Deputy Norton, and also Deputy McGilligan, spoke on this amendment which, I think, can be accepted. I was going to say for Deputy McGilligan's benefit, however, that it is quite a different matter when we come to consider Orders, because some of these Orders are of a confidential nature. The regulations are such as could be published, but the Orders are not. Take, for instance, an Order for a sub-allocation quota, if such were made.
Pigs and Bacon (Amendment) Bill, 1939—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 33.
Is that a quota for a foreign market?
Production and, up to this, home sales. Theoretically, it is only the individual curer who knows what the quota is. They all have a fair idea of what is given to another curer but, in theory, the public do not know exactly what is the quota that a curer gets. In the same way, there is an Order made with regard to the yield of bacon from the weight of a pig. That is also confidential as between the factory and the board. I mention these merely to show that there is a distinction between regulations and Orders. We can lay regulations on the Table without any confidence being broken, but Orders, I think, would be in a different category.
What does the Minister propose in regard to Deputy Keyes' amendment?
Amendments Nos. 33 and 69 go together.
I could accept amendment No. 33, but amendment No. 69 could not be accepted.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(1) In any legal proceedings (including proceedings continued by this Act) by or against the commission—
(a) the production of a document purporting to be a copy of an instrument in writing made by the Bacon Marketing Board, the Pigs Marketing Board or the commission or of any extract from any such instrument or of any resolution passed by the Bacon Marketing Board, the Pigs Marketing Board, or the commission, or of any minutes, or part of the minutes of the Bacon Marketing Board, the Pigs Marketing Board or the commission, and to be certified to be a true copy by the chairman of the commission or the secretary of the commission shall be sufficient evidence of such instrument, extract, minutes, or part of minutes, and no proof shall be required of the handwriting or official position of the person certifying the same;
(b)prima facie evidence of any order made by the Bacon Marketing Board, the Pigs Marketing Board or the commission may be given by the production of a copy of the Iris Oifigiúil purporting to contain such order.
(2) A certificate purporting to be under the hand of the Secretary of the commission certifying that a person named in such certificate was during a specified period a licensee shall beprima facie evidence of the matters so certified, and no proof shall be required of the handwriting or the official position of the person certifying the same.
(3) In any proceedings taken by the commission against a person who is or was a licenseeprima facie evidence of all or any matters contained in a return made by or on behalf of such person in pursuance of Section 112 or Section 151 of the Act of 1935 or this Act may be given by the production of such return.
(4) In any proceedings taken by the commission against a person who is or was a licensee for failure or refusal to make a return required by regulations made under Sections 112 or 151 of the Act of 1935 or this Act a certificate purporting to be signed by the secretary of the commission certifying that such licensee has failed or refused to make such return shall beprima facie evidence of the facts so certified and no proof shall be required of the handwriting or the official position of the person certifying the same.
With regard to Deputy F. Lynch's amendment 33 (a), I think Deputy Lynch is accepting my amendment on arbitration.
Very well.
Amendment 33 (a) not moved.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In sub-section (1) to delete paragraph (a).
This raises a rather technical question, but one of no little importance. This sub-section is designed to provide that the board can produce a document certified to be a true copy by the chairman of the commission, or the secretary of the commission, and once it is produced, there devolves upon the official of the board certifying it no obligation to prove it in the ordinary way. Ordinarily, if a company or a local authority desire to prove a document, one of their officers has to attend the court, go into the witness-box, and swear that he is a competent person, that the contents of the document are true, and that it is a true copy of whatever it is held out to be a copy of, whereupon counsel for the other party can cross-examine and question him, and apply further interrogatories, which not infrequently yield very useful information to the other party to the suit, to their great advantage. This procedure exonerates the officials of this commission from answering interrogatories.
The origin of this claim to exempt a Government Department from the obligations that would devolve upon the ordinary citizen engaged in litigation goes back to the prerogative claimed by the Crown, that you could not bring the King into court and treat him like a common man. Subsequently, the prerogative of the Crown became attached to every Government Department, and Government Departments claimed special privilege when they were at law with the ordinary citizen, but now we are going a step further, and trying to extend this old Crown privilege, not only to Government Departments, but to the semi-autonomous bodies like the Pigs Marketing Board and other semi-autonomous bodies created under Acts within the last ten or 15 years.
It is interesting to observe that they did not go this far when they were dealing with the Electricity Supply Board. I think there they made the seal of the board evidential of certain things, but they did not exonerate these officers from going down to the courts and proving the documents which they presented to the court. Now we are trying to take an extra step in respect of the Pigs and Bacon Commission, and I put it to Deputies that any one of us may be engaged in litigation at any time in defence of our rights against a Government Department, or against a semi-autonomous board of this kind, and we should not lightly vote away our legal rights against Government Departments. It is hard enough to fight the Government in litigation if it is your misfortune to have to do so, without arming the Government with additional weapons over and above those they have already, and I see no reason why the Pigs and Bacon Commission should be given privileges in litigation superior to those already enjoyed by any other independent corporation or company. Therefore I suggest that this paragraph (a) might be reasonably abandoned, as it merely sets a precedent for an undesirable new departure.
The Deputy may have given a correct history of the origin of a clause of this kind, but there is no doubt, at any rate, that it does appear in many Acts passed by the Oireachtas. There may be something in the point made by the Deputy that it does not appear in Acts dealing with companies of this kind. It may have only appeared up to this in Acts dealing with businesses managed by Ministers. I cannot see, however, what objection there could be to this provision. In fact, I think it would be a great thing if all companies had the same privilege, if it is considered a privilege. I do not see why this board, or any other company for that matter, should be put to the expense of sending down a chairman or secretary to say "That is my handwriting". If it is presented to the court and counsel appearing there says: "This is an extract from the minutes signed by the chairman", that should be taken as prima facie evidence that it is so. I do not see what objection there could be to that. I do not see why we should put the board to the expense of sending a chairman or secretary down to attend court, and perhaps losing a whole day, merely for the purpose of saying “That is my handwriting”. I do not think there is any great reason for it.
The reason is simply this, that you are trenching on the privileges of the citizen. The Minister will admit that if we take that out of the Bill, we withdraw from the chairman of the Pigs and Bacon Commission a privilege which this clause confers upon him. I think the Minister will agree that the average citizen at law with a Government Department is under a disadvantage.
I do not think so.
Bear in mind that he is at the disadvantage that he knows that if he loses his case he will have to pay the costs. The officers of the Department know that if they lose their case they will not have to pay anything. It is quite open, in any litigation, for the Pigs and Bacon Commission to send to the solicitor of their opponent a list of documents and to say: "Are you prepared to admit these?" If the solicitor for the citizen sees that most of the documents are documents that should be admitted and that there is no advantage in having them proved, he can write back and say: "Yes, we are admitting these documents." That letter then proves all the documents contained in the schedule, but suppose he does not want to do that, suppose he wants to put the chairman of the commission in the box; suppose that he thinks that in cross-examination he can extract something from him of material value to his client, he can write back and say: "We are admitting documents A, B, C, D, E and F. These need not be proved, but documents G and H we do not admit, and these must be proved." It does not mean, if you take out this clause, that every document that is ever produced by the board must be proved. Not at all. I suppose in 70 per cent. of the cases the documents are never proved by the responsible officer going into the box. What usually happens is that you send a list of documents to your opponent asking if he admits them. In 90 cases out of 100 he replies: "Yes, we do", because he does not want to pile up costs on himself, if it should chance that he loses the action. Now, Sir, by your leave, there are several amendments of the same nature one after another.
Yes, amendments Nos. 39, 46 and 54, all deal with the same point. It might save time if all were discussed together.
Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 37, 39, 46 and 54 are all connected with this point. There is a fine difference but they are all of the same genre. Amendment No. 35 deals with paragraph (b) which states:
Prima facie evidence of any order made by the Bacon Marketing Board, the Pigs Marketing Board or the commission may be given by the production of a copy of Iris Oifigiúil.
We are moving that the words "of any order" be deleted, and for them that there be substituted the words: "that a particular order has been." We move that for the reason that it appears that the trend of judicial decision is to veer in the direction of declaring that the sub-section, as at present drafted, means that prima facie evidence of the contents of the order may be given by the production of the copy of the Iris Oifigiúil containing the Order. That was never the intention of the Legislature, nor do I think it is now our intention. The intention is to provide that evidence of the making of the Order may be given by producing Iris Oifigiúil, but that you should exonerate an official of the board from submitting himself to cross-examination as to the contents of the Order, is to go far beyond what the Minister would wish us to do. Surely you are entitled to put an officer into the box and ask him: “What did your commission mean by that Order? Did it mean this or that? Can you claim that the words used in this Order were interpreted to mean this or that?”
If that be accepted, there is a further matter arising out of line 55, paragraph (b), which reads: "Iris Oifigiúil purporting to contain such Order”. Surely that should read “containing such Order”? It either contains it or it does not contain it. If it does not contain it, fully and explicitly, it is not reasonable to treat it as a satisfactory publication. Suppose it is published under the heading “Pigs and Bacon (Amendment) Act Order”, and then sets out the by-laws of St. Stephen's Green, that should not be good publication for the purposes of this Bill. Nevertheless, what is here will clearly make it good publication, because though the contents of the Order were the by-laws of St. Stephen's Green, they would purport to be an Order made under the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1939, which would fulfil the conditions of sub-section (1), paragraph (b), “a copy of the Iris Oifigiúil purporting to contain such Order.”
Under sub-section (2), it is provided that a certificate purporting to be under the hand of the secretary, certifying that the person named in the certificate was during a specified period a licensee, shall be prima facie evidence of the matters so certified. Here is a nice point. The purpose here is to deal with a certificate certifying that the person named in the certificate was, during the specified period, a licensee. What we are asked to say is that the certificate is not only prima facie evidence of those facts, but is also prima facie evidence of any other matters referred to in it. Therefore, if you prepare a certificate declaring that a person was a licensee during a specified period, and then proceed to add to that declaration other extraneous matters, the certificate is not only prima facie evidence of the facts of which it is intended to be prima facie evidence, but also of the extraneous matters which you introduce into it. We are proposing to delete the word “matters”, and substitute therefor “person and period”. I think the Minister will have no objection to that. Sub-section (3) is one of those infernal sections which is by reference, so that you have to go rooting through the Pigs and Bacon Act of 1935. There is a long section—Section 112—in the Principal Act relating to the returns which curers may be required to make.
Section 151 of the Principal Act deals with returns by minor curers. These two sub-sections make a rather strange proposal. Suppose I made a return under Section 112 or Section 151 of the Principal Act to the Bacon Marketing Board, and if the board takes action against me under this Bill or, apparently, for any other purpose, although I can produce my return, it is at once clothed with a statutory prima facie value that it had not got until it is produced by the Pigs and Bacon Commission as a return made by me under Section 112 or Section 151.
