Livestock Marts Bill, 1967: Second Stage.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Blaney)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The general development of marts is of relatively modern origin in the livestock trade of this country but, in the fairly short number of years covered, the marts have developed to the point where they occupy a most important position in the trade and are a vital link in the marketing chain for our livestock. As there has been no official control of any kind over such marts, statistics are not available as to the extent of their business but there is no doubt but that the numbers of cattle, sheep and pigs passing through the marts each year represent a substantial proportion of total livestock marketings.

The establishment of efficient livestock marts both by co-operative groups and by private individuals has been a useful development but it has been a haphazard one. Timely action is desirable to ensure not only that the development proceeds on orderly lines but that the individual marts at all times serve the best interests of the producers and traders depending on them.

It is not the object of this Bill to hinder in the slightest way the legitimate operations of livestock marts or to prevent the establishment of new marts in areas not already catered for. Its purposes are to exercise a reasonable degree of control over the establishment of new livestock marts, to ensure for example that there is no uneconomic overlapping where a tendency to undesirable proliferation may occur in particular areas and also to ensure that adequate facilities of various kinds are provided and that the services of the marts are available fairly and reasonably to all clients. I might mention that licences from me are in fact already required in respect of public sales of livestock in Dublin but not in respect of sales in other parts of the country.

International regulations governing trade in meat and livestock are also now providing for more stringent controls on meat processing plants, and on the movement of animals prior to export. Meat factories are, of course, already licensed. The present Bill will facilitate the implementation of such requirements in regard to animal health and hygiene supervision and control at marts that may become necessary for the purposes of our export trade. I might mention that a draft directive governing trade in meat and livestock with third countries has recently been drawn up by the EEC and provides, inter alia, that markets from which animals may be exported to EEC countries shall be under the control of an official veterinary surgeon and shall have been officially approved by the competent authorities of the exporting countries.

When I announced the decision recently to introduce this legislation, some people alleged that the legislation was an attack on the NFA. What I am concerned to ensure is that livestock marts should serve their legitimate functions and do so in the most efficient manner. This means among other things that the owners, whether they be co-operative societies or private individuals, must be prepared to do business with all bona fide clients who wish to use the services provided at the marts. They must not be subject to, or allow themselves to be subjected to, any pressures aimed at restricting or taking away the freedom of producers or traders to engage in lawful business transactions. Any such pressures could have the most serious economic consequences for individuals and could constitute a grave injustice to the community, which the Government could not ignore. This Bill, however, will ensure that freedom of buying and selling at marts can be preserved. I make no apology to anyone for taking steps to secure this freedom for Irish farmers and exporters and to ensure frustration of efforts of any group to arrogate to itself the right to say who should sell or buy at a mart.

The Bill itself is a comparatively short and uncomplicated measure. Under sections 2 and 3 a licence will be necessary for any livestock mart. Existing livestock marts will automatically qualify for licences but will, of course, naturally have to comply with the general requirements as regards facilities, etc., which will be laid down in regulations for all marts. It is my intention to allow any existing mart which may not yet be meeting any of these requirements a reasonable period in which to do so. Any contravention of the conditions of a licence will involve liability to prosecution. A licence may also be revoked if the holder is guilty of an offence under the Act—this is, of course, a necessary sanction of last resort.

Under section 4 provision is made for exempting occasional sales. This is intended to cover special kinds of sales, such as those carried out at Royal Dublin Society Shows, which are not of the normal commercial pattern affecting stockowners generally.

Power is taken in section 6 to make regulations which will be laid before the House, prescribing such operational matters as the manner in which entries for sale are received, the manner in which auctions are conducted the accommodation and cognate facilities to be provided—such as proper segregation of animals—and the animal health and hygiene conditions to be observed. In this latter connection the handling of documents such as certificates and "blue cards" requires special consideration. Another matter which it would be desirable to cover is the safeguarding of the financial interests of farmers selling livestock at marts. Any regulations under section 6 may, of course, be annulled by resolution of the House.

In section 7 the usual powers are given to authorised officers to inspect premises and documents, to take copies of documents, to request the furnishing of information etc. The remaining sections deal routinely with offences, laying of Orders before each House of the Oireachtas and expenses. The expenses will relate mainly to staff and will not be significant. There is no requirement in the Bill for the payment by livestock marts of any form of licence or registration fee.

A rather artificial and ill-founded publicity campaign has been launched by some people against this Bill. To judge by the sort of tendentious tales they have put about, one would think that the end of the livestock marts is in sight, that the marts are going to be crushed out of existence by arbitrary and dictatorial action, and so on.

These stories are, of course, entirely without foundation.

No new policy, principle or procedure is introduced by this Bill, which is long overdue and is only one in a long line of enactments passed under Fine Gael, Coalition and Fianna Fáil Governments for the regulation and control of the marketing of agricultural products in one form or another. Nobody has contended that any of those measures, passed by this House, has done anything but good and nobody has contended that their operation has been unfair, too severe or arbitrary. The same will hold for the present Bill.

To give just a few examples of these various measures I will mention the following Acts of the Oireachtas which introduced licensing or registration control of persons and/or premises by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries for such varied purposes as the achievement of better standards of marketing, hygiene, quality, equitable administration, etc., and which give the Minister very wide powers in regard to the refusal and revocation of licences or registration.

The Dairy Produce Act, 1924, provides for the registration of creameries while the Creamery Act of 1928 gives the Minister discretion as regards the granting of a licence for a new creamery and empowers him to attach to the licence such conditions as he thinks proper.

Under the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1935, granting of a licence for a new bacon factory is, except for one particular type of case, at the absolute discretion of the Minister.

Under the Poultry Hatcheries Act, 1947, the granting of a licence for a hatchery or of approval for a supply farm is at the absolute discretion of the Minister, and the same applies to the revocation of a licence or withdrawal of approval.

Similarly, under the Live Stock (Artificial Insemination) Act, 1947, the granting and revocation of licences for artificial insemination stations is entirely at the discretion of the Minister.

Under the Seed Production Act, 1955, the Minister has discretion as regards the granting of a licence to engage in production, processing and selling of certain seeds and as to the conditions attached to the licence. A licence may be revoked or the conditions altered at any time.

The Fertilisers, Feeding Stuffs and Mineral Mixtures Act, 1955, gives the Minister discretion as regards the granting of a licence for the manufacture of any of these products, the conditions attached to a licence and the revocation of a licence.

Several enactments provide for the licensing of exports and give the Minister complete discretion to grant or refuse a licence. The most important of these is the Agricultural and Fisheries Products (Regulation of Export) Act, 1947.

The present Bill is, therefore, in full conformity with the policies and powers already enshrined in our legislation for very many years, right back to the 1920s. The Bill when enacted will be administered with the same scrupulous fairness and understanding as all the other measures I have mentioned, and which have proved so successful. I am convinced that it will prove a boon to the livestock marts industry and will contribute to a further expansion of its activities by introducing uniform standards, by giving them the explicit approval of the State and by checking any tendency to unnecessary proliferation of marts to the detriment of existing establishments.

I commend the Bill to the House and ask that it be given a Second Reading.

