The decision on amendment No. 20 will govern amendments Nos. 21, 22, 24, 28, 33, 34, 38, 43, 45, 46, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 91 and 93.
Pigs and Bacon Bill, 1934—Report Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 20:—
In page 36, lines 39, 40, 42 and 45, Section 73, before the word "Bacon" to insert the words "Pigs and."— (Deputy Belton.)
In moving this amendment, I have in mind what I consider to be the more efficient working of the scheme at a lesser cost. I am not particular about the numbers on the Board and I was more or less influenced by the difficulties confronting the Minister. In addition to having the curers represented, he has divided the curers into three classes, and he has the problem of having those classes fairly equitably represented. If the Minister would adopt this amendment and have a lesser number than 12 on this Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board, I would prefer it, but it is because I know that he is faced with the difficulty of giving fairly equitable representation to the different interests in the bacon curing industry that I leave the number at that figure.
As I said last night, this Bill has for its foundation the report of the Pig Industries Tribunal. The Pig Industries Tribunal recommended the scheme on which this is built, and it was the bacon curers who put that scheme to the Pig Industries Tribunal. It is scarcely altered. It was more or less what arose in the British market that produced the necessity for organisation of this kind. Holland has an organisation with one Board, and I do not agree with the summary way in which the Pig Industries Tribunal dismissed the case of Holland as not being analogous to the situation here. They have one Board known as the Netherlands Pig Central and that is representative of the interests concerned, the bacon curers and the pig producers. If the Minister carries out the intention of this Bill and has two Boards, it is going to be a lot more expensive than if we have the one Board. I cannot see the necessity for two Boards. There are some things that bacon curers, for example, would do better than a combination of bacon curers and pig producers, and there are also things that pig producers could do better than combined pig producers and bacon curers, and for that reason I have amendments here governing that situation. The bacon curing members of the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board will look after the curers' interests inasmuch as they are purely curers' interests, for example, allocating amongst themselves how much of the bacon cured within a production period should go during that period to the various curers and arranging for the curers then to take charge of the selling of that bacon. As the curers will be the marketers, it is purely a curers' function.
There are similar matters on the pig producing side that will best be looked after by pig producers only. The Minister knows that the pig producers who gave evidence before the Tribunal put up a scheme somewhat on the lines of this amendment. He knows that anywhere that pig producers have been articulate since the introduction of this measure they have been opposed to the one-sided nature of the measure. They all say that it is a bacon curers' Bill. In no measure that has been introduced in this House have I seen any Minister acting with greater fairness than the Minister for Agriculture has acted in the present instance. I am thoroughly satisfied that his one anxiety is to get a measure that will deal with this problem with as near an approach to fair play for all parties as is possible. I am satisfied the Minister has pursued that course and I think that represents his real feeling in the matter.
We are, under this measure, setting up a monopoly of bacon curers. In controlling that monopoly we must be careful that the monopolists, the bacon curers, will not have too much power. The power that the Minister gives the bacon curers in the Bacon Marketing Board, and which I am endeavouring to take from them by this amendment, leaving it to be dealt with by a composite board of bacon curers and pig producers, is the making of a production period and the making of a production order for bacon. These matters govern the price of pigs. The Minister gives, and I agree properly gives, in the Bacon Marketing Board a voice to bacon curers in fixing the price of pigs.
In the Pig Marketing Board.
Yes, in the Pig Marketing Board he gives the bacon curers a voice in the fixing of the price of pigs. I agree he should, because if pig producers had the sole right of fixing it they would probably strangle the trade, injure it without intentionally trying to injure it, because they would perhaps fall into a lot of pitfalls. Bacon curers who know the technique of curing and the difficulties of selling bacon on the home and foreign markets would see the difficulties, but the pig producers would not. The Minister recognises that in fixing the price of pigs that is the key to the industry, and he allows equal voices in that matter. I hold the fixing of a production order for a period which lays down the amount of bacon that can be produced in that period also lays down, without saying so, the number of pigs that can be bought during that period. The Minister may say the Bill provides for a price for pigs. The Minister now has experience of price fixing in other domains. What good is fixing a price for pigs if there is not sufficient bacon cured within that period of pig production to absorb all those pigs? In other words, what good is a fixed price if you cannot get any price?
The experience of Holland and Denmark is there before the Minister. They have only one tribunal to do the work, and they have a bigger job to do than we have. In Britain where the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board were set up, they were set up in slightly different circumstances from those existing here, but not very much different. One thing the British authorities did was to have, on the one hand, a purely 100 per cent. Bacon Curing Board, and, on the other, a 100 per cent. Pig Producers' Board, and then they allocated the work for each. In this Bill the Minister has not provided for that. I do not think there is need for it. I think that a composite Board, fifty-fifty, will meet the case, a Board such as I have outlined in this amendment. The Bacon and Pigs Committees will respectively look after the bacon and pig producing end, and all matters that are common to both interests will be looked after by the Board and not by the Committees.
There is another thing about which the Minister makes no secret. I think he approaches this subject with a certain amount of nervousness. I do not blame him, because it is a big jump in the dark and he has to bear the responsibility for it. If it is a success he will get very few bouquets, but if it is a failure God only knows the bricks he will get. He should take up every idea that is suggested to him and examine it with an open mind. One thing he must have or the whole scheme will be foredoomed to failure, that is, the confidence of the producers —the confidence that there is something in this Bill that will give them hope for their industry in the future.
I submit that this Bill has not drawn from any producer one word of confidence. The curers have expressed confidence in it. Of course, they have, because they have got 100 per cent. of their recommendations. The recommendations are these in the Pig Industries Tribunal, and I do not think there was a comma altered when that was transferred into the Bill. There are also a few big producers of pigs, and their recommendations, too, are turned down. I am not saying that either of them are perfect, but I am going to say that this scheme lacks confidence, and the Minister would be well advised to pay a big price for the confidence of the producers and form a Board that will control all the material things in this organisation he is setting up, a Board in which he will divide the responsibility and authority between the curers and the pig producers. Within that framework let the bacon curers and the pig producers look after their separate ends.
In Holland the bacon factories were scrapped as profit-making institutions. They were simply given the pigs to cure at a price by the Netherlands Pig Central. The proposal here in this is to give the bacon curers the pigs to cure and to market at the best price they can but they will be controlled by the Board as to the price they must pay and that, of course, controls the other end of it. Section 120 is the only alternative to ours. Amendment No. 22 changes the Bacon Marketing Board from a Bacon Marketing Board to a Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board, and that is really the central amendment around which all the others ramble. Any functions that were originally intended by the Bill to be carried through by the Bacon Marketing Board I have left as functions of the Board. I have just changed the name of the Board. The pig producers have no right to interfere with the functions of the Bacon Marketing section. I changed them to be looked after by the Bacon Committee. When I came to the section dealing with the Bacon Marketing Board I did the same thing there. In the matter of the operations that were originally intended to be dealt with by the Pigs Marketing Board, and which were purely matters for the pig producers. I changed the name from the Pigs Marketing Board to the Pigs Committee. Where matters concerned the bacon curers as well as the pig producers I allowed them to remain as being functions of the Board. I do not think there is any need now to take up the time of the House any longer. The Minister and the Deputies have fully grasped all the ideas behind these amendments, and they are fortified with this—that in Holland and in Denmark they have been substantially tried out. In Britain where the Bacon Marketing Board and the Pigs Marketing Board were set up, the Bacon Marketing Board was exclusively dealing with the bacon curing and the Pigs Marketing Board exclusively dealing with pig production. The Minister does not follow the example of Denmark and Holland or the example of Great Britain. In Northern Ireland the first Board that was set up was the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board. The provisional Boards expired on the 31st March and after that they are to be elected of 14 members each. The Pigs Marketing Board is to consist of 11 representatives of the pig producers and three nominated by the Minister. I think they must be producers, too, only they are the Minister's nominees. I cannot see where the Minister has got the headline in regard to this machinery that he copied in this Bill. He has two headlines set—one by Denmark and Holland and another by Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He has copied neither, but he has set up the machinery which gives the curer control of the industry. In that he is forfeiting the confidence of the producers. I submit that if the demand of the producers were not a just one—and I hold it is a just one—even if it were an extravagant demand it should be granted. If the pig producers would not have confidence in the scheme without getting that granted, I would say it would not be too big a price to grant it. But in this case, when they have justice on their side and they are determined on their demands, and when there is danger of having the whole scheme foredoomed to failure if the demand is not granted, the case is much different. I appeal to the Minister to consider again the central principle of these amendments. The details do not matter, but I ask him to consider the principle before he turns down the amendment.
There are just one or two questions I want to ask the Deputy before he sits down. This group of amendments has really two vital principles enshrined in them. One is the division of the Bacon and Pigs Board into committees. The other is that the Production Order should be transferred from the Bacon Marketing Board to the Pig Committee of the Joint Board——
That is not the point. There will not be two Boards if this amendment is carried; there will be one Board and two committees of that Board.
The principle that the Deputy proposes is that the Quota Order should be transferred to the Joint Board.
The Pigs Price Order to the Board.
The Deputy will agree with me that the Joint Board is in effect very much the same as the Pigs Board at present, because it is a Board consisting of curers and producers, subject to the decision of the Chairman. There is a good deal in common between the Pigs Board in the Bill and the Joint Board which the Deputy propounds. If the Minister consented to transfer the Production Quota Order to the Pigs Board under the Bill would not that remove a good deal of the Deputy's objection to the present structure of the Bill?
As a matter of fact, I thought of that in framing the amendment. It nearly comes to the same thing in principle. I quite agree with that. Will the Deputy consider this— that it is very important to have one body, and I strongly hold that where one body can cover a job it will always be done better than if you set up two equal bodies. The Minister has set up two Boards—the Bacon Marketing Board and the Pigs Marketing Board. They are both of equal standing. Would it not be better to have a Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board with one chairman and one secretary? Would not the whole business of this scheme be carried out better by having one chairman and one secretary? If there is too much work for one chairman and one secretary, have assistants, but have one chairman and one secretary responsible for the whole lot. As a second line of defence or offence I would like to see the powers of the Pigs Marketing Board increased, but I submit that the other would be more effective, more centralised, more useful and more likely to gain general confidence.
I should like to ask the Minister on this series of amendments if there is any use, seriously speaking, addressing him on the proposal to get the fixing of the production quota order transferred to the Pigs Board under the Bill. There is really a good case to be made for that and I think Deputy Belton would co-operate with me in jettisoning the Joint Board if we could get the production quota order transferred to the Pigs Board. That would be an improvement. The Pigs Board is so constituted that it is to consist half of curers and half of producers. If there is disagreement between them, the person chosen as chairman of the Board will decide. So that you will have a situation in which both sides are able to make a full case and, after the preliminary period of violent conflict between the two elements of the Board has passed away, I believe you will find that the curers and the producers will, in seven out of ten cases, agree on what is an appropriate production quota order. In the remaining three cases out of every ten, where there is a conflict, the chairman will weigh the matter as between the representations made between the two sides and decide.
At first when this matter came under my notice I attached prime importance to the fixed price for pigs. I still attach fundamental importance to the fixed price for pigs, but there is this snag in it—that the fixed price for pigs is payable only to the individual who delivers the pigs into the factory. Any farmer can do that; but in practice what is going to happen is that the jobbers will deliver the pigs into the factory and they will be paid the fixed price, less the statutory allowances provided for here. The jobber will go to the fair. It is quite true to say that every farmer in the fair will know what the jobber is going to get for the pigs when he brings them to the factory. Let us suppose that the fixed price in any given week is 62/-. The farmer knows the jobber is going to get 62/- for the pigs and he is able to demand from the jobber a price which will be commensurate with the fixed price of 62/-. But this dilemma immediately arises: if the pigs production quota order has been fixed too low, the jobber will only want 100 pigs while there will be 200 pigs in the fair, with the result that there will be 200 farmers, let us say, each one with one pig clamouring for the jobber to take his pig and to leave his neighbour's pig on his hands. It is quite true that each one of these farmers will be entitled to demand a fixed price; but what will happen in fact is that one man will pull the jobber's sleeve and say, "Take mine for 2/- less," because he will prefer to do that rather than have a fat pig on his hands for another month.
It may be that no matter what precautions we may take that may happen from time to time; but we cannot close our eyes to the fact that if the production quota order, which may give rise to that state of affairs, is fixed by a Board consisting of curers only, that aspect of the case will not be as clearly present to their minds as if the order were fixed by a Board consisting of producers and curers where both sides of the case will be stated. My submission is, and I think Deputy Belton's is, that it is eminently desirable when you are going to fix this production quota order that both sides, the producer and the curer, would have an opportunity of being heard and of exchanging views. That is our case and I think it is a very strong case. It is a case made, not with a view to creating difficulties for the Minister, but with a view to making the Bill work, because it is the common interest of all of us to make the Bill work.
The Minister's objection is that this is a matter which obviously comes exclusively within the domain of curers—how much bacon they are, in fact, going to turn out—and that in deciding it they have to consider world markets, home demands and cold storage capacity. In fact, his suggestion has been throughout that the only things they have to consider are things of which curers have a peculiarly exclusive knowledge. Furthermore, he will submit that, in view of the exclusive interest of the curers in it, nobody else should have a say. Surely he cannot rebut our case that the producer has a very great interest in this question? Surely he cannot deny that the method which we propose does not by any means result in the curers being forced to do the impossible? On the contrary, there is an absolute safeguard in the constitution of the Pigs Board, because it is provided in the Bill that if there is any disagreement amongst the members of the Pigs Board—unless there is a unanimous decision of the members—the chairman must decide the question, and his decision will be deemed to be a unanimous decision of the Board. So that there is no danger whatever of the curers being handed over to the producers and having an impossible Production Order made.
There is an absolute guarantee that, if there is an apparent conflict of interests, the decision will be thrown into the hands of an impartial observer who, taking every legitimate interest into consideration, will decide what is best for the industry as a whole. I submit to the Minister that when he finds all sides who are interested in this Bill, except himself, agreed that it would be better to transfer this function to the Pigs Marketing Board, he ought to think well before he turns down the suggestion we make. Deputy Belton demonstrated his willingness to waive the Joint Board if he could secure this important concession.
It is certainly a most important one.
That is a clear indication that we are all desirous of co-operating with the Minister. I have no doubt Deputy Belton will agree with me, that if in working in the way suggested it transpires that any insuperable difficulty arises, we would put no obstruction in the way of altering it to meet any difficulty that was unforeseen.
None whatever.
Unless the Minister can see his way to make this trivial change great anxiety, and probably misunderstanding, will arise. For the reasons which I outlined, in connection with what may actually happen at fairs between farmers and jobbers, I submit that we have a really meritorious case for the transfer of this function to the Pigs Board, and that there is no solid ground for apprehending any evil by the transfer that we suggest.
