Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 May 1961

Vol. 54 No. 6

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

Section 7 agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. O'Quigley

This section is in substitution for Section 5 of the 1939 Act. The 1939 Act dealt with the chairman of the Commission. The matter about which I should like to ask the Minister is purely a drafting point. It is why Section 5 which is being in effect completely repealed by Section 8 is not, in fact, in this Bill repealed and does not appear in the Schedule of the enactments repealed in the Bill.

The reason I mention this is that it is the kind of thing that crops up at either Consolidation Committees or the Statutory Instruments Committee of this House and we have found the greatest difficulty in determining what, in fact, was the law at a particular time. When the indices to the statutes are compiled, they are compiled in the main from the Schedules showing the enactments repealed and you do not find in a case of this kind opposite Section 5 of the 1939 Act any indication in the index that, in fact, Section 5 of the 1939 Act has been replaced by Section 8, as it will be, of the Pigs and Bacon (Amendment) Act, 1961. The point, in short, is, why, when Section 5 of the 1939 Act is being completely replaced, it is not repealed and then provision made for the appointment of the chairman of the Commission in this Bill.

Mr. Smith

Apparently "replace" achieves the same purpose as "repeal".

Mr. O'Quigley

I do not know if the Minister has got my point at all. Section 8, in the first line, says:

The following section is hereby substituted for Section 5 of the Act of 1939.

If you look at the Act of 1939, you find that that is the section under which the chairman is appointed. What I want to find out is why it is that in the Schedule of enactments being repealed, we are not repealing Section 5 of the 1939 Act. I can only say, as a person who has from time to time to look at these Acts, that it is a completely misleading form of drafting.

Mr. Murphy

I had a little experience like that just today, looking at various enactments to see exactly what the law was at the present time. The reasonable approach to this is to look at the Acts as you go along and see what has been repealed by subsequent Acts. It is alarming to find in the midst of an Act a section substituting for a section in a previous Act without any indication in the Schedule which is usually attached to Acts as to the Acts or parts of Acts which have been repealed. I do not think that is a good way of doing business.

Mr. Smith

What could be clearer than to say: "The following section is hereby substituted for Section 5 of the Act of 1939"?

Mr. Murphy

That is very clear, but when you are looking through a series of measures dealing with one subject, there is the difficulty when you look at an old Act that you do not know whether the section in which you are interested is still the law. You go through the subsequent legislation dealing with the subject and look at the Schedule to see if section so-and-so of a certain Act has been repealed. If you do not see that in the Schedule as having been repealed, you assume it is still the law. There may have been a change and there is no indication.

Mr. Smith

I find in Section 9 of the 1956 Act the very same wording: "The following section shall be substituted for Section 30 of the Act of 1937."

Mr. Murphy

That still does not make it a good provision.

Mr. O'Quigley

That may be in the 1956 Act and in some other Acts, but I want to direct the attention of the Minister and the House to the fact that this is a very bad form of drafting. It makes the ascertainment of the law by members of the public, which at any time is not very easy, more difficult. If we want to make the law clear in this connection, what we ought to do in the Schedule to the Act is to repeal Section 5 of the 1939 Act. When that is gone and we want to find out what is the position in regard to the chairman of the Commission, it is to be found in Section 8. It is as simple as that. It is to this slovenly form of draftsmanship I am objecting.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Mr. O'Quigley

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 11, before subsection (6), to insert a new subsection as follows:—

"( ) The Commission may enter into an agreement with its officers and servants and agents for the determination of disputes between the Commission and such officers, servants and agents about the terms and conditions of their employment including tenure of office, remuneration, allowances, expenses, sick, annual and special leave, and such other matters as may be agreed by arbitration. The Commission may provide in such scheme for the payment in full of all fees and expenses incurred in connection with any such scheme of arbitration."

The section deals with the acquisition of offices and with the appointment and remuneration of the staff of the Commission. What I want to establish clearly in the amendment is that the officers, servants and agents appointed by the Commission will have some kind of regular machinery by which their terms and conditions of service can be settled in a peaceful atmosphere, that there will be a scheme under which the staff of the Commission may have resort to arbitration and that the arbitration findings will be binding on both sides. That is an orderly system of staff relations which ought to be provided, not alone for this body but for other bodies of a semi-State character.

It may be argued that the Labour Court is available. I regard the Labour Court in cases of this kind as merely a kind of fire brigade which is called into action when passions are aflame. That is not the kind of thing we ought to have. We ought to have an orderly system in which these things will not arise, in which the fires will not occur, in which relationships will be dealt with in a harmonious way. The idea is by no means new. In many of the State services, in the Electricity Supply Board, which is a semi-State body, there are provisions in the Acts for a scheme of conciliation and arbitration.

I do not think it is revolutionary to say, in relation to the scheme, that matters of salary, terms and conditions of appointment, sick leave, and so on, can be dealt with. I am aware that in some of the smaller semi-State bodies, by reason of their smallness, there is a very intimate relationiship between the managing director, secretary and staff and that very often there is a seething discontent which manifests itself in inefficiency. That discontent cannot be got rid of because there is not available within the body concerned a scheme of some sort of machinery by which such a matter can be dealt with.

People in these small semi-State bodies do not want to go to the Labour Court and to set in operation, to deal with their particular problems, the whole machinery of the Labour Court which is not entirely satisfactory for the reason that its findings are not binding on both parties. Therefore, I think this Commission should, as a matter of policy, establish its own scheme of conciliation and arbitration. My view is that a body of this kind, unless specifically authorised to do acts of this kind, cannot in law do them. Therefore, it might be the view of whatever commission is established that it ought to have this machinery and we ought to put beyond question the validity of such machinery by providing in a Bill of this kind the authority of the Commission to establish it.

Mr. Murphy

I am in general agreement with what Senator O'Quigley says about the desirability of providing for machinery of negotiation for this statutory board we are establishing. I am concerned, however, with one phrase he used, namely, that the results of the arbitration should be binding on the parties. I am all in favour of an orderly way of dealing with and avoiding disputes between an employer, particularly a semi-State organisation, and the trade unions representing the employees. In certain circumstances, there is a lot to be said for the trade unions and the employing board undertaking to accept the results of arbitration. But that would have to be a free choice at the time in relation to any particular dispute.

In other words, in certain circumstances, they might agree if they felt they could get an impartial chairman —if they could get a good way of dealing with it—to put it to arbitration, on the understanding that the decision would be binding on both parties. However, I think it would be very wrong if we started by saying—as I think is intended by Senator O'Quigley, in the light of what he said—that it should be compulsory arbitration. If that is so, I would oppose it. It would be a wrong turn in our industrial relations and it would not solve anything.

I am quite in favour of and would support some agreed machinery of negotiation. I should like to hear the Minister on whether in fact it would be necessary to write into the legislation some provision in that respect or whether, in the absence of its being written in, the Board could agree with the trade unions representing the staff on some form of agreed machinery.

Mr. Smith

I was interested in the complaint Senator O'Quigley had to make against the Labour Court machinery, that it was not effective inasmuch as there was no means by which its recommendations could be made effective except by agreement. I was wondering what type of machinery he had in mind which would achieve the purpose which cannot be achieved through the Labour Court.

I suppose I do not know the full Labour point of view on this question but I know enough about it to be able to say that it is not clear to me how or what sort of machinery could be designed that would achieve that purpose. After all, either the employers or the workers could in the long run, no matter what you provided, still say: "We will not accept that recommendation." There is machinery there. It is all right to say that the Labour Court has done this and that and that it is suitable for this and that. It is the machinery that is so far there and that is designed to meet any problems that arise in regard to industrial relations as between employer and employee.

