Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 14 Feb 1930

Vol. 33 No. 3

Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Bill, 1929—Report (Resumed).

The Dáil went into Committee.

Debate resumed on amendment 21:—

In page 18, Section 33 (a), to delete lines 33 to 37, inclusive.

Dr. Ryan

It was mentioned last night that amendments 21, 22 and 23 more or less go together. Section 33 deals with the method of veterinary examination. There are certain stages of this examination: (a) Ante-mortem examination; (b) that the animal must be slaughtered in the presence of the veterinary examiner; (c) that the carcase of such animal must be opened and disembowelled in his presence; (d) that the carcase and viscera must be examined by the veterinary examiner. I believe that any disease that can possibly be detected by a veterinary examiner ante-mortem can also be detected post-mortem. Therefore there is no necessity for the veterinary examiner to examine the animal ante-mortem. I believe also that there is no necessity for him to be present while the animal is being disembowelled. If the factory people want the work done as quickly as possible they may possibly be held up waiting for the examiner to come along, and may miss some boat that they want to export the carcases on. They may be put to very serious inconvenience by so waiting. I know it is the practice in some places where veterinary examination is carried out—I saw it in the Dublin abattoir, in the case of cattle at any rate—that the animal is disembowelled, but the viscera are left connected with the carcase until the veterinary inspector comes along. In the meantime, while waiting for him, the people in the slaughterhouse can proceed with the cleansing of the carcase and get ready for the necessary operation of preparing the carcase for export. The Minister, according to an amendment he has on the Paper, appears to agree that it is not necessary that the animal should be slaughtered in the presence of the inspector. But the Minister appears to believe that it is necessary that the veterinary examiner should see the animal before slaughter, and also that the animal should be disembowelled in his presence. These are the two points on which I differ with the Minister. I believe that it is not necessary for the veterinary examiner to see the animal before slaughter, and not necessary for him to be present while it is being disembowelled. I agree that it is necessary that the veterinary examiner should be present when the viscera are being disconnected from the carcase, but disembowelling up to that point can be done before the examiner arrives.

If the Minister would agree on these points, it would save a great deal of trouble to exporters of fresh meat if they were permitted to go on with the business of killing and disembowelling the animal and cleaning the carcase, leaving the viscera connected with the carcase until the veterinary inspector arrives. It would also save a considerable amount of time to the veterinary examiners if they have only to come along and examine a carcase with the viscera connected and when everything is ready. They will then be able to get through their examination very quickly and the examination will be effective. As they will be able to get through the examination very quickly, and less time will be taken, the fees which it will be necessary to pay to these examiners will be much less than under the Bill as it stands.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan)

I am in a difficulty in this matter for the reason that, on the one side, we have Deputy Ryan, who is a technician, while I am only a layman in the matter. I am very much surprised at his statement to the effect that it is not necessary to have ante-mortem inspection for the veterinary examination. I am advised by the veterinary profession as a body that ante-mortem examination is necessary for efficient inspection. Moreover, I am advised that that is an accepted principle in every country in the world. Veterinary surgeons like medical men are an international body, and I am told that it is accepted in every other country in the world as well as in this country that ante-mortem inspection is essential for efficient inspection for certification purposes. Deputy Ryan suggests the exact opposite. What am I to say?

Dr. Ryan

I do not like to talk as an expert in this matter.

Mr. Hogan

The Deputy is an expert.

Dr. Ryan

No, I am not.

