Committee on Finance. - Milk (Regulation of Supply and Price) Bill, 1936—Committee.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
"This Act shall not come into operation until such time as every sanitary authority of every sanitary district under the Public Health Acts, 1878 to 1931, shall enforce the provisions of the Milk and Dairies Act 1935 (No. 22 of '35) and of every order and regulation made there under and shall exercise the powers vested in them by that Act or such order or regulation."
The object of the amendment is to delay the coming into force of this Bill until the Milk and Dairies Act of last year is put into operation. Sections 20 and 30 of that Act give power to the Minister for Local Government, with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture, to make at any time an order declaring that a particular sub-section shall cease to be in force after a specified date. The sub-section that can be suspended is the one which provides, in effect, for the registration of all milk producers. It was only a small section of milk producers who were exempted under these two sections, and they were suppliers of milk to creameries. All other producers had to be registered. That Act was passed a year ago and it is strange that it has not yet come into force. The Minister for Agriculture is now proposing to regulate the sale of milk commercially. In winding up the debate on the Money Resolution, the Minister said that it was a matter for the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to deal with milk from the health standpoint, and for himself, as Minister for Agriculture, to deal with it from the commercial or economic standpoint. He said that I did not seem to see the difference between the two. I see it quite well; I see that the Minister is only trying to sidetrack the issue. He is now proposing in this Bill to arrange for the sale of milk from the economic standpoint, but prior to his attempting that, a year before he attempted it and a year before he introduced this Bill, the public health authority, as represented in this House, put a Bill through regulating the production and the handling of milk from the health standpoint. Why has that measure been held up? All that this amendment asks is that this Bill should take its place in the order of importance and in accordance with the chronological order of events.
The Department of Local Government and Public Health put a Bill through the House a year before the Minister for Agriculture found it necessary to introduce this Bill. All this amendment asks is that this measure should not come into force until the Act passed through the House at the instance of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health be first put into operation. According to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and his advisers, milk of a proper standard will be marketed. Let the Minister for Agriculture then regulate the marketing of that if he is so advised. Let him not regulate the marketing of an article that, in effect, the public health authority has condemned. In the Act to which I have referred, milk might be condemned that could be sold under this Bill. My advice to the Minister is to get the quality first and then organise its sale.
Dr. Ryan
I agree with the Deputy that it is desirable that the clean milk legislation should be put into operation as soon as possible. I have been assured by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health that every attempt has been made to bring that Act into operation, but that the framing of the regulations has given a great deal of trouble. The Minister hopes to have the greater part of the Act in operation before the winter. I think the Deputy will agree that if there had been no clean milk legislation, this problem in regard to prices is a pressing problem, and unless we were prepared to allow conditions to continue such as we had a few weeks ago of milk coming in at 5d. and 4½d. a gallon, then some regulation of supply and price is essential. The two measures, as the Deputy has agreed with me, are entirely separate measures. I think he will further agree with me that if this measure were in operation it would enable the producers to comply with the other Act better than if they were getting lower prices. They will be able to make the necessary changes in their cowsheds, and, if they go in for a higher grade of milk, it will enable them to substitute healthier cows for some of the cows they have in stock.
Seeing that the clean milk legislation is coming into operation very soon, the Deputy ought not to press this amendment, because it is possible that we might be operating this measure three or four weeks before the other one comes into operation. I think it is better that we should go ahead with this Bill, because it would be advisable to have it in force when new contracts are being made. If the clean milk legislation comes into operation three or four weeks later, then no milk will be coming into the city under the contracts unless it is clean milk.
I would like to accommodate the Minister, but I was given a mandate to press this amendment. When this becomes an Act, the Minister will have to make many regulations. He will have to do a lot of organising. The regulations under the Milk and Dairies Act are pretty well advanced; I daresay the Minister has seen them. Perhaps they may be finished. They may not have got final approval yet for printing, but if they are not at that stage they are just on that stage. Knowing the delay that the Minister will have under this Bill, I see no insuperable obstacle in the way of the Milk and Dairies Act of last year—considering the position of the regulations under that Act—working well ahead of this measure unless there is some reason that does not appear on the surface for holding it back. I think the Minister will agree that the framing of the regulations has got to such a stage in the case of the Milk and Dairies Act that even if it were a race now he would hardly catch up to the Minister for Local Government in getting his legislation into operation before the Milk and Dairies Act. I am not impressed by the Minister's argument. I have a feeling—I may be wrong—that there is some reason for pushing this through before the Milk and Dairies Act. If there is not, then the Milk and Dairies Act should be in operation long before the Minister will be ready to put this measure into force.
I do not know whether this matter was definitely before the House on the Second Reading, but I find remarks made on the Second Reading very pertinent to it. One Deputy confined himself to talking about the undesirable conditions under which milk was produced in the country and marketed in Dublin. He referred to milk being hawked around the city, having been produced under undesirable conditions. He said that, as regards the milk that came into Dublin, nobody could tell where it came from. It arrived here by motor car, train or lorry, and it was impossible to indicate its place of origin. That was the keynote of Deputy O'Reilly's speech. I wonder is the Deputy going to support Deputy Belton's attitude now?
This Bill that is now under consideration will put these producers in order. They will be all registered producers.
The Deputy's speech had nothing to do with the question of price, except in a very small part. He did refer to the unwholesome and undesirable conditions under which milk consumed in Dublin was produced and sold here. The whole tenor of Deputy O'Reilly's speech was that he apparently thought that the boards to be established under this would look after the quality or would secure a higher quality of milk. He has apparently misread the Bill. His mind was wholly running on Deputy Belton's lines. He was in favour of preserving quality. That was Deputy Belton's argument.
No. He was in favour of creating a little order in the whole business, which did not exist in it.
Yes. You may read it as often as you like.
"Nobody has the slightest control over what is the most important food of the whole community. I think that anything that can be done to remedy that situation should not be objected to." He wants a warranty of the purity of the stuff sold. That is what Deputy O'Reilly thinks this Bill is doing.
That is precisely what I am seeking in this amendment, to get this Act put into operation, which the Minister for Local Government says establishes a standard. I want that Act put into operation before this Bill comes into operation. If Deputy O'Reilly were sincere in wanting to secure the quality of milk——
——and the purity, there is no way out of it only to vote for my amendment.
Deputy Belton very definitely stated that the regulations under the Minister for Local Government's Bill are very far advanced.
And that it is quite easy to surmise that it will be in action long before this Bill will be in action. It would be more desirable if this Bill were in action before his Bill.
I mentioned when the Minister for Local Government's Bill was introduced here that it was a very important question for a farmer to decide whether he could go to the expense of complying with the conditions laid down for the production of clean milk—laid down in what is the present Act. They are rather severe, and are going to cost a good deal of money. I want to be satisfied that the producers would know what they are going to get. Certainly the Deputy will admit that at 4½d. they could not attempt to reconstruct their cowsheds. Is not that correct?
I will answer that in a minute.
Does the Deputy think he represents County Meath in all this?
I am at liberty to think what I like.
In the County Meath it is a very serious matter for them to consider the production of milk under the provisions of this Act. In County Dublin there is no regulation we have to make under that Act that we have not in force already and that should not be in force in County Meath if they had done their work. The Deputy will give in reply what I said on the Financial Resolution, that they had an organisation in County Meath the same as they had in County Dublin. Now they are hesitating to put it up because the milk would not pay them. How is it going to pay the Dublin producers, who have an organisation there already? If the Deputy buys a cow, no inspector will go into his yard, apply the tuberculin test, and order her destruction if she reacts. But that has to be done here, whereas the Deputy can go on milking the old tuberculin cow and dumping the milk in here to Dublin.
Will the Deputy tell us if all the cows in Dublin are tuberculin tested?
They are all subject to tests.
Will the Deputy tell me if all the cows milked in the Dublin market are tested? Remember that 400 or 500 cows are milked there every week.
We get after them. The cow that is sold and comes into our area is tested, and is destroyed if she reacts. Is that done in Meath or in any other county that is sending milk in here in caravans and trailers? I think it was the Deputy himself who was quoted by Deputy McGilligan a few moments ago as saying that nobody knows where the milk comes from or under what conditions it is produced.
And there is no control over it.
There is no control over it. Is it not time we got control before we start making a market for it? Before we guarantee a market for milk that is not produced under proper supervision, is it not time we got an organisation to control the production of that milk? The Deputy is afraid to stand up to the production of high-grade milk. He prefers to get the price of milk regulated—the price for a kind of milk which would not be allowed to be sold for human consumption in the North. Is not that so?
I have quoted it. I do not want to waste the time of the House in giving it again.
There will be no producer registered under this Bill who has not complied with the conditions laid down.
I am not talking about the producer or the consumer. I am saying that this Act should be put into force before the other comes along.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy is putting it the other way—that this Act should not be put into force until the other one comes along.
I am putting it that the Milk and Dairies Act ought to be put into force before the Bill now before the House.
Dr. Ryan
Your amendment is that this Bill should not come into force until that one comes along first—which is a different thing altogether. It is a delaying amendment.
The Minister is in a bit of a jam.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy is. The Deputy would not like to be accused of delaying this Bill.
The Minister delayed it for 12 months. This was put up to the Minister 12 months ago and he refused it.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy's amendment is to delay the operation of this Bill.
Dr. Ryan
It is. Read the amendment.
The amendment reads:
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
This Act shall not come into operation until such time as every sanitary authority of every sanitary district under the Public Health Acts, 1878 to 1931, shall enforce the provisions of the Milk and Dairies Act, 1935 (No. 22 of '35), and of every order and regulation made thereunder and shall exercise the powers vested in them by that Act or such order or regulation.
Why should there not be a delay?
Dr. Ryan
That is all right, if you agree with that.
Remember, the Minister is opening up a market here, and it has cost thousands of pounds to the citizens of Dublin in building up machinery to ensure milk of a certain standard for the City of Dublin. The Minister now proposes under this Bill to guarantee to outsiders a price in that market for milk of a standard inferior to what the public health authorities of the City of Dublin require to be produced. Will the Minister deny that? All that is asked in this amendment is that the guaranteed price and the guaranteed market be not regulated in the City of Dublin until this Milk and Dairies Act to provide for the production of milk of a good standard for sale in the City of Dublin be first put into operation. I would be interested to hear the Minister's direct objection to that. He is trying to sidetrack it. He has to draft those regulations and it will be a big job. The others are in draft. The Minister for Local Government should be able to beat him in the competition to see who would first have his Act in operation. Unless there is some reason for delaying the operation of that Act indefinitely, why should it not come into operation before the Milk Bill now before the House?
