Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 Aug 1935

Vol. 20 No. 12

Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep (Amendment) Bill, 1935.—Committee Stage.

Title postponed.

Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 put and agreed to.

Mr. Counihan

I beg to move:—

New section. Before Section 5 to insert a new section as follows:—

5. Section 4 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion therein of a new sub-section as follows:—

"(3) The Minister shall not make any regulation prescribing a greater levy than 2/6 a head on any horned sheep or any sheep weighing less than 40 lb. dead weight."

This levy of 5/- per head on little mountain sheep is, to say the least of it, a monstrous charge. It means a tax on the farmers in some cases of at least 50 per cent. This is a tax which is directly paid out of the farmers' pockets because the sheep to which I am referring are sheep for which, I am sure, the Minister will admit there is no such thing as export competition. There is no competition except the local trade. The Minister will, I am sure, say that the home market is the best market, and I cannot complain about that, but I want to say that there is no competition. In many cases these sheep are sold at present at 10/-, 12/- or 15/- a head. I know of cases where they are sold at less than 10/- a head. The payment of a levy of 5/- per head on this class of sheep is a monstrous charge. It is very hard to understand how the Minister can justify it. The producers of these sheep are mountain farmers in Kerry, Donegal, Mayo, Waterford and parts of Cork. These sheep are reared in the mountainy districts. Their value in practically every case is less than £1 and the average price is about 12/-. On such a figure, a levy of 5/- is very hard to justify. I should like to see how the Minister can justify that. I have raised the question on many occasions but I have got no satisfaction from the Minister. The Minister does not seem to think that any injustice is being done to mountain farmers in asking them to pay this 5/- levy. The Minister's excuse in regard to the 5/- levy is that all sheep were bought in competition for the export and the home trade and that the price for export always regulated the home price. He said he understands that is so. It is so for lambs and for cattle and other sheep, but there is no export trade in old ewes nor is there for these mountainy sheep. These latter sheep are produced for home consumption— for the market which the Minister said is the best market in the world. It is well to have the home market, but it is not well for the Minister to tax the farmer out of the home market in the same way as the British are taxing him out of the British market. I move my amendment.

Dr. Ryan

I do not say that this amendment is not in order, for that is your function, Cathaoirleach, but it would be unworkable in the section to which Senator Counihan moved it. That is only one point. It might be moved to Section 9 but, leaving that aside, I do not like to dispute this matter with Senator Counihan because he knows more about the export trade than I do. But I heard quite recently that there was rather good trade in the export of these small sheep. That may not be true. Whether it is or not. I think the export price must have an influence on the price of sheep all round and, therefore, it cannot be claimed that this tax is coming out of the farmers' pocket. I would perhaps be inclined to agree that it is more difficult for the farmers in counties like Kerry, Donegal and Mayo to sell their sheep to the home butchers than it was before the levy came into operation, because the butcher has to pay a 5/- levy whether the sheep weighs 40 lb. or 60 lb. and naturally he is more inclined to kill a bigger sheep and in that way have more meat for the levy he pays. On several occasions during the last 12 months, in order to remedy this grievance, I endeavoured to have the system changed to a levy on the weight rather than on the animal. That was impossible, but there are certain sections in this amending Bill that will make it possible. For instance, the weighing facilities sections in this Bill will make it possible for us to go on a weight basis in future, and the intention is to change over to a weight basis as soon as we possibly can. I think that if we were on a weight basis Senator Counihan would have no grievance. It is possible that a 1d. per lb. would give us about the same income from sheep as the present flat rate of 5/- a head. If, say, we had a rate of 1d. per lb. dead weight, then the small mountainy sheep to which the Senator referred would be at no disadvantage compared to the big Roscommon ewes or any other breed of sheep.

This amendment could not, I think, be made effective in this Bill. Its insertion might, in fact, make it very difficult for us to work the Principal Act in other directions. Perhaps Senator Counihan would be agreeable to accept the undertaking which I have given, that we intend, in the shortest possible time, to make this change over experimentally for a period. I hope the Senator will believe that I am as genuinely in favour of the change over as he is. I do not know if, in view of that undertaking, the Senator is going to insist on his amendment.

