Paragraph (b) refers to "any animal and that extends the operation of this Bill to pigs. In the Bill which we have just disposed of, any existing tariff or restriction on the importation of pigs has been removed. In another Bill which we disposed of to-day — the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Bill—reference is made to certain feeding stuffs and to restrictions upon their import into this country. All these matters will have their reaction on the general industry of pig production and I think it is right that the House should now face the crisis which threatens that great industry. Few people realise the extent to which the pig industry has declined in this country over the last five years. Speaking in terms of volume, and taking one cwt. of bacon exported as approximately representing one pig produced, our produce of pigs fell from 787, 491 pigs in 1931 to 574, 294, in 1937. The decline in pigs produced between the years 1935 and 1927 is as from 627,748 pigs in 1935 to 574,249 pigs in 1937. That is taking one cwt. of bacon to be approximately equal to one pig, and that is a reasonably accurate calculation for a rough and ready comparative estimate. I now allege that the decline in pig production in this country during the last two years is due to the scandalous conduct of the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board.
Agricultural Products (Regulation of Import) Bill, 1938-Committee and final Stages.
The Deputy suggests that the word "animal" in this section justifies him in raising the whole question of the pig industry of this country. With equal justification a Deputy could raise the question of horses, and so on. That would not be justified. This is a Bill to implement an Agreement. I should like the Deputy to point out what the Pigs Marketing Board has got to do with this Bill.
I have no desire to circumvent or avoid your ruling, but we have been presented with an international Agreement which is of very wide application. Our first concern must be to reject or adopt it and, if we adopt it, then to consider it in all its details. The Minister for Finance moved Bills which implenmented his part od the Agreement; the Minister for Industry and Commerce moved Bills for his part of the Agreement, and now the Minster for Agriculture comes with his Bill to implement his part of the Agreement. I suggest that one of the vital parts of that Agreement the free admission of live pigs to Great Britain and the free admission of bacon to Great Britain, and if we are to get value for the more material concessions we have made to Great Britain, we have got to out of the agricultural concessions that we got, the maximum possible yield.
Quite.
Unless we are going to take the measures necessary to get that, then this Agreement is going to be a complete farce. My submission now is that the Minister for Agriculture is disposing of this part of the Agreement and I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, so far as pigs are conecrned, which ought to make an immense contribution to the agricultural end of this Agreement, we are going to lose the whole of that contribution if we do not take vigorous measures to put our own house in order and we are going to about the Agreement if we do not put our house in order. I think so far as cattle and other livestock are concerned, there is very little dividing the Minister and us is our attitude towards them. The general policy should be to get out f the Agreement everything that can be got out of it. Unless we take definite steps here in regard to pigs I suggest we are going to lose what should be one of the most valuable parts of the Agreement. It is for that reason I want to submit now that continued responsibility on the part of the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board is inconsistent with extracting from this Agreement the value we ought to get out of it.
Could the Deputy not develop that argument better on the Estimate for the Minister's Department?
I believe that if I raised it on the Estimate the Minister would immediately rise to a point of order and say that he was not responsible for either of those Boards. He has done so on previous occasions.
If the Minisster is not responsible, why appeal to him now.
Because I contend that he is. The Minister has declined to answer Parliamentary questions. He says he will pass the matter over to the Boards.
The Chair will hear the Deputy.
I am much obliged to you. I confess that the Minister and I, in our previous discussions on matters relating to agriculture, may have allowed a note of acrimony to creep in on occasion, which was perhaps understandable, owing to the radical differences which existed between us in the last few years on general matters of policy. I think and I hope that it will be unnecessary for any such note of acrimony to enter into our discussions in future, because I believe we will arrive in principle at substantial agreement on what ought to be done and, if we differ at all, it will be merely a question differing as to the best method of getting it done.
I do not believe the Minister is being properly supported by the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board and the I formally allege in the most public possible way that the members of the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board are at present engaged upon a conspiracy to capture for themselves a monopoly of the bacon curing industry of this country. I now allege that the members of these Boards are deliberatrely trying to wipe out the export business in live Pigs. to wipe out all the small bacon curers and to have two large amalgamations controlled by two of the existing companies to function as a virtual monopoly in the bacon manufcturing trade and, incidentally, in the bacon production industry.
In that connection I want to add this, with the fullest sense of responsibility, that sooner or later, even if the present Minister does not agree with me, there will be a change in the ordinary ebb and flow of politics. If any such monopoly is established in the bacon curing industry, let the monopolists make that monopoly in the knowledge that on the day our Party get into office they will be expropriated for a small sum. There is no question of confiscating any person's property. There is no suggestion of a threat to take form any man his own without fair compensation, but there is a warning that it is not considered sound policy from a social point of view to allow monopolies to enter into vital parts of the people's industries, to allow essential things such as bacon and pigs to fall into the hands of monopolists. If the attempt is made it will be met by such drastic action as may be considered necessary, even to the extent of putting the matter into the hands of the State.
I put it to the Minister that is he is able now to stop that and the he ought to fix these intending monopolists with the notice with which I fix them. If he does that, the whole plan will be dropped because they will realise that there is nothing to be got out of it. I ask him to go further. I ask him completely to reconstitute the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board. The Bacon Marketing Board is at present absolutely controlled by two bacon curers in this country, and I will name them at a later date if steps are not taken to remedy the situation. They have deliberately—and here, I think, the Minister has mistakenly consented to their plan—discouraged the country fair for pigs. They have urged strongly that pigs should be bought by co-operative groups and sent in direct to the factory and that the people ought to avoid the fair. I put it more strongly to the Minister that the result of that has been greatly to the people's own detriment.