The whole history of the Commission since it was first established is one, as far as I can say from memory, where that relationship between the commission itself and its employees has been very good. It does not mean that things may not change and that disputes cannot arise. It is the duty of a commission such as we are providing for here or a board to have its own approaches—the normal approaches that all of us have to make from time to time in dealing with those who work around us, to effect understanding, to bring about a settlement and to reach the stage without resorting to machinery such as the Labour Court to effect an understanding as between the employer and the employee. But, after that, I suggest we should not attempt to deal with this in any piecemeal fashion.

If the Labour Court machinery is not what it ought to be, if it is not giving us the results we feel it should give, then it is up to somebody to effect improvements and to suggest what amendments are necessary to make it more effective. To start off with, the proposition that we should have separate arbitration machinery for the Pigs and Bacon Commission, An Bord Bainne, and all the different boards, in my opinion, would mean that, instead of producing peace and tranquillity, it would be a source of aggravation to the relations between employer and employee. There is no case whatever for this proposal and I must resist it.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister may make great speeches, as he told us earlier, about the representation on this Commission, but I do not think he will be able to look back with the same pride on the speech he made on this amendment. He started off by misinterpreting what I said about the Labour Court. I am not making any complaints at all about the Labour Court. I do say the Labour Court is the last resort where a dispute is already in existence. I am seeking in this manner to provide machinery in advance to avoid disputes and to resolve them when they do arise. The kind of machinery I have in mind is merely arbitration machinery, which will have to be agreed on between the Commission and the staff.

When the Minister talks about dealing with this matter on a piecemeal basis, it may be pertinent to point out to him that it is being dealt with on a piecemeal basis. In the first place, you have the Labour Court and the Industrial Relations Act, 1947, replacing the old haphazard machinery in existence until then. In 1950, you had a more enlightened approach to the State services with the introduction of a conciliation and arbitration scheme for civil servants. That is in existence. You have also a scheme of conciliation and arbitration specifically designed to meet the needs of national teachers and separate schemes for secondary and vocational teachers.

These are all parts of the State service and relate to people remunerated out of moneys voted annually by the Oireachtas. But, better than that, there is a separate Act of Parliament established for a State body, the E.S.B. Under it, there are two forms of machinery, one for the manual employees and another for the clerical and technical staffs. Therefore, the Oireachtas, in legislation relating to that particular semi-State body, has already decided that, notwithstanding the existence of the Labour Court, it was right and proper to have a scheme of conciliation and arbitration for the employees of the E.S.B.

Mr. Murphy

The Senator will know that the E.S.B. machinery is not compulsory arbitration.

Mr. O'Quigley

I shall come to that. There is provision in the Industrial Relations Act, 1947, for arbitration under the auspices of the Labour Court. According to the publications of the Labour Court, the position is that where people resort to arbitration under its auspices in those circumstances the findings are binding on both sides. I am not asking that that be incorporated in this machinery. I merely want to establish the position that there will be an agreement between the staff and the Commission in regard to certain matters specified in the amendment and such other matters as may be agreed to. All the amendment does is establish the principle that the Commission and the staff, which I hope will be an expanding staff—and I am sure the Minister shares that hope—will have machinery for the peaceful and orderly settlement of disputes. There could be nothing more commendable in this age, if we want to advance in all phases of the economy, than the establishment of machinery to avoid obstacles in the way of efficiency.

Acting Chairman (Professor Stanford)

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

Mr. O'Quigley

No, Sir; it is being pressed.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. O'Quigley

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 11, subsection (10), before paragraph (b) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

"( ) (i) Where at the commencement of section 12 of the Pigs and Bacon (Amendment) Act, 1961, a person is employed as an officer or servant of the Commission and the office or position held by him has thereafter been changed or rearranged so that the duties of his new office or position are not analogous to or are an unreasonable addition to those he was required to perform before the change or rearrangement, the change or rearrangement thus effected shall be deemed to be a worsening of the terms and conditions of his employment obtaining before such change or rearrangement took place.

In this amendment, I want to establish the position in the case of a person who was employed before the commencement of this Act as an officer or servant of the outgoing Commission, and was employed in a particular employment. It will not do merely to say he will be employed on terms and conditions not less favourable than those to which he had been subject. A person could be given a much more onerous office to fulfil by the new Commission than he had on the old one but still be in receipt of the same salary, annual leave and other conditions. It could be said he was being employed on terms not less favourable.

Under subsection (10), so long as the terms and conditions in relation to remuneration and allowances for expenses are the same, even though a person has more arduous duties to perform, he may get from the new Commission only the same salary. The position I seek to establish by the amendment is that where the duties of the office or position are not analogous or where there is an unreasonable addition to the duties required to be performed under the old Commission, this person will be deemed to have suffered a worsening of his conditions of employment and in those circumstances compensation will be payable to the person so affected. The compensation I envisage should take the form of either an increase in salary and allowances as may be appropriate or a lump sum of such amount as is reasonable.

There is much to be said for this kind of amendment. Here we have the Oireachtas interfering with the contractual conditions of employers and employees. It has always been the custom of the Oireachtas, since the first amalgamations on the railways up to the time the E.S.B. took over a number of minor electricity stations under the E.S.B. Act, 1927, including the Dublin electricity supply station, to compensate people for any loss they might suffer as a result of interference by the Oireachtas in the contractual conditions between employer and employee.

It may be that there will be only one person affected in a minor or not very serious way under this rearrangement that may occur as a result of the re-constitution of the Pigs and Bacon Commission. I do not know. All I know is that if that is so, we ought to take care, having interfered with the constitution and the functions which the Commission has had up to the present, to ensure that no ill effect will be visited on those employed by the Commission. All I am seeking to achieve in this amendment is that if anybody suffers a worsening of his terms or conditions of service as a result of the transfer from the old Commission of three to the new Commission of seven, such person will get appropriate compensation, either by way of an increase in salary or a lump sum.

The final matter to which it is, perhaps, necessary to refer is that, in the event of the Commission and any employees or employee concerned, failing to agree on the compensation appropriate, the matter may be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Murphy

I certainly support Senator O'Quigley on this amendment. It is quite true that where the Oireachtas has entered into the functions of an undertaking or rearranged it, given it extra responsibilities through legislation, it is the practice to provide for compensation to staff adversely affected by the change. I have in mind particularly what the Oireachtas did in 1950 when C.I.E. was nationalised and where a somewhat similar provision was made for people whose position was worsened or who were asked to perform duties not analogous, or not a reasonable addition, to their former duties. It was provided that there should be compensation and appeal to an arbitrator appointed by the appropriate Minister.

I hope the Minister will be able to accept this amendment. There are many precedents for it. It is a good thing that when the Oireachtas deals with legislation like this, it should provide for any staff that may be adversely affected.

Mr. Smith

I would say that the existing staff are generously provided for in this measure. The idea of inserting a provision which would confer on the existing staff advantages that would not be conferred upon those who might join the staff later is something with which I could not have the slightest sympathy. The proposition that when employees' conditions are worsened in circumstances such as will exist here when the transfer takes place, an arbitrator should be on the spot to determine whether this type of work is more laborious than the work the individual was doing before the transfer, is carrying things very far. Surely there is the normal method of discussion such as exists also in the case of general conditions as between employees and employer. If you were to provide machinery as visualised in this amendment. I could imagine the sort of trouble you would let yourself in for in this organisation.

There is no comparison between this case and the case of C.I.E. which was, if you like, a dwindling organisation; no comparison between this and a Bill giving an authority to close lines and declare men redundant. In that case, the natural thing was to put the onus to compensate on the authority to whom you are giving the power. Here we are providing for something I hope will expand and the prospects of the general position worsening from an employment point of view, are, we hope, non-existent.

