Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Oct 1956

Vol. 160 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Pigs and Bacon (Amendment) Bill, 1956—Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (1), immediately after line 8, to insert "‘the Act of 1937' means the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1937 (No. 23 of 1937);".

This amendment is purely a drafting amendment and is meant to clinch the Act to which it refers.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (9), page 4, lines 12 and 13, to delete "the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1937 (No. 23 of 1937)" and substitute "the Act of 1937".

This amendment is consequential on No. 1 and serves the same purpose.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 5 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9.

I move amendment No. 3:—

Before Section 9, to insert the following new section:—

The following section shall be substituted for Section 30 of the Act of 1937:—

30.—The commission may, whenever and so often as they think it proper so to do, by order (in this Part of this Act referred to as an external-sales order)—

(a) appoint a specified period to be an external-sale period for the purposes of such order, and

(b) (i) appoint a specified quantity of bacon to be the external-sales quota in respect of that period, or

(ii) appoint in respect of that period an external-sales quota of bacon which shall be related, in such manner as the commission think fit and specify in the order, to the quantity of bacon or of a particular type of bacon, defined in such manner as the commission think fit and specify in the order, produced at licensed premises in a particular period, or

(iii) appoint in respect of that period an external-sales quota of bacon which shall be related, in such manner as the commission think fit and specify in the order, to the number of pigs or of a particular type of pig, defined in such manner as the commission think fit, slaughtered at licensed premises in a particular period, and

(c) require such bacon to be exported to any specified country, and

(d) specify requirements with which such bacon shall conform, and

(e) require the licensee in respect of licensed premises to furnish to the commission, within a stated period, in respect of each consignment of bacon exported from the premises such documentary evidence as may be specified in the order.

I wonder would it be possible to discuss amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 together?

Agreed.

The House will recall that on the Second Stage of the Bill I mentioned that the bacon curers were operating voluntarily an undertaking to export a uniform percentage of their production of grade A pigs but that they, the curers, asked me to take powers to enforce that, in case there should be some dissension hereafter and a failure on the part of individuals to lend a hand in maintaining continuity of supplies of grade A bacon on the market. These four amendments, taken together, represent a performance of that which I forecast on the Second Stage of the Bill but I feel I owe an explanation to the House for presenting four such compendious amendments on the Committee Stage.

The explanation, I think, should satisfy, and even gratify, the House because Deputies will remember that, in respect of the Second Stage of another Bill last week, Deputy Dr. Ryan said that, inasmuch as this other Bill was legislation by reference, he found it very hard to make head or tail of it. I undertook to circulate a memorandum setting out the explanation of all these obscure sections which I proposed to the House.

Therefore, when I proceeded to amend the Pigs and Bacon Acts to give effect to what I forecast on the Second Stage of this Bill, I discovered that I could do it by a series of amendments which would run something like this: "Section 30 of the Act of 1937 shall be amended by the deletion of the word ‘shall' and the insertion of the words ‘may be'". That would have involved Deputies in the very kind of trouble to which Deputy Dr. Ryan referred last week and what I propose to do by these amendments is to repeal the amendments of the other Bills and offer new sections in their amended form for incorporation in this Bill, deleting the corresponding amendments in the earlier Acts. I hope that in adopting this procedure I have correctly interpreted the wishes of this sovereign Assembly.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on the method he used for it is something that Deputies have been continually asking for. There should not be legislation by reference through the method of the deletion of certain words and the insertion of others. The Minister's method is a very welcome one and I am glad to see that he has retained some semblance of his own independence.

Deputy Dr. Ryan expressed doubts whether the better way of doing this was to make it more or less mandatory on each factory to contribute a certain percentage for export. What about the factories that have not been in the export trade? How is this going to work out in respect of them? Will they be compelled to come up to that despite the fact that all their production previously was for the home market or at least for markets other than the export market? Will they be given a stipulated time whereby they can expand their trade and whereby in addition to giving the required percentage for the export market they will also be in a position to cater for the trade held by them heretofore?

