Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 19 Jul 1935

Vol. 58 No. 8

Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep (Amendment) Bill, 1935—Second Stage.

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

It was decided yesterday that item No. 9, the Financial Motion, might, if necessary, be considered further in connection with Section 14 of the Bill.

When the House adjourned last night I was giving a summary of this Bill, and I stated that there were three vital sections in it. The first is that which puts an end to the giving of free beef in this State; the second fixes a minimum price for beef, and the third deals with the control and putting in irons of the butchers. I think this Bill could have been disposed of by introducing a Bill containing one section, whereby in the future beef would be supplied on vouchers on a contributory basis. I was dealing last night with the fixing of the minimum price for beef, and I pointed out to the Minister that, in the drawing of this section, an attempt was made to make it watertight, but that, while it is watertight on one side, the other side of the sheet covering is absolutely open to allow those things which are prevented on the first side. The Minister asked me why I would not help him to amend it. I would very readily give him that help if I thought it would be effective, but I do not think that this section can be made workable, no matter in what form you draft it. I think it is futile and silly.

Before I spoke last night, Deputy Haslett gave a practical illustration of what took place in his constituency at fairs, and it was an actual demonstration of the futility of drafting any section theoretically. You cannot do it, and it is sheer waste of time trying to do so. The Minister asks me to help him, but I told him that it was his job. I am, of course, partly responsible, but why does the Minister not apply to those gentlemen whom he is going to put on the Bench and give them £3,000 a year? Where are they? Are they members of this House? Surely they could do something, or is this Bill their production? Is this their final sacrifice on behalf of their public?

Dr. Ryan

They have not got a monopoly of all the knowledge.

Is this their supreme sacrifice for the Republic in order to get to the Supreme Court? This is the final act of true Republicans, whoever they are. When I read Section 16 of this Bill, dealing with the control and putting in irons of butchers, I looked upon it as a device which the Minister had invented partially to solve the unemployment question. When an inspector goes in and asks a butcher to take down a side of beef weighing 2½ or 3 cwts., which it is physically impossible for a butcher to do, what the butcher can do is to call in a half-a-dozen unemployed people from the street corner to take down the side of beef. If they do not come in, they are reported to the labour exchange and struck off. That would be a simple way of saving money. I wonder is that the device behind this.

Butchers are to provide weighbridges. The small man who has gone into the business since the Act was introduced in the country, in one of these congested areas where there is enormous demand for this beef, in the belief that he will make a few pounds, has to put up all these accoutrements. He must put in a new and efficient weighbridge. It must be accurate and he must spend anything from £5 to £15 or £20 in installing that weighbridge and, having done that, he is asked to supply beef at 4d. a lb. When will he have made the price of the weighbridge selling beef at 4d. a lb? This is done when the beast should be already weighed at the time of purchase or before. There is supposed to be a minimum price of 22/- and we can take it that the animal is weighed at the time of purchase, or before or after, at the time the contract is made or the contract is made subject to weighing afterwards. Why all this palaver and all this setting up of this machinery in a small butcher's shop — a man who has one room somewhere for supplying free beef and who normally has not a properly equipped place at all and no room for erecting this machinery.

I think that this part of the Bill is absolutely unworkable. It is the last word in bureaucracy on the part of this Government. The reason I particularly object to it is that I foresee that the small men who have gone into the business to supply congested areas where there is the greatest demand for this free beef will not be able to carry on business and will have to go out of business. Is the provision with regard to canned beef put in with a view to meeting that? Are the people not to get the best heifer and bullock beef at all but bully beef? Who is to supply that to them? If the butcher goes out of business, what machinery is to be established for that purpose? Is the Minister going to open shops in congested areas to supply bully beef? I do not know much about this bully beef, but it is generally supplied to armies and they say that it is very liable to give the troops skin disease. That will have the advantage of keeping the local doctor busy. It is not even going to be the beef of first-class animals, but second and third-rate beef, and the people who buy it will have to give an economic price for it. The Minister will have to buy the cattle and pay the minimum price and we have this whole network of subsidy introduced into this again, because the local butchers in these congested areas must go out of business.

