asked the Minister for Agriculture to state (a) if he is aware that, on prosecutions brought by the Pigs Marketing Board, the Monaghan Curing Company pleaded guilty to 13 summonses and were fined £71 10s. for what the district justice described as the making of "deliberately fraudulent returns": (b) if the frauds referred to in court only covered a period of two months and proved that in the said two months the Monaghan Curing Company had defrauded pig producers of between £250 and £275; (c) what was the full period over which these frauds had continued and the full amounts wrongfully withheld from suppliers of pigs; (d) whether the Monaghan Curing Company had received any support from public funds either by loan, grant-in-aid or otherwise and at what date or dates such support was given; (e) the names and descriptions of the board of the said company during the period over which the said frauds took place up to the present; (f) what was the scheme of the frauds so carried out by the said company; (g) whether it is the Minister's intention to take any action under the Pigs and Bacon Acts against the said company; and (h) whether the fine imposed by the court is handed over to the Pigs Marketing Board.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Pigs Marketing Board Prosecutions.
As to paragraph (a) of the Deputy's question, I am aware that the Monaghan Curing Company was fined £6 10s. on 13 summonses for failing to make proper returns. As to (b) the summonses covered the periods March 28th, 1937, to first week in May, 1938; the week commencing November 29th, 1937, and the 11 weeks beginning 17th January, 1938, and ending April 2nd, 1938. The sums withheld from producers, therefore, covered a longer period than two months and were in fact greater than the amount quoted by the Deputy. In regard to (c) as far as records are available the sums withheld over the periods referred to in (b) would appear to amount to approximately £450 and arrangements have been made under which these sums have been or are being refunded to the pig suppliers. As to (d), in May, 1937, a loan of £10,000 was made to the company under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts. I have not at my disposal the particulars for which the Deputy asks in paragraph (e). As to (f), the company was not charged with or convicted of fraud. As to (g), the answer is in the negative, and as to (h) the answer is in the affirmative.
With regard to (g), can the Minister give any reason for his intention not to take action, in view of the allegations made?
The charge was one of failing to make proper returns. The cases were dealt with by the court, and dealt with adequately.