I should like to support Deputy Belton's amendment. I think everybody here in the City or County of Dublin is desirous that milk of the best standard should be supplied. Whether the members of the community belong to the very poorest or the very richest sections they all drink milk, and I think possibly the very poorest are the most helpless and the most in need of regulations. If there was anything that made in favour of Deputy Belton's amendment, it was what Deputy O'Reilly said, because apparently, according to his statement, there are a number of farmers, or milk producers anyway, in the adjoining counties who are hesitating whether they can afford to go in for the production of the class of milk that is contemplated when the Milk and Dairies Act is in full force. That brings us to another phase of this problem. I suppose milk production is only the same as a whole lot of other things that are produced. Now, the people who produce the best class of article very often have to compete in price with an article produced under the very worst possible conditions. I should like to protest against that, and I should like to suggest that, as a reward for the production of an article up to a standard, the easiest and simplest way would be to keep out the article that was not up to that standard.
We are faced with a glut of milk in the Dublin market. If we had a scarcity, I suppose the Minister would say to us: "Oh, well now, of course the people must get milk, and there is little enough coming in, and if I stop any milk coming in there will be no milk for certain sections of the community to drink." Now, I think that, surely, when there is a glut of milk, now is the time to put stringent regulations in force; and it must be remembered that that will have its reactions in many ways. Presumably, it will have some effect on the health of the population. It will enhance our reputation as a tourist centre, and it will show the people who are not producing milk up to that standard that they have got to put their house in order. I do not know what Deputy O'Reilly envisaged as the problem in front of the farmer producing milk in Meath who said: "I do not know whether I can afford to go in for these regulations." I suppose, then, that man would send his milk to the creamery to be made into butter. Is that the position? Whatever is done, however, I should like to see these regulations enforced and, as I said before, whether you regard it as a reward for producing milk of the highest grade, or from the point of view of the health of the community or the enhancement of our reputation as a tourist centre and for supplying food to the population equal to any other centre in the British Isles, I should like to support this amendment.
It is very hard to understand Deputy O'Reilly. Speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, he said:
"This question of legislation first cropped up, as many members will remember, on the occasion when a Bill was introduced by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to achieve something that was very necessary—to ensure a supply of clean milk for the people of the city."
It is clear that the Deputy, at any rate, understood the purpose of the Act to which Deputy Belton's amendment refers—the Milk and Dairies Act, 1935. Deputy O'Reilly then continued:
"That Act is not now entirely in operation, but, at any rate, it imposed on the suppliers of milk to the City of Dublin a rather heavy expenditure in so far as they were compelled to put their cowsheds and other appurtenances in order. That is going to cost them a good deal of money. The only statement I made on that occasion was to request the permission of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to ask the Minister for Agriculture what steps he intended to take to ensure that the purchasers were going to get a better price for their milk in order to meet the increased costs which would naturally ensue from the operation of the Bill then going through the House."
The Deputy then continued on to talk about nobody having any control and how necessary it was to ensure the purity of the milk sold here. I asked him a moment ago did he think he represented the people of his constituency correctly when he stated here boldly in this House that some of his constituents were considering whether it was not better to sell dirty milk— that was the tenor of his remarks—at whatever price they could get for it, rather than have two Acts run in harness together, at any rate as far as the regulations are concerned, after the passage of these Bills through the House. I refer to the Milk and Dairies Act and to this Bill. The Deputy must understand that the Bill has, as part of its title, the regulation of supply and price. I think that the supply matter is only a preamble to the price matter. The Bill we are discussing is entirely concerned with price, and the other Bill, which Deputy Belton suggests should run in harness with this Bill, is the one that deals with purity and quality. Evidently, Deputy O'Reilly wants, now that Dublin has dropped the old alliterative damnation of the "dear and dirty Dublin" slogan, that Meath should take it up. Meath, according to the Deputy, is apparently the place where the people have not yet made up their minds whether they can afford to sell clean milk. Supposing the Deputy has that mentality and that some of his constituents—misrepresented by him, I suggest—have that mentality, would not Deputy Belton's amendment be a better one?
Under the Bill we are considering, the board, when established, will have to consider the regulation of maximum and minimum prices for milk. Should they do that before they have in front of them the expenditure necessary in order to run the Milk and Dairies Act, or should they do it before that expense is put upon the producer? Surely it is better to have those boards contemplate an article produced under good conditions and sold as pure milk rather than have them associate a price in connection with an article which is not governed by the Milk and Dairies Act. If ever there was a reasonable amendment, this is it. It asks that, before we start to regulate the price, we should see that what Deputy O'Reilly so forcefully pleaded for on the Second Reading is attended to: namely, the warranty for purity. Once that is established, the matter could be much better dealt with. I suggest, however, that there is a much more cynical point behind Deputy O'Reilly's speech—one that perhaps he has not discovered himself, but which I propose to disclose. This Bill is, mainly, to deal with the situation of the supply of milk to the City of Dublin. Now, County Meath supplies milk to Dublin, and County Dublin supplies milk under certain conditions. I suggest that the price that may be fixed may possibly have some relation to the conditions in County Dublin and County Meath, and that, until some regulations are made, people in County Meath will continue to get as good a price for less pure milk than County Dublin producers—a price based upon milk as produced under present County Dublin conditions. If so, I say that that is a scandalous thing and one that the Government should prevent.
Would the Deputy please indicate the column from which he is quoting?
Columns 1507 to 1510 of the Debate of 21st July.
I think Deputy Belton's amendment does suggest the logical order in which these different enactments should be put in force. The Bill before us at present proposes to establish a machinery to regulate the milk supply, but it proposes to establish such machinery without any reference to the quality of the milk or to the effect of that milk on health. It seems to me that that is illogical in view of the fact that we have on the Statute Book an Act passed last year which has not yet been put into force, an Act which deals with the quality of the milk sold and with its effect upon health. Now we are asked to set up a machinery to provide a market for milk without any reference to the quality of the milk. In itself, that is illogical, but it seems to me, too, that it will create very considerable difficulty for the milk producers. They are asked to assist, if this Bill is enacted and goes into force before the other Bill, in forming machinery to sell milk, while they are still in ignorance of the conditions under which that milk must be produced. The farmer is put in this curious dilemma, that he is asked to join in this market, to produce milk and possibly to increase his equipment for producing milk, in entire ignorance of the conditions that will be imposed upon him when the Act of last year comes into force.
I cannot see why the Minister is so anxious to put this Bill into force rapidly. He is not asked in Deputy Belton's amendment to delay it. All that is asked is that the other Act which is ripe for being put into force—and the regulations must be ripe for being put into force—should be put into force first, and his Bill should follow immediately, if it is ready. He is not asked to delay the enactment of the Bill; he is not asked to delay it in any of its stages. He is asked to ensure that the other Act is put into force first. I think that is entirely reasonable and logical, and a safeguard to the consumer, and also to the farmer producer. If the Minister accepted this amendment, the mere fact of his accepting it would probably hurry the Department in charge of the other Act in getting their regulations ready without further loss of time. I am not suggesting that they have delayed in the matter. I am sure they are working on them, but it would become a more urgent matter to get their regulations complete and to put the Act into force at once. I hope the Minister will consider this amendment. It does not at all interfere with the machinery he proposes. It merely asks that what are going to be the permanent conditions in regard to the production of milk should be understood by the public and by the consumer and in force as law before he establishes this machinery.
Dr. Ryan
I do not think any Deputy here is so innocent as to believe that this amendment can be anything but a delaying amendment. The Milk and Dairies Act which went through last year will come into operation as soon as the Department of Local Government can possibly bring it into operation. As I stated already, they found considerable difficulty in framing these regulations, because they have so many interests to deal with and there are so many obstacles to be got over in trying to get clean milk for the consumers here in the city and elsewhere, and, at the same time, in inflicting the minimum amount of hardship on those engaged in the milk trade, whether they are producers, retailers or wholesalers. I have not the slightest doubt that that Act will come into operation in the shortest possible time. This amendment means that if, by any chance, I was in a position to bring this Bill into operation before the Milk and Dairies Act comes into operation, I should have to wait. If I am not ready sooner, it does not make any difference—the other Bill comes in first and this Bill comes in afterwards. Suppose, however, there is some unforeseen delay in putting the Milk and Dairies Act into operation, a delay which every Deputy will agree was unavoidable, are we then to be in the position that the people must accept unsatisfactory prices for their milk during that delay?
I think Deputy Belton will have to admit that, taking even the most favourable view of his amendment from the supplier's point of view, there is a possibility of a delay in the amendment. It is not going to achieve anything so far as I can see, because I do not see how the threat of this amendment, or the fact that it is accepted by this House, can hurry the Minister for Local Government or the officials of his Department any more in framing these regulations. Deputy Belton ought to realise that the fact that I accept an amendment here is not going to get them to hurry in the slightest, because they have assured me already that they are going as fast as they can and will bring the Bill into operation at the earliest possible moment. I cannot get any more from them. If I go back to them and say "I cannot get this Bill to operate until you operate first," they will naturally say "We are doing our best."
And will you be satisfied with that?
Dr. Ryan
And will the underpaid farmer producer be satisfied?
Dr. Ryan
Naturally he will not, and I am sure he will be very dissatisfied if Deputy Belton's amendment is either accepted or put and carried here.
Whom will he be dissatisfied with?
Dr. Ryan
With the members here for agreeing to it.
Dr. Ryan
For the sake of the producer, I am afraid we have to say that the amendment is unacceptable.
I think I have given as much service to farmer producers as any man in this House or in this country. I represent the North City in this House, and I challenge the Minister to deny that, according to the Act passed last year, milk which is produced under conditions that are not open to inspection and supervision is not fit for human consumption as liquid milk.
Dr. Ryan
How is this amendment going to make that right?
You are going to place an obligation on my constituents by legislation fixing an increased price for their milk which, according to the Act of this House, passed last year, is unfit for human consumption, and I would be false to my constituents if I were a party to making them pay an increased price for such an article. According to the medical advice which they are paying for—I am now quoting the medical officers for the City and County of Dublin—milk which is not produced under proper conditions is more a poison than a food. We here in Dublin are paying for that advice. Are we going to take it? The Minister for Local Government passed this Act through a year ago. What has the whole Department been doing for 12 months that they are not able to draft and to put into force the regulations to implement this Act? Were they playing fast and loose with this House when they came here with their Bill and said it was a matter of urgent necessity for the health of the people in the country? They have not been able to implement it in a year. The Minister asks whether if, by any chance, he gets this Act through, he is to hold it up owing to something unforeseen happening with regard to the Milk and Dairies Act.
