I move—"That the Bill do now pass."
Public Business. - Pigs and Bacon Bill, 1934—Fifth Stage.
The Minister has not seen fit at this stage to make any further comment on the Bill than move that it do now pass. It is right that the House should consider for a moment the situation created by this Bill. Admittedly, under the situation created by British quotas, it has been necessary to produce some legislation in this country to organise our industry for the new trade conditions that obtain. As a provisional measure, I think that this Bill is worth a trial, though, if the quota system continues in Great Britain, the Minister will find, as I told him on the Second Reading, that, whether he likes it or not, he will be driven a step further and find himself under an obligation to register all pig producers and to control the supplies of pigs. That suggestion naturally raises the question of why that necessity should arise. It arises for the reason to which Deputy Smith referred last night. It arises for the reason about which Deputy Smith got hysterical last night. If production is to be regulated, it must follow that the obligation will devolve upon the Government of providing an economic price for the producer. If there is an economic price for pigs at the present time, as Deputy Smith pointed out, every man in the country, engaged in agriculture, will get into the production of pigs. Deputy Smith, however, does not seem to have gone on to ask himself why would an economic price for pigs at this juncture drive every farmer in the country into the production of pigs?
Because it would be the only thing that would be economic.
Exactly—because it would be the only thing that would be economic—and that is what Deputy Smith forgot. The Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Smith explained that it was unthinkable to fix an economic price for pigs; that it was highly desirable, nay, essential, that from time to time there should be an uneconomic price for pigs in order to prevent people from producing. Both of them forgot that, in stating that, they were admitting that between them they had rendered every other branch of agriculture uneconomic, with the result that if you present an opportunity to a farmer of making money with certainty in any branch of agriculture, every farmer in the country is going to go into that particular branch.
Is not that a nice commentary on three years' agricultural administration by Fianna Fáil? In 1931 there was no restriction on the price of pigs, nor was there any restriction on the production of pigs. There was no restriction on the production of cattle and no restriction on the production of sheep. There was no restriction on the production of any crop—roots, cereals, or anything else. Every farmer was free to engage in whatever branch of agriculture he found most suitable to his own particular district. Every man was free to make money out of whatever particular branch of agriculture he wanted to engage in. But now Deputy Smith and the Minister for Agriculture have come to the conclusion that if you provide an economic price for the farmers of this country in the production of pigs, every farmer in the country will go into that line of production, and, as Deputy Smith said, it is highly desirable that from time to time farmers will not be able to get an economic price—that the principle of this Bill is that from time to time they will not get an economic price. It is only when the full significance of that admission began to dawn upon his own mind that he lost his temper and began to threaten physical violence against any Deputy in the House who dared to refer to it. I do not blame him. It is a damaging admission. It is one of the most striking and sensational admissions that has been made from the Fianna Fáil Benches since the full horror of their own disruptive policy has begun to dawn upon them.
The sooner Fianna Fáil make up their minds to face facts, the better it will be for the country and the better it will be for themselves. They have got to mend their hand in such a way that farmers in this country can earn a livelihood by their own exertions, without subsidies or doles from the Central Fund of the State. In the meantime, if they are going to regulate an industry such as the pig industry by a Bill such as the Pigs and Bacon Bill, they have got to make up their minds to this: that justice demands that if industries are to be subsidised indirectly by tariffs, if certain branches of agriculture suitable to certain districts in the country are to be subsidised, such as beet and wheat, then a duty devolves upon the Government which is responsible for these subsidies to guarantee for the farmers who are engaged in the production of pigs, not an exorbitant price, but a mere economic price; in other words, the cost of production plus the barest margin of profit that will enable the farmers to carry on. In so far as they fail to do that in this Bill, this Bill falls short of what the agricultural community are entitled to expect.
I have not the slightest doubt that after the lapse of a very short time they will find themselves forced by the strength of public opinion to provide the economic price that I have urged them to provide in that amendment of mine which was rejected yesterday. In the meantime, however, let them learn the lesson which emerges from their own apprehensions. Their present fear is that if you provide an economic price for pigs, that is, the cost of production plus the barest margin of profit, all the year round, for pig producers, every farmer, in the country will go into the production of pigs and there will be such an enormous production that it will be wholly impossible to handle it. They realise that the reason why that apprehension is well-founded is because they themselves have bankrupted every other branch of agriculture and that to-day there is no branch of agriculture in which a farmer can earn a decent livelihood except those branches which are directly subsidised by the Government. Admittedly, by increasing the subsidy on beet, or wheat, you can make it profitable for anyone to produce it. You can make it profitable to produce pineapples or grapes by the same methods.
Or tea.
Or tea. Yes, you can grow tea here if you raise the subsidy high enough to permit every farmer to erect glass-houses and grow the tea under the same conditions as you would be able to grow it in, say, the Botanical Gardens.
Would the Deputy relate tea-growing to pig production?
Yes, Sir, because the prudent and perspicacious Minister for Agriculture in the Fianna Fáil Government seems to think that crops analogous to tea are very much better for our farmers than the crops that the natural resources of this country make it possible to produce. The Minister seems to prefer any kind of subsidised crop to the ordinary products of the Irish agricultural industry and it is being suggested to us by the Fianna Fáil Party that these subsidised crops —these artificial products—are preferable to the natural products of the Irish agricultural industry.
And pig production?
Precisely. It is the realisation, the slow dawning of a realisation on the minds of Fianna Fáil that they are running the whole agricultural industry into bankruptcy, that makes Deputies like Deputy Smith hysterical when he suddenly discovers it.
Oh, now, that is not what makes Deputy Smith hysterical. He is naturally that way.
Well, it makes his hysteria bubble over, and when he realises what he has done his remedy, instead of thinking and trying to apply his mind to the problem and realise what his duty is in order to remedy the damage he has done, is to get up and threaten to knock the heads off his colleagues.
Was it heads you said?
That reflects little credit on the public life of the country and it reflects little credit on Deputy Smith himself, but the Deputy is silly himself, because he does not know how to remedy his own shortcomings. My suggestion to Deputy Smith to-day is that, instead of talking about knocking the heads off his colleagues, he should go home to Cavan and consult his neighbours—sensible men earning their living on the land every day—who would give him a little commonsense instruction in the ordinary fundamentals of agricultural economy. They will tell him that there is no branch of agriculture in which they can earn their living to-day unless they get some kind of dole or subsidy from the central Government. That is the reason why he rightly apprehends that if an economic price is paid for pigs every farmer in the country will go in for the production of them. Let the Fianna Fáil Party dwell on that question and, when they have realised what the measure of the disaster is that they themselves have brought on the agricultural industry, let them mend their hand and get markets for our people where they can dispose of their agricultural surplus profitably. If they do that they need not be one bit uneasy about ensuring an economic price for pigs because the ordinary rules of economics will operate, and only those farmers who cannot make a better profit out of some other branch of agriculture will go in for the production of pigs. If they do that, then we will be back on the sound economic ground that every farmer will produce economically the crop that he is best able to produce.
Set that to music.
And you will croon it for him.
He will dance to it.
When we have established that system we will be back again on solid ground and to a line of policy that will make it possible for the people of this country to live decently and not to be paupers begging from the Government the right to live, and begging Government doles in order to make it possible for them to make ends meet. Until we get on to that solid ground there is no use bawling about a republic.
