asked the Minister for Agriculture if in order to create competition in the purchase of reactor cows he will grant licences to all meat packers engaged in the trade.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Licences for Meat Packers.
10.
It is assumed that the Deputy has in mind the disposal of cows under the arrangements for the southern dairying counties. Such cows must be disposed of to a licensed canning factory and I am satisfied that this procedure should not be altered.
Is the Minister aware that this procedure is being abused at the present time and that if the present abuse continues the whole scheme for the clearance of reactor cows will break down? As farmers are not getting what they consider a reasonable price for their cows owing to the lack of competition, can the Minister see his way to alter the scheme and create competition for the purchase of the animals?
There are 17 canning factories in the country and since the start of the bovine tuberculosis scheme in 1954 it has been the policy to confine the disposal of all cow reactors purchased by the Department to the canneries as they are the only premises which are fully equipped to deal, under one roof, with all operations in connection with meat processing. I do not propose to change that policy because I believe it is an essential and vital one. No number of red herrings will induce me to alter that course.
Is there not one red herring which the Minister is overlooking? Under the original scheme, the Minister required the canneries to tender to him and the Minister accepted the highest tender from one of the 17 canneries. Under the scheme to which Deputy Wycherley is referring the farmers are required to tender to the canneries and the canneries are not operating the same competitive system that the Minister required them to operate when he was receiving tenders.
I am not accepting that proposition at all. I do accept the contention that when this southern scheme was introduced some months ago—this has to do entirely with——
That is the mistake.
I suppose there are many things in the world not perfect. This scheme was introduced with a view to achieving certain objectives. If it has weaknesses then they can be dealt with if it is possible. What I am contending is that the scheme did not get a chance inasmuch as prior to its coming into operation I think some 12,000 cows were offered in a very short period of time, valued and purchased by the Department. That had the effect of creating for the factories with whom we had a contract a certain amount of glut and the free competition provided for in the scheme to which I have referred did not in the early stages get a fair chance. That is an entirely different matter from the proposition made to me by the Deputy who asked the question whether I am prepared to extend to 52 licensed meat firms, in addition to the 17 canners, the right to purchase cow reactors even though these places are not equipped, as we hold it is essential they should be, to deal with such animals properly.
The Minister has admitted that the Department's scheme is responsible for the failure of the new scheme in the south because of the large number of reactors which the Department is putting into the factories at the present time.
That is all over now. We purchased 10,000 cows under the new scheme and the glut to which I referred has disappeared because time has brought about that result.
If the present unsatisfactory position continues much longer, will the Minister consider reverting to the old system?
Every scheme introduced is entitled to a fair chance. My contention is that it has not got that fair chance. My attitude on this and on other matters is that if weaknesses are thrown up, as a result of the operation of a scheme under reasonable conditions, then surely it can be reconsidered and if the weak link can be eliminated there will be no hesitancy on my part to do so.