Will it be agreeable to the Minister to recommit the amendments?
Pigs and Bacon (Amendment) Bill, 1939—Recommittal.
I have no objection to it.
Then the Bill is being recommitted for the purposes of the amendments.
I have a number of amendments here on the green paper and on the white paper. It is hardly necessary for me to speak on them unless a question is asked. All my amendments are more or less agreed amendments as a result of the discussion on this Bill the last day. I move amendment No. 1, to Section 6:—
In page 5, before Section 6 (2) to insert the following sub-section:—
(2) No person shall be appointed an ordinary member unless he has, for at least eight years, served, in an administrative or technical capacity, as an officer of the Minister.
I wish that amendment would include the chairman also.
That was discussed very fully already.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2, to Section 7:—
In page 6, before Section 7, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) A member of the commission shall not while he holds office, retain, purchase, take, or become or remain beneficially interested in, any shares or interest in any company or trading concern dealing in any way in pigs, pork, bacon or offals.
(2) If any member of the commission acts in contravention of this section, the Minister shall remove such member from office and shall not at any time thereafter re-appoint him to be a member of the commission.
What I have said already applies to this amendment.
I take it that here a member of the commission includes the chairman?
Oh, yes, it does.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment to amendment No. 2:—
2a. Before sub-section (2) of the new section proposed to be inserted, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) A member of the commission shall be deemed to have an interest within the meaning of and in contravention of the foregoing sub-section if he accepts or receives or continues to accept or receive any loan or any financial assistance or accommodation of any kind, direct or indirect, from any company or trading concern dealing in any way in pigs, pork, bacon or offals or from any director, officer, proprietor or shareholder of such company or concern.
I had not time to go into this amendment until very shortly before the sitting of the Dáil. I would certainly have no objection to that amendment.
The Minister will have it inserted?
It is considered by the legal authorities that the original amendment covers that point so Deputy Brennan's amendment is not necessary.
If the legal department think any such thing, the legal department is entirely wrong. That is pure nonsense. Why should not the Minister put in amendment No. 2a if he has no objection?
The amendment as now worded?
Yes, I take it the Minister is considering it.
I may have to change the wording in the Seanad. I am not sure about it.
In that case we will understand.
If it is accepted now it stands as set out.
I would sooner it would go in now, but if the Minister gives me an undertaking to put it in substantially in that form later I will be satisfied.
I would prefer to put it in now in the hope that the Seanad would not have to amend this Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I have four amendments here, 2b, 2c, 6a, and 6b. All these amendments aim at the same thing. They are:—
2b. In page 6, line 8, Section 7, to delete the words "and each ordinary member".
2c. In page 6, at the end of Section 7 to add the following sub-section:—
(2) Each ordinary member shall be paid by the commission such remuneration (if any) and such allowances for expenses as the Minister, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, may from time to time appoint.
6a. In page 6, line 35, Section 9, to delete the words "seconded for service with " and substitute the words "appointed (either in a whole-time or part-time capacity) a member or officer of".
6b. In page 6, line 37, Section 9, to insert after the word "person" the words "or such proportion thereof as the said Minister shall determine".
A discussion arose here as to whether the Minister for Finance should not have some say in the fixing of the salaries. The Minister for Finance said he was only concerned with any civil servant that might be employed. These four amendments settle that point, seeing that civil servants will be taken as ordinary members. The Minister for Agriculture before sanctioning any remuneration or allowance for these particular members will consult the Minister for Finance. The four amendments cover that point.
And the other members of the commission?
With my sanction.
Very well.
Amendments agreed to.
I move amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6:—
3. In page 6, line 11, Section 8 (1), to insert after the word "may" the words "with the sanction of the Minister,".
4. In page 6, line 24, Section 8 (4), to delete the word "shall" and substitute the words "may, with the sanction of the Minister,".
5. In page 6, line 29, Section 8 (4), to insert after the word "commission" the words "with the sanction of the Minister,".
6. In page 6, line 32, Section 8 (5), to insert after the words "commission" the words "with the sanction of the Minister,".
These amendments cover the point now raised by Deputy Dillon, that is that these officers' appointment, remuneration and promotion, will be sanctioned by the Minister for Agriculture.
Amendments agreed to.
Amendment No. 6c, by Deputy McGilligan, not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 6, Section 10 (3), to add at the end of sub-section (3) the words "or for the purposes of any arbitration under Section 39 of the Act of 1937."
This was discussed already. It is an agreed amendment.
