Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Jan 1938

Vol. 69 No. 19

Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) (Amendment) Bill, 1937—Committee.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:—
SECTION 2.
In sub-section (1), line 22, to delete the word "absolute", and after the word "premises", line 23, to add the words—"subject to the right of the applicant for a licence to apply to the Circuit Court for the issue of a licence notwithstanding such refusal on the grounds that all the statutory requirements for the issue of a licence have been fulfilled."

When the House adjourned discussion of this amendment on the last occasion, I had practically summed up the reasons for it, and pointed out that nothing has occurred during the operation of the Principal Act to make Section 2 of this Bill necessary. The Minister has not made any case for the necessity of taking away the limited safeguards which applicants for registration had under the Principal Act. That Act seemed to work very well and the Minister did not say that any serious difficulties had arisen during its operation. As he admitted freely that the Principal Act worked so well that it had put a number of undesirable people out of business, there does not appear to be any obvious necessity for the present section. The amendment is an attempt to provide some safeguard for future applicants for registration, in view of the limited safeguards given in the Principal Act. I cannot accept the principle that any Minister should have absolute power to refuse to grant a licence, even without the necessity of inspection or of giving notice to an applicant. I am not suggesting that the present or any other Minister that I can envisage would use his discretion in an undesirable way. I do not think any Minister would do that. Nevertheless, it does not seem right that any Minister should get such absolute discretion as would be given in the section.

I desire to support the amendment. I did not hear any justification for this section from the Minister, and I do not know how he could defend it. If the Minister does not wish to accept the amendment he could delete the section, as the effect will be the same. There is a precedent for such an amendment as this in connection with the Pigs and Bacon Act. There were some unfortunate results there. Under that Act the Minister took power to restrict the number of licences, and the result was that people were driven out of pig production because of the prices they received, while the consumption of bacon was reduced. Was that a desirable result? Everybody could get licences if they were prepared to comply with the regulations. This section restricts the right to export fresh pork to a limited number, and the result will be monopoly, the same as happened under the Pigs and Bacon Act. Therefore, on considering the matter, I think the amendment should either be accepted or the section deleted. In any case the principle of giving a Minister absolute power in the granting of licences is wrong. I am not suggesting that the Minister is going to use his powers for a wrong purpose, but our experience under the Pigs and Bacon Act and under all such control was unfortunate. I should like to get some assurance from the Minister that there will be some change, and that there will not be a move towards monopoly, but rather towards an extension of the rights of those concerned.

I wish to support the amendment. On principle I have the strongest possible objection to giving any Minister such absolute powers as are proposed in this section. It is not a question of saying whether the present or any other Minister would exercise such powers in a wrongful manner. It is one of principle, as the putting of absolute power of granting licences into the hands of Minister is objectionable. On the last occasion the amendment was before the House the Minister gave no reasons why the section should stand. He stated then, according to the Official Debates, Volume 69, No. 15, column 2306:—

"Section 2, sub-section (2) of this Bill removes from the Minister the obligation to have premises inspected on application. If anybody were to apply for a fresh meat licence under the present Act, the Minister must carry out inspection of the premises, and must give a fortnight's notice of his intention to do so. Where a person's application has been turned down on more than one occasion, it is hardly fair that every time that person makes an application the State should be put to the expense of having to serve notice that the place would be inspected on such a date..."

That is one of the Minister's reasons for the section in the present Bill. I do not think that argument holds water. If the objection is that people when turned down will apply again and again, the matter could be easily dealt with by inserting a provision that persons cannot apply for a certain period after being turned down, or that they could not apply again after being turned down on a number of occasions. The Minister made the point that he did not see how a judge could deal with the matter. I am inclined to agree that it is vitally necessary that there should be an appeal to the Circuit Court. The main purpose of the amendment is to preserve the right of persons to apply for licences which was there under the original Act. If the Minister does not see his way to accept the amendment there is an easy course open to him, to allow the provisions of Section 8, sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Principal Act to stand. I do not think the Minister can say that they impose any undue restriction on him when dealing with licences. Sub-section (2) states that whenever an application is made the Minister shall cause the premises to be inspected by an inspector. I do not think the Minister can suggest that it is an undue hardship on the State, when a person applies for a licence, that the premises should be inspected. Sub-section (3) merely says that when the Minister makes up his mind to refuse an application he causes a fortnight's notice to be served of his intention so to refuse without considering any further evidence that the applicant might bring to his notice. The Minister's hands were not tied up by either sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Principal Act.

The Minister has not advanced any reason for turning down the amendment. His main reason seems to be that if it were accepted you would have a number of people applying to get into the business, damaging people already in it and creating a chaotic state of affairs. I feel that, if Section 8 of the Principal Act were allowed to stand, the Minister would have sufficient power to deal with applications which were not bona fide, or which he felt were calculated to do damage in the trade, and that he should not take to himself the arbitrary powers that he proposes in this section. I have the strongest possible objection to giving to a Minister or to a Department the right to exercise final judgment on the application of any individual, company or business, applying for a licence. I think that the House should not give that power either in this measure or in any other measure that we are asked to pass. It is altogether unreasonable to say that the Minister would be hampered in the working of the measure if we allowed the two sub-sections of Section 8 in the Principal Act to stand. The reasons that the Minister has given for this section do not convince me. If the Minister does not like the wording of the amendment, that is a matter that can be considered. The Minister does not like putting in the Circuit Court judge, and asked what would he know about it. In a case where an application had been turned down, the Circuit Court Judge, in my opinion, might know as much as the people who would ultimately advise the Minister and get him to exercise his absolute discretion in the matter.