It seems to me that neither Deputy Dillon nor Deputy Belton have shown in what way the Bacon Marketing Board would be likely to fix a production order for a period that would be unfair to the producers. They developed their case along the lines that it would be well that the two interests should be represented; that there should be discussion as to what the production order should be, and, in the event of failure, to agree that the matter should be fixed by the chairman. Deputy Dillon should know a great deal about this sort of business, but he has not shown us what would induce the Bacon Board, if the matter as proposed was left to them, to make a production order which would be unfair to producers. When the Deputy talked of what was likely to happen at fairs, in a case where a man offered pigs at a price lower than that fixed, it seems to me he is anticipating a production of pigs far in excess of the demand, and far in excess of present production. The Deputy seems to anticipate that as a result of this measure and the fixing of prices the population of pigs will soon increase, and that the production order will, of necessity, be so much below pig production that there will be a surplus for a certain length. I think that is a wrong assumption. The Bill does not propose to provide an economic price all the time, and is supposed to be a check on over-production. That is a point well worth discussing. I listened carefully to the discussion, especially to Deputy Dillon, because I understand he is interested in this business. He should be able to tell us what would induce him, if he was on the Bacon Marketing Board, as a man interested in bacon curing, to make a production order lower than facts put before him would entitle him to make.
That is hardly a fair question.
What is the objection?
What has the Minister to say?
This point has to be admitted by Deputies, that the potentialities of the production order affect prices. The making of the order directly affects the price of pigs, and, therefore, is of vital interest to the producers. They should be present when that production order is made. I am not going to say that the bacon curers would avail of it, but we are here to make this as perfect as is humanly possible. I might ask Deputy Smith: "What have the bacon curers to fear from pig producers fixing the price of pigs?" Are they all angels on one side and are they all thieves on the other side? We are doing this business and we should try to make it proof against any rigging of the market. Deputy Smith is not living up to the present day without knowing well how markets and fairs can be rigged, as they are rigged.
Let us hear what the Minister has to say. Perhaps he will meet us half way.
Dr. Ryan
I am afraid this particular transfer would cut at the fundamentals of this Bill. When Deputy Belton speaks of Denmark and Holland, and even of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I might point out that the whole conception of legislation in these countries is regulation of the production of pigs. We are not doing that at all. We are trying to avoid that, because we thought it would be better, if possible, to give farmers freedom to produce pigs as they did in the past. I am afraid if this amendment were to be conceded it would inevitably lead to the control of pig production.
What?
Dr. Ryan
To the control of pig production.
Surely when the pig population increases you cannot get out of control? It is because we are not producing so many pigs in relation to our requirements that they have not to be controlled, as is the case in Denmark and Holland. It is because of a shortage of pigs.
Dr. Ryan
Deputy Belton has given the House a wrong impression by saying that the Pig Industries Tribunal have considered this matter, and accepted the plan put before them by the curers, as if such a plan was opposed by producers. If Deputies will look at the report they will see on page 89 that the pig producers put their point of view before the Tribunal. First of all they recommended a pig industries council which would consist of five feeders, three curers, an exporter, a live pig exporter, and a representative of the Department, making a membership of eleven. That particular body was to discharge certain function of a very general nature. For instance, they were to consider the number of pigs that should be bred, the suitability of pigs for factories, the best type of pigs, and whether we should have pig testing or not. It was decided, when drafting this Bill, that these matters could be looked after to a great extent by the Department of Agriculture. They were to consider also the question of export bounties. They recommended further, that a price fixing committee should be set up from this pig industries council, consisting of three curers and three breeders.
Is that in this report?
Dr. Ryan
Yes—at page 89. It is recommended that this price fixing committee should consist of three curers and three breeders, with a neutral chairman, which is exactly what we have put into this Bill. That is we have adopted what the pig producers who gave evidence before the Pig Industries Tribunal recommended, and it is wrong for Deputy Belton to give the impression that the pig producers have found fault with this Bill from that point of view. That particular organisation I remember at the time had tried to get pig producers from practically every county in Ireland on a convention to prepare this evidence. The pig producers were as well represented as they could be at the time, and they recommended a pigs board to fix prices, such as we have put into this Bill, consisting of three curers, three breeders, and a neutral chairman.
I agree with that, but——
Dr. Ryan
I do not want the Dáil or the country to be under the impression that the recommendation of the pig producers was ignored. The pig producers were not ignored. Their recommendation was accepted. Deputy Belton on the Committee Stage and again here is anxious to have a board with two sub-committees, or three boards or three committees or whatever way you like to put it. It does not matter whether you call it a board or a committee. It would be quite easy for me to bring in an amendment calling one a committee and another a board, and in that way we might meet Deputy Bourke's point; he says one board is enough. Deputy Belton wants a board and two committees. The point is what should their function be. If we were to follow the Dutchmen, which Deputy Belton appears to be in favour of——
Not exactly.
Dr. Ryan
The Dutchmen appointed a committee which controlled the export business in bacon. It was composed of two curers and four producers, and it controlled the export business. It bought pigs for export, handed those pigs over to the existing curers in the country, and ordered those curers to convert the pigs into bacon at a certain rate per head on a commission basis. The curer had no interest in making profits or anything else, because he was paid a certain rate per head, and then this body exported the bacon. They did more than that; they also looked after the production of pigs. The Minister for Agriculture, in consultation with them, gave a certain allocation of pigs for the year. That was divided between the provinces. The provinces divided the number they got into districts. Then in the district a number of farmers were set up as a committee, and those farmers divided those pigs amongst the farmers of the district. If we were proceeding on that line of cutting down pig production there is no doubt the Board should be composed entirely of farmers. I would not have agreed, for instance, to putting two curers on such a committee, because I do not see what the curers have to do with cutting down production. In Denmark they are also cutting down the number of pigs as far as they can. A district has, say, 200 or 300 pigs, and the farmers form a committee which distributes the pigs amongst them. It is the business of the farmers alone to distribute those pigs. If there is a number of pigs available for the factories, and if the factories have to divide those pigs amongst them to be converted into bacon, surely that is a matter for the factories alone and not for anybody else.
Would the Minister say that again?
Dr. Ryan
If there is a certain number of pigs available, say, 20,000, and if the factories have to take over those pigs and convert them into bacon, surely it is a matter for the factories to settle how it is to be done.
Take 20,000 and not 19,000. The pig producer has to insist on 20,000.
Dr. Ryan
We will start at that point. Who is to decide whether it is to be 20,000 or 19,000?
Both sides together.
Dr. Ryan
Is it the factories or both sides together?
Both sides.
Dr. Ryan
If it is both sides, and if the factories are ordered to distribute 20,000 and they say it should have only been 19,000, how are we going to deal with them if they distribute only 19,000?
They fail.
Dr. Ryan
They fail?
Yes.
Dr. Ryan
And the point is that somebody has to step in and take over the factories as they have done in Holland.
Are they not getting a monopoly?
Dr. Ryan
Unless the factories work this of their own volition, and take over the number of pigs available, we cannot make them do it unless we take over the factories.
Is there not a provision in the Bill——
Dr. Ryan
It has been recognised from the beginning in this Bill that unless the factories are willing to work it to the best of their ability we will have to take over the factories and do it ourselves.
Did not the Minister himself put it provisionally in the Bill that the Bacon Marketing Board could take over the surplus pigs?
Dr. Ryan
A board composed of the factories themselves—quite a different thing. Unless the factories try to carry out the provisions of the Bill in the spirit as well as in the letter this Bill is going to be a failure. The only way we can compel them is to put in a provision, as there is in other Acts like the Flour Milling Act, that if they do not do what they are told, we will have to take over the factories.
Then the producers are entirely at the mercy of the factories?
Of course they are.
Dr. Ryan
The producers are not at the mercy of the factories. I am not a person who advocates State control, and I am only giving a warning in this case that the only alternative is State control.
Why not give power to the Pigs Marketing Board to cure pigs?
Dr. Ryan
The Pigs Marketing Board is not entirely representative of the producers.
No.
Dr. Ryan
And I am quite sure that the factories themselves would just as soon take dictation from me or from the Dáil or from the Department of Agriculture as from the pig producers.
But the pig producers must take it from the curers.
Dr. Ryan
By no means. That is altogether wrong. Whatever the factories may allocate amongst themselves, as Deputy Smith says, we cannot see any reason why the factories would not take the pigs that are there——
Surely the Minister is labouring under a most astonishing misapprehension about his own Bill. In Section 145 he makes special provision for a case where curers will not use up all the available pigs, and gives power to the Pigs Marketing Board to go in and make the curer cure pigs.
Dr. Ryan
It is the only way we have—a temporary way if you like; it cannot operate indefinitely—of dealing with the factories if they do not take all the pigs. It is only a temporary provision—anybody can see that—because when that is going to be operated up to 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. it must mean the taking over of the factories, but it is hoped at any rate that the factories will work this Act willingly. If they do not, taking them over is the only alternative.
Might I ask the Minister a question? Under the revised scheme suggested by Deputy Belton and myself, if the Pigs Marketing Board makes a quota order for 20,000 pigs, and the curers say: "We will not cure any more than 19,000," the Minister says: "Impasse! Crisis! There is no resolution of that crisis except by nationalisation of the pig industry." My answer is that the Minister himself foresaw the possibility of that situation arising and inserted, very prudently, Section 145, which says that if the curers try to run amok, the Pigs Marketing Board, through its Chairman, can intervene; they can have pigs cured themselves if the curers should attempt to dictate to the producers as Deputy Belton and others were afraid they would. There is no danger whatever in handing over the production order to the Pigs Marketing Board because you have a guarantee that the Chairman will decide if there is a conflict of interest. Therefore, there will be a fair check if the curers resist. Section 145 comes in and restrains them until they come to their senses. Why did the Minister put Section 145 in the Bill except to avoid the necessity for nationalisation?
Surely the Minister must see that if the pig producers say that 20,000 pigs must be killed, against 19,000 which the bacon curers say they are only able to handle, and if the latter say they are not able to deal with more, there would arise a question of stalemate, if you had not the chairman to decide. If even one curer says "I disagree, we can handle only 19,000," that transfers the whole authority to the chairman, who will have the power to say how many can be killed. The Minister talks of a surplus being created. If a surplus is created, it will be the duty of the bacon curers to see to it that it is handled. If that is not done, then, it is a matter for the Minister to come to this House and get the necessary legislation to deal with the new situation.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy must remember that if a surplus occurs, we will have to act on entirely different lines—on lines other than in this Bill.
I agree, but only in case a surplus occurs.
Dr. Ryan
I tried to point out before that we purposely avoided following the lines of Holland and Denmark in this matter, by trying to meet the situation as far as possible by leaving it to the farmers to produce pigs.
I agree.
Dr. Ryan
We ought to get the fundamental issue into our minds when dealing with this question: that Section 145 could not be regarded by anybody seriously as being a section to operate all the time, or to a great extent. It will operate temporarily and in cases of crisis. For instance there might be a strike——
Or the bacon curers might run amok.
Dr. Ryan
Or a serious fire might occur in a big bacon establishment, or there might be a dispute between the curers and the chairman, and we would have to say we will work this section to get over the trouble. It is to deal with the temporary inconvenience upon a matter, for example, that might arise between the Pigs Board and the Bacon Board.
How can that happen? Is it not simply a matter of the chairman being up against the Bacon Board? They may be divided, but the Pigs Board would be unanimous.
Dr. Ryan
Suppose the Bacon Board is unanimous in fixing the number at 19,000 instead of 20,000, how does the chairman come in?
Under our scheme the Pigs Board would fix the quota. The Bacon Board consists of a number of curers. They do not think they would want more than 19,000 pigs and they send their three representatives to the Pigs Board and say that they would deal with 19,000. The producers want 20,000 as the figure, then there is conflict and the Chairman must decide. He would send a message to the producers on the one side and the curers on the other, and having heard both, he would decide, say, that there must be 20,000. The Bacon Board then say "We will not cure 20,000.""Very well," says the Chairman, "cure your 19,000 and then under Section 145 I shall make you cure the other odd 1,000."
Dr. Ryan
That does not get you anywhere.
It makes it clear that the Bacon Marketing Board must submit to the order of the Pigs Board and where both sides differ an impartial decision is given by the Chairman. The Minister knows there is going to be no conflict between a reasonable chairman, having heard both sides, and the Bacon Marketing Board.
Dr. Ryan
I absolutely agree there will be no conflict if we do not provoke it. The Bacon Board would see to the curing of all the pigs possible if we do not provoke a conflict. Are we not trying to get the curers up against the producers? If the Chairman says we must have 20,000 they may unanimously elect for 19,000 and you cannot interfere. He may come back to the Bacon Board and say you must put up the other thousand under Section 145. Then, where are we?
Although this Bill has reached the Report Stage, some Deputies have intervened as many as three times in the debate. The discussion is on a point of importance and covers many amendments and the Chair did not enforce the Standing Orders; but the Minister must be allowed to make his statement without further interruption.
May I make a suggestion? I have tried to pick up the fundamentals in this matter. I think it is a pity that this question was not submitted to Committee procedure, and I think that is responsible for most of the interruptions.
It is too late now to suggest recommittal.
I admit that. On the Report Stage Deputies have not the right to reply and the Minister will not have a right to reply later on. I think that is responsible for the interruptions.
Should we not be entitled to make 15 speeches as we are discussing 15 amendments?
Certainly not.
Dr. Ryan
Perhaps if Deputies would hear me out it would be better. Deputy Dillon was visualising a surplus when he spoke of persons going to a fair with 200 pigs and only 100 of them required. He said there was a great possibility that an individual farmer might say to the jobber: "I will give you a few shillings if you take my pigs." That visualises a surplus and leaves out of account the fact that in this particular case the farmer could send his pigs to the factory. That does not hold in the case of cattle because if a farmer does not sell his cattle he might have to bring them home and keep them there for another month. He would not have to bring his pigs home for another month but could send them to the factory. I do not think you will have that difficulty.
I have stated my very strong objections to this amendment. Personally, I would be altogether inclined towards Deputy Belton's view—to give the producers all the power we possibly can give them—because I am altogether inclined to think that the producer should get every help and all the power that we can give him and that in framing this Bill we should not give the curers any power that we are not compelled to give them. I am altogether inclined to think in that direction, but there is no use in getting the producers up against the curers and making it impossible for the Bill to work at all. However, I am going to conclude with this statement. I am prepared to consider this matter further.
Fair enough!
Dr. Ryan
I would not like, however, to give any undertaking, because I do not see very much hope of being able to do anything in that direction. As I say, however, I am prepared to consider the matter, say, before it reaches the Committee Stage in the Seanad, and to arrange to have at least a consultation between the two Boards.
