Vol. 33 No. 2
I move:—
In page 4, Section 3, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following words—"the expression ‘local slaughter-house authority' means the local authority having in the place in relation to which the expression is used powers of registering and licensing slaughterhouses."
This is purely a drafting amendment.
I move:—
In page 4, line 47, Section 4, to delete the word "July" and substitute therefor the word "October," and in the same line to delete the word "January" and substitute therefor the word "April."
The object of this amendment is to bring all the pork trade into the one half year. The pork season starts about October and it ends in April. Consequently there would be no overlapping in the matter of computing the amount of the fees for any one half year. So far as pork is concerned, all the fees will be payable between October and April, and there will be a dead six months between April and October. If the months of January and July are left in the Bill it will mean that you will have one couple of months of the pork trade in one half year, and another couple in the other half year. I think the Minister might see his way to agree to the amendment for the sake of convenience, as it will make it easier for his own staff to compute the amount of the number of carcasses sent away during the pork season.
I take it that it is agreed that this amendment will make no difference in the amount of fees that are to be paid. Deputy O'Hanlon's point is that as the Bill stands fees will not have to be paid, as far as pork is concerned, partly in one half year and partly in another, but that the total will be the same, and that the Deputy is advocating the amendment on the ground of convenience?
Yes.
From that point of view the first thing to be said is that if we change these dates now we will have to make a large number of consequential amendments in the Bill. The second is, that from the point of view of mutton and beef these dates are more suitable. The mutton trade begins about the 1st of July. From the point of view of the Department's staff—this is going to be a very heavy Bill, it will take a lot of administration and a lot of officers will have to be appointed—we regard it as a distinct advantage that the year should commence on a date like this, so that for the first three or four months we will be only asked to deal with mutton. Pork will not come in until later, so that we will be able to bring the Bill into operation gradually. It is a distinct inconvenience from the point of view of administering the Bill to have the year commencing on the 1st of July. We will commence with beef and mutton, and when we come to October the pork season will begin. By that time the machinery for administering the Bill will be fairly efficient and we will be able to go on to control pork, so that we will bring the Bill into operation gradually. It is really no disadvantage to the pork man, who will not register his premises until October for the first year. He will pay from October to January and again from January to April, and in the long run it will make no difference. So that for these three reasons: (1) it entails a large number of consequential amendments; (2) it is more convenient for the Department to administer the Bill; and (3) for other reasons I would ask the Deputies to leave it as it is.
I do not regard it as a matter of importance, but having regard to the fact that pork is the principal thing in the Bill, and that the pork export is bigger than the mutton export, I think we should begin with the large end. There is another aspect. The exporters will be able to give a complete return once a year. That is to say, the return made in April will cover the whole year, whereas under the other arrangement you would be making two divisions, and the return you would have would be nothing between April and October. There would be a nil report. I do not want to push the amendment if the Minister thinks it more convenient for his Department, but I think it would be more convenient for the pork exporter.
I would be willing to admit it, but there is very little in it, and I am advised by the staff that it is a distinct advantage to begin control of dead meat with a product like mutton, where there is not a large quantity. We want to have the administrative machinery in order before the important exports of pork come on in October. I put it to the Deputy that essential point, if it should be altered at all, should be altered in the early stages of Committee. We are committed twice in this Bill, and if it is to be changed now it will entail a large number of consequential amendments in the Bill.
In view of that, I withdraw the amendment.
I move amendment 3:—
In page 4, to delete lines 48 to 53 inclusive.
This amendment is really deleting certain lines from Section 4, and afterwards there is a provision to insert them in the Schedule, so it can be debated on the Schedule.
I move amendment 4:—
In page 5, Section 5 (1) (f), line 25, after the word "them", to insert the words "and no other business".
Now, it was pointed out that a number of firms who export pork do their own crating, and this would prevent them from crating on their premises, which was not intended. To meet that, the above amendment was to be inserted. That was to make it clear that the only premises to be registered were crating premises exclusively, business premises where no other business is carried on.
It means that the pork exporter cannot have a licensed premises.
No.
I think, if I remember exactly, the Minister gave a sort of guarantee to me that he would meet my original amendment on the Report Stage. The way he has met it now is by not meeting it.
I would like the Deputy to explain that.
It is definitely stated that no exporter can get a crating licence who has a pork licence.
He does not need one.
Why?
There is nothing in this Bill as it stands to compel anyone who crates pork on his own premises to register it as a crating premises. The only proprietor who must register the premises as a crating premises is a proprietor who crates exclusively and does nothing else on the premises. Therefore, a man who kills pigs and exports pork and still crates them is under no necessity to apply for a crating licence.
I do not know the legal effect of this, but it does not appear clear to me.
We are always at cross purposes on this particular point. Remember the Deputy and myself are on the same point. We want to make sure that your bacon factory may crate its own pork on its own premises. Is not that the Deputy's object?
Yes. Is that the object of the Bill?