Mr. Clinton

This Bill should have been styled the Revenge Bill: I can think of no title that would be more appropriate for it. It is a most illjudged, ill-timed, irresponsible and perverse piece of legislation. I want to make it quite clear that we in Fine Gael are strongly opposed to the Bill at the present time and we would be opposed to it at any time except perhaps in a very different form and to serve very different purposes. I also want to make it quite clear that if this Bill succeeds in getting through the Houses of the Oireachtas, we in this Party will repeal it at the earliest possible opportunity.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Clinton

I am particularly suspicious of this Bill at the present time because it has been brought in, like the Agriculture (Amendment) Bill, with extraordinary haste and at a speed which is in sharp contrast with the Minister's failure to introduce legislation to implement the findings of the committee set up in relation to wool improvement or to implement the recommendations of the committee set up to make investigations into the horsebreeding industry. These two reports have been with the Minister for quite a long time, certainly for ten times longer than it should be necessary for them to be fully considered and action taken upon them, but nothing has happened. In the same way, too, there is the more urgent matter of a proper milk recording and cow-testing scheme, promised by the Minister's predecessor last January, but nothing has happened about it.

There is nothing in the Bill to give any indication that the Minister intends to bring in a proper meat marketing board to ensure against a repetition of the fantastic slump in cattle prices which occurred last autumn and which is now inevitable in the coming autumn. There is nothing in the Bill to ensure fair play for the producers by formulating a scheme to get back direct to the farmers the beef subsidy payments.

This Bill, in my view, is brought along now just as a smokescreen to cover the Minister's failure to deal with the serious problems in Irish agriculture today. It is brought in to give the false impression that the cattle marts, organised by the farmers themselves, by their efforts and at their expense, are now so badly run that the bureaucrats must rush in to control them. This, in my view, is a further retrograde step on the road to killing initiative and co-operative activity. It is a move by power-thirsty bureaucrats and bullies who come in to supplant —not to supplement—the praiseworthy efforts of the farmers to provide themselves with a more efficient marketing organisation for their produce.

At present, we hear a lot of nonsensical comment—we have heard it in recent weeks—about boycotting and intimidation. We can all easily recall that when the farmers organised themselves and when, in consultation and in co-operation with the IAOS and, indeed, with enterprising businessmen, they got together and organised these cattle marts, there was at that time serious boycott but there was absolute silence on the part of the then Minister for Agriculture and the Government of which the present Minister was a member. The silence at that time is just like the outcry of today: it was for Party political reasons and for nothing else.

When the cattle of this country were being sold in the most antiquated, time-consuming and inefficient manner, there was no word from the Minister. There was no complaint from the Minister and there was no method of ensuring that proper marketing facilities would be provided. Surely this was the opportune time to do something about the marketing of our livestock. There were small farmers who, for instance, went to a fair perhaps only once or twice in a year because they would have cattle to sell only once or twice in a year. We all know what happened. They were met along the road. They could not be expected to be really good judges of the value of their stock. In many cases, they got much less than the value of the stock they had to sell simply because of the system that was then in vogue. However, as I have said, nothing was done by the Minister for Agriculture at that time or indeed since until the farmers themselves got together and set up this up-to-date, well-run and well-managed system of selling cattle—the cattle marts we all know today. Now, when that has been done, we have the Minister rushing in to take control.

It is obvious to us all that this is a further step to wield the big stick over the heads of our farmers and to enable the Minister to put himself in a position to hand out something to some of his friends. Is it not time, once and for all, the Minister dropped this rotten approach to his responsibilities as Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries? Can he not see that the only way to get a worthwhile agricultural programme under way is by full farmer involvement at every stage and by the encouragement of co-operation, initiative and enterprise, and not by this continuous and undesirable prodding and meddling? I know these marts fairly well; certainly I know them in this part of the country. I know the way they are managed, the people who run them, and I know their standards of accommodation and of hygiene. I am probably much more familiar with what happens in cattle marts than the Minister. My opinion is that the standards in these marts are very high indeed and that this Bill is absolutely unnecessary.

The men who run the cattle marts know their business; they know the people they are dealing with and the service that is required, and they know the precautions to be taken. They must be given a free hand in the operation of their business and then competition alone will decide that they will give a good service. We hear a whole lot of nonsense about proliferation and all that, and at the outset there was proliferation. There were too many marts and some fell by the wayside, and perhaps the same will happen again, but that is competition and business. If there are too many shops, those which are not efficient must just go out of business. The manner in which entries are received must be left to the people operating cattle marts. The people operating the cattle marts must be in a position to say to a certain individual: "No; we will not take entries from you. Bring your cattle where you like", simply because they will not allow a racket to be engaged in.

Any of us who attend these cattle marts and know what goes on at fairs and marts know that there are certain people and groups who would engage in all sorts of malpractices and destroy the reputation of a salesyard or of an organisation. These people are very well known in the trade and it is only in the trade that they are known. People in the business know far more about them than any group of departmental inspectors could ever hope to know. It beats me why we want to transfer all this responsibility to Government inspectors. I hold very strongly that the Minister already has more than enough power in his hands to guard against disease, to ensure that the standards of hygiene are as high as they should be, and to protect health.

A point was raised by the Minister in a glancing sort of way about the ability of the cattle mart, the auctioneer, to pay for the livestock sold there. Surely there are many ways, such as those we have in auctioneering legislation, to guard against this sort of thing. A bond can be taken out and the courts can be used for this purpose, but why should the Minister be given this absolute control, this overriding power, in relation to all the cattle marts in the country? It is something that will never be accepted by the people.

There is no use in the Taoiseach or the Ministers attending functions around the country and pouring forth about their support for private enterprise and co-operation when they bring in a measure of this sort. This is designed for no other purpose than to kill initiative and co-operation and make way for the worst type of corruption. It is probably about the most despicable piece of legislation a Minister for Agriculture ever brought into this House. It appears to me the Minister is envious of the fact that a first-class job has been done and that this was a major step forward on the part of organised farming to evolve a system of marketing their livestock in an up-to-date and efficient manner and that neither he nor the Government to which he belongs could take any credit for it. But immediately this efficient business is set up, he wants to come in and control it, to be able to hold the big stick over the farmers' heads again. I want to warn the Government that the people are getting tired, and very tired, of this type of dictatorial attitude, this type of anarchy, and they are going to put a stop to it. I hope they will give the Government their answer in the not too distant future.

In this Bill the Minister seeks the most far-reaching powers, powers to accept or reject, to grant or withhold, and powers to exempt, in circumstances he will decide, any particular group of people or any person, from complying with the laws made in this Bill, if they are ever made law. No Minister should ever be placed in this position and no Minister should ever seek to be put in this position and it is the duty and responsibility of all of us here to see that this does not happen. This Bill is against at least the spirit of the Constitution. The courts are ignored and there is no provision for appeal against decisions. This is government by ministerial decree and if it passes through this House, I shall be very surprised indeed.

