: Perhaps I should deal with the arguments put forward by the Minister against the proposal I have been making. His argument really has two legs. The first leg is that of the adoption of the proposal in question would interfere with the smooth flow of the operation of factories. The second leg is one based on private property and precedent in relation to it. As far as the smooth flow is concerned, the Minister's argument is of little substance because the number of farmers who would exercise the right would not be that great. Many farmers would have somebody else, an agent, a lorryman or some such person, bringing in their cattle for them. They would not necessarily exercise the right if they did not go in specially. Also probably the interval of time between the animals arriving at the factory and their slaughter would be a half-an-hour. The farmer would not necessarily be on the premises while the animals were being slaughtered. He would be entitled to be on the premises only for the time they were being classified and in the area in which they were being classified. As my amendment foresees it, he would not be entitled to walk all over the place, to go to all parts of the factory, but merely entitled to enter that part of the factory where the actual classification was taking place and only for the duration of classification of his own animals. Once that was over and done with, he would leave.
As I said in introducing this amendment, usually there would be probably no more than one or two farmers' animals being classified in a particular place at a given time. Therefore, there would be no question of large numbers of farmers hanging around in factories—an image the Minister sought, by implication, to conjure up. It would be one farmer or two at the most, present with the man who was doing the classification. The farmer or farmers would see him do it and he would be there to explain to them why a particular classification was given to a particular animal. All that would be necessary for most farmers would be that this right would be (a) there and, (b), that they would exercise it once. If they went in once and saw— having listened to the man who was classifying their animals explain why particular classifications were applied to particular animals—they would then be confident that the scheme was being operated fairly. If, at any future date, farmers felt it was not being done fairly they would have the option of going into the factory to check up on what was being done. That would be sufficient. It would not be necessary, nor indeed perhaps would it be desirable, for all farmers to go in all the time with all their cattle unless they wanted to go in for other reasons. But the exercise of the right, the fact that it had been exercised once, that farmers had seen that justice was being done and was being seen to be done would be sufficient to achieve what we, on all sides of the House, wish to achieve, namely, the success of this scheme based on farmer confidence.
The other point mentioned by the Minister was in relation to private property. I have no wish to get involved in an obtuse argument with the Minister in relation to private property and such matters. But we all accept that, while there may not be a precedent in agricultural processing, there are precedents in other forms of businesses for people entering people's premises in order to carry on business and being entitled so to do. Indeed business would be rendered impossible if people could not enter other people's premises. As Deputy D'Arcy pointed out, most factories already grant this right by agreement. Therefore, there is no question of their doing something unusual or being asked to accept a right which is unusual, unjust, or to do something they are not prepared already voluntarily to do in most cases.
Furthermore, it can be argued that our proposal confers a right on farmers —if you like, one which involves a corresponding obligation on the part of owners of meat factories, but it is a quid pro quo—because, when this classification scheme was originally mooted, the idea was that a substantial part of the cost would be levied through the meat processors. In order to get the scheme going that proposal was abandoned by the present Minister. He said that the taxpayer would pay the cost of the scheme and that the meat factories would not have to bear the cost. In return, for something which is clearly of benefit to meat processors— namely, the classification of meat by which they earn their living from exporting—at the expense of the taxpayer it is not unreasonable that they should give something which is beneficial to a large section of taxpayers, namely, the farming community, who are their customers.
Those are my comments on the arguments put forward by the Minister. He did not deal with many of the points I made. I should like to say clearly that this scheme we are introducing is a very complex one. It is a classification scheme involving not merely grading but the classification of animals into categories in relation to two factors— confirmation, the shape of the animal, on the one hand, and fat level on the other. There are seven classes of confirmation and six classes of fat level. There will be a total of 42 different classifications of animals, if I am not mistaken, under this scheme and farmers will be asked to accept that they should be in one of the 42 rather than another of the 42 different classifications. If we want farmers to understand and accept something that is as complex as that, I contend it is important that they see what is happening for themselves. We all know from the experience of the agricultural advisory service that the way to get a message across to farmers is not to send them a sheaf of papers; it is not to invite them to listen to a lecture with slides; it is to demonstrate something to them, to bring them to a farm where a particular method of operation is being applied, letting them see it for themselves on the ground. That is the way to get the message across.
If we go along the way upon which the Minister is apparently intent on going, that is, relying on exhibitions at the RDS and handing out leaflets to the farmer without giving him the right to go in and see his own cattle being classified, we will not succeed in getting across to the farming community the message of the classification scheme. This must be done if the scheme is to be successful. The whole idea of the scheme is to ensure that the type of animal being produced reflects demand in the market place and that as many animals as possible are produced by good breeding and husbandry to be in the top grades of the classification scheme. That will be far better achieved if farmers can see for themselves what this scheme means in practice and why their animals may be graded in the No. 3 or No. 4 class instead of the No. 1 class.
We must also bear in mind that the processing of meat in factories is in competition with the live trade. The live trade is mostly carried on by animals being bought in the marts by dealers and exported live on ships. If a farmer sends his cattle to the mart and he does not like the price he is offered, he can withdraw them. If he sends his animals to the factory and they are slaughtered and subsequently if the price worked out on the way the animal is killed out does not please him, there is no way he can bring his animals home again. He must accept the price. Clearly the farmer who has doubts will prefer the mart to the factory unless we give him sufficient safeguards, such as the ability to see his animals being classified so that he can be satisfied that there are no grounds for any doubts he might have as to the price he is getting and the basis on which it rests.
We must encourage farmers to send animals to factories rather than abroad on ships so that the maximum amount of employment can be obtained in the meat processing industry. I believe that my amendment will contribute in no small way to encouraging farmers to accept this classification scheme, to act upon it in the breeding of their animals and to send their cattle to the factories and give employment throughout the country.
I feel that the Minister should accept this amendment. It is carefully drafted so as not to create unnecessary hardship for anyone, and I do not believe that it would cause any problems if incorporated in this Bill. Upon reconsideration and having heard the arguments I have put forward, I hope that the Minister will accept it.