Yes, according to the draftsman I think it is clear enough. Section 5 deals with the registers which must be kept. Only the registers specified in this section must be kept. What are they? The Minister shall cause to be kept (a) a register of cattle slaughtering premises; (b) a register of pig slaughtering premises; (c) a register of sheep slaughtering premises; (d) a register of herse slaughtering premises; (e) a register of goat slaughtering premises; and (f) a register of crating premises, of premises in Saorstát Eireann in which the business of crating for export pork, mutton and lamb or any of them, and no other business is carried on. Clearly, therefore, the only crating premises that must be registered is a premises where the crating of pork exclusively and no other business must be carried on. That is the draftsman's argument, and I think it is clear that he is correct.
I do not think it is clear in the Bill. It says "a register (to be called and known as the register of crating premises)...in which the business of trading for export ...is carried on."
And no other business. That is my amendment.
That is the effect of amendment No. 4.
I was inclined to agree with Deputy O'Hanlon that the effect of this amendment would be the direct opposite of what the Minister has explained, and I think there will be an amount of misunderstanding. I was wondering whether the Minister would insert a few words in (b) on the Report Stage to show that the register of pig slaughtering premises would include crating. He could put in "and crating."
An amendment would show that it would include crating. I would say, without having any special knowledge of drafting, that it is a rather dangerous thing to do. If in certain parts of the Bill you add a qualifying phrase to say that something is included, you may have reactions and interpretations in other parts of the Bill that you do not appreciate. All I can say is that we agree in what we want to do. I put that danger to the draftsman and it is his view, and I may say it is my view as a layman, that it is abundantly clear that in this our purpose is being carried out. Let Deputies read it for themselves. Nothing in law except what is passed here. When this Bill passes, Section 5 will be law. Section 5 is not law now, and you need not register. It sets out what premises are to be registered—inter alia premises used for creating exclusively, where no other business is carried on. Other crating premises will be in the same position after the passing of the Bill as they were before. That seems clear. If there is any doubt, Deputies should consult a lawyer. I am absolutely clear, and so is the draftsman, and I would not like to agree to the Deputy's suggestion, to add words, as they might have reactions we do not anticipate.
Are you perfectly satisfied you are carrying out what was presumably your intention and my intention?
Absolutely. Read sub-section 3.
Is it not rather contradictory?
Crating premises are premises where crating and no other business is carried on. The Deputy does not desire that premises in which pork is made and exported shall be registered as crated premises, unless crating is carried on there. I do not get the Deputy's point.
My point is that the amendment can be interpreted to read that a man cannot carry on slaughtering where crating is carried on.
He cannot. There is a definition of crating premises here. They are premises where the business of crating and no other business is carried on.
Not even slaughtering?
Not even slaughtering. Any other business, not a crating business, need not be registered as such.
Will it not be necessary to say that crating cannot be done where slaughtering is done?
Is there anything in the Bill to stop it? If I were to accept the Deputy's suggestion, the draftsman would not only have to say what exact changes would require to be made in the law, but to set out positively what they were, to make a list and say what changes he did not want. Business could not be done on these lines. All the lawyers are agreed—and I have no vested interests in the matter—that this meets the point. I suggest to Deputies who have any doubt that they should consult a lawyer. I wish that Deputies would point out where the confusion seems to be.
Take the case of a bacon factory where pork is slaughtered. That factory can send the pork to a sugar factory and have it crated there?
No; it is intended that no other business, not even the manufacture of sugar, shall be carried on on a crating premises.
Is the Minister not rather too rigid in order to make clear what a crating house is? Is he not putting unnecessary restrictions on people interested in the crating business?
Certainly not.
By excluding every other business from the establishment?
We must not have a flour mill, a maize mill or make guano on a crating premises. They must be kept clean and only one business carried on. We would not allow a creamery in a crating premises. They must not be contaminated.
Cabinet-making might go with crating.
Not very well.
Is it clear that you can crate on slaughtering premises?
There is nothing to stop you in the Bill. All the Bill says is that any premises where crating is exclusively carried on must be registered. It does not alter the existing law. You can crate any where you like. It merely says that where crating is exclusively carried on the premises must be registered.
It could not be carried on in joinery premises where the crates are made.
Certainly not. Why should it? What are crating premises? They are premises with plenty of open space and ventilation, with a cool atmosphere, where meat can be taken into the crates. You can make crates next door or in the next room, but that is not part of the premises.
I move No. 5:—
In page 5, Section 5 (2) (a), to delete all words from the word "person," line 29, to the words "are registered," line 32, and substitute the words "proprietor (in this Act referred to as the registered proprietor) of the premises."
The amendment speaks for itself. As the section stood there was some confusion. A person carrying on business might be the proprietor, but, on the other hand, might be the licensee, whereas it is the proprietor should be registered. We state that specifically.
In the suggested amendment it is clear that the word "person" is to be struck out. As I read it, it should not be left in, as you have the curious phrase "the person proprietor."
That is a misprint.
Is the amendment properly worded?
The word "person" should go out. I overlooked that.
To delete all words from and including "person" would make it right.
Amendment 9 depends on amendment No. 1.
SECTION 8.
(1) Every application for the registration of any premises under this Part of this Act or for the alteration or cancellation of any such registration shall be made in writing in the prescribed form and manner and shall contain the prescribed particulars.
