Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Aug 1934

Vol. 53 No. 18

In Committee on Finance. - Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Bill, 1934—Committee Stage.

Sections 1, 2 and 3 put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(1) The Minister may by order make regulations prescribing any matter or thing which is referred to in this Act as prescribed or to be prescribed.
(2) Every regulation made by the Minister under this or any other section of this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either such House within the next subsequent 21 days on which that House has sat annulling such regulation, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such regulation.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (1), to insert at the end of the sub-section the words "but no such regulation shall be made in relation to the amount or collection of fees or levies without the consent of the Minister for Finance."

Section 7 of the Bill absolves us from The Public Offices Fees Act, 1879. It is therefore necessary before we commence any legislation dealing with fees or levies that we must have the consent of the Minister for Finance.

Has that amendment in fact any significance at all, or is it a purely Departmental thing?

Dr. Ryan

It has significance. I do not think that the regulations could be issued without the consent of the Minister for Finance. That is because of Section 7.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Question proposed : "That Section 5 form part of the Bill."

Will the Minister tell us what qualifications those inspectors will have?

Dr. Ryan

They will have the ordinary educational qualifications, sufficient to write a report and examine the accounts of a butcher. They must also be required to have a knowledge of cattle. They will be recruited by the Civil Service Commissioners through the ordinary educational tests and then they will have to pass a selection board, who will examine them with reference to their knowledge of cattle.

It is on their certificate that these inspectors will go into a field or into a stall, mark cattle, and fix the date before which those cattle cannot be slaughtered?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Must they not be experts in order to do that?

Dr. Ryan

As far as possible—if we can get them.

But must they not be experts without question. If you cannot get experts to do that you will be robbing the country and fooling yourselves. This is an expert's job.

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

It is all right to be taken on as an inspector. You or I or anybody else might be taken on. But it is on the expert knowledge of the inspectors that the whole economic position of the country will depend. Just imagine the case of a man with 200 or 300 stall-fed cattle. These men come in to his premises, mark those cattle and set down the date on which they are to be slaughtered. I do not think there is a man in the country or in the world who could do that. Anyhow, the Minister thinks otherwise. I am not considering whether there is or there is not a person to be got capable of doing it, but I would like to know what the Minister has in mind as to how he is to proceed to get the best inspectors he can out of the materials at his disposal; and what way he intends to proceed to get them? The Appointments Commission is the machinery, I suppose, through which they will be got.

Dr. Ryan

No, the Civil Service Commissioners.

The Civil Service Commissioners will have to be used for the recruiting of these inspectors.

Dr. Ryan

The Civil Service Commissioners will appoint the board to test the knowledge of cattle which the candidates possess. They will do that by interview. You could scarcely have a written test for that.

I look at it like this. There might have to be an interview and a lot of questions put to them. I would like to hear the Minister on how he intends this is to be done. The practical side is the only side that will be of any account in this matter. I would like to know from the Minister how he will proceed to get those inspectors. It is a stupendous job; how many inspectors will he appoint?

Dr. Ryan

I am not sure about the number, but there will probably be about 100. The positions will be advertised in the ordinary way by the Civil Service Commissioners. The candidates will stand an educational test first—a written examination—and then those who will have passed the educational tests will be examined by a selection board as to their knowledge of cattle. How that is to be done will be a matter for the Civil Service Commissioners. Even if I had my own views about that I would not be at liberty to instruct them how to proceed. We say to the Civil Service Commissioners that we want men with a practical knowledge of cattle. It is for the Civil Service Commissioners to decide how these men are to be tested for the positions.

These are the men who are going to mark the cattle?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

At what stage are they going to mark the cattle? There is a section in the Bill that these inspectors must define the date on which the cattle are to be slaughtered and the date on which the owner is to start fattening or tieing them up. This Bill is fixing the date before which cattle cannot be slaughtered. The Minister will acknowledge that that is a very delicate and difficult thing. You will want standards of fattening before anybody can decide those questions. The Government should not travel too quickly on this road. The Minister should give the House some idea as to how he will get these men. It would be well now to know the remuneration those men will get. That remuneration will be an index of the standard that will be required of them. The whole success of the working of this Bill when it becomes an Act will depend upon the confidence the public will have in those inspectors. If the public have not confidence in those inspectors, not all the Parties in this House if they were to unite could administer the Act. That is to say, unless the people have confidence in the inspectors. The key of this Bill when it becomes an Act will be the inspectors, and I submit that the Minister should give the House some idea as to how he is going to recruit them. He should tell the House what practical knowledge he will require and what standards he is going to have. I cannot visualise how any man —even if he knew all the theoretical knowledge that is written about feeding—will be able to judge a beast so as to be able to say that a beast that is quarter-fat, half-fat or three-quarters-fat, will be fully fat on a certain day, provided uniformity of feeding goes on, uniformity of health and all that kind of thing. No man can do that except a man with 100 per cent. practical knowledge, and practical knowledge comes only from experience. You only get experience by age. How can you get a bunch of 100 young fellows to have that practical knowledge? I think the Minister is expecting to get 100 men who were not obtainable in this or any other country.

Dr. Ryan

Perhaps the Deputy has not in mind what I have in mind.

I should be glad to know what the Minister has in his mind.

Dr. Ryan

I do not visualise a man going in on a farm looking at cattle and saying: "There are four cattle which are fit for slaughter in a week, four more which are fit for slaughter in a month, and four more which are fit for slaughter in a month's time." What he will do will be to mark out certain cattle which he says will be fit for slaughter, say that day week. He will then say: "I will come back and see the rest of them in three weeks' time." We do not expect him to mark the cattle three months ahead. We just expect him to say what cattle are fit for slaughter, say in a week, or in a fortnight at the outside.

The position is this then. If I had a lot of cattle, that I thought were fit for marketing next Thursday or Thursday week, I would invite the inspector and he would come and see them?

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

And if all were well he would mark them for that day?

Dr. Ryan

For next Thursday or the following Thursday, but he would not go further. If cattle were to be marked for a later date than that he would come back again, say in a fortnight.

Of course the whole truth about this business of inspectors and examining cattle is that the Minister is taking over holus bolus these provisions from the British Bill. It is because Mr. Elliot has put all these things into his Bill, and possibly because Mr. Elliot has said that these things can be done, that our Minister also thinks they can be done. But Mr. Elliot and Dr. Ryan are going to get the shock of their lives. It will not take 100 inspectors to carry out this Act; it will take 1,000. And every expectant follower of Fianna Fáil will be queuing up at the office of the Civil Service Commissioners, praying that his ship will come home and that he will be appointed an inspector under this Act. I do not believe that 100 inspectors will cover the country or anything like it. When you realise that under this Bill it will become an offence to offer for sale any beast that has not been certified by a Government inspector as being fit for sale for slaughter, or that has not been certified as being fit for slaughter, just conceive a fair in any of the country towns with which we are familiar with small farmers coming in from all sides.

We have yet to hear from the Minister how he will differentiate between two men standing in the fair both with cattle which might be classed as forward stores or classed as cattle fit for slaughter for local consumption, and the man who is selling cattle admittedly for slaughter. The man who says "these are only four months stores" can sell them whether they are marked or not. The man who says "I am hoping that whoever will buy these will slaughter them," commits an offence unless he has had them marked. We must assume that the inspectors will be entitled to say in respect of certain cattle: "It does not matter what you say; these cattle are fit for slaughter and should be marked." The end of it will be, that 80 per cent. of the cattle will be marked for safety or the owner will try to get them marked. They will apply to the inspector to come and mark them in order that they can get leave to sell them for slaughter or for consumption. How many inspectors will it take to go round the district, covering the land of every small farmer, prior to a medium sized fair? The inspector will have to go in on the land. The cattle will have to be found and shown to him. Can we imagine that he will examine the cattle and mark them in less than half an hour on each farm? If we say that in the half hour we make allowance for the time he will be travelling from one farm to another, working eight hours or ten hours a day, without any stop to get a bit to eat, he will examine cattle on 20 farms. Yet the Minister tells me that 100 inspectors will be sufficient to mark all the cattle in the country. Does any Deputy in the House believe it? I am convinced that this scheme will break down. It is impracticable, but at least we ought to realise what it is going to mean. Does any Deputy in the House really feel that the small farmers of this country will conform to a practice whereunder they are not allowed to take a beast to a fair without asking leave of an inspector? Does anybody in this House believe that the taxpayers of this country want to pay sufficient inspectors to inspect beasts and fix a day for their slaughter? Deputy Belton has referred to the qualifications of these men. Any man who has to live by cattle raising or has cattle on his land, considers himself to be as good a judge as his neighbour of the quality of his cattle. The Minister forecasts that 100 young men, not necessarily with any qualifications of a special character, but just men with general experience, who will satisfy three gentlemen sitting in Dublin that they know something about cattle, are going to be given the right to walk into any farmer's house and tell him what cattle he may sell and what cattle he may not sell. The question of telling a man what cattle he will sell will arise on another section. We are now considering the question of inspectors. Just imagine what we are being asked to do—to give the Minister authority to appoint an unlimited number of inspectors at a salary yet to be defined to examine every head of cattle and every sheep in this country. And it is all because Mr. Elliot says it can be done! That is quite good enough for the Minister for Agriculture for Saorstát Eireann.

Dr. Ryan

I think this discussion is scarcely relevant to the appointment of inspectors, but of course one must make allowance for Deputy Dillon's ramblings on this as on every other section that comes before the House. I should like Deputy Dillon to point to any single section in this Bill that in any way resembles the British Bill. If we had the same problem in this country as they have in Britain, I do not say that I would be a bit beyond copying the British Bill, but we have not the same problem and there is not a single section in the Bill which is similar to the British Bill. Deputy Dillon takes it for granted that we copied the British Bill. Of course that is what he would do. He copies everything British. He always has and always will copy everything British.

This is not my Bill.

Dr. Ryan

We are looking for inspectors. "Experts" is a superlative term. I was told at one time that there is no such thing as an expert. All we can do is to get these men as expert as possible for their work. These men will be paid about £5 10s. per week plus travelling expenses.

£5 10s. a week! Every single one of them will take bribes. They ought to get £500 or £1,000 a year to keep them free from bribery.

Dr. Ryan

There are men in this country who would not take bribes if they were only getting £1 a week, but Deputy Belton may not know them. If Deputy Belton were moving in honest circles he would know them. Deputy Dillon just shows what he knows when he says that the inspector will take half an hour to mark the cattle. They would want to be expert inspectors to mark a man's cattle in half an hour. If a small farmer brings his cattle to the fair, unless a butcher who is going to kill them buys them, there is no obligation on the farmer to hold them back. Unless the butcher buys them to bring them to slaughter, the farmer can sell. If the marking provisions are in force, the butcher cannot take the beast unless it is marked. But the marking provisions may not be in force all the time. That part of the Act may be operative only during part of the year. If it is operative, the beast cannot be bought unless it is marked.