It is not a business proposition and it cannot be done. You cannot supply beef at 4d. a lb. and pay 22/- a cwt. for it. You may try to do it for a while, just as long as your money or credit lasts, and then you will become bankrupt and you will have to close down. There is no use in asking people to do the impossible. They simply will not pay 22/- a cwt. Those people are being asked to carry on business under most extraordinary conditions. This House solemnly carries on the farce of asking them to do the impossible. The Bill could be reduced to one section. The Government, apparently, have made up their minds that there will be no more free beef and they are arranging for the distribution of beef on a contributory basis. The farmers are told they will get 22/- a cwt. but, in practice, they will not. Last night Deputy Haslett gave a practical demonstration of what takes place at an Irish fair. The whole thing is simply absurd. The point that stands out in the Bill is that the Government want to make the people pay for their beef, they want to put an end to the free beef scheme. Of course, it is necessary to decorate the proposal in some way. They endeavour to put some lettuce and other attractive items around the tin of bully beef so that the people will swallow it more easily.

This is obviously a sop to the farmers. They are told the butcher must not buy from them except at a fixed price. Does anybody think that the average butcher will walk up to a man and say "I will give you 22/- a cwt. for that beast"? Deputy Haslett demonstrated what occurs. Two men are making a bargain at a fair and they observe the inspector approaching. They immediately close up like oysters and they wait until the inspector disappears. That is what will take place. The time of this House is simply being wasted. An inspector walks into a butcher's shop and orders the butcher to take down a side of beef, possibly weighing 2½ cwts. If the butcher has to carry out that order he probably, being a man weighing 8 or 9 stone, may injure himself to such an extent that it might possibly be a case for the undertaker. The only thing is to go out and get the assistance of some of the unemployed.

The Deputy may not repeat himself.

I am opposed to the Bill, firstly, because the apparent benefit to the farmers will not be passed on and, secondly, because the restrictions on butchers will impose uncalled for hardships and tend to make business impossible.

As I understand this amending Bill, it will do something to improve the conditions of the farmers. I have been listening to very severe criticism of the Minister for Agriculture from the Opposition for some time. One of the charges made by the Opposition was that he had not the backbone to stand up to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that that Minister is getting away with everything and the farmers are suffering. I was considerably disappointed yesterday listening to Deputies on the opposite benches, for some of whom I have the greatest possible respect. They were responsible for a whole chain of interruptions against the Minister. It is easier to find fault than to show a better way of doing things. I have heard the question put again and again to Deputies on the Opposition Benches, what would they do in the circumstances? Their answer, which simply disgusted me, was "That is the business of the Government; it is not our business. Our business is to find fault."

Yesterday, when it was put up to Deputies opposite that there were butchers breaking the law, Deputy O'Higgins came to the rescue and he admitted they did break the law. And yet, apparently, it is a crime to amend the law if the butchers are breaking it. I was really surprised at Deputy Belton's attitude. I heard a great deal of talk about this Bill interfering with the butchering business. The Minister did not say that. We are going to interfere only with the butchers who do not observe the law, as most butchers do. I do not see that there is anything wrong in that. If a man does not live within the regulations observed by his neighbours in the same trade, I do not see what is wrong about compelling him to do so. That is all the Government seek to do in this Bill. There was a lot of criticism about the 22/- per cwt. The Minister is merely endeavouring to safeguard the farmer and to see that he will not take less for his beast.

How any farmer Deputy can criticise a proposal that will tend to stabilise conditions for the farmers is a mystery to me. I heard the same kind of criticism in regard to the Butter Stabilisation Act. Some of the Deputies who criticised it would not like to use the same words to-day. I hope, when this measure is a few months in operation, the same thing will apply. It is meant to better the conditions of the farmers, and why any Deputy on the opposite benches should oppose such a measure is a mystery to me.

If any trader is being hampered in his business to-day, the butcher is. You are now going to appoint more inspectors to see that the butchers are hampered still more. From the time they get up in the morning to buy their stuff until they go to bed again at night, they have inspectors meeting them at every turn. The butchers in my town are a decent lot of men, and they sell good stuff. It is not fair to compel them to account for every small thing they do. Between the free beef scheme and the way they are watched at the fairs and in their shops by the inspectors, I really do not know how they manage to carry on their business. I do not think this measure will improve the condition of the farmers. It will mean the appointment of extra inspectors to watch the butchers. It is very unfair to the butchers, and I do not believe that the farmers' prices will improve in any way. I was talking the other day to a friend from England, and he told me there were notices in the windows of large butchering establishments indicating that only British and Scotch beef was sold there. If we cannot get rid of our beef in outside markets, it must be sold here, and if there is not sufficient consumption the farmers will not get the price you are fixing, bad and all as it is. There is only one remedy, and there is no need for me to point that out to the Government.

