On this section I was dealing with two points. One was the scheme which I had thought of suggesting to the House in order to fit in what I understood is the primary object of this Bill in relation to wheat, that is to get more wheat grown in the country—to get an increasing acreage of wheat in the country from year to year. The scheme I had was not to insist upon that wheat being milled, because if that wheat has got to be milled, it may cause some deterioration in the class of bread we have got to eat, and it may, alternatively, and most certainly will, cause some increase in the price of bread we have got to eat. I was suggesting, instead of this wheat having to be taken by a miller and milled in each year, that he should be allowed to pass with the obligation only of purchasing this wheat, that he might mill it if he so pleased and if he thought it was of good type and was suitable for milling into bread for human consumption. If he did not do that, then he could dispose of it otherwise if he could. I gave certain indications in the latter stage as to what I thought were possible means of disposing of it by offering it to the Minister for sale, by appealing for a bounty, so that the wheat may be exported to another country, by having it held and stored and dried by the Minister, and afterwards given back to him on payment, if he had not the necessary equipment for these purposes himself. If he could not do any or all of these things, then it might be better for him to let a certain amount of it go to waste, or else make it into feeding-stuff of another type rather than mill it into stuff that had to be consumed by humans, and I think still that would be a better scheme. You would always have the stimulus on the man who was purchasing, and who was bound to purchase, that he would have to make the use of it which was most valuable to himself, but it was left to his own option. Should he mix it with wheat that was purchased from abroad, should he make it into a mixture with feeding-stuff of another type, should he attempt to export it, or simply let it go on his hands? There was always the economic drive upon him—which of these things would bring him in the most return for the money he had to spend on the purchase, which was obligatory under the measure.

The other item that was under discussion here was how far Section 27 is going to be workable under the new conditions so definitely outlined for us by the Minister for Agriculture. We are not going to have a discrimination possibly as between wheat which is described as millable wheat or which can be described as such, and the wheat which by implication in omitting that definition has to be looked upon as wheat not suitable for milling. The Minister at one time seemed to indicate that his way out of that difficulty was first simply to decide upon the percentage of Irish wheat which had to be used by the millers, irrespective of whether it was what would pass under the prescription, or under the standard that might be prescribed for millable wheat or not, and there were various objections raised to that. First of all that it would mean, as will appear from later sections, that there was going to be a terrific handicap imposed on the miller because he would have to take what is offered to him, and the repercussions would be that people with good-class wheat might have been holding it at the end of the milling season and the other people would have got away with the sale of wheat of less good quality to a miller who is forced to take something, with consequent deterioration in bread and consequent increase in price. There is a further point which is possibly much the same as that. If it is not possible to determine what is millable wheat, and if the only way out of that difficulty is simply to apportion a certain amount of wheat that has not been purchased in the country and if, in fact, less good wheat happens to be purchased than the better class it will naturally be purchased at a lower price, and under the latter section the rate of subsidy is defined as being the difference between the price actually got in a particular season and a certain sum laid down in the Schedule. If the actual price, because it relates to low grade wheat, is small obviously the subsidy is going to be so much bigger, and for no great purpose. It is going to result, as I said before, in certain wheat which might have found its market being left over, and less good wheat sold at a less price, but with the subsidy having to be paid by the State upon that. I do not take it that the Minister has yet clearly outlined what he is going to do. It seems from yesterday's discussion, the Minister only recently found himself in the difficulty of not being able to get a definition as to what millable wheat is, and was still suffering from the shock of that, and had not made up his mind as to what the alternative plan was. Certainly on the section which deals with the bounty, there must be some explanation given as to how the Minister intends to proceed, because when it comes to a question of payment of a subsidy and when there is no standard of quality above and below which wheat may be graded it is going to be quite impossible for anyone to determine what is the price. If it were possible to get a definition then it is clearly, I think, easy to determine the average price paid for wheat of that quality. If there is to be a mixture, and if we have to take the average over all these, then I say the price would naturally have to fall and the subsidy that would have to be paid by the State would be great.

I would like to say a few words in reply to Deputy McGilligan. I think, of course, his whole difficulty is he is approaching the question from the point of view that millable wheat cannot be grown here. That is the fundamental error upon which all his arguments are based. He is assuming, to begin with, that the wheat grown here will not be millable wheat, and the fact is that the greater part of the wheat grown here will be millable wheat, and that there would be no difficulty whatever about utilising that wheat in growing proportions in the production of flour here. I do not see that any of the administrative difficulties he foreshadows are likely to arise. If the millers report that a sufficient quantity of good wheat is not available to them from within the country to enable them to carry out their obligations under this section, their statements can be checked up by the inspectors of the Department of Agriculture, and if we find that these inspectors agree with the millers, then a Variation Order can be made. Similarly, if the inspectors and instructors of the Department of Agriculture report that more good millable wheat is available than the millers are required to take, their statement can be checked up by the millers, and if agreement is reached, a Variation Order is made. It is not a matter on which I see that any great difficulty can arise, in view of the fact that the Minister has power to vary the Order as circumstances necessitate. The Deputy, however, can estimate that, on the average, 16 cwts. per acre of good millable wheat will be available, and, in fixing the quota on that basis, the Minister will not go very far wrong.

May I point out that the Minister has really not answered the question put up last night and to-day? The fact is that his statement practically gives away the case. Granted that the greater portion may be millable, it is still possible for a large portion in a given season not to be millable. That is what the Minister has not dealt with. He says that if that happens and, if the millers report that they have not got a sufficient quantity to fulfil requirements under the Order made under this section, they can make their case and it can be checked up and if the inspectors of the Department agree, all right, but supposing they disagree, who is to decide?

The Minister.

On what basis; on what advice?

On what standard?

The Minister has not met the case. He says he foresees no difficulty. I quite admit that the Government have shut their eyes to the difficulties involved in this Bill. They say they can vary the Order when a case is put up. Supposing there is, as I say, a conflict between their inspectors, again, who is to decide, when no idea can be given to them from the Department as to what is millable wheat, whether it is millable or not? Supposing there is that conflict of opinion when does the variation of the Order take place; when can it be investigated, and at what period of the year? The preliminary—and at very best, even if you take the Minister's statement, it can only be a preliminary—fixing of the percentage takes place in August. When can a variation of that take place? After representation by the millers? It is not now a question as to whether or not the greater portion of the wheat produced here is or is not millable. Experience alone can decide that. It it is produced in large quantities, a large portion may very easily be unmillable in a certain year, and I say that if the Government approaches it with the refusal to give a definition as they have up to the present, there is very little chance of a satisfactory solution from any point of view. I do not think the Minister has met the case at all.

If the Minister has not met the case, he has, I think, cleared the air a little, because he has declared that practically all the wheat grown here is millable or will I say, anyway, is grindable. The Minister has declared, in other words, that four-fifths of the wheat that will be grown here is millable, and we have got that far on the question of standard, but the standard of millable wheat will be calculated as being equal to four—fifths of the grain that might be grown here in any one year. That is the nearest we have got so far to a definition, and I think it was the definition the Minister had in mind, judging by the speeches of both Ministers. The Minister for Agriculture, yesterday, in speaking about the difficulty of fixing a standard, said, when we suggested that there might possibly be a violent conflict of opinion between the millers themselves, that perhaps it might be said that he wanted a greater amount used than the millers would want to use. That seems to be substantiated to-day by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, because he accused Deputy McGilligan of saying that there was no millable wheat grown in Ireland. Nobody on this side said any such thing.

What we want is a definition of what is millable, and while I am prepared to admit that there might be some trouble in finding a definition, it can be found, and it is all the more desirable that it should be found now in view of the admission of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that there are going to be 16 cwts. of millable wheat to the acre. In other words, four-fifths of the wheat grown here in any average year will be millable. If that is the standard the Ministry have in mind for "millable," all I can say is: "God help the unfortunate industrial and working people."

