Senator Duffy has an amendment to Section 38.
Pigs and Bacon Bill, 1934—Committee (Resumed).
Sections 25 to 37 inclusive agreed to.
I understand that Senator Duffy does not wish to move that amendment.
Amendment No. 8, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 38 agreed to.
SECTION 39.
(1) Wages payable to a workman employed at licensed premises shall be at a rate not less than the rate generally recognised by trade unions and employers as the rate normally applicable to workmen employed in a similar kind of work at licensed premises in similar localities.
(2) The conditions of employment (other than the rate of wages) of a workman employed at licensed premises shall not be less advantageous than the conditions of employment generally recognised by trade unions and employers as the conditions of employment normally applicable to workmen employed in a similar kind of work at licensed premises in similar localities.
I move amendment No. 9:—
Section 39, sub-section (1). Before the word "licensed" in line 57, to insert the word "similar".
I have a series of amendments down to this section, but this is the key amendment. The object of it is to ensure standard wages and conditions in all bacon factories, whether these factories are in Castlebar, Limerick or elsewhere. My submission is that the wages and working conditions ought to be the same in all the factories, seeing that the price paid for pigs will be the same all round. If what we are seeking in these amendments is not acceded to, we feel there will be an inducement to set up factories in areas where wage conditions are very bad. If standard wages and conditions are to apply all round, then all the factories will be on the same level. We know of cases where the wages in one area are fairly good and in others are very bad. We want to avoid that under this Bill.
There appears to be a certain case made for the acceptance of the amendment, but at the same time I think there is a case to be made against it. It is for the Seanad to decide as to which is the more advisable. I think myself that it would be better to leave the Bill as it is. I do not know if Senator Foran realises that, taking his four amendments as drafted together, they would leave it open to the bacon factory that is paying the higher wages to come along and say that it should be brought down to the level of the factory paying a lower wage. Senator Foran would probably prevent that by some other method, but legally a factory might be able to make quite a good case on that. It is true that a factory down the country will get its pigs at the same price as a factory in the city, and from that point of view, it should be able to pay the same wages if turning out bacon at the same price. I think, however, it must be admitted that a factory in the city has certain advantages even if it is paying higher wages than a factory in the country. It has the advantage of a big market at its door, while the factory down the country may have to pay freight charges on its bacon before it reaches the market where it is to be consumed as well as selling costs and other charges that a factory in the city may not have to bear. In that way, a factory in the country would want a slight advantage either in the matter of wages or something else.
Senator Foran said that under the Bill there will be an inducement to people to set up factories in the cities rather than in the country. There is a clause in the Cereals Act which, if not in the same words, has the same effect as the original clause in this Bill. I may say, in passing, that there is a greater demand for licences to start flour mills in the cities than in the country. One would imagine that the demand would have been in the opposite direction, because there would seem to be certain advantages in doing so. A flour mill starting in the country would be able to get the homegrown wheat at its doors, while a mill in a city would have to pay a higher price for it. In addition, the wages in a country mill would not be as high as in a city mill. Yet, despite these advantages, there is a greater demand for licences to start flour mills in the cities than in the country.
In the case of bacon factories there are, of course, obvious advantages in starting in the city rather than in the country, principally from the point of view of a market. It is for the Seanad to decide what they will do with these amendments. I do not hold very strong views on them, but, as I have said, I think it would be better to allow the Bill to remain as it is. Other considerations arise in connection with these amendments which it is not for me, or my Department, to take any great notice of. If the general rate of wages in a city is high then, of course, there is some reason in saying that bacon factories in a city should pay a higher rate of wages than a factory in a provincial town where the general rates of wages are lower. At least, you will have more contentment amongst the workers in a small town if the wages paid in the local bacon factory are not altogether out of proportion to the wages paid to the general body of workers in that town. As I have said, that is not a matter for me. If a factory in a small town can afford to pay the same wages as a factory in a city I would favour it, because I would say that it is better that the workers should get the profits rather than the owners of it, especially if they were making exorbitant profits or getting more than they were entitled to. But, taking everything into consideration, I do not think that the profits made in a factory in a small town will be as high as the profits made in a factory in a city, and for that reason I think that the factory in a city could afford to pay a somewhat higher rate of wages.
I hope the Seanad will accept this amendment. It is a mere matter of equity as between one factory and another. If you have a factory in a district in which there is little or no trade union organisation and you base the wages to be paid in that factory on the local rate prevailing, you are bound to arrive at an exceptionally low standard as compared with the wages paid in a factory situated in an industrial area. That being the case, a factory situated in the country would have a distinct advantage over city factories competing with it. The Minister referred to the advantages that may attach to a factory in a city or a big town as compared with a factory situated in an isolated area. One has to remember that in country areas rents and rates will be lower than in a city or a big town. In many respects a factory in the country will have advantages over a factory in the city. The latter, for instance, will not be as near the sources of supply. A factory in the country will be able to get all the pigs it requires within a radius of 20 miles. Hence its transport charges will not be as high as they would be in the case of factories situate in Dublin or Cork or some other big centre.
We are now considering legislation in connection with what is to be a big national industry. The legislative conditions, privileges and restrictions applicable to it are to apply generally. Therefore, there does not seem to be any good reason why the same rates of wages should not prevail throughout the industry as a whole. That should be so as a matter of equity both to the employee and the employer. All these factories are to sell in the same market, and if one has advantages which the other has not that, in the main, will be countered by considerations arising out of local conditions. On balance all would seem to be working under the same conditions and, therefore, I submit should extend those conditions to their employees. It is not, perhaps, so much a question of greater profits for those paying the lower wages as the extent to which they will be able to under-sell those paying the higher rates and in that way help to pull down wages everywhere. In view of the fact that we are now creating to a certain extent another monopoly we should protect, as far as we can, those engaged in the industry by having the same rates of wages prevail in the industry throughout the whole country.
I am opposed to this amendment for certain definite reasons. I do not know really what the merits of the amendment are as regards the proprietary curing factories. Speaking on behalf of the co-operative curing establishments I am opposed to the amendment, because I submit they cannot be put on the same level as the proprietary curing establishments. In the case of the co-operatives the shareholders themselves, or their sons, have gone abroad to study the best modern methods for carrying on the industry. The co-operatives are carried on largely by the shareholders themselves. Therefore, I do not think that these establishments could be put on the same level as the others. The co-operative factory that I am acquainted with takes good care that its suppliers are fairly dealt with. These suppliers are generally very small producers—of three or four pigs at a time. Those who produce 200 or 300 pigs would be the exception. I think it is important to take that into account when fixing what is considered to be a fair wage as well as what would be a fair return to the shareholders, the producers and the suppliers.
The larger establishments seem to be visualised by the supporters of this amendment. If it were found, according to the returns, that they were paying what would be regarded as an excessive wage, I wonder would they be satisfied to come down to the level of the co-operatives that could not afford to pay an excessive wage. Therefore, when it is asked that the level should be raised we have also to consider whether the necessity might not arise for lowering the rate so as to meet economic conditions as we know them. Looking at this amendment from the co-operative point of view, I do not believe that it would be workable at all.
I am rather in favour of the amendment and for a reason that I have not heard discussed. From time to time we hear comments about people rushing from the rural areas to the cities, overcrowding the labour market and creating the evils as regards housing and other matters which arise from that. It is now proposed to help and protect this industry by this intended legislation. My reason for supporting the amendment is that if the people employed in it in the country districts get better wages comparatively than they would get in a city, then they will be more likely to remain away from the cities. If the same rule were adopted generally as regards employment in the cities it might tend to check a thing that is generally regarded as a great evil, namely, the overflooding of the labour market in the cities by people from the country, of young able-bodied men and women, thereby rendering it impossible for people in the cities to retain their employment once they come to middle age. While you have that rush from the country and the country towns into a few cities, you will have unemployment in the cities. While that continues, you will have unsatisfactory living conditions in the cities and you will probably have great difficulty in dealing with the slums. There is a great outcry about unemployment. I shall not say whether it is honest or dishonest. I am against unemployment and I am against anything that would tend to continue the present condition of housing for labourers of various types. I am against having people shoved out of their employment because they are not as quick as they were when 25 or 30 years of age. For those reasons, I am inclined to think that this amendment ought to be passed by the House.
According to Section 39 (1) the wages payable to a workman employed at licensed premises are to be at the rate normally applicable to workmen employed in a similar kind of work "at licensed premises in similar localities." Apply that to the facts of this country. We know very well that there are not bacon factories in every parish. There are only four or five centres of the bacon trade. Where are the "similar localities"? How is this section to be construed? That is what I should like to know.
This is an amendment in respect of which a good deal can be said for and against. If the Seanad accepts the amendment, it will create certain difficulties for some of the bacon factories in the more remote centres. I take it that "similar localities" would refer to localities like Cavan and Claremorris. The question that arises is whether or not the rate of wage in the City of Limerick and in Cavan should be the same. I should like to pay every man in this country a much better wage than he is being paid at present. But you have to take into account the capacity to pay. You have to consider the industry in which he is engaged, and you have to consider the locality. That cannot be kept out of account. The point the Minister makes is a strong point. If you accept this principle you must go and apply it to everything. Apply it to the people working on the roads. We have a rate of wage in my county for road work different from the rate of wage in the adjoining County of Meath for the same work.
There is no subsidy in that case.
So far as this Bill goes, this industry is not being subsidised. It seems to me that you must take into account the rate of wages in the particular locality with which you are dealing. In the County of Meath there is a higher rate of wage for the people working on the roads than there is in the County Cavan. The reason for that is that there is more labour available in my county, and that the standard of living is lower, because the land is poorer and there is less to go round. You have to take that into account. Accordingly, the people are more easily satisfied in a county like mine than they are in a county where there are higher standards of living. In the few visits I paid to Cork, one of the strongest arguments I heard against the coming of the Ford factory to that city was that they started work there, gave a remarkably high rate of wages, attracted people into the city and then closed down, leaving that population there. There was no security. Senator Lynch makes a point somewhat like that, but my view is that if you take two places like Cavan and Limerick or Cavan and Dublin, the lower rate of wage in Cavan has as high purchasing capacity and is as valuable to the man who earns it as a considerably larger wage in the City of Dublin or the City of Limerick.
I am not very much concerned whether the amendment be carried or not. I have no particular interest in the matter, but there are other considerations which must be taken into account. It is true that, when this Bill becomes an Act, curers all over the country will have to pay the same price for pigs, but I do not know that that has any relation whatever to the wages that ought to be paid. If curers have to pay high prices for pigs, and if their margin of profit is accordingly low, is the rate of wages to go down? Will the workers accept less? When all the curers have to pay the same price for pigs, some of the curers will be at a definite disadvantage. They will be at another disadvantage. Although the price is going to be standardised, there is nothing in the Bill to standardise the productivity of the factories. Some factories have greater reputations than others. Some factories can get much higher prices for their product, and will get higher prices, than others. That is a serious consideration. If you impose on all these people the obligation to pay the same wage, wherever they are situate, and whatever the demand be for their product, possibly a few of the weaker curers will have difficulties and disabilities imposed on them by this Bill, that will make it very difficult for them to carry on and meet in a competitive market those other curers with bigger turn-over, larger production and established in districts where distribution of their commodity is easy. These are matters that should be taken into account before the Seanad decides that this amendment be accepted.
I feel very much like Senator Baxter in regard to this amendment. I have no very strong feelings in respect of it. I do not think that it makes a great deal of difference from the point of view of the factory or from the point of view of the labourer whether the amendment be passed or not. If I were advising the labourer, I should as soon accept the section as the amendment. However, that is a matter for the Labour Senators. I did, however, intend to put one consideration before the House— that the factories in the cities have a much better market, especially for their offals, than the smaller factories in the country. Apart from that, I do not think the effect will be very serious because all the large factories are in cities where the wages are much alike. The smaller factories are in the smaller towns and the wage would be the recognised one there. If there were one small factory in the city, the recognised wage would be what the majority were paying.
I have one occurrence in mind, and, if this Bill succeeded in preventing a repetition of that, it would be well worth while. In Limerick—the home of bacon curing and famous the world over for its bacon— the idea was conceived that the wages and working conditions in the local factories were too good, and a factory was established in Castlebar. One can easily visualise the rates of wages obtaining in Castlebar. They exploited the factory in Castlebar, and left trained and skilled workers in Limerick unemployed. There was a great to-do about it at the time, and influence was brought to bear on the proprietors of the factory. Ultimately they, more or less, restarted in Limerick. Under this Bill, there would be a very definite inducement for a very large firm to establish itself in Castlebar or a similar locality, to the detriment of Limerick or other large town where the industry is well established. It has been argued that a rural factory will be under disadvantages. A great deal can be said for spreading out industries, but you can overdo that kind of thing. The people starting factories in the large cities have much higher rates and much higher overheads to meet than have the people in the smaller centres. The manufacturer can avoid that by going where the wages are low and the rates low. He thereby gets an advantage over his competitor in a town or city. Under this Bill, everything is more or less uniform. Why should the wages differ to such a great extent? Is not the inducement to establish a factory in a rural area where the workers can be had at very low wages and where the rates will be very low? That will react on the cities. I have a great deal of respect for what Senator Lynch says. Senator Baxter thinks that the man in the country ought to be sweated——
I did not say that.