Speaking on the amendment before, I quoted several precedents for this section. In all the previous Produce Acts passed by the previous Government and this, a clause similar to this was inserted. We have it in the Dairy Produce Act and in the Pigs and Bacon Act. I admit, of course, that that is not any proof that the thing is right. I refer to these precedents to indicate that in putting in this section we are not introducing something new. So far as I can recollect, there was no objection to similar provisions in earlier Acts. It may be wrong in principle to give a Minister this discretion. It is the sort of thing we all object to, but if we cannot find any better method, what other alternative have we? As I said on the last occasion, a Circuit Court judge is not the person who ought to have anything to do with this, because if these matters were to come before him, then, naturally, his decision will be based entirely upon the law. There are, however, other considerations to be taken into account. Deputy Linehan spoke of the Act as it stood. If we were to leave the Act as it stands, then I think the Circuit Court judge would have to grant a licence to every applicant whose premises were in order. Even supposing you had six men in the one street in a town applying for a licence, I think every one of them would have to get it. That would not be a very desirable situation.

Because there is no reason why six men, with all their overhead expenses, should be put in the position of trying to get a living out of that business instead of one. Naturally, that would mean supporting more people than should be supported out of the industry. The principle that we have been following so far in all these cases—creameries, bacon factories and so on—is that there should not be more than sufficient to supply an area. Therefore, I think we should have some way of settling this rather than by way of appeal to the Circuit Court judge. I think that we should adhere to the principle that we have been going on in all the previous Acts. It has been found to be the best method, and, therefore, I think we should continue to give a discretion to the Minister in this case as in the others.

Deputy McGovern spoke of the Bacon Act, and seemed to object to the discretion given to the Minister in that case. He evidently wanted to give the impression that if there had been no such power in the Pigs and Bacon Act things would have been different. I think I am correct in stating that, so far, there has been no definite application from anybody to start a bacon factory. There have been discussions. Certain people put up tentative proposals to set up bacon factories in certain districts. My Department has discussed with them what the conditions were likely to be, the situation of the factory, the quota that might be allotted and so on. That has happened in a couple of cases, but so far no definite application for a bacon factory has been made. The only kind of public agitation that I have met with has been against the issue of licences. There was a report in some of the newspapers to the effect that a licence would be issued for a certain place. I received a fair number of resolutions from workers, public bodies and people interested against the issue of such a licence, so that in the case of the Bacon Act, at any rate, the agitation has been against the issue of licences.

Were these resolutions forthcoming from the district where it was proposed to have the factory or from a district where there was already a factory?

They came from the same county. The resolutions were against the setting up of another factory.

This is the Donegal case.

There were two in question—Donegal and West Cork.

Mr. Shesgreen did not want a factory in Milford.

He did not send me any resolution. With regard to the question of inspection, that is not exactly the same as the one we are now discussing. Deputies are quite entitled to relate it to this, but it is really a different question. I stated on the last occasion that, even though applicants were to apply to me every six months for five years, under the old Act I would have to send down an inspector to visit the premises every time I received an application. Deputy Linehan says that is a thing that could be got over. Take this kind of case. Suppose there are three or four pork factories in a certain county, and that an application comes from a man living close to them. We know, having this discretion under all the previous Acts, that we are not going to give him a licence. Why, therefore, should we have the obligation put upon us of sending down an inspector in cases like that?

Did not the Principal Act make provision for dealing with cases of that kind?

Under the previous Act an inspector had to be sent down every time an application was made, even though it was intended from the start to refuse the licence. For that reason I say an amendment of the old Act is necessary. Otherwise we would have to send down an inspector every time an application is made.

That is an objection that it would be easy to meet.

I should like to ask if cases have arisen where the Minister had to send an inspector although he knew perfectly well that he was not going to grant the licence; where the expense has already been gone to, although the Minister knew when sending the man out that he was not going to do anything about it?

That has happened. Under the Act we had to do it. I should like to make this point plan: that under the old Act, as I explained in the beginning, it is held by some people, although there may be some legal doubt about it, that we had no right to refuse a licence except on the ground of unsuitability of premises. That is the position as it stands. Therefore, if the appeal goes to a County Court judge or anybody else, he will decide on the law and say: "If the Department certifies that the premises are suitable, then I must grant a licence." I think that would not be advisable.

This amendment raises a wide issue, and the issue has been very substantially widened by what the Minister stated. The Minister claims under the Fresh Meat Act the right to determine absolutely the measure of competition that is going to obtain between exporters when they start out to purchase the produce of the farmers. The Minister stated that, unless he is given absolute discretion, if six men in the one street put their premises into a condition that accorded with the requirements of the Act, he would have to grant them all a licence. Would it not be a very good thing if he did? He would have six men in the one town all competing for the farmers' cattle and pigs when they came to sell them.

If there were six men exporting pork from the town of Monaghan or the town of Clones, as there used to be before the Minister destroyed the pork market, you would have six men vigorously competing for the carcases which the farmers brought in. The Minister says: "No, we do not want that; we want to eliminate competition; we want to restrict the number of people who will be there to buy"; and he says, "We have done it under the Bacon Act, and no representations have been made to me of any kind except representations asking me not to grant a new licence." I interrupted the Minister when he said that. He said there was one case where he proposed to grant a licence for a certain part of the country, and he was inundated with resolutions. I asked him the circumstances. To anyone who knows the County Donegal it became manifest immediately what happened. The Minister proposed to grant a licence to establish a bacon factory somewhere in the Inishowen district, which is a great pig-raising area, and the bacon industry people in Ballybofey went round to all the neighbours and said: "If you do not get the Fianna Fáil clubs and everybody you can get to write to Deputy Blayney and Deputy Brady and to the Minister, you are going to lose your job, because half our pig supply is going to go to the factory in Inishowen, and if we are only handling half the quantity of pigs we handled heretofore, we will only want half the number of men"; and the Minister was inundated with resolutions from a part of the same county not to allow the establishment of a bacon factory in Inishowen.

