When the Agricultural Avisory Committee established by a predecessor of mine gave views and made recommendations on the various problems to which they had been devoting their attention, I was asked what was my opinion about the report and the recommendations which that committee made on the disposal of our bacon on the British market. I, like some of the Deputies who have spoken on this subject—I think I made this statement on a previous occasion in this House—never had any enthusiasm for or great faith in many of these bodies. Most of us have had enough experience to make us a bit careful about becoming too enthusiastic about what such bodies can do.
In that frame of mind, I was asked to say what I thought about this report on the marketing of our bacon, and I said this: "If there is any commodity that seems clearly to suggest that it should be marketed in a central way, it is bacon." I said that, not forgetting, as has been mentioned here, how valuable individual contacts can be, individual contacts that have been made by curers and preserved by these firms for years and years. Notwithstanding the importance of these contacts, I think my approach would be accepted by most people, that, if we were to have a marketing board to deal with any products, this was it.
All speakers who addressed themselves to this Bill today have spoken about the composition of this new commission. It is true the committee's report, on which the Bill before us is largely based, recommended three producers, three curers, two representatives of my Department and an independent chairman. It is also true, as I stated in my opening speech, that the Government, on considering that report, decided—and I would say rightly so—that a commission of that size was too large, especially when the number of interests involved was not so great as in the case, say of milk products, and that there was no justification for a commission of that size. Therefore, the White Paper announcing the Government's attitude towards the recommendation, said: two producers, two curers, two Department representatives and an independent chairman.
It is only when the Government's attitude towards a report of this nature is made known that it is possible to come down to an examination of all the implications of that announcement. When the Government made this announcement, the curers approached me first and then they saw both the Taoiseach and myself. We had fairly long discussions with them. I would like the House to remember this. One does not quickly arrive at a decision such as this one: first of all, there was the recommendation of the committee; secondly, there was the Government's announcement on that recommendation, to be followed by a Bill which in this one respect is a departure from these two. That can be arrived at only by a process of reasoning and argument between those who are vitally affected and those who have to make the ultimate decision.
I have no objection at all—because it is a natural thing to expect—to slogans being circulated such as: "The curers are being given a monopoly of membership on the commission" or "The curers are being put in control of the commission." You cannot expect to escape the prospect of your opponent's seizing upon an opportunity like this and using it against you. I know I would not. When you are a Minister and have a responsibility to keep your colleagues in the Government advised of what you think is fair and right, these minor considerations as to the way in which any departure from the published intention might be used against you will have no effect upon you.
I made this change because I felt it was fully justified. It was justified for the reason that the minimum price to be paid for pigs of a certain quality is guaranteed by the Government. When the pig is purchased and when the processing starts, then it is in the bacon factory that all these things take place. If we are not to interfere substantially with private enterprise, and if we are not to interfere with the contracts which the curers and other businessmen have made with outside firms, surely we should, in fairness, even if the curers represent only 38 families in the country as against the numerous other people, appreciate that they are entitled to be heard and that, in fact, they have what appears to be an unanswerable case for increased representation on that body. It was so unanswerable that we wanted, not because of the reason given by Deputy Dillon, to give them fair representation on this body.
I believe the curers were entitled to be suspicious. They were entitled to fear that on a board of seven, on which they had only two representatives, there were certain prejudices. They were entitled to feel that they — 30 of them representing 38 firms — were not getting fair treatment on a board which was set up, not to ensure that the producers' price would be this or that, but to market bacon. They were entitled to ask what would be the result of their purchases of bacon and of their other work.
We decided that they had a legitimate query. I knew, immediately I decided, that we were providing for our opponents the stick with which to whip us. But when you feel that the other person has made a convincing case you must realise that his demands must be acceded to.