This is a most extraordinary measure. First of all, the definition section says:

"business of a livestock mart" means the business of selling livestock by auction or providing, for the holding of sales of livestock by auction or otherwise, a place adapted for the sale of livestock by auction;

It means that if I even lease a place to anybody for a livestock mart, I am responsible for all the things that can happen to me. The Minister has power in the Bill, if he gets it, to fine as heavily as £1,000 and to put people in jail for six months. All those penalties are hanging over the head of anybody even if he merely provides space for a livestock mart. Does this Bill mean that if there is a dispersal sale a licence must be obtained for it? Does it mean that a man cannot sell his cattle without a licence? It is very difficult to see that this is not excluded. In fact, there is so little written into the Bill that the Minister for Agriculture of the time can do anything he likes with it.

There are many references in the Bill to regulations. As I see it, the Minister need not make a regulation at all because all he has to do is to lay down conditions. He can do anything under conditions. He need not tell anyone in advance what these conditions are, or what they may be in the future. We get a rough idea of some of the regulations, but we get nothing about the conditions.

Section 3, dealing with grant of licences for livestock marts, provides:

(1) On the application of or on behalf of a person who proposes to carry on the business of a livestock mart at a specified place in such form and containing such particulars as the Minister may direct, the Minister may, at his discretion, grant or refuse to grant a licence authorising the carrying on of the business of a livestock mart at that place.

"At his discretion." There is no indication of on what he bases his discretion. As I see it, the Minister can say to someone looking for a licence for a livestock mart: "I will, if you give £100 to the Fianna Fáil funds, and I won't if you don't." It is as open as that. Let us face it. Subsection (2) of section 3 provides:

The Minister may, at the time of the granting of a licence, attach to the licence such conditions as he shall think proper and shall specify in the licence.

"Conditions." This is the part of the whole Bill which I think is the really important part. The Minister can put existing people out of business under the regulations and conditions he lays down. Certainly he can refuse a licence to anyone, or can grant a licence to anyone he likes under this Bill. In this Bill the Minister is the most infallible and almighty person imaginable. This is not legislation in the way we know it in a democracy. We get some idea of the regulations, but we are told that is not the end of it. The Minister can make any regulations.

I should like the Minister to indicate, as he has failed to do, the necessity for this Bill. It is undesirable, unjustifiable and unnecessary. I would ask Members of the House in no circumstances to support this Bill. I fail to see how even Fianna Fáil Members can go down the country and tell the farmers that they supported this Bill, that every effort they are likely to make in the future is likely to be treated in the same manner, that they are being put in a straitjacket by the Government. While this sort of overriding power is sought today in relation to the livestock marts, who knows in respect of what other legitimate business tomorrow the same almighty powers will be sought by the Minister, and exercised by him if he gets them. This will not stop at the livestock marts. There is a great danger in this legislation. It is the start of the slippery slope. It is the type of legislation one would expect in a dictatorship, not a democracy. I ask and implore the people here not to support this Bill, and to show when it comes to a vote, as it will and must, that that is the stand they intend to take upon it.

Mr. James Tully

It appears to me and to the members of the Labour Party that if ever an unnecessary Bill was introduced in this House, this is it. The Minister referred to the fact that certain people claim that this is a further attempt by the Government to crush the NFA. Of course, he hastened to add, nothing could be further from the truth. The facts are that this Bill is directed solely against the NFA. There does not appear to be any other reason for introducing it except for the purpose of getting a further kick at the NFA. If it were a question, as so often happens under a Fianna Fáil Government, of the House running out of business, or that there was not enough business to be carried on, there might be some justification for bringing in some legislation which would occupy the House. This has happened before. To bring in this Bill now and attempt to rush it through, while there are quite a number of important Bills on the stocks for quite some time which need to be dealt with urgently, proves that this Bill has been brought in for the definite purpose of trying to crush the farming community.

No. 17 on today's Order Paper, the Redundancy Payments Bill, was referred to by Deputy Corish yesterday. He asked why was it not proceeded with? Why have we to wait until next session to know whether the Minister and the Government propose to deal with this matter? He got an excuse which did not hold water. Now, while it is being put away, we have a Bill of this type introduced. It appears to me that the Government, with all their ranting and raving about the necessity for the farming community to co-operate, and the necessity for them to help themselves in every way, are now attacking the first effort at co-operation, to my knowledge, which was introduced on a widespread scale in this country.

Everyone who lives or lived in a country district will remember the old fairs on the streets of the towns and villages. Those who were bringing cattle to these fairs had to get up in the small hours of the morning and, before the advent of the lorries, and indeed, since then, drive the cattle through the night in order to be in time for the fair. They had to stand around uncomfortably in windy fair greens for long hours. There was no light, and the question of getting value for the cattle depended on the whims of those present. No question of absolute value ever arose. Someone made an estimate, and it was a question of giving what they thought they could get away with. That was the practice down through the years until the cattle marts were introduced. At last we reached the stage where the person selling and the person buying knew the price. The person selling knew what the prices were, and he could compare them with those given for similar types of beasts in the same marts and all over the country. He could see whether he was getting value, and whether he was being paid for what he was selling.

Now that all this has been done, we find the Minister saving this cannot continue, that in future the Minister must say who can and who cannot run a cattle mart. I wonder if he intends to apply this control to the fair which did not take place in Donegal town? Does he propose to go down there and attempt to rule there and say whether or not people can sell or buy cattle? He did not make a good job of it the last time, and he will not make a good job of it this time, because he will not be allowed to.

Mr. Donegan

It could be a case of giving £100 to TACA and getting a licence.

Mr. James Tully

It does not matter whether it is a member of TACA or anyone else. This is purely and simply a matter of the farming community trying to help themselves and their attempt being interfered with by the Government. Deputy Clinton said this was a vindictive Bill and that is the word which came to my mind. It appears to be a vindictive attempt by a mean petty-minded person to get his own back on someone who has so far got the better of him.

I should not like the Minister to forget that even though he was able to throw the farmers into Portlaoise Gaol, it was the farmers who won and not the Minister. It was the farmers who showed they would not be kicked around, that they were prepared to stand up for their rights and will continue to do so. The trouble is that if the Minister, the Department and the Government were really interested in what they call—when it suits them— our primary industry, they would attempt to find a solution to the dreadful problems which face Irish agriculture.

The Minister cannot do that; he is not interested in doing it. He is not interested in trying to find an alternative market or in trying to find some way of dealing with the surplus 100,000 or 150,000 store cattle which will be unsaleable, unless God wills it otherwise, within the next couple of months. His solution last year, when an almost similar situation arose, was to create such a row with the farmers that he could blame them and say they were not co-operating. Instead of trying to explain why he was not doing what he should be doing about a market for cattle, he had the farmers in the position of trying to defend themselves against unjust attacks.

We have in this Bill the suggestion about intimidation. It is alleged that certain people's cattle will not be sold in the marts. The Minister considers that a good reason. I want to say this to the House: a "blackleg" or "scab" in any organisation has always been treated in this country in one way. I most certainly will not object in any circumstances to a man who is not prepared to stand by his colleagues in any organisation getting the treatment he deserves. We have had them in the trade union movement—the fellows who because they thought they were pleasing somebody—the Government or an employer crushing down some unfortunate individual—went in the back door. We have seen them staying on when everybody else was on strike, even though the strike concerned the livelihood of other people. Yet when the strike was over they expected to be treated as if they had played their part.