The Deputy will perhaps advert to the fact that the proposed section is permissive. The commission may, whenever and so often as they propose to do so, by order require factories to export portion of their production of grade A bacon. I think I said on the Second Stage that I would much prefer to allow these arrangements to work by consent and I had hoped that the fact that I have this power would make it unnecessary to use it. It would work much better if it is on a voluntary basis, with faithful performance by all who participate. I agree with the Deputy that a voluntary arrangement of that kind allows of a far more convenient flexibility than an effort to achieve the purpose by order. I think I can assure the House that my object will be to secure a voluntary performance and that recourse will be had to the power here, provided only in the event of a voluntary arrangement failing to function.

Consider those factories which have not been in the export trade and which will now be coming into it. Will the factories which already have been in the export trade and which have a name in it have any preference in that way over the new people? Will it militate against the other factories who will now come into the export trade? Has a way been found to overcome such a difficulty?

We do not envisage such a difficulty. Where a firm have been producing a substantial quantity of grade A bacon, it is pretty certain that they have been in the export trade. Where the total production of grade A bacon is small, the obligation to export would be correspondingly small. A very small curer who is asked to export 10 per cent. of his grade A bacon would have a very limited liability in respect of that undertaking. All that can be carefully borne in mind. I hope it will be possible to work on the voluntary scheme which will not require the invocation of these powers.

The Deputy may rest assured that the circumstances of the small curer, who heretofore has catered exclusively for a small local domestic trade, will be borne in mind and that the purpose of this section is primarily to deal with the large curer who otherwise might fail in his performance, in the common task of maintaining a steady supply of grade A Irish bacon on the British market.

I am sure the Minister is aware that the small curer will be at a greater expense in respect of one cwt. of bacon in connection with sending his people across to Britain, or wherever he may send them, in order to sell a small output. On the other hand, a large curer who sends a big quantity of bacon abroad will be in the position that the expenses of his representatives, correspondence and so forth, will amount to very little per cwt. of bacon. I hope some arrangement may be made whereby the large curer may undertake the responsibility of the small one in selling his bacon abroad.

The ideal thing, from the point of view of reducing the expenses, would be to have all the bacon handled by the one organisation. If that cannot be done, the other extreme of having every small man selling, say, 10 per cent. of a very small output of bacon will be a dear policy. I realise the difficulties. It may be that a small curer would have to suffer that. The Minister has these powers in reserve and it might put him in the position of getting the curers together and arranging a system whereby they would co-operate and reduce the expense of selling our bacon abroad.

Another point is that a big firm with a big output of bacon, and having in former years a big trade abroad, are more likely to get the top price than the small bacon factory which is now compelled to export for the first time and whose name is not known. However, all this is a question of day-to-day administration. I hope the powers the Minister is being granted in this Bill are merely for the purpose of putting him into a position to administer the whole matter as well as it is possible to do so.

I can reassure Deputies on this score. Deputies may be apprehensive, lest, under this Bill, a percentage export quota would be fixed which would have to apply to every curer, whatever his past history, and that thus a very small curer might be put to disproportionate expense in exporting a microscopic 10 per cent. of his bacon output. That is not so. Under this section, the board has power to differentiate and to excuse such a curer as Deputy Aiken has in mind from the obligation. However, the general purpose would be not to differentiate, except in such circumstances as Deputy Aiken envisages, that is, that it would be a ridiculous burden on a man whose total weekly slaughterings were, perhaps, 100 pigs and who was obviously curing for a very restricted trade.

I think Deputy Aiken referred to the question of considering the desirability of getting a common marketing organisation for all curers.

As near as possible.

