I wonder if the Dáil would discuss No. 9—Financial Motions by the Minister for Finance—and the Second Reading of the Bill together?
In Committee on Finance - Financial Resolution No. 4.
1. That there shall be charged, levied, and paid a levy at such rates as shall be prescribed by the Pigs Marketing Board under statutory authority on every pig or carcase of a pig used for the production of bacon at licensed premises.
2. That the levy mentioned in this Resolution shall be paid by the licensee of the licensed premises at which the pig or carcase of a pig, in respect of which the levy is payable, is used for the production of bacon.
3. That the levy mentioned in this Resolution shall commence to be chargeable as on and from such date as shall be fixed by statute.
4. That the levy mentioned in this Resolution shall be paid to the Pigs Marketing Board at such times as may be appointed by statute, and shall be paid into the statutory fund of the said Board.
5. That provision shall be made by statute for the collection and enforcing of the levy mentioned in this Resolution.
6. That in this Resolution— the expression "the Pigs Marketing Board" means a board to be established under that name by statute;
the word "bacon" includes ham;
the expression "licensed premises" means premises licensed by the Minister for Agriculture under statutory authority for the production of bacon therein;
the word "licensee" means a person licensed in respect of licensed premises by the Minister for Agriculture under statutory authority.
Dr. Ryan
At what point will the financial motions be put?
Dr. Ryan
At the end of the discussion.
Before the Second Reading of the Bill?
Dr. Ryan
Yes. In moving the financial motions and the Second Reading of the Bill, I want to say that what the Bill is meant to do is to provide machinery for the fixing of prices of bacon pigs to the producer and to regulate the manufacture and sale of bacon. These are the two big objects that the Bill is to fulfil. A tribunal was set up to inquire into the production of pigs and bacon in May, 1933, and reported in December, 1933. This Bill gives effect to the main recommendations of that report. The production of pigs, and the prices of pigs vary considerably in this country. The price varies not only from day to day but it varies as between factories on the same day. I have a cutting here from a newspaper of yesterday and I find that if you take a 12 stone pig dead, roughly 16 stone alive, and if it had been sent to one factory the total yield would be £4 16s., whereas if sent to another factory, it would have been only £3 13s. 6d. That is a difference of 22/6 in the price of one pig as between two factories. I quote that to give an idea of the unregulated state of the market at present. Whether we believe that the persons paying the higher price can afford to pay that price and that the person paying the lower price is likely to make a profit of 22/6, or that one man was paying too much and another too little, it would be better in future if we could regulate the price and see that factories gave a fair and fixed price as far as possible over a period.
Production, of course, is influenced by the price. We have cycles in pig production and we find that when we have a surplus production, we have low prices and low prices have the effect of reducing production. We follow, therefore, a cycle of high production by a cycle of low production, which again has the effect of raising prices and starts an increase in production. We have the same cycle over again. Usually, that cycle will take about three years in passing and it was rather a regular and expected thing in the pig business. The Bill aims at uniformity in price to the producer and it also aims as far as possible—it is a very difficult thing to do —at getting a more regular production the whole year round and it tries to avoid the seasonal changes in both price and production.
The Bill consists of three main parts, leaving out the introductory part. There is, firstly, the part dealing with control of the bacon trade; secondly, the part dealing with the allocation as between the factories; and, thirdly, the fixing of prices to the producer. There are two Boards which deal with the second and third parts, which are the principal parts of the Bill, and those Boards will co-operate, so far as it is necessary for them to do so, in attaining the ultimate objectives of securing for the producer the best possible price and so relating the production of pigs to the outlets for bacon as to avoid the occurrence of periods of over and under supply, with corresponding fluctuation in price. The Bill does not apply to the farmer who kills pigs and makes bacon for the consumption of his own household, and neither does it apply to pigs killed for sale as fresh pork, so that the pork dealer will be free to continue his business as hitherto, with certain reservations which I must mention. There are two classes which we must regulate, for the present, at any rate—one of them, temporarily, and the other, permanently.
These two classes do not come within the category of the ordinary bacon curer. They are what are referred to here as minor curers and pork butchers. The pork butcher, as we all realise, sometimes cannot sell his pork fresh and he, therefore, always has the safety valve of salting some of the pork and selling it afterwards as bacon. There would obviously be a means of evasion there, if that were permitted to proceed unrestrictedly, and it is provided in the Bill, therefore, that a pork butcher may convert not more than 15 per cent. of his output into bacon or make more than four hundred weights of bacon in the year. If he keeps within these two limits, he is permitted to continue in the bacon business to that extent and is not subject to any penalties, except the levy provided in the Bill. The pork butcher who does not manufacture any bacon is not affected by the Bill at all. Pork butchers also may be registered at any time.
The minor curer is defined here as a person who manufactures in 45 weeks not more than 2,200 cwts. of bacon. That is the equivalent of about 2,000 pigs. The minor curer must have been in business for at least 45 weeks out of the 52 in 1934 and he must not have exceeded 2,200 cwts. of bacon. The reason for these provisions is that we do not want coming in a man who was engaged spasmodically in the business, who killed pigs on a comparatively large scale when there was good profit to be made out of pigs, for six, eight or 26 weeks and who then cleared out when the ordinary curer had to work at a loss. We had to provide, however, against depriving the small man, as he is referred to, of his business altogether, and we regard the man who is 45 weeks in business as a genuine bacon curer who still would not be licensed under this Bill. For reasons of administration, veterinary inspection and so on, we could not afford to look after all those very small factories. The proposal is to allow them to register for two years and if they fulfil certain conditions during these years, they can become licensed curers at the end of that period or go out altogether.
It is not the intention to permit them to continue if they do not creep up higher?
Dr. Ryan
No. If they exceed, during each year of the qualifying period, the 2,200 cwts. of bacon, they are entitled automatically to become licensed, provided, of course, that the structural conditions of the factory, and so on, comply with the provisions of the Bill. That is the qualifying amount and it is expected that unless a person intends to go seriously into the bacon curing business, he will not go on, but will be more inclined to go into whatever other business he has, but if he is in that business, I think it will not be very difficult to qualify during the two years and to become a regular curer.
There is no compensation for him on going out?
Dr. Ryan
No. Curers who manufactured at least 2,200 cwts. of bacon in 1934 will be entitled to be licensed. They will be the ordinary curers and will be entitled to be licensed if they have done that amount of business. They will, of course, have to comply with the requirements of the Act with regard to the premises and so on and licensing in that case will be permanent.
An applicant for registration or for a licence under this Bill will pay a fee of £10, which may be refunded if the application is refused. Persons registered under the Bill, that is, minor curers and pork butchers, will, during the two years—and, of course pork butchers after the two years — pay a fee of 2/- for every pig or carcase or cwt. of pork used for bacon, while licensees will pay a fee of not more than 6d. for every pig or carcase used for bacon. The 6d. in that case is paid to the Minister. The fee of 2/- is paid to the Minister also, but the reason for the difference is that the licensee has, in addition, to pay fees to the boards.
I did not quite follow the Minister. The pork butcher is entitled to cure 15 per cent. during the preliminary period?
Dr. Ryan
No. The pork butcher, so long as he continues to cure not more than 15 per cent. or more than 400 cwts. of bacon, will be exempt from the provisions of the Bill, except, of course, that he pays the fee. He is, however, exempt from inspection. Pork butchers are not affected by the prices fixed by the Pigs Board nor will allocations be made to them by the Bacon Board. They are not limited in the number of pigs they kill for pork, but they are limited in respect of their production of bacon. Minor curers must observe the prices fixed by the Pigs Board.
There is no inspection or grading of pork under this Bill?
Dr. Ryan
No. Pork for export is inspected under the Fresh Meat Act. There is no provision, as a matter of fact, for pork for home consumption in either Bill. Neither the minor curer nor the pork butcher will come under the allocations. All licensed curers will get an allocation of so many pigs, but the minor curer can buy as much as he likes in the first two years, until he becomes a licensed curer. He then gets an allocation. The pork butcher can always buy as much as he likes. It may strike some Deputy that there is nothing to prevent a minor curer from going from 2,000 to 50,000 pigs a year. There really is nothing in the Bill to prevent that, but I think he would find it difficult, under the working of the Act, to do so, because he would have very severe competition.
How will he sell his bacon under the Bill?
Dr. Ryan
He can sell it at home. He cannot export it.
I will repeat that when you come to that part of the Bill.
Dr. Ryan
Neither the pork butcher nor the minor curer is affected by inspection, by the provisions regarding construction of premises or the equipment that they must keep; neither is there inspection nor grading. Therefore, they need not mark their bacon at all if they wish, but they cannot export it.
They cannot export?
Dr. Ryan
No. Their bacon cannot be exported because all exported bacon would have to be graded and marked.
There is no restriction of victuallers who were in the habit of selling a certain number of pigs?