I make no apology for treating such people as they ought to be treated. They are no good to themselves, no good to anybody. We have only a few of them in this country. They have been crying on the Minister's shoulder because they are not welcomed with open arms when they go in to the marts after doing everything they could to wreck the organisation concerned. They complain because they are not welcomed and told: "We will look after you; you will get first place." They complain that their cattle are not put in on time. Because they put them in before somebody else, they feel they are entitled to get first consideration. To give the farming organisations their due, they could have been much more severe, from what I see of it. In most cases the Irish farmer is a soft-hearted fellow. He allows the fellow who has been abusing him today to take advantage of him tomorrow.

Because of this the Minister feels justified in saying that the marts must now take out a licence, not a licence from the courts in the normal way but a licence from the Minister himself, who feels in his own mind he is God Almighty and can say: "Yes" or "No", with no appeal. It is absolutely ridiculous. It just will not wash. The sooner the Minister discovers it—and he should have long ago—the better. There is an old saying that whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. It appears to be borne out here. It is evidence that the Fianna Fáil organisation and the Government do not realise that they have lost the confidence of the ordinary people. Most certainly they have lost the confidence of the agricultural community.

One sentence in the Minister's introductory speech shows just how out of touch he is. He said:

Another matter which it would be desirable to cover is the safeguarding of the financial interests of farmers selling livestock at marts.

If the Minister wanted to make that kind of case, he could have referred to the fact that, now and again, the unscrupulous buyer has succeeded in getting more credit than he was able to meet and has "scooted" with the proceeds and left some of the marts—only a few of them, thank God—in an awkward position. But the Minister just refers to that in passing as another item, not very important. If he had introduced some legislation to ensure compulsory insurance for marts which would guarantee the farmers their money, there would be some sense in it. But the Minister does not.

The Minister talks glibly about the necessity for hygiene. How does the hygiene in the marts compare with the hygiene in the fairgreens and towns before the marts were introduced? Anybody who checks on that will soon realise that hygiene did not come into it at all. Whatever was there remained there for 100 years, and nobody attempted to improve it.

The Minister and his Government had an awful hard neck in view of what has happened to introduce here a Bill of this kind and ask that it should be accepted and that the Second Reading should be given before the Recess. It has been introduced despite the fact that the Minister has refused to reply to the debate on Agriculture. If he had anything to promise the agricultural community, the obvious thing for him to do would be to tell us in his reply on his Estimate all the things he had in store to help the agricultural community. But he refused to do that. Having refused to do that before the local elections, he then brings along this Bill and expects to get away with it. I want to make this clear: as far as the Labour Party are concerned, we will oppose this Bill and we will oppose it from beginning to end. If the Minister thinks he is going to have a soft passage through the House with it, he has to think again.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

I must confess I was surprised at the lame attempts of the Minister to justify the introduction of this Bill. I think the deserted benches opposite are a further indication of the weak case the Minister has, without commenting on the fact that the Minister himself left immediately after reading his brief. Speaking as a shareholder in one of the largest co-operative livestock marts in the south of Ireland and as one who played his humble part in the organisation of that mart, I deplore the introduction of this Bill. I condemn the Minister for his outrageous attempt to take over control of the livestock marts. As one keenly interested in the co-operative movement, I believe this Bill strikes at the very heart of that movement. It contravenes all the internationally-accepted principles which govern and regulate State intervention in private enterprise and co-operative economic development.

There is no doubt in my mind that this Bill is being used by the Minister as another weapon with which to attack the organised farmers of this country, particularly the NFA. The Minister, for certain obvious reasons and for other reasons one fails to comprehend, seems determined to lock the farming community in the iron grip of State control. Worse still, he is endeavouring to smother local initiative and self-reliance. This Bill does not contain a single provision which would be of any benefit to the livestock marts, to the farmers or to the cattle traders. The far-reaching powers the Minister seeks to arrogate to himself in this Bill are more reminiscent of a dictatorship than of a democratic form of government.

This Bill, despite the Minister's lame excuses for introducing it, is an unnecessary and unwarranted attack on the right of farmers to organise and operate commercial projects for their own economic betterment. I referred already to the fact that it strikes at the very heart of the co-operative movement. I have no doubt whatever that it is going to discourage farmers from undertaking any further co-operative projects. As Deputy Tully has said, it is a terrible state of affairs that, at a time when co-operation is being preached as the only solution for the economic and social problems of Irish agriculture, our Minister for Agriculture should come in here and introduce a Bill which is a complete contradiction and denial of the principles of co-operation and self-help.

This Bill is going to deal a complete death blow to co-operative enterprise in this country. The Minister seems to be completely opposed to the very idea of co-operation. In his statement recently on the Estimate for Agriculture he did not mention the word "co-operation" once nor did he make any reference to the co-operative movement. A few weeks later he introduces a Bill to this House which is aimed at the destruction of one of the most outstanding examples of co-operation, not alone in this country but in any country in the world. The whole approach to the marketing of livestock has been revolutionised by the establishment of these marts throughout the country. The Government gave no assistance in their establishment. They were organised and brought into being by the farmers.

Some years ago when the idea was introduced that the farmers should organise themselves by the formation of livestock marts, there were tremendous psychological and physical differences to be overcome and, in that regard, I want to pay a tribute to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, the National Farmers Association and the other farming groups through whose encouragement and efficiency the livestock marts became a reality. I cannot understand why the Minister, if he felt this legislation was necessary, did not hold consultations with the people involved, whether co-operative committees or private enterprise groups. This legislation has been opposed by every group which has played a part in the foundation and establishment of the cattle marts.

It has been opposed by the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. In the statement issued by that organisation—I quote from the Irish Times of 20th June—it is stated:

Having studied the terms of the Bill, the representatives of the marts were seriously concerned at many of the provisions of the Bill and their very wide implications, particularly as they affect their future developments.

The statement added: "A very undesirable feature of the Bill is that it confers absolute powers on the Minister to control and regulate the business of the marts."

The IAOS said that the meeting expressed grave dissatisfaction at the failure of the Minister for Agriculture to have prior consultations with the marts before introducing the Bill. He pointed out that the marts had been founded, financed and operated by farmers and had received no financial help from the State in their organisation and development.

I cannot understand why the Minister, without any consultation with the people responsible for the establishment of these marts, should introduce a Bill to take over complete control of them. It is beyond comprehension.

The Association of Livestock Marts of Ireland which caters for co-operative marts and also for private enterprise marts met on 20th June and decided to ask the Minister to meet a deputation to discuss their objection to the Bill. They objected to the Bill because it interfered with the right of the citizen to conduct his own lawful business and secondly, because the Bill gives arbitrary and extensive powers to the Minister against which there is no appeal to the courts of law. The Association wished to bring this to the attention of all citizens. This organisation went further and stated that it was unanimously agreed that in the event of the passage of the Bill in its present form, steps would be taken to test its legality in the Supreme Court.

