Private Business. - Wool Marketing Bill, 1968: Second Stage. – Seanad Éireann (11th Seanad) – Wednesday, 26 Jun 1968

Private Business. - Wool Marketing Bill, 1968: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Blaney)

The difficulties of the wool trade over the past few years are well known. Credit restrictions abroad and, perhaps even more importantly, competition from man-made fibres brought about a decline in prices. Nevertheless there is a future for our wool but only provided it is of good quality and graded, presented and marketed efficiently. The purpose of the Bill before the House is to improve the presentation and marketing of wool. In the meantime the Government is in no way unmindful of the difficulties of mountain sheep farmers as is evidenced by the Mountain Lamb Subsidy Scheme under which this year a subsidy of £1 each will be paid on suitable lambs of the Blackface Mountain and Cheviot breeds in mountain flocks.

The Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Wool Improvements, whose report was presented to this House in July, 1966. The terms of reference of the committee were:

To consider and recommend desirable improvements in the quality, handling and marketing of Irish wool, including the question of grading.

The committee consisted of 12 members representing producers, traders, manufactures, the Agricultural Institute and my Department. It was, therefore, fully representative of the interests concerned.

The main recommendations of the committee, as incorporated in the Bill, fall broadly under four headings:

(1)wool to be bought from producers on a graded basis;

(2)buyers of wool to be registered with my Department;

(3)exporters of wool to be licensed by my Department;

(4)a council—called An Chomhairle Olla in the Bill—to be established, on which producers and traders will be represented and which will have functions relating to the grading of wool, the standards for registration, the standards to be observed by wool exporters, as well as the promotion of wool exports and the securing of the maximum use of home-produced wool by Irish manufacturers.

To bring about an improvement in the presentation of Irish wool on both the home and export markets, the grading of wool is clearly vital.

The Bill, therefore, provides in section 11 for the making of regulations for the purchase of wool on a graded basis, and, where such regulations apply, purchases in contravention of them will be an offence. It is the intention that, as the Committee on Wool Improvements recommends, the grading system will be simple and easily understood and that the regulations will provide for price premiums where wool is of good quality, and for deductions where it has defects, but the basic price of wool will not be fixed. It will also be obligatory for buyers to give producers statements giving prescribed details of purchases.

I come, now, to the question of the registration of wool buyers, which is dealt with in sections 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11. These provisions are very important because, unless buyers have got suitable premises and competent staff—and these are the broad requirements for registration—any regulations that might be made for the purchase of wool on a graded basis could be stultified. The advice of An Chomhairle Olla will be obtained on the standards for registration, and, in the light of this advice, regulations will be made dealing with premises and the associated plant and machinery. Existing buyers of wool will be entitled to registration if their premises and associated plant and machinery comply with the provisions of the relevant regulations. Their continued registration will be subject to their compliance with the Act and any regulations made thereunder.

The licensing of wool exporters under section 7 will not involve any detailed control on wool exports. Existing exporters will be entitled to receive licences initially, but the continuance of their licences and the issue of new licences will depend on the suitability of the licensee as an exporter.

Section 9 of the Bill sets out what is to be done if it is proposed to cancel registration or revoke a licence. Briefly, a month's notice of intention must be given to the person concerned, who has the right to request an inquiry into the matter. Where that happens, a practising barrister of at least ten years standing will be appointed to carry out the inquiry. Wherever the final decision is to cancel or revoke, as the case may be, a statement of the reasons involved will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

I should like to turn, now, to the provisions dealing with An Chomhairle Olla, which are contained in sections 12 to 18 and in the Schedule. An Chomhairle Olla will include representatives of producers and the trade. There has been some misunderstanding of the position about this. I should, therefore, like to draw attention to Article 6 of the Schedule. That lays down the minimum representation on each side and not, as seems to have been thought in some quarters, the maximum,

An Chomhairle will play a vital role in the successful implementation of a rational system of wool marketing. It will be relied on for advice about grading and standards for registration. It will also fix a code of practice to be observed by exporters. Furthermore, it will be empowered to undertake promotion measures, such as mounting publicity campaigns abroad to stimulate exports, and will consider ways of increasing the use of home-produced wool by Irish manufacturers. It will, therefore, become the focal point of all wool improvement efforts. In the course of time it may become clear that other functions should appropriately be assigned to it. For that reason, provision is made in section 14 of the Bill for the making of orders, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, assigning further functions to An Chomhairle.

In accordance with the recommendation of the Committee on Wool Improvements, An Chomhairle Olla will not, itself, engage in the purchase and sale of wool. The reasons for this are set out in paragraphs 128 to 134 of the committee's report, which points out that, in our circumstances, a marketing board

would have to relate its purchase prices for wool to the realised prices on world markets. The only solution to this problem appeared to the Committee to be a two-part price system comprising a basic payment to producers at the time of purchase of their wool and an appropriate extra payment later related to the board's resale receipts.

The financing of a wool marketing board would involve heavy capital to meet wool purchase and operational costs. Also it has been represented that the operational costs of a board could be expected to be high especially in view of the relatively small size of individual producers' clips in this country and the necessity to operate a two-part price system.