Dr. Ryan
For two years there is no restriction. Before leaving this minor curer position I should like to make a few further remarks, because it was one of the most difficult questions we had to deal with in the drafting of this Bill. I am sure that Deputies would have a genuine desire to see that those men who are small in the trade but who, are, perhaps, living out of the trade, are not victimised or sacrificed in any way. Some of them, as I mentioned already, do not deserve any great sympathy because they are not men who are in that trade alone. They were in the habit of taking advantage of the position by sometimes coming in and buying pigs, curing them, and selling bacon, perhaps in their own shops or perhaps otherwise, but when things got a bit unfavourable to the curer they just went out of business and allowed the large curer to bear the loss. In fact, I do not think we would be bound to make any provision for such as these. The people whom we really have a desire to help as much as possible are the people who did make the curing of bacon their business, continued in it practically the whole year, but still were in a small way. Those are the people who were defined as working for at least 45 weeks in the year, but had not turned out more than 2,200 cwts. of bacon. On the other hand, I do not think we can continue those minor curers indefinitely, and I think we should put some time limit. We do hope under the provisions of this Bill to get a very superior bacon produced in this country both for home consumption and for export. We are providing here, as Deputies know, for very close inspection and for the marking and grading of bacon after it is cured. If we were to allow those small men to continue indefinitely, of course there would be unmarked and ungraded bacon on the market for all time. I think, therefore, that the best compromise we can introduce is to give them a reasonable time to qualify as licensed curers, or, if they think it is not worth their while going on with the business, I think they would have to get out after that time. We may be asked, of course, why we adopted this limit of 2,200 cwts. of bacon. We adopted that as the limit above which the curer could afford to remain in the business if he becomes licensed under this Bill, if he carries out all the requirements we have provided for here, and has his premises, equipment, and so on brought up to the standard required under this Bill. We think that 2,200 cwts. of bacon would enable a man to make a living—perhaps a modest living—out of the curing of bacon. Also I should say that we got returns from a number of those men whom we have in mind here—minor curers—and we found that we were including them all under that limit of 2,200 cwts. of bacon and giving them a chance of qualifying. We are not asking them to come in immediately and become licensed, so we are not putting on them all those burdens of having their premises brought into good condition and so on immediately after the passing of the Act.
Would those people be able to sell their bacon at any price?
Dr. Ryan
They would. They are not subject to any of those conditions at all. I mentioned, of course, that the big objection we had to bringing those people under the licence system immediately was the great cost of administration of the Department—veterinary inspection and administration generally—and the great cost to the people themselves of bringing their premises up to proper condition immediately.
The Minister said those minor curers are subject to no regulations at all. Why Section 16 then, which provides for the inspection of their premises?
Dr. Ryan
We want to make sure that the returns of the amount and so on are correct. There is a levy, for instance.
Two shillings apiece! They are not going to lose that.
The section provides for the inspection of the bacon, and also of the plant, appliances and equipment. However, that is just in order to enable you to collect the levy and so forth.
Dr. Ryan
Yes. There is a levy on the licensed curers of 6d. per pig, which is expected to cover the cost of veterinary inspection. I think it probably will cover that cost, provided that the number of minor curers who will eventually qualify as licensed curers is not too high. If there were a very big number of those qualifying, and if they were scattered all over the country in many centres, especially if you had one town, say, where there is no other bacon factory, the cost would be comparatively higher.
What percentage do you expect will qualify?
Dr. Ryan
I cannot really say.
What percentage qualifying will make the cost too heavy?
Dr. Ryan
I would not be able to answer that question now either.
What is the cost of the veterinary inspection?
Dr. Ryan
That depends. Take a factory of, say, a thousand pigs a week; I think sixpence would be more than ample to cover the cost of administration ordinarily, but when you come to a factory that is killing only 100 pigs a week or less, that sixpence would not pay for the veterinary inspection. The remainder then of Part 2 of the Bill deals with the requirements which licensees will be required to meet. These requirements follow almost exactly on the same lines as the Fresh Meat Act. The Fresh Meat Act was passed here in 1930 and it has been in operation since principally for pork and also for lamb during the summer months. It has been satisfactory on the whole. I think I can truthfully say that as a result of that Act our pork in the British market has got a very good name. If we are able to get the same results from the inspection of bacon under this Bill we will probably reap a considerable advantage for the country in British markets in the future.
The good old British market.
Dr. Ryan
There are two forms of licences. One is a curing licence and the other is a licence for slaughtering and curing. In some of the northern counties of the Free State carcases of pigs are brought into the factory to be manufactured into bacon. In that case a curing licence is required. But in a great part of the Free State the pigs are brought in, slaughtered and they are then cured. In these places it would be necessary to have a slaughtering and curing licence. In both cases licences can only be granted if the premises are suitable for the business of curing or slaughtering. The curing licences will be granted only where there are adequate facilities for chilling; there must be an adequate supply of water and the premises must be in a state of cleanliness and good repair and the drainage must be all right. The premises must be adequately equipped with suitable facilities for the proper disposal of washings and waste. They must have suitable sterilising facilities; there must be suitable locked-up accommodation for the safe custody of certificates, marks, records and equipments and there must be adequate facilities for the veterinary examination of the carcases and bacon.
In the case of licences for curing and slaughtering the following additional conditions will apply: That the slaughtering premises are structurally suitable for the slaughtering of pigs; that adequate facilities are provided in such premises for the veterinary examination of pigs ante mortem and post mortem; that the premises are suitably equipped with the prescribed plant and equipment; and that there are employed on the staff persons skilled in the slaughtering of pigs.
In the Fresh Meat Act there was a provision for provisional licences. There is the same provision here. Where the premises or the equipment are found to be unsuitable we may issue a provisional licence and give the proprietor a certain time to get his premises into order. In that way, he will get an opportunity of carrying on the business while he is getting the necessary repairs or the improvements done. Of course there are the usual provisions with regard to transfers in the case of death or on sale. In the case of death the licence must be transferred but in the case of sale it need not necessarily be transferred. The granting of new licences is a matter that causes some trouble, because when this Bill later does become law and is operative, it is always rather difficult for a new person to come into the business and it would be difficult to work out how that person would fare. Supposing the Minister were to give him a licence to go into business the question would arise as to how he would fare with the Bacon Board. The Bacon Board might say: "The Minister has given you a licence but we will give you no pigs." We had to provide therefore when the Minister gives a person a licence to start a factory, that he should also direct the Bacon Board to give the person an allocation of pigs.
It is hardly necessary because the Minister is the Board.
Dr. Ryan
Not entirely.
Would the Minister develop that point? That provision in the Bill is against the report. Would the Minister give his reasons for its insertion in the Bill?
Dr. Ryan
The report set out in general that we had enough factories in the Free State. That is true, but there are at least two areas in the Free State where a factory would be advisable from the farmer's point of view. As far as I know nobody is talking about starting a factory in any of these areas. But if a factory were to be set up the Department of Agriculture would be anxious to issue licences. On the other hand, the Bacon Board might say: "We are quite capable of looking after that district and we do not see why a factory should be started there. If the Minister gives a licence we will give that factory no pigs." That was why the provision was inserted in the Bill to give the Minister power to direct the Bacon Board to allocate pigs in such a case. I will deal with that point more fully later. The regulations of course prescribe as in all such Bills that records are to be kept and so on. The Minister has power to appoint inspectors as is provided in all these cases.
The Bill does not provide for the registration of premises for slaughter only?
Dr. Ryan
No. What I said was that in some Northern counties in the Free State farmers slaughter the pigs themselves and bring them to the factory. In that case the curer need only have a curer's licence. I think in practice every curer will have a licence to slaughter as well.
Does the Bill provide for that system to continue?
Dr. Ryan
Yes. It also has a clause enabling the Minister to make an Order to stop that at any particular time.
Strangely enough, not to limit it. He must either stop it or allow it to go on.
Dr. Ryan
Yes, we will have that considered in Committee.
Yes, I was going to make that suggestion.
Why should there be regulations as to slaughtering in one area and none in another area where they can slaughter pigs in a pigsty if they like?
Dr. Ryan
That is very true. We are making very strict regulations in the factories, but where the farmers slaughter the pigs themselves we have provided for very strict examination of the carcases on arrival at the factory. That is as far as we feel we should go without inflicting great hardships on these farmers who slaughter the pigs themselves.
The Minister recognises that in one case there is less expense than the other.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy does not expect us to send veterinary surgeons to the farmers' houses to inspect the pigs. What the Deputy recommends is to stop that altogether?
There should be a flat rule.
Dr. Ryan
That would inflict great hardships on the farmers. On the whole, that system is on the decline. Then, of course, the usual regulation can be made with regard to post mortem or ante mortem examinations and so on. Now we come to the marking. The bacon must be marked. There are various marks which must be prescribed under this Bill. The side of bacon will be very well marked when all these marks are put on. First of all, there will be a mark to show that it has been examined and passed as sound and wholesome bacon by the veterinary surgeon; secondly, there will be a mark put on the bacon to show that it is of Saorstát origin; thirdly, there will be a mark identifying the manufacturer, and the Bill says “any other mark that might be afterwards included.”