I have a great deal of sympathy with that view. However, here is the other problem. I think all would be agreed on the desirability of that view in respect of a new market into which we proposed to make our way—the European market or the American market. We have been trading in bacon with Great Britain for probably more than a century and a great many old-established firms have their own business contacts in Great Britain. You put, then, the case that that may also have been true of the Danish bacon industry and that yet they have found it advantageous to set up a marketing organisation in Great Britain. The answer to make is that that may suit the Danes, but that we have no doubt whatever that, if we are allowed to trade through agents who have handled our business in the past seven or eight decades, we can do better in this market, in which we are experts, than any central marketing authority can do for us.

I confess that, in principle, Deputy Aiken's idea appeals to me, but I should be very reluctant to tear down a marketing organisation that has been working for close on a century, to disrupt all those well-established channels of trade and to start out on an entirely new marketing system, unless I had conclusive evidence that the new lamp was going to be superior to the old. Deputy Aiken may take it that, in principle, the idea that presents itself to his mind has appeal for me. I think we ought to try it in new markets where commercial contacts do not exist, but I think, at the same time, we ought to be very circumspect before we impose such a central marketing system if that involves disrupting existing trade contacts which those in the trade assure me are of great value in getting a premium on prices ordinarily current in the particular market where they trade.

I do not altogether agree with the Minister. Our bacon at the moment is being handled by agents. They are quite capable of handling the amount we are exporting but, if we were considerably to increase our exports of bacon, I think it would be vitally essential to build up a marketing organisation. You can develop a taste for any product only when you keep that product continually before the buying public and distribute it as evenly as possible. From what I can learn by observation, as far as the Danish Marketing Corporation are concerned, they have scored in Great Britain over every exporting country, for the simple reason that they have such an organisation that they are able to keep their farm produce, right through the whole year, on the retail counters of the smallest and most remote towns in Great Britain. When the products of other countries fade out, the Danish are always there and the buying public is always tempted to purchase products which are always available.

The point with us is that our export of bacon to Great Britain is, No. 1, so small that it cannot make any impression, nor can we develop a taste for Irish bacon; No. 2, it is distributed in those areas most convenient for our agents over there. There are huge built-up areas in Great Britain where Irish bacon is unknown. That is the disability under which we suffer. I should hate to think that if we were to build up a substantial export trade, we would depend mainly on a few agents for the distribution of that product, when we realise that the whole of Great Britain is covered by some 40 huge marketing centres that handle not alone bacon but all Danish agricultural produce. It is not unusual for these organisations to distribute our bacon; sometimes when a customer asks specially if it is possible for this Danish organisation to provide so many sides of Irish bacon, these people get our bacon from the agents and distribute it to their customers.

The Minister should not actually accept as the ultimate those agents we have over there and if we are to develop an export trade in bacon, we should have the marketing organisation.

The Minister, I am sure, can see that this idea of compelling every producer of bacon, big and small, to export a certain percentage will have a very different effect, according to the size of the output. The Minister says in this new section that there is power to exempt the extremely small producer from the liability to export a certain percentage of his bacon. Apart from the very small producer turning out 100 pigs or less per week, there is the medium-sized producer, as well as the very large. The very large people will be able to have their established market. They have their contacts and it will entail a very little cost to them to sell a reasonable amount of bacon abroad at whatever prices are going and they can do it by letter.

We come then to the medium-sized producers. There may be a number of medium-sized bacon producers throughout the country who have never exported before and, if they are now under compulsion for the first time to export, it might be that they could form some sort of co-operative organisation amongst themselves, whether in the form of a co-operative movement or an incorporated company, to handle their medium quantities of bacon. They would have as good, or perhaps, a better chance of getting together in that way, and selling their bacon in England. One of the difficulties about selling any commodity in England, or in any other country, is that the organisation that imports our bacon and other agricultural produce, wants to have a fair quantity to handle, so that if one of their customers wants 100 sides of bacon, they will be able to give it to them from their own organisation.

