Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 May 1961

Vol. 54 No. 6

Pigs and Bacon (Amendment) Bill, 1961—Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Mr. O'Quigley

I move amendment No. 1:

To insert a new subsection between lines 55 and 56 as follows:—

"(3) (a) (i) The Minister may by order appoint a day from which the Commission shall thenceforth be known as the ‘Pigs and Bacon Board'.

(ii) From the day appointed by the Minister under the preceding subparagraph the Pigs and Bacon Board may be referred to as ‘the Board'.

(b) Every reference in the Act of 1939, the Act of 1956 and this Act to the Pigs and Bacon Commission and to the Commission shall be construed respectively as references to the Pigs and Bacon Board and to the Board."

It ought to be immediately clear to the House that it is most desirable that a body engaged in a business activity should be referred to as a board rather than a commission. I think it is well recognised that if a Government does not want to do anything about an urgent problem, the way to do nothing about it is to establish a commission. That is the popular conception of commissions.

We have commissions sitting for quite a period producing tangible results of very little value. I quite see how the Pigs and Bacon Commission has slipped into this Bill. In the normal course, a commission for the purpose of some kind of an executive administrative job consists of three people. We have had this commission, up to date, consisting of three officers of the Minister, two and a chairman. It is now intended to enlarge the commission to seven members. The commissioners of the Board of Works consist of three people; the Revenue Commissioners consist of three people; I think the Civil Service Commission consists of three or five people; the Land Commission consists of no more than four or five people. With the solitary exception of the British Transport Commission which has not been noted for its prowess in the commercial field, one does not find commissions associated with ventures of a business character.

Therefore, if the new body which is to be involved in the export of pigs and bacon products is to be regarded by foreign importers as a business body, as we all want it to be regarded, we must change the title from the grandiose one of the Pigs and Bacon Commission to the Pigs and Bacon Board. There have been past Pigs and Bacon marketing boards and bodies of that kind. Perhaps these were not successful. They were not successful because the scheme under which they were devised was not a good scheme. I do not think that ought to deter us from including in this Bill a power whereby the Minister for Agriculture at whatever time he considers suitable can call this Pigs and Bacon Commission by a new name, the Pigs and Bacon Board. I cannot see any objection to giving that power to the Minister for Agriculture. He will never exercise it if the circumstances do not seem to warrant it. In my opinion it is a power which ought to be vested in the Minister and now appears to be an appropriate time at which to do it.

Mr. Burke

I should like to support Senator O'Quigley's suggestion to change the name from "Commission" to "Board". The corresponding body in Northern Ireland is known as a board. They have marketing functions somewhat similar to those of the commission to be set up here.

Maybe we do not fully appreciate what a commission means in the eyes of the average man in England. Perhaps I can best illustrate that by a point made in a talk over the radio about 15 years ago. Someone, speaking on a visit to Berlin, wanted to describe the characteristics and approaches of the different nationalities. He gave the ridiculous situation where there was a very disastrous hailstorm. The hailstones were probably as big as hurley balls. Each nationality approached the situation in a different way. The Russians commandeered the hailstones immediately to send them back to Russia because they might be useful for some purpose. The Americans were a bit worried about the effect on the morale of the Army personnel so they decided to hold a ball game. The British established a commission.

That is what they think commissions are for—to investigate matters, to stop hasty decisions being taken on all sorts of matters, to delay the sort of neurosis that occasionally affects the general public that something must be done now whether it is right or wrong. I think Senator O'Quigley has made a rather effective point, particularly as the commission we are setting up will be a marketing body.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

I do not see what difference it makes whether we call it a "commission" or a "board", so long as the functions are clearly defined and the responsibilities set out. When this Commission was set up under the 1939 Act, it replaced the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board. It was composed of three individuals who were given a certain assignment. There was no suggestion from anybody who appeared before the Advisory Committee that there was anything wrong with the term "commission". I am not saying there is anything sacred about the term, either. But I do not accept the view that, simply because it is called a commission, it means it has to cover a wide field such as a Government commission inquiring into some social or other question.

