Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 May 1935

Vol. 56 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Bill, 1935—Report.

Mr. Brennan

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 9, lines 9 to 15 inclusive, Section 15, to delete sub-section (2).

This sub-section reads:—

An inspector may (subject to the production by him if so required of his authority in writing as such inspector) at all reasonable times enter upon and have free access to the interior of any premises in which he believes or suspects that butter is sold or exposed, kept, or stored for sale and may inspect and take extracts from any records found on such premises relative to dealings in or transactions relating to butter.

We object to that sub-section because we feel that its enforcement will mean an invasion of the rights of the individual. An inspector may suspect that butter is being made in some farmer's house in the country. He has the right to suspect once he sees a cow in a farmer's field. The sub-section gives an inspector the right to go into any and every house, into any and every room in every house, to satisfy his curiosity as to how certain people are carrying on their work. He has not the right under this sub-section to search, but I see that the Minister proposes to give him that power under a later amendment. We hold that what is proposed is a very serious invasion of the rights of the individual. Any inspector can, on suspicion, walk into a house, go around that house, no matter whose it may be, and make all sorts of inquiries in order to satisfy his curiosity. It now appears that the possession of butter is a much more serious crime than the possession of arms in a house, because police officers cannot go into a house and search for arms unless they have a search warrant. But, according to the Minister, an inspector under this Bill can go into any house and search for butter. I suggest to the Minister that he and his inspectors should find some other way of catching alleged offenders besides adopting this method of going into a house and searching every crevice, nook and press in it.

People are entitled to have butter in their houses; they are entitled to sell butter out of their houses, without being registered if they sell to a person registered for that purpose. Consequently, people commit absolutely no crime, there is no breach of the law, if they have butter in their houses or even make butter in them. They can have any amount of butter they wish in their houses. Hence, I think it is manifestly unfair that inspectors under this measure should be given this power to search. If the inspectors want to catch-out people selling butter to unlicensed dealers, let them find some other means. I do not think there is any need for this sub-section. The Minister, I suggest, ought to follow the usual procedure for detecting offences against the law and not insist on a sub-section of this nature in the Bill. Its enforcement will lead, or is likely to lead, to a grave infringement of the rights of the people.

Mr. Belton

I desire to support the amendment. I think I am correct in stating that under the Dairies and Cowsheds Orders, a person selling milk who is not a registered dairy owner, if caught in the act, is liable to be prosecuted, but I do not think that under that Order an inspector has the right to go into a house, or into premises, from which he suspects milk is being sold. He can use his own ingenuity to catch a person who, he believes, is selling milk, a person who is not a registered dairy proprietor. I think the Minister would be well advised to leave the enforcement of this sub-section to the ingenuity of his inspectors. He should not give power to any inspector to enter premises from which it is suspected butter is being sold. The privacy of the home should be respected, and I think the Minister should recognise that. Surely the Minister should be able to find some other way of detecting offences under this Bill than that of giving free licence and liberty to his inspectors to go into and search any house from which they suspect butter is being sold. It has to be remembered that, if the police authorities suspect that a criminal is in a house, they require a search warrant before they can go into that house. I think the Minister should find some other way of dealing with this matter than the method proposed.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I do not know why this question has been raised. The Deputies who appear to be so anxious about this particular matter never raised it before. Many Acts, some of which I had charge of myself, passed through the Dáil, contain a similar provision. I would remind the Deputies opposite that at the present time I can send an inspector into any house in the country in which I suspect there is pure maize. The inspector has the power to search that house to see if there is pure maize in it. I have power to send an inspector into a house to see if people are engaged in the growing of tobacco, or if they have tobacco stored in their houses. Under the Sheep and Cattle Act I have power to send an inspector on to any land or premises to make a search to see if there are cattle on the land or in the outhouses on the premises. There is power under that Act to send inspectors even into dwellinghouses, into the bedrooms, if necessary, to see if there is meat there. We all know the powers of search that are given with regard to the making of poteen, but I am only speaking now of Bills that I introduced myself and had passed through the House. These are Acts now, and they contain a provision similar to this. When these measures were going through the Dáil, the Deputies opposite did not object to the insertion in them of a provision of this kind. They are very eloquent in raising the question on this Bill. I do not see how it could be worked without a provision of this kind.

