Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 22 Mar 1935

Vol. 55 No. 10

Pigs and Bacon Bill, 1934—Financial Motions (Resumed).

Debate resumed on Financial Motions.

Mr. Dillon

We were taking the Second Stage of the Bill and the Financial Resolution together when I moved to report progress on the last occasion. On that occasion I had spoken at some length and I propose to be as brief as possible to-day, though I must ask the Minister to recognise that his colleague, the Minister for Finance, has occupied over an hour in winding up on the Central Fund Bill, although it was understood that he would occupy no more than a few minutes. There are a few major issues outstanding in connection with this Bill to which I wish to direct the attention of the Minister. Section 100 provides for substantial penalties for under-production. I think he must consider between now and the Committee Stage the desirability of making under-production and over-production similar offences, similarly to be dealt with.

The cold storage provisions, which constitute the material part of the Bill, are founded on the principle that cold storing allocations should be based on the total production of bacon in the country. I think that that as a basis for these calculations is entirely unsatisfactory, inasmuch as a very much more relevant consideration is the proportion of a merchant's home and foreign trade, because it will be the policy of the Government to restrict the employment of cold stored bacon for the purpose of filling our quotas in foreign markets.

If the cold storing calculations are made on the principle at present enshrined in the Bill we might have a situation whereunder one merchant would be placed at a very material disadvantage in comparison with another when the time came to take advantage of the cold-stored bacon which he had been compelled to put in under the statutory provisions of this Bill. However, I recognise that the exigencies of time demand that as much as possible of that kind of discussion should be reserved for the Committee Stage. Therefore, I pass to the only remaining formidable principle upon which I have not touched as yet. That is the system wherein the fixed price for pigs and bacon is going to be arrived at. I submit to the Minister that no Bill of this kind is adequate unless it applies statutory obligation on the price-fixing authority to take certain considerations under review before they fix a price either for pigs or bacon.

With regard to fixing the actual price of pigs, in my opinion the Pigs Marketing Board should be compelled to consider carefully the cost of production of pigs, because, if that is not done, a situation is bound to develop sooner or later, wherein the pig producers will be ground between the upper and the nether mill-stone of this Bill and the cereals legislation. At present the Minister for Agriculture may by order increase or decrease the content of the maize-meal mixture of home-grown cereals, and the effect of an order increasing the content of home-grown cereals is to raise the price of meal mixture substantially. Therefore, it is vitally necessary, before any price-fixing order is made, that the Board should have before them the artificial price which the Minister for Agriculture is determined to fix on the raw material of the industry. He must take into consideration the circumstances that obtain in different areas. In one place pig producers will be using skim milk, which is an economical form of feeding-stuff for fattening pigs. In other areas they will be obliged to turn to fish meal, to provide the constituents that are otherwise available in skim milk, and there the cost of production will be proportionately higher.

A variety of other circumstances will operate to affect the costs of production. No price for pigs will be a just price or an adequate price unless these considerations are very fully gone into. I would go so far as to suggest that some statutory relation between the price of pigs and the price of feeding-stuffs should be fixed, so as to ensure that the Bacon Marketing Board will not do substantial injury to producers at any time of the year. There should be, of course, certain discretion in the Board, up and down, to meet the peculiar circumstances of any given period, but there should be secured to producers a minimum price in consideration of a certain price that may obtain for feeding-stuffs and other raw materials of the industry. Furthermore, when we come to the question of fixing a price for bacon I understand it is the Minister's intention to choose his nominees for the Bacon Marketing Board with a view to having consumers adequately represented. It will be essential that the legitimate requirements of producers and curers will not be allowed to sacrifice entirely the interests of the consumers, because if that were allowed to develop, this Bill would defeat itself. If prices were allowed to rise over and above what consumers would willingly pay, they will turn to some other foodstuff, to the grave detriment of the whole industry, from producers to curers and distributors.