The Committee while believing that ultimately the establishment of a wool board might become feasible and generally accepted, considers that at this stage it would be preferable to introduce such control measures as are necessary in the short term within the framework of the existing trade.

The committee also states that "should the measures it has recommended prove inadequate in the course of time and experience, a more thorough organisation of marketing under a wool board should be adopted". Two members of the committee, however, signed the report with the reservation that they would not favour the organisation of marketing under a wool board, while, on the other hand, one member thought that "the only ultimate solution is a complete marketing board", and signed the report "as a stepping stone to such a board".

I accept the general consensus of views expressed by the committee. I believe that the first essentials are grading, registration and export promotion under central authority, and that these objectives can be fully realised without the major, and possibly hazardous, step of taking over the job of buying and selling. In other words, I believe in a combination of private and public enterprise in this particular sector of our agriculture, but my views are not fixed and rigid, and I am prepared to re-examine the position, if necessary, in the light of a few years experience of the functioning of this Bill. My expectation, however, is that the fundamental objective of securing the best possible return for our wool by raising the standard of presentation and marketing can be secured under this Bill which, as I have said, gives effect to the recommendatons of persons who have a detailed knowledge and long experience of all aspects of the trade.

Mr. Malone

It is with mixed feelings of pleasure and disappointment that I read the Bill and have listened to the Minister's speech. I am quite sure that there is no farmer who can ever say that he knows everything about farming, and if that is true it is even more true about sheep production. As the Minister has pointed out in his speech, the last few years have seen the wool business having an uphill struggle to compete with man-made fibres in the great wool producing countries of Australia and New Zealand where, I think, the emphasis is on wool production rather than on mutton and lamb, whereas here we seem up to now to have concentrated on lamb and mutton rather than on wool. Any measure the Minister can bring into this House to improve the marketing arrangements and to improve quality and thereby in the long run benefit the producer must be welcomed.We will congratulate him for doing so and I am sure the farming community will thank him for the end result. Having said that, I suppose the Minister will say "Beware of the Greeks when they come bringing gifts". I have some criticism which I will make at a later stage.

The section dealing with the control of the purchase of wool is something which is long overdue. Some years back a campaign was launched called the "Clean Wool Campaign" and it endeavoured to do what is now to be enacted in this Bill—to ensure that the haphazard producer who presented his fleece for sale with daggings and other impurities would be penalised. All the campaign succeeded in doing was to persuade the farmers to discontinue branding their sheep with tar and to use the recommended marking fluids.

We have all too often heard of the inefficient producers getting the same price and in some cases more than the producer who tried to present his fleece in the best possible condition and in the best possible way to get the higher price. Unfortunate producers who went to the trouble and expense of having their sheep washed thoroughly before being shorn found the sheep lost weight. These people got nothing to compensate by way of price over the producer who did not do so.

Mr. McDonald

Quite true.

Mr. Malone

If the provision in the Bill provides compensation for the efficient producer of wool the measure is to be welcomed. The section in the Bill which really disappointed me was that which deals with the setting up of the wool council, An Chomhairle Olla. The Minister here seemed to set about achieving something. He got so far and failed to complete the job. From his speech here this evening it would seem that with the passage of time this council may materialise into something bigger than is presented to us in the Bill.

The committee investigating wool production did not unanimously recommend a wool marketing board. We can see the obstacles, the cost, the personnel involved and the various other factors which would have to be taken into consideration. With the passage of time and with the experience which must be gained from this council a full wool marketing board will emerge. Under this Bill we have a council which has neither power nor responsibility. The Minister is to receive recommendations from them. They can advise but they cannot bear any responsibility for anything which goes wrong. They are to be just purely an advisory body.

The Minister will on their advice have grading experts trained and in that respect it will require a huge number of personnel to carry out that very important job and it will take some considerable time, indeed, to have sufficient men trained in that job. The Committees of Agriculture, to my mind, can play a very important part in this in that they can, should they be provided by the Department with the essential advisers, advise the sheep producers on the best methods of wool production, the best methods of presentation, the standard required and how the grading can affect the price of presentation for sale.

The small buyer is the person who will merit my considerable sympathy when this Bill is enacted. There are some buyers in the wool trade who have operated for a number of years on a small scale. Their overheads will be very much smaller than the bigger merchants. Their houses and equipment will be quite suitable to their needs and because their overheads are low they are very often able to give that extra penny per pound which is so essential and so welcome to the sheep farmer when he comes to sell the fleece. Is he to be victimised under this Bill? Is he to be receive something by way of compensation or something by way of grant to bring up his premises to the necessary requirement? Are the buyers to become a monopoly so that the farmers must sell to the bigger combines and those small men will be put out of business?

There is a provision in the Bill that existing exporters will be registered and if they have in time lived up to their requirements they will be allowed to continue but if not they will be put out of business. There are to my mind loose ends in the Bill which I think would be better tackled on Committee Stage. There are many items in it which I certainly welcome and there are a number on which I should like more information. In that regard I think we could leave it until Committee Stage, but, perhaps, the Minister in his reply would indicate why in the Schedule An Chomhairle Olla should have to acquire, hold and dispose of land. This is something I cannot understand. For what purpose would they require to buy, hold and acquire land? Perhaps the Minister would give us a little bit more information on that.