There will not be much space left.
Dr. Ryan
There will be, of course, a mark to show the grading as soon as the grading provisions come into operation. The idea also in this Bill is that bacon should be exported altogether from the manufacturers' premises direct to the country to which it is consigned. That is the practice at the present time. All our export quota is given entirely to manufacturers of bacon, and the bacon is exported direct from the premises of the curer to Great Britain, or wherever else it may be going. That is being given legal sanction in this Bill. No bacon can be brought to a premises except from another premises or from a cold store, or if returned. We have to make provision for that, because the curer might send out a consignment to a wholesaler or a retailer and for some reason or other it might be returned as not suitable or not up to invoice. In that case he is allowed to take it back. The Bill contains a provision relating to the rates of wages and the conditions of employment at licensed premises, and that provision sets out that the wages payable shall be at a rate not less than the rate generally recognised by trade unions and employers as the rate normally applicable to workmen employed in a similar kind of work at licensed premises in similar localities.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce gets his blow in again.
Dr. Ryan
For instance, there are two factories in a town of similar size and working under similar conditions, the wages should be similar in both cases.
Will it be the trade union rate of wages?
That is another point.
This Bill becomes a labour delegate.
Dr. Ryan
Surely the Deputy has no objection?
None, but let them pay for their own job. The small farmer can produce the pig at any price.
Dr. Ryan
This prevents trouble and prevents strikes.
What?
It will prevent trouble and strikes—a la trams?
Dr. Ryan
The Bacon Marketing Board will consist of eight members, a Chairman and seven ordinary members who will be elected by licensed curers. The Chairman and Secretary will be appointed by the Minister. I will deal fully with the appointment of the Chairman and his powers later. There is a very long clause setting out the conditions of election of the seven members, but briefly, under present conditions, curers who have produced more than 77,000 hundredweights of bacon in 1934 will have the election of two members; those who have produced between 33,000 and 77,000 hundredweights of bacon will have the election of three members, and those who have produced less than 33,000 hundredweights will have the election of two members. In other words, the large curers get two, the medium curers get three and the small curers two members.
That is not provided for in the Bill.
Dr. Ryan
I said that under present conditions that would be how the Bill would work. Suppose one or two of the very large curers came down in their production and became medium curers, it would be necessary to have a different allocation of membership.
Will the Minister explain the principle on which he allocates the seats on the Bacon Marketing Board?
Dr. Ryan
On that particular point we have the complete agreement of the bacon curers.
But we are making it law and we should know.
Dr. Ryan
We cannot put it into the Bill in that form. If we did we might find, when the next election comes along, the men who would now be over 77,000 hundredweights might be down considerably in production and then you would have a difficulty. The only thing is for the Minister each time to get the trade together and say: "This is the position: there are so many over 77,000, so many between 77,000 and 33,000 and so many under 33,000 hundredweights," and I think you will always get agreement.
We who are called upon to make this an Act should know on what principle this Board is going to be constituted. We do not know that yet. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that and perhaps put in an amendment later.
Dr. Ryan
We can discuss that later. Provision is also made in the Bill for substitutive members, and that is rather important. If you have two representatives of the small curers, for instance, perhaps something may turn up to prevent their attendance. One may be ill and the other cannot attend for some reason and they may feel their interests are not being seen to in their absence. Consequently, there may be substitutes elected and they are called upon in case the others cannot attend. Therefore, there will always be a full attendance of the Board. The first period for which the Board will hold office will be to the 31st December, 1936, and they will hold office for two years after that. The Board will rule by majority verdict, except in certain cases. There are three very important points with which the Board has to deal—the allocation of pigs to each factory, the home sales that each factory is allowed and the amount of bacon it may put into or take out of cold storage.
When this Bill was in draft we came up against the difficulty that it might happen that the big curers and the middle group might say: "We will combine and wipe out the small men; we can allocate all the pigs to the big and the medium men and let the small men go." You would have a majority of the Board for that decision. On the other hand, the small curers and the medium men might say: "Let us bring the big men down to our level," and they would have a majority for that, too. I pointed out this danger of a majority verdict. I said I thought in such a case the chairman should have what amounts to a veto. How it is indicated in this Bill is that the chairman may give his own verdict on such an issue, unless there is unanimity. He really has not a full veto. If there is unanimity amongst the seven members, then the chairman must agree; but if there is any minority, then he can say there is not agreement, and, therefore, he has the power to allocate. I do not say that he would in all cases take that power. He might consider the majority verdict appeared to be reasonable and he would agree with it. If he thought the majority were trying to be unfair to the minority, he could make an allocation, first of all, of pigs to each factory and the same would apply to home sales and cold storage. In these three cases he has that reserve power, unless there is unanimity, to give his his own verdict. That amounts almost to a veto.
The Board are required to meet within one month after they are established and make the necessary orders defining a certain period as a production period, allocating amongst licensees the quantity of bacon to be produced and also defining a certain period to be a sales period. In making allocations the Board are asked to have regard to certain things —to the quantity of bacon produced by each curer in twelve months, and if a new licence is granted by the Minister, they are required to allocate to the new licensee such portion of the production quota as the Minister may request. The Board are required to meet at least a week before the end of each period. They may say that for two months to come the amount of bacon which can be produced by each factory is so-and-so, and at least a week before the end of that period they must meet again and make an allocation for a further period. The Bacon Board are to look after the cold storage in addition to what I have already mentioned. They may also purchase from a curer at a certain price. A curer may hold that he could not get rid of his bacon for some reason or other. The Board may say to that curer: "You are looking for too much for your bacon; we will take it from you at the price that other men are selling for, and we will sell it for you." They are entitled to do that. They can also, in times of slump, or when there is a surplus of pigs, buy pigs and either sell the pigs or cure them.
Will there be any need to protect the curer in that case so that the bacon could not be purchased under the price required by some other conditions?
Dr. Ryan
I did not catch the question.
Will there be any need to fix a minimum price below which the Board could not take that curer's bacon?
Dr. Ryan
It would be very difficult. We have not dealt with the price of bacon exactly, and the price of bacon will vary from time to time.
I realise that you could not fix an exact price, but a price governed by certain conditions.
Dr. Ryan
It might be possible to put in a price governed by the price of pigs, but I am not sure.
Will the producer of pigs have any representation?
Dr. Ryan
Not on the Bacon Board. The Bacon Board is composed entirely of curers. They are not likely to treat a curer badly by taking over his bacon unless there is a good case for it. This Board can also advertise bacon, either at home or abroad, and carry out research work in the production of bacon and the provision of better methods. They will have funds at their disposal and they are empowered to make a levy. They are also empowered to impose a fine of 10/- per cwt. for under-production and 10/- per cwt. for exceeding home sales, and also with regard to cold storage. Out of that fund from the levy and the fines, if there are any fines, they will pay the expenses of administration, advertising, research, etc. That is all they have to pay. They are also entitled to borrow money if they want to get into business immediately before getting in their levy and the Minister is empowered to lend money to the Board. The fourth part of the Bill deals with the Pigs Marketing Board, which will consist of a Chairman nominated by the Minister, three members elected by the Bacon Board who will be curers, of course——
Is there not some section in that part you have just left empowering the Bacon Marketing Board to go into the manufacture of bacon themselves?
Dr. Ryan
I mentioned that they have power to buy pigs and either sell or cure them into bacon, or they can get them cured by a licensed curer.
When there will be a surplus of pigs?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
I should like to hear the Minister develop that and show how that will ease the pressure of the surplus of pigs. They will manufacture them into bacon just as an ordinary curer would, and sell in the same market. How will that relieve the surplus?
Dr. Ryan
There are at least one or two ways which might be suggested. In Denmark, for instance, the system at one time was—I am not sure if it is so now—that the body controlling the business, which would be the same as the Bacon Board here, had power to buy pigs and dump them as best they could on some foreign market. In that way they hoped to keep up their price on the British market, where they had a quota, and in their own market, and at the same time get rid of the surplus. This Board might, perhaps, buy some pigs and they might keep them over, for instance. That is the second way— the cold storage. At the end of 1933 here we appeared to have a very big surplus of bacon, and the Department of Agriculture came to the conclusion that there would probably be a scarcity in February or March. At that time we asked the curers to cold store some bacon. That was very useful to us afterwards because there was actually a shortage in the Spring months. That being the first time the curers were asked to do a thing like that on a large scale, they were very sceptical about it and asked for certain guarantees. We did give them certain guarantees against loss, but they were scarcely drawn on at all. I think that out of Government funds we lost only about £3,000 on the transaction, although we stood to lose very much more if the guarantees had been fully drawn upon. There are two ways in which they might deal with the bacon: (1) they might export some quantity to some market that is unrestricted as far as quotas are concerned, even though they would not get as good a price.
Would we not be looking for them in any case?