The recommendation of the Committee inquiring into the export of agricultural produce was that the Commission should be reorganised and that, instead of three members, all the different interests should be represented on it and their functions set out. I see no merit at all in going back to the term "Marketing Board." I believe the Commission established a very good reputation for itself, which is proved by the fact that at the inquiry nobody suggested it should be altered. The inquiry recommended that the Commission be reorganised and set out the work that should be assigned to it. I do not propose to accept this amendment.

Mr. O'Quigley

There are many things which do not come within the terms of reference of a body asked to investigate the best way of increasing exports. I do not know whether or not this matter came within the terms of reference of the body advising on the export and the marketing of agricultural produce, but it is not an argument at all to say that body did not recommend it. There are a hundred other things that body did not recommend. Every change not made in the 1939 Act are things the Commission did not recommend.

The fact of the matter is that we have a whole Act of Parliament devoted to converting Córas Tráchtála Teoranta into a semi-State statutory body with an independent existence of its own and not dependent on an annual grant from the Department of Industry and Commerce. That was done for one purpose, because it was a body concerned with exports. The argument made in this House by the Minister for Industry and Commerce for the conversion of that company, dependent upon an annual vote, into a semi-State statutory board was that, being engaged in the export market, it was felt that people engaged in commerce in foreign countries would have more confidence dealing with a semi-State body which was a board and known to be a board in the same way as the Minister for Industry and Commerce argues at present when dealing with boards such as the E.S.B. I rather think it was an echo of that argument which sounded in my mind and induced me to put down this amendment.

I think this is the height of absurdity, knowing what is thought of commissions. The Minister may say that does not carry any weight with him. None the less, it is a fact. Commissions are noted for not being very diligent. Commissions are bodies established to investigate matters over a long period. That is the average man's view on a commission. In Britain, there is a remarkable profusion of commissions of every kind, as is evident to anybody who looks at the index to publications put out by H.M.S.O.

The Minister may have certain views here and now that the title of this board does not matter. Perhaps that is so. All I want to do in this amendment is to give power to the Minister and his successors—as a successor he surely will have some time—the opportunity, if he should think it right and proper, to convert the commission into a board and to do so by order under the sanction of this amendment in an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Donegan

Senator O'Quigley has made a very strong case and the Minister is very unwise in not accepting it. Although I have not consulted the New Oxford Dictionary, I think that if the Minister goes to the Library and looks it up, he will find that the word "commission" means a judicial body not influenced by any exterior pressures or powers. The case was made in respect of one Commission in this House that to interfere with that Commission and say: "You have to produce your findings before a certain date" was a fundamental interference in its working.

To use the word "commission" in respect of what is really a public board of directors is certainly wrong. The members of the Commission, as it is now called, may not at present export the Wiltshire sides we have been discussing. The present situation may continue for some time and individual bacon factories may export individually, but a set of circumstances might arise almost immediately in any given price or supply structure in which these people would export as a unit. At that stage the term "Commission" would be quite incorrect. I would advise the Minister on his way out to his tea this evening to consult the New Oxford Dictionary.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Donegan

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, paragraph (b) (i), line 4, to delete "two" and substitute "three".

This is an amendment to give the producers equal representation with the bacon curers on the Board. On Second Reading, the Minister expressed amazement and disappointment that people had inferred that the present representation gave the curers a majority on the Board and the Minister is right in stating that is not so. While I have the greatest belief in the new Board—although I do not think it goes far enough—at the same time, so long as the pig producers do not have equal representation with the curers, we are starting this Commission off on the wrong foot, in my view. That is not what is intended if we want to expand our pig production.

