order to arrive at some definition in regard to a standard as applied to home-grown wheat? If there is not some such provision as Deputy McGilligan suggests, we will be left in the hands of a despairing Minister, who will endeavour to prescribe the standard of wheat that can be milled.

I quite see the Minister's point in regard to amendment 8, but I cannot understand why he is not prepared to accept amendment 5. I would like to draw attention to the fact that, whatever definition is eventually arrived at, the whole of this Bill pivots on the question of what is millable wheat.

It does not, but it should.

I know it should. The whole question of the amount of the subsidy is going to be fixed on the basis of millable wheat. The Minister has taken very drastic power to punish a miller who does not use a certain quota of Irish wheat. There are provisions setting out that if there is not sufficient millable Irish wheat the miller can be excused. Is it not a very important thing that the miller should have at his disposal, not vicariously through the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but directly, the advice of every expert on this question when he is about to make a decision which will leave the millers open to prosecution and heavy penalties, including imprisonment?

And the loss of their livelihood.

The Minister can order the millers to use millable wheat of Irish growth and, if they do not do so, they can be heavily punished. It cannot be any disadvantage to have the benefit of expert advice. It may be a trifling inconvenience on rare occasions, but it would greatly reassure everybody if the Dáil knew that the Minister had the advice, not only of his own officials, but of such other experts as are available and that he would be bound by statute to get that advice before he made any report on the definition, as is envisaged in this section. I think he should accept amendment 5.

Arising out of the Minister's statement on these amendments, if he despairs of any guiding line as to what millable wheat is, how does he propose to administer Section 27, which is the pivotal section of the Bill? Will he be satisfied if the people mill wheat that is not millable, or will they be compelled to do so?

We all know that wheat must be millable. The miller will mill it and, if he mills it, it is millable. I do not know any better definition than that. It is very hard to find a definition for some things. Deputy Bennett said he could give me a definition straight off. I would be glad if he would do so. It has puzzled many people. It is the definition that is hard to get.

For that matter, you could mill monkey nuts.

It is a ridiculous thing to say that because we cannot define what is millable, the administration of the whole Bill will be upset.

Actual milling—is that the test that is going to be applied?

Going through the mill?

Not at all. You could put monkey nuts through a mill.

That is what Deputy Dillon said.

You could also put Fianna Fáil resolutions through a mill.

Or the suggested Cumann na nGaedheal resolutions that are going round to the clubs. I would be glad to have a definition from Deputy Bennett. A practical definition has puzzled not only the flour millers in the Free State but also in Great Britain and many other countries.

They have a definition in Britain.

But it is not satisfactory. The flour millers do not think it is satisfactory. The Milling Advisory Committee mentioned in the Deputy's amendment is to be composed, principally, of flour millers and those interested in the flour trade. It is not the sort of committee to which we would put the question: "What is millable wheat?" They would naturally require the very highest standard of wheat. We, on our part, might be anxious to get them to take more wheat than they would regard as of the very best standard. I might also say, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce has already said, that that advisory committee is to advise the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Advisory Committee that will be set up under the Agricultural Act to advise the Minister for Agriculture will be constituted in a different way. It would be consulted, in all probability, on questions such as this when there would be no urgency. But why should a precedent be established under this Bill? Deputy Bennett and the two ex-Ministers showed no such anxiey when other Bills were going through this House. When Bills like the Dairy Produce Bill, the Fresh Meat Bill, and the Egg Bill were going through, an advisory committee was being set up under each of them but it was never contended that the Minister should be obliged to consult that committee.

What about the Trade Loans Bill?

I am referring to the series of Agricultural Produce Bills. The opposite Party attempt to establish a precedent on this Bill which did not appeal to them when similar Bills were going through. I do not see any necessity for this amendment at all.

The analogy the Minister makes is hardly fair. The Bills to which he referred were designed to encourage, safeguard and improve the quality of the articles exported. This Bill is intended to effect a different purpose. The various articles named in the Bill are to be used by consumers here. It is necessary, therefore, to have some provision for their protection—a provision which would not be necessary in the case of a Bill dealing with exports.

If the Minister for Industry and Commerce listened with attention to what his colleague has said, I should like to ask him if he took the view that the Minister for Agriculture now takes when Deputy McGilligan and other Deputies here who were then Ministers were bringing forward these Bills—that they should not have to consult these committees, or did he take the view then that they should be compelled to consult them?

They were never asked to do that.

A misunderstanding arises from the fact that Deputies are asking the Minister for Agriculture to consult a committee that is set up to advise the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

That is what the amendment proposes to do. The Minister for Agriculture is required by this section, as it stands, to consult the Minister for Industry and Commerce, because there is the possibility of a conflict of interests between agriculturists and flour millers. That is why two Ministers are brought in. The Minister for Industry and Commerce would, of course, unless circumstances made it impossible, get the advice of his Advisory Committee before consulting with the Minister for Agriculture as to the determination of a standard for millable wheat. That is the normal procedure, and there is no case for abandoning that normal procedure in this Bill.

It is perfectly clear from what the Minister himself has stated that the Minister and his officials and nobody else can define "millable wheat." Therefore the Dáil is entitled to say: "Before you proceed to what you describe as ‘an impossible task,' you should consult not only the agricultural experts in your own Department but any other expert committee on which you can lay your hands." The Dáil has been told that it is virtually impossible to arrive at a definition. Nevertheless, powers are being taken under this Bill to provide such a definition and the Dáil wants to be absolutely certain that every possible expert view from the milling end and from the agricultural end of the Department will be considered in order to arrive as nearly as possible at a definition—a definition that will affect every section in this group and materially affect the expenses involved in allotting this subsidy under it as well as the millers who may be required to mill the wheat. What is the objection to this proposal?

We are told by the Minister for Agriculture that there is no precedent for what this amendment proposes to do. Suppose there was no precedent prior to this—there are any number of precedents—Section 10, where these two Ministers join in this Bill, provides a precedent. "The Minister for Industry and Commerce shall... establish an Advisory Committee (to be called and known as the Milling Advisory Committee)"; that arises out of Part II, and I take that precedent and apply it to this. We are told by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the whole debate has proceeded upon a misunderstanding. I take it the Milling Advisory Committee is only supposed to advise the Minister for Industry and Commerce in relation to certain things, but, peculiarly enough, the Minister for Industry and Commerce is brought in under Section 6. We want to know for what purpose. The Minister says— to stand up for the miller as opposed to the farmer. In the other argument we have to step back to the Minister for Agriculture, who, at the moment, despairs of getting any sort of formula which will give us this standard for millable wheat. What he is disposed to fall back upon is what the millers can or will mill. Who is better entitled to be consulted then than the millers? If I had no other argument prior to the speech by the Minister for Agriculture, he has presented me with that important argument. The millers are necessary because the Minister for Agriculture is going to be thrown back on what he has said. I must also find out before this amendment is discussed to a finish what is going to happen under Section 65 of this Bill. We are told that "for the purposes of this Part of this Act"—under which the bounties are to be paid—"the price per barrel for home-grown millable wheat for the several sale (wheat) seasons set out in the first column of the Second Schedule to this Act shall ... be the price per barrel set out in the second column of the said Schedule..." Is it proposed, when we come to that, to drop the phrase "millable wheat" or is it going to be kept? If it is going to be kept, how are we going to have the stuff for which these prices are to be paid ascertained? Is it going to be whatever the millers will mill, because if it is, the Bill has become quite a simple one and we could let it go through. If it is going to be whatever the miller likes, whatever he thinks is fit stuff, that is good enough and the country will not have to pay the £140,000 the Minister for Industry and Commerce spoke about.

£120,000. I like to keep the Deputy accurate.

I am sure that that estimate of £120,000 was made in relation to millable wheat. It must have been. We were told about the amount to the acre that was likely to be sold as millable wheat. Apparently, we have cut loose entirely from this. If the words "millable wheat" are going to be abandoned, why not cut out Section 6 altogether and cut out every reference to millable wheat? We shall have to get a further series of amendments to deal with the new situation because there has certainly been a new situation created by the announcement made, so early as Section 6, that the Minister for Agriculture despairs, even with the British definition before him, of getting a formula to determine the standard to which wheat must conform in order to be classed as "millable." I suggest, even although we are going to abandon all definitions of millable wheat, that amendment 5 is valuable. We have got the precedent for the establishment of a committee which another Minister is to consult. Let us have that committee or another committee, if necessary, and let the Minister for Agriculture consult that committee before he prescribes this standard, if he is ever going to prescribe it. I ask further that the House should consider seriously the suggestion that I make in amendment 8, that where the Minister has prescribed a standard for millable wheat different from the advice given by the advisory committee the House should know what the Committee recommended as a standard.

I gathered from the Minister that it is largely a matter of etiquette that prevents the Minister from accepting these two amendments, namely, that when an advisory committee is set up by the Minister for Industry and Commerce apparently it would be against the etiquette of the Ministry to have the Minister for Agriculture compelled to consult that particular committee. Much more serious was the statement of the Minister in the early portion of his remarks in which he despaired, as Deputy McGilligan pointed out, at all events with the present technical knowledge, of being able to define millable wheat, but in answer to one of the arguments put forward here he practically himself defined millable wheat as being equivalent to all wheat. He said that it is wheat that can be or will be milled by the millers.

Will be milled—yes.

Not "that ought to be milled." It may be completely worthless. But, if it is milled, it is millable.

Is not that the case at present?

Here you are giving bounties under Section 55 on millable wheat, which, so far I can gather now from the Minister, means all wheat grown, good or bad. Not merely does he despair for the future, but, according to his own statement, he sees no difference between millable and other wheat. I think that practically reduces the Bill to nullity almost.

I shall give an example of the British definition for the Deputies opposite. I hope they will listen to it, because nothing else will stop them.

Millable wheat for the purpose of the Wheat Act, 1932, shall be wheat which is sweet and in fair merchantable condition, commercially clean as regards admixture and tailings, and commercially free from heated or mouldy grains or objectionable taint, and capable of being manufactured into a sound and sweet flour fit for human consumption having regard to the customary methods employed in the milling industry for cleaning and conditioning wheat.

What better would it be for a definition like that? How are we going to define what "fair merchantable condition" is or what is "commercially clean" or define what "commercially free from heated or mouldy grains" is? You are not a bit better off by getting a definition like that unless Deputy Bennett can improve upon it, and if he can I should like to hear what it is.

There might be some provision as to content of moisture. If the Minister consults certain authorities he can get an improvement on it.

I should like to consult with some other authority than Deputy Bennett.

Apart from the British definition, does not one section imply a certain moisture content?

"Merchantable condition" would contain that.

The Minister said you could mill certain wheat, but you know you could not, because the moisture content is too high. That is the whole snag, that the Irish wheat, as I understand it, will have to be dried and will lose enormously in weight from the excessive moisture as compared with Australian and Canadian. It would be very important to provide for that particular trouble. That is the advantage of a definition of that kind.

Will the Minister agree, when we come to the section with regard to bounty and price, to substitute the word "milled" instead of "millable"?

That may be considered when we come to it.

Then you can hold over this until then.

We cannot hold over all the amendments.

Amendment 4 not moved.

We can take a division governing amendments 5 and 8.

Can we not take amendments 5 and 8 separately? They do not run together, as 5 is entirely different from 8.

Take amendment 5, then.

Amendment 5 put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 39: Níl, 63.

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Gorey, Denis John.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Keating, John.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • McDonogh, Fred.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • O'Brien, Eugene P.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Shaughnessy, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Thrift, William Edward.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Bryan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cleary, Mícheál.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Curran, Patrick Joseph.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Gormley, Francis.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendments 6 and 7:—

After the word "may," line 25, to insert the words "before the 1st day of February in each cereal year."

In line 26 after the word "prescribing" to insert the words "for that cereal year."

These simply mean that I want to get a time fixed. Why I have chosen the first day of February in each cereal year I do not know—for the same reason I suppose as inspired those who drew up this Bill. What I do want is that some date be fixed before which this standard, if it is ever going to be prescribed, shall be prescribed, and that that standard will only hold for the cereal year afterwards. Then it can be amended or varied in any way that is liked.

If the Deputy were to get his point would it be possible to change the standard, say, to 1st March or 1st April?

Certainly for that year.

Oh, well that would be impossible.

I was assuming, before I heard the Minister speak on the last amendment, that there was going to be a standard prescribed, and I cannot see why—if they had their minds made up to it, I do not care what part of the year, February, March, April, May or June—if they had come to a decision as to what is the specification for standard wheat, it should not hold as the specification for a twelve-months period. Of course the whole thing is rather in chaos now.

I do not see any objection to it, but I do not see any point in it.

I am inclined to withdraw after what we have heard of the possibility of prescribing a standard.

Amendments 6 and 7, by leave, withdrawn.

What is it proposed to do with the section? Is it proposed we more or less neglect it until we come to other sections which pivot around the idea of setting up a standard for millable wheat?

I think this section should be withdrawn from the Bill, seeing that no definition of millable wheat is going to be set up under that section. People who are willing to undertake the growing of wheat but whose land is not of such a character as is likely to produce first-class wheat, so long as this section remains, will be sceptical about growing wheat at all. I know hundreds of cases myself and they are afraid of this section in the Bill. I gave notice myself to delete it and in face of what the Minister said it should not be hanging there as a weapon over these people.

I think the Deputy would not gain his point by having this section removed. The whole thing depends on the quota prescribed and as to whether more inferior wheat will be bought or not. If the quota, for instance, was prescribed in such a way that only the very best wheat in the country would necessarily be taken by the flour millers, then that would mean the flour millers would only take that; if the quota prescribed more they would have to take more. Whether the wheat from that land to which the Deputy refers can be taken or not depends on the quota, not on this section at all.

What about Section 65? It is all very well to speak about the quota being the real factor, surely it is not the real factor. The quota here will depend on the amount of wheat grown. Or is it going to depend on the amount of wheat grown? The amount grown is going to depend on the amount of subsidy offered and the subsidy is dealt with in Section 65, and it turns there upon the price paid for home-grown millable wheat, not home-grown wheat.

Assume a man undertakes the growing of wheat simply because the policy of the Government has changed the economic life of this country, if that man's land produced wheat that is not accepted as millable wheat (of course, we have dropped that now) or something which can be milled, he will not be entitled to get a bounty, and yet he would have lost his crop. For all practical purposes that wheat is no use to him, and that means he has lost his crop, his labour and the price of his labour. I think this is really a serious injustice, particularly for the first or second years until the man who has never grown wheat has tried it, and whether or not his land is suitable for the growing of wheat, because, in many cases, and in very large areas the question of growing wheat is really problematical. Over a large area of land it has never been tried, and if this section is not going to do what it is originally intended to do, it is perfectly obvious, even to me, with very little experience on this matter, that this section is wrong. Millable wheat could not be defined for practical purposes——

Deputy Bennett says he can define it.

Let us get down to the practical side of it. It is obvious to anyone connected with farming that this is an attempt in regard to the Government's policy of changing the economic life of this country, and farmers should get an opportunity of testing their land as to whether or not it could produce wheat that would be reasonably fit, well, for making bread out of it.

We may not be able to define millable wheat at the present time.

We are coming up now to the year 1933-34, and Section 65 here speaks of establishing a standard price for home-grown millable wheat. If you are going to establish home-grown millable wheat you must know what millable wheat is. After that, Section 69 comes along with this bounty on home-grown millable wheat, and the way the bounty is to be ascertained is the price per barrel, which is the difference between the standard price fixed in the Schedule for home-grown millable wheat and the actual ascertained price for it as paid for home-grown millable wheat. How are we going to get any idea in the year 1933-34 as to what the bounty is going to be?

What is going to be the cost to the country and all the rest of it if there is no possibility of getting a description to include the idea of millable wheat? If we are to suppose that it is something that grows in a field that is sold in the open market at whatever price such material may bring, then the difference between that and the price set out in the Schedule will be very big. On the other hand, if there is millable wheat produced that will fetch a better price, then the difference between that and the standard price is going to be very small and the subsidy that the State is going to give is going to be small relatively. But under the Bill as it stands we do not know where we are since the description "millable wheat" has disappeared. Is the Minister's mind now turning away from the section itself and the proposal to prescribe a standard for millable wheat, and turning to the fact merely of millers being compelled to mill something, some sort of stuff on which money is to be paid by the State, and that the difference between what that stuff fetches in the market and the standard price is to be paid by subsidy? Or are we to decide that so much wheat is to be taken by millers and baked into bread? I think we are getting away from the idea of millable wheat. Section 6 has been killed to-day.

Section 6 put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) In this Act the expression "maize meal mixture" means a feeding preparation which complies with the following specifications, that is to say:—
(a) is made solely from maize meal, and any home-grown cereal or cereals;
(b) any wheat, barley, or rye included therein consists of the entire product of grinding such wheat, barley, or rye.

I move amendment 9:

In sub-section (1), line 31, after the word "which" to insert the words "at the time of sale or offering for sale."

Amendments 133, 134, 136 and possibly 246 go with amendment 9.

I think I can explain when I come to those what I am aiming at, but they have nothing to do with amendment 9. We have here a definition of the maize meal mixture. Quite clearly the components of this mixture will have to be gathered together on the premises. Under a later section an inspector is allowed to visit the premises. He can go there and determine whether the mixture is right or not. As far as I can make out, the object of the Bill is to insure that a certain amount of home-grown cereal is to be mixed with maize meal. The only check is the check which operates at the moment of sale. If we take the section literally, without my amendment, it will mean that no man dare bring on to his premises for sale any maize meal mixture until he has got it so mixed that it will comply with the specification. The only test is the test that the material is offered for sale or about to be sold.

That would not be sufficient at all. The materials would not be labelled a mixture until they are gathered together and until the component parts had been mixed together. There would be no danger at all to the maize miller until he had the sack branded. Perhaps he may have it in the store before offering it for sale. In that case it should certainly be regarded as maize mixture. It might be very difficult if our inspectors had a suspicion that some miller was evading the regulations, and if we were to go there and be told that the meal was not yet offered for sale. I do not see that there is any great danger to the maize miller under this section.

Might I ask the Minister if the sacks which contain the mixture are to be branded as well as the pure maize itself?

May I refer the Minister to Section 58, sub-section (1)? It is not defined here as a maize mixture. At any moment an inspector may come in and he may find that the miller is proceeding to do his mixing in a particular way and that the mixture on the premises does not contain the percentage requisite.

It would not be a maize meal mixture then?

According to that definition it would never be a maize mixture for the purpose of a prosecution. It would not be a maize mixture until the requisite percentage is there. What is the purpose? Is the requisite amount of home-grown cereal not used? A certain proportion of home-grown cereals will be mixed with the ground meal. If the inspector comes upon the miller and the miller has not that percentage then a prosecution is due. The only time it can be suggested that there is any criminal intent on his part is when he proffers that mixture for sale. I think, therefore, that the section should be limited to the time of sale or offering for sale. The miller may not have his article exposed for sale. One may have a suspicion that he is selling it. If he is caught selling it then he has definitely broken the law if the proper percentage is not there. But why subject the man to the danger of a prosecution by the inspector coming to the premises before the mixture is offered for sale? He will not have offered his mixture for sale at a particular time. The inspector can take samples at one time and that is when the stuff is put into the bags and labelled as a particular thing. That gets back to my amendment.

The Deputy knows that it is not impossible for a maize miller to have a number of sacks of the maize mixture up to the regulation standard and at the same time he may have some other maize mixture for those who call with the carts at the door. Then we must have our inspector there to catch this man in the act of loading these sacks?

Then we must have our inspector at every mill.

There seems to be a suspicion on the part of the Minister that the millers will grind two qualities, that they will have one stock behind the door specially milled for the purpose of legal sale, and then another stock that will not be quite up to the standard. I think it is preposterous to entertain a suspicion of that kind—that there will be a special stock ground for transport by means of a donkey cart from the back of the mill, and that there will be another stock ground to the appropriate percentage in order to be sold out to the shopkeepers. That sort of thing is not likely to occur.

There is another aspect of this matter. Let us take into consideration that in a mill there will be separate machines for grinding maize, and other machinery for the purpose of grinding oats or whatever other home cereals may be used. After both are ground they will come down a common sluice. Perhaps in a particular mill that could not be arranged, and 90 per cent. of maize would be ground in one loft and 10 per cent. of home cereals will be ground in another loft, and the two will be mixed in a common loft. Having been mixed, they will be put into bags. Let us say that I am an inspector and I enter the mill and examine the ground maize and home-grown cereals. I think in the long run it will be found that most people are fairly honest. Any man who is going to be licensed, and who wants to carry on business in a businesslike way, is not likely to have any huxtering in the mixing of 10 per cent. of one grain and two per cent. of another grain.

I think the provisions in this measure are likely to give dangerous powers to an inspector who may take certain action because of some petty malice or spleen. I think there should be greater protection afforded. For instance, in any mill it is inevitable that there will be certain waste stuff that perhaps may ultimately be sold at a knock-down price for the purpose of feeding fowl, etc. There are bound to be certain by-products that can be used for the feeding of fowl and perhaps some types of livestock. All that material will be lying in the mill, and is a man liable to be prosecuted if it is discovered there? In an ordinary flax mill you have three kinds of products, and in a common oat mill you have four different products. They must be stored there, and they are completely different products. A man cannot possibly carry on business if he is to be liable to prosecution because these things are found in his mill.

He is safe unless he calls them a maize meal mixture.

It would be much more advisable to adopt the suggestion that an examination should take place only of the stuff labelled and ready for sale.

Any man could then make the defence that the stuff was not exposed for sale.

That would not apply in the case of a sealed article.

Why not say that?

We are quite prepared to alter the amendment to read in any way that may be considered advisable. We should not content ourselves here merely squabbling over words.

We have to defend the measure and to see that the consumers get what they want. The whole Bill is not designed merely to protect the maize millers.

Where does the Minister take power to protect the consumers?

There are several sections.

I think Sections 77, 78 and 79 are the sections to which the Minister refers. Section 77 opens with the phrase: "It shall not be lawful for any person to sell any maize meal unless either..." Section 78 opens this way: "It shall not be lawful for any person to sell or offer for sale any maize mixture unless all the following conditions are complied with..." Section 79 begins: "It shall not be lawful for any registered maize miller to sell or offer for sale any maize meal mixture prepared by him which contains more than the prescribed percentage of moisture..." The sections the Minister talks about refer only to selling or offering for sale.