Cannot the matter be left open until then?
Dr. Ryan
I am afraid that it cannot be left open, but perhaps the Deputy could get a Senator to put in a similar amendment.
It seems to me that that is a gentle way of getting me to withdraw these amendments.
Dr. Ryan
As a matter of fact, I would prefer the Deputy to force a division on this matter. As I have said already, I am prepared to consider it in the meantime, but I cannot give any undertaking in this regard.
I should like to accommodate the Minister so far as I could, but I feel very strongly on this matter and, if it were the last word, I am going to register my protest and go away from it then. If, however, it is going to prejudice the general position, I should not like to do so.
Dr. Ryan
No, it is not.
Does the Deputy wish to press the amendment?
May I suggest to Deputy Belton that, if he is going to press this amendment, we should divide on amendment No. 43, which puts into clear issue the transfer of the production order to the Pigs Board?
The Deputy must remember that the House has got to dispose of all the other amendments governed by number 20. It has been decided by the Chair that this amendment rules some 20 others. The Deputy may if he desires select amendment No. 43, or any of the other amendments involved on which to decide the issue, but the decision on that particular amendment will govern the others.
Are we going to have a consolidated division?
I take it that it does not matter which amendment we divide on, but we are not committed to the words of any particular amendment.
One general principle runs through all the amendments in question. Any particular amendment may be selected to divide on.
Before this matter is disposed of one way or another, there are some of us who have not had an opportunity of speaking at all on this Bill who might be allowed the opportunity of saying a few words now. Personally, I would have wished that the Minister would have accepted the principle of the amendment in Deputy Belton's name and that at least the powers as regards the production order would be left to a committee equally representative of bacon curers and producers. Personally, I have no strong views with regard to the principle of having one committee or two committees. The Minister, in defending the proposals of the Bill, seemed to imply that the bacon curers got no privileges, in any portion of this Bill, that the producers were not getting, and that there was no volume of opinion from producers against the principle of the composition of these committees. Now, whether it is expressed in the Dáil or not, there certainly is a considerable body of producers very much against particular provisions in this Bill, and, notwithstanding what the Minister said, it seems to be commonly regarded, down in the various counties where they produce pigs, as a curers' Bill. As a representative of the producers, I have no hostility to the curers. Some of the largest curing establishments in the country are situated in my constituency and they are admirably conducted by prominent and highly-efficient and honest business men, but I submit that the curers are well able to take care of themselves. I think it is incumbent on those of us who represent farming constituencies to have some regard for the interests of the producers and, I might add, of the consumers also.
Now, it matters very little whether one or other of those two original committees under this Bill is scrapped. As they stand, both of them are practically controlled by the curers. If we substitute one committee for the two committees, we stand in exactly the same position as we stand under the Bill. I freely admit the difficulties that the Minister has to face, but I see no hope even of establishing a committee that would give the producers what they really want. It would be difficult to establish such a committee, I admit, and perhaps what we wish to have done in that respect might rather come from further amendments in this Bill, to which we will come later on, than by any composition of the committee. As regards the production order itself, however, I think that the Minister might reasonably accept the proposal that that particular arrangement should be left to a committee equally representative of curers and producers. The Minister expressed the fear that ultimately, if it were accepted, it would cause a cleavage between the producers and the curers and that it would start a war, but the war will be started anyway, whether the Minister likes it or not, if he refuses to accept this. I do not see how it will be possible eventually to stave off any disagreement between producers and curers, if this is not accepted. I admit that it is difficult to arrange for all these things. If the producers themselves had the drawing up of the Bill they would find it extremely difficult to produce a Bill that would not be very controversial and that would not lead to much difficulty in its working.
The Minister also said that, possibly, they would have to interfere in the matter of production later. If this Bill is going to be a success, the Minister or, if not the Minister, somebody else would have to interfere as regards the limit of production. It is inevitable. Some control of production is inevitable eventually. I think that a strong case has been made by Deputy Belton and Deputy Dillon for the concession that, at least as far as the production order is concerned, it should be left to a committee, to be arranged in some way, equally representative of curers and producers. I do not intend to elaborate on the various amendments here, some of them touching on points a little beyond this. Probably we will get to some of them later on. I know that the Minister will give it consideration. That is perfectly certain, but the Minister himself was frankly honest in implying that he believed that the result of his consideration would be that he would not be able to accept the principle of Deputy Belton's amendment, and, accordingly, I think it is up to the House to give some expression of their desire in this matter.
I want to make one comment arising out of the speech we have just listened to. Deputy Bennett described the feeling in the country with regard to this Bill—that there is a general view in the country that it is a curers' Bill, and so on. He then went on to state his own view on the matter, and said that there is no doubt that both the Boards are practically controlled by the curers. That seems to me to throw a curious sidelight on Deputy Bennett's responsibility as a Deputy. He remarked about the feeling with regard to this very important measure in the country and he implied, to some extent, that it is regrettable that that feeling should be there. Yet he himself, as a responsible Deputy, makes the astounding statement that both the Boards are practically controlled by the curers. Is there not as much reason to say, as far as the Pigs Board is concerned, that it is practically controlled by the producers? How can any responsible Deputy claim that a Board on which you have three curers and three nominated persons, representing the producers, with an independent chairman, is practically controlled by the curers?
But they do not arrange production.
The Deputy's statement of his own view, following his description of the confusion prevailing in the country, was that both these boards were practically controlled by the curers. It seems to me, with regard to these measures which are going through the Oireachtas, that we have a little more duty to our constituents and to the people of the country as a whole than to be describing them in that reckless way, adding to the confusion of the people. In my opinion, it is a very wrong thing for a responsible Deputy like Deputy Bennett who, apparently, has read the Bill to make a statement of that kind. There is no foundation whatever for saying that the Pigs Board is practically a curers' board. It would be just as reasonable to say that it is practically a producers' board. It is neither one nor the other. It is equally representative of both interests, and with a really independent chairman it should make an ideal board for its purpose.
May I say one word in reply to Deputy Moore? The Deputy says that the Board is equally representative of both interests. It is in this way: that the curers, through their own highly organised trade, have selected their own representatives. The producers' representatives on that Board will not be elected in the first instance. Over a certain period the Minister will have the selection of them and, while I am quite satisfied that he will make the best selection it is possible for him to make, at the same time these representatives of the producers will not have the same standing as if they were elected and as they will be eventually by an organised body of producers.
The Deputy did not safeguard himself like that in making his original statement.
On a point of order, the question at issue is not the composition of the two Boards but the power that the Bacon Marketing Board will have, and Deputy Moore did not touch on that. We want that power transferred to a central board or to the Pigs Marketing Board. I would be glad if the Deputy would apply himself to that question, and then answer for his constituents.
I do not think that any case has been made against transferring this power in regard to the bacon quota orders from the Bacon Marketing Board to the Pigs Marketing Board. I think the House should either agree to that or accept Deputy Belton's amendment and have the Board representative of the pig producers as well as the bacon curers. There has been no real case made against that proposal. The Minister should have regard to the confidence that the acceptance of the proposal would give to producers. If there was nothing else in it except the confidence that it would give to producers they are surely entitled to that much. In any case, where you have an impartial chairman will not the position be somewhat like this: that on the whole Board you will have, so to speak, two sets of lawyers pleading their side of the case, with the chairman deciding? There is really no case for confining it to the curers' board, Nobody wants to say that the curers have any intention of doing anything that would not be in the interests of fair play, but at the same time the producers are as much entitled to be considered as the curers. If there is any difficulty about arriving at agreement the chairman will be there to decide. I do not know how many amendments are included in this.
The number is 20.
I want to say that I would not be in favour of amendment No. 28 which proposes that:—
The Minister shall take immediate steps to have all pig producers registered and from such registered pig producers compile a panel to elect six members to the Board.
(2) The Minister may ask existing organisations to nominate six persons to represent pig producers on the first Board or he may nominate six persons himself from among producers, but the Minister shall provide proper machinery for the election of all members to subsequent Boards.
That would be all right if the Minister——
On a point of order, I take it, a Chinn Comhairle, that you are not putting that amendment now?
There seems to be some need for clarifying the position. The Chair has ruled that on amendment No. 20, 19 subsequent amendments stand or fall. There can be no subsequent discussion of and no question put on those amendments. They may not be moved. Deputies have expressed a wish to divide on amendment No. 43 as stating most clearly the principle at issue in the series.
Is amendment No. 28 included in this series?
Yes.
So far as the registration of producers?
Yes.
That brings in another principle.
I object to amendment No. 28.
Amendment No. 28 will not be moved. Of course, the Deputy may discuss the principle on the amendment now before the House.
My objection to it is that in certain counties where the producers produce only a small number of pigs, it would be very difficult to put that into operation and get them all registered. If the country were divided into as many areas as there are members to be elected, then it would be an easier matter for these areas to decide their own method of election of members. That is the criticism I want to offer on amendment No. 28. I am entirely in favour of the general principle to give representation to the pig producers, and if Deputy Belton's amendment is not accepted, then I think that the amendment suggested by Deputy Lynch should be adopted.
On a point of information, is the position this, that amendment No. 28 cannot be moved now to Section 98 (4) (d)? If we have not registration, how will the supply of pigs likely to be available be ascertained? We will only be guessing.
On the point of order raised by Deputy Belton, there is no doubt, I think, that part of amendment No. 28 envisages the creation of a new board, and that brings it under the general heading of the other amendments to which the Chair has referred.
But the part that does not envisage that goes down in the general conflagration.
You cannot get that unless you have a new board.
What is the position with regard to amendment No. 83?
Amendment No. 83 is not one of the 20.
Perhaps the Chair would give the numbers again.
Certainly, for the third time—amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22, 24, 28, 33, 34, 38, 43, 45, 46, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 92 (as numbered incorrectly) and 93.
I find myself in sympathy with the principle underlying the amendment moved by Deputy Belton. As a result of discussions which I have had with a number of pig producers throughout the country, I think the amendment is a reasonable one. From the conversations that I have had with these people they seem to think that they ought to have some say in regulating the production of pigs. I think there ought not to be any lack of confidence, if it were possible, in the Board which is going to perform these functions, but, unfortunately, we are a suspicious-minded people and we have not got that abiding confidence in each other that we might have. We prefer to do our own job. I believe that there is so much importance attaching to a spirit of confidence amongst both parties that this measure cannot possibly operate without that co-operation and understanding.
So far as I can find out from pig producers in my area they are anxious to have a voice, at least, so far as regulating the production quota is concerned. I completely disagree with Deputy Bennett and I believe that the men to whom I have been speaking would be as competent to take their places and represent the interests of their people as the most highly organised member of the Bacon Marketing Board with the organisation and skill at their command. I believe that there are some pig producers who, given a voice, will be sufficiently patriotic and intelligent and have that full grasp of the business that will be useful in determining what the quota ought to be for a particular period. The fact of having a representative, or representatives, there is going to be a message of confidence, whether it is necessary or not—and I am not so sure that it is necessary—but from what I have heard from many of those people, they look askance at being left at the mercy of the curers, because they feel they have always been "had." That feeling has crept up through many years of various kinds of marketing and they say: "We are getting into the hands of a complete ring."
I have done a great deal to disabuse their minds but I do not think I have been very successful, and, for that reason, I suggest to the Minister that if he cannot see his way to accept the amendment in its existing form—and I am not quite sure that it is in the very best form either, because the dividing of the Board and calling it two committees is not calculated to make a very serious impression on the actual results—I think he should reconsider the matter and arrange, in some way or other, to get representation for the pig producers in the framing of their own quota production. If he does so, he will have gone a long way towards placating these most important interests and laying the foundation of harmonious working and the success of the Bill. I think it is essential and I agree with Deputy McGovern and the other speakers who have gone before me, that it is a matter in respect of which it is well worth going out of our way to satisfy them if we can manage it.
I am very glad that Deputy Keyes has made that speech because it was precisely that point which struck me, having listened to the debate. It is really a question of creating confidence. I think that is what the Minister wants to do. He wants smooth working. I quite agree with Deputy Keyes that the form of the amendment is not an important thing. We are voting on whichever amendment a division is taken on because we believe that in this important question of fixing the quotas it will make for the success of the Bill if the producers are represented. That is the reason we are voting and I think that is what Deputy Belton considers is the essence, the really important thing. There are other things which Deputy Belton would like to achieve as well, but he has made it quite clear that the important thing is to secure, on this matter of the fixing of the quota, representation for the pig producers.
As I say, it is really a question of confidence and I think the Minister made it quite clear that, in a way, his own personal sympathies would be along the lines suggested by the arguments put forward by Deputy Keyes, Deputy Belton, Deputy Dillon and others, but he fears that there will be confusion in the working of the measure, lack of smoothness in the working of the measure and that, in fact, as he said himself, you are asking for trouble if you do this particular thing. If you look at it merely from the machinery or technical angle alone, there is something to be said for the Minister's contention, but I think that if you take human nature as it is, in the long run you will avoid friction—more friction than you will cause—if you do what the various speakers have asked the Minister to do. The Minister would find it much better to bring people together on this important question of fixing the quota, especially when the chairman will have the ultimate voice. If you do not do this, whether it is well founded or not, as Deputy Keyes said, you will have suspicion, and you will not have smooth working, that is, instead of having the matter discussed there and, if necessary, occasionally fought out there amongst the people interested, you will have a transfer to some other sphere and I am sure that pressure will be put on the Minister—he may say that he will have no power with the Pigs Board to do it—to use what is really intended by him only as a last resort, namely, Section 143, the particular section that gives power in certain cases to the Pigs Board to take over control in certain matters. If anything is calculated to do that, it is the plea on the part of the producers that they are not getting a fair show.
I think that, whatever the theoretical difficulties may seem to be and which impress the Minister, if he takes into account the importance of getting people together to discuss these matters, he will be avoiding friction. As I say, I can understand the office mind thinking it will be the other way around, but if the Minister considers it, he will realise that, in practice, he will be avoiding, instead of creating, friction. Remember that it does not require a big increase in pig population, as Deputy Smith suggested, to bring about the operation of a case like that which Deputy Belton mentioned of the people at a fair. A surplus is sufficient to do it and if we continue with restricted markets, there is the possibility—and there is no good overlooking it—of a surplus of that kind. It was no answer when the Minister suggested that if he is dissatisfied with the jobber, he can then bring his pigs to the factory. The big farmers may be able to do that but the small farmers will, in practice, not be able to do it. Theoretically, they can, but that again is a purely theoretical answer. It is not a practical answer because the small farmer cannot do it.
