Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Jan 1938

Vol. 69 No. 20

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

Mr. Bennett

I move the following amendment:

In page 2, section 2 (1) line 23, after the word "premises" to add the words "save that where an application is made by an association representative of farmers, the Minister shall, subject to the provisions of the Principal Act, grant such application".

As the section stands, the effect is, as the Minister admitted, that it will be more difficult in every way for applicants to get licences. It might be that in certain districts where there is an extension of this trade farmers might like to get into the business. They might not be satisfied with the competition that exists and they might think that they were not being fairly treated. It is to give the farmers an opportunity of setting up in business themselves if they desire to do so and to make it easy for them to get a licence, that I put down this amendment. I think the amendment more or less speaks for itself and I do not think the Minister ought to have any serious objection to it.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister accept it?

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

No.

Mr. Linehan

In that event I would like to support Deputy Bennett's amendment. I am supporting it with this reservation, that I was extremely disappointed that the Minister did not see fit to accept the amendment introduced on the Committee Stage. Has the Minister made up his mind that he wants Section 2, as introduced, to stand? I think that he ought at least to accept this amendment. As Deputy Bennett said, where you find an association of people who are themselves producers and who decide to do the business side of the trade and go in with the object of providing a better market and more competition, with the object, possibly, of securing better prices for their own products, I do not see that the Minister could have any objection to facilitating them. Subject to correction, I believe that a similar provision has been put into other Acts of a somewhat similar nature. I do not think that the Minister can say that this amendment, which is seeking to allow an association of producers who intend to go into the business end to get a licence under the provisions of the Principal Act, is going to do the section any harm. I do not think the Minister can visualise that you are going to have six applications from the one street. One of the Minister's objections to the other amendment on the Committee Stage was that you might have six applications from the one street from people who felt they should have a licence. I do not think he can advance the same objection here. He cannot advance the objection that you are going to have applications from persons who have been turned down time and again. It is perfectly evident that the people who would apply for a licence would not expend their capital and build factories or any thing of that nature unless they were reasonably certain of getting a licence.

I do not think that the Minister need worry about the danger that there would be such a terrible spate of applications for licences if this amendment were passed. There is little danger that he would have a number of applications from people who had been turned down. I suggest that the amendment is perfectly reasonable. There is no reason why associations of producers should not have a chance of going into the business and putting themselves in the position where they would be able to get better prices for their own products, to create healthy competition, and so do something that will benefit the agricultural community through their being allowed to go into this trade.

Mr. McGovern

I think that the Minister should agree to the amendment. A similar clause was inserted in the Pigs and Bacon Act and, as we know, the trouble is that not enough have availed of it. If more had availed of it, it would relieve the Minister and the bacon curers also of much of the criticism that has been heard now and again. If the farmers get a licence and if they fail to make a success of their business then much of the criticism levelled against the Minister and the bacon curers would be got rid of. The more applications that come from organised farmers the better. The arguments yesterday made use of by the Minister for refusing to accept an amendment do not apply in this case. His argument on that occasion was that there would be too many applications and that too much expense would be involved in sending out inspectors to report on these applications. That argument would not apply here because you cannot get 200 or 300 farmers to get together who will acquire premises to start this business unless some very strong reasons can be advanced for it. When an association of farmers go to such great expense as is essential in such circumstances, it is only right that the Department should send down an inspector to report on the premises before granting a licence. I can see no reason why the Minister should not grant a licence to enable farmers to embark in this fresh meat trade themselves. Such a body of farmers should be treated as fairly as the curers.

Mr. Dillon

The acceptance of this amendment will decide the question whether the Government is in favour of co-operation or whether it is not. Our contention is that where a body of producers of live stock or any other agricultural product wish to go a stage further in their own industry and are desirous of taking on the sale of that product in addition to its production, they ought to have the right to do so. This amendment is designed to provide, where a group of farmers come together, put up the requisite capital, construct adequate premises and then come to the Minister for a licence to embark upon the export of fresh meat, that the Minister will be obliged to issue the licence within the terms of the Act and thus give the farmers the power to control all the operations connected with the export of their fresh meat products. Unless some such proviso is put into this Bill what is going to happen is that the existing vested interests in the export business of live stock products will object to any competition which groups of farmers propose to establish.