As reported in the Seanad debates, Volume 54, No. 3, at Column 321, the Minister, speaking on the Second Reading, having adverted to the fact that when these decisions are announced, all interested parties rub their eyes and make representations based on their own vested interests, continued to deal with the objection made by the bacon curers and said:

So it was with the bacon curers. They felt they were not getting fair representation for their business. The farmers had already disposed of the pigs. If they came inside any of the three grades I have mentioned they had secured a guaranteed price, and the curers felt that after that point had been reached, the pigs were converted into bacon and had to be disposed of on the home or export market.

The Minister later stated that he accepted that argument and I take it that is the basis on which the baconcurers got extra representation on the Board. I do not think that was a wise decision. I do not think that when the farmer's pig is graded and he gets the guaranteed price, that is the end of it as far as the farmer is concerned. While there are such things as grades and minimum prices at the moment, the farmers have sometimes got a better deal, and, please God, they will continue to do so.

We must study the supply and demand situation that obtains. Supply and demand are decided by the capacity of the bacon factories. One could well imagine that the curers, with their existing accommodation, would not wish to increase that accomodation, so as to create a greater market for Irish bacon and an expanding market for Irish pig products. They would be happy in an "as you were" position. Even though the farmers had got the prices for their pigs, if they had a smaller representation on the Board than the curers, they would be precluded from making their case for the expansion of the bacon curing industry and from participation in the industry— something I would not welcome except as a last resort. I feel that the case made by the bacon curers was substantially that once they paid for the pigs, that was the end of it. That was not a valid case and the Minister was not correct.

At column 322 in the same Volume, the Minister said:

We did not interfere with the representation of the producers. We gave them exactly what was recommended by the Commission and to give justice as we see it, we said "We will surrender one of the two we have and give it to the curers."

The first sentence, to which I shall return is:

We did not interfere with the representation of the producers.

Of course the Minister interfered with that representation. If he did not change the number representing the producers, he changed the number the other people had and that interfered with the representation of producers. The conclusion he draws in the first sentence I have quoted made it seem as if there were nobody else but producers on the Board, but, leaving the number of producers' representatives stand and interfering with the representation of other interests on the Board certainly does interfere with the representation of the producers.

If it were for nothing else but the principle of the thing, to ensure that this should not be done, I ask the Minister at this late stage to accept this amendment and clear up this injustice and anomaly.

Mr. L'Estrange

The White Paper on the Committee's Report said the Government proposed that the reorganised Commission would have two producers' representatives and two curers' representatives, but according to Section 7 of the Bill, the Commission is to consist of the Chairman and six ordinary members. There are to be only two producers' representatives and three curers' representatives. The Minister has always told us that he would not be intimidated but I am afraid that somebody has intimidated him as regards this Board. As Minister for Agriculture, his primary concern should be for the farmers, the producers, not for those who I claim, have grown fat over the years on the farmers' sweat and toil.

It was well-known to everybody after the issue of the White Paper that the curers were bringing pressure to bear on the Minister. Our worst fears have been confirmed and the Minister has admitted that himself. At column 790 of the Dáil Reports, Volume 187, he Minister said:

The reason for the change has been since the issue of the White Paper strong and unanimous representations were made to the Government by the bacon curers that as the primary purpose of reorganising the Commission was in regard to bacon export marketing and the Commission would have wide powers of control over the bacon curing industry it was inequitable that the representation of curers should be only two out of seven.

I am surprised that the Minister has given way to the strong representations that were made and I think this pandering to vested interests is lamentable. To say that the primary purpose of this Bill is to expand the bacon export market and that therefore the curers should be in a majority is not right. If we examine the list of powers of the Commission in the Bill, we will see that the Board is to promote increases in the quantities of bacon and pig meat products, to conduct investigations, studies, surveys and reports in this State and outside it.

Another section states that it will carry out an investigation into the provision of new and improved types of bacon and pig meat and pig products. In view of this, I think it is important that the producers should get equal representation on the Board. The proposed arrangement is inequitable. If the Commission is to carry out an investigation into the prospects of providing new and improved types of bacon and bacon products, it is the farmers who will be concerned and not the bacon curers. If the pigs are not produced, there will be very little for the bacon curers to do or very little bacon to export.

