My next two amendments, No. 64 and 65, are intended to meet the same purpose. They are:—64. " In Section 43, sub-section (1) to delete all from the word ‘ from ' in line 19, up to and including the word ‘ Act ' in line 20." Amendment 65 reads:—" Section 43, sub-section (5) to delete all after the word ‘ at ' in line 59 to the end of the sub-section, and to substitute therefor the words ‘ a date to be prescribed.'"

I accept those amendments.

Amendments accepted and passed.

As regards sub-section (3), it says: " Nothing in this section shall apply to or prevent the application to butter imported into Saorstát Eireann of the word ‘ creamery ' in conjunction with the word or words clearly indicating that the butter was imported into or was not manufactured in Saorstát Eireann." I think that leaves the consumer open to a great injustice. The worst type of butter might go to England and be brought back here and sold as creamery butter. That could be done. I am referring to factory butter sent out of the country.

That could never occur in practice.

In theory at any rate, there is nothing to prevent it.

If factory butter is exported to England and brought back here, and the word " creamery " is used, it is a false description. This empowers creameries to sell foreign creamery butter, but it must be described as such.

It gives an explicit direction to do a certain thing, namely, to call imported butter " creamery butter."

No; it must clearly show that the " butter was imported into or was not manufactured in Saorstát Eireann." Sub-section (3) must be read in conjunction with sub-sections (1) and (2).

It may be an impossible danger, but it is open to people to do it.

You cannot put the word " creamery " on factory butter.

It could not be done without committing an offence.

That is quite clear.

If it is a false trade description I am satisfied.

It is.

THIRD SCHEDULE.

FEES.

I beg to move: " In the Third Schedule to delete all from the word ‘ deposit,' in line 28, up to and including the words ‘ pounds ' in line 32." Does not a deposit of £5 on application for registration seem to be unduly onerous?

That £5 is paid before he is actually registered. The amount on application for registration is £1. That is an initial fee and he never pays that again, but it is felt that, in addition to the fee of £1 for the first year, there should be a deposit of £5 to make clear that it is a bona fide application.

Is the deposit to be returned?

The procedure will be something like this. A creamery owner applies for registration. His application is considered and it is agreed to register. He pays £5 and registration takes place. At the end of the year his exports are made up at the rate of 4d. per lb., or whatever the rate shall be. His full fee is calculated in that way. He is given credit for £5 and pays the balance. That does not occur in any other year. It is a small deposit in view of the turnover.

There is another portion of this to which I would like to refer. The Minister has told us that only a small percentage of the butter would be entitled to the national brand.

At first.

I think that butter is able to get a good price at present in England, so that the national brand would not be of much advantage for that butter. I think it is only right that butter bearing the national brand should pay half the fees of the other butter. I suggest that butter bearing the national brand should pay only half the fee stated here, so that there will be encouragement to creameries to work up to that.

It is a good idea, but it raises a good many questions. There would be a good deal of jealousy.

There seems to be a danger in this, as it might encourage people to get the national brand merely for the purpose of saving extra fees.

I think that people producing good butter should be encouraged.

I would like an opportunity of considering this matter before the Report Stage.

Very well; the Schedules are passed and we postpone the Title.