(2) Whenever an application is made under this section for the registration of any premises, the Minister shall cause such premises to be inspected by an inspector.
(3) Every refusal by the Minister of an application for the registration of any premises under this Part of this Act shall state the reason for such refusal.
I move:—
In page 7, Section 8 (1), lines 4 and 5, to delete the words "or for the alteration or cancellation of any such registration," and in line 5 to insert after the word "made" the words "by the proprietor thereof."
Section 8 is not the correct section to deal with the alteration or cancellation of such registration. It should deal with applications for registration. Another section—I think it is Section 23—deals with the alteration or cancellation of the registration. Therefore, no provision of that sort should go in here and I ask it to be deleted. The other words to be inserted are purely drafting.
I should like to hear from the Minister what the position will be in the Co. Donegal, as the bulk of our pork is exported to Derry.
If the Deputy will refer to Section 38 there are certain provisions in sub-section 10 dealing with the export of dead pork to Northern Ireland. We can deal with that question on that section.
We are not taking the Bill section by section, but we may be able to do that.
The following amendments stood on the paper:
13. In pages 8 and 9 to delete Section 12 (1) to 12 (8), inclusive, and substitute ten new sub-sections as follows:—
"(1) On every application for an exporter's licence there shall be paid to the Minister by the applicant a deposit of fifteen pounds returnable to the applicant if his application is refused, and the payment of such deposit shall be a condition precedent to the grant of such licence, and upon the grant of such licence the said deposit shall be retained by the Minister and applied in accordance with this section.
(2) Every person who holds or has held an exporter's licence shall, for every half-year during which or any part of which he held one or more exporter's licences, pay to the Minister—
(a) where such person so held either one exporter's licence only or two or more such licences all granted in respect of the same registered slaughtering premises, a fee (in this Act referred to as an exporter's half-yearly fee) computed according to the rules in the Schedule to this Act, or
(b) where such person so held two or more exporter's licences and such licences were not all granted in respect of the same registered slaughtering premises, a fee (in this Act included in the expression "exporter's half-yearly fee") computed as aforesaid for each registered slaughtering premises in respect of which any one or more of such licences was or were granted.
(3) Every deposit paid under sub-section (1) of this section by an applicant for an exporter's licence shall be allowed as a payment on account of the first exporter's half-yearly fee payable by such applicant after the grant of such licence in respect of the registered slaughtering premises in respect of which such licence is granted, and if such deposit or deposits is or are greater than such fee, the difference shall be allowed as a payment on account of the next exporter's half-yearly fee payable by such applicant in respect of the same registered slaughtering premises.
(4) As soon as may be after the expiration of every half-year the Minister shall ascertain, in respect of every person who during the whole or any part of such half-year held one or more exporter's licences, the amount of the exporter's half-yearly fee or of each of such fees payable by such person for such half-year.
(5) Where all the exporter's licences held by a person in respect of the same registered slaughtering premises are revoked by the Minister under this Act, the exporter's half-yearly fee payable by such person in respect of such premises for the half-year then current, shall, if the Minister so directs, be ascertained immediately upon such revocation and not under the foregoing sub-section.
(6) Where an exporter's licence is held by two or more persons in succession during a half-year, such licence shall, for the purposes of this section and the Schedule to this Act, be deemed to have been held during the whole of such half-year by the person who last holds the same during such half-year and not to have been held by any other person at any time during such half-year.
(7) When and so soon as the amount of any exporter's half-yearly fee has been ascertained under the foregoing provisions of this section, the Minister shall, unless the whole of such fee is discharged by a deposit or deposits required by this section to be allowed as a payment on account thereof, issue a certificate (in this section referred to as a certificate of indebtedness) in the prescribed form certifying the half-year for which such fee is payable, the person by whom and the registered slaughtering premises in respect of which such fee is payable, and the amount of such fee or (where the circumstances so require) the amount payable in respect of such fee after deducting from such fee such sum as is required by this section to be allowed as a payment on account thereof.
(8) Every certificate of indebtedness shall be conclusive evidence of all matters purported to be certified therein and any document purporting to be a certificate of indebtedness issued under this section shall, on production thereof in any proceedings to recover the amount thereby certified to be payable, be deemed until the contrary is proved to be a certificate of indebtedness duly issued under this section and shall be admitted in evidence accordingly.
(9) As soon as may be after the issue of a certificate of indebtedness, a copy thereof shall be served by post on the person thereby certified as liable to pay the fee the subject thereof and immediately upon such service the amount certified by such certificate as payable by such person shall become and be payable by such person to the Minister and shall, after the expiration of four weeks from such service, be recoverable by the Minister as a civil debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.
(10) If a person who is a licensed exporter fails or neglects to pay the amount certified by a certificate of indebtedness to be payable by him within four weeks after the service of a copy of such certificate on him, the Minister may revoke the exporter's licence or all the exporter's licences held by such person in respect of the registered slaughtering premises in relation to which such amount is payable, but such revocation shall not relieve such person from liability to pay the said amount."—(Mr. Hogan.)