The Deputy has referred to the three years agricultural policy of the Government. The agricultural policy of the Government is not under review. The question is: That the Bill before the House do now pass. The Deputy must relate his remarks to that Bill which, he must realise, is far removed from the question of a republic.
He cannot because he has to let off the gas.
Fianna Fáil have argued that you cannot give an economic price for pigs because, they say, if you do every farmer in the country will go in for the production of pigs. I think they are right at the moment because every other branch of agriculture fails to yield a profit. If every other branch of agriculture did yield a profit there would be no danger of everyone going in for the production of pigs because many farmers would much prefer to engage in other branches of it. My concluding submission is that there is no use talking about political independence or any other form of independence unless men have economic independence and the ability to make a living on their own land, and while we are bawling about a republic we at the same time——
If the Chair decides that the question of a republic or other form of government is not relevant then it is not relevant, and the Deputy should not endeavour to come around to that question by some other form of words.
I shall eschew further reference to the republic. I say that you are sapping the economic independence of the country and that you are making it impossible for any man to earn a living on his own land without going hat in hand to the Government asking for doles and assistance. I say that is demoralising our people. I say that that system of universal pauperism that you are forcing on our people is destroying the morale which they have built up during the last 50 years since they became the proprietors of their land. I think that the Government ought to realise, and address themselves to the task of restoring that economic independence to our people that the Land League got for them. The only way you can do that is by making it possible for them to earn a living by their own exertions without doles and assistance from the Government. When the Government have wakened up to that fact they will realise that Government subsidies are no remedy for destroying markets in which our people could earn a living without any subsidy.
The curer gets his profit on bacon under this Bill; the jobber gets his profit on the sale of pigs, and the retailer gets his profit on the bacon he sells. That is all provided for in the Bill. There is provision for the jobber's allowance, for the curer's allowance and for the retailer's allowance. The only individual in this Bill for whom no provision is made in the way of an economic price is the man who produces the pig. Surely that is a paradox. I leave it to Deputy Smith and to the Minister for Agriculture to explain why it is that it is safe and prudent to provide for a profit for the curer, the jobber and the retailer, but that it would be a desperately dangerous thing to ensure that the producers of pigs should get an economic price all the year round.
I cannot compliment the Minister on the quickness of a right decision. Even though we pulled him a bit of the way yesterday—he acknowledged it himself—I am sorry that he was not quicker in coming to the decision, which I am sure he will come to later, of granting the substance of the amendment that was put forward yesterday. But I must compliment him on the speed with which he got out this huge Bill and had it in our hands this morning. It shows that in the opinion of the Minister there is great urgency in this matter. I wonder. I think it is common ground that it was the British quota system that prompted the regulation of the pig industry here as well as in Holland and Denmark. Is there need for such violent expedition to rush this Bill through in face of the generally accepted statement in Britain that they are going to reverse their policy as regards quotas and substitute levies instead? It will be agreed, I think, that if the British were to say "No more quotas but levies on pigs" there will be very little need for the machinery that is to be set up under this Bill. However, I will pass away from that.
Under this Bill you have certain people classified as minor curers. That is to say, curers no matter how long they have been in business and no matter how efficiently they have worked their little businesses, if for any reason they are not in a position to expand their business, then they will go out of business in two years' time. That will be their position if their business does not exceed the curing of bacon of, I think, 2,000 pigs a year. At the Special Committee a strong case was endeavoured to be made for compensation for those minor curers who will have to go out of business. Of course they will have two years, and during that period they are going to have an opportunity of expanding their business beyond the boundary line that classifies them as small curers under this Bill. If they do succeed in expanding their business beyond that line they will be allowed to carry on. I hope that whoever will be dealing with the matter two years hence, if at that time there is any need to have this measure in operation, will endeavour to keep those minor curers in business. After all, they filled a useful purpose in the past. Some of them, I know, are 30 years in the business and if you put them out of that business, you might as well put them on the dole. It cannot be written into the Bill—it would not be fair from the plan of the Bill to have it in—but I hope the Minister will create an atmosphere in his Department by which in respect of those who will not qualify as small curers at the expiration of the period of two years, some other means—perhaps a lower qualifying standerd — might be devised to keep them in business. We have all got literature from one small curer in particular and I have got his entire case firsthand. It is really a case of a very industrious man who cannot get any further in the business owing to various circumstances over which he has no control, and I dare say that as good a case could be made for others.
I was sorry the Minister could not make up his mind on having one board, or, at least, the Pigs Marketing Board, which for all practical purposes is a joint board and that he did not give that Joint Board the function of making an order for a production period or for the production of bacon. We had enough to say about that yesterday, without taking up too much time to-day, but I want to make this quite clear, as I think it is the position that no matter who argued for or against the Pigs Marketing Board having the right to make this order, nobody made the case that the making of the production order does not affect the price of pigs. It was accepted all round that it does affect the price of pigs. I think the Minister has accepted it—I am sure that, as an intelligent man, he must accept it. Having accepted that, I have no doubt that when he considers the position finally and before this Bill is disposed of in the Seanad, he will see the justice of giving the Pigs Marketing Board the right to decide on the production order. He will find that it is good policy to do it, because even though there are what might be termed safeguards in the Bill, in the case of the Bacon Marketing Board, they have the right under the Bill to go into the manufacture of bacon as a Board and so have the Pigs Marketing Board.
I think the Minister does not intend the exercise of such right by either of the two Boards by way of correcting the policy of either or both Boards or correcting the policy of the bacon curers or pig producers. It is, I take it, only machinery devised as auxiliary machinery in case such auxiliary machinery is necessary. The Minister has said—I do not know if he has said it here, but he said it in the Special Committee—that that right of the Pigs Marketing Board to go into the business of curing bacon would be necessary in case any bacon factory had been burned down and the other factories had enough to do to handle their own quotas. That is a good precaution, but I think it would be very bad if the Pigs Marketing Board, in order, so to speak, to give one in the eye to the Bacon Marketing Board, set up in the business themselves. The way to avoid any hostility between the two Boards or between the pig producers and the bacon curers is, in my opinion, to have all interests represented where business concerning all interests is being done.
If the Minister acts on that principle and looks on those sections that give the Bacon Marketing Board and the Pigs Marketing Board the right to manufacture bacon, as useful only as auxiliaries to the whole industry rather than as a corrective of a wrong policy by some other board, he will at once see the justice, the feasibility and the efficiency of giving the Pigs Marketing Board the right to make a production order. There is another matter he might consider in relation to Section 98, sub-section (4), which says:—
In making a production order the Board shall have regard to the following matters, namely...
(d) the supply of pigs likely to be available.
This Bill is handicapped right from the beginning, because that supply is the pivot of the whole Bill. I submit the Minister has provided himself with no machinery in this Bill, or anywhere else that I am aware of, that would be any way reliable in fixing the production order. He will want to have a fairly close idea of the number of pigs maturing within the production period, and if he does not know that number of pigs, how can he make a production order that is of any use? Unless he has a method of counting those things, he will not know how many he must make provision for.
I suggest to him that is the pivotal paragraph of the whole Bill. It affects the amount of bacon that is to be cured and the price to be fixed for pigs. I really do not see any way out of registration, but, however, it is past the time for suggesting what should be in the Bill. I understand we are confined to discussing what is in the Bill. Deputy McGovern is terribly afraid that if you register pig producers they will be conscripted, or something like that. What harm is it? No man is ashamed to have his name down as feeding 20 or 30 pigs. If this machinery is to be of any use, it should be as near perfection as possible, and unless we have that detail fairly accurate, I do not see how the machine can be very well worked. Surely if one county feeds 100,000 pigs in the year, and the other county 20,000, the 100,000 county has a right to a bigger voice in the industry. The only way the other county can knock it out is by beating it in pig production.
