I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 4, line 33, Section 7 (b), to delete the words "such occupier" and substitute the words "the occupier of such farm."
Pigs and Bacon Bill, 1934—Money Resolution. - Milk and Dairies Bill, 1934—Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, line 36, at the end of Section 7 to add the words "and, for the purposes of the provisions of Part II of this Act relating to temporary exclusion of certain dairymen from Part II, and the provisions of Part III of this Act relating to temporary exclusion of certain dairies and dairymen from Part III, such milk shall be deemed not to have been sold to such persons."
The object of this amendment is to arrange for the exemption of farmers, who occasionally sell surplus milk, from the provisions of the section.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, line 5, at the end of Section 10 to add a new sub-section as follows:—
Where the terms of a contract of service provide that milk is to be supplied free by the employer to the employee, milk supplied by the employer to the employee under such contract shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act not to have been sold by the employer to the employee.
This amendment is designed to meet the case mentioned by Deputy Belton on the Committee Stage, where a farmer arranges to give a free supply of milk to an employee as part of the employee's remuneration for his services. There appeared to be some doubt as to whether such a contract would be deemed to constitute a sale of milk and the amendment definitely provides that such an arrangement will not bring the farmer under the terms of the Bill.
I should like a little more explanation of this. Does it really mean that a farmer will be free to give any milk to his employee, as part of the contract of service, and that such milk may not be protected at all or does it mean that a farmer who does not supply any milk except to his employees does not come under the Bill? In the latter case, I have no objection, but, in the former, I think it would be open to grave objection.
It is the latter, I take it.
I think that if Deputy Rowlette reads the amendment in conjunction with Section 7, he will find that it speaks for itself. The section refers to a farmer occasionally supplying milk to persons for consumption by such persons and their families, the selling of such milk not forming part of his ordinary business, and then the amendment sets out:
Where the terms of a contract of service provide that milk is to be supplied free by the employer to the employee, milk supplied by the employer to the employee under such contract shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act not to have been sold by the employer to the employee.
If the Deputy reads the amendment in conjunction with paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 7, he will see that it is only the occasional supplier of milk who is excluded from the provisions with regard to registration. I think this amendment is merely intended to cover a case in which a farmer makes an arrangement with his labourer to give him, say, a pint of milk in the day as part of the contract of service. He is not really a seller of milk in the ordinary sense.
Am I right in saying that Deputy Rowlette's fears are unfounded because, if a farmer is an ordinary purveyor of milk in any other respect, he must be registered and must be subject to all the rigours of inspection? The only person it really applies to is the person who is not registered.
Who is not ordinarily a purveyor of milk at all.
So that there is no business being carried on.
If it were in connection with Section 7, there would be no ambiguity, but where it comes in, there is certainly ambiguity.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 6, lines 30 and 35, Section 20 (1), to delete the word "supplies" and substitute the word "sells."
This is a drafting amendment.
I should like some assurance as to the operation of sub-section (1) (a) of this section. The amendment proposes to change the word "supplies" to "sells." I am afraid that, as that stands, the efficient administrators are going to injure the people they represent instead of helping them. I think it was on Second Reading that it was hinted—at least that is my interpretation of it—that pasteurisation would be a substitute for clean milk. I should like to hear unequivocally from the Parliamentary Secretary, who, fortunately, is a medical man, if pasteurisation is intended to be a substitute for registration and clean production of milk.
I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would explain exactly what is effected by this alteration. I am not sure whether it makes the section wider or narrower in its scope. If it in any way renders more free of control the supply of milk to the creameries, I would be disappointed. I hope that is not the intention of the amendment, which, I confess, I fail to understand. The creameries are already a very grave danger to the live stock of the country. Section 20, as it stands, gives them, as it seems to me, unnecessarily complete immunity in regard to inspection of their supplies, and I should like to know whether this amendment increases or diminishes that immunity. If it increases the immunity, I shall be very sorry.