That was the trend of your argument. Because the wage is generally low in such centres, a man down in Cavan can start a bacon factory and take advantage of the low wages and the very high prices he will get for his product. He can go on sweating the men in that factory as against the men in the city factories. If the man in Cavan had the same rate of wages as the man in Dublin or Limerick, there would be more money circulating in Cavan.
I wish I could afford to pay my agricultural labourers what they are getting in the bacon factory.
With a regulated price for bacon, the case of the bacon worker is entirely different from that of the agricultural labourer. We see no reason why there should not be a uniform standard of wages and uniform working conditions under this Bill.
There is to be a new definition of the term "sweated" after what Senator Foran said. The worker in a bacon factory in the town of Cavan will be paid only £2 10s. or £2 15s. per week, while as against the aristocrats of labour the agricultural workers will get 15/- or 16/-. That is the new definition of the term "sweated."
By comparison.
The comparison is of the man getting £2 10s. 0d. or £2 15s. against the unfortunate agricultural labourer, living a mile outside a town, with a wife and family to support on the princely wage the farmers can afford to give him of 15/- a week. As the Minister says, I suppose this does not matter, but, I submit to the House that it should face facts and should not be swayed by what Senator Lynch said. He said that the surest way to keep workers from the cities was to pay them a big wage in the few State regulated industries that happen to exist in a few places.
That is an exaggerated paraphrase of what I said.
The gist of it.
Yes, it is the gist of the statement made by Senator Lynch. It would be better to follow what Senator Baxter said with which Senator Foran said he would not deal. If we are going to tackle the question at all it is best to get down to fundamentals. There is no use in starting at the end with a few industries that are in a position to pay high wages by reason of State regulations. It should not be necessary to pay increased wages in country towns. If we tackle the problem we should consider the wages of agricultural labourers. If the principle is to be applied of putting farmers in a position to pay better wages to agricultural workers, we do not object. Until that test is applied I am opposed to the principle enunciated by Senator Foran. Senator Lynch may then have an opportunity of doing the right thing, by doing something for people I speak of as well as for the aristocrats of labour—I use the word "aristocrats" with every respect—who are enjoying a wage four or five times greater than the real producers, the unfortunate farm labourers. If a start is made at that end we will subscribe to the principle, but not otherwise.
I should like to know whether the effect of the amendment would be to close the bacon factories in Cavan and Castlebar.
It might.
Will someone say whether the bacon produced at Castlebar and Cavan commands as high a price as bacon produced at Limerick or Dublin? That is what would determine my attitude.
It has not the reputation.
How then can the same rate of wages be paid in Cavan if factories there are to continue in business?
It appears to me that the effect of the amendment is not appreciated. The argument more or less has been as to the rates of wages paid in places like Cavan and Limerick. There is no similarity between the two places. I do not think that the wages would be affected by the operation of the amendment.
Look at the next amendment.
As far as I can see, the effect of the amendment does not mean that there will be identical rates of wages in Cavan and Limerick but, that in a place of a similar size to Cavan, where a similar class of business is carried on, there will be identical rates.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 go together.
No. Amendment No. 10 would be separate.
Senators do not seem to understand the principle underlying the amendment. Everyone appears to be protected except the workers.
Which workers?
Every worker engaged in the industry, including the agricultural labourer. Senator O'Hanlon spoke about having sympathy for the agricultural workers. The Senator knows that both Senator Foran and I endeavoured for years to improve the lot of agricultural labourers. I was going to say that we had a tough opponent of our efforts in those days in Senator O'Hanlon. An endeavour is being made here to get farmers a fair price for pigs.
The uniform price, based on world price. That is a different thing from a fair price.
I am prepared to go a long way to see that farmers get a fair price.
We will want your help later in that.
I am prepared to give it. The bacon curer who buys the pigs will see that he gets a fair price. The manufacturers have a good pull and will be all right. Everyone will be all right except the workers. All sections are protected and guaranteed fair prices but the workers. They are not guaranteed any fair price for their labour, the only thing they have to sell. What Senator Foran aims at is the prevention of the lowering of the living of people engaged in the bacon industry. It is common sense that if this amendment is not passed factories will be started in places like Castlebar where cheap labour is available.
That cannot be done under the Bill.
Is there anything to prevent existing factories paying lower wages?
The workers in the factories.
Strikes and the Labour Union.
Why does not the Senator suggest that the manufacturers should have a strike? The manufacturers have not to strike to get fair prices because they are protected by law. I heard on many an occasion that "The rich make the laws and the laws grind the poor." That is very true.
In olden times.
At the present time. It is extraordinary how it annoys some people to be told the truth. Senator Foran aims at a certain standard of living being secured by the workers in these factories. He wants to have conditions preserved. He wants to see that the conditions secured after many years of strenuous work are not going to be lowered. If the amendment is passed a similar rate of wages will have to be paid for similar kind of work, and it is not too much to ask the Minister to accept it.
I cannot help following the statement of Senator Foran, that the object of those opposing the amendment is to reduce the status and standard of living of the workers which was secured by men in the labour movement. How could that be interpreted from the remarks made here? We are not asking to have wages lowered. If the Labour Union leaders have secured high wages for the workers more luck to them. There is no attempt being made to lower wages. An attempt is being made to see that wages amongst a small section of workers in what might be called agricultural areas are not unduly increased. If there is an increase in wages in towns like Wexford, Waterford or places like that, who is going to pay? The farmers will pay because they will get less for their pigs. It is not consumers meet the losses incurred in the operation of factories and it is not the factory proprietors. It is the unfortunate farmer who produces the pigs will pay. It all comes back on him. I think it is unfair for Senator Foran to suggest that an effort is being made to reduce wages. We are asking that a certain favoured few in certain areas should not be entitled to increase wages which would bring them to the level enjoyed by workers in the cities.
I did not intend to speak again but I have to do so after the kind of slave mind speech of the last Senator. There is no attempt being made to take any money from the farmers. It is the factory owners are going to exploit the farmers and the labourers. The Senator talked as if we were dealing with farmers. The amendment concerns factory owners who put these factories in places where they can exploit farmers as well as labourers. We want to ensure that they will not unduly exploit Labour. Let Senator O'Hanlon ensure that the farmers are not exploited. It is the factory owners we are dealing with. Whether they pay high wages or low wages the farmers will not be affected. That should be obvious.
This amendment does not make the slightest difference in the situation. If the wording is added to the section the position will be the same. The arguments we heard have more reference to the next amendment. I should like Senator Foran to say if he thinks it desirable to put in a provision which would mean that precisely the same rate of wages in an industry should be paid in country and city. I do not believe there should be a very wide difference but, in a great many industries, it is recognised that there should be a certain difference. What would be a fair wage in a country town would be hardly a fair wage in a city, where rents are higher and where tramway and other expenditure is required. In certain respects the workers in cities seem to be entitled to something more than country workers. In that way it does not seem to me that we should put a rigid provision into the Bill. I do not know if the wording would achieve what is aimed at, to have an absolutely rigid equality in wages.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 11.
Tá
- Boyle, James J.
- Chléirigh, Catilín Bean Uí.
- Comyn, Michael, K.C.
- Farren, Thomas.
- Fitzgerald Séamus.
- Foran, Thomas.
- Healy, Denis D.
- Keyes, Raphael P.
- Lynch, Patrick, K.C.
- MacParland, D.H.
- Milroy, Seán.
- Moore, Colonel.
- O'Farrell, John T.
- O'Neill, L.
- Robinson, Séumas.
Níl
- Baxter, Patrick F.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Counihan, John C.
- Dillon, James.
- Douglas, James G.
- Garahan, Hugh.
- Gogarty, Dr. O. St, J.
- Kennedy, Cornelius.
- Linehan, Thomas.
- Toal, Thomas.
- Wilson, Richard.
Tellers: Tá Senators Foran and O'Farrell; Níl; Senators Baxter and Counihan.
Amendment declared carried.
I beg to move amendment No. 10:—
Section 39, sub-section (1). To delete in line 57 the words "in similar localities."
I desire to ask a question which I already asked, but which was not answered: whether the effect of fixing the same wages all over the country for workmen employed in this bacon trade would not be to close down bacon factories in small towns?
I should like to give my views upon the question put by Senator Comyn. I think it is fairly common knowledge that there are outstanding bacon curers in this country. Some of these have a very high reputation, and the commodities turned out by them command a price in the markets both at home and abroad that other manufacturers in the same business cannot secure. It seems to me that an amendment such as this, if inserted in the Bill, would have the effect of raising wages in the smaller factories in the remoter parts of the country to the same level as those paid in the higher class factories. The smaller factories with their smaller turn over, and the smaller prices they are able to secure for the commodities they turn out, would have to pay the same wages that the higher class factories with their higher prices, obtained for their commodities pay. There are technical difficulties in the way of some of the smaller curers that cannot be overcome and which are not experienced at all by the larger and more up-to-date factories. If the smaller factories have to pay the same level of wages as the larger and more prosperous factories, it will result in very serious consequences for those smaller factories. They could only pay the high rate of wages by representing to the Pigs Marketing Board that a lower price should be paid to the farmers for their pigs. It is very hard to keep track of all the ramifications of this Bill. Their factories are in places like Cavan, Roscrea and Wexford; and the argument cannot be left out of account that 30/- a week may have a greater purchasing power in one centre than 35/- a week in another. A man may be as well paid by 30/- a week in one centre as another man with 35/- a week in another. It is a mistake to raise the standard of living for a few people very much out of proportion to that enjoyed by other people—people working for the county councils on the roads, and people working for the farmers of the country, and so on. I am living within five minutes' walk of a bacon factory. If I paid anything like what it pays to its workers, I would be out of my farm altogether. The man who feeds the pigs and turns them out for the factory is going to be paid a far lower wage than the worker in the factory, and nothing that we can do will raise their wages up to the level of the wages paid in the factory. Raise the wages for the selected few which this amendment seeks to do, and it will have a most unsettling effect on labour all round. I think there is no wisdom in creating these special conditions for 400 or 500 people, and it is certainly not worth the instability that it may create in the labour market.
Senator Baxter has made a very laboured speech which in effect repeats what he said on the previous amendment. The main effect of it is: certain factories will be inefficient; they will not be up to the same standard of efficiency as the best, and consequently you must subsidise them and encourage them by allowing them to have cheaper labour than the efficient factory. I do not think that we should stand for inefficiency in regard to any industry that is regulated and protected by the State. There is no reason why there should be inefficiency. One would imagine to hear Senator Baxter that there were different factories in every hole and corner throughout the country. These factories will be comparatively few, and he need not be terribly alarmed lest wages in Cavan may be raised for a few people in the county. There may be no factory at all in Cavan.
There is one.
Well if there is, I do not think we should display undue anxiety because the workers in that factory may be a slight shade better paid than the few agricultural labourers that may be found in the county. I cannot follow the argument that "because we," the farmers who are talking, "pay our labourers what is an admittedly wretched and unjust wage"——
Unjust?
Yes, from the viewpoint of Christian requirements. "Because we pay them sweated wages then nobody else must pay a decent wage." In other words we have a slavish condition of the substratum and instead of trying to build and lift it up, we must try to pull all others down to that level. All these arguments advanced by Senators Baxter and Counihan might with equal force be advanced when you are fixing the pay of the Civic Guard or fixing the allowances of Deputies and Senators. The farmers have to pay the same price for coal, the same price for his tea and sugar as everybody else, but according to the arguments of these Senators, you should give him cheap tea and sugar, cheap clothes, cheap coal and cheapen everything else for him. He must pay the market price for all those commodities but in a factory that takes pigs and turns them into bacon, you must have sweated wages which he thinks will be more or less comparable with the wages paid to the agricultural labourer.
Much was made about the low cost of living of a worker in the country as compared with a worker residing in the city. The worker does, perhaps, pay less for milk and some commodities in the country, but, on the other hand, any rural worker who wants, for instance, to educate his children is at a very serious disadvantage as compared with the city dweller. The city dweller has excellent schools, access to libraries and numerous educational facilities for his children. The worker in the country, if he wants to get an intermediate education for his child, has to send him away and pay for him at a boarding school or pay transport charges to a school at a considerable distance. I have known cases in which men with three or four children each were making tremendous sacrifices in that way to educate their children. If they were residing in the city they could have got that education for next to nothing. So that all the advantages are not with the rural dweller or the dweller in the small towns. I think the House realised what it was voting for in the last amendment. I think Senators realised that they were voting for the principle of having standard wages paid in the bacon factories throughout the State and I hope they will affirm that principle.