It refers to confidential information coming to a member of the board in the course of an arbitration. Is that it?
It was an amendment proposed by Deputy Lynch on the last occasion, and I said I would consider it. It is with regard to confidential information for the purposes of arbitration.
And now it may not be revealed. Is not that it?
No. If it is necessary to use the information for the purpose of arbitration, it may be used for that purpose.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 7, Section 14 (1), to add at the end of sub-section (1) the words "and the Minister shall lay such statement of accounts before each House of the Oireachtas."
We had a fairly long discussion of this particular section, from the point of view of giving the Dáil an opportunity of discussing the proceedings of the board. After our discussion it was agreed generally that, if I could arrange to have all the accounts, balance sheet, stock-in-trade, and so on, of the board put before the Dáil, together with such tables of statistics as may be useful to get a proper understanding of the proceedings of the board, that would cover all the points. I think the two amendments as proposed here will make that all right. It is ensured now that all those things will be laid before the Dáil. The only point left is this: I found it impossible to have any satisfactory amendment drafted to ensure that the Dáil would get an opportunity of discussing the matter. I think I can only do what the Minister did at the time of the bringing in of the Electricity Supply Bill, that is to give an undertaking to the Dáil that, as long as the present Government is in office, public time will be given if requested for a full discussion when those matters are laid before the Dáil.
I appreciate the Minister's difficulty in framing a suitable amendment to place a statutory obligation on him to bring it before the Dáil by way of motion, but may I ask the Minister to supplement his undertaking by saying that Government time will be afforded for a discussion of the report within a month of the date on which it is laid on the Table of the House?
Yes.
It might subsequently be said to us, "We will give you time, but not for another six months."
I think a month is reasonable, provided the Dáil is sitting within a month.
Within a month after the Dáil sits for the first time after the report has been laid upon the Table of the House.
That is right.
Amendment agreed.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 7, line 39, Section 14 (3), to insert after the word "Minister" the words ", in such form as the Minister may direct,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 8, line 12, Section 15 (2), to insert after the words "the security of such fund" the words "to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister".
This amendment deals with the power of the commission to borrow on any of the funds. It can only do so to such extent as the Minister may sanction.
They are not going to consult the Minister for Finance in regard to that sanction?
No.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 8, Section 15 (2), to delete lines 17 and 18 and substitute the words "authorised Irish securities;".
This amendment, I think, was in Deputy's Norton's name, confining the investments of the board to Irish securities.
A very foolish amendment indeed. You simply drive somebody into the market to go speculating in Irish securities. However, that is the kind of thing one does not expect Deputy Norton to understand.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 8, to insert at the end of Section 15 the following sub-section:—
(3) For the purposes of sub-section (2) of this section each of the following shall be an authorised Irish security, that is to say:—
(a) any security charged on the Central Fund;
(b) any security the interest of which is guaranteed by the Minister for Finance;
(c) the stock of the Bank of Ireland;
(d) any stock, issued or to be issued by a local authority in the State, which is a security in which trustees are by the law for the time being in force authorised to invest trust funds.
I hope Deputy Norton will not find as a result of his amendment that the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board are required to invest their funds in Bank of Ireland stock. His democratic soul will vibrate to that announcement, no doubt.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 8, Section 18 (1), to delete paragraph (a).
This Section 18 came in for a lot of discussion on the Committee Stage, and eventually I agreed to bring in those three amendments to Section 18. The others were withdrawn.
And will be withdrawn to-day, but mind you there are two of them which are quite uncontroversial. May we discuss them?
Are they being withdrawn?
Yes, but I want to direct the Minister's attention to one or two of them. They will be withdrawn. There is one here which seeks to delete the words "purporting to contain' and substitute the word "containing". It is purely a drafting amendment.
I am not a judge of those legal expressions, but the Draftsman's Office is apparently anxious to retain the words that were in the Documentary Evidence Act of 1935, which, as they say, has stood the test since then. They do not like to change them.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 13a not moved.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 8, lines 60 and 63, Section 18 (1), to insert after the word "order" the words "or regulation".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 14a, 14b and 14c not moved.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In page 9, to delete Section 18 (4).
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In page 9, line 50, Section 21 (2), to delete the words "the chairman of".
That is power which the chairman had to serve a sales order, in a case where a farmer asked the chairman to serve an order on some factory to take his pigs. Now that power is transferred to the commission.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In page 10, line 6, Section 22 (1), to insert after the word "transfer" the word "date,".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In page 10, line 17, Section 22 (2), to delete the words "the chairman of".