I want to refer to the position of bakeries situated in the Border towns and I would like to impress on the Minister that they stand in a very different position from the other bakeries in the Free State inasmuch as they have to face the fierce competition of a city like Belfast. I know that there is a tariff on at the moment but that can be negatived if the flour is not up to standard. The bread baked therefrom will not be up to standard and it may so happen that the people living in these towns will still buy the bread from Belfast and from other northern towns at the increased price if it is made of better quality flour. That is an aspect of the situation which should not be lost sight of by the Minister. There is also the danger that certain bakeries in the City of Dublin may be in a position to get the best quality flour from the mills to the detriment of bakeries in towns along the Border. There is such a thing as trade jealousy and I can see the possibility of that happening. That is another aspect of the situation that the Minister should keep before his mind, especially in view of the position the bakeries in the Border towns find themselves in at the moment. The Minister certainly has protected them but there is just the danger that the protection afforded at the moment may be nullified by the fact that the bread baked from this flour—I am not saying it will be bad—may not be of the same high standard as formerly.

I want to stress again this point that has been made. It arises, to my mind, with great importance on this section but with more importance on another. The two sections are, however, tied together. There is a quota business and a subsidy or bounty. The Minister for Agriculture yesterday said, and it has not yet been withdrawn, that he despairs of getting a definition of "millable wheat." We start off from that and, on that, we ask how is the quota going to be determined? There has been an amendment accepted that, in determining the quota, some regard shall be had to the quantity of millable wheat grown in the country. Again, I want to stress that regard therefore is going to be had to something about which the Minister despairs of getting a definition. How it is going to be accomplished, I do not know, and we have not yet been told. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in an attempted defence of the untenable position, says: "Oh, the inspectors will determine what is millable wheat." If they can determine what is millable wheat, they either have tests for it or they have not, and, if they have not, then, it is only mere guess-work, and, if they have, I do not think it is beyond the capacity of the draftsman to enshrine in words what their tests are likely to be or are going to be. But since we are told that it is impossible to get a definition, I am assuming that the phrase, when used, means that it is impossible to set down tests, so that we get to this point, that there is no test for millable wheat other than guess-work.

The other suggestion made last night was that you were going to determine as millable wheat whatever is milled. There, I think, the question of price comes in. In a later section the Minister has to ascertain it from the sale of home-grown wheat and to issue certificates which, incidentally, are supposed to apply only to millable wheat, but afterwards the section suggests to all wheat milled. The next section says he has to pay everyone who grew that wheat the difference between what the average price is and the amount set out in the schedule. The amount in the schedule is 25/- per barrel of 20 cwts., 1/3 a stone. Supposing that in a particular year that is a subsidy of 3d. a stone, it would mean that the average price likely to be ascertained in that year was 1/- a stone. That would have been for millable wheat, that is to say, wheat of a certain quality, just what the miller can be persuaded to buy. Surely there is a dividing line. If the miller has to buy a large amount he is going to see that he gets full value. But supposing that he could buy anything, any rubbish, stuff, say, that he will give 3d. a stone for, he can throw that aside. It will not be much loss. It is going to be no loss to the grower, because the grower will get the whole difference in the average. It will be likely to be cheap, rubbishy wheat, sold on the standard laid down, and the bill on the community will grow. What check is there going to be on that? We are told that it is on what is milled; what a man lets through his mill. Surely that is no test. There will come a point where, if he wants to get more or less out of the provisions of the Bill, it will pay to buy anything. It is no harm to the grower to take a small price, because he is getting something for what he would really despair of selling at all. By lowering the average for a year he can get an increased subsidy on the amount laid down in the schedule. I have not been able to understand how the price is to be managed. What lever is to be put on the mills to pay the best price?

The very thing you were talking about.

Unless they pay the best price the subsidy is going to be increased. Why should the miller pay the best price?

For good wheat.

Supposing he only paid 3d. a stone. There is not going to be a whole lot of Irish wheat in the market in the early days. A small ring will get it arranged, and if the average is beaten down the grower will lose and the miller will gain, because he has paid something less than the best price. The only people who will lose will be the community, first in the subsidy, and secondly by an increase in the price of bread. The price question will arise with more point in a later section. I would like to be told now what really is going to be the standard hereafter. It is not a standard that anyone can quarrel about. If a man can assert his rights, if he feels that he has grown wheat that he thinks is of millable quality, if he can fight that point, get it examined and subjected to analysis, if there is not going to be a definition of that type, there is no standard laid down by which he could demand his rights. It is going, apparently, to be left to the inspectors. The minds of the inspectors in different areas will vary. A certain committee of instructors met and their opinions on millable wheat were as many as there were instructors in the room. Otherwise it will be the other test, just the individual mind of a particular instructor with varying standards throughout the country, without any regard for equal conditions or certainty in price. It will be on the amount bought, and I think is subject to an amount of abuse.

The explanation of these amendments was given yesterday in the discussion upon another amendment to a previous section— Section 24. As the Bill stood originally, it was proposed that the fine upon excess production would not apply unless the excess was more than ten per cent. of the quota. We have had various discussions with the millers and they represent that the arrangement contained in the Bill might act to the detriment of the smaller mills, and that if mills were allowed to exceed their quota it would be possible for the larger mills to concentrate on that and put the smaller mills out of business. We accepted that up to the point in excess of the quota, but that the failure to mill up to the quota would not involve any penalty unless the failure involved more than ten per cent. It does not mean any alteration in the principle of the Bill. The position is that each mill will get a quota, and if it does not mill up to that quota, it will suffer no penalty unless the deficiency is more than 10 per cent., but if it exceeds the average then it will come into operation in respect of the total excess. The original arrangement provided for a penalty if the quota was not reached. The alteration will require some slight revision in the actual quota. The scheme is the same except that the new arrangement is, in the opinion of the millers, and in our own opinion, less likely to operate to the detriment of the smaller mills.

On amendment 65 I suggest that the word "twenty" should be substituted for the word "ten". First of all, in the new scheme suggested by the Minister, I do understand that a mill which mills less than its quota by ten per cent. suffers no monetary penalty, but what I want to know is, does it suffer by having the quota reduced in the following year?

No.

The quota will be as previously assigned?

Quite.

I was going to suggest making a payment of twenty per cent. Is there a yearly mathematical scheme, or otherwise why has the 3/-fine been chosen; and secondly, what is the purpose of this fine? Is it—as I understood was mainly the system in this type of scheme—to allow a mill, which felt, for reasons best apparent to itself, that it was best not to mill but to draw from the pool, and in that way to allow a mill with better capacity and more efficiency, and therefore more likely to give better service to the community, to mill more than its quota and have a profitable business? That was the original scheme inaugurated as a result of discussions with the millers on the other side. That was the reason for it.

If I am to take sub-section (3) as an indication, this is meant to help the weak mills if they decide in a particular area not to mill their quota and to allow it to be milled by somebody else who will pay for it. The fine here does not go to the mill that has failed, if there is one in any particular season. It goes to the Exchequer and, again, I want to know for what purpose. There are two points on which I would like information. First, in regard to the 3/-, is that figure arbitrarily chosen or is there any reason behind it? Secondly, what is the purpose of it? Is it to say to the weak mill: "If you do not like to mill the whole quota, on payment of a certain sum the large mill can do it and you can refrain from milling"?

There is no penalty on a mill which exceeds its quota other than this fine of 3/-. If a mill decides that it can by installing more up-to-date machinery, by a reorganisation of management or some such device, undersell a competitor to the extent of 3/-, then it can do so, but it will have to pay 3/- of a fine on its excess production. It is conceivable that if a rival mill is efficient, it can pay the fine and nevertheless sell flour much better in the area of the inefficient mill. The figure of 3/- was selected because it represents what, after careful examination, we have decided is a fair margin of protection for the small inland mill against the highly capitalised port mill. It would be quite possible for certain organisations operating in this country with large resources deliberately to pay a fine of say, 1/- per sack, on excess production over a long period and during that period put out of existence any particular mill it desired to remove, but it would become less profitable to do that at 3/-. There is some possibility of doing it at 3/- but it would involve more substantial losses and it would require that the attacking mill would be highly efficient and the attacked mill inefficient for the project to succeed. In these circumstances there is no objection to its being done. We think that this device is best suited to the circumstances.

