asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will state, in relation to the Monaghan Curing Company: (a) the system of inspection, if any, of the factory weekly killings operated by the Pigs and Bacon Commission; (b) the system of inspection operated by the veterinary section of his Department, and whether the weekly reports of such veterinary inspections were transmitted to the Pigs and Bacon Commission; (c) whether such inspections were efficiently carried out; and (d) how surpluses arose between sales quotas and total killings undetected by the commission.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Monaghan Curing Company.
The Deputy appears to be under some misapprehension as to the relationship between the Pigs and Bacon Commission and my Department. Two distinct sets of functions are involved, namely, the functions of the Pigs and Bacon Commission pursuant to the Pigs and Bacon (Amendment) Act, 1939, and those of the veterinary examiners of my Department under the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1935.
Inspection of activities in, and examination of prescribed records kept at, licensed curing and slaughtering premises, including those of the Monaghan Curing Company, are carried out by authorised officers of the Pigs and Bacon Commission in accordance with the provisions of Sections 46 and 47 of the Pigs and Bacon (Amendment) Act, 1939. The commission is responsible for the manner in which its officers carry out their duties. Veterinary examination of all such premises is carried out by veterinary examiners of my Department in accordance with the relevant provisions of Sections 47 to 59 of the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1935, and statutory regulations made thereunder. Reports in regard to such examination are not transmitted to the Pigs and Bacon Commission. I am satisfied as to the manner in which the duties of the officers of my Department have been carried out.
As regards (d), I understand that an investigation is being made by the commission with a view to taking any action which may be necessary and I am not in a position to give information on the matter.
Is the Minister satisfied at present that the commission was carrying out its duties satisfactorily, when, in fact, to his knowledge, 120 sides of bacon could be taken out of the factory and delivered to Amiens Street station without the authority of the Bacon Commission and in flagrant violation of their rule? If that is going on in one factory, what may be going on in the others? With that knowledge, does the Minister not consider it necessary to have an examination, not primarily into the Monaghan Bacon Curing Company but into the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board? Surely they are the people whose work should be inquired into?
Does the Minister consider that the type of investigation to be carried out by the board is sufficient under the circumstances, or does he not think there is responsibility on himself to see that the administration of this commission be investigated at the moment? Surely the matter is such a serious one that there is responsibility on the Minister to carry out the investigation himself and not leave the commission to investigate their own affairs?
There are two questions arising there. Firstly, as to whether the commission is taking the necessary action or not, they are taking action, as far as investigation goes. Seeing that legal proceedings may eventuate from that, I do not think it would be proper to go into that matter any further at the moment. As regards the other question raised by the Deputies, whether the commission is competent to carry out this investigation generally or not, I have never had any information to the contrary—to the effect that they were not or are not carrying out their duties.
Will the Minister say whether the commission at any time asked for the returns made by the veterinary section to the Department of Agriculture, to see whether they tallied with the returns made by their own inspectors? The Minister tried to suggest that I misunderstood the position. I am quite clear on it, but I was anxious to know whether the returns of the veterinary inspectors were submitted to the board for their opinion.
I could not answer that question. In the ordinary way, the Department does its work and the commission does its own work. As far as I know, there would certainly be no objection on the part of either party asking to check up on the other through its returns. I do not know exactly what happened.
I think the Minister will agree that approximately 120 sides of bacon—which is a considerable volume —left the Monaghan Curing Company on one occasion, in defiance of the commission's regulations and was not detected by the commission. If that is happening in one small factory, what may be happening in the larger ones? With that in mind, does not the Minister think the time has come for him to inquire into the commission's work? Without such an inquiry, how can he hope to answer categorically to this House for the due performance of the duties this House imposed on that commission?
In view of certain incidents that arose, would the Minister say whether any special attention was devoted by the commission to this particular factory?
Any special attention in the past?
Yes.
No.
The Minister is aware that there were irregularities there in the past?
Yes. The same attention was paid as would be paid to any other factory, but nothing more.
Nothing more.
I do not know. I think I may say that, generally speaking, where offences have been committed there would be more particular attention paid.
On the facts submitted to the Minister, should there not be an inquiry into the work of the commission? If it is manifest that the commission is not doing its job, surely the Minister ought to investigate it?
Yes.
Will the Minister inquire into the efficiency and effectiveness of the commission's operations?
I do not know whether one would call it a formal investigation or not, but naturally I would be just as curious as the Deputy to find out how a thing like that could occur.