I think that the object of Labour Senators, or what I at least imagine is their object, in putting down this amendment is an entirely admirable one. I think it is entirely undesirable that there should be very wide differences between the rates of wages paid to workers in the bigger centres in a particular industry and the rates paid in the smaller areas. I gathered—I think it was from Senator Farren or from some of the other Senators who spoke—that in certain of these cases, there were very wide differences between the wages paid in one centre and the wages paid in another. If the Minister were of that mind, and agreed to accept the principle of the amendment, perhaps he would take it away and have it redrafted.
I understand that in the great majority of trades there is a difference between the rates of wages paid in the small centres and the rates paid in the city. I think, in spite of the arguments of Senator O'Farrell, that that is fair and just. On the whole, the cost of living of workers is lower in the smaller centres and, therefore, the worker in these centres is as well off with a somewhat lower wage as his brethren in the larger centres. I think that on the other hand when the difference is not too large, the conductor of industry in a small centre is entitled to have his labour at something less, not by way of subsidising inefficiency but simply because, as it is a smaller centre, it is unlikely that the turnover will be as great as in a larger centre. It is also likely that certain transport charges which he will have to incur, will be higher. Materials may have to be brought over railways for longer distances and the finished product may have to be sent over long distances also. Because of all these factors, if we are not to risk an undue concentration of industry, I think it must be recognised that somewhat smaller wages will be paid and that it is just that somewhat smaller wages should be paid, in the smaller centres.
Of course, I do not agree with Senators who spoke against the amendment on the ground that it was wrong to raise wages for a small number of employees in a district. I think you must have regard to what is done in the trade generally and not what is done in other trades. You do not regulate the remuneration paid to doctors by the remuneration of people who are engaged in unskilled labour. I think we cannot take the line that because the wage of an agricultural labourer is very low, the wage of a worker in some other industry in an agricultural neighbourhood has to be kept down close to the wage of the agricultural worker. I think that is an extreme view on one side. I think, on the other hand, that the view expressed in the amendment is somewhat extreme on the other side. I think that there should not be an absolutely rigid level all round, but that there should be some reasonable variation such as exists in all well-regulated trades. If you insist on precisely the same wage everywhere, it is like saying that everybody has to wear a No. 9 boot whether it is a No. 8 or a No. 10 he should be wearing. I do not know whether an improvement or a modification of the amendment along these lines would be possible or not, whether the Minister would wish it or whether Senator Farren would agree to it. I think if the Senator insists on absolute equality all through the county he is insisting on something that does more than remedy the evil and is introducing a thing that is rather a new feature in trades union conditions.
There are some factors in connection with this amendment with which I think a great number of Senators are not conversant. Many Senators spoke of subsidising inefficiency and said that if new factories were not able to pay the standard wage or the standard remuneration they were inefficient. Personally, I do not know of any factory that I could name myself as inefficient. I should like to point out that there are two methods of curing. I am interested in a co-operative factory where the method of wet curing is carried on. That is the most economic and the most generally used system. It has been adopted in the most progressive countries because it is the most economic and cheapest. But I think it would be an entirely gratuitous thing for any Senator in this House to ask these factories to pay wages on the same scale as manufacturers who cure by different methods. There are curers in this country who manufacture a proprietary article and use the dry-curing system. They turn out a proprietary and specialised article and it is sold in a specialised and limited market. I suggest too—though I am not absolutely certain of it—that they have been the means of limiting the production of pigs in this country because they have adhered to the dry-curing system and to the proprietary article for which there is only a limited market. The producers who have adopted the other system have an unlimited market. The competition is not so keen because they can sell the product easily. That does not mean that it is produced in an inefficient manner.
Another important consideration is that the curers on the Continent who have adopted this system of wet curing have increased their exports, not by thousands but by millions of cwts. of bacon. They have taken over practically the whole English market, while those who have stuck to the dry-curing method have a very limited market. I think it would be a very wrong thing for the Seanad to interfere with those factories and say that they should pay the same wage as is paid by the dry curers. I have in mind a co-operative factory in which the members cure between them something like 3,500 pigs per week. These are mainly handled by the pig producers themselves. They are worked by the shareholders and the shareholders' sons, some of whom were trained on the Continent. They cannot be put on the same level as the old proprietary curers. I think it would be a gratuitous interference and probably a great economic wrong to interfere with them. Senators who have spoken in support of the amendment should take these matters into consideration. The policy of these co-operative factories is different in that they want to develop production as much as possible, sell as much as possible, and not limit their supplies in the same way as the supplies of the proprietary article are limited. We do not want interference. I should say, before I sit down, that we do not pay sweated wages. I do not want to mention the figures but I think they will bear comparison with any other business. Not alone do we pay good wages but very generous wages.
I thought the other Senators would follow my good example. I formally moved this amendment because I believed everything that could properly be said was said on the former amendment. The only thing new that has come out of the discussion so far is Senator Blythe's complaint about the rigidity of this amendment. No wages are fixed by the amendment. It pre-supposed that the people owning the factories and working the factories will come to an agreement as to rates of wages, and I am sure they will follow the example already set up in the flour milling industry. I do not think there will be any difficulty at all. I hope that explanation will shorten the whole proceedings.
I do not see any possibility of having area wages if this amendment is carried, and I have not yet found an answer to the question whether the effect of this amendment will be to concentrate the industry in one or two hands and to break the small man.
On a point of order, this thing is like King Charles' head. Surely no big curer can get any advantage over the small man through this amendment, and that ought to be obvious to anybody, even a lawyer.
That is not a point of order.
Senator, you have asked your question so often that do not you think you ought not to press it?
Because the question is a vital one. I take it the answer to it will be that the effect of it will be to put the small man out of business. I wonder if Senator Foran would be satisfied if a differentiation was made between the minor curers.
I think the Labour Party are labouring under a misunderstanding with regard to the objects of this Bill. Senator Foran spoke of a subsidised industry and asked why should not the labourers get a portion of the subsidy. This Bill is entitled "An Act to make provision for the control and regulation of the production and marketing of bacon and to make provision for divers matters connected therewith." There is no such thing as a subsidy to the bacon curers or pig producers.
What about price fixing?
The people who are engaged in the manufacturing of bacon under this Bill will have to take out a licence and to comply with certain restrictions and conditions. In a good many cases they can sell their bacon without restriction. They can export it and sell it at the best price they can get. But where the subsidy mentioned by Senator Foran, Senator Farren, and, I think, Senator O'Farrell is, I fail to see.
I never said anything about a subsidy.
It does not matter, Senator. What has been said will be seen in the Official Debates.
There is no subsidy, I agree.
Every penny that will be spent under this Bill will have to be procured from the pockets of the pig producers of this country. For that reason the Labour Senators want that the farmers should pay a higher wage to the labourers in the small manufacturing factories in towns such as Cavan, Mayo and other places. In many places co-operative curing factories make a small profit. That goes back to the farmers. But the argument is that there should be no profit at all, that it should all go to the workers. I think the amendment has been discussed up and down, the arguments have been repeated time and again, and I think it is nearly time that the amendment was put.
Before it is put, I should like to say that Senator Foran and Senator O'Farrell seem to think that this amendment is consequential on the previous one. I think it is nothing of the kind. I think it raises an entirely different principle and one that should be discussed apart altogether from the considerations that govern the last amendment. It may be good propaganda, but I think there is something grotesque in Senator O'Farrell and Senator Foran talking about sweated labour and suggesting that those who criticise this amendment are trying to procure sweated labour. They know that that is a mere distortion, that there is no such thing in the minds of people who criticise this amendment. I think that the object of the critics of this amendment is to get down to realities and not to be indulging in academic theories or trying to embody in the Bill abstract, academic theories that are entirely divorced from the realities of life. I voted for the last amendment. I will vote against this one. I think there is an entirely different principle involved. Someone said that if something like this is not done capitalists will be going around trying to procure places where they will get low-paid labour. I believe that the consideration is one that enters least of all into the minds of those who are trying to engage in industrial enterprise. The suitability of the site, the question of access to the market and the lower cost of transport are of much greater consideration to-day than the cost of labour. The one point I think that makes this amendment unacceptable is that it imposes a dead level rate of wages in conditions which may be vitally different, which may be intolerable in one area and quite tolerable in another.
Senator Blythe asked me if it were possible to do something in the way of providing for a slightly different rate of wages in the provincial towns as compared with the city. I think that all Senators will at least agree that city workers ought to get more than workers in provincial towns, but they may not agree if it was put to them that the provincial workers should get less than city workers. I think the claim will always be made that workers in the city require larger wages. The section was drafted with that end in view. As the section stood, it was laid down that the rate would be the same for a similar kind of work at licensed premises in similar localities. It was the localities that counted, not the size of the premises. For instance, if you had a very large factory in the city and a small factory they would both have to pay the same wages. But if the amendment is carried a small factory in Cavan will have to pay the same rate as a small factory here. I think that would be the tendency of the amendment. It might be held that all small factories throughout the country had a lower rate of wages and that, therefore, they all recognised the rate. Even if a small factory was paying more, that is not the recognised rate. The tendency will be to get all the small factories in the country up to the same rate as the small factory in the city—there are, of course, some small factories in the city—and to get the big factories up to the highest one. I think that will not make any great difference, because I think they are all in the cities and I take it they are paying the same wages.
To come to the question that was asked by you, A Chathaoirligh, whether it would in any way put a small factory out of business, I think there is a dangerous tendency in the amendment that there will always be agitation that wages should be the same as in the city and that that may make it very difficult for those small factories to compete. I may be asked why the small factories cannot pay as good a wage as the big factories. First of all, the big factories, in addition to having a good market for a well-known brand of bacon, will probably get better prices, and even the small factories in the city have an advantage because they have a good market; probably they are in the position of being able to sell direct to the retailer. In that way they have the benefit of 2/- or 3/- per cwt. in the selling cost. On the whole, therefore, I think the amendment is going to prove detrimental to the smaller curers. Whether the amendment is brought in or not I do not think it makes any difference to the curers who are carrying on wet curing or to the co-operatives, the question that was raised by Senator Foran. I think we ought to take the section as it stands. The fact of a factory being a co-operative one does not make any difference. Even though people may cooperate and agree to work for a lower wage than the others, that will not absolve a factory from the penalty for paying a lower wage than the recognised wage. I should like to say also that the section does not refer to minor curers; it only refers to licensed premises.
There are two questions that I think we should keep in mind in taking a decision on this particular amendment. First of all, whether we should have the same wage in a provincial town as in the city; in other words, the question put by Senator Blythe. I think most Senators will agree that a lower wage in a provincial town is as good as a somewhat higher wage in the city. Secondly, we will have to keep in mind whether the amendment will interfere to any great extent with the small curer throughout the country.
In regard to the point raised by Senator Foran, I cannot see how you can have an area fixation of wages if this amendment is carried. I think it removes any possibility of such an arrangement, because if the amendment is carried the section will read "workmen employed in a similar kind of work at licensed premises." I think anybody will interpret that, that all factories of the same size all over the Free State must pay the same wages. They cannot vary the wages. It was possible to do that in the Cereals Act. In drafting the section in this Bill we hoped to get some sort of area fixation of wages, but I am afraid the amendment will make that impossible.
I should like to suggest to the Minister and to the mover of this amendment that they should leave this matter for the Report Stage. I think the matter wants considerably more consideration than the Minister has given it, judging by his remarks. I do not say that it is wrong. I think it wants careful consideration. I am not able to satisfy myself that this amendment really does anything, and I doubt if what the Minister says is really correct. I should like to point out that the nature of this sub-section (1) is extremely vague. It provides "Wages payable to a workman employed at licensed premises shall be at the rate not less than the rate generally recognised by trade unions and employers." Now the rate generally recognised in many trades, such as the furniture trade, is a rate of so much per hour in Dublin and so much per hour in towns. I think it is quite possible that the rate generally recognised might vary, as suggested by Senator Blythe. I am inclined to think that it does not matter whether you pass this amendment or not.
What I would suggest to the Minister is, that if what he states himself is correct, then what is really wanted, having regard to what Senator Foran has said, is the insertion of an amendment containing some such words as—"the rate or the scales of rates be generally recognised." If an amendment of that kind were inserted, it would probably help to bring about what has happened in many trades, namely, a general agreement which would be applicable to the whole industry. Looking at the general principle involved in this from the employer's point of view, I am in favour of it. As soon as a general scale is arrived at in an industry, I am also in favour, as far as it is possible to do it, of making every person in that industry observe that scale, and I believe it is equally in the interests of employers and employees that that should be done. I do not want a whole lot of latitude given to small factories, so that they should be able to get away from an observance of the general conditions applying in an industry. To that extent I am in sympathy with the Labour point of view. I do not think that this amendment achieves what the Labour representatives want. I think that the Minister should agree to leave this over for the Report Stage to afford an opportunity for consultation, and with a view to having a general scale agreed on between the employers and the trade unions. These agreements frequently allow of small variations to meet local circumstances. If a general scale is agreed upon, then it will be recognised, but if it is not agreed to, then it will not be recognised.