I would like the Minister to indicate what sum the Government expects to realise from the levies imposed under the Act of last year and what they estimate to realise in connection with this Bill. What have the receipts amounted to? Could he give us, at the same time, what he estimates the expenditure is likely to be in giving meat at reduced prices to the people? The measure introduced last year was ostensibly for the purpose of improving the price to farmers and at the same time absorbing some of the surplus cattle which were rendered unsaleable by reason of the quota order. Last year's measure was very comprehensive. It contained at least nine parts and various precautions were taken to ensure that no sales would take place at a price lower than the price which was to be fixed by the Minister. The general information indicates that in practice the provisions of the Bill failed to effect that purpose. In some instances it was stated that when the inspectors called at the fairs it practically meant that there were no sales.

We are prepared to admit that the Minister intended, like many other people, with good intentions, to do certain things. The question is, did his Act succeed in doing them? If the purpose of the Act of last year was to ensure the use of 60,000 head of cattle in the year and to get certain prices, the House should be told to what extent the Minister's examination in relation to the price has shown that that has been achieved. Last year we understood that the levies would practically counterbalance the outgoings — that what was collected from the levies on cattle and sheep would about meet the cost of the distribution of meat to persons in necessitous circumstances. That is all very well as far as it went. This Bill now certainly does stop that policy or, at any rate, it changes it. This Bill proposes now to furnish meat at a cheap price. If there were a balance in respect of last year's proposals and that the levies about meet the outgoings in respect of free meat, this Bill now means that the Exchequer will benefit as a result of its enactment. If that is so, does not the Minister realise that in his efforts to benefit the farmers or to increase the price to them the Exchequer gets the real profits of the transaction?

Was it intended that in respect of these particular meat products the Treasury was to benefit by the transaction? The Minister knows quite well that the whole cattle situation has been more seriously upset perhaps than anything else in connection with the tariff conflict that is going on at the present moment. The Minister, in coming to the House and telling us of his difficulties, knows that we must sympathise with him in these difficulties, but it is rather too much to say to the House or to the Opposition: "These are my proposals; if they are not sound you must produce sounder ones." The real problem is what steps are to be taken to remedy a situation which interferes with the law of supply and demand. In a publication issued by the Northern Government some time ago there were given the prices paid for beef. The highest price paid for beef in Northern Ireland was 60/-. It went down to 53/-, but here the maximum price is 25/- and it goes down much lower.

The Minister, in the procedure he proposes to adopt, is going to harass the business people of this State. Various regulations and provisions are provided in the Bill, which anybody must know are serious inconveniences to trade. Let the Minister consider the particular question here in relation to business people, but let him not consider that all people in trade are out to rob everybody. The various trades here are as well conducted as they are anywhere else. The Minister will recollect that an important official of his Department addressed the dealers last year and told them that though they were to lose over the minimum prices paid, even in that case they should be prepared to bear some of the losses. The Minister, in addressing the butchering trade here now, tells them much the same thing. It is scarcely fair to the trade to suggest that to get into the speculative circle of business one must endeavour to get all the profits possible in order to provide for the day when the Legislature may enact laws which will entail losses on persons engaged in trade. That is not good business. As a result of this measure, £100,000 or £200,000 may go into the Exchequer. But after all the regulations that have been imposed the price will vary, and perhaps even less money will be paid to the farmers. Viewing it from every angle, the regimentation of business and the giving of power to the Minister to buy cannot be a success. Anybody who has any experience in connection with trade or business knows well that neither the municipality nor the State can ever hope to transact business as satisfactorily as individuals. Whatever faults may be in individuals and in individual trading, the waste that is inevitable in connection with Government control will more than counterbalance any advantages of that control.