As to Deputy Belton's question about pasteurisation being a substitute for registration, I thought we had discussed this matter so often on the various stages of this, and the previous, Bill that Deputy Belton would now be perfectly clear on the matter. If a creamery purports to sell designated milk—let us say, for the sake of discussion, pasteurised milk—such a creamery must be licensed to produce pasteurised milk, and the creamery will be subject to all the restrictions regarding the pasteurising of milk to which any other pasteurising concern will be subject. It will be subject to the same regulations and will have to instal such pasteurising plant as may be prescribed by the Minister by regulations made under the Bill. The substitution of "sells" for "supplies" is merely a drafting amendment. It is considered by the draftsman to be better phraseology. It does not affect in any way what the Deputy looks upon as the immunity of certain people.
The real answer of the Parliamentary Secretary is that pasteurisation will act as a substitute for registration, because what designation licence can a creamery have but a pasteurising licence? If it is a special designation licence, all byres and cow sheds must be registered. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that. If my suspicious are correct, what is intended there is pasteurised milk, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that that is really his answer to my question. I have here a report of the Milk Commission of Great Britain, which is about the last word in an investigation of this matter, and here is what they say about pasteurisation:—
"Pasteurisation is not, and never can be, a substitute for clean production, and the same care should therefore be exercised in the production of milk that is to be heat tested...."
That, of course, is pasteurisation, raising it to 60 or 65 degrees centigrade, keeping it there for half-an-hour and suddenly cooling it. In the evidence before the Pigs Tribunal it was stated that very few creameries, if any, in this country have up-to-date pasteurisation plant. Whether it is up-to-date or not, this is the Milk Commission's very definite statement of opinion in regard to pasteurisation:—
"... and the same care should therefore be exercised in the production of milk that is to be heat tested as is required to be observed in the production of milk that is to be consumed in its raw condition."
The Parliamentary Secretary knows that, excepting the grading of milk, there is not a single thing contained in this Bill that he has not power to do already, if he wants to use that power, and there is not a single obligation that will be imposed by the Bill that we are not administering to the last letter in County Dublin at the moment. We have about 600 registered dairies in County Dublin, and they have to comply with the Dairies and Cowsheds Order of 1908. We have a complete inspection. We employ a full time veterinary surgeon, paying him a good salary and travelling expenses. If anybody who is not registered dares to sell milk in the county, we are after him at once and we put him out of business unless he is prepared to register. When a person registers we make him comply with certain standards of sheds and his herds are inspected at least four times a year.
There is a clinical examination of the herds. The registered dairies in County Dublin represent over 8,000 cows. We have to pay for that complete inspection. We have to make the milk producers produce milk under the conditions imposed by the Dairies and Cowsheds Order. Dublin County is the only county in Ireland with a whole-time veterinary surgeon carrying out that work.
After we go to that expense in order to put a good article on the Dublin market, the Minister allows cheap milk, produced under bad conditions, to come into our market and undersell us. Even in the case of the institutions that our rates are keeping up, we are cut out by the cheap milk vendors. In the case of this Bill there has been a definite tinkering with amendments and you can drive a coach and four through the measure now. The Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that the whole thing can be scrapped, that registration can be scrapped and that pasteurised milk fills the bill. If that is so, why should we be paying £700 or £800 a year to a whole-time veterinary surgeon, £200 or £300 a year to part-time district veterinary officers, and why should we employ a number of dairy and cowshed inspectors? Further, the reports of these officers make it incumbent on the milk producers to overhaul their sheds so as to meet the conditions of the Dairies and Cowsheds Order. After undergoing that expense we tax them in order to keep up certain administrative machinery so that a good article is produced. The Parliamentary Secretary has now stated that if you pasteurise your milk it will be all right. Why not scrap the whole service that we now have working and erect pasteurising stations over the county? The Parliamentary Secretary knows as a medical man that if there are any germs killed by pasteurisation the dead bodies will still be in the milk and any dirt that gets into the milk will remain there, so that the milk is very little improved, if at all after pasteurisation.