It is true the amount collected by way of fine goes into the Exchequer. It is out of the Exchequer any subsidy will come for mills which because of some particular natural difficulty are in need of it. The pool is the Central Fund and it operates in much the same way as the pool established by the millers for their own purposes. I think the Millers' Mutual Association had a fine of 5/- on excess production and the pool created by the fines was of course available for the subsidisation of the mills unable to sell. We are not proposing to do that. If a mill is so inefficient and makes flour of such bad quality that it cannot get people to buy it and people are prepared to take the margin available from the other mills, that mill will have its quota reduced and will ultimately go out of existence altogether. The fine of 3/- is there to afford it some slight protection but only a slight protection against the competition of the better equipped and more highly capitalised port mills. The scheme is first of all to ensure that we will keep in existence the smaller rural mills. That we consider desirable, in view of the fact that our policy is to encourage wheat growing and also in view of the social need to decentralise industries, to help little rural industries in so far as it is possible to do it, and to curb the tendency of recent years of concentration at the ports. Certain rural mills have advantages and also some disadvantages. The intention is where the disadvantages arise out of causes not within the control of the mills to redress them by the subsidy. If there is another cause it will have to be considered. The idea is to secure that the average mill will be protected against extinction by the port miller so long as it is reasonably efficient and selling at a price which will be regarded as competitive in relation to what the port mill can sell at.

I thought this really was tied up with the subsidy to the inland mills and I am very much in a difficulty now. First of all there is a plan for keeping what are called inland rural mills alive. I have no great sympathy with it at all. If a mill situated at a port, nevertheless can draw wheat from the interior of the country and mill and sell it cheaper than a mill situated in the interior of the country, then I do not see why there should be any penalty on that efficiency. De-centralisation of industry is all very well in its own way. Possibly you can do a good deal by it, but does it mean that you will decentralise branches of the same industry? Why should we have three grinding mills for cement in different areas rather than one in Cork and a mill for something else in Galway? I do not see any system or safety in it. The aim is the preservation, apparently, of the inland mill and the Minister here says that the 3/- is being put on because it is considered that is the protection required for the inland mill. I put down 1/-, founding myself on the Minister's own later clause where with regard to inland mills he ties himself so that no greater subsidy can be given to the inland mill than 1/-.

That has no relation to this obviously. It is 1/- plus 3/-.

Nevertheless, if 4/-were required would not a better division be 2/- each way rather than this method? When I saw that another subsidy was to be given of 1/- per four hundred pounds to the inland mill, I thought that seemed to be the protection that the inland mill required. Now I have got to look at the inland mill section in regard to this. As far as I can make out from the new amendment put down, an inland mill is any mill that is not within five miles of the post office in Dublin, Cork or Limerick. A mill that is situated at Wexford harbour according to that is an inland mill. A mill built on the water's edge at Galway is an inland mill. The only mills really that are not inland mills for the purposes of the Bill are mills within five miles of the post office in the county boroughs of Dublin, Cork or Limerick. Anything else is an inland mill and can be granted a subsidy up to a maximum of 1/- for every 400 lbs. of wheat milled. I am not against the plan of the subsidy, but I think if it is going to be raised in this way there should be some equalisation as between the sum needed for protection and the other sum, or the whole thing might be put under the protective clause. If you want 4/- make it that under the subsidy clause later on in regard to the inland mill. If anybody outside wants to mill, when we are guaranteeing a subsidy, and if he does so efficiently let him get it, though that may mean one mill even producing against another. And see what is the result. It is the same with regard to the whole Bill. The Minister's case is we must fit them into the Bill because they have no means of subsidy.

What I meant to convey was that there was no need to create, under the Bill, a state such as existed under the Millers' Association.

The State is going to give 2/- per 100 lbs.

The amount they pay out will not have the same relation, where a mill did not reach its quota.

It has the same relation to the inland mill. In the inland mill the highest rate that can be given is 1/- per 400 lbs and the highest fine is 2/- per 400 lbs.

The one figure has no relation to the other.

The Minister ties up one with the other. I tried to consider them separately and that is why I put down 1/-. The 1/- will protect the inland, or the port mill, and might be put in. One inland mill can apply everything against another inland mill, though both are receiving a subsidy, which is a peculiar scheme.

I move amendment 67: In sub-section (2), line 56, to delete the figure "II" and substitute the figure "III."

We had this already on amendment 25.

This applies to a different thing. This is a penalty for a return. The Minister is allowed to make regulations as to the time and forms and returns, yet we are establishing penalties that may include imprisonment.

It must be remembered that failure by the miller to make returns might wreck the whole scheme. It is a serious offence, so why not have a serious penalty?

Why not in Part I? There must be some judgment in the matter.

Amendments 68, 74 and 76, in the name of Deputy McGilligan, to be taken together.

68. In sub-section (1), page 13, line 60, after the word "mill," to insert the words "or in some associated premises designated by the holder of the licence for such purpose for a time specified and notified in writing to the Minister."

74. In sub-section (4) (b), line 52, after the word "relates" to insert the words "or in such other associated premises referred to in sub-section (1) of this section."

76. In sub-section (4) (c), line 55, to delete the words "on the mill."

There are a number of amendments which deal with this point. I want to put the matter briefly. The section lays down that "It shall be the duty of every person who is the holder of a milling licence to keep or cause to be kept ... the following records in the prescribed form." Surely a man might have a mill at one place where he did his milling and he might have an office associated with the mill, but not at the mill. Could not the records be kept on premises not immediately at the mill, as long as they are designated for that purpose, and notified to the Minister?

The attitude of those responsible for the administration of the Bill is that it is at the mill they want the records kept. If an inspector visits a mill for the purpose of seeing that the regulations are observed it is there that he would require the records for inspection, and not at an office which might be ten miles away.

He could make an inspection of the records at the office and take excerpts and then go on to the mill to verify them. He has power to enter the mill where the material is milled and to make investigations there. He could inspect the records at the office and take copies of the records. Why should the miller have office premises at the mill if it does not suit him? There can be no subterfuge. The man should be entitled to say: "I am keeping the records for the time being at my office. I keep my material in the mill. I designate where I keep them and if they are not there I am guilty of an offence."

The Deputy is asking that the miller should be allowed to keep his records at some distance from where the milling is carried on. I went into this matter with my advisers. First of all, it would be very little trouble to the miller to have the records kept at the mill, and it would be more convenient for the inspector if that was done. There should be no difficulty for any miller to keep records of the quantity of wheat milled, of the dispositions and in respect of home-grown wheat bought.

Has the Minister considered the record of purchases and dispositions of wheat and what that means? Where are such records normally kept, if not in the office of the miller?

In the majority of cases the office and the mill are one and the same premises.

Where they are, no difficulty will arise. If that is not the case surely these records, if kept as they ought to be kept, would entail a purchase journal and ledgers which must be constantly available, recording the value of the incoming wheat and the dispositions of it. Certainly the purchase journal will. I do not know whether the dispositions will, or how far there will be a record of the dispositions of the wheat, or the value of the wheat when converted into flour.

The record that the wheat was milled and turned into flour is a record of the dispositions of the wheat.

And that ends that, but the Minister will want a record of the purchases. The Minister knows that these records are bulky and awkward things to handle. In many mills premises it would be impossible to keep these records there unless the miller makes a duplicate or carried his records between the mill and the office. He would have in (iii) to make a record of all dispositions of such flour and meal respectively. This would tend to add a very heavy burden to the millers, whereas the burden that Deputy McGilligan's amendment would put upon the inspector would be comparatively light. I do not think it is too much to ask the inspectors to do this work. Surely representations have been made along these lines to the Minister himself. Any man with a knowledge of business will recognise very readily that to conduct the operations necessary under (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) would be impossible. I do not think he will suggest that every mill must transfer all its office work from where it can be more conveniently done down to the mill premises.

There may be some case for an amendment to the section where the offices are not on the mill premises but adjacent to the mill. If, however, the offices were several miles away from the mill it might be a matter of grave inconvenience, and the amendment would permit of that. On the Report Stage I am prepared to introduce an amendment to meet the case of offices not too far away from the mill and still not on the mill premises.

I put this to the Minister, that there is no question here of a surprise investigation. This is merely an examination of records. I quite see that if there was any question of a surprise investigation and that an inspector wanted to make extracts, a warning could be sent to the mill in cases where the offices were not on the mill premises. That does not arise here. Suppose, for instance, that the head offices are in Dublin and the mill is in Collooney. The inspector can go on Monday morning to the offices in Dublin and take all the relevant particulars that he wants out of the mill books and proceed on Tuesday to Collooney to make an inspection of the mill. He would presumably go by motor.