I can tell the Minister that the regulations are in draft. I read them to-day. He has not started to draft regulations and will not do so until he gets this Bill. What is delaying the Department of Local Government? Has there been deliberate delay? What is holding up the other Act? The first essential in buying food, if it is only a pound of butter, is not price but quality. Bad butter and bad milk are dear at any price. The other Act gives quality, and this Bill comes along with price. If Deputy O'Reilly or the representative of any other constituency wants to have a good price paid for a good article, if the article is not being produced it should not be sold in the market. I will go to Meath and say that. I will even go to Duleek to say it, where the milk organisation was started and where it burst up because they were not able to redeem the promises they made. If we are serious about legislation and about the health of the people, let us look to quality first. Farmers will produce milk of that standard if they are paid to do it. Deputy Dockrell made a good point when he said that we have a surplus of milk produced under the stringent conditions that I enumerated. There is a glut here because the good milk is being crushed out by milk produced without supervision. As Deputy Dockrell said, now is the time to make a start. If the Minister will not accept this amendment, will he bring in one on the Report Stage so that no producer can be registered for the sale of milk unless production is supervised at the source? If the Minister does that I will withdraw this amendment. The City of Dublin has for a generation paid the price to get milk of a certain standard for consumption, and I will not be a party to fixing an increased price for that milk if the people are not to get an article of the standard that the health authorities in the city say should be sold for consumption. If the Minister will not bring in an amendment so that milk will be supervised at the source, or if he wants to fix a high price for dirty milk—because that is what it amounts to—he should know that while it would not be accepted for human consumption or for the making of bread or pastries in Belfast, the citizens of Dublin are forced to pay an increased price for it.
Dr. Ryan
Do you mean that a person cannot be registered unless the regulations are in force?
Dr. Ryan
Whatever regulations are in force.
If there are none, Section 31 (4) has no meaning.
Dr. Ryan
From the answer given, the section will only catch a person who fails to be registered in accordance with whatever regulations happen to be in force. If there are no regulations there is no prohibition of registration. That does not carry it further. We have advanced somewhere in this matter. Apparently there is agreement in the House that the general principle of a Bill dealing with prices which we are discussing is a desirable one. I gathered from the fact that the Minister concentrated his whole argument on the point of delay, as well as from the eloquent silence of Deputy O'Reilly, that the House is more or less in agreement that quality should be attended to before a price is fixed. Put in that way, we would get some agreement. The House would not connive at a price being paid for milk produced under conditions which were quite clearly condemned by it when it passed the Milk and Dairies Act of 1935. We are completely concerned with the point of delay. The Minister told us that there had been great delay in framing regulations. He gave as another excuse that regulations are difficult to frame, because one had to consider all the interests that might be prejudiced. If the Minister had been a member of another Government that was any way concerned during its career with hardship that might be caused to anyone by such regulations, we might take that excuse. We would be more credulous about doing so when we consider the record of the Government, and particularly the Minister for Agriculture, who had from time to time drawn up regulations after regulations, bundles of them, and changed them when it was found that the first draft brought hardship on certain people. They were amended and reamended without the slightest scruple, conscience or shame. I would have thought that if any Government Department had been made perfect in the framing of regulations through practice it would be the present Department of Agriculture.
Dr. Ryan
I think the Deputy must misunderstand the position. These regulations are not made by my Department.
No, but the Department for Local Government and the Department of Agriculture are joined up in the making of regulations, and I suppose the experts do not consider the price of milk without having some touch with quality and other aspects of departmental work. The Minister stands before us in this House as the champion of clean and good milk, of substantial good food in the form of milk. Personally, he tried to inaugurate a movement in favour of drinking more milk—it was not to drink dirty milk. There is considerable practice in the drafting of regulations, but other than two or three vague phrases of the Minister, no one has explained the reason for the delay in regard to the regulations and the difficulty that prevents the Milk and Dairies Act of 1935 being made operative. Probably the Minister's best point was that by passing the present Bill the Act of 1935 would be hurried up. He did not say where the stimulus would be. The Minister reacted very quickly to certain conditions that became very clear to him in and around the City of Dublin quite recently and this Bill emerged. Let us think of the farmer producer who he says must get a better price under this Bill. Let the Minister consider the producers who might have got a better price if the Minister had brought in regulations for the Act passed on the 14th June last year. Let him divert all that very potent sway exercised upon him with regard to this measure on the Minister for Local Government, and this House will undoubtedly give a very definite stimulus to the bringing in of these very long-delayed regulations. The Minister tried to raise the bogey of political viewpoints with regard to the Bill. I do not mind facing up to that particular bogey—Deputy Belton said that he counts it as nothing—if we have these two measures running together, if the farmer producers see that this House almost unanimously has agreed to the fixing of a better price for the producers of milk, and if the farmer producers know, as they must have realised, that from the 13th June last year this House almost unanimously agreed that a better standard with regard to the purity of a particular foodstuff, was required. If these farmer producers generally have got to look round to see where is the delay, are they going to think of this House debating this measure here, or will they not ask what has happened to prevent the coming into operation of the regulations which should have been made under the Act passed in June, 1935? If there is any blame for delay, the blame will not be put on this House and deservedly will not be put on this House. It will be put on the Department of Local Government which got an Act passed in June of last year and has not yet produced the regulations under it or has not given to the House any explanation of why these regulations have not been made.
Deputy Belton asked whether a particular change in the amendment would make it more acceptable. I wish to suggest another change. I think that the Minister might have made this point, that as long as any sanitary authority had failed to enforce the provisions of the 1935 Act, the Minister could not apply this Prices Act to that part of the Saorstát. That would be clearly undesirable. Would the Minister accept that change in the amendment, that the Act would only come into operation in regard to any area where the sanitary authority had accepted the 1935 Act? That would then mean that there were two Departments brought into association in this matter. The Department of Local Government would have to get whatever regulations are required under the 1935 Act put into operation in whole or in part and then the provisions of this Bill would only accrue in favour of people who lived in an area where the sanitary authorities were acting under that 1935 Act. It is quite clear that it should not be left to the consent of some sanitary authority to hold up the entirety of this Prices Regulation Bill. Certainly, we ought to see that the two measures should run together, that there will be a better price given, but only when we find that the people benefiting by that price are desirous of meeting this House in regard to the other measure by taking steps to provide for supplies of pure milk.
Will the Minister accept that suggestion?
Dr. Ryan
What is the price to be fixed? Is it the cost of production of clean, good milk that will regulate the fixed prices? If it is, what right have those people who are not producing good, clean milk to get a good clean milk price? If it is not that, will the price be regulated according to the supply of milk, and what sort of milk will be reckoned in the supply? Will it be good, bad and indifferent milk? The sale area of the City of Dublin may have included in it part of the area of a sanitary authority which has not adopted the Milk and Dairies Act of 1935. Then that area is going to be paid for an article that it is not producing while the people who are paying for that superior article are not getting it. I cannot see with any equity, with any sense of justice at all, how this Prices Bill can be administered in an area where provision has not already been made for the production in that area of milk of a certain standard. If the Prices Bill that is now before us does not take into account milk of the standard that the authorities in this sale area say that we require for the health of our people, then obviously a terrible injustice is being done to the city. What are we, the ratepayers in the city and county, paying medical officers, sanitary officers and veterinary officers for? Their advice is that we should have milk of a certain grade, and the Minister is going to fix a price on the basis of a milk supply of an inferior grade. The Minister will not insist on the Act which was passed last year being put into force. He will not insist, as Deputy McGilligan suggested, on its being run in double harness with this Bill. He will not accept Deputy McGilligan's suggestion to circumscribe my amendment so that the benefit of the price fixing will not be available to producers in any sanitary district which has not adopted the provisions of the Milk and Dairies Act of last year.
The only point the Minister has endeavoured to make in his own defence is to accuse me of delaying the passage of this Bill in putting down this amendment. That might be good enough for a public platform, but it is not good enough for this House and the Minister is not going to get away with it. Deputy McGilligan made the case quite clear, that the Local Government Department have got their Act for the past 13 months. If it has not been put into operation it is not the fault of the Minister for Agriculture, nor is it the fault of this House. It is the fault of the Department which failed to deliver the goods within a year. The Minister for Agriculture in seeking the passage of this Bill is afraid that he may be ready to put it into operation before the Milk and Dairies Act passed 13 months ago. I would suggest to the Minister that he is conscious of some reason which is holding up the Milk and Dairies Act. What is the reason? I think the House ought to know. The Minister for Local Government or his Parliamentary Secretary came into this House and said: "We want good milk; we must have pure food in the shape of pure milk for the people of this country." They came before the House with all that flourish of trumpets, saying that the Government were looking after the health of the people by insisting on the production of good milk and the sale of good milk. Now they have hung up the Act for over a year. Now, the Minister for Agriculture is afraid he will beat them in the race. He will not even take an amendment limiting the scope of my amendment. At bottom, I think there is something dishonest about the whole business. Because of some afterthought, the Government want to delay the putting into operation of the Milk and Dairies Act of last year. In other words, because of some afterthought, they do not want to see that good, clean milk is sold here and paid for at an economic price. The Minister cannot tell us for what article he wants an economic price. Is it for clean milk or dirty milk? His lieutenant, Deputy O'Reilly, said they were considering down in Meath whether it would pay them to produce clean milk at the fixed price. I am speaking for people who want clean milk. Their expert advisers say you must have clean milk at any price. The Minister wants to force dirty milk on them.
Question put: "That the proposed new sub-section be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Tá, 19; Níl, 32.
Tá
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Davin, William.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Keating, John.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Morrisroe, James.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Pattison, James P.
- Roddy, Martin.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Bennett and Belton; Níl: Deputies Smith and T. Crowley.
Question declared lost.
Amendment negatived.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(1) In this Act—
the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Agriculture;
the word "milk" means whole milk which is sold for consumption as whole milk or is used in the manufacture of butter, cheese, cream or ice cream;
the word "inspector" means a person authorised in writing by a board established under Part II of this Act to exercise the power conferred on an inspector;
the word "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of Part III of this Act—
(a) milk dealt with at premises registered in any of the registers kept under the Dairy Produce Act, 1924 (No. 58 of 1924), shall be deemed to have been produced at such premises, and
(b) the owner of such premises shall be deemed to be the producer of any milk dealt with thereat,
(c) where any milk is sold or purchased such milk shall be deemed to have been sold at the place where the purchaser carries on business.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (1), page 3, to delete lines 21, 22 and 23 and substitute the following:—"the word ‘milk' means whole milk, other than whole milk used in the manufacture of condensed milk or dried milk."
The manufacture of condensed milk or dried milk cannot be undertaken without a licence under the Creameries Act of 1928. The purpose of this amendment makes it clear. The original definition was intended to exclude milk used for manufacturing purposes, but this makes clear what the purpose of the definition is. The new definition would read: "The word ‘milk' means whole milk, other than whole milk used in the manufacture of condensed milk or dried milk." Condensed milk would not come in. That would be used entirely for manufacturing purposes.