Therefore he is protecting the consumer by having the maize meal mixture analysed at the moment of sale. Is that not right?

I think I have answered the Minister's point about protecting the consumer. The protecting sections are 77, 78 and 79.

And this section.

This is only a definition section.

Yes, that is all.

What else is there? What does the Minister want to do? The sections that protect the consumer have relation only to the point of sale. I hope the Minister agrees. What else is required?

I have mentioned the point already that it might be possible to sell some of this material when the inspector is not there.

There is no question of an inspector under the three protecting sections. There is no question of the necessity for an inspector?

Therefore that is not protection. In what respect is there protection?

If we are not giving sufficient protection under Sections 77, 78 and 79 is that any reason why we should not give sufficient protection here?

Where is the protection?

What does the Deputy want?

The Minister is running this Bill. He submits a definition section. He defines what a maize mixture is and, without any reference to time, he talks about the protection of the consumer. I have pointed out that the three protecting sections have only reference to sale or offering for sale.

We want to see that no maize miller will evade the regulations.

What further protection is given to the consumer?

We can deal with that when we come to Sections 77, 78 and 79.

I have asked several times what the definition is intended to do.

It is intended to see that the maize miller will not evade the regulations.

According to the Minister, the only protecting sections are the ones I have referred to. What is the extra protection?

I have already explained it.

Take the case where maize meal is milled and is not mixed. Precisely the same thing can happen in reference to that if the inspector is not present. The regulations may be evaded and whole bags of meal may be sold. The same thing might happen in the case of unmixed meal as the Minister fears may happen in this particular instance.

According to the Deputies opposite, because we cannot have an inspector in every place we should relax a little more.

That is not the contention at all.

Section 78 begins: "It shall not be lawful for any person to sell or offer for sale any maize mixture unless all the following conditions are complied with..." Let us say that one condition is to have a certain percentage. Supposing twenty per cent. is prescribed by the Minister as the percentage that must be in it, and supposing there is only ten per cent.? We now have it that one of the defences that man is going to put forward is that it is not a maize meal mixture.

I did not say any such thing.

It is an absurd contention and I had to argue that matter twice. I am glad that the Minister is throwing that contention aside now.

I never made the contention.

I am asking the Minister where his powers are, and he does not know. I now want to ask the Minister what is the intention with regard to Section 58. I referred that section to him already. Is it intended to have prosecutions under Section 58?

I shall deal with Section 58 when we come to it.

Then we will hold over the amendments until we come to it.

I object to that.

If an amendment necessitates a reference to a particular section, I am entitled to ask for an explanation of that section. We must deal with the matter in either of two ways—hold over the amendments until Section 58 is reached or have some reference to Section 58 made now. I want to know if it is intended to have prosecutions under Section 58. I should prefer to hold over the amendments because it would give the Minister time to look up the point, if that is what the Minister wants.

It is not.

Section 58 provides for calls by inspectors to premises. Is it intended to have prosecutions? I thought that might be one of the enlargements that the Minister wants. Let us have the matter clear.

We can deal with Section 58 when we come to it.

I should like to hold over the amendments until we come to Section 58.

I object.

Then we can divide on it. This is not to be taken in relation to Section 58. There will have to be a new amendment put down to Section 58.

That is another matter.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 62.

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorey, Denis John.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • McDonogh, Fred.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • O'Brien, Eugene P.
  • O'Connor, Batt.
  • O'Hara, Patrick.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Shaughnessy, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Thrift, William Edward.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Bryan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Gormley, Francis.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cleary, Mícheál.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Curran, Patrick Joseph.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment 10:—

In sub-section (1) (c), line 38, after the word "therein" to insert the following words "is in the prescribed form, and if no form is for the time being prescribed."

As the section stands, we would be bound to make the mixture with ground maize meal one of the cereals. We are only concerned in this amendment with oats. If oats were to form the home-grown grain in the maize meal mixture under the section it would be the entire product derived from grinding such oats or from grinding the kernels of oats. We would like to have power to make regulations with regard to this, because we have hope that it may be possible to make regulations with regard to groats, that is after the oats have been dishulled. A machine has been invented for the purpose, which appears to be a great success and which it is cheap to instal. If it is the success that we expect we would possibly give an alternative in the mixture of 7% of groats or 10% of whole oats, which would be a much superior mixture and convenient for the miller and everybody concerned.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."

As to Section 7, we have sub-section (d), which states, "any home-grown cereal included therein was before being ground commercially clean and in sound and sweet condition." That was the one that the Minister for Agriculture threw scorn upon when he read the British definition of millable quality. Is it proposed to take out these words? I think his attitude was that it was a rather difficult matter to determine when the cereal was commercially clean and in sound and sweet condition. He raised a difficulty as to in whose judgement it had to be commercially clean and in sound and sweet condition. I should also like to know as between (e), (f) and (g) how it is expected that the proportion will run. Paragraph (e) states "the amount by weight of maize meal included therein does not exceed the prescribed proportion of the weight thereof." Paragraph (f) states "the amount by weight of oats (if any) included therein in any form other than the product of grinding the kernels of oats does not exceed the prescribed proportion of the weight thereof." Paragraph (g) states "the amount by weight of any home-grown cereal or cereals included therein is not less than the prescribed proportion of the weight thereof." Is it intended that the proportion will leave out of account the matter which is excluded in (f) or will it be a proportion made up with what is excluded from (f) taken into consideration?

I do not follow the Deputy.

We are to have a maize meal mixture which is to have certain components. The way the components are to be prescribed, according to the paragraphs I have read, is that they are to be a proportion of the mixture. When we come to (f) there is a certain item, a certain offal, so to speak, left out. Is not that so?

When these proportions are added together are they to make up 100 per cent., or are they to make up 100 per cent. when we have added in whatever may be added in under (f)? In other words, are you going to say it is going to be 20 per cent. of home-grown cereals and that 20 per cent. is going to be made up in the following proportions? Or will you say that home-grown cereals of a certain admixture will have to be put into this maize-meal mixture and that whatever is the (f) percentage will be a percentage only of oats? If it is going to be only of oats, supposing there is any of this matter that is excluded, the product of grinding kernels of oats, is that to be above and beyond the whole percentage of the mixture or is it taken into consideration when you are establishing the percentage? Your percentage must be a percentage of something.

Suppose 10 per cent. is the prescribed amount, it will be 10 per cent. barley or 10 per cent. whole oats or rye. But if we take the groats or kernel of oats, and if it is proved to us that the kernel of oats amount to seven against ten of whole oats, then the percentage will be 7 per cent. of groats instead of ten.

What about (d); are you taking it out?

No. I am sorry I have not the definition here now but that was not the clause I objected to. It was something about the merchantable condition I objected to.

It will be another handicap.

The Deputy can bring it up on Report if he likes.

Might I ask a question to clear up what occurs many times through the Bill? We are told in an early definition that "prescribed" means "prescribed by regulation." We are told in Section 12 that every regulation shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. Now we have in sub-section (3) of Section 7: "The Minister for Agriculture may by order make regulations." What is the superior word in that? Is it the regulating or is it the order? Does the fact that the Minister makes these regulations by order take the regulations out of the provisions of Section 12? Does the fact that it is still a regulation mean that it has got to come before the House?

I am advised that the word "order" there has no significance.

It is only the machinery for making regulations, but because they are regulations they must still come before the House?

Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
(1) In this Act the expression "compound feeding stuff" means any article for consumption by animals which is not a maize meal mixture and which is either:—
(a) a mixture of two or more articles, at least one of which is a feeding stuff; or
(b) a feeding stuff which passes in commerce under the designation of a proprietary or protected trade name.
(2) In this section the word "animals" means horses, mules, jennets, asses, cattle, sheep, swine, goats or poultry.

Perhaps the Minister would explain the definition given there in Section 8 (1) (a). First of all what is in his mind as an article that is not feeding stuff? Would not the fact that it was mixed with another article mean that it becomes a feeding stuff? There is no definition in the Bill as to what "feeding stuff" is. I wonder what is the value of a definition which includes a vague term like "feeding stuff," without any definition of the term "feeding stuff" itself. What would be the other article, for instance, in a composite mixture, that was not a feeding stuff?

I thought the Schedule dealt with the words "feeding stuff."

It does not define it. It only enumerates them for certain purposes—for purposes of import. Nowhere in the Bill is there any definition of feeding stuff.

Perhaps that is right. As to the composite mixture the articles I would have in mind would be salt, minerals and so on.

Might they not become feeding stuffs by being mixed with another article? I suggest that the definition as it stands is not much good unless it defines "feeding stuffs."

That point did not strike me.

I just wanted to draw the Minister's attention to it.

Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce shall consult the Minister for Agriculture before granting or refusing to grant in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 5 of the Control of Manufactures Act, 1932 (No. 21 of 1932) a new manufacture licence to do any one or more of the following things, that is to say:—
(a) to mill any cereal;
(b) to adapt for sale within the meaning of the said Act the product of any cereal which has been milled;
(c) to manufacture any compound feeding stuff;
(d) to adapt for sale within the meaning of the said Act any compound feeding stuff.

I move amendment 11:

Before paragraph (c) to insert two new paragraphs as follows:—

"(c) to manufacture maize meal mixture;

(d) to adapt for sale within the meaning of the said Act maize meal mixture."

It was thought advisable to include "to manufacture maize meal mixture" as well in the section so as to make it perfectly clear.

As to the manufacture of maize meal mixture, would the mere mixing of the component parts satisfy that definition? Does the mere mixing process satisfy the definition "to manufacture maize meal mixture," or must you mill any of the individual parts of it, and if so, all of them or only one of them?

I think that question hardly arises. It had not occurred to me, but it hardly arises. Of course, the maize miller must do the mixing. He must mix as well as mill.

Nobody else can mix except the maize miller?

Does the cereal include wheat in this?

Well, then, I suggest that quite a number of things have got to be seen to in this section. I take it, sir, the amendment is passed?

Amendment agreed. Section 9, as amended,——

Before you agree on the section——

I am not taking the section. I am taking the amendment.

Before you agree on the amendment. As to the manufacture of maize-meal mixture the Minister says the meal must be mixed as well as milled, but does that preclude the distributor from further mixing or making a compound feed? He is restricted from it absolutely without a licence.

The compound feeding stuff comes in under another section.

Suppose a merchant is in the habit of preparing a mixture for farmers coming in, and he now buys what is statutorily called maize-meal mixture from the mill. He may not further mix that without a licence from the Minister for Agriculture.

That is true.

Does that apply to the individual farmer, or does it apply only to persons who mix for distribution? Is there any chance of a difficulty in prohibiting the individual farmer from mixing feeding stuffs on his own farm?

Farmers are not included, because it says "for sale."

Amendment 11 agreed to.

On Section 9, I suggest that the Bill as I have it is not accurate. To start with I suppose it ought to be "The Minister," not the Ministry, "for Industry and Commerce shall consult the Minister for Agriculture before granting or refusing to grant in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 5." Section 5 is not the right reference, I think it will be found. Section 5 has something to do with false information. The grant of new manufacture licences is the next section—Section 6. What I wanted to find out, after these minor amendments had been attended to, is whether any cereal is supposed to include wheat.

Yes, where wheat is used for feeding, not of course wheat for flour.

In the Control of Manufactures Bill wheat was specially excluded.

The milling of flour, yes.

"This Act shall not apply to the process of milling wheat or to the adapting for sale at a mill any product of wheat milled at such mill or to agriculture or to the altering or repairing by a retailer of an article intended to be sold retail by him."

Anything to do with wheat is taken away from the Control of Manufactures Bill, so I do not know how you are getting it in here.

If so, it does not apply to wheat, I suppose.

Milling any cereal there means milling any cereal other than wheat, because once wheat comes in the Control of Manufactures Bill is automatically cut off.

Surely wheat is not precluded from the mixture?

Wheat can be included in the mixture, yes.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
(1) The Minister for Industry and Commerce shall as soon as may be after the commencement of Part II of this Act establish an advisory committee (to be called and known as the Milling Advisory Committee) for giving advice and assistance to the Minister on any matter arising on or relating to the carrying into execution of the provisions of the said Part.
(2) The Milling Advisory Committee shall consist of such number of ordinary members as the Minister for Industry and Commerce thinks fit.
(3) The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, appoint, in addition to the ordinary members, one or more, as he thinks proper, persons representative of workers engaged in the flour milling industry to be an additional member or members of the Milling Advisory Committee.
(4) Every member of the Milling Advisory Committee shall be nominated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and shall retain his membership during the pleasure of that Minister.
(5) Payments may be made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas to members of the Milling Advisory Committee, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, in respect of repayment of travelling expenses and payment of subsistence allowance.

I move amendment 12:—

In sub-section (2), page 8, line 28, to insert after the word "members" the words "being representatives of the holders of milling licences."

This amendment is really intended to correct a printing error in the Bill. The words should have been inserted in the first instance, so that sub-section (2) would read "The Milling Advisory Committee shall consist of such number of ordinary members, being representatives of the holders of milling licences, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce thinks fit." It is an obvious amendment.

Before we pass from that, does that mean that the Minister is going to select those who seem to him to be representative?

No. They will be selected by the Minister, but they must be representative holders of milling licences.

But the judgment is to be passed on them by the Minister?

I have suggested in another amendment that that is not the proper way in which this should be done, that we have had a habit for many years past in those things of making the selection of representative bodies——

I am assuming that will be the procedure that will be followed, that the Flour Millers' Association will be asked to submit a panel of persons willing to act on the committee, from which panel the Minister will select the personnel of the committee.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

I move amendment 13:—

In sub-section (2) line 29, to delete the words "thinks fit" and substitute the words "shall prescribe."

This is typical of quite a number of amendments I have put down to this Bill, where I want to have matters prescribed, and I want to have them prescribed for the very obvious purpose of having them brought before the Dáil by notice. It would then come under Section 12, because the definition prescribed means to be prescribed by regulations. Now, 12 as it stands is in the negative form to which the House has got accustomed in minor types of regulations. I suggest it is not the proper form for regulations to be made under this Bill, but still it is the form in which certain unimportant forms of regulations have come before this House.

A Bill of this sort interferes with business at every turn, and it is not too much that the House be given notice. That is really what Section 12 amounts to.

Is the Deputy speaking of amendment 13?

It does not sound like it.

Well, I want to cut out the words "as the Minister thinks fit" and put in "as the Minister shall prescribe". That definition and regulation takes us down to Section 12. I say this is a type of regulation that might come before the House in the form in which Section 12 now is, although I think Section 12 is not appropriate to every type of regulation to be made. I say bringing regulations before the House in the form in which Section 12 now is, amounts to nothing more than giving notice. As a member of this House for the past ten years, I have only found one occasion in which a member attempted to bring in a resolution about some matters brought before the House and that attempt was unsuccessful. I do think we ought to get notice of what is the number to be appointed; how they will be chosen, and I think we should at least be given an opportunity of putting down a Parliamentary question asking who those certain people are, and the reasons why they are chosen for this advisory committee. Then there could be an investigation made or a series of questions asked. It is only a matter of giving notice.

The amendment is not one which in my opinion, should be accepted. The Committee is intended entirely to be an Advisory Committee. Its sole function is to advise and assist the Minister under this Act. The number of persons on the Committee may vary from time to time as occasion would require. It may be considered necessary in relation to a particular period or a particular problem that additional members be brought on the Committee or it may not. It seems to me that the Minister should be allowed entire discretion in the matter. It is he who must take responsibility. The Milling Advisory Committee has no responsibility for any decision. It is the Minister who is responsible. Everything done is done by the Minister and he must stand the fire of public criticism, if there be such. Consequently, he should have complete discretion in the selection of his advisers, the number and manner of their appointment, and things of that kind. That is why I think I would be strongly inclined to oppose any restriction upon the Minister's absolute discretion in this respect. Section 10 might not have appeared in the Bill at all, we could have left it out altogether, and still have an Advisory Committee of flour millers. That would have created certain minor difficulties which the inclusion of the section overcomes. I am going to resist strongly any attempt to impose restrictions or conditions on the Minister when selecting the personnel of his Advisory Committee.

As this sub-section stands, I think the Advisory Committee shall consist of such persons as the Minister for Industry and Commerce shall think fit. It might be that they would be asked to consider a question on which the Minister would have very strong views and on which the Advisory Committee were divided among themselves on the matter. It would be possible for some Minister or other to select from that number of persons the section he knew were pro-Minister, if you like.

Why should he do that?

I do not say he would or could.

Is there any reason why he should?

But we must make the Bill water-tight.

The Minister has absolute discretion. The Committee is only an Advisory Committee and he can reject its findings if he cares to.

I myself think we ought to press for this amendment. I think it would protect the Minister himself, as Deputy McGilligan puts it, and for his own sake he ought to accept the amendment. It is a dangerous amendment, if I might say so, for a future Minister who would not be as responsible perhaps as the present Minister.

The case against this on its merits has been put. I am perfectly certain the Minister for Industry and Commerce does not want any protection but the Dáil wants protection from him. If an Advisory Committee is going to sit with the Minister, the Minister when coming here will be in a much stronger position than if he came and said "I made these regulations despite the advice of the Advisory Committee." It is perfectly true, and the Minister knows it just as well as anybody in this House, that in matters of this kind if he is given absolute discretion it is open to him to choose acquiescent millers and his answer to any miller who was against the regulation is "did I not consult a representative of your trade? What do you want me to do? But if millers are in a position to choose these men and send a competent body to sit on this Committee then the Minister is guaranteed an independent opinion. If that opinion is contrary to his opinion the only thing for him is to go before the Dáil and say "In spite of that opinion I am determined to have my own way." If the Minister would look at Section 10 (5) he will see that he has power to pay subsistence allowance and expenses.

Travelling expenses.

Very well. In this particular case we are dealing largely with men to whom that consideration would not amount to much. I do not care whether Section 10 is deleted or not, but it is a bad precedent that the Minister should have the right to nominate people without any reference to Dáil Eireann, and to appoint them to positions for which they are to receive money. It may be the millers to-day, but to-morrow it might be a wider section of the community from whom an Advisory Committee or a similar body would be drawn. It may be Deputy McGilligan who would be doing it. It may then happen that the present Minister may rise in the Opposition and say that it is intolerable that public money should be allotted to members by the order of Deputy McGilligan, but Deputy McGilligan will be able to say: "Was it not yourself who inserted this in the Bill?"

The precedent is created, and you cannot get away from it. This is creating or maintaining a precedent for the first time since the Minister for Industry and Commerce came into office of upholding a thing which he himself attacked time after time when he was in Opposition—appointing individuals without seeking the sanction of Dáil Eireann. I submit that Section 12 which must be considered in connection with this is simply a blind. It is simply putting in a section that is absolutely worthless. It is of some value when you insist that the regulations should be laid on the Table of the Dáil. There is some safeguard there. But when you say that these regulations will stand unless or until they are negatived by resolution by the Dáil, that is simply a pious tribute to the susceptibilities of the Minister's conscience. I submit that a far wiser course would be to accept Deputy McGilligan's amendment 13. That is to say, appointing these persons by regulations and in place of Section 12 put in a section which will require subsequent sanction by the Dáil.

Deputy Dillon has missed the point of the section and the amendment. He says I am appointing the members. The section proposes something different. The Deputy talks about the possibility of the personnel of the Committee being selected by the Minister in order to get a majority in accordance with the Minister's own views. That is precisely what the Minister should and will do. I will get a Committee under the Act that will be prepared to co-operate with me in carrying it out. It is the Minister who is responsible for policy. Would Deputy McGilligan opposite accept any proposal simply because it had been sponsored by an Advisory Committee? The Minister has to stand up here and it does not matter a rap what recommendations the Committee has made to him, he is responsible.

Would the Minister apply that to the personnel of the Kilrush Inquiry?

Exactly.

Then what is the use of appointing an Advisory Committee if the Minister is satisfied that the Advisory Committee are simply to advise as he wishes? What is the necessity for an Advisory Committee if the Minister is going to take precautions to insure that they are going to advise as he says?

I am going to take the necessary precautions to insure that the members are people who approve of the Act and are prepared to co-operate with me in working it.

Is not the effect of Deputy McGilligan's amendment that this will come before Dáil Eireann?

I am not accepting Deputy McGilligan's amendment.

The Minister does not understand me at all.

There is the amazing defence that the Minister is to stand up to defend himself and not hide behind anybody or the finding of any Committee. Does the Minister for Justice, I wonder, agree that the Minister shall not hide behind a Tribunal?

I think the Deputy might have made an effort to distinguish between an Advisory Committee and a Judicial Tribunal.

It does not require much effort to see the weakness of that particular contention. We had heard that it was going to be an Advisory Committee and the Minister will not want to hide behind it. They are to be the people who will obey him in everything. The meaning of the Advisory Committee, if it has any meaning at all, ought to be that the millers themselves will be allowed to choose their representatives and they will then try to assist the Minister as well as they can. The Minister need not take their advice. The only thing is that this House will have an opportunity of (a) passing judgment upon the number of people whom the Minister will have on this Committee and (b) that the people would be nominated by an association representative of the milling industry and that they would have to be appointed for a specified period, say, more than a year and less than three years, and that they could not be removed unless at the request of that representative body or on a statement made in this House and approved of by this House. In that way the House would not have any great control over the Minister but they would have this knowledge in passing judgment whether the Minister was guided by the Committee and that whatever people were appointed were appointed by an associated body and not by the Minister, people who could best advise the Minister on that matter.

The discussion has not centred on the mere matter of the number of the Committee. I put it that if there is going to be any value in the Advisory Committee that the Advisory Committee should be appointed by a representative body. The Minister apparently has some view of a Committee of millers as likely to be of help to him, that he has picked a large group allied with the group of big millers and the Committee is representative of that group. I can see quite a number of occasions on which it is necessary to insist that the Government as such governs and not this House and that you cannot carry on government by this Dáil, and when it comes down to interfering with the running of private business then what we have always looked for is publicity. The only way you can get publicity is by insisting that whatever the Minister does comes before the House and the House pronounces on it. The House may possibly unite in opposing the Minister on some matter but the House should be given an opportunity of making up its mind.