I appeal to the Minister to go a little further than he has gone already. For the real smooth working of the Bill he will find, in practice, that if he meets the case put up practically from all sides of the House— I do not know exactly, beyond those of Deputy Smith, what the views of the Fianna Fáil Party are on it in reality, but we have views put up by most people from all sides who are anxious for the smooth working of the Bill— he will secure that position better by allaying suspicions, well or ill-founded, by giving this voice to the producers in this matter, that is, by transferring the decision in regard to the quota to a Board which represents the curer and the producer, with a voice ultimately by the chairman. The Minister said that the chairman, of course, would have no voice if there was a unanimous decision, but if the curers believe one thing, there cannot be a unanimous decision against a curer in that particular Board. There, again, it will rest with the chairman, who, as we presume, is competent and has no desire unduly to hamper or cripple the work of the factories. I think the amendment and the spirit of the amendment are eminently reasonable and I trust the Minister will advance a little further than he has advanced already and go beyond the promise of more consideration.
In connection with that, although there may be much in his argument for leaving the working of the quota order absolutely in the hands of the curers, I should like to remind the Minister that producers were born before curers. If you had no producers you would have no curers and they should at least have some say as to what is going to be done with the industry. I quite recognise that, possibly, this Bill is not the last word. I know the peculiar position in which the Minister finds himself owing to certain circumstances existing at the moment; but at any time the best laid schemes or plans set up by the Minister may be blown sky-high. The whole thing is purely hypothetical and we must do the best we can under the present circumstances. What I am anxious about is that so far as this committee is concerned it is only right to claim that the producers should have some little say in regard to the working of this industry. I am particularly anxious because of the conditions existing in the constituency which I represent. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that at the moment one of our bacon factories is under a cloud; it may be put out of action at a minute's notice. The pig producers along the Border counties, which embrace Louth, Monaghan and Cavan, have been accustomed to kill their pigs and sell them in the pork market. Unless we have a representative on this committee who will voice the views of the producers of those counties, I can see, human nature being what it is, that possibly the other counties, especially the southern counties, will benefit at the expense of counties like Louth, Monaghan and Cavan.
I do not know what Deputy Smith's view is on that matter, but it is my considered view that the pig producers of County Louth will be at a great disadvantage unless they have someone to speak on their behalf. I was listening to the discussion to-day and I wondered if the curers took only 19,000 pigs out of 20,000 pigs in the country what would happen the remaining 1,000. The 1,000 pigs could very easily be in Louth, Monaghan and Cavan.
They could not.
The position at the moment is that the principal curing factories in the Free State are situated in the southern counties. Naturally their interests rest there.
Dr. Ryan
Deputy Belton's amendment does not go that far.
It may not, but when we are up against a difficult situation it is the duty of each Deputy to do all he possibly can to safeguard the interests of those he represents. I can see very great disadvantages accruing to the pig producers in my county unless they have somebody who will voice their opinions. The only way those opinions can be voiced is by the Minister acceding to the almost unanimous demand of Deputies on all sides of the House. I think I can speak on behalf of Fianna Fáil Deputies as well, because in their hearts they would prefer this. I know that Deputy Corry especially always likes to give the producer a say as to how his business should be conducted. The Minister would do well to fall in with the suggestion contained in this amendment.
Amendment 20, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 21 and 22 not moved.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 23:—
In page 37, line 33, Section 76 (2), (a) to delete the word "thirtieth" and substitute the word "seventh."
As the Bill stands we will have to wait for a month before the election machinery is put into motion. There is no necessity for that and it is proposed to change that period to seven days. I think there could not be any objection offered to that proposal.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 24 not moved.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 25:—
In page 40, line 19, Section 80 (a), to delete the words "the same time" and substitute the words "such meeting."
It is merely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 might be taken together. I beg to move:—
In page 40, Section 80, before paragraph (d), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"the election of ordinary members shall be held first."
In page 40, Section 80, before paragraph (h), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"if a person who is nominated as both an ordinary member and a substitutive member is elected an ordinary member, the nomination of such person as a substitutive member shall be deemed to be withdrawn."
This matter was raised in Committee and it was asked how did a person stand who might be elected as an ordinary member and also as a substitutive member. It is provided that if a person is elected as an ordinary member he is no longer a candidate as a substitutive member.
Amendments agreed to.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 29:—
In page 42, line 11, Section 83 (2), to insert after the word "himself" the words "without the consent of the Board."
There was some discussion in Committee on this point with regard to a person absenting himself from meetings. A person might be suffering from illness and would therefore be unable to attend. It was suggested in Committee that a person might be sent to investigate foreign conditions or something of that kind and the Board might consent to his absence in such circumstances. The consent of the Board in that case would be the same as if he were attending the meetings.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 30:—
In page 42, lines 12 and 13, Section 83 (2), to delete the words "be disqualified from holding the office of", and substitute the words "cease to hold office as an".
This provides that if a person is disqualified for non-attendance it does not mean that he is disqualified for life.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:—
In page 42, to delete sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 84 and substitute a new sub-section as follows:—
Vacancies occurring on the Board shall be filled by the interest or body who elected the original member.
I think the amendment explains itself.
Dr. Ryan
That has been provided for as far as it was possible to do it. For instance, in the case of substitutive members, if the vacancy is created by a large curer the Minister must select a large curer to replace him. If there is not such a person to be got, then he will have to provide somebody else. I do not think the amendment is necessary.
Amendment No. 31, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 32, 33, and 34 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37 overlap and they might be taken together. If on amendment No. 35 the Chair were to put the question: "That the lines stand," and that were carried, the two subsequent amendments, which apparently are a compromise, could not be moved. I suggest a discussion on the three amendments before putting the question.
Dr. Ryan
The matter was raised in Committee because it was not very clear what would happen. I think the amendments that I have set out make the position more clear.
Amendment No. 35 not moved.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 36:—
In page 44, line 10, Section 92 (2) (a), to delete the word "are" and substitute the words "or only one ordinary member are or is".
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 37:—
In page 44, line 12, Section 92 (2) (b), to delete the word "any" and substitute the words "two or more".
This amendment is consequential.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 38 not moved.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 40:—
In page 44, line 38, Section 92 (3) (a), to delete the word "attend" and substitute the words "or only one ordinary member are or is present at".
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 41:—
In page 44, line 43, Section 92 (3) (b), to delete the words "any ordinary members attend" and substitute the words "if two or more ordinary members are present at".
This is a consequential amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 42:—
In page 45, line 20, at the end of Section 95 (2) to insert the words "and the Minister shall lay such report before each House of the Oireachtas".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 43:—
In page 45, before Section 96, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister shall cause two committees of the Board to be set up and to be known as the Bacon Committee and the Pigs Committee respectively and constituted of the bacon curers' representatives and pig producers' representatives respectively, with the Chairman and Secretary of the Board as Chairman and Secretary of both committees.
(2) The functions of the Bacon Committee shall include the making of—
(a) an allocation (sales quota) order;
(b) a purchase order; and
(c) an order making regulations fixing the prescribed sum for the purposes of the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to levy in respect of carcases used for the production of bacon."
At the last moment is the Minister not prepared to give us a transfer?
Dr. Ryan
I could not give such a promise, because I do not want it to be said afterwards that I promised something and did not do it.
Will the Minister leave it to a free vote of the House so that the Fianna Fáil Deputies from Kerry can do what their constituents asked them to do?
None of the Fianna Fáil Deputies from Kerry except Deputy Flynn is here.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 38; Níl, 54.
Tá
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Coburn, James.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan John Marcus.
- Pattison, James P.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Cleary, Michael.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moore, Séamus.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.
Amendment declared lost.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
44. In page 46, line 34, Section 98 (2) (b), to delete the word "quota" where it secondly occurs."—(Aire Talmhaíochta.)
Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.
The following amendment appeared on the Paper:—
47. In page 48, line 5, Section 101, paragraph (b), to delete the word "five" and substitute the word "ten". —(Aire Talmhaíochta.)
Dr. Ryan
I am not moving that amendment, but, perhaps, Sir, you will allow me to say a word on it. Some curers asked for this, but when they came as a body they said they did not want it. At first they said they wanted 10 per cent., but afterwards they said they wanted 5 per cent.
Is this not the amendment put down at my suggestion to increase the tolerance down? We had a discussion about increasing it up and down. I wanted to make it 10 per cent. down on the production of pigs in a given period.
To allow 10 per cent. over-production and only 5 per cent. under-production.
There was a provision that there was a penalty for 5 per cent. under-production. Then there was a question of over-production. We urged that there ought to be a 10 per cent. margin in the matter of over-production because it was so easy to correct it in the following period. Does the Minister remember that?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
This amendment was introduced to meet that.
Dr. Ryan
I had forgotten about the Committee Stage, but since then a number of curers said they wanted it made 10 per cent. A number of other curers said they wanted nothing. Then when we asked the curers for a considered judgment as a body they said they preferred to leave it at 5 per cent. I do not mind very much.
I ask the Minister to move the amendment to make it 10 per cent.
Dr. Ryan
Very well, then I shall move the amendment.
That is, 10 per cent. for over-production.
Dr. Ryan
Yes, 10 per cent. for over-production.
And 5 per cent, under.
Is the amendment accepted verbatim, or only in principle?
Dr. Ryan
I am afraid it does not meet what Deputy Dillon wants, and I shall have to withdraw it and bring it in again—that is, 10 per cent. both ways.
I am willing to accept that if the Minister will in the Seanad make it 5 per cent. under and 10 per cent. over.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 48 not moved.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 49:—
In page 48, at the end of Section 102 to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
Every home-sales order shall be published in the Iris Oifigiúil as soon as may be after it is made.
This was also asked for on the Committee Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 50 not moved.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 51:—
In page 49, Section 105 (1) (b), to insert at the end of the paragraph the words "unless the said percentage of such bacon does not exceed twenty hundred-weights".
This is to meet the case also made by Deputy Dillon on the Committee Stage so as not to be troubled with small quantities of bacon.
This exempts very small curers from putting a trivial quantity in cold storage.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments 52, 53 and 54 not moved.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 55:—
In page 51 to insert before Section 111 (9) a new sub-section as follows:—
"The Board may at any time by order declare that there shall be no levy under this section in respect of any specified half-year or specified part of a half-year, and may at any time revoke or amend any such order, and whenever any such order is in force, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no levy shall be payable under this section in respect of the half-year or part of a half-year to which such order relates."
We have found from the experience of certain bodies, such as the Insurance of Cattle Fund, that some of these bodies became embarrassed by accumulating too much funds, and we had to bring in an amendment to allow them to stop collecting levies. It is much better to provide for that now, if it ever became necessary to stop the levy for a certain time.
This obviates the same dilemma which the Minister referred to in connection with the Butter Bill, where we had to collect a levy of ld.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 56 not moved.
I move amendment No. 57:—
In page 53 before line 1, Section 116, to insert the following words:—
"the word ‘carcase' when used in relation to a factory-purchased pig includes the head and feet."
There is no definition to rely upon as to what a carcase means in this case and I think the Minister should make it clear. The custom in Northern Ireland in weighing dead pigs is to weigh the head and feet with the carcase. I think the Minister should continue that custom and provide that the carcase include the head and feet. Whether it includes the viscera or not, I do not know.
Dr. Ryan
I think the Deputy is under a misapprehension because a factory-purchased pig is purchased alive and this amendment would be out of place entirely for a factory-purchased pig. What the Deputy refers to is the carcase purchased in Northern Ireland. They are not factory-purchased pigs.
Is not the factory-purchased pig weighed when it is dead?
Dr. Ryan
It is delivered alive to the factory.
The factory-purchased pig is weighed dead. It is bought on the basis of dead weight. Does the Minister think that the head or feet should be weighed?
Dr. Ryan
Certainly they must be weighed.
With the carcase?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
I think it should be made clear.
There is clear substance in what the Deputy says. He wants to provide that when the pig is weighed for the purpose of ascertaining the price, based on the fixed price, it shall be weighed before the head and feet have been detached from the carcase. There is no provision in the Bill requiring curers to do that. I think the Deputy is right in suggesting that provision ought to be made for the inclusion of head and feet in the deadweight calculation.
Dr. Ryan
The only definition of a carcase in the Bill appears on page 6: "the word ‘carcase' means the carcase of a pig whether wholly or partly eviscerated." That is the only definition that can apply to the factory people, because an exception is made with regard to pork butchers, where the carcase does not include the head, feet or offals.
Will the first definition be used in the working of this Bill?
Dr. Ryan
The only exception is in the case of port butchers.
There is an obligation on the factory to pay a fixed price for pigs. The fixed price will be arrived at by ascertaining the dead weight of the factory-purchased pig.
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
The pig will be driven to the factory alive and will there be slaughtered and eviscerated. Then we must ask ourselves if it will be weighed promptly, and with the head and feet on, or will it be further dressed by the removal of the head and feet and then weighed and the supplier paid on the basis of the weight of the carcase, minus the head and feet? Unless we put a statutory obligation on the curer to weigh before removal of the head and feet, surely he is quite free to say: "In our business we never weigh the head and feet of a dead pig. We ascertain the weight on the basis of the carcase dressed, in so far as the head and feet are removed."
Dr. Ryan
It refers to factory-purchased pigs which are paid for on a dead weight basis. In Section 144 the Board may by order make regulations in relation to the manner in which the weight of pigs and carcases sold during any sale period to a licensee or a registered minor curer is to be ascertained. It refers there to pigs and carcases. Carcase is already defined as being the carcase of the pig, whether wholly or partly eviscerated. The only exception is in the case of a pork butcher, where the head, feet and offals may not be included.
What is the meaning of "wholly or partly eviscerated"?
Is not the difficulty this, that when you define the word "carcase" in page 6, the word "carcase" is repeated. In practice the word "carcase" does not include the head. Therefore the definition may mean the headless body wholly or partly eviscerated.
Dr. Ryan
That is true. The Deputy will agree that where you make an exception afterwards, it makes it all the stronger. Outside that exception everything is included.
It may be, but you would never know what the judges would say to it.
Dr. Ryan
Section 144 gives the Board power to make regulations as to what should be included.
Deputies should have some say in the wording of the definition. I would prefer to have pigs bought by weight and to have the head and tail included. That is the custom in my part of the country. As to the definitions given here, we do not know what would be the rule with regard to factory-purchased pigs.
Would it not meet the position if the Minister amended the definition section in the Seanad, so that it would read that the carcase of a pig included the head and feet?
Dr. Ryan
When I saw the amendment it struck me as one that needed consideration. I had it examined and was assured that everything was all right. I will look into it again and, if necessary, amend it as Deputy Dillon suggests. I think that would be the way to meet it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 58 not moved.
With regard to amendments Nos. 59, 82, 83, 84, 86, and 94 they all have some relation to the conditions to be borne in mind by the Pigs Marketing Board before making a price order. The matter was fully discussed before the Committee. The Minister aims at a compromise by meeting the points made in amendments Nos. 83 and 84. I do not know if that is acceptable.