The Minister said yesterday that he wanted the amending Bill which we are now considering in order to get power to refuse to grant licences for the export of fresh meat without assigning any reason. He said unless he had that power he might have six people setting up in the same street and going into the fresh meat export business. Then he went on to say that under the Pigs and Bacon Act he had power to grant licences and that the only representations he ever got were vigorous protests when he proposed to grant such licences. Now these vigorous protests came from the existing vested interests. If vigorous protests were made by people from the locality where bacon curing was already operating; if they protested against the Minister granting licences to the owners of a bacon-curing industry in another district to serve the farmers of that district, it was because, as they said: "If you serve the farmers of that district you will be doing a disservice to the bacon curer of this district, and we say that the interest of the bacon curer should be served because he gives us a job and is a neighbour of ours, and we want his interest to be protected; we want you to serve the interest of the bacon curer and to neglect the interests of the farmer in Innishowen and to neglect the interest of the farmer in North-West Donegal; and we want you to do that while the interests of the bacon curer in South Donegal will be served." I have no doubt that the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party who represent North-East and West Donegal will assert themselves and see that a bacon factory is established which will profitably dispose of the pigs of these areas. When people have lambs and porkers to dispose of they want to claim the right to get for their products what, I have no doubt, Deputy Friel and other Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party are agitating to get for the pig producers of Donegal West and Innishowen.

We want, under this amendment, to create a situation under which, if a man who already has a licence to export fresh meat products, objects to the granting of a licence to another exporter in an adjacent are on the ground that his proportion of fresh meat will be reduced, the farmers of any particular area can come together and say: "Our interests can best be served by granting a second licence, and unless a second licence is granted we are not going to get the best price for our producers; therefore we are going to form a co-operative society for the export of fresh meat; we are going to demand from the Minister a licence to export fresh meat." When that demand is made by our farmers, this amendment is designed to see that a licence is granted. The Minister may, however, reply that there is nothing to prevent his giving them the licence. He may say: "I can do so without your amendment; if I think well of it there is nothing to stop me giving a licence." But we want to protect the Minister from the same kind of representation as those with which he is deluged at the present time when he contemplates granting a licence for the establishment of a bacon factory in North-West Donegal. We want the Minister to be in the position to say: "There is no use coming to me protesting. Under a clause in the Act these farmers have the right to demand a licence and I cannot refuse them so long as they have proper premises; so long as they comply with the regulations I cannot withhold my licence. I am bound to give it to them." Surely that is a desirable situation to create. Do Deputies consider that the farmers of this country are such fools that they will throw themselves into a co-operative society to export their fresh meat if such a society is foredoomed to failure?

I do not think that that is the case. So long as the farmers had an open market for the export of butter, they got along all right and the vast majority of co-operative societies formed for the export of butter not only did a profitable trade in the export of butter but extended and developed into other branches of trade. May we not hope that under this section they will establish co-operative societies for the export of fresh meat, and, having so established them, develop them along broader lines and serve a very useful public service in their own areas? Surely the enterprising farmer who is prepared to stand on his own feet and do the whole job for himself is entitled to that amount of consideration from this House—that he will get the chance to prove himself. That is all we are asking for. We are not asking for a grant or subsidy or any kind of Government assistance, good, bad or indifferent. All we are asking is that if a group of farmers should come together and undertake to put up their own money, undertake to do the entire job themselves, they will have the right to do it and will not be stopped from doing it by some established vested interest. Is that an unreasonable demand? I think not. Notwithstanding that, when we challenge a division on this amendment, I venture to prophesy that all the Fianna Fáil T.D.'s who profess to represent small farmers will stump into the lobby to establish the principle that the vested interests at present exporting fresh meat under Government licence will be maintained in their present position and have the right absolutely to veto any attempt by a group of farmers to embark on the fresh meat export business themselves. When Deputies opposite do that, they will be betraying the purpose for which they were sent to this House. Members of the Fianna Fáil Party who do that will be betraying the interests of the people who sent them here. They will not do that for the first time, but I hope they will do it for the last time.

Dr. Ryan

On certain questions arising out of this amendment, very plausible arguments can be put forward, but when we come down to what we all know the practice to be, I think that any reasonable Deputy will agree that the amendment is not desirable. I said last night that if I had accepted the amendment down then, I might get six applications from one street. If I were to accept this amendment, I might get six application from one townland or one street. We all know the sort of associations which have been set up in this country to represent, as they claimed, farmers. When they claim to represent farmers both economically and politically, who is to say whether they represent farmers or not? It is hardly enough that they should say that they represent farmers to be entitled to a licence. I do not want to argue on the wording of the amendment, because a Deputy might say that, given time, they could frame the amendment in the proper way. Even if the amendment were so worded as to provide that these associations would have a paid-up membership of farmers, I think the amendment would be undesirable. Experience has shown that.