Amendment put and negatived.

I move: To delete sub-section (4) and substitute a new sub-section as follows:—

Every member of the Milling Advisory Committee shall be nominated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in agreement with the organisation or organisations representing the holders of milling licences and shall hold office for one year certain or for such other period greater than one year but not longer than three years as shall be prescribed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce when nominating him, and shall not be earlier removed except upon his own request or with the approval of the organisation or organisations representing the holders of milling licences or until a motion that a specified member be removed has been brought before and passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

I want to point out that this amendment is somewhat different from the other. It asks that we delete sub-section (4) of Section 10, which is the one to which objection was taken when it appeared in a previous Bill. It seeks that the Committee be nominated by the Minister in agreement with the organisations representing the holders of milling licences. I think that is preferable to the suggestion that is in the Bill.

Whatever case there was for making an objection to this sub-section in another Bill there is no case here at all. This Committee is functioning solely to advise the Minister. It has no function with respect to this House or with respect to the public. The Minister should be allowed full discretion in the personnel of the Committee and the removal of any members if they in any way fail to carry out the objects of the Act.

That means then that no Committee nominated with the approval of this House is fit to advise the Minister—that is the Minister's argument.

I am not accepting that point of view at all. It is certainly not my view. In this particular case it is the Minister and the Minister only who is responsible for the determination of policy. He has to defend his policy in public. The Committee is purely advisory and it would be a technical mistake, even from the point of view of Deputies opposite, to interpose between the Minister and the public or the Minister and the Dáil a Committee which would take from the Minister's shoulders some part of the responsibility. That is something which should not be done.

The Minister comes here and asks for power to appoint an Advisory Committee. The Dáil gives him that power and the presumption is that the Dáil is giving it so that we will have at hand for all time impartial advice upon highly technical questions which the Minister cannot be expected to understand in the ordinary course. That is what the Committee is for—to advise the Minister whenever he is in doubt or whenever he experiences any difficulty in the administration of the Act. The Dáil is entitled to assume that the Minister will appoint an impartial Committee and not a Committee that he himself will hand-pick for the purpose of securing nothing but acquiescence in any proposal that he may make. The Dáil is surely entitled to some assurance in respect of the Committee which they authorise the Minister to appoint.

Surely the Minister should not object to some proviso to the effect that this Advisory Committee will always be an impartial Committee and not one completely dominated by the Minister so that, instead of becoming a safeguard, it might become an additional weapon in the Minister's hands? It is unreasonable to suggest that the Dáil ought to have nothing to do in the way of imposing restrictions on the constitution of the Committee. If the Dáil should not have power to impose certain restrictions on the constitution of the Committee, what is the object of mentioning it at all? I think it is the duty of the Dáil to ensure that it will be an impartial Committee.

I do not know what the Deputy means by impartial. In so far as the policy embodied in the Bill is concerned, I do not want an impartial Committee; I want a Committee in favour of the policy and a Committee that will advise me how best to put that policy into effect.

I am not suggesting that the Minister should be harassed by people who are anti-Fianna Fáil or anything of that sort. All I want is that the Dáil will have some assurance such as is suggested in amendment 14, that the Committee will have no preconceived notions with respect to policy; that they will come exclusively as technicians and not as people who are prepared to prostitute technical knowledge to propaganda or political policy. For instance, if they saw certain difficulties in the course of action the Minister was proposing to follow they should not, if I may be permitted to use vulgar parlance, be prepared to scratch his back. They should, instead, be quite prepared to tell him frankly that his course of action is not desirable. On the other hand, if the Minister appoints people on this Committee who are fanatical supporters of his political point of view and, perhaps, ardent admirers of the Minister himself, instead of getting independent, valuable advice he will merely be told that whatever he suggests is the most advisable thing to do. I think the more practical attitude to adopt is to appoint a perfectly impartial Committee. The Minister can seek their advice and then come to the Dáil and be in a position to accept or reject that advice as he thinks fit. It is much better that he should do this than that he should hand-pick persons who will merely say that whatever the Minister suggests is law. With an impartial Committee the Minister will be in a more secure position. He can say to the Dáil: "Anything I did was done on the advice of experts. If I have dropped several thousands of pounds I did it merely because I was acting on the best advice I could get."

I think the Minister ought to accept this amendment or otherwise cut out the sub-section. I cannot see any object in having a Committee at all if it is to be, as the Minister said, a partial Committee absolutely in agreement with him and whose only object would be to pay compliments to the Minister.

I said nothing of the kind.

I am sorry if I misinterpreted the Minister, but I really understood him to say that. I pointed out that it would be possible for the Minister to select the members of the Committee from the side that agreed with his view and he said that that was what he wanted.

I said I wanted people who approved of the policy enshrined in the Bill.

I am sorry if I interpreted the Minister incorrectly, but what I have indicated is what I understood the Minister to say. I think it would be inadvisable to have powers such as these. There would be no object served in selecting, say, from a group such as the millers, those people who the Minister knows will agree with him and excluding others. It would be just as well to have no Committee.

Surely the Minister will get more out of the Committee that will put before him, in the course of consultation, difficulties that his policy may meet with? He would get a great deal more out of such a Committee than out of people who would be enthusiastically in favour of what the Minister calls his policy. They may be blind-it is sometimes suggested that the Minister himself may be blind—to the difficulties that are likely to crop up. The Minister will get more value out of the advice of an impartial Committee than he will from people who are anxious to see eye to eye with him. The Minister must know that the most valuable advice he can get is advice from people who would have no hesitation in giving different views from what the Minister himself might hold on a particular matter.

Do I gather from the Minister's interjection that the Flour Millers' Association as a whole do not approve of Part II of the Bill?

I think the Deputy knows something about that.

Is it not a fact?

The flour millers were doing so excellently under the régime of the Deputy that they desired to be left undisturbed in their position.

So the Flour Millers' Association, whom the Minister has to consult, are against this?

I did not say that.

They want to be left undisturbed. The Minister said that it was his purpose to get representatives of the holders of milling licences and he said further, in answer to me, that it would be the practice to consult the organisation representative and to ask him to send up a panel. What is this amendment of mine doing except putting that in a more exact form? The Minister referred to the point about the members of the Committee holding office at his pleasure and that he can remove members. If he does remove a member I suppose he is going to go to the representative body and ask for a substitute nominee. It is quite possible they might put on once more the member who had been removed. If the Minister's practice is going to be as he has indicated here, I do not think there is much in it and I think the amendment would be much more suitable to the occasion.

Amendment put and negatived.

Question proposed: "That Section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Under sub-section (3) provision is made for the appointment if the Minister so thinks fit, in addition to the ordinary members of the Advisory Committee, of one or more persons representative of workers engaged in the flour milling industry. They are to be additional members of the Advisory Committee. In the two previous sub-sections, the word "shall" is used. In this sub-section, the word "may" is used. The only purpose in using "may" is, I think, to make it permissive for the Minister to appoint. Possibly, the Minister will say that it is his intention to appoint representatives of the flour-milling workers. I suggest that if it is to be obligatory to appoint persons representative of the mill owners, there is a strong case for substituting here the word "shall" for the word "may," to ensure that the appointment will be definitely made and that the power will not be merely permissive. One trade union organisation caters for practically all the workers engaged in the milling industry. It is easy to find one or more representatives of the flour-milling workers. Perhaps the Minister would indicate now that he would be willing to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may," so as to ensure that so long as this Act exists it will be the right of the flour-milling workers to have a representative or representatives appointed to this Committee. The Minister may say that he is willing to appoint them but this Bill, when it becomes law, may last for a very long time. Future administrations might not take the same view as the Minister. I think it is desirable to ensure from the outset that workers will be definitely represented on the Advisory Committee.

The word "may" is there for a number of reasons. One of them is that it is not clear to what extent, if at all, the interests of the workers in the milling industry are affected by Part II. The Advisory Committee is only established for the purpose of advising the Minister in relation to his functions under Part II. That part relates to the issuing of licences, the allocation of quotas, variations in the quotas and things of that kind which are, in essence, matters for the consideration of the management rather than the workers' side of the organisation. As the Deputy said, I put in that sub-section thinking that Part II. or the whole Bill might work out so as to make it desirable that we should have direct means of getting the opinion of the workers' representatives. It was my intention to appoint such a representative unless exceptional difficulties arose or some circumstance occurred which would make it impossible to do so. I have no very definite views as to whether the word should be "may" or "shall." With the word "shall," I should be obliged to appoint a workers' representative, which I intend to do. The insertion of the word might create difficulties and, in certain circumstances, might delay the formation of the Committee.

I am in agreement with Deputy Norton about the indiscriminate use of the words "may" and "shall." To save the situation, would the Minister ensure that the representatives of the workers appointed will not alone agree with his view but with the millers' view?

They certainly will not agree with the Deputy's view.

You never can tell. After another six months, they may.

Not after the last ten years.

I do not see how this section will work out. The means by which the millers' representatives will be selected is clear enough. They must be voted for by the Millers' Association and the names placed before the Minister. Otherwise, they will not be representative of the Millers' Association. Nobody can say that a person is representative of an association unless he has been selected by that association. It seems fairly clear that the millers themselves will select their representatives.

Where is the word "association" mentioned in this section?

The holders of milling licences must select persons to be members of this Committee and, out of the members they pick, the Minister can choose the number that suits himself. He may say that he will have five or ten representatives. But the Millers' Association fix the representatives and it is from the persons they pick the Minister makes his choice of number. When I come on to sub-section (3) to which Deputy Norton has drawn attention, there is quite a different wording.

What is the difference?

I should like to know how the Minister intends to work sub-section (3) if he means to work it at all. The sub-section sets out that "the Minister may, if he so thinks fit, appoint, in addition to the ordinary members, one or more, as he thinks proper, persons representative of workers engaged in the flour-milling industry." The holders of milling licences are to pick their own representatives, but the others are to be "representative of workers engaged in the flour-milling industry." That evidently means that the Minister is himself going to choose persons who, he considers, will be representative of the views of the workers. I should like to know, if he is going to operate sub-section (3), how he is going to select the persons representative of the workers because "representatives of" and "a person representative of" are absolutely different things.

The Deputy says that "representatives of" and "a person representative of" are different things.

I am learning.

Very slowly and with difficulty.

You have used different words here to make your meaning more clear.

The Minister might have said that sub-section (3) is mere eye-wash and is put in to delude people like Deputy Norton. The Minister's explanation is that the Advisory Committee is only for the purpose of Part II of the Bill and, turning over the Bill, he asks "What is there in Part II for which I should appoint a representative of the workers?" He is quite right. What is there in it which makes such a course necessary? Deputy Norton might have asked: why put in sub-section (3) at all? I am going to answer that question. It is the merest nonsense.

The Minister long ago used to tell me that when one found "may" instead of "shall" in a Bill, one might assume that it was my Bill. When I find in a Bill "may if he thinks fit" and "may if he thinks proper," I assume that it is a Bill from the Minister for Industry and Commerce at the moment. "The Minister may if he thinks fit appoint one or more, as he thinks proper, persons representative..." How is he going to pick the "persons representative?" When a representative person was brought to Ottawa, it caused a good deal of trouble with the people Deputy Norton is cleaving to at the moment. That is an example of how representative persons are selected. Are we to have the same thing if this foolish eye-wash section is ever brought into operation? A better policy would be to cut it out, except— I am amazed Deputy Norton did not think fit to mention it—the amendment to Section 21 in Deputy Norton's name is going to be carried. When a Minister says he sees nothing in Part II to entail the appointment of a workers' representative, he is not disposed to accept amendment No. 37. Because, if the Minister is going to accept amendment 37, and if Part II is to be operated on the conditions which Deputy Norton wants in amendment 37, then undoubtedly there is going to be use for a representative of the workers, and a representative appointed by themselves engaged in the flour-milling industry. I am always assuming that the Minister had in mind that he was not going to accept that. If he was, then he was wrong in saying to Deputy Norton that Part II had nothing to do with the workers. I am assuming that the phrase "if he so thinks fit" applies to the appointment; that the phrase "as he thinks proper" appertains to "one or more," and that there is nothing which rules the word "representative" except the Minister's own judgment. If that is a correct reading of the sub-section, Deputy Norton can take it for all it is worth even with amendment No. 37, because the Minister only "may" appoint. For fear "may" might be interpreted to mean "shall," he is careful to put in the phrase "if he so thinks fit" and then to appoint "one or more, as he thinks proper," and the one or more that he may, if he so thinks fit, appoint are to be representative, according to him, of the workers. If Deputy Norton puts one or more on under these conditions it will not be of any use to him.

The Deputy's forecast in this, as in other cases, is quite erroneous. The Deputy is becoming a specialist in eye-wash and nonsense, phrases which are now quite common on his lips. The more one hears his speeches, the more one is inclined to believe that he found a very suitable vocation when he became an eye-wash specialist. I do not agree with the Minister at all.

After all that!

After all that. Whatever may be the foundation the Minister built upon, apparently Deputy McGilligan claims that the foundation stones were his in any case. The "mays," he said, "definitely indicate that the Bill is mine," and then he goes on to say that the Minister has improved upon his foundation by putting in such language as, "if he thinks fit" or "as he thinks proper." In any case, it is between the Minister and the ex-Minister, and I do not appreciate in this matter the philosophy of either. This whole Bill is a flour-milling Bill, a cereals Bill. I want to ask the Minister who is carrying out the flour-milling? Is it the managers who are undertaking the flour-milling? Deputy McGilligan believes it is the managers, those people he has been so concerned about in the previous sub-section. I say the milling industry is operated on the skill, energy, ability and enthusiasm of the mill-workers and that all the mill managers in the world could not operate as workers a Bill of this kind. They could not give us a milling industry, such as exists at present or will exist under the Bill. I approach it from this point of view. The workers engaged in the milling industry have an interest in every phase of that industry, whether it is Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 of this Bill, and that as workers engaged in the industry, and persons on whose ability and skill the industry is carried on, they have a right to be consulted in connection with every phase of the industry, since there could not be any milling industry unless there were workers to carry it on. I hope the Minister will see fit to accept my suggestion of translating "may" into "shall." I should like to know whether he is going to put down an amendment on the Report Stage, or whether I shall put down an amendment.

I will undertake to examine the matter.

Will Deputy Norton put down the amendment?

I take it the examination will include putting down an amendment to make it "shall?"

Possibly. If not, I will inform the Deputy and give him an opportunity of doing it.

Will Deputy McGilligan vote for it?

I will not.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 11.

I move amendment 15:—

Before Section 11 to insert a new section as follows:—

"(1) The Minister for Agriculture shall, as soon as may be after any provision of Parts IV, VI, VII, or VIII has been brought into operation, establish an Advisory Committee (to be called and known as the Maize Milling Advisory Committee) for giving advice and assistance to the Minister on any matter arising on or relating to the carrying into execution of the provisions of the said Parts.

(2) The Maize Milling Advisory Committee shall consist of such number of members as the Minister for Agriculture shall prescribe.

(3) Every member of the Maize Milling Advisory Committee shall be nominated by the Minister for Agriculture in agreement with the Saorstát Maize and Oatmeal Millers' Association, and shall hold office for such period not exceeding two years as shall be prescribed by the Minister for Agriculture when nominating him, and shall not be carlier removed from the Maize Milling Advisory Committee except with the approval of the Saorstát Maize and Oatmeal Millers' Association, or until a statement giving the reasons for a proposed removal has been presented to the Dáil by the Minister for Agriculture and has been affirmed by the Dáil."

This is to establish a Maize Milling Advisory Committee by making it an obligation on the Minister for Agriculture to appoint a Maize Milling Advisory Committee, just as there is an obligation on the Minister for Industry and Commerce to have a Milling Advisory Committee under Section 10. My amendment states that the Maize Milling Advisory Committee shall consist of such number of members as the Minister for Agriculture shall prescribe. I use the word "prescribe" deliberately to get it caught up by the definition and caught up by Section 12 with regard to regulations. I try to have it established under sub-section (3) that the members of the Maize Milling Advisory Committee shall be nominated by the Minister for Agriculture in agreement with the Saorstát Maize and Oatmeal Millers' Association, and shall hold office for such period, not exceeding two years, as shall be prescribed; that they cannot be removed earlier than the lapse of the two years' period, except either with the approval of the Saorstát Maize and Oatmeal Millers' Association or until the matter has been brought before the Dáil and affirmed by the Dáil. Everything that can be said with regard to an Advisory Committee for Part 2 of the Bill in relation to the Minister for Industry and Commerce can be said with greater vehemence and much more point in respect of a Maize Milling Advisory Committee, because Part 2 of the Bill has nothing to do with the point upon which the discussion has turned, namely the question of millable wheat —prescribing standards. That being left out of Part 2, if there is a necessity for a Milling Advisory Committee to help the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the limited functions under that, there is certainly very great importance to be attached to the functions which the Minister for Agriculture has to carry out under Parts 4, 6, 7 and 8. He will require all the help he can get and the help that can best be given would be that it would proceed from a Maize Milling Advisory Committee appointed in the way I have described.

As I mentioned already, it was the intention to appoint two Advisory Committees under the Bill, as far as the Minister for Agriculture was concerned. One would deal with the milling of maize, the making of compound feeding stuffs and the milling of oatmeal and be composed of people interested in that part of the business. The second would deal with the growing of wheat. The Advisory Committee that would be appointed to advise on Parts 4, 6, 7 and 8, roughly will consist of representatives of maize millers, compound feeding-stuff manufacturers, oatmeal millers, and growers of cereals which are connected with these; and also, of course, the importers of maize for feeding stuffs and perhaps representatives of consumers. It would be entirely useless in my opinion to have an Advisory Committee of maize millers alone. They might be able to give some useful advice on a very odd occasion. We had all the maize millers in the Free State, as a matter of fact, advising us before the Bill was introduced and their advice did not amount to very much.

What did it amount to?

They brought up samples to show us how impossible the thing was. It was simply to be milled maize with crushed oats. It was a most unsightly mixture. Now, however, when the thing has become compulsory, we find that the mixture can be made in such a way that by looking at the sample you cannot detect that there is oats in it at all, so that the advice given us on that occasion was at least misleading. Now an Advisory Committee of that sort would want to be balanced, so that not only maize millers would be represented but also maize importers, people who are going to use the maize meal mixture, and some representatives would have to be got—as there appears to be a difference between the two—of the consumers; also, of course, the manufacturers of compound feeding stuffs. That sort of Advisory Committee will be appointed in the ordinary way under the Agricultural Act. Another Advisory Committee will be appointed to deal with wheat growing, which will include wheat growers, wheat dealers, wheat importers and flour millers. They would deal with the wheat part of the scheme. Both of those Advisory Committees would be appointed under the Agricultural Act, and there are certain regulations laid down in the Agricultural Act for appointing those Committees — the way they are appointed, the functions they have, the time they act, and so on.

I would like to know what the Minister's intentions would be with regard to the numbers of these two Advisory Committees. First of all, he mentioned the one to deal with wheat growing. That would seem to be a rather large Committee, if he would want to get on it representatives of all the people he spoke of. He mentioned the maize millers, maize importers and people who are going to use maize meal mixture. Could he give us any indication at this point as to what proportion the representatives of the last class are going to bear to the whole Committee. Because they are the people I would like to see very much represented—the people who are going to use the maize meal mixture.

I cannot say straight off what the numbers might be. It is very difficult to get a fair proportion in a Committee like that. For instance, in the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Act that was passed, we had to appoint a Committee of that sort, which included producers. Of course, producers should, properly speaking, have a bigger representation than anybody else, but it is often impracticable to overload the Committee. I might be able to mention the numbers on the Report Stage.

It is clear from the promise given by the Minister that he is definitely going to appoint two Committees?

And going to have them divided roughly for the purpose of dealing with wheat growing—that will be one Committee—and the other Committee will deal with all the rest.

Wheat growing and disposal.

Wheat at any rate, and the other Committee will deal with everything else.

With all feeding stuff.

It is quite possible under the Agricultural Act to have the Committee split up into sub-Committees, because clearly there is no good in mixing up the manufacture of compound feeding stuffs with other stuffs, where the matter to be considered is one relating specially and peculiarly to compound feeding stuffs. We would like some better idea of the possible provision of sub-Committees, and the gathering together of the representatives more or less into compartments, by way of meeting now and again as a general Committee.

I think that probably would be done. On the general question: Suppose for instance, we were to get reports from the country that our percentage was not high enough, and that there was an amount of barley in the country unsold, everybody would be interested and we would call the whole Committee together to consider that question, the maize millers, the millers of compound feeding stuffs and the oat millers. All would be interested—growers and consumers. In a question of that sort all would be interested.

I take it the amendment is withdrawn.

Section II agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Every regulation made under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat annulling such regulation, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done previously under such regulation.
The following amendments stood on the Order Paper:—
16. Before Section 12 to insert a new section as follows:—
"No order or regulation made under this Act shall come into operation until it has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and has been approved by resolution of each such House."— Eamonn O'Neill, Timothy J. O'Donovan.
17. Before Section 12 to insert a new section as follows:—
"No order or regulation made under this Act shall come into operation until it has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and has been before each such House for not less than the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat, unless it has earlier been approved by resolution of each such House."— Frank MacDermot.
18. In lines 50, 54, and 56, before the word "regulation" to insert the words "order or" in each line.—Patrick McGilligan.
19. To delete all words after the word "accordingly," line 55, to the end of the section and substitute therefor the words "but if no such annulling resolution is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat, such order or regulation shall then come into operation."—Frank MacDermot.
20. To delete all words after the word "accordingly," line 55, to the end of the section—Frank MacDermot.
21. To delete all words after the word "accordingly," line 55, to the end of the section and substitute therefor the words "and anything previously done under such regulation shall be invalidated by such annulling resolution."—Frank MacDermot.

Deputy MacDermot has asked me to speak to the amendments which are in his name, and I have one in my own name. I will deal as best I can with the lot. The section we have before us is the section which is ordinarily described as the common form of a section prescribing the bringing of regulations before the Oireachtas. It is in the form that regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and it goes on to say that if a resolution be passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which the House has sat annulling such regulation, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done subsequently under that regulation.