The measure will have serious reactions on County Dublin because the ratepayers will not stand for the maintenance of a costly, efficient service that will be doing them no good, but will be, instead, doing them positive harm. I hope some effort will be made to improve this Bill before it becomes law and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see that its provisions will be carried out better than the provisions of the Dairies and Cowsheds Order of 1908 and the public health services generally. Does he intend to carry them out uniformly all over the country? I think I can say without boasting that he can take County Dublin as a standard. Will he insist that all counties will put up as efficient a service as County Dublin? Even before this Bill becomes law he is obviously winking at the evasion of its provisions. In effect, heating milk will do for all these inspections. All the veterinary services, all the improvements in cow houses, all the cleanliness and ventilation that are required can be scrapped and it does not matter how much much is in the milk—bring it in, heat it and it will be all right. If that is the standard that is going to be set, we might as well scrap the expensive service we have in County Dublin. We are not going to continue paying for a good service if we are to be put into competition with people who do not attain the same high standard. If we are to compete let us compete with an article produced under precisely the same conditions and give us a fair chance to sell our goods. If the Minister does not devote his attention to those matters he will not have the boards of health, the county councils and other local authorities responding in the way they should respond if the provisions of this Bill are to do any good.
I shall have more to say on the Final Stage, but there is no use in criticising it. If the Minister admits that my interpretation is correct I say that the thing will not work. We could talk and criticise it for hours but that would not help the Bill, unless the Minister takes cognisance of the points raised.
I only wish to confirm what Deputy Belton says, from personal experience, as to pasteurisation not being a substitute for cleanliness. I have been made ill myself and I have known of children to be made ill by pasteurised milk that had been produced under unclean conditions.
Amendment No. 4 agreed to.
I do not agree to the section.
The section is not before the House.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 8, line 46, before Section 26 (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
Where a sanitary authority makes a cancellation order cancelling the registration of a person in the register of dairymen kept by them, such order shall specify a period commencing from the date of such order during which such person shall not be eligible for re-registration in such register.
This amendment appears to be necessary seeing that the section at present does not provide for registration being cancelled for any particular period, with the result that the section in its present terms would allow a person whose registration had been cancelled to apply for re-registration immediately under Section 22. It is considered desirable that the cancellation order should specify the period.
Amendment No. 5 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 9, line 6, Section 26 (4) (d), to insert before the word "such" the words "with such modifications (if any) as to the Minister may seem proper."
This is consequential.
Amendment No. 6 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 9, line 10, Section 26 (4) (d), to insert after the word "shall" the words "subject to any modification made by the confirming order."
This also is consequential.
Amendment No. 7 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 9, line 11, at the end of Section 26, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
Where a cancellation order cancelling the registration of a person registered in the register of dairymen kept by a sanitary authority comes into force, such sanitary authority shall not, without the consent of the Minister, re-register such person in such register during the period specified in such order as the period during which such person shall not be eligible for re-registration in such register.
Is there not a certain amount of duplication between amendments Nos. 8 and 9? Amendment No. 8 says: "Where a cancellation order cancelling the registration of a person registered in the register of dairymen kept by a sanitary authority comes into force, such sanitary authority shall not, without the consent of the Minister, re-register," and so on. Amendment No. 9 is practically a repetition of that except in so far as it mentions being convicted for the third time. But it also says "without the consent of the Minister." There seems to me to be overlapping there, and I should like to know what is the point.
Amendment No. 9 provides for cancellation following three convictions, but registration may be cancelled without any conviction in a court. Amendment No. 8 merely provides that the local authority shall not re-register without the consent of the Minister.
