I would like to call attention to line 29 in this section, which says "the word `eggs' means eggs in the shell of domestic fowls and ducks." If that line stands as it is, it would mean the exclusion of turkeys and geese. I suggest that instead of the words "domestic fowls and ducks" the word "poultry" should be used. It is a better description and its meaning in the dictionary is given as "fowls for domestic use," and it embraces hens, ducks, turkeys and geese.

I understand that the trade meaning of the word "fowl" is "hens." We want to include "ducks." We do not want to include turkeys and geese.

If the suggestion of Senator Kenny were adopted it would mean that part of this Bill would not fit in with the main part of the industry with which it is intended to deal.

Fowls would include all.

I am afraid that would not meet the point. Hen is the female of any fowl. "Domestic fowls" means hens and ducks and does not include turkeys and geese, and hence we say "domestic fowls" and ducks.

I beg to move an amendment:—"In Section 7, sub-section (3) to delete in line 43 the words `a period of' and to substitute therefor the words `such period as may be prescribed not exceeding."

This amendment proposes to give the Minister a fixed period of twenty-eight days, or such period as may be prescribed, not exceeding twenty-eight days. I do not think it is necessary that the exporter should have on the premises packing material for the whole period of twenty-eight days. It may be feasible to carry on without that.

I accept the amendment.

I beg to move as an amendment:—

"In Section 10, sub-section (3) to add at the end of the sub-section a new sub-paragraph (c) as follows:—

"(c) that the registered proprietor having made a contract for the sale of eggs to be exported from premises of which he is the registered proprietor has, without reasonable cause, failed or omitted to carry out such contract."

It has sometimes happened that the Irish exporter has failed to carry out his contract in England. If that occurred very often it would give a very bad impression of the Irish trade, and would have a very bad effect. Hence this amendment is considered necessary.

I would call attention to the last lines in sub-section (1) of Clause 10 "or, in the case of an incorporated body, the liquidator, of the registered proprietor." The incorporated body need not necessarily be in liquidation. This implies that the incorporated body must be in liquidation to the exclusion of incorporated bodies not in liquidation.

I think that is to deal with the case of a registered proprietor which may be an incorporated body, and if the incorporated body goes into bankruptcy they will be represented by the liquidator in the same way as if an individual died he is represented by his personal representative. It is not very clear, but I think that is what it means.

I think the meaning is clear.

Would it not be better to put in the words "Secretary or liquidator"?

I think it would be desirable. I think it is a little obscure as it is.

In order to clarify the matter, I think that the words "Secretary or" should be inserted before the word "liquidator" in the last line of the sub-section.

It is covered by the words "registered proprietor."

It is very confusing, and these words "the liquidator of the registered proprietor" at the end of the sub-section appear to be surplusage.

I thought they made it clear. The words "registered proprietor" apply both to the registered proprietor personally and to the incorporated body—the liquidator of the registered proprietor.

I beg to move an amendment:—

In Section 14, sub-section (1) to add at the end of the sub-section a new sub-paragraph (g) as follows:—

"(g) the description of eggs which may or may not be brought on to the premises."

This amendment would give power to the Minister, if he thinks fit, to prohibit the bringing in of foreign eggs on to the premises of any exporter.

Under sub-section (1) of this section it seems that a person can sell any quantity of eggs up to thirty dozen, and that, so to speak, it is only when that quantity is reached that legality commences. From the reading of the section it appears to me that a person who sells a lesser quantity than 30 dozen will not come under the operations of the section at all.

The idea, I suppose, is that in mentioning 30 dozen in the section you must draw the line somewhere.

That is the idea.

I would like to ask if the Government is able to give us an estimate of the cost of administering this Bill. I might state, on the general question, that we never appear to get White Papers, and are only rarely given estimates of the cost in new legislation. It seems very desirable in some cases, perhaps not so much in the case of this Bill, as in the case of the Dairy Bill, for instance. I think it is desirable that we should have an estimate of the cost involved in this measure.

The cost of this Bill will be about £17,000 or £18,000, and we believe that the fees will amount to about half of that. This Bill has been before practically every association in the trade. I think there are more than half a dozen of them, and they have all agreed as to the fees. So far as the fee is concerned it is an agreed Bill. The people who are paying are agreed as to the equity of the fee.