Supposing in this case the Minister gets into business and he insists on the butchers buying from him, does he not know that it would be practically impossible for one of his inspectors to go into the market and buy cattle without raising all sorts of political suspicions and agitations from one party or another? In connection with that, surely he must know if his inspector goes down to buy cattle that the first question that will be asked will be: "To whom did he go; whom did he pass; did he pass so-and-so; did he buy the best and did he buy the best only?" There will be the consequential lack of confidence that arises from the State going into business, because there will be concentrated on the inspectors all the criticisms that can possibly arise in connection with that matter. Does not the Minister know that when his inspectors went to sales last year they practically stopped sales?

Is not this position likely to arise — that the Minister will be approached by somebody in the House to know is the inspector going to such and such a fair, and if he is "Patrick Murphy or James McCarthy or somebody else has excellent cattle to sell and would he advise the inspector to see these men before he completes the sales?" The Minister will realise that he is placing himself in an anomalous position by this Bill and especially by this provision in the Bill. He must realise that he is raising difficulties for his inspectors, because no matter what his inspectors do somebody will raise complaints. Then, in addition, certain people who have been employed at this work will lose their employment. This disturbance of trade creates lack of confidence and stirs up the critics. Will it do any good? No man who has any experience of going into business will deny that in connection with matters of that sort the further removed the Minister is from it the better it will be for him and for the State.

To come back for a moment to the measure before us, I submit that it certainly does increase restrictions upon the particular trade. It does not guarantee prices. It hopes to guarantee them. It makes provision for guaranteeing them, but the best provisions in the world are not going to interfere with the law of supply and demand. This Bill ensures to the Exchequer much more profits than last year's Act. In the circumstances I think it is not fair to the cattle industry now that that should be the case.

I think in this Bill the Minister deserves a certain amount of sympathy. I say that because as a result of this Bill he finds himself in a position that is going to prove an extremely difficult one. I am satisfied that this Bill instead of making it easier is going to accentuate that position. The Minister sets out to improve the position of the farmer. Nobody in this House will cavil at that. That, I take it, is the main purpose of the Bill, but the Minister has simply brought that in as a source of experiment. In the original Bill, which is called the Principal Act, he found many parts of this scheme unworkable. The machinery was very cumbersome. Now he sets out to create further difficulties — to make this difficult Bill still more difficult of being put into proper effect. We have been told that there have been evasions of the law. If there have been evasions of the law under the Principal Act, there certainly will be much more evasions of the law under this Act. The inspection system is aggravated. The harassing that is going to take place with regard to the inspection of butchers' premises is much more marked. All sorts of registers will have to be kept. Machines will have to be got. The premises, of course, are always open to inspection. On the whole, the butchering trade is going to be harassed in an unparalleled way.

One part of the scheme, I think, will commend itself to everybody, and that is the doing away with the demoralising effects which have followed from the granting of free beef. The doing away with the granting of free beef ought to give the Minister an opportunity of doing away with the levy to some extent. As has been pointed out here, any profits that are going to come from this Bill, as a result of the elimination of the free beef element, will go straight into the Treasury. As a trader myself, I protest against any State interference in trade. We all know from experience that State interference with private trade in any form is bad. Interference in trade by the Government or the State is always costly, cumbersome, unsatisfactory, and, in the end, highly extravagant and inefficient. So it will prove in this case. The butchers are to be, I might say, butchered to make a legislative holiday here, and try to make the people believe that they are going to be sacrificed for the benefit of the farmers. I think the farmers will see through all this, and in spite of the inspections and restrictions the price which they secure for beef will be one that is based on the economic law of supply and demand. The Minister, I think, has found that the enforcement of the minimum price was a complete failure. I am very sorry that it was, because I am sure the Minister meant very well in trying to enforce it, and that he did enforce it as far as the machinery allowed, but it was ineffective. I am afraid that this Bill, which is even more cumbersome than its predecessor, will make the situation still more difficult for everybody concerned. In the end, it will prove to be grossly ineffective in carrying out the objects which the Minister himself has in view.

The Minister to conclude.