Why they want to put that in, God only knows. Is it that they can yap at a person and say: "You are bound by the false return"? If there is a return made by somebody, then I submit the commission should be made go into court, in the ordinary way, and prove it, or disprove it, without traps of this kind. I think the Minister will agree with me that, if a person is brought into court and suddenly finds that a simple return he made to the Pigs and Bacon Commission is suddenly converted into a statutory declaration of quite a different type from what he ever intended it to be, that is not a good kind of law, because no ordinary citizen could possibly know anything about it. With regard to amendment No. 39, proposing to delete sub-section (4), this is the worst of the lot, because the sub-section provides that if the commission take proceedings against me and allege against me that I have failed to make to them the returns to which I have just referred under Sections 112 and 151 of the Principal Act, a certificate purporting to be signed by the secretary of the commission shall be prima facie evidence of the facts so certified, and no further proof shall be required.
This is a most pernicious document, because it is the same kind of trick as that of the Revenue Commissioners. The law of this country is that I am innocent until somebody proves me guilty. Now, this is a trick to bring me into court and make me guilty until I can prove I am innocent. That strikes at the most fundamental rights that our people have. The Revenue Commissioners are always at this game. They can come into your house, pick up any object, and say: "Prove to me that you paid duty on that; it is a dutiable article." This is a most extraordinary proposal—to drag me into court and allege against me that I have done something. That allegation creates a presumption of guilt, so that one is put in the position of having to rebut that presumption. I submit to the House that this is a lazy provision designed to spare the officers of the commission the necessary trouble of proving documents in court. As the State has always undertaken to prove that a person is guilty of the offence alleged against him, I urge strongly on the Minister to set his face sternly against what is proposed in this sub-section, and for that reason to consent to its deletion.
These amendments are all bound up with the question of the production of evidence. The Deputy has spoken on amendments Nos. 34 to 39. I have already spoken on amendment No. 34. The only thing involved there is whether the secretary or chairman should be present in court to swear that it is his signature that is to a document. The presentation of the document to the court is to be taken as prima facie evidence. It does not mean that it is to be taken as conclusive evidence. Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 go together. The wording of Section 18, sub-section (1), paragraph (b) follows exactly what is in the Documentary Evidence Act of 1925. I am not an authority on this, but the Draftsman naturally likes to stick to words that have proved to be correct, and that have stood the test of the attacks made on them since 1925.
Does the Minister realise the danger that arises in this way: that the courts are beginning to interpret the production of documents in this manner as being prima facie evidence of the truth of the contents of them?
I have not heard that, and do not know if there is anything in it. So far as this section is concerned, if the Iris Oifigiúil is produced in court, that is taken as prima facie evidence that such a document was made. But with regard to the contents, I think the board would be open to cross-examination on the contents; but with this evidence that the order was made. We go on then to amendment No. 37.
No, amendment No. 36.
No, Nos. 35 and 36 go together.
Amendment No. 36 deals with "purporting to contain".
I take it that amendment No. 35 and amendment No. 36 were linked together as one. What I say is that this is exactly the wording of the Documentary Evidence Act. Both amendments will be covered so far as that is concerned. The next amendment (37) seeks to amend (2) of Section 18. But it does not quite meet the case. I thought that that amendment was reasonable but the words "person and period" do not quite meet the case because we are referring here to "matters so certified". It is possible that all matters might not be covered by "person and period"
It was certifying that the person named in such a document was during a certain period the licensee.
It was to be prima facie. evidence of the matter so certified.
Yes, do you intend to refer to any other matter?
No; when I looked at this first I thought there could be no objection to it, but after consultation with the lawyers I found they were somewhat doubtful whether this amendment would exactly cover the point. It is an amendment into which I would like to look again.
Now with regard to amendment Nos. 38 and 39—to delete sub-section (3) and to delete sub-section (4) of Section 18 respectively, I do not think there is anything unreasonable in these sub-sections. Deputy Dillon seems to think it is taking advantage of a person if the certificate is put in as prima facie evidence. It is quite, open to the person appearing for the licensee to say that the licensee has made a mistake, that the return made was not correct and did not quite fit in with the case before the court. All that is asked here is that it may be put in as prima facie evidence of the return which is the subject of litigation. The next amendment is somewhat on the same lines but not altogether. We are back again to where we started in amendment No. 34, that a certificate signed by the secretary of the commission can be produced and that there is no necessity for the secretary to appear after he signed the certificate. It is only as prima facie evidence. I think that on the whole all that these amendments seek to rectify is that Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Dillon who are arguing this point would prefer to have the chairman and secretary answer to the court that they really signed these documents. The section as it stands would absolve the chairman or secretary from being present. The documents would be handed in and accepted as the chairman's signature or the secretary's signature and the case would go on.
On what the secretary admitted on cross-examination would depend whether the case would go on.
I do not know whether much can be made of that point. In so far as (1) (a) or (4) is concerned, all we say is that the document must be taken as being signed by the chairman or the secretary.
The whole point is in this "has been duly signed". This Bill puts an obligation on the commissioners to consider certain matters, in fixing the price of pigs and so on. The chairman, say, is in the box and counsel asks: "Is that your signature?" and he answers: "Yes, I signed that, that is my signature." That is the evidence for the commission. Then it comes to cross-examination by the other side and counsel asks: "You say you signed that document?" and he answers: "I did." Then the next question is: "Before you signed that did you consider the matters you were bound by statute to consider, because if you did not consider those matters that you are bound to consider, the document has not been duly signed though you have actually signed it, that is because you did not discharge your full duty preparatory to signing it?" Has the Minister considered that the matters dealt with by the board or commission were duly considered? Does he believe that the cost of feeding-stuffs was, in fact, considered? I take leave to doubt it. But if we put a statutory obligation on somebody to do a certain thing, preparatory to signing that document, why should we withdraw the opportunity of questioning the chairman or secretary who were supposed to do these things, whether they did them or not? That is a good point.
Mr. Brennan
I remember being in court in a very important case where a local authority was concerned and where the minutes of the local authority were handed in as evidence. The secretary of the local authority was brought up to prove the minutes and incidentally he was asked about the sending out of his agenda. That was a very material point because if the agenda had not gone out in time it would invalidate the minutes. The secretary was subjected to a very close cross-examination and he got away with it, but very nearly he did not get away with it. His minutes would have been invalidated if he had not sent them out in time. There are a lot of surrounding circumstances of that type which the court very often will require to have cleared up. I do not see any reason why the commission should not be put in the same position as a local authority.
If sub-section (1) (a) and (3) and (4) are deleted as Deputy McGilligan's amendment seeks, what is the real disability from which the commission will suffer? Very little except that the commission will be amenable to the ordinary rules of evidence. On the other hand if the Minister insists on retaining these sub-sections there will be a hardship inflicted on the person taken to court by the commission. Deputy Dillon points out that a person is required to make a return and if he fails to make a return he is under certain disabilities.
The only thing that is needed to prove he did not make a return—his word is not to be taken that he made it or did not make it—is a certificate of the secretary of the commission. That is to be accepted, mind you, as evidence that the failed to make a return. It goes further than that; not only will the certificate of the secretary of the commission be accepted, but a certificate purporting to be made by the secretary will be accepted. It would be bad enough that the certificate of the secretary should be accepted, but we are asked here to accept a condition whereby a certificate purporting to be made by the secretary is to be evidence that a person committed an offence. As I said, whatever disability or inconvenience the commission may suffer by wiping out the whole three sections, the chance of a complete wrong being done to the individual by retaining the sections creates a very difficult situation.
The words "purporting to be a copy" are there; if they were not there, there would be no necessity for the thing at all. If it reads "a certificate under the hand of the secretary" that is enough, and you need go no further. I do not know if Deputies are clear about this point; we are putting into this section that, if a certificate is given that a certain return was made or a certain thing was done, the chairman or secretary need not be there to prove his signature, but it is quite open to the litigant, the person who is on the other side, to subpoena the chairman or the secretary for cross-examination. He cannot evade being there if the other side wish him to be there. I know that under the old Act those certificates were accepted in some cases, but where counsel wanted to cross-examine the chairman or secretary or both he took the precaution of serving a subpoena on them, and they were there to be cross-examined. I think we are really only putting in a very formal thing here—that in ordinary cases the certificate would be accepted without having the chairman or the secretary there to prove it.
Can you cross-examine your own witness? Suppose you subpoena the chairman of the Bacon Commission, can you cross-examine him?
If counsel for the Bacon Board supoenas him?
No. Suppose you are the Bacon Board, and I am a litigant, and suppose I subpoena the chairman of the Bacon Board, can I cross-examine him?
Oh yes.
Mr. Brennan
You can examine him, but can you cross-examine him?
I am practically certain on that point. If I thought that by no means could you get the chairman or the secretary there I would certainly amend it.
Mr. Brennan
Even if you do get him there, are you not prevented from cross-examining him on very material matters, as Deputy Dillon has pointed out? Once a minute is handed in it is prima facie evidence. I am afraid once that is handed in and accepted, if you do put him in the box you will not be allowed to cross-examine him.
There is no doubt whatever in my mind. All I am seeking to do here is that in an ordinary case where the person concerned is not interested to cross-examine the secretary or the chairman, they need not come down unnecessarily to prove the signature.
Does not the Minister understand that there must be some reason why those provisos are put in here, because in seven out of ten cases when a person comes before the courts of this country one of the regular preliminary proceedings is that the plaintiff submits to the defendant a list of the documents which he proposes to produce?
That is right.
And he says: "Will you admit those?"
That is right.
No sane defendant will ask the plaintiff to prove those documents if he knows that they can be proved and if he does not want to raise any point in regard to them, because, if he does, all the expense of proving them will be added to the cost of the action, and if he should be put down he would have to pay those expenses himself. Suppose all those sections are deleted and I take an action against the board, I will send in my list of documents and say: "Will you admit those?" They will admit some of them. They will send back a list of documents to me and say: "We intend to put those in. Will you admit them?" Unless I am a madman I am not going to pile the costs on to the board, when I know that by piling the costs on to the board I am not hurting any of the officials who have vexed me, because all the money is going to come out of the funds of the board and not out of the chairman's pocket or the secretary's pocket, or the commissioners' pockets. I think this is just a natural inclination of public servants to spare themselves trouble and time. They take a rough and ready view. "We are not going to victimise anybody," they think, "but we do not want to be dragged through all this interminable legal procedure. Let us take a short cut." Short cuts are all very well, but short cuts often lead to very undesirable tyranny, and though I cannot imagine that the Pigs and Bacon Commission are going to develop into an Irish Hitler, still I like to protect my rights and those of my neighbours wherever I see them assailed.