I think that the observations of Senator Blythe and Senator Douglas on this amendment are deserving of consideration. I think that the matter merits more reflection, and that the further consideration of this ought to be postponed for Report Stage. Having regard to what the Minister stated in relation to the somewhat similar clause embodied in the Cereals Act, dealing with the flour milling industry, I am not certain whether a verbal alteration is necessary in this Bill, or whether the same effect aimed at cannot be brought about by leaving the words as they are in the Cereals Act. If the matter is left over for Report it is to be hoped that we will all be better informed at that date as to what the effect of the proposed amendment is likely to be.
In view of the discussion that has taken place, we are prepared to leave the amendment over for the Report Stage. In the meantime we may have an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Minister. It is true, as was stated by Senator Blythe and Senator Douglas, that where you have a well-regulated industry, it fixes area rates of wages. We want to achieve something similar with regard to this industry. We do not want to say that small factories that may come into existence following the passing of this measure will have to pay the same rates of wages as cities like Dublin and Limerick, but we do want to ensure that the wages they pay will, at least, be comparable to the rates of wages paid in the larger centres. On the whole, we think it better that the amendment should be left over for Report.
Amendments 10, 11 and 12 adjourned for Report Stage.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 40.
On behalf of Senator Séumas Robinson, I move amendment No. 13:—
Section 40, sub-section (3). To delete in line 26 the words "twenty-five" and to substitute therefor the word "five".
On the Final Stage of the Bill in the Dáil it was pointed out that we do not want to punish a man who may make a mistake by killing a pig for his own use, and who perhaps sells a quarter of the bacon. We do not want to have a fine of £25 inflicted on him. It is the person who is making a continuous practice of doing that that we want to get after. It is the continuing fine of £5 a day is really the kernel of what we seek in this section. The object of the amendment is to reduce the fine for a first offence from £25 to £5.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 41 to 50, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 51.
(2) A bacon (production from carcases of pigs slaughtered in licensed slaughtering premises) order shall specify the date, which shall not be earlier than one month after the date of the making of such order, on which such order is to come into force.
On behalf of Senator Séumas Robinson, I move amendment No. 14:—
Section 51, sub-section (2), to delete in line 17 the words "one month" and to substitute therefor the words "six months."
This is to meet a point that was raised on the Second Reading of the Bill by Senator Baxter. I said that I would agree to make the period six months instead of one month.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 51, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 52.
On behalf of Senator Séumas Robinson, I move amendment No. 15:—
Section 52. To delete the words "method, standard, and" where they occur in lines 23, 30, 36, and 41.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 52, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 53 and 54 agreed to.
SECTION 55.
(1) Until a bacon (production from carcases of pigs slaughtered in licensed slaughtering premises) order has been made and come into force, a veterinary examiner shall apply the mark prescribed by the regulations for the marking of carcases in the manner prescribed by the said regulations to every carcase of a pig presented to him at any licensed premises, if, but only if, one or other of the following sets of conditions have been complied with, that is to say:—
(a) in case such premises are licensed curing and slaughtering premises and such pig was not slaughtered in such premises or in case such premises are licensed curing premises—
(i) that such carcase was examined by him in accordance with the veterinary examination (carcase) regulations and on being so examined was found free from disease, and
(ii) that at the time of applying the mark such carcase is clean, dressed in accordance with the regulations for the dressing of carcases, fresh and wholesome.
The following amendments to the section in the name of Senator Séumas Robinson, which were moved by Senator D.L. Robinson, were agreed to:—
16. Section 55, sub-section (1). To delete in line 52 the words "free from disease" and to substitute therefor the words "fit for human consumption."
17. Section 55, sub-section (1). To delete line 8 and to substitute therefor the words "such carcase, on such examination, was found fit for human consumption."
18. Section 55, sub-section (1). To delete in line 11 the word "properly."
19. Section 55, sub-section (2). To delete in line 32 the words "such carcase" and to substitute therefor the words "the carcase of such pig."
20. Section 55, sub-section (2). To delete paragraph (e) and to substitute the following new paragraph therefor:—
"(e) that the carcase and viscera of such pig were examined by him in accordance with the veterinary examination (pigs and carcases) regulations and such carcase, on such examination, was found fit for human consumption, and"
Section 55, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 56 to 73, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 74.
I move amendment No. 21:—
New section. Before Section 74 to insert a new section as follows:—
Any person (in this Act referred to as a registered wholesale provision trader) who satisfies the Minister that—
(a) he was engaged wholly or mainly in carrying on at any premises (whether in such premises as a whole or in a definite branch or section of such premises) during the period of ten years ended the 31st day of December, 1934 the business of smoking bacon (but in no other processing of bacon) and in the business of marketing bacon, and
(b) he has in any selected calendar year of the said period of ten years so smoked or marketed not less than four thousand hundred weights of bacon,
shall, on application to the Minister, be entitled to be registered as a wholesale provision trader.
Part of this Bill deals with the regulation, production and sale of bacon. The purpose of my amendment is to insert a definition of a certain class of people who have hitherto been engaged in the sale of bacon. In the cities, especially, the bacon trade has hitherto been conducted by a body of people known as wholesalers who deal in distribution to retailers. Some of these wholesale firms have been in existence for over 100 years. The Bill makes no provision whatever for the wholesale trader. The object of my amendment is to define that class of trader, and to ensure that that particular class of trade will be maintained in the future as it has been up to the present.
The Bill purports to regulate the price of pigs by a Pigs Marketing Board, and of bacon by a Bacon Marketing Board. This latter body will be comprised of curers with an independent chairman. It will be responsible for the distribution of the cured bacon, so that a curer will be allotting to himself the quota which is his share of the hogs of the country. An attempt is being, made by the curers to oust the wholesale traders from the business which they have hitherto conducted in a satisfactory way for the retail trade—the distribution of various brands of bacon. In their establishments in the cities they have always been able to offer to a retailer requiring a particular brand of bacon a selection from half a dozen brands. If their position under the Bill is not safeguarded, the procedure is likely to be—in fact it has already started—that the curers themselves will set up distribution establishments in the cities. That will mean 31 or 32 distribution establishments to be run under the aegis of the curers themselves. If the curers, in doing that, were going to perform a service which would be of benefit to the retail trade or to the farmer, by giving us cheaper bacon or a higher price for our pigs, then we would not be concerned very much. Senators are aware that the smoking of bacon must be done in the place where the bacon is sold. For example, a Waterford curer cannot smoke bacon in the City of Waterford which it is intended to sell in the City of Dublin or some other centre. He has to smoke it in the City of Dublin, and he has to set up an establishment. These establishments are already there, staffed by men expert in the trade. They perform this smoking of bacon better than the curers would perform it. They have their connection. They have financed the retailers. They are themselves purchasers for cash, but they extend credit to their clients. If the wholesalers are wiped out, they will have to withdraw their moneys from the retail trade, and, in that way, they will create havoc amongst the retailers in the poorer parts of the city.
I am anxious as regards this matter because it seems to me that a whole body of people is being crushed out of trade. I do not see why the wholesale merchants should be pushed out of the trade they have carried on for the last 10 or 20 years. I do not see the object of it and I do not think it is very fair. If they are pushed out in this way, they will have nothing to which to turn and they will have to shut up their shops. So far as I can gather from the Bill, other people are being given quotas but no quotas are given to the general provision merchants. Why should they not have their share as well as everybody else? Is it fair to crush them out of their business? This is a proposal which I do not understand and I hope the Minister will explain it.
I should like to make plain before the discussion goes too far that we are not in any way putting wholesalers out of business by passing this Bill. I take it that amendments No. 31, 32 and 33 will be discussed with this amendment because it is necessary to do that to get a fair understanding of what is sought. Senator Wilson takes the case of the wholesaler who has been in business for 10 years and who has smoked and marketed not less than 4,000 cwts. of bacon in any selected year. If we were inclined to do anything for these wholesalers, we would certainly not put in an arbitrary figure of 10 years. We should make very strict inquiry first. When we were dealing in this Bill with those in the business of curing, we went very carefully into all those clauses and we provided that a person in the business of curing in the last 12 months should be eligible, provided he produced a certain amount of bacon. To me, it seems that this amendment is designed to exclude certain people.
It is the principle with which we are concerned.
But you take the period of 10 years and also provide that the person must have smoked and marketed 4,000 cwts. in any one year. If we were to consider this question seriously, we should have to make careful inquiry so that nobody in the wholesale trade would be wronged. Provision would also have to be made to allow people to go into that trade. Drastic as our proposals in relation to curers may be, we have provided that people can go into that business on certain conditions. We have also laid down regulations forbidding curers to sell their business without the permission of the Minister. The reason for that was that, in cutting down the trade to a certain capacity, we wanted to be very careful that one group would not buy out all the curers in the country and form a monopoly. I think that there is a much bigger danger that one group of wholesalers might buy out all the others, doing a good deal of damage to other people as well as benefiting themselves.
What is the position? I am informed that, under this definition of "wholesaler," there would be about 25 eligible persons or firms in the country. Seven or eight of those would be in Dublin. We are asked to distribute 77 per cent. of the bacon cured for the home market amongst those wholesalers. At least two of the large curers have wholesale establishments in the city. One has been in that business for a long time and the other not so long. I do not know whether or not they would be included in this 10-years rule. If they are not, let us consider the case of a curer who had set up in the business of wholesaling three or four years ago—long before this Bill was contemplated. He has gone into the business of distributing his own bacon. Would it be fair that we should come along, with an amendment like this, cut that curer out of the business of distributing bacon and compel him to go back and distribute his bacon through the wholesalers against whom, perhaps, he had been fighting for three or four years. He would probably meet with a cool reception. They might be glad to get his bacon but they might not give him as good terms as they would give others. How does Senator Wilson propose to treat those curers who have wholesale or distributing centres in the city. The effect of the amendment is, as any Senator can see, that a very large proportion of the bacon output must be marketed through a limited number of persons. The argument may be put up that, in this Bill, we are limiting curing to a certain number of persons. At least, we can say that this limited number of persons have been curing bacon for a great many years past.
A new principle is involved in this amendment. That is, the control of marketing by a limited number of persons. We have tried to control in a number of Acts, production and manufacture, but we never went further than that. In the maize-meal, the flour, the creamery, and now the bacon business, there is rather strict regulation. It is difficult for a new person to come into the manufacture of any of these things, but we never went further than that. We never laid down in any of our legislation that flour, maize-meal, butter or any other commodity should be sold by these factories through any particular organisation. They were always free to sell wherever they liked. This is a new principle and should be carefully considered. The wholesale traders say that they are afraid, if this Bill is passed, it will put them out of business. I think it would be impossible for any Senator to quote a provision in this Bill which interferes with the wholesalers. Only one section refers to the wholesalers—Section 40, I think. That section exempts them from the provisions of the Bill so far as the smoking and processing of bacon is concerned. They are quite free to go on with the smoking and processing as they have always done. I think that no Senator can say the Bill affects them. Their business may not be as big as it was. That is not the result of this Bill. They may have lost business owing to the fact that certain curers have come to the city to do their own distribution. They may have less business because foreign bacon is no longer coming in. They did a good share of the business of distributing that bacon when it was coming in. This appears to me to be an attempt to get back for the wholesalers business which they lost through other causes. Seeing that it is a separate question from any effects that this Bill will have upon them, it would be wrong to take action on this Bill to get back that business for them. If any Senator can make the case that they are a deserving class and that they have a useful function to fulfil—which I believe they have—then their position should be the subject of separate legislation—not legislation by me but rather by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
I have already referred to those curers who have come here to distribute their own bacon. I do not know what reason they had for doing that. I have never spoken to either of those curers on that matter. I did have an opportunity of discussing the matter recently with another curer and I asked why these men came to the city. He said: "I suppose they had their own reasons." That was all I could get from him. He said that he did not believe that it was in the best interest of a curer to set up in business in the city or anywhere else; he thought the wholesalers would do that work better than the curers would do it themselves. I believe the wholesalers hold that, too. If the wholesalers do fulfil a useful function and can do that business better than the curers, it is only a matter of time until they get back the business. Curers are out for business on the best possible lines, and if they see that they are not doing that business as well as the wholesalers had been doing it for them, they will go back to the wholesalers. On the other hand, if they find they are doing it more efficiently than the wholesalers did it and if either the consumers or the producers will benefit by the elimination of the wholesalers, I am afraid I cannot defend the wholesalers here.
If this Bill goes through, about 32 curers will be licensed. Twenty of those will be small curers dealing with less than 30,000 pigs in the year. There will be about eight or nine curers in the medium class—from 30,000 to 70,000 pigs—and two or three curers in the larger class—over 70,000 pigs. It is extremely unlikely that any small curer could set up and distribute here for himself. He will have to do his business through a wholesaler or direct with the retailer. It is unlikely that any of the medium curers will set up business here on their own. They will continue to do business through the wholesalers or again direct with the retailers. In that way, I think that the wholesalers are not likely to lose very much and I cannot see that they can lose anything as a result of this Bill. I do not think that this Bill can make the slightest difference to them. I think it is very unlikely that many of the curers will set up selling agencies of their own. I have already said that I believe the wholesalers fulfil a very useful function. I understand that the various Commissions that considered this question of bacon production and marketing took the same view.