14. In page 8, line 46, Section 12 (1), to delete all words from and including the words "on account of the payment" to the end of the section and substitute the following:—
"or licences on account of the payment of the first yearly registration fee payable in respect of such licence or licences under this section a deposit of ten pounds and the payment of such deposit shall be a condition precedent to the granting of such licence or licences.
(2) In case such application is refused by the Minister the deposit of ten pounds shall be refunded to the person making the application.
(3) There shall be paid to the Minister every year by every licensed exporter the sum of twenty-five pounds as a registration fee."—(Dr. Ryan.)
15. In page 8, line 48, Section 12 (1), to delete the words "twenty pounds" and substitute the words "twelve pounds ten shillings returnable to the applicant if his application is refused."—(Mr. O'Hanlon.)
Amendments 13, 14 and 15 deal with the question of licensing fees and deposits. They all go into one another. We will take the Minister's amendment first. I think we shall have to discuss all the amendments together.
I move amendment 13.
If we insert this amendment and decide a certain question which is dealt with in amendments 13, 14 and 15, we will have taken a decision on points which will arise on the other amendments. Are Deputies O'Hanlon and Ryan clear as to that? If we insert amendment 13 as it stands in the name of the Minister, we will have decided some of the questions that will arise in amendments 14 and 15
We will have decided mainly one question. In amendment 13 the deposit suggested is £15; amendment 14 suggests £10, and amendment 15 suggests £12 10s. Shall we agree and say £12 10s., as it is between the other two?
That is the point. We will have to get the amendment in a particular form so as to preserve as far as possible the right to propose amendments 14 and 15.
I am willing if I get the whole section to make a bargain and make it £12 10s. for the sake of peace. I think that is a fair offer.
I am prepared to agree to that, if I get the rest of my amendment.
There is only one other point dealt with in the amendment of Deputy Ryan and I do not understand it. It is clause 3. My point is this. If I take Deputy Ryan's amendment, Deputy O'Hanlon's amendment and my own amendment, namely, the new section, Deputy Ryan's and Deputy O'Hanlon's amendments only modify the particular relevant portion of my new section to this extent, that Deputy Ryan suggests £10 and Deputy O'Hanlon £12 10s., instead of £15 in my new section. In addition to that change, there is another change I gather contained in clause 3 of Deputy Ryan's amendment which I do not understand, because the registration fee as I know it is £1.
If my amendment were carried, it would mean that Section 12 will be covered entirely by that amendment.
There will be no fees at all?
No, and the schedule will be completely removed.
We had better debate that on the schedule.
Can we do that if this section is already passed?
No, I suppose not.
The Minister's proposed new section has ten sub-sections and decides more than the deposit fee. It completely covers amendment 15 and partly covers amendment 14.
You will have to refer to the schedule to some extent to make it clear. If the Minister's new section were carried and if the schedule were also carried, there would be a capitation fee and a minimum fee of £25 for all licences, except pork or beef, in which case it would be £50. There are also provisions about making the minimum smaller in cases of combined registration. If my amendment were carried there would be no schedule, but the person would pay £25 as a registration fee. That is all he would pay, no matter how many licences he had applied for or got. £25 would be the total he would have to pay each year. That is what I meant my amendment to convey, and I believe it conveys that.
The issue between us is this: I propose, first of all, that there shall be minimum fees; secondly, that the normal fees shall be so much per head and that these fees shall be payable, both the minimum fee and the normal fee, in respect of every export item—beef, mutton, or pork. The Deputy proposes that there shall be one fee for all exporters and that it shall cover all exports; that the fee shall be £25; in other words, a fee of £25 for any exporter of pork, a fee of £25 for any exporter of goat's flesh or horse flesh, or of mutton or beef; and that there shall be a fee of £25 for the export of all three.
Yes.
That is the issue. All that that would mean is this: First of all it is unscientific; it does not make the punishment fit the crime. A very big exporter—I shall mention no names—who is doing one-fourth or one-eighth of the trade of the whole country would pay no more and no less than the small exporter and vice versa. And in addition to that the exporter who is exporting two or three items say pork, mutton and beef would pay exactly the same as the exporter who is exporting only pork. There is no relation between the amount paid and the amount of meat exported. It must be assumed for the sake of debate that the Bill is going to bring about some improvement in prices for the exporter, otherwise the Bill should be rejected on Second Reading. If that is so, undoubtedly the exporter who is doing the biggest trade will get far the biggest benefit and will only pay exactly the same as the smaller man. Who will find the difference? The taxpayer. If we confine this to a minimum of £25, the taxpayer will be called upon to find at least 5/6ths of the cost of this Bill. Is that fair or is there any sound reason for it? Either the Bill is sound in its main principles or it is not. If it effects the purposes which it proposes to effect—that is to say, if it sees to the control of dead meat leaving this country, if it ensures that no bad dead meat can leave the country but that on the contrary fresh meat shall be of standard quality, if it effects that purpose and that intention, then undoubtedly it will put good money into the pockets of the people in the business at the present moment. Is it fair in that state of affairs to ask them to pay only 1/6th of the cost of the Bill and to ask the taxpayers to pay 5/6ths? I do not think it is. That is the issue as between the people and the trade, the exporters themselves. There is the same issue as between any two exporters. Is it fair to ask the exporter who is only exporting X cwts. of dead meat to pay exactly the same figure as the exporter who exports 50 times X?— It is not. There is only one way to deal with it and that is the sliding scale and to see that a particular businessman is making some payment which has some relation to the benefits he is getting under the Bill.