Mr. Counihan

I am quite prepared to accept the Minister's assurance. I still contend, however, that the 1d. per lb. is too big a tax in the case of sheep and lambs.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 5 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

In this section, I wish to bring to the Minister's notice that all the arguments advanced as regards the incidence of this levy in the case of sheep apply with equal force in the case of light cattle. The position is that the flat rate makes it very difficult for farmers to sell these cattle locally. These light fat cattle have been in favour with people for a number of years. Farmers have been trying to produce them, but due to the operation of this flat rate, the local butchers will not purchase light cattle. They will not buy them in any circumstances. They are the cattle that are most suitable for export and that fetch the greatest price, but due to this flat rate levy they have lost their market at home. If time had permitted it was my intention to move an amendment proposing the deletion of this section. It imposes a very serious restraint on the sale of these cattle, and takes from their value. We see cattle sold for export without any levy at all. The levy applies in the case of cattle sold at home, and that, I suggest, has created an intolerable, or artificial, position. I think it would be a good thing if some change were made. I do not want to press the Minister, but I think it would be well if, in the case of those light cattle, he would give an assurance such as he has already given in the case of sheep. I think that the same system should operate in both cases.

Mr. Counihan

I desire to support the appeal that has been made by Senator Dillon for the abolition of the flat rate levy in the case of light cattle. I think the Minister should take that appeal into consideration when framing his regulations on the dead weight cases. The present position makes it impossible for farmers to sell their small cattle. It is not possible to export small fat cattle of 6 or 7 cwt. with the operation of a tariff of £6 per head. I would also ask the Minister to consider the question of the levy per lb. on cows. What I said in the case of horned sheep applies in the case of cows. It is a fact that there are many cows being sold at the present time for £1 and 30/-. I am speaking now of good fat cows, and if the Minister doubts my statement he can, I think, have it verified by his inspectors. These fat cows would make good wholesome food for certain classes of people who have not a great deal of money to spend. Because of the levy, butchers are not buying these beasts. They prefer to buy the big heavy beasts, because the levy is the same on all classes of cattle. The result is that there is a loss to producers, and also to consumers because of the fact that these cattle are not being bought and slaughtered. If that quality of meat were available at a reasonable price, there are certain classes in the community who would be glad to buy it.

Dr. Ryan

I agree entirely with Senator Dillon that it would be desirable to have the smaller cattle killed, if possible. It would be of benefit to the farmers who produce those small cattle, particularly in Kerry, Connemara and other places. It would be good also from the general economic standpoint. We would not have the same trouble with regard to surplus cattle if we had the smaller cattle slaughtered and a bigger number of them consumed. It would also do away with the inducement that appears to be there at present for butchers to buy the big cattle. As Senator Counihan has pointed out the tariffs and so on are moving in the same direction. I do not think that there would be as much trouble in changing over to a weight basis in the case of cattle as in the case of sheep, but the position is that the case with regard to sheep appears to be the more urgent. We do intend to change over in the case of cattle also, but as the case of the sheep appears to be more urgent we are taking that first. This change over will mean a good deal more work for certain staffs in the Department. We could not make a complete change over in both cases without getting extra staff. We hope to avoid the necessity of doing that by having a gradual change over to a weight basis, first in the case of sheep, and later in the case of cattle. I hope the Senator will be satisfied with that assurance.

Mr. Counihan

Section 14 seems to me to be retrospective, and I would like to have some assurance from the Minister that it will not apply in the case of a farmer who killed one sheep or lamb per week for his own consumption during the time the Principal Act was in force. The wording of the section seems to leave it open to a different interpretation.