I agree with the arguments used by Deputy Dillon about an economic price. I also agree that if an economic price were fixed we would all run into pig production. I have peculiar notions of my own about prices. I work for as good a price as I can get, but work would not have half the fascination for me if I knew exactly the price I was going to get. I do not agree with fixing prices at all. I like an element of sport about working for prices.
Something like 6 to 4 or 5 to 1.
I do not bet. I never put a bob on a horse in my life. But if you know exactly where you are going it takes the whole spice out of life.
The farmers cannot afford to be sportsmen in existing circumstances.
I want conditions that are potentially economic, but I do not want conditions where it can be said: "Go on, produce pigs, you will get £3 apiece for them at a certain weight." You are sure of that and you will eventually get fed up with it and get sick of running in a straight line like that. There is nothing like an element of risk. That is the only thing that is worth having in life.
That is a bad phrase for a politician—getting tired of running in a straight line.
There are not many straight political lines in this country. I do not think Euclid was a politician.
We have a mathematical President at the moment.
Euclid was not a politician because if he were he would never define what a straight line was.
Might I ask the Deputy a question with regard to his view on fixed prices, with which I largely sympathise? If the Deputy says he does not want to produce to a fixed price, I sympathise with him. But, suppose he is told that the raw materials of his industry are going to have their price fixed by another man—for instance, under the Cereals Act the price of the raw materials of the pig industry are fixed by the Minister from time to time —surely then he would feel inclined to say: "If you are fixing the price of raw materials you must also fix the price of my finished product in order to secure that my profit will not be taken from me in the event of your raising the price of the raw materials."
If the Deputy refers to the debates on the Cereals Bill he will find that I laboured that point more than all the other Deputies in the House put together. The raw material dictates the price of the finished article. The price of corn used for pig feeding is being regulated in the machinery we are now passing and it does not matter what price the Minister by Order may fix. We pass the pig through the machinery provided by this Bill and what we get for the article when it comes out of that machine will regulate the price down the whole line. Let us take things as they are. The Minister supported the other policy, but the Minister is not responsible; the whole Government is responsible. It is the Minister's duty to put up the Pigs and Bacon Bill. He must produce it in the circumstances in which he finds himself. I am not defending the Minister, but I am looking at this as if I were given the job, circumscribed as he is and considering what I would have to do in those circumstances. Let me put this to the Deputy. Should the Minister fix an economic price, knowing that if he did our markets will be oversaturated with pigs in six months and that, though you had nominally an economic price for your pig, you had in fact no price at all? Is not that the position we would reach?
If we had an unlimited market for pigs I agree that you should fix an economic price. Let us take the British quota. If we exceed that, what will we do with our pigs? We come up against a barrier. We can pile up our pigs until they cross that barrier and when they cross that barrier they are lost. What is before the Minister, as I see it, is that if you fix an economic price you may be sure that in six months' time we will be producing too many pigs. Then he has no alternative but to issue cards as in Denmark and Holland and each potential feeder will apply for a licence to feed so many pigs. Allocations would then have to be made. In Denmark a farmer is feeding so many pigs under licence at a fixed price and he is feeding other pigs under licence at nowhere near that price at all, merely taking his chance. Where prices are fixed on the basis of getting a quota in the British market they are three or four times higher than the prices in the case of other pigs. There is no difference whatever in the pigs and the only point is that there is a market for one pig and no market for the other.
We will have plenty of time on the External Affairs Vote and the President's Vote to say all we like about the economic war, and I intend to say a good deal about it. What is before us now is the question whether it is better to have an economic price with over-production practically immediately, the card system and limitation of production, or is it better to fix a price, bearing in mind the considerations set out in Sections 98, 139 and 140? It is better to fix a price according to them. If the number of pigs grows or if the outlet for bacon is diminished, then prices will have to be scaled down and you will come to a point where the working of the economic law, restricted a bit here I admit, will operate. Which are we going to have? Personally, I prefer what is in the Bill. I agree with what the Deputy has said, that if we get an economic price for the production of pigs we will rush into that because nothing else is economic. I agree also that you cannot fix the raw material of an article at an inflated price and expect to sell the finished article in competition.
It will be educating the people.
There is nothing that educates a man like an empty stomach, and we are travelling pretty fast on that road. Frankly, I prefer the machinery in relation to price fixing that is in the Bill, for the simple reason that we cannot pay an economic price. At the Pig Tribunal I think the Minister was drawn a bit to attach too much importance to this point, that is, that one season of the year—dividing, as he did, the year into two parts—there are more pigs produced than in the other part, and that in that period in which the greater number of pigs is produced the price is low. I submit for the Minister's consideration that even if the price is low, that price gives a better return to the feeders than at the other period when the price is high. The prima facie proof of that is in the fact that even though that price has been regularly low in the past and in the present, people will continue to feed more pigs during that season knowing well that they will also continue to sell their pigs at a lower price than in the other season. But even though pigs are sold at a lower price in this season the fact is that the economic price is actually higher than in the season when pigs are fetching a higher price. The proposal in this Bill giving power to the Pigs Marketing Board, which is, in fact, a Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board, to correct what are really economic forces will not work. This is called a Pigs Marketing Board, but, as I said, it is a Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board. This deludes people into calling it a Pigs Marketing Board. There are Pigs and Bacon men on it. It is really a Joint Board. The Bill would be a better Bill if it had not that power at all. I hope if the Minister does not see his way to cut that power out of the Bill he will discourage its use, because he has the power to do so. In conclusion, I wish to say that I hope the Bill will be a success, but I have my doubts.
I wish to say that Deputy Belton has very effectively replied——
——to the Deputy's very gentlemanly comment.
——to the statement and misrepresentation made by Deputy Dillon both yesterday evening and to-day. He has made a great plea in connection with the fixing of an economic price.
Knock your feeders' heads off.
Deputy Belton has quite rightly pointed out that this House and those who want to consider this proposition seriously and those who wish to leave out of consideration on this matter mere Party propaganda, have got two means of facing this problem. We have got, as Deputy Belton pointed out, to accept the machinery in this Bill, and we have got to resort to the card system in order to control production. I think the attempt of Deputy Dillon yesterday and to-day to misrepresent anything that was said on this side in favour of the Bill in relation to that matter was uncalled for. There is only another matter that I would like to ask the Minister to keep in mind, and that is the question of minor curers. If at the end of any time hardship may be imposed on any of those who may have to go out of business then, if the Minister feels inclined to come forward with other proposals, I am sure every Party in the House will give him any assistance they can.
Does the Deputy mean to say that he is asking for compensation?
I did not mention the word compensation. My statement was perfectly safe.
Yes, perfectly safe.
Like Deputy Belton, my chief interest in the Bill has lapsed with the failure of the Minister to provide an economic price for pigs. I was interested in Deputy Belton's argument and in Deputy Smith's argument that at intervals there should be uneconomic prices——
I did not say that we should work for uneconomic prices. If Deputy Bennett wants to argue on that line let him have a show down on it.
Very well, I accept that Deputy Belton did not argue on that line. Deputy Smith did.
I gave too much of my time to this Bill to be misrepresented on it to this House now.