Mr. Hogan

Well, on the basis that we are two laymen in the matter, I am advised by the profession that it is considered, for efficient inspection for certification purposes, essential to have ante-mortem examination. I am advised further that that is accepted in every country in the world, and that no certification, based on merely post-mortem examination, would be accepted in England, Denmark, Holland or Canada, or in any other country as efficient examination. In that state of affairs I had no option but to insert this. Now, that covers point number one. As to number two, it will cause no trouble at all. I assume the Deputy has been in a bacon factory, and if so, I shall assume he will agree with me that the problem is a very much bigger one in a big bacon factory than in a small one. Consider the problem in a big factory. A drove of pigs come in there, and they are put into pens. These droves are taken to the slaughter-house together. The inspection presents no difficulty. The inspector takes his place and sees the pigs pass. To any veterinary surgeon that is of great help. Even a person who is not a veterinary surgeon, but who is a good judge of live stock, can spot pigs here and there that are extremely emaciated or show external signs of some disease. He can mark them and examine them more closely later on. It is perfectly obvious to a veterinary surgeon or a skilled man that it is a very great help to have an opportunity of seeing the pigs beforehand and culling out obviously suspicious cases. That is all it asks. It is absolutely no trouble to the factory. The biggest factories in Ireland do their business in the way I suggest. Pigs are put into pens, and only one lot comes in at a time. You do not have them slaughtered and disembowelled at the same time. One lot goes up and passes through a little gate. The veterinary surgeon stands there and sees them pass. Should he have the right to do so?

Dr. Ryan

Is he compelled to do so?

Mr. Hogan

He is compelled. What does that mean in practice? He is compelled to be in the factory, instead of being in the next hotel, if you wish, at the time the animals are going to be slaughtered. That is what it comes to. If, on the other hand, I do not compel him, the factory owner is entitled to shut the door in that part of the premises and keep him outside, and so there would be no point whatever in taking this power from the veterinary surgeon. It is necessary, I am advised, and it is no trouble to the veterinary surgeon or the factory owner. That deals with (A). Now as to (B), that such animals should be slaughtered in his presence, I have an amendment that deals with that. The next (C), is to delete the lines "that the carcase of such animal was opened and disembowelled in his presence." Again, let us see what is the procedure here. In every factory I have been ever in, disembowelling does not go on in two places at one time. In small factories, where there are no overhead rails, the problem is easily dealt with. There are only a few pigs, and the veterinary surgeon can make arrangements to be there, but in big factories, and these are the ones I take it the Deputy was thinking of——

Dr. Ryan

No, the small ones.

Mr. Hogan

In the big factories there is no difficulty. The veterinary surgeon stands there, the animal is opened and the pluck is taken out. It is all done at one point. He watches and sees the process carried out. In small factories it is easy to make suitable arrangements. I met deputations representing small factory owners, and they raised no objection. Again, if the veterinary surgeon is not present what is to prevent substitution?

Dr. Ryan

They must be left connected.

Mr. Hogan

They must be connected. Can that be done?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Hogan

As far as I remember the factory people put up objections to leaving them connected and waiting until the veterinary surgeon comes round. Wherever I saw the process carried out, they were immediately disconnected and thrown upon another table. The surgeon saw them at once and they were taken away. If they are to be left connected, it might give rise to all sorts of other problems in the factory. In fact there is no difficulty. There is certainly no difficulty in the big factories. In the small factories it ought to be easy to make arrangements because it is absolutely essential to prevent substitution. I am told by the veterinary profession that this is essential. They tell me that they could not certify unless this provision was put in. This is the standard adopted by other countries. This Bill deals with meat for export, and therefore we must accept general standards. Otherwise our certificates are no good. It would simply be a waste of time and money to be giving certificates based on examinations which the countries to which we export meat regard as useless.

Dr. Ryan

If the Minister has been told by the veterinary profession that this is necessary, I agree.

Mr. Hogan

I have.

Dr. Ryan

In the big factories of which I was not thinking this problem does not arise so much. I have been through some of the big bacon factories here and have seen the processes carried out. I witnessed the rate at which pigs are killed. In a few minutes after they are killed they are disembowelled. In a case like that the veterinary inspectors would be kept busy going backwards and forwards day after day. The position would be quite different in a small factory where they have only one or two men on the job. It would be a very serious matter for them if they were held up in the work. The veterinary inspector may come along in the morning and see the live pigs, but as he may have to go away and undertake other work elsewhere there may be a hold up in the work going on in the factory.

Mr. Hogan

We must make arrangements to see that they are not held up. We must have sufficient vets. to see that.

Dr. Ryan

The vet. would hardly be kept going full time in a small factory.