I am sure that the Minister has enjoined upon these factories to do everything they can do to accommodate the pig producers and to help the farmers in every way they can. In fact, they are not helping the farmers in every way they can, and the attitude of the Pigs Marketing Board has been very unhelpful. The farmers have been left with pigs on their hands, with no factory expressing its willingness to take them. A man rears a pig, expending his time and money in feeding that pig, but the result is when he brings it to the market he is told that the factory cannot take it for another fortnight. If he takes the pig home he is at the loss of a fortnight's feeding for the animal; in addition, after a fortnights feeding the animal falls into a lower grade, being too fat. So the farmer not only loses his market, but he also loses the grade price owing to the pig being allowed to get over-fat in that fortnight.
I put it to the Minister that there is not effective representaion for either the producers or the consumers on the Pigs Marketing Board or on the Bacon Marketing Board. I submit to the Minister that unless a very drastic reform is carried out in both these bodies he ought to abolish them altogether. They have signally and deplorably failed in the purposes which they were set up to serve. One of their main functions was to level out the prices of the pigs all through the year. They have done nothing whatsoever in that direction. The price of pigs has gone up and has fallen just as mush as it did before these boards were established. Another of their functions was to raise the prise of pigs. If you look at world prices now, I do not believe that the price of pigs has gone up one penny as a result of the intervention of the Pigs Marketing Board. Another of their functions was to increase the output of pigs in the country. Far from achieving hat, they have reduced the out put of pigs and bacon by about 100, 000 pigs. Nothing that these two boards have done since they were established has helped the pig induustry in this country. I believe that the Minister has done himself and his Department a grave injustice by declining all responsibility for the activities of these two bodies. I urge on the Minister most strongly either (1) to dissolve or abolish these boards or (2) to reconstitute them from the ground up.
Would Deputy Dillon think of offering proofs of the intrigues he mentions as to the Bacon Marketing Board?
Such as?
The Deputy mentions intrigues of the board with a view to monopoly.
Yes, and I repeat that allegation.
Does the Deputy expect the Minister to accept that allegation?
I think the Minister is probably beginning to suspect that himself. Deputy Moore asked for demonstrable proofs. Of course you cannot get proofs of these things. You never can. These people know perfectly well that I am opposed to them. Their first concern is to get me as far away from their activities as it is possible for them to do. They are praying to God that I will know nothing about their activities, because they know that if I find out anything about them I will bring the matter before the House at the earliest possible moment. It is with the greatest difficulty I get any information and it is for that reason that I am coming to the Minister asking him to help me in this matter and to intimate to those people who have those ideas in their heads that they cannot get away with it. I know that moves are going on at present to amalgamate the bacon factories, I do not know what the Minister's attitude is to that.
I can assure the Minister that we want to help to get the maximum number of pigs produced in this country; that we want to help to get sale for the maximum number of pigs and we want the maximum amount of bacon to be produced. I want, in addition to assure him that we want to get the very best type of pig into the country. I think the Minister himself appreciates the point that I have never balaboured him on the question of the Ulster pig that so many of my constituents would like me to urge on the Minister's attention. I have always held that the Ulster pigs was the right pig, but I never tried to worry or embarrass the Minister on that point. I urge him to believe that we are earnestly desirous of cooperating with him in improving this industry and to get as large a share of the British market as it is humanly possible for us to get. I do urge on him that the really formidable obstacles in his way of achieving these things are the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Borad. If he will either reconstitute them or abolish them he can depend on the fullest possible co-operation that he could desire from us in any steps that may be necessary in order to promote the interests of this all-important branch of agricultural industry.
I did not, of course, anticipate that Deputy Dillon would raise this matter on this particular-Bill. I have not, therefore, got the facts that would enable me to say whether Deputy Dillon is right in his allegation or not. I do not think we can discuss this matter of pigs in the fall of the number of pigs in the country on the basis that anything in particular is responsible. I have read articles, and I am sure that Deputy Dillon has read them too, in the "International Review of Agriculture" by very eminent statisticians from other countries. These experts have been trying to find the basis of this rise and fall in the price of pigs. The fact is that nobody has yet solved that question. Pigs go up and down in numbers, and nobody can say why We are no the lower end of the stick at present. Two or three years ago there was a lot of pigs in the country, but there are not so many now. If the would is going to go on as it has been going on in the past, we will again in another two or three years have a lot of pigs.
I do not think that Deputy Dillon, in comparing the numbers of pigs and pig prices in 1931 with the prices and numbers of pigs in 1937, has allowed for the imports of bacon, which were considerably reduced in 1937 as compared with 1931. Probably we will have an opportunity of discussing this when my Estimate comes before the Dáil. I would not have the slightest objection to discussing the general principles of the pig market and the general principles of the Pigs Marketing Board if these were now in order. They will be in order on the Estimate. If I have refused to answer questions in the Dáil with regard to orders made by the Pigs Marketing Board as to prices, I think I was quite right, because I could not be responsible for what a board with statutory powers might do. Perhaps that point of view may be argued, but on general principles I do not think Deputy Dillon would agree with it. On general principles we are going to regulate agricultural industry here as in other countries, and Deputy Dillon might argue that it should always and in all cases be kept under the immediate control of the Minister. I think if we come to regulate the agricultural industries and put them under the control as far as possible of the people concerned, it is the best system, if we can get it to work in the best possible way.