Nobody in this country asked for the introduction of this Bill and the Minister did not consult anybody involved or connected with the livestock marts. This is another attempt by the Minister to grasp the farmers in the iron grip, in the Blaney grip. From all I have read or heard against this legislation, I find the whole matter neatly summed up in an editorial in the Irish Times which said:

Normal conduct of fairs, markets and marts has been evolving on sensible modern lines, guided to a certain extent by NFA influence and to nobody's knowledge indulging in any practice which would deserve two months' imprisonment or a fine of £1,000. The same Minister who denies the farmers a meat marketing board arrogates to himself powers that will put him, as well as a Department whose overall competence has been called seriously in question by a considerable group of farmers over the last nine months, in a position of almost absolute supremacy over a large section of our major industries.

I object strongly to this legislation. Public opinion is against it. Everybody concerned in the establishment of the marts is against it. I believe that if it is implemented, it will be a further step in the development of State control. The Minister gave certain hazy and very inconclusive reasons for introducing it. I would ask the Minister to say when replying to the debate if he had consultation with his Minister-dominated National Agricultural Council before he introduced this Bill. I do not believe he had. If he had, he would possibly have referred to it. I am challenging the Minister to state whom he consulted and particularly if he consulted the National Agricultural Council. I am very confident that public opinion will force the Minister to withdraw this Bill.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. J. Gibbons)

I must say that I am somewhat surprised at Deputy O'Donnell. When speaking on the Estimate for Agriculture as late as last week, I said truthfully and sincerely that one of the few Fine Gael Deputies who could be relied upon to make an intelligent and constructive contribution to that debate was Deputy O'Donnell. I am greatly surprised that he could adopt the cynical Fine Gael attitude to this Bill. Listening to him here for the past few minutes, one might well believe that it was not Deputy Tom O'Donnell at all who was speaking but some of the old brazen-necked Fine Gael people who put the cynical Fine Gael line consistently before the people in this House.

Mr. Donegan

For instance?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I do not like to offend the Deputy. It seems to be the general Fine Gael tactic at the present time in all matters relating to agriculture to direct their attacks upon the Minister for Agriculture and to blame him for everything. They have made a blundering attempt here today to associate this Livestock Marts Bill with a completely different matter altogether, the affair between the Government and the NFA.

I have often heard Deputy Tom O'Donnell speaking here and speaking very well upon a subject that I feel strongly about, the matter of co-operation. He described this Bill as a death blow to the co-operative movement in Ireland. Needless to say, he was not able to demonstrate the truth of this contention, good, bad or indifferent. On the contrary, it would be a very easy thing to show that this is a logical step on the road towards the evolution of a true co-operative system in this country.

When considering this matter of livestock marts, it is necessary to examine their origins and to look at their development in order to get a picture of the present situation in its proper context. I took part in the foundation and establishment of one of the biggest co-operative cattle marts in the country, in Kilkenny. This mart has been established now eight or ten years. But, when the movement towards the establishment of cattle marts began to get under way, there was no planning, no system, good, bad or indifferent, that regulated where the marts would be located or in what manner they would do their business. As late as today, as a result of this absence of any plan at all, we discover a cattle mart running on the economic rocks and bringing with it to destruction or to severe injury, at any rate, many farmers who had transacted business in it. In the establishment of the existing marts, the selection of their location was left completely to the persons who sponsored them, without any attempt to relate it to the general agricultural organisation of the areas in which they were established. Deputy O'Donnell, like myself, believes that the future of the Irish farming must rely upon the establishment of a true co-operative system. It is very strange to hear Deputy O'Donnell expressing the view that this Bill, which proposes to regulate the affairs of cattle marts, is a blow at co-operation rather than, as I say, a definite aid and assistance to the proper organisation and regulation of cattle marketing.

I think that eventually some cattle marts, at any rate, will find themselves linked up with meat processing plants. It seems to me to be a logical follow-up to this. In order that the follow-up may be logical and sensible, it is necessary that there should be an overall control over cattle marts, over their affairs in general. For that reason one might be tempted to ask: what is the function of the Department of Agriculture? The outraged screams that have come from the Fine Gael benches so far this evening would seem to suggest that the Government and the Minister are the sworn enemies of agriculture and that it is their business not to assist farmers and the growth of agriculture but to destroy it in any way possible. This is the basis of the Fine Gael contention and it begs this question: what are the Department of Agriculture supposed to be doing if they are not supposed to be assisting in the rational development of marketing in general and cattle marketing in particular?

Mr. Clinton

They did not give much assistance in the setting up of the marts.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I would confess to Deputy Clinton that it is not now but possibly years ago that the control of the establishment, in the first place, and the regulation of their affairs afterwards, should have been undertaken.

Deputy O'Donnell had a great deal to say about this Bill and that it infringed in some way upon the right of citizens to do business as they saw fit. He deplored the alleged fact that there was no appeal against the decision of the Minister. I put forward this contention, that one of the main functions that I would expect from this Bill and one of the benefits that I would expect to accrue to farmers from it is this very thing, the protection of the right of the ordinary farmer to do his business as and when he wishes.

In my constituency in recent times there have been very many regrettable incidents in cattle marts, some of them in co-operative marts and some in privately-owned marts. I will go into this in some detail in a minute. In the case of Carrick-on-Suir cattle mart and Waterford cattle mart which, I think, is a co-operative establishment, a caterer was boycotted and driven from his work—the caterer's name was Bob Duggan—because of pressure brought upon the managements of cattle markets to remove his services. It seems that this ordinary citizen—and I should like Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Clinton to take note of this since they are concerned about the rights of the citizen—had been earning his livelihood by catering in these cattle markets for four days of the week. Because of the absence of regulation of any kind, hidden pressure brought to bear by the National Farmers Association on the managements of these markets caused this man to be deprived of his livelihood.

That is one example. It is a serious example of an outrageous attack upon the rights of the small, unprotected person that was contrived through the cattle markets. Under a proper licensing system for cattle markets, the licensee would be in a position to say to any of these bullies who caused this man to be deprived of his livelihood: "If I do what you are asking me to do, I may lose my licence." Therefore, the hidden threat of the bully who is ashamed to show his face would be negatived. It has not happened in the case of Bob Duggan.

Mr. O'Hara

Would the Parliamentary Secretary say how many people lost their livelihood because of the slaughter of the calves?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There was no John Brown or anybody else to buy them, because with the completely unregulated state of affairs in cattle markets at the present time, it is very simple thing for a couple of cowardly bullies to deprive people of their fundamental rights to do their business. These were the rights about which Deputy O'Donnell was so concerned. I have seen with my own eyes this behaviour in Kilkenny. I know all about the removal of Mr. Duggan from Waterford and Carrick-on-Suir cattle markets. These incidents are a disgrace and something should be done about them immediately.

There is another matter that should be referred to in this affair. I have got many complaints from the Kilkenny area of my constituency of a canvass which was being made in order to compel farmers to join a new association of beet growers. Farmers have told me that the canvassers told them that if they did not join, they would be no longer permitted to sell their cattle in Kilkenny cattle market. This is true and there is no denying that it is true. I do not say that officially the NFA have anything to do with it——

Mr. Crotty

I do not think that is true.

Mr. J. Gibbons

——but I do say they have failed to condemn the outrageous treatment that has been meted out to farmers and others in cattle markets in my constituency. I would be failing in my duty as a representative of Carlow and Kilkenny if I did not speak out here against these injustices and if I did not say that I welcome the introduction of this Bill. I welcome the introduction of this Bill, and the only regret I have about it is that it was not introduced long ago.