The Minister said something about the 1928 Act?
Dr. Ryan
Is it intended that this Act will not in any sense encroach upon the Creameries Act of 1928?
Dr. Ryan
Would the Minister think fit to introduce a provision establishing in precise terms that this Bill will not have any effect whatever on anything done under the 1928 Act? I suggest there are possibilities of very serious reactions arising from things done under the 1928 Act, and I gather that it is not the intention of the Minister that should happen. The Creameries Act of 1928 ought to run by itself, and any conditions established under that Act should continue and be of full force and effect and should not be in any way marred by this.
Dr. Ryan
Would the Deputy say what fears he has in mind?
The matters of which I am thinking would come in under the later sections. They would not come under the definition of milk. They might interfere with the licences granted under the Creameries Act of 1928, and the freedom given under that Act might be very definitely cut down by the activities of the board; in fact, by the very wording of this particular measure. The Minister's viewpoint is clear that the Act of 1928 is one thing and should be allowed to run along on its own. There should be no adverse repercussions by this Bill on that Act.
Dr. Ryan
Is the Minister's amendment disposed of?
I have an amendment to the Minister's amendment. I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (1), line 21, to insert the word "human" before the word "consumption" and in line 22 to delete all words after the word "milk" to the end of line 23.
The Minister defines by implication that the milk that he proposes to deal with in this Bill is milk that in up-to-date places, and even under the Milk and Dairies Act, is not fit for human consumption; because even where the regulations are more stringent than they are here and more stringent than is contemplated in the Milk and Dairies Act, milk not allowed to be sold for human consumption as liquid milk is allowed to be sold to the creameries to manufacture butter. The Minister here standardises an article the price of which he proposes to regulate in this Bill, as milk of the type that is offered to creameries for the making of butter. There is no supervision under that. There is no place in these islands where such milk is allowed to be sold for human consumption as liquid milk. I think the Minister has hit on a very unhappy definition of milk. The definition that I suggest in the amendment, though it may not be specific enough, is a safer definition than the one the Minister proposes. Quite clearly he visualises milk as supplied to creameries; that is the milk the price of which he is prepared to regulate when "sold for human consumption." There is no inspection of the herd. There is no inspection of the dairies where the milk cans may be stored. There is no inspection whatever at the source of production. Health authorities are not so much concerned for that inspection at the source of production when milk is intended for the manufacture of butter, but no health authority in those islands, except the Free State, will permit that milk to be sold for human consumption as liquid milk. The latest measure of the Free State Government is this Bill proposing to regulate the standard minimum price that the citizens of Dublin should pay for dirty milk. That is what it amounts to.
Dr. Ryan
I do not exactly see that Deputy Belton gets his point by this amendment. The amendment would exclude from the Bill all milk sold for the manufacture of butter and cream. That would be the effect of the amendment the Deputy is proposing. Let us take a wholesaler or a retailer who buys a certain quantity of milk. The Deputy knows he sometimes has to churn part of that milk or he buys some of that milk for conversion into cream or perhaps ice cream. He would be excluded from the Bill. That is, he could pay any price he liked for milk if he intended to use it for butter, cream, ice cream or cheese. I think the Deputy will see that it would lead to confusion and make the task of the board practically impossible, because if a wholesaler were detected in paying less than the minimum to a certain farmer he might make the plea that he did not intend to use that particular milk for human consumption, but for cheese or buttermaking, as he might, perhaps, be making butter or cheese as a side line or to use up his surplus milk. From the point of view of the administration of the board, if for no other reason, I think it would be impossible.
Does the Minister contemplate distributors buying milk at less than the minimum price on the pretence that they are going to use it for the making of butter or ice cream?
Dr. Ryan
I say that under the Deputy's amendment they might do that.
The primary object of distributors is to buy milk for distribution and sale as liquid milk, and they must pay the standard price fixed for liquid milk. No distributor is going to buy milk and make butter of it, because if he can sell it as liquid milk it would pay him better. It is his trade to buy it and sell it as liquid milk. Heretofore distributors had to churn, but in future, because of the dump for the milk—I call it that without any disrespect for the Bill— there will be no inducement to distributors to churn any milk or manufacture it into any other article.
Dr. Ryan
I cannot see it, because if they have the dump into which to put their surplus milk the other would not pay them.
Dr. Ryan
It might possibly pay them to make cream or ice-cream or even cheese.
I think those who have been doing ice-cream have been very well paid.
Dr. Ryan
We want to make them pay the average price. The Deputy's amendment would give them the opportunity of evading the fixed price.
I do not see it. I think it is a better definition than the Minister puts up. Milk for human consumption should be more clearly and rigidly defined. Of course, I would not accept anything as defining milk for human consumption that fell short of milk produced under proper supervision at the source of production. I shall withdraw the amendment if the Minister will consider another definition before the Report Stage.
Dr. Ryan
At the moment I do not see that there is anything wrong with my definition, but I shall undertake to look into it again.
Amendment No. 2 put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 is out of order.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 5:
In sub-section (2), page 3, line 29, to delete the following: "of Part III."
This is a drafting amendment, as this section applies to other parts besides Part III.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Sub-section (2) of Section 2 now runs: that for the purposes of the Act "milk dealt with at premises registered in any of the registers kept under the Dairy Produce Act, 1924, shall be deemed to have been produced at such premises." What is the purpose of that particular definition? Secondly, "the owner of such premises shall be deemed to be the producer of any milk dealt with thereat." These two sub-sections have reference to premises registered in any of the registers established under the 1924 Act. I presume that is kept entirely distinct and apart from creameries in relation to which licences are granted under the 1928 Act.
Dr. Ryan
That has reference to creameries.
It only refers to premises registered under the 1924 Act, and, as the other was a later Act, I thought if it was intended to include registration under the 1928 Act that the two Acts would be joined together. The third point has reference to sub-section (c): "Where any milk is sold or purchased such milk shall be deemed to have been sold at the place where the purchaser carries on business." That has no relation to registered premises, so far as the wording goes, but it is tied up in a sub-section the first two-lettered paragraphs of which have reference to registered premises. I want to know is letter paragraph (c) supposed to refer also to sale or purchase at premises, or has it anything to do with premises?
Then there is this further question. Suppose you have a man who collects milk from a variety of places and who has a main sales establishment in Dublin. Is any milk he purchases elsewhere in the country and diverts up to his Dublin sales premises and sells from there deemed to have been sold at the place where he carries on his main business? I notice that on the Second Reading there was talk about what is described as the home counties. Supposing a man has premises somewhere on the outskirts of one of the home counties, in the neighbourhood of Dublin, and he also has premises outside the home area, and that he buys some there; that he has been in the habit of transferring that to premises inside the area, and that finally it arrives in Dublin for sale in Dublin where his main place of business is. Will the milk bought outside the home counties be deemed to have been bought in Dublin under this? I think that is the meaning of letter paragraph (c). Whether it is intended or not I do not know.
Dr. Ryan
If he has two premises, one the main premises, and the other a subsidiary one, it really does not matter where he gets the milk as long as he sells it in Dublin?
Dr. Ryan
It does not matter in certain respects.
For the purpose of collection and sale—for the purpose of supply and price?
Dr. Ryan
As long as he has his main premises in Dublin, although he has subsidiary premises drawing milk from an area outside the home counties, he can sell that as home counties or Dublin milk. I wonder is that right?
Dr. Ryan
Under some section later on in this Bill—I cannot quote the section for a moment—orders will be made with regard to the area. No milk can be collected outside that area unless the person had previously been supplying milk to the city or town, as the case may be. So that under that section, of course, he could not collect milk even through a subsidiary any way he wishes.
That is Section 31. It seems to me that that is in conflict a little bit with the widest meaning— whether the proper meaning or not— given to letter paragraph (c).
Dr. Ryan
Paragraph (c), I take it, deals with the person's headquarters being the registered address, and so on.
Take my example. A man has business premises in Dublin, but he purchases milk, say, in Wicklow and he purchases milk somewhere south of Wicklow. Now, this definition says that where "any milk is sold or purchased, such milk should be deemed to have been sold or purchased at the place where the purchaser carries on business." In the case of that Dublin man, his main business is undoubtedly in Dublin. Now, he has purchased milk in Wicklow. Wicklow may be inside the joint district. Therefore that would not matter, but he may have been in the habit of collecting milk outside the home counties. Therefore I think that the definition, as drafted, would mean that any milk he purchases anywhere will be deemed to have been sold or purchased where the business is. It would have been sold in Dublin, no matter where purchased, and that may conflict with Section 31.
Dr. Ryan
I do not think so, but perhaps it may be as well to look into it to see if it does conflict with Section 31. The Deputy asked me about paragraphs (a) and (b). These refer to creameries. There are certain creameries, for instance, supplying the City of Dublin. They are supplying it to a greater extent, perhaps, in towns that this Act may apply to. It is considered that it would not be fair to exclude those creameries from the business that they have built up. Therefore they would come under the clause in Section 31. There is a later clause in that section which says that those who have been supplying milk for the last 15 months from outside the registration district would be entitled to continue to supply. The creameries would come under that category. We have, therefore, to get a definition with regard to who is the supplier in that case. We say that the supplier is the creamery. We do not go back to the farmer who supplies the creamery. The creamery would be regarded as the producer, and, therefore, all the regulations that apply to a producer and supplier would apply to the creamery as if that creamery were a farmer-producer.
Section 31 has this meaning. Certain people are to be allowed to apply to the board for a joint district to be registered in the register of producers in relation to that district. Now, who is to be allowed to apply? "A person who produces or proposes to produce milk on premises situate in a production district." That is clear enough, but you go on to enlarge that, and you say "A person who produces milk on premises situate outside such production district," and who, during the period of 12 or 15 months, has been supplying. He is to be deemed to be a producer inside the area. That is what it comes to. As I read paragraph (a) of sub-section (2), that is hardly necessary. There is another type of case which will certainly enlarge the production district, although there may not be many examples of it. Supposing that the home counties are going to be scheduled as the joint district for Dublin, and I think that is the intention, there may be a creamery somewhere to the south of Wicklow which may be drawing supplies from across the border into the neighbouring county. Under the definition, anything that is dealt with in that creamery from the southern extremities of that county will be deemed to have been produced in the creamery whether, in fact, it was produced there or not. I do not see the necessity for sub-section (1), paragraph (b) of Section 35. A person is deemed to be registered in a production district if he has been producing milk outside a production area and has been selling it inside for 12 of the 15 months laid down in the section.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy has taken the example of the five counties around Dublin. Supposing we had a farmer from Leix who has been supplying milk to Dublin during the last five or six years. He will be entitled to continue to supply. That is covered by paragraph (b).