Mr. Hogan

He must give his time to that small factory until the work is done.

Mr. Corry

Could the Minister say how many vets. he intends to have?

Mr. Hogan

I am not in a position to say that.

Mr. Corry

If you have seven or eight factories in one city, then I think you will want seven or eight vets.—that is, according to the Bill as it stands, and unless these people are going to be held up in their business altogether.

Mr. Hogan

They cannot be held up in their business.

Dr. Ryan

I am prepared to withdraw this amendment. At the same time, I would like if the Minister could find out if it would be possible to have, as I have said, the work proceeding with the carcases open, and the viscera connected until the vet. comes.

Mr. Hogan

You could not leave the entrails connected. If the pig was opened and the entrails left there you would have to come back again to take them out and that would mean double work. The moment an animal is opened the entrails are disconnected.

Dr. Ryan

Not necessarily.

Mr. Hogan

I am told that it would be impossible to leave the entrails connected after the animal has been opened.

Amendment 21, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hogan

I move amendment 22:

In page 18, line 38, Section 33 (b), to delete the words "in his presence."

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Hogan

I move amendment 24:

In page 19, line 37, Section 35 (4), before the word "sections" to insert the words "Section 131 of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, or of."

That is a drafting amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Hogan

I move amendment 25:

In page 22, Section 38 (10), to delete paragraph (c) and substitute the following paragraph:—

"(c) pork exported into Northern Ireland in one lot or consignment to which none of the marks prescribed by the regulations for the marking of fresh meat are applied and which does not exceed in total gross weight two tons and of which not more than eight carcases belong to any one person, or."

An amendment of this kind is necessary as long as there is a trade in pork between the farmers of the Free State and their markets in Northern Ireland. It is the custom in the north to kill pigs at home and to deliver the carcases in the markets in the form of pork. If this exception were not made, farmers taking out a number of carcases and crossing the Border to reach their usual market would become subject to the regulations made under this Act. That was never intended. It is absolutely necessary to allow that trade to go on. Anything contained in this Bill is not for the purpose of regulating trade between north and south. An amendment of this sort is absolutely essential in the interests of farmers on both sides of the Border. We are only concerned, of course, in the farmers on our side to see that this trade goes on. This amendment will allow a total gross weight of two tons and of not more than eight carcases to be exported across the Border without the necessity of compliance with any of the regulations contained in this Act. The custom in the north is for five or six farmers to join together and hire a two-ton lorry to take carcases to the market.

Dr. Ryan

Would the Minister make it clear why the weight has been increased from 16 cwt. to two tons?

Mr. Hogan

That has been done to meet the practice amongst farmers in the north of hiring a two-ton lorry to take the carcases to the market.

Mr. Haslett

I am quite satisfied with the explanation the Minister has given of this amendment. I desire to know if the export of intestines will be affected by this?

Mr. Hogan

It will—fresh meat and offals.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment 26:

In page 23, line 6, to add at the end of Section 38 (10) a new paragraph after paragraph (f), as follows:—

"offals or plucks from pigs slaughtered for bacon, when such offals or plucks are the only parts of such pigs intended for export as fresh meat."

In the case of one bacon factory —I do not know whether this applies to others or not—which exports all its offals and plucks, they state that this is really the only profit they have on the business. They state that as regards the bacon cured for home consumption they have no market at home for the offals and plucks. They export them all to cities in England. The average price they get for them is from 2/6 to 3/-. They say that what they make on them provides their entire profit on these pigs. Of course that would not be a bad profit if they could get it all the time. If they were to be compelled to pay an inspection fee of three-pence it would be a very serious matter for them. It would represent a charge of 10 per cent. on their exports under that head. If it is not possible to exempt them from a fee, I think the matter might be dealt with by charging them so much per hundred.

Mr. Hogan

It is quite impossible to exempt them, for one of the purposes of the Bill is the control of the export of offals. If the amendment were accepted offals would be excluded from the whole Bill, and that would vitiate the Bill. In the case of a number of the bigger factories in the country who make their pigs into bacon and export the offals no objection was made to this.