I do not think it can be held that the board are there to destroy the export of pigs. In tat particular case the British Government gives us a quota. That has been the case since 1933. Under this Agreement that will remain. We get a quota for bacon and bacon pigs. It is the British Government that has always insisted that the percentage of that quota of live pigs must be cut very small. I think it is something like 3.5 per cent. of the whole. Not more than a certain per centage must be live pigs. The Pigs Marketing Board or the Bacon Marketing Board have absolutely nothing to do with that. We tell them what we can permit them to export in the form of bacon and they have nothing to do with what is permitted to be exported in the form of live pigs.
I do not know if it does very much good to threaten those people with expropriation. If I had no legal powers to deal with them if they were going to do something that I thought very wrong, and I were to call them together and say: "I have no power to deal with you now but I mean to get that power from the Dáil in the shortest possible time," I quite agree with the Deputy that they might not proceed against my wishes, but I cannot say if things are as bad as the Deputy fears. A case could be made probably for the reconstitution of the boards or even for the amalgamation of the boards. I made the case when I brought in the amending Bill that these boards were only a very short time operating and that, in fact, the time was too short to review the position in regard to them. Of course, a time will come—the time may have arrived now—to review the working of the Pigs and Bacon Act to see if there should be any modification of the Act carried out, such as a reconstitution or an amalgamation of the boards. I agree with the Deputy that if we can find the time we ought to get down to an examination of these matters in the near future.
I do not know if the Deputy could establish his point that the board is controlled by two curers. If it is, we must put it down to the ability of these curers because every one of the seven members has an equal vote. As a matter of fact I know that, in the beginning at any rate, the large curers had great fears that they would be outvoted by the smaller men. Perhaps the bigger men are more able, but I do not know how the bigger men could unduly influence the smaller curers to such an extent as to induce them to carry something which they were not willing to carry and which would not be in the interests of the smaller curers. I cannot, therefore, see the force of the Deputy's point that the Bacon Board is controlled by two curers. Whether, again, there is anything in the point that the big curers are seeking an amalgamation or a monopoly, I cannot say. I have heard rumors, not lately, but some time ago, that there was a movement amongst a number of curers to amalgamate, but I was told afterwards that it did not come to anything. It was impossible anyway to find a basis of agreement on that, and I do not think there is very much in it. I have power, as the Deputy knows, under the Pigs and Bacon Act, to refuse to issue a licence for the transfer of a factory to another person. The reason that was put into the Act was to prevent a large curer from getting a monopoly of the greater part of the bacon trade. There is, however, a difficulty which I need not go into, this evening. There is a legal difficulty in that clause, and it could be circumvented.
By the holding company.
That is right. That is a matter that can be dealt with at a future time. I think that the Deputy is perhaps right in his contention that the board has discouraged country fairs. Whether that was their object or not I cannot say, but the effect, anyway, of the operation of the Act has been that rather more pigs are going direct to the factory and less to the fairs. It was said at a later stage that pigs are being left on the farmers' hands.
That is true.
I believe it is true, but in the recent Act which I brought in, the amending Act, I asked the Dáil to enact a clause, which the Dáil with some hesitation agreed to, providing that if a farmer were to write to me and say that he has pigs for sale and that he cannot get a factory to take them, I would ask the chairman of the board to compel some factory to take them.
To compel them?
Yes.
There need be no compulsion if they are ready to take them.
The allegation at that time was that there were certain factories that did not fill the quota, that they were buying from some people and not from others. In order to deal with that, we put a clause in the Act which would compel a factory to take pigs from certain farmers when asked to do so. The Deputy also says that the producers and the consumers are not represented on these boards. I might remind him that when I came before the Dáil with the first Act, I said that I could not see pig producers represented on the board except through nomination. I can honestly say that I would be very glad if any Deputy would provide me with a scheme for the selection of such producers' representatives, and leave me out of it, because it generally happens in such matters that if the Minister has the responsibility of placing three men on the board, he displeases quite a number of others. It would be a very much better for him not to have the responsibility if he could avoid it, of selection these producer members. If we have any revision on review of the existing legislation, I certainly will do my very utmost to see that we shall have some other method of putting these representatives of producers on the board. Of course, consumers, as such, are not represented on the board but the machinery for seeing that consumers' interests are protected is provided through the Prices Commission which is at present examining the price of bacon and which heard evidence from curers, wholesalers and retailers. I expect that we shall have a report from them in the near future. The Deputy says that the board was set up in order to level up prices. I think it is not really just to say that they have not done that, because I think any Deputy who looks at the prices paid during the autumn since the board was established will admit that the are far and away better than the autumn prices before the board was set up.
They have levelled them up.
And they are higher. They have not, it is true, given a level price all the year. I do not think we ever hoped that they would. I think if we were enjoin on the board to make prices level the whole year through we would have a very much bigger production in the Autumn. than during the other months, because farmers are more inclined to produce more things in the Autumn. We must give a lower price then and a higher price at this time in order to induce farmers to produce pigs outside the Autumn months. The third object, as the Deputy stated, was to increase the output of pigs. I suppose if the Pigs Marketing Board were to fix and to give a better price for pigs in the Autumn to ensure farmers getting rid of them when fat that is as much as the board could be expected to do, and to increase production. They may be able to do that better now. I think they should be able to do it better now when these tariffs are removed, and that we may have increased production of pigs. I believe we will. As Deputies know, they went a stage by giving out young sows. I believe that was a very good move, and that it may have very good effects. I may say that these sows were placed where sows were very scarce before, if not altogether unknown in some parts.