They are not going to be done out of their business. They will be required for all time. With regard to the question of the people they employ, if the curers set up their own distributing agents, I take it they will require an equal number of people. If they are less efficient in that business than is claimed by the wholesalers they will employ more people in the distribution of the bacon and will give more employment. As far as employment goes, I think nothing can be made on that point. The same staffs will be required and the same number of people employed.
If the House were inclined to accept this amendment on principle, I am quite sure it would require thorough investigation and a number of clauses with qualifying regulations regarding the people to be safeguarded. We would have to see that the wholesalers would not form a ring of six or nine men of which there would be grave danger. In other words, we would have to fix prices for them too, and see that they sold to the retail trade at prices somewhat related to that of the curers. Otherwise we would be in the hands of a small number of men, to whom there would be a big inducement to combine to make large profits. There would have to be regulations with regard to the prices at which the curers would sell to them. Supposing wholesalers were to get this power, could not retailers come along and say "there is grave danger that the wholesalers will set up chain shops of their own and give us no bacon." We would then have to bring in ten or 12 clauses to see that retailers got their share of the bacon, as well as seeing that they sold at a certain price until the consumer was reached. As Minister for Agriculture I have no interest in going further than seeing that the producer gets the best possible price for the pig. We had to go to the curers. As Minister for Agriculture I have no interest in going further. I think the case of the wholesaler is a matter for the trade and, therefore, one for the Department of Industry and Commerce.
Another question arises about the 77 per cent. How is that to be taken? One curer, I think, is more than ten years in the trade as a distributor. He distributes 77 per cent. of his output to his nominee. Take the case of small curers who distribute bacon direct to retailers, must they stop doing so and distribute 77 per cent. to wholesalers in future? They have been able to exist, as some small factories exist, because they sell direct in small quantities to retailers, and in that way are able to get 1/- or 2/- more than if they sold through distributors. I cannot see the advantage of making it impossible for certain of the small curers to carry on by compelling them to market 77 per cent. of the bacon they turn out through wholesalers. I do not know if Senators are anxious that this principle should be decided upon in favour of wholesalers. As far as I can see it would make it practically impossible to work this Bill, unless it was followed up by another fairly long one dealing with that matter alone. It would take a Bill with 20 or 25 sections to regulate matters properly, to see that no injury was done to small curers or to people with agencies established or people in the retail trade. All these things would have to be covered.
Take the co-operative factories. To a certain extent they sell bacon to their own suppliers. If the amount is anything more than 23 per cent. they would have to stop doing so, and to give at least 77 per cent. to the wholesalers and distributors. Perhaps they could not then distribute the same amount of bacon amongst suppliers to their factories. We took a long time about drawing up the Bill. We had a Tribunal before which producers, curers and wholesalers were free to put their views. It would be most unfair to put in an amendment like this without giving due notice to the other interests concerned, curers and retailers, and to allow them to give their views. Possibly they would have very grave objections. I am stating in a general way what the objections might be. When worked down to details, it is possible the objections put up would far outweigh any arguments of the wholesalers. At this stage it would be really impossible to do anything for the wholesalers. The wholesalers fulfil a useful function. I think I am right in saying that they will survive and that they do not want any help of this kind. Wholesalers will be in a better position, for this reason, that even if in the past curers had their own distributing agencies and were able to cut prices when it suited them to build up a trade, I do not see how they can cut prices when this Bill is passed. As far as I can see, manufacturing costs and wages will be the same. They will be more or less compelled to sell bacon at the same price. There can be no cutting of prices except at a big loss. If there is no cutting of prices, and if wholesalers can distribute bacon as cheaply as distributors, they can buy the bacon as cheaply from the curers. There is no reason why the curers should not give it. I hold that the amendment should not be accepted.
The general attitude of the Minister puzzles me. I am not interested in the bacon trade, and I do not pretend to have any knowledge of it. The attitude of the Minister is that he is concerned only about the farmers. He had to go to the curers, because he could not help doing so. If there is any difficulty the matter is one that could be dealt with by the Department of Industry and Commerce. In order to do justice, if there is need for justice, the Minister says it would require a Bill of 25 sections. No Minister is afraid of such a Bill, and, judging by this Bill, the Minister for Agriculture is not afraid of one. That, is not his real argument. As I understand the Minister's case is something like this: "We are going things that we would not like to do if circumstances were normal. We are providing for State regulation of industry and trade." That was done during the Great War by the British Government. We have to do it now with regard to a number of trades. If it is not done there is a danger that you will dislocate one part of a trade. I am not at all impressed by the Minister's argument that you cannot do it at this stage because there has not been a full inquiry. Possibly the Committee should suggest that there should be an opportunity of hearing evidence. As far as I understand, there is a perfectly genuine fear amongst members of the trade that the Bill may operate very definitely against the wholesale trade. We are not concerned with the verdict of the wholesalers or the retailers, but we are concerned where the State steps in. The Minister argued that there would be no cutting of prices, that all pigs will be the same price, that overhead expenses will be the same, and that there will be no interest in doing away with the wholesalers. I can only look at the matter from the point of view of trade generally.
I suggest under these conditions there would be considerable temptation for curers to get extra profits which they are not allowed in another way, by a new system of distribution. The temptation to try to get them is considerably greater. When there was control during the Great War the British made definite provision to deal with and to protect the wholesale trade so that no unfair advantages would be taken. The amendments may not achieve what is required but, as there is fear on the part of wholesale traders that they will not be allowed to continue their share of distribution, surely that is a matter that should be looked into. The question cannot be pushed aside by saying that this Bill deals only with the Department of Agriculture and with farmers and has no concern with the wholesale trade. There is an unlimited quantity of bacon available at present. After this Bill passes the quantity will be definitely limited. There will be a reduction in quantity and the amount of pigs killed will be related to a demand not yet determined. There is a fear that in these conditions the curers may be able to some extent to dispense with the wholesalers. Now that they have to sell all they can, the wholesalers are indispensable. Under the restricted conditions wholesalers will not be able to get the amount they sell at present. It seems to me to be inevitable that the cost of distribution will increase and that there will not be the same benefit. Is there any reason why we should not maintain the position by means of the quota system as in a great many other trades? The trade is genuinely uneasy. We have had the Ministry for Industry and Commerce supporting Bills introduced by other Ministers. Without separating the 23 per cent. and the 77 per cent. some provision could be got by which a good proportion of the 77 per cent. would be guaranteed to the wholesale trade. That I think is what they are asking for and it does not seem to me unreasonable.
As I understand the case, all the wholesale people desire is that they should be allotted as many pigs as they have been in the habit of getting in past times. That seems to me to be a reasonable proposition if there is any means of ensuring it. The Minister says that things will be all right and that the wholesalers will actually carry on their business and that, as a matter of fact, they may improve it if there is sufficient pigs to work on. But if there is not how can they possibly succeed? All this arises from the method of governing prices which would be all right; but the thing is to know where to top. Everyone would like to stop as early as possible but it is not easy to stop once you embark upon that system—a system which could not be avoided. If we could get any guarantee that the wholesale trade would get the same amount of pigs that they always have been getting there would be nothing to complain about. I would not like to see a limited society being able to do anything it liked and I do not know how far that is necessary. I hope the Minister will consider the matter because these people are very concerned.
When the Second Reading of this Bill was before the Seanad, and when this particular matter was mentioned, the Minister replied rather in the terms in which he has spoken to-night, with the exception that he indicated a certain amount of sympathy with the suggestion that the wholesalers might become entitled to receive curers' licences. If the Minister is determined to resist, and to reject, the amendment now before the Seanad, I think it would be only reasonable that he should consider whether in some other way the wholesalers could not be protected. As Senator Douglas has suggested, there are real grounds for thinking that they may find themselves cut out as a result of this Bill. The Minister himself admitted that the wholesaler has played a wholesome and important part in the bacon trade. I think he has. His presence is necessary to the smaller curers. But it may turn out that combined action, by particular curers, might make it impossible for the wholesaler to continue in business, and might have very undesirable effects upon wholesalers generally. At present the wholesalers have this protection that they have a connection with the bacon trade and if they were to find themselves in the danger of being crushed some of them might go into the business of curing bacon, and as curers already in the trade would not want them, there would be no disposition to cut the wholesalers out of their own line of business.
If the Minister will not accept this amendment, would he not consider an amendment that would give people who have been bona fide in the wholesale business a right to receive curers' licences? There are certain people that have the right, and the Minister may, after consultation with the Bacon Board, give them licences. I do not think that in the case of wholesalers, especially if the curers were cutting the wholesalers out, that the Minister would receive any recommendation that licences should be granted to the wholesalers, and he might find it very hard to give such licences in face of the recommendations of the Bacon Board that he should not give them. But if a special section was introduced, covering the case of wholesalers, and if those giving them supplies were being cut off, or that they were not being given reasonable facilities to carry on their business, then, if they were given the right to secure curers' licences, I think the position would be met. Curers would not want the wholesalers entering into their business, and would not want additional quotas that would follow. Their business would be to recognise the wholesalers as part of the machinery of the trade, and to maintain the conditions that exist up to the present. I do not know whether that would meet the case of the wholesalers fully, but if the Minister would do that he would give them a certain measure of protection which could not be argued against. It would not be carrying the Bill into new realms of the character and rigidity of monopoly. I think the Minister was favourable to that kind of suggestion when the Second Reading was before the House. I would be grateful if he would tell us what he thinks of the matter now. Although a great many Senators are in favour of this, I do not think it would be any good carrying it against the opposition the Minister has shown. It would be rejected in the Dáil, and I think there is force in what the Minister says, that perhaps a great many additional sections would be necessary to establish the machinery if the amendment was carried. But would the Minister not entirely deny any responsibility as to what may happen to the wholesalers, if within the framework of the Bill he could not do something to give them that protection which they require.
During this debate we have heard two objections to the proposed amendment. One strikes me with force, and I would submit it to the House. This Bill was introduced to deal with an urgent national interest, at least so I understand, and to stabilise the price of pigs and bacon. The Bill was not introduced until an inquiry was held in which everybody interested in the money, or business end, was heard fully. Now it is suggested that the Bill is to be held up until there is a further inquiry as to whether certain classes of people would be prejudicially affected if this proposed amendment was inserted in the Bill. That is the reason why I see objection to this amendment, because I have a great apprehension that if this proposed amendment was introduced the Minister is right—he will, of course, get advice on the matter—in anticipating that he would require a Bill of about 25 sections to deal with the possible consequences of this amendment.
There may be some objection to the amendment as it stands, particularly to the phrase, "the number of years in the trade and the quantity of output in one year." But I think the wholesale merchants are quite right in trying to protect their industry and their livelihood which, as has been admitted, is threatened under this Bill. I would suggest to Senator Wilson if the Minister would give any promise that he would consider a less drastic amendment, but an amendment that would in some respect protect the wholesale merchants, he might withdraw his amendment. The Minister could then bring up some formal words on Report Stage that would satisfy the House and would satisfy the wholesale merchants.
On the one side we find that the wholesalers have rather grave apprehension as to what their future will be as a result of this Bill; on the other hand the Minister assures us it will not in any way interfere with their trade. There you have a division of opinion. Will the Minister be prepared to give some assurance that in the event of the apprehension of the wholesale trade being realised he will be prepared to do something for those people. Would he be prepared to insert a clause or section in the Bill insuring that these people would not be wiped out of business as a result of this measure. That is really what is operating in the minds of the people in the trade. The Minister fears a ring. I am sure he will have the co-operation and full support of every section in this House against any ring to exploit the food of the people. He need not have any fears upon that ground. On the other hand, these people have a long connection with this industry, and naturally feel that their livelihood is being taken away from them. They are very uneasy about the whole thing.
This is the first time, to my knowledge, that a measure has been introduced which takes people's livelihood away where compensation is not provided for them. The whole bacon trade is being reorganised, and the distribution end has been ignored in this measure. By ignoring that end of the business it is feared that drastic changes will take place in the distribution of bacon. Are these changes going to make for cheaper bacon for the people? I fear they are not going to work out in that way. I fear the changes we are making are going to work out in such a way as to enhance the profit of the bacon manufacturer, and that the consumers will not get the benefit. If that is so, I think it is better have the devil we know than the devil we do not know. These people are in the business and they know the service. They are competent to deal with this end of the industry and they have all their worldly interests in it. As I say, they are very apprehensive as to what their future is going to be. The Minister says these fears are groundless. Will he reinforce that by putting a section into the Bill insuring these people continuity of livelihood in their industry. I think that is all that is required by Senator Wilson or by people in the industry, and I believe it is reasonable. It has not been shown by the Minister that the monopoly or the chain of shops is going to make for cheaper bacon for the people. That being so, these people are in the business and their interests should be considered in this matter. If the Minister would do something along these lines, I think he would go a long way towards reassuring these people and the future of the industry.