What have the farmers of Inishowen to say? Have they not inundated the Minister with complaints that they cannot get a price for their pigs? Have they not bitterly complained that they were being consistently robbed in Inishowen? Did not the Minister come to the House and tell us that so grave did the situation become in Donegal as a result of there being only one licensee there that he was at his wit's end to devise a means whereby he could get for the pig producers of Inishowen a fair price for their pigs? He had to send Government buyers, and rightly send Government buyers, to compete with the local factory in Donegal. Would it not be very much better if, instead of sending up Government inspectors to compete with the local factory, he allowed enterprising citizens who wanted to embark in the bacon-curing trade so to embark under licence, if necessary, and to provide the competition themselves?

What reality is there in the Minister's alarm when he says: "Unless I have these powers, six people in the same street could bring their premises into line with the requirements of the Act and insist upon getting a licence?" What six lunatics would do it? It costs money to put premises into a condition which will meet the requirements of the Act, and who is going to invest money in doing that if he has not some prospect of making a profit out of it? Competition is the life of trade, and if the farmers have not got competition amongst the exporters for their products the farmers will be robbed.

What is the result of restricting competition in the bacon industry? I now say that the bacon factories in this country have made more money in the last two and a half years than they made in the previous 10 years, and I may say that they robbed that money by a system of licensed highway robbery from the pig producers and the bacon consumers. I say, furthermore, that if the Minister will get the balance sheets of the bacon factories of this country and produce them here, that allegation will be proved up to the hilt. I challenge the Minister to produce the profit and loss accounts of the bacon factories for the last five years, and I say that it will be demonstrated clearly that, as a result of the restriction of competition by licences carried out by him, the producers of pigs have been robbed and plundered by the licensees, as have the consumers of bacon. If it is the Minister's intention to embark upon a similar campaign in regard to licences for the export of fresh meat, which I think is principally lambs and porkers, then in exactly the same way the producers of lambs and porkers in this country will be robbed and plundered by the privileged licensees.

In any case, so far as I can see, the trend here is towards State socialism. The Minister is going to take over and run the business of exporting fresh meat, much as he will have to take over the business of curing bacon if the present system is allowed to continue, and it is very necessary that people in this House should open their minds to this fact. If this House accepts the contention that, in order to carry on certain trades, you must establish monopolies, it is absolutely certain that sooner or later those monopolies will have to be taken over by the Government and run by the Government. At the present time we have a bacon monopoly and a flour monopoly and certain other monopolies established by tariffs, such as thread and others to which I will not refer. In these two monopolies—bacon and flour—which are closely analogous to the monopoly which the Minister proposes to set up under the Fresh Meat Act, you have a small group of flour millers robbing the consuming public of millions of pounds and putting the money in their own pockets, and you have a small group of bacon manufacturers robbing the producing public and the consuming public of hundreds of thousands of pounds and putting the money in their own pockets.

It is now proposed to set up a further monopoly which is going to operate as a bottle neck through which all exports of fresh meat from this country must go, and the monopolists who constitute that bottle neck are going to be privileged to skim off all our exports the largest profit they can knock out of them. Such a situation is absolutely intolerable. If gigantic profits are to be made by monopolists, sooner or later the people will insist that those gigantic profits go into the Treasury for the relief of general taxation and for the relief of the people. They will not tolerate a diversion of the immense profits there are in monopolies into the pockets of private individuals. If you are going to leave monopolies in private hands, you are going to have a situation arising in the fresh meat business similar to that arising in the pig industry at the present time. Monopolists become so arrogant and extortionate that they kill the demand for the product on the home market, and they so skin the producer in trying to make ends meet at the price which these monopolists are prepared to pay for the product, that the producer begins to get out of the business, to the immense detriment of the community as a whole.

But before the monopolist has driven the producer and the consumer to that point, he has made his pile and he has invested in good marketable securities upon which he will be drawing dividends for the rest of his life. He does not care then what happens to the business. He has skimmed the cream of it, he is rich for the rest of his life, but the community loses the business and the trade. The individual farmer who produces suffers because he cannot go on producing; the consumer suffers inasmuch as he has to go without that commodity because he cannot afford to buy it, and the nation suffers because the national income is reduced by an amount equal to the reduction in the farmers' output. That is the story of the monopoly.

The Minister has calmly announced to-day that his purpose is to establish a new monopoly which is going to dominate and strangle the entire export business of this country in fresh meat and he says that he is resolved to prevent competition. He will not allow it and he justifies himself by saying: "When I did try to allow competition in the bacon industry, I was inundated with resolutions begging me not to do it." We found out on investigation that the resolutions came from the immediate neighbourhood of a curer who is afraid of competition. If competition were allowed, he would be forced to pay more to the pig producers than if the monopoly were allowed to operate. Do Deputies stand for that? Surely the Deputy sitting up there on the Back Bench does not stand for that? Does he take the view that the pig producers of Donegal should be left in the hands of one curer? Does Deputy Breslin of West Donegal take the view that it is not right that the people of that area who work hard should be given the benefits of the highest prices that they can secure by competition for the pigs they produce? I think that the pig producer is entitled to get the highest price that competition between manufacturers will procure for him.

When was there competition between the manufacturers?

There was furious competition prior to the passage of the Pigs and Bacon Act.

Who says so?

I say it.

I say you know nothing about it.

I was a member of a board of directors running a bacon factory.

You know nothing about the producers.

I am producing 250 pigs per annum, or rather turning over 250 pigs per annum, so that I know something about what I am saying.