Generous provision is made here for the protection of the existing staff of the Commission. This does not mean that an existing employee of the present Commission will be doing exactly the same sort of work in the new set-up. Those who will come into the service in the future will not have any guarantee of that nature—why should they? In these proposals, they are adequately protected. They will not be called upon to perform any work or service that is not reasonably comparable with the work in which they are now engaged. I suppose one can make a case for almost anything but anyone who uses common sense in regard to this proposal will see that it could not be conceded by any stretch of the imagination.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister speaks of the employees of the existing Commission being treated generously. I have certain notions as to what is generous and it is perfectly obvious that the Minister's views and mine on the subject of generosity are poles apart. All the staff get under this section is that they will continue to be employed. I suppose the Minister would regard the fact that they are not going to be dismissed as the height of generosity. Under the Bill:

(10) (a) Where immediately before the commencement of Section 12 of the Pigs and Bacon (Amendment) Act, 1961, a person is employed as an officer or servant of the Commission, that person, after the commencement of the said Section 12, shall continue to be employed as an officer or servant, as the case may be, of the Commission and shall be employed on such terms and subject to such conditions as the Commission may determine (including terms and conditions in relation to remuneration and allowances for expenses) being terms and conditions not less favourable than those subject to which he was employed immediately before such commencement, but the office or position held by him may be changed and his duties may be changed or rearranged.

Does the Minister think it is generous not to worsen conditions of existing employees? If that is the Minister's idea of generosity, we should revise our view of some of the things the Minister says because evidently he is not speaking the same language as we speak.

The Minister then says it is provided in the section, but he does not refer to it, that they will not be called upon to perform duties which are not reasonably comparable—that is the very point—with those they have performed before this Bill came into effect. That is the very thing we want to safeguard, that they will not be so called upon and if they are, by reason of the exigencies of the service, it is desirable that they would be properly remunerated and properly compensated for it. It will not do for the Commission to point to the subsection and say: "You are being paid as much now as you were paid before this Act came into operation." That will not do if people have to do work which merits a ten, fifteen or twenty-five per cent. increase in salary.

The Minister finds it difficult to see how one could determine whether a person was doing different duties or whether he was doing more onerous duties than previously and says that what we are seeking in this amendment would require an arbitrator to stand by to decide whether they were different duties from what they were doing before. That is not being sought at all: when the Commission and the person or persons on their staff have been unable to compose their differences, it will be a matter for the arbitrator appointed by the Minister.

In case the Minister is in doubt, it might be pertinent to remind him that in 1958, during his term of office as a Minister of the Government, we passed the Transport Act, 1958, relating to C.I.E. staff and an Act relating to the G.N.R. staff, in which we provided that if people were called upon to do duties under the rearrangement, or as a result of the introduction of these Acts, which were not analogous to or reasonably comparable with the duties they were called upon to perform prior to the introduction of these Acts, they would be paid compensation of such amount as the Board of C.I.E. agreed was appropriate and if the employees did not agree, they could go to the standing arbitrator. The Minister was inclined to pour scorn on the idea that differences in responsibilities could be assessed by the arbitrator who, he said, was going to stand by to see that the employee was fairly dealt with.

The fact of the matter is that here by Act of Parliament—let us be quite clear about what we are doing—we are interfering with the conditions of service or the contractual conditions of certain employees—I did not know how many, nor am I concerned—and the contractual relations of certain people in this State and making no provision to compensate them. We should be clear about that, and the Minister does not want to make any provision to compensate these people if they are called upon to do more work for the same rate of pay as a result of the establishment of this Commission—and the Minister calls that being generous.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 21.

Tá

• Burke, Denis.
• Carton, Victor.
• Davidson, Mary F.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Murphy, Dominick F.
• O'Quigley, John B.
• Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.
• Stanford, William B.
• Tunney, James.

Níl

• Ahern, Liam.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, John J.
• Carter, Frank.
• Cole, John C.
• Colley, Harry.
• Dillon, Gerard B.
• Fitzsimons, Patrick.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• O Ciosáin, Eamon.
• O Donnabháin, Seán.
• O Grádaigh, Seán.
• O Maoláin, Tomás.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Walsh, Laurence J.
• Walsh, Louis.

Tellers: Tá, Senators L'Estrange and O'Quigley; Níl, Senators Carter and Ó Donnabháin.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 12 agreed to.

Sections 13 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 22.

Mr. O'Quigley

I move amendment No. 5:

In subsection (1), line 33, before "of" to insert "or the widows or orphans of such officers or servants,".

This is the section which empowers the Commission to prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme or schemes for the granting of pensions in respect of officers or servants of the Commission on such terms as it may think fit. The purpose of the amendment is one which, I hope, will commend itself to the generous spirit of the Minister. Its purpose is to make provision in the scheme, which I presume will be a contributory scheme, for the payment of pensions to widows and orphans of officers or servants of the Commission.

I must make a slight complaint about the manner in which the last two amendments have been debated. I feel rather forlorn and abandoned by my colleagues on the Labour Panel on the opposite side of the House. We would have expected that Senator Carter, who is a representative of the Labour Panel, Senator Ryan and Senator Ahern would at least, if they did not support the amendments, indicate by way of a consolation prize that they thought they were unnecessary. I hope Senators Carter, Ryan and Ahern will support this amendment, which I trust will have some appeal to the humanitarian side of their constitution.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator has some trust.

Mr. O'Quigley

I cannot see any reason why this amendment cannot be accepted. I may be in order perhaps, in referring to a Bill already circulated to us, and debated in the Dáil, the Bill in relation to the superannuation of judges of the Supreme Court, the High Court, the Circuit Courts and the District Courts. One of the purposes of that Bill is to make provision by which the members of the judiciary can allocate part of their pensions to their wives or to a dependant. The Minister for Finance has introduced that Bill and last night it got a speedy Second Reading in the Dáil.

When it comes to providing pensions for prospective widows and orphans, no one will do anything to stand in the way of people helping themselves. If this amendment is accepted, the Commission will be empowered to prepare a scheme which will enable the staff to pay a contribution, amongst other contributions, to finance their wives and children, in the event of their becoming widows and orphans. I do not think there is anything further to be said except to express the hope that the Minister will be softened by this amendment and that he will at last accept an amendment.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to support this amendment and to underline the fact that it is permissive. It does not make it mandatory on the Commission to prepare a pension scheme which will cover widows and orphans. The amendment proposes after the word "servants" to add the words "or the widows or orphans of such officers or servants". That would be merely granting to the Commission the right, in trying to put forward a scheme, to put forward a scheme to cover widows and orphans. Obviously, despite the somewhat belligerent Party spirit which emerges occasionally from Senator O'Quigley——

Mr. O'Quigley

Only occasionally?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Only occasionally. This is not a Party amendment. It really is not contentious. Obviously, it should be supported and we are grateful to the Senator for putting it forward. It is certainly a principle which we ought to recognise, that we are concerned not only with the pension rights of officers or servants, but also with those who will become, in the event of their early deaths, their widows and orphans. I should like, therefore, to support the amendment and to express the hope that the Minister may find it possible to accept it.