And he would be allowed to supply direct to Dublin and not through an intermediary. Does registered premises cover the word "creamery"?
Dr. Ryan
A creamery is a registered premises.
Would the Minister not think it desirable to make it clearer and have the 1928 Act brought into the definition? It may be that the reference to the 1924 Act carries forward to the 1928 Act.
Dr. Ryan
Creameries established under the 1928 Act are, of course, registered. They must also be registered under the 1924 Act, so that they are all covered by the 1924 Act.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(1) The Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks proper, by order (in this Part of this Act referred to as a milk (joint district) order) do the following things, that is to say:—
(d) declare that, of the ordinary members of the board to be established under this Part of this Act for such joint (sale and supply) district, either—
(i) such board shall consist of a specified number of producer members, a specified number of retailer members, and a specified number of wholesaler members, or
(ii) such board shall consist of a specified number of producer members and a specified number of retailer members, and
(3) In this Act—
the expression "the day of entry on office of first elected members" when used in relation to a joint district means the day appointed to be the day of entry on office of first elected members in respect of such joint district by a milk (joint district) order,
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Dr. Ryan
With regard to amendment No. 6, in the name of Deputy Dockrell, which has not been moved, I may say that the point the Deputy had in mind is fully covered by Section 44. I now move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (1), before paragraph (d), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) define (in such manner and by reference to such things as the Minister shall think proper) what shall constitute in relation to milk a retailer and a wholesaler respectively in respect of such sale district, and
It is rather difficult to give a definition that will cover retailer and wholesaler in every town in the Saorstát. A retailer in the City of Dublin may be a bigger person than a wholesaler in another town. Therefore, I think it is necessary to give power to define what a wholesaler and retailer is in each instance. It is the only way that difficulty can be got over.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (1) (d), page 4, line 30, to insert before the word "such" the words "if, but only if, the Minister is of opinion that there are then no persons carrying on the business of wholesalers in such sale district."
This amendment lays down that where there are registered wholesalers they will be represented on the board. There may not be wholesalers in each district, but if there are they will be represented.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 9:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) The number of producer members of a board for a joint (sale and supply) district shall not in any case be less than one-half of the number of the ordinary members of such board.
This amendment is to provide that producers will get at least half the representation on any board and this, I think, also meets the point raised by Deputy O'Reilly in the next amendment.
What other types of members are there to be as well as ordinary? Who else is to be on the boards except ordinary members— nominated members?
Dr. Ryan
Yes, there are nominated members for the first board and elected members afterwards—ordinary members and the chairman.
The division is ordinary members and the chairman?
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 11:—
In sub-section (3) to insert at the end of the sub-section the following: the expression "retailer" when used in relation to a sale district means a person who is a retailer as defined in the Milk (Joint District) Order which relates to such sale district; the expression "wholesaler" when used in relation to a sale district means a person who is a wholesaler as defined in the Milk (Joint District) Order which relates to such sale district.
This is consequential upon amendment No. 7, which I have already explained. It has relation to the definition of "retailer" and "wholesaler."
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On the section, I gather that the purpose of one or two of these amendments put in by the Minister is to have a different specification for the retailer and the wholesaler in different areas, if he thinks that is necessary. I gather also that the explanation so far is that your definition of a retailer in Dublin might miss a particular type of person or might include a fair number of people whom you would not desire to include, thinking of that term in relation to the country, and vice versa. I suppose there is some case for that. The section, even without the amendments, gives the Minister power by order to define a sale district and a production district and, if he likes, to declare that these two areas are to be a joint district for sale and supply. In sub-section (2), the Minister at any time may revoke or amend a joint district order. He may in particular alter by addition or subtraction or both an area which is a sale district.
Will the Minister say whether he can envisage this in operation? Is it intended that districts will be arranged with county limits, or will there be breaking up of counties for the purpose of arranging production, sale or joint districts? I gathered that the divisions would be county groupings in the main. The Minister takes power to declare an area that might be any fraction or portion of a county, and he can apparently subtract even less than a bit of a county, less than a well-recognised portion of a county. There must have been some objective before the Minister prior to this matter being considered. Has the Minister any idea yet with regard to Dublin as to what is going to be the joint district for sale or production? Is it not going to be the home counties?
Dr. Ryan
Why has this peculiarly wide power of amendment been put in? It may be a safeguard, but has the Minister thought of any possible eventuality? Is it in his mind that one might have to add areas bordering on the home counties, or even fractions of areas bordering on the home counties? He has made provision to enable sales, as they used to be, to be continued where the producers or sellers might find themselves outside an actual area. Is this power of varying the area taken deliberately with the intention of adding in some fractions of towns of other counties, or is it an emergency clause with no special objective?
Dr. Ryan
I think, as regards what the Deputy says about adding and subtracting, the position would be very clear if we only had to deal with Dublin, but suppose we take the town of Cobh, possibly we might take part of County Cork as the supply area. It is possible to visualise the division of a county when defining an area. With regard to adding or subtracting, afterwards, I must confess I cannot see at the moment any particular case where it would be necessary, but I think on the whole it might be well to have those powers. If, for instance, a town thought it had not been allowed a sufficient area, we might have to add a bit to it. I think there should be power to add or subtract in certain eventualities.
In Section 34 the Minister has met an apparent contingency in this way, that if you have a person outside a production area who has been selling, say, to the City of Dublin, that person, if he has been selling a certain amount, may apply to be registered. Supposing you have a creamery that did not come inside that definition, would it be possible for the Minister to add that creamery to the area?
Dr. Ryan
I take it that under this it would be possible.
Question agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
(3) Every board for a joint district shall consist of the following number of members, namely—
(a) a chairman (in this Part of this Act referred to as the chairman of such board), and
(b) the following ordinary members, namely—
(i) the appropriate number of producer members, and
(ii) the appropriate number of retailer members, and
(iii) if, but only if, the milk (joint district) order which relates to such district declares that such board shall include any wholesaler members, the appropriate number of wholesaler members.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 12:—
In sub-section (3), to delete line 20 and substitute the following:—
(b) until the day of entry on office of first elected members in respect of such district, a number of ordinary members equal to the sum of the appropriate number of producer members, the appropriate number of retailer members and the appropriate number of wholesaler members (if any), and
(c) on and after the day of entry on office of first elected members in respect of such district, the following ordinary members, namely—
I think that this and the two succeeding amendments might be taken together. They are really drafting amendments in order to provide that the nominated board will continue to act until the elected members enter into office. It would look as if no board could be there until the appointed day. When the appointed day arrives, the whole measure comes into operation and we must have a board there before the appointed day. The wording of the Bill is slightly changed to provide for that, so that the nominated board will continue in office up to the time when it will be possible to have the elected board ready to assume office.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, and Section 9, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
The following provisions shall have effect in relation to the first ordinary members of the board for a joint district, that is to say:—
(a) the first ordinary members shall be nominated by the Minister,
(b) each first ordinary member shall, unless he sooner dies, resigns or becomes disqualified, hold office until the first appointed day in respect of such district:
(c) whenever a vacancy (in this section referred to as a casual vacancy) occurs before the said first appointed day in the membership of the board by reason of the death, resignation or disqualification of an ordinary member, the chairman of such board shall so inform the Minister, and the Minister shall as soon as may be nominate a person to fill such vacancy,
(d) every person appointed to fill any such casual vacancy shall, unless he sooner dies, resigns or becomes disqualified, hold office until the said first appointed day.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 13:—
To delete in page 6, line 61, the words "first appointed day in respect of such district," and in page 7, lines 2 and 3 and line 10, the words "said first appointed day" and substitute the words "day of entry on office of first elected members in respect of such district."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(1) The Minister shall make in respect of the board for a joint district an order appointing a day before the first appointed day in respect of such district to be an election day.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 14:—
In sub-section (1), page 7, lines 12 and 13, to delete the words "first appointed day" and substitute the words "day of entry on office of first elected members."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, and Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 15:—
At the end of sub-section (2) to add the words "and in particular such regulations shall provide that representation shall be given to each county, portion of a county or groups of counties as shall entitle such areas to an equitable share of membership of producer members of boards calculated in accordance with the number of producer members in such area."
This amendment visualises a case where a small area of a county might come in, and seeks to ensure that those areas would have representation on the board.
Dr. Ryan
As the section stands, what the Deputy asks can be done. I do not know even that the Deputy's amendment would make it any clearer that it must be done. The amendment tries to have it established that if, say, there were five members for the Dublin district, and there were five counties, one member would come from each county. But the regulations made under Section 13 can provide for that as they stand. I suggest to the Deputy that the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
(2) If and whenever any ordinary member of a board is adjudged bankrupt, or makes a composition or arrangement with his creditors or is convicted of an offence under any section contained in this Act, or ceases to be ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann, he shall be disqualified from holding the office of ordinary member.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 16:—
In sub-section (2), page 8, line 24, to insert after the words "Saorstát Eireann" the words "or ceases to be registered, in case he is a producer member, in the register of producers kept by such board or, in case he is a retailer member, in the register of retailers kept by such board or, in case he is a wholesale member, in the register of wholesalers kept by such board."
This is to remedy an oversight in the original draft, and I think it will be recognised as necessary. If a member for any reason ceases to be registered in the register of persons who elected him, he shall vacate office.
Does he cease to be registered if he goes out of business?
Dr. Ryan
Dr. Ryan
Section 44, of course, would only cover a nominated member if he did not become registered afterwards. Section 39 is the usual section.
There is one other omission and I do not know whether it was deliberate or accidental. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 is a sort of disqualification section which I think is taken from the ordinary regulations in company law as to when a director ceases to hold that position, and it covers everything except the contingency that is always guarded against —that of a person becoming insane. Apparently the milk board will knock off a person who will become bankrupt, or who is convicted of an offence, or who goes out of the country or who gets out of business, but if he goes mad he can continue. There is a temporary substitute section later, which may be intended to meet it, but that covers only illness, and will throw on the Minister the invidious task of making up his mind when a person has become temporarily deranged, although a court has not found him to be a person of unsound mind. That may not be a job which the Minister would like.
Dr. Ryan
The Minister would not take the responsibility unless he was actually committed.
Suppose he is committed, you have no power to discharge him.
Dr. Ryan
If you take it as illness you are only entitled to appoint a temporary substitute, whereas, as far as bankruptey and leaving business are concerned, he is disqualified from being on the board. I do not see why a person of unsound mind should be permitted to be on the board.
Dr. Ryan
I will have the matter looked into.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 17 stand part of the Bill."