Just the type of producer that would not know anything about it.

When I try to bring out these pigs to sell them at the fair, there is no fair because the monopolists have done away with the fair.

Where was the competition in the dead pork markets to which you have referred?

The Deputy should go and ask the people of Clones.

Ask the people who attended them.

I know the people who attended them.

So do I.

There was a live pig fair which catered for seven-tenths of the country. The dead pork market was restricted to Counties Cavan and Monaghan, parts of Louth and certain parts of Donegal.

Regulated by the ring.

In the greater part of the country we had a live pig fair. If I went to a fair, and found a small group of buyers there from one district who might have arranged to pay no more than a certain price, I walked my pigs home on foot and I brought them to the next fair.

Are we not now going into the merits of an Act passed already through this House?

I am only dealing with the question of monopoly as against that of competition. In the old days we had competition.

In the old days.

Up to the passing of the Pigs and Bacon Act, we had competition and the result was that the producer got a better price. I know the Minister will immediately reply: "You are getting more for your pigs now than you got a couple of years ago." That is probably true, but we are paying twice as much for feeding-stuffs. The world price of pork goes up when the price of maize goes up, and taking into consideration the price of feeding-stuffs, the absence of competition is weighing very heavily against the producer at the present time, and the result is that people are going out of pigs. Now, the Minister will reply: "I am now guaranteeing 73/- per cwt. for suitable pigs and the farmers are getting that." The fact is that they do not get it because they are entirely at the mercy of the monopolist. They have no fair, and if they have only a couple of pigs to sell they have got to take them to the nearest factory because it is not economic to consign them to a factory 30 or 40 miles away. When they go into that factory they are told: "These pigs are Grade C." You may tell them that they have a Grade A pig, but, in practice, the producer merely gets paid for a Grade C or a Grade B pig. If he had an opportunity of offering that pig at a fair and that three or four buyers wanted to get it, then the man who wanted it most would pay him the top price.

Just as the monopoly in the bacon trade is destroying the pig industry of this country and will finally wipe it out, so the monopoly proposed in this measure will operate greatly to the disadvantage of the pork trade and the lamb trade. I despair of making some Deputies see that. Some Deputies must know these facts to be true. They must know what an immense disadvantage it is to the farmer to have lost the fairs and to be in the hands of the monopolists, so far as the disposal of pigs is concerned. Why should we extend the system? Why should we put the control of the pork and lamb trade into the hands of a monopoly? Why should every man, who is prepared to earn his living, be delivered hand and foot into the hands of a monopoly?

Is he not getting a guaranteed market?

He is getting whatever remnant of the British market the Government has left him.

Is he not getting a guaranteed market?

For pork and lambs?

The Deputy was talking about pigs.

I know the Deputy is bona fide in his belief. He has told us that there is a guaranteed market, but I have known farmers to spend a whole day outside a factory with their pigs and then to be told that the manufacturer did not want them and would not take them. I have known farmers who had pigs finished up to what they considered the requisite standard, and when they went to the factory they were told that the factory could not take them and that they should bring them home for another fortnight. Then when they brought them back at the end of a fortnight they were told that the pigs were too fat, with the result that they were cut in price 8/- to 12/- per cwt. That is what is called a guaranteed market. It is a guaranteed market for the curers. Heretofore a man could bring his pigs out to a fair and he could find a buyer for them.

Are there not pig fairs still?

There may be in the Deputy's district, but in my district the pig fairs are being destroyed because the curers are deliberately doing all in their power to force the people to bring their pigs into the factories. The same is happening all over the country. I think they are doing that with the active co-operation and encouragement of the Minister.

Is that not competition?

What you have just stated.

The factories are taking up the position: "We will not patronise the fairs. If you do not bring the pigs in to us we will not go to the fairs for them." The fairs are dwindling and dying. If the Deputy will only ask the Minister confidentially afterwards what is his policy, the Minister will tell him that his policy is to wipe out the fairs; that he wants all the pigs sold at the factory.

Have not the farmers still charge of several factories?

Let us be patient. Take a farmer with two pigs. Suppose he lives near Ballaghaderreen. It is perfectly true that he can sell the pigs at the factory in Ballaghaderreen. In theory he can send them to Clare morris or to Limerick. Suppose the Deputy had two pigs and he went up to the stationmaster and said: "I want a waggon to take two pigs to Limerick."

We have been dealing with the Deputy's pigs for an hour.

I do not want to stray from relevancy, but this is all rooted in the question of monopoly.

I have given the Deputy a good deal of latitude, but in the matter of transport he is certainly straying from relevancy.

We will not give you that wagon unless it is for yourself.

By leave of the Chair we have covered a good deal of ground, but we must not trespass too far on the Chair's indulgence. The case I am making is this: monopoly has reacted to the disadvantage of the producer and to the disadvantage of the consumer. The Minister has calmly announced here that his object is to create a monopoly in the fresh meat trade. Is this House going to let him do it, or is there anybody on the Fianna Fáil side who has the courage to get up and speak on behalf of the producers of fresh meat, asking the Minister to leave the competition that was there for the things they are producing, in the certain knowledge that if he stops that competition it means that the producer of fresh meat is going to get less money for his product?

I rise principally to protest against Deputy Dillon using this House and his privilege of being in this House for the purpose of vilifying certain people in this community—who have not the privilege of being here to answer him—as thieves and robbers.

Let us be clear about that. I do not think the Chair would have allowed Deputy Dillon to refer to any individuals as thieves and robbers. The Chair did not think that any particular individuals could be singled out for the epithets which Deputy Dillon applied. I do not think the expressions were strictly parliamentary. I think Deputy Dillon might have found more moderate expressions, but if the Chair thought they had reference to particular individuals, the Chair would certainly have intervened and asked Deputy Dillon to withdraw the remarks.