Perhaps that question of offering for sale an unmarked or a marked beast will arise on a later section.

It will arise on Section 19.

The Bill refers to "offering for sale" but we can discuss that on the relevant section.

I do not want, on this section, to cover ground that would be more appropriately covered under another section but I do not want to let an opportunity, which may not arise upon another section, pass. Surely the Minister sees the key position in which these inspectors will be placed. You will get men at a £1, £1 10s. 0d. or £2 per week to do their job honourably but why do we pay judges a high salary? In order that they will deal out justice. Here, we are offering men only £5 10s. 0d. per week to mark cattle honestly showing that they will be fit for sale on a certain date and not before. One of these men earning £4 or £5 a week may be offered £20 by a big cattle man to let his cattle out. Does the Minister contemplate being able to employ 100 men in a temporary capacity—I take it that this will be a temporary job—who will be proof against the temptation to accept a sum of £20 to let cattle through?

Dr. Ryan

Just as proof as if they had £1,000 a year.

Compare them with customs officials.

They are permanent.

They are not.

The customs official carries out certain duties in the way of examination and collection but he is supervised. These men will go on to a farm or into a yard and examine cattle to see if they are fit for sale. I take it that their word will be final. In the other service, you have an organisation with a tradition. Men who left the service are enjoying the pension they earned. This is a new idea and it is designed to meet an emergency. I think that it has come to the Minister's notice that when he issued licences in the beginning of this year there was trafficking in them before they were a week old. Will there not be trafficking in these permits? Of course there will. You would get fellows who might be regarded as experts who would give £5 10s. 0d. a week for one of these jobs and make a good thing out of it. Some of them would give £20 a week and make a good thing out of it. Deputies know that that is true. If a good type of man is not got for this job it will mean corruption from beginning to end. A higher salary will have to be paid than is proposed in order that the inspector may feel that it is worth his while minding the job and that a sum of £20 would not compensate him for the risk of being found out and losing the job. Penalties are prescribed in this Bill for practically every human being in the country but no penalty is prescribed for the inspector who does not act straight.

Dr. Ryan

He will get jail if he does anything wrong.

Under this Act?

Dr. Ryan

There are plenty of Acts to deal with him.

You will have to find them. If the Minister were not serious about this Bill, he would hardly have gone to so much trouble. If I were supporting the Minister on this measure, this is the one thing on which I would break with him. You must have a good type of inspector and you must pay him such a salary that he will be bribe-proof. The best scheme would collapse without bribe-proof inspectors. The Minister expects that 100 inspectors will cope, from week to week, with the fat cattle in this country, whether in winter or summer.

Dr. Ryan

I should like to qualify that. We are providing for about 100 inspectors—100 to 120—but, if the marking provisions come into operation, we may want more. I am starting off this Act without marking-inspectors.

Assuming that things run as they are, there will be 100 inspectors in winter and summer?

Dr. Ryan

If we do not have to mark.

You will be in a position to take a census of the fat stock from week to week with 100 inspectors?

Dr. Ryan

Not from week to week— perhaps every month or three weeks.

How long will it take 100 inspectors to get a census of them?

Dr. Ryan

We do not want a census if we do not mark.

The Minister sees where I am leading him and he does not want to come down to tin tacks.

Dr. Ryan

What do you want to know?

Why are you parrying the question?

Dr. Ryan

Ask a straight question if you know how.

You are to have 100 inspectors. Will 100 inspectors be able to take a census of the fat stock in the month of June?

Dr. Ryan

Not a census. They will not have to do that.

You want to mark the stock that can be killed, say this day fortnight, and you let loose 100 inspectors. How long will that work take in the month of June?

Dr. Ryan

They will not be asked to do that.

Then what is all this rigmarole about? I do not know whether this is relevant on this section or not. Other sections, I think, deal with inspectors.

Section 19 deals with marking.

I shall not forget that question. I shall bring it up at a later stage.

Dr. Ryan

I want to answer the Deputy now but two of us cannot speak at the same time.

Perhaps the Minister will deal with what I have to say in qualification of Deputy Belton's remarks. The logical conclusion of Deputy Belton's argument as to raising the salary of inspectors is that we ought to send out High Court judges to mark the cattle. That is the logical conclusion. Of course, that is right at the very foundation of our whole objection to this bureaucratic interference with the everyday life of the people. We are going to appoint a number of inspectors at £5 or £5 10s. a week. These men will be the judge between me and my neighbour. My whole means of livelihood is going to be passed upon by these young men who will be sent out all over the country. When it is a matter of a dispute between me and my neighbour we pay judges £1,700 a year and the Chief Justice £2,500 a year or more, and we hedge them round with every kind of protection in order that they will do equity between two citizens. But under this Bill we quite calmly announce that we are going to send a horde of inspectors all over the country at £5 a week who will be the absolute arbiters of a man's means of livelihood. That is, of course, the whole objection to bureaucracy— making the people of a country the slaves of permanent officials. It is wrong.

The Cereals Bill and this Bill are founded on bureaucracy. A situation is rapidly developing wherein no citizen of this State will be able to undertake any legal activity whatever without a licence from one inspector or another. Sooner or later, when that develops far enough, there is going to be a terrific burst up. The people will revolt against it. It is a rotten tendency. It is very widespread all over the world at the present time. Almost every Government in the world has come to the conclusion that it can run the everyday affairs of its citizens better than the citizens themselves. Bureaucracy is rampant, and we are getting into the same groove. It is expensive and inefficient and it is tyrannical. These inspectors, no matter what personal virtues they may have, will be the instruments of that inefficiency, extravagance and tyranny every day that they are out through the country.

The objection that Deputy Dillon has given expression to, in so far as the inspectors are concerned, could be applied to every walk of life. At the Horse Show this week one will find farmers' stock paraded before inspectors who give decisions as to their qualities. It is the same through the country. Shows of various kinds are held. Cattle are paraded before inspectors at different centres and they give decisions as to their qualities. You have bull shows and heifer shows held through the country at certain periods of the year.

The owners bring the cattle to these shows of their own free will.

These inspectors, who are just human beings like the rest of us, give decisions according to the best of their knowledge and experience. The people who exhibit the stock are not always satisfied with these decisions. One man may feel that a decision given to some other person should have been in his favour, but the inspectors, being human beings, have to decide such matters almost every day in the week. They had to do so long before it was decided to introduce this Bill. That is my reply to the objections Deputy Dillon has raised in the case of the inspectors. Deputy Belton stated that these men would have to be of an exceptionally good type because otherwise, as he said, cattle traders, feeders, and others might come along and say to one of them: "I will give you £25 or £30 if you mark so many cattle for me." The reply that I have made to Deputy Dillon applies here also. I instanced for him the case of Customs officials who are employed along the Border.

Are they bribe-proof?

They are employed there by the Department of Finance at £2 10s. or £2 15s. a week. Some of them are working on approved routes. If Deputy Dillon's argument is to be accepted, a business man might approach one of these men and ask him to allow a ton of sugar or some other dutiable goods to be brought across the Border free. The Deputy's reasoning and argument could be applied to every walk of life. If that is the conception that Deputy Dillon has of human nature, bad as it is, well, it is a fairly low conception indeed. I do not share his view. If you get together 100 individuals for any purpose you will not find that all of them will be perfect men, no matter what standard you set and no matter what type of examination you hold; but taking this question in general, I fail to see how it should be impossible to get men who will decide on the merits of the case. I do not think that the fears expressed by Deputy Belton are legitimate. If they are, then the same fears can be expressed in relation to other positions as well as those to which this measure will apply.

Dr. Ryan

I agree with Deputy Smith that it does not matter very much what salary you pay. The salary is not going to make a man honest.

You should pay a salary that would make it worth a man's while to be honest.

Dr. Ryan

If you have to buy his honesty then you would be better off without him. So far as the farmer is concerned, we have temporary men dealing with things of far more importance than the work that will have to be done under this Bill. For instance, there is the question of licences for bulls. Whether a licence is issued or not may mean anything from £25 to £30 to a farmer. We have temporary men doing that work. Bulls are passed or rejected on their report. Then we have our own inspectors in the Department of Agriculture. They are not highly paid. They pass bulls for premiums, and a premium is going to make a difference in the price of a bull of in or about £30. I have never heard of even one case where anything wrong took place in connection with these premiums. I am sure there never has been a case although it would pay a man to offer a bribe in order to get a premium.

As regards the number of inspectors, what I said was that we mean to appoint from 100 to 120 when the Bill goes through. We do not mean to implement the marking provisions of the Bill immediately. When they are implemented by order, then we will want up to 300 inspectors. The question of the census does not arise at present. These 100 inspectors will be there to operate the fixing of prices and the provision dealing with free meat. If there is any complaint or report that a butcher bought a beast under the fixed price, an inspector will go to his shop and examine his books to find out whether the complaint is right or wrong. They will also look after individual contracts as regards the free meat issued.

I am not inclined to make any suggestion which would be helpful to the Minister in administering this Bill.

Dr. Ryan

I notice that.

I think that the whole Bill is rotten. I just put this to the Minister, whether he would consider the question of consolidating all the veterinary duties that are at present being carried out under a variety of Acts: the Dairy Inspection Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Bovine Tuberculosis Act and others, and see whether it would be possible to have all these duties centred in one individual in a smaller area than is at present covered by each individual appointment. It seems to me that many of the duties which will have to be discharged under this Bill could be done by the same individual: that a good many jobs could be attended to by the one individual on the same trip. One can well imagine that an inspector for store cattle or fat cattle would be able to examine for bovine tuberculosis as well. I have not a scheme worked out in my mind, but I throw out the suggestion to the Minister. I think it is one that is worth looking into.

Dr. Ryan

That is a point that is considered in the case of all Bills: the co-ordination of duties.

I hope the Minister will not try to co-ordinate the very efficient services that we have set up, but that is a question for a later day. I would like to know from the Minister under whose immediate supervision these inspectors will be.

Dr. Ryan

They will be under the supervision of permanent inspectors.

I mean will any local body, such as the country councils or the country committees of agriculture, have any control over them?

Dr. Ryan

No control whatsoever.

You have ruled that out of your consideration altogether?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Well, then, of course, you cannot consider the suggestion made by Deputy Dillon.

Dr. Ryan

We can.

How can you? Are not they controlled by the county council or the board of health?

Dr. Ryan

Certain inspectors are not. Potato inspectors are not controlled by local committees.

Do you mean seed potato inspectors?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

In that case you have only some in Donegal; for a time you had one in Dublin; then they are concentrated around Athlone. Where else have you got them? That is only a limited area.

Dr. Ryan

I gave it as an instance.

It is not analogous to a scheme for the whole country.