Dr. Ryan

If the Senator looks at the first sub-section he will see that it was amended in the Dáil in order to meet the point he raised: It reads:—

Every person who, after the commencement of Part II of the Principal Act and either before or after the passing of this Act, slaughters in any premises which, at the time of such slaughter, were or are not registered in the register of slaughtering premises, any cattle or sheep for human consumption in Saorstát Eireann, shall, if the said non-registration of the said premises was or is a contravention of the said Part II, be liable to pay to the Minister on demand made by the Minister a levy on all cattle and sheep as slaughtered.

That means that unless a person was contravening the Principal Act by not being registered, it does not apply. It does not apply where a farmer killed for his own use. I referred to this matter on the Second Reading. This section will not affect many people. A number of people who slaughtered cattle before they were technically registered thought that they were all right. Under the Principal Act we are not entitled to collect the levies but should prosecute. We do not want to prosecute because we know that these people acted in good faith. All we want is power to take the levies and to let them carry on.

Sections 14 to 19 agreed to.

SECTION 20.

Mr. Counihan

I move amendment No. 2:—

New section. Before Section 20 to insert a new section as follows:—

As and from the appointed day the word "recipient" shall, in addition to the meaning provided in Section 43 of the Principal Act, include any person whose weekly wage does not exceed twenty shillings per week.

I dealt with this matter on the Second Reading, and I contend that it would be very hard to argue against what is proposed, that a man with a wife and family, earning 20/- per week or less, is more entitled to get cheap beef than the man who is doing nothing —perhaps a single man who can lie in bed all day or loll about. Men who are working hard—agricultural labourers and that class—from an early hour in the morning, sometimes in wet and cold weather, and who have to support a wife and family perhaps on 14/- or 15/- a week, are more entitled to get cheap beef than people who contribute nothing to the wealth of the country. I understand that the Minister has power to make such provision as I suggest under Section 43 (2) of the Principal Act. If the Minister gives an assurance that the amendment will receive sympathetic consideration I will not press it.

Miss Browne

I strongly support this amendment. I expressed the wish when the House was dealing with this Bill yesterday that something should be done for the unfortunate agricultural labourer whose wages have been considerably reduced. I do not think there is a single agricultural labourer in Wexford getting more than 18/- a week, and very few of them are getting that amount. As a rule, wages would be from 15/- to 16/- a week, while those who get food from their employers earn as little as 7/- or 8/- a week. I realise that the amendment does not apply to that class. The taxation in the present Budget has had a terrible bearing on labouring people. Take the case of a man working at the sugar beet crop. That work is exceedingly difficult and entails great hardship. I have seen men working at that crop from 8 o'clock in the morning until 7 o'clock in the evening up to their knees in mud. When they go home to what is called a dinner they are lucky if they get an egg and a cup of tea. Men in that position are certainly more deserving, and require more nourishment and more free beef than men who are doing nothing. The latter class may have a spark of fire and may be drawing a dole of 6/- weekly, but poor working men out in the cold under present circumstances are not fed properly. Everyone deplores this return to the conditions of the Famine of '47 when the people had to look for Indian meal to keep body and soul together. We protested against this procedure all the time. As it was introduced by the Government it is the duty of the Minister to accept the amendment. I hope Senator Counihan will not be satisfied unless he gets a very definite assurance from the Minister that something will be done in the way he suggests.

Mr. Healy

There seems to be a certain amount of confusion between Senator Counihan and Senator Miss Browne, as they do not appear to appreciate the difference in money values between urban and rural areas. As Senator Counihan knows, the value of £1 in his native county is much greater than it is in the heart of Dublin. In the first place, rents are very much cheaper. In the rural areas many agricultural labourers have cottages that were built by the district councils, for which very low rents are charged. Plots of land are attached to these cottages on which the tenants can grow vegetables and keep hens and ducks. The position in the City of Dublin is altogether different, where the people are living in top back rooms, for which they have to pay exorbitant rents to unscrupulous landlords. When dealing with this question Senators should appreciate the difference in the value of money in rural districts and in a city like Dublin.

Miss Browne

Does Senator Healy realise that the recent Budget is responsible for taking about 4/- weekly off the wages of agricultural labourers? That means that his wages of 18/- are worth only 14/- now.