Mr. Smith

According to my information, there is no specific provision in any pension scheme for widows and orphans. I suppose we could all make a case as to the desirability of making provision for every conceivable occurrence or eventuality. I have no doubt that we could go a long way to justify it. The contributory schemes designed so far do not contain any such provision. All these schemes are designed as a result of consultation and discussion between the parties concerned. It is desirable that there should be a degree of uniformity, and I do not feel this is a matter which should be provided for in this separate fashion. If a case can be made, then it should be a case on the broad basis. Since no legislation in the past has contained such a provision, I must resist this amendment.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

With respect, the Minister is not quite correct in that. I remember a Bill sponsored in this House by the previous Government. It was a special measure to enable a civil servant to give up portion of his pension in order that his widow would receive a pension after his death. The Minister for Finance at the time made the point that this step was being taken after consultation with the civil servants. As Senator O'Quigley has pointed out, this principle has been recognised in a Bill now before the Dáil in relation to the superannuation of judges. There is a special Bill—we will probably be getting it in a few weeks' time—to allow judges to set off against a lump sum a certain amount for the sake of providing for their widows. It is not strictly true to say that no such scheme has emerged in law because we had a special Bill for civil servants designed to do precisely what the Minister is being asked to do here.

Mr. Smith

It is one thing to provide for such a contingency in a scheme. It is another thing to insert a provision covering the position in a Bill. According to the note I have before me, provision can be made in the scheme itself.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Again, since it has proved necessary in the case of judges to bring in a special Bill to allow them to do this, I feel that unless we put in a permissive clause here, it may be necessary later to bring in a special Bill to allow the employees and servants of this Commission to do the same thing. Would it not be simpler to put in a simple permissive clause which will not bind the Commission but which will permit them to do it, should they wish to do so?

Mr. Carter

Not necessarily.

Mr. Smith

Certain schemes have contained the words "or in respect of." If schemes in the past have contained these words, there is no reason why a scheme in the future should not contain them also.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Do I understand the Minister to say that, even without these words, the scheme could cover widows and orphans?

Mr. Smith

Yes, if the scheme is designed in respect of widows and orphans.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister uses the phrase "in respect of". The phrase occurs in subsection (1) and the Minister uses it for the purpose of saying that there is already power under that subsection to provide a scheme of pensions for widows and orphans. If that is the case he is making, then he ought to accept this amendment because the amendment puts it beyond any shadow of doubt that the Commission can devise a scheme of pensions for employees and for the widows and orphans of employees.

If that is not the case the Minister is making then it becomes necessary to speak at somewhat greater length. The plain fact of the matter is that there are certain major contingencies in life for everybody. One of them is fire; we all insure against fire. We all try to insure against death.

Mr. Burke

But we do not succeed.

Mr. O'Quigley

There is no doubt that we will always have widows and orphans and that is not one of the other conceivable eventualities about which the Minister spoke. Death, as far as the staff of the Commission are concerned, is a certainty. There will be widows and there will be orphans. It is not just one of the other conceivable eventualities to which the Minister referred and we ought to take time off in this Bill to have some regard for these unfortunate people.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington is quite right in his reference to the 1956 Superannuation Act. That Bill was introduced by the previous Government. I do not take any particular credit for that on this side of the House because the Bill would have come from any Government in power. These things evolve in course of time. At any rate, I recollect with pleasure that it was introduced. The case made by Senator Sheehy Skeffington on that occasion was that the provision being made was inadequate. He may not recollect that now, but some of the good that people do lives after them. A specific piece of legislation had to be introduced at that time to fulfil the purpose intended. The new Bill circulated in relation to superannuation for judges gives power by way of separate Act of Parliament to judges to allocate part of their pensions to their widows or a dependant. There are no two ways about that. That is the fact. I am quite satisfied—I trust Senator O'Reilly and Senator Lenihan will bear me out in this—that there is no doubt at all that subsection (1) as it stands does not permit or authorise the Commission to prepare a scheme covering the widows and orphans of the staff of the Commission.

Mr. Lenihan

Of course it does. It is a global provision.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am sure Senator Lenihan and Senator O'Reilly know enough about the law to realise that my interpretation is the correct one.

Mr. Murphy

This is not a Party issue. The amendment suggested is a permissive provision. There is a growing awareness amongst salaried workers generally of the desirability of and the need to provide pension schemes for widows and orphans. Sometimes that is done by way of an ordinary superannuation scheme and it is provided that, if an employee dies, certain benefit is payable to his widow and orphans. At other times, it is necessary to provide a separate scheme, apart from the superannuation scheme proper. One might have two schemes —a superannuation scheme and a widows' and orphans' scheme—running simultaneously, the employees contributing to two different funds.

We are not asking the Minister here to provide that there shall be such a scheme for the employees of this new Commission. All we are saying is that it would be prudent to make provision so that if the Commission and their employees should at any time think it desirable to introduce such a scheme, they would not find themselves debarred from doing so. There may be a difference of opinion between the lawyers as to whether or not the position is covered, but, surely, since we are putting through this legislation, it would be prudent to insert a permissive phrase such as that suggested. There is neither politics nor high principle involved. It would be generous of the Minister to permit the phrase to go in. It can then be left to the Commission to decide whether or not they want to introduce such a scheme.

Mr. Smith

My advice is that they can in fact prepare such a scheme. What I am being asked to do here is to provide that they must.

Mr. Murphy

No. The Minister is misinterpreting. This is a permissive section. We are not trying to force anything down anybody's throat at all. The Commission can introduce a scheme, if they so desire. The Minister says he is advised that the section as it stands would allow them to do that, anyway. If that is so, why then have we had to have amending legislation in the case of other superannuation schemes? Where the legislation provided for the setting up of superannuation funds, it has been necessary to provide that they could also make provision for widows and orphans.

Mr. Smith

In what cases?

Mr. Murphy

The advice may be quite correct. May I put it this way: if the Minister cannot accept it now, would he like to consider it between now and the Report Stage?

Mr. Smith

No. Provision is made here. They can include coverage in a scheme, if they so desire.

Mr. Murphy

The sections says "superannuation for such officers and servants".

Mr. Lenihan

The subsection reads:

The Commission may prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme or schemes for the granting of pensions, gratuities and other allowances on retirement to or in respect of such officers or servants of the Commission as it may think fit.

Mr. Murphy

On retirement.

Mr. Lenihan

For such officers and servants as they think fit. That is a direct pension in regard to servants or officers. Inserted after the word "to" is the phrase "or in respect of", which is a very permissive clause or phrase. That is a permissive clause going outside the granting of pensions to servants or officers. It is a global permissive clause which can bring in widows' and orphans' pensions or any other pensions relating to or in respect of the officers concerned.

Mr. Murphy

Officers and servants "on retirement".

Mr. Lenihan

It says "in respect of".

Mr. Murphy

It is still governed by the phrase "on retirement".

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

It refers to the living, not the dead.

Mr. Lenihan

If the phrase "in respect of" does not mean what the Minister suggests and what the advice he has received suggests and what I think is the case, if it does not mean widows and orphans, what exactly does it mean or what purpose does it serve?

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

It seems to me that it would be possible to interpret it as meaning, in relation to an officer or servant who retires, that provision might be made under this possibly taking into account dependants and so on, but it quite clearly says "on retirement to or in respect of". It seems to be conditioned by the phrase "on retirement", whereas, with the amendment, the clause would read thus:

The Commission may prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme or schemes for the granting of pensions, gratuities and other allowances on retirement to or in respect of such officers or servants or the widows or orphans of such officers or servants, of the Commission as it may think fit.

It seems to me that that could not be making it mandatory and the Minister is not justified in saying that we are seeking to force them to take widows and orphans into account. We are seeking to allow them quite specifically, beyond all doubt, to take into account widows and orphans in any pension scheme, whether on death or on retirement.

Mr. O'Quigley

If you read the particular subsection to see the different circumstances to which it applies, it becomes manifest that widows and orphans are not covered:

The Commission may prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme or schemes for the granting of pensions, gratuities and other allowances on retirement to or in respect of such officers or servants of the Commission as it may think fit.