This is a consequential amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In page 10, line 43, Section 23 (2), to delete the words "an order" and in line 44, to delete the words and figures "under the said Section 25".
This is a drafting amendment. It did not arise before.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In page 10, line 50, Section 24 (1), to delete the words and figures "under the said Section 145".
This is also a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In page 10, line 54, Section 24 (2), to delete the word "was" and substitute the word "were".
This is also a drafting amendment.
What is the effect of it?
It was bad grammar as it stood—"if such order was made". This appears to be an improvement from the point of view of grammar, and I suppose we should be particular about those matters, too.
That is all?
It has no other effect.
It is merely a literary flourish. The Department of Agriculture are becoming purists in their old age.
We are always particular about those matters.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In page 12, before Section 28, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The commission shall, as soon as may be after the transfer date, cause to be prepared a statement setting out particulars of—
(a) all transferred property and liabilities;
(b) the value of all transferred investments as on the transfer date;
(c) all transferred moneys or investments which are required to be paid into or form part of the Stabilisation Fund;
(d) all transferred choses-in-action the moneys receivable in respect of which are required to be paid into the Stabilisation Fund;
(e) all transferred moneys or investments which are required to be paid into or form part of the General Fund;
(f) all transferred choses-in-action the moneys receivable in respect of which are required to be paid into the General Fund.
(2) The commission shall furnish to the Minister the statement to be prepared under this section and the Minister shall lay a copy of such statement before each House of the Oireachtas.
(3) In this section—
the word "transferred" means transferred by this Part of this Act to the commission;
the word "required" means required by this Part of this Act.
This amendment meets a suggestion which was made by Deputy McGilligan, and we agree to it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In page 12, line 7, Section 28, to insert after the word "suit" the word "arbitration".
This is to meet Deputy Lynch's amendment regarding arbitration.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:—
In page 15, to delete Section 36 (5).
Deputy McGilligan's amendment dealing with indebtedness is covered by this.
When this section is deleted the certificate of indebtedness disappears?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In page 16, to add at the end of Section 38 the following new sub-section:—
(5) Every order made under this section shall be made with the concurrence of the Minister.
Deputy McGilligan had an amendment in connection with this matter on the Committee Stage. This makes provision under which every order made by the commission under this section shall be made with the concurrence of the Minister.
With the object of bringing the allocation of public money back within the jurisdiction of Dáil Eireann?
Yes—subsidies on exports.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:—
In page 19, Section 44 (4), to delete all words from the word "any" in line 22 to the word "person" in line 23, and substitute the words "the senior member of the managerial or clerical staff then present or to the foreman or other senior person in charge of the premises".
This concerns the getting of information from bacon factories.
This concerns the serving of requisitions on the firm for information, and it provides that it must be handed to a certain person in the absence of the proprietor.
It must be handed to the senior member present. Amendment No. 27 is the same.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 27:—
In page 19, Section 44 (4) to delete all words from the word "an" in line 29 to the word "person" in line 32, and substitute the words "the senior member of the managerial or clerical staff then present or to the foreman or other senior person in charge of the premises shall be deemed to have been made or committed by the person liable under this section to produce such record or document."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:—
In page 21, line 29, Section 52 (1), to delete the words "of the commission".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:—
In page 21, line 41, Section 52 (2), to delete the words "Pigs and Bacon".
This is also a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 30:—
In page 21, before Section 53, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) In making any appointed price order or appointed price amending order on or after the transfer date the commission shall—
(a) make an order scheduling the constituents of a standard ration for pigs for the purpose of this Act;
(b) declare for the purpose of this Act the cost of the scheduled ration;
(c) appoint a price based on the declared cost of the scheduled ration as ascertained from time to time over a period of four months.
(2) The price order fixed under sub-section (1) of this section shall be a price order fixing the price to be paid for pigs delivered to licensees at the factory four months from the date at which the price is fixed.
(3) If the scheduled price of feeding stuffs provided for in sub-section (1) shall vary during the four months period, then the fixed price payable shall vary proportionately with the scheduled price of feeding stuffs and shall be payable at this varied rate on the delivery of the pigs.