I think the Deputies opposite ought to realise that it is perfectly ridiculous to move an amendment of this character. Take a case like this: there is a shopkeeper in a town and perhaps we know that he is buying butter. According to Deputy Brennan, we should not be given power to go in and see whether he is doing so or not. That is the effect of the amendment. Under sub-section (1), if he is licensed, we can go in, but supposing that he refuses to take out a licence or to register, then we cannot go in although that particular shopkeeper may be doing a roaring trade in the sale of butter. According to the amendment and the arguments of Deputy Brennan, we are not to be permitted to make a search to satisfy our suspicions. I think this is the most ridiculous proposal that has come before the House for a long time. I know, of course, that the Deputies opposite are trying to make the best case they can by saying that this power is going to be used mainly for the purpose of making searches in farmers' houses. Where are you to draw the line between a farmer's home and a shop? People familiar with rural conditions are aware that farmers sometimes carry on the business of a shopkeeper and vice versa. The shop in some cases may not be very big. A farmer who has a small shop, if there is any suspicion against him as a shopkeeper, may say that he is not carrying on a shop business at all. A man like him may be dealing in a large way in butter. I would ask some of the Deputies opposite who have had experience as Ministers how they would propose to work a measure of this kind if we had not a provision like this—if we had not the power to go in and verify what we believed to be the case, that some unlicensed person was dealing in butter. Unless we had the power to examine the place to search and look up books and so on, then we could never bring a case to court. There is absolutely no precedent for an amendment of this kind. It is ridiculous for anybody to argue in support of it. In practically every Bill brought in by me, regulating in any way the farming industry, there is a provision of this kind. The Deputies opposite never objected to that. Why they should be so terribly anxious now about their constitutents and so conscientious about their duty, I fail to see.

Mr. Dillon

Surely, the Minister recognises that the difference between a shop and the kitchen of a country house is a very material difference in so far as this amendment is concerned?

Dr. Ryan

It is, but is the Deputy able to state that difference in the Bill?

Mr. Dillon

Surely, the Minister will agree with me that sub-section (2) of Section 15 gives the right to the Minister's inspectors to go into every house in the country where a churn is kept?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, or where it is not kept, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Davin

And including lunatic asylums.

Mr. Dillon

Now, Deputy Davin can intervene later on, and he can then be as facetious as he likes. He happens to live, however, in the Borough of Dun Laoghaire, perhaps, and if somebody came to his hall door to-night and, when Deputy Davin opened the door, pushed him to one side and said, "I am coming into your house whether you like it or not," I am sure Deputy Davin would be very indignant.

Mr. Davin

I would ask him for his warrant.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Davin says that he would ask that man for his warrant, and the answer would be, "I have no warrant; I do not need a warrant, and you have no right to ask me for it. I am coming in to your house under the powers conferred on me by sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Dairy Produce Act."

Mr. Davin

Is not that a warrant?

Mr. Dillon

No warrant or authority is necessary to enter the Deputy's house, or anybody else's house, except the identification card as an Inspector of the Department of Agriculture. Deputy Davin, naturally, says that before he would allow that inspector to cross his threshold he would demand his warrant, but the answer would be to push Deputy Davin up against the wall and tell him that he had no warrant, and that no warrant was necessary.

Mr. Gibbons

Has Deputy Dillon read Section 15?

Mr. Dillon

I am speaking now, Sir, I would inform the Deputy, in regard to an amendment designed to eliminate sub-section (2) from Section 15, and sub-section (3) of that Section provides that if Deputy Davin made the answer that he indicates here to-night he would make in such circumstances, he would be judged to be a person who obstructed or impeded an inspector in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section and would be guilty of an offence under this section and liable, on summary conviction thereof, to a fine not exceeding £5. If he did not pay the £5 fine, doubtless, the representatives of the court would go out to Dun Laoghaire and smash in his hall-door in just the same way as they smashed J.J. O'Kelly's hall-door up in the Botanic Road, and if he attempted to defend the house he would, doubtless, be arrested and brought to the Bridewell. The Minister can see the attitude of Deputy Davin himself in this matter, and Deputy Davin wants to support him and has received the Fianna Fáil Whip to-night to come into the Fianna Fáil Lobby and has been told not to dare go against the Party again this evening because he reduced their majority in a vote here this evening when he ran amok and went into another Lobby. He wants to cover his face when he votes for this and makes a case which, thereby, convicts the Minister, because Deputy Davin was born in rural Ireland and knows the instincts of anybody who was born in the country and who feels a certain pride in the fact that people cannot wander into their houses whenever they like and go through their houses and disturb the family. I am sure that Deputy Corry would not be willing to allow people to come into his house in that way.