Dr. Ryan

This particular factory represented to me that it would be a serious thing for them to have to pay the fee.

Mr. Hogan

I made representations to most of the big factories, and while they were not particularly anxious to pay 3d. or 2d. they made no real objection.

Dr. Ryan

If I could bring it up again on the Schedule I am prepared to withdraw it.

Amendment 26, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hogan

I move:

In page 26, to delete lines 12 to 21 (Section 47) and substitute the following:—

(1) Save as otherwise provided by this section, the powers conferred on the Minister by this Act shall be and be exercised without prejudice to the exercised by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health of the powers conferred on him by the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907, or to the exercise by local slaughter-house authorities of their statutory powers in relation to the inspection of the slaughter-houses as such authorities, or to the exercise by local sanitary authorities of the powers in relation to slaughter-house or in relation to articles intended for the food of man conferred on them by the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1919, as amended by Part II. of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), or conferred on them by any local or personal Act.

(2) Premises registered in any register of slaughtering premises so long as they continue to be so registered shall be exempt from the obligation to be registered or to be licensed under any other enactment relating to the registration or the licensing of slaughter-houses and shall also be exempt from all statutory provisions (including orders, regulations, rules, and bye-laws) applicable to slaughter-houses in consequence of such registration or licensing.

(3) Section 50 of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, shall not apply in respect of registered slaughtering premises.

This is really a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hogan

I move:

In page 26, at the end of Section 49, to add a new sub-section as follows:—

"(3) Every regulation made by the Minister under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either such House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat annulling such regulation, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such regulation."

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment 29:

In page 26, Section 50, to delete lines 31 and 32 and substitute therefor the following: "applied towards the cost of advertising fresh meat and offals in Great Britain in such manner as may be deemed advisable by the Minister, provided that the total sum to be expended on such advertising in any one year shall not exceed £6,000."—John F. O'Hanlon.

An Ceann Comhairle

This amendment seeks to appropriate fees for a purpose not mentioned when the Bill was read a second time, and not contemplated by the Money Resolution. I do not think that even the Minister could bring in such an amendment at this stage.

Mr. O'Hanlon

Is the amendment out of order?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, I do not think the Minister could at this point appropriate fees for a purpose not contemplated by the House when the Bill was read a second time.

Amendments 30 and 31 not moved.

Mr. Corry

I move:

In the proposed new Schedule to delete the words "one shilling" in Rule 2 (a) and substitute therefor the word "sixpence."

In my opinion, there should be no fee at all, and I hope the Minister will abolish it. I think that would be the fairest way of dealing with the small man. In any case, I think the Minister should reduce the fee to a nominal sum until such time as the fee will vanish altogether. If a man is to find £75 in the first place. and a shilling a carcase afterwards, he might get something but the producer will get nothing. I think the Minister ought to accept the amendment.

Mr. Hogan

Who has to find the money? Where is it to come from? In Holland, the fees charged are: 1/6 in the case of cattle; 3d. for calves; and 5.4d. for pigs.

Mr. Corry

The Minister will remember that a few months ago I asked him what was the lump sum charged in Holland, and I repeat that question now. I think in Holland there is only the fee and no lump sum.

Mr. Hogan

The charge in Holland is exactly the same. It is a per capita charge. The charge here for cattle is 1/- and in Holland 1/6; here 3d. for calves, and in Holland the same; for pigs, here 3d. and in Holland 5.4d.

Mr. Corry

What is the minimum fee for a licence in Holland?

Mr. Hogan

It does not count so much. I do not know.

Mr. Corry

There is no fee. Why does not the Minister be honest?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is the first offensive remark that has been passed on this Bill.

Mr. Corry

I am sorry. There is no such thing as a minimum fee in Holland. As a matter of fact there is no maximum or minimum fee anywhere except here, where the Minister apparently has a host of those vets. he wants to let loose and to pay. I suggest to the Minister, even at this stage, that he should abolish the lump sum. If he is prepared to do that I will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Hogan

Does the Deputy mean to abolish the minimum fee?

