I move amendment No. 87 :—

In paragraph (b), line 55, to insert after the words " less than ninety-five per cent " the words " or more than ten per cent."

This is one of a series of amendments designed to provide that there will be a penalty for over-production on the same principle as the penalty for under-production. Does the Minister accept it ?

The new Section 101 in amendment No. 90 will cover amendments Nos. 87 and 88.

Do you fix 10 per cent. as the over-production margin ?

5 per cent.

Do you think that 5 per cent. is a wide enough margin ?

I think it is quite wide enough.

Controlled over-production is not as great an evil as under-production because it is very easily remediable afterwards. It is only a question of disposing of the surplus, whereas if there is under-production, it might mean a reduction in the national quota.

That point was very fully discussed at the meeting with the curers, at which I was present, and I think this section was drafted with their approval.

Great minds meet—I drafted this. If the Minister is of opinion that 5 per cent. meets the interests of the trade, I am prepared to accept it.

It is a rather small margin.

If everybody went to 10 per cent., it would be serious.

Ten per cent. over-production and 5 per cent. under-production would not be very serious. One offence is not nearly as serious as the other.

That is why I think there should be greater latitude.

It is not really very important, but the trade was consulted on this particular section and they agreed with it.

Would the Minister consider whether it could be altered between now and Report Stage ?

Yes.

I move amendment No. 89 :—

To add at the end a new sub-section as follows :—

Where a licensee notifies the Bacon Marketing Board of his inability to secure adequate supplies of pigs wherewith to fulfil the terms of the production notice served upon him and the Board has failed to make available the requisite supplies of pigs, such notification shall be a good defence to any proceedings brought against the licensee under this section.

The section provides for a substantial penalty calculated as a fine at the rate of 10/- for every cwt. by which the amount of bacon produced during the production period falls short of the production sub-quota, so that the penalty might be extremely heavy in the case of a large curer. Therefore, I submit to the Minister that where a licensee notifies the Bacon Marketing Board of his inability through want of pigs to fill his quota and cannot get from the Bacon Marketing Board the pigs he requires to fill his quota, that should be a good defence against any prosecution under this section.

Under the section as it stands, if a curer makes that case to the Board, the Board need not prosecute and there can be no penalty unless there is a prosecution. To make that a good defence, however, would, I am afraid, leave the Board practically powerless. The statement that they could not get pigs will always be the defence. If the allocation is correct, there should be pigs.

If a curer notifies the Board, the remedy is in the Board's hands if they have the pigs.

That is right. The Board will say: " We are not going to prosecute because we agree that the allocation was fixed a little too high " or they may say: " There are plenty of pigs to be got."

Suppose a curer says: " I cannot fill my quota ; send me the requisite pigs to do so." If the Board has all these pigs knocking about, they can send the pigs.

Unless the Board can point to where there are pigs to be got, they are not going to prosecute.

Why give them the rights to prosecute ?

I think that if you make that a defence, it is going to be the defence in every case.

No ; the defence must be that he notified the Bacon Marketing Board of his inability to secure adequate supplies of pigs and that, thereupon, they failed to make available such supplies. That must be his defence, and not that they are unable to get supplies.

Unless the Board wanted to go to court to lose their case, I do not know what would take them there.

But this is a statutory penalty.

Surely the Board will not take a man to court after he had notified them that he could not get the pigs to fill his quota ?

I press the amendment.