That is the first point. The pension is payable on retirement to officers or servants of the Commission. Read it again:

The Commission may prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme or schemes for the granting of pensions, gratuities and other allowances on retirement to or in respect of such officers or servants——

It does not include death unless you stretch language and say that people retire from this world on death. In any event, the pension is payable to such officer or servant. It does not say "the widows or orphans of such officers and servants." There is no doubt whatever in my mind that widows and orphans are not covered by this section, that they are not covered in any similar section. The Minister has not pointed, as doubtless he would if he could, to other sections or other schemes which in fact have been interpreted under analogous provisions to cover widows and orphans. It has not been done.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Minister's Party have always prided themselves on being the people who look after social welfare.

Mr. Carter

So we do—correct, the first time.

Dr. O'Donovan

I just make that remark as an opening sentence. The Widows and Orphans Pensions Act, 1936, the first provision of that kind on a global basis for this country to cover the social welfare classes, as they are now known—insured social welfare classes—was passed by the Minister's Party. I feel that that group of people, covered nowadays up to £800 a year, are reasonably covered. When you go above that figure—and it is a very modest income nowadays—you have a gap and many of the people employed by this Commission would be likely to be in that gap, that is to say, the gap between £800 a year and whatever is required before people can make provision for themselves.

I do not know what real objection the Minister has to accepting this amendment. I suspect that it comes, possibly, from the Pensions Section of the Department of Finance. There has been an ancient custom that all pensions sections in Bills have to be approved by the Pensions Section of the Department of Finance. This kind of provision is made only to a limited extent and in a very gradual way. For example, under the new Bill—I say this with respect—some of the most highly paid people in the State are covered. I understand professors are covered also. So I have heard. I do not know it of my own knowledge. I do not see what real objection the Minister has to accepting the amendment except the control which is exercised over him by the Department of Finance. I am not taking any sides on the question of the interpretation of this clause because, quite frankly, I cannot interpret it and I do not mind being honest about it.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

May I make just one point in relation to the interpretation offered by Senator Lenihan, who seems to think that the words "on retirement" might cover the question of death? In that case, subsection (2) would become very embarrassing. It says:

Every such scheme shall fix the time and conditions of retirement for all persons to or in respect of whom pensions, gratuities or allowances on retirement are payable...

Mr. Burke

The guillotine will be erected somewhere.

Mr. Smith

The amendment does not affect the words "on retirement."

Mr. O'Quigley

If the Minister will say that he will accept the amendment on Report Stage, I shall be happy to dress it up in a form which will be satisfactory to him.

Mr. Ryan

If "on retirement" governs the phrase "in respect of," then it is quite clear the amendment does not make sense because it also governs the widows and orphans of the person concerned and you cannot have a widow or orphans of a person who is retiring. However well intentioned the amendment may be, it definitely does not make sense.

Acting Chairman (Professor Stanford)

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. O'Quigley

I do not want to press this to a division when the Minister seems to be moving in this direction, if rather slowly. If the Minister will accept an amendment on Report Stage, I certainly do not want to press the amendment.

Mr. Smith

I will not, no.

Mr. O'Quigley

Then the amendment is being pressed.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 19.

Tá

• Burke, Denis.
• Carton, Victor.
• Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
• Davidson, Mary F.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Murphy, Dominick F.
• O'Donovan, John.
• O'Quigley, John B.
• Prendergast, Micheál A.
• Sheehy Skeffington, Owen L.
• Tunney, James.

Níl

• Ahern, Liam.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, John J.
• Carter, Frank.
• Dillon, Gerald B.
• Fitzsimons, Patrick.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• O Ciosáin, Eamon.
• O Donnabháin, Seán.
• O Grádaigh, Seán.
• O Maoláin, Tomás.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Walsh, Laurence J.
• Walsh, Louis.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators L'Estrange and O'Quigley; Níl: Senators Carter and Ó Donnabháin.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 22 agreed to.

SECTION 23.

Dr. O'Donovan

I move amendment No. 6:

In subsection (1), lines 7 and 8, to delete "with the consent of the Minister for Finance".

Perhaps the Minister would shorten the discussion by indicating that he will accept this amendment? Seeing that there is no response, I had better discuss it. There is a fairly well-known corpus of cases in which it is generally agreed that the Department of Finance has a right to insert in a Bill a section to the effect that they are to be consulted; in other cases, their consent must be obtained. What I am about to say now I say genuinely: it beats me how the Department of Finance can come into the question of grading bacon. I take it that the grading of bacon by the Department of Finance will be done by correspondence. The Minister's Department will write to them.

Mr. O'Quigley

There will not be much fat in it.

Dr. O'Donovan

It will be lean bacon, or they will have a predisposition in favour of lean bacon. I could even understand if you come down further in the section to subsection (4) where the Minister shall fix prices for all forms of bacon. If they had put in the qualifying clause there "with the consent of the Minister for Finance" I could say, just as there are to be certain arrangements for subsidy, and so on, you might well put in the Minister for Finance at that point.

Quite frankly, it beats me. I came upon this entirely by accident in the Bill. I do not understand what connection the Department of Finance has with the following:

(1) The Commission may export bacon of such grades as may be specified by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance from time to time.

I can understand the Minister specifying grades of bacon from time to time. He has an adequate staff for the job. He has specialists or he can employ people or he can do it by arrangement with the bacon curers but I do not understand how the Department of Finance comes into the matter.

Mr. Smith

I think a very simple business is involved. Where money is concerned, it should not be difficult to understand why it is that those who control it are interested in where it goes and the hand that is made of it. That is a simple straightforward proposition.

The Minister for Finance and the Department of Finance are not directly concerned with the grading of bacon but they are concerned to support the sale of bacon abroad. For example, at present they support the following classifications of bacon, namely, Super Grade and Grade A. I cannot give the exact relationship as to the percentage of the total sum they contribute to the sale of what surplus bacon we have of these two grades. They are brought into this section for the very good reason that there are other grades of bacon. There are inferior grades of bacon. Naturally, if they are to provide a substantial portion of the money necessary to give the support, they want to know from time to time just what they are being let in for. I am not here to defend the Department of Finance but I think it is the most reasonable thing in the world that they should do that. I confess that if I had the responsibility of the Minister for Finance, I would insist on knowing where I stood in this regard.

Section 28 provides that a fixed sum is to be provided from some source, and that source is the Department of Finance, to enable the Commission to engage in this business. Suppose they were not to be consulted. The Commission, with my consent, could agree that several other types and classes of bacon could be included and the Department of Finance could be presented with a bill which would be entirely out of line with what they would regard as a fair commitment on the part of the community. I do not see anything at all mysterious about this nor do I see anything at all unreasonable on the part of the Department of Finance in asking for the opportunity of from time to time seeing the extent to which a commitment was being entered into on their behalf.

Dr. O'Donovan

It may well be that my objection to this section, as drafted, relates to the logical placing of the subsections. Is it not the case that if this qualification had been put into subsection (4) it would there be related to price, which is the significant matter?

Mr. Smith

No.

Dr. O'Donovan

If the Minister will listen, I shall develop the point. "The Minister shall fix prices for each form of bacon..." It may be that my reaction to this section was brought about by the placing of the qualification, as I see it, in the wrong subsection, from a logical point of view. Certainly, if it had been put into subsection (4), I could understand it. To put it mildly, it is an unfortunate matter that such grades must be specified by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Smith

It is a very important provision, I can assure you.

Dr. O'Donovan

That is the very point. I feel that the Minister, who, without disrespect, has been so tough in this House, was a bit easy with the Department of Finance when this qualification was put into the subsection. He was not nearly as tough with them as he has been here today.

Mr. Smith

Again, I am always reasonable.

Dr. O'Donovan

I suppose it is too late in the day now to try to transfer that qualification from subsection (1) to subsection (4) but subsection (4) is the proper place for it.