Deputy Belton raised the question last night as to why we did not enforce this minimum price provision in regard to the exporters. Deputy Belton took a keen interest in the Principal Act when it was going through this House last year, and I think he should remember that the Act dealt only with cattle and sheep slaughtered for consumption in Saorstát Eireann. It had nothing at all to do with exporting. We afterwards addressed the exporters and asked them to give the minimum price, because there was great agitation and great feeling at the time that the exporters, having the handling of the licences, were not giving the price they should give for the cattle.

There has been great comment here on the speech made to the exporters by the Secretary to my Department, for which, of course, I take the fullest responsibility. We have been reminded that he told the exporters they would either have to give a better price or get out of business. They did give a better price for a while, and then got out of business as far as the export licences were concerned, because from the 1st January the export licences went to the feeders. If the feeders are getting the export licences why should we make any rule or law about the exporters paying the minimum price? We were always told by Deputy Belton, and others like him, that if the producers got the licences everything would be all right, and especially of course if the producers got the licences, and were able to sell their cattle in the great British market, they would get a great price. There was no question about it.

I said that before the quota.

Dr. Ryan

But you are changing your mind now.

No. The Minister should square up to what I said last night.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Belton said last night that the position was that we could send 9,000 cattle to the British market; that there were 20,000 cattle for the dealer to pick from, and that naturally he could pay what he liked.

Dr. Ryan

That is altogether wrong. There are 9,000 cattle there with licences attached to them, and he must buy those 9,000 cattle, so it does not matter if there are 100,000 there.

Who will buy the others?

Dr. Ryan

That does not arise on the question of exported cattle. The Deputy wanted me to do something about fixing the price for exported cattle. You have a definite number for export; there are licences attached to those cattle, and the farmers are in the position, at any rate, that they can get the best possible price which can be got out of the British market. That is all anybody can do for them.

What about the alternative markets?

Dr. Ryan

I am referring to Deputy Belton's point about the British market.

But the Minister told us that the British market is gone, so we are entitled to hear something about the alternative markets.

Dr. Ryan

I will deal with that point too, but the Deputy should try to learn a little bit.

I have learned a good bit since you went into power.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy should allow us to deal with one point at a time. Surely we have not gone so far that we cannot deal with the Deputy and his interruptions.

I should like if the Minister would develop that one point.

Dr. Ryan

The point which Deputy Belton made last night was that 9,000 cattle are going to the British market and that the dealer can pick from 20,000. He cannot.

Dr. Ryan

Because the licences are given out by Deputy Belton and others, and they are put on certain cattle.

No. They are given to certain farmers. In County Dublin it is one in 12. You can get one licence for 12 fat beasts.

Dr. Ryan

Very well. The farmer brings out his 12 cattle to the Dublin market. There is a licence for one. Is the farmer going to say to the dealer "I have 12 to sell; I can only send one to England and because of that you can buy that particular beast for whatever you like?" That is absolutely ridiculous. I thought Deputy Belton had more sense than to make a point like that. Evidently he is losing his senses like the rest of them.

No fear. He is trying to give a bit of sense to the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

The whole argument there is that the Bill will not work, or alternatively, for fear that might be wrong, that it is too drastic. Whatever may happen now the Deputies opposite will be right. If we work this Bill in a drastic way, and it succeeds, they will tell us: "It was too drastic. You need not have gone so far." If we work it, and do not succeed, they will say "We told you it would not succeed." That is a very comfortable attitude for Deputies to take up. I think Deputies should take a chance, and come to one side or the other. They should either say "It is too drastic; a little less would do", or else say "It is not drastic enough, and will not succeed."

I unhesitatingly say that it is absurd. Tell us how to put five cattle into three stalls, with one in each stall. That is the whole point.

Dr. Ryan

If we are to adjourn at the end of next week, or at the end of the week after, I would not have time to instruct Deputy Belton. I should have to begin in an elementary way. Our elementary education should be over before we come in here.

Agreed, and some of us did not start it yet.