Now, there are three things to be attended to in that; first of all, that there is no requirement of a positive approval to make a regulation valid; the regulation simply appears before the House and there is a period, which may be a very lengthy one—the next subsequent twenty-one sitting days—inside which an annulling resolution may be brought forward. If that is carried the regulation falls. The third point is that action may have been taken under the resolution for all that lengthy period of the twenty-one sitting days, which might extend to over the summer vacation, and until such resolution is passed the regulation is valid and anything done under it in the interval is validated.

This series of amendments attacks that particular Section 12 in a variety of ways. The first amendment which is here, No. 16, seeks to substitute for it a clause which would require an approving resolution of each House to be passed before the regulations would have any validity. The other amendments are not so radical as that with regard to Section 12, but they seek to effect certain substantial changes in it. Amendment 17 is: "No order or regulation made under this Act shall come into operation until it has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and has been before each such House for not less than the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat, unless it has earlier been approved by resolution of each such House." That gives the Minister, if he wants a resolution urgently, power to get it by coming into the House within the twenty-one day period, putting down an approving resolution at once, and getting it passed.

I am leaving out No. 18 for the moment. It is a minor point. Amendment 19 is somewhat different. It deletes and substitutes. It deletes the portion "but without prejudice to the validity of anything done previously under such regulation" and substitutes "but if no such annulling resolution is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat, such order or regulation shall then come into operation." The use of the word "within" seems to imply that the validity of anything done until the lapse of the twenty-one sitting days would be questionable. In fact, anything done until twenty-one days had elapsed would have no validity. Amendment 20 simply seeks to delete all that prejudice section, leaving it to the Minister to take his chance. It differs from the next one to my mind, in this respect, that if Section 20 were accepted only then the Minister could take his chance as to whether anything done prior to the annulling resolution being passed was validated or not, whereas amendment 21 would definitely state that if the annulling resolution were definitely passed anything done under the regulation in the twenty-one day period is invalidated. Amendment 18 is simply to insert the words "order or" before the word "regulation" in each line. I put it down because I was not sure that these sections which talk of the Minister by order making regulations, whether the order took the regulation out of the purview of Section 12, or whether, in fact, the word "regulation" is still contained in the section, bringing the whole thing under the power of Section 12. On the Minister's answer, I am prepared to accept amendment 18.

Of amendments 17, 19, 20 and 21, I would suggest that these be made one comprehensive whole in a Bill of this sort. Amendment 17 is one that should be accepted, because undoubtedly there are many points which will cause tremendous interference with trade as carried on at the moment, and there should not be provision to have this interference until the matter is specifically brought before the House, positively approved by this House and the other House, by resolution passed by the two Houses. I could see a case being made that we should have orders and regulations of different types; for instance, there are some of the regulations which certainly do not prescribe very important things and they might be left in the form in which Section 12 now is; that is to say, they should come before this House, the House getting notice thereof. I can see things obviously so important that they should not be allowed to have any validity until the House has positively approved of them and I can see things in the measure which are of an intermediate type. One would prefer to have the positive form of amendment 17, but you would be constrained to accept it in the form either of 19, 20 or 21. However, I am not sure whether it is possible to hold over consideration of Section 12 until we go through the Bill and see the many types of Orders and Regulations that have been made, and if that not possible and if you must make the choice now. I am going to plump for amendment 16 for the reason I have stated—there are so many amendments causing a terrific interference with trade amounting to a confiscation of a man's property on very thin, and slender evidence and on very unsubstantial grounds, and I think we should have, at any rate, this interference of the House; that matters must be brought before the House and the House should not allow them passed (merely passable); they should have the positive approval of the House for these things and as there are some matters which are of that confiscatory type we must include them all within one type of regulation and I am for amendment 16.

I agree with Section 16 in principle, but I am anxious to make some inroad on the new principle of legislation by Ministers, and, therefore, I would be prepared to compromise in order to make some impression. Therefore I would ask the Minister to consider accepting the minor amendment No. 17 which says:—

"No order or regulation made under this Act shall come into operation until it has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and has been before each House for not less than the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat, unless it has earlier been approved by resolution of each House."

So that if an emergency did arise in which the Minister wanted power promptly, there would be nothing to prevent him whatever moving his resolution to approve of this regulation on the first day it lay upon the Table. I think that provides him with all the powers he could possibly want, and it would place on record the disapproval of this administration and of any attempt by the Minister to supplant the Dáil in making the law, because that is what this business of making regulations, without any reference to the Dáil, amounts to.

This section is in the common form that has been inserted in all Bills up to the present—in these types of Agricultural Produce Bills. Deputy McGilligan says the importance of these amendments is to save what might be a big interference with trade by regulations. I do not think there are the same powers for taking a person's trade from him under this Bill as there were in the many Bills passed under the late administration. I, myself, have had the unpleasant duty of removing licences from people under the Dairy Produce Acts and the Eggs Acts, and I had to remove those licences under the regulations made under those Acts. Some were also under the Fresh Meat Act. Under these three Acts—the Fresh Meat Act, the Dairy Produce Act and the Eggs Act, even though a person was carrying on business before the Act was carried, the business could be taken. Under this Act the person carrying on a business is safeguarded, so we are not taking the same power at all under this Bill as was taken under the previous administration, and there was no objection whatever from any of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party to a section of this sort allowing them to do the thing on the regulations and which were laid on the Table. Of course during the Recess, and during the periods that were pointed out here to be dangerous under this particular Bill——

Fianna Fáil.

No. I remember, in Opposition, objecting when this clause was not put in. When it was put in, I was quite satisfied that it should be laid on the Table of the House but the previous administration wanted to get away with that. They wanted to make regulations and not lay them on the Table of the House.

When the Minister for Industry and Commerce was speaking on this matter he said he had in principle the deepest sympathy with the object, and he said he had repeatedly protested against it in the Dáil, but when he got into office he found that a great part of what he thought was practicable was not practicable. I should say he said that with disarming frankness. I am now appealing to the Minister for Agriculture to assert the principle which he has already defended when in Opposition. I think the procedure of Deputy McGilligan when Minister for Industry and Commerce was in many cases outrageous. I remember when reading the debates that he took up the position: "We will give you no information; it is necessary for the public good that this should be done but we do not propose to give any information." Again he said it was necessary to make those regulations; that the Government could not be carried on by the Dáil but that it should be done by departments. I do not accept that and I had expected that Fianna Fáil would refuse to accept that principle too. I should like to repeat, now that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has come into the House, what I have just said, that I objected to this principle of legislating without submitting it to the Dáil. The Minister for Industry and Commerce when in Opposition took the same view and protested against it on many occasions, but he found when in office that it was exceedingly difficult to maintain that view-point. I ask the Minister for Agriculture if he has not more fortitude than the Minister for Industry and Commerce and if he is not prepared to defend in Government what he defended in Opposition.

I do not think that the Deputy is quoting correctly. I said when this system of legislation was in its initial stages—and it was only in recent years it has begun—that we endeavoured to stem the tide and that we found that the tide could not be stemmed. I think most of our energies were directed towards insuring that regulations would be tabled and that amendments precisely of the type of the sections in the Bill would be inserted wherever considered necessary.

If the Minister will look at amendment 17 he will come to the conclusion that it is a by no means extravagant one and it gives him power to move for regulations the first day the Dáil sits.

Suppose it does not sit?

Exactly. Suppose it does not sit, all the talk of twenty-one days goes up in smoke. In fact the Minister could prudently wait until the Dáil rises for the summer Recess and then proceed to legislate like a mill. The Dáil has no voice for three or four months whereupon the Dáil if it moves a resolution can do nothing to affect the validity of what the Minister has done except, of course, by statute. That is the whole objection, and it is an objection which the Minister himself perceived at an early stage in its career. What the Minister then said is precisely what will happen. Most of the damage will be done during the summer Recess and the Dáil has then no remedy except by statute.

It is a matter of confidence in the Executive Council.

That is the difficulty about the position the Minister is taking up. Why did not the Minister for Industry and Commerce introduce a Bill of five sections saying that the Minister for Industry and Commerce shall govern the flour milling industry as he thinks fit?

That had not occurred to me.

It is clearly what is required by this measure.

That matter is to be dealt with by regulations. These are minor administrative matters.

I said let minor matters be dealt with by these regulations, but where there are big matters they should be brought before the Dáil. I have a list here of the sections which deal with cases. I have a series of sections marked here: those in which things are prescribed; those in which regulations are used and those in which orders are used. I am dealing with the answer of the Minister that this is a vote of confidence in the Executive Council. I was pointing out that this is such a matter as fixing a man's livelihood; taking over what are described as flour mills; taking away a man's licence and refusing to give him a licence. The Minister describes these as minor matters of administration!

Principles.

Principles are not to be decided by legislation. The Minister could in a Bill of four or five sections have done what he seeks to do by this Bill by saying "let the Minister govern the flour milling industry." It is quite wrong to speak of Section 12 as being common form without adverting to the fact that there have been occasions on which Section 12 was not the form used.

I do not know to what occasion Deputy Dillon refers, on which he says I refused to give information, but I do not know the measure most criticised was the Shannon Electricity Act. But there were certain items there which demanded regulations being made in the form of amendment 16. The Courts of Justice Act gave power to certain Committees to make recommendations for Rules of Court but no Rule of Court could come into operation until laid before each House, until it had been approved of by a Resolution in the form in which amendment 16 is drafted. There have been occasions on which the House in its wisdom thought fit not to accept the form of the section but to accept amendment 16. I suggest that it all turns upon the importance of the matter to be determined by the regulations. If we are not to leave this over until later and if it is considered in the light of later sections, then I am in favour of amendment 16. I would like to point out to Deputy Dillon the reason for my preference for amendment 16 over amendment 17. Amendment 17 does not give the House a chance to negative unless the Minister is in a hurry and brings in a resolution of approval which the House has to reject. That shows a lack of confidence. But suppose the Minister is in no hurry and he waits until 21 days have elapsed, then it is invalid. I believe amendment 16 is possibly too rigid and severe in regard to some matters that will have to be presented in the way of regulations but if we take the Bill as a whole there are some things that must be done by regulations. Amendment 17 with a slight amendment would possibly have been better.

Is the Deputy pressing his amendment?

Yes, No. 16.

Question put—"That such new section be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Tá, 46; Níl, 66.

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorey, Denis John.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McDonogh, Fred.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Brien, Eugene P.
  • O'Connor, Batt.
  • O'Hara, Patrick.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Shaughnessy, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Thrift, William Edward.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Bryan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Cleary, Mícheál.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Curran, Patrick Joseph.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Gormley, Francis.
  • Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas J.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and Doyle; Níl: Deputies Boland and Allen.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments 17 to 21, inclusive, not moved.
Sections 12 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to carry on by way of trade or for the purposes of gain the business of milling wheat at any mill, unless either—
(a) such person is the holder of a licence (in this Act referred to as a milling licence) granted by the Minister under this Part of this Act in respect of such mill; or
(b) such business is carried on in direct succession to a deceased person who was at the date of his death the holder of a milling licence in respect of such mill and such business is carried on during the currency of such licence at such mill between the date of the death of such person and the grant of probate of his will or letters of administration of his personal estate, or is carried on during the currency of such licence at such mill by the personal representative of such person in due course of administration; or
(c) such business is carried on at such mill by an assignee in bankruptcy, a trustee of an arranging debtor, or a receiver or manager appointed by a court during the currency of a milling licence granted in respect of such mill in continuation of the business of a person who immediately before such assignee, trustee, receiver or manager commenced to carry on such business was the holder of such milling licence; or
(d) in the case of home-grown wheat such person is the holder of a milling permit to mill home-grown wheat at such mill granted by the Minister under this Part of this Act.
(2) If any person acts in contravention of this section such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to the penalties mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act.
The following amendments were in the name of Deputy McGilligan:—
22. In sub-section (1) (b) to delete all words after the word "mill," line 20, to the end of line 27.
23. In sub-section (1) (b), line 26, after the word "representative" to insert the words "for the time being."
24. In sub-section (1) (b), lines 26-27, to delete the words "in due course of administration."

Amendments 22, 23 and 24 might be taken together.

They are somewhat different but they can be discussed together. Amendment 23 is an alternative to amendment 22 in the event of that amendment not being accepted. Amendment 24 is a still further alteration. Sub-paragraph (b) deals with a special set of circumstances. The whole section sets out to prohibit the milling of wheat except by people who have got licences and the holder of the licence is referred to directly in lettered paragraph (a). In lettered paragraph (b) we get to one remove from the original holder. That paragraph allows milling to be continued if "the business of milling wheat" is "carried on in direct succession to a deceased person who was at the date of his death the holder of the milling licence in respect of such mill." I should like that paragraph to stop there and that, once the licence is granted to a mill, succession to a deceased person to that mill would carry with it the licence. The next portion of the paragraph, I think, limits that to some extent. It certainly purports to limit it, because not alone must the business be carried on in direct succession to a deceased person but it must be "carried on during the currency of such licence at such mill between the date of the death of such person and the grant of probate of his will or letters of administration of his personal estate." If the next phrase were enlarged, it might meet the point I have in mind—"or is carried on during the currency of such licence at such mill by the personal representative of such person in due course of administration." Previously, we had a reference to the personal representative for the time being of such person. That is the other amendment that I propose—amendment 22. I propose to put in the words "for the time being" and to cut out the phrase "in due course of administration." We have in regard to an Irish owned company certain conditions prescribed. We have it laid down that if there is an Irish owned company and if the shares of that Irish owned company are owned once by a national and, thereafter, are owned by his representatives for the time being —that might be due to a succession of deaths, a personal representative dying and being succeeded by another —there is then a continuous flow of Irish nationality right down, whether the person is, in fact, an Irish national or not. If that idea is read into this provision, what I have in mind is achieved. I rather feel that the limitation in the last two lines—"is carried on during the currency of such licence at such mill by the personal representative of such person in due course of administration"—limits his holding to such period by way of succession as occurs between the death and the taking out of letters of administration. If that is the case, it is to all intents and purposes valueless. If it is intended to allow simply direct succession from one person on his death to his personal representatives and after that person's death, to his personal representatives, and so on, that purpose can be achieved by stopping short at line 20 at the word "mill." That is what I want to achieve. If the Minister thinks that the section, with the limitation I have referred to, carries that out, I should like to have it further considered. I should like to know what the intention is.

The intention is that when the holder of a milling licence dies, the licence shall pass without question to his sucessor, if such successor is a national of Saorstát Eireann. Section 21 must be read in relation to this matter.

The "national" idea does not occur here in any form?

It is intended to carry on, through succession to deceased persons?

Why put in all the phraseology after the word "mill"?

The business must be carried on "during the currency of such licence at such mill between the date of the death of such a person and the grant of probate of his will." The Deputy will admit that that is necessary.

It is not required if you are going to allow it to be carried on in direct succession. It will be carried on in direct succession between the date of death and the grant of probate.

That is what this sub-section provides for.

The remainder of the sub-section is superfluous.

The remainder is: "Or letters of administration of his personal estate or is carried on during the currency of such licence at such mill by the personal representatives of such person in due course of administration." I am afraid I do not appreciate the Deputy's point.

A person dies and a personal representative is appointed. That personal representative holds the licence in due course of administration. Is that person not carrying on in direct succession to the deceased person? If he is not, why not leave him to be caught by the first two lines? What is the necessity for the rest of the sub-section?

Ultimately, the business passes to the person entitled under a will or intestacy. We have here the proviso that such person must be a national of Saorstát Eireann to become entitled as of right to that licence without any new conditions attaching to it. Certain provisions are included to provide, where a business passes to a person who is not a national of Saorstát Eireann, that the licence may be cancelled or new conditions attached.

Might I put it to the Minister that anything that has to come before us with regard to the continuance of nationality arises under another section? It may be, when we come to that, that we will have to come back to this section. For the moment, taking the section by itself, if the object of paragraph (b) is to allow the milling licence to be carried on, when the holder dies to those who succeed him directly, I think the Minister need not bring in anything after line 20. But if, for greater security, he believes it is necessary to bring in all down to the words "personal estate" in line 24, I suggest that anything that comes after that is a limitation; that it limits the direct succession to the period of "due course of administration," and it does not allow a man who becomes a successor to the deceased after administration to carry on. If the Minister assures me, as he has said twice, that the idea is to allow the milling licence to be passed on after the death of a person, always provided that the nationality provisions of the later section are adhered to, then I ask him to hold this over and get that looked into, as to whether the last two and a half lines do not impose an unnecessary limitation. It seems to me that the last two lines do distinctly limit the direct succession to the period that supervenes after the death of a person and until administration is taken out, but that after that point this section does not carry on the licence.

I will certainly have the point examined.

I should like to direct attention to line 22 after the word "mill" beginning with the words "between the date of the death of such person and the grant of probate of his will or letters of administration of his personal estate." Upon the happening of that event, is it the intention that the licence should die?

What is the intention?

The licence does not die.

It is to carry it on by succession after succession.

"Between the date of the death of such person and the grant of probate of his will or letters of administration of his personal estate." Take, for example, that the owner of a mill dies and he has no successor, but he has left a will with executors appointed with powers of sale, as they would have, and power to distribute the assets. If when probate is taken out the licence dies——

The licence does not die.

It becomes obsolete.

Must milling be carried on during the period while administration is being applied for?

Will there not be difficulties there?

I can see a gap to be filled up between lines 20 and 24, the period after a man has died and until either probate has been granted or letters of administration taken out. I am only putting it for further investigation, but it seems to me that lines 25, 26 and 27 limit the period in which the milling licence may be handed down to the period which is terminated by the taking out of letters of administration, and that at that point the licence stops. I do not think it was intended. It is particularly to be observed that where previously we had a phrase "by the personal representative for the time being of such person" with regard to Irish-owned bodies, here we have not that phrase, but we have "by the personal representative of such person in due course of administration": that is the person nominated as the personal representative for administration. However, the matter can be looked into and we can discuss it again.

I will have it examined.

Amendments 22, 23 and 24 withdrawn.

I move amendment 25:

In sub-section (2), line 43, to delete the figure "I" and substitute the figure "II."

Again I should like to hold over all these references to the First Schedule and Parts I, II and III until we have gone through the Bill and got clearly before us what are the particular offences. It seems to me, from a general reading, that there is far too much use of the penalties mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule. Part I differs from Part II in the extent of the fine or punishment. Part III differs from both in that it is fining only. In Part I the penalty in the case of a first offence is a fine not exceeding £100; in the case of a second or subsequent offence, a fine not exceeding £250, or imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months, or both. Part II cuts that down for the first offence to £50 instead of £100, and for a second or subsequent offence to £100 instead of £250, and the punishment is any term not exceeding six months, or both such fine and imprisonment. The maximum period that may be given is the same, but it may also be joined up to the fine, and, as the fine differs, then there is a difference in the penalty. Part III imposes for the first offence a fine of £25 and for a second or subsequent offence a fine not exceeding £50. Here we have put in a prohibition on a person carrying on for the purpose of gain the business of milling wheat unless he has a licence and various other things in addition, and the result of any act in contravention of that is that "such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to the penalties mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act." One has to consider as the pivotal point in this, first of all, the question of imprisonment and, secondly, the question of a second offence. For a second or subsequent offence, if we keep this as it is, the limit of the fine is £250 and in Part II the limit of the fine is £100. The maximum term of imprisonment is the same. I am suggesting that we should cut out Part I and make it either Part II or Part III; preferably, I say, make it Part III and make that a fine offence. If it is considered, and it may be when we go through with this, that assessing the penalty under Part III of the First Schedule would not be sufficient for some matters, then let us have a further amendment to Part III allowing for some term of imprisonment to be associated with it by readjusting Parts I, II and III. At present, with the difficulties about getting a licence, the way there has to be registration, application, and so forth, I cannot see why one should set out and insist on the largest penalty that has been set down in this Bill. There are to be all sorts of conditions in getting after this whole business hereafter. For the time being, I would rather put down even the smallest penalty that the Bill allows until we can get a better gathering up at the end as to what are the offences, when we have pursued them in relation to the Bill, and what are to be the penalties to be inflicted.

We can discuss the penalties proposed in the First Schedule when we come to it. I would like Deputies to bear in mind, however, that the nature of the Bill is such that we must have penalties so severe that people will be deterred from taking the risk of committing an offence, just as in Revenue legislation there are always very severe penalties, the knowledge of the existence of which is a deterrent and which are so fixed in severity as to have that result. On this amendment, however, the only question that arises is whether an offence that would be committed under this section is sufficiently grave to justify the severest of the penalties proposed in the Schedule. I submit it is, and that the whole Bill hinges on this section. This is the one section which provides that the milling of wheat in a mill must be subject to a licence issued by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That is the pivotal section of the whole Bill. Obviously, the only offence which would be committed under that section is defiance of the Act, and if that particular section could be successfully defied the whole scheme would fall to the ground. Consequently, you must have there, I submit, the severest penalty the Bill will allow, leaving to be discussed later what the severest penalty will be. As to whether that is a major or minor offence, I think there can be only one decision—that it is the most serious offence that can be committed under the Bill.

We have the analogy of the Revenue Acts. The whole scheme of punishment under the Revenue Acts turns on this point: Is it easy for a person to be guilty of fraud upon the Revenue? Is there something a man may easily succeed in doing to defraud the Revenue? If it is easy to do and if it is difficult to catch out then you add the terror to the individual who tries it on that if he is caught he is going to suffer very severely. Who can get away under this? Any defiance of that is clearly going to be almost impossible. If a man who has no licence and does not believe he has a licence is going to continue milling wheat, he is not going to get away with it. Under Part III of the First Schedule, for every offence after the first offence a man can be fined £50. I presume it will be a separate offence each day he continues to mill without a licence—£50 a day. He cannot get away with it. Are we to allow the court to impose imprisonment on a man who believes that he is holding in direct succession and that he is qualified under the nationality clauses hereafter? Are we going to subject that man to the possibility of imprisonment? A man who is defiant about this and is going to try to mill wheat although he has no licence is not going to get away with it. The fine is going to be sufficient to deter him and defeat him in his purpose.