Mr. Corry

If you were coming yourself, instead of sending your dupes, I would tell you what I would do.

Mr. Dillon

There you are! The man would get a very brisk answer from Deputy Corry, I am sure. It is a very grave thing to enter a man's house in that way, but it is a very much graver thing, having entered it, to go spying around the house and prying into every nook and cranny of it. The butter-makers here contemplated are people who habitually churn their butter in the kitchen. I object most strongly to giving a general power to inspectors to interfere with and pry into the houses of every person in a country district. The Minister has asked me can I make the differentiation for the purposes of this section. It is not my job to draft sections for the Minister wherein such differentiations may be made, as to what is a kitchen and what is a shop. That is the Minister's job. He has a staff of draftsmen who have far more time and ability for that job than I. Is the Minister prepared to say that he will lay before the draftsmen an expression of his desire to confine this power to shops——

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Dillon

——and to exclude the private residences of country people? If he is prepared to do so, I am sure that Deputy Brennan would withdraw his amendment; but the fact is that the Minister does not want to do that.

Mr. Smith

Why should he do it?

Mr. Dillon

Because of the pretence and common hypocrisy which is so characteristic of you all. The Minister pretends in one minute that he would like to do it, but that he cannot.

Dr. Ryan

I have never pretended any such thing.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister says: "Let Deputy Dillon try to differentiate."

Dr. Ryan

I do not want to do it, nor can I do it.

Mr. Dillon

Why does the Minister interject in that way? It is because he is, as I described him the other night, like a clock that strikes thirteen, and every utterance he makes casts doubt on the veracity of what he said before. One never can make out what the Minister means or intends to say. The fact is that, as usual, he is rambling and does not know where he is. I hold that the Minister ought to accept the amendment or at least give an undertaking to differentiate between a shop and a kitchen. Now let Deputy Davin be as good as his word and give the answer to the Minister for Agriculture that he intends to give the inspector when he comes to his hall door, and that is: "Send no inspector to my house or to my neighbours' houses, if you do not furnish him with a warrant."

Mr. Davin

Deputy Dillon is getting too excited.

Professor O'Sullivan

The House will remember that, last week, when we were discussing this particular section, the argument of the Minister was this: "Will the Opposition tell me how I am to work this Act if I have not this particular sub-section?" Those were substantially his words, but I think he realises now that the sub-section which was to save him last week is of little use to him.

Dr. Ryan

I thank the Deputy for that.

Professor O'Sullivan

The Minister has used the same argument now, and that shows the value of the argument used. He asked: "Will the Opposition tell me how to work the Bill if I have not this particular power?" The House, however, heard him last week and to-night, and although, even to-night, he was challenged to show how the particular power he took last week and that he still has under sub-section (2) or even the power he proposes to take in addition, is going to help him. He admits that a man may have as much butter as he likes. That is no offence—none whatever. He has not shown in the slightest how these powers will help him to administer the Act. When he was challenged to do that, all he said was: "Will the Opposition tell me how to do it?" He is here assuming the power and doing it on the alleged analogy of what he did before.

Apparently, the Minister for Agriculture—and I put this seriously to him —so far as the privacy of the individual is concerned, makes no difference between a private apartment or a kitchen in the dwelling house of farmers and outhouses. He put them on a level this evening, and assumes that the people of the countryside have the same objection to the inspection of their dairies and their cattle sheds as they have to the inspection of their private houses. They have not. Surely the Minister is in this country long enough to know that there is a very strong objection to anything in the nature of an inspection of a private house. Even in more important matters than the one we are discussing, there has been grave objections to any power being given to the State in that respect. I remember, again and again, during the British régime where objection was voiced by different members of the community, especially on behalf of the farming community. Neither in this section as it stands, nor in the proposed amendment, has the Minister really any more power than that of harrying and making it uncomfortable for those people. All for what?