In order to clear up the points in which the amendments conflict, I think the first question that would require to be put is: "In pages 8 and 9 to delete Section 12 (1) to 12 (8) inclusive." That question, I assume, will be agreed to. The next point for decision is what is to be the amount of the deposit—whether it should be £15 or £12 10s. If there is agreement on that point, the amendment can be made now. The next point is as to what the scheme will be. On that we would consider the Minister's amendment, that the whole ten new sub-sections, as amended, in respect of the deposit stand, and on that question discuss amendments 13 and 14. That would meet Deputy O'Hanlon's point on amendment 15. Does the Minister agree to the figure £12 10s. 0d.?
I am getting nothing for it.
We must decide the amount of the deposit first. Is it agreed to delete sub-sections (1) to (8)? It is agreed. Then next we come to the question of £15 in the proposed new section, and I shall allow Deputy O'Hanlon to move that the amount be £12 10s. od.
That hangs on another point. The only minimum in the Bill refers to pork. In the original Bill the Minister had power to revoke a licence to pork exporters who do not export 3,000 carcases in a year. In Committee that was reduced to 1,000. My £12 10s. 0d. is really the fee on 1,000. I agree with Deputy Ryan that there should be no fee except capitation.
That figure, of course, is only a deposit.
I understand, but that is the beginning and end of it so far as my amendment is concerned. It is deposited as security. Even though an exporter only exported 800 carcases, he still would have to pay £12 10s. 0d., and if he did export more he paid so much more at the rate of three pence per head. If he is a beef exporter or a mutton exporter, there is no revoking of licence if he does not export anything.
That does not arise on this section at all. We will come to that later.
No. The Minister referred to the fact that the goat flesh exporters and others would have to pay the same as the pork exporter. They are not in the same category, which makes it extremely difficult to deal with the Bill as it is. I do not know what statistics there are of goat and horse flesh exporters, but they must be very small. I think it is wrong to bring these into a fresh meat Bill.
Is the Deputy accepting the suggestion to make the deposit of £15 into £12 10s. 0d.?
I agree to that.
If the Minister's amendment, in its present form, is passed, Deputy O'Hanlon's amendment goes off the paper. Therefore, I want to let him move it now if he so desires. Deputy Ryan's amendment will remain.
I accept £12 10s.
What more does the Deputy want? That is what he asked for. I do not see what we are quarrelling about.
In the proposed new sub-section (1) the words "fifteen pounds" are deleted and the words "twelve pounds ten shillings" are inserted. The next question is that the proposed ten new sub-sections be there inserted.
I wish to support Deputy Ryan's plea for a £25 registration fee to cover the whole amount to be paid by people licensed to export meat. I think the Minister was rather unhappy in his reference to making the punishment fit the crime. I think we should try and make the reward fit the virtue. The Minister talked of making the punishment cover the crime of exporting. We believe that those who export more dead meat than their fellows should have the greater reward.
Most of the things that we export are exported in an unmanufactured form. The slaughtering and packing of animals give employment. In the future we hope that the offals left over will be manufactured in this country. We should reward, if we can, the people who engage in the dead meat packing industry in Ireland, reward them as against the people who export the raw material —live stock, fat cattle, pigs, and so on. I think that £25 is a fair fee for the Ministry to get for the registration of premises. It will repay them for the amount of money they will have to spend in examining dead meat of all descriptions, and of putting the mark on it. The taxpayers as a whole will benefit by the employment given in the treatment, as far as we can do it, of our agricultural products here.
I would like to point out to the Minister that there would be a certain amount of trouble and expense saved if the exporters were not asked to keep an account of the number of animals slaughtered. If that is insisted on there will be a good deal of expense in the matter of book-keeping in the case of the exporters, and also of the Department which will have to engage officials to make out proper bills to send to the exporters. You will probably have two or three civil servants engaged on checking the numbers and sending out bills to the exporters, while as regards the exporters, it will mean that each of them will have to pay a special clerk to keep an account of the numbers. I think that what we ought to say to the exporters is that they need not keep an account of the numbers slaughtered for export, that all they need do is to pay the yearly fee of £25. If this Bill is a good Bill, which we expect it is, then I agree with the Minister that the exporters will eventually benefit by getting a better price than they are getting at present, when Irish meat comes to get a better name on the foreign markets. For the first few years, I do not say that the exporters are going to benefit. I do not want to go into all the arguments that we used on the Second Reading of the Bill, but it was then pointed out that the exporters of dead meat are in a very difficult position, that they are trying to compete against the exporters of livestock and find it hard to do that. As a matter of fact, we know that certain dead meat factories have closed down in the last few years and that others can barely exist. I fear that the fact of putting a large levy on them, in the shape of this minimum fee, may be the means of closing those that are finding it so hard to carry on.
