Skip to main content
Normal View

Special Committee Pigs and Bacon Bill, 1934 debate -
Thursday, 11 Apr 1935

SECTION 142.

Minister for Agriculture

I move amendment No. 149:—

To insert before the section a new section as follows: —

142.—(1) The Board shall, at the meeting at which it makes the first price order (in this Part of this Act referred to as a buying allowance order) fixing the sum which is to be the buying allowance in respect of each pig or carcase sold.

(2) The Board may at any time by order under this sub-section amend the order made under the immediately preceding sub-section or any order made under this sub-section.

(3) In this Part of this Act the expression " the buying allowance " means in relation to any pig or carcase, the sum for the time being fixed by order under this section as the buying allowance.

This is an amendment to the buying allowance section, and deals with the insurance which is to be allowed in respect of each pig or carcase sold to a licensee. It is by way of insurance against the condemnation of such pigs or carcases. The Board makes an order fixing the buying allowance.

Who pays that ?

Minister for Agriculture

If the pig is delivered to the factory by the producer there is no deduction. If sold at a fair or market or at the farmer's house the sum is deducted.

I do not see why this insurance should be made compulsory.

That is another matter. This amendment of the Minister is inserting a new section.

Suppose a pig jobber buys a farmer's pigs at the fair; he is supposed to pay a fixed price. He brings these pigs to the factory. What he gets at the factory would be the fixed price except for this provision of a buying allowance.

Minister for Agriculture

If the jobber is buying as agent for the factory he would have to pay the fixed price. If buying for himself he is not bound by the fixed price.

The justification of the buying allowance is that in fact the buyer will pay the full price.

Minister for Agriculture

It is a pool really. The factories agree to pay the buyers or the agents.

Deputy Maguire

Would not that be rather difficulty in connection with our fixed price announced in advance ?

Minister for Agriculture

All these things are announced beforehand so that the farmer, selling at his own house, knows exactly what he should get.

Why should a man who has sound pigs to sell be compelled to insure ? By all means make people who sell rotten pigs be at the loss.

Minister for Agriculture

It is not that. The factories have been doing this on their own. In making out the balance sheet for the year they would have to say there are so many condemned pigs and there is no allowance for them. The Board may say to the factory deduct 2d. or 3d. as an insurance. If a pig comes in that is not acceptable to the factory, if it proves to be diseased, the farmer does not suffer because the factory pays the full allowance.

Would not the factory be able to trace the animal back to the seller ? If such pigs are sent in they will be able to be traced back to the purchaser and the same applies to everybody else.

Minister for Agriculture

The factory may have accepted pigs before they were examined.

Section 142 raises a very big problem. There is a well established principle of trade, certainly in the eyes of the common law, caveat emptor let the buyer beware, and if there is a risk in the purchase of pigs, surely that is the concern of the buyer. There is no obligation on him to buy a diseased pig. If he does, it is his own funeral. He can examine the pig and he is a much more experienced person than the seller and he can insure himself against this risk for a small sum with any insurance company. The Minister says that the buyer will not be at any loss. I see nothing in the Bill to guarantee the seller against loss. Suppose a big jobber gets a warranty with pigs to the effect that they are sound, and some of the pigs are discovered to be unsound and are rejected, the seller will be liable.

Minister for Agriculture

Take the case of a jobber who is a factory agent. He buys 10 or 12 pigs. They are paid for and one is pronounced to be tubercular and is condemned. In that case it is the factory that will suffer the loss. How will the factory, at the end of the year, make up for its losses ? The only way is by having some such fund as this. In selling their bacon and making out the costs for the year and fixing the price of pigs, that will have to be taken into account. If you leave out the insurance allowance the price of pigs will have to be fixed a couple of pence per cwt. less, because the loss will be there and the factory will show the loss.

If you put two pence or three pence a pig on it will be collected; if you do not put it on, it will not be reflected in the standard price, because that will be fixed at a round sum of 56/- or 60/-.

If you introduce the principle of compulsory insurance you do not know but it may be one shilling or two shillings on a pig.

Minister for Agriculture

The Pigs Marketing Board will fix the figure.

I hardly ever knew a pig to be condemned; they were all sound. Of course, in other parts of the country they might not be sound.

Deputy Dillon speaks about practice. There is a practice in operation in our area, and it comes into operation in this way. Under the Northern scheme they have an insurance whereby the money goes into a pool, out of which the curer is recouped for the condemned pig. The people buying in our area had no access to the pool, so they deducted the insurance up to that, and after working for some time in the Northern area the amount of money in that pool was public property; they were able to adjust matters very satisfactorily, and the result is that a person will not be at any loss on a condemned pig. The object of this is to certify a pig post mortem, sound. It is not possible for the owner to follow the animal, and this insurance is an insurance against loss to the producer of the pig. In my opinion, it is a sound principle. The only thing is to keep it within reasonable levels.

Will the Minister consider the question of providing that the vendor of the pig will be released from liability ?

Minister for Agriculture

Once any body sells a pig, he is.

He is not by this Bill.

Is he not insured against loss or liability ?

The factory is insured against the loss of the pig condemned by the veterinary inspector. That does not provide that if the factory gets a warranty from the person who sells the pigs, that they cannot pursue that man on foot of the warranty.

Minister for Agriculture

Suppose I had a bad pig, do you think I should be permitted to send that pig to the factory ? The factory should at least be entitled to say that the pig is tubercular, and they could not take it.

I take it that there is surely that discretion left with the purchaser of pigs, that if he sees a pig he does not want he should not be obliged to take it. I think he would be entitled to take the action, because the owner has not insured the pig until he parts with him; it is then the process of insurance starts to operate.

The insurance is not for the benefit of the vendor.

But the vendor is paying for that insurance.

The vendor is paying for it, but the insurance does not protect him; it protects the factory.

Why should the vendor be compelled to pay insurance ?

That struck me when I first read it, but I have been speaking to people who know a lot more about the pig trade than I do, and who are working this system at present. They say it is nothing, and all the people who have worked this would be glad to keep it on.

Minister for Agriculture

There is no such thing as a guarantee or a warranty with pigs when sold.

I take it this indemnifies the factory against loss for any parts of pigs that are condemned.

Minister for Agriculture

The factory can, if they wish, insure themselves, but we are here giving the factory a fund for itself, its own insurance fund.

They will indemnify themselves ?

Minister for Agriculture

They insure themselves really. They have a fund there. It is possible that under this Bill they might all combine and have a combined fund.

They need not keep a separate fund at all.

Deputy O'Reilly

Suppose a pig is bought as dead meat, and later that animal is discovered to be wrong, who pays ?

Minister for Agriculture

If they do not reject the pig before killing him they would be liable; if they accept him, the curers would be liable.

In the case of the delivery of pig carcases, like the Northern system, I take it the factory will examine each carcase before they accept it ?

Each buyer has what is known as a trier in the market, and it that trier buys the pig the vendor has nothing more to do with it. If the trier condemns broken or unsound animals, they are put back immediately.

Question put:—" That Section 142 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided :—Tá, 8; Níl, 2.

  • Deputy Beegan.
  • Deputy Moore.
  • Deputy Belton.
  • Deputy O’Reilly.
  • Deputy Haslett.
  • Minister for Agriculture.
  • Deputy Maguire.
  • Deputy Smith.

Níl.

  • Deputy Dillon.
  • Deputy McGovern.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share