In Donegal.
Donegal was a pig-producing county in certain parts.
Seasonal.
I believe that is true. I do not know if we could usefully discuss this question now. Certainly I give Deputies an assurance that I would be only too pleased to make any inquiries that might be necessary. Perhaps there may be time to do that in the near future, so as to see if any useful changes could be made. If we consider that useful changes could be made, naturally I will come before the Dáil to ask for the necessary powers.
May I put to the Minister one thing I have in mind? The British Government are trying to organise their own pig production, and they are trying to do it on the basis of some kind of marketing board which would deal with units that would contract for supplies of pigs. I know that the old scheme broke down and that they are trying now rather along these lines. Would it be possible for us to go to the British Marketing Board and say: "Your primary concern is to secure supplies of pigs without having to ferry them across the North Sea or the Atlantic Ocean. If you would permit us to join your pigs marketing scheme as a unit we would be in a position at the beginning of the contract period to deliver 40,000 pigs"? We would have to send all the pigs through an export corporation or through the Minister for Agriculture in order to avail of the British scheme and the preference to deal in units. Could we not get that share of live pigs in addition to the quota we are getting for bacon? If we could do that, would not that market for live pigs enable the Minister to avail of the services of the pig-buyers and keep the live pig fairs going? When I say live pig fairs, I mean where live pigs are still in existence throughout the country. I am convinced, if the Minister would do that, he would greatly ease his own problem, and people who are complaining that they cannot get satisfaction from the factories would have the fairs to go to. They would go to buyers there who would be able to place their pigs for them. I think if the Minister were an exporter, and set up a division for that purpose, he would find a mixed lot of pigs coming forward, but with the expert advice which is readily available about the different markets in England, it would be quite easy to dispose of all the kinds of large white pigs which would reach him for export, instead of having, as at present, people harassed and distressed by inability to market what they produce. I strongly urge on the Minister that something of that kind should be done. If we got the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board properly reconstituted, and if the Minister could revive the live pig export business, we would be getting somewhere, and the pig industry would grow and become one of the richest sources of agricultural income that the people have. There are other matters related to this, but I propose to defer them until the Minister's Estimate, when they will be relevant. They include the cost of feeding stuffs, which, the Chair will agree, is a matter that would be more properly dealt with when dealing with the general question on the Agricultural Estimate.
I did not think this question would be raised this evening on this Bill, but I wish to say a few words on it now. There is no question at all but the pig and bacon curers have made considerable profits in 1935-36, 1936-37 and during portion of the year 1937-38. Attention was drawn to that some time ago. But the position since Christmas has been anything but right, and curers have been buying to sell at a loss. I venture to say that there is not a curer in Ireland in the business to-day who has not been at a steady loss since Christmas.
They could well afford it.
Prices are much steadier since the Pigs marketing Board came into operation than before that. If there is a slight fluctuation there is nothing like the slumps we used to have. Slumps are not in evidence now as they were before the advent of the board. Prices may not be at a perfect level, but slumps have been done away with. The Minister mentioned the young sows that were sent out. He had better remember that the provision of young sows is really not the trouble. The reason people got out of sows and ceased to breed litters was because they had not credit and the means to feed them. The cost of a young sow six, eight, or ten weeks old would be anywhere from 25/- to 35/-. That is not the real consideration. The main thing is that people had not the means nor the credit to buy food, costing perhaps £30, £40 or £50, to fatten a litter of pigs. That is the kernel of the situation and that is what the Minister will have to tackle. I do not want to raise any question about the settlement, as it has been suggested by both Parties that there should be no more exhibitions here of a disagreeable frame of mind, and no snarling across the Table. I do not propose to indulge in that way. I hope that is ended for all time.
The Minister will have to realise, if he wants to deal with the situation, that it is not the provision of sows is the trouble, but the provision of credit and means. The unfortunate people have not got that now. I do not propose to go further now as there will be time enough when the Estimate is before the House. The Minister, however, must know of the gamble that was entered into by some curers. He must know of the gamble that was entered into by one particular curer in 1934, when he broke away from his organisation in order to buy and buy. Then he got a quota when the Pigs Marketing Board came into existence —because he knew it was coming—out of all proportion to what he could get eight or ten years ago. That one curer is really responsible for the advertisements that appeared in the public Press. We are not all fools in the country. We have our ears closer to the ground than the Minister. I suggest that the Minister should keep his ears a little closer to the ground. There is every danger of a monopoly. It is in the knowledge of every curer that monopoly is aimed at. Feelers were sent out long ago so as to achieve that object. I, for one, will not be a party to that, and I hope the Minister will not be a party to it.
I would like to have some information from the Minister with regard to fairs that are held in some of the Border counties. In some cases half the supply of stock at a fair would come from the other side of the Border. Cattle are taken along approved roads. Can all this stock be taken now to fairs without any restriction? When the Agreement is implemented, can cattle come in free from the North?