It is true, as the Minister has said, that under this amendment the small exporter will have to pay as much as the very large exporter. At any rate, under the amendment the small exporter will derive a considerable benefit. The difference to the small exporter between £25 and £75, which will be the usual fee paid by the small exporter dealing in pork and lamb, will be very considerable. It means a difference of £50. The difference to the large exporter between this £25 and what he may have to pay under the Minister's amendment —he will have to pay perhaps £400 or £500—will, of course, be very considerable, but in view of his revenue it will make very little difference to the large exporter. I suppose we cannot deprive him of it. Personally I would prefer, if I could, to draft an amendment the effect of which would be to give a larger benefit to the small exporters than to the big. We have put in an amendment naming the sum of £25 as the fee for a licence for export. I believe that is just a nominal fee. I think that even in the case of the small exporter it is not exorbitant, but I think that at the same time, in the beginning at any rate, it is as much as they can afford to pay. In two or three years' time, when the factories are benefiting to the extent that we hope they will benefit under the Bill, then I think will be the time to come along and to put on larger fees.
[Deputy Thrift took the Chair.]
From what I can learn about the trade in other countries I understand that in Canada and in Denmark the State bears the expense of veterinary inspection.
I have not the figures by me, but the Deputy can take it from me that the fees are about twice as big in Denmark.
I think I remember reading somewhere that in Canada the State bears all the expenses of veterinary inspection of cattle.
I was quoting Denmark.
I read that, I think, in the Empire Marketing Board's publication——
Does the Deputy read that?
I remember reading something in it about co-operative factories in Denmark. I got the impression from what I read, though I cannot say that it was definitely stated, that the Government bore that expense in the case of these export factories.
I do not think that I have been met fairly by Deputies on this Bill. I have accepted a tremendous number of amendments. If Deputies opposite were in my position, I do not believe they would seriously put forward the contention that the taxpayer and not the people who derive benefit from the operations of this Bill should pay for this. That is what the contention of the Deputies opposite amounts to.
Does not the Minister agree that the taxpayers in the country will benefit from the manufacture of the offals here?
I do.
Does not the Minister think, seeing that a lot of people who had the idea of engaging in this particular industry in the last few years have been discouraged by experiments which some farmers carried out, that they should get all the help they can. Anyone who has any idea of engaging in the industry in the future should, for a few years at least, get all the help that can possibly be given to them. If the Minister agrees with that, he should make it his business to lift this heavy burden in the matter of registration fees that he is seeking to impose.
Lift them from the people who are to benefit directly and put them on the taxpayers' shoulders.
It is not very clear that they are going to benefit directly for some time. The Minister will find very few people willing to engage in the meat packing industry for some time unless they get more encouragement than they are getting under this Bill. You will want to offer all sorts of inducements to get them to the point of establishing meat factories.
I do not want to encourage more meat factories at all. My point of view is to have less of them and a much bigger trade. The Deputy is wrong in thinking that there are no meat factories in the country. This Bill deals largely with pork. The Bill is for the benefit of the trade and not for the benefit of the people who export. If the intention of the Bill is carried out better prices will go to the exporters and they should be asked to pay a reasonable proportion of the cost. They should be asked to pay, at any rate, far more than the general taxpayer, who will benefit only in a small, indirect way. The point is that the people who get direct benefit from this Bill should be asked to pay a big proportion of the cost. What the Deputy is seeking is that the taxpayer should pay directly all the cost, whereas my proposal is that the people who are going to benefit directly should pay a big proportion of it.
The Minister says, and rightly so, that the most important thing in the Bill is the pork export. My object is that the fee should be as low as possible. When the Bill becomes operative only the well-equipped slaughtering houses will benefit. The higher the fees are the greater the likelihood there is of excluding people from entering into the pork export business. I can conceive a set of circumstances under the Bill under which you are stereotyping the big men engaged in the pork export trade. I can see the export of pork falling every year by reason of the number of exporters being so few, and the difficulties of the farmers in getting their pigs to the slaughter houses. What is likely to happen is that they will give up the pork trade altogether, and turn again to the vicious system of selling their pigs alive, not knowing exactly the value they are getting. It should be made easy for those who intend to start in the export business. I agree with Deputy Ryan that you should not put a blister on those who are getting the privilege of a monopoly, but you should not make it difficult for those who are going to start in the business. Taking my own area, for instance, in the County Cavan, there would be three engaged in the business. When you take a county forty miles long and the pigs have to be brought to three centres for export, it will be found that the vast majority of the pig raisers will not sell their pigs for the London market as dead pork, but will sell the heavy ones for bacon curing. In that way they would not be turning in their money as quickly. The Minister declared on the Second Reading that he favoured monopoly.
No.
Practically, the Minister did. I understood him to say that he had no use for the small man, and that competition was foolish.
I suggest that in Committee wild statements like that should not be made. I never suggested that I wanted a monopoly. I suggested there were a number of small, useless and inefficient factories that could easily be done without, and not have dozens of factories competing with one another.
We all agree that competition can be carried too far but I understood that the Minister did not want competition. If there is no competition, then in a year or two after the Bill is passed it will be found that it is practically useless. I hope an opportunity will be given on the Report Stage to introduce amendments.