The fixing of standards will be extremely important and, as I said, it will take a long time to have the necessary personnel trained. In the meantime I repeat that it would be advisable to have the Committees of Agriculture with some officers fully competent to advise and instruct the wool producers on the best methods of production and presentation. The inevitable price has to be paid for all this. We have provision made in the Bill that a levy would be recovered from the sale of the wool to pay for it and I hope that what we are giving with one hand the Minister will not take away with the other. In so far as the Bill will bring about some long overdue improvements in the wool marketing situation I welcome it and I look for further improvement on Committee Stage.

Mr. Dolan

I welcome this Bill, the main purpose of which is to improve the presentation and marketing of wool. We are all aware of the fact that since history was written in this country sheep and wool have been important elements of our economy. It is on record that the Irish were such experts in the manufacture of wool products that the British passed an Act in 1641 to try to destroy the wool trade of the country. It was about that time that flax and linen began to take over from wool in the economy. In the time of the Gobán Saor great value was always put on the fleece and it is encouraging to see the Minister bring in this Bill to ensure that those producing wool will have a fair chance of getting a good cash return for their labours.

The fact that this country has in the past been so expert in producing wool products should mean that we will reap great benefit from the provisions of this Bill. If we could cash in on the potential on the sale abroad and at home of articles made from wool such as Aran sweaters and carpets, this could be a good expanding industry and those producing sheep and wool would be remunerated for their labours. The scheme recently introduced by the Minister which gave a subsidy of £1 per head for mountain lambs was welcome to all sheep producers and it is something for which they are tremendously grateful. For a long time they were trying to raise sheep under hazardous conditions because of the poverty of the soil, the high altitudes in which they were reared and the serious losses at lambing time.

Any legislation that will help the producer to get a fair price for his wool will be welcome. In the past sheep owners have had many grievances because of the methods of marketing and presentation then prevailing. Quite frequently one or two buyers went around the country and bought up most of the wool crop at their own prices. The combines and the cartels made their own prices and it was only later that the producers learned that the price they had been given was below the world price. Those people gave to the producer whatever it was their pleasure to give them. That was a most unsatisfactory state of affairs and one that could not encourage people in sheep breeding.

In many parts of the country sheep rearing is the main way of life and in most of the counties where sheep farming is followed we find the most densely populated parts of the country. The farms are small and the valuations are small because the farms might comprise of large tracts of poor mountain land of not much value. Very often the value of the wool grown on that land is not as good as the value of the wool grown on better land but I think that a market could be found for that type of wool in the manufacture of carpets and other woollen fabrics.

This matter of ensuring that in future wool will be bought on a graded basis is very important. The marking of the wool with tar was injurious to the wool itself and did not help to get a good price for it. In recent years more interest is being taken in wool and sheep farming by virtue of the encouragement given by the mountain subsidy scheme and because of the new board which is being set up under this Bill which will ensure that there will be better facilities for those engaged in the industry. I welcome this Bill which will be an encouragement to the sheep and wool farmers who in the past were not classed in the upper ten of the agricultural industry.

Some time ago the Government introduced a scheme of temendous benefit to people in the mountain regions by which grants were given for the fencing of large tracts of the mountains and also for the fencing of lambing enclosures. These grants were of great value to those living in those areas and they appreciate them very much. These people are glad to see an effort being made to ensure that the wool will be bought on a graded basis, that there will be registered buyers, that those exporting wool will have to have a licence and that as much wool as possible will be used in the production of woollen goods in this country.

In some areas the dipping of sheep has become very important in recent years and it is good to see an effort being made to ensure that sheep will be dipped regularly. There have been complaints in some areas from boards of conservators that the effluent from sheep-dipping tanks was causing pollution of rivers but when that complaint was investigated it was found that there was no basis for it. Despite that some sheep baths were closed down and the sheep farmers resented this very much.

Again I welcome the Bill and I feel that it is another milestone in the advance that is being made and another of the benefits being given to those engaged in this difficult and hazardous form of farming. It is a form of farming always beset with difficulties but the farmers engaged in it are hard workers who work long hours and who, when they feel they are being treated reasonably well, give a good performance.The people of those areas will be deeply grateful for this effort to improve their way of life.

Mr. Murphy

I suppose it is not right for a person who is not a farmer to speak on a Bill such as this but I want to raise a point of criticism. I know enough about history, geography and farming to appreciate that the farming community involved in the rearing of sheep are mostly in the poorer counties and are a section of the farming community that have been most in need of assistance. They are resident in areas where emigration has been worst and we know that many farms have been deserted, farms where the families were formerly engaged in the rearing of sheep.