Mr. Dillon

I wonder if the Minister or Senator Counihan made any estimate of rural and urban incomes. In all the statistics we have, I have never seen rural and urban incomes compared. We all know, as well as Senator Healy, that there is a very big difference in costings between towns and cities and rural areas. So far as I can gather from statistics—I confess that they always confuse me—the rural income would be about £30 and the income in the cities £95. In the cities, they had that £95 to use for all these high costings to which the Senator referred, but, in the rural areas, they had only this £30, and that amount has been halved since the statistics to which I refer were issued.

Mr. Counihan

I did not look up the wages of city workers, but I have heard people state that the wages of people sweeping the streets in the city are from 50/- to £3 per week. Perhaps Senator Healy will tell us if that is correct. Does the Senator compare a man earning 50/- or £3 per week with the man in the country, with seven or eight children, who is earning 12/- to 18/- per week. Does the Senator suggest that the man in the city earning the wages I have mentioned is as much entitled to cheap beef as the man in the country whose circumstances I have described? If the worker in the country has a labourer's cottage, built since the war, he is paying 3/6 or 4/- per week for it. That is not a very comfortable position in which to be. I would not move to have decent workers in the country included in the free beef scheme, because I always believed that was demoralising, but, when it comes to a question of cheap beef, I say that they are entitled to it and that they can accept it without any tinge of charity.

I congratulate the Minister on changing the scheme from free beef to cheap beef and, I am sure, the country will approve of the change. I cannot see what objection there is to the amendment, unless the Minister urges the question of cost. On that principle, if the unemployed man is going to get this cheap beef, I say the workman in the country is entitled to it and, if the workman in the country is to be excluded, you should exclude the man on the dole. The Minister may have power to make an order giving effect to the proposal in the amendment without the necessity for the amendment. If he will favourably consider that matter, I am satisfied to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Jameson

I should like the Minister to look at this question from the point of view of the consumption of beef. Senator Counihan has been considering it from the human point of view. The object of the Bill is to get beef consumed which, otherwise, would not be consumed. If the agricultural labourers will consume a lot more beef, it is all in favour of the Minister's Bill that this provision should be made. The only point that would arise would be the question of cost. The agricultural labourers are probably a hefty body of men who would eat beef if they could get it cheaply. I think that Senator Counihan's amendment is all in favour of the Bill, and the only check upon it is that it might be very costly. It would be a great advantage if, at reasonable cost, we could get a much larger amount of beef consumed under this Bill than we did previously. Would the Minister help us along the road of consumption of beef by accepting Senator Counihan's amendment or would the cost be such as to render that course impracticable?

Dr. Ryan

Senator Counihan was quite right in saying that this could be done under the Bill as it stands. It could be done under sub-section (2) of Section 43, but I cannot give an undertaking that it will be done. This amendment refers to a new class—those in receipt of wages under 20/- per week. That is a very loose definition and would lead to all sorts of trouble. Included in that definition, you would have apprentices in factories and several other people earning less than 20/- per week. We might even have included people living on their incomes and receiving less than 20/- per week. I am not objecting to the amendment so much on that score because Senator Counihan could ask me to supply a better definition. To define this class in the way that Senator Counihan would like would be very difficult. In dealing with the original Act, we, in the Department of Agriculture, took classes which were already defined, so that we would have no difficulty in saying who was entitled to free beef. We took those in receipt of unemployment assistance and those in receipt of home assistance and, in that way, we had two organisations already in existence. The claims of unemployed people had been already heard and it had been decided that they were entitled to unemployment assistance. We acted upon that and did not question their right to free beef. Similarly, in the case of home assistance. We did not inquire into the means of recipients but gave them a voucher. In this case, we should have to set up an organisation to deal with the class mentioned by Senator Counihan. For that purpose, we should probably require as big an organisation as is in existence for dealing with the Unemployment Assistance Act. We should require a big internal staff and a large number of inspectors to ascertain whether or not a person was an agricultural labourer and whether he was earning more than £1 a week or not. Then, these men would be going in and out of that class from week to week, so that we should require a very big organisation to give effect to the amendment. I do not think that the Department of Agriculture could do this work. The Department has no staff working on these lines. It is only the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Local Government which have staffs for purposes like this. If I were to ask one of these Departments to do this work for us, they would, I think, have to increase their staffs. It would be extremely difficult to define the class intended to be covered by the amendment.