Dr. Ryan
Not necessarily. At the present time we are not looking for them so much because, after filling the British quota and our home requirements, I do not think we have any bacon to spare. If there was a slump the Board might do that. It would be unfair to ask any individual exporter to do it because he might lose on the building up of that market. The second alternative is that the Board might cold store. For one reason or another they might not think it advisable to issue a cold storage order against everybody. They might take over a small quantity and do it on their own account.
Is there no other way provided for disposing of a surplus of pigs than that section?
Dr. Ryan
No.
Or checking the pig population or production of bacon?
Dr. Ryan
Not checking. As a matter of fact, that is a point I shall come to later.
This Board, if they buy, will not cure—they must cure on the premises of some recognised curer?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
They will have no premises of their own?
Dr. Ryan
No.
Supposing the quota were narrowed?
Dr. Ryan
That will give us some trouble, if it is. The Pigs Marketing Board will be composed of a chairman appointed by the Minister, three members elected by the Bacon Board, and three members appointed by the Minister to represent the producers.
Why appointed?
Dr. Ryan
Because there is no farmers' organisation that we know of that could elect men to that Board, unless we get the Fianna Fáil Party to do it.
As representing what?
Dr. Ryan
As representing the farmers.
I suggest to the Minister that a non-political agricultural organisation could be constituted from his committees of agriculture.
Dr. Ryan
I think the Deputy ought to have a go at that.
I did up to a certain point and I will put the papers at the disposal of the Minister if he thinks there is anything in it. I am certainly against the principle of nomination. I quite agree that the Minister could not accept nomination from any farmers' organisation at the present time, because there is no organisation sufficiently wide in its influence to speak for farmers.
Dr. Ryan
Just as with the Bacon Board, the chairman will also have certain veto powers in one case—in fact only in one case, and that is in making a prices order. The principle function of this Board will be to fix the price of pigs. The position will be that you will have three curers on one side and three farmers on the other. They are not likely to agree about the price of pigs. Therefore, if the six are there it is quite likely that the Chairman will have to give a casting vote every time. In case there were three there on one side, and two on the other side, I think the chairman should be, more or less, in a position as if there was only one vote on each side so that the three who were able to turn up as against the other two, should not have the decision against the chairman.
Supposing a member on one side goes with the other side, would it be a majority vote?
Dr. Ryan
No. Unless there is unanimity on the price fixing, the chairman has the fixing. This price-fixing order is binding on all licensees, that is all bacon curers and all minor curers also. The Board fixes the duration of the prices order. They are bound, a week before the end of a price-fixing period, to fix a price for the coming period. The idea is that they should make the price as uniform as possible and to make it for as long a period as possible. It may not be possible to fix a price for the whole year round. We shall have to do something to discourage a very big production in the autumn as opposed to other parts of the year. They will probably have to vary the prices somewhat, so as to try to encourage pig production, say, from this time of the year until July and discourage it in autumn.
The best way to do that is to reduce the price of Indian meal.
Dr. Ryan
I do not know how that comes in. They can also make freight orders, fixing certain areas over which there will be certain freight paid. A curer is permitted to deduct certain things from the price he pays for a pig. He can deduct the freight allowance, the levy of the Pig Marketing Board, and the levy of the Minister which pays for the inspection. He can also deduct insurance allowances in respect of the condemnation of pig carcases, etc., tolls, if such have been paid, and weighing charges. In the case of the minor curer, he does not pay a levy to Bacon Marketing Board, but he pays 2/- to the Minister. He can deduct 1/- of that and as well he can deduct tolls and weighing charges. The price of pigs, or carcases, fixed by the Board is fixed in relation to weight and it is an offence for a person to buy either pigs or carcases otherwise than by weight save in circumstances in which weighing facilities are not available, and an order permitting the weight to be determined by agreement between buyer and seller has been made by the Board.
It will be a good pig that will be able to tell its own value after this.
Dr. Ryan
There may be some little trouble about it.
There are a great many things to be deducted.
Dr. Ryan
They are all small.
In connection with the sale of live pigs——
Dr. Ryan
Live pigs for export would not come under the Bill.
Is it not the purpose of the Bill, really, to give the farmers a good price for their pigs? Is that not one of the main purposes?
Dr. Ryan
That is true, but the Deputy will realise that pigs will have to be bought for export in competition with the purchase of those for the home factory and, I presume, exporters will have to pay the price that is being paid to the home factories. Of course we are going to be in a different position if we have more pigs than we can absorb but we are not in that position yet, at any rate.
Thank God, the British market has not gone.
The export of live pigs will still be permitted?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
I do not see the price of his Majesty the Pig going up.
Shades of Ennis!
Dr. Ryan
I do not see what the Deputy means by that.
With all these overhead charges going on top of the price of bacon, it will be a more paying proposition to sell the live pig.
Dr. Ryan
Then there are the price orders. Deputies may have had some difficulty in following that rather intricate arrangement about the appointed price and the hypothetical price, but we in the Department thought it rather a simple thing. Putting it into legal phraseology, however, makes it rather difficult. A person who is buying pigs may be able to pay, say, 56/- per cwt. for the pigs, according to the price he is getting for bacon on the home market. We may say to him: "We should like you to pay 58/- in order to keep prices level." In that case the appointed price is 58/- and the hypothetical price is 56/-. He may get from us the difference between the two. On the other hand, a person may be able to pay 60/- for pigs, according to the price he is getting for bacon, and the Board may suggest that he should pay only 58/-. We then collect 2/- from them, in order to build up a fund to meet the leaner times. In that case the appointed price is 58/- and the hypothetical price is 60/-. He pays in the 2/- difference to the Board.
He pays the farmer 58/-.
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
What about the jobber who is buying for the British market? He will pay 60/- and get all the pigs. There is nothing in the Bill to stop him.
Dr. Ryan
There may be nothing in the Bill to stop him, but a great deal will depend on the bounty paid.
Is the bounty to go on during saecula saeculorum?
Dr. Ryan
The bounty will go on as long as Deputy Belton is here, or we are here.
The Minister might go further into that question of building up of funds. It is possible that we may come on lean times. Is it proposed in the beginning to build up a fund out of that hypothetical price so that we would be able to deal with them?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
Further, is there any power in the Bill—I did not notice it —to deal with an additional draw for a period, and if there was an additional draw, is there some machinery for the ultimate distribution of the money in the event of its not being required?
Dr. Ryan
This is to create a pool which can be drawn on during a lean time. Suppose we start it during a lean time, there is provision by which the Board can borrow on the security of the fund and the Minister has power to lend. It is really a stabilisation of prices. They collect levies and they can pay out bounties. There is also an amendment, which I propose to bring in on the Committee Stage, which will give them power to vary these bounties according as the bacon is consumed at home or exported. It is quite possible, as Deputy Belton said, that we might have the consumer paying a certain price for bacon. There would be no great advantage to the consumer, at any rate, in lowering the price of bacon by 2/-. It is better to keep the price of bacon to the home consumer as it is and the home price of pigs as it is. Let us help the man who is exporting because he is having a lean time while the person consuming at home is all right. We would want power to vary payments out of the fund according as the bacon is consumed at home or exported. This Board has powers also in regard to research, improvement of pig rearing, and so on. The Board has a levy, in addition to this stabilisation fund I have referred to, for administrative expenses.
I want to refer also to the Chairman of the Board in both cases. The Bill confers exceptional powers on the Chairman of both the Bacon Marketing Board and the Pigs Marketing Board. I think I have explained very fully why these powers have been given. The only other point raised is why the Minister has the nomination of the Chairman. It was laid down in the report of the Pig Industries Tribunal that the Chairman should be neutral. The question was discussed with the bacon trade and they could make no better suggestion than that the Minister should appoint him. I do not say that they were completely satisfied with that arrangement, but, at any rate, they could not make a better suggestion. Perhaps the House can make a better suggestion when we come to deal with the matter.
When the Minister uses the word "better," does he mean better from his standard or from theirs?
Dr. Ryan
I do not know if they put forward any other suggestion. As I said, however, I do not say that they were satisfied with that arrangement, but they did not make any suggestion against it. They are, of course, definitely dissatisfied on one point. Their view is that if the Minister appoints the Chairman, why should they pay him out of their fund? However, I think that we could hardly justify asking for State funds to pay this man's salary if his whole time were to be given up to the regulation of the bacon trade.
Does the Minister fix his salary?
Dr. Ryan
Yes.
Why not leave the fixing of his salary to the Board?
Dr. Ryan
Well, there is one difficulty there, and I think that if the Deputy were in my place he would see it, and that is that if the Minister appointed a man whom they did not like, they might fix a salary of 30/- a year and make it impossible for him to carry on.
But the Minister might refuse to sanction the 30/- a year, and they could not function until he sanctioned it.
I think that they have shown they are anxious to make the scheme work?
Dr. Ryan
Oh, yes.
It struck me that there was a suggestion in the Bill that they might not be.
Dr. Ryan
I hardly think so.
Perhaps it is on the principle that you will never win a battle till you are ready for it.