Now we are dealing with the Wool Marketing Bill 1968 approving the establishment of An Chomhairle Olla and this arises from a report of the Committee on Wool Improvements which report was approved in July, 1966, two years ago. Now we have a Bill in 1968 proposing to implement the recommendations of that committee.I should have thought in all seriousness that there was a measure of urgency about this; that the problems of the farmers engaged in the production of sheep and in the marketing of wool were so serious as to need the urgent attention of the Minister. I imagine that the farmers concerned are probably not as well organised and as forcible in their demands as, for example, the creamery milk suppliers, and that is not in any way criticism of the latter. As the Minister explained in his speech, he is largely implementing what the committee recommended in their report published in July, 1966. I should like to hear an explanation from the Minister as to why proposals recommended, and apparently generally accepted, two years ago have to wait two years before they are put into a Bill and presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I do not think that is good enough. I think this should have been a matter of urgency. There is nothing in the Minister's speech to explain why two years have elapsed between the receipt of the report of the committee and the promoting of legislation. We are told that legislation takes time to prepare. We have Parliamentary draftsmen of whom we hear such a lot about here, but we have had other cases where legislation has been prepared and has gone through the Houses of the Oireachtas very quickly.

This is a measure on which there is no opposition at all. It is welcomed all round. While I have that criticism to make I have equally something to say in that I welcome the Bill and I hope that An Chomhairle Olla will be established quickly when the Bill has been passed and that it will meet with the success that similar boards have met with which have been established to increase the wealth of our agricultural community. I would wish that An Chomhairle Olla would be equally successful but I do want to make this criticism and I hope the Minister in his reply will give an explanation as to why two years have elapsed between the submission of the report of the committee and the production of the necessary legislation.

Professor Quinlan

I just cannot see this as anything but another barefaced takeover bid. The Department of Agriculture are far more concerned with empire building than getting competent groups together to do the job. The last speaker wondered why it took two years to get on to this problem. In point of fact, it has not taken two years but 15 years since the national groups concerned, Macra na Feirme and the National Farmers Association, made it crystal clear that it was necessary to put wool as well as every other agricultural product on a quality basis if we were to compete on a world market. It took 15 years to get that proposal translated into the paltry legislation we have here tonight.

Macra na Feirme were the first into this field and they and the National Farmers in full co-operation with the Agricultural Organisation Society put their own meagre resources to work in the 50's. The Minister's predecessor Seán Moylan, ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam—no greater Minister ever graced the Department of Agriculture— strongly supported the idea of payment for quality. Vested interests of all sorts tried to sabotage the Macra na Feirme scheme but they failed in that design. A great deal of that success was due to both Mr. John Callanan and the Rev. Father Reidy who both did a first-class job on slender resources. It was crystal clear to them from the beginning that wool marketing could only be made to work satisfactorily if a full wool marketing board was set up, the type of marketing board which all our agriculturists have seen to be absolutely necessary in a modern economy. They called for it and it was not two years ago but right through the 1950's and into the 1960's.

It is no excuse to say the amount involved is too big. The value of the wool crop is £3,500,000. That is a small amount in the context of the total production of agriculture, and the question of stabilising that from year to year even if the State had to contribute the lot would cost but £250,000. That would be giving £250,000 to £500,000 to the most deserving sector of our community, the small wool producers, especially if the large wool producers were partially excluded. It would be easy to ensure that State equalisation could take account of the amount sold by any wool producer. Why has it not been done? Simply because there are too many vested interests involved in this, the same vested interests that acted against the NFA scheme. They are still with us, still fighting and they will keep fighting for a long time.

A wool marketing board is the only sure and complete method, not a marketing board under the Minister and his Department but a board preferably organised and directed by the IAOS, which is where it should be, where the late Senator Seán Moylan would have put it, where any progressive Minister for Agriculture in Europe would have put it, under the central body of the co-operative movement.That is where the Danes have put it, that is where the New Zealanders have organised it. Why should we not learn from their success stories?

Such an organisation should be completely distinct from the Department of Agriculture. It should be on a co-operative or a semi-State basis and its board should reflect the same independence of outlook and have elected representatives from the wool producers as well as from any other interests who are co-operating with them in handling and marketing. The chief people concerned are the small people producing the wool crop but you cannot have wool in isolation. There are associated economies: there is the question of producing mutton as well and, therefore, it should be integrated in the manner of the work being done by the sheep committee of the NFA.

I laugh to think of the Minister's glib write-off of the NFA when he says that all they are concerned with is the maintenance of inter-organisation rivalry. The manner in which our agricultural sector is being developed by the Minister for Agriculture would not be tolerated by any civilised country on either side of the Iron Curtain. The sooner the Minister realises the facts of life, that agriculture must be organised and that the only group who have the organisation to do this at present are the NFA, the better.

The Minister has set out in the Bill the standards that will apply to buyers of wool. Their premises must be adequate.They must have adequate plant and machinery. They must have suitable staff. Why not apply the same standards to any group who attempt to call themselves an agricultural organisation?Why not look at their premises and their approach to the problem and compare them with the type of approach that has developed and has been found necessary and successful in our competitor countries? Surely Senator Murphy would not agree that every group who say "We are a trade union" should be automatically accepted by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions?

Mr. Murphy

I should hate to have to pass an inspection like the one the Minister imposes.

Professor Quinlan

You would rely on the common sense of the people in your organisation to be able to distinguish between an organisation that was adequate and one that was 19th century. In any case, the group mainly concerned at the moment are the NFA Sheep Committee but they have been given no place whatsoever in this legislation. That is fundamentally wrong and consequently An Chomhairle Olla will remain another Cinderella, another white elephant, except that this time it will be a mere white mouse produced by the Minister for Agriculture in his headlong rush to impose——

Mr. Murphy

He does not seem to have been in any headlong rush with this.