I put it again to the Minister, why are all these inspectors necessary? Why is this objectionable power necessary? There is a feeling on this side of the House—it may not be on the other side—that this particular power is objectionable. Why is all this alleged power—I do not think it is anything more than alleged power of harrying so far as real effectiveness is concerned—necessary? Because the Minister chose the particular method of financing it that he has in this Bill In the discussion on the Committee Stage last week he admitted that, in reality, either the consumer or the producer has to pay the expenses of this Bill. Call it what you like—a levy or anything else—in so far as the consumer is concerned or the farmer is deprived of his profits when this Act is in operation it amounts to a tax. If it is a tax, what does he mean by this particular method?

All this necessity for inspection, all danger of the Act being side-stepped, and of every effort being made by farmers to evade its provisions could have been avoided had the Minister chosen another method of financing it.

The House will remember that on the last occasion the Minister said "Yes, put on a tax." That is precisely what the Minister is doing. In that respect the proposal has no merit over putting it directly as a charge on the Central Fund. The cost must all be borne by consumers or producers. That is quite clear. And not merely that, but he will require a great many more officials as a result of this method of financing, and particularly this power I suggest renders the Act unduly complicated on that account. It could be worked more smoothly if the Minister had adopted the suggestions made from this side as regards financing. He did not do so, and brings forward this amendment to the sub-section to strengthen his hands. He has not indicated to the House how it will be made effective. I admit that the Minister did not say that if he could find a method that would differentiate between the farmer's house and the shop he would accept it, but by using the argument he certainly implied that and until his indignant repudiation of Deputy Dillon, I was under the impression that that was the main objection. I was then amazed to find that that was not his objection at all; that he had other objections. Why then did he put that forward as an argument against it? Neither on this occasion nor on the last occasion has he given any solid ground for the provisions in the Bill as it stands, or for the addition that it is proposed to make to the sub-section. For that reason, I hope the House will support the amendment in the name of Deputy Brennan.

Question put: That the sub-section proposed to be deleted stand.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 33.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Brady, Brian.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cleary, Mícheál.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Daly, Denis.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Donnelly, Eamon.
• Dowdall, Thomas P.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Geoghegan, James.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O Brian, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pattison, James P.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Ward, Francis C.

Níl

• Beckett, James Walter.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Broderick, William Joseph.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Curran, Richard.
• Desmond, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dolan, James Nicholas.
• Doyle, Feadar S.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finlay, John.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Holohan, Richard.
• Keating, John.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James Edward.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Reidy, James.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Tellers:—Tá, Deputies Little and Smith; Níl, Deputies Doyle and O'Leary.

Question declared carried.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 9, Section 15 (2), line 13, after the word "may" to insert the words "there search for any such butter and examine all butter found on such search and also".

Arising out of the discussion on Committee Stage, I had this section examined and it does appear that the inspector should have more powers than we had originally intended to give him under sub-section (2). I do not want Deputies to be talking about these inspectors going in in the middle of the night and firing things around a house, because that can not be done. The inspector can only enter the house at reasonable times. If he goes in at any other time, I take it that an action will lie against him. I think that it is fairly clear from the wording of the sub-section that the premises contemplated are a shop, because the sub-section refers to "any premises in which he believes or suspects that butter is sold or is exposed, kept, or stored for sale." As the sub-section stands, the inspector could inspect and take extracts from records relating to butter on such premises. In the amendment, I propose to give power to search for butter and examine all butter found as a result of the search. It would be rather queer if the inspector, on going into the house, was to be informed by some owner as keen on the law as Deputy McGuire that he had no right to look at butter found on the premises, that he had the right to look only at the records. It is only proper that the inspector should have, not only power to examine records, but to search for butter. This sub-section is drafted for the purpose of enabling the inspector to search shops, but if I were asked to apply it to shops only and not to farmhouses I do not see how it could be done. A shopkeeper could in these circumstances get around the Act by storing his butter in a farmhouse.

I have already explained that, under all similar Acts, we have a right of search, but I do not think that that right was ever exercised without full justification. In the case of maize meal, although the inspector has power to go into a farmhouse and search for such meal, he does not do that except to corroborate a case against a maize miller for selling maize meal illegally. He may go to a certain farmer customer of the mill and ask to see the meal delivered on last delivery. If the farmer refuses to show it to him, he can insist on seeing it and search the premises, if necessary. Why Deputies should take it for granted that inspectors appointed by the Department will take a delight in going into farmers' houses and pulling their beds about, I cannot say. It shows their depraved ideas if they think it is a pleasure to anybody to go into a house at night and pull people's beds around. I think that the sub-section would be improved by the insertion of these words. Deputies on the other side said on Committee Stage that if the sub-section were to stand as it was the inspector would appear not to have power to search for butter or examine butter found, that he would only have power to look for records.

