I have little to add to what I said on this amendment before the adjournment of the Dáil the night before last. I put it to the Minister that he has not really considered and does not grasp the measure of annoyance which the enforcement of this clause in the aggravated form in which he proposes to embody it in the Bill is likely to cause and that he does not appreciate the difficulties that it will put in the way of the smooth working of the Bill. I gathered from his speech in introducing the amendment that he professed to believe that, in practice, it would not be used in the case of the particular class for whom we have spoken—the farming class. If that be so, and if there are only one or two cases in which this power would be used, I think that the irritation caused by the introduction of it will not be at all compensated for by the use he intends to make of it. I ask him once more to seek a formula which will exclude the producers of butter—the farmers—and include the particular people at whom he professes to aim. Though I fully accept the bona fides of the Minister's professions in this matter, I cannot accept the likelihood of their being realised. With the general temptation that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will inevitably put before the producer, there will, I fear, be a tendency to evade the law so far as possible. The inspectors will then get busy in the inspection of farm houses. I do not think that they can do so effectively by this clause, as it is to be amended. That is the point I am making against the clause. The clause as it is to be amended will simply put into the hands of the Minister power to harry people. I do not think the sections of the Bill of which the Minister spoke so strongly will empower him to get after what will be analogous to smuggling to any appreciable extent.
It is obvious that the Minister has no real conception of the objection felt to this kind of proceeding in the country districts. If he had, I am sure he would receive our objections to this clause much more sympathetically than he has done. As the Bill stands, it is less objectionable than it will be if this amendment be carried. Therefore, we propose to oppose the amendment. What the difficulties are in distinguishing between the farmer and the butter merchant the Minister did not make clear. The House will remember that the Minister, when asked to justify this measure, refused to accept responsibility for doing so, and tried to throw the responsibility on the Opposition. He was asked how the powers he is now assuming would be made effective. He did not answer. The objection was made, again and again, that these powers would not be effective. His only answer was: "How would the Opposition make them effective?" He made no effort to show how the powers he is claiming would be effective. He objected to the introduction of a clause distinguishing between the farmer and the shopkeeper—seller or butter merchant—and shelved the problem merely by asking how the Opposition would deal with it. He forgot, apparently, that he is in charge of the measure and that it is his business to justify the legislation he introduces and not the business of the Opposition. We find the clause as it is proposed to be amended more objectionable than the provision at present in the Bill.