What the Minister has done in changing the number and giving the bacon curers a majority spoils any hope the Irish farmers had of an objective and progressive approach to the pig industry as a whole.

In Volume 187 of the Dáil Reports, the Minister is reported at column 790 as saying:

The Irish Bacon Curers' Society emphasised that their members, comprising all the curers, could have no confidence in such a body and would fear the possibility of adverse effects so much that investment in the bacon curing industry would gravely suffer.

I wonder was that the big stick held over the Government's head. Some people claim that it was the Taoiseach or the Minister for Industry and Commerce who compelled the Minister for Agriculture to change his mind and give extra representation to the curers. The farmers of Ireland have often been suspicious of the bacon curers. There have been fairly good reasons for that in the past. It will be very difficult for the farmers to have confidence in this new Board. If it is to function properly, they should have confidence in it and there should be co-operation between the bacon curers and the farmers. If both had equal representation, then the farmers would have confidence in it and you could have the co-operation which is desirable.

There is no justification at all for 120,000 pig producers having only two representatives on the Board, while 30 curers have three. In other words, the curers have a ten per cent representation, while the pig producers have .0016 per cent representation. I do not think the Minister, or anybody else, can claim that that is fair and just representation.

Mr. O'Quigley

It is nearly as bad as the Electoral Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

That is the representation they have at present. The Minister, in his own interests and in the interests of the producers and farmers, should see to it that the number of producers' representatives on this Board is increased from two to three.

Mr. Smith

I was just glancing over the speech I made on this subject during the course of the Second Reading. I have not read my other interjections in the Dáil on the same subject but I cannot think of any additional argument I can make. I am satisfied, of course, that the Board is a good one. The only thing about which I am disappointed is that we have not heard from Senator Burke on this amendment. However, that is a matter for himself. It is the way of the Fine Gael Party as it was always the way of the Fine Gael Party——

Mr. Donegan

On a point of order, about a year ago, the Minister did what he is doing now—he brought personalities into this House. Is he entitled to do this? Because if he is, I shall leave the House.

Mr. Carter

Is the Deputy entitled to refer to the Minister as "he"?

Mr. Donegan

I correct myself there.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister, to continue.

Mr. Smith

I merely said that this was a demonstration of the way of the Fine Gael Party. Senator Burke is a man who knows all about this business as he is in the bacon curing end. There is nothing discreditable about that. I would not mind hearing a contribution from him on this subject as to what was fair or what was unfair. However, he makes his own decisions in that regard. I have just glanced, as I said, at the speech I made here on the last occasion and I think it was an excellent speech—if I could be pardoned for saying that—a well-reasoned speech which showed every evidence of a sense of fair play and no desire at all, as I said on the last occasion, to resort continually to the practice of making everything we do, everything we think, or every word we speak, political.

I already told this House that those members who want to have things that way, who want to conduct the business of the House in that fashion, are very welcome to do so, but I think it is not profitable even from the narrow, selfish political point of view. The Board provided for here is just and fair and I am quite satisfied that it will prove to be a competent organisation for the purpose of discharging the work we propose to give to it.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is a well-known rule in all political Parties that people who are interested in a particular aspect of a matter put down such amendments as they deem fit. This amendment is signed by four farmers, Senator J.L. O'Sullivan, Senator P.S. Donegan, Senator L'Estrange and Senator Crowe. If the Minister had not got a better argument than the one he put forward and did not see fit to prepare his brief—as he practically told us—I would see no objection to his saying that he would like to have heard from Senator Burke and leaving it at that, but when the Minister makes half a dozen or a dozen comments about the way people conduct business in this House, I think, first of all, it was out of order. The Minister under the Constitution is entitled to be here but he has nothing to do with the conducting of the business of the House—nothing whatever. I would not have made that remark except for the fact that this is not the first time this Minister has said that kind of thing. Senator Lenihan may laugh but perhaps we will teach the Fianna Fáil Senators something more about the Constitution. I just want to say that it was very bad that a Minister should dilate in this way. If he had confined himself to a single sentence, we would have understood the Minister's little joke but he was not making a little joke. He was making a savage and sarcastic kind of speech, a dirty political speech, one of the dirtiest I have heard.