I understand from the Minister that in this section which we are considering the word "inspector" means somebody who is going to see that the butcher pays a fair price for the cattle, and that the meat is properly distributed. I understand that the marketing question is left for a later day. I should like to know from the Minister how an inspector can turn around and see that the butcher pays say 25/- a cwt. for cattle. An inspector is to be appointed under this section, and I should like the Minister to tell me in as few words as possible how he is going to carry out the duty which the Minister intends him to carry out. If a butcher comes out to a fair he will probably buy cattle. He will probably buy them for £10 or £11 a head as the case may be. Will the Minister explain where his inspector comes in, and how he will see that what he wants him to do is done?

Dr. Ryan

That will certainly be raised on Section 23.

Sections 5 and 6 put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."

What is the significance of sub-section (2)?

Dr. Ryan

The significance is that in the Public Offices (Fees) Act there are certain provisions which it might be very difficult to observe in this connection. For instance we could not take cash. I am not sure whether we could take postal orders, but I think we could take only money orders in the case of fees. If our inspectors are going around and are offered a registration fee in cash by a butcher we might be very glad to take it, and allow the inspector to send it on to us. One could imagine various occasions on which we might like to be exempt from the Public Offices (Fees) Act. In the case I have mentioned we would have to send back the cash to the butcher, and tell him to send us a money order instead.

I do not want to make any point of it. This is an old Act of 1879, and it provided against some abuses that existed then.

Dr. Ryan

That is true.

It was passed for some purpose at the time. It has been in operation for about 60 years, and the abuse which it was introduced to correct has entirely disappeared. People have forgotten all about it. The legislators of those days were no fools, and they may have found that accepting fees in coin or currency resulted in the promotion of embezzlement. It is for that reason that they passed this Act. Is it wise to go back of that in order to serve some trifling expediency, because bear in mind that if sub-section (2) passes in this Act the Public Offices (Fees) Act is finished. Every Minister will use this as a precedent whenever he wants to get rid of the formalities required by the Public Offices (Fees) Act of 1879. I do not press the point, but it is perhaps a matter which the Minister will ask his Department to enquire into between this and the Report Stage. Unless the Minister has some precedent, or thinks it is very necessary, I suggest that he should drop sub-section (2).

Dr. Ryan

The same clause has been in previous Acts. I cannot quote them for the Deputy, but I certainly have brought Acts before the Dáil in which there was the same clause.

If the Minister finds that this Public Offices (Fees) Act has been dispensed with on previous occasions, and that no evil results have eventuated, then my objection falls through.

Dr. Ryan

There is no denying the evil which the Deputy foresees. There is a certain danger of embezzlement if we dispense with that Act, but on the other hand the inconvenience is practically impossible to get over.

Section put and agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Would the Minister say to whom application for registration is to be made? Is it to be made direct to the Minister?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

What is the cost of registration?

Dr. Ryan

10/-.

For slaughtering premises and butchers' shops?

Dr. Ryan

10/- for each.

For all slaughtering houses it is 10/-?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Sub-section (3) provides that "The Minister shall not register any premises in a register kept in pursuance of this Act unless or until he is satisfied that such premises comply with all (if any) relevant regulations and bye-laws made by the local sanitary authority." It is going to take you some time to inspect every butcher's shop in the country. Should you not have some temporary powers?

Dr. Ryan

We will not have to inspect them. Those Public Health Regulations are in operation only in the bigger cities, and we will naturally get a list. Unless an applicant is on that list he cannot register.

Of course all slaughterhouses at the present time are inspected by local authorities.

Dr. Ryan

Where the Act is in operation.

And if they do not comply with the Act they will be shut down?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

I suggest that the Minister ought to take some power to issue a temporary licence pending inspection—not a licence under the Bill, remember, because there would be a difficulty in withdrawing it then, but some kind of temporary licence which would operate only until such time as the licence under the Bill was issued. Otherwise, you might have the case of people applying for a licence to the Local Government Department being asked: "Are there any sanitary regulations in connection with slaughter houses in, say, Offaly" and the answer being that there are—that the county council adopted some Sanitary Act in 1905, the statute then prohibits the Minister from issuing a licence to that party until he has sent down an inspector to satisfy himself that that party is complying with the provisions of some Sanitary Regulation, the existence of which may be forgotten by everybody in Offaly, and the record of which remains lying in the Department of Local Government and Public Health. Ordinarily what he would do would be he would issue a temporary licence, satisfy himself in the interregnum and then issue an ordinary licence in the ordinary way with the statutory formalities disposed of. I do not press the point but it is one which the Minister might look into.

Dr. Ryan

I do not think the House need have any fears about that. We will get from the Local Government Department a list of the areas where these provisions are in force, and we will write to the local authorities for a list of the slaughtering premises registered by them. It would be ridiculous to register a person who is not allowed to slaughter by the local authorities.

It is only for the exceptional cases, where something might turn up which would produce a result that the Minister never intended under the Bill, I referred to it. All I want to provide is that he would have power to issue a temporary licence pending examination, where examination is necessary. If the Minister's officials are satisfied that no conceivable cases could arise I do not press it. But I think the matter is worth looking into.

Mr. Broderick

Have all local authorities public health regulations?

Dr. Ryan

No. Where there are no regulations we register everyone who applies.

Mr. Broderick

How do you distinguish between registered premises and licensed premises?

Dr. Ryan

There are no licences under this Bill.

Mr. Broderick

Pardon me, there are several.

Dr. Ryan

Not under this Bill, only to register.

Mr. Broderick

Where public authorities have not laid down any regulations have you any code by which they would be governed?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Except that you cannot slaughter and sell on the same premises.

Dr. Ryan

You could do it in the same room in some areas.

Mr. Broderick

That is a different point. Considerable numbers of people in this trade are not affected by public health regulations.

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

Mr. Broderick

Before the Bill comes into force, you will have to have some regulation issued governing the registration of premises. The regulations of local authorities differ, some being exceptionally severe, and requiring proper sanitation and a water supply, while others are not so severe. I recommend the Minister to look into that question before the Bill comes into operation.

Is there not a veterinary officer appointed in every county who is more or less under the supervision of the medical officer of health.

Dr. Ryan

Not in every county.

Is there not then great dereliction of duty on the part of some Department.

Dr. Ryan

Not my Department.

It would be very useful to your Department if you had such an institution set up in every county.

Dr. Ryan

It would.

I cannot see how you can get this Bill working without such an institution preceding it. I think it is absolutely essential to have such an institution, or to co-ordinate it with the machinery that is being set up.

Dr. Ryan

We are not taking the responsibility of rejecting anyone. If there are public health regulations in force in a city or county we will take anyone who applies. If they are not in force we will take anyone who applies.

So that a county which has carried out the regulations prescribed by law will have to toe the line, while in the county which has no regulations they can slaughter beasts anywhere.

Dr. Ryan

That is the position at present.

That is wrong. Some counties went to the expense and trouble of complying with the law, by seeing that meat is slaughtered under proper conditions, while other counties have neglected to do so. These should be made to fall into line with the other counties.

Dr. Ryan

I cannot do that.

Is there not some other Department concerned? I am not so sure that the Department of Agriculture does not come in somewhere.

Dr. Ryan

No, we have nothing to do with the health of the people.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(4) Any person may—
(a) inspect any register kept in pursuance of this Part of this Act on payment of such fee not exceeding one shilling for each inspection, as shall be prescribed;
(b) obtain a copy certified in manner hereinbefore mentioned to be a true copy of any entry in any register kept in pursuance of this Part of this Act on payment of such fee, not exceeding sixpence for each folio of seventy-two words of the copy, as may be prescribed;
(c) obtain such certificate as is hereinbefore mentioned that any specified premises are not registered in a specified register kept in pursuance of this Part of this Act on payment of such fee not exceeding two shillings and sixpence for each certificate, as may be prescribed.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 2:—

To delete sub-section 4 (a).

This provision is in various Acts, but it is our experience in the Department of Agriculture that it has never been used by any citizen. It entails some expense in keeping special registers for inspection, but they are never inspected. As each of these Acts come before the Dáil we intend to delete this provision. It was deleted from the Cereals Bill yesterday. It is an unnecessary expense to keep special registers for public inspection. We would not keep ordinary folio registers, but a card index which is more useful for office purposes. Any citizen can get any information he wants under clauses (b) and (c).

The Minister would not think of keeping a register of those to whom he gives export licences.

Dr. Ryan

That is kept.

Will you let me inspect it?

Dr. Ryan

If the Deputy were on the Consultative Council he could inspect it. The members of that council inspect it occasionally. They are permitted to do so.

Is a member of this House excluded from the privilege which, according to the Minister, is granted to members of the Consultative Council?

That does not arise.

Clause (b) gives the right to obtain a copy of something which a citizen knows is on the register, and clause (c) gives the right to obtain a copy of something else, but supposing one wants to look at the register to find if there is something there in fact or not, he has no means of doing it if clause (b) is removed.

Dr. Ryan

I think there is. The only thing he could possibly want to know, I suppose, is whether such a person is on the register or not.

Exactly.

Dr. Ryan

If he asks if such a person is entered he will get a true copy of the entry if it is there. If he does not get a true copy obviously the name is not there.

This situation may arise, a person may contemplate taking certain action in the event of A.B. not being on the register. He would know that there would be no use in taking action if A.B. were on the register. That person may not want to show that he is concerned to know whether A.B. is on the register or not, until he is sure, so he pays one shilling and runs down the column. If he cannot find the name, he proceeds to take whatever action he contemplated. That is what that provision was originally put there for. I imagine that in 90 cases out of 100 it would be used by solicitors or persons in that capacity who want to refer to the register. I cannot imagine that it involves any great cost, while it is one of those checks on bureaucratic control upon which I set a certain value. It gives a citizen a certain right to check up things for himself, and to prevent him doing that frivolously he is charged a nominal fee. I submit to the Minister that it is a bad principle to wipe that provision out of existence No matter how excellent permanent officials are, there is a constant trend towards strengthening their hold, and restricting the right of the citizen to interfere in matters in which they are concerned. It is bad to yield to that pressure. As the Minister says, other Acts which provide for registers provide for the right of the individual citizen to go and examine them. I urge him strongly not to take that right away here.

Dr. Ryan

I do not like to force this amendment, because I am afraid the Deputies may think there is something in it which is really not intended. Deputies should realise that, while some of these Acts have been in operation since 1924 this provision was never availed of in a single case. At the same time it is a rather expensive matter. It would be all right if we could wipe out the names in the folio, but occasionally the whole thing has to be revised, and there are so many alterations that it becomes rather unsightly. We have to have it rewritten, which is rather expensive, yet it is never availed of. The only case, I think, that Deputy Dillon has made is that a person may like to come and look at the register and not tell anybody what his business is. I can hardly imagine how that could be because, if there is an illegality being committed or anything like that, naturally there is a report made by some inspector which goes to the Minister and action is taken. The only case in which we were ever asked for a certified copy, as far as I know, is in connection with court proceedings. I think the ordinary citizen has never asked for it. I should like the House to agree to the amendment, but I do not like to force it for fear I might appear to be doing something for which I have not stated the full reason.