Mr. Smith

It would have meant the same thing, anyhow.

Dr. O'Donovan

It would not look quite so ridiculous because we would not have to make the equation that the Minister made so skilfully—the equation that bacon equals money. The words mean the same thing in this context. We would not have to make that equation if the qualifying clause had been inserted in the fixing of prices because prices are stated in terms of money. Prices are not stated in terms of bacon though different grades of bacon may have different prices. If the Minister wishes to keep this subsection where it is I shall not press him to take it out but I think there has been a misplacing in the drafting of this section.

Mr. O'Quigley

We all appreciate that when it comes to paying for anything out of State funds, the Minister for Finance must have his finger in the pie and, even when it does not come out of State funds, as in the case of the Charities Bill, the Minister would also have his finger in the pie to ensure that nobody steps out of line for fear he might at a later stage have to pay higher rates by reason of somebody else paying higher rates.

That is the cardinal policy going through everything in present legislation which has to do with finance; but it is a new conception of the functions of the Department of Finance that it may specify the grades of bacon to be exported "in the form of Wiltshire sides or major cuts thereof which include the back." I could quite see the consent of the Minister for Finance being incorporated in this section, if the Commission were exporting on their own; but once you have a responsible Minister of State, such as the Minister for Agriculture, who is a member of the Government, involved in this, it becomes an absurdity to bring in the Department of Finance on the question of considering what grades of bacon are to be exported.

Mr. Smith

There is a saying "Is fearr dhá cheann ná ceann amháin."

Mr. O'Quigley

We all know that. Is fíor sin. But have a look at Section 28. This section says in subsection (1):

There may be paid to the Commission in each financial year out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas a grant or grants of such amount or amounts as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and after consultation with the Commission in relation to its programme of expenditure for that financial year, may fix.

If the Commission say: "We are going to export so many thousand Wiltshire sides in a particular year," is it not under Section 28 that the consent of the Minister for Finance would have to be obtained?

I said on Second Reading something to the effect that I did not think this was a Bill that would either kill or cure the bacon industry. It will certainly leave it jogging along in much the same way as it has been for the past few years. If the Department of Finance are going to regulate the export of bacon and it is going to be dependent on the well-known parsimonious approach of that Department to financial matters, it is quite certain the Bill, as drafted, will not produce any kind of staggering figures in relation to the exports of pig meat and bacon.

Mr. Carter

It is hard to understand all the fuss being made about Section 23. As the Minister has stated, this Bill deals solely with exports. Where the grant of money to support the sale of certain grades of bacon in the export market is concerned, it is quite evident that the Department of Finance must come into the Bill in the appropriate sections dealing with the various grades of bacon. I can see, therefore, no objection to the wording of subsection (1) of Section 23.

Section 23 is complementary to Section 25. It provides for the making of arrangements for the export of bacon. Therefore, no objection can be taken to the fact that the Minister for Finance is mentioned in subsection (1) and, indeed, in subsection (4). It is inevitable that that Department will be mentioned because it is the Department of State that handles the purse. As far as I can see, having regard to the state of the markets abroad, it is the purse that helps to sell our bacon. We should not lose sight of that.

Mr. L'Estrange

Senator Carter is completely wrong when he states that this Bill deals mainly with exports. It does not. One section of the Bill empowers the Commission to investigate and survey and study reports in relation to markets, potential markets and market conditions for bacon and other pig-meat and pig-meat products "in the State and outside the State." Another section says it will carry out investigations into the provision of improved types of bacon and other pig-meat products. Whatever the Minister for Agriculture may know about this, the Minister for Finance knows very little. Too many cooks spoil the broth, and I think that is what will happen in this instance.

Mr. Lenihan

The attempt to denigrate this section fails completely when you realise the principle enshrined in it for the first time—that of a centralised marketing agency. The Commission are being empowered to export on the British market the grades of bacon principally exported there. The purpose of that is to cure the principal flaw the Advisory Committee on Marketing found in regard to our bacon exports to Britain, that is, the lack of continuity of supply. Here you have a complete innovation, which Senator O'Quigley seeks to decry, where the Commission, in order to maintain the level of supply, are empowered to go into the market where existing exporters are unable to fulfil——

Mr. O'Quigley

All subject to Finance permission.

Mr. Lenihan

I want to knock on the head the suggestion being made by Senator O'Quigley and Senator L'Estrange that this section means nothing and will not lead to any progressive improvement. It is an innovation which enshrines the major recommendation of the Advisory Committee. In my opinion, it is the kernel of the Bill and these efforts to decry it must fail.

Mr. Burke

That is not on the amendment.

Dr. O'Donovan

On the amendment, the Minister told us "Is fearr dhá cheann ná ceann amháin." There is another phrase in relation to bacon —"Leath-cheann"—which has another meaning not quite so favourable. Quite frankly, I do not understand why this qualifying clause was put in here. The Minister has drawn my attention to Section 28. The Minister for Finance is mentioned twice in Section 28. I do not want to be offensive about it, but this is an example of people interfering in something about which they know little or nothing.

The power in Section 28 is quite fair and reasonable, but the Department of Finance, apart from the information the Minister may give them, are in no position to come to any conclusion about the state of the bacon market in Britain or in this country and the Minister will have his staff to advise him. So will the Commission, and they will be informed by the bacon curers generally, and yet we have this extraordinary clause put into a section which deals with the exportation of bacon by the Commission. I know how it got in here and how this kind of clause gets into a Bill. I think the Minister was a bit too soft with the Department of Finance and he should not have allowed them to put these words "with the consent of the Minister for Finance" in this subsection of the Bill. I do not think they are properly there.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That Section 23 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Burke

Since the Second Reading, I have given this section a great deal of thought. Has the Minister power under this or subsequent sections to allow a subsidy to be given or a grant-in-aid to be made to other forms of bacon and pigmeat other than Wiltshire sides or major cuts thereof? In Section 27, I can see that he has power to assist in advertising and even to purchase retail shops in Britain and to do a hundred and one other things but I have not seen the power that would allow him to make grants or to subsidise bacon in other ways. The intention of the Bill, particularly when it deals with pre-packaging, trying to diversify as much as possible and to sell whatever will be in demand, is to sell pigmeat or products in whatever way is most desirable. That will not happen if the machinery is not available to make it remunerative, or as nearly remunerative as possible for the people who are doing it. For example, it took the previous Pigs and Bacon Commission quite a long time to devise machinery for subsidising pork.

The point I raised about the bacon being properly marketed is brought even more pertinently to our notice by the big seminar being held at the Gresham Hotel, I think, for the past couple of days. A number of very well-informed people on the marketing of food products are discussing self-service and packaged bacon, etc. While some of us might have been a bit more conservative about this development than we should be, I think it is going to come more quickly than we all thought it would. Many thought it would take about 10 years for such a development to come about and in fact those best informed in Britain thought the same thing, but the amount of publicity given to this type of marketing might bring it along sooner.

Has the Minister adequate power to allow him to make rules or regulations to subsidise bacon in whatever form it may be to our best advantage to export it?

I think the assurance the Minister has given in regard to the preservation of the invaluable trader-to-trader relationship, while speaking on this section during the discussion in this House and the other House, should convince anyone that this valuable asset can be preserved and, at the same time, secure the benefits of central marketing and get over the difficulty of weak selling links. The difficulty about traders who are not in a position to deal with these matters in an effective way has been overcome and I think the Minister's assurances are adequate in this respect.