I will say this for the Bill at least that it does provide for the fixing at times of uneconomic prices. I will admit that that is the position at present—that there are at intervals in the pig trade periods when the price is not economic. If the Bill can do no better than continue that state of affairs then we are better off without the Bill and let the farmers be guided by their own common sense and the chance of the market as Deputy Belton said. If the Government interferes in trade of any description they should make it a cardinal principle that the people engaged in the carrying on of that trade are ensured a profit. Otherwise they should not interfere at all. In this Bill every interest is made secure except one. The curer is made secure, the handler is made secure, the retailer is made secure and the worker is made secure for a fair wage under the Bill. But the primary producer is to be left to the tender mercies of chance as to whether he gets a fair economic price or not. But when we, on this side of the House, speak on these lines we are accused by Deputies on the Government Benches of making political speeches. It is part of our job to try to interpret what our constituents sent us here to do. If I do that I am not laying myself open to be called a politician and I should not be charged with making political speeches any more than Deputies on the Government side. I have been sent here by the farmers of Limerick to interpret their wishes as well as I can. That is what I want to do. The wishes of the farmers are that if the Government interfere in a matter like this, they should pay the piper and produce a price for the farmer. There is no use in losing tempers over this Bill. I do not want to insult anyone but neither will I take insults. This Bill has been brought about by circumstances which the Minister cannot control or which Deputy Smith cannot control but he might help. We are powerless to interfere in the dispute——
The economic war again.
Yes, Deputy Donnelly has asked if I will suggest any way out of the matter. I suggest that if we cannot provide an economic price to the farmer, then it is as well that we start at once on an armistice. The present situation does not give the men in the front line trenches any chance. These men should be given some chance by the Government or else the Government should maintain them in the fight.
I agree with that if you got the public outside to say "we will have an armistice", but the public said "we won't".
When did they say that?
Perhaps in coming to an armistice or in the subsequent settlement we might arrive at a stage when we would make it a cardinal condition that a quota would not be necessary for pigs, that all our pigs would be taken in exchange for some other goods, just as we made an arrangement, possibly favourable for Great Britain, under the Coal-Cattle Pact.
Or as the Minister made with reference to butter—that they would take all the butter we have.
The greatest blot on this Bill is the failure of the Minister to accept Deputy Dillon's amendment to fix an economic price. Upon that depended whether the Bill would be any good so far as the producers were concerned. It is all very well for Fianna Fáil Deputies to tell us that it is political propaganda on the part of the Opposition when we claim that the producers of pigs should get an economic price the same as the producers of anything else. Every producer of an industrial commodity in this country is getting an economic price, no matter what the cost may be to the consumers of that commodity. That is the policy of Fianna Fáil. The Minister for Industry and Commerce makes sure that all industrial producers get an economic price.
The Minister for Agriculture has gone a bit of the way in that direction with regard to the production of some agricultural commodities, such as butter and grain, but he has lost sight of some very important matters affecting certain areas. There are areas in this country in which those who go in for pig production have to buy grain to feed the pigs, and the Minister has left these out of consideration altogether. He has increased the price of the raw material without putting an economic price upon the finished article. Pigs and bacon are the finished articles. Owing to the Minister's policy of making the raw material dearer and by keeping down the price of the finished article, pig producers in these areas who have to depend upon buying grain from the grain-growing areas are hit both ways. The price of feeding stuffs goes up and the price of the finished article goes down. That is the principal objection to this scheme. It is going to injure the pig trade very much in counties like Cavan and districts in the West of Ireland where they cannot go in economically for grain growing.
What about Section 140 —the cost of the production of pigs and particularly the cost of feeding stuffs for the previous four months during which the pigs were being fattened?
It does not say that is going to give an economic price.
You are going to have your representatives on the Board and what are they going to do? They are to consider the cost of feeding-stuffs.
Deputy Belton is quite satisfied because his amendment has been accepted but I would much prefer Deputy Dillon's proposal, because that would ensure an economic price. I had an amendment down something similar to Deputy Belton's, but I would prefer Deputy Dillon's amendment to my own or to Deputy Belton's. I think there was no reason why Deputy Belton's amendment should have been accepted.
Would you not prefer to either of these an amendment guaranteeing £5 per cwt.? There are things you can get and things you cannot get.
You could not fix one price for all time and all seasons. The price must go up and down with the times and circumstances and with the feeding costs, etc. If you had an economic price and related the price of the finished article to the price of feeding-stuffs that would be an equitable arrangement for all parties. Another proposal in this Bill is that by fixing the price of bacon you will regulate the production of pigs. That might be so if there was at least six months' notice given. By right you would want to give 12 months' notice. There is only to be one week's notice given of the price of pigs in the next period. How are the producers to know then what pigs they are to produce? Pig producers are not conjurers and cannot produce pigs out of a hat over-night. They have to get time to do it. It will take at least 12 months before people can make up their minds to increase the production if they want to. The fixing of the price a week in advance by the Bacon Marketing Board is simply taking advantage of the people who have a supply of pigs ready for the market. They must sell them at the fixed price, which may be half the cost of production. The effect will be, perhaps, that when the Minister wants an increase in production the production of pigs will go down by half. I wanted the Minister to accept the amendment to give at least six months' notice of what the price will be—that the people producing pigs should know six months in advance. If he wanted to regulate the price that would have some effect. It is not fair to them to be led on blindfolded until they have the pigs ready for the market and only then know the price they are going to get. There is no use in fixing a price in that way. It would be much better if the price was fixed for the whole year round beforehand and let all parties know what it is likely to be. Fixing the price a week before is no use at all.
My principal objection is that in the County Cavan, and especially the part I come from, it will knock them out of production altogether unless the price is an economic one and has some relation to the price of feeding stuffs. They go in there extensively for pig feeding and have to feed the pigs on meal or grain from elsewhere in order to augment their own supplies, as it is not a tillage county. County Leitrim is in a similar position and so are other counties in the West. Naturally I am concerned with the district I come from myself, and I believe that this is going to be a very bad Bill so far as the people there are concerned and is going to drive a large number of small farmers out of production. I hope the Minister will consider making some amendment to this Bill or make some effort to improve it.
The need for some Bill of this kind has long ago forced itself on the people of the country. The fluctuations in the price of pigs have been really maddening. I speak as a representative of the pig feeders and am a pig feeder myself. As long as I can remember there have been fluctuations taking place within a day of from 5/- to 10/- per cwt. in the price of pigs and pork. The people have been looking forward to this Bill in the hope that that would be remedied to some extent. I do not agree with a good many of the statements made, because I realise that the Minister's powers in regard to this Bill are limited. He may achieve stabilisation of prices. He has power to do that under the Bill but, at the present time, I do not see how anyone in this House, or anyone outside it, can force the Minister to the point where he can guarantee an economic price for the production of pigs. Talk like that is pure moonshine. The Minister's powers are circumscribed. I do not want to travel into other realms. I am speaking of things as they are, and what the Minister is up against in this Bill. He is in a circle and out of that circle he cannot get at present. He cannot force a higher price for bacon. He can only get for the people of this country what is going, less the charges against that price. I take the long view in regard to the Bill. Any experience I have had I have tried to give to the Committee and to the consideration of the Bill, on the ground that sooner or later the line that circumscribes the Minister will be removed. It cannot go on. It is impossible. This Bill will be a start, and if it does not achieve what we want now, we will have machinery ready when, as we are all optimists, I hope and trust, we will emerge from the gloom, and that some Minister for Agriculture will have more freedom to get what pig producers want. I disagree somewhat with Deputy Belton in his definition of what he would like as a pig producer. I do not know whether to call them gamesters or tricksters. I cannot subscribe to his idea, or to put it the reverse way: "heads you win and tails you lose."