I think that if we give the Minister these powers it should be borne in mind, when the law is being administered, that in handling the bacon produced by companies or organisations other than the very big ones accustomed to exporting abroad, whose bacon fetches the highest price, it should be kept in mind that these smaller producers and medium-sized producers should be advised to co-operate, so that their marketing expenses will be reduced to the minimum and so that the person handling the bacon will be able to fill reasonably sized orders. If a wholesale merchant in England is asked for 100 sides of bacon and has to get ten sides from one small company and 20 sides from another, it will be difficult for him to persuade the purchaser that it is all the same standard bacon. Bacon turned out from one factory gets the name of having a standard and it is easier then to dispose of that factory's products in large quantities.

I think that, while we should take full advantage of getting the last penny for our bacon by encouraging those organisations abroad to continue in the trade, if we are forcing a number of these people into it, we should try to get them to consider the advisability of co-operating and forming their own co-operative marketing group. The expenses will then be reduced and the agents in England will be able to order a reasonable quantity of bacon and be able to supply a reasonable quantity on demand to their customers.

I can understand the Minister's reluctance to interfere with the marketing system as established. I was not quite clear for a while what was being advocated regarding our marketing system. Deputy Moher mentioned the Danes. As was pointed out, we should have as good a knowledge of the British market, at any rate, as the Danes. But again, as Deputy Moher said, we lose out because of the fact that, owing to the periodic slumps in the bacon trade, we suddenly find ourselves priced off the British market, with the result that the customers there lose the habit of purchasing our bacon. They do not have the opportunity of purchasing our bacon and bacon products.

It is a pity that some system of cooperation for a better marketing system could not be evolved. We hear appeals now from all quarters, some of them directed to producers and more of them directed to distributors. At all events, I think if our bacon curers have the interest of the bacon trade in general at heart, they should ultimately come together and examine this question of a co-operative marketing system. If we are to make any headway in our exports of bacon, we must have proper, up-to-date marketing arrangements. We cannot rely any longer on obsolete and outworn methods in this regard.

As the House is well aware, it is not easy to legislate, either by Order or by permanent legislation, for the business community; and, come to think of it, in the past we have had instances of legislative procedure cutting across business methods. Therefore, from that point of view, I think that a person with any experience would be inclined to suggest that, if we have an exportable surplus of bacon on hands and if this problem is to be tackled, it should be tackled not by legislation through this House—it may have a guiding over-all influence—but by the manufacturers coming together and gearing up the contacts we have in Britain at present, modernising their methods and keeping their businesses independent of this Legislature as far as possible. That is the way it should be done. That is the way the Danes do it, and that is the way we should do it, too.

I think Deputy Carter is substantially right.

The Minister mentioned that he did not like to interfere with the existing marketing system and that he was of the opinion it could be improved. I do not think it was suggested by Deputy Aiken that the existing system should be destroyed. What he suggested was that we build around the existing system, and I think that is the better thing to do. Undoubtedly, with the number of our people now in England, we should be in a position, if we are capable of putting our produce on the British market at competitive prices, to capture the greater part of that market in Britain; but we can only do this if we have a good sales organisation over there, and I do not think that the sales organisation we have had in the past can be highly complimented on what they did. Perhaps they did their best; perhaps it was we who failed them by not giving them sufficient produce to extend our business over there.

I was speaking to a person in the dressed meat trade and he told me that if he were to depend on the usual markets in Britain, the better known ones, he would be unable to dispose of certain types of meat there at all. It was due to the fact that he travelled around to out-of-the-way centres that he was able to continue in business and do as well as he is doing. I would suggest that a start be made with this business immediately. It is all very well to talk about the curers and their interest in the business, but I think the farmers' organisations should have somebody on that marketing board, if it is set up. It would be no harm. It would give great confidence to them to have one of their own nominees put on that, if only to hold a watching brief, although I am sure he would do more than that, because he would be anxious, as a nominee of the N.F.A., to see that sales were pushed as far as possible. The Minister should very seriously consider the suggestion put forward by Deputy Aiken and should make a start here and now, even if only in a small way.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 4:—