An Cathaoirleach

Perhaps the Senator would now come to the amendment.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am on the amendment and I think I am entitled to say this. Am I not allowed to express my opinion on what the Minister said?

Mr. Donegan

If the Minister said he was sorry, it would be all over.

Mr. Carter

Why should he?

Dr. O'Donovan

In deference to you, Sir, I will say no more about the matter.

Mr. Carter

Senators opposite are experts at rattling the doorknocker of any opportunity, especially if they think there is any political value in it. We all know very well that they think there is a little bit of political value attached to this Bill. I should like to disabuse them of that idea, once and for all. This is a marketing Bill and it was discussed in both Houses and made clear that that being so, the curers were entitled to a representation just the same as any other section of the community. There is no point at this stage of the Bill in getting all hot and bothered about it and pretending that the Fine Gael Party are at a great disadvantage merely because the farmers did not get more representation on the Board.

Mr. Burke

There were two reasons for my not wishing to engage in this controversy. For many years, I was chairman of the Irish Bacon Curers' Association and I am still a member of that Association. I did not wish to engage in a controversy which would make it more difficult for me to work with people I have to meet on many days of the week.

Further, by the terms of the Bill, I am put in an almost rarefied atmosphere by the fact that I would be precluded in the Bill through being a member of the Oireachtas—and I do not wish to be—from becoming a member of the Board. I thought it would be better for me not to get involved in this controversy which was raised by the various farmers' associations. In passing, it is fair to say that many of the people who will have votes for the curers' representatives on the Pigs and Bacon Commission, will themselves be representatives of the farmers' co-operative bacon factories. That point has not been made in this House or the other. It is possible that one of the representatives elected by the curers will be a nominee of the farmers' co-operative societies.

Mr. Donegan

Senator Carter said that because of the lack of representation for farmers on the Commission, the Fine Gael Party will be at a disadvantage. That is not so at all. The farmers will be at a disadvantage.

Mr. O'Quigley

Of course we are the farmers' Party.

Mr. Donegan

That is the difference. With regard to the reference by the Minister to the fact that Senator Burke's name is not to this amendment, that kind of thing was done here a year ago for three quarters of an hour to me and, therefore, I have no choice but to register my disapproval and protest at what was done, by leaving the House for the rest of the debate on this Bill.

Senator Donegan withdrew.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We will miss him!

Mr. Carter

They will get the headlines one way or another.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am not surprised at the action taken by Senator Donegan because the Minister has adopted a deliberately provocative attitude on this Bill. Seemingly, we have already abrogated Standing Orders by the manner in which we have met this evening, and then it was thought to abrogate what has been the practice of the House. Now a new precedent is being established by the Minister for Agriculture who no doubt regards himself as wise, able, just, fair and liberal-minded, able to assess the interests of everyone, to do justice between all parties, deliver himself of his judgement in clear precise language, and all kinds of attributes about which we could talk all evening. The Minister may suffer from that form of megalomania and we can do nothing about it.

An Cathaoirleach

Would the Senator come to the amendment?

Mr. O'Quigley

If he does, that is no reason, when a reasoned argument is made in this House on Committee Stage—and I might remind the Minister, through the Chair, that Committee Stage is a recognised Stage through which each Bill must pass, every section having to be put by the Chair for the decision of the House, and every amendment having to be put by the Chair for the decision of the House——

Mr. Lenihan

The Senator should not lecture us.

Mr. O'Quigley

That is what I must do because Senators opposite know nothing about procedure. That is becoming increasingly evident. It is no answer for the Minister to make to say: "Well, I already made a speech which was good, wise, excellent, fairminded and well delivered." That is not an answer.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Minister is not like some Senators. He does not like to hear himself always talking.