Surely in a Bill under which from 500 to 750 inspectors may be appointed at £5 10s. 0d. per week, plus travelling expenses, it is a poor thing to effect an economy at the expense of the register which the unfortunate citizen has for his inspection. It only requires an expenditure of about 30/- per year and for the preservation of his liberty spare him that, when you propose to spend his money to the tune of 750 times £5 10s. 0d. per week, and give him his 30/- per annum. It cannot cost more than that. It is a trifling concession to perhaps an old-fashioned reverence for personal liberty and an old-fashioned antagonism to the triumph of bureaucracy.

Dr. Ryan

I would be inclined to withdraw the amendment until the Report Stage in order to consider it further. I may have to bring it in again, however.

I am much obliged to the Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 3:—

In sub-section (4), (b), to delete the word "such" and substitute the word "a" and to delete the words "not exceeding" and substitute the word "of" and to delete the words "as may be prescribed." This amendment and amendment No. 4 are introduced because we do not want the trouble of making regulations to fix the fee, which may not be more than 6d. in the first case and 2/6 in the second. The effect of the amendment is to make it 6d. in one case and 2/6 in the other and be done with it.

Amendment put and agreed to.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
4. In sub-section (4) (c), to delete the word "such" and substitute the word "a" and to delete the words "not exceeding" and substitute the word "of" and to delete the words "as may be prescribed."—(Dr. Ryan).
Question proposed: That Section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

What is the significance of sub-section (2) in Section 11?

Dr. Ryan

That is in all these Acts— that the production of a copy of the entry shall be taken as prima facie evidence in court that it is correct unless it is proved to the contrary.

That sub-section has been extensively used?

Dr. Ryan

It is in all these Acts.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
(4) Before altering or cancelling (otherwise than in accordance with an application in that behalf made under this section) the registration of any premises under this Part of this Act, the Minister shall give at least one month's notice in writing of his intention so to cancel or alter such registration to the registered proprietor of such premises or his personal representative (if any) or its liquidator (as the case may be), and shall consider any representations made before the expiration of such notice by such registered proprietor or personal representative or liquidator (as the case may be) or by any such registered licensee and may, if he thinks fit, cause an inquiry to be held in relation to the matter.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 5:—

In sub-section (4), to delete the words "before the expiration" and substitute the words "within seven days after the service."

As the section reads, a person may apply for an inquiry any time within the month. We have altered that already in the Cereals Bill and we propose altering it here, so that if he applies for an inquiry within seven days we may then hold an inquiry. When an inquiry is held the Minister may not act until the officer who holds the inquiry has reported. After considering the report of the officer then the Minister can act.

Seven days takes the place of the month?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, with regard to the inquiry only, but not with regard to the cancellation. He cannot cancel it for a month in any case.

As cancellation of a registered premises means the elimination of the operator is the power of cancellation confined or restricted to certain eventualities?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. They are all mentioned in sub-section (3).

Mr. Broderick

Power of cancellation outside that does not arise?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I raised the question arising under paragraph (d), sub-section (3) of Section 12, as it appeared yesterday in the Cereals Bill. That relates to the power vested in the Minister to withdraw a man's registration for no other reason than that he has been adjudicated bankrupt. Has the Minister had time to consider that in connection with the Cereals Bill?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

The Minister prefers to retain that power. I submit that it is trenching on the discretion of the Bankruptcy Court to inflict a penalty on a bankrupt over and above what the bankruptcy judge thinks just and equitable.

Dr. Ryan

I considered that amendment this morning in connection with the Cereals Bill and the same would apply here. The Deputy will notice that the section says:—"The Minister may at any time ... cancel the registration of any premises" for the various reasons set out, one of which is being adjudicated bankrupt. I think that the Minister would not exercise that power of cancellation unless it was a very flagrant case and that the person should not be allowed again to deprive the sellers of cattle of part of the price due to them, as he may have deprived them before his bankruptcy took place. But in a case where a person had made a very good settlement and done his best to pay off his creditors, and where it appeared that the man was making an honest attempt to go on with his business again, I do not think any Minister will exercise this power. It has been put into all these Acts. I have, however, ascertained to-day that that power has never been exercised so far under any Act. No Minister so far has exercised that power of taking a man off the register because he has been adjudicated bankrupt. Although there have been cases of bankruptcy, the Minister concerned in each case thought it was only fair to give the bankrupt another chance. Evidently he was impressed with the reports he got that the bankrupt was inclined to make good.

This is a grave matter. It is not a crime in this country to go bankrupt; and it is not a misdemeanour; it is not a breach of the law. It is merely compliance with certain statutes which provide a certain course of action by a person who finds himself unable to meet his commitments. The bankruptcy code lays down a very exhaustive scheme to deal with the affairs of such a person. In no part of that is the person held up to odium as a miscreant or a person who has done anything wrong or who is necessarily deserving of censure. Why should we make it the occasion of prohibiting him from engaging in a certain trade, over and above whatever restrictions may be placed upon his activities by the bankruptcy judge who has heard all the details of his case? The Minister said yesterday that the reason we would prevent him specially from dealing in cereals, while we would have no power to prevent him dealing in boots, groceries and drapery, is that he would ordinarily be dealing direct with the farmer as a producer if he was dealing in cereals, and we want to protect the farmer because the farmer may think that while he is on the register we vouch for him. I think that is going too far to accommodate carelessness on the part of a person selling or buying, and it is putting a stigma on the man who may have gone bankrupt through no fault of his own and it is trenching on a province which, in my opinion, this Bill should not touch upon at all, and that is the province of the general scheme of bankruptcy law which is no simple matter to consider much less to handle in this offhand way.

Mr. Broderick

Under paragraph (e) in this section it sets out that the Minister may cancel registration if the registered proprietor of such premises has been convicted of an offence under any section of this Act. There appears to be contained there an enormous power. A man may be convicted in perfect innocence. He may not be aware of the working of the Act, yet if he is convicted it is in the power of the Minister to put him out of business altogether. Once you deprive him of his registered premises he is out of business. I think that is extremely drastic. It is an arbitrary power not demanded by the circumstances of the moment. I would ask you seriously to reconsider the drafting of that particular portion of the Bill. It is quite conceivable that for a trifling offence a strong opinion may be held on it and a conviction may result. The moment that happens the Minister has power to put the man out of business altogether. I am quite satisfied that the Minister is not going to do anything harsh or use this power drastically, but nevertheless it is a power that ought to be considerably restricted. It means life or death for anyone in the business. Any offence against the Act, no matter how trivial, that results in a conviction will enable the Minister to use this power. You are not dealing with men who are aware of the law in this particular connection, and power of that kind in the hands of the Minister ought to be surrounded by very careful restrictions and regulations.

Dr. Ryan

We could not operate an Act like this unless that provision were there. It might be that a person would find it paid him to be convicted occasionally. For instance, a person continuously trafficking in free meat tickets might make a big profit and it might pay him to be convicted every three or six months. We might catch him out only at such periods although he would be carrying on all the time. The only thing in such a case would be to remove him from the register. There are other offences, such as not paying the fixed price, and if a person were convicted on a number of occasions, the only way we could deal with him would be to remove him from the register. That power is certainly necessary. We have much greater power in the Cereals Act. I can remove a man from the register if, in my opinion, he has contravened any section, not that he is convicted at all.

Mr. Broderick

On the point you have raised, that is, the question of the fraudulent use of the tickets, I would be the last man in the world to defend a person guilty of such conduct. As regards anyone convicted for such an offence, there is no alternative to putting him off the register. It must be remembered, however, that in this case you are not dealing with people who can afford to have typists and clerks. This thing will be a very big strain on them from the point of view of trying to keep their accounts. There may be a trifling offence where there is no intention to deceive and where they are doing their best to comply with the law. In such a case I think the power of removing that person from the register is a power that the Minister should not have. As regards the power to deal with people guilty of fraudulent acts. I am in favour of giving it no matter how drastic it would be.

I think a district justice would be the best judge to decide in this matter. I do not think in this instance the Minister should be given so much power. I cannot see why he should take it upon himself to be the sole judge. He might not have the same anxiety in a case as a district justice who would know the whole circumstances and who would have the evidence first hand. I believe the District Justice would be the proper man to decide.

Might I suggest to the Minister something which might meet the criticisms now offered? He might in this section take power to cancel for a fixed or an indefinite period. He has power to cancel more or less definitely. I do not see that he has the power to restore the registration. It is easy to see that there could be a good deal of harshness in dealing with a case where cancellation takes place. The proprietor would then have no premises, nothing to look forward to in the way of getting back his business. If the Minister takes power to cancel for a period only, then obviously there would be room for representation by the proprietor and he might mitigate any hardship that had arisen—hardship such as the people opposite have been describing. I think the section could be amended in that way so that there might be some means of appeal with regard to a particular sentence.

In what section of the Cereals Bill has the Minister the right to cancel registration?

Dr. Ryan

I would be able to let you know that on the Report Stage.

I would be very much interested to know what section gives the Minister that power. Was it in the Cereals Bill that we have just disposed of? Remember, it is one of the reasons the Minister advanced in justification of the insertion of this.

Dr. Ryan

We have established a precedent.

If you did succeed in putting that over, you put it over without my spotting it. I would be very much interested in knowing the section.

Dr. Ryan

I think it arose on the Cereals Bill.

The Minister advances it as a good argument for incorporating this section.

Dr. Ryan

I will tell the Deputy later. As a matter of fact, I explained the full provisions and implications of it. The Deputy must not have been here.

I think I was, but that must have escaped me.

Dr. Ryan

That makes the case worse.

The Minister is not always as lucid as he thinks he is.

Dr. Ryan

The reference is Section 50, sub-section (3), paragraph (e) of the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill.

I confess that escaped me, and it is just after the paragraph dealing with the bankruptcy which I raised yesterday. This is really one of the most remarkable things that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has put across this House for a long time. Is it the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Agriculture is responsible?

Dr. Ryan

The Minister for Agriculture.

I see the hand behind it is that of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He has conceived himself to be the High Court, Divisional Court, District Court and all other courts. He got through this House a section which provides that if a man is convicted by a court the Minister may withdraw his licence and the section goes on to provide that if the Minister is of opinion that there is any particular contravention——

The House has already passed that, has it not?

The House has already passed it but it is not yet an Act.

But the House has already agreed to that section in the Cereals Bill.