There is another point under Section 17, and that is that if you are going to count an insane person as disqualified the Minister then fills a temporary vacancy——
Dr. Ryan
For the remainder of the term the Minister appoints.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
(3) Every board shall appoint a secretary, such and so many other officers, servants and agents as such board from time to time consider necessary for the due performance of its functions under this Part of this Act and the secretary, every other officer, servant, and agent so appointed shall hold office upon such terms and subject to such conditions as the Minister shall determine.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 17:—
In sub-section (3)—
(a) in line 13, to insert after the word "secretary" the word "and",
(b) in line 14, to insert after the word "board" the word "may",
(c) in line 16, to insert after the word "secretary" the word "and".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
Section 20 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 21 stand part of the Bill."
On Section 21, I should like to ask a few questions. This is, of course, in familar form. It appears I think in the Bacon Act and has, I understand, come to be known throughout that trade as the official secrets clause in that particular Act. Here it recurs. It has a very innocent purpose and a quite desirable aim. It prevents a member or officer of a board from disclosing any information in relation to the business of any other person, if that information has been obtained by him in his capacity as such member or officer, and it imposes a penalty for that disclosure which is declared to be an offence. Sub-section (3) says:—
Nothing in sub-section (1) of this section shall apply to the disclosure of any information for the purposes of any legal proceedings (whether civil or criminal) taken or proposed to be taken under this part of this Act.
There was a prosecution recently in either Drogheda or Dundalk in connection with some offence under one of those Bacon Acts, and an Order which the Minister establishes in a particular way under this Act, established in a similar way under that Act, was relied upon as the foundation of the offence. But when the Order was questioned, the official from the Pigs and Bacon Board who was sent down to prosecute refused to produce the Order on the ground that although he was running the prosecution under it and on foot of it he was prohibited by Section 21 from making any revelation. Of course, the point was taken immediately that there is a special exception under sub-section (3), and that nothing in sub-section (1) applies to the disclosure of information for the purpose of legal proceedings. Notwithstanding that, the official, acting no doubt on Ministerial instructions, or possibly on legal advice, refused to disclose the Order, and the prosecution was dismissed. A case has been stated and will come up for argument.
Dr. Ryan
He was an official of one of the boards?
Dr. Ryan
Then he would not be acting on Ministerial instructions in that case.
Very good; it was on the instructions of the board. But they relied upon a similar section in the Pigs and Bacon Act. We have got accustomed to a certain amount of bureaucracy, but surely it does seem to push the thing too far to allow this position to occur, that a producer in the country may be brought up for say, producing or selling too much bacon, which was the offence charged against this particular man. Proof of the offence is founded upon Orders establishing the production for the country as a whole, and that particular trader's individual fraction of it. There would be no offence unless those two Orders were proved, and the official produced goes into the witness box and swears that such Orders were made but refuses to produce the Orders and tries to hide behind Section 21. At any rate, he hides behind some authority and refuses to produce the Order.
Dr. Ryan
But then he did not get away with it?
No, he did not. The prosecution failed, but a case has been stated and will come on for argument. It did appear, however, that there was a policy to have these officials produced for the purpose of giving evidence but that they could shelter themselves in this way in refusing to produce the documents themselves in the case. Obviously, there might be a discrepancy between the documents and what the official was swearing to. One would have thought there would have been a provision in the Pigs and Bacon Act to produce the documents concerned, but this official makes the plea that the content of the Order from which, I think, he purported to quote, precludes him from producing it, and he refused to produce it. I suggest that that was never intended or that, if it was intended, we should be told what is the exact position so that we may know exactly what is the high-water mark of bureaucratic conduct in the country. Does the Minister mean this? I am sure that sub-section (3) was primarily intended to permit the production of such information by officials when the board was instituting a prosecution; but it is also possible to read sub-section (3) in this way: that no officer of the board could avail himself of the protection afforded by Section 21 if some action were taken against the board, and I hope that that is intended.
Dr. Ryan
It is intended that an official shall not be permitted to hide himself behind an order of the board if some citizen wants to challenge the order of the board?
Dr. Ryan
Yes, I think that would be quite safe.
Section 21 agreed to.
Sections 22 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 25 stand part of the Bill."
Sections 25 and 26 are relevant to the point I have just been discussing. Section 25 says that every board shall keep in a book, to be provided by it for the purpose, minutes of the proceedings at every meeting of such board, and all such minutes shall be signed either at the meeting to which they relate by the chairman of such board, or at the next meeting by such chairman, and when so signed shall be admitted in evidence. Then, Section 26 goes on to speak of the provision of the seal, and it says that the seal of the board shall be authenticated by the signature of the chairman and that every document purporting to be an instrument made by a board and to be sealed with the seal of such board, authenticated in the manner provided by the section, shall be received in evidence and shall, until the contrary is shown, be deemed to be such order or instrument without proof of the authority or signature of the person signing the document. These sections, again, correspond to sections in the Pigs and Bacon Act. Section 26 is certainly in it, but I am not so sure about Section 25. However, I think it is.
Dr. Ryan
I think anybody reading these sections would certainly get the view that what the board was anxious about was to produce as much information as possible that the guardianship of the signature should be authenticated and that the seal in question and the proceedings should not be subject to question. One would think, getting that view of this matter, that the board were anxious, say, in case of prosecutions for offences, to produce evidence to enable them to say: "There is what we did, bona fide, and you cannot question these matters as to whether that is the proper signature or whether that is the seal; but we want to disclose all information and only want to guard ourselves against quibbling of a particular type.” That has not been the practice so far as the Pigs and Bacon Board are concerned, and I hope the Minister will see that there will be a different line of conduct adopted by this board. May I take it that the Minister does not want these boards to be hiding behind this kind of thing?
Dr. Ryan
Oh, no. It is not intended.
Sections 25 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 29.
(3) There shall be paid out of the funds of such board the following moneys and no other moneys, that is to say, all moneys required by this Part of this Act to be paid by such board and all other expenses incurred by such board in the execution of its powers and duties under this Part of this Act.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 18:—
In sub-section (3), page 11, line 11, to delete the word "its" and substitute the word "their".
This is merely a grammar amendment.
You are making the board plural?
Dr. Ryan
I am advised that it is better to make this substitution.
I am not so sure that they would not make it singular later on.
Dr. Ryan
I am entirely in the hands of the legal advisers there.
It is possible that you may go wrong, if that is the purpose.
Amendment No. 18 agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 30.
(1) Every board shall upon its establishment forthwith establish and thereafter maintain and keep——
(a) a register to be called and known as the register of producers, and
(b) a register to be called and known as the register of retailers,
(c) a register to be called and known as the register of wholesalers.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 19:—
In sub-section (1), page 11, line 36, to insert after the word "retailers" the word "and".
Amendment No. 19 agreed to.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 31.
(1) Each of the following persons, that is to say:—
(a) a person who produces or proposes to produce milk on premises situate in a production district,
(b) a person who produces milk on premises situate outside such production district and who during the period of fifteen months ending on the date of the establishment of the board for the joint district which includes such production district, supplied, on not less than twenty days in each of any twelve months in such period, milk wholesale to persons carrying on the business of selling milk in the associated sale district,
may, subject to the provisions of this section, apply to such board for the joint district which includes such production district to be registered in the register of producers in respect of such premises.
(2) Any person who carries on or proposes to carry on at premises situate in a sale district the business of selling milk retail may, subject to the provisions of this section, apply to the board for the joint district which includes such sale district to be registered in the register of retailers in respect of such premises.
(3) Any person who carries on or proposes to carry on at premises situate in a sale district the business of selling milk wholesale may, subject to the provisions of this section, apply to the board for the joint district which includes such sale district to be registered in the register of wholesalers in respect of such premises.
The following Government amendments, Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23, were agreed to:—
In sub-section (1), page 11, line 51, to insert after the word "district" the word "or".
In sub-section (1), page 12, line 5, to delete the word "wholesale".
In sub-section (2), page 12, lines 11 and 12, to delete the words "selling milk retail" and substitute the words "a retailer".
In sub-section (3), page 12, lines 16 and 17, to delete the words "selling milk wholesale" and substitute the words "a wholesaler".
Question proposed: "That Section 31, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On the section, Sir, I should like to know what was the reason for this period, in relation to paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of 15 months, with the enclosed period of 12 months and the 20 days in each of the 12 months. Why was this period chosen? First of all, I wonder do I understand it correctly? I am reading it this way: That if a person can show that he supplied milk on not less than 20 days in any one month amounting to 12 months in a 15 month period, then he is to continue to sell, or at least can get registered in a particular area. I think that is the purpose of it. Now, the 15 months period is to be a period for the joint district, whatever it may be. Can the Minister say when does he believe that, say, the board for the joint district of Dublin and some other area will be established?
Dr. Ryan
We must make an attempt at having it established by the last day of August.
The last day of August? Then the greater period will run back to May of 1935?
Dr. Ryan
So that a person then, in order to come within this exceptional clause, must have been selling on not less than 20 days in any 12 months since May of 1935—that is the intention?
Dr. Ryan
Is there any reason why the 12 months' period has been picked out?
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy means the 12 of the 15 months?
Well, they bear some relation to one another. Supposing some such circumstance operated such as this: that a man's premises had been closed down by reason, say, of a strike, or because some disease had attacked his herd, or some such reason as that, and that circumstances over which he had no control—I am talking now of a person who ordinarily would be enveloped by this exceptional clause—had made it impossible for him to qualify; in other words, exceptional circumstances put it out of his power to sell on 20 days in any 12 out of these 15 months: would the Minister be disposed to make an exception in such a case and would he be prepared to get more elasticity into that clause to allow him to meet exceptional circumstances?
Dr. Ryan
This is really a matter of trying to strike some qualification that will not be too harsh and still will not allow too many in. The natural period that occurs to one is 12 months, but instead of taking 12 months from the time this legislation was first spoken of, we take 15 months from the time the board is set up. It is more easy to define, and so on. We then take 12 months out of the 15, and 20 days out of each month, but we might just as well have taken 13 months or 11 months, and 18 days or 22 days out of each month. We have to strike some sort of qualification that would not be too difficult to fulfil but which, at the same time, would not allow too many to come under the scheme. I do not know if it would be possible to draft an amendment to cover the case the Deputy has in mind of a person excluded for reasons not under his control. The wording would be very important, so that people would not get in except those meant to be covered.
Take another way of approaching it. Suppose groups have been licensed under the 1928 Act and have normally been in the habit of sending their milk into a certain area. They might find it impossible to comply with this 12 months out of the 15, and the 20 days out of each month equation. Would the Minister not take into consideration the fact that a person had been registered under the 1924 Act or licensed under the 1928 Act and continue to that person his area of sale, such as it had been when the licence was given?