Before Section 9, to insert the following new section:—

The following section shall be substituted for Section 31 of the Act of 1937:—

31.—(1) Whenever the commission make, at any meeting, an external-sales order appointing a specified quantity of bacon to be the external-sales quota, the commission shall at that meeting make an order (in this section referred to as an allocation (external-sales quota) order) allotting the external-sales quota in respect of the external-sale period appointed by that external-sales order between such licensed premises and in such proportions as the commission think proper, and references in this Part of this Act to the external-sales sub-quota for particular licensed premises in respect of a particular external-sale period, shall subject to the provisions of Section 32 of this Act, be construed as references to the portion of the external-sales quota in respect of that external-sales period allotted to such premises by an allocation (external-sales quota) order.

(2) Whenever the commission make an allocation (external-sales quota) order in respect of a particular external-sale period—

(a) the commission shall make in respect of each licensed premises to which the order relates a certificate (in this part of this Act referred to as an external-sales sub-quota certificate) certifying the quantity of bacon which has been allotted to such premises by the said order and the external-sale period to which it relates, and the certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the matters so certified;

(b) the commission shall, before the commencement of that period, cause a copy of the certificate to be served on the licensee in respect of such premises.

(3) Whenever the commission make an external-sales order in respect of a particular external-sale period in which they appoint an external-sales quota under subparagraph (i) or subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (b) of Section 30 of this Act—

(a) the commission shall make in respect of any licensed premises a certificate (in this Part of this Act referred to as an external-sales sub-quota certificate) certifying the external-sales quota under that order, its application to such premises and the external-sale period to which the order relates, and the certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the matters so certified;

(b) the commission shall, before the commencment of that period, cause a copy of the certificate to be served on the licensee in respect of such licensed premises.

(4) The commission may, on the joint application of the holder of a licence in respect of particular premises and the holder of a licence in respect of other premises, transfer from the first-mentioned premises to the other premises the whole or any part of the external-sales sub-quota for the first-mentioned premises in respect of a particular external-sale period, and thereupon the external-sales sub-quota for the first-mentioned premises in respect of that external-sale period and the external-sales sub-quota for the other premises in respect of that external-sale period shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act be deemed to have been respectively decreased and increased accordingly.

This amendment gives the Minister power to make a beginning on co-operative marketing for new exporters. There is the power there to transfer—"The commission may, on the joint application of the holder of a licence in respect of particular premises and the holder of a licence in respect of other premises, transfer from the first mentioned premises to the other premises the whole or any part of the external-sales sub-quota for the first mentioned premises" and so on. An early start should be made to try to get the bacon curers to co-operate in groups. The small producer who is compelled to export will have to sell at a very much lower price than the big producer who has been accustomed to export his bacon in the past will get. Our job is to get the last penny we can for the bacon we export. If we compel the small and medium people to export as individuals they will get a low price. That will be bad for the organisation itself and it will have a bad effect on our balance of payments. I would urge the Minister, at an early date after the passing of the Bill, to try to get the medium and the small people to come together to start an organisation or, pending the setting up of groupings of that kind, to get the big exporters to take over as many of the export quotas from the small people as they can reasonably handle.

In that way they will be getting for the total of their sales abroad, whether the bacon is produced in their own factory or in smaller or medium factories in the neighbourhood or somewhere else, the last penny that can be got.

I shall certainly direct the attention of the curers to the desirability of examining the possibility of forming co-operative groups amongst the medium and smaller producers for marketing purposes.

In many instances even some of the smaller factories do not work to capacity. They serve a certain perimeter around the factory and their output is restricted by the number of pigs produced in the area at a given time. It would be unfair to those people who are struggling to meet a trade which they had developed at home to force them to export any fraction of their production when it would mean losing some of their home customers. The only security that these small people have is the steady home trade. It is that home trade that will save the small curer. It is on that that he must depend. It would be unfair to do anything that would injure him in that trade and expose him to the vagaries and blasts of an export market. He is not in the same position to meet the impact of that as the bigger curers who have been in the export business for many years.