Personally, I do not think there is a lot in this. As far as I understand it, Deputy Dillon wants the board, as it were, to take the initiative by submitting documents to the other side, and saying, "We accept those"; but I say that the other side can take the initiative by serving a subpoena on the chairman or secretary. There is not a lot between us; in fact, it is hardly worth while arguing about it. That is as far as amendment No. 34 goes. I think Nos. 35 and 36 are in a different category.
Numbers 38 and 39 would be the same. If you will give me Nos. 34, 38 and 39, I will give you Nos. 35, 36 and 37, reluctantly.
I am not so sure about No. 38, that is, that the return might be submitted as prima facie evidence.
Mr. Brennan
Number 39 is one of the most important of the whole lot.
I think we can agree on that.
You will give me Nos. 34 and 39?
We will bring in an amendment to cover them.
Will you accept No. 34?
It will be inserted in substance, but I should like to see the Draftsman as to the wording. He will probably agree.
There will be an amendment to cover Nos. 34 and 39. We got something out of our battle. We have vindicated the liberty of the subject; Magna Charta for ever.
Amendment No. 34, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 35 to 39, inclusive, not moved.
Sections 18, 19 and 20 put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.
(2) On the transfer date the powers under Section 68 of the Act of 1937 which immediately before the transfer date were exercised or performed or capable of being exercised or performed by the Chairman of the Pigs Marketing Board shall be and are hereby transferred to and conferred on the Chairman of the Commission.
Amendment No. 40 is born of the distrust we have of the individual whom the Minister is going to make chairman of this commission.
We have had a decision on that.
We dislike it, and would much sooner see the Minister in that position, not that we think he is any great shakes either.
But of two evils we chose the lesser.
Amendment No. 40 not moved.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 41:—
In sub-section (2), line 50, to delete the words "Chairman of the".
We do not think the powers which the chairman had under Section 68 of the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1937, should be continued in the chairman under the new Act. We think they could reasonably be transferred to the commission, and that whatever orders would be made should be signed on behalf of the commission and not by the chairman acting in his own right, because it appears to us that that is what he can do under the Act.
This is a very trivial matter. This is a section which was put into the 1937 Act, and which enabled the chairman to deal with pigs left in the producers' hands. If the producer were to write to the chairman and say he had pigs on hands, and could not dispose of them, the chairman could serve an order on some factory to take those pigs, and serve notice on the producer to deliver them to the factory.
That is the section. In that case the power is given to the chairman, naturally because there were curers on the board. There is no great objection to give that power to the commission instead of the chairman. There was no order made under that section, so far.
Mr. Brennan
Would any difficulties arise in giving that power to the commission?
I do not mind; I will do so, if you wish.
We would sooner that it was given to the commission.
If you like. If we withdraw the production quota, it will never be used.
Amendment No. 41, by leave, withdrawn.
It being understood that the Minister will consider the matter.
Section 21 agreed to.
Amendment No. 42 not moved.
Amendment No. 43 is similar to amendment No. 41.
Are we to understand, again, that the Minister will be propared to make this the prerogative of the commission?
Amendment No. 43 not moved.
Section 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
(1) Any instrument to which this sub-section applies which relates to a period expiring on or after the transfer date shall, on and after the transfer date, continue in force and have effect, for the purposes of the Acts of 1935 and 1937, as if such instrument were made by the commission on the date on which it was actually made and as if the commission were on such last-mentioned date already the successor of the Bacon Marketing Board.
Mr. Brennan
My amendment, No. 44, explains itself:—
In sub-section (1), line 24, to insert after the word "Board" the words "subject to the right of the Commission to revoke, annual or amend any such order continued in force or effect by this section".
That amendment is not necessary. The whole Act is for the purpose of putting the commission in place of the board, and they will change any orders that they may think fit. This amendment is really not necessary.
Amendment No. 44, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Mr. Brennan
My amendment, No. 45, reads:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(6) As soon as may be after its establishment the commission shall cause to be prepared a statement containing a valuation of all the property, whether real or personal, and including investments, and giving particulars of the various types of such property and of the composition of the funds mentioned in this section, and shall submit a report on such statement and the valuations contained therein, together with particulars of the liabilities of the abolished boards and the contracts of such boards transferred to the commission by the two following sections of this Act.
Has the Minister met this?
No, but I am prepared to meet it.
Mr. Brennan
That is very satisfactory. There have been so many alterations with regard to reports and statements that I was not quite sure whether we had met this particular point.
No. I think it is a useful provision.
And we will have the full details of the hypothetical prices, so that we can see if there is anything in them?
Yes.
The Chair objects to accepting amendments until they have been investigated by the Parliamentary Draftsman. It has been found, in one or two instances, that there were consequential changes involved which had been overlooked in the hurried acceptance of amendments.
I agree it is necessary that the Draftsman should see this before it is finally accepted.
Amendment No. 45, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy will, I am confident, note that the subject matter of the amendment will be duly considered. The matter will come up again on Report.
Sections 25, 26 and 27 agreed to.
Amendment No. 45a not moved.
Mr. Brennan
The point in that amendment has been met already?
Yes, it is being met later on.
Sections 28, 29 and 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.
(2) Where an extract from or a certificate of the contents of any book or other documents directed or authorised by the Acts to be kept by an abolished board would, if verified in a particular manner by a particular officer of such abolished board, have been admissible before the transfer date as evidence of such contents, an extract from or a certificate of the contents of such book or document shall, if verified in such particular manner by the officer of the commission corresponding to such particular officer, be admitted, on or after the transfer date, as evidence of such contents to the same extent as such first-mentioned extract or certificate would have been so admitted if this Act had not been passed.
Amendment No. 46, in the name of Deputy McGilligan, proposing to delete sub-section (2), is similar to the series of amendments just discussed.
It is not exactly the same —I do not think it is.
It is merely a continuing proviso. If you are going to allow the new commission to prove its own documents in a certain way, you are giving them the right to prove the documents of the old board in the same way as they would prove their own documents now.
No, in the same way as the old board could prove their documents.
This sub-section dies with the documents of the old board?
That is right.
It does not apply to any documents issued by the new commission?
You ought to leave it as it is, because there may be some difficulty.
I am prepared to let the old, evil days pass out.
Amendment No. 46 not moved.
Section 31 agreed to.
There is a series of amendments proposed by Deputy McGilligan, which are out of order, namely, amendments Nos. 47, 49, 50, 52 and 53. They are quite at variance with the terms of the Financial Resolution which controls the money aspect of this measure. I had some doubt about amendments Nos. 55 and 57, but I am giving the Deputy the benefit of the doubt.
Section 32 agreed to.
SECTION 33.
(1) Every person who holds or has held a licence shall, for each month commencing on or after the transfer date during the whole or any part of which he held such licence, pay to the commission in respect of such licence a levy, calculated at the rate which is the appropriate rate in respect of such month for each hundredweight of bacon (being bacon produced at the premises to which such licence relates) sold by such person during such month in the State.
I move amendment No. 48:—
In sub-section (1), page 13, line 51, to insert after the word "month" the words "for consumption"
There was some doubt about the section of the original Act where levies would be collectable. The wording was "bacon sold by such person during such month in the State". A person who is going to export bacon might hold, legally, that it was sold in the State because it was sold before being exported. I want to have that made clear by having the words "for consumption" inserted. It is, if you like, a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 49 is one of the series that has been ruled out of order.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 50 is also out of order.
Section 34 agreed to.
SECTION 35.
(1) Every person who holds or has held a licence shall, for each month commencing on or after the transfer date during the whole or any part of which he held such licence, pay to the commission a levy, equivalent to the sum for the time being fixed by an order made or deemed to have been made by the commission under Section 58 of the Act of 1937, for each pig purchased by him and brought on to the premises to which such licence relates during such month.
(2) The Commission may, whenever and so often as it is of opinion that the moneys standing to the credit of the Insurance Fund are not sufficient to meet the claims made or likely to be made under Chapter III of this Part of this Act, by order declare that every person who holds or has held a licence shall, for a specified period, ending on or before the date of such order, during the whole or any part of which he has held such licence, pay to the commission a levy, at the rate specified in such order, for each pig purchased by him during such period, and whenever any such order is made every person who holds or has held a licence shall, for the period specified in such order during the whole or any part of which he held such licence, pay to the commission a levy at the rate specified in such order for each pig purchased by him during such period.
(3) Any moneys paid to the commission under this section shall be paid into the Insurance Fund.
Amendment No. 51 reads:—
In sub-section (1), page 14, line 42, to insert after the word "fixed" the words "as the insurance allowance".
The arrangement in this Bill, as it stands, is that nothing will be deducted from the producer except the insurance levy. It is further provided that if that levy is in any way increased, it will be collected from the curer so that there will be a certain levy on the producer and that levy cannot be increased in any way. This amendment is merely a drafting amendment, to make that perfectly clear. I do not think it is necessary to go exactly into the words. I think if Deputies realise what the principle of the section is it will be sufficient. The insurance levy cannot be increased as far as the producer is concerned. It can be increased as far as the curer is concerned. If there is an increase, it is taken from the curer.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 35, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Could the Minister tell us at this stage how the question of licences is going to be operated? This raises the question of licences. We want an indication from the Minister as to what the policy would be with regard to these export licences. The ordinary curer is a curer, not an exporter at the same time. We are a co-operative concern. We have been both curers and exporters, but on account of the operations of the Pigs Marketing Board and the fact that the curers had to obey certain rules and regulations, to a large extent, we ceased to be exporters from that time on. Owing to the scarcity of pigs we had to transmit what normally we would have exported to other curers, or kill them for them in some cases. I understand that the Minister will only give export licences on the basis of the 1938 performance. That would put us out altogether. Our position is that we must cater for our shareholders if they send us pigs. Some pigs that would be utterly unsuitable for killing must be exported.
Live pigs?
Live pigs. What I suggest is that there should be a statement now, and there should be a free issue of licences to anybody who demanded them, to all shippers who shipped pigs previous to the time the control came. We have been shipping to the extent of up to 5,000 pigs, and nearly 6,000 in some years, but since the operations of the Pigs Marketing Board the number dwindled down to hundreds and less. If it is based on the 1938 performance it would be altogether unfair to a firm in our position who are catering for our shareholders, and must do so according to our rules. The other curers would not be in the same position. They are curers, pure and simple.