I thought this was a non-political Bill. It was introduced a fortnight before its Second Reading. Then we came to the Committee Stage, and this is a second Committee Stage. There was ample time between each of the stages for the consideration or introduction of amendments. It is now suggested that on the next Report Stage the Bill should be re-committed again. That shows that there is no use in meeting people half way, even on a matter of this sort.
I suggest there is a way out. It is desirable that there should be compromise in this question, because a great many people feel keenly about it. I think if the Minister were to accept a minimum of £25, plus Deputy Martin Corry's amendment to the Schedule, that it would meet with the approval of the House.
I could not possibly do that. I have made concession after concession, and I am now at rock-bottom.
We are concerned in this way, that we do not like the prospect of driving any man out of business. There are some small men in the business, very admirable and ambitious men, and their industry is in great favour locally. They would probably develop into big men as exporters if they had the capital. So far as their capital enables them they are carrying on a sound business and getting a good reputation for their products. I think it would be a serious thing if the passing of this Bill would so increase their expenses that they would be driven out of business. I am sure the Minister hardly desires that. I have been assured by one man that a minimum fee of £50 would be a very serious matter for him. He has a very good reputation in the trade, and the farmers of the district look to his industry as a thing that will probably develop and bring some hope to their village. We must remember that this business has been tried on a very big scale and has failed. It has been tried in probably the best premises that could be constructed and with very big capital at its back.
It has been tried on a small scale in big premises.
So far as the ordinary Deputy is concerned, it was tried on a big scale, and with all that elaborate machinery the Minister seems to desire in such a factory, that is, with managers, splendid slaughtering machinery, and all that sort of thing. If the industry has not succeeded on these lines might there not be some hope in the smaller concerns, where the persons who manage the business would be the persons owning it and taking a direct personal interest in it? I am sorry to see the Minister adopting such an obstinate attitude, for if the Bill goes through in the form he proposes I can assure him it will cause a good deal of discontent, and a good deal of resentment towards all parties.
I am going to put the amendment in this form: Sub-sections 12 (1) to 12 (8) have been deleted, and the £15 named in the amendment has been altered by consent to £12 10s.
These sub-sections are there inserted accordingly. That disposes of amendment 14.
Amendment 15 has been carried by way of amendment to amendment 13.
I would like a ruling from the Chair as to whether amendment 16 is in order. This is a Bill to make provision for the regulation of the export of fresh meat and offals with a view to improving the general standard thereof, and for that purpose to make provision for the registration and control of premises used for the slaughter of animals or for the preparation and packing of fresh meat and offals intended for export, the licensing of persons engaged in exporting fresh meat and offals and the examination and certification of fresh meat and offals intended for export, to make provision for the proper packing of dead rabbits and dead poultry intended for export, and for other matters incidental to the matters aforesaid.
The amendment proposes that when the animals intended for slaughter are purchased by weight it shall be the duty of every registered proprietor of every registered slaughtering premises to allow the person or a representative of the person from whom an animal is purchased to be present at the weighing machine when the animal is weighed. I cannot see what relevancy this has to the purpose of the Bill.
I was taking refuge in the phrase "incidental to the matters aforesaid."
I was going to take refuge there myself; but the Bill appears to concern measures for the regulation of the export of meat, and it seemed to me that the Deputy's amendment has no reference to export at all. If that is so I do not think it is in order. Unless the Deputy can show me how the amendment is relevant I must rule it out. The point has only been put to me now.
It is part of the procedure. The animals are brought to the factory and this is merely an item in the method of dealing with them at the factory. I think that it could not be considered absolutely irrelevant. It is an item that protects the producer and it could not be considered outside the ordinary procedure of such a measure.
It is not exactly the Title of the Bill that matters, but what its effect will be. Undoubtedly the effect will be to establish a monopoly of three or four big traders who will hold the meat trade in their own hands.
Three or four monopolies?
No; three or four will be combined. This amendment of the section is absolutely necessary to protect the men whom the Minister for Agriculture wants to knock out of the trade altogether. These are the producers of the meat. The effect of this Bill will be that when the producer takes his pig or his pork to the slaughter-house he is going to be told "it is not what you ask but what we are prepared to give. We have decided that this is going to be the price in the Twentysix Counties and that is what you will get." We want to provide that the producer will at least get the right or the privilege of being present when the animal is being weighed.
We think he should be certain of seeing that he will get the right weight. That is why we think this section is necessary, in view of what the effect of the Bill will be, because the Bill will undoubtedly establish a monopoly.
I would like to ask if it is on the question of the amendment not being in order that the Minister has an objection to it.
I have a stronger objection than that.
The point raised by Deputy Corry is not a point of order at all. This amendment is on the Report Stage, and it refers to a matter which seems to be nowhere else in the Bill, and it does not appear possible to hang that on to the Bill. For that reason I cannot accept it. Arrangements for protecting the producer appear nowhere in the Bill.
Amendment ruled out.
I move amendment 17, which reads:—
In page 15, Section 23 (1), line 26, after the word "application" to insert the words "in writing in the prescribed form and manner."