The sections that entail penalties under Part I of the First Schedule are Sections 27, 30, 41, 55, 66, 71, 77, 78, 83, 84, and 86. Those are considered to be the first-class offences. The second-class offences are set out in Sections 29, 53, 54, 60, 80, 81 and 82. The third-class offences are set out in Sections 26, 33, 34, 72, 73, 76 and 79. In addition to those there are special penalties set out in Sections 31, 39, 58, 91 and 92. There would be need for new gaols or for new court officers if there is going to be anything like an average imposition of penalties under these sections. It is the most amazing series of offences and penalties. I do suggest there is no reason for that. There might be reason for, if it were possible, segregating the man who clearly has no licence and is not making any defence that he has a licence, and giving him the full penalties under Part I of the Schedule. Take paragraph (b) and the legal points that might be made as to whether a man is holding in direct succession and so on, and you subject that man to the possibility of imprisonment——

Might I interrupt the Deputy to say is it not the fact that there may be no imprisonment in the case of the first offence?

So that the people under (b) and (c) could not very well be affected by that.

I think they could. A man might have been brought up under say (c) for a first offence, and might have fallen into doubt under (b) thereafter. It still counts as the second offence. If it were the first offence under each paragraph there would be something to be said for it. Let us get a segregation of the penalties under Part 1, and let the severe penalties be for the man who is defying the Act.

I submit that that is the function of the court.

I do not think there is any necessity for it. If the Minister thinks any person is going to carry on in defiance of this Act, is not the punishment under Part III, that after his first offence he can be fined £50 each succeeding time, sufficient to deter him?

What the Deputy is after is making the punishment fit the crime, and I submit that that is what the Bill provides for. The penalties set out in the Schedule are the maximum penalties. It is for the court to determine the degree of the offence, and consequently to award the appropriate punishment. In the first instance, of course, there is a certain discretion on the Minister to prosecute or not to prosecute, and in purely trivial offences I think the Minister would not deem a prosecution necessary. If he considers the offence is such that it should be brought before the court then it is for the court to determine what is the degree of the offence, and consequently to award the appropriate punishment. If the offence was that the miller had acted through inadvertence or misunderstanding of his rights, or in some very trivial manner had broken the Act without intending to break it, presumably the court would award a penalty accordingly, but if the court determined that the person had acted in defiance of the Act and was undoubtedly trying to bring down the whole scheme, the Schedule permits of the infliction of severe penalties. I assume it would only be in a very rare case, if at all, that the court would consider it necessary to impose the maximum penalty provided.

I would like to ask, in relation to what the Minister said, surely the prosecutions are not brought by the Minister only? There is a section here which allows any offence to be prosecuted by or at the suit of the Minister for Agriculture as prosecutor. Is it quite clear that a rival miller could not prosecute under this section?

I am afraid I cannot give an opinion on that. In practice, in any case, the prosecutions will always be brought at the suit of the Minister.

Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

Amendment withdrawn?

Question—"That Section 18 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
(1) Any person may apply to the Minister for a milling licence authorising him to carry on the business of milling wheat at a specified mill.
(2) Every application under this section for a milling licence shall be in the prescribed form and be made in the prescribed manner and shall contain the prescribed particulars.
(3) Every person who applies under this section for a milling licence shall, when required by the Minister so to do, furnish to the Minister all such information as the Minister may require for the consideration of such application.
(4) The Minister may require any statement of fact made in an application for a milling licence or made to the Minister in response to a request for information under the next preceding sub-section of this section to be verified by the statutory declaration of some person having personal knowledge of the fact so stated.
(5) If any person fails to furnish any information or any verification which he is required by the Minister under this section to furnish, the Minister may, on the ground of such failure and without prejudice to any other power of refusal conferred on him by this Act, refuse the application in relation to which such information or verification was so required.

I move amendments 26 and 27:

In sub-section (1), line 44, after the word "person" to insert the words "being the owner of a specified mill."

In sub-section (1), line 46, to delete the words "a specified" and substitute the word "such."

I am putting down these amendments for the purpose of getting information. "Any person may apply to the Minister for a milling licence authorising him to carry on the business of milling wheat at a specified mill." I just throw in the phrase "Any person being the owner of a specified mill." I am assuming it is only the owner would be allowed to apply for a licence in respect of the mill?

The owner or prospective owner, or the person who has a lease of the mill or a right to work the mill.

But there is no possibility of a person so to speak, getting a licence——

Jumping the claim?

Oh, that is impossible.

It is clear that that cannot be done?

Oh, quite.

An enterprising person looking on at the mill being idle could not apply for a milling licence?

I hope not. If that were the case we would have to put in the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 withdrawn.

I move amendment 28.

In sub-section (3), line 52, before the word "information" to insert the word "prescribed."

This again, is to bring in the word "prescribe" before the word "information." As the section stands, any person may apply for a licence. The application is to be in the prescribed form and because it is in the prescribed form it must be made by regulation and the regulation comes before the House. Then we come to sub-section (3) where every person shall furnish to the Minister such information as he may require for the consideration of such application. Surely that should be prescribed also. I want to point out in order to forestall an objection that "prescribed" does not stand for all time. As I am trying to forestall a reply it may not be possible to foresee what the information required may be, but the moment the Minister discovers some piece of information he should let the House know that. Under Section 12 as it now stands the House would get information about it, and, if the House liked, it could pass judgment upon it. The same argument applies to sub-section (5). The Minister is allowed to refuse to grant the licence if the person has failed to furnish any information which the Minister requires. In order to prevent a person being harassed unreasonably or unduly, I would suggest that "prescribed" be accepted there.

I do not, at the moment, see any objection to the amendment, but I would like if the Deputy held it over.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 29 not moved.
Section 19 put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.
(1) Where an application is made in accordance with this Act for a milling licence the Minister shall, subject to the provisions of this section, have absolute discretion to grant or to refuse to grant such licence.
(2) In the case of an application made in accordance with this Act within three months after the commencement of this Part of this Act for a milling licence in respect of a specified mill at which there was milled during any part of the year 1931 any flour or wheaten meal for sale in Saorstát Eireann, the Minister shall not refuse such application except upon the grounds mentioned in the immediately preceding section.
(3) Every milling licence granted by the Minister shall—
(a) be in the prescribed form, and
(b) be expressed and operate to authorise the person who is for the time being the holder of such licence, so long as such licence is in force, to carry on the business of milling wheat at the mill specified in such licence, and
(c) be and be expressed to be granted subject to the following condition (in this section referred to as the statutory condition) that is to say, in case such licence is granted or transferred to a body corporate which at the date of such grant or transfer is an Irish-owned body corporate, that, so long as such licence is held by such body corporate, such body corporate shall continue to be an Irish-owned body corporate, and
(d) subject to the provisions of the next succeeding sub-section, be and be expressed to be granted subject to such other conditions (if any) as the Minister thinks proper and states in such licence.
(4) Where in pursuance of an application made within three months after the commencement of this Part of this Act a milling licence in respect of a specified mill at which there was milled during any part of the year 1931 any flour or wheaten meal for sale in Saorstát Eireann is granted to a person who is at the date of the grant of such licence a national of Saorstát Eireann, or a body corporate which at the date of the grant of such licence is an Irish-owned body corporate, there shall not be attached to such licence any conditions except the statutory condition.

I move amendment 30:—

To delete sub-section (1) and substitute therefor the following sub-section:—

"(1) Where an application is made in accordance with this Act for a milling licence the Minister shall, subject to the provisions of this section, grant such licence."

The reason I do that is because in the sub-section the Minister seeks absolute discretion to give or to refuse a licence. Section 19 empowers anybody at all to apply for a licence. Sub-section (5) and the other sub-sections authorise the Minister to seek any information he wants with regard to the information he requires before he grants a licence, and when he has got that information if it is not satisfactory he can refuse to give the licence. In this sub-section he seeks to get absolute power. Now I think that is a very embarrassing thing for the Minister because it will mean that people seeking a licence for various reasons would say to themselves "No, I will not apply for a licence" (though in every way qualified) "I will not apply to the Minister for a licence because he has absolute discretion of giving it or refusing it." I think that is highly autocratic, and secondly it is not in the public interest. If a man has a right to apply for a licence the Minister can insist on his giving certain information and if he fails to do that the Minister can refuse to grant a licence. I think that is perplexing for the Minister because the Minister can withdraw the licence if he gets it. I think this word "absolute" is very obnoxious, and it is a very dangerous position to place the Minister in and embarrassing to place any man in. This word "absolute" should be left out entirely.

I do not think this amendment is seriously meant. In the first place sub-section (1) does not give absolute discretion. The words "absolute discretion" are there. "The Minister shall, subject to the provision of this section, have absolute discretion to grant or refuse to grant such licence." Sub-section (2) provides for places in respect of mills in respect of which flour was milled during 1931. The Minister shall not refuse such application except on the grounds mentioned in the immediately preceding section except the person who is applying fails to furnish any information or any verification required by the Minister under this section. That is, I think, the ground on which a licence can be refused—failure of the applicant to furnish information.

A Deputy

It is meaningless then here.

No, it is in respect of persons who propose in the future to go into the flour milling business or persons who propose to operate mills which were closed during 1931. Absolute discretion operates and that absolute discretion must be there. If the Deputy's amendment were carried every applicant for a licence would have to get a licence. The position at the moment is if all the applications which have been made to me in anticipation of the passage of this measure either for the granting of a new licence or for permission to increase the capacity of existing mills were granted we would have in this country a milling capacity nearly double our requirements. Now we do not want that position but we want some capacity in excess of our requirements. We do not want the position that existed in England after the war and which was the cause of a lot of our flour milling troubles. If the amendment were carried we could not refuse an application, even though we were quite clear the mill to be erected in consequence of the granting of the licence was entirely unnecessary and would probably do much more damage than good by its establishment. The section provides where a mill is now in business and where application is made for a licence in respect of a mill in which wheat was milled during any part of 1931 that application cannot be refused except the applicant fails or refuses to supply the information which he is required to furnish under Section 19. It is only in the case of new mills or mills that have been closed for a period and proposed to be reopened that discretion is given to the Minister. That is the whole scheme of the Bill—that the Department of Industry and Commerce should exercise discretion in these cases rather than discretion should be exercised by a body entirely free from legislative control.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I would like to query, in order to get absolute security on one item, the point made by the Minister. He points out that sub-section (1) of Section 20 uses the phrase "have absolute discretion" but "subject to the provisions of the section" and the Minister interprets that phrase as meaning, in relation to old millers, that the only point on which he can refuse is that a man has failed or refused to supply information required in the previous section. I want to point out that sub-section (5) of Section 19 says:

If any person fails to furnish any information or any verification which he is required by the Minister under this section to furnish, the Minister may, on the ground of such failure—

and I want him to note what follows:

and without prejudice to any other power of refusal conferred on him by this Act, refuse the application...

I ask him to make sure, before the next stage, that the taking in of that phrase, which is necessary for a particular purpose, does not carry into Section 19 every other ground of refusal.

I want to have that verified.

It is quite clear, in my opinion.

I am not so sure about its being clear. It is possibly the intention, but what I am querying is whether the introduction of the phrase "the Minister may, on the ground of such failure, and without prejudice to any other power of refusal conferred on him" does not carry down into the sub-section of Section 20 not merely the grounds of the refusal to give certain information but every other ground. I am not sure whether it does or not. I am only asking. It is a point that the draftsman might have considered and that is all I say about it. On the main point of the amendment, it is quite easy to see the Minister's scheme. Those who have previously milled in this country, in any part of 1931, are to get licences, but, so far as the rest are concerned, the Minister has absolute discretion to grant or refuse, and no conditions are laid down as terms of reference to him as to the reason for refusing or the reasons for preferring one person to another. That seems to me to be somewhat undesirable.

First of all, I want to attack the idea behind all this. The Minister says that if you give more licences than the capacity for milling in the country requires, you are going to do damage. To whom? To whoever is the weakest miller in the whole bunch, and that is what competition does everywhere. Why should you set out to prevent that happening? If you could prevent, by some sort of preferential measure, those who had previously been milling from being ousted by latecomers, there is something to be said for it. The Minister can make the point that he is also going to prevent the alien from beating out a native, and there may be something to be said for that, but there is nothing to be said for exhibiting a preference as against one latecomer and another, where they are both nationals, or, as between one latecomer and another, where they are both aliens. Yet the Minister takes power to discriminate in all these ways, and why I do not know. Surely, if this goes on apace, we will soon have everything regulated.

The root idea in this is that competition is bad and that, if you allow a little more than a certain percentage above the required milling capacity of the country, it is going to do damage. It might do damage in the ordinary competitive way and beat out the least efficient miller, but why that should not be allowed to happen, I cannot see. If the Minister wants to defeat all the people who want to come in at a late point, then I suggest that he might have phrased it so that he should have discretion to refuse those who were last in making their application to him after a certain milling capacity had been achieved in the country. But he does not do that. It does not depend on a person's vigilance as to whether he made application in anticipation of the measure going through in a certain time, but it is going to be whatever the Minister thinks in regard to all those who are not old established millers in the year 1931 in the country. While I think that it would be going completely against the whole idea of the Bill if Deputy McMenamin's amendment were carried, there is some intermediate stage between the two of them to which the Minister might limit this discretion of his. He might say that he is not going to allow the old time miller, particularly if he is a national, to be beaten out by a newcomer, and particularly, if the newomer is an alien, but why, after establishing the 1931 miller, so to speak, and after establishing that nobody except nationals will be allowed to come into the country to mill, he should discriminate as between one national and another, I cannot see, and on what grounds he is going to do it, I cannot understand.

The grounds on which discretion would be exercised with regard to newcomers into the industry are quite clear. Generally speaking, the principle on which any Minister would operate is that first comers, to a certain limited extent, will get licences, will get the milling capacity of the country up to some point in excess of our capacity, and, after that, we would feel constrained to refuse applications for licences except under very special circumstances. But, before we get to that stage, we have to consider quite a variety of circumstances—the proposed location of the mill, the proposed capacity of the mill, the association which might exist between the proposed proprietors of the mill and other proprietors in different parts of the country, the relationship with grain importers and other considerations of numerous kinds. No doubt it might be possible to devise a series of regulations which would set down the principle on which the Minister would exercise his discretion, but I do not think that doing so would get us very much forward, because the position is that, in the end, there must be a certain element of discretion in the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is regulating the scheme.

What was the position? We came into office and found the flour milling industry controlled, as the Deputy knows. The industry was rigidly controlled, and a mill could not exceed the production allotted to it except under a heavy fine. The amount of flour to be imported into the country was definitely fixed and there were regulations imposed on millers, by the millers themselves, in their own interests, much more drastic than anything suggested in this Bill. We decided to break up that system because it restricted the production in this country, and to superimpose on the milling industry, not their own system of regulation, devised by themselves in their own interests, but a system of regulation, devised by us in the interests of the people of the country as a whole, and that is precisely what we are doing. I submit that, in fact, the regulations and conditions imposed on millers by this Bill are much less onerous than those which they voluntarily imposed on themselves in order to protect themselves against external competition.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments 31 and 35 should be taken together.

Amendment 35?

Amendments 31 and 35 are interdependent. They both aim at deleting the provision that applications must be made within three months after the passing of the Act.

I move amendments 31 and 35:

In sub-section (2) to delete all after the word "Act," line 15, down to and including the word "Act," line 16.

In sub-section (4), lines 39-40, to delete the words "within three months after the commencement of this Part of" and substitute the words "in accordance with."

I will speak on No. 31. I am putting this down really to get information again. Why the necessity for making these applications within three months? Supposing a person happens to slip and went into the fourth month —he is prohibited from getting the licence to which he is entitled on every other ground except that of making flour at the time.

It is really a matter of administrative convenience. I am faced with this position, that we have, in accordance with our scheme, a certain amount of surplus capacity to distribute amongst those applying for it. The amount of that surplus depends largely on all the existing mills coming into full production and remaining in full production for the future. If some particular miller should decide that the conditions imposed by the Bill were such that he is not going to carry on and that he decides to shut down, we must know that, at some stage, because we cannot be holding a certain amount of capacity for his benefit in anticipation of an application from him at some time. We are giving him three months to apply and we assume that, if he does not apply within three months, he is not going to continue, and we can proceed to give that capacity to some other person who is prepared to build and work a mill. The Deputy, however, need have no fear in the matter, because every existing miller has his application in already in anticipation of the passing of the Bill.

I would like to guard the rights of the man who may have lodged an application previously in order to see what the Bill was like and who may withdraw it and say: "I will wait and see how this thing runs for a year." I do not see why he should be precluded from asserting his rights and asserting his rights compulsorily, because that is what the section gives him at the moment, and being able to get his rights, more or less whether the Minister likes it or not. How will it put out the Minister's administrative convenience? There ought to be a little discretion given to the miller as to whether he wants to carry on under these conditions and the Minister has no belief that he is going to get milling capacity to the requirements of the country in a year. He has previously said that he did not see any hope of that.

I am saying now that we can get nearly double the capacity.

You can get nearly double the capacity under conditions that will not be very desirable, but there is going to be a certain amount of picking and choosing and the use of discretion and that is going to take some time. I doubt very much if the Minister, in a serious moment, would say that, between now and this day twelvemonths, he is going to have milling capacity up to the requirements of the country in the country. I suggest that there should be a little latitude left. Three months seems to be a very short period indeed. I was going to suggest a year or to cut the thing out altogether. A man who, having applied, withdraws and waits to see how the thing will run ought to be allowed to sleep over it—put it as weak as that—for about a year before deciding to insist on his rights and to operate them.

What does that mean? The real effect is to refuse someone-else a licence to engage in flour milling in order to give this man twelve months to think it over.

I think the Deputy may rest assured that a man will be able to make up his mind in three months after the Act becomes law whether he is prepared to continue milling flour. These people have already made up their minds and I think most of their applications are in.

Are these applications of any value?

They will be put in the prescribed form. It is an indication that they propose to accept the conditions of the Bill and to mill to full capacity. As Deputies are aware this scheme is at present in operation. We brought it into operation in July by the licensing system, and we started on the 1st September to get the existing mills working to capacity. As we anticipated, we found that we made certain miscalculations, although we reduced from the 1st September the importations of flour by 50 per cent. We underestimated, and a further reduction in importation of flour became necessary on the 1st November. All the mills are working to capacity now and will continue to do so. If we were to delay for three months it would mean that we would have to be hoarding part of our total capacity, plus whatever margin, in addition to the total that will be allowed, and to refuse someone else a licence in respect of that because he could not make up the amount.

As long as a man did not apply.

No. If he applies within three months he is entitled as of right. We cannot refuse. If he decides not to apply, at the end of three months he must shut down the mill. If he decided to open in a year's time he can apply for a new licence. Whether he will get it or not will depend on the circumstances then existing, the capacity of the mill and other matters.

What I said was, that you are to hold over and not to give a new allocation the amount of flour equal to the capacity of the miller who having milled in 1931 has not made any application.

That is what you are facing now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendments 32 and 36.

In sub-section (2), line 18, to delete the words "for sale in Saorstát Eireann."

In sub-section (4), lines 42-43, to delete the words "for sale in Saorstát Eireann."

I am really aiming at the words "for sale in Saorstát Eireann." I do not know that any wheaten meal is milled for sale outside Saorstát Eireann. What you are looking to is the milling capacity as evidenced by the milling done in 1931. No one is milling wheaten meal for sale outside. Why the phrase "in Saorstát Eireann"?

He has to establish that he milled wheat for sale in Saorstát Eireann. Consequently he must produce evidence to that effect. I do not think it is much importance whether the words are in the Bill or not.

Supposing a man could give evidence that he milled so many bags of flour and that he sold one-tenth outside the country, surely his milling capacity ought not to be on the meal milled for the Saorstát.

It is here.

What is there has nothing to do with the quota. That merely secures the licence. The quota will be fixed in accordance with another section, and if he mills to capacity at the present—say a mill that had a capacity of 10 sacks an hour—and sold half the production abroad he would be entitled to a licence under our proposal for a quota of 10 sacks an hour. He has to establish that he sold flour in this country to be entitled to a licence and then the quota would be allocated.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 33:—

In sub-section (2), line 18, before the word "the" to insert the words "if the person making the application was the owner of the specified mill during any part of the year 1931."

This is a different point and I found myself in a difficulty about establishing it. I am only throwing out the amendment as one of many alternatives. It clearly neglects a type of gentleman whom I want somewhat to handicap under the Bill. As the clause stands the Minister cannot refuse an application except for refusal of certain information to him, if the application is made within three months after the Act commences and if at the mill specified in 1931 flour was made from wheaten meal for sale in Saorstát Eireann. I want to put in the words in the amendment. I would like to get after two types of individuals; I would like to throw back some of the benefit to a man who was milling in this country, but who sold his mill to someone else who, having bought at a low price, now finds an enhanced value on his purchase. I would like much more to get after a man who got an enhanced value, who just kept going, sold and who does not mill himself. I do not get after the second man in this amendment. I found it impossible to draft an amendment that would get hold of that person. If any man is to be allowed to establish his right to a licence he ought to have imposed upon him an obligation to show that he sold under particular conditions, the amount milled during 1931—the pivotal point—in order to enable him to establish a right to a licence.

It was to see whether the Minister had anything in his mind with regard to that, or whether he is going to take the man as now being the owner of a mill, although the thing that gives him the licence is the fact that it was milled in 1931.

I am afraid the Deputy achieves more than he set out to achieve by this amendment. One can easily imagine a case where the owner has died and the person who was entitled to it is now carrying on the mill. There is a definite case, which was already referred to in this House, where a mill has changed hands and where the ownership has been reorganised to meet certain sections of this Bill, and where the majority holding in the mill is now in different hands from those in which it was in 1931. I do not anticipate that there will be any difficulty in getting the applications approved of in that particular case, but there are so many variations of circumstances which would be the subject of great difficulty, that it would be practically impossible. Unless the Deputy has some specific case in mind, I do not see what his point is.

I have more suspicious under the other type of category.

So have I.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 34:—

In sub-section (3) (d), lines 37-38, to delete the words "the Minister thinks proper and states" and substitute the words "have been prescribed by the Minister."

Does the Deputy agree that this amendment is governed by the decision on No. 13?

