Amendment 35, in sub-section (1), is " to delete sub-paragraph (c)."

The sub-section, as it stands, would go far to say that every man who makes a test should be registered in an office in Dublin and that no one else should make a test. As a matter of fact that would not be observed. The man supposed to be making the test will not be there; he may have been on a beano the night before, and what is the meaning of putting in that when in reality it is not practicable.

Not only is this sub-section necessary, but it is one of those sections which can be administered. It embodies the principle that the man who is making the test must have technical qualifications. The people who administer the Act are far more important than the inspectors or equipment or anything else. The butter is made on the premises and the butter makers are people who go through a course of instruction in our dairy school, and this provision is for the purpose of determining the percentage of butter fat and that the person who makes that test shall be duly qualified.

Is he carrying out the test for technical purposes?

He is.

In regard to this amendment of mine I may say we had that yesterday. Nothing can be put on the package except what is prescribed.

I wonder is that so.

" All butter packed on the premises shall be packed only in such manner and in such packages or wrappers as shall be prescribed by regulations made under this Act." That will prevent you putting your name or trade mark on the package. Would it prevent you altering the colour of the package?

Oh, no. It only means that a package should be of a certain substance and standard and strong enough.

That is the intention. I am going to propose an amendment to Section 29 to deal with this as follows:—

Section 29, line 22, after the word " from " the words " or sold on " inserted. In line 33, after the word " or " where it secondly occurs the words " exported or " inserted. Immediately before sub-section (4) a new sub-section inserted as follows:—" (4) The Minister may also by order make regulations prohibiting the placing of any particular marks or marks of any particular class or description on all or any classes, grades or descriptions of butter or on any packages or wrappers containing any such butter, and where any such regulations have been made and are in force any person who places any mark on any butter or any package or wrapper in contravention of any such regulation shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds."

That amplifies the matter.

Yes, I think it is a very necessary amendment.

It may satisfy Sir John Keane. When we come to it he can bring in a subsequent amendment if he wishes.

I move amendment 37. In sub-section (1) " To delete sub-paragraph (j)." The whole object of that paragraph is that we are again up against Government control in almost unwarrantable manner. If means that people would have to get a licence to keep up their winter trade. I do not know whether licences are to be general or specific.

Is it intended that they should be able to purchase foreign butters?

The section prescribes the conditions in regard to that.

A good deal of the butter bought in practice is Australian and New Zealand butter.

The section makes it clear that one creamery can buy from another creamery; further, as a matter of fact, while creameries do buy foreign butter, Australian and New Zealand, only in very few cases do they re-export it. I realise that it were a fact that the Irish creameries were supplying their English customers at certain times of the year with New Zealand and Australian butter, and that if we were to prevent that it might be a very serious matter. I put this to the creamery managers, and they agreed that so long as we did not prevent them getting creamery butter in this country, and so long as we did not prevent them getting New Zealand or Australian butter to supply the home market they were satisfied. And we provided for that in sub-section (2), and it will cause no trouble to the trade. Notice first of all that the sub-section provides that the creamery may bring in on its premises other creamery butter without any licence, but we could not permit them to bring in butter which does not come from another registered creamery which we control and to export it without a special licence. Otherwise we would defeat the whole object of the Bill. The Bill aims at standardising butter and the equipment of the creamery establishment and so on. It provides for inspection, and surprise inspection, and it aims at raising the standard and the process of manufacture. If you allow, in the winter, creameries to bring in, for export, large quantities of butter from other premises which we do not control at all we would simply ruin the Bill. The managers themselves agreed there will be no hardship and no undue interference with trade if they are allowed to borrow butter from other creameries and use cold storage, and in addition to that to bring under licence foreign butter for home trade.

Is any of the foreign butter to be allowed out at all for export?

Not to be re-exported.

How can you tell?

Read the section. I know it may be difficult to administer, I know it is possible that Australian and New Zealand butter will be sold here as creamery butter——

It would be a false trade description apart from this Act even.

What we are guarding against is having it re-exported.

Once you bring it on the premises you cannot prevent it. As a matter of fact, a lot of this New Zealand butter will be better butter than their own.

I agree, but what can we do?

Leave them to function themselves. My argument is that we should concentrate for the national brand butter.

The evidence given before the Agricultural Commission was unanimous on this that there should be no factory butter brought into creameries and I am trying to limit that as far as possible and not to interfere with trade.

If you insist upon the national brand why should you allow them to bring in any foreign butter at all?

We must allow them to carry on their trade through the winter.

The national brand will only be given to very few creameries at the beginning, and the far greater portion of the butter made in the country will be butter from creameries that have not a national brand. Very little of the butter at the beginning will have the national brand, so little that it will be negligible and probably the trade will work out something like this. We will not be able to give the national brand to a great many creameries. There will be many creameries turning out first-class butter, but we are not sure that they will keep up the consistency month after month. We will have large quantities of butter on the English markets, including butter which is as good if not better than the butter bearing the national brand.

I understand that, but why license them to bring in foreign butter?

Because they do not make any, or very little, during the winter; there is no milk.

What good purpose does it serve giving a national brand when you allow them to bring in foreign butter?

Unless you did so they would have to sack their staff and give up their work during the winter time.

Mr. HOGAN: They get milk perhaps two or three times a week and they do not want to lose touch with their customers. They can supply a certain number of their customers.

Amendments 37 and 38 hang together. I do not move them, but I do not preclude myself from bringing them up again.

I move amendment 39, to delete sub-section (3) and to substitute the following new sub-section therefor: —

" For the purposes of this section a person shall be duly qualified only if he possesses a certificate, issued by the Minister, of qualification for such position. The Minister may, however, at any time previous to the formation of the register of creameries confirm in his appointment, and such confirmation shall be held as qualification, any person who shall satisfy the Minister that he is qualified for the particular position."

The object of the amendment is to ensure that it shall not be possible for any man to be a creamery manager who has not certified qualifications. We are trying to grade the farmers of the country, and we should also grade the creamery managers, and try to secure the very best possible managers. They have done this in other countries, and they have done it in Australia, and I do not see why we should not have a similar law. There are numbers of managers at present who are thoroughly competent, but who have no certificates, but I desire to secure that for the future it will not be possible to appoint to any creamery a manager who is not certificated.

That is the aim. He would not be appointed without passing some examination, but is there not a danger that you would preclude people who had started in the creamery in some minor capacity, and who became excellent butter makers, from reaching the position of manager?

It would exclude them if they could not show a certificate.

That is the position in the Bill as it stands.

It gives the Minister power to accept people without a certificate, and that is wrong.

I do not think there is much difference between you.

Is it your point that in future no one should hold a position as creamery manager unless he has passed an examination at one of our dairy schools, and obtained a certificate from that school?

A certificate issued by the Minister.

May the Minister issue a certificate at his discretion?

He has that power. My desire is to show to the world that our people are a certificated people. I want to show to the world that they are competent people.

It will be gone into by the Minister on Report Stage.