As regards fairs held along the Border, there will be no restriction in the case of cattle, horses, sheep. There is a difficulty with regard to pigs, but we are trying to find a way of overcoming that and allowing them in without restriction.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), line 47, to delete the words "and fixing the penalties for such offences."
I think that this amendment, and amendment 8 to section 4, might be taken together. Amendment 8 reads: "At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
"Any offence under any order made under this Act, other than an offence under sub-section (2) of Section 3 hereof, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds."
Under Section 2 the Minister is taking power to fix penalties for offences. That is a power which, I think, the Minister should not have. I think penalties should be fixed by the Dáil. I do not know why the Minister wants this power. Not long since he spoke of the responsibilities that were placed upon him in connection with certain selections. In this matter I think he would be better off not to have the right to fix penalties. I do not think it is desirable that any Minister should have that power. If the Minister desires it and thinks it is reasonable that he should have it, then he should give his reasons to the House. Personally, if I were in the Minister's position, I would not like to have to carry the responsibility of fixing penalties. With regard to the second amendment, I would like to hear from the Minister why he proposes to take to himself the right to autocratically fix what penalty ought to be imposed on people for an infringement of the Act.
I was very anxious, as far as it was possible to do so, not to put anything into any of these Bills which might be considered unfair to the Dáil. I knew that I would have to ask the Dáil to allow these Bills to go through as quickly as possible. I did not want, therefore, to be in the position of seeming to take undue advantage of that situation. I was anxious to know whether there was any precedent for what is proposed here: whether the principle had been agreed to before the Dáil. I find that it has. In the Agricultural (Regulation of Export) Act, which was passed sometime in 1933, a measure which went through the ordinary stages in the Dáil and got adequate discussion, this principle was approved of. That would seem to indicate the advisability of the form adopted here.
At that time it was argued that quite a number of offences would be possible under that Bill. For example, a man who was obliged to make returns by a certain date might fail to do so. He would be written to, and if he again failed to comply it might be necessary to bring him to court. The offence might be a trivial one, and hence we did not want to have a maximum penalty in the Bill of, say, £100. If you were to have a maximum penalty it would have to be £100 so as to meet every offence. When that person was brought to court, the district justice might say that he was plainly guilty of an offence, and would then point out that £100 was prescribed as the maximum fine. At the same time he would probably have some regard to the nature of the offence and might be inclined to say that he could not very well impose a fine of 10/- in view of the fact that the maximum was £100, and in the result might impose a fine of a couple of pounds. On the other hand, if we were to prescribe the penalty we would probably put in £10. If the offence were a minor one, the district justice would probably say that a fine of 10/- would be sufficient to meet the case.
I think that, having the section in this form, is really much better than to have a maximum penalty prescribed. It will be easier for all concerned. Take another example. The maximum penalty for a breach of the regulations in the matter of exporting pigs to Northern Ireland was only £5 per pig, but the maximum penalty for exporting bacon to Great Britain, where, of course, we knew we were dealing with bigger men, had to be substantial and was made £100. In the same way, if we were making regulations with regard, say, to the making of returns we might put in a rather low maximum fine, but for an offence concerning, say, the importation of bacon, we might put on a fairly stiff maximum penalty. The district justice, dealing with cases brought before him, would, I imagine, have regard to what we considered should be the maximum penalty, and would impose fines accordingly. We are not creating a precedent in what we propose doing here. The principle set out here has already been agreed to in the other measure to which I have referred, a Bill that went through the usual stages in the Dáil and got adequate discussion. I cannot remember if this particular point got adequate discussion, but there was no objection raised, and that measure has been working satisfactorily for the last four or five years. I do not know if, in fact, any penalty was ever inflicted under that particular measure. I could not possibly agree to this amendment. I hope the Deputy believes me when I say that in putting the Bill in this form before the House it is not my desire to take any unfair advantage. I quite admit that Deputies opposite are willing to facilitate us in letting those Bills through, and I am not taking advantage of that in saying I cannot really agree to this amendment. As I say, I did find out that the thing has been working in connection with another Bill which was agreed to by the Dáil before, and in the interests of those concerned I think it is better that we should have it that way rather than put in what would really have to be a substantial amount. I think I would have to insist on £100, if it were to be fixed by the Dáil as applicable all round. It is better that the fine should be fixed by Order, so that it could be brought very much lower in many cases where the offence may be regarded as not of so much importance.
I do not think the Minister has made a good case, because even if the principle has been embodied in a previous Bill, the Minister has certainly admitted that there was no discussion in connection with it. There was also another factor with which I intended to deal, but I think the Minister has disposed of it, and that is whether there were any prosecutions under the Bill, whether there were any penalties fixed or any fines inflicted. The Minister says he does not think there was.
I do not think there were.
Is it the Minister's intention, then, to give a classification of the offences, with proportionate penalties?
Oh, yes.
That is his idea?
Yes Of course, it must be remembered that I only fix maximum penalties.
Would the Minister give a classification of offences, with maximum penalties in each case?
Perhaps I might put it this way. If I issue an Order prescribing the manner in which returns must be made, then there is a penalty attached if they are not made at all or if they are not made in that way. I might issue a regulation to say that only so much tomatoes may come in each month, and that they must be imported by permit, and that sort of thing; if the tomatoes are imported in any other way it is an offence, and the penalty is so-and-so.
Will the House have an opportunity of discussing those Orders?
Oh, yes. The Orders will be laid on the Table.