Deputy Dillon's statement definitely referred to certain groups of individuals——

Is Deputy Corry going to defend the flour millers?

——not more than 20 or 30 in number in any case. I may allude to the flour millers.

Is the Deputy going to defend them?

Certainly.

Then, good-night.

I gave figures before in this House with reference to the flour millers.

What does the Deputy know about those figures?

Deputy Davin has had plenty of opportunity ever since to get up and contradict them, if he had any data to go on.

Read the Prices Commission report and educate yourself.

When Deputy Dillon uses this House to get up and say that certain factories make use of what he terms a monopoly for the purpose of robbing the producers of millions of pounds, and putting that down in their own pockets, I think Deputy Dillon is abusing his privilege here.

I categorically repeat the statements which I made.

Did you not rob the consumers too? Were you not up in court for robbing them?

There is no use in throwing those personal references across the floor of the House. This matter should be discussed calmly and deliberately. What is the good of making use of expressions like that?

It was brought up in open court. Surely a matter which was brought up and decided in open court is a matter that can be referred to in this House?

On a point of personal explanation, lest the lie could get currency. A prosecution was brought by the Minister for Industry and Commerce against the firm with which I am connected. The prosecution was dismissed by the justice before whom it was brought. Those circumstances have been repeatedly used by Deputy Smith for the purpose of promulgating a falsehood of which I am sure he has no real knowledge. He is being misled by incorrect information into giving currency to a malicious falsehood. I am sure that, now that he knows the facts, he will not consciously tell a lie.

I read the report of the case in the local Press, and——

Deputy Smith will sit down. What happened in connection with Deputy Dillon's firm is not relevant to this Bill. A certain remark was made with reference to Deputy Dillon. Deputy Dillon made an explanation. That ends that matter.

He accepted responsibility and was let off under the First Offenders Act. He robbed the consumers and pleaded guilty to the charge.

I cannot allow that to pass. Deputy Smith must withdraw that remark with reference to Deputy Dillon.

I say that he overcharged the consumers, and it was admitted in open court.

Does Deputy Smith withdraw the remark that Deputy Dillon robbed the consumers? That is a definite and deliberate charge.

The firm of Duff and Company of Ballaghaderreen admitted in open court that they charged more for bread than they were entitled to charge.

Deputy Smith will sit down. The reference to Deputy Dillon must be withdrawn.

It is a reference which——

Either it is withdrawn or it is not. Is it withdrawn?

A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, I cannot withdrawn it, because it is true. I will not withdraw it. I am sorry to have to take up this attitude, but I am only repeating what I have seen stated in open court on behalf of the firm of Monica Duff and Company. I cannot see my way to withdraw that statement, because it is true.

A statement was made by Deputy Smith with reference to a Deputy in this House. That Deputy repudiated the charge. The charge was repeated by Deputy Smith against the same Deputy. I must now ask Deputy Smith to withdraw that remark with reference to Deputy Dillon.

I am sorry, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle; I cannot see my way to withdraw it.

Then Deputy Smith will have to withdraw from the House.

The Deputy then withdrew.

As I stated, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, Deputy Dillon made those definite charges against both the flour millers and the bacon factories in reference to the proposed change in regard to the fresh meat trade. Deputy Davin has asked if I am going to defend the flour millers. The figures which I gave in connection with flour milling here proved that on the last occasion when meal was at its present figure the price of imported flour in this country was 1/6 higher.

On a point of order. Deputy Corry has not yet even referred to the Bill. He is now talking about the price of flour. When this amendment was first moved the discussion went wide enough, but it did not go that far.

Deputy Linehan, apparently, considers it proper and vital that Deputy Dillon should allude to the flour millers of this country as thieves and robbers.

On a point of order, Sir, Deputy Corry, through the indulgence of the Chair, has been allowed to proceed in his speech for eight or ten minutes without making any reference to the matter before the House, and I think it is now time that he should make some reference to the Bill.

I do not think Deputy Corry has taken eight or ten minutes in his speech. There was an altercation in connection with Deputy Smith, and that took up most of the ten minutes.

I am endeavouring to keep to the matter before the House, Sir. However, I shall now deal with Deputy Dillon's argument in connection with the bacon factories and the monopoly, and the loss to the producer and the farmer in that particular respect. If Deputy Dillon had had any association with farming in his lifetime, he must have gone to a fair and he must have seen a meeting of the different pig buyers outside the railway station, fixing the price that they would pay for pigs at that particular fair. If Deputy Dillon had had any association with farming, he would have seen, down through the country, where, if a farmer refused the price offered by one pig buyer, no other pig buyer would buy from him. If Deputy Dillon never went to a fair at all, all he had to do was to look at the newspapers and he would notice a difference of from 5/- to 6/- per cwt. at two different fairs, not 13 miles apart, on the same day. Deputy Dillon would have seen all these things if he were by any means interested. Where was the competition there? Where was there competition when, at two different local fairs on the one day, there was a difference in the price of from 5/- to 6/- per cwt. in pigs? I suppose nobody was robbed in those days?

Then, as regards Deputy Dillon's charge about the enormous profits made by bacon factories, that matter was thrashed out here within the last few weeks. Deputy Gorey made a certain statement here, and the Minister for Agriculture produced the balance sheet, which completely upset Deputy Gorey's contention.

No, it did not upset Deputy Gorey's contention. They were both right.

Columbcille is always right.

The Minister's statement did not upset Deputy Gorey's contention. It proved nothing.