Looking up the records might possibly be enough, but I think that we should give him power also to search for the butter if he suspects that the butter is on the premises, and where perhaps the owner of the premises might deny that he had any records to show, I think the inspector might have the power to search for the butter. The only way in which he could bring a charge against any particular dealer, shopkeeper or producer, as the case may be, would be through searching for the butter, finding it and asking the owner to account for it. In some cases the inspector might have a very strong suspicion that the charge was true. He could follow up that search by asking the owner of the premises to show his records about the butter, the reason for its being there and so on. It is only by getting those particulars that an inspector could bring a case into court if he were following up a case or if he had a charge against the person for carrying on business without being licensed. I submit, therefore, that the words ought to be inserted.

Mr. Brennan

The Minister has really made no case whatever and he has not attempted to make any case for the application of this sub-section either as it stands or as it is proposed to be amended. It would not be a difficult matter for the Minister to segregate the shopkeepers or dealers from the farmers or butter producers. As far as we are concerned, we are endeavouring to safeguard, as far as we can, the homes of the producers, not the shopkeepers. The Minister endeavours to draw an analogy between the right to enter and look for butter and the right to look for maize meal. The Minister knows as well as anybody in this House that there is no analogy whatever between the two. The Minister fails to see the great difference there is between the homes of the people and the premises in which butter is manufactured. I do not know what the Minister's experience of country life is, but any person who is acquainted with country life knows what the position is in country houses where women are engaged at their business. Any such person knows the objection women have to an inspection of their homes. They strongly object to the inspector being placed in the position of being able to go into every room in the house. If there was any necessity for it it would be different, but there is not. If the Minister wants an inspection of the premises where butter is sold, it is not beyond the capacity of his draftsmen to draft a section that will meet the case. Instead of that he proposes to give inspectors the right to search the private premises of the farmers. There is not much more to be said on this beyond what I said on the original sub-section. I repeat that there is no analogy in what the Minister is suggesting. If the Minister wanted to differentiate and to segregate the two classes of persons—that is, the people who deal in butter and the producer— he can easily do so. The Minister's imagination has run away with him a whole lot when he endeavours to convince the House that we are possessed of a fear that the inspectors will go in and throw the pots, pans and everything around. I am not possessed of any such fear but I do object on behalf of the farmers' wives in the West of Ireland to the inspector saying: "I want to inspect your house, go into your best room and look into all your presses." I think that is a great infringement of the privacy of the home and there is no necessity for it. If a crime is being committed or if there is an infringement of the Act, it is not in the home it will be committed. It is outside. Let the Minister catch the people who are doing the wrong. Let him attempt to catch them out. But this is a very degrading way of going about the business.

Mr. Belton

I fail to see what purpose will be served by the inspection of the farmers' premises. The sub-section says "inspect records." Well, of course if it is not registered premises and the records are asked for, the answer will be: "We have no records." I would like to know from the Minister what power the inspector would have then or whether there would be a breach of the law if the people of the houses or the premises said: "We have no records." I take it that the inspector could not pursue that line any further. This amendment gives the inspector power to examine all butter. But supposing the inspector found one ton of butter on the premises. I am not aware of any law that prevents a person having a ton of butter on his premises. Even if he had a cwt. of butter, the cwt. would obviously be more than a person would want for his own requirements. I would like to know is there anything that would prevent a man having in his premises a cwt. of butter? There is nothing in this Bill which makes it an offence. If the inspector comes in and says: "I want to examine your premises," and the man says he has no butter in the premises, but the inspector finds let us suppose a cwt. of butter, that naturally arouses the inspector's suspicions, perhaps, as much as if he had a ton of butter. But there is no breach of the law. What is the object of going in unless he has already formed a suspicion? What does he achieve except the confirmation of his suspicion? The matter is beyond suspicion if he finds a large quantity of butter on the premises, and there would be a very strong presumption that that very large quantity is not there for the use of the family. The suspicion will be that it is there for the purpose of shebeening if you like. Then the inspector has to watch the premises to see people going in to buy the butter and to catch the transaction being put through.