I want to refer again to a plea I made to the Minister to secure representation on the Pigs Marketing Board for the pig jobbers. Lastly, I want to draw the attention of the Minister to this fact, that the legislation which we are now passing cannot be regarded in vacuo. It must be recognised that a variety of other Government activities are bound to have their repercussions on the pig industry and, unless these are taken into consideration, at the same time, this Bill cannot have the effect for which it is designed. I refer particularly to the free beef scheme. At present, the wide distribution of free beef has gravely affected the sales of Irish bacon, and I imagine, from my experience in the country, that that is largely due to the fact that persons who are getting more beef than they can consume in their own houses are trading that beef with their neighbour, or otherwise disposing of it. I fully recognise that no course should be adopted which would carry with it the danger of denying to a destitute person the food and sustenance that the free beef scheme was intended to provide but, at the same time, the Government should be wary, lest a scheme of that kind would do extensive damage to an industry which contributes to the livelihood of a very large section of the community. They will have to consider, if the present situation continues, whether these free beef vouchers should not be exchangeable for bacon, in certain circumstances.

I fully recognise that although to do that would be to defeat one of the primary ends of the free beef scheme, you could secure the disposal of beef at too great a price as, if the price of disposal of certain beef is the ruin of the pig industry, then, instead of curing the evil we have made confusion worse confounded. It is not our intention to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. We approve of it in principle. We recognise that there are shortcomings in it, and look forward to making considerable contributions by way of improvement on the Committee Stage.

I do not know whether it is appropriate to mention a matter that occurs to me in connection with the Committee Stage. Has the Minister made any suggestion that this Bill should go to a Select Committee? I understood that that was in the Minister's mind. I am glad to inform him that if that course of events is followed, we shall be glad to co-operate in that procedure on the Committee Stage.

Mr. Belton

I regret that a comprehensive Bill like this has to be squeezed into such a short space of time for discussion on the Second Stage. Perhaps we can agree to that if it is acceptable to have it referred to a Select Committee where, I am sure, potential as well as actual producers or feeders will be represented, and will deal with the question on business rather than on political lines. I am not fully convinced that this is the best way of dealing with it. Other countries have had to organise their pig-raising and bacon-curing industry. Our industry is influenced, if not controlled, by the British market. We have to fall into line with Britain, Holland and Denmark in carrying out an organisation scheme of this kind. The whole trouble in connection with this arose when England instituted a system of quotas to give effect to the policy of its Minister of Agriculture of preserving a certain percentage of the British market for home producers. In order to do that quotas had to be instituted. Under the quota system a certain allotment was made to the countries that had been supplying bacon to the British market. These quotas did not enable exporting countries to send in as large supplies as when there was an open market in Britain.

It was stated in evidence before the Pig Industries Tribunal in England that in Denmark cards were given out to producers allotting them a certain quota of pigs that they could produce at a fixed price. That did not preclude the Danish farmers from producing more than the allotted number of pigs, but what happened was that for the pigs they were able to send to the British market the price they received was two or three times greater than the price they received for pigs for which they had no cards. That shows the relative importance of the British market to the Danish producer. It provides a useful lesson, too, for our Minister for Agriculture and for the Government in its pursuit of external matters.

The fact that Britain set about organising her bacon trade by allotting a quota of pigs made it necessary for other countries, including our own, to organise their pig and bacon industry. That is shown in the Bill we are discussing. The Bacon Marketing Board and the Pigs Marketing Board in Britain are both representative of the bacon and pig producers of that country. When corresponding boards are set up here I feel strongly that they should be equally representative. I was not impressed by the suggestion made with regard to the fixing of prices for pigs and bacon. The ideal way would be to relate the price of bacon to the price of pigs, and the price of pigs to the price of feeding-stuff. That is the principle that has been adopted in Great Britain. They take the price of feeding-stuffs for the previous four months in fixing the price of pigs marketed at a particular time. They also allow something for management and a small margin of profit. I think that is a reasonable way of doing it.

The necessity for the control of pig production in Britain became necessary in view of the policy of the British Minister of Agriculture to reserve a slice of the British market for their own producers. It was easy for Britain to arrange to fill that. In fact it has been filled much more quickly than was anticipated by the British Minister; so quickly that it created a new problem for him. The position now is that Denmark and Holland have to control not only the manufacture of bacon but pig production as well.

As we do not control the British market, it is not a very easy matter for us to relate the price of bacon to the price of pigs, and the price of pigs to the cost of feeding stuffs. Our position is also different from that of Denmark—the same applies to Holland —because she exports bacon to Great Britain. Though the amount of bacon that she is allowed to put on the British market is large, it marks a definite limit to the amount of pigs that she can produce for that market. Different circumstances govern the industry here, because we have a bacon quota to Great Britain. I do not think we have any pork quota. We can send as much pig meat to Great Britain as they will buy from us, or as the price offered will induce us to send, without any quota restrictions. We can send it over to be used as pork on the other side. We can send it over as pork to be converted into bacon on the other side. In neither of these categories will it be affected by the quota in the British market. We can also send it over—and this is a very large trade—in the form of live pigs. It will not be affected by the quota in that way. I do not know that there is violent need for an elaborate Bill of this kind in these circumstances. I would go into much greater detail in criticising that principle, only I am aware that the matter will, in all probability, be dealt with more expeditiously in Select Committee than we can deal with it here in a general debate.