Dr. Ryan
I do not exactly follow what the Deputy means.
I am possibly dealing with the situation which may not arise, but I think it is going to arise. Suppose you have a group or individual licensed under the 1928 Act. That company or individual has been in the habit of selling, when selling at all, say, to Dublin, but that person is outside the home counties area and is not likely to qualify under this 12 months out of 15 provision. Would the fact that he is licensed under the 1928 Act, envisaging a certain sale area, not be sufficient guarantee for the Minister that he was in the business properly and selling ordinarily to Dublin, even though he might not qualify under this extended clause? I suggest there is a possibility of a clash between the old circumstances at the time the man got the licence and something that had happened in the meantime which will not allow him to qualify under this 12 months' provision, and that the other matter might be taken into consideration.
Dr. Ryan
I wonder would the Deputy let me have, not the names, but more particulars about the case he has in mind?
I may be permitted to give the Minister particulars.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Every applicant for registration in any register kept by a board shall pay to such board in respect of each application a fee of ten shillings, and the due payment of such fee shall be a condition precedent to the entertainment of the application by such board.
I move amendment No. 24:—
In line 34 to delete the words "ten shillings" and substitute the words "five shillings in the case of every registered producer member and one pound in the case of every registered wholesaler member or every registered retailer member."
This amendment is designed to change the fee imposed on the producer to 5/- instead of 10/- which is a flat rate imposed on producers, retailers and wholesalers. There may be some difficulty in accepting this amendment but I shall be satisfied if the Minister will look into it.
Dr. Ryan
I do not know if the Deputy realises that this fee is payable only once. It is not a yearly fee; it is only payable on registration. There will be a considerable amount of expense in building up this register and I think a fee of 10/- would not be unreasonable. The Deputy probably has in mind that it is unfair to charge the same registration fee to a producer as we charge to a retailer and wholesaler, but if I were forced to come round to the Deputy's point of view, I think I should have to raise the fee to the retailers and wholesalers and leave the producer's fee as it is, because there would be a considerably less income under the Deputy's amendment than is provided for here. If there is a loss to the board in the expenses of registering, it will have to be made up afterwards by a levy. It may, of course, be argued that that would not affect the producer so much because the levy is payable by the retailer or wholesaler where milk passes through their hands. Therefore, it would be a distinct advantage to the producer to get his registration fee reduced from 10/- to 5/-. I should like the Deputy not to press this amendment, or at least to give time for further consideration of it. I am afraid, however, it would be difficult to make any change.
Will the Minister consider it?
Dr. Ryan
I do not promise to meet it, but I certainly will consider it before Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 32 stand part of the Bill."
Once on the register, always on the register, unless disqualification or these other things take place?
Dr. Ryan
There is only one fee to be paid?
Dr. Ryan
You do not have to register each year.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 33.
(2) In this Part of this Act—
the expressions "registered producer", "registered wholesaler" and "registered retailer" when used in relation to a joint district mean respectively a person registered in the register of producers kept by the board for such joint district, a person registered in the register of wholesalers kept by such board and a person registered in the register of retailers kept by such board.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 25:—
In sub-section (2), page 12, lines 45 and 46, to delete the following:—"registered wholesaler" and "registered retailer" and substitute the following "registered retailer" and "registered wholesaler", and in line 49, to delete the word "wholesalers" and substitute the word "retailers", and in line 50, to delete the word "retailers" and substitute the word "wholesalers".
This again is a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 33, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
There is one point of importance. I must refer back to an earlier section, Section 24, which enacts:
... every question arising at a meeting of a board shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting on the question, and in the case of an equal division of votes, the chairman of such board shall have a second or casting vote.
That is subject to the provisions of this part of the Act. Here, at any rate, is one thing which is reserved for the chairman of the board—the application for registration. A person has to be registered if he satisfies the chairman of the board that he is entitled to make the application. Why should it be the chairman there? The only other place I have been able to find the chairman interfering is when it comes to the establishment of maximum wholesale prices for milk. There he gets an amazing power because there might be a majority, and a very big majority of the board, in favour of a particular price, but unless the members agree to sink their differences and become unanimous, the chairman is given the power by a later section to make the price. The chairman in all these cases is to be appointed by the Minister. I do not see why the chairman should be singled out as the person who has to be satisfied that an application is one which the person seeking registration is entitled to make. In fact, I am not sure that the whole section might not be cast in another form by which a person who felt entitled to registration would be enabled to get those rights back from the court in case registration was not granted to him, but, as it is, it is undoubtedly intended that the chairman shall be given, at any rate, in the first place, a complete decision.
Dr. Ryan
Is there not an automatic appeal to the courts?
From the chairman? I would like to be sure that that is so. Even if so, why should not the first decision be with the board and not with the chairman? Is there any special reason for this?
Dr. Ryan
I considered this matter and gave a good deal of personal thought to it, and it appeared to me that it might be possible if a wholesaler wanted to register that the interests of wholesalers on the board might affect their judgment on the case, and they might say that there was no further wholesaler required. The retailers might have the same reason, and might say that they did not see any necessity for another wholesaler. If one producer was absent, or if one producer joined with the wholesalers and the retailers, the application might be rejected. I think the chairman would give a more judicial decision. I am not keen on this, but if the Deputy further considers it, I think he will agree that the chairman will be more neutral with regard to all classes on the register. The others are interested from the business point of view, whether as producers, wholesalers or retailers, in putting off new applications, and might be influenced to a certain extent, and for that reason I confined this to the chairman.
There is considerable weight in what the Minister said, but suppose the chairman is knocked out, and it comes to a person to satisfy the board this will fall back under Section 24 and the decision of the board will be made by a majority.
Dr. Ryan
The chairman having a casting vote. Take a situation where business rivalry enters into the matter, that someone is going to be a wholesaler hereafter, and the wholesalers go against him, there will be other members of the board with a say, and the chairman has a casting vote. It is not absolutely certain that when a wholesaler wants to establish a right to registration that the whole of the representatives of that particular section would go against him.
Dr. Ryan
There is the further point that under sub-section (3) it might be left to the chairman and then suddenly switched on to the board. The board may refuse an application on the condition that a person was previously registered and that registration was cancelled, or that a person was previously registered for other premises and that registration was cancelled. That would be a matter for a single person to rule other than the board but by a topsy-turvy process here it is given to the board and a matter that seems proper for discussion by the board is thrown on the chairman. That is a minor point. I think the major point is whether or not there is any right to get over a refusal. Sub-section (1) says:
Subject to the provisions of this section a board shall, on receipt of an application for registration in any register kept by it made, under and in accordance with this Act, by a person who satisfies the chairman of such board that he is entitled to make such application, enter in such register the name and address of the applicant and particulars of the premises specified...
If the Minister looks at some of the Road Transport Acts he will find that it was made obligatory on the Minister to register certain people and was left optional to register others. As far as the obligatory people are concerned he had to do it as resort might be had to the courts. This section does not read that way, to allow a person failing to satisfy the conditions to proceed elsewhere to get the register justified. The hurdle he has to get over is to satisfy the chairman, and if the chairman reported that he was not satisfied I doubt very much if the courts would go further with it.
Dr. Ryan
I want an appeal to the courts.
That being declared it does not matter whether the board or the chairman refuse.
Sections 33, as amended, 34 and 35 agreed to.
SECTION 36.
(1) A board may publish, in such manner as it may think fit, all or any of the matters entered in the register kept by it under this Part of this Act, and notice of the cancellation or alteration of registration in any such register.
(3) A board may, from time to time, collect and publish such statistical information (including statistics derived from returns made pursuant to this Part of this Act) as it may think fit with respect to the extent of the businesses carried on in premises registered in a register kept by it.
(4) So far as is reasonably practicable, no statistical information published under this section shall contain any particulars which would enable any person to identify such particulars as being particulars relating to any individual person, business, or concern without the consent in writing of that person or of the proprietor of that business or concern.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 26:—
In sub-section (1), page 14, line 22, to delete the words "the register" and substitute the words "any register or registers".
Amendment agreed to.
The following Government amendments were agreed to:—
27. In sub-section (3), page 14, line 32, to delete the word "a" and substitute the word "any".
28. In sub-section (4), page 14, line 37, to delete the word "that" and substitute the words "such last-mentioned".
Sections 36, as amended, and 37 agreed to.
SECTION 38.
(1) Where any person registered in any register kept by a board dies such board shall, on the application of the personal representative of such person, insert in the said register the name of such personal representative in lieu of that such person.
(2) Where the ownership of any business carried on at premises entered in any register kept by a board has been transferred to another person, such board shall, on the application of such person, insert in such register the name of such person in lieu of that of the person previously registered therein.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendments Nos. 29 and 30:—
In sub-section (1), page 15, line 32, to insert after the word "person" the words "made in such manner and form and containing such particulars as such board may require".
In sub-section (2), page 15, line 36, to insert after the words "such person" the words "made in such manner and form and containing such particulars as such board may require".
These words are inserted so that the board may have something in writing from applicants. Otherwise, it might be done by oral application.
Amendments agreed to.
This is intended for free transfer of property.
Dr. Ryan
In sub-section 2 where there is ownership is there a transfer?
Dr. Ryan
Section 38, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 39.
(4) Before altering or cancelling (otherwise than in accordance with an application in that behalf made under this section) the registration of any person, a board shall give at least two weeks' notice in writing to such person or his personal representative (if any) or its liquidator (as the case may be) stating its intention so to alter or cancel such registration and the reasons therefor, and whenever any such notice is so given the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(iii) if as the result of such inquiry such board decide not to alter or cancel the registration of the registered person, such board shall repay to him, in case he has paid a fee under the immediately preceding paragraph, such fee.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 31:—
In sub-section (4), page 16, line 16, to delete the word "its" where it first occurs and substitute the word "the".
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 32:—
In sub-section (4), page 16, line 54, to delete the word "decide" and substitute the word "decides".
Amendment agreed to.
Is this the board again? We made it plural before and make it singular now. Why not leave it as it is?
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
There was a legal reason. I do not know what the grammarians would say.
SECTION 40.
A certificate, purporting to be under the hand of the secretary of a board that any person or any premises specified in such certificate are not entered in a specified register kept by such board shall be conclusive evidence of the matters so certified, and it shall not be necessary to prove the signature of such secretary or that he was in fact such secretary.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 33:—
In sub-section (3), page 17, line 18, to insert after the word "certificate" the words "is or".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 40 stand part of the Bill."