From that point of view, I would answer Senator Jameson by saying that the cost of administration would be more than the proposal would be worth. Senator Jameson was right in saying that the whole object of the Principal Act was to get rid of a surplus of beef. We adopted the principle last year of getting rid of that surplus of beef to people who could not afford to buy it rather than the principle of destruction adopted in other countries. Although the Principal Act is very expensive to administer, I still think that we ought not to increase that administration, but if at all possible take anything we have in the way of cash for the benefit of the cattle trade. On the whole I think this would not be worth the cost of administration.

I am surprised at the figures produced by Senator Miss Browne. If it is true that the agricultural labourer is contributing 4/- per week in extra taxation, as a result of the Budget, on a quick calculation I make out that we are going to get £900,000 from the agricultural labourers this year. That is more than we expected to get in extra taxation from the whole community. So that if we are going to collect a little off the other sections of the community as well as off the agricultural labourers, we shall have some millions of a surplus to spare at the end of the year. I do not think that will work out.

Miss Browne

What is it then?

Dr. Ryan

I do not know. I do not think, however, that we are going to collect £900,000 in extra taxation off the agricultural labourers.

Miss Browne

Some people think it.

Dr. Ryan

It may be so, but I did not think our Budget was so successful. If so, we shall have millions to spare at the end of the year. I cannot, therefore, agree to Senator Counihan's amendment. I do not want to leave him under any misapprehension and, therefore, I must say I cannot even undertake to consider bringing in that class by regulation. If Senator Counihan, therefore, is insisting on his amendment, I am afraid he will have to put it to the House, because I cannot give any undertaking.

Mr. Lynch

It has occurred to me during the discussion, particularly during the reply of the Minister, that the objection to this amendment is the cost of administration, which is a thing we must all think of and appreciate. The Minister apprehends the necessity of establishing machinery that will be expensive for the purpose of ascertaining who are entitled to get this gift or who are not. It has occurred to me, although possibly it would not commend itself to the Minister, that there is a very simple way of ascertaining this class. I heard a good deal of discussion yesterday on the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill and on reading through that Bill I see that certain people are entitled to get relief from rates if they have agricultural labourers in their employment for a period of 12 months. If people are getting relief from rates by reason of the fact that they have one or two agricultural labourers in their employment for a period of 12 months, a person who is getting that relief would not be doing too much, either for the State or for the local rating authority, if he gave a certificate to the worker who is working for him for the 12 months that he was so working. Would not that solve the difficulty of ascertaining the people who come within this class of workers? It has occurred to me that possibly that is a view of the question that has not been adumbrated by Senator Counihan and, possibly, if he put it in some better shape he would win over the sympathy of the Minister and get some means of dealing with this situation.

Mr. Quirke

Having listened to the Minister's explanation of the various difficulties arising out of this amendment, I feel sure that Senator Counihan will not press his amendment. It must be obvious to anybody that any such amendment as this would bring a practically unlimited number of people under the Bill and, in my opinion, the question is not so much the difficulty with regard to financing the proposition as the difficulty of administration. Anybody who has been in touch with the administration of various measures such as the Unemployment Assistance Act and others must know the difficulty there is in ascertaining the wages of workers, and the same thing would apply to an even greater extent if such an amendment as this were adopted. It is only natural to expect that some people would make use of such a Bill as this to drag in political propaganda and spread it around the country. It has been suggested that it is a terrible thing that the workers of the country should be offered or should accept any such thing as free beef or cheap beef. But it is a very peculiar thing that the people who deplore the fact that the Government should descend to such depths are the very people who are on their hind legs jumping to exploit the bounty on the beef that is exported out of the country. I believe myself it is six of one and half a dozen of another, and that if we were prepared to extend this Bill, and provide for the supply of free beef to farmers under £100 valuation we would have the people who are deploring the fact that workers are accepting or receiving free beef jumping to receive that free beef themselves.