Dr. Ryan

The impression is given by speakers here that we are going to deal in a drastic way with every butcher in the country. That is not true. The majority of the butchers, if Deputies would only go and speak to them, will say that they want those drastic provisions so that the slackers will be compelled to pay the same price as they themselves are paying. That is the system in any decent trade where you have decent people in it. I mean that where you have decent people in trade they will always want the law administered in a drastic way against those who are trying to evade it, because those who are evading it are simply taking advantage of the people who are obeying the law. I am quite certain that if Deputies have amongst their acquaintances any decent butchers, and discuss the Bill with them, they will find that these decent butchers welcome it. No decent, respectable man is afraid of a drastic law, because he knows that he is not going to be hit. The question of the levies was referred to by Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Belton. Deputy Belton said that I made the statement that the levies were earmarked for the purposes of this measure. Of course, they are.

What became of the levies on bacon?

Dr. Ryan

They go in export bounties.

The Minister for Finance said that he was losing £250,000 on them.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, because he is providing £480,000 in export bounties.

If that is so he should be glad to get rid of them.

Dr. Ryan

He is not getting rid of the export bounties. I think the Deputy should attend a night school because I have not the time to instruct him. The question of the finances of the Cattle Act and what we will raise this year was referred to. We expect that the levies will raise between £300,000 and £325,000. The expenditure on free beef is going to be at least £325,000. The supply of cows to the Roscrea factory will cost about £100,000, and in a full year about £150,000. The supply of cattle for canned meat will cost about £20,000 and the administrative expenses will come to between £30,000 and £40,000. If Deputies look up the Book of Estimates, and I think it would be well if they devoted some little time to research of that kind, they will find that the net expenditure under the Cattle Act will be about £200,000 this year. Taking the receipts and deducting the expenditure, it is anticipated that the net expenditure will be about £200,000 this year. That is based on this Bill coming into operation before the 1st of September and on the contributory basis for free beef.

These estimates, I take it, were framed about last December. Are we to assume that, even though the Act that we are now amending only became operative in September, and the estimates were framed in December, that a Bill that was passed and only came into law in September is going to be amended now in this fashion?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. It was framed on the assumption that the contributory basis for free beef would commence on the 1st of April, and also on the basis that the Roscrea factory would start on the 1st of April. We can take it that the saving, due to the fact that the Roscrea factory has not yet begun to operate, when put against the delay in bringing the contributory basis in regard to free beef into effect will about balance, so that, as I have said, the net expenditure this year will be in or about £200,000.

But suppose the old Act had continued to operate, what would the figures have been?

Dr. Ryan

On the basis that we continued to supply free beef through the whole year, in the same quantities as last year, the expenditure would be £430,000 for a full year.

And it is to be £200,000 this year?

Dr. Ryan

£430,000, as against £325,000.

So that if the old Act had been kept on year after year, you think that the normal expenditure would be about £430,000?

Dr. Ryan

For free beef alone. There is also the estimate of £150,000 for the supply of cows to the Roscrea factory and about £20,000 for the supply of cattle for canned meat. Against that, we have the levies, which are estimated to bring in about £300,000.

So that the free beef is going to be subsidised out of these levies?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

The bankrupt bullock will have to carry the whole lot.

Dr. Ryan

We will deal with the levies, and how the farmers are affected by them. Deputy Belton said that the whole trouble, so far as the farmers are concerned, was that when they brought out cattle they were told to hold out for 22/-, but that as they wanted to pay their rates and annuities they had to sell their cattle at the prices offered. Surely, under this scheme, we are going to help the farmer to pay the levies if we see that he gets 22/- instead of 14/- or 15/- for his cattle.

Will the Minister take the beef from the farmer at 22/- in lieu of his annuities?

Dr. Ryan

No.

That is the test.

Dr. Ryan

There is no such test. We are trying to legislate so that the farmer will get a good price for his cattle, and it is ridiculous for Deputy Belton to ask if we will take this beef instead. The type of question that the Deputy asks shows the state of the man's mind. Deputy O'Higgins, in the course of his speech, made the statement that we were neglecting the more important market in Great Britain for the less important market at home. Such a statement shows, of course, not only the ignorance of Deputy O'Higgins but the man's mentality, because the market in Great Britain is not more important than the home market. The Deputies opposite seem to be suffering from a kind of anglomania, an inferiority complex about everything that we produce here.

What about the coal-cattle pact?

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy's question is another instance of what I have been saying. One of Deputy O'Leary's intelligent interruptions was about the alternative market. He asks now what about the coal-cattle pact. He does not want that, and he is not satisfied with the market that we have. He is a typical Cork farmer.