The inconvenience of calling at the head office, where he will have to call in any case in all probability, and of taking the extracts there is trivial compared to the suggestion that millers should reconstruct their whole accounting system in order to make it possible to have the records available at the mill.

In the case of a company that has two or three mills must it have three offices?

There must be separate records for each.

We can discuss this better when we see the Minister's amendment, but if it is going to be limited I think it is not going to be of much use. I am thinking mainly of the case of a miller that I have in mind. He has three or four mills with his head offices in Cork. I can well see that, when making his purchases, this man would not have his mind clear as to the amount of wheat bought at a particular place that is going to be sent to one of those mills more than another. He will dispose of it according as he finds the mills stocked when the stuff arrives. He has then got to follow the disposition of that; to get books kept at his premises showing that a certain amount of it went to A, B or C mill. In the books at A, B and C mills there has to be a record of the stuff coming in until it goes out eventually as flour for sale. That man would naturally, I think, have a full record of his purchases in the books at the head office. The whole disposition of that may be followed, and if any inspections are required at any time, whether a certain amount of the stuff is said to be no longer in transit or is said to be at a particular place for milling purposes, can be settled by a visit to the mill. What the records show can be compared with what the inspector finds on the premises. It is not too much to ask, particularly in the case of a man whose office premises ordinarily are a good distance away from the mill, that every ounce of the stuff is under control and that that should be attended to.

The Minister should also bear in mind that it is becoming more and more the custom of good millers in the country to have certain laboratories attached to their works, but by no means in close proximity to the mill premises. Such things as moisture content are under observation from time to time. There might be a certain amount of wheat in some process of change, either into meal or flour. I do not think there is any certain way of tracing the real disposition, other than sales, except through the head office where the directing mind is. In the case of office premises which are close to the mill premises, I suggest that it would be sufficient for the Minister to ask that in such a case the miller should produce at the mill premises all that he has got there, and that, if required, he might send across in a motor-car for the books in the office premises. The only difficulty that would arise there is where there was a big stretch of country between the head office and the mill, say, between Cork City and some place in North Cork.

The Minister perhaps has not noticed that the inspector, after making his inspection, can call upon the miller to produce all relevant documents, invoices, consignment notes, receipts, etc. How can the miller do that if, in fact, the documents are at the head office? Would it not be much more convenient for the inspector when he is examining or making extracts from the register to ask for the production of the invoices and consignment notes that he wants at the place where they are kept? From the inspector's point of view, I think it would be much more convenient to have all that part of the work done wherever the mill office is rather than at the mill.

I will put down the amendment again for the Report Stage.

I move amendment 69:—

In sub-section (1), page 14, line 15, to delete the word "twelve" and substitute the word "forty-eight."

I take it it is agreed to substitute the word "twenty-four" for "twelve" in the amendment.

Agreed.

The amendment has been met partly by the Minister, but still I do not think it is too much to ask that the period should be fortyeight hours. The entering of all these records may prove to be a very onerous piece of work, particularly in the case of millers who have not big staffs. As the Minister has gone so far in the case of the last amendment, perhaps he would agree to accept this one.

I have gone as far as safety would permit. It was with considerable reluctance that I agreed to the substitution of "twenty-four" for "twelve." The longer you make the period the greater is the possibility that on some occasion some dishonest miller may avail of the advantage given for the purpose of faking his books for the payment of subsidy not due.

Twenty-four hours might suit if they were office hours. If any of these operations take place, say, at twelve o'clock on a Saturday, in relation to a mill which closes at one o'clock on Saturday, then they have got to be entered up inside that hour. Twenty-four hours might be all right from Monday to Friday, but for a week-end twenty-four hours is far from meeting the case. For the week-end I think it should be twenty-four office hours.

I am afraid that safety would not permit of that. I think it is no hardship on a miller to require him to enter in his books a record of the purchases within twenty-four hours after they take place. I am sure that no good miller would allow twenty-four hours to pass without making the entries.

He might allow two hours on a Saturday afternoon in a case such as I have given, and that would be illegal under this.

Quite.

I do not want to press the Minister but I want to say that certainly my limited experience in business leads me to believe that if I were called upon to fill up, under heavy penalties, records of the disposition of all flour and meal within 24 hours it would be physically impossible. I would have the particulars in my books but to transfer these particulars into the register would be physically impossible. This would be specially so at certain periods of the year. Take the two weeks before Christmas, and one will appreciate that no miller with his ordinary staff could possibly keep that record up to within 24 hours at that period. If the Minister is going to require something unreasonable like that, he will have much greater difficulty in enforcing the law than he would if he had insisted only under reasonable conditions. If the Minister is to provide in this Bill that that record is to be entered within 24 hours all I can say is that it will not be done and his own inspectors will find it will not be done. They will find with practical experience that it would be at least 48 hours. The Minister himself must realise that with the staff he has in view he cannot have complete records for the business of taking in flour and meal in 24 hours.

I think 24 hours is a quite reasonable period.

The Minister is making the miller carry through in a slack season the amount of staff necessary to meet a peak load in order to get these things done.

I move amendment 70.

In sub-section (1), page 14, line 15, to delete the word "twelve" and substitute the word "twenty-four."

I move amendment 71.

In sub-section (2), line 23, after the word "all" to insert the word "prescribed."

I want these various things prescribed. I do not want the Minister to put down an order prescribing a variety of documents as is done here when the section states "and other documents." If that is done then this House ought to know—there ought to be some publicity given to it. Afterwards all these things form a failure to accord with the law when the law is being established to impose immense penalties, and penalties under Part I of the First Section.

The Deputy is going to make it more difficult for the miller to comply with the law. The miller would commit an offence if he used invoices that are not in the prescribed form.

No. Will the Minister read the section?: "All invoices, consignment notes, receipts and other documents...reasonably demanded by such inspector for the purpose of verifying any entry in, or explaining any omission from such records." The Minister has to bring regulations before this House stating what are the types of documents that the Minister might require to have produced to the inspector.

But they are stated there.

No; "and other documents." These will have to be prescribed to a certain extent by this measure. As long as the section reads "and other documents," anything may be demanded by the inspector.

Anything cannot be demanded.

When the miller is subject to penalties under this Act he ought to know clearly what is demanded of him, but here there is no indication of what is demanded of him.

Documents required for the purpose of "explaining any omission from such records."

Such documents as are demanded by the inspector for that purpose.

It would be open to the inspector to ask for all the correspondence which had passed between the miller and any particular wheat grower for the previous four years.

Yes, if it were necessary to establish the accuracy of the record the inspector should be entitled to do so.

It means this—they come before a court of summary jurisdiction, and the District Justice may say "It does not seem to me that you require all that in order to clear your mind," and the inspector may say "I do require it; I want all that has passed in the last four years between this man and the miller." Is there any protection there at all for the miller? It is very well for the Minister to take all those powers, but it is a different thing to give unlimited powers to the inspector. It is much worse giving unlimited powers to the inspector than to the Minister.

The Deputy must not take it into his head that there are no other reasonable persons in the world. If the inspector is an unreasonable person the Minister will displace him. The inspector will not require these documents unless he has good reason to believe that a fraud is attempted.

That he thinks a fraud is attempted.

A person who believes in the answer the Minister has now given should not bring in any legislation at all. It would be quite sufficient if the Minister were to bring in a Bill here saying that in this matter the Minister may do what he likes. That is always the case with the Minister. He goes too far. Is not all law made——

For purposes of restriction.

——against unreasonable persons. There was never yet a law founded upon the basis that everybody was to be reasonable under it. There is no necessity for a law if you are going to assume that everybody is reasonable. The court before whom such a thing comes cannot decide upon whether the demand was reasonable or not. The only point for the court to consider is—was it demanded? They have to assume that the inspector was reasonable, they must take that assumption and decide accordingly.

I move amendment 72:—

In sub-section (3), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), lines 28, 31 and 34, before the word "fails" to insert the word "wilfully."

I want to insert the word "wilfully" before these three paragraphs in order to show that the failure is not through a misadventure but a failure arising from the fact that a person did it deliberately.