This is an amendment of substance. The others, as the Minister pointed out, were largely put down to meet amendments withdrawn on the Committee Stage. This, however, is an amendment which it will be necessary to explain at some length. It lays down an entirely new basis for fixing the price to be paid for pigs in this country. The whole purpose of this legislation was to remove, in so far as possible, the uncertainties from the pig-rearing business. A great many people forget that the profitable character of rearing pigs depends, not upon one factor, but upon two. You may fix to-day a remunerative price for pigs; you may fix to-day a price for grade A pigs which is sufficient to yield a reasonable profit to anybody producing them; but, if tempted by that price, a farmer instals a breeding sow, or buys bonhams or suckers, and proceeds to rear them, he may find in four months' or six months' time, when he is ready to sell his pigs as bacon pigs, that, though the fixed price which he gets for the pigs is the same over the period during which he was rearing the pigs, the cost of feeding stuffs has gone up so substantially that the price, which was a profitable price when he started rearing the animals, is no longer a profitable price and that his costs of production have involved him in heavier charges than the fixed price gives him when he comes to sell the pigs.
In the past, the farmer had to contend with two things, one, that the price of pigs might collapse while he was rearing the pigs, and, two, that the price of feeding stuffs might go against him. With the introduction of the fixed price, one of those risks disappeared, or at least seemed to disappear. But it is right to remember this, that in the old, unregulated days, before any Pigs and Bacon Act was introduced, the price of pigs moved substantially with the price of feeding stuffs. When corn was cheap in America, the price of pigs went down. Because people fed corn to pigs in America, that increased the world supply of bacon and the price of bacon tended to decline on the home market. When corn was getting dear, however, and scarce, in America, fewer hogs were fed there with corn, there was a scarcity of bacon on the world market and bacon tended to rise.
We proceeded to fix the price under the Pigs and Bacon Act and, though at first it seemed that we had relieved the farmers of one of the uncertainties with which they usually have to contend, it emerged in practice that what we actually did was, we had stabilised one factor of the equation, but we had left the other factor varying; and so, if the price of feeding stuffs declined over the production period, it was true the farmer made a more handsome profit, because the fixed price remained the same, but if the price of feeding stuffs steeply rose, then the farmer might find himself facing a very substantial loss when he came to sell his pigs.
Under the old system, suppose a farmer has his pig raised to the point where it was suitable for the Irish bacon factories, and on that day discovered that the price available was unfavourable, he could drive his pig home and feed it for another month or six weeks and sell it on the Birmingham market as a Birmingham cutter, or sell it to the Scotch curers who wanted a very heavy pig. He might, by that expedient, succeed in getting a good price for it. But, under our plan of guaranteeing supplies of pigs for the home manufacturer and supplies of pigs of the type that the home manufacturer wanted, when we fix the minimum price we put a very heavy penalty on the farmer who drove his pig home and made it develop into a fat pig, because when it was fat it was put down in the lowest grade and it was cut down as much as 10/- a cwt. in the price.
The object of this amendment is to render the second factor in the price equation as stable as we have already made the price factor. That operation is not as simple as it at first looks, because to make the second factor stable you have to do two things. You have got to tell the farmer on the 1st December, not only what the fixed price is on the 1st December, but what the fixed price is going to be on the 1st March. You can do that pretty easily, but what you cannot know on the 1st December is the price of feeding stuffs between the 1st December and the 1st March.
In a plan of this kind, where you are trying to give everybody a square deal, you cannot afford to let the lucky man make a great profit, which he would do if the cost of feeding stuffs declined very rapidly between 1st December and 1st March, and let the other man who happened to be unlucky suffer a heavy loss when the price of feeding stuffs rose steeply between the day on which the price was fixed and the day on which the price fell to be paid. Therefore, if you want true equity to prevail, you have got to say: "If the price of feeding stuffs on the 1st December is 10/- and the fixed price on the 1st December for pork is 80/-, we now declare that the fixed price on the 1st March will be 90/-, subject to this proviso, that between the 1st December and the 1st March the average price of feeding stuffs will be ascertained, and if there is an increase in the average price of feeding stuffs over that period then the fixed price on the 1st March will be 90/- varied in proportion as the cost of feeding stuffs varied." That may be up or down. If the price of feeding stuffs declines materially during that period then the price of pork on the 1st March can be no more than 80/-, but you have the guarantee that if the price should rise steeply the price on the 1st March may be 100/- but, whatever it is, you have this certainty that you may safely proceed to rear the pigs in the knowledge that, whatever event develops, when you come to sell your pigs you will have a satisfactory profit on the transaction.