In neither case can the person be re-registered without the consent of the Minister. Seeing that that is so, what is the necessity for amendment No. 9? Amendment No. 8 says that the local authority shall not re-register without the consent of the Minister, and so on. Is not that sufficient to cover amendment No. 9?
The second amendment makes it obligatory on the local authority to cancel registration when the person has been convicted three times.
If so, it should be clearer. It is in direct relation to re-entry or re-registration rather than to compel them to be de-registered, so to speak. That is what strikes me. In neither case can anybody be restored to the register without the consent of the Minister. Amendment No. 8 sets that out clearly. If amendment No 9 purports to be something that will compel the local authority to take certain names off the register, I do not think it should be done in that way. The consent of the Minister must be had in either case to the re-entry of anybody on the register. It appears to me to be conflicting.
It is not actually so. It only appears to be so to the Deputy.
Am I right in stating that no person can be re-registered without the consent of the Minister?
Yes.
Amendment No. 9 mentions that the person cannot be re-registered during the period of one year from the date of the last conviction.
I hold that amendment No. 9 ought to deal with compulsory removal from the register rather than with re-entry.
Cancellation is compulsory under conditions set out in amendment No. 9, whereas it is optional in amendment No. 8.
That is with regard to cancellation, but with regard to re-entry it says in each case that the person shall not be re-registered without the consent of the Minister. I do not think that is necessary.
The draftsman thinks that it is necessary.
Amendment No. 9 is the Parliamentary Secretary's way of dealing with a point I raised on the Committee Stage when I proposed an amendment to the effect that where a man had been convicted three times within a period of five years he could be removed from the register. The Parliamentary Secretary has adopted my suggestion, if not in exactly the same terms, and amendment No. 9 seems to me to be quite clear. It puts on the local authority the obligation of refusing to re-register the person within a period of one year after the conviction without the Minister's consent. I do not see Deputy Brennan's difficulty.
Amendment No. 8 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 9, line 11, at the end of Section 26 to add a new sub-section as follows:—
Where a person registered in the register of dairymen kept by a sanitary authority is convicted for the third time within a period of five years of an offence under this Act or of an offence under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1935, in relation to the sale of milk, such sanitary authority shall cancel the registration of such person in such register, and, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, shall not, without the consent of the Minister, re-register such person in such register during the period of one year commencing from the date of the last of such convictions.
Amendment No. 9 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 10, lines 33 and 38, Section 30 (1), to delete the word "supplies" and substitute the word "sells."
Will the Parliamentary Secretary enlighten me any further about his method of preventing evasion of the Act?
I have long since given up any hope of enlightening the Deputy. I told him that two or three weeks ago.
I want a denial of the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary a few moments ago as to the holding of a special designation licence. They can only hold a pasteurisation licence.
Why ?
Because all suppliers would have to be registered and inspected. Is it not a fact that the creamery can only have a designation licence for pasteurised milk?
If the Deputy would look at amendment No. 10, he would observe that it proposes "in page 10, lines 33 and 38, Section 30 (1), to delete the word `supplies' and substitute the word `sells'." That is the only matter before the House.
Will you permit me, Sir, to draw your attention—and this is the only place that I can do it——
The Deputy will have an opportunity on the Fifth Stage.
This is merely a correction, Sir. I am credited here with a speech I never made. Surely I have to answer for a sufficient amount of words and talk without having to carry all the idle talk of myself and Deputy Dillon as well. In columns 210, 211, 212, and a bit of 213 a certain speech is attributed to me. I never read the Official Reports but I was asked by somebody why I did not say something on this Bill. I stated that I did say it and I went to look for it, and I saw my speech. I had another look and I found a speech attributed to me. I was convinced that I never spoke those words when I came on one statement beginning: "But I warn the House." I never used that phrase, and I shall leave it to you to pick out who said it. I just draw your attention to it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11.
In page 11, line 33, Section 32 (1), to delete the word "inspectors" and substitute the word "officers".
It is merely a drafting amendment.