What I would like to know, however, is if the Minister would give me a definite denial of something which is freely circulated, for political purposes, in my opinion, in County Tipperary at present and that is, that during the passage of this Bill through the Dáil the Minister for Agriculture made some statement to the effect that in future it was intended to supply canned beef instead of fresh beef to the people entitled to receive it under the Bill. It has been suggested that the canned meat so supplied will be the product of the Roscrea factory. People in Tipperary are pretty closely in touch with the conditions in the Roscrea factory and they know that the cows intended to be dealt with in that factory are cows which are finished with as far as dairying purposes are concerned and which are suffering from udder troubles or something of that kind. They know, if it were a fact that the Government intended to supply that beef to the poor people of the country, that it would be an outrage. Senator Douglas laughs at the idea, but I can assure him that a genuine supporter of the United Ireland Party came to me the other day and asked me if it were not a fact. This man honestly believed that it was so, because he had been told it was a fact. Incidentally, I may say that this man had read Upton Sinclair's book on the Chicago stockyards and he was convinced that there was in fact a definite probability that the Government were going to dish him out cows' tails in cans. I should like the Minister definitely to contradict that statement and hand it back to whomsoever was busy enough to circulate any such lying propaganda, thereby creating a terrible feeling of unrest amongst the people of the country.

Mr. Dillon

I think it is necessary to say a few words in connection with the matter the last speaker referred to. I never heard any suggestion about canned meat of the kind referred to by Senator Quirke. As it happens, I know a little about it myself, because I was interested in the establishment of the factory in Waterford. I want to tell the Senator that nothing will be used in the production of canned beef except first class cattle not exceeding four years old. I state this because first of all it is the truth and, secondly, because I do not think the board of which I am a member would be very pleased with me if I stood by and heard a statement like that made without using the knowledge I have to contradict it. Before the Minister rises— he also will be in a position to contradict it—I certainly take the opportunity of denying the truth of any such rumour as the Senator gave expression to, on behalf of my board and on behalf of those who are interested in the establishment of the factory.

Mr. Comyn

I hope this amendment will not be adopted because it is an amendment which would be absolutely impossible to carry into effect. You might as well give a general subsidy on the consumption of beef as to pass this amendment. The best way to examine a thing like this is to put yourself in the position of the agricultural labourer, the farmer who employs him and the farmer's wife who runs the household. The agricultural labourer has to get cheap beef if his wages are less than 20/-. I wonder how many pounds of cheap beef he is to get in the week? I can very well imagine the farmer's wife saying: "Johnny, go down to the butcher and bring up five pounds of beef." Johnny, who is an agricultural labourer getting less than 20/- per week, would go down, get the beef and bring it back to his mistress. You know the thing cannot be done. It is a thing that cannot be carried into effect. I am surprised that Senator Counihan, a man who knows the conditions in the country, north, south, east and west, should introduce an amendment of this sort.

Mr. Jameson

I wonder if Senator Comyn has considered what is accepted as a great economic doctrine nowadays, that a great expenditure of this class might really be justified by the result of it? Suppose you were by such an expenditure to get rid of all the extra cattle in this country, and put up the price of cattle in the market, it might be an extremely economic experiment for the country.

Mr. Comyn

That is a new question.

Mr. Jameson

It is quite a new question which I commend the Senator to consider.

Mr. Comyn

That is a subject for a new Bill. I would be with the Senator on that question.

Mr. Jameson

I am only pointing out that nowadays in economics, nothing receives more consideration than the question of a large expenditure to induce a large consumption. If these principles could be applied by the Minister to the problem which we are discussing to-day, and if he could really bring about an increased consumption of our cattle by making our people good beefeaters, he would be doing a great thing.