Yes, but the Minister has mentioned it as a good precedent for something he is putting into this Bill. The precedent that he wants is to enable him to withdraw a licence from any person when "he is of opinion there is any contravention ... of this Act or any regulation made thereunder by the person who registered in such register."

Is it proposed to insert that provision in the Bill?

No; but it is used to justify the insertion of another provision in this Bill.

So far as it is extraneous matter to this Bill, it is not relevant, and is outside the discussion here.

We have not yet incorporated this section in the Cereals Bill. But, at any rate, we have created a situation in which the Minister need no longer have regard to the courts, for he can himself charge, convict and inflict fines and penalties.

But it is not proposed to put this section into this Bill.

Let me finish. He is now looking for power to charge, convict and inflict penalties. I am very grateful to the Minister for Agriculture for drawing my attention to this section, for it will enable me to initiate a full debate on the whole matter to-morrow.

Will the Minister qualify the word "offence"?

Dr. Ryan

I do not know whether I could qualify the word "offence."

Mr. Broderick

The Minister could draw a distinction between different types of offence.

Dr. Ryan

I do not think that Deputy Dillon would like me to interpret whether an offence was fraudulent or not. That is the function of the courts. I think we would be inclined to consider the suggestion put forward by Deputy Moore and to put in a time limit.

Will the Minister accept an amendment to modify Section 3 (e) of the present Bill?

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 13, 14, 15 and 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 6:—

At the end of the section to add a sub-section as follows:—

(9) Every sum paid to or recovered by the Minister under this section shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance may direct.

This amendment is on the same lines as various amendments moved yesterday, bringing the Bill into the light of proper Government financing.

I would like to ask the Minister a question in respect to the sub-head "Levy in respect of cattle and sheep..." Do sheep include lambs?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. They are defined at the beginning.

Yes, but the Minister will notice that mutton does not include lamb.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

This section proposes to make a levy upon the butcher. The Minister told us upon the Second Stage of the Bill that the one and only object of the Bill was to provide a market for our surplus cattle. He now proposes under this section to impose a levy on cattle and sheep slaughtered here for consumption at home. Then he went on to argue that the butcher was going to pay that.

Dr. Ryan

No, the consumer.

That the consumer was going to pay that. I should like to hear how the Minister reasons that out. He proposes to fix a price which the butcher must pay. He talked round a price of 25/- per cwt. which the butcher must pay. Then he talked about £1 a head, which seemed to be something very provisional. I think the Minister has in his mind something far above £1 a head for good beef. Therefore, for good beef he must have in mind something far above £1 per head—nearer £2 a head—and he asks this House and this country to believe that the butcher is going to pay that. It is a good butcher, even in the city of Dublin, who will kill six good beasts in a week and ten sheep—£6 for the beasts at £1 a head and £2 10s. 0d. for the sheep at 5/- a head—£8 10s. 0d. There is not a butcher in Dublin but would be glad, after paying all expenses and paying a foreman butcher's standard wages per week, to be able to say: "I have £8 10s. 0d. profit after paying everything."

The Minister thinks that that butcher is going to be able to continue and pay £8 10s. 0d. Of course he is not. He is dealing with bullocks, heifers and sheep—killing them and turning them into meat—and he must get his profit. The Minister says that he fixes a price which the butcher must pay, and because he fixes the price that the butcher must pay, it is either the butcher who must pay the levy or it is the consumer. If the Minister would fix a price at the world price of beef and mutton and say that the butcher must pay that price, and, in addition, must pay the tax or the levy that the Minister imposes, then I agree with the Minister. If the Minister will standardise his prices at the British prices—the Birkenhead prices—and say that the Dublin butcher must pay the Birkenhead prices and pay, in addition, a levy of £1 a head on cattle or 5/- a head in the case of sheep, and let him pass it on to the consumer, then I would agree with the Minister that either the butcher or the consumer pays that levy. But if he will not pay world prices, or Birkenhead prices— which are synonymous terms—then the producer pays it.

The Minister talks of 25/-. Why does he fix 25/-? At the present time we have £6 of a duty on a ten cwt. beast going into Britain. We have a quota for which the British issue licences. They are handed out by the Minister to selected people, including Britishers. The British exporter can come along and get licences from the Minister for Agriculture here, but the feeder and producer of Irish beef cannot get one unless he is a blackleg of the "John Brown" type. The Britisher can get that licence. What is it worth to him? It is worth at least £5. So, there is lopped off the world price of meat, that the Minister is dealing with in this Bill, £11—well, say, over 50 per cent. Let us take it at 50 per cent., and after 20/- being paid here the world price of similar beef would be, roughly, £2. The Minister's suggestion here, or the implication in his suggestion on the Second Stage, was that he had in mind 25/- a cwt. as the standard minimum price. In connection with that 25/-, the Minister would turn round and say: "Well, I am increasing the price of meat here 5/- a cwt." He would be about 15/- a cwt. below the world price for such meat. Therefore, he can fix a price that is a bit of an increase on the present artificial prices. Nevertheless, out of whose pocket is this £1 coming? It can only come out of the pocket of the man who is not getting the world price of meat. It can only come out of the pocket of the producer—not of the consumer, nor of the butcher. That is what the Minister proposes to put over by levying on the butcher the £1 after the Minister fixes for the producer in this country a standard price —that is, 15/- a cwt. below the world price.

In a previous Bill which we had today the Minister is attempting to fix a price, by manipulating mixtures, for home-grown grain. This is the market for home-grown grain. There is no other market. This is the market here also in this connection, and the market here, as fixed by this Bill, will be 15/- a cwt. of beef below the world market price. Therefore, the fixed price of home-grown grain must be a corresponding percentage below the world price of grain. Because the Minister does not come up to the world standard prices—wholesale prices—he is taking it out of the pockets of the producer. This is his levy of £1. If that £1 was not there, it is equivalent, I suppose, roughly, to at least 2/- a cwt. Instead of 25/- it should be 27/-, and still you would be 13/- below the world price, or the price at Birkenhead.

I challenge the Minister to take any bunch of cattle he likes: weigh them in on a Dublin scales: put them on the Dublin market; let him pick 50 per cent. of the worst of them; put licences on them; and send them over to Birkenhead—I will bet him that I will get 100 per cent. more for them in Birkenhead.

Dr. Ryan

You would want very bad ones for that.

Then I am understating the case?

Dr. Ryan

You are misstating it.

Will you take the offer? Will you come up to the market next Thursday——

A Deputy

To-morrow morning.

Well, yes, to-morrow morning—and get ten cattle; weigh them in with ten cattle sold in the Dublin market, and I will lay down my cheque for ten of the cattle—and the Minister can take it—if those cattle will not double the money in Birkenhead. Will the Minister take on that bet? There is no wriggling or any other way out of this. Will he take it on?

He will not.

Dr. Ryan

I do not like to interrupt the Deputy. I will speak when the Deputy is finished.

Words speak, but actions thunder. Will the Minister act? Now he comes with a paltry 25/- and he is going to standardise beef and he has his backbenchers in the Library and the Lobby to tell the unfortunate people that this butcher is robbing you. "We are going to make the consumer pay more and we are the people to help the farmer."

Dr. Ryan

And so the farmers say.

The broken-down ones say so.

The Minister was not in Cork last week.

Dr. Ryan

What about the local elections or the General Council of County Councils?

What about them? Democratic control was departed from——

What about Section 17 of the Bill?

Patriotism has changed. There is one man who, during the trouble here took no part and held on to his Civil Service job. He is now a Fianna Fáil patriot while drawing a British pension. That is the sort of patriotism we have now.

The Deputy had better get back to the section.

Dr. Ryan

He is in a bit of temper now.

The producer is paying this levy and he has to accept from the Government here a standard fixed price of 15/- less than he would have to accept if we had a commonsense Government in this country. The producer has to accept 15/- less. The butcher is paying that much less. The butcher is asked to pay £1 more but he is not going to pay it. That extra £1 will go on the consumer. It has been already taken off the producer who has to accept 15/- less than the world price. As a sop to the alleged tillage farmers we are to have the price of our cereals fixed by a mixture, increasing the percentage if there is a surplus left and diminishing the percentage if there is not. Anybody who has a store and who will not trade according to orders must get out; his store will be taken from him. This is the ultimate market of our producers; this is the ultimate market and it is going to mean 25/- for beef. That ultimate market will regulate the prices for oats and barley and it is no matter what any little Hitler may do in Merrion Street. The taxes and the pickings will come out of that, including the salaries of the 100 Fianna Fáil followers who are knocking at the doors of the Ministers to get these jobs at £5 10s. a week.

Dr. Ryan

They will be paid anyway, not like your secretary.

Ye did not pay much until ye got the taxpayers' money. Ye had not enough to pay your lodgings.

Deputy Belton challenged the Minister to fix a minimum price for cattle on the basis of prices in the world market. Before the Minister decides whether he will accept it I think it might be as well if an alternative basis of prices were put forward. I offer the Minister the basis of the cost of production according to his own Department's experts. Some time ago I gave in this House figures that were taken from those issued by his own inspectors. I took the cost of production of one cwt. of beef live weight. To refresh the Minister's memory I will quote the figures again. Beef cannot certainly be produced more cheaply than store cattle and this is the production cost of store cattle:— Seven cwts. of hay, 28 cwts. of silage and two cwts. of crushed oats were fed to two lots of cattle in 112 days. One of the lots gained threequarters of a lb. per head per day and the other lot gained one lb. per day.

How is this relevant?

It is; I am giving it is an alternative basis to that submitted by Deputy Belton, and I am submitting it to the Minister for consideration when he is fixing the minimum price of beef to the producers. These are the figures of the cost of production of one cwt. of beef——

Does this section fix the minimum price?

It deals with the levy on the butcher, and that levy is to be passed on to the consumer. In connection with this I presume that the minimum price for beef should be considered. If you, Sir, decide that it is relevant on some other section of the Bill, I will leave it until then.

Dr. Ryan

It is on Section 23.

Then it would be more relevant on Section 23 than on Section 17.

I think it makes very little difference.

Dr. Ryan

Oh.

He has got it off, anyway.

I have it nearly off. I have practically the whole statement finished, and by mentioning it now the Minister will have more time for considering it. Deputy Belton has submitted one basis and I am submitting this as an alternative basis. Anyhow, if I might be allowed to proceed to give the cost of production, I am quite satisfied to leave to the Minister the fixing of the prices if he does not accept my figures for seven cwt. of hay. I would say that would be 15/-, a very moderate estimate. The 2 cwt. of crushed oats consumed, I do not know would the Minister consider 16/- too high an estimate for the oats. I would leave it to himself to fix the estimate. As for the cost of the silage, I have no figures. The only figures I got were the figures complied by Imperial Chemicals, Ltd., of 8/9 per ton or 12/3 for the 28-cwt.

