Amendment No. 1 in the name of the Minister is consequential on amendment No. 2. Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 may be together by agreement.

NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, before section 1, to insert the following new section:

"1.—In this Act—

`the Act of 1995' means the Milk (Regulation of Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1995; and

`the Principal Act' means the Milk (Regulation of Supply) Act, 1994."

This new section 1 is being inserted for reasons of legal technicality. The original section 1 merely defined the principal Act. Because the Committee Stage amendment to section 3, which provides for the postponement of the producer election and nomination process until 1997, contains a reference to "the Act of 1995" it is necessary to amend section 1 to include a definition of this Act also as meaning the Milk (Regulation of Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1995.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

"(a) The substitution of the following subparagraph for subparagraph (1) (substituted by section 2 of the Act of 1995):

`(1) The Minister shall, in the year 1997 and in every third year thereafter, seek nominations from processor, distributor, retail and consumer interests of persons for appointment as members of the Agency under paragraph 3 (1). A person nominated by processor interests under this subparagraph must be a registered processor.',

(b) the substitution of the following subparagraph for subparagraph (2) (substituted by section 2 of the Act of 1995):

`(2) The Minister shall, in the year 1997 and in every third year thereafter, prescribe by regulations a day ("an election day") to be an election day for producer members.',".

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

"(a) the insertion of `The number of consumer representatives will be not less than three.' after `registered processor.' in subparagraph (1).".

I listened to what the Minister had to say in his Second Stage reply. If he were prepared to agree to the number of consumer representatives being no fewer than two, I would agree to that as a compromise.

As the Report Stage is to be taken straight away, it would be better to agree it here.

That would require an amendment to my amendment.

The amendment should be included at the end of subparagraph (1) of paragraph 5 of the Schedule in the 1994 Act. That is the most appropriate place to insert it, although it is not clear from the amendment where it should go.

Let me deal with the politics of it before dealing with the legalities. Politically, as Minister, I am happy to accept that there should be consumer representation. However, the expertise in my Department extends to milk, not to drafting legislation. Some discussion is taking place with the Bills Office, the results of which we will await. I assume there was some consultation between Deputy Cowen and the Bills Office. Was Deputy O'Malley making the point that were we to agree to substitute the word "two" for the word "three", that would be inadequate?

I have no objection to substituting the word "two". It is a question of where it should be inserted. The amendment should read:

In page 4, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

"(a) the insertion of `The number of consumer representatives will be not less than two.' after `registered processor.' in subparagraph (1) of paragraph 5 of the Schedule in the Principal Act.

Is the Deputy reading from the Principal Act?

I am not. I am referring to the Principal Act. The rules of the agency are set out in the Schedule to the Principal Act. Paragraph 5 relates to appointment provisions. Subparagraph (1) deals with nominees of different interests and it concludes that a processor nominee must be a registered processor. Deputy Cowen's suggestion, with which I agree, is that a further sentence should follow that which would read: "The number of consumer representatives will be not less than two". That should be inserted after the words "registered processor" in subparagraph (1) of paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Principal Act.

I have no difficulty in accepting that. The overall situation will change in that instead of having one consumer representative there will be two, and I will make the necessary arrangements for that by way of ministerial order and Statutory Instrument.

Could we have the wording of the amendment?

I move the following amendment to amendment No. 3:

After the word "than" to insert the following:

" `two.' after `registered processor.' in subparagraph (1) of paragraph 5 of the Schedule in the Principal Act.

Amendment amended by leave.

In view of the amendment the Minister has made, the title should read: "The Milk (Regulation of Supply) Acts, 1994 and 1995, because that Act has now been amended by the Minister's amendments.

Is the Bill not dated 1996?

It is, but I am talking about the long title which is: "An Act to amend the Milk (Regulation and Supply) Act, 1994 and to provide for connected matters". That was correct in the Bill as drafted and as presented to the House. The Minister has now amended it by amending the 1995 Act as well. I query whether it is necessary to include that in the title. It was not necessary under the original draft.

I am advised that the title does incorporate the change.

And should we have to come back and amend the legislation, the Minister will resign.

I took this legislation last year on the basis that it was a technicality and a once-off.

It is not. It is a serious issue.

I am concerned that this should happen again at the tail end of the subsequent year. It is not my intention to bring in more legislation in relation to this matter.

Whether it works or not.

Is the title agreed?

On the basis of the Minister's commitment that he will resign if it is not right, we will agree to it.

A commitment has been given that even if it is not right it will not be brought back here.

There is no question of my resigning over this issue.

Will the Minister write to all those involved to appraise them of what has happened?