Dr. Ryan
It was an omission on my part. I meant to have Deputy Belton's amendment included, and if the Ceann Comhairle allows it paragraph (e) of amendment No. 83 might be added to amendment No. 84. It reads:
"(e) the cost of production of pigs and particularly cost of feeding stuffs for previous four months."
Amendments Nos. 59, 82 and 83, 84, 86, 87 and 94 may be taken together. The Minister would like to add to amendment No. 84 paragraph (e) from Deputy Belton's amendment, No. 83.
Amendment No. 82. In page 59, before Section 139 (5) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
The Board shall in no case fix a price for pigs or for any class of pigs lower than the economic price for pigs or for that class of pigs to which the price order refers. —(Deputy Dillon.)
Amendment No. 83. In page 59 before Section 139 (5) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
In making all orders under this section the Board must have regard to the following matters, that is to say:—
(a) the capacity of the markets (both home and export) for bacon;
(b) the quantity of bacon which the Board anticipates is required to be placed in cold storage against future requirements;
(c) the stock of bacon on hands;
(d) the supply of pigs likely to be available;
(e) the cost of production of pigs and particularly cost of feeding-stuffs for previous four months.— (Deputy Belton.)
Amendment No. 86. In page 59, line 24, at the end of Section 139 (5), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
Together with the publication provided for in sub-section (5) of this section there shall be published in the same issue of the Iris Oifigiúil the details of the formula on which the current economic price for pigs was arrived at.—(Deputy Dillon.)
Amendment No. 87. In page 59, line 24, at the end of Section 139 (5) to add a new sub-section as follows:—
In fixing the price of pigs and carcases under this section the Board shall have regard to the cost of production, and so co-relate prices to the prevailing prices of feeding stuffs that the conditions of workers in pig production shall be not less favourable than the conditions of workers in bacon-curing factories.—(Deputy McGovern).
We will now get back to amendment No. 59.
I move amendment No. 59:—
In page 53, line 9, at the end of Section 116, to insert the following words:—"the expression ‘the economic price for pigs' means the price arrived at by calculating the cost of production of pigs or pigs of any class prescribed by a formula in which provision shall be made for the cost of the weanling pig and for the costs of converting the wcanling pig into a bacon pig (said costs of conversion to include a detailed statement of a standard pig ration to be prescribed as provided for under this section) together with a fair additional percentage of profit."
The history of this amendment begins with amendments which stood in my name, and in the name of Deputy Belton, on the Committee Stage. The object of my amendment certainly was to get a very exhaustive calculation made by the Minister for Agriculture in regard to the cost of production. When the amendment underwent close examination it certainly seemed clear to me that there were certain calculations adumbrated in it that could not be reasonably asked for from time to time, which involved an exact estimation of the cost of labour, as well as hours which would vary from district to district, and about which it would be impossible to get a uniform figure. The cost of production was the principle underlying Deputy Belton's amendment and my amendment. After protracted discussion it was agreed that our several amendments should be withdrawn and that the Minister would propose a compromise on the Report Stage, which now appears in amendment No. 84, as amended by permission.
Is not my amendment exactly the amendment which the Minister wishes?
Dr. Ryan
Except that it is not clear that the Deputy's amendment would cover the amending price order. The drafting of the preamble, as it were, is a bit different.
We will come to that later.
Is not a prices order made under this section?
The all-important element, to my mind, in the procedure of fixing the price of pigs is that that price should be fixed after due consideration has been given to the cost of production. Accordingly, amendment No. 59, which stands in my name, proposes that a new statutory term called "the economic price for pigs" should be inserted in the Bill, and that it should be a price calculated according to a formula in which provision shall be made for the cost of the weanling pig, and for the costs of converting the weanling pig into a bacon pig (said costs of conversion to include a detailed statement of a standard pig ration to be prescribed as provided for under this section) together with a fair additional percentage of profit. In that connection I would refer the Minister to the Lane-Fox Report, 1932, on reorganisation for pigs and pig products, which was published by the authority of the British Government. On pages 35 and 36 of that Report a formula is set out, whereunder a reasonable cost of production could be arrived at with a view to ascertaining from time to time what would be a fair price to the producer.
A strange fact emerged in the course of the Committee debate. The Minister said that he could not accept the view that the getting of an economic price for pigs was a primary purpose of this Bill. Nevertheless, I remember that when he was introducing the Bill he said that it was a producers' Bill—that the Bill was being introduced for their benefit. I agree with him; I think it could be made so, but in order to make it so it is vitally important that he should insist on an economic price for producers. The reason I want some statutory obligation to be placed on the price-fixing authority not to fall below the economic price is that it is essential that due weight should be given to paragraph (e) of amendment No. 83, which I think is taken originally from an amendment put down by me on the Committee Stage, and which the Minister undertook to accept. It provides that the price of feeding stuffs shall be set out in detail. It is clear under any circumstances that that would be important, but it is peculiarly important under the circumstances obtaining in this country at the present time, because the Minister for Agriculture, through the operation of the cereals legislation, can materially affect the price of pig feeding from day to day and from week to week, and there is a very grave danger that the producers of pigs in this country will be caught between the upper and the nether millstone of the fixed price under the Pigs and Bacon Bill, and the maize meal mixture price, which is provisionally affected by orders made by the Minister for Agriculture under the cereals legislation. Therefore, it is essential that we should have not only the cost of the production of pigs, and particularly the cost of feeding stuffs for the previous four months in that general way, but also have the standard mixture published from time to time and the cost of that standard mixture assessed in relation to current prices as determined by the Minister's orders under the cereals legislation. It will be seen, Sir, in that connection that my amendment No. 59 hangs together with some other amendments.
With Nos. 82 and 86.
No. 82 would place a statutory obligation on the Board not to fix a price lower than the ascertained economic price, and No. 86 provides that together with the publication of the economic price there should be published in the same issue of Iris Oifigiúil details of the formula on which the current economic price for pigs was arrived at. That formula would consist of the costs of converting the weanling pig into a bacon pig, and that would, presumably, be based on the assumption that 4 lbs. of the approved pig-feeding mixture would add 1 lb. live weight gain to the weanling, in accordance with the formula established after very careful investigation by the Lane-Fox Committee in Great Britain, and that the cost of the weanling pig would be worked out in accordance with the formula contained in the same report and worked out by the same authority. If we had those facts before us I think this Bill would be a very much better one. Even if the Minister felt that he could not accept amendment No. 82, which places a statutory obligation on the Board in no case to fix a price for pigs less than the economic price, I think it would be a valuable thing to have, in addition to the specified price and the hypothetical price already provided for in this Bill, a third price to be known as the economic price, which would really be the actual cost of production plus that margin of profit which, in the opinion of the Board, would be deemed to be a reasonable margin to make it possible for the pig producer to carry on. If we had that, we would be in a position to judge from time to time how the pig industry was doing, and unless we have it we will never know whether, in fact, pigs are being produced at a loss or at a profit. When we undertook to regulate the price at all, and when we undertook in the specified price arbitrarily to give farmers, more or less than the hypothetical price, we ought to be sure that in making those arbitrary changes we do not ever unnecessarily lower the price below the cost of production to the farmer. In this way we know that the economic price is a definite thing under amendment No. 59 in this Bill. I cannot see how we can know, from time to time, whether the economic price is, in fact, higher or lower than the actual cost of production of the pig.
I think there can be no difference of opinion as to the desirability of what Deputy Dillon suggests; that is, that pigs should be bought at an economic price. But I submit that his statement is very incomplete. He did not give any idea how he would meet the difficulty of getting over a long period of depressed prices. He did not say at whose cost the economic price would, in all circumstances, be paid. He argued that as far as pig production is concerned there should be no period in which the pig producers would not get a fair return for their industry. Everybody desires such a condition of things for all producers, but no industry has had a history in which that would always be possible. The history of most industries would rather show that at certain periods such a guarantee would be impossible, particularly in a case of this kind where we have to export so much of our production. May there not be periods when the price for our exports will be so low that to maintain an economic price for pigs would simply mean that producers in other industries would be working at unduly uneconomic prices? Surely a big principle of this kind cannot be established with regard to a particular trade or business without having reactions upon practically every other industry in the country.
I think Deputy Dillon did not give us sufficient information as to what was in his mind if he really wanted to establish this principle. Obviously, we all want to establish it, if possible. We have the case, as he pointed out himself, where an effort is being made to give corn growers, for instance, an economic price for their production. Root growers, I take it, would also be entitled to an economic price, that is to say, the growers of turnips, potatoes and so on. They would be entitled to get from the pig producers a fair price.
Why not follow that out and see where it leads?
Producers are entitled to further information as to where all this leads, and as to whether it can be done during periods of depression.
I asked that, from this side of the House, when the question of fixing the price of corn was before the House. I did not get an answer. Now the thing is recoiling upon your own heads.
Not upon my head, because I do not remember being present at such a discussion. I think the best thing is to leave it——
To chance!
——as it is in the Bill, that the Pig Marketing Board must have regard to the cost of production, though not necessarily bound by it. If they were bound by it we would be establishing a state of things in that one industry that could not be established for every other. We would be putting that industry in a particularly favourable position, and at possibly too great a cost——
What about wheat and beet?
They are different. You cannot subsidise everything. "If everyone is somebody, then no one is anybody."
Has the Deputy discovered that at last?
I discovered it long ago. But surely it comes badly from the Deputy who is conscious of that, all the time, to propose the adoption of the very principle he professes to despise. Surely there is some explanation due from Deputy Dillon upon that matter. He sces all the holes in such a policy, yet he wants it extended.
To its logical conclusion.
There is protection in the Bill both for the pig producers and the pig curers. I suggest it would be dangerous to extend protection to a point where it might break.
I find it very difficult to follow Deputy Moore, more difficult on this occasion than on others. This evening I find Deputy Moore is not himself at all. I was not surprised to hear Deputy Moore say he would like to see an economic price fixed, though he did see difficulties in the way. Are not the Government themselves making difficulties by interfering and restricting numbers of people from carrying on their business in their own way? They have been making these difficulties, and now they are trying to run away from them. They fix a price, but they are not prepared to face up to the difficulties involved. There are industries living upon agriculture, and these industries have been protected to the extent of 50 per cent., sometimes higher, at the expense of agriculture, in order that these industries may pay an economic price for their labour. Not only are agriculturists saddled with a burden imposed by British tariffs and the economic war, but they must not be treated as other citizens and allowed to get an economic price for their produce. Is that the policy of Deputy Moore?
Deputy Moore challenged me to say how I would deal with the problem of economic prices——
The Deputy has already spoken.
To my mind, unless Deputy Dillon's amendment is accepted, the interest of a good many producers, and certainly whatever little interest I have in this Bill, would vanish notwithstanding the interjection of Deputy Moore that in times of depression it might be impossible to state an economic price. In reply to Deputy Moore, I would say I do not see any suggestion in this Bill that in times of depression the bacon curers are compelled to manufacture bacon at a loss. If one set of handlers of pigs are to be protected against loss, it is certainly due to the producers of pigs that their position should be safeguarded. The tendency of legislation, so far as there is interference with industry of any kind, has always been to provide a certain measure for the manufacturer and the retailer. That has always been the tendency of such legislation. If legislation is going to be fair, there must be a definite attempt to fix an economic price and a fair opportunity to the producers to earn a profit. Deputy Moore has no more right to say that it is impossible to compel an economic price in a period of depression than he would be entitled to say that curers should be compelled to work at a loss. Nobody wants them to do that. If the curers cannot work on a certain price, let them go out of business. But if we are to make any real attempt to assist the producers, we must make the Bill pleasing to them in its essential provisions. The only way to achieve that is to put definite words in the Bill providing that those who decide the price must make that price an economic price. There is a subsequent amendment in the name of the Minister which is being debated at the same time as this amendment. The Minister's amendment does not meet what is in some of our minds. The Minister's amendment provides that the Board shall have regard to certain things. We want to have it definitely provided that the price fixed will be an economic price—that that will be the first consideration. Unless that is done, this Bill will not be worth the paper on which it is written so far as the producers are concerned.
We have listened to very good political speeches. The speech of Deputy Dillon was a good political speech; so was that of Deputy McGovern and, for once, Deputy Bennett was not bad, either.
What about Deputy Moore's speech?
Deputies on the opposite benches completely and absolutely ignored in their speeches the principle of the Bill which they were discussing. Nobody should know that principle better than Deputy Dillon. At an earlier stage, when we were discussing another question, Deputy Dillon attempted to demonstrate how a farmer would be squeezed in the fair. Because of a certain surplus and because of a farmer's anxiety to sell his pigs he would, Deputy Dillon said, go to a jobber and say: "I will give you them 2/-, 3/- or 4/- per cwt. less than the fixed price." The Deputy now comes to the House to recommend a proposal which would absolutely and completely remove any limit on the extent to which production might go. Deputies should remember that, in this Bill, there is no attempt to control the production of pigs except in so far as the Pigs Board may, from time to time, fix an uneconomic price. If, as Deputies suggest, there were an economic price all the year round and every year, you would have immediately to proceed to control production, indicate who should be allowed to go into pig production, the amount they would produce and so forth. That would not be an easy matter. We had a very frank confession from Deputy Dillon when discussing this question at the Special Committee. It was a confession that was absolutely unnecessary from our point of view, because we knew that the amendments then being discussed were political amendments, as we know that these are political amendments and that this is a political Party discussion. Deputies on the opposite side can go out to the cross roads and tell the people at Fine Gael meetings that Fianna Fáil is giving protection and profits to this and that person, and that the poor farmers who are producing pigs will not get an economic price all the year round.
Is it not true?
That will make fine stuff in the local Press, and I am sure that Deputy McGovern will avail himself of the first opportunity he gets to enlarge on it.
Is it not true?
The Deputy knows that, in respect of any commodity of which there is a surplus which has to be exported, you cannot go on giving for the production of that commodity an economic price all the time. Production would go to such a length that you could not deal with it.
What about butter?
The question of wheat and beet, which was referred to by Deputies, has no relation to this question. There is no comparison or analogy between the production of beet or wheat and the production of pigs. Deputies on the opposite benches are hoping to make a little bit of cheap, political capital out of these amendments but the plainest and humblest man down the country will be able to see through their game and will blow their case sky-high.
Three amendments are being debated together, one of which is in the name of the Minister. Perhaps the Minister would now intervene to tell us what is the difference between the three amendments. We have not had any exposition of his views yet.