Dr. Ryan
I think that I have dealt with most of the matters concerned, in a general way at any rate. The Bill, as I have said, follows broadly the recommendations of the Pig Industries Tribunal, and I think I can say correctly that, in general, their recommendations met with the approval of the industry. As regards the Bill, I have had an opportunity of ascertaining the views of the trade, at all events of that portion of the trade which is likely to constitute the licensees under the Bill. A Committee of the trade have placed their views before the Department. I cannot say that we saw all the minor curers, but we saw quite a number of them. This Committee, as I say, has been set up, and they have suggested a number of amendments on most of which I think we can agree when they are introduced on the Committee Stage.
Are the suggested changes important changes?
Dr. Ryan
No, not very. I shall mention two. This Committee, I understand, represents, with the exception of one firm, all those persons or firms likely to be licensed under the Bill, and that one firm we have consulted since. They have expressed agreement with the Bill subject to my considering some detail amendments which they have suggested, and with the exception I have already mentioned about the payment of the Chairman's salary out of their funds, I think they are in general agreement.
When the Minister speaks of payment out of their funds, does he mean payment out of these levies, and things of that sort?
Dr. Ryan
Yes. I have already said that, generally speaking, they approve the special powers of the Chairman.
The Minister says that the curers—both the future licensees and the minor curers, have been consulted and have accepted the proposals generally. I should like to know whether or not there has been any similar approach to the producers. I mention this because any remarks I would make on the Bill would be in that connection. The best way to approach the producers would be through the county committees of agriculture, and I suggest that the county committees of agriculture should be asked to study the Bill and put up to the Minister suggestions for amendments safe-guarding the interests of producers if they did not think they were sufficiently safeguarded by the Bill as it stands. It seems to me that when you have done something like that for the curers, something similar should be done for the producers, and the only obvious way to approach the producers is through the county committees of agriculture.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy must remember that we are not regulating the producers, whereas we are doing a lot of regulation in regard to the curers, and the latter were therefore entitled to be consulted. The only way in which the producer would come in would be in regard to price. I did receive three or four different groups with regard to price and they put their views before me. I should like to follow that out, but that is a matter to be ascertained during the discussion on the Bill. Apart from the curers and the producers, the other big section affected are the consumers. We will be asked, undoubtedly, why we did not follow this thing out also, so far as they were concerned, and fix the price for the consumer. I have always held, however, that that is not a matter for the Minister for Agriculture, but for the Minister for Industry and Commerce——
And the Prices Commission.
Dr. Ryan
Yes, and for the Prices Commission. However, I think I can say safely that there is no commodity in which there is less profiteering than butter, for instance, and I think that the reason for that is that there is a fixed price through the year from the creamery to the retailer. Therefore, the retailer has no excuse for saying that butter is going up in price and that he must add on a penny. He cannot do that because the consumer is aware that the price is fixed. That is not the case where bacon is concerned. We know that people go into a shop and find that bacon is 2d. a lb. up in price and they cannot understand why it should be. The retailer says to the consumer that the price of pigs went up three weeks ago and that is why he is compelled to put up the price. It is hard to dispute the matter with the retailer in that case. If, however, the consumer knows that the price of pigs is fixed for, say, six months of the year, he knows that there should be no change in the price of bacon. I think, however, that as a result of the operation of this Bill, the consumer will get much fairer treatment than he has got up to the present and I think that as time goes on the margin left to the wholesaler and retailer will be less and less.
The consumer knows all that pretty well with regard to the elements that go to the price of bread, and yet the price of bread goes up without any understanding of it.
Dr. Ryan
I agree that the price of bread may be too high all the time, but there is a sort of fixed relation between flour and bread.
It is by no means fixed. There is always a lag between the retailer and the wholesaler that is never in favour of the consumer.
Dr. Ryan
Well, perhaps I had better get back to what I was saying. Deputy Belton asked me a question that I should like to deal with now. He asked whether there is any power under this Bill to limit production. That is the big problem we want to avoid, really. The obvious way to deal with pigs was to say that we would produce a certain number of pigs in the year so as to be able to sell that number on our export quota and at home, and that we would limit our production to that. That is the way some countries have dealt with it. In this Bill we tried to approach it in a different way, if you like, by more or less carrying on the present system within limits, by limiting production, by lowering prices at a certain period of increased production, and raising prices at another period; by doing it in a more regular way and giving the full benefits to the producers as far as they can be given. We hope to be able to avoid the very complicated and very drastic system of actually going to the farmers and saying: "You must only produce a certain number of pigs in the year." I am afraid it would be very difficult to ask for that in this country. They have probably a more docile type of farmer in other countries.
It is working in Great Britain.
Dr. Ryan
Not exactly. The farmers give a contract for as many as they want. On the other hand, we might say to a farmer: "You are producing 100 pigs; you must come down to 60."
The prices will control production.
Dr. Ryan
Yes. There is this advantage, that we have got an agreed measure, at any rate with the curers. That is a very big advantage, as they are a very big interest. They are agreeable to work this measure and, as Deputy Cosgrave said, "It should be given a trial." Having their good will, the Bill will be given a decent trial and given every opportunity to succeed. I should like to refer to two amendments. One is an amendment to Section 99, which I shall move on the Committee Stage. As the Bill stands, the 12-months period ends a month before the Board is established, and on these figures the Bacon Board gives its allocations. It has been brought to our notice that certain curers are making a very big push to put on production now, in order to have a big qualifying year. We think that is wrong and we will amend it. I propose to bring in an amendment to make that period instead the 12 months ending 31st December, 1934. I referred to the other amendment. On Committee Stage, Section 145 will be amended slightly to give the Board power to distinguish in their allocation of bounties between export bacon and bacon consumed at home.
What is the cost of all this?
Dr. Ryan
No cost to the State.
What is the cost of all the machinery, administration and all the rest?
Dr. Ryan
I will try to have something on that at another stage.
Can you not tell the House to the nearest £10,000 now?
Dr. Ryan
The administration would cost about £14,000.
And the veterinary inspection?
Dr. Ryan
That is included.
It includes veterinary inspection and all the various people engaged?
Dr. Ryan
The Boards would cost about £5,000 each.
That makes £24,000.
If committees of agriculture came together in order to help the Minister on the question of the prices of pigs, would he like that gesture and facilitate it by allowing the committees, if they felt so disposed to send delegates to a meeting in Dublin, to pay their expenses? I have no point to make on this, but if the Minister thinks it would help him, it would be the closest approach to the views of producers that could be got in present circumstances. I would help the Minister in that direction.
Dr. Ryan
Certainly, I should like to meet them.
Will the Minister sanction the payment of expenses to delegates by committees of agriculture?
Dr. Ryan
We have resolutions from practically every county committee about this Bill. They considered it and sent in resolutions.
I can quite understand that a committee that is predominantly Fianna Fáil will pass one kind of resolution, and a committee that is predominantly Fine Gael will pass another kind. If the Press is there for the discussion and there is anything in what the delegates have to say the Minister would have it. They would not be discussing party politics, as is generally the case.
They discuss nothing else.
One of the consoling factors in this Bill is that it is additional evidence that Fianna Fáil is learning. For the last 18 months Fine Gael advocated the organisation of industry and agriculture on corporative lines, because we took the view that world conditions and domestic circumstances made it desirable that industry should organise itself intelligently and consciously, and that agriculture should do the same thing, so that it could meet the varying winds of trade and trim the sails of the whole industry to whatever was the prevailing and profitable wind. It seems from the principle underlying this Bill that Fianna Fáil has come to the conclusion that, far from being Fascism and dictatorism, it is a necessary reform, which they propose to put under way. Unfortunately the proposal is half-baked. Nevertheless, since the underlying principle is good, our chief concern in dealing with this Bill will be to improve it, and to add to it those elements that it lacks, in order that this first experiment in the organisation of agriculture and industry may prove successful, and may confer benefit upon people who depend upon pig production and curing for a livelihood. Before getting down to what is in the Bill, I should like to ask the Minister a few questions about things which seem to me to be absent from it. I am sorry he has not made any endeavour to provide some machinery with which he might experiment later on, if he did not care to undertake the experiment immediately, in the regulation of pig supplies. Something is being done along these lines in Great Britain. They experienced very considerable difficulty in administering a scheme to regulate the production of pigs. But it does seem to me that to launch out on the experiment which is included in this Bill without keeping before one's mind the possibility that the regulation of pig supplies themselves will have to be faced, sooner or later, is a mistake. We ought to be ready for that if the success of this scheme depends upon it.
