I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 6, line 26, Section 2, to insert after the word "ham" the words "and gammons".
Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Bill, 1935. - Pigs and Bacon Bill, 1934—Report Stage.
I should like to ask the Minister if he intends proceeding with this Bill now in view of the changed conditions? This Bill was prompted by the British quota system, and I presume that the Minister is aware that the British are now about to abandon that system and institute a levy on bacon imported into Britain. If that is so, does the Minister intend to proceed with this Bill?
Dr. Ryan
I do not think that arises here, and in any case, the answer is in the negative. There is no change.
It does not arise here.
Dr. Ryan
The amendment I have moved was agreed to on the Committee Stage. Its object is merely to add the words "and gammons" after the word "ham".
I take this occasion, on this amendment, to make an observation in regard to the Special Committee, lest any misapprehension should exist. The Special Committee sat for three days and devoted itself to considerable examination and consideration of the Bill. The Bill emerged from that Committee apparently unamended, because the usual procedure was adopted that, where the Minister indicated his intention of accepting an amendment, the amendment was withdrawn in order to allow the official draftsman to deal with it and put it in the proper wording. I merely make this observation because the impression seems to have been created in the public Press that no amendments were inserted. Far from that being the case, I think the Minister will agree with me that almost all the amendments in his name on the Report Stage are amendments that he was good enough to approve in order to meet difficulties which were raised in the course of the proceedings of the Special Committee, or to meet amendments put down by members of the Opposition, which, at his request, were withdrawn. I think it is only right that that fact should be made clear lest there should be any doubt in the public mind as to the care with which the Bill was considered at the Special Committee to which it was referred by this House.
Dr. Ryan
I think it might save time, in dealing with each particular amendment, if Deputies would bear in mind what Deputy Dillon has just pointed out. What he said is quite true—that I did agree to insert several amendments as a result of amendments that were put down by members of the Opposition and by Deputy Belton and others. I am not sure whether I should describe Deputy Belton as a member of the Opposition. I have put in something like 51 amendments on the Report Stage, and about 45 of these arose directly from the proceedings of the Special Committee.
Amendment No. 1 agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 7, line 35, Section 5, to delete the words and figures "31st day of December, 1934" and substitute the words and figures "30th day of April, 1935."
This particular amendment did not arise during the Special Committee discussion, but on consideration it is felt that we would have a better check on figures by taking up to the 30th April, 1935, instead of the 31st December, 1934. We were collecting excise levies from some time early in May, 1934, and in this way we would have a check on the whole 12 months for the purpose of seeing whether a minor curer qualifies or not.
I do not want to press the Minister very strongly in this regard, but I submit that this constant chopping and changing of dates after the Bill has passed through so many stages may result in hardship. When the Bill first appeared, the 31st December, 1934, was mentioned as the critical date. The Minister will remember that, in another part of the Bill, it was proposed to make the critical date the date of the passing of the Act and the Minister found that it would have a very profound effect on the trade in general and that curers would cure far more bacon than normal in order to swell their claims for a quota under the Bill. In order to put a stop to that, the Minister determined to refer back that date to the 31st December, 1934, to bring it into line with the date which he now proposes to change. We find here now that the qualifying period is going to be the twelve months prior to the 30th April, 1935. Will the Minister advise the House, in regard to this Part of the Bill, what effect that is likely to have on the several curers in the country?
Dr. Ryan
It only applies to minor curers. This particular amendment was the result of representations made by a number of minor curers who, say, entered into business in the middle of 1934. This change was made so as to give every one of them a chance to qualify.
Amendment No. 2 agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 7, at the end of Section 8, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Every regulation made by the Minister under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and, if a resolution annulling such regulation is passed by either such House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat after such regulation is so laid before it, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such regulation.
This amendment was also asked for by the Special Committee.
Amendment No. 3 agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 8, line 20, Section 11 (1) (a), to delete the words "forty-five weeks" and substitute the words "eight months."
On amendment No. 5, I desire to ask the Minister, in view of the fact that Deputy Moore had intended apparently, in amendment No. 4, to reduce the period, whether the effect of the Minister's amendment is to increase the period?
Dr. Ryan
No. The effect of this amendment is to reduce also. I am meeting the Deputy part of the way.
I see. The reduction is to meet Deputy Moore's point.
Amendment No. 5 agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 9, line 21, Section 12 (3), to delete the words "if he thinks fit" and substitute the words "after consultation with the local slaughter-house authority."
This was an amendment on which we had considerable discussion in the Special Committee, and I undertook to bring in an amendment along those lines.
Is this the amendment that was designed to provide for inspection of premises of a minor curer? Does this amendment arise out of the discussion we had in the Special Committee about the Minister inspecting premises and registering them as being premises of a minor curer?
Dr. Ryan
Yes. That is true.
And now the Minister proposes to register premises as those of a minor curer only after consultation with the local slaughter-house authority?
Amendment No. 6 agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 9, line 32, section 13 (1), to delete the word "ten" and substitute the word "five".
This was also asked for by the Special Committee.