At any rate, I think it unfair that a Deputy in this House should use his position here, for the purpose of helping out his argument, to make false and misleading statements in connection with men who cannot defend themselves here, or in connection with firms who cannot defend themselves here. I think it is grossly unfair to do so, and I think that Deputy Dillon should take the earliest opportunity that he can find either to prove that his statements are true—by doing which he would confer a benefit on the general community—or else that he should have the decency to withdraw the charges he has made. As I have said, I think it is grossly unfair that such statements should be made. I think that Deputy Dillon's attitude in that respect is very unfair.

The Deputy has mentioned that half a dozen times, but he has not said anything about the amendment yet.

If the Chair will allow the Deputy to go on a little further, I am sure that he will weep and cry for the flour millers.

I shall not weep for them.

There is no question of the fleecing that has taken place, I suppose?

I hope that Deputy Davin will take the earliest opportunity to deal with that matter.

Read the report of the Prices Commission.

Read the amendment. Deputy Corry should keep to the amendment.

In the whole period that has been used for the purpose of opposition to this Bill two arguments have been put up with regard to certain facilities that were given in connection with flour milling and the bacon industry. In that connection, I need only quote one of the high priests, as we call him, of Deputy Dillon's Party in my constituency, who stated openly and above board that the Pigs Marketing Board had increased the price of pigs by anything from 10/- to 15/- per cwt. to the producer. That statement was made by Mr. E.J. Cussen, the Secretary of the Cork Farmers' Union, and that was an open statement made by him at a Fine Gael Committee of Agriculture. Therefore, Sir, it is my belief that the arguments that have been produced against this Bill do not hold water on either side, and I consider that Deputy Dillon should withdraw his charges.

May I direct the attention of the Chair to the fact that Deputy Corry has managed to speak for the last 12 minutes and that, during the whole course of his speech, he never once referred to the amendment.

Is the Deputy jealous?

If that is so, Deputy Dillon's statement is just as irrelevant as Deputy Corry's.

Deputy Dillon made a very moving speech about monopolies and so on, and those of us who know him were not very much affected, but if a stranger were listening to the Deputy he would have seen nothing but red ruin and disaster coming into this country if this amending Bill were passed, and it would have appeared as if we were going to do something that had never been done before. Hitherto we have acted on the assumption that we had the power suggested here, but some people held that they were not quite sure whether or not we had that power, and that, if the matter were contested in court, it was possible that we might be beaten. Whether or not that was the case, the fact is that for the last seven years we have acted on that assumption, and all those terrible things that Deputy Dillon has outlined for us have not happened; at any rate, things were not so serious as Deputy Dillon would lead us to believe. Deputy Dillon talks about the monopoly created under the Bacon Bill, but that was in the original Bill and Deputy Dillon did not object to that power at the time. As a matter of fact, I should like to have an even bet with Deputy Dillon—of course, we are not allowed to bet across the House, but I should like to have a bet with him that he appealed to me at that time not to use that power unnecessarily. I remember distinctly that he asked me a question as to where did I think we would have to use that power, and, as far as I remember, I answered that it would be only in Donegal, and he was pleased at that.

So long as you did not use it indiscriminately.

Yes. The Deputy was pleased at that time. Therefore, when the Bacon Bill came before this House at that time, and when Deputy Dillon was in favour of it—of course he repudiates it now—his attitude was that we should not use that power by giving licences to other factories.

The Minister is mistaken.

Well, I have not the quotation here now, but we can look it up afterwards. At any rate, that is my recollection—that Deputy Dillon's view was that we should not use that power too freely. Now, however, without any thought, he gets up and makes a speech, and incidentally makes a fool of himself, because he is in favour of the amendment in Deputy Bennett's name. If it were my amendment, he would make an equally as long and irrelevant and foolish speech on the other side. The Deputy is quite capable of doing so. I am going to tell the Deputy what the Bacon Bill has accomplished in connection with the price of pigs. They are getting 72/- for pigs now.

The farmers.

Yes, for their best pigs.

For their best pigs, yes, but they were getting 44/- this time seven years ago.

What were they paying for Indian meal? Was it not 4/6?

Yes, about 4/6.

And they are paying 10/- now.

We accept the Deputy's figures, 4/6 and 10/-. Of course, they are not the correct figures, but, as he put them that way, I will accept them. The difference in the price of a pig was £2 2s. 0d. for a 12-stone, dead-weight, pig, as between December, 1931, and December, 1937. Feeding four pigs to the ton of meal, you could afford £8 8s. a ton or 8/6 a cwt. more for meal and still be as well off. The Deputy talks about being the director of a factory producing 250 pigs in the year, and the whole tenor of his speech was that the farmers did not rear pigs because they found it did not pay. It does not pay the Deputy to rear pigs, he tells us, and then he goes on to describe how he feeds them. The fact of the matter is that he knows nothing about feeding them. How could any man so ignorant of the basic facts in relation to the feeding of pigs make them pay?

The suggestion of a monopoly has been made. This is not a further monopoly. This legislation is to remove any doubts there are in regard to the original Act, doubts which my predecessor thought were there and which I thought were there and which, perhaps, are there. I do not know; I am not a lawyer. This amending legislation is brought in to remove these doubts and to see that the power is there. Deputy Corry was quite right. Deputy Dillon talked about competition. I remember when we brought in the original Bill and I stated then that we wanted to stop the system of having, as it were, two fairs on the same day, that we wanted to stop the practice then in existence. The Deputy referred to that as fair competition. Certain curers quoted their prices in the papers and from day to day there was a change.

Does not that appertain in the cattle markets, and is it suggested that we should abolish the cattle markets?