The Minister's statement is that he has already similar powers, and that this is to deal with breaches of the law. As many breaches of the law as you like, but that does not make a bad principle right. At the same time it modifies my opposition a bit to that principle, when it is brought to my notice that this thing has been done under previous Acts. But the Minister has not shown in support of the amendment that he will gain any information from this intrusion into the privacy of the home beyond the fact that it will confirm his suspicions. The most that he can discover from his inspection of those premises is that there is a large quantity of butter there. But that is not an offence. The inspector will still have to sit about watching. I do not think that a violation of the privacy of the home is justified by the information that will be secured. If the inspector comes in the front door and the person inside purchasing the butter goes out the back window, he cannot catch that person. I do not think it is worth while to invade the privacy of the home for the sake of the information that may be gained.

Professor O'Sullivan

I should not have intervened again in connection with the section were it not for two considerations. First, I am convinced from his statement that the Minister does not realise the objection that there is to inspection of this kind of private houses in the country. It has been so for generations. My other reason is this. The Minister was challenged the last day and challenged on the previous amendment to make some attempt to show that what he was proposing here was in any sense effective. The Minister stated that Deputies on this side pointed out the necessity for this amendment. That is not so. It was merely pointed out the last day that the section as it stood was absolutely futile; but the Minister used precisely the same arguments in defence of it that he used to-day. It is obvious from the amendment that he realised the futility of the section as it stands in the Bill, and yet the same arguments are put forward to convince us on that particular point. I venture the opinion that the section is not quite so obviously futile now for any effective purpose, but I still think it is futile so far as the working of the Bill is concerned. I think it will create a good deal of irritation, and I do not think the Minister realises that.

The Minister is naturally anxious that the Bill should work. He believes that certain parts of the Bill are absolutely necessary for the continuance of the dairy industry, or something like them anyhow. He believes that other parts are also necessary. I think he is putting obstacles in the way of the smooth administration of the Bill by this particular section. I do not think he realises the feeling that there is in this matter. Many persons in the country, especially farmers, have such a strong objection to inspection of this kind that they would prefer to get out of butter producing rather than have their house inspected in the way proposed in this section. The objection is there and is very strong, and I do not think the Minister is benefiting his Bill in the slightest by this. He is, it seems to me, raising unnecessary difficulties. Instead of removing obstacles he is piling them up.

Surely the Minister realises by this time that there are sections in this Bill that are an invitation to something in the nature of smuggling. There will be bound to grow up in the minds of the officials in the course of the administration of this Bill a suspicion, founded or unfounded, that there is something in the nature of smuggling in connection with the sale of butter, especially farmers' made butter. The temptation is undoubtedly there. I do not think that even the Minister can shut his eyes to that. If the Minister thinks that his inspectors will not use this power against the farmers he is making a mistake. They will, and if it is used to any extent the smooth operation of the working of the Bill will be a thing of the past.

It is not necessary to assume that the inspectors will act in an unreasonable fashion. Let us assume that they will act with a full sense of responsibility and not overstep what they consider their duty. No matter how they act, the Minister ought to know that their action will still be found objectionable by the ordinary farmers through the country. This was put up to the Minister again and again not merely by the official Opposition, but by Deputy Belton as well. He must assume that there is some belief on their part that there is objection to this inspection. Supposing he takes the worst interpretation of our action— that we are doing it for Party purposes. There would be no point in doing it for Party purposes unless there was strong objection to it on the part of the farmers. There would be no point in our wasting time here speaking against the provision if we did not believe that the farmers objected strongly to this provision. That is what I am trying to get the Minister to understand—that there is that strong objection.

When an inspector goes into a house, what will happen? Supposing he inspects the records and finds butter there. How does he propose to proceed after that? How does that help him to bring a prosecution. There is nothing illegal in any of the things he has found out as a result of the inspection. All that will cause irritation. I know that this Bill from many points of view has already caused irritation. The Minister referred to other Bills brought in by him and spoke as if there was no objection to inspection. That is not so. There has been irritation caused already in connection with dairy produce, but it is nothing like what it will be in this case, where, I say, owing to the belief that must prevail in the minds of the inspectors there will be a great deal of inspection and a great deal of irritation. The Bill will have sufficient difficulties to contend with and, so far as the part dealing with farmer's butter is concerned, the Minister is making additional difficulties. I gathered from the statement of the Minister that it was mainly in connection with shops he wanted the amendment.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 16th May.