Mr. O'Quigley

That is not an answer to the argument on the amendment. If the Minister is going to adopt that as an established practice of the House, we will want to consider the position. The attitude of the Minister is: "I have already spoken"—the great voice has already spoken and is on the record and that is the end of it. I listened to the Minister with my customary care and I recollect that he spoke about certain difficulties with regard to the different groups, the producers and the curers. He went on to talk then about the manner in which the Minister was surrendering one of his two seats on the Board in favour of one group or another. The position is somewhat vague in my mind. We are thrown back now by the Minister on our recollection and memory of what he said. The House should take note of the Minister's attitude and disapprove of it.

To come now to the amendment more particularly, I do not understand how it can be said that it is right and proper that on a body of this kind there should be three representatives of one class and two of another, both of whom to the ordinary layman would appear to have equal interests in the functioning and efficient discharge of the business of the Board. I have no hesitation whatever in saying, on the arguments made, there should be equal representation for the curers and the producers.

Mr. L'Estrange

I for one resent the introduction of personalities by the Minister. This is not the first time the Minister has——

An Cathaoirleach

I should point out to the Senator that the Chair did not hear any remark made of a personal nature.

Mr. L'Estrange

He did it, in any case, Sir. I am surprised, too, that his speech this evening was so short, considering that he could speak for seven hours when he was in Opposition, in 1954, I think. I am not certain of the year. I am surprised that the Minister has so stubbornly—I do not know if it was stubbornly—defended his decision to place the curers in a dominant position on the Board, notwithstanding the fact that the present marketing system in England, and the marketing system for the past eight, ten or 15 years was anything but good. We know that the prices the farmers have been getting for their pigs and produce have been anything but good on the British market. We were getting the lowest price in Europe, and only about a month ago we got 10/- per cwt. less for our bacon than the Polish people were getting for their bacon.

Does the Minister think that the Board will do anything worthwhile for the producers, even in the years ahead? I doubt it very much. In Northern Ireland, the very successful Pig Marketing Board consists of 14 members. They get top prices for their bacon in Britain and, as I say, the board consists of 14 members, eleven of whom are elected by the pig producers. Three are nominated by the Northern Ireland Minister of Agriculture. Of those three, one is a farmer and another is an ex-secretary of a farmers' union. The other is the managing director of a motor company. On that board, there are, one could legitimately say, 13 farmers, or 13 people representing the pig producers, and one other.

An Cathaoirleach

I wish to draw the attention of the Senator to the fact that that board is not under consideration here.

Mr. L'Estrange

Surely we are entitled to draw a comparison. The Minister very often draws comparisons and I think we are entitled to draw comparisons.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is entitled to refer to it but he is not entitled to discuss it in detail.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am referring to the fact that there they have a very successful board. I doubt if the board here, dominated by the curers, will be anything like as successful. The farmers have absolutely no trust in the curers. We all know that co-operation is needed. I doubt if we will get that co-operation, unless the Minister is prepared to give the farmers equal representation with the curers.

This is just another proof that the industrial section of the Fianna Fáil Party are in the saddle. The farmers may expect very little from the present Government and this is further proof of that, because the bacon curers subscribe, and subscribe generously, to Party funds. That is one of the reasons for the extra representation.

Mr. Lenihan

Including Senator Burke.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is now going outside the scope of the amendment.

Mr. L'Estrange

What I have stated is a well-known fact.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

On the last occasion this House met, I was obliged to ask the Leas-Chathaoirleach to request Senator L'Estrange to leave the House. I am afraid his tactics this evening are deliberately provocative and action of a similar nature may have to be taken again.

Mr. Carton

Might I intervene to say that it is now 6 o'clock and time to adjourn?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

May I suggest that we finish the discussion on this amendment? Then, with the permission of the Cathaoirleach, I should like to say something about the Adjournment.

Amendment put and declared lost.