The Minister will immediately say that the great difficulty we have to face is that while in Great Britain and in other countries you have large farmers who are accustomed to keeping accounts and doing their business in a methodical way, our problem here is the large number of small farmers who are of a very individualistic temperament and who resent any undue interference with their daily life. I fully sympathise with the Minister in that difficulty and I recognise and sympathise with the individuality of the small farmer; but, when we admit the existence of a situation which requires as much regulation as this Bill provides for, we ought to keep our minds open to the possibility that we shall have to go a step further, and in that event I want to suggest to the Minister that he should consider not to attempt to regulate the pig production of each individual farmer but to divide the country into zones or districts and seek to promote the joint production of pigs. We have co-operative creameries. I do not see why we might not have co-operative pig societies, so that in regulating the production of pigs you would go to a co-operative pig society in Kanturk and allot it a quota of pigs for any given quota period. Then it would be for the society to distribute that quota equitably amongst its members. I believe that, if we are driven to the regulation of pig production, it is along those lines that the regulation will have to go, and I do not think, if it becomes absolutely necessary, that regulation along those lines would be impossible. It would be difficult, I readily admit, but with goodwill and once you had satisfied the farmers that the thing was going to be a success, that it was going to contribute to the prosperity of the industry at large, I believe you would get a scheme, along those lines, to work.
This Bill at present does not touch the producer except as to price, but it deals with the curer, the minor curer and the pork butcher. It has left out of its consideration altogether a very important body of men who have done very useful work in the bacon business in this country for many years. Those are the urban wholesalers. People who are not familiar with the bacon trade will find some difficulty in realising how important a part the urban wholesaler plays in the distribution of bacon. As the Minister knows, every retailer in the city is faced with the problem that some of his customers in one part of the city will like one cure, and that more of his customers in another part of the city will prefer a different cure. The retailer's job is to provide just for each of his customer's requirements. It may be quite impossible for him to deal directly with a factory for all his requirements because he may not be able to give an order for some individual cure or grade of bacon sufficiently large to justify him ordering direct from the factory. And so it has been his practice—in Dublin, on Tuesday and Friday mornings, I think—to go and make his choice from the stocks of bacon accumulated by the wholesalers from all the factories in the country. In addition to that, these urban wholesalers have conducted for generations the business of curing themselves, not curing in the full sense of the term, but doing what might be more properly called "the first process." They have taken bacon from the factory with part of the curing salt adhering to it. They have washed it, dried it and smoked it or they have sold it "big" according to the retail customer's requirements. Many of them have built up a very valuable trade for the particular classes of bacon that they, by their skill and experience, are in a position to offer to the consuming public through the retail trade.
The Minister has said, and probably will say again, that this Bill does not touch the wholesaler at all, but sub-section (4) of Section 40 specifically says:
Bacon which has been subjected by any person or at any premises to the process of smoking and no other process of manufacture shall be deemed, for the purposes of this section, not to have been cured by such person or at such premises.
That is quite true, but the Minister, I hope, has not forgotten that he has regulated the curing business. He has virtually created a monopoly in the curing business, so that if curers choose to go extensively into the wholesale trade themselves they could, by manipulating prices, make the position of the urban wholesaler absolutely impossible and eventually squeeze him out. It is an illusion to imagine that those men who have been engaged in the wholesale trade have been an added cost to the consumer. They have not, because if the factories want to discharge the same functions as these wholesalers they must, and will set up depôts of their own. Therefore, the overheads of the wholesalers will remain a charge upon the industry and that is largely because smoked bacon will not travel. You cannot ship smoked bacon from a rural factory to a distant city because its general appearance on arrival there will displease potential purchasers. For that reason, and some other technical reasons, these final processes must be carried out in the urban centre where the wholesaler operates.
There is no question of the urban wholesaler constituting a burden on the consumer, but there is grave danger that, unless he is afforded some protection in the Bill similar to that which is afforded the curers the curers will combine to squeeze him out of the trade altogether. Then you will have the men who depend entirely for their livelihood on the bacon wholesaling business in urban centres left destitute after this Bill has been three or four years in operation. Their destitution would be brought about by a combination of curers resolved to capture the wholesale trade themselves and protected from competition by the wholesalers whom they were trying to squeeze out by the sections of this Bill. These sections make it impossible for anyone to enter the curing trade after the preliminary period without satisfying the conditions laid down by the Bill, to wit, that there is another curer necessary in the trade, and that when he enters he will set up his factory in a district which is not adequately supplied with factories at the present time. The problem is a complex one and, at first glance, it would seem as if the farmers had nothing to complain about. If the matter is looked into closely, it will be found that the provisions of the Bill amount to a death sentence on the urban wholesalers. In my opinion, the House should take the view that that is a substantial injustice and should be remedied either by prohibiting curers from setting up wholesale depots and going into the wholesale business, or by giving urban wholesalers, subject to a limited definition of that business, the same protection in their trade as the House proposes to give to the established curer in his trade.
I notice that there is no reference in this Bill to a very important section of the community who have done yeoman service in building up the great prosperity that attended the pig industry for generations in this country. I refer to the pig jobbers. The pig dealers went about their business and made available to our people in the most remote country fairs the best prices obtaining in the markets of the world. Those of us who have some experience of what happened in the western States of America, when the local fairs were destroyed at the instance of the packers and the farmers were compelled to bring their stock long distances into the pig packers' yards, will appreciate the valuable work done by the pig jobber in Ireland. In America, when the farmers were induced to accept the hospitality of the packers' sale yards the local fairs died and dealers ceased to go out into the country parts. Then the farmers realised that, whether they liked it or not, they had to go into the yards. Having gone there they quickly realised that they had to take whatever price the packers would give them. The packers knew that, once they had agreed to pay no more than a certain price for cattle or pigs, the farmer could not afford to bring his stock home again. He had brought them too far. To this day, the rural cattle raiser in America who takes his cattle into Denver, Kansas City or Oklahoma is obliged to take whatever price he can get. I remember seeing a man who took three wagons of cattle to Denver. So wretched was the price offered for one wagon, that he refused it and took that wagon home. When he got home he discovered that the two wagons of cattle which he had sold just paid his expenses and left him one dollar seventy cents for himself. In this country, happily, we have never had that system. In most parts of the country we have had a pig or cattle fair. The farmer brought in his pig to the fair and, if he made up his mind that he was not being offered its value, he was free to take it back again. The pig jobbers attended the local fairs in considerable numbers and competed amongst themselves for the pigs, to the great advantage of the pig producers all over the country. Deputy Haslett will remind me that, in a great part of the north of Ireland, the practice is to slaughter the pigs and bring them in to the market as pork. I know that that is the practice but I never could understand what the reason for it was or how the northern farmer does not realise that he is at a great disadvantage in fighting for a good price in these circumstances. A dead pig cannot be brought home again. If the live pig does not sell well in Monaghan he may sell well at Clones. Deputy Haslett will probably explain that practice at a later stage but my experience is that the local live-pig market is a very valuable asset. For that, we are largely indebted to the pig jobber whose co-operation and assistance have contributed in no small measure to the prosperity of the pig industry. Surely the pig jobber is entitled, in these circumstances, to some representation on the Pig Marketing Board. His business is going to be profoundly affected and his experience and skill would be of considerable value to the Board. The assistance given to the industry by the pig jobber is entitled to some recognition. The Government should make some provision for adequate representation on the Board of that body of men in view of their past record and in view of the contribution they will be able to make to the effective organisation of the industry.
The Minister should also consider the consumer and the producer. I fully recognise that one can become impractical in suggesting that every kind of interest should be represented, particularly when some of these interests are not directly affected by the Bill at all. Nevertheless, it is true to say that sometimes an attempt to avoid trouble lets one in for more trouble than would be the case if the facts were faced. I think that the Minister would be well advised to look into the question of providing representation for consumers and producers on one of the bodies which will be concerned with the control of the sale of bacon and the control of the purchase of pigs. The Minister, in opening his observations this evening, said that he justified this whole departure largely by the astonishing irregularity that obtained in the pig market of the country. He pointed to an advertisement appearing in yesterday's paper showing that a pig consigned to one factory was worth £4 10s., while the same pig consigned to another factory was worth only £3 15s. He said that that showed the chaotic condition of the pig market. That chaotic condition is a condition of his own making, as he subsequently confessed, when he referred to the amendment he proposed to introduce to Section 99. There he laid his finger on the reason why you can get £4 10s. for a pig in one factory as against £3 15s. in another factory. All the factories are out on the rampage for pigs to qualify for the quota. The Minister now realises that and proposes to introduce an amendment to the section. While he was discovering that interesting fact he upset the whole pig market and people are paying fancy prices at present. To my sorrow, I realise that these fancy prices will come to an end to-morrow because I had a wagon of pigs sent out to capture that price, which has now been blown up by the proposed amendment. The Minister might have left us the good price for a little longer or given his friends an indication of what was coming, so that we could have got our pigs away to market before he "split the gaff." With regard to the general question of pig production, the Minister says that the only instrument to his hand under this Bill is price-fixing. I do not believe that he can adequately effect control of pig production by varying the price. I am not altogether sure that it will work out in a desirable way, because, as Deputies who are familiar with this business know, one of the main reasons why pig supplies are prone to grow in the autumn is that small potatoes are available in great abundance at that time of the year. The country people must have something to consume the small potatoes. That which consumes the small potatoes most profitably is the pig.