There is a Bacon Marketing Board and a Pigs Marketing Board in Britain and there are corresponding boards in Northern Ireland. In neither of these places do the boards take the nominated or ministerial form to the same extent as they are to take it here. I understand from the Minister that the principle on which these boards are to be constituted can, if it be thought wise, be modified or amended on later stages of the Bill. Consequently, I shall only make a passing reference to it. The Bacon Marketing Board is to consist of seven members, with a chairman nominated by the Minister. The seven ordinary members will be selected by the bacon curers of a certain capacity. The large curers are those who cure 77,000 cwts. of bacon or over; the medium are those who cure 33,000 cwts. or over and the small curers are those who manufacture less than that amount of bacon from pork.

The Minister has not disclosed in the Bill or in his speech how many large curers or medium curers or small curers there are. He has told us, however, that it is his intention to allocate two seats on the Bacon Marketing Board to the large curers, three to the medium curers, and two to the small curers. The House has not much information as to the equality of that allocation, but that is a matter that can be dealt with by the Select Committee and on the Committee Stage of the Bill here. It is not necessary to seek information as to that now, because I am sure the information will be available in Committee and that those acting on the Select Committee will act wisely. This Bacon Marketing Board will regulate the number of killings, the amount to be put into cold storage, the amount to be taken out, the amount to be exported and so forth. It will control the whole curing and handling of bacon.

I have not seen anywhere in the Bill provision for anybody to take the place of the wholesalers of bacon. The Minister will appreciate the need for something in the nature of the marketing facilities heretofore provided by the wholesaler. Very few grocers stock only one brand of bacon. Those grocers who want to have a variety of brands, because their customers demand it, will not have a sufficiently large trade to warrant consignments from the factory if the manufacturer or curer is to be his own wholesaler. The price will, therefore, be put up to the retailer, who will, of course, pass on the increase to the consumer. I suggest to the Minister that he should provide some sort of distributing machinery corresponding to the distributing machinery of the wholesale merchant at present.

The Pigs Marketing Board is to consist of six members and the chairman, who will be nominated by the Minister. Three members of the Board will be nominated by the Bacon Marketing Board which, in turn, is the nominee of the bacon curers, so that the bacon curers are to have 50 per cent. representation on the Pigs Marketing Board. The seven members of the Bacon Marketing Board are elected on a register consisting of bacon curers. We may take it that they will usually elect people of common sense who, after looking after the general interests of the bacon and pig industry, will have a special eye to the interest of the bacon curers.

Excluding the chairman, these three members will represent 50 per cent. of the Pigs Marketing Board, which is the only part of the machinery which can be used for the producer. In the case of 50 per cent. of the membership of that Board, their selfish interest— if they want to be selfish and there is a certain amount of selfishness in all of us—will lie in two things; getting cheap raw material for their industry and getting a big price for the finished article. Their selfish interest as members of the Pigs Marketing Board would be to get pigs—the raw material of their industry—as cheaply as possible, without regard for the pig producer. The other 50 per cent., who will act as a counter-irritant on the Pigs Marketing Board, will be three persons nominated by the Minister. I think he said, nominated from associations of big producers—but, anyway, his selection. I have a very decided objection to the constitution of the Pigs Marketing Board. Firstly, I am not convinced as to why the bacon curers should have any interest there, or as to where any special interest of theirs lies there except a selfish interest, and I do not see why they should be given any representation on that Pigs Marketing Board. The connecting link between the two Boards, of both chairmen being nominated by the Minister, in my opinion would be a sufficient connecting link, and I do not see why the bacon curers as such should have representation on that Board. I would not be so much against giving the Minister the right of nominating one or two on that Board—selecting them from anywhere, but of course selecting them because of their business capacity and business efficiency—if they were not either bacon curers or pig producers; but I would insist on that Board being substantially representative of pig producers, elected by pig producers by some machinery that I admit is not there at the present time. The business, however, is of sufficient importance to a large number of people and is such an economic asset to this country that it is well worth while providing the machinery to have such representation on the Pigs Marketing Board.