Dr. Ryan
My views are more admirably expressed by Deputy Moore and Deputy Smith than I could express them myself. These amendments are pure politics. Deputy Dillon, Deputy McGovern and Deputy Bennett who were on the Select Committee know that they are engaging in pure politics. How often have I said that this Bill aims at regulating the bacon industry without restricting the production of pigs. You must regulate the price by supply and demand or, if you are going to fix a price, then you must say who is to produce the pig.
We may come to that.
Dr. Ryan
I am sure the Deputy will then make his usual speech and say that there is nothing for the farmers in the proposal. It is sickening to listen to the Deputy's speeches.
He would ask then why the farmer should not produce as many pigs as he likes and so on.
Dr. Ryan
Great Britain can do this because they have a home market for the pigs. The Lane-Fox Committee can do as Deputy Dillon says—lay down an economic price—until their home market is filled but if they come to the point where they will have to export, there will be a different problem. The cases of Denmark and Holland were mentioned here. Holland dealt with the position by reducing the numbers produced. Denmark have dealt with the position by making it uneconomic for people to produce more pigs than are required. We must either make it uneconomic to produce a surplus of pigs or we must see that only a certain number of pigs are produced.
We are going to make it uneconomic.
Dr. Ryan
At times, it must be, and the Deputies over there know that just as well as I do. However, I shall not deprive them of the little political advantage they hope to derive from such statements. As Deputy Smith says, the ordinary person down through the country sees through them and has only contempt for Deputy Bennett, as they have proved during the last few years.
When they have contempt for me, they will throw me out.
Dr. Ryan
They will. I would not give much for the Deputy's chance the next time.
That remains to be seen, and the Minister can gamble on it.
Dr. Ryan
As I was saying, this Bill is based on the principle that we are not cutting down production, but I am quite sure that if I brought in a Bill here on the Dutch lines, of saying that every farmer in this country is going to be told how many pigs he will be allowed to produce, it would not be welcomed by the Deputies opposite.
I admitted that the Minister has difficulties to meet in this Bill.
Dr. Ryan
Wheat was mentioned in the course of this discussion.
Why should it not be mentioned?
Dr. Ryan
Until we can produce our requirements in wheat, we can fix an economic price for it. There is no trouble about doing that in our present circumstances—no trouble at all—but if we reach the stage where we will be producing more wheat than we require, we shall be in a different position. Beet has also been mentioned. We can certainly fix an economic price for beet until we reach the point where we are producing too much. When we reach that point, we shall be in a very different position. Deputy Bennett says that, in this Bill, we are protecting the curers and giving the curers an economic price. Will Deputy Bennett point out where that is in the Bill?
There is nothing in the Bill to say that the curer is getting an uneconomic price.
Dr. Ryan
Nor is there anything in the Bill to say he is getting an economic price.
Do not the curers fix the price of bacon?
Dr. Ryan
The curers and producers fix the price of pigs, and there is nothing to prevent the Pigs Marketing Board coming to a reasonable agreement. The curer can go to business, as Deputy Bennett says, but so can the pig producer go to business, and that is the only way it can be regulated. Deputies opposite know that as well as I do, but I shall let them have their little political advantage and it will not be any good to them.
Surely, the Minister has considered that he has power to alter the cost of production?
The Deputy has spoken already.
With all respect, Sir, is it permissible to ask the Minister a question?
Yes, if it is a question and not a speech.
Has the Minister considered that, under existing circumstances in this country, he has the power, by order under the Cereals Act, materially to alter the cost of production from time to time?
Dr. Ryan
There will be a Cereals Bill before the Dáil next week or the week after, and Deputies can have plenty of discussion on it.
Does the Minister not think that there ought to be a guaranteed price to the producer, seeing that it is an artificial cost that the Minister can make by Order of this House?
I was amused at Deputy Moore's contribution to those amendments. Deputy Moore said that we fixed an economic price for corn. I was further amused at the Minister saying we can fix an economic price for beet and wheat.
I said that there was no difficulty in doing so.
I would not impute to the Minister that he would be responsible for such a rash statement as that. The Minister, I am sure, as Minister for Agriculture in this country, has read the Report of the Sugar Inquiry in Britain, where they have laid it down that the State is paying for the production of the raw beet for the factory. Of course, you can make the production of beet and wheat and peat, and all the rest of them, economic, but how will you make them economic? You can make them economic by subsidy. But then those lines, such as pig production, that were normally uneconomic, become economic by trying to bolster up something that was not economic. You can make it economic in that way. We cannot afford to fix a price for corn here, or for cereals, that is not warranted by the price obtainable for that cereal in its finished state, and the finished state of feeding cereals in this country is being dealt with here in bacon. That is the market for our cereals, and not any fiction that you create by the passage of a Bill here. Deputy Moore can go down to his constituency, which borders on the barley and beet-growing area, and make a speech there to the effect that we have guaranteed a price for beet and for wheat.
Dr. Ryan
What will Deputy Belton say to his constituents?
I suppose I will say: "I will give you cheap butter."
Dr. Ryan
Does the Deputy propose to produce wheat in Gloucester Diamond?
I have sent more agricultural produce to the City of Dublin than the Minister will send in the next fifty years, if he lives that long. However, I am not saying that it is necessary or essential to send stuff into market or to produce agricultural produce in order to perform the task the Minister has in hands. The Minister told us that he is introducing a Cereals Bill shortly and that we can have our fill of discussion on that Bill along the lines that I am afraid I was going beyond the bounds of.
I was hoping Deputy Belton would show where I was wrong.
You cannot have a guaranteed economic price in this country now on any agricultural product, because nothing else is economic and the moment you guarantee an economic price for any commodity we are all ready to jump in to produce it. I agree with the theory of Deputy Dillon's amendment, of course, and it is enshrined in the British Act where a price is fixed representing the cost of production and a little profit.
Certainly.
Under that scheme, according to the Report of the Pig Industries Tribunal, "contracts would be made by registered producers with the registered curers for the supply of definite quantities of pigs in each stated contract period, at a national price based on feeding costs plus an element of profit to be negotiated between a Pigs Marketing Board elected by registered pig producers"—not nominated, but elected—"and a Bacon Marketing Board elected by registered bacon curers." I am reading here from the report of the Pig Industries Tribunal. Deputy Dillon's amendment is quite a reasonable amendment but, in the circumstances prevailing in this country at present, we cannot do it. The Minister cannot accept it. Were I in the Minister's place, I could not accept it because of the circumstances under which we are carrying on agriculture in this country to-day. I see the Minister's point, that it is bound to work on the lines that that price there will be regulated by supply and demand, and the small price that production in pigs will fix will be the corrective to over-production. The Minister prefers that corrective to fixing a guaranteed price, knowing that in six or 12 months' time he would have to give out pig cards, as in Denmark and Holland, and would be faced with the problem as to whom he should give the cards, and, of course, then Party politics would come in.
There is another part of this Bill, dealing with prices, to which I intended to put specific amendments. Not having done so, I would say, if I may be permitted to do so, in connection with these amendments, that the Minister should consider whether he thinks it wise to have power in this Bill to interfere with seasonal prices, the hypothetical price, the ascertained price, or whatever it is. There is an economic reason why, in the second half of the year, more pigs are produced than in the other half, even though in the half of the year in which most pigs are produced the price is steadily and consistently lower than in the other half. Now, if there was not an economic reason for that—we need not go into it because we know what it is—the very difference in price would have corrected it long ago. In other words, I take it that in the half of the year in which there is the greatest pig production it must be cheaper to produce pigs then than in the other half. If you try, as is visualised in this Bill, to correct this tendency and say that, in the half of the year when the greatest number of pigs is produced, we will improve prices and that in the other half of the year when less pigs are produced—when the price for them is firmer—we will cut a bit of the price, are you not going to aggravate the position? They have now found an economic level. If you raise the level for the half year when pigs can be produced more cheaply and give a better price, will not people go more into production during that portion of the year, but if you reduce the price in the other portion of the year when it costs more to produce them, will there not be less production?
Dr. Ryan
Possibly the Pigs Board will agree with the Deputy in that.
I would not give to any Board the power to interfere with what are decisions normally and naturally taken by the flow of economics. I do not think it should be interfered with at all. Deputy Dillon has an amendment down dealing with the price of slips—amendment No. 59.
That is the one we are discussing at the moment.
I do not know if the Deputy is serious, but to go and fix the price of a pig at different stages of its career, well, I think it would be too big a job.
It is done in the Lane-Fox report.
That report was not made for the Free State.
It was made for Northern Ireland.
Pigs have a different kind of career in Northern Ireland.
I am afraid they have. I do not think that we can deal with them here. Is the Minister not satisfied with the preamble to amendment No. 83?
Dr. Ryan
No.
Then, what the Minister really wants is his own preamble to that amendment?
Dr. Ryan
If you put it that way I do not mind.
I do not care either. It is the substance that I want.
Is there any difference whatever except the preamble?
Dr. Ryan
There is a legal difference, I believe, that Deputy Belton's amendment might not cover the amendment I want.
Well, except the preamble is there any difference?
Dr. Ryan
That is the only difference.
Except the preamble, the Minister's amendment is a wider one.
I am greatly entertained by the virtuous indignation of the Minister for Agriculture and one or two Deputies opposite at Deputy Dillon's proposals: that these past masters in all the arts of political propaganda should be moved so deeply by the display of what they regard as political cunning on our side of the House. It is very gratifying indeed. Now let us admit, for the sake of argument, that, in the absence of restrictions on pig production, the proposals of Deputy Dillon would put an impossible burden on the Treasury. Even so, I suggest that his amendments are valuable amendments: that they are worthy of our support, and that we are justified in supporting them and have nothing to be ashamed of in supporting them. They are valuable amendments because they illustrate the principles that underlie Government policy. The Government's agricultural policy consists in subsidising forms of agriculture for which the country is less suited at the expense of those forms of agriculture for which it is well suited: the forms of agriculture in which we have made our name. The forms of agriculture that have built up our export trade are to be slowly bled to death. Here is a case in point. If the principle of subsidising the agricultural industry is a good one, there can be no logical excuse for refusing to do here what has been done in the case of other agricultural products and of assuring to the producer a satisfactory price. The fact that to do so would put too great a burden on the Treasury is no reason why we should not point to the failure of the Government to do so, because, in not doing so, they are inflicting injustice on a certain class of agricultural producers, and it is very proper that the nature of that injustice should be illustrated by such amendments as Deputy Dillon has put down.
A ridiculous amendment.
Are we to take it then that the critique delivered by the Deputy who has just spoken is merely destructive and that Deputy Dillon's suggestions are valuable in so far as they are destructive of the policy of the present Government and not for any constructive policy that may be inherent in them? That is a very ingenious idea.
If that question is addressed to me let me answer it at once: that nothing can be more constructive than to reveal to the country the bad economics of Fianna Fáil.
Nothing can be more constructive on the part of the Opposition than to be purely destructive. That is a virtue worthy of the Deputy who has sat down. It is characteristic of him. I find myself in thorough agreement with Deputy Belton, and, after all, whatever we on this side may think of Deputy Belton, whether we argue for or against him, it must be admitted that he has more agriculture at his fingers' ends than the whole front bench of Fine Gael together. He has proved that in practice and in theory. Deputy Belton says that he agrees with the principle but that he finds it impracticable, and I think he spoke rather derisively of Deputy Dillon's efforts to fix the price for slips, etc. After all, if you have Deputy Belton, who at one time was regarded, and rightly regarded, as your shadow-Minister for Agriculture, destroying the very theories you put forward, I think that in itself is proof positive of the very negation of the principles that you have so glibly proposed over there.
I do not like to harp on the tu quoque principle too much. I do not remember in an era when this House was not fortunate enough to have the services of Deputy Dillon, but when there were people in the House who advocated the principles he now advocates, in other words, his predecessors, a time when the Cosgravian régime was in full blast and when pigs were fetching very bad prices—I was not fortunate enough to be on these benches to hear the wealth of eloquence and the flow of soul that emanated from our opponents—reading in the papers of those days, and I was rather a constant student of them, any jeremiads from the Government of that day about the prices of pigs. I recollect that not so long ago, during the Cosgravian régime—perhaps it is not quite refined to use that phrase; “in the reign of the previous Government” would be the Parliamentary phrase—slips, as Deputy Dillon perhaps would call them, but ordinary bonneens as we call them in Wexford——
Bonhams. You would not call them "bawneens" unless you put them on.
We call them bonneens. I am not a purist.
Then do not undertake to correct me.
I recollect that they went to 5/- apiece at three months old. I do not recollect that they went to that during the régime of the present Government.
There was no Cereals Act then, either.
And I recollect that people in those days were very glad to have them, cheap as they were, at a certain stage of the last régime. Bonneens at three months old have not been sold at 5/- apiece inside the last two or three years, so far as my recollection goes. I do not recollect that the occupants of the Government Benches, as they were then, rose on their hind legs and declaimed against the iniquity of pig prices at that juncture although they had then the mighty and magnificent British market which our opponents on the other side descant so highly about.
And the Minister for Agriculture gives it an odd boost too, particularly at the North Wall.
I cannot congratulate those who went before me on their speeches. Political bias ran rampant through them. They were manifestly cross-roads speeches and you can now go down the country and say that the base, brutal and bloody Fianna Fáil Government will not lay down an economic price for pigs, but, take it from me, when you do, your opponents will see through your arguments just as easily as they are being seen through on this side.
I am tempted to make a few remarks on this Bill after hearing the speeches from the Government Benches. The heat that has been introduced in regard to politics and so on has nothing at all to do with the Bill and should have been eliminated altogether. I think Deputy Smith was the first to start it.
No, I did not.
I understood that the principle underlying this Bill is to give the farmers a fair price and to prevent the fluctuations which have hitherto taken place in connection with pig production. We have Deputy Smith stating that one cannot go on giving an economic price. If that is what the Bill is for, it is news to me—that they are not to get an economic price whenever it suits somebody.
And that would be often.
That is the reason which tempted me to intervene at all in the debate. You have broadcast from the House that the farmers will not, and that you will see they will not, get an economic price.
Dr. Ryan
We never said any such thing. Who said that?
Deputy Smith. "One cannot go on giving an economic price." I was pleased to see all along that Deputies on both sides of the House worked, so far as they could, in harmony in an effort to improve the Bill without injuring any section, but when I hear a Deputy like Deputy Smith, and even Deputy Moore, saying that you could not go on giving an economic price, it is something I cannot understand.
You do not know what you are talking about. That is clear, anyhow.
I know what I am talking about thoroughly.
Not the first thing; you are just prating.
I took down the words of Deputy Smith and I have the statement he made.
Apart altogether from that.
I did not intend to intervene at all in the debate, not being a member of the Special Committee——
It was a wise decision and you should have adhered to it.
I am just as intelligent with regard to these matters as Deputy Smith or anybody else and I make no apology to Deputy Smith or to anybody else for intervening in a debate here on subjects about which I know something.
