I move:—

In sub-section (2) (a), line 12, and sub-section 3 (a), line 29, to delete all words after the word " act " to the end of the paragraphs and substitute therefor in each case the following: " and may be equipped with such additional plant or machinery as shall be approved by the Minister."

There is an amendment in the green paper in the name of Deputy P. K. Hogan which practically covers the same ground. The idea is to see that each creamery must be equipped with a minimum quantity of plant specified in the schedule, and that in addition the Minister may prescribe any other plant which he thinks is necessary.

This amendment is necessary or an amendment to this effect. The Schedule specifies only the minimum equipment, and what is considered a minimum equipment to-day may not be considered a minimum equipment next year. I have asked the Draftsman to throw his eye over this, and perhaps Deputy Heffernan would accept his version. It would read like this: " before registering any premises in the Register of Creameries the Minister shall be satisfied that such premises are equipped with efficient plant and machinery of the description specified in the first Schedule to this Act, and with such additions and variations (if any) as may be prescribed or as may in any particular case be required or."

I am not quite sure about variations. I think the acceptance of the word " variations " would alter my intention almost completely. My idea is that it should be obligatory on the creamery to maintain the minimum quantity of plant specified in the Schedule, and I do not want to allow that they should do without less. As a general experience, all who know anything about creameries know that no creamery can be considered adequately equipped that has less plant. I am sure that the Minister in the administration of the Bill intends to see that they will not have less than the minimum. No particular make of separator should be definitely specified. The Minister should have power to specify different makers, but he should not have power to say that a creamery should do without a separator or any essential machinery.

The point of the word " variations " is to enable the equipment to be brought up to date. Plant changes every year. Next year, as the result of a new discovery, you may have a different kind of plant; and one of these machines in that Schedule may be absolutely out of date. It may be done without, and some other machine substituted at some other point in the process of butter-making. That was really the meaning of the introduction of the word " variations." If we did not put in the word " variations," we would be under the necessity of prescribing particular machines set out under the Schedule. So that the word " variations " would be necessary from that point of view. It can hardly be doubted that every three or four years or six years new machines will come in and old ones go out. Hence, we would need to provide for variations. What Deputy Heffernan is afraid of is that apart altogether from the fact that a particular machine may go out of fashion, we may say to some creamery: " You need that particular separator." That could be done under that amendment, but there is very little idea of it. On the other hand, we must have the word " variations," in view of the fact that methods and machines change.

I am willing to accept that. I withdraw.

I move:—

In sub-section (2) (a), lines 12 and 13, sub-section (3a), 29 and 30, sub-section (4) (a), 48 and 49, to delete the words " or with such other plant or machinery as shall be " and to insert in lieu thereof in each place the words " with such additions and variations (if any) as may be prescribed or as may in any particular case be required or."

I withdraw my amendment. (No. 21.)

In sub-section (4) (b), line 52, you have the word " produced." It reads: " that the manufacturing business carried on therein is such that in the ordinary course of such business the quantity of butter produced on each day." They do not produce butter; they deal with butter. Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought the word should be " dealt with " and not the word " produced."

That is a nice point, and we will consider that before the Report Stage.