Professor Quinlan

——this 19th century solution, so opposed to modern thinking in agriculture. The Minister's predecessors did everything possible to develop agricultural organisations here. They gave them position and place on their boards, and rightly so. It ill becomes the Minister to reverse this in one year of office, to neglect the one guiding principle in all organisation—the principle of subsidiary function. In the Chomhairle Oiliúna——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Perhaps the Senator would return to the Bill.

Professor Quinlan

I am returning to the Bill because it epitomises everything that is worst in the organisation of agriculture in this or any other country. Therefore, I should like from Seanad Éireann to speak out plainly on this measure and let it be seen for what it is. It is going to be totally ineffective because it does not grasp the problem, which is the creation of a wool marketing board in close connection with the sheep committee as organised through the National Farmers Association, the board being developed by the Irish co-operative movement in the genuine spirit of that movement, the spirit of Father Finlay, the spirit of Horace Plunkett and the spirit of Father Coyne and all the other distinguished Presidents of the co-operative movement.

Mr. McDonald

I believe that if our sheep prices are to increase and to be returned to the prices that were in the country 18 months ago what we and the Irish farmers require is a proper wool marketing organisation, and in my view also this can best be achieved through co-operation. I was glad to note that the Minister in his speech referred to the composition of the proposed wool marketing board when he pointed out that the figures in the Schedule to the Bill were the minimum figures and not the maximum, that is as regards the number of members of the board who were to be selected from the primary producers, the farmers. In this Schedule the Minister now has a glorious opportunity of displaying once again, and it will indeed be more effective than all the assurances that he gives, that he has no quarrel with any section of the farming community and that he will put on the proposed Comhairle Olla sufficient primary producers to ensure that every section of sheep-rearing farmers will be represented on the proposed council.

There are, indeed, vast differences in the husbandry between hill-farmers in, perhaps, the South of the country or the North of the country and the woolmen we have in the Midlands in the plains where tillage farmers buy in sheep in the autumn and winter them and their work in raising these sheep is altogether different. Again, the mixed farmers in the tillage areas in the Midlands do not qualify for the mountain lamb subsidy scheme and, therefore, they are at a disadvantage in so far as they cannot claim the £1 subsidy per lamb. These people, too, have been losing money on sheep in the past year. This is the main reason why the numbers of sheep have shown such a terrific decline in the country.

There is a lot of trouble and controversy throughout the country with wild allegations being made that the farmers are not co-operating with the Minister or the Department of Agriculture.I should like to assert that this is not so. In every instance when Irish farmers were asked to either increase production or increase standards they have done so on every conceivable occasion. Two years ago when the new regulations were brought in about the clean wool campaign and the anti-sheep scab campaign there was tremendous co-operation and the scheme certainly achieved what it was intended to do. I am genuinely disappointed, more especially when we saw the comprehensive manner in which the Minister brought in every angle in the last Bill before the House here, that the Minister did not avail of this opportunity of transferring from the county councils to the county committees of agriculture the duties and functions of the sheep dipping committees. Those are committees that in many counties do not meet too often. Their function is so limited that I feel it would best be carried out by the county committees of agriculture who meet regularly and have the advisory staffs to carry out the work. That could very easily have been brought in in some degree under this Bill as it certainly has to do with the clean wool campaign and the prevention of scab in sheep.

Looking at the excellent campaign carried out by the British Wool Council—I do not know what its exact designation is—those people have, over the past few years, done a tremendous job in bringing back wool into the everyday lives of the citizens of Britain. A lot of that campaign has overflowed into our country in no uncertain manner, and I believe that wool is now again more than ever taking its place and competing very effectively with the man-made fibres. Perhaps the wool is a little dear, or people thought that it was more difficult to obtain, but I notice that in every drapery shop and store you have the well-known, well-recognised wool mark in evidence, and you hear the housewife asking for it more and more. Something on this line should have been introduced into this legislation.

While the Irish farmer plays a very important part, I have been distressed to hear that there is inferior quality wool being imported into this country and re-exported as Irish wool, at a profit to some trader or other. The complaint generally has been that the middlemen have really been battening on the Irish farmers over the years. The sooner this problem is brought down to some satisfactory level the better. I feel that the only possible way we can tackle this problem is to introduce greater degrees of co-operation in co-operative marketing and selling.

In this Bill, too, I notice that the Minister proposes to register the premises of wool buyers. This to me raises the very important question of the agent, perhaps an agent or buyer, I do not know what he might be, who carries on his business at a number of depots in various villages throughout the country. If the Minister insists that each wool buyer must register one premises and if that man is confined to buying wool from the Irish farmer only at that premises the small farmer whether he be a hill-farmer or from the central plains is at a direct disadvantage, more especially if he has not got the transport to transport his wool a great distance. I can see small farmers with a flock of a dozen or two dozen sheep being left at the mercy of tanglers and wranglers and not getting a fair crack of the whip. It would be a pity if any upset in the present system was to mean that very small farmers, whom everybody seems to be so interested in, were going to be victimised by having to have their wool taken 20 or 30 miles to the premises of a registered buyer. Perhaps when the Minister is replying he will be able to give me some idea of what he intends in this proposal.