Mr. Corry

Yes, the licence fee. I think the Minister is putting a load on the dead meat trade that it should not bear. He has admitted himself that he is putting on a fee that is not charged in any other country.

Mr. Hogan

He has not admitted that.

Mr. Corry

Those countries with which we have to compete in the English market. The Minister is clapping £75 on the exporter, and this in order to pay all the vets. who are hanging around his Department.

Mr. Hogan

That is not quite sound. If we abolish the minimum fee we would have far more vets. and it would mean that anybody is free to start a factory in his back yard. We will have small factories here, there, and elsewhere, which it would be quite difficult to inspect, and for their inspection it would be necessary to employ more vets. than would be the case if the minimum fee remained. If I wanted to find work for many more vets. I would abolish the minimum fee.

Mr. Corry

I know the idea underlying the Minister's proposal all the time.

Mr. Hogan

What is it?

Mr. Corry

To abolish all except one or two in the trade. That is the idea underlying the whole Bill, so that there will be no competition and the producer will get nothing.

Mr. Hogan

Then we would not want any vets. at all.

Mr. Corry

I guarantee that if this Bill goes through the Minister will have a list of questions about it for the next five years, or as long as he keeps it there.

Mr. Hogan

Then the Deputy believes the Bill will last five years?

Dr. Ryan

Will the Schedule be put section by section?

An Ceann Comhairle

No. What has happened is that we have deleted the Schedule in the Bill and we have now a proposed new Schedule. I am preserving Deputy Corry's rights by altering his amendments as on the Paper. I am prepared to put the question on each of these amendments, and when they have been disposed of I shall put the Schedule as it stands, or as it may have been then amended, as one question. I never put the Schedule in sections.

Dr. Ryan

I really think that Deputy Corry wants to vote against Section 3 of the Schedule; that is, the minimum fee.

Mr. Corry

Oh, no. We will oppose each section. The Minister has said he will not reduce the minimum fee. We will keep him at it bit by bit and give him a good day.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Schedule in the Bill has been deleted, and to the proposed new Schedule Deputy Corry moves: "To delete the words ‘one shilling' in Rule 2 (a) and substitute therefor the word ‘sixpence.'"

Question—"That the words ‘one shilling' stand"—put.

The Committee divided; Tá, 60; Níl, 50.

Tá

• Aird, William P.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Cole, John James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Crowley, James.
• Daly, John.
• Davis, Michael.
• De Loughrey, Peter.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Hassett, John J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Jordan, Michael.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• MacEóin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• Nolan, John Thomas.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Shaw, Patrick W.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• Vaughan, Daniel.
• Wolfe, George.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Burke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carney, Frank.
• Carty, Frank.
• Clancy, Patrick.
• Colbert, James.
• Colohan, Hugh.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Doyle, Edward.
• Everett, James.
• Fahy, Frank.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Powell, Thomas P.
• Ryan, James.
• Flinn, Hugo.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• French, Seán.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Kerlin, Frank.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mullins, Thomas.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipperary).
• Smith, Patrick.
• Tubridy, John.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl, Deputies G. Boland and Allen.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment 33 in Deputy Corry's name is in this form:

In the proposed new Schedule to delete the words three pence in Rule 2 (b) and substitute therefor the words two pence.

Mr. Corry

I beg to move that amendment. I think this ought to make a special appeal to the Minister and he ought to reverse the procedure. It would be more in keeping with a country like this to give a bonus of three pence rather than impose a charge of three pence. Apparently there is no use in talking to the Minister. I hope the people of the country will like the sympathy he displays towards the de-rating problem.

Question: "That the words three pence stand," put and declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment 34, also in Deputy Corry's name, is in the following form:

In the proposed new Schedule to delete the words three halfpence in Rule 2 (c) and substitute therefor the words one penny.

Mr. Corry

Apparently the Minister is taking no hint and I think I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Ceann Comhairle

I find greater difficulty in fitting in amendments 35 and 36.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I propose to withdraw both amendments.