I think the onus of proof should not be on the persons administering the Act. The miller is required by law to keep these records. If he fails it is up to him to prove that there was a reason for his failure. It would be impossible for the person administering the Act to prove that it was wilful because that would imply that he knew what the intentions of the person were.

Then why use the word in the next section—in paragraph (d) (3)?

We have the words "wilfully or negligently makes or causes to be made in such record any entry which is false or misleading in any particular." In these circumstances the onus of proof should be on those prosecuting to show that the entry was false and intended to mislead. That is different from (a) (b) and (c).

The Minister can prove what is in the man's mind in (d) of (3), but not in (a), (b) or (c).

Exactly.

I move amendment 73:

In sub-section (3), line 45, to delete the figure "I" and substitute the figure "II."

That and amendment 67 are similar cases.

No. Now because a man has not on his mill premises certain records that he is bound to keep, he may be subject to the heaviest penalties under the whole Act. This is ludicrous.

This is one of the most serious offences. It is not merely a question of what offences are mentioned in the Schedule; it is a question of the relative seriousness of these offences in relation one to the other, and this is one of the most serious that could be committed under the Bill.

It might be well to remember that we have to consider all the time that the Minister and his inspectors are reasonable, but that the millers are not.

The first assumption would be correct, in any case.

Mind you, the signs are not on it.

I would like to have the opinion of a more unprejudiced judge on that matter.

In this section the Minister is laying down the heaviest possible penalty that can be prescribed for a miller who does not satisfy the demands of the reasonable inspectors in the Minister's Department.

Adequate penalties are prescribed for persons who fail to produce or refuse to produce the records required by the Act.

What are the records? Do they include any documents which the inspector may think necessary?

No.

Surely—reasonably demanded.

Why does the Minister say "no" when I ask him if the records required include any document reasonably demanded by the inspector? So far as I can see, the inspector can demand virtually any document on the ground that he needs it to clear his mind with reference to other records referred to in other portions of the Bill. If the miller refuses to produce any document demanded by the inspector he is subject to all those heavy penalties included in the Schedule.

They are the maximum penalties.

And the Minister justifies all that by saying that the most serious misdemeanours that can be committed, can be committed under this section. It now becomes obvious that if a man disobeys the Minister's regulations he becomes liable to a grave penalty and, on the other hand, if he disagrees with the whims of the Minister's inspector he becomes liable to these very heavy penalties mentioned in the Schedule. The Minister may say that no reasonable judge would impose those penalties but, nevertheless, it is clear that any man who runs counter to the whim of one of the Minister's inspectors becomes liable to exceedingly heavy penalties.

We have to go to sub-section (4) to get to the full absurdity of the thing. In paragraph (b) we read "a demand for inspection of a record or document shall be deemed to have been duly made to the holder of a milling licence if such demand is made verbally at the mill ...to any person in the employment of such holder." Let it be noted that the refusal of that demand makes the holder liable to the maximum penalties. It amounts to this, that the inspector may make an application to the yardman, and if there is any failure to produce records or documents the miller can be brought up and the maximum penalties imposed.

I have referred to this matter on several occasions, but I will repeat what I said in the hope that it may sink in this time. The penalties prescribed are maximum penalties. It is possible to have a very serious offence committed under this section. It is possible also to have a trivial offence committed. If the offence is trivial and a person is prosecuted, it is reasonable to assume that the judges will not impose the maximum penalties. But they should have the power to impose heavy penalties for serious offences which might be designed to facilitate frauds on the revenue or to wreck the whole scheme of the Bill.

Perhaps it might be as well for me to mention something also in the hope that it may sink in. In my opinion the Minister always argues too much. Why have any discrimination in the case of maximum penalties? There are three penalties set down by the Minister in the First Schedule of this measure. If the Minister is always going to rely on the reasonableness of the judge, where is the need for any more than one set of penalties? Why not take Part I of the First Schedule, for instance, and adopt that generally? The Minister must have some reason for Parts II and III. Why not leave in an overriding maximum penalty and be content afterwards to rely on the reasonableness of the judge?

To my mind this is what the Minister did: He prepared the section and then said "We must prescribe the penalties contained in Part I of the Schedule in relation to this section," and then he passed on to other sections. The Minister ought to remember that though he may be a very much overworked man——

I have not complained of being a bit overworked.

——there is all the more reason why he should constantly remember that it is his business, if he has three separate penalties, to see that they are allocated to the appropriate offences. It should not simply be the policy to attach one penalty to the whole lot merely because the Minister might think that it was not worth while to put in any other sub-section specifying particular penalties in accordance with the gravity of the misdemeanours that may be committed in contravention of this Act.

If we follow Deputy McGilligan's logic to its obvious conclusion we will have the death penalty for all offences.

It is not my logic, but the logic applicable to the Minisster's statement.

It is merely the logical conclusion of the Minister's attitude.

I beg to move amendment 75:—

In sub-section (4) (b), lines 52 and 53, to delete the words "in the employment of such holder," and substitute the words "charged by the holder with the custody of such document."

As the section stands, a miller might be prosecuted and be made liable to the very severe penalties that we have been discussing if an inspector demands from his yardman or the woman who sweeps out the dust or perhaps scrubs the floor the production of certain documents and fails to get them. If the records demanded are not forthcoming the miller is at once in serious trouble. This is rather a drastic provision. It is a serious thing to make an employer responsible for the action of any of his employees. I think the Minister ought to accept the amendment. If he does not he will be placing the millers in an impossible position. Any miller would be subject to grave penalties if an inspector thought fit to ask any of his employees for records such as are mentioned in this section and failed to get them. The employee might know nothing whatever about the records demanded. The section is obviously a ridiculous one.

The section may be, in the opinion of the Deputy, ridiculous but I would like to remind him that several times during the past ten years he voted for Bills containing precisely the same section. It is the common form of legislation in connection with Bills of this type. The Deputy's suggestion is that the demand should be made on the person charged with the custody of the documents. How is the inspector to know who is charged with the custody of the documents? Supposing the holder of the licence does not appoint anyone to hold the documents? Supposing that person is on holidays in the Riviera? Is the whole Bill to be held up on that account? It is the responsibility of the holder of the licence to have the documents available for inspection. The inspector presumably will be a reasonable man. Assuming he is not and he goes to the yardman, it is quite possible the yardman will refer him to the office. In the office there must be someone in a position to produce the documents. That is the responsibility of the licensed holder and not of the inspector.

The yardman might tell the inspector to go to some place where the Minister would not send him, or he might not. If the words I suggest are not agreeable to the Minister, perhaps he will undertake to put in more suitable words.

I am following a very good precedent. I am accepting the words inserted in every similar piece of legislation adopted by the Deputy's Party.

I am not concerned here with what happened in respect to other Bills. What I am concerned with is this section. It is a section which would impose upon a miller very drastic penalties through no fault of his.

Is there such a provision in the Eggs Act?

I think so.

I want to see it.

What is the provision?

Can the Minister give us a definite precedent?

Not at the moment, but there are a number of cases of similar type.

Has the Minister seen any of them?

Yes.

Would the Minister name any he has seen?

I do not want to be too precise at the moment, but if the Deputy raises the matter again, I shall get a list of them.

The Minister had notice of this by the putting down of the amendment.

I did not think it was seriously meant.

Here we get the contention that it is the duty of the holder of the licence to have the documents available. He might have them available, but if a part-time employee is on the premises and is asked for them the demand is duly made for the documents. That man may not know anything about the records. The miller must inform everybody who is in his employment, either temporarily or permanently, where these records are to be found. The next sub-section states that "a refusal or failure to produce a record or other document for inspection, if made or permitted on the mill, by a person in the employment of the holder of a milling licence, shall be deemed to have been made or committed by the holder of such milling licence." There is no question that the miller must have the documents available. That is perfectly sound. Insist upon that. But to insist that the demand for production can be made on anybody in the holder's employment is ludicrous under the circumstances of this Bill. The Minister has made the objection to the amendment that the person charged with the custody of the document might be on holidays.

Or there might be no such person at all.

That could be met by adding to the reference to the person charged with the custody of the documents "or if there is no such person present, on any person in the employment..."

How is the inspector to know?

It will have to be notified. The person charged can notify. Let us get some amendment that is reasonable. If this suggestion does not meet the situation, it can be amended.