The Ministers of Agriculture in Holland, Denmark or Great Britain had a less difficult job to perform than our Minister for Agriculture has to perform if this Bill becomes operative, because, in the case of Great Britain, all they had to do was to regulate how much of the market they wanted and to control accordingly. In the case of Denmark, all that had to be done was to produce according to their lessened market, and similarly in the case of Holland. Here, however, we have, in addition to bacon, pork and live pigs going over. That presents a difficult problem if there is to be fair-play in the legislative machinery provided to deal with the whole matter. Let us take, first of all, the daily fluctuations in bacon, as given in evidence before the Pig Industries Tribunal. Adequate machinery should stabilise the prices for some fairly reasonable time, instead of having 5/-, 6/- and 7/- per cwt. of a variation in the price of pork from day to day. Of course, there is machinery provided here in the Bill, but I do not think it will be adequate when it comes to the test. Suppose, for instance, we hit upon a lean period, provided that there is certain machinery in this Bill which will enable the Pigs Marketing Board to go into business and buy up pigs at a better price than the demand would warrant—cold store them and deal with that bacon somewhere else—then they would buy pigs at a rate lower than the market rate when the prices would be high; but in both these circumstances you have operating a demand for pork. You have to take into consideration the buyers and exporters of pork and their side of the trade. You have also the live pig side of the trade. Now, let us take a period when prices are low. Pig producers must lose, and, of course, there is very little competition because, if pig prices are low here, it is only an indication that the demand for bacon and pork has fallen off on the other side or that there is too much raw material over on the other side. If our Bacon Marketing Board comes into the market to buy during that stage, they can raise the price very little without taking a terrible risk. Then the cycle passes on and, because of bad prices, there follows a period of small supplies, because the business was not paying. Our Minister for Agriculture is in the position of having to fill a quota for bacon in the British market. This is the function of the Bacon Marketing Board—to watch the pig market and to make sure to get sufficient supplies to fill that quota.

There are pains and penalties here, right down through the machinery of the Bill, which are to be imposed on each individual if he does not provide the quota allotted to him. He has got to do that or pay those fines. The Bacon Marketing Board wants to fill that quota. Let us say that there is a scarcity of pigs. That scarcity creates a demand. English buyers come over here and they buy those pigs alive, which is outside any quota, and they can export them alive for use as pork or to be manufactured into bacon on the other side. Confronted with that situation, I submit to the Minister that there is nothing in this Bill—and I admit that it is very difficult to devise appropriate machinery—to deal with that situation equitably for all concerned, bearing in mind that the producer, who was knocked about in the market in the previous cycle and who had to part with his pigs, if he could part with them at all, at a loss, now has the ball at his foot, and the bacon curer is under an obligation to fill a quota or else lose, perhaps, his place in the British market. The Minister has machinery here to fine all and sundry if they do not supply their link in the long chain of this Bill. What is he to do? Will he issue an order, or will he have power under this Bill to issue an order, saying that no pigs, either in the shape of dead pork or live pigs, can be exported from this country until he is assured that sufficient pigs are available to allow the Bacon Marketing Board to fill the quota he has contracted to fill in the British Market? That is a matter which I should like to put to the Minister just as I see it, without any adverse or favourable criticism, because it is a matter which needs to be dealt with, as I said in the beginning, in a business way and not in a political way by this committee which it is proposed to set up. If this committee were not being set up, not without a very convincing winding-up speech by the Minister, would I be in favour of all the restrictions in or even convinced of the need for this Bill at the present time, for one reason, and one only— that there are two arms to our pig trade, even to our export pig trade.

Up to the present, we have the free export of dead pigs as pork, to be manufactured into bacon on the other side or to be consumed as pork, and then we have the live pig trade. Because we have those two arms to our trade I am not really convinced of the need for the elaborate machinery proposed to be set up here. However, when it is fighting its way through those committees through which the Minister will have to pilot it, we will know a lot more about the need for it. We will then get the information which has convinced the Minister of the need for an elaborate Bill of this kind. We will surely be wiser then, even if we are not more convinced than we are at the present time.