Amendment No. 7 agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 10, line 59, section 15 (5), to delete the word "month" and substitute the word "period".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment No. 8 agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 11, line 17, Section 15 (8), to delete the word "or" and to delete paragraph (c), lines 18-20.
Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to tell us what the effect of this is?
Dr. Ryan
This was asked for by the Special Committee. Deputies who served on that Committee will remember that it was pointed out that we might inflict a very severe penalty on a person making a late return, and I undertook to strike it out.
Agreed.
Amendment No. 9 agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 14, Section 24 (3), to delete paragraph (c), and substitute the following paragraph:—
(c) the applicant satisfies the Minister that he manufactured at such premises—
(i) during not less than forty-five weeks in the first twelve months of the preliminary period, at least one thousand five hundred hundred-weights of bacon, and
(ii) during not less than forty-five weeks in the remainder of the preliminary period, at least two thousand two hundred hundred-weights of bacon.
This amendment also is in response to an appeal from the minor curers to make it easier for them to qualify. As the section stands here, a minor curer would have to manufacture more than 2,200 cwts. of bacon for each year. We are now grading it a bit for him. I am proposing that it should be at least 1,500 cwts. the first year and 2,200 cwts. the next year, so as to give the curer a chance to build up.
Amendment No. 10 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 15, line 9, before Section 24 (5), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
Where an application is made at any time for a licence in respect of any premises and the applicant satisfies the Minister that—
(a) he represents a company of not less than one thousand shareholders, and
(b) that each shareholder is a pig producer,
the Minister shall, subject however to the provisions of sub-section (6) and (7) of this section grant such licence.
The object of this amendment is to give the pig producer an opportunity to start a factory if he wishes to do so. At the present time, especially seeing that the number of curers is being restricted to the men already in business, it means that they are getting a monopoly and it may be possible, in spite of any precautions that may be taken, that the bacon curers would be able to start profiteering. I think that the Minister is aware that it is not impossible to do so under the Bill. In case, in any circumstances, the pig producers should have reason to complain of profiteering, it should be left open to them to start a co-operative business. I think the Minister agreed to that already. I know that I mentioned it at the time and I think there is no reason why the Minister should not accept this amendment.
Dr. Ryan
On the face of it, I admit that there does not appear to be much reason why Deputy McGovern's amendment should not be accepted, but the Deputy will understand that the Minister has power, under this Bill, to register such co-operative society or company, as the case may be, and if any case can be made for the registration of such co-operative society, I am quite sure that the Minister would agree to it. Suppose, however, we adopt the amendment, and suppose that 1,000 people, say, offer themselves as pig producers, I am afraid that no Minister could examine sufficiently into the bona fides of all the persons who said they were producers, and he would have to take that for granted. Suppose he is compelled to register a new company, it might be located in one of those concentrated districts in which there are many factories. Then the Minister would have to exercise his power and direct the Board to give a production quota to this new company. That would create great difficulties for the existing factories in that area. There are considerations like that which make it very difficult to foresee what the position might be in a particular case. On the whole, I think it would be preferable not to press this amendment. As we have all the time regarded this Bill as a non-Party measure, I naturally do not want to have a Party division on it. I do not see any very strong reason why the amendment should be rejected but, on the whole, I think that the Bill would be better without it. There cannot be profiteering if the boards use the powers given them. After all, it is assumed that the Pigs Board will fix a price for pigs which will leave the factory a fair margin for expenses and so forth. The Pigs Board is not going to leave big profits to the factory, so that there cannot be profiteering if the boards do their duty. I do not think that there is any danger of profiteering. On the other hand, if a co-operative society is organised in a district where there is no factory and where there is need for a factory, no doubt the Minister would license it. But it might be better to give the Minister more power to refuse to register in certain cases if the attempt were an ill-advised effort by producers against existing factories owing to some dispute. They might be glad later that the application for a licence had been refused.
The Minister will see that while ten or 20 persons might, in the heat of the moment, take it into their heads to start a factory that would not be warranted by the circumstances, it would not be easy to get the support of 1,000 pig feeders unless there was need for the factory. This section makes provision for certain other interests subject to reservations. I do not see why if 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 pig producers believe that they have a real grievance and are prepared to put down the money to start an industry in competition with men who have every advantage, they should not be allowed to go ahead. That is not likely to occur but it will do no harm to make provision for it.
I support this amendment. It would do no harm to accept it. I can foresee the possibility, if not the probability, of pig producers in general having a grievance later on. As Deputy McGovern has said, that grievance might be so universal that thousands of pig producers might decide to set up a factory against some of the existing proprietary factories. I do not think that it is asking too much to request the Minister to accept this amendment. Unless there was almost general dissatisfaction, it is not likely that the amendment would be availed of but it is a safeguard to the producers.
Dr. Ryan
I do not want to resist the amendment if Deputies think it should go in.
