I beg to move amendment No. 6 :—

In sub-section (3), line 21, to delete the words " may if he thinks fit " and substitute therefor the word " shall."

Why does the Minister elect in this case to retain a jurisdiction in his own hands which he repudiates under Section 11 ?

I do not think that is altogether right. There is a difference, as the Deputy will notice, between sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 12 and sub-section (3). In sub-sections (1) and (2) the people are already in business and the Minister has no option but to register them. In sub-section (3) the person is going into business after the passing of the Act. I think that is a case where the Minister should really be more or less guided by the local authority, and I would be quite prepared to accept the amendment if I could put in some safeguard for the local authority. It would look rather ridiculous if a local authority had turned down a pork butcher's application for a licence and at the same time the Minister must licence him. If we had the amendment redrafted to read " after consultation with the local authority," I would accept it.

Has this Bill anything to do with pork butchers who are not bacon curers ?

No.

What is the meaning of the phrase in the sub-section " an application for registration in the register of pork butchers by a person who is not a qualified pork butcher " ?

That refers to a pork butcher who is not now a pork butcher—a man who comes into the business after the Act is passed.

One needs to have the distinction in order to provide against surplus supplies for his pork trade.

In the pork butchering end of his business the local authority comes in ?

Yes.

Then, you want to devise some machinery between your Department and the local authority ?

That is why I say I am prepared to accept Deputy Dillon's amendment if there is something put in about prior consultation with the local authority.

I suggest that you will want more than that.

Perhaps, if we adopted the word " shall " and brought in a further amendment later on, it might meet the case.

I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, but I submit to the Minister that the form issued is to the effect that the local authority does not, within a certified time after receiving the application, object to the granting of it. Instead of putting the onus on the person concerned, I would prefer to put it on the local authority to ask him to come up.

I understand.

But no local authority can refuse an application from a man who wants to become a pork butcher if he complies with the specified requirements. It is merely a case of whether or not he is a suitable candidate.

I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Could not Deputy Dillon have made a stronger case for his previous amendment ? I mean that where a man applies the Minister shall cause his premises to be inspected.

This is a different case.

I take it that no application will be entertained from a pork butcher unless he contemplates going into the bacon business ?

Not unless he applies to us in that connection.

Let us be under no illusion in this matter. A qualified pork butcher is a person who is normally carrying on the business of selling pork and who has a discretion to cure a certain portion of his annual output—15 per cent., I understand.

Yes.

And he is going to have that in perpetuity ?

Yes.

He will be allowed that little margin of 15 per cent. when the season demands that he should convert that amount of pork into bacon, in other words. Such men are not like minor bacon curers who only carry on a seasonal business. I am prepared, as I say, to withdraw my amendment on the consideration that this will be brought in at a later stage.