The Minister said that this principle was embodied in a former Bill which went through the House. I can recollect objecting to that principle on various occasions, but of course it had no effect. The division bell rang when there was a proposal of that kind. Does the House not see how fatal it is that the vital power of imposing a penalty on a citizen should br relegated to an office? That is what is involved in this matter. This is an arbitrary power to give to any Ministerial office—the power to decide what the penalty is to be, and to impose that penalty. That is a power which should be retained by this House. The Minister says his difficulty about this is that he foresees various classes of offences. It has been the custom in regard to legislation in the past that those offences were always set forth in the statute, and for those various offences a maximum penalty was imposed. The offences can be classified. I do not think it is fair of the Minister to extend this principle. Again, I want to warn the House that this function should not be allowed outside the jurisdiction of the House. No Government Department should be given the power of imposing a penalty on any citizen. The House will remember that day after day we are letting our duties and our functions pass out of our hands——
Read sub-section (5).
The principle is all wrong. It is giving a Government Department the power of legislation. This House is not legislating at all. That is extending to every country; if is not peculiar to this State. Eventually, we will probably pass two-line or three-line Bills giving the Minister power to make orders, and that will be the end of the functions of this House. I object to the principle. If the Minister wants this measure now, I do not intend to delay him, but the Minister must not take it that that is an admission of the principle. I have not admitted it in the past; I am not doing it now, and I will not do it in the future.
I take it that amendment No. 1 is withdrawn? Amendment No. 8 falls in consequence.
Will the Minister lay those orders with regard to penalties on the Table of the House?
Oh, yes.
Are we taking my amendment No. 2 and amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together?
They are more or less the same.
Nos. 2, 3 and 4 may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 2:—
At the end of sub-section (4) to add the following words: "but shall not come into operation or have effect until one week after the publication of such order in the Iris Oifigiúil.”
The purpose of this amendment is obvious. It is really to get over any difficulty that may arise in the case of importation at the time of issuing an order, where as a matter of fact the articles would be on their way here at the time the order was issued. For instance—I think this matter was referred to last night—suppose a consignment of fish was being imported here, and that it came in after the order was issued, although it was on its way before the order was made at all, would the Minister then under sub-section (2) of Section 3 expect that the importer should export those articles again, or what extension does he propose to give in order to get over that type of difficulty?
Perhaps if I just state the position I may be able to make that matter clear, whether or not I can convince Deputies in regard to it. In the first place, I want to say what I said yesterday, that I think Deputies have in mind goods which are now unrestricted and where I might at a later stage propose to regulate them. There might be a flow of imports of a certain commodity, and I might, under this Bill, suddenly say: "From this minute or from this hour no more imports will be allowed." That is quite a reasonable attitude for Deputies to take up.
This is implementing Article 9 of the Agreement. Is it not?
That is right. In the first place we are dealing principally with goods that are not coming in, and which we are about to permit to come in.
They are not here in this Bill.
They are not named, but the Bill is brought in to deal with those matters.
They are not named in the Bill.
Bacon is one, for instance.
This Bill deals only with importation.
Yes. There is no bacon being imported at present. We have agreed to allow in a certain amount of bacon, and, therefore, we would not be interfering with any trader by saying: "We are going to prohibit the import of bacon now, but we are going to give a quota," because in fact there is a prohibition there by a high tariff. When the tariff comes off we say: "We will prohibit imports, and give a quota for bacon in certain classes," so there is no great danger at the moment anyway of hitting any particular person who is importing. We must do it quickly in this case, because if, for instance, the duties were coming off to-morrow on both sides, anybody here could bring in bacon to-morrow, as much bacon as he liked, free of duty. If I were to be compelled either to give notice, as is suggested here in one amendment, or to publish it first in Iris Oifigiúil,as is suggested in another amendment, while that was being done, in fact inside 24 hours, a considerable amount of bacon would come in, not of British origin at all, perhaps of Polish origin——
Even British?
Yes, even British. It must be remembered that quite a lot of British and Canadian bacon could come in while we were waiting, and what I say is that we would have to be in the position, the moment the duty came off, to be able to regulate these matters immediately. I think that everybody will agree that these powers are necessary in view of the circumstances.
And, at the moment, they cannot penalise anybody?
No—because they are not coming in. I admit, however, that when we come to deal with such matters later on, there may be a danger with regard to certain commodities, and some grounds for fear such as the Deputies have expressed. For instance, there is the question of fish. At the moment, fish is coming in freely. We do not have to deal with that question immediately, but we may have to deal with it later on. Now, fish is coming in freely at the moment all right, and if I were to make an order that no more fish was to come in, it might happen that quite a lot of fish, which is a perishable commodity, might be in transit, and it would be very unjust to make such an order in the circumstances. I think, however, that Deputies may take it that, in the case of fish, or any such perishable commodity, we would give, probably, a few weeks' notice, because we would know that, without such notice, great hardship and loss would be inflicted.
Yes, but the construction of the section as it stands gives one the opposite impression, particularly as you are taking powers to send the commodity back.
Yes, but we shall deal with that point later. However, as I say, in the case of fish, or some such perishable commodity, we would give adequate notice because we could be quite sure that the merchants here would not import a large amount of fish and then sent it out later, since everybody knows that fish does not keep very well. However, let us take another example. I admit that it is not an example which is likely to occur; but suppose that, for some reason or another, we were going to quota the import of sheep. Naturally, of course, we could not give much notice in the case of sheep. If there were any necessity to import sheep, we could not give a week's notice, but we could give at least a day's notice so as to allow of any sheep that were actually in transit being imported, and thus avoid any hardship that might be imposed if notice had not been given.