I beg to move amendment 18:—
In page 15, Section 23 (3), between lines 41 and 42 to insert the following new paragraph:—
"(c) that the accommodation and the plant and equipment provided in the premises is insufficient for the volume of business carried on therein, or."
This particular section deals with the rectification and cancellation of registration. It refers to the cancellation or alteration of a premises that have already been registered. It might very well be that the premises would be registered and afterwards a big increase would take place in the amount of business. As a result the plant and equipment would be totally unsuitable. This is to give power to compel the owner of the premises to instal additional machinery to cover the increased trade.
Does not this actually mean that if any one of the small fellows who chance to survive is endeavouring to go ahead this amendment will see that there is another excuse to knock him out? I would like the Minister to be clear about the matter.
It does not mean that, but, apropos the remark about small people, let me say that I met a deputation of exporters from Cork County. They were good enough to discuss the whole question intelligently with me, and we agreed on certain concessions which I inserted in the Bill. I am not overstating it when I say that the members of the deputation expressed themselves satisfied with the concession which I made them. In some minor points they would have preferred me to go further. After meeting the deputation representing practically all the exporters of Cork County—I met them in the presence of certain Deputies in the House, but I do not think that Deputy Corry was there —they left me, stating that they considered they had been fairly well met and they were really quite satisfied with the concessions made. So much for all this talk on the part of Deputy Corry about the small fellows.
I suppose the Deputies from Cork were members of the Farmers' Union.
They were not.
And I suppose they included the slaughter-house men from the abattoir of Cork City.
I would like to hear further the Deputy's opinion of the people whom I met. There were about twenty persons from the Deputy's constituency and they included practically every man in the trade in Cork. I am extremely sorry that the Deputy has such a low opinion of them. It is strange to see a Deputy from the county going gratuitously out of his way to abuse his own constituents. I think it is disgraceful.
Is the Minister going to raise the same point in regard to amendment 19 that he has already raised in reference to earlier amendments?
Yes, of course. It is entirely out of order. I suggest this amendment is out of order for exactly the same reason.
My amendment is as follows:—
In page 15, Section 23 (3), after line 55 to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"(f) in the case of pig slaughtering premises from which pork is exported, that the holder of an exporter's licence in respect of such premises has purchased pigs for export otherwise than by dead weight."
I think this amendment is appropriate to the cancellation of the registration of premises. I quite agree this Bill was not designed to assist the producer, nor is it designed to help the pig-raiser of this country in catering for the trade of England. The effect of it would be quite the reverse. I think it would be a very slight concession to give the producers if it were seen that the men who raised the animals knew exactly what weight they were being paid for, and they could then compare the prices that are advertised each day for pork in England with the prices they receive from the monopoly exporters.
Is that the point of order we are dealing with? It is claimed that this amendment is out of order.
I can assure you that I have no sympathy with Deputy Moore whatever. He made a very long statement on an amendment on the same lines which I had down on the Committee Stage, and he pooh-poohed it. He said it would be most difficult to keep records, but he has apparently learned something from the pork trade since.
There is a world of difference between us.
I do not see why this amendment should be ruled out. It is a Dead Meat Bill, and if we are going to export dead meat the men who export it should be made to buy dead meat, and pay for it at dead meat prices. Otherwise the farmer will derive no benefit from the Bill. It is, of course, right that we should put our dead meat on the market in the best condition, but it would be of very little use to us if it did not bring an extra penny into the pockets of the farmers, and I maintain that this Bill will not do that.
Did you expect that it would?
On a point of order. This amendment deals with the method of purchasing pigs for export.
The ruling which the Speaker gave on the other amendment will not apply to this?
I suggest that it does apply because the objects of the Bill are set out in detail and nowhere is there any question of regulating the method of buying pigs for export.
Might I ask at this stage whether the Minister would consider the question of bringing in a short Bill regulating the purchase?
On that I want to say that I sell a lot of pigs every year in a town where there are three or four scales and three or four agents for various pig exporters who buy on the scales. As often as not I take my pigs from the scales and get a bigger price by hand. That is my personal experience and it is the experience of a great many farmers. Am I to be prevented from going to the men who will give me a bigger price by hand than I get by weight? I know that often it works out vice versa, but it would be absurd to try and control that.
It would also be absurd to make the standard for supermen the standard for the whole country.
In regard to the point of order, it appears to me that part of the ruling given by the Speaker does apply and that the amendment is extraneous to matters introduced into the Bill. It deals with the method of purchasing pigs, not with the part of the industry to which the Bill directly applies, the export of meat, and, in my opinion, the amendment is not in order.
I move:
In page 15, to insert at the end of Section 23 (3) the following:—
"or
(g) that the registered proprietor has been convicted under Section 131 of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, or under Sections 132, 133, 134 or 135 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, as amended by Section 28 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890, of an offence committed on the premises.”
This is purely a drafting amendment.
In regard to Deputy Dr. Ryan's amendment No. 21, I should point out that amendments 22 and 23 are related and must be discussed with it but they deal with different aspects of the question and, if any Deputy demands it, a separate decision will have to be taken on each one.
Very well, but at this stage I move to report progress.