Dr. Ryan

I think Senator Jameson's new economic doctrine is very interesting, and there is a great deal to be said for it. I do not agree with Senator Comyn that the farmers of the country would be so dishonest as to send their labourers down for the free beef and consume it themselves afterwards. Possibly, some of them might.

Mr. Comyn

Senator Jameson said they were the most honest section of the community, and I was merely pointing out that the farmer's wife could send the labourer for the meat and she could cook the meat afterwards.

Dr. Ryan

The difficulty about the scheme suggested by Senator Lynch is that the farmer does, of course, certify that he kept two or three men in order to get relief of rates, but it is at the end of the year that he sends in that certificate. That would be no use as far as the distribution of beef is concerned because we would require to have such a certificate every week. I think Senator Lynch will agree with me that it would be extremely difficult for farmers to issue certificates of that kind every week. They do not like that sort of clerical work, and I suppose our officers would hardly be satisfied unless these documents were verified. That would make the matter very difficult. I am glad that Senator Quirke raised the question of the Roscrea factory. If there was any doubt about it, I think Senator Dillon has made it right. The Roscrea factory is taking old cows for conversion into meat meal principally, and part of the agreement which the proprietors of the factory have signed with me is that they must sell no edible product inside Saorstát Eireann, so that nobody in this country need be afraid that he will get any part of an old cow from that factory.

Mr. Wilson

Will they send it to other countries?

Dr. Ryan

That is a question for themselves and for the other countries. With regard to the canned beef, canned beef is being produced, as Senator Dillon has told you, by the Waterford factory, and again there are certain clauses in the agreement with that factory that they must use prime cattle and only prime cattle, for the production of canned beef. Therefore nobody need have any fear that the canned beef will not be produced from the best cattle in the country.

Mr. Counihan

Senator Comyn made a statement—I call it a very vile statement—with regard to the honesty of the farming community. He poses here occasionally as a representative of the farming community when it suits his purpose and that of his political party and when the Minister brings in something with which he wants the farmers to agree. He made a most painful statement. I do not believe that there is much use in pressing the amendment unless the Minister would agree to consider it. I would suggest to him that if he thinks the scheme proposed in the amendment can be worked, he should adopt it. The whole objection to it is the cost, and there is no use in the Minister speaking of administrative difficulties. If he wants to administer it so that agricultural labourers or any other labourer receiving less than 20/- may get beef, that can be got over. I intend to withdraw the amendment, but the Minister may still press the scheme forward and consult the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Department of Local Government. They might well find a way out. If he thinks the cost is too much, he can raise the price of the cheap beef by ½d. or 1d. per lb. and still leave it within the reach of the people who I consider are entitled to get it. I withdraw the amendment and I hope that the Minister will consider my suggestion and consult the other Departments concerned.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 20 to 24, inclusive, and the Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Counihan

Before we pass from the Committee Stage of the Bill, I do not know whether it would be possible in this Bill to propose an amendment to the Principal Act to alter the present regulations made by the Minister for the distribution of cattle export licences. Section 32 of the Principal Act deals with cattle export licences, and if I could discuss the matter now and if the Minister would receive it or give any kind of a favourable reply as to how the matter is being dealt with, I may move an amendment when we come to the Report Stage. However, if the Minister is not prepared to consider the question favourably, I should like to know now.

Cathaoirleach

I am afraid that I have not the original Act at the moment, Senator.

Dr. Ryan

If I have your permission, Sir, to intervene for a moment, perhaps I might be able to deal with the matter. That part of the Principal Act deals with licences that may be issued when the Minister in this country prohibits the export of cattle, and only then. It only refers to where the Minister here prohibits the export of cattle. When the Minister here prohibits the export of cattle, he then gives out licences for export under that part of the Act, but it has nothing to do with the question of the British Government prohibiting importation into Britain from this country. This Act does not deal at all with licences issued by the British Government. It only deals with licences issued by the Minister here after he has prohibited export.

Cathaoirleach

That is so, Senator, and your amendment would not be in order.

Bill reported without amendment.