Leave that to other men to say.
Deputy Curran is entitled to make his speech without interruption.
The way in which debate is conducted here is ridiculous. Why should we not put forward an amendment requesting that an economic price be given in respect of pig production?
Dr. Ryan
Good politics.
That is ridiculous. Politics should be cut out of a debate like this.
Dr. Ryan
That is right.
And I did not introduce them. They were introduced from the Minister's side.
Dr. Ryan
Deputy Dillon did.
It was not Deputy Dillon or anybody else here. I say definitely that there should be an economic price given and it should be inserted in the Bill. I put it to the Minister that everybody who handles a pig is well paid for it after it leaves the farmer. Is that right?
Dr. Ryan
No.
We all know very well what happens in connection with most of those things. We all know very well that once the farmer has sold his pig to the curer, everybody afterwards will get a reasonable margin of profit for handling it, except the producer. Why should not we in these circumstances see that the producer gets a fair show? That is all we ask for. I thought this Bill was going to benefit the pig producers of the country but it appears from the discussion that has taken place that some Deputies will see to it that an economic price is not given. What I would like to know is when somebody, whether the Board or somebody else, will make the price of pigs profitable and when they will not. So far as I can understand it, there is no intention on the part of the Minister to make the price of pigs an economic price, with a reasonable margin of profit. Is that not all that is asked? Yet, the Minister refuses to consider that question. There is no reason why this amendment should not be debated as the other amendments were debated. It is a reasonable thing to ask for and I certainly support the amendment. I will not go down the cross-roads talking about it. So far as I can understand the position, from the discussion and from the statements made from the Government Benches, it is the intention that at times, if there is any possibility of an over-production of pigs, they will see that an economic price is not given and that pigs will be produced at a loss. Is that the intention of the Bill? There is certainly no credit to the Minister for introducing a Bill like that.
The fixing of prices is one of the main principles of the Bill and I intervene in the debate simply because the fixing of prices will be a very important factor, so far as the south of Ireland is concerned, and, particularly, so far as the counties of Kerry and Cork, the two chief producing centres, are concerned. In Kerry the cost of feeding stuffs is very high, much more so than in other parts of the country. When the fixing of prices is about to take place the cost of feeding stuffs should be one of the main considerations. Whether the price in Cork or in Kerry or Dublin is to be the index will be a very important matter. The cost of feeding stuffs in Kerry, simply because it is not a grain-growing county, are higher even than they are in Cork and the retail prices in Cork are higher than in the midlands and other counties. I suggest to the Minister that cognisance should be taken of that fact. In so far as Kerry is concerned, some allowance should be made, otherwise the producers will be seriously affected. We have no mills down there and offals are very expensive and that has a great bearing on the cost of production. The Bill, as a whole, will be a great boon to the farmers. We remember the time when pig buyers banded themselves together at various centres and fixed prices to the detriment of the producers. That will be terminated by the principles outlined in this Bill. No matter what may be said by the Opposition about this Bill, I believe it will eventually work out to the benefit of the producers, the farmers.
Deputy Smith said that it would give the farmers an uneconomic price, a price less than the cost of production.
Dr. Ryan
Try and twist the Deputy's statement a little more.
If Deputy Dillon made that statement in other circumstances I would let him know very quickly what I said.
And you would not twist about it either.
Deputy Dillon, I put you in your box before and I would do it again. I would knock the baby face off you.
Have sense.
Deputy Flynn must be allowed to proceed.
Mr. Flynn
Kerry certainly will benefit through the operation of this measure. We were unfortunate in so far as we had to complain during the previous Government's time of the operations of combines. We got no redress from the previous Government in that respect. This Bill will certainly go a long way towards relieving the producers and the other people concerned.
Deputy Flynn raised a question of some importance, namely, the cost of feeding. Does he think the Minister's amendment covers that? I would like an answer from Deputy Flynn on that point. He raised not merely the question of the general cost all over the country, but the cost in a particular county, in the county of Kerry. Does he think the Minister's amendment covers that?
Mr. Flynn
In the Bill provision has been made so that the Board can allow over certain periods for the difference in cost in one area as against another.
There is no such provision.
Does the Minister agree with the interpretation of his amendment put forward by the Deputy?
Dr. Ryan
I was not listening to the conversation.
Are Deputies permitted to interrogate each other across the floor of the House?
I have addressed Deputy Flynn through the Chair.
It would be just as well if Deputies addressed the Chair. The habit is growing up of Deputies referring to each other with the expression "you," and that is entirely an undesirable practice.
I was very careful to put my question to Deputy Flynn through the Chair.
You will be more careful now.
Perhaps the Deputy would keep quiet for a moment. A very serious question was raised by Deputy Flynn with reference to the cost of production of feeding stuffs, and he mentioned that it varies from county to county. I think the House is entitled to know whether the Minister accepts the interpretation put on the Bill by one of his followers. The Minister refuses to answer that.
Dr. Ryan
I do not hear the question.
Does he accept the statement that amendment No. 84 enables him to take in from county to county?
Dr. Ryan
No.
I thought not. It is quite clear it does not. Therefore, the point Deputy Flynn made is not met by the Minister's amendment. I was extremely surprised at the tone, the spirit, that was thrown into this debate—not by Deputy Moore; he avoided it, although he just got close to the border. Who made the political speeches, even against Fianna Fáil, on this Bill? Deputy Smith made a very strong political speech against Fianna Fáil. The debate was going on, and suddenly the Deputy from Cavan, who ought to be interested in an economic price for pigs, butted in and raised all this heat about politics. Unfortunately he led the Minister, who occasionally can be stimulated in that way, to follow his bad example. There are difficulties, the Minister says, in doing what Deputy Dillon's amendment demands. There have been difficulties in helping other industries, in helping the wheat, the butter and the town industries that we have heard of, at the expense of the consumer. You speak of the price being to some extent dependent on the foreign market. Yesterday we were discussing a Dairy Bill, under which we were precisely undertaking to do what it is now apparently high treason to suggest should be done in the case of this particular industry. If this had not been done all round, if it had not been done in connection with the tariffed industries we have set up, if it had not been done in various other industries, I could understand the case made by Deputy Moore and Deputy Smith. I could understand these Deputies pointing out the impossibility of making an industry or a price economic. But this House, time after time, in connection with industries in the towns and even in the country, and even, as Deputy MacDermot has pointed out, industries that have proved less suitable to the country than the one we are discussing, has given its approval to the Government making these economic. How, then, does it suddenly become pure politics to demand that the same thing be done for this important industry as Deputy Dillon demands in this amendment for an industry possibly more suited to the country than any of those that this House has supported at the expense of the consumer? It is not quite correct to allege, as the Minister has alleged, that here the producer and the consumer are on the same footing. They are not, because in the Bill as it stands the fixing of the quota is in the hands of the curer altogether, and the Minister knows that the quota will be fixed, to a large extent, on the terms of the profits. If the Minister wants to put them on a level, I say that he should consider the case made earlier. I say that in no spirit of controversy. I am merely following the Minister's own statement that they are on a level, and it is quite clear that they are not on a level. As Deputy Curran says, as far as the profit goes there is no doubt that everybody who deals with a pig from the time it is sold by the producer until it is sold in the shop to the consumer, is more sure of his profit than the original producer. Unless there is a much better case made against Deputy Dillon's amendment than has been made by the Minister, I submit to the House that it is an amendment that ought to be supported.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 36; Níl, 56.
Tá
- Anthony, Richard.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Coburn, James.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Keating, John.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.
Amendment declared lost.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 60:—
In page 53, line 40, Section 119 (1), to delete the word "elected" where it first occurs and substitute the word "curer".
Amendments Nos. 60, 61, 63 to 71, 73, 75, 76 and 77 are to change "elected" members into "curer" members, and "nominated" members into "producer" members, so that if the election machinery is adopted they will be named as such instead of the way they are in the Bill.
In fact these are consequential on the determination to allow producers to elect their own representatives?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
Amendment put and agreed to.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
61. In page 53, line 42, Section 119 (1), to delete the word "nominated" and substitute the word "producer".
I move amendment No. 62:—
In page 53, line 43, Section 119 (1), after the word "act" to add the words "to the first Board in 1935", and at the end of Section 119 to add a new sub-section as follows:—
"At the second and every subsequent election the representatives of the pig producers on the Board shall be elected by the pig producers in accordance with an election scheme which shall be prepared by the Minister and, not later than June, 1936, be submitted for approval to each House of the Oireachtas."
I understood the Minister intended to accept the principle embodied in this amendment, but I am not satisfied that he has done it. I think that it is a very important point, and I believe the Minister gave the Committee the impression that he did intend to accept the amendment.
Is not amendment No. 62 governed by amendment No. 60?
Not necessarily.
Is it out of order?
I have not ruled it out of order.
Amendment No. 62 would merely indicate the method whereby elected members were to be elected. The principle has been accepted that certain members shall be elected. It now falls to consider how they shall be elected. Deputy McGovern, in amendment No. 62, suggests one method, and the Minister, in amendment No. 77, suggests another.
Very well.
My amendment is to the effect that at every election after the first election in 1935 the representatives of the pig producers on the Board shall be elected by the pig producers in accordance with an election scheme that shall be prepared by the Minister and not later than June, 1936, be submitted for approval to each House of the Oireachtas. The Minister gave us to understand that he would submit a scheme. He has turned down a scheme proposed by Deputy Belton. Surely he is not going to turn down his own scheme? This amendment proposes that the Minister should prepare a scheme himself and submit it to the Oireachtas. I think he can find no fault with that proposal. Then, of course, we can have something to say on the scheme when he brings it forward.
Dr. Ryan
The difference between the two schemes is that in amendment No. 77 the Minister undertakes to have producer members elected from associations if they are formed. In other words, I leave it to the producers themselves to form the associations. Deputy McGovern wants me to see that they are formed. I do not think it is my business. It is the business of the Farmers' Union, if there is one, or some such organisation, to form these producers' organisations. If formed, then under amendment No. 77 they will be elected.
Would the Minister consider the question of registration? Deputy McGovern was against it today, but I do not see how you can get a proper register otherwise. As to organising producers, the Minister would learn a lot if he got a hold of Middleton's pamphlet on German agriculture before the war. He would see that even the Germans, who can so adapt themselves to organisation, could not organise the farmers voluntarily. They had to be brought into a semi-State organisation formed by the Government. Unless the Minister takes up agricultural organisation he will never get any agricultural opinion worth having. I do not agree that the best agricultural opinion is got by having it organised as the mouthpiece of any Government. I have as much experience as most men of building up organisations and I say that you will never get 20 per cent. of the farmers organised. To be quite candid, I see no way between the two extremes, by the Minister nominating producers' representatives or by registration. We have to choose between the two extremes. Personally I favour registration. I do not say that it is the best way but, if I were Minister, I would have registration so as to spread the responsibility. The Minister would be well advised to consider the question of registration. It is quite true, as Deputy McGovern stated, that there was a good deal of discussion in Committee as to the method of electing the first Board and the first representatives.
How far does the Deputy think amendment No. 77 goes to meet the undertaking given? In sub-section (2) the Deputy will find that approved associations and committees of agriculture are named.
I do not know if committees of agriculture are good vocational societies, unless the register upon which they are elected is changed. As the House is aware, committees of agriculture are merely nominees of county councils and, in the present trend of political madness in local elections, county councils are a majority of one Party.
Dr. Ryan
The will of the people.
I admit it. I nominated committees in both the City and County of Dublin on a political basis. It is wrong, but it is due to the madness of the time. That is not good for vocational work. I would prefer, and I have for many years advocated agricultural committees from which could be formed an agricultural council on the lines of the German and Italian agricultural councils, elected at the bottom by agriculturists and not by anyone else. I consider that county agricultural organisations to carry out work for agriculture are more important than county councils. I would be glad if the Minister would take some steps in the direction of agricultural organisation, and the formation of agricultural committees from a special register, prepared on an agricultural basis, and not to have every Tom, Dick or Harry voting for county councils and then nominating, on a political basis, agricultural committees. What good are they for vocational purposes? Even though an opponent occupied the position of Minister for Agriculture I would prefer nominations by a Minister, in the interests of agriculture, than county committees of agriculture as at present nominated. I do not think they are representative of agriculture or that there is good representation in that way. What is wrong with registration when organising the pig industry? Why not register pig producers? It would be a big register if the owner of every bit of land, as well as those who are potential pig producers, were on it. Why not register them and, whether they like it or not, make them take an interest in their business? I see nothing wrong in that. While Deputy McGovern is opposed to the registration of pig producers I would welcome it. I would be delighted to hear objections to it. If a Minister for Agriculture, no matter who he may be, wanted to consider any question in relation to pigs and bacon, he would have a register which could be used for nominations to the Board. He would have some organisation to refer to. He has none now. I was keen on putting my amendment to the test until it met with an accident on the way by getting into the line of fire and getting a bullet. It was left on the wayside. I should like to put to the test the question of registering pig producers. I do not see any half-way house between the Minister and registration of all pig producers.
There is a good deal of substance in the suggestion that there should be some scheme of election. On the Second Reading the Minister, when challenged about the composition of the different Boards, and not improving the position of the farmers, immediately retorted, and very truly, that there was no farmers' organisation from which to draw representation. I felt rebuked at the time, because the Minister was right in what he said. There is a good deal to be said for representative election and registration is not beyond the bounds of possibility. No scheme that has been put forward for representatives of pig producers on any of these Boards is satisfactory. I appeal to the Minister to give the matter his consideration, and to let us have some scheme of election by which those purely interested in pig production and agriculture will be represented. I am a member of a Committee of Agriculture and I say that all members of these committees are not interested in pig production. They would not be suitable bodies from which to draw representation. There are some very good members on agricultural committees, who take their work seriously, and try to carry it out impartially. There are others who, as their business does not run along those lines, just simply do the work in a mechanical sort of way. As far as members of agricultural committees are concerned that certainly would not be a satisfactory method of electing representatives of the pig producers to that Board.
Might I suggest to the Minister that it would appear that the scheme which he adumbrates in his amendment No. 77 is not going to prove acceptable to the people for whose approval he drafted it, because I recognise that amendment No. 77 was drafted in answer to representations which were made to him by the Special Committee. The amendment standing in the name of Deputy McGovern merely places an obligation on the Minister to produce an election scheme not later than June, 1936, and submit it to the House. I suggest to him that perhaps it might be wiser to drop the outline which he has made in amendment No. 77, undertake to produce an election scheme before June, 1936, and consult his political opponents and other persons whom he knows to be interested in the pig industry as to what the best scheme would be. It may very well come to pass that by that time he will have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to extend the whole scope of this legislation and control the production of pigs. Of course, the moment that stage is reached the whole difficulty about elections disappears, because every pig producer will have to be registered.