I should like to ask the Minister if he or his Department have investigated—I am sure they have— the marketing arrangements existing in other countries which export large quantities of bacon. Have they considered the possibility, assuming that we have a growing export market, of having a central marketing organisation such as they have in other countries that export large quantities of bacon? In the past, difficulty, uncertainty and damage were caused to our export interests because of the haphazard arrangements and the lack of uniformity in the quality that we had to export.

We debated this pretty fully this afternoon before the Deputy came in.

I am sure it has been discussed.

I mean to say, we debated it in the House.

I often wonder whether one large factory should manufacture all the bacon and export it. I fully appreciate that there are great difficulties but, when this Bill comes into operation, a start should be made on new lines, different altogether from the past. It should not be left in the hands of the bacon factories. I think not. There is so much friction between them all the time that the community suffer. The community have suffered in the past and will suffer in the future unless some central marketing organisation is set up or the entire export is given to one organisation, to one factory.

I do not want to seem to ignore Deputy Allen's observations, but we had been discussing this very matter this afternoon before the Deputy came in.

I heard it.

I think the pretty general view on all sides of the House is that one ought to be circumspect about disrupting old and established trade contacts but that, at the same time, we should not dismiss from our mind the possibility of some parallel system of centralised marketing. Deputy Aiken has made the suggestion that, at least in respect of the medium and small curers, they might be encouraged to form some co-operative association which would centrally market their product, leaving it for later decision as to whether all the curers would be required to subscribe to such an arrangement.

Some Deputies may have the idea that the Danes have centralised all their marketing. That is not strictly correct as we understand that word. The Danes, I think, have appointed a number of authorised agents to market their produce in the various British consuming centres. Then they have a supervisory officer, who is directly or indirectly connected with their embassy or consulate, who, I think, exercises a kind of continuous supervision over the appointed agents who are operating on behalf of the Danes in the British market.

They are marketing the bulk of their material, I think, through authorised agents very similar to the machinery established by Eggsports at one time when they were so channelled for exporting eggs, fowl and turkeys from this country. We are all more or less agreed on this matter, that the proposal Deputy Aiken advanced should be carefully examined, with special reference to the medium and small curer, that old established contacts should be treated with respect and that the advantages of some kind of uniform marketing machinery in the British market should be borne in mind.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:—

Before Section 9, to insert the following new section:—

The following section shall be substituted for Section 33 of the Act of 1937:—

33. (1) Where—

(a) a copy of an external-sales sub-quota certificate in relation to any premises has been duly served on the licensee in respect of such premises, and

(b) the quantity of bacon exported from such premises during the external-sale period specified in the certificate is less than the external-sales sub-quota for such premises in respect of that external-sale period,

the licensee shall be guilty of an offence under this sub-section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine calculated at the rate of two pounds for every hundredweight by which the amount of bacon so exported falls short of the external-sales sub-quota for such premises in respect of that external-sale period.

(2) Where a licensee in respect of licensed premises contravenes any provision of an external-sales order requiring—

(a) bacon to be exported to any specified country, or

(b) bacon to conform with specified requirements,

the licensee shall be guilty of an offence under this sub-section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine calculated at the rate of two pounds for very hundredweight not exported to that specified country in accordance with the order or for every hundredweight not complying with the said requirements, as the case may be.

(3) Where a licensee in respect of licensed premises contravenes a provision of an external-sales order requiring him to furnish documentary evidence in accordance with the order, the licensee shall be guilty of an offence under this sub-section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof, in the case of a first offence under this sub-section, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds and, in the case of a second or any subsequent offence under this sub-section, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

(4) Where bacon produced in licensed premises is transferred to other premises and subsequently exported during any external-sale period, such bacon shall be deemed for the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section to have been exported from the first-mentioned premises during that external-sale period.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 6:—

Before Section 9, to insert the following new section:—

Section 34 of the Act of 1937 is hereby repealed.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
Section 10 and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 31st October, 1956.
Top
Share