Oh, no. I think it has a different relation altogether. The Minister takes power, in the section as it stands, that when granting a licence, the licence is to be in the prescribed form and "be expressed and operate to authorise the person who is for the time being the holder of such licence, so long as such licence is in force, to carry on the business of milling wheat at the mill specified in such licence" and that "the licence be granted subject to the statutory condition that in case such licence is granted or transferred to a body corporate which at the date of the grant or transfer is an Irish-owned body corporate, so long as such licence is held by such body corporate, the body corporate shall continue to be an Irish-owned body corporate; and it is subject to the provisions of the next succeeding sub-section, that it be and be expressed to be granted subject to such other conditions (if any) as the Minister thinks proper and states in such licence."

Why should we not have these conditions referred to here as "such other conditions," prescribed and brought before the House? Prescribing does not mean limiting. All that he has got to do is to display it and it becomes effective at once and continues to have that effect until it is nullified by a negativing resolution of the House. It seems to me, when the Minister hints at the possibility of putting other conditions upon the granting of the licence than the conditions of time and of nationality which is dealt with in another section, that surely the House should get notice of what these other conditions are. I think it should be made clear to the House that this applies to all and sundry. It is not a limitation on the Minister's part.

I want to have something for the Seanad to insist on.

Is the amendment accepted?

I will accept it. I hauled down the flag on a similar matter before.

Amendment agreed to.
Question: "That Section 20, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

With regard to sub-section (4), supposing the Minister is putting in new conditions, would they apply to a licence already granted?

In respect of mills operated in 1931, no conditions other than the statutory conditions can be attached, and these conditions would be that the mill would be in a certain locality and that it would fit in with the general scheme. When I say that I accept Deputy McGilligan's amendment, I want it to be clear that it will be possible for us to draw up a set of regulations within which the conditions shall be determined, but that it shall not be necessary to apply precisely similar conditions to every licence issued. Obviously, different circumstances may apply to different cases, and whereas a condition might be necessary and reasonable in one case, it might be unnecessary, and even prove to be irksome in another case.

On the section itself, I should like to draw attention again to the point I previously raised. Line 19 of the section says that "the Minister shall not refuse such application except upon the grounds mentioned in the immediately preceding section." I want to have it made clear that the grounds mentioned only mean the specific grounds mentioned in the previous section. The second point is that the phrase is used right through in this Bill, every time that a licence is mentioned, that the holder of a licence is a holder of the licence so long as the licence is in force. Is there a time limit?

Once the licence has been given it will not be revoked except for the statutory reasons.

There might also be such a thing as a licence expiring through the efflux of time and not being renewed. The licence, once given, is operated and comes to an end by the people dying or for some such reason, but there is no time limit. Have we a time licence?

No. The conditions of a licence expiring is that it is revoked under sub-section (2) of Section 32, which says that it may be revoked "if the licence was procured by fraud or misrepresentation, or if the business of milling had ceased to be carried on at the mill, or if the holder of the licence had been convicted of an offence under this Act, or if the Minister was satisfied that there had been any breach of any of the conditions attaching to the licence." It can be revoked under these circumstances. It can be revoked if he applies for it, or if the ownership of the mill passes by inheritance or sale to a person not a national of Saorstát Eireann.

Can the Minister not put in a time limit as one of the conditions?

No. Section 22 is that a milling licence shall cease to be in force on the revocation of such licence or the refusal of the Minister to transfer the licence.

That only applies to revocation. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Minister from putting in as one of his conditions that the licence shall run for, say, six years. It then comes to an end, not because it is revoked, but merely because of the time limit.

The Minister's intention has been expressed but there is nothing in the Bill which precludes him from putting in a time limit. It is no good for him to point out Section 22, because if one of the conditions is that the licence shall operate for a period of five years, then at the end of five years it is not a question of the refusal to transfer. It is the death of the licence by the efflux of time. The licence will have expired so that although the Minister has stated that there is no desire to include a time limit there is nothing in the Bill which obliges him to grant a licence for all time. Reading through this I was attracted to the point by the frequent repetition of the phrase "so long as the licence shall be in force." Some phrase of that type is needed but the phrase "so long as" seems to hint at a set period of time.

The instructions which the draftsman received were that the licence could not be revoked except on the statutory grounds. I am not at all clear that the Deputy's interpretation of the section is right. I think that interpretation could be queried. In any case, now that we have accepted the Deputy's amendment, the conditions must be prescribed. However, I can have the point further examined to see if a safeguard is necessary. One can conceive a condition of this kind being imposed. If we assume that there might be a scarcity of applications from nationals and that in particular circumstances a non-national firm might apply for a licence, a condition might be imposed that the ownership would be transferred at the end, say, of ten, fifteen, twenty or even fifty years. That would not mean that the licence would automatically cease. It would only automatically cease if the conditions were not complied with.

Quite a lot of these clauses are founded on one of the Transport Bills, the Road Transport Bill. The Road Transport Bill looks to a licence being given for a terminable period. You have exactly the same clause about revocation and refusal to transfer. You have also a clause about renewal. The mere fact that you have a clause about revocation and that you talk about refusal to transfer does not rule out the possibility of your having to specify a certain period of time.

If you can do it in the case of non-nationals why not in other cases?

The conditions would be that the licence would automatically expire.

The Minister says that he can put in a condition that at the end of ten years the ownership can be transferred to a national if the circumstances so permit. I suggest that if he can insert a condidition in that case it can be put in in the case we are discussing here.

I shall look into the point.

Section 20, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.—Sub-section (2).
(2) Where the beneficial ownership of the business of milling wheat at a mill which is the subject of a milling licence has been transferred, whether by act of the parties or by operation of law, from the holder of such licence to another person, the follow ing provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) such person may apply to the Minister in accordance with the next following sub-section for a transfer of such licence and upon such application being made the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(i) in case such person is an Irish-owned body corporate, or a national of Saorstát Eireann, or in case such person has become entitled to such business under a will or an intestacy, the Minister shall transfer such licence to such person: and
(ii) in any other case, the Minister may, in his absolute discretion, transfer or refuse to transfer such licence to such person; and
The following amendment appeared on the Order Paper:—
Before Section 21 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Wages payable to a workman employed at a licensed mill shall be at a rate not less than the rate generally recognised by trade unions and employers as the rate applicable to workmen employed in a similar kind of work at licensed mills.
(2) The conditions of employment (other than the rate of wages) of a workman employed at a licensed mill shall not be less advantageous than the conditions of employment generally recognised by trade unions and employers as the conditions of employment applicable to workmen employed in a similar kind of work at licensed mills.
(3) If at any licensed mill the provisions of this section in relation to any workman employed at such mill are not observed, the holder of the milling licence in respect of such mill shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to the penalties mentioned in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act.
(4) In this section the expression "licensed mill" means a mill which is the subject of a milling licence.— William Norton.

This is a fair wage amendment. It is the view of the Chair that such amendments should not be allowed to be moved to individual Bills but should rather form the subject matter of an overriding statute. In fact I can envisage many cases in which an amendment such as this would be inadmissable. However, having regard to certain cases in which similar amendments were offered, and even accepted, the Chair is prepared in this instance to allow the view of the Committee on this proposal to be ascertained.

Do I understand from you, Sir, that it would not be possible on future occasions to move amendments to provide fair wages and fair conditions of labour on the Committee Stage of a Bill?

Each Bill will have to be taken by itself. The amendments might not be at all germane to the Bill?

Surely this is germane to the Bill as it refers to conditions of labour and wages of workers employed in the milling industry.

I have stated that I am prepared to allow the views of the Committee on this proposal to be ascertained.

Am I to take it in view of the ruling now given that there will be restrictions on the submission of an amendment of this character to a Bill of this kind in future?

Not on the submission of an amendment. Its acceptance is a different question.

In regard to the point of establishing a precedent, I might point out that an amendment in somewhat similar terms was accepted and agreed on the Housing Bill.

I understand the Chair has agreed to accept the amendment now.

I formally move the amendment. Perhaps the whole difficulty could be got over and the necessity for submitting an amendment of this kind obviated, if such a provision were inserted by the Government when the Bill was being drafted. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the workers in the milling industry, which is being placed on a proper basis under this Bill, will be paid rates of wages in all cases on the same basis as the rates of wages which have been the subject of negotiations and agreement between certain employers in the industry and the trade unions catering for the workers in that industry. I wanted to secure a similar provision here so far as the conditions of labour and wages of the workers engaged in the milling industry are concerned. The purpose is to ensure that every mill will be compelled to conform to the rates of wages and the conditions of labour which have been the subject of agreement between the trade unions catering for workers in the milling industry and the employers who are the other party to the agreement. Its purpose also is to ensure that there will be no blackleg employers in the industry; in other words, that no employers, who would be enjoying the benefits provided for them in the Bill, would at the same time pay rates of wages and enforce conditions of labour which are below the general level of wages and conditions of labour applicable to the majority of the mills which are in operation in the country. I feel sure that the Minister will hardly dispute the point that it is desirable that decent wages be paid and decent conditions of labour observed in the industry. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that no mill will be allowed to lag behind the wages paid and the conditions of labour established by agreements entered into by the trades unions and employers in the industry.

I have no objection to the amendment as it stands except that to which the Ceann Comhairle has already referred. It seems perhaps an unsound way to go about securing proper wages and proper conditions of labour to insert amendments affecting particular industries whenever a Bill concerning them comes before the House. The alternative course of having legislation covering all industries or industries of a particular class would be infinitely preferable. I think that the same difficulty arose in the British Parliament at one time over amendments of this kind, and that ultimately the Speaker there declined to accept them unless the matter was covered in some general way, so that individual amendments on individual Bills would not then arise. That circumstance has not yet arisen here but I have a slight feeling that there is unwisdom in imposing labour conditions of this kind upon particular industries just because these particular industries happen to be dealt with by legislation which comes before the Dáil in a particular period in consequence of the Government's programme. There is nothing in the amendment as it stands to which I think objection can be taken. It is a type of provision which I think might be reasonably applied in respect of all industries. The amendment as I understand it requires that the rates of wages to be paid in a mill shall be the rates which are generally recognised in the industry as a whole. As a result all agreements made between representatives of the workers and employers and on the conditions of employment should be similarly regulated. That in my opinion is a thing to which I have no objection. I think it is eminently desirable. It is always open to one employer to take advantage of temporary conditions, to get his way, and force all employers to adopt the same course, and do something they did not wish to do. A general levelling up of this kind appears to me quite desirable. I am proposing to accept the amendment in relation to this particular Bill but I think we will have to consider deciding on general legislation along the same lines dealing with all industries.

I know that to indicate any slight objection to an amendment of this kind is to lay oneself open to the cry of opposition to the workers and other clap-trap talked upon these occasions. The amendment does not follow the ordinary lines of the fair wages clause because in that there is some such phrase as the rate applying to the rate applicable to work in similar mills of the same area. This is casually left out here. Does he think it wise to accept a provision that will impose upon the mills, no matter what the conditions they desire to level up to, what is regarded as the rate applicable to workmen in all licensed mills?

I do not interpret the amendment in that way.

Unless the Minister amends it that is the interpretation that will be put upon it. That is Deputy Norton's view on the lines of the general motion before the House, that in the opinion of the Dáil every proposal, either protective tariffs or licence should include a fair wages clause; and I do not see why we should not, also, say that in anything voted as bounties like the growing of wheat, there should be provision included which would secure that fair wages are paid and that the conditions of employment should be the same for all licence or bounty-fed industries. Is not the rationale of this type of amendment that where the State gives benefit—it used to be where the State employed— that the State ought to be the best employer and, therefore, ought to give the best conditions and pay? Now we are setting forward a little bit. We say that if the State gives protection to industry that industry ought to give the best conditions and pay the best wages. Now we go further, and where people are to be licensed, the money under the plan of licensing is not divided out amongst a certain number of people, but devoted to the milling requirements of the country amongst those who can supply the requirements and something in addition. There is no getting over the objection. There may be some of them under the Minister's guidance, which will be very limited. Why stop there? If money is voted by bounty why should not that pass through the channel of wages or better conditions? In this Bill, on the milling side only, we have provision that there is a subsidy paid upon wheat grown in the country. Why not a provision that farm labourers employed should have the best conditions and the best wages in the best employment growing wheat?

That is another day's work.

Surely it is the work of a couple of days ago in order to have it in time for this Bill. I wonder where we are going to stop.

Does the Deputy object to what is there?

I am only trying to point out the reactions. If you are innocent enough to believe that any sum of money can be sweated out of any industry then you should put in this provision for every industry. You ought to take the limitations of each industry into consideration, and the limits imposed upon it by competition inside, or on the export side, that might rule the prices to be paid for the product. It is wrong to take this example and to stop, but rather to consider the State as an employer and apply this to every industry protected through licence or given a bounty. I think this is pressing it too far. Personally I have no objection to its being put in here, because, in the end, anything put into this Bill, in relation to flour milling, has to be paid by the community for its bread, and, as that means the whole community, it does not matter what we pay in, because we will be paying the subsidy into the bread we are consuming. If Deputy Norton put in some schedule stating the wages, and a 30-hour week for these people I do not see that any objection could be made because in the end the people Deputy Norton represents will pay for it. And that is their lookout. They take the bread stuff and the bread stuff is the currency in which this will be paid. You must remember that the whole country is condemned to the extra expense. If we like to raise our own costs and the cost of the people who are to get the benefit of the rise—I forgot the number of people employed in the milling industry even if the mills were running at their full capacity, but it is not many thousands—and, if for the sake of these, we impose a bread tax upon everybody in the community it is a well-spread tax.

Does the Deputy want bread produced at sweated rates of wages?

Does the Deputy object to people being paid a fair wage?

Not at all. That is the difficulty. If you analyse any proposal people immediately rush off to the opposite extreme. I am not standing for sweated wages. I am objecting to the growing application of a particular principle which was good in its origin, but about which I see great danger if pushed too far. Will Deputy Norton tell me now, if he thinks it desirable to put down a similar amendment if in time, and if not he can put it down on the Fourth Stage, as to the application of similar conditions to the labourers employed on the registered premises of the wheat growers who are to get a subsidy under this Bill? And if not why draw a distinction between the flour milling people and those other people? Will the Minister say he will accept such an amendment in relation to the wheat growers who are really linked up with this?

If it were practical of administration I would see no objection. The Deputy talked of the fair wage clauses. This amendment does not require a fair wage to be paid. I am assuming that the wages generally recognised now between the trade unions and the employees are fair wages. I do not know what the wage is. I am not in a position to offer any opinion whether it is a fair wage in view of the circumstances of the time, of the price level and everything else. What this amendment requires, and it is eminently reasonable, is that no one employer shall be entitled to pay lower wages than paid by those with whom he is associated, and which is generally recognised as the rate of wages in this country agreed upon between employers and employed. That seems, manifestly, to be an eminently reasonable proposition. It prevents one employer, who because of a desire to make larger profit, wishes to take advantage of some temporary circumstance for depressing the wages of his employees and by doing so forces a general reduction all round, even on the part of employers who do not desire, and who would not of their own accord initiate a general reduction. I think there is a good deal to be said for Deputy McGilligan's suggestion, and I will ask the Minister for Agriculture to consider it.

I would like to hear him on it.

It may be that there would be difficulties in determining what is to be the rate of wages varying from district to district.

That would be the excuse.

And county to county. But, in so far as there was something which could be distinguished as the general recognised rate, I think a similar provision in that part of the Bill might be eminently desirable.

I got two different impressions from the line the Minister has taken up on the meaning of the amendment. I gathered from his earlier reply that he did not think the amendment committed him to exactly the same wages in different areas of the country.

I understand that the agreement between the Flour Millers' Association and the union which caters for mill workers provides for different rates of wages in certain types of mills: that is mills in rural areas and mills at the port.

Is the Minister confident of that? Is it evident that that is what the amendment means?

What is in the amendment? "The rate generally recognised by trade unions and employers as the rate applicable to workmen employed in a similar kind of work at licensed mills."

Does Deputy Norton mean that?

The Deputy can read the amendment himself.

Does the Deputy accept it that this amendment carries with it varying rates of wages for different areas? Does Deputy Norton admit that?

The Deputy has moved an amendment, and surely he might explain what it means. So far as I understand it the Minister has given two different explanations. Would Deputy Norton explain what he means, having heard the discussion?

Deputy McGilligan's advice to-night seems to me to be like that of a greyhound advising a hare how to escape. He is very upset as to what we should do about this. The Deputy, of course, objects because this goes further than the notorious fair wages clause which enabled sweated rates of wages to be paid and paid with the Deputy's sanction, when he was a Minister, on the Shannon Scheme. The fair wages clause that the Deputy has been hugging with such affection to-night is the kind of fair wages clause that enabled workers to be sweated on the Shannon Scheme.

Was there a fair wages clause in connection with the Shannon Scheme?

I ask the Deputy to look it up.

There was not one.

I think the Deputy will find that he is wrong. I do not expect the Deputy to take much notice of anything that purports to give fair wages. The Deputy is off colour this evening. The Deputy says that this is an attempt to get a certain rate of wages, a very high rates of wages, out of the milling industry. If the Deputy spent more time reading the amendment, as much time as induced Deputy O'Sullivan to be curious about it, he would see perfectly well what the amendment means. The amendment says that in every mill there shall be paid a rate of wages and conditions of labour observed on the same basis as those that are the subject of agreement between the millers on the one hand and the trade unions on the other. If, for instance, there are twenty mills in the country and that the owners of fifteen of them on the one hand and the trade unions catering for the mill workers on the other enter into an agreement, then that agreement is binding on all the mills in the country. That is the position to-day. If that agreement provides for varying rates of wages then the varying rate of wages is applicable. If it does not there is no varying rate applicable. If the employers, representing the interests of the mill owners, freely enter into an agreement with the trades union one can reasonably argue that that rate and that agreement between both should be made applicable all over the industry. If it has any variations, the variations apply. If there are no variations, because the employers do not desire variations then there is no need for variations.

That is eminently clear now.

As I understand the position there are varying rates of wages in different areas. I speak with knowledge of one particular industry. If Deputy Norton inquires, I think he will find this to be the case: that in that particular industry as well as in most others—I think it is true of all industries—the rates paid in rural areas are much less than those paid in urban areas. As I understand Deputy Norton's amendment it means this: that, supposing, there are half a dozen mills in say, Dublin, Cork and Galway paying a certain rate of wages, then that rate should apply to small mills in different areas throughout the country —in Athlone and other places. That is the proposal, as I understand it. I do not know whether the Minister so understands it or not.

A number of what I may call rurally situated mills suffer certain disadvantages. Their output is limited, and consequently their costs are higher, for reasons that I need not argue, than those of a mill with a larger output. The cost of the transport of fuel is considerably higher in the case of the rural mill than it is in that of the urban mill because, as the Minister knows, the majority of the latter are close to the seaport. To compensate for those disadvantages which the rural mills suffer, they have a lower rate of wages which enables them to compete, as regards costs of production, with the mills that are more favourably situated. If this proposal is embodied in the Act, and is put into operation by the various labour unions, then I am afraid it will defeat the policy of decentralisation which I understand the Minister has in mind. I understand it is part of his policy to decentralise in the case of these industries.

I would ask the Minister to go more thoroughly into this amendment, because I think there is more behind it than appears on the surface. If he is going to raise the rates in the milling industry in a particular rural area, that is going to have reactions not only on other mills in that area but on other industries, and these are going to cause trouble. I suggest to the Minister that this simple, innocent-looking amendment of Deputy Norton's should be inquired into before he accepts the principle underlying it.

I do not think that Deputy Good need have any fear of the re-actions he suggests. I think he can be reassured beforehand that the unions catering for these workers must of necessity negotiate with the mills in the various areas. This is all provided for within the terms of this amendment. We know that in practice it is not: that because a certain wage is paid in Dublin the same rate of wage would be paid, say in Macroom in County Cork. We are also aware that the employers in any given industry usually in co-operation and in conference with the employees or workers in that industry arrange for the rates of wages to be paid. I do not know that there is even one case where the conditions envisaged by Deputy Good did apply. As a matter of fact, I am aware that in many industries there are different rates for different districts. There are in some cases, three different grades. We feel that this amendment as it stands need not have conjured up in the mind of Deputy Good all those horrible things that he suggests would happen if the amendment passed in its present form. There is nothing in this amendment that would prevent employers and employees in any given industry coming together and fixing any rate of wages amongst themselves.

I gathered from the mover of the amendment that what is likely to happen is this:— That if there were twenty mills and fifteen decided on a certain rate of wages that that rate of wages would be fixed. It would depend on the majority of the employers and employees what rate of wages would be fixed, not for themselves but for the rest of the country. Is it not possible that in any particular case that the larger mills in the cities might take it into their heads to crush out the smaller mills in the country? I want to discuss the explanation of the amendment put down by Deputy Norton. When we had this before us previously there was a very strong insistence on the advisability of maintaining the small mills throughout the country. Let us grant that a fair wages will be given. But how will it be assured under this amendment? Then you will go before a central body to fix wages, not merely each in its particular area, but all the millers will come together and fix wages for the whole country.

As at present.

Is there not in this just precisely the weeding-out possibility of the smaller mills which have very different expenses owing to transport and owing even to their small turnover? I gather that instead of the amendment being clear, three or four views were taken during the discussion on its meaning by the mover and by the Minister himself. The Minister explained it afterwards, but we got almost diametrically opposite views. Still I am not clear who, in this matter, will do the wage-fixing. Will it be the industry as a whole or will it be the local people?

This is an industry in respect of which difficulties that would arise in other industries will not arise, because both the employers and the general body of the employees are organised and do, in fact, fix rates of wages themselves by agreement between themselves. There may be individual employers not members of the association and groups of workers not members of trade unions, but the industry as a whole is an organised industry in which the rates of wages are regulated by agreement.

Centrally?

The agreement provides for lower rates of wages in smaller rural areas than what is paid by the port mills. I have no doubt that Deputy O'Sullivan is right that the employers in the port mills might agree to level up rates, but the unions would be foolish to agree to that, because the centralisation of employment would mean less employment. It is the particular advantage of this agreement which enables the smaller rural areas to carry on and to compete successfully with the port mills. I have no fear that this amendment, if accepted, will do more than prevent one or two or three individual millers who, because of special considerations, may attempt to force wages down below the general level of the recognised rates from doing so, and I know it will force the level up. What the rate in the future will be, will be determined by the agreements between the employers and the employees. If no agreement is possible, then the workers will go on strike.