Senator Foran has given expression to the idea that is really at the bottom of these amendments. These amendments are only put forward with a view to endeavouring to safeguard the interests of the wholesalers. If that can be done by the Minister in any other way, we are not tied to the amendments at all. The whole position is now different to what it has hitherto been. You will now have semi-control of the bacon supply. Quotas are being allotted to the curers. The Minister stated that if the curers established a distribution centre in the city and if they gave a worse service than the present wholesalers, then the wholesalers could get back their trade. But the curers can refuse to give these men any bacon at all. They are allotted a certain quota of bacon. They can refuse to give it to the wholesaler, and, as a matter of fact, they have sold to the retail trade at cheaper prices than they were selling to the wholesale trade, showing that their idea is to get rid of the wholesalers altogether. Following on what Senator Foran has said, the Minister can draft any scheme by which the interests of the wholesalers can be safeguarded, whether it is by converting them into minor curers or by providing that they shall get a certain quota from the curers. Then our efforts will be successful, so far as it is the intention of the Seanad to give fair play to people who are entitled, from their business past and from the interest they have in the trade, to be safeguarded.
Of course, the intention of the Seanad is to be just to all classes. I am glad to see that Senator Wilson is not wedded to the form of his amendments, because I, for one, could not possibly stand for an amendment such as amendment No. 21. Anybody reading it will see that its purpose is to confine a particular trade to a certain limited number of people, people who have been already in the trade for ten years. What about the man who has been in the trade for nine years? Is he to be made a registered wholesale provision trader? What about the man in the trade for five years? What about the young man who wants to go into the trade? The Seanad is most anxious to see that the wholesalers get every protection and that their interests will be looked after in case these interests are interfered with by the operation of this Bill. It is not proved that their interests will be interfered with. After the Bill comes into operation, they can then make the case if they are able to do so, that they are prejudiced by the Act. Let them then come before Parliament and get redress after full inquiry into the position as to whether they have been interfered with to their detriment. Let the interests of every person be considered, the interests of the retailer and the interests of the consumer. I do think that the Minister could not possibly say anything more than he has said in the course of the debate on this amendment. It would be quite impossible to accept a section of this kind limiting the business to a small group of men who have been ten years in the trade. I do think that this amendment should not be pressed in the interests of the wholesalers themselves, because there are many people who sympathise with them, and who yet would not be prepared to go the length of limiting the wholesale trade of this city to the small group of men who have been ten years in the trade.
I should like to say that the line taken by Senator Comyn entirely fails to appreciate the position. It is very easy to take an amendment— I could do it myself—and criticise certain details in it. One could do that very effectively, but when one goes on to suggest, as he does, that as soon as the wholesalers find that their interests have been prejudicially affected by the Act, they should then come back to Parliament and seek to have another Bill introduced, he is really talking bunkum.
That is not a Parliamentary expression, I submit.
Then I withdraw it, and I shall say that it is not a practical way of dealing with the situation. I am very sorry that the Senator should be offended.
I am not offended at all, but I am surprised that such a purist as my friend should use such a word.
I am very pleased that the Senator gets a surprise occasionally from me. It is more than I can say about his speeches. I think what is really demanded—and it is a perfectly genuine demand—is that the Minister should withdraw from his first attitude, which is that you cannot deal with this in the Bill. The reason I have intervened is to suggest to him that if these amendments were withdrawn, he should consider whether he could not do something on the lines suggested by Senator Blythe and, if it is not possible to deal with the matter in the Bill, that he should at any rate insert something in the way of a permissive clause by which he could deal with it by Order at a later stage. Senator Comyn thinks that these men could come before Parliament at a later stage, after the Act is passed. I would say that that is utterly impracticable, but the Minister might deal with the matter by inserting a permissive clause at this stage.
That is a sensible observation, one of the few I heard from the Senator.
I have no objection to bringing in a Bill of 25 clauses or a Bill of 150 clauses, such as we have here, but I do not want to bring in a 25 clause Bill to deal with a matter with which another Minister should deal. It is the Minister for Industry and Commerce who should deal with this, and probably he also would object to doing it. We want to be clear, whether these wholesalers fulfil a useful function or not. I hold that they do fulfil a useful function when they can sell and distribute bacon as cheaply as the curers. If I am right in that, they are going to survive. Senator Douglas said that the curers might get a big extra profit by a new system of distribution. If they can get an extra profit in that way, it is costing more to distribute through the wholesalers than if the curers could do it themselves. Therefore, from that aspect they do not fulfil a useful function, and we have to deal with them on an ad miseri-cordiam basis. I think we should make up our minds one way or another. I would prefer to deal with them on the ground that they are fulfilling a useful function and that, therefore, they should survive.
With regard to Senator Blythe's suggestion, I think that a promise of that sort would prove largely a very empty promise, because if you examine the report of the Pig Industries Tribunal, you will find that their opinion was that we had too many factories. I think the advice of that Tribunal, and probably the advice of the boards that will be set up under the Bill, would be that if a factory were to close down we should leave it closed. That is, that we should try to cut down the number of factories rather than start new factories. Of course, there is at least one county where a factory could be started with advantage to that particular county. That is County Donegal. I presume that if any group of wholesalers are interested in going into the curing business, there is room for a factory there, but that could not be kept open indefinitely. I take it that Senator Blythe's suggestion was that they should be permitted to start a factory of their own, if they could not deal with the curers. We could not keep Donegal open for them indefinitely, because if any group comes along who are willing to go into the business in Donegal, they would get permission to do so. Therefore, the place would be no longer open to the wholesalers.
This Bill has been referred to as a new type of legislation, but the Dairy Produce Act is practically the same. We brought in an Act there to regulate that industry, to prevent others going into that industry except under licence and to see that the products were produced in a clean and proper way. We created, if you like, a certain monopoly for those who were in the industry. It was the same in regard to the Eggs Acts. It is not true either to say that these people are being put out of business without compensation. I do not hold that they are being put out of business. Exactly what is happening to the bacon wholesalers happened to the flour importers, and there was no compensation given to the flour importers. In their evidence before the Pig Industries Tribunal, the wholesalers stated, as reported on page 59 of the report, that "since the prohibitive import duty was placed on bacon, the wholesalers had lost the greater part of their business as distributors of bacon in the rural areas, and even in Dublin there was an increasing tendency on the part of the Saorstát factories to deal direct with the retail trade." It was the tariff put them out of business. As I have said, this is an attempt to get back a business which they lost. They have admittedly lost business owing to the tariff.
Must not they lose business also if the curer does not give them the quota? Supposing Denny, for instance, says: "I will give you no bacon"? That is about 25 per cent. of the trade.
My point is, why should Denny do it after this Bill is passed rather than before it is passed? If you take Denny as an example, he has already refused to give them bacon. He has set up his own distributing agency.
On account of the control.
Oh, no. He has been here for the last two years anyway. He certainly did not set up within recent months. Another matter mentioned by Senator Wilson was that the curers were selling bacon through retailers cheaper than they sold it to wholesalers in an attempt to put the wholesalers out of business. I find that the same statement was also made before the Pig Industries Tribunal, and it was investigated by the Tribunal. The Tribunal say in regard to that matter: "We have made a detailed examination of this matter, including an inspection of invoices of actual transactions, and we are satisfied that the allegation was based on erroneous information." So that there may be the same error as there was at that time. The whole kernel of this question is, I think, whether they fulfil a useful function or not. We are working on that basis. We are not asking that they should be compensated because they are not competent to carry on business or are not efficient against the curers to carry on business in the future. We are working on the basis that they are a useful asset, and, therefore, should be safeguarded. I cannot see why they should not exist if they are fulfilling a useful function. I cannot see why any curer should not use that machinery when the curers get it done in that way more cheaply than they can get it done themselves. That is why, I think, no case whatever can be made for the amendment. I would be only deceiving this House by saying that if you withdraw the amendment I can reconsider it and see if something can be done, because I do not see what can be done. There is no use in my promising that licences will be issued to these wholesalers to start a curing business because there is no room for a curing business.
With regard to Senator Douglas' last suggestion that we should put in some sort of a permissive section, I do not know whether that can be drafted or not. Possibly you can have a very wide section which gives the Minister power to do practically anything he likes with regard to the wholesalers. But I am afraid it would be extremely hard to draft. There again I am afraid I would be only deceiving the Seanad by undertaking to do such a thing because I cannot conceive any circumstances in which I would use such powers even if I had the power.
Before the Report Stage the Minister might consider whether he could possibly put in a permissive section.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided:—Tá: 9; Níl: 12.
Tá
- Baxter, Patrick F.
- Bellingham, Sir Edward.
- Counihan, John C.
- Dillon, James.
- Douglas, James G.
- Foran, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Cornelius.
- Milroy, Seán.
- Wilson, Richard.
Níl
- Boyle, James J.
- Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
- Comyn, Michael, K.C.
- Cummins, William.
- Fitzgerald, Séamus.
- Keyes, Raphael P.
- Linehan, Thomas.
- Lynch, Patrick, K.C.
- MacParland, D.H.
- Moore, Colonel.
- O'Neill, L.
- Robinson, Séumas.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Counihan and Wilson; Níl: Senators Fitzgerald and S. Robinson.
Amendment declared lost.
Sections 74 and 75 agreed to.
SECTION 76.
(1) The Minister shall, in every election year as soon as may be after the qualifying date, do the following things, that is to say:—
(a) if there are any persons who were on such date large curers, prepare a panel (in this Part of this Act referred to as a panel of large curers) of the names of such persons;
(b) if there are any persons who were on such date medium curers, prepare a panel (in this Part of this Act referred to as a panel of medium curers) of the names of such persons;
(c) if there are any persons who were on such date small curers, prepare a panel (in this Part of this Act referred to as a panel of small curers) of the names of such persons.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) the expression "the qualifying date" means—
(i) in relation to the election year 1935, the seventh day after the commencement of this Part of this Act, and
(ii) in relation to any other election year, the 1st day of October in such year;
(b) the expression "the relevant period" means—
(i) in relation to the election year 1935, the year 1934;
(ii) in relation to any other election year, the period of twelve months ending on the 31st day of August in such year;
(c) a person shall be deemed to have been a large curer on the qualifying date in any election year if—
(i) he was the holder of a licence on such date, and
(ii) there was produced during the relevant period, at all the premises in respect of which he was licensed on such date, more than seventy-seven thousand hundred weights of bacon;
(d) a person shall be deemed to have been a medium curer on the qualifying date in any election year if—
(i) he was the holder of a licence on such date, and
(ii) there was produced during the relevant period, at all the premises in respect of which he was licensed on such date, not less than thirty-three thousand hundredweights of bacon nor more than seventy-seven thousand hundredweights of bacon;
(e) a person shall be deemed to have been a small curer on the qualifying date in any election year if—
(i) he was the holder of a licence on such date, and
(ii) there was produced, during the relevant period, at all the premises in respect of which he was licensed on such date, less than thirty-three thousand hundredweights of bacon.
(3) Any person may inspect any panel prepared under this section at such time and place as the Minister may appoint.
I move amendment No. 22:—
Section 76, sub-section (1). To add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) if there are any persons who were on such date co-operative curers, prepare a panel of the names of such persons.
The object of this amendment is to secure for the co-operative bacon curers a panel and to put them on the same level as the major curers, the medium curers and the minor curers. I think there cannot be any objection to this amendment. There are very important co-operative bacon curers in the State. I think they can be reckoned, at all events, more important than the minor curers. You have the Roscrea bacon factory, which is a co-operative factory; you have factories at Castlebar and Waterford; you may have Wexford and you may say that the Cork Farmers' Union factory is a co-operative factory. There is a considerable amount of bacon curing carried on by the co-operative curers, and I think they are entitled to the same consideration as the other bacon curers mentioned in the Bill.
I desire to support the amendment. If the Bill goes through as it is co-operative representation will be practically submerged and co-operation, so far as bacon curing is concerned, will disappear. They will seem to become practically the same as the proprietary factories. I need not point out that the policy of the two is altogether different. In the case of the co-operative factory, they are practically a producers' as well as a curers' organisation. They distribute practically all their profits through the medium of the prices they pay to producers. Therefore, the payment of a dividend with them is a secondary matter altogether. In fact, many of them never pay a dividend, but if they did it would be limited to about 7½ per cent.
As I mentioned before, the co-operatives are largely worked by the shareholders themselves. Again, the co-operatives have to accept the supplies of their shareholders for curing. They never do anything to manipulate prices so as to prevent their producers from increasing their supplies. On the other hand, the proprietary factories are purely commercial undertakings. Their interest is almost altogether in their shareholders: in making the greatest profits they can for them. They produce a proprietary article and sell that in a limited market. It is a superior article, no doubt, but they produce it in limited quantities, so much so that they use the weapon of fluctuating prices to limit production when production is too great for their requirements. They have kept at that for a number of years. On the Continent those engaged in the industry have increased their output to England by millions of hundredweights. It will be seen from what I have said that the policy of the co-operatives and of the proprietary factories is altogether different on this question of production. One stands for the greatest possible development in production so as to give the greatest amount of employment and the greatest amount of profit both to those engaged in this production and to the nation as a whole. Therefore, I think that the co-operatives should get special representation on the Board.