I do not play that game.
In a country which is very near us they fixed a price and they are better satisfied, because people know what they are working to compared with the time when they did not know what was going to happen next day or within a few weeks. The result of that has been that pig production has increased more than 25 per cent., perhaps by nearly 50 per cent., because of the price fixed ahead, so that producers know what they are working to. I supported Deputy Dillon in that idea, but if it had the same effect with us as it had in the Northern province, the question arises, where would we be unless the Minister could get other markets and get them very quickly for our bacon? Otherwise it would be impossible to deal with the surplus.
If he does not get markets what does it matter how many pigs are produced? Will we not have to sell them at a loss?
I am tired selling at a loss. I do not want to have that intensified.
Hear, hear.
I am producing cattle and beef and selling them at a loss for the last two years. I am tired of that, and do not want to continue doing it.
This Bill provides that you are to sell pigs at a loss at a certain period.
If the Minister did that, provision would have to be made for a surplus, which I realise is impossible. It was calculated that roughly 2,000 pigs was the minimum for a curer. If we are to have any measure of supervision under this Bill, I think that is a fairly low minimum. It works out at 38 pigs a week or a little over 6 pigs a day. Surely, if a factory is doing any business it should deal with at least six pigs a day, if the staff was to be kept economically employed. Deputy McGovern referred to feeding stuffs, and argued that a county into which feeding-stuffs are moved from another county is in a worse position than a county that produces for itself. I always calculate that whether feeding stuff is raised or fed it is worth a certain price as feeding, and if we are going to relate the cost we must allow the producer just the same price as the purchaser for that stuff. In this Bill we achieve stabilisation of prices. I have no hope that we will have increased prices at present, because we cannot have this machinery, with the levies it brings for the working of that machinery, for nothing. Except we have a market where prices are expanding we cannot have much hope for an improvement in prices. As far as my interests are concerned, I consider that we are legislating now for times ahead rather than for the immediate future. I hope that this Bill will go some length in bringing home to the people just what we are up against in the way of getting an economic price for our produce.
There has been a great deal about the variety of interests that are likely to be prejudiced by this Bill, but, so far, nothing has been said about one small class on which I would like to have the Minister's views as to the likely repercussions of this measure, and how he intends to prevent any undesirable outcome on their business. I refer to urban wholesalers. There is a section which almost prevents their being recognised or expanding their business in a certain way. The situation with regard to them is this, that as a matter of necessity, in the ordinary division of economic effort in relation to production, as between the primary producer of the pig and its appearance on the breakfast table, these urban wholesalers achieved a certain very influential position. There are about eight in this city. I do not think they number more than that. They have, in fact, served the retailers very well. They have also served the curers. I have seen it stated in the report of the Special Committee that the Minister for Agriculture, in answer to a plea made on behalf of these people, said that they were not being interfered with.
In a sense that is true. They are not in a sense being specifically interfered with in the Bill, but under Section 40, sub-section (4)—or it used to be that sub-section; it may have been changed owing to changes in Committee—there is a reaction on them. The Minister's argument is that they are not hampered. They are hampered in this way, that at the moment their defence against any attacks made against them by the curers is that they can amalgamate and go into the curing business on their own. As a matter of fact one wholesaler did that. They are to be prohibited in the future from that resort. That was their one defence. One of the curers has opened an establishment in this town. That curer has, in fact, done what Deputy Dillon and the Special Committee forecast might be done. In other words, the curer, when applied to by those wholesalers for consignments of stuff, has given it to them at 2/- a unit more than the price at which he supplies to the retailers. Obviously, a wholesaler cannot continue in business if the men whom he is going to supply are to get supplies at a less price than he can get them. The Minister has taken away their only resort by way of defence.
The Minister's second suggestion was that they never were really in that business at all, and used to handle only imported bacon. If he will turn to the report of the Commission which dealt with prices he will find that there was evidence given by curers, retailers, and the wholesalers themselves. The evidence quoted by the Commission was to the effect that the wholesalers handled 77 per cent. of what was cured at home, only 23 per cent. being distributed direct as between curer and retailer. That, therefore, has grown up as an important and almost essential part of the business. It was found impossible under the conditions of trading in the city that the curer should supply direct to the retailer, and the further proof of the necessity of these people in the economic scheme of things is that since the measure was anticipated and since the measure has been published the reaction of the curers has been not to attempt to supply direct from their curing establishment to the retailer, but to come to town and open up, thus showing that they cannot do without some intermediary. They have been described as an unnecessary intermediary. I put it that first of all the growth of this part of the business has made them a necessary intermediary, and the fact that the reaction is for the curer to come to town and open a wholesale establishment himself. I think proves the necessity for the establishment which those people have. Supposing they are unnecessary, does it mean that we are faced with this, that even an individual curer will find it necessary to open a sort of wholesale distribution premises in the city? If so, instead of having eight people with a long tradition, plenty of experience, and with about 300 employees, we will have each curer—and there are about 300 of them—opening in the town. Is it considered desirable that the reactions of this measure should be so harsh upon a particular group of people who have grown up in the business? I suggest to the Minister that his statement that the Bill does not interfere with those people should be further analysed, and his view which he put forward as an argument that they did not handle any part of the Irish business but only imported American bacon, should be further looked into. The truth can be got from the report of the Prices Commission.
There is a further point which the Minister should remember, that those eight wholesalers include in each separate establishment brands of bacon as cured by the different curers throughout the country, whereas of course if we get into the new system each curer will now establish his own premises and sell to the retailer only one brand—his own particular brand. You have here obviously an economic unit of distribution which has grown up. Taking the final argument which might be brought up against them it cannot be said that their disappearance will either add a halfpenny extra to what the producer gets or cheapen by a halfpenny the product as it goes to the consumer. If there is any gain either to the producer or the consumer, and if they are, as I assert they are, an economic necessity and a necessary intermediary in this business, I think the Minister should be very careful as to the reactions upon this natural growth of business. I may stress as a last point that it is not desirable that those eight people, with well known establishments, plenty of connections, an established trade, and giving credit to the retailers for a minimum, of, I understand, five weeks, should be crushed out of the business. The Minister should make some attempt to meet them, and if he cannot meet them personally he should at any rate make some attempt to meet their arguments which have already been furnished to him. That is the special and individual point about which I wanted to speak on this measure.