Amendments 35 and 36 not moved.

Question proposed: "That the proposed new Schedule stand."

Mr. Aiken

Will the Chair accept an amendment to delete the whole of paragraph 2 of the proposed new Schedule?

An Ceann Comhairle

I could not do that because we have actually decided that certain words in the paragraph shall stand.

Mr. Aiken

Our position is this that we recognise the necessity for a minimum fee of some description in order to limit to some extent the number of people who are engaged in this trade. But I object altogether to the fees which this Bill proposes to put on. Could we, on the next Stage, introduce an amendment to delete the whole of section 2 of the Schedule?

An Ceann Comhairle

I take it we will now insert this Schedule and we will reprint the Bill. Then the Bill will come up on Report because the main question will not be moved today. It will then be open to amend the Bill.

Mr. Hogan

As to the proposal, I take it that there is, generally speaking, leave to introduce amendments on the Report Stage. What has happened with this Bill is that it has been re-committed twice and there has been a long interval between the two Stages. That was agreed upon between myself and the Deputies opposite. Nobody can say there has not been ample opportunity for putting down amendments and discussing every section of the Bill. Is there any sense in coming along again on Report Stage and repeating that performance? Because if there is, there is no meaning at all in giving long intervals between the two Stages of Bills in future. It seems to me, if a performance like that is to be repeated, that it is not business, having regard to the history of the Bill. The fact that it was re-committed and that there were long intervals and every opportunity given for putting down amendments should prevent the re-opening of the same discussion on Report and introducing other amendments. To do this would be only reducing Parliamentary procedure to an absolute farce. It merely means that you will be faced with new difficulties. That will make it quite impossible in the future for me to meet the wishes of the Deputies opposite in a similar case.

Mr. Derrig

I would like, if I may, with the permission of the Chair to reply to the Minister. I would say that the fact is that this is a very complicated Bill. The fact that the Minister's officials have mastered all the details of the Bill is no argument. There is no reason, until the House as a whole understands the Bill, why it should not be kept here, and kept until every Deputy who takes an interest in the Bill will know and understand how it affects the industry. The Minister says that it has been discussed twice. It has been discussed twice but the points that were put forward here have not been met at all. The Minister has made no effort to meet the people who have put up objections to the taxation which it is proposed to put on this industry. I was greatly surprised to hear the Minister say that he had reached the limit in his concessions, having given away nothing as the Ministers usually do. Surely the Minister should be reasonable——

Mr. Hogan

I have accepted fifty amendments.

Mr. Derrig

The very fact that this matter has been discussed twice shows that it has penetrated the intelligence of Deputies to some extent. The Minister, who has mastered the Bill thoroughly, has made no effort to meet the views of Deputies. On this big question of fees, he has made no effort at all to meet the views of Deputies. If the Minister can make up his mind to meet some of the Deputies during the week-end and discuss the matter with them, perhaps it would be possible to reach some understanding on this matter of fees.

It is a fact that the Minister knows what the veterinary profession think, what the bacon curers think, and what the farmers think, but we have an idea that they do not think all these things.

Mr. Hogan

You got ample opportunity of saying that.

Mr. Derrig

Yes, and I am saying it again. The Minister has not given a fair opportunity to have this matter discussed. The very fact that this Bill has been set out in this complicated way and that the Minister is able to bring forward an amendment at this stage which puts Deputy Dr. Ryan and Deputy O'Hanlon at a distinct disadvantage, and also the fact that the whole of the Schedule has to be taken when the rest of the Bill has been passed place the Opposition under a distinct disadvantage.

An Ceann Comhairle

In regard to the question of order, it has been found useful in the case of a Bill of this nature, where there is agreement on principle, disagreement on details and some complication, to have a second Committee Stage. that is, to do what we have now done, namely, to consider amendments on Report in Committee. As to whether that process can be brought to a conclusion the answer is that under Standing Orders an amendment which has been proposed and defeated in Committee cannot again be proposed. What generally happens is that further amendments proposed at this kind of stage are amendments which, owing to the complicated nature of the Bill, could not be proposed now, amendments which are left over for some reason or which bear on points that have not been specifically decided at this second Committee Stage. That kind of amendment would not only be in order but would be in accordance with the general idea we are following. From the point of view of order you could go further than that. You could propose an amendment on Report in the ordinary way. The amendment, if in accordance with the general agreement, should be the kind of amendment that it was not possible to propose at this stage, either owing to the rules of order or to the nature of the Bill or to both combined.