To do that you have got to provide for one somewhat artificial expedient because you have got to declare a standard ration. You have got simply to say that that ration consists of, say, six parts of Indian meal, six parts of barley meal, two parts of pollard, one part of bran and one part of meat meal and, on that basis, declare the value of the standard ration and let the standard price fluctuate with the fluctuations of the constituent parts of that standard ration. All of us know that a very considerable number—in fact the vast majority—of farmers in this country will never use precisely that standard ration because they use cabbage, potatoes and a variety of products of their own holding—as they ought to—which it would be impossible to incorporate in any standard ration for the purpose of the calculation. But, that presents no real objection to the plan. It does leave some slight element of inequality in the arrangement. I will submit to the House that it is an element of inequality which will be salutary because it will encourage the small, enterprising farmer to experiment with his live stock with a view to sorting out on his own holding the diet that he can most economically produce there for the production and finishing of live stock. The more animal foodstuffs we can get grown on the holdings of this country and converted, on the holding, into a finished product the better it will be for the country as a whole and the better it will be for the individual small holder. In fact, that is the philosophy that lay behind the late Deputy Hogan's agricultural policy— one more cow, one more sow and a few more acres under the plough. The more we can use live stock for the purpose of manufacturing on the homestead the products of the soil the greater will be the ultimate prosperity of the small farmer and the community to which he belongs.
A last word, Sir. I am not going to press this amendment if the Minister is not disposed to accept it now— for this reason: We are passing through a period of emergency and difficulty. We are passing through a period in which day to day arrangements have to be made with the British Ministry of Food to accommodate our supplies to their requirements and so forth. The introduction of a scheme of a comprehensive kind, based on the plan of amendment No. 30, might encumber the Minister's activities in the day to day negotiations he may have to conduct in regard to this matter for the time being. But, if the Minister is prepared to say that he accepts the principle of this amendment and would bear it in mind in the permanent arrangement which I hope he will find himself in a position to make with the British Government during or at the end of this crisis for permanent supplies of pigs and pork for the British market, that will be quite acceptable to me. I believe that if we got a scheme, based on amendment No. 30, in operation in this country we could rationally go to the British Government and say that whereas heretofore it was unthinkable that the Irish and British farmers combined could ever supply the British market with all the bacon it could consume that in the future, with the guarantee of profit which a scheme such as that outlined in amendment No. 30 would give to our farmers, it would be a reasonable objective to place before us to supply the entire Irish and British markets with all the bacon and ham they may require from the smallholders in this country, the large feeders in the Counties Cork, Monaghan and Antrim, who each feed 2,000 to 3,000 pigs a year, together with the smallholdings and the larger establishments which are being developed at the present time in Great Britain. I believe that would be of immense benefit to both countries, and I believe it could ultimately be worked and developed without any serious or unhealthy interference with the normal trade of either country. That, I think, is an objective towards which it is well worth working and one which I can assure the Minister he would have full co-operation from all sides in promoting if and when he puts his hand to the task.
I would like to say that I hope the Minister will accept Deputy Dillon's amendment or that he himself will put in an amendment that will have somewhat the same effect as Deputy Dillon's amendment would have. The main objection of those who criticised the last Bill so severely was that there was not in it a protection for the producer on somewhat similar lines as there was protection for other interests. In the debate on the original Bill an amendment was moved to ensure production costs for the farmer, but, unfortunately, it was not accepted with the result that the Bill became very unpopular. It was proved in practice that the criticisms of the people who supported the original amendment were well-founded. The Minister himself admitted here when we were discussing the late Bill that the fault was not altogether with the commission. I am saying that it was not, that it was in the Bill. The fault was certainly in the Bill. We heard a great deal of argument about certain people getting too much benefit. They would have been angels if they did not. I am not blaming them. They would have been supernatural beings if they did not take benefits that were cast into their hands like manna from Heaven. Having the ordinary failings of human beings, they took benefits that were put into their hands by the late Bill. Nothing analogous to those benefits was offered to the producer. There was practically no assurance whatever given to him that he would even get the cost of production. In this amendment Deputy Dillon has attempted to ensure for the producer in this Bill what was not secured for him in the late Bill. I am sorry that Deputy Dillon has indicated that if the Minister sees objection to the amendment he will withdraw it. I, for one, would not like to see it withdrawn. If it is withdrawn, I would like the Minister to put in something that would have the same effect.
This Bill, like the previous Act, will be largely useless for the development of the pig industry in this country if such a section as this is not embodied in it. I admit that for whatever time this unfortunate war goes on it will probably be easier for farmers to sell pigs and that a profitable price will be got for them. But we are not legislating now for a war—at least, I hope we are not. This Bill is not presumed altogether to be a war measure. It is to remedy the defects in an Act passed by this House for the benefit of the pig industry. If the war collapsed at any time this Bill would come into effect and it is for this House to see that it is an effective measure. I, for one, will be very sorry if the Minister rejects the amendment or if he will not promise to introduce, either in this House or in the Seanad, a section having a somewhat similar effect to that which Deputy Dillon desires.