Outside of that, there are a few general economic matters which have been raised in relation to and in the atmosphere of this Bill. Very briefly, I should like to get one or two points clear. Deputy Haslett hopes that we will come to a better stage of optimism than we have reached at the moment. I do not see how we can be more optimistic than we are at present. We have won the economic war. The war is over. We have been so assured by the Minister for Industry and Commerce several times. His statements with regard to more intimate matters in the City of Dublin are a little bit more doubtful, a little bit more suspect than they used to be, but he has said with great vehemence and an appearance of belief that the war is over. We are now in normal peace times, and are settling our establishment under those conditions. I think it was Deputy Haslett, or possibly Deputy McGovern, who said that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has guaranteed an economic price to the industrial producer. I want to question that. I am going on to the analogy of this Bill. I do not see how it can be said that he has. He certainly raised the price of certain commodities in the country, and raised the price of certain manufactured goods. I wonder would most of the wage-earning people of this country, and they would class themselves amongst the industrial producers, say they are better off now than they were, or that their wages are, in purchasing power, equal to what they were three years ago? If they are not, it is a narrow view that just because certain employers are benefited by tariffs we can adduce from that a statement of principle to the effect that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has guaranteed industrial producers an economic price. We are approaching—and this is only another step in the same direction—a peculiar position in the country. There was a time when, by virtue of a few legal decisions operating under a particular Act, certain business houses which had been a rather ordinary type of property in the country got an artificially enhanced value put upon them; a certain judicial decision was given that a new licence could not be given until the old licence was abolished. We are getting into that situation with regard to numerous things at the moment. Take, for instance, reserved commodities. Suddenly we find people who are not in a certain business at all deciding to go into that business. They are protected from competition not merely against outsiders but even against other nationals of the country; their establishments are getting an artificially enhanced value and we are interfering at every moment with the ordinary swing of economics. I remember being asked in this House, I think by a Labour Deputy, when I was so often boasting about the sovereignty of this Dáil, why did I not get it to repeal some of those economic laws that seem to be hampering our progress; why did I not get it to repeal the law of supply and demand. That is the attempt which is on at the moment.
Or what the economic price is to be now.
Possibly. It would depend upon how far arrangements were made, or whether we get definitely to the point whether the Minister was an expert in all the multifarious matters dealt with by a Government Department, or whether he is relying upon his civil servant experts to guide him. What is happening is that instead of the producer who grew up in the business, and whose ancestors before him grew up in it and handed on their experience to him, operating under the ordinary laws and guiding and governing his own business, he is to be directed by civil servants who never were in business, but who have a passion for tidiness and cleaning up, and who insist upon interfering in matters of which they have no practical experience. It would seem that the whole country is eventually going to be run—and we see effects of it at the present moment—by complete bureaucratic machinery. The Pigs and Bacon Bill is another drift in that direction.
Someone said one of the values of such a measure as this is its educative effect upon the people. That appears to be sound. Deputy Smith has learned a lot on what he is pleased to call the process of thinking inside himself, and there suddenly emerges from him the thought that it is a desirable thing, and not merely possible but probable that this Bill should put certain people out of the production of pigs by fixing an economic price. One would think that that might be done by the ordinary laws of supply and demand, but once you start handling and mishandling production and getting into a position in which you are shifting your basis it is a different matter. You are not then merely putting all your eggs into one basket but you are shifting them from basket to basket and these of a very flimsy character. Deputy Smith now agrees that it is a desirable thing to drive people out of production and that that can now be done by civil servants operating through the Minister. Deputy Haslett thinks that this Bill, so far as prices are concerned, might be a good thing if it stops fluctuations. Will it? Is it likely to? There may be found in it something analogous to what was contained in the Cattle Bill and the Butter Bill of some years ago. In other words, you are looking to selling your produce in England. You want to stabilise the marketable commodity that you are sending to England. You find out what the tastes of the people in England are and you cater for them. And so far as this Bill will bring about standardisation of bacon to suit the English palate it is a good thing, and that is what the Fianna Fáil Party are now getting enthusiastic about.
It was a long time coming.
Oh no, I got to the economic war quite early. I am now talking about the friendly relationships you are establishing and I say it is good business. I do not like Deputy Smith not to hope that England will first get the bacon that they want and I do not want to keep him rolling on his pillow when thinking whether the farmers have to be driven out of production by the lowering of prices. Now he has a weapon in his hand. He can no longer console himself by referring to cycles of trade. All he need do now is to come and see the Minister for Agriculture and get some people put out of production. It looks a very fantastic business.
I have got here an interesting quotation from a paper called The Miller. It indicates the point to which all this insanity and scatter-brain business can come. I tack this on to the insane notion of Deputy Smith for driving people out of production. This is a quotation which relates to what is happening in America. An American wrote to an American newspaper to say that a friend had recently received a cheque for 1,000 dollars for not raising hogs. He now proposes to get a farm and to go into the prosperous business of not raising hogs. And he wrote to the editor of this paper to find out his opinion as to the best kind of farm not to raise hogs on, the best strain of hogs not to raise and how best to keep an inventory of the hogs you are not raising and he went on to say:—
"My friend who got 1,000 dollars got it for not raising 500 hogs. Now, we figure we might easily not raise 1,500 hogs or even 2,000 hogs, so you see the possible profits are only limited by the number of hogs we do not raise. My friend who received the 1,000 dollar cheque has been hog-raising for 40 years, and the best he made was 400 dollars a year. Kind of pathetic to think how he wasted his life raising hogs when not raising them would have been so much more profitable."
What is the name of that paper?
The Miller.
Whang the Miller?
No; not even Mick the Miller. The paper wound up by saying that this was an example of curious economics. We in this State are tinged slightly with that sort of economic insanity. Undoubtedly there will come a time when it will come to a question of the destruction of the live stock of the country, but it will be a little less fantastically done. It will be done by civil servants acting through the Minister for Agriculture. Deputy Smith will have to face the fact that deliberately prices will be lowered, so as to drive certain people out of production. Deputy Smith has now reached the point where, by some reason or other, he thinks that that which was done by nature is wrong but that which is done by the Minister for Agriculture is correct. He should think further and let us know deliberately why he thinks it is right that these things should be mishandled by the Minister for Agriculture, and not dealt with by ordinary economic courses.
Dr. Ryan
With regard to the point raised by Deputy McGilligan in reference to the wholesale trade, I may say I did meet the wholesalers when this Bill was first drafted. I pointed out to them that I did not see how they were interfered with in this Bill. The point was made that in the past they, at least, had the weapon that if the curers did not deal with them they could go into the curing business themselves. Section 40, sub-section (4) of this Bill is certainly for the benefit of the wholesaler. In other words, if they smoke only, they are trading without actually being curers. I made the point, it is true, that they were dealing to a great extent in imported bacon, and the reason I made that point was that their grievance was due to the tariff on bacon or the stoppage of imports, but not to this Bill. All the bacon imported came through their class. Take the Dublin people on the list of wholesalers. They had that business, certainly, but when the import of bacon was stopped it was not so certain that the home curers would deal through them. I agree with Deputy McGilligan that their disappearance will not benefit either the producer or the consumer. I know that proprietors of some very large factories take that view also. I have heard them express the opinion that it would be better for them to continue to deal through the wholesaler than to set up machinery to retail their own bacon. Some of the other factories may take a different view, but I hold that we are not interfering with that trade in this Bill.
You do realise that you are taking away their defensive weapon?
Dr. Ryan
With regard to that point, I should say that it is still possible for a factory to be licensed. If they had a genuine grievance they might be prepared to start a factory of their own. As the Industries Tribunal pointed out, it would be advisable to have at least one more factory in the Free State, so that there is an opening in that direction if they wish to avail of it.
The Minister does not intend to bring in a provision of any type to meet that problem?
Dr. Ryan
No.
He is just going to leave it to chance.
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
Does not the Minister appreciate that there is a danger?
Dr. Ryan
I do not think that I can be accused of being unjust to that particular class. I think Deputies will agree that when these people were really hit was when the import of bacon was stopped.
Let us agree that they were hit by the tariff on bacon. Is that any reason for saying that, because they are so weak now, we can hit them as often as we like?
Dr. Ryan
No.