I admit that, actually, as the Act is drafted, Deputies are entitled to have a genuine fear, but I am sure it will be realised, at the same time, that the moment these duties come off we must be in a position to put on whatever prohibitions may be necessary, and regulate our quotas; and from that point of view, we want unrestricted power. However, I am quite prepared to give a public undertaking here, that, as far as I am concerned, sufficient notice will be given and that goods actually in transit at the time of the notice will certainly not be sent back.
What about the case of a man who is caught and brought up in court in such circumstances?
Well, of course, the court would take that into account.
But, in the case of perishable goods, that would have to be done very quickly, would it not?
Oh, yes.
The Minister has made a case that, from his point of view, there were precedents existing in 1933; but I think that, to a certain extent, he gives away his own case in that respect because, since 1933, there has been a number of very arbitrary powers assumed by Government Departments. I cannot charge my memory with the discussion that took place on the particular section about which the Minister is talking, but there is no doubt that there was a general feeling that the Government asked for a whole lot of emergency powers, which were granted; and if there was the slightest discussion on these powers from this side of the House, we were told: "Oh, well, you are giving great heart to Jimmy Thomas."
That was not the Act.
Well, if it was not the Act, it was the same sort of thing; it was implied. Now, we want to lay the ghost of Jimmy Thomas, as far as these arbitrary powers are concerned. In making that statement, Sir, I do not wish the person mentioned any ill, but it is certain that his name has been invoked in this House in that connection and it is also certain that, by reason of expressions such as that, a whole lot of arbitrary powers have been sought by Government Departments, which powers, I think, it is to everybody's interest should be done away with. I should like to say in connection with these amendments, that there is no opposition to the Bill as a Bill, but the Minister says that he does not wish, under the guise of this Bill, to take advantage of this side of the House and seek arbitrary powers. That, however, is just what he is doing. The Minister has taken the case of a man who makes false returns; and he says, in effect: "Well, we must have powers in fixing very substantial penalties."
Now, we on this side of the House do not want to shield anybody who is making false returns, but the Minister has said nothing about an importer who, in all innocence, imports goods and who then finds that there is an absurd penalty fixed for the offence, and who, to add insult to injury, is told that he must reexport goods that, very possibly, may not be worth exporting at all. What the Minister, in certain instance, is doing is convicting a person, before trial, of offences of which, very possibly, that person is not guilty at all. Now, there is a great deal to be said for the Minister's argument that 12 hours would be quite sufficient to enable the country to be flooded with a whole lot of produce that he did not intend to allow in, but between those two points of view there is surely some via media which can be found which will, as I say, allay our suspicions about the ghost of Jimmy Thomas, and which will give the Minister power to deal with real infringements and cases where people deliberately infringe the provisions of the Act, and also to allow all the circumstances, in connection with an offence under this Act, to be weighed. I should be quite content to leave it to the court, having taken all the relevant circumstances into account, to fix the penalty, but the Minister seems to think that, on his own showing, there are probably offences for which 1/- would be a proper penalty to impose and other cases in which, as he mentioned himself, he would like to impose a penalty of £100. Between those two there must be some way found. I think it was Deputy McMenamin who suggested various classes of penalties for various offences. Certainly, I think the Minister ought to consider again how far he can meet the wishes of Deputies on this side of the House. We do not want in any way to delay the passage of this urgent measure, but the Minister has himself acknowledged that he is seeking powers which have only been paralleled in one case, and I would appeal to him to consider how far an amendment can be made which would meet the wishes of all sides.
Will the Minister say if he is prepared to meet anything?
I did say that there was a real difficulty on the day the duties go off and we must suddenly prohibit imports, but these imports are not there, we must remember. If we are dealing with any new commodity, I did give a public undertaking that we would give reasonable notice.
Suppose the Minister decided on the first day of a month to put an order into operation. There might possibly have been sent from this country the day before an order for that particular article. How will the Minister deal with that? I am putting this specific case so that he may get his mind on the matter I am putting before him. A hardship might be inflicted in this way: a person might place an order in Great Britain for a supply of certain goods, and before the order is executed, possibly when it is on its way here, the Minister imposes a restriction. What is he going to do in that case?
It is hard to answer that question without knowing what the commodity is.
Is the Minister prepared to deal with it?
Yes. First of all, we will give notice in order to see that everything in transit comes in. Secondly, there would always be attached some licensing provision for a few days at least, or a few weeks, o prevent any case of hardship like that.
In course of transit would not do. You would want to cover goods which were bought and which might not be in course of transit and which a purchaser will have to take.
I do not think we could cover all goods bought, because we might be up against the position where something was coming in that we wanted to restrict, and if it was no great hardship on the person concerned at least to cancel part of his order, we might have to ask him to do it.
The moment an order is given the matter is clinched and the buyer has to take delivery, or else there is a breach of contract. Is this House going to impose on a person in that position the penalty of having to pay for the goods of which he cannot take delivery as a result of the Minister's action? Does the Minister not see how vitally important and serious that is? There are two classes of cases—one where the goods are in transit, and the other where they are not in transit, but have been purchased and the contract is complete. Is the Minister going to make an order which will penalise a man in that position? Is this House going to agree to it? I want the House to appreciate the significance of that. This is the time to deal with it.