Mr. Hogan

I propose that the Report Stage be taken on Wednesday next.

An Ceann Comhairle

We have not put the Schedule yet.

Mr. Derrig

Before you put the Schedule I wish to oppose it. I do so, in the first place, because, as I have just said, the Minister has not made any concessions. He has only two arguments in favour of the Bill. His first argument is that the charges in Holland are higher, but he has not answered Deputy Corry's point in regard to the minimum fee in Holland. It remains for the Minister to prove that in fact the Dutch farmer is paying less than the Irish farmer. I would remind the House that the Dutch or Danish farmer, or any other person engaged in a foreign industry, is in a different position to those who are engaged in the Irish pork industry. The Minister admitted on Second Reading that we were only building up this industry which had, more or less, fallen into our hands through circumstances over which we have no control, and if those circumstances should change to our disadvantage the whole pork industry of the country might disintegrate. The Minister thinks that this Bill and this Schedule will improve that industry. We think that there is reasonable ground for assuming, since business men everywhere have always protested against State interference with business, that this is going to impede business, apart from the tax which it imposes on the producer, because it is the farmer who will have to pay in the long run. People who are running factories will get disgusted with veterinary inspection because the inspectors will be able to assert themselves and say that they have the law behind them in matters where personal tact and discretion would overcome a lot of difficulties. I am sorry to say that people who engaged in similar industries in the past did not find that tact and discretion. In that connection you have the Customs Department, the Eggs Department and the Dairy Department about which people complain, rightly or wrongly—and the Minister cannot argue that right is on his side all the time—that officials have been somewhat overbearing. The Minister stated previously that we must not interfere with people engaged in the industry and that we must let them carry on their work. What is the use of saying that when you have all the paraphernalia of inspection and registration to interfere with them? As Deputy Dr. Ryan says, it must interfere with them unless you are going to keep the veterinary surgeons in small factories all day, and that means that you are going to pay them. I say that this is a weak industry and that this is not the proper way to build it up.

The Minister's attitude should be to spend public money in helping to equip these factories and in helping them to get the necessary initiative, the necessary up-to-dateness, and to get them to do things off their own bat without compulsion and to see that it is the best and most profitable thing for them to do commercially. Instead of that you take industry by the scruff of the neck and say: "You are not making enough of this; you are a lot of rogues." There are, of course, rogues in every industry and if they were not rogues they might not be able to carry on at all in these hard times. The Minister takes them by the scruff of the neck and says:—"I am going to make you honest whether you like it or not and whether it pays you or not. I am showing you the way to build up this industry and I am going to see that our friends across-Channel have no complaints to make." When the Minister tells us that those in the industry have no objection he is really trying to impose a little too much on our credulity. I suggest that he should leave these regulations and restrictions in abeyance and concentrate on the technical side and get people to do things of their own volition as otherwise the industry will hardly survive.

If the Minister is in earnest, I submit that this assembly is not entitled to place suddenly a crushing burden on this industry and then turn round and say: "If you do not pay it, the taxpayers will pay it." Remember we are going to pass legislation which will involve interference and disturbance in this industry and then the Minister will turn round and ask these men to pay for what they may not consider to be an advantage but what the Minister considers may be an advantage in the future. That is very problematical. I submit that the Minister should revise his attitude and make a serious effort to reduce the fee to something nominal. If he finds at the end of a year or so that the cost of administration is out of all proportion, then let him come along to the House and seek further powers, but suddenly to place the entire onus on the industry is not fair and is not going to benefit it.