Why not do it now?
Whether he has reached that stage or not it might be no harm at all to make a preliminary survey and register pig producers now, with a view to preparing the ground for what he might have to undertake under a later development of this whole system of legislation. However, we might raise an endless number of circumstances that would have to be brought under review before the final decision was reached, and it is that very consideration that makes me incline towards Deputy McGovern's amendment, which postpones a final decision in the matter for some time, so that we might have an opportunity of turning the thing over in our minds and determining what is the most expedient thing to do. I think the Minister would agree with me that amendment No. 77 is better dropped, because it probably does not commend itself unreservedly to himself, and it certainly does not commend itself to a number of other people in the House. Amendment No. 62 leaves ample time for consideration and even for seeing the Bill in working order before he makes up his mind what scheme he will finally recommend to the House. I suggest that he accept it and give everybody the assurance he wants.
For how long will the members of the first Boards be elected?
Dr. Ryan
Up to the end of 1936.
Then Deputy McGovern's suggestion would give the Minister six months before he would require the machinery.
Dr. Ryan
Yes. The only difference between us is that I think they ought to organise themselves. Deputy McGovern thinks I ought to organise them. I do not agree that the Minister for Agriculture ought to be asked to organise the farmers in a case such as that. I think it is going altogether outside the functions of the Minister for Agriculture. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of 77 are alternative sections. The first one is that if the producers are well organised they will elect their members, but, if they are not well organised, under the alternative sub-section (2) we might at least get an organisation which would be able to submit a panel. The real difference is whether the Minister for Agriculture should organise them or whether they should organise themselves. I cannot agree to be responsible for organising them, because I am afraid it might be impossible for the Minister to do so.
Amendment No. 62 does not bind the Minister to organise them.
Dr. Ryan
It does.
It merely says that they will be elected by the pig producers in accordance with the election scheme prepared by the Minister. It is quite conceivable that the scheme prepared by the Minister would be that the county committee of agriculture would elect them. It would not be a good scheme, but I think it would satisfy the terms of this section. I have no doubt that, if the Minister accepts this, between us all we will be able, before the critical date, to devise some scheme which will give universal satisfaction.
Dr. Ryan
I might say that No. 77 does not prevent me from organising them.
There is nothing to prevent the Minister from electing his first Board from the committees of agriculture.
The Minister seems to misunderstand my amendment. I do not want him to organise the farmers, but I want to be more definite as to what sort of organisation he is prepared to accept. Taking any sort of organisation that may call itself an organisation, is he prepared to accept that as representing the pig producers? That is a point on which I should like to be clear. Another matter is that they should organise themselves under some body elected for the whole country. I should like to have each part of the country divided into areas, and that the farmers in those areas should organise themselves under some scheme which the Minister might suggest—registration or something like that. In any case I think it would be no harm to leave it over, and all parties may later agree.
Dr. Ryan
If amendment No. 77 is adopted it is left more open to me to do any of those things.
Would not the Minister realise that in order to form a panel an organisation would want statutory authority?
Dr. Ryan
Under No. 77 I can accept any organisation and allow them to elect the members.
The only benefit from representation would be that the man acting would be responsible to somebody. If that somebody were not a continuing body, then they were really responsible to nobody. I think, as Deputy Haslett has said, that some organisation with statutory powers would be necessary to meet the case. I think if the Minister thought out a plan of electing the agricultural committees on some other basis, directly responsible to the agricultural electors, that he would have an organisation which would fit this and any other purpose required.
Dr. Ryan
Is it not obvious that none of us has thought much about it? Is it not better to accept amendment No. 77, which gives me power to do any of these things?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendments by the Minister were agreed to:—
63. In page 53, line 44, Section 119 (2), to delete the word "elected" and substitute the word "curer."
64. In page 53, line 46, Section 119 (3), to delete the word "nominated" and substitute the word "producer."
65. In page 53, line 50, Section 120 (1), to delete the word "elected" and substitute the word "curer."
66. In page 54, Section 120 (2), to delete in lines 2, 5 and 7, the word "elected" and substitute the word "curer."
67. In page 54, Section 121, to delete in line 9 the word "elected" and substitute the word "curer," and to delete in line 11 the word "nominated" and substitute the word "producer."
Amendment No. 68 not moved.
The following amendments by the Minister were agreed to.
69. In page 54, line 13, Section 122 (1), to delete the word "nominated" and substitute the word "producer."
70. In page 54, line 23, Section 123 (1), to delete the word "elected" and substitute the word "curer," and in the same line to delete the word "nominated" and substitute the word "producer."
71. In page 54, line 32, Section 123 (2), to delete the word "elected" and substitute the word "curer," and in the same line to delete the word "nominated" and substitute the word "producer."
72. In page 54, line 44, Section 124 (2), to insert after the word "himself" the words "without the consent of the board."
73. In page 54, line 45, Section 124 (2), to delete the word "elected" and substitute the word "curer."
74. In page 54, line 47, Section 124 (2), to delete the words "be disqualified from holding the office of" and substitute the words "cease to hold office as an."
75. In page 54, Section 125 (1), to delete in line 53 the word "elected" and substitute the word "curer," and to delete in line 56 the word "nominated" and substitute the word "producer."
76. In page 55, Section 126, to delete in line 4 the word "elected" and substitute the word "curer," and to delete in line 6 the word "nominated" and substitute the word "producer."
77. In page 55, before Section 127, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister may by order in this section referred to as a producer members (election) order) direct that in the election year specified in such order, and in each subsequent election year, the three producer members and also six other persons (from whom (if available) casual vacancies amongst producer members shall be filled and substitutes shall be appointed to act for producer members, temporarily unable to discharge their duties on account of illness or other sufficient cause) shall be elected by approved associations, and such order may contain all such provisions (including adaptations and modifications of this Part of this Act) as the Minister considers necessary for the purposes of giving effect to such direction.
(2) The Minister may by order (in this section referred to as a producer members (panel) order) direct that there shall be formed in the election year specified in such order and each subsequent election year a panel of a specified number of persons eligible for nomination by the Minister as producer members, that the persons whose names are to be entered in such panel shall be nominated by approved associations and committees of agriculture, and that the persons nominated by the Minister to be producer members to fill casual vacancies amongst producer members and to act for producer members temporarily unable to discharge their duties owing to illness or other sufficient cause, shall be selected from the persons whose names are entered in such panel, and such order may contain such provisions (including adaptations and modifications of this Part of this Act) as the Minister considers necessary for giving effect to such direction.
(3) The Minister may at any time by order revoke or amend a producer members (election) order or a producer members (panel) order or any order made under this section amending a previous order.
(4) In this section the expression "approved associations" means associations of pig producers in Saorstát Eireann for the time being approved by the Minister.
(5) For the purposes of this section each of the following years shall be an election year, that is to say, the year 1936, the year 1938, the year 1940, and so on.
78. In page 56, line 30, Section 133 (2) (a), to delete the word "attend" and substitute the words "or only one ordinary member are or is present at."
79. In page 56, line 35, Section 133 (2) (b), to delete the words "if any ordinary members attend" and substitute the words "if two or more ordinary members are present at."
80. In page 57, at the end of Section 136 (2), to insert the words "and the Minister shall lay such report before each House of the Oireachtas."
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 81:—
In page 59, line 22, to insert at the end of Section 139 (4) the words "and every order amending a price order shall specify the date (not being earlier than seven days after the date on which such order is made) on which such order is to come into force".
I am in a bit of a difficulty about this amendment and I have to move it in order to explain my difficulty. I agreed at the special committee to put in this amendment but, on reconsideration, I do not think it is an advisable amendment. If we give seven days' notice of a price order and if we lower the price, it is probable that the curers will wait for the seven days before they buy. If we raise the price, it is equally obvious that the farmers will hold their pigs until the seven days are over. The present practice of curers is to fix the price on Friday evening, so that it reaches the buyers on Saturday morning, and they can then buy for the following week. In all probability the Pigs Board will have to adopt that practice of meeting on a Friday evening and letting the price come into operation on the following Monday morning. Deputy Dillon was particularly interested in this point. If he would agree, I should like to withdraw this amendment and, instead of seven days, say "not earlier than the following Monday." That would mean, if the Board adopt the practice which the curers have been carrying on of meeting on a Friday, that the new price would be sent out by wireless that night and would appear in Saturday morning's papers, so that everybody interested would know it by Monday morning when it would come into operation. There would be no stoppage in the sale of pigs, because Saturday is more or less a dead day so far as pig sales are concerned. I did give an undertaking to the Committee, but I should like to be released from that undertaking and to insert instead of the amendment the words "not earlier than the following Monday."
I gladly consent to release the Minister from any undertaking by which he may feel himself bound if he desires, on more mature reflection, to be released. I imagine that the substituted undertaking he gives will be quite adequate, provided we could be sure that there would be publication of the price on Saturday morning.
Dr. Ryan
I do not think there would be any doubt about that.
I recognise that to impose a statutory obligation on the Minister to have the price fixed and published on a particular day would give rise to difficulties.
Dr. Ryan
Both the curer members and the other members would be anxious that the price should be known as early as possible.
Provided that the notice to be given in the future will be the same as in the past, I agree to the withdrawal of the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 82 not moved.
Dr. Ryan
With regard to amendment No. 83, it was agreed that (e) of No. 83 should go into No. 84.
Amendment No. 83 not moved.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 84 as altered:—
In page 59, before Section 139 (5), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
In making a price order or an order amending a price order the Board shall have regard to the following matters, namely—
(a) the capacity of the markets (both home and export) for bacon;
(b) the quantity of bacon which the Board anticipates is required to be placed in cold storage against future requirements;
(c) the stock of bacon on hands;
(d) the supply of pigs likely to be available.
(e) the cost of production of pigs and particularly cost of feeding stuffs for previous four months.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 85:—
In page 59, line 23, Section 139 (5), to insert after the word "order" the words "and every order amending a price order."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 not moved.
I move amendment No. 88:—
In page 59, Section 140 (1), to delete all words after the word "order," line 27, to the end of sub-section (1), line 34, and substitute the words "fixing the sum which is to be the freight allowance in respect of each pig or carcase sold in any area."
I understood from the Minister that a flat rate was to be provided. In dealing with the freight charges in Committee, I put the question to the Minister: "From where," and he said, "From anywhere." I then said: "It is a flat rate," and the Minister did not reply. I understood that it was to be a flat rate. In any event, it is only right that it should be a flat rate, because some districts are fortunate enough to have a factory, while others have no factory within 50 or 100 miles. Under this Bill, they may not have the right to start a factory. This Bill proposes to give a monopoly to existing bacon curers. For that reason, those who are not in the fortunate position of having a factory should not be penalised. I think that the amendment should be accepted and a flat rate laid down. I do not see why people who are at a distance from a factory and thereby at a temporary disadvantage should have that disadvantage made permanent and, in addition, suffer the penalty of an extra freight rate.
Dr. Ryan
I do not know whether I understood Deputy McGovern rightly or not. As the Bill stands, the Board would be permitted to divide Saorstát Eireann into areas, if necessary.
Why?
Dr. Ryan
They could divide it into areas and fix a flat charge for each area, but I do not think they could victimise a man because he was 100 miles from a factory. They could divide the Free State into two parts— say from Dublin to Galway—and have a certain flat charge for every pig delivered, wherever delivered, above the line, and they could have a certain flat rate for places below the line. They might have some reason for making a difference. It is very difficult, in the case of a Bill like this, to foresee what particular factors might have to be considered in fixing these freight allowances. It might be well to give them powers to have different areas. Personally, I think that they will make one area. The Board will consist of three producers and three curers, with an independent Chairman, and I think they are more than likely to have only one area. They cannot possibly make a difference between a man who is 100 miles from a factory and a man who is one mile from a factory, because it would mean drawing circles around the factories and other circles around those circles. I think it is a pity to limit the Board too much, because it is very hard to see what they might be up against.
I am not in favour of limiting the Board too much, but I do object to the Minister making the suggestion to the Board that they should fix different rates for different areas. He says that the Board will probably be inclined to fix a flat rate. That would be the equitable thing to do and, therefore, I suggest that the Minister should cut out the reference to fixing different rates for different areas.
Would the Minister consider the point raised by Deputy McGovern, that there should be a flat rate, if at all, in respect of freight all over the country?
Dr. Ryan
I am quite prepared to consider it.
I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 88, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 89 deals with the same point, I think.
Yes, it does.
Yes, I think so.
Amendment No. 89 not moved.
It is obvious that amendment No. 91 should be amendment No. 90. Amendment No. 91 deals with line 3 and amendment No. 90 deals with line 39. We will have to take the three amendments in the order of amendments Nos. 91, 92 and 90.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 91:—
In page 61, line 3, Section 143 (2) (e), to insert after the word "weighed" the words "at a place other than the premises of such licensee or registered minor curer."
The question was raised in Committee that where a bacon curer weighs pigs at his own premises he should not charge. In drafting the Bill, it was not contemplated that he should charge, but now the proposal is that he will not be permitted to charge at the factory.
Amendment No. 91 agreed to.
Amendment No. 92 not moved.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 90:—
In page 61, line 39, Section 145 (2) (a), to insert after the word "Board" the words "in pursuance of an agreement entered into with such licensee."
This matter was raised in Committee also. Some members were afraid that the Board might be in a position to compel a curer to cure to their account. Under this amendment, they can only get him to cure in pursuance of an agreement entered into with such licensee.
Amendment No. 90 agreed to.
Amendment No. 93 not moved.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 94:—
In page 64 at the end of Section 147 to insert a sub-section as follows—
The Board shall publish from time to time particulars of the composition of suitable ration for pig feeding and the cost of such ration."
I think this was agreed to already.
Amendment No. 94 agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 95:—
In page 65, line 23, Section 149 (6), to delete the word "conclusive" and substitute the words "prima facie.”
This is a similar amendment.
Amendment No. 95 agreed to.
Dr. Ryan
I move amendment No. 96:—
In page 65 to insert before Section 149 (9), a new sub-section as follows:—
The Board may at any time by order declare that there shall be no levy under this section in respect of any specified half year or specified part of a half year, and may at any time revoke or amend any such order, and whenever any such order is in force, then notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no levy shall be payable under this section in respect of the half year or part of a half year to which such order relates.
This is a similar amendment.
Amendment No. 96 agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
When does the Minister propose to take the Fifth Stage of the Bill?
Dr. Ryan
To-morrow morning.
I understood from the Minister that he wants this Bill urgently.
Dr. Ryan
Well, the sooner the better, anyway.
Ordered that the Fifth Stage of the Bill be taken to-morrow, 3rd May, 1935.