I am going to say what Deputy Dillon prophesied—that I have the option of granting a licence where it is considered desirable I should do so. Wherever it is thought that a better price will be given to the producer, I think I may say that a licence will be issued. This Act has been in operation for seven years and it has been operated on the understanding that the Minister had this discretion. On that assumption, licences have been granted and preference has always been given to the application of a co-operative society. Within the past couple of years, applications from co-operative societies were refused for a reason which I shall explain. When you have seven or eight co-operative societies operating in a country, they have a fairly intimate knowledge of the business carried on by one another. If one society is doing fairly well because it is in a certain line of business, whether cheese-making, turning out cream or engaging in the fresh meat trade, the other societies, when they see that, want to go into the same trade. That is our experience. If one society were doing well in the fresh meat trade, every other society in the area would be claiming a licence. For that reason these applications were turned down. Deputy Bennett and Deputy Linehan know the thickly populated type of area which I have in mind. If all co-operative societies were granted a licence in these areas to deal in pork or lamb, they could not possibly get a sufficient supply to make the business pay. Naturally and inevitably, there would be a loss on the business to every one of them.

Deputy Dillon spoke of the co-operative societies doing well when there was free export of butter. He said that the co-operative societies developed and extended and did well when that was the case. If Deputies will cast their minds back to 1927, they will find that there was chaos amongst the co-operative societies at that time. In many cases, they set out to compete against proprietors. The same might happen if absolute power were given to a co-operative society to engage in the fresh meat business. When the creameries set out to compete against the proprietors, the proprietors set out to kill the co-operative societies. The result was that in 1927, when the reorganisation of the industry was attempted, a number of co-operative societies were bankrupt. It cost a great deal of money to get all the creameries under co-operative control. It involved buying out the proprietors and bolstering up the weak co-operatives. There was no power at the time to refuse a licence to a co-operative society or to a proprietor in order that they might be prevented from entering into the making of butter.

Mr. Dillon

That is a very specious explanation.

Dr. Ryan

That was the case. If the Government had had, for some years preceding that, the power of refusing applications from co-operative societies or proprietors for leave to enter into the dairying business, that state of chaos would not have occurred. Since then the creamery business was reorganised. The Minister was given power to refuse licences, and, as a result, things have been very much better. Deputy Bennett and Deputy Linehan will also be familiar with this position : you will get a group of farmers who ask themselves why they should be bringing their milk three miles to a creamery. They say that they will start a creamery of their own. That occurs very often. Their application is refused by the Minister in many cases. Deputy Bennett will admit that if these applications were not refused, not only would these groups of farmers ruin themselves, but they would succeed in injuring the surrounding creameries by taking supplies of milk from them. Were it not for the power to refuse these applications, many groups of farmers would have done themselves this injury.

I admit that, in principle, it is wrong that the Minister should have this discretion as regards applications, but every Deputy realises that before the Minister gives his decision on an application like that he is advised by the different classes of officials—the inspector on the spot, the head inspector, and those engaged in the administration of that branch who have a certain amount of experience of the work. Acting on that advice, to a great extent, the Minister grants or refuses the application. I admit that in principle it is wrong that the Minister should have this discretion. I have some hope that if we had this long-expected Co-operative Bill passed there might be a via media found for such cases, because we would then have a ruling authority over the co-operative business and possibly a certain amount of the authority now vested in the Minister might be vested in it, so that they would be in a position to say if any co-operative society were to apply for a licence for a creamery or a fresh meat factory: “We consider that in the interests of the co-operative movement in general this licence should be granted, or should be rejected.” Whether you would bind the Minister either to accept that opinion or to take it into account, I do not know; but that could be done when the Co-operative Bill comes up, which I hope will be during this year.

Finally, I want to say that we have acted on the assumption all the time— it is not a new principle—that the power which we seek in this Bill to put beyond doubt was vested in the Minister. We turned down applications and we granted others. I do not know whether any great mistake has been made—I do not think so— and I know that Deputies opposite will agree that the power was not abused in any way. In exercising that power both my predecessor and myself acted in what we thought was the best interest of the producers. It may be wrong in principle—I am quite prepared to admit that—but I think it is the only practicable way of carrying on business at the moment. As I say, the only other solution I can find is that when the Co-operative Bill is passed and an authority set up to preside over the whole co-operative movement, it might be the proper authority in which to vest some of the powers now vested in the Minister.

Mr. Gorey

I take it that the Minister's objection is to the word "shall."

Mr. Dillon

The Minister objects to the amendment.

Dr. Ryan

If you change it to "may" it has no meaning.

Mr. McGovern rose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does the Deputy realise that this is the Report Stage?