The figures are given in the Tribunal report. The percentages were 77 to 23. Seventy-seven per cent. of the Irish business was done by the wholesalers—I do not say the eight Dublin men—and 23 per cent. directly with retailers. Surely that is a position worth keeping?
Dr. Ryan
I cannot see how this Bill interferes with them except that they have not got that threat any longer. I wonder if the curers regarded it in the past as a threat. I do not agree with Deputy McGovern that this Bill is following on the lines of the dairy produce or fresh meat legislation. Those measures were brought in solely to regulate export. Deputy McGilligan said that Deputy Smith might not lie awake with the fear that the British people would not get good bacon. Our predecessors could be accused of that attitude. They were very anxious to give a good article to the British consumer but they did not cater for the consumer at home. Under this Bill, all bacon, whether intended for home consumption or for export, is subject to veterinary inspection. There is no distinction as regards inspection between the article intended for export and the article to be consumed at home. I may say that the greater part of the bacon is consumed at home and, therefore, this is a much more important market than the export market.
Does the Minister remember the comparative percentages?
Dr. Ryan
I cannot give the exact figures but it would represent about 35 per cent. or 40 per cent.
I thought the export was rather more.
Dr. Ryan
My figures may not be exact, but the export does not come near one-half. Two or three years ago it was one third. It has increased somewhat. Deputy McGovern suggested that we should give six months' notice of the fixing of prices. It would be extremely difficult for the Board to fix firm prices six months ahead. However, I think the Board ought to give an indication, if possible, six months or twelve months ahead of the probable position. They probably will give that indication. They may be able to see, with the trend of production and the expected market, that there is likely to be a crisis in nine or ten months if production continued to increase as it is increasing at the moment. The Board will probably be able to give their opinion in that way.
It is not entirely due to the British quota that this Bill is necessary. Deputy Haslett pointed out how disconcerting and disappointing it is to the farmer to find, when he brings his pigs to market, that the price has fallen from 56/- to 51/- or 50/-. That is one thing which we have to stop. When dealing with the Second Reading of this Bill, I gave prices at two factories on that particular day. On that day, if a farmer brought a 12 stone pig to one factory he would get 24/- more than if he brought it to another factory. To stop these variations from day to day and between factory and factory, I think that we would be quite justified in bringing in this Bill. It is obvious that, in the case I mentioned, one factory was not losing 24/- per pig. It might be losing part of that sum. It may have been forced to buy pigs for somewhat more than their value. It is equally obvious that the other factory was making much more than could be justified as a profit.
Apart from that day-to-day fluctuation, everybody looking at the prices in the daily papers will have noticed that a week seldom passes in which there is not some change in the prices as regards the different weights. A 10½ or 13 stone pig will sometimes command a better price than a lighter pig, but the following week the other pig may jump up in price. All these sudden changes will be stopped under this Bill and the farmer will know, at least a few weeks ahead, what the price will be. Probably, when the Bill is working normally, the Board will be able to give a fair idea, perhaps six months ahead, of what the price will be. There were also violent fluctuations which were more or less seasonal. These were probably more exaggerated than was necessary. As this Bill is constructed, it will not be possible to prevent some fluctuation. As I have pointed out so often, the whole basis of the Bill is to follow the law of supply and demand. Deputy Dillon pointed out that there was no restriction on exports in 1931, that we could have sent all the pigs and sheep we liked to Great Britain then. Perhaps Deputy Dillon would examine the prices we got in 1931. If he does, he will find that the price of pigs was never so low since as it was in the end of that year. He will find that the same thing applied to sheep—the two animals he mentioned.
What does the Minister deduce from that?
Dr. Ryan
I should like to know what the Deputy was going to deduce from his statement and from his attempt to bring us back to the conditions of 1931, when there was an unlimited market in Britain.
Does the Minister deny that the British market is now a profitable market in which to sell bacon?
Is not that a red herring?
Dr. Ryan
Deputy Dillon, in his oratorical excitement, appealed to us to remember 1931, when we could send all the pigs and sheep we liked into the British market. I advise him to get the prices for that period and he will find that, towards the end of 1931, the graph for sheep and pigs was lower than it has ever been since.
Pigs were lower in November, 1932, than ever.
Dr. Ryan
In 1931?
Does not the Minister admit that the British market is now a profitable market in which to sell bacon, no matter how much they take from us?
Dr. Ryan
Will the Deputy allow me to deal with his argument as he put it first? I shall deal with the rest later. He was appealing to us to remember this unlimited market, and his argument evidently was that there was an unlimited market there and that we should send in our stuff to it. The result was that pigs and sheep came in to Britain in large quantities, not only from the Free State, but from the rest of the world, and prices came down in Britain. In other words the economic law of supply and demand operated, but Deputy Dillon does not want it to operate now. At the Special Committee, Deputy Dillon had an amendment which had that effect, and when it was pointed out to him that this Bill was based on supply and demand, he said, "Well, I had better withdraw my amendment; there is no use in talking politics here at the Special Committee." The Deputy felt that there was no use in talking politics at the Special Committee, because the public Press was not represented there. Accordingly, he re-introduced his amendment here on the Report Stage in order that he could talk politics here where the Press was represented. Deputy McGovern was on that Committee also, but he never said a single word there to the effect that this economic price should be fixed. Deputy Bennett was also there, and neither did he mention it.
Deputy Bennett was not at the Special Committee.
Dr. Ryan
Oh, I am sorry. Deputy Bennett was not there. But Deputy Dillon did not pursue his argument there.
Was not Deputy McGilligan on that Committee also?
Dr. Ryan
Deputy McGilligan did not attend.
This has been mentioned twice. I explained that I am one of those horny-handed sons of toil and could not attend.
Dr. Ryan
I understand. As a matter of fact, I said that in order to excuse Deputy McGilligan, not to blame him. But, as I was saying, Deputy Dillon withdrew his amendment with regard to the economic price, saying that there was no use in talking politics at the Special Committee. There was no use in talking politics there, because the Press was not present, but he took the opportunity of re-introducing the amendment on the Report Stage when he knew that the Press would be present, and he would have an opportunity of talking politics to advantage. As a result, we have lost hours talking about an economic price merely to give Deputy Dillon an opportunity to talk politics for the benefit of the public.
The Minister is now deliberately—well, perhaps not deliberately—stating what is not true. The amendment that was standing in my name on the Report Stage is entirely different from the amendment standing in my name for the Special Committee, and differs with regard to those elements which I thought were unreasonable to ask from the Minister. In the amendment standing in my name on the Report Stage these elements are withdrawn from my proposal, and the proposal now stands in what I said, at the Special Committee, I thought to be the reasonable form.
Dr. Ryan
The amendment dealt with the economic price, and Deputy Dillon now wants to try to delude us into believing that he wanted to leave out rents and rates from the calculation. That is the reason why he was willing to leave out politics at the Special Committee, but not here in the House where the Press is present. Deputy McGovern also served on the Special Committee, and he never raised the slightest protest when Deputy Dillon withdrew his amendment. Deputy McGovern also had the good sense to realise that the Press was not represented at the Special Committee.
He was reading Columbcille then.