I would like to add a word to what Deputy Gorey has said. Deputy Gorey has spoken from the point of view of the co-operative curing factory. What about the point of view of the ordinary small pig producer? Suppose I bring in a pair of pigs to the fair of Ballaghaderreen and there are two buyers on the Square, one a buyer for an Irish bacon factory and the other a buyer who intends to export pigs to Birmingham. At the present moment, to-day, the buyer for the Irish bacon factory will tell me, if my pig is over-weight, that he will give me at the rate of 74/- for my pig. And standing beside him is a man who is prepared to bid me 85/- to 90/- for the same pig. But, because the Minister for Agriculture will not give that man a licence to export my pair of pigs I am fined on the Square of Ballaghadereen about 30/- to £2 on the pair of pigs. I do not think that is right.
I do not want to be unreasonable. I do not want to recommend that degree of regulation which the British quota has made necessary and at the same time seek to impose upon the Minister conditions which are inconsistent with the whole scheme. But I do think that when we have determined the proportion of bacon which we intend to send to Great Britain to fill the quota we ought to do our best to make provision in that quota for so much bacon in the shape of live pigs as will absorb all the overweight pigs available in the State and if we err at all we ought to make the quota of live pigs a little too big instead of catering for all the possible exports of the factories and then giving the live pig producer, whose pigs are a little over weight, just the tail-end of whatever quota has been taken in the particular month for Great Britain.
I think it is time the Minister told us what he intends to do in that matter. Everybody knows that there were some licences given to pig buyers recently for the shipping of live pigs to England and I saw in Ballaghaderreen four or five buyers at the last fair, on Tuesday, and I think the Minister would have been astonished at the difference it made to the whole atmosphere of the town that those buyers were there. Fat pigs were no longer a drug on the market. They were eagerly bought and at good prices. The lean pigs went, I suppose, to the Irish factory and everyone was catered for and everyone was happy. I know it has been the purpose of the Minister to abolish the fat pig out of our economy altogether. I am convinced that experience must have taught the Minister that that is not good policy. It is legitimate to try to get the bacon factories a fair share of pigs of a standard size for their particular trade but the fat pig suits our people in certain parts of this country, not only their economy of production, but the fat pig suits the countryman who wants to cure a pig for himself. A man buying a pig to cure for his own household, will never buy what a factory would call a bacon pig. He wants a big, fat 2-cwt. pig. The demand for those is never sufficient to consume all the available supplies. The case I am making is over and above Deputy Gorey's case that a co-operative concern that was exporting large quantities of pigs in the past should get their share of the licences in the future. I am making representations to the Minister that the producers of pigs in this country, if they are to get an economic price for their output, ought to be afforded an adequate opportunity of shiping live pigs to Great Britain. My suggestion is to give the dealers who were shipping pigs to England sufficient licences to go out to the fairs and compete with the Deputy and with other curing companies for pigs.
And will the Deputy please indicate to the Chair how this could be related to levies in respect of pigs purchased by licensees?
Does not this relate to pigs destined for export?
Is there not a levy on the live pigs as well as on pigs for export?
I do not think that under this Bill we could put a levy on live pigs.
It looks to me as if this section is as good as any other section.
It is equally irrelevant on any section. I presume the Deputy has nearly finished the irrelevancy?
I am just finished, Sir. There was some important point I wished to make. It has slipped my memory.
Perhaps the Deputy will remember his point later. I want to explain the position here. I do not want it to be thought that I am unsympathetic to the live pig exporter. When a regulation was brought in by the British, in 1934 or 1935, whenever it was, we had to bring in an Act to regulate the export of bacon by quota and also the export of pigs that were going to factories in England. For the first three or four years that we were working under that Act the British Government was all the time pressing us to keep the live pigs down. Apart from that, of course. pigs went out, without licence, that were not consigned to factories, pigs that were sent to pork butchers, etc., and which were quite free to go out without any licence. Take the present position. We are now in the position that no live pigs can go out without a licence. There is no such thing as pigs going to pork butchers, or anything like that; they must all have a licence. The only thing that the British are trying to enjoin on us is that we keep a fair proportion the whole year round. I am quite sure that if we went to the British and said: "We will export half live pigs and half bacon", that for the present they would say: "That is all right". But we are in this position, that for the months, say, from about February to August, we get no live pigs out.
That is our experience for the last three or four years. That is the trouble. We cannot put too high a proportion, because we know that we cannot fill our quota of live pigs during those months. Now we put a fairly high quota so as to absorb all we can in those other months, even though we may fail in the months referred to. In addition to that, during November we asked the British Government to take 2,000 more, and they did take them. That is all we can do, I am afraid, during the autumn months. We will have to leave the proportion fairly low for live pigs, but try to get them to take some extra during those months.
I think that is the sensible thing to do. I think it is the wise thing to do, to go to the British Government in the months of surplus and say: "Here are pigs; take them away if you want them." I put this to the Minister: Great Britain is to go on four ounces of bacon per person in January. Why do we not go to the British now and say: "There is one matter in which we can apparently reach almost self-sufficiency, and that is pigs, bacon and hams. If you are prepared to co-operate with us in tempting our people into this business, and hold out the prospect to us that after the war the bacon and pig market here, for strategical reasons, will in future be primarily reserved for the English and Irish farmer"; that we do not make any economic representations at all, but simply say: "Here is one kind of agricultural production admirably suited to the big man, but equally admirably suited to the very small man —it is the only form that has that peculiar quality—and we can get started now on a 20-year plan to build up our bacon output to meet the potential requirements of these two islands —to go as near it as we can." There are a number of matters which I do not propose to raise now, because they go a little further afield than the sub-section would permit, but the main point is this: If you go to Great Britain and say, "Let us make a 20-year plan", the ultimate objective of which —though we might not reach that ultimate objective—would be to provide all the bacon and hams to be consumed in these islands, surely we have an unprecedented opportunity, and it would mean that we never would have too many pigs for the potential market.
I think the Deputy may rest assured that these things are being put up. One is surprised, if you like, at the lack of foresight shown by the British Government at present in not seeing our case for supplying plenty of bacon; but I suppose they are very busy, and perhaps are confused in connection with a lot of these issues at present. I think that after a little time we will have a better opportunity of looking into and discussing these matters, and we will probably be able to get somewhat in the direction the Deputy wishes.
The Minister did not refer to my point with regard to the co-operatives. What we ask simply is, with all this control and all the rest, that that should not be taken as the basis for licences to export. The real basis should be the time previous to control.
It is difficult to get a basis on which to manage these things. The basis that the Export Committee took with my approval was that the pigs exported, say, in November, 1938, would be taken as the basic figure for November, 1939. When that was put up by the Export Committee I thought it was a fair basis to go on. I suppose it might be argued that if we took some period before control it would be better still. I do not know, however, Whatever basis you take, I am afraid some people will be victimised and there will be hardship. We have to do the best we can.
Mr. Brennan
Whoever is victimised, do not victimise the farmers. They have been victimised already.
We have been driven into this position by your Act and its operation. The position is that we took 5,596 pigs in 1931 and 5,000 odd in 1930. They were down to 12 in 1937 and 36 in 1938. If you take 1938 as the basic, we are only entitled to 36 pigs, although we are catering for a share-holding public spread over seven counties and, according to our rules, we are definitely committed to taking their pigs.
Could the Deputy tell me if the factory was shipping pigs from 1934 to 1937?
We were shipping them from 1927 to 1938.
If that is so, you must have been given a licence.
I will give you the list.
I would say then that probably you did not fill your licences in 1938. We can examine that case anyhow. We had better go on to something more relevant.
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 36.
(5) Every certificate of indebtedness shall beprima facie evidence of all matters purported to be certified therein and any document purporting to be a certificate of indebtedness issued under this section shall, on production thereof in any proceedings to recover the amount thereby certified to be payable, be deemed until the contrary is proved to be a certificate of indebtedness duly issued under this section and shall be admitted in evidence accordingly.
Amendment No. 53 not moved.
The following amendment appeared on the Order Paper:—
To delete sub-section (5).—Deputy McGilligan.).
I think that sub-section (5) will have to be looked into in view of the other amendments promised. It will possibly require amendment in view of the other amendments I promised.
This is very extreme. I think if you accept amendment No. 39 you ought to accept this.
I think some amendment may be necessary here to bring it into line with the others, but I am not sure.
Will the Minister consider amending sub-section (5)?
That is what we are talking about. There is an amendment to delete sub-section (5). It is a very bad sub-section. It provides that a certificate of indebtedness shall be prima facie evidence of the existence of a debt. That ought to go.
I think it is taken from the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act, and that particular section has come in for very severe criticism.
It is taken from the Fresh Meat Act, really.
Let us not overlook this one. This is the amendment I move on behalf of Deputy McGilligan: "To delete sub-section (5)". It is proposed there that the board could march into court with a certificate of indemnity, and the moment they did that they ceased to be under any obligation to prove that they are owed anything. Upon the person against whom they issue the certificate is thrown the obligation of proving that he did not owe anything. That is really going beyond the beyonds, that the Department should have the right to put it on a man to prove that he was not in their debt. There can be no justification for it. I need not remind Deputies that in the regulation of a business such as this, these levies involve, the preparation of pretty considerable returns. I admit freely that it is not easy to prove a curer owes these levies, but I put it to the Minister that sub-section (5) should be deleted, and the board restored to the position that any other litigant would be in, if he sought to prove that his neighbour was in his debt.
This sub-section is unsustainable. This board is a semi-Government Department and, in fact, is an ordinary commercial institution. Is there any other commercial organisation to which this House would give such power? Any district justice will feel insulted if a document from the board is handed to him, and if he has to take it as evidence. It might be produced by a subordinate servant of the board. In a Bill of this kind it is positively ridiculous to have such a proviso, and the Minister should at once agree to have it taken out. This is a simple contract debt and we should not put this board in a better position than any other litigant. If there is a debt let them go to the court and prove it in the usual way. The board is getting sufficient privileges. As Deputy Dillon stated, it would be a monstrous thing if a man who did not owe a debt could be brought to court and put to legal expense in order to prove that he did not owe anything. In this case the onus of proof is on the plaintiff. These provisions were in the Slaughter of Animals Act and I then objected to them. It is a bad thing to have them in any Bill, as they simply wipe out the law of evidence and the onus of proof. All the Department has to do here is to prepare a document which need not be signed by the Minister. If the certificate had to be handed to the Minister for signature something could be said for it. In this case some junior clerk in the office of the board may make out a document and send it down to the court where a solicitor produces it saying: "There is my proof. So much is due. Give me a decree." Would any Deputy take that as evidence? Yet that is what we are asked to do in this sub-section. There should be no contest about this. The sub-section should go.