Is not the coal-cattle pact putting £6 a head on the additional cattle that we send out?

Dr. Ryan

I do agree with what Deputy O'Higgins said that if we had a public abattoir, say two or three in every county, a scheme of that sort would help us to get over a great deal of this trouble. I think it would be a useful thing if we have them. At the same time I know that if I brought in a proposal here to the effect that every butcher should bring his cattle to the public abattoir to be slaughtered I would meet with nothing but opposition from the Deputies opposite. We would have a speech from Deputy McMenamin about the poor butcher in Dungloe who had to take a beast to the abattoir in Glenties.

I think that under existing legislation these public abattoirs can be provided.

Dr. Ryan

I believe that the local authorities have such power. I do not think that we are going to put the inspectors in the way of any great temptation. When the principal Act was going through last year I was told by Deputy Belton, when I said that I proposed paying the inspectors a certain salary, that we would get nothing but crooks, and that if they were not crooks at the date of their appointment, then the salary was so low that they would become crooks. That is not true and every Deputy who has spoken on this has testified that it is not true. They have said that the inspectors they came in contact with were able, good men, and that they did their business properly, so that Deputy Belton is again proved wrong.

Why an amending Bill?

Dr. Ryan

It is hardly necessary to reap these things up. Deputy O'Higgins said that we had hit the farmers, that now we are trying to hit the butchers, and that if we succeed, he is not sure but consumers will be hit. That is splendid reasoning. It is sounder than we usually hear from the opposite benches. Naturally, if we get a better price for the producer the consumer will have to pay more. Nothing can be clearer than that.

A Deputy

Another hidden tax.

Dr. Ryan

Yes. We are interfering with the economic laws. If we can we are going to make the butchers pay more than 14/- or 15/- and thereby we are going to hit the consumers by making them pay more. If the economic war was over, we will finish up by the consumers paying more. Then there will be a cry to go back to the economic war. When I bring in a Bill I am always told by Deputy O'Sullivan, Deputy O'Higgins and other Deputies of the same mentality, that the easiest way to deal with every question is to stop the economic war. That is a lazy mentality for any Deputy to adopt. It is as easy to get up when any measure is introduced and to say: "You have destroyed the markets. Stop the economic war!" No thinking is necessary; the Bills need not be read. Just say that every time. If people fall into that sort of mental coma it will not be necessary to think any longer. But we have the task of dealing with a difficulty that is there. It would be great mental exercise for the leaders of the Opposition if they tried to get their minds down to these problems, instead of looking upon them in a theoretical way. If they were in office they should ask themselves what they would do.

We would not be foolish enough to put ourselves into that position.

Dr. Ryan

The people will not be foolish enough to give you the chance.

We will see.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Haslett says that the levies are being taken from the farmer. Deputy Haslett is a sensible man and wants to have things done in the proper way. If a butcher goes to the Dublin market to buy sheep, is he not buying against the exporter? Is not the exporter paying the export price? If the butcher has to pay the export price, does he not pay the 5/- levy? How can the farmer be paying it? Does anyone believe that a farmer sells sheep to butchers in the Dublin market at 5/- less than the export price?

Does not the exporter pay the 5/- levy?

Dr. Ryan

Leave that out. I do not think Deputy Haslett would welcome the help of Deputy McMenamin in this matter. From my experience I am sure he would be able to do better by himself. Deputy Haslett says the farmer pays the levy. I think the Deputy will agree that if exporters and butchers are in the Dublin market, the butchers have to pay what the exporters pay. Therefore the butchers put the 5/- on to consumers. They cannot deduct the 5/- from the farmer. Then take cattle; if we could get the minimum price enforced, the butcher might, in addition, pay the £1. The whole object of the Bill is to get that price enforced.

That was my argument.

Dr. Ryan

It does not apply to sheep. If we succeed in getting the minimum price enforced the butcher will pay it and pass it on to consumers. The farmer will not pay it. I want Deputies to help me to get the minimum price enforced. Deputy Haslett says he is not opposed to this in a political way. He is in a comfortable position. He has not to think. He has only to follow the people on the opposite benches into the division lobby. Naturally the Deputy does not approach anything in a political way.

That is an unfair statement.