If no agreement is come to, does this section apply?

The section for the payment of the rate generally recognised by trade unions? If the trade unions were to decide that in consequence of the rise in the cost of living they could put in a demand for an increase in the rate of wages and the employers resisted that demand, then there would be no rate recognised and the situation would be settled as such situations are usually settled.

The Minister understands the position as pointed out by Deputy Norton. He says that in that particular case the rate is to be governed by what is paid by the majority of mills. That does not agree with what the Minister suggests, because the majority of mills may be urban mills.

No. The rate paid, the rate agreed upon by the majority of mills and trade unions. The agreements always provide for varying rates between cities and rural areas.

I think that should be made clear, because the interpretation that will be put on this, I am quite satisfied by the Labour representatives on the other side, will be that it is a uniform rate. The Minister is quite clear that it is a differential rate. I would not rely upon the wisdom of the trade unions to protect the rural industries.

I am quite prepared when this amendment is inserted in the Bill to examine it so as to ensure that it cannot possibly debar an agreement being made between employers and employees that would allow differential rates in rural areas.

The Minister recognises it as essential that there should be differential rates?

Yes, and I am anxious to preserve the rural mills because otherwise there would be a greater centralisation of employment.

Amendment 37 agreed to.

I move amendment 38.

In sub-section (2) (a) (ii), page 11, to delete all after the word "Minister" to the end of line 3 and substitute the words "shall transfer to such person subject to such conditions as may have been prescribed for such transfer."

This amendment is one limiting the discretion of the Minister in certain cases. In this case it refers to the transfer. The section says that the Minister may in his absolute discretion transfer or refuse to transfer such a licence. I propose that all after the word "Minister" shall be deleted and the section will then read: "The Minister shall transfer such licence to such person subject to such conditions as may have been prescribed for such transfer." The Minister will argue again, as he did on previous sections on rather similar amendments, that it is imperative that he should have this discretion. I think in this particular instance where it is in the granting of a licence or in the transferring of a licence that this is rather an obnoxious section.

The amendment I suggest provides against the possibility of a transfer to an impossible applicant, because the transfer will be subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. I do not want to go at length into the amendment. We have already debated amendments on the same lines to different sections. I think in this particular case rather more could be said for the amendment. It is not a case where the Minister is granting a new licence; it is a case where it may be necessary for the holder of the licence, for different reasons, to transfer it. There should not be absolute discretion on the part of the Minister in the matter of refusing a transfer and I think the amendment offers a much better way of dealing with the matter.

I will, perhaps, astonish the Deputy by saying that it is not essential that there should be absolute discretion in this case. What is the section? The section sets out that when the ownership of a mill is transferred either by act of the parties or by operation of law, by sale or by inheritance or anything else, the Minister shall not refuse to transfer the licence if the mill has passed into the ownership of nationals of Saorstát Eireann or companies which are Irishowned companies within the meaning of the Act. The paragraph which the Deputy seeks to amend provides that in certain cases the Minister may in his absolute discretion transfer a licence to non-nationals. I do not think the circumstances are likely to arise where that discretion will be exercised; but it may be exercised and, on examination, I think the Deputy will observe that it is advisable to have that power to transfer licences to non-nationals in very exceptional circumstances. I can assure the Deputy that so long as I have anything to do with it the circumstances will be very exceptional indeed in which I will consent to transfer a licence in the flour-milling industry to a non-national. If a person is a national of Saorstát Eireann within the meaning of the Act—that is, a person or company owning 51 per cent. of the capital invested in the mill—the transfer of the licence cannot be refused under this section. If it is a foreign corporation or a non-national, then the licence may be transferred at the Minister's discretion, but it is very unlikely that it will be.

Will the Minister say whether a licence attached to a mill is a saleable asset?

Yes, saleable when the sale is to a national of Saorstát Eireann.

That will be a condition. It is known to the Minister that a licensed house is generally sold with the licence attaching to it; it makes the property much more valuable. The same would apply to a mill. The Minister will be prepared to grant the transfer of the licence to the new holder provided the new holder is a national?

The transfer of the licence cannot, in such circumstances, be refused.

I am not so sure that the section relates solely to non-nationals. That is not stated.

Yes, it is.

The Minister has taken pains to mention a few interesting details. He pointed out that it must be Irish-owned—by a national of Saorstát Eireann, or a person who has come into possession of a mill through a will or otherwise. In the last case the person to whom it may be willed may not be a national.

Quite so.

There might be other cases not adequately covered by the section. In any case, the amendment would not preclude the Minister from taking such action as he might deem desirable.

Yes, it would.

Regulations could be drawn up, and I think things would be done much better through regulations than through the absolute prerogative of the Minister.

What the Deputy said just now is not what the amendment proposes. The amendment proposes that in these other cases the licence shall be transferred, but subject to prescribed conditions. Definitely the licence will have to be transferred, even though conditions may be attached to it. The purpose of the section is to ensure that the licence will be something which may be sold or gifted or inherited, always subject to the one condition that if it is a sale or a transfer by way of gift it must be to a national of Saorstát Eireann. In such a case there is no power to refuse the licence transfer. In other cases, where the mill is sold to a non-national or a foreign corporation, the Minister may, in his discretion, allow the transfer; but he may also refuse it. If the amendment were carried he would have to transfer it, but he would be entitled to impose conditions, and I do not think that should be done. I think there should be power to refuse the transfer in these cases. Those who are aware of certain developments that did take place or were threatening in the Irish flour-milling industry should be slow to insist that where a non-national corporation purchases an existing mill with a licence attached to it, it should be entitled to a transfer of that licence. I could not agree with that at all.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 22.
A milling licence shall cease to be in force on the revocation of such licence or the refusal of the Minister to transfer such licence under the immediately preceding section which ever first happen.

On behalf of Deputy McGilligan I beg to move amendment 39:—

In line 10 to delete the word "on" and substitute the words "six months after."

In the event of a licence being revoked it will require some time for the person whose business is interfered with to clear up his affairs. The only proposal in the amendment is that sufficient time be given to the person whose licence has been revoked to settle up his affairs. He cannot shut down at once. The suggestion is to give him time to tidy up after the action of the Minister in revoking his licence.

The only circumstances under which a licence may be revoked are those set out in Section 32 and, briefly, they are that the licence was procured by fraud or misrepresentation, that the business of milling wheat has ceased to be carried on, that the holder of the licence has been convicted of an offence under the Act and that there has been a breach of any condition of the licence. As regards the second, where the business of milling wheat has ceased to be carried on, that can be left out. In the case of the others, sub-section (3) provides that a fortnight's notice is given to the holder of the licence of the Minister's intention to revoke the licence and also the reasons for so revoking it. The Minister is required to consider any representations made by the holder and may, if he thinks fit, cause an inquiry to be held in relation to the matter. In view of the only three circumstances under which the licence could be revoked it is clear that the giving of six months' time would be entirely unreasonable. If a person has got a licence by fraud or misrepresentation, if he is convicted of an offence under the Act or if he has proceeded to depart from the conditions imposed by the licence, then the giving of six months might easily mean the disorganisation of the scheme.

I will admit that if we suppose the Act to be administered by entirely unreasonable people, completely independent of public opinion and not likely to be affected by any criticism directed against them here, it would be possible in that way to inflict hardship, but I think the supposition should be the other way, knowing that the Minister responsible—no matter who he is personally—may be held accountable in the Dáil for everything he does. He will, therefore, be constrained to act reasonably and, if he acts unreasonably, there is no fear of any injustice being done in consequence of this provision. We provide that the licence cannot be withdrawn without the holder getting notice of the reasons why it is proposed to withdraw it and being afforded an opportunity of making any representations he likes. If these representations controvert the facts on which the Minister has acted, he may have an inquiry held and await the report of that inquiry before revoking the licence.

I want to emphasise that this is an intricate scheme. It is probably one of the most intricate schemes which the Executive Council of this State will be called upon to administer at any time. Nothing of this nature has been attempted in legislation up to the present and we cannot afford to have the delicate machinery wrecked by somebody deliberately throwing a spanner into the works. That is why we must have, in certain respects, rather drastic penalties for those who feel inclined to act in that way. Consequently, the miller who gets a licence, who knows the law and decides to break it and is convicted by the Court of breaking it must feel that there is a definite penalty which may be a serious one to him—withdrawal of his licence entirely. That would only be done in grave circumstances and when the success of the scheme would be endangered. The Minister would be called upon in every such case to defend his action. Deputies will remember the public agitation, which lasted a considerable time, in connection with a provision in the Finance Bill and the closing down of a tobacco factory. No Minister could shut down a milling factory and not be subject to the same amount of criticism. He would want to be sure of his ground and to be able to defend his action before he would act in that way.

We can discuss the penalties when we come to Section 32. Having already prescribed various penalties in Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Schedule, the Minister provides in Section 32—as I mentioned on Second Reading—a much bigger penalty, the complete withdrawal, for certain offences, of the licence. A man comes before the Court. He is fined by the Court. But the penalty does not stop there, as the Minister has just pointed out. The Minister constitutes himself a super-court and can inflict a bigger penalty on the defaulting miller. The fortnight's notice and investigation do not meet the point intended to be met by this amendment because, until the Minister's decision to revoke the licence is given, the miller will carry on his business in the normal way. The amendment suggests that, after notice, some time should be given—a reasonable time—to the miller to clear up the remnant of his business. His business is, under the present provisions, going to stop on the day the Minister issues the notice. That is the first indication he will have of the Minister's decision. The mere fact that the Minister investigates the matter is no indication that the decision will be against the miller. What happens under the Bill at present is that the miller is not given any notice. The mill must stop on actual revocation of the licence. There is no opportunity for putting the business in order or winding it up in an orderly fashion. So far as the employees are concerned, there is no provision on their behalf either. I think the notice referred in Section 32 and the fact that an inquiry is held are really irrelevant so far as this amendment is concerned.

The Minister says that we must assume that the administration of the Act will be reasonable. Quite so. But, surely, the Minister will agree that this House is not the place in which to discuss individual cases of that kind. However, that is a matter we can debate more fully when we are dealing with the penalties. What we are now dealing with is not the penalty at all. The penalty is the revocation of the licence. The amendment proposes that time be given to wind up the business in a normal way without inflicting unnecessary damage on the miller. I do not see how that will interfere with the very delicate machinery of the Bill. However simple the Bill may be in drafting, I agree that it will be very intricate in operation. The Minister will find that out. That particular phase has not been absent from the minds of the critics of this policy. In operation, the Bill will prove very intricate. Whether it will ever work out or not, is another matter. I ask the Minister to give a fair amount of time to an offender to wind up his business.

I think this would be the wrong section in which to do that. Once a licence is revoked, it should be revoked. If the Deputy will refer to sub-section (3) of Section 33 he will see that Deputy McMenamin has an amendment to extend the period of a fortnight to a month. I am disposed to accept that. That gives the miller a month's notice of the Minister's intention to revoke the licence.

Or to hold an inquiry?

To revoke the licence, giving his reasons for revocation. If he can convince the Minister that he is wrong, he is at liberty to make the attempt. If he is up against a concrete fact, if he has been convicted, he will have that month and a certain indefinite longer time to wind up his business. This is not the section on which to deal with the point the Deputy has raised. Once the licence is revoked, it should be definitely and finally revoked.

The Minister having given notice that he will receive representations from the person concerned, will he, having received representations and given his decision, allow a month's time or two months' time in which to have the business wound up?

There will be a month in which to make the representations.

Again, the miller is not in a definite position to know what the decision of the Minister is until his representations have been considered.

He is informed of the Minister's decision to revoke his licence. A month elapses. During that month, he may appeal against the decision, putting forward any facts he likes. If the facts are such that the Minister considers further inquiry necessary, he may order further inquiry, in which case revocation is held up until the inquiry is over. If the miller has no defence to make, then, at the end of the month, his licence will expire.

That does not quite meet the case. There will be, as the Minister said—I am not stressing the words—a kind of appeal, though not an appeal in the formal sense. The man cannot know until the Minister has heard that appeal— possibly until further inquiry is held— what the definite decision is. He will carry on in the normal way, and then, when the decision comes, he will have no opportunity to wind up his business. Would the Minister consider giving him a period of a month before revocation would become operative?

It has to be borne in mind that the only circumstance in which a licence can be revoked is that the miller has been convicted in court of a breach of the Act; that it is demonstrated that he procured his licence by fraud or that he has, in fact, broken the conditions of his licence.

That is terrifically vague.

Take the case of a conviction. In that case some reasonable time should be given because, as Deputy O'Sullivan said, up to the time the licence is actually revoked the man must go on, because it is a question of closing down or not closing down a mill. If it is carried on there are overhead charges. The machines will go on until the last day. You cannot turn out the maximum amount unless you have two or three hundred tons of raw material. Assuming negotiations fail and the Minister revokes the licence, then there will be two or three hundred tons of stuff undisposed of. Look at how the man is penalised. He is fined; afterwards his business is destroyed, and he has two or three hundred tons of stuff left on his hands.

A fortnight, as the Bill stands at present, a month if the amendment is put in, is the minimum period. There is nothing to prevent the Minister giving five years, if necessary, but he must get a minimum period of one month if the amendment is carried.

We want the minimum period to run after the final decision; to give notice, having heard representations, that in a month's time the business will be closed down. If the Minister looks into it he will see that there is justice in the case.

I will look into that point and see if we can fix it up.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
(1) Whenever the Minister grants in respect of any mill a milling licence he shall at the same time make an order fixing the quota for such mill and the quota fixed by such order shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be for the purposes of this Part of this Act the quota for such mill in respect of every quota year.
(2) The Minister may at the times and under the conditions hereinafter specified in this section make in relation to any licensed mill an order (in this section referred to as a quota variation order) varying the quota for such mill and whenever any such order is made in respect of a mill the quota as varied by such order shall, subject to the making of a subsequent quota variation order, be for the purposes of this Part of this Act the quota for such mill in respect of every year to which such order applies in lieu of the quota in force at the time of the making of such order.
(3) The Minister may, before the 1st day of February in all or any of the first three quota years for a mill, make a quota variation order increasing or reducing the quota for that mill in respect of the quota year in which such order is made and every subsequent quota year.
(4) The Minister may, on or after the 1st day of February in all or any of the first three quota years for a mill, make a quota variation order increasing or diminishing the quota for that mill in respect of every subsequent quota year.
(5) The Minister may, on or after the 1st day of February in the fifth quota year for a mill and after the fifth in every or any second successive quota year for that mill, make a quota variation order increasing or reducing the quota for that mill in respect of every subsequent quota year.
(6) The Minister may, before the 1st day of February in the fifth or every or any subsequent quota year for a mill, if he is satisfied that in the preceding quota year the quota for that year was not milled at such mill, make a quota variation order reducing the quota for that mill in respect of that quota year and every subsequent quota year.

I move amendment 40 standing in the name of Deputy McGilligan:—

In sub-section (1), line 26, to delete the word "fixing" and substitute the word "prescribing," and in line 27 to delete the word "fixed" and substitute the word "prescribed."

This and other amendments have to do practically with the same situation we have already discussed, namely, the prescribing and the physical action which is an opportunity for publicity.

It is not possible to do it in this case.

There must obviously be elasticity in dealing with the allocation. If it were necessary to make orders and table them for the House it would complicate the procedure in the Bill considerably. I should like to say, however, definitely that the intention is that all mills that manufactured here in 1931 will get a quota for the future equal to their maximum milling capacity in 1931. Some of them may get an increase. In respect of new mills the quota will be limited. Again, it will be fixed at the capacity of the mill. Deputies, therefore, need not anticipate that there can be any variation that will be unfavourable to millers. The only circumstance in which the quota may come down is if a miller does not succeed in disposing of his flour. If he mills bad flour and people will not buy it and he finds at the end of the year that he has only come up to eighty per cent. of the quota, for the ensuing year the quota would be reduced by twenty per cent. Ultimately it might disappear altogether, as his quota would be diminished as he failed to sell the flour. So long as he is able to sell the flour at the price he is offering it, his quota cannot be reduced once fixed. The quota will be fixed on the total capacity of his mill, not working overtime, working 132 hours per week, and it will not diminish unless he is doing bad business.

He may have to do bad business independent of anything he can control. The Irish-grown wheat that he can secure may be of such a character in that particular year that the flour may not be marketable.

That is another section.

In that case, he will not be able to dispose of his flour and, therefore, a variation comes about in his quota.

Under any circumstances, he suffers no penalty if he gets up to ninety per cent. If his deficiency is less than ten per cent., there is no penalty. There is a ten per cent. margin. It is only when he falls below ninety per cent. that he becomes liable to a penalty. We must have that. We are depending on the licensed mills to maintain the flour supply and are making it a punishable offence for the miller to fail to mill the quota. It is conceivable that a miller, or a group of millers, could decide to wreck the scheme by deliberately working only half-time. That might arise at some time. You can conceive it happening. There might be an attempt by millers to try to force up prices by underproduction, in which case they become liable to penalty. It is necessary that elasticity in the fixing of the quota should be provided for. Deputies can get information as to the quotas by means of Parliamentary question, but I do not think we should be required to fix them by regulation, which is formal and cumbersome.

The point comes under another section, but I raise this because the Minister referred to it, that a man may not be able to mill his quota owing to circumstances over which he has no control. The Minister referred to the fact that it would be due to bad business on his part if he did not mill the full quota and, therefore, it would be cut down. It may be due to circumstances imposed upon him by the Bill that he will not be able to mill the full quota. Anyhow, we can discuss this on the other section.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 41.

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"The quota fixed for a mill by the Minister in accordance with the next preceding sub-section shall be the estimated capacity of that mill for the quota year or the unexpired portion thereof, or if not such quota shall be for all mills the same percentage of such estimated capacity."

What the Minister has stated probably meets the amendment if it means that the quota will be fixed at the estimated capacity for 1931.

The Deputy will appreciate that the capacity could be fixed on a purely empiric basis. There are a thousand ways in which you can measure the capacity of a mill. We could combine all these and get a rough-and-ready figure, but we could not get a set of words which would enable us to define it and put it into the Bill.

On general principles it will be on capacity?

Entirely.

Is it the quota for the first year or for every year that will be fixed on the capacity of 1931?

The quota for the first year will be fixed on the capacity, but a larger quota may be given in certain cases in future. Mills may be allowed to increase their capacity, but the quota will be the present capacity.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 42, 43 and 44 not moved.

I move amendment 45:—

At the end of the section to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(7) For the purpose of this section "estimated capacity" means the amount of flour which could be milled at such mill if the plant were working for 132 hours per week during 50 weeks in the quota year.

This provides for the very thing the Minister suggested, that is, the estimated capacity.

The Deputy is attempting to define capacity and I could point out flaws in it.

There should be some definition of estimated capacity, and I suggest that it should be the full capacity of that mill when working night and day shifts of 132 hours per week during 50 weeks.

At what speed?

Their best speed, I suppose. We must have some definition, and I suggest that the best way we can put it would be to say that the quota should be fixed at the utmost capacity of the mill.

That is what we intend to do, but we cannot define it.

Will the Minister try to arrive at some definition before the next stage of the Bill?

We can get one effective way of finding out the quota, and that is to have every other miller check up the estimated quota given by an individual. It is the only way we can get, I think, a fairly accurate figure.

But we will be at loggerheads if nobody is going to define what the permitted capacity is.

We have given them a quota at the present time which is working satisfactorily, and has seemed satisfactory to everybody.

Amendment 45, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 46:—

To insert at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(7) In making under the immediately preceding sub-section a quota variation order reducing the quota for a mill the Minister shall have regard to the amount of wheat milled at such mill in the quota year preceding the quota year in which such order is made.

This amendment was suggested by people who wanted to have in the Bill an indication of the manner in which we were to work. In making "an order reducing the quota for a mill the Minister shall have regard to the amount of wheat milled at such mill in the quota year preceding the quota year in which such order is made." In other words, if a mill, for reasons within the control of the miller, failed to mill up to 90 per cent. of its quota, then its quota may be reduced. In deciding on the new quota this amendment would require the Minister to have regard to the amount by which the miller failed to reach the quota. If the miller's failure to reach the quota is due to fire, strikes, or a breakdown in machinery, there is no punishment, but if it is due to the fact that the quality of the flour is so bad that nobody will buy it, or to some reason within his control—if he is an inefficient miller, who must be eliminated in any case—then his quota may be reduced, and the reduction shall be made having regard to the amount by which he failed to reach his quota.

The Minister is assuming again that if there is a reduction in his power of selling the flour it is due to bad business on his part.

I refer the Deputy to amendment 50, which provides that: "Where a miller satisfies the court that such failure was attributable to circumstances over which he had no control" then there is no penalty.

In fact, it may be due to the circumstances I have mentioned. Whether the court can take cognisance of that I am not sure.

Amendment 46 agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
Section 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26.
(1) Every holder of a milling licence in respect of a particular mill shall, subject to the provisions of this section, mill into flour at such mill in the preliminary quota period (if any) and in every quota year the quota for such mill in respect of such period or year (as the case may be).
(2) The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, by licence authorise the holder of a milling licence in respect of a particular mill to mill into wheaten meal a certain specified proportion of the quota for such mill in respect of the preliminary quota period (if any) or a specified quota year, and in such case any amount of wheat, not in excess of the said proportion, milled into wheaten meal during the preliminary quota period (if any) or such year at such mill shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to have been milled into flour at such mill during such period or year.
(3) If any holder of a milling licence in respect of a particular mill fails to mill into flour at such mill during the preliminary quota period (if any) or any quota year the quota for such mill in respect of such period or year, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to the penalties mentioned in Part III of the First Schedule to this Act.
The following amendments stood on the Order Paper:—
47. In sub-section (2), line 13, to delete the words "if he so thinks fit" and substitute the words "in accordance with regulations to be prescribed"—(George C. Bennett).
48. In sub-section (3), line 23, after the word "fails" to insert the words "except by reason of a strike, a fire, the breakdown of machinery or any other circumstance outside the control of the holder of the licence."— (George C. Bennett).
49. In sub-section (3), page 12, line 24, to insert after the word "year" the words "an amount of wheat which is at least ninety per cent. of".—(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála).
50. In sub-section (3), page 12, line 25, to insert after the word "shall" the words "unless he satisfies the court that such failure was attributable to circumstances over which he had no control."—(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála).