We set out to do better in regard to pigs and I believe we have done better, despite what Deputy Dillon and Deputy Gorey say. The farmer knows what he is likely to get for his pigs and he is not left at the mercy of the fairs. Deputy Dillon made a most injurious statement— that is, if anyone pays attention to what Deputy Dillon says. He says that the poor farmer sends in a Grade. A pig and it is graded as Grade B or Grade C in the factory. That is not true and the Deputy should not make a serious statement like that without ascertaining the facts. We have a veterinary surgeon and a lay inspector in every factory to see that the pigs are properly graded.

That is not true. The Minister is mistaken there. In every factory, large or small?

A veterinary surgeon examines every pig in every registered factory.

Large and small?

In every registered factory the veterinary surgeon examines every pig. In the bigger factories there are lay inspectors, but if there is no inspector in the smaller factory the veterinary surgeon supervises the grading. If the Deputy has the interests of the farmers at heart and would like to see more pigs produced in this country, he ought to give as much publicity to the denial of his statement as he did to the actual statement. Of course, he will not do so, for political reasons. He wants to be in a position, for political reasons, to come here or to go to County Monaghan and tell the people that the number of pigs is going down because of the policy of this Government. It is more important to the Deputy to get some political advantage out of this. He told us that a farmer had to stand outside a factory all day and in the evening an official came out and told him to go home, that they would not take his pigs. Where did that happen? In the beginning, when the factories were settling down to work, it might, to a small extent, have happened, but I can say within the last 12 months such a thing has not happened.

The farmers are advised by Deputy Dillon and others not to take up the rearing of pigs, because if they do they would spoil Fine Gael propaganda. The Deputy is a member of a board that deals with the production of 250 pigs, and he comes here to talk with authority and he thinks the farmers will listen to him and not go into the production of pigs, and in that way, perhaps, Fine Gael will get a further lease of life.

The Minister talks about the prices since the Act came into operation. Why have little girls been taken up for smuggling 9lbs. of bacon into the Free State from Northern Ireland? Why does this occur? Perhaps the Minister will explain. I furnished him with facts and figures, and I tell him now that people have been taken up for smuggling a few lbs. of bacon from Northern Ireland. I may also tell him that people have been smuggling pigs into Northern Ireland. How will the Minister explain that? The Minister mentioned that there were no applications for licences under the Pigs and Bacon Act turned down. If this section is passed there will be no applications for licences to export fresh pork, for the reason that no one will be so foolish as to go to the expense of preparing premises when he knows that the granting of a licence will be at the absolute discretion of the Minister. A man would be quite insane to apply for a licence or go to any expense in such circumstances.

The Minister flatters me when he says that my propaganda in the country is sufficient to dissuade farmers from going into pigs. He suggests I am responsible for the failure of wheat and the failure of tobacco.

You are only responsible for the failure of Cumann na nGaedheal.

I have no doubt the Ministers want to find alibis why their pet schemes have collapsed. It is gratifying to observe the Minister for Agriculture saying that. After bleeding the country for six years he has now adopted the policy of the late Mr. Hogan—one more cow, one more sow, one more acre under the plough. For ten years the Minister has stumped this country and he has denounced the late Mr. Hogan as a futility in his position, as the Minister for Grass, because his policy was one more cow, one more sow and one more acre under the plough. He has spent six years in office and during that time he has devastated the entire agricultural industry, and now he announces that the soundest policy for agriculture is one more cow, one more sow and one more acre under the plough. I did say to the Minister when he was discussing the Pigs and Bacon Bill that if he must have a home sales quota as well as an export sales quota it would be contrary to justice to take from the old factories part of their business and give it to other factories, without compensating the original factories; but if there was a free, open market to sell the bacon abroad or in Ireland to the best of your ability and supply your share to the British quota allocated by the Irish Government, then there need be no restriction on anybody going into the pig business. Our case was that if you are going to restrict the total amount of pigs that may be cured in Ireland to a figure no greater than the number already cured by the cures in existence, you have no right to take part of their business and give it to somebody else by law without compensating them. We made that case, and I would make it again to-morrow. If you had it open without any restriction on the output, then it is ridiculous to argue that people can get competition with the existing curers.

But the Deputy did not argue that.

If the Minister would refresh his memory he would find that the case made was that so long as you restrict your output to the existing figure you have no right to take any part of that output without compensating the factories from whom you are taking it. The Minister says that every pig slaughtered by a curer for conversion into bacon is inspected by a veterinary surgeon. Is that true?

Does the Minister tell me that every pig slaughtered by a curer for conversion into bacon is inspected by a veterinary surgeon?

Slaughtered by every licensed curer. I am using the words in a technical sense, perhaps.

Did the Minister mean to say that every pig slaughtered for conversion into bacon is examined by a veterinary surgeon?

Yes; 99 per cent. of them.

At all events there is a substantial number of small curers whose pigs when slaughtered are not examined by anyone?

Not more than 1 per cent. That is quite true.

It is also true to say that if a substantial injustice is done on any of these premises, the Government has no means of testing. When I made that statement here it was angrily controverted by the Minister as a statement made to deceive members of this House, because he said every pig was inspected by a veterinary surgeon. Now the Minister has discovered that he made a mistake. I would suggest to the Minister that the next time he gets up and gets vexed he would look before he leaps. Then he would not be putting his foot in it so often.

If the Deputy is relying on 1 per cent. all right.

Supposing the Minister is a farmer and he happens to be 100 per cent. within that 1 per cent., does not that 1 per cent. mean a lot then to him?

But one need not go to these small curers.

Supposing you are a farmer and you have two pigs, you cannot put these two pigs on a bicycle and take them off a distance of 40 miles to one of the larger factories.

I must say that is a poor-retreat for the Deputy.