I think we will try to meet that position.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 36 stand part of the Bill."
I direct the attention of the Minister to sub-section (3), because I think there is something there that he may wish to amend:
If any licensee fails or neglects to pay the amount certified by a certificate of indebtedness to be payable by him within four weeks after the service of a copy of such certificate on him, the Minister may revoke the licence in relation to which such amount is payable, but such revocation shall not relieve such person from liability to pay the said amount.
Is not that going very far? Surely the Government that has a right to go in and recover a levy by way of judgment ought not to have the right to impose a penalty of such immense gravity as to revoke a licence? That is going a very long way indeed. If you revive the production quota and its functions again it is a very valuable asset and is negotiable, by the Minister's leave. Is not that so?
The factory could be sold, but not the production quota.
A person could sell the factory with the production quota annexed.
Yes.
It is a grave thing to give the Minister the right to impose a penalty, far in excess of what any normal court would impose, over and above the amount of the levy claimed. Surely if the Minister gets his levy and can prove no other malfeasance against the licensee, he ought not to have the right to take away the licence. I observe that the sub-section does not say if the licensee declines or fraudulently attempts to avoid payment, but if he fails or neglects to pay. If you put in these words and if the licensee falls down or neglects to pay, he is in the hands of the Minister, who can take his licence from him. Surely that is wrong?
I do not remember exactly, but I think in the original Act, and in all the other Acts, the Minister had power to revoke a licence if there was any commission or omission. Certainly all the Acts read in that way. Personally I do not mind very much about this particular power. I think it is very unlikely that any Minister would act as precipitately as Deputy Dillon fears. We have fairly drastic powers to revoke licences, such as fresh meat licences, and for creameries and egg exporters, but these things are very carefully considered if any case is made. In this particular instance if a man said he was not able to pay, or wanted time to pay in a couple of months, or showed any inclination to comply with the regulations, I am quite sure the licence would not be revoked by the Minister for Agriculture, whoever he might be.
I have not the slightest doubt that that is so, from my experience.
Every Minister will do that.
That is probably true. It is not necessary to conceive a Minister as being an ogre when holding this power. I would withhold this power from any Minister. I do not want to have to go with my hat in my hand to a Department or to anyone else and to ask them in their bounty or goodness to spare me from a penalty which I do not think we ought ever have had power to inflict.
I agree with the Deputy in that.
That is fair. Therefore, if the Minister feels that this sub-section is rather super-elevated I think he ought to try to expunge it and get on without it. Is the Minister prepared to say that he will do that on the next stage?
I think so.
I understand that the Minister will delete sub-section (5).
If I have good reasons.
I want to refer to the issue of the certificate. Assume the man says: "I do not owe them anything." Are you to take court proceedings against him? That would take much more than four weeks. The same difficulty applies in the other case. This certificate might be made out by a junior clerk working for the commission. You would not have the check and counter-check that you would have if it came from an accountant in the Minister's Department.
Question agreed to.
Section 37 agreed to.
SECTION 38.
(2) The commission shall, not later than the expiration of the month commencing on the transfer date, and may thereafter, whenever and so often as it thinks fit, make under this sub-section an order fixing the rate of subsidy on exported bacon, and the following provisions shall apply in respect of orders made under this sub-section, that is to say:—
(a) in making an order under this sub-section, the commission may—
(i) divide bacon into such and so many classes (defined in such manner as the commission thinks proper) as the commission thinks fit, and
(ii) fix different rates of subsidy in respect of different classes of bacon;
(b) the first order under this sub-section shall be deemed to have come into force on the transfer date, and every subsequent order shall come into force on such day as may be specified in that behalf;
(c) every order made under this sub-section shall remain in force until a subsequent order is made and comes into force.
(3) The commission may at any time by order (in this sub-section referred to as a suspending order) under this sub-section declare—
(a) that no subsidy shall be payable under this section on bacon exported after a specified date, or
(b) that no subsidy shall be payable on any class or classes (defined in such manner as the commission thinks proper) exported after a particular date,
and may at any time by order revoke a suspending order, and whenever a suspending order is made declaring that no subsidy shall be payable under this section on bacon or any class of bacon exported after a particular date, then no subsidy shall be payable under this section on bacon or such class of bacon (as the case may be) exported after such date and while such suspending order is in force.
(4) In defining any class of bacon for the purposes of this section, the commission may define such class by reference to the country to which such bacon is exported.
On behalf of Deputy McGilligan, I move amendment No. 55:—
In sub-section (2), lines 15, 21, 24 and 25, in sub-section (3), lines 35, 40, and in sub-section (4), line 50, to delete in each line the word "Commission" and substitute in each case the word "Minister".
This amendment raises a rather interesting point and, on it, we can dispose of all the amendments coming within the particular category. In all these cases we are proposing to substitute the Minister for the commission in relation to the fixing of rates of subsidy and levy. We have advanced to the position where we now are by a series of steps. We began by giving Ministers power to make regulations under statutes, these regulations to have the effect of statutes. Our next step was to create bodies like the Electricity Supply Board and give them power to make bye-laws which would be binding. Now, we move a step further and we give the Bacon Commission power to levy taxes. Do we think it right to give a commission which is not directly responsible to this House at all, the right to levy taxes? Our neighbour, Great Britain, cut off the King's head before she would consent to that proposition—to somebody outside Parliament levying taxes on the people.
Much as I criticise the prospective chairman of the Pigs and Bacon Commission, I am not prepared to advocate that we should cut off his head. But I am prepared to urge that neither to him nor to either of his two distinguished colleagues should we remit our duty to levy such taxes as are right to levy and to answer to the country for having done so. I do not think that it is any defence if we, the elected legislators, go to the country and say: "We did not put that tax on your pigs; it was the Bacon Commission that did it." I think we ought to answer to the people for the levies made on pigs and the subsidies paid out of such levies. I put it to the Minister that it would be better in this case if he would fix the rate of levy and subsidy albeit on the advice of the commission. Then, if we disapprove of the levy, we can make him answer for it here. His responsibility and the responsibility of this House for taxation of all kinds would then be preserved intact.
I think that that is a very desirable suggestion.
I know that there is a good deal in what Deputy Dillon says. This House is so jealous about the collection of taxes that it would not even permit a Minister to have such power, and now we are passing on this power to a commission. If you take this power from the commission, they will not have very much to do. In regulating subsidies and levies, if such are necessary, it will be the duty of the commission to go into every little detail and make out the prices of pigs and bacon, both exported and sold at home. They are the only people who could make out what should be the levy on a particular class of bacon and what should be the subsidy.
Could they not advise you on that matter?
They might. The levy and subsidy Orders will be published and, in that way, will be, at least, made known to Deputies. There is no provision for immediate review by Deputies of this particular matter. Under the scheme we more or less agreed to to-day, they could only be reviewed at the end of the year, and it would only then be open to Deputies to say that a particular levy was not justified. I do not know that it is going to improve matters very much to makes these Orders subject to the Minister.
It is a fiction to which we all contribute that the Minister is responsible for everything done in his Department. We all know that the Minister for Industry and Commerce does a great many things the nature of which he does not himself know until his attention is directed to them by Parliamentary questions. Then he calls up his permanent advisers, who brief him and verse him in all that is done. He is their spokesman, and must accept responsibility for whatever they have done. It is quite true that the Minister would not be able in this case to watch these things from day to day, as the members of the commission will be able to do, but that is true of a hundred and one activities of most Departments of State. If somebody raises the matter in Dáil Éireann it will be the duty of members of the commission to explain to the Minister the grounds on which they recommended the rate of levy should be fixed, or the grounds on which they recommended the rate of bounty should be fixed. It would be up to the Minister then to come into the House and defend it.
If we do not do that, where are we going to end? Under the Butter Act, the Minister reserves that power to himself. He makes the Order. The accounts of the Butter Fund have to be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General and, if levies are improperly made or improperly collected or improperly paid out, the Comptroller and Auditor-General will direct the attention of the Committee on Public Accounts to the matter. The Minister's accounting officer answers for what has been done and, as this Bill before us bears testimony, on occasion the Minister is required to take steps to regularise certain matters in connection with the administration of the fund. Is there any objection to the Minister doing this himself?
No.
I do not want to rush the Minister if he would prefer to think it over.
I do not know whether it would be preferable for the commission to make these various Orders regarding levies and subsidies with the approval of the Minister to having the Orders made by the commission and laid on the Table of the House.
If the words were put in "with the approval of the Minister for Agriculture", that would remove the bulk of the objection.
Very well. We shall put the words in.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 56:—
In sub-section (3), page 16, to insert after the word "exported", in lines 38, 41, 45 and 47, the words "on or".
This is largely a drafting amendment. Under sub-section (2) the commission must, within a certain time, fix the rate of subsidy on exported bacon. Sub-section (3) provides for revocation of such an Order. This particular section was taken out of the Act we had been drafting. At that time it looked as if a subsidy would have to be paid on exported bacon, but that position is now changed, and it is not likely, for some time at any rate, that any bounty will be necessary on exported bacon, and, therefore, this amendment is necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 38, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On the section, Sir, I wish to refer to sub-section (2) (a), which says that the Commission may divide bacon into classes. I should like to know whether the word "classes" there means grades?
I suggest that the Deputy should read sub-section (4), at the end of the section.
Yes, but that only refers to bacon that is exported.
That sub-section says that, in defining any class of bacon for the purposes of this section, the commission may define such class by reference to the country to which the bacon is sent.
Does the Minister mean that it is not intended to put the grading system into operation again?
It will not be a question of grade or class anyway. If they are defining a class of bacon, for the purpose of collecting a levy, they will not say that the levy will be collected on one grade or another. That, however, was not what I had in mind. What I had in mind was that we might collect a different rate of levy on bacon consumed at home or exported to one country rather than another country. For instance, at one time, there was a fairly good trade for the export of hams to France, and it might be possible that that would bear a better levy than the export of hams to, say, Britain, America or some other country.
Yes, I see the Minister's point, but what I am aiming at is to try to protect the interests of the consumers as well as of the producers. I am sure the Minister will agree that, at the beginning, there were great difficulties with regard to this matter of classes or grades, and what I want to know is whether the same difficulty is going to operate again. For instance, we have bacon of different classes or grades, such as grade A, grade B and grade C, and now that the heavier pig is not going to be exported, that kind of pig must be made into bacon. Now, I suppose we may presume that the best of the bacon is going to be exported, and I want to protect the consumer, in some way or another, so that he will know what particular grade of bacon he is getting. I think that there should be some system of branding grades. We know that, at certain times, bacon of, let us say, grade C, was sold as grade A bacon, and that the same price was charged for it. We know that, even bacon of grade Z, if you want to go down the alphabet, was charged for at the same price as grade A bacon, and that it was sent out as food in this country and as very good bacon, and that it sold at very good prices. Now, presumably, we are going to export bacon to Britain for good prices, and I certainly do not want to see that market wiped out, but it must be remembered that it is the consumer who has to pay the piper, and I want to see the consumer safeguarded. In other words, I want to see that the consumer will know what bacon he is getting, and that he will not have to pay grade A prices for grade C bacon.