There is another point. As I said earlier, the co-operatives have gone in for the most up-to-date methods of production, while the proprietary factories have maintained their own standards and their own particular products. I do not want to reproach them for that, but I say it was a pity and a misfortune for the country that during the years 1926 to 1931, when other countries were increasing their output by millions of hundredweights to England, and when the people of that country had increased their consumption of bacon by something over four million hundredweights, we here remained at practically the same dead level of production. I do not say that our output did not vary. It did, but these variations were almost insignificant when compared to the increased output from continental countries to England.
A great opportunity was lost to this country during those years on account of the action of the proprietary factories adhering so strictly to the output of their own proprietary article. Because of that, we lost a big percentage in the matter of our exports when the system of quotas was introduced in England. Our exports to England under the quota system were measured by our supplies of bacon to England over those years. The result has been that our quota has been fixed on a very much lower figure than it should have been as compared to continental countries. Poland, Sweden and Denmark, because of what happened in those years, succeeded in getting ahead of us on the English market. The co-operatives stand for quite a different policy to that which is being pursued by the proprietaries. They stand for the division of profits and for the greatest possible development in production.
When speaking on the Bill in the Dáil, the Minister said that one of the greatest evils in the production of pigs and the marketing of bacon was the violent fluctuations that take place in price. Every farmer, although he may not be able to explain it in technical language, knows quite well what that meant to him. It meant if the total number of suppliers in the country produced some hundreds of pigs extra, their action in that respect was hampered and retarded by a lowering of prices so as to keep the numbers of pigs within the figure that these proprietary factories were able to deal with. For these reasons, I suggest that it would be altogether wrong to have the co-operatives submerged under the scheme of this Bill. I know, of course, that they will get representation in the ordinary way on the three panels by reason of their output the same as the others. That means, however, that they will be sitting around the same table with the proprietaries fixing prices. They will have to do everything that they are ordered to do by the Bacon Marketing Board, and will become absolutely submerged, so that co-operation, as we used to know it, will disappear. That would be a very unenviable position for this country to be placed in. It would be a wrong thing, in my opinion, for the Government to give its sanction to that or to do anything that would bring it about. This House should not give its sanction to it either.
What we are dealing with in this section is a matter for the bacon curers themselves. It has not any great concern for anybody outside, producers or consumers—that is to say, the form of the board that will deal with the production of bacon, the number of pigs that each factory is to get, and the amount of bacon that will have to be put into cold storage. This particular board will not have any great influence on what is being done under this Bill when it becomes an Act except to regulate the part that each factory will take in the scheme. I do not want to make any point about this, but the amendment as drafted is incomplete. If accepted, it would have to be followed by several other amendments in order to make it effective. I take it that Senator Counihan put it down for the purpose of finding out whether the House would accept the principle in it or not. But if the amendment were accepted, a number of consequential amendments would be required to be made on the Report Stage. I want to put this point to the House: that all those in the bacon trade, including the co-operatives, agreed to the arrangements set out here.
I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but may I say that the matter never came before the Board to my knowledge. I was never given any information about it at the Board meetings.
The Department of Agriculture make representations to those in the trade, and surely it would not be reasonable to ask that it should also send a representative to Board meetings. Every factory in the Free State was represented at those meetings. The co-operatives were represented. I know the managers of all the co-operatives personally, and that they took a leading part even in the making of this arrangement. They were evidently quite satisfied with the arrangement that was made. As a matter of fact, on one occasion after we had come to an agreement on the formation of this Board, the Department of Agriculture considered that a certain departure should be made. We summoned another meeting of the representatives of all the factories to consider the amendment. The meeting was held and the amendment we suggested was agreed to. I only mention that to show that we did not alter a single item either in the powers or constitution of the Bacon Marketing Board without getting the full consent of every curer in the country. The co-operatives did not object to that. In fact they took a leading part in the making of that arrangement. There was a sub-committee of seven whose special duty it was to look after details and to report back to the full body. On that sub-committee of seven there were two representatives of the co-operatives. Therefore, the co-operatives had very good representation when the details were being drawn up.
I agree with Deputy Dillon that, if we leave matters as they are, the co-operatives will get good representation because their representatives are outstanding men. I am quite sure that they will be elected to the Board in the ordinary way, and more than one of them probably. If this amendment is passed, then I take it that you will be confining their representation to one. If the co-operative business grows, as we all hope it will, in bacon, butter and other things, then if this amendment is accepted it will always be in a separate compartment to itself. It will have its own representative and will not have the chance that is being offered to it in the Bill of the larger representation that it is entitled to. I believe that the co-operative business will get the larger representation that it is entitled to if the section is allowed to stand in its present form. At any rate, I cannot do anything but resist the amendment as far as I possibly can, seeing that the trade agreed unanimously to the system laid down in the Bill. Any amendment that would be introduced to benefit large or small curers, or co-operative curers, I would feel, too, compelled to resist as strongly as I possibly could.
Senator Dillon was mainly responsible for this amendment. I agree with him that the representation of the co-operative curers would be more to the advantage of the pig producers of the country than representation from either the large or medium curers. After hearing what the Minister said, I will leave it to the Senator himself to decide whether he should go on with the amendment.
I did not want to press my views on Senator Dillon with regard to his amendment because I felt that some good would be done by having it fully discussed. But, now that we have had the amendment discussed I want to say that it is my view that the co-operative curing factories will have a greater influence on the Board if the section is allowed to remain as it is than they could hope to get because of their numbers by an amendment of the section. Unless they got representation on the Board altogether out of proportion to their numbers it is doubtful if they could claim more than one representative on the Board. I believe that if they were allocated more than one representative on the Board they would certainly have very great difficulties with the other curers. I think that they ought to be able to get more than one representative because they will cut into different categories and will be on different panels. Some of them will be on one panel and some of them on another, and it is hoped, as the Minister said, that their representatives, being men of capacity, will justify the other curers in electing co-operative representatives to the Board. If that is done, then I believe they will bring to the Board and to its discussions the spirit and the influence of their own organisation. I believe, too, that they will have a stronger representation on it than they could possibly hope to get under Senator Dillon's amendment.
Senator Baxter spoke as if the co-operative societies were rather unimportant from the point of view of numbers. Taking five of them together, they kill in or about 3,000 pigs per week. That is not an insignificant thing. I just want to say this to the Minister, that while I am a member of the Board I got no knowledge of the details of this Bill at board meetings. The same is true, I believe, of a good many other members of the Board. I say that in all good faith. I am not saying it by way of reproach to the Minister or to anybody else. I attended board meetings regularly every month, and I got no knowledge of the details referred to by the Minister. Seeing that it is the opinion of the Minister and of members of the House that the co-operatives well get better representation under the Bill as it stands, I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 76 to 81 agreed to.
SECTION 82.
Question proposed: "That Section 82 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, I want to raise a point which seems to me to be an important one. I have been considering the drafting of amendments to the section which I hope to move on Report Stage. But for an accident, they would have been before the House on this stage.
As the Senator proposes to move amendments to the section on report, would he not think it well to reserve what he has to say until we reach that stage?
If I make a short statement now it may save time later if I succeed in getting the Minister's point of view on the questions that I propose to raise. I would strongly object to the passing of the section in its present form and I have very strong reasons for doing so.
You will probably argue it all over again on the amendment. Of course, you are perfectly entitled to speak now, if you so wish.
Possibly the Minister would be prepared to put in the amendment himself. If my suggestion were accepted, it would require a series of amendments which it would be difficult to draft. It might be better, therefore, that the Minister should look into the matter. This section deals with the terms of office of the members of the Board. With other sections, this section indicates that we are to have a Board brought into existence very shortly after the passing of the Bill. This Board is to exist for a year. The members are then to go out and will be eligible for re-election. The period of office will then be two years. When that period expires, the members are to go out and are eligible for re-election. I want to urge strongly on the House that, if we agree to the section in its present form, it will make for instability in the management of the Board. The period of office, in the first instance, is not sufficiently long. That period ought to be, at least, three years and there ought to be continuity in so far as all the members would not go out at the same time. We should not have a position in which the Board would disappear on a particular day and a completely new Board would be formed after the election by the curers. It seems to me that the curers will not be different from any other section of our people. They will expect from members of this Board the kind of service which it is very difficult to give the people of this country in any capacity. We shall have disappointments in the election of the first Board. Some members will expect to get elected and will be disappointed. The curers will expect from the Board more than it can reasonably give. There will be dissatisfaction with the Board and, quite conceivably, there will be agitation on the part of groups of curers to change the personnel,
A number of other boards have been established under Acts of the Oireachtas and, in these cases, members were not elected for so short a period in the first instance and all the members did not go out on the same day. I think the House ought to agree that what has been the policy with regard to the Electricity Supply Board, the Agricultural Credit Corporation, and the Beet Board, and what is the practice in banking institutions and other commercial concerns should apply in this case. I suggest that two members of the Board should retire the first year, two members the next year, and that the remaining members should retire the following year. If the curers were dissatisfied with their representatives and new men were elected, the new men would have an opportunity of making contact with those who preceded them. They could get to understand the policy and the reason for the policy pursued previously and would become better acquainted with the business of the Board from the inside than they could be from the outside. There would not be any reversal of engines or change of policy on insufficient information or for causes arising more from prejudice than the considerations which ought properly to weigh with members. I think that that ought to be the aim. To achieve that, the periods of election should be altered. I think the House will agree that it is in the interest of the Bacon Marketing Board this change should be made.
Section 82 put and declared carried.
Sections 83 to 97, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 98.
(4) In making a production order the Board shall have regard to the following matters, namely:—
(a) the capacity of the markets (both home and export) for bacon;
(b) the quantity of bacon which the Board anticipates is required to be placed in cold storage against future requirements;
(c) the stock of bacon on hands;
(d) the supply of pigs likely to be available.
(5) Every production order shall be published in theIris Oifigiúil as soon as may be after it is made.
There is an amendment down to this section by Senator Dowdall. I have had a letter from the Senator in which he states that he is too ill to attend and he asks that Senator Quirke or I should move the amendment. Seeing that there are a number of amendments in the Senator's name, I should be glad if the House would permit them to stand over until the Report Stage.
That is a sensible course.
Amendment 23 not moved.
I move amendment No. 24:—
Section 98, sub-section (4). To add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—
(e) such other matters as the Board considers relevant.
This amendment gives somewhat wider powers to the Board.
Does it not give them almost unlimited powers?
It does.
Are the powers not too wide?
I do not think so. The Board are to have regard to certain matters. It is desirable that they should have regard to all relevant matters.
But only those matters within the purview of the Bill.
The powers are not increased but the matters the Board may consider are increased.
Do these additional powers refer merely to the production periods and quotas?
Yes.
They are ejusdem generis.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:—
Section 98, sub-section (5). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(5) The Pigs Marketing Board may make recommendations to the Board in relation to the production period and the production quota to be appointed by any production order, and the Board shall in making such order consider any such recommendations."
It was felt by members of the Dáil that the Pigs Marketing Board should have some say in the allocation. This is a rather difficult question to adjust between the two Boards. Obviously it is for the Bacon Board to allocate amongst the curers but, on the other hand, the Pigs Marketing Board has representatives of the producers, and it was thought in the Dáil that it would be well to have their view as to what the total production quota should be. That is provided for in this amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 98, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 99.
Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28 and 29 (Senator Dowdall) not moved.
Sections Nos. 99 and 100 agreed to.
SECTION 101.
Where—
(a) a production notice in relation to any premises has been duly served on the licensee in respect of such premises, and
(b) the quantity of bacon produced in such premises during the production period to which such production notice relates exceeds by more than 5 per cent. the production sub-quota for such premises in respect of such period, such licensee shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall le liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine calculated at the rate of ten shillings for every hundredweight which the amount of bacon produced at such premises during such production period exceeds the production sub-quota for such premises in respect of such period.
I move amendment No. 30:—
Section 101. To delete in line 5 the word "five" and to substitute therefor the word "ten."
There is a certain tolerance allowed a curer either above or below. The figure in the Bill was 5 per cent., and it was felt that a little more latitude should be given. Ten per cent. was suggested as the proper figure. I do not think it will make a great difference in the working of the Bill. It will be a matter for the curers to adjust, but the amendment gives them a little more latitude in working amongst themselves.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 101, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 102.
Question proposed: "That Section 102 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to get some information from the Minister on this section. So far as I can see, this Board is not given power to constitute itself a Board for the marketing of bacon. If that power is given in any other section, I should like to be so informed by the Minister. With regard to the marketing of bacon in England, they should have some such power. There is now to be some form of organisation amongst curers, and it is to be hoped that they will not in the future compete against one another and cut the prices of Irish bacon in England. While they might possibly do this in a surreptitious way, I do not think they have power to constitute themselves a marketing organisation under the Bill. Whether that power should be given them, should, I think, be considered. If it is to be done, it ought to be done under regulations to be approved by the Minister, if not actually drafted by him.