On this point about evidence, the first paragraph simply deems the register to be in proper custody, and deems it to be admissible in evidence without further proof on production from proper custody. I think that means that such records would be ordinarily produced and would be admitted to be in proper custody if in the custody of the board. Sub-section 2 says:
Conclusive evidence of any entry in any register kept by a board may be given in any court or any legal proceedings by the production of a copy of such entry purporting to be certified to be a true copy by the secretary of such board, and it shall not be necessary to prove the signature of such secretary or that he was in fact such secretary.
A similar clause appears in one of the Cereals Acts and has been used in this way, that conclusive evidence has been applied not merely to signature and the fact that the person signed as secretary, but that a copy was a true copy of what it purported to be a copy. Conclusive evidence may be given by the production of a copy of the entry purporting to be certified by the secretary of the board. Probably the intention was to make the production of what purported to be a certified copy equivalent to the document itself, but what it goes on to say is that it is unnecessary to prove two things—the signature of the secretary or the fact that he was the secretary.
Dr. Ryan
I do not think it carries that. I do not think that the Minister wants the other point, namely, that the board can get an excerpt made from the entry in the register, can get it signed by the secretary and can get that produced in court as conclusive evidence of what is in the entry. It is surely enough to suggest that there may be no very close questioning of whether the secretary signed that or whether it is the secretary's signature. Once that has been done, surely if the judge in his discretion thinks it is a desirable thing in a particular case to call for the book in order that he may compare the entry copied with the entry made in the book, he should be entitled to do so.
Dr. Ryan
I hope that is the situation.
Section 40, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 41.
(3) As soon as may be after the seventh day after the expiration of an accounting period in respect of the board for a joint district, such board shall make—
(a) in respect of each person who was, during such period or any part thereof, registered in the register of producers kept by such board and who is liable under sub-section (1) of this section to pay a levy in respect of any milk sold by him during such accounting period (whether such person has or has not made the return required by the said sub-section (1)) a certificate (in this section referred to as a certificate of indebtedness) certifying the amount of the levy so payable by such person for such period, and
(b) in respect of each person who was, during such period or any part thereof, registered in the register of wholesalers or the register of retailers kept by such board and who is liable under sub-section (2) of this section to pay a levy in respect of any milk produced or purchased by him during such accounting period (whether such person has or has not made the return required by the said sub-section (2)) a certificate (in this section also referred to as a certificate of indebtedness) certifying the amount of the levy so payable by such person for such period.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 34:—
In sub-section (3), page 18, to delete line 37 and substitute the words "retailers or the register of wholesalers kept by such".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 42.
Question proposed: "That Section 42 stand part of the Bill."
On this section I want to call attention to the matter of the board. Section 24 is subject to the provisions of this Part of the Bill. Section 24 is in Part II of the Bill and this Section 42 is also in Part II of the Bill. Sub-section (2) of this section states that if at a meeting of a board held for the purposes of determining prices, the members present, including the chairman, are not unanimous on the question of determining the prices the chairman shall decide the matter. Now it would be bad enough if it were that the chairman could be overruled by the unanimity of the members but the unanimity must include the chairman. Why not say plainly that the chairman determines the price because that is what it comes to? If the chairman makes up his mind on a particular price and if the rest of the members will not fall in with him, then he determines the price. That is a very drastic power to give to the chairman. It would be bad enough if it were provided, as some people would wish, that it should take unanimity amongst the rest of the members to overrule the chairman but even unanimity amongst them will not do it. I do not know what the Minister has in mind in giving him such powers.
Dr. Ryan
This principle was first introduced in the fixing of a price for pigs. In that case the chairman was excluded. It was felt that if the factories and the producers in that particular instance were to agree as to price the chairman should be bound by that decision. If they disagreed, the chairman had to fix the price. I think it might be altered in this case to the same degree, that if the wholesalers, retailers and producers all agree on a certain price the chairman should be bound by that agreement so that if the section were altered to read "excluding the chairman" we might have gone some part of the way to meet the Deputy.
Dr. Ryan
I shall bring in an amendment on the Report Stage to deal with the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 43.
(1) Where the determination of a board for a joint district under the immediately preceding section has been communicated to the Minister, the Minister shall consider such determination and thereupon the following provision shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) in case such determination is the first determination of such board, the Minister shall make an order fixing—
(i) the minimum prices to be paid to registered producers in respect of such district for milk sold by them to registered retailers in respect of such district, and
(ii) the minimum prices to be paid to such registered producers for milk sold by them to registered wholesalers in respect of such district,
(b) in any other case, the Minister may, as he thinks proper, do any of the following things:—
(i) revoke any order previously made by him under this section and then in force and, if he thinks proper, make a new order fixing the said prices;
(ii) amend any order previously made by him under this section and then in force.
(2) In making any order under this section the Minister may fix different prices in respect of milk sold under such different sets of conditions (defined in such manner and by references to such things as the Minister thinks proper).
(3) In this Act—
the expression "the appropriate statutory minimum price" when used in relation to milk sold by a registered producer in respect of a joint district to a registered retailer or a registered wholesaler in respect of such district under a particular set of conditions specified in an order made in relation to such district and for the time being in force, means the price, for the time being fixed by such order, when so sold by a registered producer in respect of such district to a registered retailer or registered wholesaler in respect of such district under such set of conditions.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37, all of which are drafting amendments.
In sub-section (1), page 20, line 15, to delete the word "as" and substitute the word "if".
In sub-section (2), page 20, line 23, to delete the word "such", and in line 24, to delete the word "references" and substitute the word "reference".
In sub-section (3), page 20, line 33, to insert before the word "when" the words "of milk".
Amendments put and agreed to.
Section 43 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Section 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 45.
Question proposed: "That Section 45 stand part of the Bill."
I was wondering whether this might not be the place where the type of amendment I was suggesting to the Minister previously could be inserted. The amendment was to the effect that any person might be registered as a producer who had a licence under this Part of this Act or a licence granted under the 1928 Act. The Minister asked me for particulars of a case to be covered. Possibly this may be the place to meet that case. I have in mind the case where it would be made legal to conduct a business as long as it was conducted in accordance with the licence granted by the Minister under that Act.
Dr. Ryan
If such amendment is not too wide, it will be considered.
I do not think many people would come under this amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 46.
The following provisions shall have effect in relation to every contract for the sale of milk made between a registered producer in respect of a joint district and a registered distributor or registered retailer in respect of such district where any milk is to be delivered under such contract on or after the appointed day in respect of such district (whether such contract has or has not been entered into before the said appointed day), that is to say:—
(a) such contract shall be in the prescribed form (if any);
(b) such contract shall be executed in duplicate;
(c) the parties to the contract shall send the original and counterpart thereof and a copy thereof to such board;
(d) on receipt of the said documents, the said chairman shall approve of such contract, if, but only if
(i) the price per gallon is stated therein;
(ii) such price is not less than the appropriate statutory minimum price;
(iii) the basic quantity of milk to be supplied each day is specified;
(iv) it is a condition of such contract that the price mentioned therein or a specified price which shall not be less than the appropriate statutory minimum price shall be payable for all milk supplied by the vendor to the purchaser in excess of the basic quantity mentioned therein;
(e) where the said chairman does not approve of the contract, he shall return all the said documents to the person by whom they were sent with intimation to that effect;
(f) where the said chairman approves of such contract he shall—
(i) cause the seal of such board to be affixed to the original and counterpart, and return them to the person by whom the said documents were sent, and such sealing shall be conclusive evidence that such contract has been approved by the said chairman,
(ii) retain the copy of the contract sent to him.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 38:—
Before Section 46, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to sell or offer for sale any milk contained in a bottle which bears the name or trade mark of some other person unless such milk was obtained in such bottle by such first-mentioned person direct from that other person.
(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, in the case of a first offence under this section, a fine not exceeding five pounds or, in the case of a second or any subsequent offence under this section, a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds.
Under Section 51 the Minister is empowered to make an Order fixing the maximum price at which milk of a specified kind may be sold. In any regulations made under this section, it is possible that the Minister might prescribe a price for loose milk. There might be wholesale evasion of that regulation by persons pouring such milk into bottles and selling it as bottled milk. The amendment provides an effective way of dealing with such a practice. There have been complaints that the bottles of certain traders are taken up by small retailers, that milk is poured into these bottles by these retailers and is being sold as the produce of the people whose names are on the bottles. Of course that is illegal in itself but we can get at these people by this amendment also.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 39:—
In sub-section (4), page 21, lines 50 and 51, to delete the words "distributor or registered retailer" and substitute the words "retailer or registered wholesaler".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 40:—
In sub-section (4), page 22, line 7, to insert after the word "day" the words "or each week".
There may be fluctuations in the quantity of milk used on different days of the week and it may be more convenient for the board to allow a weekly quantity to be supplied rather than a daily quantity. This amendment is designed to cover that.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 47.
Where the board for a joint district is satisfied that it is desirable in the public interest that milk should be obtained from producers of milk other than registered producers in respect of such district, the said board may grant to any registered distributor or registered retailer in respect of such district a licence to purchase a specified quantity of milk from a person not a registered producer or a registered distributor in respect of such district, subject however to the condition that the price to be paid for such milk is not less than the appropriate statutory minimum price.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 41, which is a drafting amendment, as follows:—
In page 22, lines 31 and 32, to delete the words "distributor or registered retailer" and substitute the words "retailer or registered wholesaler", and in line 34, to delete the word "distributor" and substitute the word "wholesaler".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 47, as amended, agreed to.
Section 48 agreed to.
SECTION 49.
A board for a joint district may buy at a price less than the statutory minimum price milk from registered wholesalers in respect of such joint district and sell or use it for manufacturing purposes.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 42:—
In page 22, lines 48 and 49, to delete the words "wholesalers in respect of such joint district" and substitute the following: "retailers and registered wholesalers in respect of such joint district (who, in the opinion of the board, acquire to a substantial extent the milk in which they deal direct from registered producers in respect of such joint district)."
This amendment gives to retailers who buy milk in bulk directly from producers the right to resell surplus milk to the board, a right they would appear not to have without the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 43 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 49, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I am not sure that any Bill presented to this House had the insertions by way of cross-headings that we have in this measure. According to the Interpretation Act, marginal notes cannot be taken into consideration in interpreting the law——
Dr. Ryan
Are not headings also excluded from consideration?
Headings of the type which appears on the next page —a general description of the part of the Bill—would, but I do not know of any Act in which these interlineations occur. Certainly, they do not occur in any of our Acts with the frequency that they do in this Bill. I am not sure whether or not they would be regarded as a sign-post in interpretation. Do they add anything to the Bill?
Dr. Ryan
It is the style of the drafting.
I think that they are unknown in our legislation. Why not clear them out?
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 50, 51, Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage fixed for Tuesday, August 4th.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.25 p.m. until Wednesday, July 29th, at 3 p.m.