I do not think the Deputy's point arises here. We levy on certain classes of bacon, and these classes refer principally to the countries to which the bacon is exported. I think, however, that the Deputy is referring to the case of the curer who pays 84/-, 82/- or 75/- for certain grades of pigs, and that the Deputy wants the consumer to get the advantage of that difference.
Yes.
Well, I think there is a certain difficulty there. I am told by the inspectors of my own Department that if you take, say, 100 pigs, some of which go into Grade A. or the first class, and some of which go into grade B or grade C, at 84/-, 82/- and 75/-, it is quite possible that, when they are taken out of cure, some of the pigs that were bought at the lowest price may produce the best bacon. All kinds of factors enter into this matter, such as the way the pigs were fed, and so on, but it is impossible to grade bacon exactly on the question of where the pigs came from.
My point is that there is the chance of that happening, but neither the consumer nor the producer of the pig shares in that chance.
Yes, but the opposite is also true.
Well, why not make something lower than the top grade? Why not make a general price, if you like, and let the chance be there for the consumer and the producer as well as for the factory? I want to see the consumer safeguarded, so that he will not get, let us say, No. 3 quality bacon, and have to pay No. 1 quality price for it.
Well, I think the curer will have no chance of making exorbitant profits now.
Would the Minister be surprised to know that what would be considered first-class, or Grade A bacon in England, would be considered too heavy for our Irish trade?
Yes, that is true.
And that what would be considered first grade here would be really delicate-looking and, you might say, emaciated pigs?
Yes, that is true.
That is where the question of grading comes in, and that is the real position.
At any rate, there certainly is a lot in what Deputy Bennett said.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 39.
Amendment No. 57 not moved.
Sections 39, 40 and 41 agreed to.
SECTION 42.
(4) The commission may, whenever and so often as it thinks fit, by order declare that this section shall also apply to non-factory purchased pigs which after purchase were damaged in course of transit to the premises of the purchaser and may revoke any such order, and when any such order is made this section shall also apply to any non-factory-purchased pigs which were so damaged while such order was in force.
I move amendment No. 58:—
In sub-section (4), page 17, lines 49 and 52, to insert after the word "pigs" the words "purchased by licencees".
As this sub-section was originally drafted, it was too wide, and would include for compensation pigs consigned to others than the curers. Of course, this fund is only meant to cover pigs that go into the curers, and although there might be a reason why a person who sends pigs to a dealer might be compensated, we cannot possibly compensate him out of these funds.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 42 as amended, agreed to.
Section 43 agreed to.
SECTION 44.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(a) inspection of a record or document shall include taking copies thereof or extracts therefrom, and
(b) a demand for an inspection of a record required by this section to be kept at any premises or of any other document reasonably demanded by an authorised officer of the Commission under this section for the purpose of verifying any entry in, or explaining any omission from, such record shall be deemed to have been duly made to the person liable under this section to keep such record if such demand is made verbally at such premises to any individual in the employment of such person, and
(c) a refusal or failure to produce a record required by this section to be kept at any premises or any other document reasonably demanded by an authorised officer of the Commission under this section for the purpose of verifying any entry in or any omission from such record, if made or committed at such premises by an individual in the employment of the person liable under this section to produce such record or document, shall be deemed to have been made or committed by such person.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 59:—
In sub-section (4) to delete all words from and including the word "any" in line 22 down to and including the word "person," in line 23, and substitute the words:—"the senior member of the managerial or clerical staff then present or to the foreman or other senior person in charge of the premises."
I think this amendment is an obvious one. It is to prevent a notice being handed merely to the door-keeper or carter or someone else like that.
I am prepared to consider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 44 and 45 agreed to.
SECTION 46.
A contravention of any provision contained in Part III or Part IV of the Act of 1937 or of this Act shall, for the purposes of Section 30 (which relates to alteration and revocation of licences) of the Act of 1935, be deemed to be a contravention of a provision of the Act of 1935, and the said Section 30 shall apply and have effect accordingly.
The following amendment No. 60 appeared in the Order Paper in the name of Deputy McGilligan:
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
The Minister shall revoke the licence of any person who was at any time a member of the Bacon Marketing Board or a curer member of the Pigs Marketing Board and shall not thereafter grant a licence to any such person.
The clause was designed to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that there were some curers of pigs on the Bacon Marketing Board, and that they are no better qualified to remain curers than is the proposed chairman qualified to be chairman of the new commission.
The amendment is ruled out of order.
It was declared out of order.
Was it? Be assured, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, I was not aware of that.
The amendment is:
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
The Minister shall revoke the licence of any person who was at any time a member of the Bacon Marketing Board or a curer member of the Pigs Marketing Board, and shall not thereafter grant a licence to any such person.
The amendment is consequently out of order as being too wide in its scope.
No man on God's earth could know what this Part V is about. Every section refers to about five other statutes that have to be looked up. "A contravention of any provision contained in Part III or Part IV of the Act of 1937 or of this Act shall, for the purposes of Section 30 (which relates to alteration and revocation of licences) of the Act of 1935, be deemed to be a contravention of a provision of the Act of 1935, and the said Section 30——"
May I explain it to the Deputy, as references are very difficult. Section 30 of the Act of 1935 sets out the reasons on account of which the Minister will revoke licences. One of these is a contravention of the Act of 1935 itself. This section proposes to apply the provisions of that Section 30 to the Act of 1937 and this Act; that is, a contravention of the Act of 1935 or of the Act of 1937 or of this Act would make a person liable to revocation of his licence.
Any contravention?
Yes, but, of course there must be proof.
Very well.
Section 46 agreed to.
SECTION 47.
This is a very illuminating section. It is bad enough as it is without any amendments at all.
I move amendment No. 61:—
Before Section 47, to insert a new section as follows:—
Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Act of 1935 is hereby amended by the insertion of the words "or for reward" after the word "sale" and the said section shall be construed and have effect accordingly.
The provisions of Section 40 of the Act of 1935 made it unlawful for a person to cure bacon for sale unless he was the holder of a licence or was a registered pork butcher. It has been found that certain persons who were formerly curing bacon are still curing for farmers. When challenged, they say that the bacon is not for sale. This makes clear that they must not cure for reward or for sale. I think it is necessary to stop this, though I do not know if it has been done on a very big scale. It does not prevent a farmer killing his own pigs, but stops certain people from carrying on trade in that small way for reward.
Bear in mind that in certain parts of the country there are thatchers, weavers and itinerant persons who earn their living sometimes—not exclusively, but largely—by going around doing services for their neighbours; and in that category I think it is true to say that a certain number of men kill pigs.
Killing in the farmer's house is not an offence, but it is when killed on their own premises for a farmer.
Mr. Brennan
Is that set out?
If you make it quite clear that the person who comes to my house, kills a pig, cures it, takes a cup of tea and gets a present, is not committing an offence, it would do.
This is not an offence, but killing on their own premises is.
Even though they may get a reward for killing on mine?
A man could be paid for killing pigs, certainly.
Where a man has curing plant at his premises, and cures for private individuals, is it an offence?
There are such cases, and they make the plea that they are not killing for sale, so we have to add the words: "or reward".
It seems to be unknown to persons in this country.
There are a few not so far from the Deputy.
In the case of a co-operative bacon factory, like the Cork Farmers' Union Abattoir, is it possible for them to kill pigs for one of their members?
The only complaint is that it formed part of their quota.
Is it possible for them to kill without it forming part of their quota?
No; it is part of the quota.
Mr. Brennan
Does the Minister think that there is any grave interference with bacon curing from the fact that persons are doing this particular thing? Up to the moment there are possibly, in some villages and towns, men carrying on a very small business, they are not exporting bacon and are no danger to anybody. Their bacon is not leaving the country, they are curing it, and it is perfectly sound bacon. This is being done for neighbours. If it is not a practice that is being carried on to any serious extent, it is questionable whether the Minister ought to go further.
I think the Minister must have a case in mind. In our case we are usually pressed by shareholders to cure a pig for them.
The Deputy is quite entitled to do that.
In fact, we would welcome this provision, because we have found it very inconvenient.
I am afraid it does not cover a case like that.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 62:—
Before Section 47, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) On or after the transfer date, the Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks fit, by order (in this section referred to as a suspending order) declare that sub-section (2) of Section 98 (which relates to production periods and quotas) of the Act of 1935 shall be suspended.
(2) Whenever the Minister makes during the currency of a production period a suspending order, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of Section 98 of the Act of 1935, the commission shall not, so long as such suspending order is in force, make, on or after the date of such suspending order, a production order:
(b) if the commission has before the date of such suspending order made, in pursuance of the said sub-section (2), a production order appointing a period to be the next production period, then—
(i) such production order shall be deemed not to have been made, and
(ii) anything consequential on the making of such production order done in relation to such next production period by the commission in pursuance of Sections 21, 22 or 23 of the Act of 1937 shall be deemed not to have been done.
(3) Whenever a suspending order is in force the Minister may by order under this sub-section revoke such suspending order, and thereupon such suspending order shall cease to be in force.
(4) Where—
(a) the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 98 of the Act of 1935 are not complied with, and
(b) such non-compliance was occasioned by the restrictions imposed by paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) of this present section.
the provisions of sub-section (3) of the said Section 98 shall apply in respect of such non-compliance.
(5) Every order made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling such order is passed by either such House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which such House has sat after such order is laid before it, such order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such order.
This is the section dealing with the production quota.
A most important section.
The effect of this amendment would be that the Minister could, by order, authorise the commission to suspend the production quota and he could, if he found for any reason that it was better to come back to the existing arrangement, revoke that order. I think that is really the whole point, and there is no use in going further into it.
If that marks the end of the production quota system, it is a great blessing for everybody.
Amendment No. 62 agreed to.
I was asked what the section meant. Section 102 of the 1935 Act refers to home-sales. This section has the effect of abolishing the home-sales quota.
Glory, Halleluiah. I would refer the Minister to my observation at the Special Committee on Section 102, when I warned him that the home-sales order would be an unmitigated blunder.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Section 48 agreed to.
SECTION 49.