I could not imagine any judge or jury holding that that contract should be carried out when the Government prevented its being carried out. The Deputy must also remember that if he were in my place and an order like that was issued, and it was stated that if goods had been ordered beforehand the goods would be allowed in, he would find that there would be a lot of orders manufactured that were never given.
Is the Minister prepared to consider amendment No. 5?
The point I made I think was that when we are taking off these duties, we must be in a position to put on the quantitative control immediately, and, of course, these things will be published. We could not possibly wait to get the approval of the two Houses.
Has the Minister anything to say on amendment No. 6?
I think the same thing applies to that.
Will the Minister consider that it might not suit to re-export these goods? For instance, the stuff might not be worth re-exporting.
The present position is that the Revenue Commissioners have no power to compel a man to re-export. They have only power to sell the goods or destroy them. That is all rights when they we dealing with dutiable articles because the Revenue Commissioners can seize and sell them and get their money out of the proceeds. That is all they are about. I am concerned with quite a different matter here, Supposing, say, a big consignment of tomatoes comes from some continental country and we do not want to have them sold here and want them sent back because it would ruin our market if they were sold, we would not like to have to destroy them. The Revenue Commissioners therefore should have power to send them back if they think necessary. As well as the power they have already of either destroying or selling, they will have the third power under this of sending them back.
Could there not be a discretion given as to whether they should be destroyed or something else?
The Revenue Commissioners will have their choice under this.
Suppose I import a cargo of tomatoes and the minister's order the Revenue Commissioners say I must re-export them, I would have to charter a ship to take these rotten tomatoes somewhere down the harbour and dump them.
Keep them for the next election.
Surely the Minister is taking a very bad example when he takes tomatoes. Does not the Minister make an order each year with regard to the quantity of tomatoes that can be imported here during certain periods? Has not the Minister control over them already?
Yes, but we have no power to sent them back.
Why do you mention tomatoes then?
I was just giving an example. I could have said eggs.
I think this is a rather harsh power to take. I would rather have a provision inserted to destroy the goods. Certain articles leave it it optional. Take the Minister's example—tomatoes. I think it is a very cruel thing.
I think if the Revenue Commissioners thought it would be less hardship to destroy them they would destroy them.
Surely it is obviously less hardship to destroy them because the man would have to charter a ship or take them on another ship. Does the Minister not see that?
In the case of perishable goods that wouled perish before they arrived back at their destiation it would be less hardship to destroy them.
Yes, probably. In that case I think you may take it that the Revenue Commissioners would ask them to destroy them.
Have they the right to ask them to destroy under this Bill?
Oh, yes. They already have the right to ask them to destroy.
Sub-section 2 of Section 3 seems to me a very danggerous sub-section without that particualr right of asking them to destroy. My next amendment, as a matter of fact, deals with that.
Under the Custom Consolidation Act they already have the power to destroy or sell.
I understand, yes.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In sub-section (2) line 28, to delete the word "fifty" and substitute the word "twenty-five".
This amendment deals practically with the same thing. There is a penalty for non-compliance with an Order, Sub-section (2) of Section 3 sets out: "Where any articles are imported in contravention of an order made under this Act, an officer of Custom and Excise may require any person (being the importer or the carrier concerned) to export such articles within a specified time." Now it does not say that he may require them to destroy them, but to export them—"And if such person fails to comply with such requisition he shall be guilty of an offence under this sub-section and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of £50." What has the Minister got to say for that?
The Revenue Commissioners have already got power under the Custom Consolidation Act to ask a man either to destroy or to sell them and inflict a penalty if he does not do so.
This is a Bill dealing with importations and possibly you may have prohibition order under this Bill which would not touch Customs and Excise. Supposing it was prohibition, not duty, what would happens then?
If you read sub-section (1) of Section 3 I think you will find——
Suppose an Order was issued by the Minister that these things would not be allowed in at all? Take a non-dutiable article — for instance, fish. He would give an order that these things hould be returned. There does not appear to be any power to give an order to destroy.
There is. I want to explain it this way. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 says: "Articles prohibited to be imported by an Order made under this Act shall be deemed to be included amongst the goods enumerated and described in the Table of Prohibitions and Restrictions Inwards contained in Section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and the provisions of that Act, as amended or extended by any subsequent Act, applying to the importation of prohibited or restricted goods shall apply accordingly." So that they can be dealt with under that Act and, therefore, they can be either destroyed or sold, again subject to a penalty of £50. Now, sub-section (2) is adding to their powers under the Customs Consolidation Act by giving them power to order the person to export them, again subject to a penalty of £50.
Do you think it would be better if that particular section also included the right to order them to destroy?
Of course, sub-section (1) is really put in there for that purpose.
If the Minister would add the words "or destroyed" after the word "export," would not that make it right?
They already have the power to destroy.
I do not want to put the expense or the trouble of destroying on the purchaser if the customs officers have the right already.
The Revenue Commissioners have the power to ask the person to destroy; if they destroy them there is no penalty under that particular section.
I am moving that the penalty in this case be reduced from £50 to £25. I do not know what the Minister has to say on behalf of £50 in this case.
Except that in the Customs Consolidation Act £50 is the penalty, and we are putting the same penalty in here. It is the same penalty all through that Act for offences.