Mr. Smith

I think that subsection (g) of Section 27 covers the question the Senator asks. It reads:

promote, facilitate, encourage, assist (financially or otherwise), co-ordinate and develop the exportation of bacon and other pigmeat and pig-meat products by such means as the Commission considers necessary or desirable,

Mr. Burke

I should like to refer to this, with the permission of the Cathaoirleach, on Section 27. I raised it on Section 23 because the first subsection to Section 27 begins by mentioning the provision of publicity and the powers of the Commission, as it says in the marginal note, in relation to the development of markets for bacon and other pigmeat and pigmeat products. I thought that might be held to be a purely marketing and promotion section rather than a section giving power to assist financially.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 24.

Question proposed: "That Section 24 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Quigley

The Bill gives powers to the Commission, with the consent of the Minister, to provide for the preparation, packing and marketing of bacon in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). Specifically in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), this is in relation to bacon sold to the Commission. I want to ask the Minister whether these are powers given to the Commission generally in relation to bacon, the packing or grading of bacon, or the materials used in packing bacon or whether they are restricted to the materials used in the packing of bacon sold to the Commission.

Mr. Burke

I wish to raise a few points particularly in view of what was said on the Second Reading in this House. It is in the public interest that what I say should be said. During the past decade, public taste in all countries, including Ireland, has led to a demand for lean meat. Anyone with experience of meat knows it is the meat that is reasonably prime rather than the meat that has a high percentage of leanness that is the better keeping. Whether it was beef or mutton or fowl, what we knew in the past as the prime or finished product was the better keeping product. Today there is a world demand for loan meat. I have seen lamb in Smithfield market—not Irish lamb— which I know, a decade ago, would probably not have been passed for export by the Minister's veterinary officers but it commanded the highest prices in London because of the demand for lean meat. That sort of meat does not hold as long as the meat that is properly finished.

There is also the other point, which I think Senator O'Quigley raised, about the keeping quality. With the development, the world over, of refrigeration, cold counters in shops and "fridges" in every other house, the public demand has been for an extra mild bacon. That demand is in England and in Ireland. It often happens that both the wholesaler and the retailer may hold bacon before putting it on the market and the easiest person to blame is the person who has processed and cured the bacon. But perhaps the bacon has been around for anything up to two weeks before it is put on sale and perhaps it was not kept under the proper conditions.

That is one of the difficulties and the marketing officers of the Minister's Department are well aware of that problem. They have even suggested that when larger quantities of Irish bacon are going to Britain, particularly to places like London and further away, perhaps such bacon should be shipped in insulated containers so that these difficulties could be overcome.

At this point, I want to refer to a report of the British Pig Industry Development Authority which has been considering these problems very seriously. They have come to the conclusion that there are other things besides the problem which the curer has to deal with. There is the method by which the pig has been fed. Years of tireless research will have to be undertaken before any of these problems are fully understood. I shall just quote a few lines from paragraph 50 of the 1960 Report of the Pig Industry Development Authority:

There remains an immense gap in our scientific knowledge of quality in meat, and of the precise ways in which it is influenced by the breeding and management of the pig. There is also a dearth of research (apart from that undertaken by individual firms) into the question of meat processing. Little more can be done in these fields until facilities for meat research are created and the necessary workers trained.

Let it be said that here in Ireland a move has been made towards giving these facilities and perhaps we shall be even more ahead than they are in Britain. A link is now being forged with the Agricultural Institute and an association has been set up composed of bacon curers, meat exporters and canners, in co-operation with the Agricultural Institute and with the support of the Department of Agriculture.

An Cathaoirleach

I wonder is the Senator going outside the scope of this section?

Mr. Burke

I will just finish the point I am making in a moment. The section does deal with the methods and manner of packing and preparing bacon to be sold. I will not go any further than necessary but I will say, in conclusion, that both the Department of Agriculture and the bacon curers are well aware of what has to be done and it is in the public interest to say that defects in quality, which become apparent from time to time, arise from causes which in the present state of scientific knowledge, cannot be pointed to but they know what they are looking for and with the help of the Agricultural Institute and other bodies co-operating with them, I believe they will find part of the answer, and perhaps the whole answer, to these problems as soon as anybody else.

We have also been able, recently, to become associated with the British Food Manufacturers Research Association and with our own knowledge and their knowledge, some of the causes of complaint that have been made in this House and in the other House will be obviated. It is well that the people should not think the Agricultural Institute and the bacon curers, as well as those engaged in the meat trade, were unaware of the problems they were up against and for which they are on the high road to finding a solution. It is well the public should know those things because it is reassuring to know that work is being done to solve these problems.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

This is one of the most important sections of the Bill because the packaging of bacon, the sacking placed around bacon, as far as its sale in this country is concerned, has often been open to criticism. This section, according to the marginal note, deals with the preparation and packing of bacon. It is very advisable that the packing or packaging of bacon which we export should be an important consideration because if the packing is not better, if there is not a better system of packing than the system used on the home market, it will not be conducive to the better sale of our product in England and elsewhere. All aspects of the material going out are important, the bacon itself and even in regard to what Senator Burke referred to, the taint, or anything else and the feeding of the pig and the product produced thereby. We all know of the difficulty in regard to fish taint in bacon, which I hope is at an end now. It is certainly something that would militate against the sale of our bacon products on our home market as well as the export market.

Mr. Burke

I want to assure Senator Ó Donnabháin that we have received no complaint of fish taint in bacon for many years. I think that should be said.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I had experience of it within the past three years.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 25 agreed to.

SECTION 26.

Question proposed: "That Section 26 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Burke

This is the section which gives the Minister power to regulate pre-packed bacon. I think the point I was going to make would be better made on the next section. It is only right that the Minister should take the necessary power so that if we do go into that trade, it will be carried out under the best procedures adopted in the most progressive countries.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I should like the Minister to give me some information as to the substance of subsection (3) which reads:

Regulations made under section 45 of the Principal Act in relation to the packing of bacon and the materials and packages to be used for the packing shall not apply in relation to the packing, or the materials or packages to be used in the packing, of bacon in relation to which regulations made under this section apply.

Between "packing" and "packaging", the wording is rather confusing. I expect that regulations previously made were so inapplicable to modern conditions that they would not apply or should not apply in the paragraph of the section.

I presume that pre-packing would cover dry freeze goods for which there is such an immense opening for traders. Everything possible should be done in the care and transport of goods pre-packed in some of our up-to-date factories. It would be a pity if any subsequent error in dealing with pre-packaged products in transit by rail, sea or air occurred to damage the sale of our products in any foreign market. The wording of subsection (3) is rather hard to follow, but I hope it means that the restrictions imposed will be more restrictive and effective than they were under regulations dealing with packaging and packing of material for export.

Mr. Smith

That is exactly the position as I understand it. Section 35 of the Act to which the Senator has referred deals with the making of general regulations and applies to the whole bacon business. So far as I understand the subsection to which the Senator has drawn attention, it is designed to empower the Commission, where it is right and proper, to make other and more strict regulations in regard to exports.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

The sooner that is done, the better. The old system of packing bales of bacon in sacking was not a good advertisement.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 27.

Question proposed: "That Section 27 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Burke

This is a very comprehensive section and I referred to it earlier in speaking on Section 24. I asked the Minister if he was empowered to assist the export of bacon in any way, other than in the form of Wiltshire sides and major cuts. On reading this section, I took it from the marginal note and also from the first subsection that it was more a question of promotion rather than of financial support for the export of bacon, that the Commission could assist in the establishment or even in the purchase of a chain of retail shops in England, that it could engage in advertising, make market surveys and investigation and carry out periodic comprehensive reviews of the bacon and other pig-meat products outside the State. Paragraph (f) provides that the Commission may publish, and distribute, or provide for the publication and distribution of, pamphlets, notices, bulletins, etc. The Minister mentioned paragraph (g) as the paragraph which would probably assist exports——

Mr. Smith

In every form.