Section 39 (which relates to payments by Bacon Marketing Board to certain former curers) of the Act of 1937 shall on and after the transfer date have effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say:—
(a) references in the said section to the Chairman of the Bacon Marketing Board shall be construed as references to the Chairman of the Pigs and Bacon Commission;
(b) references in the said section to the Bacon Marketing Board shall be construed as references to the Pigs and Bacon Commission;
(c) the reference in sub-section (7) of the said section to the Bacon Marketing Fund shall be construed as a reference to the General Fund of the Pigs and Bacon Commission;
I move amendment No. 63:—
Before Section 49, to insert a new section as follows:—
Section 23 of the Act of 1937 shall cease to apply in respect of any production period commencing on or after the transfer date.
Section 23 of the 1937 Act provides for a penalty for underproduction. If we propose to do away with the production quota we have to do away with the penalties also.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 64:—
In lines 29, 31 and 35, to delete in each line the words "Pigs and Bacon".
This is a drafting amendment which I think is all right.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 64a not moved.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 65:—
Before paragraph (c), to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(c) the reference in sub-section (4) of the said section to the Chairman of the Bacon Marketing Board and two other persons to be arbitrators shall be construed as a reference to three persons none of whom is or has been a member of the Commission or has been a member of the Bacon Marketing Board or of the Pigs Marketing Board to be arbitrators.
I believe there was very considerable difficulty and dissatisfaction with regard to arbitration questions.
That is right.
Mr. Brennan
When a matter came before one board, the chairman presiding, and an appeal was taken to another board, the people seeking redress found themselves up against the same chairman and practically the same people again. Can the Minister give us any way out of that difficulty?
My next amendment, No. 66, is the solution I propose. The position is that the present arbitration board, sitting on these cases for quite a long time, is composed of a chairman and two others. There is a doubt as to whether a majority decision can be accepted. Legal opinion on one side says it must be unanimous and, on the other, that a majority decision is sufficient. We are making it clear in the next amendment that a majority decision will be effective. If we fail to get two to agree, I can select one person of the three, not being the chairman, and say: "I will take your decision," and we will end it in that manner one way or another.
Mr. Brennan
Any claims lying over will come before the new board?
Yes.
What is the reason for excluding the chairman?
Deputies opposite thought that the chairman would not be kindly disposed towards people looking for compensation.
Mr. Brennan
He could not possibly be.
Is that because you are going to reappoint the existing chairman?
I do not know.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 66:—
To insert at the end of the section the following sub-section:—
(2) Where all or a majority of the arbitrators appointed to fix compensation under Section 39 of the Act of 1937 have, before the passing of this Act, been unable or are, after the passing of this Act, unable to agree upon the amount of such compensation, the amount of such compensation shall be fixed by such one (not being, in case such appointment was made before the transfer date, the Chairman of the Bacon Marketing Board, or in case such appointment is made on or after the transfer date, the Chairman of the Pigs and Bacon Commission) of the said arbitrators as the Minister may nominate, and the decision of the person so nominated shall be final and conclusive.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 49, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 50.
I move amendment No. 67:—
At the end of the section in page 20 to insert the following new sub-section:—
(2) In this section and in the Acts of 1935 and 1937 the expression "appointed price" means minimum price.
The purpose of the amendment is to alter "fixed price" to "minimum price". Obviously, it would make for more competition and afford a better opportunity to the producer. In practice, I think it is difficult to operate a fixed price, and I am sure that the inspectors of the Department and others concerned would have to admit that, in many cases, the fixed price is the minimum price. I cannot prove that, but I believe, from a good deal of contact with people, that it is very difficult to have this rigidly imposed fixed price. I cannot see the advantage of it, but I can see advantages in having a minimum price, because, as I say, it is going to give a better opportunity for competition and, in that way, favour the producer of the pig. There are certain districts which are not prolific in pigs, and if there is no opportunity for bacon curers, for instance, to settle in the areas in which pigs are prolific, they will have no chance of going outside to buy them. The area from which I come is a big bacon-curing centre, employing a good many men, but Limerick and Tipperary adjoining, are not very big pig-producing counties and, in the past, before any of this interference by legislation took place, our men had the privilege of curing pigs at Limerick from counties far removed from Limerick. I am afraid that if we are going to have a fixed price, with production quotas excluded, there is a danger that my area would be likely to lose. I can see some of the employees walking around idle, at a time when there should be an opportunity to buy these pigs in fair competition, and give an advantage to the producer, rather than that we should stick to the rigid fixed price which, I believe, in practice is scarcely attainable.
I do not agree that, in present circumstances, at any rate, we should change from a fixed price to a minimum price. That was one of the questions that was very fully considered when drafting the Bill which we drafted as a result of the findings of the Prices Commission and the Agricultural Commission. If we depart from the production quota, I think we are running one risk, that the bigger curers may take advantage of the opportunity, with their better organisation and so on, to try to get more pigs than they are getting at present, and to leave the smaller curers with somewhat fewer. If, in addition, we make a minimum price instead of a fixed price, I think we are almost certain to give that big advantage to the bigger curers. Apart from that, we are aiming at a certain thing in this Bill. I do not know whether we can achieve it or not, but we are aiming at getting the best we can for the producer and the consumer out of the bacon business. We can, I hope, after getting the costings of bacon production, fix what might be regarded as a fair margin for bacon production for the curer. We know what he is going to pay for his pigs because the price is fixed. We allow this margin to the manufacturer and we then know what the ex-factory price should be. If we tell the Prices Commission what that price ought to be, the Prices Commission can look after the bacon as it goes to the wholesaler and the retailer, and make known to the purchasing public what the price of bacon ought to be.
Again, I say on that point that if we depart from the fixed price to the minimum price, the bacon curers will say that they have paid so and so for pigs—not the fixed price, but something over—and it will make it extremely difficult to get down to this matter of costings, to a fair margin for the curer and a fair price for the curer, and afterwards put the bacon through the wholesaler and retailer, and get the best possible results for the consumer. I ask the Deputy not to press this amendment at the moment. If we had some experience of working this scheme without a production quota, we might say that we could go further in decontrol and could fix a minimum price. If we did reach that stage, I think all other things might go.
Does the Minister agree that it is desirable that curers in all parts of the country should get pigs, and will he do something to meet the possibility that in certain parts they may not be able to get them?
I do not think we can do anything to help the curer where there are no pigs near him, but I do not think we ought to do anything positive here that would give an advantage to the larger curers as against the smaller curers, and I am afraid that this would give a definite advantage, or, anyway, give them an opportunity.
In speaking of a minimum price, if a particular curer pays more than the minimum price, it means that he is going to have less profit. The Minister, in giving a final price for bacon, would be influenced by the minimum price fixed, and surely at this stage it is not going to be suggested that the curer should be saved from further expenditure, if he is good enough to spend something more on a pig?
I see the Deputy's point. The Deputy says that, in fixing that margin for the curer, we say: "You need not pay more than the minimum price, but if you do, it is out of your own pocket".
That is my point.
I think we ought to remember the other point for the present at any rate. If things go smoothly after removing the production and home sales quotas, I think we might come to this, but let us see how it works for a while with the fixed price.
Would the Minister take this into consideration? It is desirable, I take it, and the Minister will probably agree, that curers in all areas should get a sufficiency of pigs? The object of this amendment is not to give the pig curer an advantage, but to enable the small curer to get a sufficient supply of pigs at all times. The Minister takes the view that it may have a different reaction altogether.
I am afraid so.
Can the Minister give some assurance that these activities of the commission will ensure that there will be a sufficiency of pigs for curers in various parts of the country? Otherwise there is a danger that where the production of pigs is on a large scale, the big bacon curers may buy all the pigs and the small curers, either in that area or in some distant place, may not be able to get any pigs. Will the Minister think over that and try to deal with that situation on the Report Stage? Will he give some kind of assurance that as far as he and the commission are concerned they will try to get an even distribution of pigs?
That is a point to which we have given a great deal of consideration, and I cannot see any solution for it. That is why I am proposing here in the Bill to make the abolition of the production quota only experimental. I do not know if we can go back to that again if the big curers injure the smaller curers. It is very difficult to guarantee what Deputy Norton asks. Suppose we say that every curer must get a fair number of pigs. It will be possible then for a curer in some part of the country to take things easy and to say: "I am guaranteed a certain number of pigs and I do not see why I should have to go out and look for them." It is very difficult to give a guarantee of that kind in legislation. All we can do is to watch things, to watch how the scheme will go after the abolition of the production quota. If we see any unforeseen hardship arising, we shall have to mend our hand.
Could the Minister get a declaration from the commission that they intend to distribute pigs as equitably as possible and not to allow the distribution to get into the hands of a small number of people? That is the point in the amendment. Will the Minister think it over between now and the Report Stage?
I shall think it over certainly. It is a matter we have been thinking over all the time.
Would the Minister have power at a subsequent stage to vary the price from a fixed price to a minimum price?
We have no power to vary it.
I think you should provide for that. If you find after the abolition of the production quota that a minimum price would be desirable, you should at least give yourself power to do that.
There is another aspect of the question to which I do not think that Deputy Keyes has adverted. There are two separate theories in connection with the price of pigs. It may be that you are going to fix a minimum price and invite cut-throat competition between curers. That may be a very good thing, but it is open to certain dangers. Henry Denny may make up his mind that he is going to clear up the County Kerry. He will do two things. He will send all his buyers down into Kerry and he will tell them to pay 5/- per cwt. more for pigs than any other curer in Kerry. He will keep on doing that until he makes the fairs of Kerry very unpopular with all other buyers, and then, when he has the whole field to himself, he will cut down prices. At the same time he will go into the Kerry area and sell bacon at 10/- per cwt. less than the price at which the Kerry factories can sell it. He will keep on doing that until the Kerry factories say to him: "Take us over; we are done for; we cannot stand the racket any longer." Then, when he has got all the factories and dominates all the fairs in the area, he pulls down the price of pigs and shoves up the price of bacon. The reason the Minister retains the production quota is that when he sees that happening he will step in and say: "Whoa! We cannot let you cure more than a certain number of pigs. We are going to give the Kerry factories a certain number of pigs to cure, and if necessary we are going to give them a quota sufficient to consume all the bacon which we allow them to produce." If the Minister has to use that power, it will be a great misfortune, but the fact that he can use it is the most potent deterrent you can possibly get to prevent the big combine trying to smash the small local unit.