Dr. Ryan
I said that prices were bad in 1931, and so they were. They were very bad in 1931. The result was that the numbers of pigs and sheep went down in this country during the following year and until 1933. Our output and exports, both of pigs and bacon, have been increased in the last three years. Deputy Haslett, I think, mentioned the North of Ireland having a big benefit in the bacon trade. If Deputy Haslett will look at yesterday's Evening Herald, he will find that for the last three years both the production and the export of bacon in the Free State and Northern Ireland have gone up by an exactly equal percentage. He will see that we increased our output just to the very same figure as in Northern Ireland during the last three years. It was the same in both places. These are the figures I saw in the Evening Herald yesterday evening and the Deputy can read them for himself. They are probably in to-day's paper also.
My point was that the fixed price had the effect of raising it definitely in Northern Ireland. I was not making any comparison between the two places.
Dr. Ryan
I understand that. Of course, it would be very easy to fix an economic price for bacon here if we could accept Deputy Dillon's figure that 4 lbs. of a meal ration would produce 1 lb. of meat. If we could take that formula, I would not have the slightest hesitation about fixing an economic price in this Bill.
Does the Minister challenge the conclusions of the Lane-Fox report in that regard?
Dr. Ryan
If Deputy Dillon had any experience of pig raising, he would not take that figure. No Deputy here, who has raised pigs, would take that figure, because, if you take 4lbs. of a meal ration to 1 lb. of meat, there would be no difficulty at all about making pigs pay. The price of meal here for pig feeding has not been increased as a result of our cereals legislation. Deputy Dillon may believe that we feed nothing but maize meal mixture to pigs, but we do not, and no good farmer would think of feeding a whole ration of maize meal mixture to pigs. Any good farmer will balance his ration, and he will have six or eight cwts. of wheat offals. These offals, as a result of our legislation, are lower than they otherwise would be because the flour was produced in this country. Formerly, we were importing the offals, and the price of them here was the Liverpool price plus freight. The prices are lower now than the Liverpool prices, and putting that against the increase on the maize meal that would be contained in the ration, I think he would find, if he took some pains to inquire into it or if he asked a practical farmer, that the ration has not increased in price as a result of that legislation.
Does not the Minister know that he is talking through his hat when he says that?
Dr. Ryan
Well, it is a compliment if the Deputy thinks that, because there is a good chance that I am talking sense.
Is not the offal sold more cheaply to anybody else than the Free State feeders.
Dr. Ryan
There has been no offal exported from this country since last May, with the exception of 800 tons. There is a prohibition against the export of offals from this country. Deputies are extremely out of touch with facts.
Well, we shall get the figures for the Minister at a later stage.
Does the Minister know the price of pollard at present?
Dr. Ryan
I do, because I am buying it myself.
What is the Minister paying for it?
Dr. Ryan
About 6/-.
That is very cheap.
Dr. Ryan
Perhaps it is. It is good value.
Would the Minister say what mill is supplying him?
Dr. Ryan
I am getting it from a merchant, not from a mill.
At 6/-?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
For white pollard?
Dr. Ryan
No, brown pollard. I do not know what the price of white pollard is, because I do not buy it. Deputy Dillon made a very strong speech here against Government subsidies. He said there was going to be no success in farming until all Government subsidies were cut out. It is a pity the Deputy would not turn his argument to Deputy Bennett who wants to get 120/- per cwt, for butter while the world price is 70/- and wants to get it done out of Government subsidies. Deputy Bennett does not want it taken by means of a levy from the farmer. The Party opposite advocate Government subsidies when it suits them and they are against them when it suits Deputy Dillon to make an oratorical outburst. Would Deputy Dillon point out to me where in this Bill the curer is guaranteed a profit?
When he fixes the price of bacon.
Dr. Ryan
The curer does not fix the price of bacon.
Who fixes the price of bacon?
Dr. Ryan
The other Board can give him pigs at a non-paying rate.
Who fixes the price of pigs?
Dr. Ryan
The curer.
The price of pigs is fixed by the curers and if the producers do not like it the curers can block it. Then it is handed over to the chairman. When he fixes the price of pigs the curers can apply to the Marketing Board and change the price of bacon again.
Dr. Ryan
And the other people can change the price of pigs.
Will the Minister tell us where the curer fixes the price of bacon in this Bill?
Dr. Ryan
Deputy Dillon has not read the Bill. I would like to know where the curer or retailer is guaranteed a profit under this Bill. Where is the producer not guaranteed a profit any more than the rest of them? Deputy Dillon, of course, was followed by Deputy Bennett and by Deputy McGovern—the two lieutenants. They all say the same thing: that the curer and the retailer are guaranteed a profit under the Bill but that the other fellow is not. Where is a distinction made between any of the classes under this Bill?
The curer has it in his own hands, but the producer is left to take what he gets.
And the poor consumer is going to pay. He will have to suffer between the lot of them.
Dr. Ryan
No one spoke for him at all. Deputy Belton more or less accused me of rushing this Bill. I think he was hardly justified in what he said, because this Bill has been before the House for a long time. Deputy Belton referred to the fact that the Bill was in the hands of Deputies this morning. The compliment that Deputy Belton paid me is hardly due to me. I think it is the Ceann Comhairle who should receive the thanks for that.
I hope the Minister will not forget to deal with the few suggestions I made.
Dr. Ryan
No. The Deputy, as well as some other Deputies, made a plea for the minor curers. They will go out after two years unless they qualify. I have taken the view that it is much better that we should make it easy for them to qualify than put them out and compensate them.
I do not agree with compensation for them.
Dr. Ryan
The amendment that I brought in yesterday will have the effect of making it easier for them to qualify, and I hope they will qualify. If we were to talk of compensation for them, then we might have a situation somewhat like the one Deputy McGilligan spoke about in the case of the American hogs.
I hold the view, because of the monopoly that will be created in the bacon curing business, that the assets of the minor curers have been enhanced by this Bill, and that if they were to sell out they would probably get more for their business to-day than they would have got, say, two years ago. There is no case, I think, for compensation.
The difference between curing ten and 40 pigs a week presents an insuperable difficulty to numbers of these establishments.
Dr. Ryan
I do not know, but I think Deputy Belton has struck the right note. It is probably going to be a valuable business, and I do not believe they will have any difficulty in getting the necessary financial help from some quarter when they want to qualify. We have reliable data on which to forecast the number of pigs coming on the market. We have been acting on these data for the last few years. On the whole, the Department of Agriculture has been very successful in giving a forecast of the number of pigs that will be available each month of the year. The Deputy knows that we have very strict regulations now with regard to the registration of boars. We get returns, and we are able to give a good forecast.
Is that information reliable enough for the fixing of prices?
Dr. Ryan
It has proved to be very reliable in the last 12 months with regard to the number of pigs expected to come on the market.
For bacon?
Dr. Ryan
For sale, whether exported alive or used for bacon.
Did the Minister reply to the point raised by Deputy McGilligan as regards wholesalers?
He did, by saying that they are not affected by the Bill.
It is very important that these traders should be granted a little indulgence. There is only one question that I want to ask the Minister, and it is this. Would he consider providing facilities for traders who have not chain stores? I think there should be some sort of a central depot where they could go and make their selections, not of one cure but of all cures. As the Minister knows, some customers prefer O'Mara's bacon and others Denny's bacon. Whether it is so or not, they think that one is better than the other. These small traders may want to select a bit of each cure. It would be very expensive on them if they had to get a small consignment from each curer. The transport charges would be high. On the other hand, if there was a central depot to which they could go and make a selection of the bacon cured by half a dozen curers, and get all sent to them in one consignment, the freight charges would be small. Their position should be considered.
Dr. Ryan
I do not see how that question can arise now.
Question put and agreed to.