A simple formula could be devised by which the demand would be made on the holder of the licence or some person in charge of the office. Nobody is going to permit yardmen, carters or men dealing with the transport of goods to be in charge of the office.

Does the Deputy think that the inspector is going to the yardmen to look for records?

The office is generally in a corner of the yard. It is quite easy to get a formula to meet the position. I could draft one myself in a few minutes.

The Minister says that nobody is going to be prosecuted but I very much object to becoming liable to prosecution. The average law-abiding citizen prides himself on the fact that he does not ordinarily do things that leave it open to anybody to prosecute him or to bring him before a court of summary jurisdiction on anything like a prima facie case. These provisions are, however, setting pitfalls all over the place. I quite agree that no sane judge would enforce a proviso of this kind. But the average law-abiding citizen objects to being put in the dock. I think that the Minister himself would object to being put in the dock in these circumstances. We ask the Minister so to frame the statute that no person will be put in the dock unless he is deliberately endeavouring to impede the inspector or to make the statute unworkable. In those circumstances, it is quite right that a penalty should be imposed upon him.

If there is not some person marked out for the production of those documents, there may be all sorts of friction between those entrusted with the administration of the Act and the millers. The inspector may go to a number of people—we may leave out the yardmen—and he may not be in the very best of temper. He may be sent about his business. If the Minister hears of the incident, it will be the inspector's side of the story he will hear. Complaints of that kind will become numerous and will lead to friction. Then we shall have more severe penalties imposed than we have heard of up to the present. Under Section 32, the Minister will have power to impose further penalties. There is no trouble in achieving what the Minister professes to aim at—that the records should be available. But to make the employer responsible for all the acts, in this respect, of his employees seems to court friction in the administration of the Act. If the Minister considers the matter calmly— he does not seem inclined to do that at the moment—he will see that there is a great deal to be said for the amendment of the section as it stands. The wording of the amendment may not be the best but the Minister could get an amendment drafted which would achieve the purpose of the amendment on the paper.

The section in the Bill is the result of years of experience. It is the common form and it is necessary to have it in that form to prevent an obvious method of evasion by people who want to escape their responsibilities under the Act.

The provision is so ridiculous that I do not want to say any more about it. The inspector might get off a train, meet a carter from the mill and ask him for these documents. He might not go any further.

If the Deputy had read the Bill, he would see that he would not do that.

I move amendment 78.

In sub-section (4), (d), page 14, to delete the said paragraph and substitute the following paragraph:—

(d) the expression "office hours" means——

(i) in relation to any day (not being a Sunday, a bank holiday, or a locally observed holiday or half-holiday), any time between the hours of ten o'clock in the morning and five o'clock in the afternoon during which business is being carried on or work is being done at the mill, and

(ii) in relation to any locally observed half-holiday, any time between the hours of ten o'clock in the morning and one o'clock in the afternoon during which business is being carried on or work is being done at the mill.

This is an elaboration of the definition of "office hours," which is designed to ensure that no misunderstanding will arise. Office hours are defined very precisely.

I shall introduce an amendment to give effect to the idea contained in amendment 79. I am not sure that the amendment is in the best form.

There are a large number of amendments to the Bill in my name regarding the production of his authorisation by the inspector. Does the acceptance of the principle of this amendment cover the others?

Some of them. I shall indicate the amendments to which that applies as we reach them.

I move amendment 80:—

In sub-section (1), line 14, to delete the word "may" and substitute the word "shall."

This amendment is intended to ensure that it will be obligatory on the Minister to revoke a licence if the holder of the licence so requests. I think it is reasonable that a person who wants to give up a licence should be allowed to do so.

Ninety-nine times out of one hundred an application for the revocation of a milling licence by the licensee would be granted. In the hundredth case, it might mean that there would be a shortage of flour in the country over a period if the miller was released from his obligation to mill flour in pursuance of his licence. In that case, some period might have to elapse between the date of the application and the revocation of the licence until an alternative arrangement could be made. A discretion must be retained.

In that hundredth case could not the Minister take over the mill and run it?

He could if he thought it desirable.

If a man wants to have a licence revoked, the non-revocation of which would possibly subject him to penalties if he did not mill his quota in a particular year, he ought to get the revocation.

The Minister might require to keep the mill going until the necessary Vote for the money to purchase the mill had been taken in the Dáil.

Why even wait until that? Is there no other way of getting flour—no way of substituting it?

We can always substitute by importation, if flour is available.

In the hundredth case?

Will the delicate machinery of the Bill be upset by changing this to "shall"?

Deputy McGilligan has a theory that "may" means "shall," and perhaps he will explain it to Deputy O'Sullivan.

Unfortunately, it is not anything that I think in these cases that goes. Is it seriously contended that amendment 80 is not going to be accepted? Is what the Minister has said the only argument?

There must be some element of discretion. In fact "may" does mean "shall" in that case. There is a certain elasticity provided by the word used in the Bill, which is desirable.

Once a flour miller always a flour miller until the Minister lets you off!

When a flour miller gets a licence he has got a valuable concession.

Has he? A lot of them do not think so, and they will think it less after they see this.

They must, judging by the rush of people who want to go into the business.

I move amendment 81:—

In sub-section (2) (a), line 18, to delete the words "he is satisfied" and substitute the words: "the court has decided."

I want to ensure that before a person's licence can be withdrawn the person should be brought before a court and convicted of fraud or misrepresentation.

Again, what is in the Bill is precisely the same as has been inserted in a number of Bills passed by the Dáil providing for licences of one kind or another. It is the usual form. Any departure from the form would be most undesirable.

The Minister is setting himself up as a court to decide whether a thing is fraud or not.

That argument was first debated here at least five years ago. Certainly, to my knowledge, it was very vigorously debated upon a Bill in 1927.

What Bill?

A licensing Bill relating to fresh meat, or eggs, or butter, or something of that kind. It has been revived upon occasions since. If the Deputy looks it up he will see that that section is taken from Bills introduced by the late Administration.

What is the objection to the Minister letting the ordinary courts decide whether a person is guilty of fraud or not?

Precisely the same objection that Deputy McGilligan had.

I never had a Bill in which that phrase was introduced.

Or your colleague, Deputy Hogan?

Do not take my name in vain.

The Minister cannot give any reason for taking this out of the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.

There is no use founding arguments upon the Minister's vague statement about other Bills. Let us see the Bill, and get the circumstances in which it was debated. Let us see whether there is any comparison with what is talked of here, and then we will know where we are. Under this, the Minister, whose judgment, as we have observed during the progress of the Bill, is not very sound, is going to be allowed to decide such a question as has occupied the attention of many judges in relation to many measures—the question of fraud and the question of misrepresentation. I suppose there are chapters in all the books written upon contracts which deal with the dividing line between fraud, misrepresentation, and an innocent mistake. But the Minister is going to decide this in a measure as to which both himself and his colleague have decided that they cannot get a formula to define millable wheat. He is going to apply his judgment as to whether or not a man has procured a milling licence by fraud or by misrepresentation. He has not indicated what evidence will be produced with regard to it, who is going to be allowed to plead in the case, or anything like that. The Minister makes up his mind that the licence has to be revoked, and the livelihood of the individual is taken from him because the Minister says he has been guilty of fraud or misrepresentation in procuring a licence.

A citizen has always the right of appeal to the courts on a declaration.

If this were seriously meant, there would be no hesitation whatever in allowing a court to decide it. It is obviously a matter that requires legal skill and the mind of a judicial person to decide whether there has or has not been fraud. It is one of the most elusive things to determine. Misrepresentation is probably not so difficult, but certainly fraud is a very peculiar matter. The cases with reference to it are numerous. That there is any fair judgment possible from a layman in the matter is very hard to believe. As I say, if the Minister decides that a person has been guilty of fraud, the penalty is that he loses his licence and his livelihood.

Can the Minister give a definition of fraud or of misrepresentation, or draw a distinction between misrepresentation and fraud? I know perfectly well that he could not. There is no branch of law so highly technical as drawing the dividing line between misrepresentation and fraud. The Minister should take care to make provision that he will not withdraw a licence until an order of the court has been produced and he will want to distinguish between whether he has been found guilty of fraud or of misrepresentation. If a person is guilty of fraud in my opinion he is not entitled to any licence. When you come to misrepresentation, then you have serious misrepresentation and the mere technical offence of misrepresentation, which is a trivial thing. Anybody in business could be guilty of technical misrepresentation which would bring him within the law. Serious misrepresentation will nullify a contract altogether. This is a responsibility that I would not take upon myself if I were a Minister and I think anybody who has any sense of the gravity of the distinction between the two would not take on the responsibility.