There is another aspect of the situation of which we have lost sight altogether. Rather than getting an abnormal profit for a lucky farmer at a particular season of the year. I should like to be able to say to all farmers who produce pigs at all seasons of the year: "You are going to make a fair profit on all the pigs you put in." Therefore, we should prescribe a fixed price for pigs on the 1st August which will bear a certain relation to the price of the standard ration for a pig— which will bear, if I may say so, a certain relation to the pigs cost-of-living figure. With this, the farmer will have the assurance that the fixed price on the 1st December will bear the same relation to the pigs cost-of-living figure over a four-month period, as the fixed price on the 1st August bore to the cost of living or of feeding stuffs on the 1st August. That means to say that you can tell the man who puts in six pigs: "If none of your pigs die you will have a profit on the 1st December. It is not going to be an immense profit. but you are absolutely certain that you are not going to be at a loss."
Deputies may have heard me plead to the Minister to make a ten or 20 years' agreement aimed at supplying all the bacon and ham requirements of these two islands out of the joint resources of Great Britain and Ireland. If we can do that, and we have at the same time a fixed price in strict relation to the cost of feeding stuffs, we could guarantee for every farmer in this country one branch of agriculture on which he would never fail to make a profit. Therefore, what I am asking the Minister to do, in preference to Deputy Keyes' proposal, is to consider the desirability of accepting an amendment which I propose to submit to him on recommittal, analogous to that to which reference is made at column 139 of the Pigs and Bacon Bill Special Committee Report. I then submitted an amendment to the original Bill which I knew was too rigid and which I knew would have to be withdrawn. Instead of it, the Minister did put in a proviso that when the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board were fixing prices for pigs they were bound to consider the price of feeding stuffs.
In England they went further than that because they based the price of pork on the price of feeding-stuffs. What I am asking the Minister now, instead of accepting Deputy Keyes' proposal to fix a minimum price, is to relate the price of pigs to the price of feeding-stuffs hereafter so that he can say to small farmers who get into pig production: "There is one branch of agricultural in which you are bound to make a profit." I think that is a better scheme than Deputy Keyes' plan.
Deputy Dillon has introduced a regular Juggernaut attached to the very mild proposal of mine. He thinks that this proposal to fix a minimum price is going to flatten and steam-roll the pig-rearing industry, that some foreign combine is going to go into Kerry and buy all the pigs by paying 10/- per cwt. more than anybody else is prepared to pay. The Deputy visualises a nightmare of that kind arising out of this proposal. But for the hard working, industrious pig rearers in this country we do not want either fixed prices or the monster that Deputy Dillon has conjured up.
And which did come to Sligo. The Deputy had better ask them about it.
What we want is competition and fair buying that will give satisfaction to the producers. I am reminded that last week Deputy Dillon complained that if the fair had been held at Knockcroghery it would have put at least £2,000 into the pockets of the pig rearers of that district, in which I am sure he is interested, because it would have given them the chance, as he said, of sending their pigs across to England. What I am suggesting to the Minister is that if he adopts my proposal and agrees to have a minimum price that will lead to competition at the fairs and will bring increased revenue to our pig rearers. The buyers will be prepared to pay a couple of shillings above the minimum price for pigs of the first grade which are required to meet the demands of a particular trade.
Does Deputy Dillon want to stand in the way of his people down in Knockcroghery getting an extra few thousand pounds for their pigs? He seemed to be very much concerned about them the other night, but here is a way to confer a benefit on them, and it is surely the Deputy's business to try and serve the interests of his people. I am not a bit afraid of this terrible nightmare which Deputy Dillon has pictured for us of some Continental firm coming along here and buying, at fabulous prices, all the pigs in the County Kerry, with the result, as he thinks, that activity in the pig industry will come to an end there.
I do not believe for a moment that anything of the kind is likely to happen, and I suggest to the Deputy that we should approach this matter in a commonsense way. The farmers surely are entitled to get every opportunity of securing the best price available for the pigs they have to offer. That situation will be brought about if you have a minimum price. There will be keen competition at the fairs because the buyers who want to secure top-grade pigs will be quite ready to pay a few shillings extra for them so that they may be able to fill the demands of the factories they represent. I hope the Minister will not be influenced by what Deputy Dillon has said to depart from the attitude that he indicated earlier. I believe that the introduction of the principle of a minimum price would produce the most beneficial results, and therefore I would appeal to the Minister to give it a chance. The Minister should not allow himself to be tied up under any Act of Parliament, but should leave himself in the position in which he will be able to introduce, if he finds it necessary, a minimum price as against a fixed price.
If the time comes when we can do that, then I think we can say that we have been very successful. I am afraid, however, that is going to take some time. I think that other big changes will be necessary, but at the same time I am almost certain that a stage will be reached when we can get a consolidation of all the pigs and bacon legislation properly done.
Is the Minister prepared to consider the matter of relating prices to the cost of feeding stuffs?
As regards the conditions that we had previously, the only one now left to be taken into consideration is the cost of feeding stuffs.
Could we have an assurance from the Minister that all the curers will be able to get an adequate supply of pigs to cure. That is the real point. This amendment may, perhaps, not be the best way of meeting that, but I am not too sure that Deputy Dillon's method is the way to meet it. You may have a situation in which curers, in certain areas, will not be able to get pigs because of the fact that some big combine in the industry may come along and buy pigs in that area for reasons known to itself, and may export those pigs elsewhere for curing. I think we should have some indication from the Minister that, so far as the activities of the commission are concerned, all curers will be able to get an adequate supply of pigs, so that you will not have a situation of that kind arising. We do not want to have a situation in which an octopus in the industry may collar all the pigs available over some particular area, pigs of a particular type, while other curers cannot get a sufficient supply of pigs. If such a situation did arise it would have the effect of throwing a number of people out of employment in the bacon curing industry in certain parts of the country.
I do not see how an undertaking of that kind could be given. I have already said that the reason why we are making the abolition of the production quota experimental is this: that if anything of the kind suggested by the Deputy should occur, then we will be able to go back to the production quota again. That is the only way I think in which you could meet that situation.
But is that the only way the Minister has of meeting a situation of that kind?
It is the only way we have at the moment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That the section stand part of the Bill."
In view of the fact that the Minister acknowledges that the only relevant factor for fixing prices now is the cost of feeding stuffs, will he consider taking steps to relate the price of pigs to the cost of feeding stuffs. What I suggest to him is that he should strike out a cost-of-living figure for the pig: that he should fix a basic price for pigs and give the pig producer a cost-of-living bonus, as the pig's cost of living rises or falls. I think the Minister should consider that. If he does not, then I am afraid that his best laid plans may "gang aft a-gley" by the intervention of the Minister for Supplies or the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Mr. Brennan
For what period ahead does the Minister propose to get prices fixed?
If the Deputy will read the clause in the original Act he will find set out there all the various considerations which the board had to take into consideration before fixing prices. None of them now arise except the one relating to the price of feeding stuffs. All those conditions were put in because of the fear of over production. There is no such thing as over-production now.
I put it to the Minister that he ought to fix a cost-of-living figure for the pig. Let us suppose that to-day it is 100, and that the price on that basis is 84/- for top grade. On every point of a rise in the cost-of-living figure the price of pork could be raised by, say, 2/-. If the cost-of-living figure went up to 104 the price of pork would go up by 8/-, leaving the price for top grade pigs at 92/-. I admit at once that that would involve some kind of agreement with Great Britain whereby we would keep the cost-of-feeding stuffs in strict relation to prices. There is, of course, a difficulty there, but if we are going to make pigs one of the biggest factors in our agricultural industry, surely that is a difficulty that we ought to tackle and try to fix up. A further point that I want to impress on the Minister is this: the urgent necessity of telling me to-day what he will give me for my pigs—not now, when I have no pigs to sell—but on the 1st March, when my pigs will be ready for sale. If I am to go out and buy bonhams at the next fair, and if I am to be tempted to go into the business now, I must be told what my pigs will be worth when I have them finished. I must also be told that the price of feeding stuffs will remain at a stable figure during the period that I am fattening the pigs, or that the Minister's fixed price will fluctuate up and down with what the price of feeding stuffs turns out to be on the average between now and the 1st March.
Yes, I think that is the point.
Will the Minister think that over?
Oh, yes.
Is there any hope of there being an amendment put in by the Minister in that form?
I do not think it could be done.
At present all that is required is to consider the prices. I want to relate the two things together.
Mr. Brennan
In fixing the prices we carry over the provisions of the relevant section of the Pigs and Bacon Act of 1935? Is not that so? There is also the danger of the supply of pigs likely to be available.
If the Deputy could throw his mind back he would probably remember that that section was put in to give the board a chance of decreasing the price of pigs if there were too many going on the market. There is no danger of that now.
I would like to press the Minister with regard to the latter part of Deputy Dillon's suggestion. If you are to have an industry here you have to proceed on some such lines as that which succeeded in the Minister's own scheme of wheat—that is to promise a future price. I would like if the Minister would give some consideration to the possibility of fixing a price for four months or so ahead.
Mr. Brennan
Yes, four months ahead.
Well that can be brought up at a later stage.
Sections 50, 51 and 52 agreed to.
SECTION 53.
The commission may ascertain and publish in such manner as it thinks fit gross and nett costings of the production of bacon by licensees.
I am not moving amendment No. 68 now as I want that amendment changed slightly to the substituted amendment on the White Paper. I beg to move the substituted amendment, which reads:—
In page 21, to delete line 29 and substitute the words "and all other products derived from pigs."
This section enables the commission to get the nett costings of the production of bacon in the factories; these costings when ascertained can be published. After putting down amendment No. 68 we felt that the section would not, perhaps, be wide enough and we proposed not only to include "and all other products derived from the carcases of pigs," but to go farther. The amendment now says, "and all other products derived from pigs." That would include black puddings.
And the cases of black puddings?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 53, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 54.
Where during the period commencing on the 1st day of October, 1935, and ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, there was deducted from the price paid by a licensee for any pig or carcase purchased by him any sum purporting to represent the amount of the inspection fee payable under Section 28 (which relates to fees payable by licensees) of the Act of 1935—
(a) such deduction shall be deemed always to have been validly made, and
(b) any moneys collected by the Minister from such licensees in respect of such deduction shall be deemed to have been validly collected.
Amendment No. 69 is not moved because the principle in that amendment by Deputy McGilligan has been accepted in another amendment.
Is not Section 54 made necessary by the report of the Public Accounts Committee?
Yes, that is right.
The eternal vigilance of the Public Accounts Committee required the Minister to introduce that section.
Section agreed to.
The Schedule and the Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
I propose to take the Report Stage on Tuesday next, the 5th December. I hope to get all stages on Tuesday because I want the Bill to go to the Seanad on Wednesday next.
Is the Minister going to recommit the Bill on Tuesday?
Yes.
That is to say it will be recommitted on Report?
Yes.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.25 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 1st December.