Mr. J. Gibbons

As I have already said, I know what I am talking about; I have had to do with cattle markets for some years. From time to time I have had cattle and sheep to sell. I will have cattle to sell in the future and I want to know that I will be in a position to sell them without let or hindrance. That is the main reason I welcome this Bill.

Mr. Donegan

I should like to deal in a factual way, first of all, with some of the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary. I hope he will stay with us. He instanced a particular mart which, if I understand him correctly, failed to pay and he talked about the destruction of many farmers. Perhaps he is talking of an instance about which I am aware. Perhaps he is not. Whether this is a situation that may arise or whether it is a situation that has arisen in the past few months in a certain part of the country, the fact is, and I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to say it is untrue, there is absolutely nothing in this Bill dealing with the failure of a mart to pay. The legislation that deals with that situation is contained in a different Act—the Auctioneers Act—and in other legislation. The production of red herrings by the Parliamentary Secretary, who should be informed if he had done his homework——

It was looked for years ago.

Mr. Donegan

This is further evidence that this legislation is merely revenge legislation and legislation calculated further to increase the rift between the farmers and the Government. It is legislation further to produce the big stick and further to drive the farmers into despair.

Let us consider, in relation to this, the position of an auctioneer. In the livestock marts I frequent, there is an old saying which the farmers know and the auctioneer knows: "The sparrows are bidding"; there are many sparrows on the roof of this mart. This means that there are puffers involved in the bidding for cattle. The auctioneer who starts up and takes the bids has to decide what is the genuine bid and what is the puff. He has to be a man of great integrity. He has to be a man of very considerable ability. He must know the people all around him. What is the position under this legislation? Must the auctioneer take the puff? Must he accept the bid from a person who, he well knows, has not the wherewithal? One of the safety factors in selling through an auctioneer was that when you sold through a reputable firm of auctioneers, you knew you were sure of your money because they had accepted the bid and would pay up.

Mr. Allen

Not if the other fellow did not pay you.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Donegan

This is the situation as I know it.

Mr. Allen

The Deputy does not know it.

Mr. Donegan

I have bought and sold in livestock marts since I was 17 years of age when my father sent me out to do so and corrected me if I made a mistake. If I bought over these years in a livestock mart or at a sale conducted by a reputable auctioneer, I knew that I would be paid. The position now is that, if the Minister desires, the auctioneer must take the puff. What happens, then, if he knows a bid comes from a man of straw who cannot pay or if he refuses it? Is he liable to a fine of £1,000 and £100 a day for continuing the offence? These are serious matters.

There are many items of legislation that are said to be 99 per cent the production of the officials. I am certain that this is a political production by the Minister and that the people sitting over there beside him would not stand over it but they have to sit there because he is their Minister. I am certain that no mind or hand among the officials of the Department of Agriculture would produce that document because they would have more brains, more honesty, more knowledge and more insight.

The Minister's speech is a queer sort of variation between attack and defence. To me, it has an odd tone. There is intimidation. The Minister says:

I make no apology to anyone for taking steps to secure this freedom for Irish farmers and exporters and to ensure frustration of efforts of any group to arrogate to itself the right to say who should sell or buy at a mart.

In my constituency, in my county—I am sorry; it was carved up for Fianna Fáil reasons—there are two proprietorial marts. One is owned between a society and a mart. The mart is owned by 40 or 50 farmers. These people have not been interfered with. There has been no intimidation or evidence of it that I know of.

I know of nobody who is trying to arrogate to himself the right to say who should sell or who should but at a mart. These marts have never failed to pay. I have known these auctioneers to refuse bids. Therefore, it seems extraordinary that this should occur at a time when there is such ill-feeling in agricultural circles towards the Minister for Agriculture.

What is the thinking in agricultural circles? The Taoiseach and the wives of the farmers did a good job. His Minister for Agriculture is now producing this legislation and talks about people arrogating rights to themselves, talks about intimidation, talks about seeing that nobody will do this. Then, there is a long diatribe in defence of his action. I intend to deal with this diatribe.

I never knew a Minister to introduce a Bill here who had not the same approach in his opening speech— honest sincerity that the measure was a good piece of legislation. Here, rather, the Minister is trying to defend himself before he is attacked. He is trying to defend himself against public opinion. He is trying to bastion the terrible mistakes and the vicious legislation he is implementing.

I want to deal with a particular statement by the Minister:

No new policy, principle or procedure is introduced by this Bill,...

In defence of this statement, further down he quotes a series of Acts of Parliament which give control to the Minister of certain agricultural industries. I intend to deal with each one of them individually. Every one of these has to do with quality production or the control of something that can change, that is not in fact a fixed thing, that can be improved or disimproved and that will leave us with a worse or a better article for export or use. Nobody can change the quality of a bullock that walks through the ring. No legislation on livestock marts will change the quality of livestock in this country which has never been at a lower ebb as a result of the disastrous Fianna Fáil heifer scheme.

The Minister says:

Creameries produce butter and butter must be exported. It is exported under a trade name and there must be a constant quality and there must be a service provided for the farmer. There must be a very heavy capital expenditure and the result is that quality control and the provision of services to the farmer make it necessary that we should have control over the activities of the creameries. That is the reason for that legislation.

Similarly, the Minister refers to the Pigs and Bacon Act. Of course this is so. Do we want to have a hotch-potch of ten different brands or grades or types of bacon sent out, if the general policy is to produce a certain brand and type of bacon cured in a certain way? That is why that legislation is necessary.

The Minister referred to the Poultry Hatcheries Act. Of course we want to breed the right type of hens and to legislate that those people producing eggs for breeding will have the right stock.

He also quoted the Livestock (Artificial Insemination) Act. Of course we want the right semen from the very best bulls we can provide and of course we want to upgrade, if at all possible, the standard of our cattle.

He referred to the Seed Production Act, 1955, under which the Minister has discretion as regards the granting of a licence. Is that not necessary if we are to maintain the quality of our seeds and is it not necessary in relation to certified seed and to ensure that what the farmer buys he gets and that what is on the outside of the bag describes what is in it. This is a matter of policy.

He also quoted the Fertilisers, Feeding Stuffs and Mineral Mixtures Act, 1955. Of course we want to see that our superphosphate has the right analysis, that our compound fertilisers have the right analysis, and that our animal feedingstuffs have the right analysis and the right performance. Of course we want to control this matter of production and——

Mr. J. Gibbons

But we want to boycott, if we like, the cattle marts.

Mr. Donegan

Can the Parliamentary Secretary indicate any legislation that is going to affect Deputy Briscoe or myself if we boycott the cattle mart or incite anyone to do so within the Act? We are guilty, if we do, of a criminal offence under different legislation but you cannot, and I submit will not, provide one line in one subsection of this Act that will affect individual people like Deputy Briscoe or myself.

Then there is another example brought to the defence of the Minister before he is attacked—which seems extraordinary—when he says "Several enactments provide for the licensing of exports". Of course we want to see that we sent out the right agricultural produce. This is fundamental but this has nothing to do with walking a bull through a ring in a livestock mart.