I notice in section 9 (2) (c) the Minister may withdraw the licence of a person if the licensee should die. This, perhaps, might prove to be a little harsh on the widow of a buyer. Is this something new? I feel especially in the case of a widow if a merchant has equipped his premises for sale for the purpose of dealing in wool that premises would lose quite a lot of value if it was to be left without a licence. I should like to remind the House, especially as earlier on this afternoon we had a very long drawn out debate on the matter of salaries for the judiciary, of the present price of wool. This year many farmers were faced with prices as low as 2s a pound. In my own county the highest was 2s 8d per pound. When we remember the price of wool was 5s and 6s a pound eight or nine years ago we must admit that the quality of wool in the intervening decade has increased in no uncertain way.

The presentation of fleeces has also improved. I should like to pay a well deserved tribute to Macra na Feirme in particular for the success of the national sheep shearing competition. Those are not just games which young farmers play in the summer afternoons. They are designed to improve workmanship and the craft of shearing sheep and in so doing to provide fleece of the best possible quality. This has proved a very great success and anyone who goes to any of those competitions will see the great interest taken in them. Year after year the standard of the participants rises. In recent times Irish wool has improved and great credit is due to the people who organise those classes, courses and demonstrations but it is regrettable to find that even at that the price of wool is almost halved.

This is something the Minister will have to take into consideration. It is all right to say that the Government are paying a subsidy of £1 to the hill farmer. Then, again, as I have already mentioned, there are very many small farmers and big farmers in this country who do not qualify for this £1 subsidy. They have a right to expect a decent standard of living for their work and for the improved techniques they are putting into the entire operation.

The Department of Agriculture introduced some time ago new grants for sheep dipping tanks. The specification in relation to such equipment is, I should imagine, very elaborate. Farm buildings and even equipment such as sheep dipping tanks in this country are of a high standard. When going around the country you often encounter corrals or pens, quite effective and simple structures, which do a very efficient job. Scaled down grants should be made available even in the case of structures built of something other than concrete. I think with the present shortterm agricultural policy it is unfair to expect people whose land does not permit them pursuing one particular aspect of farming only, even with the added grants, to put up permanent structures when, perhaps, less permanent ones would do.

The ideal solution, of course, would be for the Minister, even at this stage, to introduce a long-term agricultural policy which would allow the Irish farmers to plan ahead for many years and have some chance of reaping a return. According to the Schedule the Minister may at any time remove a member of An Chomhairle from office. At this particular juncture in the relations between the Minister and the farmers we could do without that provision because it would appear that here again the Minister has a stick and it certainly lends force to the argument of people who say that the Minister will not co-operate. I should like to ask the Minister—I propose to put in an amendment on this—if he will in the interest of farming and good relations drop that provision and put his faith in the people who will go on the board. When a person is nominated to the council let him serve five years. I think the suggestion that if a man does not toe the line he will be fired is wrong. We need not only more co-operation but also the willingness to accept one another's point of view to a greater extent. For that reason I feel the Minister would be making a good gesture of his sincerity towards Irish farmers if he dropped that final clause.

The Minister has pointed out that the figures in 6 (b) are minimum figures. I should like the Minister to give an assurance to the House that instead of not less than three, he will increase the categories of Irish farmers he wishes to have represented on the board. There is a small hill sheep farmers' association that does not get itself into the papers very often but they are a significant body and should have representation on this board. The National Farmers Association have an effective organisation inasmuch as they represent a large number of farmers, both hill and vale, and they should have representation also.

An Foras Tionscal has done wonderful work for all aspects of Irish agriculture. I have been going around to their open days and my admiration for their work and dedication has grown more and more. This institution has the farms and the personnel to carry out trials; they have a proved method of recording these trials and I feel that a member of the sheep section of An Foras Tionscal could help the board and the country very well by their experience which they could place at the disposal of the board.

There is no doubt that the Minister has a very wide field from which to choose. If Irish agriculture is to succeed we must trust one another and I think the Minister's intentions are good and I have faith in him to appoint an effective council. If he agrees to drop No. 3 in the Schedule he will be displaying his faith in Irish farmers and in the people who will agree to serve on the Comhairle. Anybody who agrees to serve on the Comhairle will go on to it with the highest possible motive. If we accept one another's position from that point of view we will have got off to a good start.

Corás Tráchtála has a part to play in the export of Irish agriculture. As the Comhairle will not have an expert we should utilise the machinery we already have. I cannot see any tremendous difficulty in an organisation such as Corás Tráchtála establishing a small section to deal with this entire industry, especially since the number of sheep are down and consequently the yield of wool is down. I think the Minister could usefully consider something along those lines. I welcome the fact that the Minister has brought in this Bill at last and I hope that before it leaves the Seanad it will be amended and will be a better Bill than it is now.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

It may be off-colour for a Senator whose residence is in Terenure to start talking about the Wool Marketing Board. Sheep raising in Terenure is very small and I do not think there is much chance of building it up, but I am interested in the Bill and I think a great deal of good could result from it. I am inclined to side with Professor Quinlan in thinking that it would improve the Bill if the powers given to the Minister in it were smaller. When dealing with the Fishery Harbours Bill I congratulated the Minister on taking the problem by the throat, and I thought the Minister deserved full support for doing so. Here I am not so sure, and I propose to mention examples from the Bill of cases where I feel the Minister is asking for and being given too much personal power.