What is the difference between an officer and an inspector?
"Officer" is considered a more appropriate term.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12.
In page 17, line 13, before Section 43 (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"If a person, who has had access to milk sold by a dairyman, has been, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours, unable owing to illness to carry out his ordinary occupation and if he has not been examined by a qualified medical practitioner and if he shall subsequently be found to be suffering from one of the diseases to which this Part of this Act applies, the dairyman shall be considered to have failed to exercise ordinary care."
The object of the amendment is to endeavour to make the control of sickness amongst dairy workers a little more strict than is provided for under the terms of the Bill as it stands. When a man is out sick I think it is not unfair to ask that the duty should be imposed upon a dairyman to satisfy himself that the sickness which has kept a man out for over two days is not sickness which might cause a danger to the consumers of his milk. One knows that some diseases at least which are likely to be conveyed by milk are not infective in their early stages and that it is important to get such diseases under control and under treatment at the earliest possible date. I think it is right that the dairyman, when sickness has occurred amongst his employees, should take steps, if he wishes to protect his customers, and if he wishes to protect himself from the provisions of such a Bill as this, to ensure that the cause of the illness is known so far as it is discoverable in the ordinary way by a qualified medical practitioner. If that is not done, it is possible that illness which may be comparatively temporary, lasting only three or four days, in the case of a particular man, may still be conveyed to others when that man returns to work.
I am thinking of cases where the illness may be comparatively slight as regards the first person affected, but of which he may act as a carrier immediately afterwards. If the illness is such as to entail two days' disablement on the worker, it is proper that some investigation should be made. The investigation here suggested is of the lightest possible nature—that he should be examined by a qualified medical practitioner in the hope that such diseases as scarlatina, infective ton-silitis, diphtheria and others should not be brought back to the dairy by a man recovering after two or three days' illness. If the Parliamentary Secretary is willing to accept the principle of that it is quite possible that he would prefer his own working of the amendment, as I do not claim to be an expert draftsman. I hope, at any rate, that he will consider the principle of the amendment sympathetically.
It appears to me that this amendment would impose too great a responsibility on a dairyman, especially as regards the subsequent development of the disease in a person who has had access to the milk. The subsequent development of a contagious disease might mean the development of that disease within any period of time. It might be a fortnight or a couple of months, or it might be held to be even a longer period of time, and I am afraid that the dairyman would be let in for serious responsibility under the terms of the amendment.
I should like, however to draw the Deputy's attention to Section 43. There has been considerable amendment of this particular part of the Bill on the Committee Stage, and unfortunately Deputy Rowlette was not present. He will find in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 that a person who has been infected with a disease to which this Part of the Act applies will be guilty of an offence if he knowingly gains access to the milk subsequently in a dairy; or if he has been exposed to infection; or if he resides in the same house as a person who has been infected by a disease to which this Part of the Act applies. I think that in the light of Section 45 Deputy Rowlette, if he looks more carefully into the terms of that section, will feel satisfied that the position is adequately safeguarded and that the onus is put on the employee, the person under the circumstances on whom it should appropriately be put, rather than on the dairyman. I do not think that this amendment could be accepted, and I do not think that in the light of Section 43 the amendment is necessary.
The Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, and I agree with him that Section 43 covers probably fairly effectively any possibility of conveying infection knowingly to the milk. The point of my amendment is that it may occur unknowingly and that steps should be enforced to secure that that should not take place and that the illness of a workman over a period longer than 48 hours should call for some investigation before he again approaches the milk, which he may possibly infect. I am not complaining of the provision as regards what is done knowingly.
I think, with the Parliamentary Secretary, that we might be responsible for inflicting very serious hardship on dairymen by this amendment, because very often people may get periodically ill, or may be suffering to some slight degree from something or other which would not be an infectious disease of any consequence.