Finally, I do wish to impress on the Minister that, if there is to be a ghost of a chance of this Bill working, the producer must get his rightful say in the Pig Marketing Board. There are some things in which I claim to have experience. In regard to others I frankly admit inexperience. As far as my recent activities go, I have not had much experience in the bacon or pig industry, but I am versed in it in a general way, although not in the special way in which I claim to be versed in other branches of agriculture. I am speaking for people who are not only in the pig industry in a practical way, and in a pretty large way, but who are in it in a scientific way. Whatever the cost, I would appeal to the Minister to make the Pig Marketing Board as truly representative of the pig end of the industry as he contemplates making the Bacon Marketing Board representative of the curing end of it.

There is another phase of this Bill which I do not like, and I admit that it is a difficult one. The working of this Bill will eliminate the small curer, classified in this Bill as the minor curer. I have noticed that elimination of the small man in a lot of the legislation by this Government. I do not think it is a good thing. We have got enough of big combines recently, and we are getting enough of them at the present time without saying any more about them. I fail to see how anybody can get into the bacon-curing business in the future who has not his head in at the present time.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would let the Minister in? I do not want to curtail his right, but I understand there is an agreement to conclude this business to-day.

Mr. Belton

As you would probably expect, Sir, I would be talking on this subject for a couple of hours were it not for this arrangement which has been come to. However, I am quite satisfied that any of those Committees will do a lot more business in a day than if we were talking for a week.

Mr. Roddy

I perfectly realise the short time which remains for the Minister to conclude, and I will condense what I have to say into three points. Apparently, Deputy Belton thinks he is the only Deputy in the House interested in bacon. To judge from his speech he is the only Deputy who knows anything about it. I realise that a Bill of this kind, in view of the quota restrictions, is inevitable, but it appears to me that if the provisions of this Bill are carried into effect it will create a monopoly in bacon curing in this country. There are many men throughout the country engaged in the curing of bacon. Many of those men have been in business for a great many years. The majority of them succeeded in holding their business because they killed a certain class of pig, and because of a certain kind of curing which is peculiar to themselves. In addition to the individuals, there is a certain number of creameries also engaged in the curing of bacon. Unless this Bill is amended, in the course of three or four years, those people will be driven out of business altogether, and the whole trade handed over to five or six men.

I now come to point No. 2. I am not happy about the constitution of the Bacon Marketing Board. Notwithstanding what the Minister said, when introducing the Bill, I still think there should be a representative of the producers on that Board. The Minister may think that because the chairman is his own nominee he is quite capable of looking after the producers' interests, but I do not see how one man will be able to hold his own against seven men who represent one interest, and one interest exclusively. It has been known in England that a Board comprised of curers alone depressed prices for what are alleged by the farmers, at all events, to be purely fictitious reasons. It is quite conceivable that this Board may, to suit their own particular interests, depress prices for the producer. I still think that if this Board is to have the confidence of the public, and above all the confidence of the producer, it will be necessary for the producers to have at least one representative on the Board.

The third point with which I want the Minister to deal is this; how does he propose to regulate the production of bacon in this country? There is some machinery in the Bill designed for that purpose, but if the production of bacon in this country is to be regulated the Minister will have to go a long way outside the regulations in the Bill in order to achieve that end. He stated, when introducing the Bill, that he hoped to reduce the production of bacon during the autumn, and encourage it during the summer months. Those are the months when pig-feeding is scarcer than at any other period of the year. If the machinery which the Minister proposes to devise is to be effective, how is he going to provide for the shortage of suitable feeding-stuff during the summer months? I could deal with that point at great length. However I hope the Minister, when he is replying to the points raised, will deal with the point particularly.

Dr. Ryan

The last point raised by Deputy Roddy is, of course, the real kernel of the whole situation and has been approached in a different way by the Tribunal who examined the question here from that followed by the British and Northern Ireland Governments. The British and Northern Ireland people have approached it by the regulation of production. That is to say they asked the farmer to contract to produce a certain number of pigs. He is not allowed to exceed that number for bacon. He is in Great Britain allowed to exceed it for pork but not for bacon. We could have done the same thing here. We could have gone out and said to the farmers "we want 1,000,000 pigs a year" or "we want contracts for 1,250,000 pigs." We could say to the farmer that he should cut down one in five pigs. The Tribunal that examined this question went very carefully into that matter and came to the conclusion that it was better to try the alternative method of more or less improving the present system, and keeping to the present system of production, that is to let the price regulate the production. This whole Bill is based on that principle. I think it would be obviously impossible to amend the Bill so as to bring in the principle of regulating the price at which the farmers could produce because then the Bill would be on an entirely different framework.