Hence, country people try to have pigs at that time of the year. Under the agricultural cereals products legislation you are going to raise the price of pig-feeding meals sky-high, and, when you have alternative feeding stuffs grown upon your own land you are going to depress the price down as low as you can, in order to deprive people of the profit they otherwise would have made. It looks to me very like "heads we win, tails you lose." The fact is that the effect of the agricultural cereals Acts has been to accentuate every surplus of pigs in autumn because the spring feeding meals have been made so expensive that people find the margin of profit narrower than ever before, and have turned, more and more, to the period when they can supply their own feeding stuffs for pigs, as the period in which they can make profit. If this is to be changed and we are, artificially, going to beat down the price in order to restrict their keeping of pigs to consume potatoes it will read otherwise. I do not think that that alone is going to be adequate to control pig production, or equitable in the control of pig production. I ask the Minister seriously to consider the question of lowering the price of pig-feeding meals in spring, if he wants to increase the demand and allow the effect of the cereal legislation to operate in autumn.
Under Section 2 of this Bill we have definitions which are going to cover the whole statutes. The third of these definitions is as follows: "the word `bacon' includes ham." Where has bacon been defined for statutory purposes? This is merely a matter that the Minister might note for reference, because in dealing with the whole industry, as he does here, great difficulty might arise if the meaning of the word "bacon" was not made very clear, and the fact that there is a differentiation between bacon and ham suggested that the word "bacon" in the statute might not include foreends and gams and so forth.
Now, we come to the very difficult question of the minor curer. I recognise, and I think everybody else will recognise, that if the industry is to be organised in conformity with the spirit of this Act, the maintenance of minor curers in existence would produce insurmountable administrative difficulties. But this House has never yet accepted the principle that by legislation we should put somebody out of the business without compensation. No one in this House would accept the principle that you are entitled to take from a man a piece of land without compensation. Now, the only value land has, for anybody, is to provide him with a livelihood in one form or another. To the minor curer his land is his business; it is what provides him with a livelihood. It may not be an adequate livelihood from the point of view of the Minister, but such as it is, it is his, and if this Bill remains in its present form the man who is killing about 40 or 45 pigs a week, and making a modest livelihood out of it, is required, during the preliminary period, to raise his weekly output to a much higher figure, to equip his premises in a much more elaborate way and, in fact, to embark on a scale of industry that he never contemplated before. It will certainly mean, in the case of some individuals, that at the end of the preliminary period they will be faced with the inevitable consequences of elimination. That is something for which I certainly never would stand. If these men go, in order that the industry should survive, then they must be reasonably and fairly compensated.
Let there be no question of vicious claims or fraudulent representations; no such claims are entitled to any consideration. But where a man can come before a court and satisfy an impartial judge that he was honestly working his little industry and making a livelihood and that it was yielding so much to him per annum then he is entitled to such sum as will recoup him for his loss. The method of arriving at that sum is one for which there are many adequate precedents and presents no formidable difficulty. A judge of the High Court with adequate evidence before him would be compelled to take an independent and adequate view. If that was considered unsuitable then a special tribunal could be devised for the purpose. Comparatively few cases will have to be dealt with. The great danger is that their fewness and their superficial insignificance would induce this House to ignore them. But what for us might be a trivial and insignificant incident, the elimination of a man who only cured 30 or 40 pigs in the week, could be, for him and his family, an irreparable disaster and might mean the breaking up of a home and the loss of an honest and hardworking and industrious citizen. I am satisfied that, on reflection, the Minister will come to agree with me that while the necessity of the situation may require the elimination of those men at the end of two years that elimination cannot be contemplated except on the basis of fair and not excessive compensation.
Now, sub-section (3) of Section 11 deals with pork butchers to whom would be reserved the right of curing not more than 15 per cent. of his total output. But oddly enough the sub-section says "any person—(a) who carries on at any such premises the business of pork butcher and (b) who is not a qualified pork butcher, and (c) who desires to carry on the business of curing bacon at such premises, may, after the appointed day, apply to the Minister to be registered in the register of pork butchers in respect of such premises," and sub-section (4) says: "every application for registration in the register of minor curers or the register of pork butchers shall— (a) be made in the prescribed form and manner and containing the prescribed particulars and (b) relate to one set of premises only."
Can a pork butcher conduct his business as a pork butcher and as a bacon curer on the same premises? It seems to me that there is another section which provides that the operation of curing bacon and retailing pork cannot be carried on on the same premises, and I think that is a detail which would want to be looked into and corrected, if that inconsistency exists. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 deals with the question of registration and it sets out that:
On receipt of an application for registration in the register of pork butchers by a person who is not a qualified pork butcher made under and in accordance with the immediately preceding section, the Minister may, if he thinks fit, enter in such register the name and address of the applicant....
Why is that very full discretion left in the Minister's hands in that case and to exclude whom is it designed? The Minister must have in mind some class of person who he thinks might apply for inclusion in this register who should not be there and he, therefore, reserves to himself the right to exclude them. I should like to know from the Minister what that class of person is and whom he has in mind.
I think that a registration fee of £10 in respect of minor curers is very high. They are not to be inspected in the way the permanent curers are; they are not liable to veterinary inspection and, in fact, this Bill imposes very little upon them, except the obligation to pay the levy. Why should their registration fee be £10? £10 might mean a very great deal to a man who cured only 2,000 pigs in the year, and unless it is a revenue provision, I can see no justification for it. If it is a revenue provision, it will not produce sufficient revenue to make it worth while and it will constitute a very heavy burden on the individual minor curers, at the same time, so I think the Minister ought to consider the desirability of reducing that fee to something closer to a nominal figure.
In sub-section (6) of Section 15 is enshrined, very modestly and well hidden, a return to the age-honoured principle of Fianna Fáil that we do not want any courts of law. Section 6 says:
Every certificate of indebtedness shall be conclusive evidence of all matters purported to be certified therein....
I can well understand that it should not be required to be proved in the ordinary formal way as having been issued by the Minister or anything of that kind, but why should it be conclusive evidence of its contents? Has the Minister for Agriculture suddenly become subject to the delusion that he is infallible and, if he has not, why not leave the truth or falseness of any matter referred to in that certificate to the court to decide? He is going to produce it to the court and he is not asked to prove the validity of the instrument. All he is asked to do is to leave the judge free to exercise the intellect God gave him and not to tell him: "We produce this piece of paper; there is no need to read it and, in fact, it might just as well be a blank sheet of paper, because all it is is a statutory warrant ordering you to accept as gospel whatever our witness pleases to say." That is turning the process of law into a farce and I suggest to the Minister that that should be rectified and that in regard to the facts alleged in any statement made by a public servant, he should be open to the same cross-examination that any humble citizen of the State is open to under similar circumstances.
The Minister has power to recover by ordinary civil proceedings the amount of any levy or fee due to him by anybody who is liable to pay such things under this Bill. Nevertheless, sub-section (8) of Section 15 not only sets out that he is free to proceed by way of civil process, but it goes on to say that if the court decides that the debt is due, the litigant who has ventured to go into court against the Minister has committed a statutory offence, because in paragraph (c) of sub-section (8) if he has failed to pay, within the time appointed by this section, any fee payable by him to the Minister under this section, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £50. Surely if somebody questions in the regular way his liability for such a fee, he should not be made liable to a penalty for his temerity in invoking the courts as between himself and the Minister in question? A case very similar to that came to my notice a couple of days ago. A butcher who is registered under the free beef Act has had a difference with the Minister about the amount of levy due by him in respect of the cattle he has killed for the provision of free beef. The man believes he has a perfectly good case and he takes the view that the Ministry have misconstrued their powers in collecting the fees from him. Under this section he would be guilty of an offence in daring to make his case and in questioning his liability for the fee claimed from him within the statutory time. There should be some exception made in favour of an individual who has a bona fide case and indicates to the Department his intention of testing it in the courts by way of civil process.
Section 18 enshrines a new principle and one that is extremely interesting. It is that the quality of being a registered curer is now going to become an asset, and something which is freely conveyable from one person to another. Under sub-section (2) of Section 18, any person who is a registered curer can sell his position as a registered curer to somebody else, and can compel the Minister to register the purchaser of his licence. I am not sure that I object to that principle, but it is something which the House should decide upon in the full knowledge of what they are doing and in the knowledge that they are creating under this Bill a very valuable asset which they are conferring gratuitously on the persons who happen, during the qualification period, to be engaged in the bacon-curing trade.
Is that not already established in connection with flour-milling?
I do not quite remember whether there is an absolute right or whether the right is subject to the approval of the Minister in that connection.
I want to go back for a moment to the minor curers. There is one point which has escaped the attention of the Minister for Agriculture altogether. He has provided that those men will go in certain circumstances and that others will survive if they accept the 2,200 cwts. a year. What is going to happen to the employees of the men who must go? Are they entitled to any consideration? Is their means of livelihood to be wiped out without any compensation or any consideration? They cannot control their employer. They cannot make him kill more pigs than he wants to kill. They cannot force him to stay in the trade if he does not want to do so. If he chooses to say: "Well, I do not propose to sink any more capital in this business. To stay in the business would involve me in putting in plant and so forth, which I am not prepared to consider at the present time," they cannot make him do it. If the provisions of this Bill operate as they stand at present, those people will simply be thrown out of a job, and it will be nobody's business. I think the Minister will have to consider that when he comes to look into that question.