Mr. McGovern

I want to say just a couple of words.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If I allow the Deputy to say a couple of words, I shall have to allow every other Deputy to say a couple of words. If the Deputy wants to ask a question, I shall allow him to do so.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Esmonde

I want to make a few observations generally on the principle embodied in this Bill, which principle has been attacked in two amendments, one yesterday and one to-day. My objection to the Bill as it stands is to the giving of a discretion to the Minister which he himself admits is wrong in principle; but in any remarks that I have to make in attacking that aspect of the Bill I wish it to be clearly understood by the Minister and by the House that I do not for one moment suggest that the Minister, or any successor of his, would invoke the aid of Section 2 for the purpose of dealing unjustly or unfairly with any application for a licence that might come to his Department. This is one of the first measures which we are about to pass since the new Constitution came into force, and, as a lawyer, and a citizen of this State, I will bow to no one in the respect I will pay to that Constitution and the words contained therein, but I submit that the principle embodied in Section 2 is in direct conflict, if not with the letter, at all events, with the spirit of the Constitution.

If the House will pardon me for a moment, I shall come back to the relevant Articles of the Constitution in support of that argument, but before I reach that stage, there are a number of reasons, apart from that which I have just stated, why I suggest this Bill should not be allowed to go on to the statute book in its present form. It will, I think, be admitted by everyone, as it is admitted by the Minister, that it is wrong in principle to grant to a Minister, or to any official of this State, an absolute discretion to refuse or to grant a licence similar in character to this. There have been, during the past few years, a number of Acts put into operation in connection with agricultural produce. There have been statutes passed in connection with eggs, in connection with butter and in connection with creameries, and now this Bill deals with fresh meat. In none of those statutes can I find this absolute discretion given to a Minister who is the Minister in charge of the Department dealing with their administration. There is, however, in another similar Act an absolute discretion given to the Minister. That is the Act which deals with milling licences. We have listened to a great deal of discussion here on the result of the operation of these licences, and the limitation of the number of mills, and I think we must come to the conclusion, as a result of those discussions, that enormous profits have been made by the millers through the granting of those licences. That is the only statute I could find, in the short time at my disposal for a search, in which an absolute discretion is given to the Minister to refuse or to grant a licence.

I say that it is bad in principle that the Minister should have this discretion. He admits it himself, and I say that he should come to this House and convince it with arguments that could not possibly be refuted on the grounds of expediency and on every other ground, in order to get the members of this House to accept the position that he should have this absolute discretion, he at the time admitting that it is wrong in principle. I am a great believer in the institution of Parliamentary representation. Unfortunately, if we cast our eyes around the map of Europe, or the map of the world, we find that the Parliamentary institutions of the different countries are crumbling into dust. We can flatter ourselves that in so far as we have a Parliamentary institution, it is beloved and cherished by the people, and I hope it always will be. But there is always the thin end of the wedge; there is always the little crack that can be made in the ramparts, and I suggest that by giving the Minister for Agriculture the right to do what he seeks in this Bill, you are driving the first blow into the ramparts and walls of Parliamentary institutions and creating a dangerous and an alarming experiment. The Minister stated on the Committee Stage that the reason why Section 2 is necessary was, in the first place, to obviate the expense of sending inspectors to inspect premises proposed to be licenses. I may be wrong in that, but I gather that that was the tenour of the Minister's remarks, and that it was deemed desirable to have a certain amount of monopoly with regard to slaughterhouses and the resultant licensing of exports therefrom. If that is so. I cannot see that that is an adequate ground for introducing this section, especially having regard to the fact that the Minister stated that since the original Act was passed in 1930 he had on numerous occasions, in virtue of his office, carried out the administration of that Act as if this section were embodied in it, and had the meaning purporting to be given to it at the present time. If the Minister has acted on the assumption that he had the absolute right of veto on licences of this kind, and had not been challenged on it, or if he has unfairly operated that end of the Act, why the necessity to put in this dangerous section here?

I have only a few other observations to make before I refer Deputies to some of the relative Articles of the Constitution. There is no question whatever, but this section is designed in such a way that it will tend to create a monopoly. We have only to look to a great country like the United States of America for proof of the life and death struggle that is going on there in order to abolish the system of monopolies and trusts that was created there. Of course we are not as big or as rich as that country, and we do not deal in millions as they do in America, at the same time, monopolies, even in a small way, are dangerous when introduced.