It might happen on another occasion that he would have developed diphtheria. In a case like that I think it would be very unfair to inflict a fine on a dairyman for not having him examined on that particular occasion. I think Section 43 really covers all the important points which need to be covered in that regard.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 19, line 6, before Section 46 (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
If any animal has appeared to be ill or has failed to eat her usual food for a period exceeding 48 hours or has yielded milk which was abnormal in colour or consistency, such animal shall be presumed to be suffering from one of the diseases to which this Part of this Act applies unless she has been examined by a qualified veterinary surgeon and has been certified by him not to be suffering from one of these diseases.
I dare say the Parliamentary Secretary will draw my attention to Section 46, and tell the House that it covers what is necessary in regard to the control of the health of animals, but again I want to impress on him that it is necessary to tighten it up to some extent. A duty should be put on the dairyman to make inquiry as to the cause of ill-health in his dairy cows. A dairyman should be ready to take every precaution to inquire into the health of his dairy cattle. It is not, I think, asking too much that where a cow shows evidence of serious illness, such as the symptoms suggested in the amendment, he should exclude her milk until she has been examined by a veterinary surgeon who is satisfied that she is not suffering from any of the diseases enumerated in the Bill. It puts a dairyman to very little trouble. It is, I think, what careful dairymen, such as there are in the County Dublin, would do in any case.
Yes—if they are paid for it.
I do not think they will run away from their careful habits as rapidly as Deputy Belton suggests. I do not think it is asking too much that the dairyman should take that amount of care with the health of his animals, and that until he is satisfied that an animal is not suffering from one of those diseases he should exclude her milk from his supply stock.
I do not propose to accept this amendment. In my judgment it is altogether too drastic to be incorporated in the Bill. There is no doubt that it would involve dairymen in very considerable expense. I think farmers in the House at any rate will agree that cows often suffer from indigestion and minor complaints which might prevent them from taking their usual food for a period of 48 hours. If a veterinary surgeon had to be called in every time a cow went off her food there is no doubt the dairyman would find himself involved in very considerable expense.
Especially when he could get out of it by pasteurising the milk.
The Deputy is very concerned with pasteurisation. He must have got affected milk some time. I often wondered what bug was biting him; I think I know it now.
The Parliamentary Secretary will learn as he goes along.
From Deputy Belton? On the question of abnormal colour, cows may yield milk which is abnormal in colour or consistency, and yet the milk may be perfectly safe from the point of view of human consumption. I feel sure that Deputy Rowlette will realise the unreasonableness of this amendment, and the utter impossibility of accepting it. I have gone a long way towards meeting the Deputy in relation to many of his amendments, some of which I was not very keen on, and some of which undoubtedly did improve the Bill. I do not think the House can seriously consider the acceptance of this amendment.
Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that none of those diseases could develop so rapidly if the services which ought to be there now were there. In other words, if his Department did its job there would be veterinary machinery for periodical examinations—at least three or four examinations in the year —and no hardship could result from the adoption of this amendment put up by Deputy Rowlette. The only hardship that would arise would be where somebody, apparently with the connivance of the Ministry, would be trying to sidetrack this Bill. Of course, this would be an awkward and expensive provision to have then, but if the law as it is now, without this Bill at all, were properly enforced, Deputy Rowlette's amendment would inflict no hardship; in fact, it would hardly be wanted. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept it. Perhaps, he does not understand the workings——
Of the Deputy's mind?
——of public health machinery. I say that and mean it. In face of what the Parliamentary Secretary said a while ago, I would be against this amendment, but unless the Bill is going to be administered as it appears here I would be in favour of the amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary has quite obviously stated that he is not serious about this Bill. According to him, if you half boil the milk it is all right; all the other conditions which occupy the whole Bill can be wiped out. Half boil the milk and it does not matter how it is produced. It does not matter if a cow gets a blast in the udder and there is congealed milk, causing poisoning. Half boil the milk and it is all right according to the Parliamentary Secretary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 23, line 10, at the end of Section 58 (1), to add the words: "or their English equivalents."