Thus the ration for 112 days which produced ¾ cwt. live weight in one of the lots and 1 cwt. in the other, costs as follows:—7 cwt. hay, 15/-; 2 cwt. crushed roots, 16/-; 28 cwt. silage, 12/3, making in all £2 3s. 3d. That is the cost of the food without taking into account the value of the grass. Then there are the labour of attending the cattle, the cost of insuring the cattle against all risks, interest on the capital invested, and the profit for the farmer. I leave the Minister to fix a price on these figures. Let him give the labourer who attends the cattle a fair wage after consultation with Deputy Norton or any other member of the Labour Party. Any insurance company will give him the figures for insurance to a fair amount, to cover cattle dying or any other risk that he might wish to cover. Then for the money invested in the business, he can fix any interest he likes. I leave him then to fix any profit he chooses for the farmer and add the item to £2 3s. 3d. These are the items supplied by officials of his own Department on which farmers are asked to produce beef at £2 3s. 3d. per cwt., and when he tots these items up he can fix a fair price. I do not think he can find fault with the experts of his own Department and I offer these items to him as an alternative basis, if he does not like to accept Deputy Belton's figures.

Mr. Broderick

Before we come on to the trading portions dealt with by Deputy Belton and Deputy McGovern, there is the question of the responsibility of the Minister under this Bill. You are now dealing with the levy and the levy is not liable to be paid until the inspector has marked the animal and it is delivered up to the trader. What are the responsibilities of the Department in connection with that levy? The butcher pays £1 for slaughtering the animal, after which he brings it in and slaughters it. It has been passed by one officer of the Ministry and a tribute is paid to the Minister for that right of slaughter. The man who pays that assumes that he is getting a perfectly sound and healthy animal. Then another officer comes along and condemns the meat of that animal. What is the responsibility or liability of the Ministry in connection with that matter? Surely it cannot be held that they are free from responsibility. The inspector of the Department has marked the beast, sheep, or whatever it may be, as an animal fit for slaughter. The butcher is charged £1 for killing the beast or 5/- in the case of a sheep. After slaughter, another officer of the Ministry or of another Department, I shall assume, condemns that beast. What becomes of the responsibility of the Ministry in regard to the fee of £1 which has been charged for killing the beast? I think the Ministry cannot get out of responsibility in this case.

I would point out to the Minister that his Department is now accepting a responsibility which it has evaded for a long time. It has been regarded as a gross injustice that one section of the community should guarantee by their own losses the health of the meat exposed for sale. I cannot see whether the Minister is now accepting responsibility for any condemnations that occur of meat from a beast on which the fee has been paid. I should like the Minister to answer the question. With some knowledge of the subject I can say that these condemnations of meat, in whole or in part, are more general than the public is aware of. I do not think the Minister is quite as ruthless as his words on a previous stage would indicate when he said that if these men could not carry on they must get out. I do not think he would be quite so ruthless as that. From the Labour Benches I heard a good deal of talk about profiteers on that occasion. Does the Minister accept such responsibility for these condemnations as is implied in the guarantee of his officer that the animal is one fit for slaughter? When the butcher accepts that guarantee, the liability must be on the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

We have no responsibility for seeing that an animal is sound. When the marking provisions are brought into operation, our inspector will mark the animals and will say that these animals cannot be slaughtered before a certain date. But nobody, under this Bill or any other Act, can compel a butcher to buy a certain animal. If the butcher believes that an animal has tuberculosis, even though the animal is marked by our inspector for slaughter, he need not take it. He can leave it there, so that the butcher is in no worse position than before.

Mr. Broderick

Will you permit me to deal with that in a moment?

Dr. Ryan

I do not think he is in any worse position. With regard to the point raised by Deputy McGovern, I could not follow exactly his line of reasoning and I am afraid I shall have to ask him to forward me the documents for further examination.

I shall send them over to you.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Belton talks about a price which is 15/- below the world market. I do not know how he makes that out because I thought Deputy Belton agreed on the Second Stage that before the quota came into operation, the difference between the tariff and the bounty would be about £4 5s. 0d. Therefore on a nine-cwt. animal the difference would be about 9/- per cwt.

And the price of the licence?

Dr. Ryan

The licence does not come into it. I do not know how the Deputy makes it 15/-. If the Deputy did not exaggerate so much, he might be taken seriously but he does exaggerate his case very often and it is not necessary because sometimes he has a good case. He says that the producer is going to pay this levy because we are below the world price. The Deputy several times on Second Reading said that the producer must pay this but he is now twisting and wriggling and he is trying to save himself by saying that we are below the world price. Of course the Deputy knows that it is no such thing.

Knows what?

Dr. Ryan

He knows well that is not true. He knows that if we fix a price —it does not matter if we fix 50/—if the butcher has to pay that 50/-, he will take it off the consumer. He will take the £1 off the consumer. He must pay the producer the price fixed and he will pass the £1 on to the consumer. The producer will not pay the levy. The Deputy cannot be a fool at all times.

Take care of your own fooling, do not mind mine. It is very hard to remember how many times you made a fool of yourself.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy says that I gave licences worth £5 to Britishers. Of course I gave licences to Britishers.

Will you tell that to your own supporters?

Dr. Ryan

I shall continue to give them to the people who came into this country this month last year, in the same proportion, whether they are Britishers, North of Irelanders or Free Staters.

Tell them that at the cross-roads.

Dr. Ryan

Of course I shall tell them.

That is one for Deputy Smith to bring to Cavan.

Dr. Ryan

The trouble with the Deputy is that we tell them at the cross-roads and still they stick to us— 36 to 12. A price of 25/- per cwt. was mentioned on the Second Reading for the purposes of calculation. I do not know what price is going to be fixed but 25/- was mentioned as possibly the lowest. There is no obligation on us to fix 25/-. It may possibly be more or possibly less.

Will the Minister say on what basis he will fix the price? He says again that the levy will have to be paid by the consumer and not by the producer. Surely before you accept that it will be paid by anybody other than the producer, you have got to fix a price?

Dr. Ryan

I said on Second Reading that we wanted in the first place to correct what was taking place in respect of the quota. That is, to get the producer what he was entitled to before the quota came into operation. Before the quota came in, I said he was getting the full export price less the difference between the tariff and the bounty. In other words, he was getting £4 5s. 0d. or £4 10s. 0d., according to the bounty, less for his beast than he would be getting if there were no tariff. We want to get back to that position and to correct the effect of the quota. It is on that basis that the price will be fixed.

The Minister knows that that is not a fair price. The licence is value for £3.

Dr. Ryan

We are going to fix the price so that the licence will be worth nothing. A beast bought at home by the butcher will be in the same position as if bought by an exporter. Therefore, the licence will be worth nothing. That is the position at which we want to arrive.

Then what the Minister proposes to do, in fixing the price, is to deal with the quota position?

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

As regards price only?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

I presume that the Minister will continue the bounty.

Dr. Ryan

Yes. If we want to deal with the tariff position, it must be dealt with by way of bounty.

The tariff and bounty position will remain. A new position was created by the quota system. By fixing the price, the Minister wants to deal with the quota position only. The other position will remain.

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

The bounty and tariff position puts the price of our meat 8/- or 9/- below the world price.

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

And we have to put up with that?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

The Minister is going to make no allowance for that?

Dr. Ryan

Half the land annuities is one allowance.

We are not dealing with the land annuities now. If the Minister wants to raise the land annuities question he will come out of it about fiftieth best. He admits that we must expect 8/- less for our meat than we accepted before we got freedom.

Dr. Ryan

We have not freedom yet.

I thought that when you came in here we had full freedom.

Dr. Ryan

No.

Then, I shall say before we got a republican government.

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

A republican government that is afraid of a republic. But we shall say nothing about that.

Dr. Ryan

We are not afraid of the Blueshirts either.

You say that inside this House. When you had a lot of the "slugs" around you, you said that but you would not say it man to man. We know, however, that we have to accept a price 8/- or 9/- lower than we accepted a year ago, so that we have to bear the full brunt of the economic war. That is the position which has been admitted by the Minister. I do not know whether the quota system is part of the economic war or not. I do not know whether it is an intensification of the economic war or whether, for some British reason, the quota was put on. But the British tariff was the British line of attack in the economic war. All the blows we are getting from the British economic war will remain. The loss of this 8/- or 9/- on our beef, admitted by the Minister, is to continue. He has nothing to offer for that. The Minister is putting 2/- per cwt. on to the price of beef, in the form of a levy on the butcher, but even if we get the advantage of that 2/- our price would be still 6/- or 7/- less. We are not to get the advantage of that levy. The Exchequer is to get the advantage of it. The true position is that we have to accept 6/-, 7/-, or 9/- less for our beef. The butcher goes on as of old; the consumer goes on as of old, and the consumer pays 2/- as a tax on his beef. Where does the amelioration come in? How does this Bill help the producer—the front-line trencher in the economic war? The Minister made one fatal admission the other day regarding a matter which, since he came into office, he has been trying to misrepresent and to deny. He denied that there was a difference in the price of beef, prior to the quota, measured by the difference between the British tariff and our Government subsidy.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy says that I never said that before. Will he permit me to read what I said in a debate here some time ago?

I did not hear it. If you tell me you said it, I shall accept it.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy was here on the occasion on which I said it. The debate took place on the Vote for the office of the Minister for Agriculture and it is reported in the Official Debates of the 30th May, 1934, column 2104. While I was speaking then, I was interrupted 129 times, 42 times by Deputy Belton, so that Deputy Belton was here to hear what I said. He interrupted 42 times.

Because of that, you had to let the truth out. It slipped out.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy said that I never made that admission before and he thought to get away with that statement.

The admission slipped on you when I interrupted you 42 times.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy wriggles and twists as usual. This is what I said:—

"As a matter of fact, all the time it can be put more or less at the tariff less the bounty. That was just about the difference in the fall here, but from the time the quota was imposed quite a different position arose here, and where the quota was very restricted, as in the case of fat cattle, the fall was more severe, whereas where there was no quota, as in the case of cows, we still maintain that position of a fall amounting to the tariff less the bounty, and then in the case of store cattle, where there was a less restrictive quota, the position remained about the same as in the case of cows.

Deputy Belton said that he never heard me make that statement. But for the fact that I have been able to produce documentary evidence to show that he interrupted me 42 times during my speech he would deny it still, because the Deputy would deny anything. I spoke for 75 minutes in that debate. I was interrupted 129 times by the Opposition. There is the record.

It shows what was shaken out of you: a little of the truth. As the Minister has quoted that statement I withdraw what I said. I am glad it was made, but we have to emphasise it by bringing it out here again. The Minister will not attempt to say anything to the contrary again in the future, I hope.

Dr. Ryan

I always speak the truth.