I should like to see the Bill recognising that there are sheep farmers who are organised, who are capable of co-operation, who should be consulted, and the co-operation of whom should be recognised in the Bill. I feel also that participation in the day-to-day work of the Comhairle should be a requisite in the Bill, participation by such sheep farmers' organisations.

In section 1, I notice that the word "prescribed" in lines 34 and 35 is defined as meaning regulations made by the Minister in accordance with the Act. I suggest that in the Act, while a "prescribed fee" is mentioned frequently, there is no clause in the Bill which gives the power to the Minister to prescribe the fee. I may be wrong in this, and I am open to correction, but I read the Bill carefully and while I see the word "prescribed" defined, I do not see any section which gives the Minister power to prescribe a fee.

I notice in section 2 that "the Minister may by Order appoint a day to be the establishment day for the purposes of the Act"; and in section 5 subsection (1) it states that "as soon as may be after the passing of this Act the Minister shall" etc. I find the use of the different forms confusing, "the passing of the Act" and "the establishment day". I am sure that there is a clear explanation of that, and I am asking the Minister to give it to us. Is the establishment day the day of the passing of the Act or the one on which the Act comes into operation. I notice en passant, in subsection (5) of section 5 that there is reference to the prescribed fee. I do not think that the Minister or anybody else has power to prescribe a fee according to the Act. The same occurs in subsection (2), paragraph A of section 6.

Then I come to subsection (3) of section 6 which says:

Whenever the Minister proposes to refuse an application for registration in the register he shall, before doing so, notify in writing the applicant for registration of his intention and of the reasons therefor, and, if any representations are made to the Minister by the applicant within seven days after the giving of the notification, the Minister shall consider them.

What this really means is that an appeal shall lie to the Minister against the Minister. If the Minister turns down your application you have to write to the Minister within seven days and he is compelled under the terms of this Act to "consider" your appeal. I feel that the mechanism of this appeal is not sufficient since it represents merely an appeal to the Minister against the Minister. This is asking for too much from the Minister. The same kind of thing is in a great number of places. In section 7 (1) the phrase occurs:

...the Minister may, at his discretion, grant or refuse to grant a licence...

In subsection (3) of the same section it says:

The Minister may, at the time of the granting of a licence under this section, attach to the licence such conditions as he shall think proper...

In subsection (4) it says:

The Minister,if he so thinks fit, amend or revoke a condition attached to a licence.

In subsection (1) of section 8 the Minister is mentioned here in connection with fees. It says:

There shall be paid to the Minister ...such fee (if any) as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may fix by regulation.

The fee may be paid and that fee would be such as he "may fix". Is this sufficient to give the power to the Minister to fix a fee? I may be wrong in the interpretation of this, but it does not seem right to say that the Minister may fix a fee—"such fee as he may fix" with no clause to give him the power. I do not think the power is granted under the Act. Perhaps this subsection is insufficient. I would like a lawyer's opinion on that.

An odd thing I notice in section 9 (1) is that:

The Minister shall—

(a) cancel the registration of any person in the register,

(b) revoke a licence granted to a person under the Act,

upon the application of the person or, in the case of a deceased person, his personal representative, or in the case of a body corporate, the liquidator.

What occurs to me there is that if the personal representative of a deceased person does not apply to have the registration cancelled, the Minister has no power to cancel it. He has power to cancel it on application of the person, or on application of the personal representative of the deceased person, but if the personal representative of the deceased person does not so apply, there does not seem to be any power on earth for the Minister to cancel that registration.

I notice in paragraph 9 (4) (c) that:

the Minister shall cause an inquiry to be held...

in relation to certain notice given, and so on. I think this is a good thing. If I may suggest, I would like to see this principle more apparent in the Act, than the one which provides that the Minister himself alone can inquire into these complaints or grievances.

In section 10 we fall back into the more authoritarian phrases. Subsection (1) says:

The Minister may, if he so thinks fit, by regulation grant exemption from the provisions of this Act in relation to businesses of a particular class and to which this Act would otherwise apply.

That seems to me to give very big powers to the Minister. I would not accuse the Minister of abusing such power, but perhaps some of his successors in the forthcoming Coalition Government might do so—abuse?— perish the thought! Nevertheless, he has enshrined here certain concepts of arbitrary power in the Minister. Subsection (2) of section 10 says: This Act shall not apply in relation to a business of a class in respect of which an exemption under this section has been granted and has not been withdrawn.

Again by the Minister. In other words, the entire Act can be torn up by the Minister in relation to certain businesses.Are we satisfied to grant the Minister the right to tear up the entire Act in respect of certain types of businesses?

I think perhaps in section 11 this might be the place to give the Minister power to prescribe a fee. In subsection (2) it states:

Regulation made under subsection (1) (a) may—

(a) provide for either or both of the following, namely, the payment of a specified increase in price in relation to wool of specified quality or the making of a specified reduction in price in relation to wool with specified defects.

Here might be the place where there might be some reference to giving to the Minister the power to prescribe a fee, if I am right in thinking that he has not been granted that power elsewhere.

Then we come to section 12 which relates to the establishment of An Chomhairle Olla. Subsection (2) says:

An Chomhairle shall consist of a chairman and either ten other members, or the number of other members specified in an order under this section and for the time being in force.

Section 3 goes on to give other possibilities, but I would like to ask by whom will these members be nominated?I am afraid I know the answer. The answer is: the Minister or an adviser of his Department. I am not satisfied that the Minister is the best person to decide the entire composition of this Comhairle. I feel that the organised farmers' organisation should be given the right to nominate the members of An Chomhairle since it has power usefully to advise. The Minister's powers under section 13 will be greatly enhanced if people are chosen from within the Minister's men. Their function will be under section 13 to advise the Minister on this, that and the other.

Section 14 (a) says:

assign to An Chomhairle such additional functions relating to wool as he thinks fit.

One can grant that, perhaps, but the Minister is being given a lot of power. He decides whether they will have additional functions or not, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, but without any reference to consultation with An Chomhairle or advice from An Chomhairle, and I feel again that there is a little too much power being taken into the hands of a single Minister.

Again, section 19 (3) reads:

The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by order amend or revoke a levy order or an order under this subsection.

I should like to put a question to the Minister here. Why does he need the power to amend by Order, or revoke entirely, a levy? If a levy or an Order is a good thing must we be asked to give the Minister total power to amend it or abolish it. This is in subsection (3) of section 19. Why does he need this power? Is it a wise thing to give the Minister power to abolish the levy altogether? I welcome the fact in section 24 not only that the officer of the Minister has certain powers of inquiry, not only that he must be authorised in writing, but also, even considerably more important, that, as in subsection (4): the said officer shall be obliged to show his authorisation if so required. This is a good thing and it is to be welcomed, because if somebody is coming in to inspect he should be authorised in writing and he should be obliged to show his authorisation. This has been anticipated by the Minister and his draftsmen.

I wish to make one last point, being aware that many of the points I have made were of the kind which might be more adequately dealt with in Committee.However, they raise questions which the Minister might consider between now and the Committee Stage; and he might wish to put down one or two Government amendments as a result. My last point is that in the Schedule it appears first of all in section 4 (1) that each member of An Chomhairle shall be appointed by the Minister. This means the Minister will choose the lot. I cannot accept this as being a good way to choose An Chomhairle. Section 6 of the Schedule says:

Of the ordinary members of An Chomhairle—

(a) not less than three shall be persons each of whom the Minister considers representative of wool producers, and

(b) not less than three shall be persons each of whom the Minister considers representative of the wool trade.

This is dynamite. We are being asked to allow the Minister to decide who might be legitimately considered to be representative of the producers and of the wool trade. Personally, I am not prepared to grant the Minister these powers. I do not think the Minister for Agriculture is the person who should decide who is the best representative of the wool-producers. The answer is simple. The best people to decide that are the wool producers. Similarly, those in the wool trade are the best people to decide who is best to represent them. This is the last of many points upon which I feel the Minister in this Bill is asking for too much power for the Minister for Agriculture, not only the present occupant of that office, but his successors, in relation to the wool trade.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Blaney)

I take the overall picture of those who have spoken on the Bill as being in general agreement with and extending a welcome to it. That is, with the exception of Senator Quinlan who does not see any good purpose in the Bill nor, indeed, does he credit that there was any intention that any good would come out of it. That is a charitable view of his reception for the Bill. In his talk on it he did not go anywhere near or surrounding the Bill and I will leave these sort of irrelevancies to a later stage, if there is time.

There were many sensible things said by other Senators and I may not mention every detail because, as some of the speakers have emphasised, many of them would be more appropriately dealt with on Committee Stage when we can probably sort them out much more clearly than we would be capable of doing at this stage. Senator Malone mentioned the small buyer and expressed the opinion that he might be placed at a disadvantage, that he might be driven out of business which, he said, would in turn put many small farmers at a disadvantage. That theme was elaborated by Senator McDonald who spoke about the same matter in similar context. He suggested that a monopoly might develop at a later stage as a result of small buyers being driven out of the wool business.

There is no intention and no reason why small buyers should be driven out; and there is no effort being made and there is no aid being afforded in this Bill which would be conducive to the creation of a monopoly. That is the very last thing I would stand for if I had anything to do with it and, according to some Senators who spoke here this evening, I have far too much to do with it. As far as a monopoly is concerned, the Bill is not intended to, nor will it be ever allowed to develop into, the creation of a monopoly which I agree would be not only to the disadvantage of the wool buyers but to the producers, who are our primary concern. Rather should I think that the small buyers, and even those who could not be classified as buyers— people who have not attempted to provide themselves with storage facilities; people who work in small localities — will have their position improved. Many of these buyers who operate in small localities become agents for other buyers. They may continue to operate in that way and will not have to provide themselves with premises, equipment and so forth.

Mr. Malone

Will they have to be licensed?

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 26 Jun 1968