Mr. Burke

——other than the Wiltshire sides or the major cuts. I should like to ask him if he can give us a definite assurance.

Mr. Smith

If words mean anything at all—surely the paragraph could not be more comprehensive?

Mr. Burke

They will be assisted "financially or otherwise"?

Mr. Smith

There is no doubt about it.

Mr. Burke

I accept the Minister's assurance.

Mr. L'Estrange

This section gives power to the Commission to:

provide, or arrange for, or assist, financially or otherwise, in the provision of publicity in any form or medium both in and outside the State for the purpose of encouraging the increased consumption of bacon and other pigmeat and pig-meat products...

I hope a better hand will be made of this than was made over the past few years. In 1957, a sum of £250,000 was set aside in the Budget, and I remember Senator Lenihan and other Senators speaking at length about what would be done with that £250,000. We all agree that our marketing system is completely antediluvian and that new methods and new techniques are necessary.

Mr. Carter

I wonder would Senator Burke agree?

Mr. L'Estrange

In the dying hours of the reign of office of this Government, after four years, we find Fianna Fáil now introducing this Bill. Ireland was not represented at the Food Fair held in London last year. A letter appeared in the Sunday Independent of September 25th, 1960, headed: “I went to see the Irish Stand at the Food Fair—but there wasn't any!” The letter is from an Irishman in England. We have often said in the past that if we could only get our Irish people who have emigrated over the past ten or 12 years to buy our Irish products, they would make a wonderful contribution to the farmers of this country. The letter reads:

It was with very real interest that I went along to the International Food Fair in London. I spent some pleasant hours going from one national stand to another, each displaying a bewildering variety of foodstuffs.

All the agricultural nations seemed to be there: from Ghana in Africa to Japan in Asia. The Communist bloc countries were represented in force with attractive displays by Poland, Hungary, Rumania, East Germany and others.

An Cathaoirleach

In what way does that relate to the section?

Mr. L'Estrange

Yes, Sir, it does. I want an assurance that this money will be properly used in the future. We were told four years ago that £250,000 of the taxpayers' money was being set aside to encourage marketing. I am speaking now, about three years after that sum of £250,000 was set aside, when Ireland was not represented at the Food Fair in London, on our very doorstep, where there are 50,000,000 people crying out for our food, and we are the nearest nation to them. I hope there is an improvement and that the money being devoted under this section will be properly spent and that Ireland will be represented at the Food Fair this year.

Mr. O'Quigley

Paragraph (d) of the section empowers the Commission to carry out experiments and so on, in relation to the new and improved types of bacon and other pigmeat and pigmeat products. It appears to me to be relevant to inquire from the Minister whether in fact this section relates to the activities of the Commission within the State? The emphasis so far has been on what the Commission will do in relation to the export market. We have a market here at home which is very valuable to pig producers and bacon curers and we ought not to do anything that might tend to reduce the size of that market. Indeed, our objective should be to try to increase it. I should like the Minister to tell us whether or not he considers there is a problem in regard to the type of bacon reaching the Irish housewife. I receive complaints from time to time from both housewives and shopkeepers. The shopkeepers complain the bacon they receive is not of the proper quality. I am speaking now of quality only. I am not at the moment concerned with prices.

Will the Commission have any power under this section to enforce certain standards in relation to bacon for consumption at home? I should like to know also whether the Commission will have any authority in relation to sausages and puddings. There are frequent complaints about sausages. If the Commission have no authority, has the Minister any authority to raise the standard and improve the type of pigmeat products reaching Irish consumers? If the Commission have such authority, I hope the Minister will see to it that they will be encouraged to exercise such authority. While we are all concerned about our export market, we ought not to allow ourselves to end up in the position in which the home market will diminish and the increase in the export market will merely have the effect of balancing the loss on the home market.

Mr. Smith

This Commission is being established for the purpose of more efficiently disposing of our surplus bacon on outside markets. The home trade is, of course, important but there is no provision made in this Bill in relation to the home market.

Mr. Burke

With regard to one of the points made by Senator O'Quigley there are 40 bacon factories in the country and there are at least four times as many sausage manufacturers. If a retailer does not like the quality of the products he gets, the most effective way of ensuring an improvement is to buy from somebody else. That will ensure an improvement more effectively than any Government control. Unless we become a totalitarian State, no Government can control such matters by regulation. They are controlled by customers' selection. That is the most effective control.

Mr. L'Estrange

I asked the Minister a question and, with all due respect to the Chair, I am quite in order in the point I made previously. Section 27 (e) provides that the Commission shall:

establish, equip and operate, and provide for the establishment, equipment and operation of, and assist, financially or otherwise, in the operation of, showrooms, information bureaux, and similar establishments, in the State and outside the State, designed to promote the increased consumption of bacon and other pigmeat and pigmeat products and to promote increases in the quantities of bacon and other pigmeat and pigmeat products exported from the State,

I claim I was in order in raising the point I raised and I think I am entitled to an answer. Ireland was not represented at the Food Fair last year. Does the Minister think Ireland will be represented in future at international Food Fairs in London?

Mr. Smith

That has no relation whatsoever to this section. The section is identical with other provisions of a similar character in other Acts. The same powers are being given as were given in the Act establishing An Bord Bainne. It does not follow that all these powers will be exercised. It does not follow that any particular form of publicity or advertisement will be undertaken. It does not follow that we shall have displays at Food Fairs, or anything of that kind. It merely provides the means by which certain things can be done if the Commission think it wise to do them. I think even the Marketing Advisory Committee had their doubts as to the advantages of these displays. While it is only right that there should be power to do these things, it is only natural that those who have the responsibility of taking a decision should ask themselves whether or not they are worth it or whether or not the benefits to be derived from the expenditure involved justify such a decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 28 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration".

Mr. Burke

There has been some talk about the price of bacon in Britain. For some considerable time past, if you add the A Special and the A bacon and take the mean, Irish bacon is among the first three or four national brands of bacon marketed in Britain. I think it well to state that because there is an enormous amount of publicity if Irish bacon happens to meet a bad market. It generally meets a bad market for the same reason as cattle, sheep, or anything else. If 50 per cent. more than is required arrives on the market, the price is bound to fall. It is well that people should know that. This Bill is designed to promote a more orderly marketing of our bacon.

Question put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. L'Estrange

I am sorry the Minister could not see his way to accepting some of the reasonable and enlightened amendments proposed here this evening. Evidently, he prefers to have the Bill as introduced. We all want to see a first class Board and one working in harmony and co-operation with producers and curers, having the confidence and co-operation of both producers and curers. The curers have used the big stick, or their monetary or political influence——

An Cathaoirleach

That does not arise on this stage of the Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am referring——

An Cathaoirleach

That matter does not arise on this Stage of the Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am referring to what is in the Bill. They have used their influence——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is out of order on this Stage of the Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

They have got——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will resume his seat. I draw the Senator's attention to the fact that he is out of order on this Stage of the Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

You ruled me out of order a few minutes ago, Sir, on something on which I was entitled to speak on Section 37.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator L'Estrange will resume his seat.

Mr. L'Estrange

For what reason, Sir?

An Cathaoirleach

I call on Senator L'Estrange to resume his seat.

Mr. L'Estrange

For what reason, Sir?

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will resume his seat.

Mr. L'Estrange

If I get up here and say one word against the Fianna Fáil Party, I am called on to resume my seat.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator, on this Stage, must deal with what is in the Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am dealing with what is in the Bill.

An Cathaoirleach

I call on the Senator to resume his seat. The Senator will now withdraw from the House.

Mr. L'Estrange

I will not.

An Cathaoirleach

In the circumstances I have no alternative but to name Senator L'Estrange.