I suggest to Deputies that, while the Constitution has been enacted by the people, we stand between the people and the Executive, in order to see that the people get the rights that have been given to them, and to see that they are not lightly taken away. The Minister in charge of this Bill is, I might say, an expert on the Constitution, because I read recently that he delivered a lecture on the subject in his constituency. Therefore, he will perhaps appreciate the observations I wish to make on the subject. I ask the Minister to consider Article 45 of the Constitution. Is he of opinion that if he insists upon this Bill passing with this section in it, that he is not breaking his trust to the people who are alleged to have enacted the Constitution? Article 45 reads:—

The principles of social policy set forth in this Article are intended for the general guidance of the Oireachtas. The application of those principles in the making of laws shall be the care of the Oireachtas exclusively, and shall not be cognisable by any Court under any of the provisions of this Constitution.

It is our exclusive care, both Ministers and Deputies, to see that the principles of social policy set forth in the Article are carried into effect. According to paragraph iii of the Article the objects are:—

iii. That, especially, the operation of free competition shall not be allowed so to develop as to result in the concentration of the ownership or control of essential commodities in a few individuals to the common detriment.

The Minister has admitted that the result of this section, when carried to its logical conclusion, will be to deprive certain individuals of the right of free competition, and to place the control of commodities, that is to say, the export of fresh beef, in the hands of a few. I suggest that that is to the detriment of the citizens of this State. Has the Minister or the Government considered whether the delegation of that absolute right to the Minister in regard to the licensing of exports is a detriment to the citizens of the State? Have they considered whether that is not a breach of faith under the Constitution they piloted through this House? It is not my intention to suggest that the Minister would in any way act unfairly. I am not so much really concerned with this particular Bill as with the principle being introduced into Parliamentary institutions. I say that it will affect the future of Parliamentary government. I ask the Minister to consider the matter in that light. As this is one of the first Bills to be passed under and by virtue of the new Constitution is it not breaking faith with the people who passed that Constitution to have this section in the Bill?

Dr. Ryan

If Deputy Esmonde looks up certain Acts that were passed here he will find that this power or discretion in the Minister is embodied in a number of them. I mentioned the Dairy Produce Act, 1924, where the Minister took power to refuse at his absolute discretion licences for the manufacture of butter. In the Export of Potatoes Act the Minister had power to refuse to issue licences for the export of potatoes at his discretion. Other Acts have been passed since containing that provision. For instance, a person cannot start a maize mill without licence from the Minister. He cannot start as a wheat dealer without a licence. There is also the instance of the bacon factory. There are other things, such as the manufacture of meat products, where licences are necessary. These are the only ones that I can recollect at the moment. I am sure that there are more if we had time to search through the various Agricultural Acts passed during the last 10 or 12 years. This, therefore, is not an uncommon power. In fact, in all these Acts dealing with the better production of agricultural commodities, whether for internal consumption or for export, that power has been taken. Deputy Esmonde asked me if we had acted on the assumption that this power was already vested in the Minister, why we brought in the section. For the reason that a certain amount of doubt was cast on it. I was advised that if an applicant for a licence, on being refused, were to appeal to the courts he might possibly get an order compelling the Minister to issue a licence on the grounds that the Minister had not the power to refuse it. It was to remove a doubt of that kind that the section was brought in.

Lastly, with regard to the Constitution. I have stated here on many occasions that I do not like being put in the position of arguing with lawyers on legal subjects. I do not think, however, that the Article quoted by the Deputy has reference to a case such as this. My reading of that Article is that we would not permit a person engaged in any trade to wipe out everybody else in it, and then, having got complete control of that particular trade, to recoup himself for any losses he might have incurred in becoming a monopolist, by making unduly large profits. I think this is not a parallel case at all. Although the Article in the Constitution which has been quoted speaks of monopolies, I think it does so from quite a different angle. It refers to giving a monopoly to people already in a business which, of course, we are not doing here.

Question put.

The Dáil divided : Tá, 65; Níl, 35.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Carty, Frank.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Davin, William.
• Davis, Matt.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Everett, James.
• Flynn, John.
• 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.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• McGowan, Gerrard L.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Meaney, Cornelius.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Munnelly, John.
• Norton, William.
• O'Brien, William.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar
• Tubridy, Seán.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Laurence J.
• Ward, Conn.

Níl

• Anthony, Richard S.
• Bennett, George C.
• Benson, Ernest E.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Burke, Thomas.
• Cole, John J.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John A.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Esmonde, John L.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finlay, John.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Keating, John.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Linehan, Timothy.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph, W.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Donovan, Timothy J.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Shaughnessy, John J.
• O'Sullivan, John M.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Rogers, Patrick J.
• Ryan, Jeremiah.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Bennett and O'Leary.

Question declared carried.