I think I have disposed of the Minister's defences. I would like to turn now to that part of the Minister's speech where he says:

Its purposes are to exercise a reasonable degree of control over the establishment of new livestock marts, to ensure for example that there is no uneconomic overlapping where a tendency to undesirable proliferation may occur in particular areas and also to ensure that adequate facilities of various kinds are provided and that the services of the marts are available fairly and reasonably to all clients.

The first point I want to make is that the commission paid by farmers or purchasers of livestock is subject to competition. It is the hope of an auctioneer or of any mart management to get in the cattle and to sell them. It is a question of competition in getting the buyers there. If the mart can get the buyers, they will get the cattle. You have to find out at once which comes first, the hen or the egg. In relation to uneconomic overlapping, the position is those which are uneconomic will go out; they will lose their money. The capital expenditure involved in livestock marts has no relation at all to the capital expenditure involved in bacon factories or creameries. There is sufficient competition. It is the right line to have: the best will stay and the worst will go. There is no defence in the Minister's statement that he wants to have this right to give a licence in a certain area or the right to refuse it. It means that here is another sphere in which a Minister of State may, if he so desires, give a licence to those whom he likes, or not give it to those he does not like. This is something that is extremely relevant.

The Minister is the one who refuses it——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Donegan

Has anybody denied that you are guilty of Taca?

Mr. Davern

Mr. Donegan

It is a facetious, silly remark. If Cassius Clay does not go to Vietnam and if he insults his Government and if he is fined and sent to jail, that is fair enough. That is Amerca. I am suggesting that a businessman who contravened the regulations, even during the war, when we had a Minister of Supplies, was not dealt with to the tune of £1,000 and six months. This legislation is prescribing punishment far above the gravity of any offence suggested in the Bill.

I want to suggest that one of the things the Minister might perhaps have taken into account, and done something about if he had liked, was the fact that since the amalgamation of the dairies in Dublin, 50 per cent of the milk is going back as supposedly sour. The Minister was not interested in that. That would be something for the farmers who are lower-class citizens according to him. The Minister believes that the right thing for Fianna Fáil, for their advancement for the future, is the destruction of the NFA, and he has set out on that collision course. I do not think he is right. I believe that is what he believes, and that is the tune he is playing.

This legislation is part and parcel of that belief. He is now setting up a section of the agricultural community which is meant to bend the knee to the Minister. He is dealing with them from his position of power, as a man who will give only what is good for Fianna Fáil, and who will do to anyone anything at all unpleasant, severe and penal, so long as it helps Fianna Fáil. That is the thinking behind this legislation. Perhaps the Taoiseach was too busy with Europe to stop him doing it. Perhaps the Taoiseach is of the same brand as himself. No one knows yet because they have not been together for very long and they had their difficulties in selecting a man.

Mr. Davern

We had no difficulty. It is you who had difficulty.

Mr. Donegan

That is the situation.

Mr. Davern

They had one compromise leader after another in rapid succession.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. J. Gibbons

The Deputy walked into it there.

Mr. Donegan

I want to suggest that in addition to the decisions which the Minister will make as to who will get the marts, there is the corollary of selection by political power. Remember that at a July meeting of Louth County Council, to put the boot on the other foot, a Fine Gael majority will select a Fine Gael rate collector. I want to suggest that if the House gives the Minister this power, he can give Fianna Fáil supporters the right and the sole right to sell cattle in wide areas.

Mr. Geoghegan

The Deputy should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Meaney

The main purpose of the Bill is to see that each and every farmer can sell his stock in a free, fair sale and that he can go about his business, go into the marts and come out satisfied, without being impeded in his business one way or another. That is as it should be. It is not so very long since the system of selling our cattle was carried out on a different basis. Selling cattle in marts is a very serious business for anyone. You go into the mart with your cattle and you hand them over to someone else to sell them. You must trust that person to give you what we call a fair crack of the whip; that there will be fair bidding and fair selling and that you will get your money when the sale is over.

I can see nothing in this Bill which will stop the efficient committees which are running the marts from going ahead. So far as I can observe in my county of Cork, they will not be affected one way or another, whether they are small marts or groups attached to the Cork co-operative mart. At the moment the Opposition seem to be grasping at any straw, because of the coming local elections, to criticise the Government. I have no doubt that the straws they are grasping will be their ruination.

Mr. James Tully

We did not introduce the Bill.

Mr. Meaney

We will see how things work out. In my part of the country, rumours have been put out by the Opposition that all private sales and dispersal cattle sales by auctioneers will be governed by this Bill. That is completely wrong. It is only right that an end should be put to those rumours. They will carry on as they did heretofore. We must remember that a real growth in the marts has taken place over the past ten years only. There was great rivalry amongst the people who supported the marts and the people who supported the fairs. It was even suggested to the man supporting the marts that the buyers would be asked not to bid for his cattle, and vice versa. This Bill is intended to ensure that everyone who wants to sell cattle at marts, whatever the colour of their political convictions or what farming organisation they support, will get a fair and square deal.

I heard my friend, Deputy T. O'Donnell, paying great tribute to the IAOS. I can only speak about what I know, but I remember in Cork when they were starting the co-operative mart, they went to the IAOS for guidance, so to speak, and the reply was that they could give neither advice nor guidance as they knew nothing about it. That took them greatly aback. It is now amusing to see the IAOS trying to speak for all the marts in the country. I was very disappointed on that occasion but now the mart in Cork is a great success.

I welcome this Bill and I hope the day will soon come when we will have a great change in our method of selling cattle, especially in the south. At the moment we have very little exports through the port of Cork. Cattle have to travel long distances to the marts and then they are exported from one port or another. When this Bill is passed, I believe the Minister will have to go further. I believe that he will have to select certain ports where cattle will be exported. There must be some kind of selective buying and selling. At the moment if you are looking for cattle, you can travel three or four miles to get them and then have to transport them 30, 40 or 50 miles to a port. If we are to make progress that must be changed. The day is coming when someone will arrive in a plane go to a mart which is adjacent to the port, buy his cattle and get away that evening. I do not know how we will erect such marts or how they will get the capital. Because it is a very big group, the Cork mart has gone a long way towards doing this, but if the State gives us some assistance, it will be very welcome.

Deputy Donegan referred to a glut of cattle. We know there are a lot of cattle in the country but we should not forget that it is not very long since we had a commodity strike. For one whole week no cattle were allowed to be sold. Only a few cattle were sold at a time when cattle were making a very good price. I do not know how many thousand were affected by this. It is a shame to say that we should lose one good week's sale just because a certain organisation or a certain group took it into their heads that they should have a commodity strike. That was only adding more to the glut which may be there at the end of the year.

It has been said by the Opposition that this is revenge legislation and all the rest and that the Minister is fighting against public opinion. I have no doubt that is completely untrue. It cannot be revenge legislation. It is legislation to ensure we will have the cattle marketed in a proper and orderly fashion. From now on it will be very hard for somebody to put up a second mart in a town or locality where one already exists. That is only right and proper. After all, we would only have one playing off against the other, so to speak, in those circumstances.