I take it that the Senator is referring to a combined marketing scheme similar to that which we were trying to bring about in the case of butter.
Yes.
I do not think there is anything to prevent the Board setting themselves up voluntarily as a body for that purpose.
Have they power to do that?
They have no legal power to compel anybody to do so, but, as they are sitting there, it might occur to them that they should try their hand at that as a voluntary organisation. I think that it is only a voluntary organisation which would be successful. I am not sure that I understand Senator Baxter properly. Perhaps he would put down an amendment setting out his views.
I shall.
Section 102 agreed to.
SECTION 103.
There are three amendments down to this section, but as they are consequential on an amendment which was defeated, they cannot be moved.
Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 33 not moved.
Sections 103 to 108, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 109.
I move amendment No. 34:—
Section 109. To add at the end of the section a new paragraph as follows:—
"(c) contribute, with the consent of the Minister, towards the cost of schemes for the improvement of pigs."
Certain curers used to contribute a small amount towards a grant for pig-breeding. As that will probably be discontinued, it will come from the curers in this way in future.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 109, as amended, agreed to.
Section 110 agreed to.
SECTION 111.
(9) The Board may at any time by order declare that there shall be no levy under this section in respect of any specified half-year or specified part of a half-year, and may at any time revoke or amend any such order, and whenever any such order is in force, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no levy shall be payable under this section in respect of the half-year or part of a half-year to which such order relates.
I move amendment No. 35:—
Section 111, sub-section (9). After the words "in respect of" in line 16, and also in line 20, to insert the words "any carcases used for the production of bacon curing."
This is a drafting amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 111, as amended, and Sections 112 to 118, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 119.
(1) Of the ordinary members three (in this Part of this Act referred to as curer members) shall be elected in accordance with this Act by the Bacon Marketing Board and three (in this Part of this Act referred to as producer members) shall be nominated in accordance with this Act.
I move amendment No. 36:—
Section 119, sub-section (1). To delete in line 39 the word "three" and to substitute therefor the word "two."
The Bacon Marketing Board as constituted is elected by the bacon curers, and pig producers have no representation upon it. Half of the members of the Bacon Marketing Board are on the Pigs Marketing Board. It is essential to have on the Bacon Marketing Board representatives of the Pigs Marketing Board, because the work of the two bodies should be very much interlinked. I do not object to two members of the Bacon Marketing Board being there but the other member should be a representative of the Pig Dealers' Association. As important members of the pig trade are engaged in the export of pigs to England or buy for bacon factories they are conversant with the best manner of marketing pigs. A representative of such an association would be a useful member of the Pigs Marketing Board. One representative of that Association recently stated that he was of opinion that all pigs should be graded alive. The Bacon Curers' Association would not agree to that. If a representative of the pig dealers was on the Bacon Marketing Board perhaps he would persuade the chairman to pass regulations which would not be in the interests of every producer. Pig producers object to dead-weight grading. Those who know anything about the question say that it is not a fair system, in many cases, and that the most competent men are not put to grade the carcases. When the carcases are hung up perhaps a young fellow comes along and decides whether they are first, second or third grade, the difference in price meaning a considerable loss to producers. Where there is dead-weight grading farmers and producers object to having to send pigs to the factories. If there was live-weight grading, everybody would be inclined to send pigs to factories when they are most suitable for sale and the proper weight, or when fairs would not be convenient. Live-weight grading would ensure supplies of pigs most suitable for bacon.
I am rather at a loss to know why Senator Counihan raised that question on the amendment. With regard to pig dealers, they were consulted about this matter because we were told they were anxious to get representation. They agreed that they had no business whatever on that Board, as it was no business of theirs what way the functions of the Board were carried out.
I think they have changed their mind.
If so, it must be lately they changed, because they were satisfied they had no business on the Board. Senator Counihan is wrong about dead-weight grading. Dead-weight grading is fair and is done with mathematical precision. If feeders want to feed pigs properly, having the proper amount of lean and fat upon them, they get their reward. On the live weight they are paid on weight alone, and it does not matter what sort of slops the pigs were fed on. They get as much for the pigs as the farmer who feeds them properly.
Can they not be graded alive?
That is a matter for the person judging. In the other case, it is laid down in regulations, both in England and in Northern Ireland, that there must be a certain breadth of fat a certain distance from the shoulder down along the side. It is a matter of measurement. If the regulations are fair the system is fair. There cannot be any fraud or injustice. If the regulations are found to be unjust they can be changed. Once there are good regulations everyone must get fair play in dead-weight grading. Whether the numbers are four and two or three and three nothing will be achieved by a change. It is almost certain that in fixing the price of pigs the representatives of producers and curers will disagree. Practically speaking, they are only there to argue the case before the chairman. If there is disagreement the chairman fixes the price. If they agree the chairman must fix the price at what they say. The more people you have on the Board the danger is greater of having one crotchety fellow on it who will cause trouble. There is no necessity for a change. The factory representatives are concerned only with what the factory pays, while this Board is concerned with everything from the time the pig is produced till the time it goes to the factory. If we ever regulate production there would be no representative of the factory on the Board. It would be composed of producers.
I am inclined to agree with the Minister that there is not a good deal in the case made by Senator Counihan for having the composition of the Board other than three and three. When this Bill is in operation it will be found that it will cause disappointment in the sense that it will be something additional to grumble about. It is always satisfactory to have someone to blame. If the price of pigs does not reach the figure farmers expect they will be inclined to blame this Bill. They will not know the cause of prices being so low. No matter what is tried there will be in the minds of producers generally the feeling that this legislation places producers in the hands of the curers. If anything could be done to indicate that that is not the trend of this Bill, and that that is not the position that producers occupy, it should be done, so that producers would realise that the scales are not always so balanced that they can easily be tipped against them. If that was done it would give a considerable measure of satisfaction. My view on the section and on the composition of the Board is that if we had four producers and three curers the position would be different. When the Minister is getting the Board together I am certain he is not going to get a representative of the producers who will be narrow-minded or intolerant. He will get people with an outlook who will be worthy of the producers and who will prove themselves capable members of the Board. I hope that is the sort of men the Minister is trying to get on the Board.
That would not make any difference.
If you have three and three you are going to create a situation where inevitably every time it will be three and three. That is undesirable. You should get Boards composed of men representative of both curers and producers, who would examine the situation fairly. A representative of the producers should be able to say that the price, having regard to the facts and the price of bacon across the Channel as well as other facts, should not be fixed at a certain figure. It would be much better to cultivate that spirit on the Board rather than create a situation where you would have three and three at every meeting. Every important decision would have to be taken by the chairman. In my opinion, the chairman, who is the Minister's nominee, would be carrying the blame. Some people would be inclined to blame the Minister. I am inclined to the view that the Board should consist of four producers and three curers.
The amendment is two and four.
I am arguing the principle. I feel that that is the balance if you want to have producers of the type I suggest, who will not be prepared to look at things only from a narrow point of view and disregard everything else. I should not like every decision to be taken by the chairman. There should be a better outlook on such a Board. This is not a question of politics. This legislation will be there when present-day politicians are far away. I have no doubt whatever about the position turning out as I suggest. The chairman is going to be most unpopular, and he is not going to have a friend on the Board. I think myself the whole management of the Board will be rather unsatisfactory and that the Minister should consider that.
I want to make this point: whatever the vote, the chairman will have to decide, if there is any dissentient.
That is my point. In nine cases out of ten the chairman will have to intervene.
Unless it is unanimous the chairman must intervene.
During the whole of the debate on this Bill on Second Reading, and again in Committee, those of us who spoke did so with the intention of trying to amend the Bill, and to put some things into it that would be advantageous from the legislative point of view. Deputy Baxter made a strong case. If this amendment did nothing more than create confidence in the producers, and in their representatives on the Board, the Minister would be wise to accept it. Otherwise I shall have to take the decision of the House upon it.
Amendment put and negatived.
Amendment No. 37 not moved.
Sections 119 to 139, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 140.
(4) The Board may at any time by order amend a price order.
(5) In making a price order or an order amending a price order the Board shall have regard to the following matters, namely—
(a) the capacity of the markets (both home and export) for bacon;
(b) the quantity of bacon which the Board anticipates is required to be placed in cold storage against future requirements;
(c) the stock of bacon on hands;
(d) the supply of pigs likely to be available;
(e) the cost of production of pigs and particularly the cost of feeding stuffs for the previous four months.
(6) Every price order and every order amending a price order shall be published in theIris Oifigiúil as soon as may be after it is made.
I move amendment No. 38:—
Section 140, sub-section (4). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "and every order amending a price order shall specify the date (not being earlier than the Monday next following the date on which such order is made) on which such order is to come into force."
Some people have feared that in the making of an amending prices order the Board might bring it into operation immediately without giving time to know what the effect was. The practice of the curers has been to decide on a Friday the price they would pay for the week, and to send it out on Saturday or Monday. We presume that the Board will follow the same practice. They will meet on Friday, they may make publication over the wireless or at any rate in the papers on Saturday and they will also send it out by circular. It cannot come into operation before those concerned get to know of it. The Board will not meet on a Saturday midday. If they did not meet until Monday and fix the price it could not come into operation that week.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 39:—
Section 140, sub-section (5). To add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—
"(f) such other matters as the Board considers relevant."
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 140, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
In connection with this section in the debate on the Second Reading, I raised certain questions with regard to grading. I expressed fears as to what effect this would have, and as to the method to be employed in the grading and the classification of carcases. I indicated that there was a particular problem in certain parts of the country with regard to the particular type of pigs raised there. I would like to have from the Minister some additional information as to what will be the methods adopted in the grading of pigs so that our fears may be dissipated as to whether or not pigs of a particular type may be graded in a lower class than pigs of another type. What is the method of grading in the factories to be?
The Senator, perhaps, realises that pigs will not be graded according to breed. But the Senator's fears may be justified if a particular breed might not be suited entirely. Classification is as regards particular weights. That practice will operate up to 10, 10½ and 12 stone, and so on, and the grading of carcases referred to is in respect of that fact. There are certain points taken on the carcase at certain distances. Then the depth of the fat is taken, and in that way the carcase is graded. What the Senator fears is that a certain breed is too fat, and that if the grading is to be observed it may suffer unduly. We could not guard against that in the Bill; it may be a matter for regulations afterwards. The particular area the Senator has in mind will, in all probability, be represented on the Board. I said that any Minister putting representatives of purchasers on the Board would have to have regard to the peculiar conditions of this area in selecting his nominees.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 141 to 146, inclusive, agreed to.
With regard to amendment No. 40 on the paper, in the name of Senator Brown, he has asked me to say that he discussed this very long amendment with the Minister and the draftsman, and they have come to an agreement on the subject. Senator Brown does not, therefore, wish to move his amendment, and instead the Minister will bring up an agreed amendment on Report Stage.
Yes, I shall do that. Further, arising out of the conversation I had with Senator Brown, I have to make slight changes in amendments Nos. 42 to 49 so that these also will be adjourned for the Report Stage.
SECTION 147.
I move amendment No. 50:—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(6) Moneys received by the Board under this section from licensees and registered minor curers shall be used for no purpose other than the purpose of making payments under this section to licensees and registered minor curers."
This is a somewhat separate matter from the amendments that we have adjourned for the Report Stage. It is to make it perfectly clear that any moneys collected from the curers will go back again to the curers. As the Bill is drafted, nothing else could occur to that money, but some of the curers had the idea that the Minister for Finance might take it.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 147, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 148.
(1) The Board may undertake research work in relation to the production of pigs and the manufacture of bacon.
(2) The Board shall publish from time to time particulars of the composition of suitable ration for pig feeding and the cost of such ration.
I move amendment No. 51:—
Section 148, sub-section (2). Before the word "suitable" in line 2 to insert the word "a."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 148, as amended, agreed to.
Section 149 agreed to.
SECTION 150.
(9) The Board may at any time by order declare that there shall be no levy under this section in respect of any specified half year or specified part of a half year, and may at any time revoke or amend any such order, and whenever any such order is in force, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no levy shall be payable under this section in respect of the half year or part of a half year to which such order relates.
I move amendment No. 52:—
Section 150, sub-section (9). After the words "in respect of" in line 7, and also in line 11, to insert the words "any carcases used for the production of bacon curing."
This is purely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 150, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 151, 152, 153 inclusive agreed to.
Amendment No. 53 adjourned for consideration on Report Stage.
Section 154 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.
We are not likely to get any new business from the Dáil immediately and if the Minister does not require the Report Stage of this Bill very urgently there would be no need to meet next week.
I would urge the Seanad to take the Report Stage next week. I would say to all those interested in the Bill that we would like to have it by the 1st September in order to be ready for the slump period that comes in the autumn. As it takes six or seven weeks to prepare the panels, unless the Bill was passed in this coming week we might be too late.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 12th June, 1935.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.45 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, June 12th, 1935.