Mr. Corry

I desire to support Deputy Derrig's contention. I think the Minister should in all honesty, instead of charging a fee, give those engaged in the trade a bonus. He will then be doing what has been done in other countries, in the case of German oats for instance. Instead of charging the industry with the cost of all these vets., I think it should be a Departmental charge. He will then give the industry a chance to get on its feet. He knows very well that the present scheme is going to kill the industry. He told us that he has met pork exporters and others. My information has been obtained from one Cork exporter who is exporting more than all the rest put together, and I know he has not met that man. I would honestly say that this Bill will kill the industry. The Minister knows that if he is going to shove these vets. into the factories, and if the proprietors want to slaughter pigs at a certain hour the vet. will come along and say: "You cannot slaughter these pigs until three o'clock. I have to be in such a place at such an hour, and the pigs cannot be slaughtered till I come back." The result may be that the proprietors may miss the boat. Such things will happen if the Minister is going to allow this army of vets. loose on the industry. They are going to kill the Department and kill the farmers. My attention has been called to the probability that these vets. will not convenience the pork exporters. You may have five or six survive in spite of the Minister, but they will find it difficult to carry on. I think that the whole Schedule should be deleted, and that instead of putting a charge on the industry which will kill it, you should give these men a bonus which will eventually go back to the farmers.

Mr. Hogan

I pay no attention to what has been said by Deputy Derrig. He says now, "Let business alone, do not interfere." That is complete laissez faire. He belongs to a Party who advocate a Control Board for wheat, compulsory admixture of grain and State regulation for everything, but when it comes to this Bill, because I say that certain factories have to be controlled, he says: "Oh, no; let business alone; let there be no State interference." It is merely a question of his saying "No" when I say "Yes." I do not pay any attention whatever to his statements.

Mr. Derrig

I would like to point out that we have not yet suggested that paid officials in the State should go into other people's business to show them how to run it and to impose penalties on them. That is altogether different.

Mr. Hogan

You have on hundreds of occasions.

Mr. Aiken

We would like the Minister to withdraw the second section of the Schedule of his own volition. The Minister will remember that recently he expressed his disapproval of the large number of tariffs which were imposed on farmers. This Schedule in effect will impose an export tax on what the farmers have to sell. That is not in keeping with the policy which the Government has adopted in regard to other industries. They have put an import tax on foreign goods to help the Irish producer to produce goods which we have imported up to now. The Minister knows perfectly well that whatever fees are paid by bacon curers and meat exporters are bound in the long run to be taken from the farmers. These exporters will not continue business unless they are able to pay these fees and make a profit. The farmer will get a less price for his meat or pork in proportion to the amount that the meat exporter has to pay to the Government. Instead of having an export tax on Irish goods, such as this is, we should, as Deputy Corry says, give a bounty if necessary to Irish exporters. It is particularly necessary, if we are not able to give a bounty that we should not, at least, impose any burden on industries which give employment in this country, and the extension of the dead meat trade will certainly give employment. I hope that between now and the Report Stage the Minister will at least withdraw Section 2 of the Schedule. If the Minister wants funds to recoup the Government for any expense they might incur in the running of this Bill when it becomes an Act, they could very well recoup themselves by having an export tax on live animals instead of on dead animals.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 53.

Tá

• Aird, William P.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Cole, John James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Crowley, James.
• Daly, John.
• Davis, Michael.
• De Loughrey, Peter.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Hassett, John J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Jordan, Michael.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• MacEóin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• Nolan, John Thomas.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Shaw, Patrick W.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• Vaughan, Daniel.
• Wolfe, George.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carney, Frank.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cassidy, Archie J.
• Clancy, Patrick.
• Colbert, James.
• Colohan, Hugh.
• Cooney, Eamon.
• Corkery, Dan.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Doyle, Edward.
• Everett, James.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Flinn, Hugo.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• French, Seán.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Kerlin, Frank.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Mullins, Thomas.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Powell, Thomas P.
• Ryan, James.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipperary).
• Smith, Patrick.
• Tubridy, John.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and Peadar Doyle; Níl, Deputies Gerald Boland and Allen.

Question declared carried.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 20th February.