This matter of the curing and slaughtering licences which arises in Section 21 seems to me obscure, because the section says that every application for a licence shall relate to one set of premises only. Surely it does not mean that you must have two separate premises, one for slaughtering and another for curing, or does it mean that you must have one premises at which you cure nothing but dead pigs which have been purchased dead, and another for curing dead pigs which have been slaughtered on your premises? I think that section is obscure, and I think it deserves to be looked into so that the presumed intention of the Minister should be carried into effect, that is, that if you get a slaughtering and curing licence you will be entitled to conduct both operations on the one premises, as is universally done. Section 24 provides that:
Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister shall have absolute discretion to grant or refuse to grant an application for a licence. Where an application is made before the appointed day for a licence in respect of any premises and the applicant satisfied the Minister that he was at the date of the passing of this Act carrying on the business of curing bacon, and that he manufactured at such premises, during the qualifying period, not less than 2,200 cwts. of bacon the Minister shall. ...grant such application.
Sub-section (3) goes on to make it mandatory on the Minister to grant the application in certain circumstances, but it seems to reserve to him some absolute discretion to refuse or grant it under certain circumstances. I think the Minister should take us further into his confidence and tell us does he propose under this Act to create a situation whereunder he might decline to register a bona fide curer for reasons best known to himself? Does he think it desirable that in a matter of that kind he should have absolute discretion, or does he not think that conditions should be laid down by the Statute which would make it incumbent on him to do one thing or the other in any given set of circumstances? In sub-section (6) of Section 28 the same undesirable proviso is introduced. It says: “Every certificate of indebtedness shall be conclusive evidence of all matters purported to be certified therein.” That amounts to pre-judging the issue which ought to be the province of the court before which it is brought for consideration.
I have drawn attention before to a section in another Bill similar to that which appears in this Bill in sub-section (2) of Section 30, providing that the Minister may revoke the licence of any person who had been adjudged bankrupt. An earlier section has made that licence a very valuable asset. It has made that licence something the sale of which might make all the difference between bankruptcy and solvency, and yet the Minister takes power to cancel and destroy that asset, not because a man has done anything wrong, not because a man has been guilty of any breach of the law or breach of the regulations under this statute, but just because he has taken advantage of the bankruptcy laws of this State which were devised for the relief of such persons, and which were adopted by the people in sympathetic understanding of the difficulties into which their neighbours might get. There is nothing penal in the bankruptcy law. There are no penalties put upon a man who finds himself unable to meet his obligations. All he is required to do is to wind up his commitments and let his creditors have a definite and final knowledge of where they stand. But into this Bill and into the Cereals Bill, and into one or two other Acts, this entirely new principle has been introduced of penalising a man for going bankrupt. In other Bills the Minister for Agriculture has argued: "Well, those people have dealings with country folk who are easily put upon, and it is very necessary to protect those people from being deluded or unjustly treated by a bankrupt." The bacon curers of Ireland are not going to deal directly with the small farmer, except when they are dealing with him for cash, so there is no danger of any delusion being practised on those who are susceptible to being misled. I think, therefore, that to introduce this sub-section here is quite inadvisable, and that it ought to be removed in the Committee Stage. I do not know what is the offence referred to in paragraph (h), and I think it is a very great mistake in drafting Bills of this kind to include references to other statutes without elaborating them at length and letting people know what exactly is meant by a reference to Section 9 of the Control of Manufactures Act, 1934.
There is a case provided for in sub-section (3) of Section 30; where the Minister proposes to revoke a licence in certain circumstances, and the licensee challenges the grounds upon which the Minister proposes to revoke the licence, "the Minister shall appoint a fit and proper person to hold such inquiry, and the person so appointed shall have power to take evidence on oath which he is hereby authorised to administer." Surely such person should have some qualifications which would restrict the Minister in his choice of him. Would it not be well to describe him as a practising lawyer, or a solicitor of 10 years' standing, or somebody who is accustomed to the giving of evidence, the hearing of evidence, and the assessing of it, so that a licensee would have some protection and would feel some confidence that a detached and independent person would hear his side of the case, and give it the weighty consideration to which his representations would entitle him.
Section 31 says: "Whenever the Minister grants a licence he shall communicate to the Bacon Marketing Board and to the Pig Marketing Board the fact that the grant of such licence with such particulars of such licence as he shall think proper." Why should the Minister withhold from either of these Boards some of the conditions that he has injected into the licence which was issued? If these particulars are to be communicated to these Boards why should not all the relevant facts be communicated to them and why should there be this Bluebeard rule as to the conditions which the Minister thinks fit to communicate? Why should not an obligation be placed upon the Minister to communicate this relevant information about licences to the two Boards concerned? In Section 38 we have a formula incorporated which was repudiated as unthinkable, ineffective and worthless by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health when he was bringing in the Milk and Dairy Bill. There is an amendment standing in my name to amend a section of the Milk and Dairies Bill and it runs on the same terms as Section 38 of this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health has denounced my amendment as calculated to make the working of the section quite impossible. How does it happen that what in the case of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health is possible and desirable becomes entirely wrong in the eyes of the Minister for Agriculture? How is it that what is right at the North Wall becomes wrong at the Custom House?
It never occurred to the Deputy that he could be wrong?
Well, my amendment is there for the Minister to read and compare with this section. I suggest that this section should be amended so that we should not have a section in one Act clashing with a section of another Act. Section 41 deals with curers and wholesalers to which I have already referred. Section 51 reads: "The Minister may at any time make an order (in this Part of the Act referred to as a bacon (production from carcases of pigs slaughtered in licensed slaughtering premises) order) prohibiting the production at licensed premises of bacon unless such bacon is produced from the carcases of pigs slaughtered in licensed slaughtering and curing premises." What I want to suggest to the Minister there is that he has made that section too watertight. He ought not to take power to prohibit that but to limit it. In some cases it might be desirable to limit it but not to prohibit it altogether. Section 57 deals with consignment certificates and it seems to me to create a great deal of unnecessary difficulty.
Tá an Teachta ag dul anamhall.
Tá, but I can assure the Acting-Chairman that this is a most important measure and I cannot deal with it in a trivial way.
Acting-Chairman
Maith go leor.
I can assure the House that the Deputy is an awful nuisance.
This Section 57 provides for the consignor accompanying his certificate with certificates of the number of pieces of bacon to which the veterinary surgeon has applied the mark. It seems to me to be an unnecessary provision and it cannot serve any useful purpose. It must be a section that will turn out to be exceedingly onerous and unless it is an absolutely necessary power in the Bill the Minister ought to waive it or to explain to us what purpose it serves.
That will arise in the Committee Stage.
Yes, but it appropriately arises here.
It is only the general principles of the Bill that arise at this stage.
On debating the general principles of the Bill I am entitled to advert to anything in the Bill that interferes with ordinary trade and to point out where interference may be purely vexatious. On the question of the cold storage of bacon provided for in this Bill, I want to point out that Section 65 is apparently designed to prevent the export of cold stored bacon. But that provision should be done explicitly. In the Bill as it stands there is nothing to prevent any person taking cold-stored bacon to his factory and then shipping it from his factory to an extern market. Furthermore, the same principle arises here that arises elsewhere. The section is being made too watertight. The Minister ought to take permissive power in Section 65. Permission might be given to export certain parts of the bacon, but at the same time, if necessary, to restrict the manufacturer in the export of bacon as a whole.
It seems to me strange that when we determine on setting up a Bacon Marketing Board we do not stipulate any qualifications at all for membership of the Board. As Section 77 stands at present, it seems to me that the bacon curers could elect a policeman on the Board if they desired to do so. Surely the Minister has in mind that the persons elected shall be curers and representatives drawn from the panel of electors. That is not stated in the section and it ought to be stated. The Minister has arranged for the large, the medium and the small curers and the proportion is 3-2-2. That proportion is going to give rise to difficulties. It has been temporarily agreed that the Minister recognises that a situation may arise later on whereupon the whole arrangement for the election to the Board may have to be revised. One way out of the difficulty would be that the large and medium curers would be provided with representation on the Board, which should bear some relation to the number of pigs cured and according to the number of pigs cured in each class, each class would be entitled to representation on the Board. Naturally, in the event of such an arrangement being arrived at, the large curers would require a larger number of pigs than the medium curers and the medium curers a larger number than the small curers. I sympathise with the difficulty of the Pig Marketing Board in being asked to pay for servants whom they themselves do not appoint. That, I think, is a matter that should engage the Minister's attention. The Minister has vouchsafed an explanation of the new principle enshrined in this extension and that is in connection with the chairman of the Board. I move the adjournment of the debate.