I should like to support the principle of the amendment. Deputy Dillon, I am sure, realises that this question of a balanced ration for pigs is not a universal arrangement in rural districts. However, that should not debar the Minister from finding some machinery or some arrangement to meet the principle of the amendment. Our experience in Kerry, in any case, for years has been that when the farmers obtained a remunerative price for pigs the millers immediately put up the cost of feeding stuffs. In fact, whatever little profit was obtained was more than counteracted by the cost of feeding stuffs. This certainly would have the way to a new development and be an encouragement to the producers. I think that the difficulties which have been referred to could be got over. I strongly urge the Minister to accept that amendment, or if he cannot see his way to accept it in its entirely, to agree to the principle of it and to establish some machinery which will have an effect similar to that contained in the amendment.
This is the greatest miracle since Moses struck the rock.
With the principle of subsections (1) and (2) I think we would be all in agreement, but I do not see how sub-section (3) could be operated. I wonder if Deputy Dillon has given any consideration to the fact that such an amendment if inserted in the Bill would have the effect of making the millers turn out standard rations. The millers and the people who handle the bran and pollard will turn out nothing but standard rations. They will all make their own standard rations and the farmer will not have any opportunity of getting offals such as bran, pollard, and Indian meal at all.
Take the tariff off and let them in.
There is no tariff on bran, pollard or Indian corn.
Is the Deputy aware that there is an absolute prohibition on Indian meal? You cannot buy Indian meal outside at all. I could not bring in a cwt. of it.
I said Indian corn.
Who wants Indian corn to feed pigs?
I wonder if the Deputy has considered the danger that there is in sub-section (3). I believe there is a big danger in it. If the millers knew that the price of pigs was to go up with the price of feeding stuffs, they would be inclined to put up the price of feeding stuffs. I think that that is a very dangerous sub-section.
This is not controversial. I appreciate the Deputy's anxiety. But what about the Prices Commission? Will not the Deputy and I go to the Prices Commission if they raise the price of bran and pollard?
Why not go there every day?
I quite agree with you, but I come to Dáil Eireann.
I believe that you would be inviting people to create a new monopoly; that they would put nothing on the market but a standard ration. They would have different names for it, but they would put nothing else on the market. They are trying to do it at present.
I would forbid them to do it. I would make them sell bran and pollard.
You would want a further Bill for that.
Then have it. Surely you do not want the millers to run the country; they have run it far enough.
I wish to support the amendment. As Deputy Dillon pointed out, it may not be so necessary during the emergency period, because the price of pigs will appreciate and that will continue. I think the price of pigs is bound to appreciate during this period. But we are legislating in this Bill for normal times. The trouble in the pig industry is that if the feeder does not get a profit on his pigs he tends to go out of production. The intention behind this amendment is to stabilise the position and ensure that the price of pigs will go up if the cost of production goes up. That is very important. It is all right to announce the price of pigs at the present time, but if a man has a batch of pigs ready for the market he must sell them no matter what the price is. What really matters, if you want to increase production, is to be in a position to announce the price which will be paid four months ahead when the pigs will have to be sold, so that such a man can see clearly that there is a possibility of making a profit during that period. For that reason I think that this amendment ought to be very attractive.
On the point raised by Deputy Allen, there may be something in it, that there might be some encouragement to the millers to force up the price of offals. But then, you have the Prices Commission to appeal to. If on that point you are going to throw out an amendment of this sort, that really ought to be an attractive amendment, and that is going to be so helpful to the industry, I think the small point raised by Deputy Allen could be got over with very little difficulty. You have the protection of the Prices Commission there. If they do their job, there cannot be overcharging for millers' offals.
I should like to say with regard to the point raised by Deputy Allen that I do not think there is any danger because (1) you have got the Prices Commission; and (2) you have the remedy of taking the tariff and restrictions off all imports of feeding-stuffs, which I think ought to be done. I am not going to open that question now, as it is a very long and tedious one, which Deputy Allen and I can discuss on another occasion. Deputy Bennett says there should be no question about receiving the amendment now. I do not know what is in the Minister's mind, but I know what would be in my mind if I were in his position. If I were negotiating with another Government about getting the best price for my own people, I would not be quoting statutory prices too much from my own legislation. That objection may not have presented itself to the Minister. It may, however, be in his mind, but if I were going to get from the British Government the best price for pigs produced here, I would not put it in their mouth to say: "On your own figures pigs are only worth so much to-day and that is all we will give." That means that when you start to bargain with them, instead of being able to ask 5/- or 6/- more for pigs than you expect to get, you meet the British half-way. They are very reasonable people, and they know as well as you do and, in fact, better, that a hard bargain is never a good bargain. They are reasonable and decent people to do business with, but if you hand them your case on a platter by fixing, coram populo, what you believe is a true figure for pigs, you cannot expect them to close their eyes to that and give you 5/- a cwt. more.
I believe that during the duration of the crisis we ought to get a little more than the strict economic worth of pigs. Once we get back to normal, then I think for the protection of our people it would be well to put this scheme into operation here and to adhere to it by taking the necessary steps. I do not know if that is the Minister's view. That is my view, and that is the feeling I have for requesting the Minister to accept the amendment at this stage. There may be several reasons present to the Minister why he may not deem it expedient to have it in the Bill, and I would not press the matter if he were prepared to say that in normal times it would be acceptable, and that he would put it into a Bill.
I certainly agree with the principle of the amendment and, as a matter of fact, before war commenced, during the Summer Recess of July and August, we were engaged in trying to put up what we regarded as a permanent measure to deal with pigs and bacon. That was one thing we had in mind, to try to get the price of pigs fixed in relation to the price of feeding stuffs. There were certain difficulties mentioned by Deputy Allen and others which I will try to keep in mind and perhaps we could get them by other machinery. If any Deputy goes into the matter deeply he will find that this particular principle cannot be adopted, unless you have the State guarantee behind it. That is the position as long as we are an exporting country. We may say four months ahead that, if feeding stuffs are £8 a ton, then the dead-weight price would be such a price, but we might find, when we reach that period, that the export value of bacon was very much lower. If anything goes wrong the State must take the risk and must come in to make things right. There is State guarantee of assistance of that kind. I think we could hardly justify at the moment a State guarantee for our bacon. For other reasons, some of which were touched upon by Deputy Dillon, it is not advisable to have a scheme of that kind now. Deputy Bennett and Deputy Hughes, when speaking, were more or less under the impression that this commission that we are setting up will be there for a long time. I do not look upon it like that. I look upon it as a purely temporary scheme to carry on things during the war.
I am not hoping that the war will last long, but my view is that we should, if possible, have a permanent scheme before the Dáil to deal with matters when the war is over. That is going to be the critical time, and if we could successfully work out a scheme of this kind, to come into operation when the war is over, we would be doing a great deal for pig rearing in the future. I do not agree with what Deputy Bennett said, but I do not want now to go into controversial matters. I do not agree with him that the prices paid for pigs during the last three or four years did not leave a certain profit after paying for feeding stuffs. Any farmers that keep accounts and whom I have been in touch with told me that there was a certain profit. We may have our own views as to what that profit should be.
I do not think I said that there was never a profit.
I am not saying that the Deputy said that.
I said that there was more consideration for one class than another.
The Deputy said that pigs did not provide a profit. I do not want to give that impression in the country. As we know the majority of farmers do not keep accounts, and if they got the impression that there was money to be made from pigs some of them might go into the industry. On the other hand, if they got the impression that they were losing they would not do so. That is why I do not want the other impression to go out. Deputy Dillon pointed out that it might be difficult and, in fact, awkward to adopt a principle like this. It is, because for one thing we are discussing prices with the British Government and they are changing constantly. In fact the present price of bacon for the exporter is only provisional. In all probability there will be a change about 5th January when control comes in. The British Government contemplate—I do not know whether they will go on with it or not—removing the present control they have with regard to feeding stuffs, which is keeping the price of feeding stuffs down in England. If they remove that control and let feeding stuffs take their course, undoubtedly there will be an increase in the price of bacon in England, and that price will be reflected here. We will again put the price to them. Although the price of feeding stuffs remains the same here, we would be unable to get that price fixed at that stage.
I press Deputy Dillon and other Deputies who agree with the principle, not to put it into the Act, because I think it would make it almost impossible for the commission to carry on under the changing conditions. I have no hesitation at all in saying that if we could get that principle adopted it would be a good thing. In drawing up what we regarded as permanent legislation during the summer I spent a good deal of time personally, apart from whatever time the officials gave to it, in working out such a scheme, and it was my intention, if it was possible, to put a scheme of that kind into operation in our permanent legislation. I hope this commission will be able to help us in the course of 12 months or so to frame that permanent legislation which will be there when the war is over and, if possible—and I think it is possible—to put some principle of this kind into what might be regarded as the permanent Act.
We have made a good deal of progress with this Bill and the Minister is getting all stages shortly but I make no apology for prolonging the discussion at the moment. The Minister made a short reference to the fact that the adoption of the principle enshrined in the amendment, which I propose to withdraw in view of the Minister's statement, requires ultimately State aid.
I am afraid so.
Let us watch our steps very carefully there.
I should say a State guarantee.
That is the error the New Zealand Government fell into. The New Zealand Government started a plan of this kind of price fixation. In fact their whole economic structure is founded upon it. They employed State aid by financing a scheme from authorised credits from the National Bank of New Zealand. What happened was that, so long as the Government were paying more than the world price of produce, the scheme was grand, and everyone praised it and rejoiced, but the plan was that, having paid out to the farmers more than the world price for their produce, when the world price rose above the standard price fixed in that country, the Government would take the surplus and pay it back to the National Bank as against the credits created under the subsidised plan. I hope Deputy Norton is listening to that. On arrival at the quay in Auckland, the ascertained price for exported New Zealand merchandise—it was butter-fat, as a matter of fact—was ascertained to be about 2d. per lb. above the fixed price in New Zealand. I stood by while a very distinguished economist in New Zealand who bought a paper said: "Pray God the Government have stood firm and refused to pass over this extra money to the farmers because, if they do not stand firm, we are ruined". I said to him: "My dear fellow, there is going to be a general election in New Zealand in the course of the next three months. What democratic Government on God's earth could refuse to pass over that 2d. to the farmers?" He opened the paper and he said: "We are done, for they have got it". The farmers started to howl and they got the 2d. which should have gone to the reduction of the credits in the National Bank in New Zealand. The Government started to go down the slippery slope towards bankruptey and that resulted in the Minister for Finance having to come to London in connection with the finances of New Zealand. That resulted from the Government giving an unqualified guarantee to the scheme through the creation of credits in the National Bank.
I suggest to the Minister, and I think the suggestion is worthy of consideration, that it should be possible to work out an insurance system, like the unemployment insurance scheme, in which we would all pay into the fund so much per pig and the fund would be available for withdrawals in the event of the world price falling substantially below the fixed price as ascertained in connection with this formula. A situation might arise in which, when you had ascertained the price of the standard ration, the statutory price founded on that would be 84/- whereas the world price would be only 82/-, in which event you would pay 2/- per cwt. out of the insurance fund. Here arises a delicate difference. Suppose the world price was 90/- — this is where New Zealand went wrong—and the statutory price 84/-, the New Zealand Government wanted to have the whole 6/- of the difference put by. What I should like to do would be to take 2/- per pig all the time. Once you have taken the 2/- you should make it quite clear that the farmer had no further claim, that the rest was surrendered to the insurance fund and kept for contingencies. It would be the same as in the case of the man who pays 1/7 to the National Health Insurance Fund or who contributed to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. He has no lien on that money and, unless he falls ill or falls out of employment, he may never benefit by it.
The mistake is to create in the farmer's mind the idea that he never lets go of whatever deductions are made from the price he receives. He should recognise that the insurance fund is established for his own protection, that he makes payments into it and that, so far as he is concerned, that is the end of it. All he is guaranteed is that the provisions of amendment No. 30 are always available and that he will always get an economic price. I do not want to elaborate the matter too much, but when the commission is dealing with this question, I ask the Minister to instruct them to look into that aspect of it—as to how to provide a guarantee fund which would establish the principle of amendment No. 30 on a secure foundation.
Is the amendment being withdrawn?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendment by Deputy McGilligan was on the Paper:—
In page 22, at the end of Section 57, to add a new section as follows:—
Every order or regulation made by the Minister or the commission under any section of this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either such House within the next subsequent 21 days on which the House has sat annulling such order or regulation, such order or regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such order or regulation.
An amendment was moved on Committee Stage by Deputy Keyes to have all regulations laid on the Table. Deputy McGilligan, in this amendment, seeks to have all regulations and orders laid on the Table. Some of these orders would be of a confidential nature and could not be laid on the Table. If all the regulations are laid on the Table, I think it should cover the matter.
Deputy Keyes' amendment was accepted?
Yes. This amendment goes further than that.
Amendment not moved.
Amendments reported.