When I read the Tribunal Report I was personally in favour of regulating the price as they do in England. But on discussing the matter with the curers and with the officials of my Department I did come to the conclusion that it would be extremely difficult in this country to bring in a system such as that. That is because we have so many small producers. There is a very big number of farmers in this country—I know some of them myself—who feed two to four pigs in the year. It would be extremely difficult to regulate how they would be cut down. It is difficult to cut down a man from four to three or to cut down a man from two to one. In Great Britain, of couse, there is a different problem. There is a very large number of large feeders, men who deal in hundreds, and it is an easier thing to regulate it there. Eventually I came to the conclusion that we should give this system a chance. It may not work out altogether satisfactorily and we may come to the conclusion, after a year's working, that it is not satisfactory. Then we can go out boldly and adopt the other system.

Mr. Roddy

The Minister says that the price will regulate the situation. The price in the past had no effect on the production of bacon during the summer months. How does the Minister think it will do in the future?

Dr. Ryan

It will within limits. It will be too much to hope that we will get even production the whole year round but we will certainly have to give a lower price in the autumn than in the rest of the year. That is the real point in this Bill and it is the principle on which we are going. There has been a question raised by Deputy Belton about export. I want to be clear on this. We have free export of pork and where the carcase is meant for pork, but if that carcase is to go into bacon it comes under the quota. We have free exports of live pigs where they are for pork, but if they are for bacon they come under the quota. Our quota is made up of bacon, and of carcases and live pigs for bacon. Every month the latter are being reduced. They have asked us to cut out the carcases completely because they find it difficult to deal with them. It will also be easier for this country to cut them out. If we have this fixed price that hardship will be gone.

Mr. Belton

It is only what is meant for pork goes in without the quota?

Dr. Ryan

Yes; Deputy Belton asked whether if under this Bill there is a danger of shortage can we stop the export of pigs for pork. Not under this Bill but we can under the Bill that went through the Dáil yesterday.

Mr. Belton

I was more concerned with the danger of applying such a clause.

Dr. Ryan

There is such a clause there anyway. It says we can regulate alternative exports. We were pressed to use that clause in the case of small porkers under 80 lbs. weight. That was because curers thought there would be a great shortage in these months of February and March and they calculated that if these small pigs were kept by the farmers for bacon there would be a supply of bacon in the market in February and March. We did not apply it at the time because we came to the conclution that there was to be no shortage. There may be a shortage later on.

Mr. Belton

It would be up to the Minister in such a situation if there was a threatened shortage of bacon and he had contracted to fill the quotas, to stop such pigs going out for pork. Is not that so?

Dr. Ryan

That is true.

Mr. Belton

That strengthens our claim for a representative on the Pigs Marketing Board.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Roddy is not altogether clear about these two Boards. There should be, he says, a representative on the Pigs Marketing Board. That Board has nothing to do with the price of bacon. It has only to do with the allocation of killings, the allocation to the home market and the question of cold storage. When it comes to the question of fixing prices that is where the Pigs Marketing Board comes in. The producer is represented there. Deputy Belton says there is only a 50 per cent. representation of the producers there. If the Deputy will look at Section 120 (3) he will see that "the nominated persons will be persons who are representative of pig producers in the Saorstát." With regard to the 50 per cent. it does not make a lot of difference in practice. Where there are four to one then if there is a disagreement it is left to the chairman to fix the price. The chairman will act as the umpire between them.

Mr. Belton

When we get you in a room we will talk to you.

Dr. Ryan

If there were one producer and five bacon curers the producer would have the same power. He could object and the chairman would fix the price. In practice that is going to be a matter for the chairman.

Mr. Belton

The obvious retort to that is that the Board have no power.

Dr. Ryan

They have if they agree. This is only one of the functions of the Board—fixing the prices. On other questions the majority rules the same as in any other association. Another point raised by Deputy Roddy is that he is afraid this will give a monopoly to the large curers. I do not think that is correct, but this is a point that we will deal with in the next stage. I think Deputy Roddy will be convinced that what he says about the large curer is not altogether true. The danger is not so great. There is this to be said, that every regulation Bill has that defect. That difficulty will always be met with. You establish the people that are there, and you do not give a chance to anybody to come along. It is very hard to get over that difficulty.