I take it that amendment 47 will not be accepted, in face of other arguments earlier in the night.

Then why argue it again?

Amendment 47 not moved.

Amendment 48 is covered by amendment 50. I suggest that my amendment No. 50 meets the point of No. 48, and that it is not necessary to move it.

Amendment 48 not moved.

Amendment 49 involves a slight alteration in the scheme of the Bill as originally introduced. As originally introduced the Bill provided that there would be no fine for excess production, except the excess production exceeded the quota by more than 10 per cent. The millers took exception to that, on the grounds that it might operate to enable the large mills definitely to crush out of existence the small mills, as ten per cent. of the excess capacity of a 40-sack mill would be equal to the entire production of a 4-sack mill. Consequently, they proposed that instead of having that permitted excess the fine should operate upon every sack of flour produced in excess of the quota, so that we might get this margin for elasticity by providing that no penalty would operate if the miller failed to reach his quota by ten per cent. It is a better arrangement; it works out more fairly, and it provides for elasticity, so that the miller would not be required to mill to the exact sack and stop at that —bearing in mind that that ten per cent. margin operates.

Amendment 50 is to provide that the penalty for not reaching the quota cannot be inflicted if the court is satisfied that the failure is attributable to circumstances over which the miller had no control. In the majority of cases, if it were known to the Minister that the failure to reach the quota was due to such circumstances there would be no prosecution. The attitude of my legal advisers was that this amendment was not necessary, as a discretion would be exercised by the Minister, and the Minister would not prosecute unless he were satisfied that failure to reach the quota was due to circumstances over which the miller had control. I felt it safer to get this amendment into the Bill, in case the advice was wrong, so that the court would be behind the Minister in ensuring that justice would be done.

Amendments 49 and 50 agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.

Perhaps the Minister will explain how that amendment he referred to a short time ago has any reference to amendment 46 that he moved. He referred me at that time to amendment 50 as meeting the objection I had.

The Deputy's point, as I understand it, is that the miller might fail to reach his quota because he was required to mill Irish wheat.

I will state the point exactly. In a certain portion of the country, owing to the weather in that particular year—we will grant the Minister that in most parts of the country you can produce Irish wheat that is millable—there may be no local wheat available for that purpose. The miller may find great difficulty in importing wheat from outside. He may be thrown back on the local wheat, which may be quite unsuitable and may interfere with the quality of the flour he produces. In that particular case, merely because he cannot dispose of his flour, which is bad, owing to the bad quality of the wheat in that particular area, his quota is cut down.

That could not happen, of course, unless the scheme began to break down, and a definite mistake were made in the administration of it. The quota of home-grown wheat which must be utilised should be so regulated as to ensure that every miller would be able to get within the country his part of that quota of home-grown wheat. I mean that it will be available for him. The miller in Donegal might have to go to Tipperary for it, and the miller in Cork might have to buy wheat in Dublin; there might be some movement within the country, although generally speaking it would be possible for most mills to get the wheat within their own area. If a quota were fixed on which the miller would only be able to get unsuitable wheat, all he need do would be to make the necessary representations to the Minister for Agriculture, and the Minister for Agriculture, if he were satisfied with the representations, would reduce the quota, thus making the wheat available for him.

We can discuss that under Section 27. It brings in again that distinction which the Minister for Agriculture might doubt, namely, the two meanings of millable —wheat that is able to be milled and wheat suitable to be milled.

The miller has another safeguard under the Bill, and that is that he can get some other miller in an area where suitable wheat is available to mill his quota for him. It is not necessary that the miller should mill his quota in his own mill. It is quite conceivable that a group of millers may themselves decide that all the wheat would be milled in one particular mill which is suitably situated. That is a quite conceivable thing and quite permissible under the Bill provided a fixed quota of home-grown wheat is grown somewhere in the country.

If we had a definition of what is millable wheat the quota fixed on millable wheat, then there could not be any reasonable objection to milling that; but hereafter if we come away from the definition "millable wheat" and you get a statement made that so much wheat will have to be used then you are going to have the millers running around the liable millers helter-skelter all over the country to know if there is some wheat (food) which they will undertake to mill. Without a definition that will be the case.

I think the whole question of millable wheat arises on Section 27.

Amendment No. 25 agreed to.

26, as amended. Amendments 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 58. They appear to be out of order inasmuch as they appear to negative the intentions of the section. It is to mill annually a percentage of home-grown wheat. This does not indicate how the wheat is to be disposed of. There is no obligation to mill in these amendments.

No obligation. It is not out of order to negative a section. I am proposing to amend certain particulars negativing the section.

The passage of the section would negative it.

It is not in order to negative the section by amendment.

Not necessarily. They would remove the obligation but they would still get the wheat. I was wondering on what grounds. I thought it might be they were against the object of the Bill, which, of course, would be a complete answer to the amendments, if true or if accurate, but I suggest they are not contrary to the purpose of the Bill, because the purpose of the Bill is to get so much wheat grown in the country and this Bill leaves that. If we get down to the section, is the obligation to mill a percentage of home-grown wheat? I suggest it should be imposed. This is the first step towards the milling of wheat and thereafter he may mill it.

And dispose of it?

If he cannot dispose of all of it he must mill it.

It would make milling optional, which is contrary to the intention of the section.

I carry out my disposition which enables a person to purchase this obligatory quota of home-grown wheat either to mill it himself or sell it to the Minister or get the Minister to give him a bounty, and then he can do what he likes. If he cannot do any of these things then he has got to mill it. The obligation is in the background.

The Deputy could argue that on the section. The whole decision would hang that the section be part of the Bill.

Yes, I could do that. I can argue my point, say, on 53 and 55.

55 is better. I think if the Deputy confines himself to 55 we might get a decision of all the amendments on that.

I do not see what 53 and 55 have got to do with 52. 52 is my usual point and where the section says "may vary" he must prescribe variation. That is entirely a different meaning to any of the others. 53 and 55, and possibly 54 will run together.

The net result of the amendments if passed would be that there is no obligation on the miller to mill.

May I take that phrase in relation to amendment 52? In amendment 52 I propose to delete the word "vary" and substitute the words "prescribe a variation of." That has nothing whatever to do where there is an obligation on the miller to mill or merely to purchase, whether or not the percentage is to be—without the House knowing anything about it. All the sub-sections might mean the deletion of the whole clause but still you might delete sub-section (3) and leave (1) and (2) stand. One of these may be carried. If that is carried the others may not be carried.

The net result of the series of amendments would be to destroy the intention in the application of the section. In the circumstances possibly the Minister or the Deputy could move 52 and 55.

52 is an entirely different matter. Might I say, having some sort of appreciation of the setting of these inasmuch as I drafted them, I would agree that 51, 53 and 55 certainly ought run together? I think it is pretty clear that 54 goes in with those and possibly also 58 but 52 and 56 are entirely different.

52 is different, I agree with that.

52 then is simply the ordinary amendment that has been referred to so often here that by further orders there might be a variation. I want to have instead of the phrase used "prescribe variation of", the whole object being to get in the word "prescribed," the object of that being that anything prescribed can be done by regulation and a regulation must come before the House as a complementary amendment to that. I should have moved, and would have if I had thought of it, to change line 31 and make an order requiring by order prescribed, but if it is going to be accepted with regard to the variation I shall assume it will be accepted in regard to the order and I suggest for such a fundamental matter as this is that it should not be dealt with by an order which the Minister may make and not promulgated to this House. It should be done using the phrase "prescribe by order" because it is the word "prescribes" which catches not the word "order" unless we are to take it that it is the intention under sub-section (7) that every order including variation order will come before the House.

Yes, I think the intention is to have those variation orders laid on the Table and I think it is covered by sub-section (7). In case it is not we can consider that on Report Stage.

The intention is that the order making the percentage and the order varying it would both come before the House?

Yes, that is the intention.

Amendment 52 withdrawn.

Is Deputy McGilligan moving amendment 53?

I can talk about it on the section. It is all the same.

Amendment 53 not moved.
Amendments 54, 55 and 56 not moved.

I move amendment 57:—

In sub-section (3), line 53, to delete the words "with the consent of" and substitute the words "on giving notice of the proposed undertaking to."

This is clearly outside the other category. The sub-section sets out that a man on whom is an obligation to mill a certain amount of Irish grown wheat can transfer that obligation to another miller if that other miller undertakes to mill that amount of Irish grown wheat for him. The phrase in the section is that he may get this other miller to take that obligation from him "with the consent of the Minister." Why should the Minister's consent be necessary? I can see the necessity for having it notified to the Minister so that he will be able to keep track of it and be able to take the necessary prosecutions, in case the undertaking miller does not carry out his undertaking, but why is the Minister's consent necessary? I suggest instead that the giving of notice be sufficient. If a man likes to undertake the obligation there ought not to be any question of the Minister's consent.

I think the matter could be considered. I do not see any strong argument against it, but I would want to consult the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the point.

Hold it over then.

Amendment 57 withdrawn.
Amendment 58 not moved.

I move amendment 59:—

In sub-section (3), line 60, after the word "wheat" to insert the words "and the Minister shall not be entitled to withhold such consent save in accordance with provisions contained in regulations made under this Act."

This is practically akin to No. 57.

We can hold it over for consideration with No. 57.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

I move amendment 60:—

In sub-section (5), line 16, to delete the figure "I" and substitute the figure "III."

Again, I am aiming at the penalty. I have already spoken on this and I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat the arguments. There are three sets of penalties set out in the Schedule, under Parts I, II and III of the First Schedule. It is proposed here to impose the greatest penalties for any offence under this section. An offence may be one of, say, being a percentage or two short of the required percentage that a man might mill, and it might arise out of the millers not having a correct understanding as to what their obligations are inter se, and it is proposed to have these people subject to the possibility of imprisonment for an error of that type. I suggest again that the criterion I previously spoke of for the settlement of these penalties is, whether or not there is any great chance of the subterfuge succeeding. If not, if the thing is going to be open more or less in its defiance, it can be met very well by the heavy monetary penalties that can be inflicted under Part III of the First Schedule, and I suggest that we should not even subject the person concerned. as there is the possibility of slight errors accumulating, to the prospect of imprisonment, even though that imprisonment is to be at the discretion of the court.

I think this is one of the main sections of the Cereals Bill and any offence that might be committed under the section would have to be regarded as possibly serious. The penalty mentioned here is the maximum and, if only technical or a slight offence were committed, I have no doubt that the court would not inflict the maximum penalty. If this is a deliberate attempt, however, to evade the provisions of this section, it must be regarded as a serious offence.

Amendment 60 withdrawn.

Amendment 61 has some connection with amendments 6 and 7, which were withdrawn earlier in the day.

Oh, no. Amendments 6 and 7 were merely dealing with an order that had to be made and which I wanted made before a certain period in the year and a particular standard held then for a yearly period. That was negatived on the grounds that there was really no need why any point in the year should be fixed, but, if it were fixed, it would have to hold for the twelve months' period.

It was withdrawn, as a matter of fact, and not negatived.

Well, withdrawn, but amendment 61 gets back to the definition of "millable"—an entirely different thing. Sub-section (6) of this Section 27 as it stands says.

In fixing the appointed national percentage in respect of any cereal year the Minister shall have regard to the estimated quantity of wheat grown by registered wheat growers in Saorstát Eireann and available for sale in such cereal year.

As I had previously envisaged this Bill, it was proceeding entirely on the basis of wheat of a millable quality being grown and being forced on the millers of this country for turning into flour. Consequently, I thought that when the national percentage was going to be fixed, it ought to have relation, not to the amount of rubbish called wheat that might be grown in the country, but to millable wheat, and that the national percentage would be fixed with that in mind. Of course, since then we have been told that the possibility of getting any idea of what millable is has been more or less despaired of, but I hold that "millable" is as essential here as anywhere else, and I think the Minister would agree that if he had any hopes of getting a definition of "millable wheat," the national percentage would be fixed in relation to that and not in relation to all the wheat no matter of what quality grown in the country. Under these circumstances since we have the word "millable" in elsewhere—although we are told that there is no hope of getting a definition of it—I suggest that it should be put in here.

Even if we had a definition of "millable" we would not know when fixing the percentage.

Very well, put it in.

We would have to fix the percentage in August and, at that time, perhaps not 10 per cent. of the wheat would be thrashed, but the acreage and the yield would be known from samples that had been thrashed.

You would not even know the yield.

From samples you would.

You would only have an estimate.

And you would fix the national percentage on that.

At the end of August the Minister is going to form an estimate of the amount of wheat produced. Surely something else is necessary, an estimate as to the quality. Otherwise there is no use in fixing any percentage. Undoubtedly it is the amount of the wheat that is not below a certain quality that can be taken into account. There is no good including in the Minister's estimate a quantity of wheat below a certain quality. I think the Minister will admit that for the purpose of fixing the national percentage the only wheat he can take into account is wheat that does not fall below a certain quality. He is not in a position to fix that in the month of August, so that no useful purpose is served now by the Minister fixing the percentage, say, at the end of August. At what time can he fix it? When will he be in a position to fix the kind of wheat of a certain quality that has been produced? Is there any time at which he can vary the order afterwards? When will he be in a position to know whether the wheat is millable and should be used for milling? If he is not able to do that, how can he impose this obligation on the millers? That is the difficulty. Unless the Minister has some method of distinguishing between wheat that is millable, and wheat that is not millable, I do not see how the Bill can work.

Of course we could form a fair idea of the milling sorts. In my opinion this only deals with millable wheat.

That can be varied.

I have no objection to putting in these words.

If the Bill is to proceed on this basis, clearly we would have a Bill in which we are not going to put a definition of millable wheat. Otherwise you have to get some other provision, saying to the millers: "You are to mill so much wheat, good, bad or indifferent." If we have not given up that idea, the only proportion that can be borne in mind, when fixing the national percentage, is the amount of millable wheat likely to be grown and to be for sale. Otherwise you must get some other method of dealing with it. The gist of the section is:—

As soon as may be after the commencement of every cereal year the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, shall make an order requiring that of the total amount of wheat required under the immediately preceding section to be milled during such cereal year in all mills which are licensed mills at the commencement of such cereal year a percentage to be fixed by such order shall consist of home-grown wheat.

Surely that percentage was always envisaged—the percentage of millable wheat—and had relation to the amount of millable wheat grown in this country, and was related to the amount that had to be used for the production of the flour required. If we have not abandoned the word "millable" it is required in this section for the regulations. What the Minister says gives me another chance. He can vary the regulations whether the wheat is millable or not.

I have no objection. We hope to find a definition of this word "millable." It might be as well if the word would go in.

I suggest that it should go in.

Will we put in the word "millable"?

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment 62:—

To delete sub-section (7) and substitute the following sub-section:—

"No order made under this section shall come into operation until it has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and has been approved by resolution of each such House."

This is an alternative to the type of regulation or order. I think this is important enough to have put in in a positive form, because we are going to have a demand made on a miller to mill a certain percentage of home-grown wheat. Surely that order should be given each cereal year and should be brought before the House. Let there be a general order, but, if necessary, give certain elasticity to the Minister with regard to variation of the order after it has been passed by the House. I suggest that this is one of the main sections, and that an order in relation to it should come before the House positively for approval. The order could be brought in in sufficient time at the beginning of the cereal year so that the millers would know the obligation that was upon them. I have made this suggestion with regard to clauses, generally, but here is one particular clause imposing a special obligation, and it should be the subject of debate in the House.

It seems to me that this is the one case for which there is no argument in support of the positive form in which the Deputy's amendment is cast and where it is weakest. The order must be made within a very short period after the Department of Agriculture has been able to assess the quantity of wheat available and before it is offered for sale. That period of the year is a period when usually the Dáil is not in session. The orders may have to be varied at a time of the year when there could be no resolutions of the House. Of all the parts of the Bill in which it is necessary for the Minister to have power to make orders, this is the one part, and, in my opinion, it would entirely upset the whole working of the Bill if the amendment was enacted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 63:—

In sub-section (7), to delete all words after the word "accordingly," line 26, to the end of the sub-section.

My amendment touches on the same point as Deputy McGilligan's amendment, except that I propose to delete the last lines in the sub-section. I suggest that the amendment should be accepted, as otherwise the sub-section would be ridiculous. What is the use of proposing that an order should be laid before each House if a resolution of the Houses annulling it cannot have effect, as the Minister indicated in his reply? If that is a period of the year when the Houses will not be in session, it is obvious that the Minister will make an order at that period which cannot be annulled for a considerable time. It will be the same every successive year, so that the sub-section is useless unless the Minister accepts the amendment.

What I said on the previous section holds in this case. When the order is made it comes in, even though the Dáil may annul it later. All the plans could not be annulled later as that would cause endless confusion and hardship.

Then no order may be laid before the Houses.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dealing with the section, I think the Minister might clarify the situation a great deal if he would explain to the House what the procedure is, now that he has no method of defining what is millable wheat. Sometime at the end of August he is going to have a shot at the acreage or the yield. He admits that at the best that can only be a preliminary estimate, and on that the ultimate percentage prescribed in the section cannot be based, because, as the Minister has acknowledged, quite an amount of that wheat may not be millable. His answer was that in reality the only time we will be in a position to make up our minds, or that the Minister will be able to make up his mind, or the trade generally to make up its mind, as to what was or was not millable, would be when they had samples some time in August. Take the position, then, in which wheat of an inferior quality is offered to the miller and he refuses to take it. It may never get into the miller's hands. On what, then, will the Minister base his variation of the estimate he made in August? Surely, at some stage, there must be some method on which to base that, apart from waiting until the wheat gets into the miller's hands, because it may never get into his hands? Has the Minister any method of dealing with that particular contingency? How does the Minister propose to decide what is the proper amount of wheat suitable for milling or what is the proper percentage? Surely, that can only be done at the end of the year and not during the course of the year itself, unless there is some method of distinguishing between millable wheat and wheat not suitable for milling purposes. How does the Minister propose to work this particular section?

The procedure to be adopted, as the Deputy is aware, is that the officials of the Department of Agriculture report on the estimated wheat yield, and the Minister for Agriculture notifies the Minister for Industry and Commerce that there is an estimated quantity of wheat to be taken by the flour millers. The Minister for Industry and Commerce then fixes his quota for the flour millers. We do not do anything further so long as it is all right. But if the miller says that the percentage is too high and that they cannot get sufficient home-grown wheat of good quality to fill that percentage, those representations would be considered by us and we might vary the quota downwards. If, on the other hand, it is reported by our officials to the Department of Agriculture that there was more home-grown wheat than could be absorbed by the millers, we might inform the Minister for Industry and Commerce that we wished to have the percentage raised. It is for the millers to say whether they are getting a good quality of wheat or not.

How will the Minister for Agriculture, or the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or both Ministers together, come to their decision as to whether the reports of the flour millers are based on solid fact or not? Suppose that the millers allege that they cannot get the proper percentage of flour of the proper quality—how will the Minister decide whether there is reason in that claim or not? The Minister refers merely to quantity when he says that the officials of the Department would tell the Department of Agriculture that there was an amount either lower or in excess of the amount to be absorbed. Here is a question of quality also, and who will decide whether the wheat is up to the standard or not? How do the Ministers propose to deal with that?

I do not think that what the Minister said carries us very far. Supposing it were possible to divide wheat into two grades of millable wheat and non-millable wheat. Suppose that the distinction between these two grades was as great, say, as between a bad egg and eggs that are not bad, then, clearly, I envisage that the procedure likely to be adopted would be this: that there would be an obligation on the millers to mill all the millable wheat grown in the country and that they would not be asked to mill the non-millable wheat. But here we have an indefinite scheme.

There is nothing to enable the miller to say that one grade is not millable wheat or to enable the seller to say: "This wheat passes the test and you have got to have that or something like it." That being the case in the certain months referred to, are we not likely to have a miller saying: "Very good, I will take certain wheat and mill that," with the result that you will have certain wheat milled below the standard and that other people will have really millable wheat left on their hands, because, if the percentage is absorbed, whether that miller takes millable wheat or some sort of rubbish, he will have fulfilled any obligation put upon him. The result will be that people with wheat of a good class, but who reside in a particular area not served by a mill in that locality, or through difficulties of transport, or for some other similar reason, may have that good wheat left on their hands. I do not see how this suggestion of variation in the cereal year is going to help in a year. Do you mitigate the worst features of the situation that will develop as a result of having no standard of millable wheat by this variation?

Another matter which I want to argue on this section is the point I put forward previously and which has been objected to on the grounds that it amounts to a negation of the section. The miller, I say, should be allowed to purchase a certain amount of home-grown wheat. The object of the Bill being, as far as I can ascertain, to ensure that a certain amount of wheat is grown in this country and an increasing acreage put under wheat, if you insist on a man purchasing a certain amount of wheat but leaving it to his own discretion as to whether or not he will mill it or dispose of it for feeding stuffs or bread or some other purpose, I think you have still achieved the purpose you wish to achieve under the Bill and you do not impose an obligation on the people who are consuming bread-stuffs to pay a higher price because of the mixture necessitated under the clause as it stands. I put down a series of amendments the object of which was to insist on a miller purchasing a certain amount of home-grown wheat but leaving it to his own discretion to mill it if he likes or to dispose of it in some other way. In every amendment I suggested ways for his disposing of it, such as that he should ask the Minister to give him a bounty to enable him to export it or to hold it for him and to try to dispose of it for him afterwards. You would still have achieved the objects of your Bill, which are to get an increasing acreage put under wheat and have more wheat grown in this country, and then if it was not possible to absorb the whole amount the surplus could be exported.

What is to prevent a farmer selling the wheat to the millers and then buying it back as mere feeding-stuff for animals?

That could be prevented, because you control, under a later section, the quantity of wheat taken in by the mill. At any rate, if he did want to sell it as feeding-stuffs for animals, why should he not do that, so long as he did not want to pass it back and forward to get the bounties? However, I think that that is guarded against, and there is going to be no great way of fooling the people who have to administer the Bill.

Progress reported. The Committee to sit again to-morrow.
Barr
Roinn