We also had reference by Deputy Donegan to the people who take bids from what are known as "puffers" at the marts. I suppose you will always have the man who will chance his arm, but it is up to the auctioneer to decide to take the bid. That man can object to the officer of the Department of Agriculture who comes down and he will be empowered to look into the position and see if the bid should be accepted or not. These are minor matters which can be ironed out quite easily and they do not enter into the thing one way or the other.

It has also been said that the Minister brought in this Bill as part of an effort to destroy the NFA. We in the Fianna Fáil Party have no desire to destroy the NFA. We must remember all sections of the community are entitled to their own organisations to represent them, but those organisations must work within the law of the land. These are not the laws of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour, but the laws of the people. That is the fundamental issue.

I recommend the last speaker not to get cross. There is no need to get cross. We are all told by our seniors to backpedal a bit. But I would give him a little advice. The next time he gets that instruction, tell them to go to blazes and backpedal themselves.

It is a horrible position into which we allowed ourselves to drift. When introducing the Bill, the Minister said:

When I announced the decision recently to introduce this legislation, some people alleged that the legislation was an attack on the NFA.

I ask the House, fairly and squarely, having listened to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Gibbons, today, can anyone doubt that the introduction of this Bill is an attack on the NFA?

I give the Minister this credit. It is a most interesting and significant feature that in the whole context of his speech, as well as the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Gibbons, there is not one single reference to the NAC, God bless the mark. You will remember when we were told within the last few weeks that every decision taken in the Department of Agriculture now was the result of anxious counsel by the NAC presided over by the Minister for Agriculture and attended by the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Davern. Sympathetic discussion, anxious inquiry as to the best advice that might be available, and only after protracted reflection by this august body is legislation respectfully submitted to the Dáil.

Mr. J. Gibbons

You would never get anything done that way.

Mr. Dillon

That is what he thinks of the NAC. That is what the Minister believes of the NAC. That is why he formed it. Because he said: "I do not mean to discuss anything with them. It is a fraud. I mean to lay down conditions which will prevent any farmer, who is a person of dignity and independence, coming on the NAC. The only man I want on it is a yes-man."

Mr. Davern

Mr. J. Gibbons

That is misrepresentation. The Minister did not say that.

Mr. Dillon

Misrepresentation is the universal alibi of every chancer in the world. Did the farmers of this country not acquire from their neighbours the respect to which they were entitled 20 years ago? Does the Parliamentary Secretary think it is consistent with the status of the NAC that in a matter of this kind the Minister should openly avow that he had not discussed it with them at all? Does it not speak volumes for what the Minister thinks of his own Council that he never discussed this matter with the NAC? Not one word in his speech suggests that any member of that Council ever heard of this Bill. Is it relevant to the terms of reference of the NAC?

Does the Parliamentary Secretary deny that if this Bill goes through, it will affect the livelihood of 90 per cent of the farmers of this country? If the NAC had any function at all, this Bill should have been discussed with them. The Minister could then have come into the House and said that he had discussed it with them, that it had their approval, or that there were two points of view, that he had listened to both and that the measure he was now bringing before the House was the best he could devise after consulting with this body which he himself had set up for the purpose of consultation. The farming community are now being treated as if they were an inferior race.

Mr. Davern

I object to this. The farming community have never been treated as inferior by Fianna Fáil and never will be treated as inferior by Fianna Fáil.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon will probably say things that other Deputies would like to contradict. If that is so, other Deputies will have an opportunity to contradict him.

Mr. Dillon

Mr. Lindsay

The Russell Hotel, he would expect.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Deputy Dillon has shown his hand.

Mr. Dillon

If I cannot buy a collarstud in Woolworths without demeaning the family to which I belong——

Mr. J. Gibbons

They did not want to buy 10,000 collar-studs.

Mr. Dillon

I could show the Parliamentary Secretary a considerable part of my vesture which was got in Woolworths. Why not?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Very nice too.

Mr. Davern

What about supporting home industry?

Mr. Dillon

Let us get back to the fundamentals. The Parliamentary Secretary, I know, is astute enough to want to turn it all aside. There was this difference, that when they walked, they walked with dignity. They knew their rights and they exercised them. I thought they exercised them unfairly against me but that was for the public to judge. I never ceased to recognise my obligation to be their servant and I never sought power to coerce them to do my will. That is the difference. What horrifies me is the constant tendency of Fianna Fáil to drift back into the position, once they get a clear majority in this House, of becoming little swaggering dictators.

I always used to think of the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Gibbons, as a reasonably rational and reasonable man. I thought his speech today revealed a darkness of mind.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Original sin.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister likened the Bill to the Livestock (Artificial Insemination) Act, 1947. Of course we had to take the most rigorous precautions to ensure that the semen taken from any inseminating centres was of the character and quality prescribed by our veterinary staff, that if people wanted Ayrshire, Shorthorn, Hereford, Aberdeen Angus or any other breed, they should get what they bespoke. It would be a tragic loss to a small farmer if that precaution were not taken, and there was no one else to take it but the Department of Agriculture.

He likened the legislation to the Poultry Hatcheries Act. That Act was brought in to ensure that the production of day-old chicks, which was in the ordinary course of development replacing the old system, whereby what was sold by a licensed farmer's wife would be of the quality and description which was offered by the hatchery. It was one of the common problems of the Department of Agriculture that unscrupulous people would offer day-old chicks to producers who bought them in the belief they were buying pullets only to discover they had bought a box of culled cockerel chicks. The Department of Agriculture are the only people who could take the necessary precautions to protect the producers.

The Minister also mentioned the Seed Production Act, 1955. This legislation was brought in to ensure that if we were going to produce what we did subsequently produce in relation to varieties of rye grass and other seeds, they could be produced under proper control and would conform to the certificate which the Department of Agriculture was in the position to issue. If we had not that power, we could not have exported these seeds because the export market would not have accepted them without a certificate from the Department that the bags contained what the bags said.

The Fertilisers, Feeding Stuffs and Mineral Mixtures Act, 1955, was brought in to ensure that if there was a certificate on the bag that the mixed fertilisers contained certain proportions of phosphates, potash, nitrogen and so on, such proportions were in fact there. It was brought in to ensure that the farmers who bought the products would get what the certificate on the bag declared to be present. The same is true of feeding stuffs. We had to ensure at every stage that the feeding stuffs that farmers were buying conformed as to their constituents, with the certificate.

This is a Bill of an entirely different character. It goes far beyond what any rational Minister would ask the House to do. The Minister, who was absent on public duty in the Seanad, did not hear Deputy Gibbons speaking on this Bill. If he had, I think he would realise how truly it has been borne home to every Deputy who has ears to listen or a mind to question that if the Minister's own spokesman has proclaimed from the Front Bench of the Fianna Fáil Government:

We want this weapon with which to attack the NFA——

Mr. Allen

He did not say that.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

He did say it.

Mr. Allen

I was here.

Mr. Dillon

Let the record speak.

Did the Deputy say "worse"? Is that possible? I trust that Deputy Blaney will take notice of this compliment when Deputy Allen says "worse".

(Interruptions.)

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 21 Jun 1967

Livestock Marts Bill, 1967: Second Stage.

Deputies

A Deputy

A Deputy

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jun 1967