Dr. Ryan

Did the Deputy ever do anything else?

This has nothing to do with the Bill.

My record is there.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy O'Sullivan asked a question about the change that is being made. I have studied the section in the meantime and I am convinced, although I undertook to consult legal opinion, that it means what I said: that it saves the head office the trouble of having to send a man down to vouch that a document is what it purports to be. However, I will think it over. Deputy McMenamin refused to give me advice. My own legal advisers think that the position is all right in the Bill. Naturally I was impressed by the profound opinion expressed by Deputy McMenamin. In my humility I asked him to help me and I was spurned.

I told you that no matter how you drafted the section you could not enforce it.

Dr. Ryan

Why did the Deputy not help me? If I am once spurned, I never approach again. I will never again ask the Deputy for advice. I think the price of 60/- for beef in Northern Ireland mentioned by Deputy Cosgrave is a fantastic figure. It is possible that that happened at shows.

It appeared in one of their official publications.

Dr. Ryan

I have been watching the price of beef in the British market for months, and I never saw 60/-.

I said that it was published in a northern publication.

Dr. Ryan

The price there would not be better than the British price. That price is very unusual. The average would be 36/- or 38/-.

It was a very elaborate document, and I think gave the number of animals as well as the weight at the price I mentioned.

Dr. Ryan

That is a very small part of the argument. I am inclined to agree with Deputy Cosgrave that neither the State nor a municipality can do business as well as people who are in the business. I do not think the buying of a few cattle to be handed over to butchers, under a Bill like this, could actually be described as going into business. We are not taking over the whole butchering business. We are saying to particular butchers that for a specified time our inspectors will buy cattle and give them to them. If you like we are supplying them with the raw material but we are not going into the business in any way. They are getting the cattle more or less at the same price at which they could buy them. I do not think we are interfering to any great extent with that business. In any case, we would only be too glad to step out, and to let them buy again when they go back to the old methods that they were pursuing before the original Act came into operation, by buying from surrounding farmers. It is only in such cases that provision will be enforced.

What is the Minister's difficulty? He buys a certain amount of cattle of particular quality and the butcher gets some. Alternatively you have the butcher who gets a particular type of cattle that the inspector has not got.

Dr. Ryan

That will not happen. The inspector will give the butcher an order for the number of cattle, as well as the type and weight, he requires. The inspector will try to oblige him as far as possible in that way.

The Minister sees the possibilities and difficulties.

Dr. Ryan

There may be.

Was it not accepted that there was what the Minister practically called evasion of the law by a number of people? I listened carefully to the Minister and I got no idea, and I do not think the House did of the extent of that particular evil. In connection with the answer given to Deputy Cosgrave I was not impressed that this section would be a deterrent to the practice that he condemned. I understood when the Minister introduced the measure that that was the object; now I gather that there will be no deterrent. It seems to me that the butcher gets better cattle easier when they are bought by the Government.

Dr. Ryan

I would not say that.

Practically, that is what the answer amounted to.

Dr. Ryan

He will have to pay the minimum price. He has been getting them more cheaply before and, perhaps, there will be a little expense attached to the buying of the cattle by the inspector. With regard to the evasion, it is a small minority which is concerned. It is very difficult to give a figure, but I am assured by the officials that it is only a small minority that is concerned and that they are evading the Act in such a way that they cannot be caught out.

The Minister completely disagrees with the views expressed here, that it was very seldom the minimum price was got.

Dr. Ryan

I disagree with that.

Is it the intention that the levies under this Act and the principal Act will cover the cost of administration of the two Acts, the cost of free beef or cheap beef, the subsidy for the knacker factory in Roscrea and the subsidy in connection with the canning factory? Is the Government giving anything?

Dr. Ryan

£200,000 in addition to the levies.

The balance might as well be spread on the local rates.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 18.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Corbett, Edmond.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Keely, Séumas P.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Norton, William.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.

Níl

  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Séamus.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Keating, John.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Reilly, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and O'Leary.
Question declared carried.
Resolution reported and agreed to.
Question put: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 17.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Corbett, Edmond.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.

Níl

  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Keating, John.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Reilly, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and O'Leary.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 24th July.

When will amendments be taken?

Barr
Roinn