Even the Minister admits in the quotation that he has read that we are losing the difference between the tariff and the bounty. He put a figure on that to-night that relates to present conditions of 8/- or 9/- per cwt. Now there is a levy of £1 per beast. Let us take it roughly at 2/- a cwt. He says that because the producer will have to accept 8/- or 9/-, more or less, than he would normally by taxing the trade and collecting half off the butcher, that it does not come off the producer. Where can it come out of except out of the trade? It is no different from this position: that if, instead of fixing the price at about 25/—that figure fits in with the other figures—we fixed it at 27/-, would not the producer still be working on 6/- or 7/- below what he formerly got, and 10/- or 12/- below the world price? How the Minister can say that this 2/- is going to be paid by either the butcher or the consumer beats me, when the producer on the Minister's own admission has to accept 8/- or 9/- a cwt. less for his beef, which is 25 per cent. less than he would have to accept if we had no economic war.

The Minister has told us that there will be no compulsion on the butcher to buy. In view of that, we surely have the right to ask why the Minister should send his inspectors around the country to mark cattle to play the dog in the manger —neither to buy the cattle nor to let anybody else buy them. Why mark the cattle and prevent other people from buying them?

Perhaps the Deputy might postpone his remarks until we come to Section 19 which deals with the marking of cattle?

I think this point arises on the section, because the Minister told us that there will be no compulsion on the butcher to buy. Another point that the Minister lost sight of was the price to be paid for store cattle under this quota system. It may be all very well for the man who has beef to sell if he gets the fixed price and gets a licence. But the man who has store cattle to sell will get no licence. The shipper will get it. In that case the people who rear store cattle in the poorer parts of the country will find that there will be no purchasers for them. When the Minister takes upon himself the right of control and introduces that principle in this Bill, he ought to carry it to its logical conclusion and fix a fair price for all classes of animals. I hope the Minister will consider that before the Bill goes through, and that people who rear all classes of animals will get a chance of disposing of them.

We have been discussing practically everything but the section. We have been discussing sections 19 and 23. I rise for the purpose of making an observation on one of the sub-sections lest it might be said afterwards that we overlooked something that ought to have been attended to. Sub-section (7) of the section provides:

Service of a copy of a certificate made under this section may be made by delivering it to the registered proprietor of the registered slaughtering premises to which it relates or by leaving it with a person over the age of sixteen years at the said registered slaughtering premises or by sending it by registered post addressed to the said registered proprietor at the said registered slaughtering premises.

That deals with the cancellation of certificates for registration of premises. So that perchance if I, or some member of my family over the age of 16 years, happen to be in a butcher's stall registered under this Act any time after the passing of the Act and the Minister's agent finds it necessary to serve a certificate on the registered proprietor he may hand it to me or to any other customer in the shop, and that will be held to be binding service on the unfortunate owner. I think that sub-section ought to be deleted. Its insertion may have been due to a mistake or it may have been intentional, but in any case it is a sub-section that ought not to be allowed to stand in the Bill.

Mr. Broderick

I do not think that the Minister was fair to himself in his reply to the implications that I have put on the responsibilities of the levy when he said that there was no obligation on a trader to buy. Does not the Minister realise that a trader cannot buy anything but a marked animal? That carries a guarantee with it from the Ministry. It does not meet the question at all to say that there is no obligation on the trader to buy. The trader can buy nothing except animals that have been branded by the Minister's officials for which he must pay the State a certain levy. I do not see how the Minister can get away from his responsibility by ignoring the very big question involved in this. The Minister cannot have a levy and he cannot give the undertaking that the levy implies without, at the same time, accepting responsibility. The Minister cannot get away from his responsibility for compensation. You cannot meet the question by saying there is no obligation. I am sure the Minister will readily admit that there is, because if he is to continue trading at all he can only trade by taking in some animal branded by his officers and for which he must pay a levy.

Dr. Ryan

But surely there will always be a sufficient choice.

Mr. Broderick

The question of choice does not arise.

Dr. Ryan

There will always be a sufficient number of marked animals for the butcher to select from.

Mr. Broderick

You will have branded every one of the animals, and for every one there is to be a levy.

Dr. Ryan

The butcher may reject an animal. He may say "it is tubercular and I will not buy it."

That will be the inspector's job in the first instance.

Dr. Ryan

They might differ.

Mr. Broderick

It is too big a question——

Dr. Ryan

It should not arise under this Bill.

Mr. Broderick

It does arise under the levy.

Dr. Ryan

That point has been agitated for a very long time, but there is no reason why it should arise under this Bill.

Mr. Broderick

There is every reason, because there is now a levy by the Ministry for the first time, and there is branding by officers of the Ministry, which implies that an animal is fit for human consumption.

Dr. Ryan

The levy does not make any difference.

Mr. Broderick

It does.

Dr. Ryan

It goes into the cost of the animal.

It goes into the cost of the animal?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Taken from the producer?

Dr. Ryan

That is quite a different thing. I already told the Deputy that no matter how he may twist to get out of what he said before, he cannot do it.

What was the Minister going to say?

Dr. Ryan

As regards the point which Deputy Bennett raised, that should be further examined.

There is a sub-section (5) (a) which says that if any registered proprietor fails to make any return which he is required to make by this section the Minister may cancel the registration. Does the Minister not think that that is a very drastic power to have? I know the Minister will say that he will not have to use those powers, but nothing should be in the Bill which the Minister does not intend to use.

Dr. Ryan

Suppose he refuses to make a return, what are we going to do except cancel his registration?

Perhaps, for some reason or other, he may not be able to make the return at a particular time. Perhaps, the man responsible for making the returns might have died.

Dr. Ryan

We would wait in that case.

But still you reserve the power to yourself. It is a very drastic power.

Dr. Ryan

We want drastic powers.

Evidently.

Mr. Broderick

Is the Minister not going to consider the position I referred to?

Dr. Ryan

I think it does not arise on this Bill at all. It is a general question.

Mr. Broderick

You say that the butcher has a choice. Yes; he has a choice of animals branded by your officer, every one bringing a levy of £1 to the State, and every one by implication bringing responsibility on the State. Is it conceivable that a man brings in a branded animal, pays his £1, has it slaughtered, and condemned? He gets nothing at all. Then you say there is no responsibility on the Ministry.

And the owner may not sell him to anyone else.

Mr. Broderick

The owner suffers nothing.

The Minister will bear in mind that I made a suggestion about co-ordinating the veterinary services, in so far as possible bringing the veterinary officer in charge of the administration of the Tuberculosis Act into contact with the animals which he proposes to pass as fit for slaughter.

Dr. Ryan

There are no veterinary officers under this Bill.

There will be no fellow who knows his job under it.

The Minister will remember that I made a suggestion that some attempt might be made at co-ordinating the existing services.

Dr. Ryan

There will be no veterinary inspectors employed under this Bill.

But it might be possible so to co-ordinate the services as to bring them into contact, and make it impossible for a tubercular beast to carry the Government mark of approval.

Question put: "That Section 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Tá, 44; Níl, 33.

  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Séan.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Walsh, Richard.

Níl

  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • Rogers, Patrick James.
  • Rowlette, Robert James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."

This is one of the principal sections in the Bill and will require a great deal of discussion. It has reference to the marking of cattle for slaughter, and under it an inspector may enter upon land on which he even suspects that cattle are kept. At another stage I understood from the Minister that an inspector would only visit on the application of an owner or farmer. Certainly, this section requires some explanation by the Minister. It is one which I look upon as giving very drastic powers, and I want to hear a proper explanation by the Minister of what is proposed to be done under it.

Would it be agreeable to the Minister, in order to save time, if Section 19 and 20 were discussed together? Section 21 deals with the Minister's power to determine the numbers of cattle to be slaughtered. There is a tendency when we discuss two sections closely inter-related to have repetition in the same debate.

Dr. Ryan

That is not a matter for me, but for the Ceann Comhairle.

Does the Ceann Comhairle approve of discussing them together, and if needs be taking separate divisions?

It might be more advisable to take the amendment to Section 20 before we proceed to discuss restrictions on slaughter and sale in Section 21.

Dr. Ryan

The amendment to Section 20 is merely to exempt cattle kept by institutions for their own use. It reads: "In sub-section (1) (a), after the word "slaughter" to insert the words "for sale."

These are the only cattle exempted?

Dr. Ryan

Cattle not slaughtered for sale.

Section 20 is one of the most important parts of this measure, under which an inspector can walk into land and mark cattle. It says:—"It shall not be lawful for any person (a) to slaughter for human consumption in Saorstát Eireann any unmarked cattle." I do not see how the provisions in paragraphs (c) and (d) and sub-section (1) of Section 20 can possibly be carried out. An inspector may enter any land or any premises on which it may be suspected cattle are being kept. I take it that is governed by some governing Statute which requires an inspector to present himself first to the owner of the land, to ask permission to enter, and that it does not give an inspector an unlimited right to trespass on any land which he wishes to enter upon. The Minister will remember an earlier section by which an inspector was to carry a certain identification which he should produce on being reasonably required to do so. Is not that so?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Therefore I take it that Section 19 will not exonerate the inspector in effect from that obligation by giving him a general authority to trespass without let or hindrance without his having asked leave of the owner of any premises which he proposes to enter.

Dr. Ryan

That is not necessary. This, as a matter of fact, is to exempt him from any offence by way of trespass.

Surely sub-section (1) might be made effective to exempt him from any action for damages in respect of trespass by merely providing that he should first present himself at the residence of the owner and notify him of his intention or notify whoever may be in the house of the owner or by some other means notify the owner of his intention to inspect, and afford the owner an opportunity of exercising his statutory right to demand a certificate of identification? Otherwise you give that man the right to wander on to a man's land without any precautions. I do not really know how far this sub-section would go to give an inspector certain rights to expect that certain dangers would not be present on the land. I think it is only proper, if an inspector has a right to go on certain premises, that provision will be made to afford the owner an opportunity of warning the inspector of any unseen danger on the land and of satisfying himself that the inspector is a person duly authorised to go upon his land. I commend that strongly to the attention of the Minister.

Remember, a situation might arise in which an individual or a class of individuals had been trespassing upon a farmer's land for some purpose for which the farmer had little or no sympathy. He might go to his land one day and find a person trespassing and examining his cattle and he might misinterpret that person's purpose. He might take vigorous measures to remove him from the land and might even perpetrate a technical assault before the inspector had time to produce his certificate of identification. I desire to avoid the possibility of such a thing occurring. For that reason, I put it to the Minister that it is idle to put into one part of the Bill a section which obliges the inspector to produce a certificate of identification and in another part a sub-section which permits him to go on the land without producing it at all.