But it is a fact Monopoly is bad, and this proposal of the Minister's is designed to promote monopoly. In so far as that is the case it ought to be resisted, and I propose to divide on this proposal.

The more this debate has advanced the more am I convinced that I was right when I introduced this amendment to the Minister's amending Bill. The Minister made it plain in his latest utterance that he is out to create a monopoly in fresh meat just as he has been creating a monopoly in other things. He has now let the cat out of the bag, though he did not do so when I brought forward my amendment on a former occasion. I said that if the amendment was not accepted that there was a vested interest being created in the trade. The Minister did not refer to that. But he was forced into it to-day by the enlargement of this debate into things with which it was not at first concerned. We have it now at any rate that he wants to create a monopoly in this matter. The Minister quoted several precedents to prove that he was right. These were mainly about pigs. I do not want to go very much into the pig industry. When making my speech here I refrained from touching on any industry, pigs or flour or other things.

My mind was taken away from the consideration of this subject by the speech of Deputy Corry, who spoke for a considerable time and wasted the time of the House. Yet he never referred to the amendment. For that reason I say he treated the House with disrespect. One could not gather from his speech that there was anything such as an amendment or a Bill in relation to fresh meat before the House. On this question I want to say that the Minister seemed at one time to be terribly afraid of a monopoly. He said that under the existing Pigs Act the trend was the other way, that people were against having new factories. I know the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not altogether in agreement with that view. I am aware that certain interests object to any extinction of the bacon factories. I used that as an argument for my amendment. One of the reasons put forward was that it was against the interests of Labour. I do not know that Labour advocates in this House should be altogether spokesmen for monopolies, or that they can accept the position that monopolies tend to increase employment. If you have a number of people engaged in the same trade, it appears almost certain that the greater the number engaged in competition, the greater the volume of labour that will be employed. The creation of one big central organisation tends to save labour. If you have one central organisation handling a whole industry, less labour is sure to be employed. In practice it will always be found that where you have a number of small organisations doing what one large one could do, more labour will be entailed. This is inevitable where you have a group of competitors rather than where the work is done under the control of an amalgamated industry which handles the whole trade.

Would the Deputy apply that to the travelling shop?

I maintain that where you have a group of competitors working independently more labour will be employed than would be where you had an amalgamation of these industries.

Who is going to pay them?

Deputy Corry is now altogether concerned about paying.

Deputy Bennett is concerned about the producer.

Evidently Deputy Corry is not concerned about the producer, but I am. I am very definitely concerned with the producer, and it is because I am concerned with the producer and with the people who handle the producer's goods that I have tabled the amendment to the Amending Bill. The Minister made no attempt whatsoever to justify Section 2 of this Amending Bill. The Minister did not say definitely that his operations were hindered in any way. The objection he made to the operations of the Principal Act proved conclusively that it tended largely to create a monopoly which in point of fact he desires to create now. When speaking on the last day the Minister said that the Principal Act had the effect of putting a number of people who were not desirable out of business. The Minister had in the Principal Act put a number of people whom he thought undesirable out of business already. But he did not think that was sufficient. Now he comes with this Amending Bill to make it possible to put a further number out of business and possibly to prevent anyone coming into the business, whether such a person was desirable or not.

You supported that policy.

I never supported that policy.

Of course you did under the Intoxicating Liquor Act.

I never supported it.

You supported the abolition of redundant public-houses.

Deputy Davin may have supported that policy but I never did.

Your Party brought in the Bill.

That is a different thing.

It did not give a monopoly.

It was intended to wipe out the redundant public-houses.

In recent years a tendency to eliminate Parliamentary powers altogether has arisen. There is a tendency to take away freedom of choice from business people and everybody else. That tendency is rapidly developing. Everything is operated now by regulation and not by legislation. We had legislation dealing with control of prices which eliminated any necessity for approaching the Dáil.

And we had Deputy Davin's Transport Act.

The Government are going to extend that policy in every way they can and do away with the powers of Parliament. We have a development of monopolies, so that the small private trader can be put out of business, leading to a system of business monopoly everywhere. We shall have a few huge industries in Dublin, Cork and a few other places and all competition will be eliminated. The Minister argued that it was not fair, when pigs were sold from fair to fair, that one man should get 5/- more than another. The Minister knows that that practice exists everywhere and that it will obtain so long as there are good sellers and bad sellers and good buyers and bad buyers. A good seller will get more than a bad seller, and a good buyer will purchase more cheaply than will a bad buyer. The Minister knows that that practice existed in the pig business and that there was no objection to it. It still exists in the cattle business. Everybody knows that there may be a difference of 5/- in price between two fairs or even in the same fair, dependent upon the seller or the buyer. That does not say that the system is wrong. I should like to see the Minister or any Deputy get up and say that the cattle fairs should be abolished and that the system which obtains in the case of bacon should apply in the case of cattle. The Minister has advanced no argument which would justify any Deputy in supporting Section 2 of this Bill. He has not shown that there is any necessity for it. He wants to create a monopoly and he intends to create a monopoly.

Question put: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 41.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Colbert, Michael.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Friel, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Heron, Archie.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Hurley, Jeremiah.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lawlor, Thomas.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • McGowan, Gerrard L.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Munnelly, John.
  • O'Brien, William.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Laurence J.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Conn.

Níl

  • Anthony, Richard S.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Burke, Thomas.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, John.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lavery, Cecil.
  • Linehan, Timothy.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cole, John J.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Neill, Eamon.
  • O'Shaughnessy, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Rogers, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, Jeremiah.
  • Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Killilea; Níl: Deputies Bennett and O'Leary.
Question declared carried.
Sections 2 to 6, inclusive, and the Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage fixed for Thursday, 13th January.
Top
Share