"The Minister" means something more than the individual occupying the office of Minister for Industry and Commerce for the time being. "The Minister" means not merely the individual but the Department, and in that Department he can get all the legal advice he requires on any technical point that may arise. I was just going to say it was a pity Deputy McMenamin's services were not at the disposal of Cumann na nGaedheal when they were the Government. He might have prevented them from doing what I am doing now. This section is taken verbatim from quite a multitude of Bills passed through this Dáil.

None of which you can name.

In all the Bills requiring a licence for the exportation of eggs or meat or butter or any of the other articles subject to licence under the late Government. In any case I want Deputies to appreciate the fact that the Minister is responsible here for everything he does. I adverted to the fact yesterday, that because it was alleged in error that a certain concession granted under the Finance Act shut down Gallaher's factory, there has been public agitation for three months, we have had many debates here, and every attempt has been made to gain political capital out of that for the Party opposite, and to damage the reputation of this Party. Does any Deputy believe that if the Minister withdraws a licence from a flour mill and shuts it down he will not be subjected to the same type of comment?

What kind of comment?

It means the Minister must be able to justify his action here in every Bill. He cannot revoke a licence at all except the licence was secured by fraud or misrepresentation, except the conditions of the licence were departed from, or except the licensee was convicted by a court of an offence under the Act. These are the only three grounds on which the Minister can decide to withdraw a licence. I am leaving out (b) which does not matter—if for some reason "the business of milling wheat has ceased to be carried on at such mill"— but in the other three cases he must be able to stand public criticism on his action on one or other of these three grounds. He would want to be quite sure of his grounds.

The Minister has just proved how absolutely unfit he is to give a decision of this kind. First of all he referred to the fact that he will get help from his Department. In a case like this the decision must be the Minister's, not only based on the legal advice he can get from his Department. He must be capable of acting in a judicial capacity. He cannot leave a judicial decision of this kind to officials. He may take their advice, but the decision must be his.

Quite.

Quite. I do not think there is necessarily in the Minister for Industry and Commerce this judicial capacity to give a decision of this kind. The remark he threw in to Deputy McMenamin about the distinction between an egg and an elephant shows that he has no conception of the difficulties that will arise. Far more absurd is the idea that the thing should be thrashed out judicially here in this House. The thing is absurd. The merits of it, from the point of view of employment, can be thrashed out, but not a question on the working of the judicial side of it, which is what the Minister acted on. Everybody knows that this House should not, except in exceptional circumstances, be subjected to matters of that kind. It is not what the House is for. It shows that the Minister has no appreciation of what he is required to do under this particular section. I put the question again, which I put at the beginning: Why is it he takes this out of the ordinary jurisdiction of the court, which is obviously the proper place to determine whether there is fraud or not, whether there is misrepresentation or not, and what is the penalty that ought to follow that? Obviously the court is the place to do it.

For about the nth time the Minister told us that the Minister is responsible for the Bill. If that is so, we could have been spared most of the sections of this Bill. The Minister might have been responsible for everything, and there would be no necessity for any of the sub-sections in it. I, for one, am not satisfied that the Minister is the proper person—or his Department—to determine whether a person is guilty of fraud or misrepresentation. It should be on the decision of the court that a person would be judged guilty or not guilty of fraud or misrepresentation. It is no use for the Minister to answer us in the flippant way in which he replied to Deputy McMenamin about the difference between an egg and an elephant. I might as well ask the Minister what is the difference between a top-hat and a chimney-piece.

It is a mere matter of definition.

The Minister mentioned precedents. He did not name the precedents. Even if there were precedents, even if at some time within the last ten years some Bill has been passed with this section in it, and the Opposition that were did not see it, it only proves that we are a more vigilant Opposition. We see what the Government, who were then the Opposition, did not see. We are a vigilant Opposition. I, for one, am not going to be a party to any person being convicted of fraud or misrepresentation by the Minister or his Department, and I think I will insist at this stage that the court must be the determining factor as to whether a person is guilty or is not guilty.

Did I hear the Minister aright when he said it was purely a matter of interpretation?

Of definition—the difference between an egg and an elephant, yes.

I wish the Minister would make a little journey with me some day to the Law Library at the King's Inns, and I will there show him tomes in plenty, investigating the question of what is fraud and what is not; I will then lead him to another section of the Library, and I will show him tomes just as big which have been written on the question of what is or is not misrepresentation. I fully appreciate that the quality of mind which characterises the Minister places him in a category apart from the Judges and Justices of the Irish Judiciary, but still, much as we appreciate that, a great many of us would prefer to commit our destinies to the hands of the judges and the courts of this country, rather than to the clear and crystal mind of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I do not know whether there is a precedent or not. It does not matter whether there is or not. If there is a precedent it is a very bad precedent. If there is a precedent it is a precedent for setting the courts of this country at one side, and taking into the hands of the Minister for Industry and Commerce not only the power he denounced other members for taking when he was in Opposition—the power of making the law—but the power of administering the law. Bear in mind that the Minister's defence for this is that he has precedents for it in another Bill. What are they? Another Public Safety Act? This precedent might come in very useful to this Administration or some future Administration. If it did, the Minister for Industry and Commerce might have reason to regret the precedent. I submit to the Minister that the creation of precedents of this kind, interfering with the jurisdiction of the courts, is very dangerous. I will certainly challenge a division on this, and I hope the proposer of the amendment will challenge it.

I would like to say this, that I am prepared to accept evidence of the conversion of the Deputies opposite when they come here with proposals to amend the similar sections in the Dairy Produce Act, the Agricultural Produce (Eggs) Act, the Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Act, and all the other Acts in which that section appeared.

Those are the only three you have got. Stick to them. The Minister's phrase is—if it were required, and I do not think it is required—sufficient proof that he is not fit to carry out the duties imposed on him under the section. If there were nothing but the cheap jackery of his remarks to Deputy McMenamin it would condemn him, and the equally absurd intervention he made—I suppose there is no third-rate music hall that could not produce a better retort —about the difference between an egg and an elephant, and that from a man who has decided that he cannot produce the definition upon which this whole Bill turns. He is going to take a judicial function and, funnily enough, he is going to take the judicial function of determining the very, very narrow matter of fraud or misrepresentation, whereas he leaves it to the court, in paragraph (c), to convict of an offence under the Act. There are certain cases laid down here that are to be offences under the Act. They are to have penalties attached to them that are, so far as the monetary side is concerned, none so bad as deprivation of a man's whole livelihood, and, yet, on a thing that will require great judicial discernment—that of deciding whether a thing is fraud or mispresentation—he takes the matter into his own hands and the penalty is forfeiture of the licence. But the other matter, a matter which is more a matter of fact determination, the offence under the Act, is left to the court and the court has to decide on the penalties. If he is going to be a judge, why should he not be a judge of the easy matters? If he is not capable of being a judge—and the drafting of the section shows that he is not capable of being a judge—of an offence under the Act, why does he become a judge in such a cryptic thing as fraud and misrepresentation?

I venture to suggest that the Minister at this moment could not tell the House what is fraud and what is misrepresentation.

So long as it is one or the other——

The Minister could not decide the difference between either of those two offences and a mistake.

What is fraud? I suggest that the Minister will not define that.

The Minister says that he is protecting himself, but the way to protect himself is to go in and get an order of the court and put it down on the bench, saying: "There is an order of the court in respect of a man who held a licence and who was found guilty by the court. There is my defence": and then sit down. That is all he has to do. I would ask him to arm himself with an order of the court for protection, and nothing else, because nothing else is a defence.