Coming to Section 20 (1) (c), take any farmer who comes into a fair with forward store cattle and the local butcher comes up and makes him a bid for them. He might very well sell them to him. If the butcher choose to buy forward store cattle for his particular trade, in ordinary circumstances the farmer would not be concerned to restrain him from so doing. If the farmer goes into the fair with forward store cattle, not enquiring and not caring what purpose the potential purchaser requires the cattle for, he commits an offence, inasmuch as he is doing something that is unlawful in offering or exposing for sale for slaughter for human consumption an unmarked beast. The moment he goes on the fair green with these cattle and offers them for sale he commits an offence. I say that is absolutely impossible to administer. It is futile to be enacting legislation that is absolutely impossible of administration. The law never takes cognisance of an unfulfilled intention. Here you are passing legislation which will require the court to inquire into the farmer's intention in respect of the ultimate fate of the cattle that he brought out for the purpose of exposing for sale.

Paragraph (f) provides that "it shall be unlawful to buy or offer to buy for slaughter for human consumption in Saorstát Eireann any marked cattle at any time before the date indicated by the mark on such cattle as the earliest date on which such cattle may be slaughtered." Supposing a butcher buys cattle for the purpose of keeping them for a certain time and when they are finished slaughtering them and offering them for sale for human consumption, does not that constitute a breach of the statute; or does he only commit an offence if he slaughters the beast on the day on which he purchased it? Can the Minister define for us what purchasing cattle for slaughter means? Does it mean that if a butcher purchases a beast as a calf and keeps it until it is a two-and-a-half year-old bullock he commits an offence, inasmuch as he bought the calf for slaughter for sale for human consumption? If he buys a yearling bullock and keeps it one and a half years and then slaughters and sells it for human consumption, is that buying for slaughter for sale for human consumption? If he buys it six months before he slaughters it, or if he buys it one month or seven days before he slaughters it, or if he buys it the day before the day on which he slaughters it, is that buying for slaughter for sale for human consumption?

The same dilemma arises under paragraph (e). Supposing a farmer in perfect good faith sells to a man who keeps a butcher's shop and also has a farm a bunch of cattle, having no reason to believe that the man intends to slaughter any of them immediately. Supposing the butcher picks out one or two of the dozen and slaughters them and puts the other ten out on after-grass to finish them, is the farmer committing an offence under this Bill? I submit that the provisions in Section 20 are absolutely unworkable except by caprice. When I say that I mean that no citizen knows what his obligations are, what his statutory rights or duties are under this Bill, and cannot know because they are incapable of definition. Any statute of which that can be said is bad law. It is the fate of statutes drawn on bureaucratic lines to break down and the end of this is going to be that the inspector will settle the law. We will find somewhere enshrined in this statute that the Minister may make such regulations as he thinks necessary to carry the statute into operation. The end of it will be that we will have the Minister and the permanent officials legislating for this cattle business and none of us can buy or sell a beast except in accordance with the rules and regulations made in Upper Merrion Street. From the point of view of the people that is a bad system; from the point of view of the State it is absolutely unworkable and from the point of view of law it is a rotten thing to be passing legislation which does not give the people any clear indication of their rights or duties. I think these are aspects of the question into which the Minister should look more fully before he can hope to get the Bill carried into law.

Dr. Ryan

The observations of Deputy Dillon are to the effect that the Bill is impossible of administration. I believe it can be administered; he believes it cannot, so I suppose there is no use in arguing over that point. The Deputy asks for an interpretation of certain clauses. That is a matter for the District Justice, not for me. With regard to the reference to trespass by the inspectors, in the ordinary way a farmer will make application, after an order comes into force for marking, to have his cattle inspected. In the ordinary way, if he has cattle he believes are fit for sale for slaughter, they will be inspected and it is to be presumed the inspector will call to see where the cattle are. Suppose we had to investigate a complaint about a beast being sold to a certain butcher which was not marked as an inspector would mark it, but which purports to be so marked, it might be necessary for the inspector to visit certain lands to examine if other cattle were marked like that. He might think it well to go without the knowledge of the owner and I think he should have liberty to do so. If the owner were to commit a technical offence in the way of a technical assault before the inspector produces his authority, it will be regarded as a real assault because the inspector will have the right to be there. It would be just the same as if a Civic Guard were there and were assaulted.

Surely the Minister will make some further reply in respect to the definition of a beast purchased for slaughter? If I am a butcher, and if I go to the fair and buy a beast on Monday, and do not slaughter it until the following Monday, what is the position? Have I bought the beast for slaughter?

Dr. Ryan

I would say not.

Surely the Minister will admit that it is nothing but trifling with the House to say that this is a matter for the district justice? We are here to tell the district justice what to do. The Minister is asking us to enact legislation which neither he nor we understand. Supposing I offer an unmarked beast to a butcher, and he slaughters it, have I committed a breach of the law?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Although I did not know whether he was going to slaughter it or not?

Or whether he was a butcher or not?

Dr. Ryan

All that would be a good defence.

Surely the Minister will realise that to ask the House to pass legislation like that is nothing short of folly?

Dr. Ryan

It would be a good defence that you did not know.

We cannot find out from the man who is responsible for the Bill what is the actual meaning of the measure or what is the law he intends to create. What is the use of legislation if nobody in the House knows the meaning of it? What is the use of a Committee Stage if the House is to pass a section, the meaning of which no Deputy knows and which the Minister does not even understand? This is really a preposterous section. We are told by the Minister that the proper person to define the words in the statute is the district justice. The district justice is not making the law. It is his duty to find out what we intended to enact and the position now is that none of us can tell. What does the Minister mean by buying a beast for slaughter for human consumption, by selling or exposing for sale a beast for slaughter for human consumption? How on earth can any man make up his mind on the merits or demerits of the section if he does not know that? If a man buys a beast on Monday and does not slaughter it until the following Monday, does he come within the terms of Section 20?

It depends on whether the beast is marked or not.

The Minister must make up his mind on that point.

Dr. Ryan

I think the Deputy is raising unnecessary difficulties. That is fairly obvious because while he says the Act cannot be administered he goes on to talk about the interpretation of different sections. If a man is in the habit of buying cattle and feeding them for a week or a fortnight, that would be taken into consideration. If a man is in the habit of keeping cattle a week or a fortnight before slaughter, that will be considered. But where a man keeps animals in his yard, and has no land on which to keep them, and where formerly he always did slaughter animals immediately after buying, a different case would arise.

What is the law?

Dr. Ryan

If the inspector can prove that the butcher bought these cattle obviously with the intention of slaughtering them before the date, and then kept them for some time, it would be an offence; but he would have to prove that.

Before what date?

Dr. Ryan

Before the date for which they are marked. If they are not marked it is an offence unless the butcher is in the habit of buying cattle and putting them out to grass.

Supposing he bought a calf and kept it for one year?

Dr. Ryan

I say that that is a point that would have to be interpreted by a district justice. The inspector makes his case. The inspector will say that this man bought animals for slaughter, and that he brought them into his yard, and was preparing to slaughter them when he visited the place.

The butcher will probably make the case that he always bought cattle a week or ten days beforehand. He will say I have a place for the cattle. Is not that a case for the district justice?

What becomes of the farmer who sells them?

The Minister said a minute ago that he will not send an inspector to anybody who does not apply to have his cattle inspected. Therefore, if I bring cattle into a fair is the responsibility mine that they are not sold and should not be sold for slaughter in Saorstát Eireann? Is that responsibility upon me? How do I know whether the man who buys them is a butcher from Dundalk or Kilkenny, or somewhere else. Under this section it is an offence to offer those cattle for sale to a butcher. It seems the responsibility is on me if I want to avoid a prosecution to see that the cattle are not sold for slaughter in the Saorstát. Is it fair to put that responsibility upon me? I must see that those cattle are not slaughtered in the Saorstát. That shows the difficulty there will be in administering the Act. A person cannot avoid committing an offence under certain sections of this Bill. It is not compulsory on any farmer, so far as I understand it, to have his cattle marked; yet he cannot expose those cattle for sale unless he takes on the responsibility of seeing that they are not slaughtered in Saorstát Eireann. Is that proper legislation. If the Minister wanted to mark every beast in the country he might send out inspectors to do that; that would be one way of going about it; but that is for the Minister. As the Bill stands, anybody who does not apply to have his cattle marked, no matter how honest he is, if he brings his cattle into a fair, is made responsible for seeing that the man who purchases them is not a butcher in Saorstát Eireann. What is the position of many butchers with land of their own? It might well be these cattle were not fit for slaughter for a month, or perhaps only one or two of the bunch may be fit for slaughter. In these circumstances will it be an offence for the farmer to offer them for sale?

Dr. Ryan

Did not the Deputy hear me explain the position of the butcher just now?

What about the farmer?

The farmer who offers or exposes them for sale?

Dr. Ryan

What is the use of my explaining the section if the Deputy gets up and puts the very same questions that I have answered in reply to Deputy Dillon?

I did not do that; I put the farmer's position.

Dr. Ryan

In every Bill that passes you will find clauses like this. The Opposition is going into all these things for the purpose of obstruction. Deputy Curran is not permitted to buy a stolen beast. How does he know a beast is not stolen? If he does not know he will not be convicted.

A person has a perfect right to buy a stolen beast in a fair if he does not know it to be stolen.

Dr. Ryan

A person has a perfect right to sell cattle here under this Bill.

Certainly not.

Dr. Ryan

I do not claim to know the law as well as the Deputy.

The buyer of a stolen cow at a fair has a perfectly good title unless the thief is prosecuted to conviction.

Dr. Ryan

A person has a perfect right under this section to sell his cattle to a buyer unless he knows him to be a butcher. Surely no district justice would convict a man who said he did not know the buyer was a butcher.

But if he did know he was a butcher would there be a conviction?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, because then there would be collusion.

Would it be a defence if the butcher had said he would not slaughter them?

Dr. Ryan

Yes it might be a good defence; but if this matter is approached in the sense that Deputies opposite are approaching it there is no use discussing it. Deputy Cosgrave has adopted the attitude of trying to make a joke. Deputy Curran says a man cannot slaughter a beast under this Bill.

I did not say anything of the kind. I said I wanted an explanation from the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

This matter is being treated by the Opposition in an obstructive way.

Not at all. My duty as one member of the Opposition is to see that the farming community in this country get a square deal in any legislation that is passed. We have a right to discuss this or any other Bill that may come before the House with a view to securing the betterment of the farmers' interests. That is not obstruction. I have a right to read this section under discussion and to give my interpretation of it without being charged with obstruction. I have put up an honest case to the Minister, and it ill becomes him to turn round and say I am causing obstruction.

I have not had an opportunity of hearing the full discussion, and would be glad if the Minister would be good enough to tell me whether it is his intention under the Bill to interfere with people who kill for their own use?

Dr. Ryan

No.

What is the object of marking cattle? Under Section 19 you mark cattle. What object do you achieve?

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
Top
Share