I should like to know if the Minister is leaving the door open to newcomers to the industry or if he is accepting in the letter as well as in the spirit the curers' recommendations. The recommendations of the bacon curers, as given in the report of the Pig Industry Tribunal, are the foundation of this Bill. On page 104 of that report, the following appears: "Steps should be taken to prohibit the opening of any new bacon factories except under licence from the Minister for Agriculture." The policy which the Minister is leaving behind him in the Department is, if not absolutely to refuse licences, at least to set up every possible obstacle to the granting of licences to newcomers. I am satisfied that this Bill is going to create a cast-iron monopoly. It will confine the bacon curing business to the families in that business. While I am satisfied as to that, if the functions of the two Boards are carried out in practice as well as they appear on paper, there will be machinery to check the harm that that monopoly may do.
Is the Deputy aware that the House is dealing with Amendment No. 11?
That amendment affects the principle of which I am speaking. Amendment No. 11 proposes to give a co-operative society power to start a factory, and it outlines the circumstances in which the Minister should grant a licence. The points I am raising about the Boards have a bearing on that, and I am urging that the Minister is establishing a monopoly. The present Minister for Agriculture will not be in charge of that Department for ever, and I suggest that his present policy will leave behind such a state of affairs as will preclude from consideration any claim by co-operators in the future to start a factory on the lines suggested in this amendment. Unless there is an unequivocal declaration by the Minister that the setting up of a monopoly in the bacon curing business is not contemplated, I should feel bound to support this amendment.
Dr. Ryan
I made an appeal to what I thought was the good sense of the Dáil not to accept the amendment. I am not going to divide on the question. If Deputies want the amendment, I am agreeable.
I have no desire to cut across the policy of the Minister, if he states that it is not his intention to give a monopoly to the bacon curers.
Dr. Ryan
No, certainly not.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 17, line 60, Section 28 (7), to delete the words "four weeks" and substitute the words "fourteen days."
As the Bill stands, when the Minister serves a notice on a curer or licensee that certain fees are due, the licensee has four weeks to pay. We think that is unnecessarily long, and propose to change it to fourteen days.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 19, line 28, Section 30 (3) (c); to delete the words "a fit and proper person" and substitute the words "a person, being a practising barrister of at least ten years' standing."
This is an amendment that was asked for by the Special Committee. As the section stood, "a fit and proper person" might be anybody—a barrister, a civil servant or any other person. It was felt by the Special Committee that the person occupying this position should have a legal training, be experienced in the taking of evidence and so on. At the request of the Committee I agreed to bring in this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 19, at the end of Section 30, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"There shall be paid to a person appointed to hold an inquiry under the immediately preceding sub-section such remuneration as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, shall fix."
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 15:—
In page 19, line 41, Section 31 (1), to delete the words "he shall think proper" and substitute the words "the said Boards may respectively require."
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 16:—
In page 24, line 28, Section 40 (3), to delete the words "one hundred pounds" and substitute the words "twenty-five pounds and, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding five pounds in respect of each day during which the offence is continued."
This is a matter that was discussed by the Special Committee. The Committee considered that the fine, as set out in the Bill, was too high. I was inclined to agree. I said that a continuing fine would be more advisable and I think the Committee agreed with that. I will not say that a continuing fine is fairer than a large fine. The Committee felt that, if an ordinary farmer contravened this section of the Act by killing a pig, there was no reason why he should be fined heavily, and that on the other hand, in the case of a continued contravention of the Act, a continuing fine would be more advisable.
The amendment meets the views put up at the Special Committee. I would suggest to the Minister, in view of the fact that he has now agreed to the principle of a continuing fine which I think adequately meets the requirements of the situation, that in the Seanad he should have an amendment moved fixing a fine of £5 for a first offence with a continuing fine of £5. I think that should be sufficient.
Dr. Ryan
I will consider that.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 17:—
In page 32, Section 65 (1), to insert at the end of paragraph (c) the following new paragraph:—
"such bacon is exported in one lot or consignment which does not exceed in total gross weight 14 pounds."
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 18:—
In page 32, Section 65 (1), to insert at the end of paragraph (c) the following new paragraph:—
"such bacon is exported under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister under this section."
This is the amendment, I take it, that permits of the development of the Brazilian market?
Dr. Ryan
That is right—or such contingencies.
Or even the Chinese market if the Minister gets adventurous.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 19:—
In page 32 to insert before Section 65 (2) a new sub-section as follows:—
"The Minister may grant to any person a licence to export bacon subject to such conditions as the Minister thinks fit, and may at any time revoke any such licence."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 20 is a key amendment. The purpose of it is to have one combined Pigs and Marketing Board instead of two separate Boards, as is proposed in the Bill. The decision on amendment No. 20 will govern a whole series of amendments—amendments Nos. 21, 22, 24, 28, 33, 34, 38, 43, 45, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 92 and 93.
As we have almost reached the hour of adjournment. I suggest to Deputy Belton that he should now formally move his amendment, and then move the adjournment of the debate.
I formally move amendment No. 20:—
In page 36, lines 39, 40, 42 and 45, Section 73, before the word "Bacon" to insert the words "Pigs and".
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned.