Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84 go together.
SECTION 99.
(3) In allotting under an allocation (production quota) order a portion of the production quota in respect of a particular production period to any licensed premises, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of the immediately preceding sub-sections, have regard to—
(a) the obligations of the licensee in respect of such premises under any order made by the Minister under Section 2 of the Agricultural Products (Regulation of Export) Act, 1933 (No. 26 of 1933), as amended by any subsequent enactment, and
(b) in case such allocation (production quota) order relates to the production quota in respect of the first production period, the quantity of bacon produced in such premises during the period of twelve months ending immediately before the date of the establishment of the Board, and
(c) in case such allocation (production quota) order relates to the production quota in respect of any subsequent production period, the quantity of bacon produced at such premises during the twelve months immediately preceding the commencement of such production period.
(5) The Board may, on the joint application of the holder of a licence in respect of particular premises and the holder of a licence in respect of other premises, transfer from such first-mentioned premises to such other premises the whole or any part of the production sub-quota for such first-mentioned premises in respect of a particular production period, and thereupon the production sub-quota for such first-mentioned premises in respect of such production period and the production sub-quota for such other premises in respect of such production period shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be deemed to have been respectively decreased and increased accordingly.
The following amendments were in the name of the Minister for Agriculture :—
82. In sub-section (3), paragraph (b), page 47, lines 18, 19 and 20, to delete the words " relates to the production quota in respect of the first production period " and to substitute the words " is made during the year 1935 or the year 1936."
83. In sub-section (3), paragraph (b), page 47, to delete lines 22 and 23, and to substitute the words " on the 31st day of December, 1934, and."
84. In sub-section (3), paragraph (c), page 47, in lines 25, 26, and 27, to delete the words " subsequent production period the quantity of bacon produced at such premises during " and to substitute the words " production period commencing on or after the 1st day of January, 1937, the quantity of bacon allotted to such licensed premises under allocation (production quota) orders in respect of the production periods corresponding as nearly as possible to," and in line 28 to insert after the word " such " the words " first-mentioned."
Minister for Agriculture
This is introducing rather a new principle. It is not of very much interest perhaps to the community, but it is of very great interest to the curer. As the Bill stood the basic year in which all production quotas would be issued would be the year ending at the passing of the Act. We are going to change that to the year 1934 because there was a great drive amongst curers to do a big business during the few months the Act was going through. It it rather unfair to the curers themselves. They were going to get pigs at any cost. It was not doing the producers any good. It might do them considerable damage by getting them into extra production. I think, taking everything into account, it is fairer to the producers and the curers that 1934 should be taken as the basic year. That would be that for the first period the year 1934 would be the basic period for the years 1935 and 1936 and when you come to the second period—1937 and 1938—1936 would be the basic period, and so on.
Amendments agreed to.
I move amendment No. 85 :—
In sub-section (3), paragraph (c), at the end of the paragraph, to insert the following words :—" And to any abnormal circumstance which may have had a direct effect upon this quantity."
Amendment No. 85 is directed to relieving the manufacturer if his production has been affected by abnormal circumstances over which he could have no control, and which would have a large direct effect upon the quantity he turned out. How do the amendments we have just passed affect paragraph (c) ? They affect paragraph (c) by altering the period of the twelve months prior to 1934.
Minister for Agriculture
That is so.
Have they any effect on the 1936 year which will be used as the basis for 1937 ?
Minister for Agriculture
1936 will be based on 1934.
And 1937 will be based on 1936 ?
Minister for Agriculture
Yes.
Does not this sub-section 3 apply to the procedure that will be adopted for the purpose of fixing the production quota order ? I want a proviso here that if a curer has fallen below the allowance that was made to him in the production quota order owing to some abnormal circumstances over which he had no control, that that shall not be held against him when the necessary production quota order is being made in the following year.
Could the Deputy give us some idea of circumstances over which he would have no control, considering the whole frame work of the Bill ?
If the factory was burned down.
If it was put out of action he could only take the period for which he was operating.
Not as the Bill stands.
Minister for Agriculture
It is rather a difficult problem. There is no doubt it is a big problem to see that no curer will suffer unduly. On the other hand, certain curers must suffer to some extent; these are the small men who are trying to build up their business because, unfortunately, under this section, these men who were killing, say, 100 pigs two or three years ago are just tied there, they cannot go any further. I think under this section abnormal difficulties would be taken into consideration both under sub-section (1) and sub-section (5) although it is not stated specifically.
Surely there ought to be a section giving a discretion. As paragraph (c) stands at present it reads that the Board shall, subject to the provisions of the immediately preceding sub-sections have regard to the quantity of bacon produced at such premises during the 12 months immediately preceding the commencement of such production period. That ties them absolutely.
Minister for Agriculture
I admit that it is very difficult to cover all those contingencies.
Suppose the factory broke down ?
Minister for Agriculture
The owner could transfer his quota to another person.
Circumstances might arise which would prevent him. Suppose there was a strike on the railway and that he could not get pigs; suppose his plant froze up ?
Or a strike in his factory ?
Minister for Agriculture
Under sub-section (1) all these things may be taken into account.
If the Board may take them into account why not compel the Board to take them into account ?
Minister for Agriculture
Sub-section (5) covers Deputy Dillon's difficulties in some cases, but I think it does not cover them in other cases. It is possible that a man may not be able to transfer his quota in the case of a strike.
The management of another factory may not take it.
There is a danger that certain members of the Board may construe the thing in a most extreme way. They may rule that any curer's increase was due to abnormal circumstances.
Minister for Agriculture
That is true also.
You have no power to increase your business. All the business you can do is governed by the quota allocation order.
Minister for Agriculture
You can only increase your business by buying a business.
The question of compensating the minor curers does not arise. We are giving them a distinctly increased asset.
This problem is sufficiently complicated without bringing in the minor curers. Surely the Minister will agree with me that if in sub-sections (1) and (2) as they stand there is a discretion he ought to place upon the Board an obligation to consider abnormal circumstances.
Minister for Agriculture
I think it is rather bad to tie the Board absolutely to consider those things.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided. Tá, 3; Níl, 7 :—
Tá: Deputies Dillon, Haslett and McGovern—3.
Níl: Deputies Beegan, Keyes, Maguire, Moore, Murphy, O'Reilly and Smith—7.
Amendment declared lost.
The Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Belton did not vote.
Minister for Agriculture
I did not vote because I intend to give the matter further consideration.
The following amendment stood in the name of Deputy Dillon:
86. In sub-section (5) at the end of the section, to insert the following words :—" but such decrease or increase will not be deemed to have taken place for the purposes of sub-section (3), paragraph (c), of this section."
This is covered.
Does the Minister say that my amendment is covered by his amendment ?
Minister for Agriculture
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: " That Section 99, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On this section a very important problem arises. Section 99 gives the Minister power to grant a new licence. To do that he must take from other curers a share of their quota in order to supply the new licensee. I submit to the Minister that this Bill in effect restricts all the curers in their business, and that is done for the public good, but if the Bill does that it should not go on to take from the curers business they have already got and give it to somebody else without at least first giving the curers an opportunity to provide the Minister with the service that he considers necessary, to wit, a new factory, in some locality that he thinks is not supplied under the existing system. Therefore, I think the Minister should introduce an amendment which I meant to introduce but was unable to draft in time which would provide that he shall give no new licence unless and until existing curers have refused to provide the factory and the quarter where he considers such factory necessary.
Deputy O'Reilly
That means that you are going to leave it all in the hands of the same curers.
Yes, in view of the fact that you will not allow those curers to increase their business.
Before we adopt a principle like that we will want to give it more consideration.
How would you decide between two sets of curers who would compete for an auxiliary factory ?
A limit has been set in this Bill by circumstances and conditions beyond our control. We are compelled by these circumstances to regulate the industry and to try to be fair to all concerned within the limits of the industry. We should devise some system of free competition rather than swing to the side suggested by Deputy Dillon, to create a cast-iron monopoly in certain families. If places like Mullingar or Longford wanted a factory it is suggested that we should give priority to the families that are already in the bacon-curing business. I think that would be putting the coping stone on the monopoly.
Before Deputies make up their minds on this, let them consider that we are saying to enterprising business men: " Halt, there must be no further development in your business, the State will not allow it." That is going a long way. These men are doing their job, and as far as the Minister is aware, they are doing it well. The Bill now proposes not only to cry " Halt," but we are going to take away from them part of the business they have built up and give it to somebody else. These men should have the right to transfer part of that business to another part of the country, otherwise you are taking from the men valuable property and arbitrarily giving it to somebody else.
Minister for Agriculture
There is a point I should like Deputy Dillon to take into consideration. Under sub-section (5) the Minister has the power to grant a new licence for a factory but he must consult the Board. The object was more or less to give them the chance of doing what Deputy Dillon has outlined here, but to put into words in the Bill what Deputy Dillon has suggested would make the thing unworkable, because it might mean having to wait too long for an offer to come along. We might be two years waiting and then it might happen that four or five would come along at the same time. I think the procedure we have outlined here is the best. We have one area in mind for setting up a factory—County Donegal—and we might go and say to certain people: we want to set up a factory in Donegal and if you are not prepared to do it we must get someone else to do it.
That is all I want done.
Deputy Maguire
Would not you want to make it mandatory on the curers to establish the factory if the Minister considered it necessary ? Would not it be only just if you give them the right to monopolise the business that you should insist upon them providing the factories where the Minister desires ?
Suppose the producers of Donegal decided to set up a factory themselves ?
Minister for Agriculture
That is a good point. Suppose the farmers of Donegal said: we are going to set up a co-operative factory and we do not want anybody else to start the factory ?
Do not the Deputies see that to set up a factory in one area you must take from some of the existing factories a certain part of their support ?
What Deputy Belton says with regard to Deputy Dillon's statement is true. Deputy Dillon's suggestion is that we ought to pass legislation handing over the bacon business to a certain number of families for all time. The suggestion that we should pass legislation handing over the bacon-producing business to 30 or 40 families is the most outrageous thing I ever heard.
The difference between the Deputy and myself is that the Deputy is prepared to do something and not admit it, and I am prepared to admit that we are doing it.
I seldom see eye to eye with Deputy Dillon, but I agree with the Deputy on this particular point because although we are giving the monopoly we are taking over the control of an existing trade and we are limiting the trade of those people and controlling their development. If there is a particular area in the country that needs a curing station I think the Minister would be inclined to go to the people who know the trade.
Minister for Agriculture
There is a good deal to be said for the point that Deputy Dillon raises.
We may be limiting the development but up to the present any man could come into competition with the existing curers, and now we are going to eliminate competition.
And you are limiting profits.
And competition.
You are limiting their business and their profits and now you propose to limit their trade.
Deputy O'Reilly
The Minister will agree with me that there has been a tendency to develop new bacon factories on a small scale and a new set of conditions is arising. In Dublin, a certain class of bacon is required which is not needed in the country, and the other way about. We must remember that the bacon producers have the monopoly now of the whole home market.
You have been supplying the home market for many a long day.
Deputy O'Reilly
We have not, only for two years.
The bacon curers have the remedy in their own hands.
Deputy O'Reilly
The home market is there now.
We have been supplying the home market for four years. There were no imports of bacon for the last four years.
If the Minister is going to set up a factory he would naturally go to the people already skilled in the trade and it should be for the Minister to say where the factory is to be set up.
The logical conclusion to that argument is to dissolve the Dáil and set up the Minister in any office to do what he likes.
I feel pretty strongly on this. I do not agree with the amendments. I fully agree with the Minister's method of interpreting how it is to be administered. I think it is unfair to the community as a whole to hand over business to one particular group for all time. What would Deputy Dillon's argument be if the whole British market were thrown open to us and if we could dump as much bacon as we liked on the British market. Does Deputy Dillon want to confine that trade to a few families ?
No, if that happened I would want to repeal this Act forthwith and bring in a new one.
We are eliminating competition and giving the market to a few families. If we get into a certain position we should not allow people to monopolise that position when we know that trades and everything have changed hands several times in a couple of generations. I think the Minister should be very careful, not only with regard to the powers he takes in this section as to conserving this trade for certain families, but in not excluding outsiders who make application to compete for a share of the trade here. Why should they not if they want to go into the bacon trade ? Why should I not have as much right to kill a pig, if I keep to the quota requirements, as Deputy Dillon or anybody else and vice versa ?
The Deputy is now arguing against the whole licensing system and saying that everybody ought to be entitled to go into it.
The licensing system is a necessary evil, but I want to make that evil as little onerous as possible.
But the Deputy wants to admit anyone into the trade who desires to enter it.
So I would.
But you cannot.
What is to exclude us ? Is the Minister not reserving power, theoretically, at any rate, to consider an application for a licence to cure ?
Minister for Agriculture
That is in the Bill.
If it is in the Bill, it must be there with some meaning. It is not a closed monopoly. We are talking a lot in this Bill about hermetically sealed containers, but surely the bacon trade as a whole is not going to be in a hermetically sealed container for about 20 or 30 families ?
It is, so long as the British Government want to keep it there, and you might as well make up your minds to that.
Who will have the final word in deciding on the new factories and the granting of the licence ?
Minister for Agriculture
The Minister will grant the licence.
I take a grave view in this matter. Let me point out this fact to Deputies. Take the curer who has built up a business and equipment to handle 10,000 pigs a week. I do not know whether there is any as big as that yet, but let us suppose there is. Under this section the Minister can appropriate 10 per cent. of the entire quota for distribution amongst the two new factories, whereupon the man who has invested his capital and organised his industry to deal with 10,000 pigs a week is going to have 1,000 pigs a week taken from him and handed over to somebody else, without any opportunity being given to him to preserve the business which he himself has built up. It means that he must dismiss some of these men; it means that he must close down part of his factory; it means that he must maintain an establishment altogether in excess of his requirements and allow part of his equipment to fall into ruin through non-use, and Deputies here consider that that is an equitable arrangement.
They do not; we do not think it is an equitable arrangement as explained by Deputy Dillon, but we think—at least, I think—that this matter should be entirely a matter at the discretion of the Minister, in order to avoid definitely stating in a piece of legislation passed in this House that we are conferring on 20 or 30 families the complete and exclusive right, without let or hindrance from anybody, of engaging in a certain trade. That is my view.
Deputy Maguire
I submit that Deputy Dillon is not quite fair in his statement of the case. There are a number of small curers who must disappear out of production under this Bill.
The big fellows will gobble them up.
Deputy Maguire
Deputy Dillon speaks only of the curers, but I can see quite a lot of increased business going to them as a result of this Bill.
The Minister says he does not believe there are more than 30 potential minor curers in the country, of which he believes at least five will qualify as small curers. That leaves 25 minor curers.
Minister for Agriculture
I do not remember making the statement that at least five would qualify.
You said that you thought probably about five would qualify.
Is the element of competition being cut out by this ?
Absolutely.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 3.
Tá.
- Deputy Beegan.
- Deputy Moore.
- Deputy Belton.
- Deputy O’Reilly.
- Deputy Haslett.
- Deputy Smith.
- Deputy McGovern.
- Minister for Agriculture.
- Deputy Maguire.
Níl.
- Deputy Dillon.
- Deputy Murphy.
- Deputy Keyes.
Question declared carried.