Mr. Roddy

There is no provision whatever made for those people who have to go out of business.

Dr. Ryan

The small men are well safeguarded, and I am quite prepared, as a matter of fact, further to safeguard them on Committee Stage, if it is considered necessary. I think, however, that they are quite well safeguarded. Under-production and over-production, Deputy Dillon says, should be subject to similar penalties. That is being dealt with on Committee Stage. There is one other point I think I should deal with. Deputy Belton asked if the representation on the Bacon Marketing Board is equitable. I have not got the figures, but I am quite prepared to get the figures on any stage of the Bill—on Committee Stage, perhaps—to show how many there are in the larger curers' class and what percentage of the whole the total bacon produced by them is, how many curers there are in the middle class and the percentage cured by them and, similarly, with the third class.

Representation on the number of factories is, of course, altogether out of proportion. It is in favour of the bigger men. The bigger factories have practically one each while the smaller men have pehaps only one for each five. On production of bacon, however, it is the other way round, the small men having the bigger representation. That is how it works out, so that there is a balance between the two. It would appear to be equitable, but, in any case, I had every bacon curer in the country present at a meeting at which this representation was fixed and they were all agreeable to it. If they are agreeable themselves, we need not worry very much about them. I may say that they were also agreeable to the powers of the Chairman of the Bacon Marketing Board in that, if there was one dissentient, he should decide.

Mr. Belton

It is not a composite Board like the Pigs Marketing Board would be.

Dr. Ryan

That is true. With regard to the wholesalers, we are not interfering with them in this Bill. As a matter of fact, we are specifically exempting them and giving them power to smoke and to process bacon to a certain extent, under Section 40, sub-section (4). Otherwise, we do not deal with them at all, as we think they should not come within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Belton

Is there any inlet for an individual who might want to start bacon curing in future?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, that is provided for. The Minister may issue a licence.

Mr. Belton

The minor curers are being cut out. They will gradually die out unless they qualify to the larger amount.

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Belton

If a new curer comes along, say, two or three years hence, will he have to start off with the larger amount to qualify?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, he will have to start with the larger amount.

Financial Resolution No. 1 agreed to.

Financial Resolution No. 2 agreed to.

General Mulcahy

On Financial Resolution No. 3, the Minister, I think, is aware that Emergency (Imposition of Duty) Orders were issued last year, the first in May, imposing an Excise duty of 5/- on every pig killed for the production of bacon; in October, raising the duty to 7/-; and in December, raising it to 10/-. I should like the Minister to say whether the Financial Resolutions, which are now being passed will impose a cost on the killing of pigs in addition to the cost imposed by these Orders? The Minister told us, in reply to a Parliamentary question, recently, that under the Orders issued last year, £182,000 were collected. If the Excise duty on the killing of pigs is going to remain at 10/- a pig, instead of £182,000 being collected this year, the amount that will be collected, and collected annually, as long as that Excise duty remains, will probably be £500,000. The cost of bacon to the people of this country is being raised to the extent of £500,000 a year by the Excise duties which have been imposed during the last nine months. I should like the Minister to tell us whether it is the intention to continue that taxation on the consumers of bacon in the country and to what extent the Financial Resolutions that are now being passed are going to increase the burden on the consumer of bacon in the country.

Dr. Ryan

As soon as this Bill becomes operative, which I do not expect will be sooner than the 1st July, so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned, it will ask for no further levy through the Revenue Commissioners. That levy was put on at our request in order to increase our export bounties fund, and, although collected by the Revenue Commissioners, it was earmarked for that purpose. We do not intend to ask for any further levy in that way. I think the Minister for Finance has no intention of raising revenue in that manner but I could not tie him to that in respect of any future Budget. These Excise levies will be dropped when this Bill comes into operation.

General Mulcahy

The Minister, I think, is aware that the Emergency (Imposition of Duty) Order, raising the duty to 10/-, has not been put before the House for discussion. Can he tell us when the House will have an opportunity of discussing that Order?

Dr. Ryan

I should want to look that point up, but there is a statutory limit to the time within which it must come before the House.

General Mulcahy

But, in the meantime, the people are paying more for their bacon.

Financial Resolution No. 3 agreed to.

Financial Resolution No. 4 agreed to.

Resolutions reported and agreed to.