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accept this amendment. The object of sub-section (1) of Section 58 is to give protection to purchasers of milk by putting a label on the can, showing the nature of the article which they are buying. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the protection which I suggest for the less educated section of the population who are not able to read Gaelic. After all, I think it would be unfair that those who, through advanced years or some intellectual disability, are unable to read the Gaelic tongue should be exposed to the dangers of certain classes of milk, from which their better educated fellow-citizens are protected. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that those cans should be labelled in the English tongue, at any rate, in English-speaking districts. If my suggestion is adopted, the English equivalents will give protection to the entire population, as there must be very few people in the country who cannot read either Gaelic or English. I would draw attention to the fact that in many countries on the Continent it is customary to print public notices in four or five tongues, and I do not think it is extravagant to ask that those labels should be printed in two languages at least. There are even some Members of this House who might be misled by those labels if they appeared only in Gaelic.
One Deputy has told me that the second label in the Bill would suggest to him that the milk was watered. I believe that was a mistranslation, but such is the ignorance as to Irish of some Deputies in the House. That was what the words "Uachtar ar diol" meant to him.
I wonder does the Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government and Public Health himself know it.
Yes, a fair share.
I wonder would he know the meaning of these words before he saw them in the Bill?
I would prefer to talk to the Deputy in English because he would understand me better.
In the meantime Deputy Doctor Rowlette might be permitted to continue without interruption.
It is, to my mind, important that the labels should be understood; for the sake of the public health they should be intelligible to the many who are not familiar with the Irish language.
I do not propose to accept this amendment. I do not think that any of the hardships that Deputy Rowlette has in mind are likely to result from my refusal to accept it. I believe the public will quickly become familiar with the Irish terms. The Deputy will, I am sure, agree that by daily usage and familiarity, he himself has considerably increased his vocabulary of Gaelic terms. I am quite sure that before the Deputy came here he did not understand the meaning of "Tá" or "Níl," and that he did not know the meaning of "Oireachtas."
Perhaps before the Parliamentary Secretary knew it.
The Deputy mentions the case of people who are advanced in years or people who are suffering from intellectual disability. We have people advanced in years coming into this House without a word of Irish in their heads and there are, possibly, people securing election to this House who are suffering from intellectual disability— I am not now alluding to the Deputy.
Nor to the Parliamentary Secretary.
Nor to the Parliamentary Secretary. Just the same they have all managed to become quite familiar with the Irish terms that are in daily use in the House. I have no doubt that in a short time Deputy Rowlette will be able to say "Bainne ar diol" or "Blathach ar diol".
If the Parliamentary Secretary would give us the two side by side then we would be more encouraged to learn the Irish.
I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary refuses to accept the words "or their English equivalents." Then when the Bill becomes law, if this section is carried, it would be an offence to have on a cart or van delivering milk the English terms. If the English equivalents were on it it would be an offence.
According to the Constitution, is not the English language recognised equally as the official language?
Here is Section 58:—
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person by himself or his servant to sell or deliver to a purchaser in any highway or public place milk from a vehicle or from a can or other receptacle unless there is conspicuously inscribed on such vehicle, can or receptacle his name and address and (as the case may be) the words "Bainne ar diol,""Uachtar ar diol" or "Blathach ar diol."
I cannot very well pronounce the words "Bainne ar diol."
Go bhfoiridh Dia orainn.
Well, you had better not be showing off the few words you know. I had rather not speak the language at all if not with fluency. If the Irish sign is there, it is not an offence to put it in English.
Yes, but there is no statutory prohibition against putting it in English as well.
But is it a statutory offence under the section if it is in English?
Is the amendment withdrawn?
How can it be withdrawn if the Parliamentary Secretary says it would not be an offence to have it in English? What is wrong with the amendment then?
What is wrong with withdrawing it?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.