We have now got the point of view that apparently the Minister need not make up his mind as to whether it is fraud or misrepresentation. He can just leave it vague. It is not a question of what a man is guilty of. He will not decide whether he is guilty of fraud, and neither will he decide whether he is guilty of misrepresentation. He is satisfied if, in a vague way, he is guilty of one or the other, but the Minister will not go to the trouble, according to his interjection just now, of judging what he is guilty of. On this matter, I would like to point out to the Minister that one of his interjections was that a person has the remedy of going to the courts open to him. Where is it so far as this is concerned? He put an interjection of this kind in when the debate on the sub-section was going on, but where is that particular remedy as regards what we are now complaining of?

I did not say that.

I must have misunderstood the Minister. I thought he said——

I said that any citizen can go to the courts for a declaration at any time.

For a declaration?

About what?

About whether the Minister is right or wrong?

Not when the Act gives the Minister the right.

Is there an appeal, in other words? This is an important matter, and I would like to know what that means. The Minister convicts the holder of a licence of having procured the licence by fraud or misrepresentation. Is it the Minister's view that before there is revocation of the licence that person has a right to go to the court and get the Minister set aside?

I did not say that.

What did the Minister say?

I said that any person can go to the courts and get a declaration from the courts as to the Minister's powers under this section.

But they are there.

That is what we object to. They are too clear.

And observe that a person has no remedy, according to the Bill, in the court, because the sole criterion is that the Minister is satisfied. It is quite sufficient for the Minister to go into the court and say "I am satisfied," and no mandamus will lie against him. The Minister says that a person can go in and get the protection of the court. That is precisely what we are trying to get for him here. If you put that sub-section in the Bill, he has no protection, but if you put in a provision, such as that set out in the amendment, he has every protection the Minister envisages—the protection of the court against the Minister. The Minister cannot penalise him without the authority of the court.

I move amendment 82:—

In sub-section (2) (b), line 21, after the word "mill" to insert the words "for an extended period (save where such business has ceased through circumstances outside the control of the holder of such licence)."

I think it would be asking too much to revoke a licence because a mill had ceased to operate for a very short period—days or weeks. There ought to be some protection for the miller. The words suggested in the amendment would provide for an extended period. As the sub-section stands it is rather drastic, as a mill might stop on a Friday evening and might not start again until some time in the following week.

The amendment is not necessary. Paragraph (b) does not state that the milling of wheat has ceased at the mill. It means where the business has ceased. A temporary stoppage of machinery would not mean the cessation of business. The wording means that the mill would have to be out of action for an extended period, due to the fact that the company operating it had gone out of business.

If that is the Minister's reading of the sub-section I am satisfied. It appeared to me, as it might appear to the ordinary layman, that the mere temporary cessation of milling would bring the owner under penalties.

Oh, no.

I move amendment 83:—

In sub-section (2) (c), line 22, to delete all words after the word "convicted" to the end of line 23, and substitute the words "twice of offences under this Part of this Act both of which convictions have resulted in penalties being imposed under Part I of the First Schedule to this Act.

I think it would be rather drastic to revoke a licence because there was a trivial offence.

I propose that the licence should not be revoked unless the holder of the licence shall have been convicted twice, and not for trivial offences either. The penalties are rather drastic—too drastic, in fact—and in this particular instance I think it offers a loop-hole to rather heavily penalise the individual miller.

The power to revoke the licence, if the licensee has been convicted, should be there. It is quite obvious that that power will not be exercised unless for sufficiently grave reasons. The shutting down of a flour mill would be a very serious thing for any Minister to contemplate, and he would need to have a good case to do that. The point made here is merely to get permission to withdraw the licence if the miller has been convicted. It is quite obvious that if it was for some trivial offence, or that there was going to be permanent damage done as a result of the fine, the Minister would hesitate to take such power, but the purport of the section is to give the Minister power to revoke the licence if, in his opinion, the conditions are sufficiently grave to justify such action.

In the various other parts of this Bill and in the First Schedule to the Bill, the Minister has detailed various maximum penalties but, in reality, here he has gone beyond all that and has a new maximum penalty so far as the miller is concerned. The amendment that the Minister refuses to have anything to do with allows him, on a second conviction of a person by a court, of the very many things under this Bill that are to be dealt with or which make a miller liable to incur the penalties mentioned under Part I— that is, the serious offences, as the Minister himself would call them— to take away that person's licence. He refuses to put that in or to give that particular safeguard in legislation, and again everything has to depend on the wisdom of the Minister; and the only remedies open to a person who thinks himself unfairly treated under this sub-section are that the matter can be questioned here in this House. That again, I think, is a most undesirable method of ventilating a grievance of that kind. It means that in order to remedy a matter of that kind the only thing to do is to bring about the defeat of the Executive Council. It is ludicrous from that point of view.

What is the Minister's objection, for instance, to limiting the penalties for offences incurred under Part I? The Minister himself must acknowledge that he has been pretty generous in the way he treated offenders under Part I. Surely the penalties prescribed in the Bill itself are heavy enough, but it does seem absurd that he should have power to inflict the loss of licence if the court thinks that the normal punishment is the punishment under Part II or Part III of the First Schedule. Furthermore, the court, from the evidence before it, would be in a position to judge of the merits or demerits of the case. I think that, if there is any objection to the amendment, it is that it does not give enough power. The Minister should not have power to give that maximum penalty, namely, the loss of livelihood of the miller, unless the court inflicts the maximum penalty. Having heard the case, and approaching it in judicial fashion, the court inflicts the maximum penalty under Part I of this Bill. That would seem a reasonable case for the withdrawal of the means of livelihood, but what the objection of the Minister can be to limiting his discretion to offences for which the penalties mentioned in Part I of the Schedule are prescribed, I do not know. Why he thinks that he must have the power to deprive of a licence those whom even the Bill itself normally would make liable only to the lesser penalties under Part I, Part II and Part III, I fail to see. In reality, the amendment is much better than the Bill as it stands, even to the ordinary person.

Again, I do not think that any useful purpose is to be served by going over again what has been already covered. This section is taken word for word from a number of similar sections. The considerations to which the Deputy has adverted were, I am sure, in the minds of the Executive in the past. The section is designed to give permission for the cancellation of the licence in certain circumstances. That power would only be exercised in extreme cases, but, nevertheless, it is a power that should be there, and the whole operation of the Bill might easily be negatived if that power were not there.

Does the Minister suggest that it would be an extreme case if the miller was guilty only of the offences punishable under Parts II and III?

It is impossible. A person might be charged with that offence and yet be deemed to be worthy of a fine of 5/-. Another person might be found guilty and, under Part II, be liable to six months' imprisonment. That is no criterion by which to judge of the two offences, the nature of which we do not know.

Has the Minister received any representations from the people concerned?

From whom?

The millers.

I have no doubt I have.

No grounds have previously been covered in relation to this amendment because it is an entirely new amendment. Any arguments used previously about fraud and misrepresentation were specially directed to that. This is where we have got away from the Minister's point with regard to who has power. All that he is asked to speak of is, where a man has been convicted "twice of offences under this Part of this Act, both of which convictions have resulted in penalties being imposed under Part I of the First Schedule to this Act." It is an entirely new proposal, and has not been debated before in the House, and no argument can apply to this, other than the arguments used previously under Sections 26 and 27 of this measure.

Under Section 26 of this measure a man who gets a licence is obliged to mill his quota. He is, under an amendment put down yesterday, obliged to mill 90 per cent. of the wheat that has been assigned to him under the quota. If he fails for two years or for one year to mill that ninety per cent. he can be charged, and can be convicted under Part III of the First Schedule. The moment that happens he can have his licence taken from him. The Minister's answer to that is that it is obvious it will not be. We want to translate "obvious" into "impossible"—that it will not be possible to take the licence from him. That is all that is aimed at. I should like to find out from the Minister how he proposes to square the policy set down here with the line of policy which I understand his Party have adopted with regard to endorsements on other licences, and the abolition of a licence on a certain number of endorsements being put on that licence. I understood that particular type of procedure did not meet with the approval of his Party. Yet here on one conviction, with the minimum penalties, under the least onerous section of the Schedule, the Minister has it in his power to destroy a man's livelihood. Surely it is much more serious to give that power to the Minister than to give to a judge the power, when it seems good to him, to record certain things on a publican's licence and to forfeit that licence after a certain number of endorsements.

If the Deputy knows as much as he pretends about law, he knows that there is no similarity between the two things. There is in one case the automatic cancellation of a licence, following three convictions.

Not automatic can cellation.