I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 4, line 56, to delete "seven" and substitute "nine."
Committee on Finance. - Pigs and Bacon (Amendment) Bill, 1961—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Perhaps it might be possible to discuss amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 together.
I think so. I move this amendment because I think that, unless the Minister accepts it, this whole enterprise is going to start off under a very material disadvantage. Whether we like it or not, the fact is that there always has been and there still remains a very substantial volume of distrust between curing interests and the producers in this country. When this Bill was first adumbrated there was a proposal that there should be two curers on the Pigs and Bacon Commission. Representations were then, apparently, made to the Minister, to which he has seen fit to give way in increasing the representation of curers to three and leaving the producers with only two representatives.
Before any hullabaloo started I warned the Minister that such hullabaloo would inevitably develop and that the producers would feel that they were being outnumbered on a Commission which they felt was just as much their responsibility as it was that of the curers, if not more so.
I think the Minister has been persuaded to adopt this course because the curers sold him what, in my judgment, was a pup. He originally proposed that the Commission should consist of seven members: the Chairman, two persons, I think, to represent producers, two persons to represent curers and three persons to represent himself. If that constitution had been adhered to I do not think there would have been any trouble.
I surmise that the bacon curers said to the Minister: "There have always been large curers, middle-sized curers and small curers. Your decision to give us only two representatives is creating pandemonium in our organisation. We want a representative for each of the three categories of curers, lest there be misunderstanding." I fear the Minister then said: "Let there be three curers, two producers and one nominee by me but I shall not extend the personnel of the Board."
I believe that, but for the untimely arrival of Mr. Parkinson in Dublin who gave a lecture in Guinness's Brewery about how committees habitually grow if once established, the Minister would have said: "If I must give way on this matter, and I suppose there is a case to be made, I shall give the curers three representatives, the producers three representatives, retain my two representatives and make the Board one of nine by adding the Chairman." That would have been the sensible thing to do.
I can well imagine a meeting of the Government at which the Minister may have made that very proposal and immediately some intelligent member of that body said: "There you are, Parkinson's Law, again. This thing is already beginning to grow" and all the equally intelligent members of the Government applauded loudly, forgetting that the Minister for Agriculture has special problems about which most members of the Government know sweet Fanny Adams and care less and eventually they said: "Let the Commission not exceed seven."
The Minister is now left with this problem to solve. His personal embarrassment would be a matter of trivial importance. It is very important that the proposal to seek to put the pig industry and this marketing organisation on a satisfactory basis should not be in jeopardy by the creation of unnecessary prejudice on the threshold of the experiment. If there are more curers on the Board than producers' representatives the whole thing will start off in the wrong atmosphere.
I urge the Minister to say to his colleagues: "Parkinson's Law may be all right for the academic circles in which such neat and nimble theories appeal to academic minds, but where you are dealing with practical problems you want a law that will work and not some abstract theory that ought to work if all men were angels or geniuses. Common experience teachers those who have responsibility to learn that all men are not angels or geniuses. They are human beings. You must make due allowance for that fact when trying to make them work together."
No Pigs and Bacon Board, consisting of three curers, two producers and one representative of the Minister will work harmoniously. I apprehend that, if this constitution of the Board is insisted upon, the two producer members will be persuaded that they have an obligation to put up a vigorous front at every meeting of the Board in order to demonstrate that they will not be walked on by the majority of curers present. If you have three curers, three producers, two representatives of the Department of Agriculture and a neutral chairman you will probably get a workable board where everything will proceed as peacefully as can be hoped in all the circumstances. There will be no sense of grievance. Decisions will be arrived at with reasonable expedition which will command if not the assent of everybody at least the acknowledgment that they were arrived at by a body which has been fairly constituted. It is eminently important that that should be the atmosphere in which this experiment starts on the way.
Usually, with a board of this kind, it is possible to get a quorum to transact its business. With a board of seven where you have only two representatives of curers, two representatives of producers and two representatives of the Minister, it is not impossible that one man may be indisposed or unavoidably prevented from attending at each meeting. My experience has been that if you have a board constituted of two representatives of a particular industry and one of them is unavoidably absent from a given meeting you will get no business transacted at that meeting because the other fellow, single-handed, will be prepared to agree to nothing. If you get two fellows there who have an opportunity of putting their heads together and accepting joint responsibility for decisions arrived at, the prospect of getting decisions taken is very much better. Therefore, I would be happier to see three curers and three producers. That would give a greater prospect of the assurance of having at least two representatives of each interest present at each meeting of the Board. That I would regard as a secondary consideration, important but secondary.
The primary and fundamental consideration is that if this Board leaves producers under a grievance—which at present they have—they will gravely prejudice the prospects of successful work. I know of no effective argument against increasing the numbers of this Board from seven to nine and thus overcoming everybody's difficulty. I shall not argue whether or not the Minister was wise in yielding to the exhortations of the curers to give them three representatives instead of two. That is done and cannot be undone. I do not think any grave harm has been done by that decision if it is accompanied by a decision to give a corresponding increase to the producers' interests. However, in my judgment, the decision to increase the curers' representation from two to three without a corresponding increase in the producers' representation will do incalculable and growing harm. I urge the Minister to accept this group of amendments. I urge him to turn the Commission into a body of nine and give it a fair chance of functioning smoothly.
There is not any doubt about a Minister's anxiety to get along peacefully with all the interests with which he must deal. The Deputy is quite wrong in suggesting it was for the purpose of securing peace that I changed my mind on this matter. Naturally, I knew quite well in advance of making it how the change would be misrepresented. It was not a matter of making peace for myself or of making it easy for myself. I knew quite well that the contrary was the case. I knew the curers were only a small number of people and that from any angle from which it was vetted even in a political way, the decision I made was likely to bring problems on my head rather than the peace to which the Deputy referred.
It was not, therefore, a matter of making a decision, the consequences of which I did not know in advance. I told the House on Second Reading what the Committee of Inquiry had recommended. I repeated the contents of the White Paper based upon that recommendation. It was only when the Government's intention in relation to any of these matters was made known, when policy was stated, and when a Bill was being prepared to give effect to the recommendations and to the announcement made by the Government later, that those few people who own the bacon curing business sought an interview, naturally, with the Minister responsible, and made their case showing that the Board was not being justly constituted, on the basis that they were the people whose money was in the industry, that the producers and the Government had no money in it.
Had no money in the pig industry?
Had no money in the curing of bacon.
In the pig industry?
The price of pigs is guaranteed by the State—the price the producer will receive.
For Grade A pigs.
Yes and for Grade A Specials and Grade B. 1. That covers up to 70 per cent. of the pigs that are converted into bacon so, in that sense, the producer is covered by the Government guarantee. I did not come to a hasty decision on this question. I hope I can say for myself that I am not so easily convinced. Knowing the pitfalls of all kinds—I am not saying there would be deliberate misrepresentation—and knowing what I was letting myself in for in the way of public criticism, Deputies may be sure that I realised the justice of the case they made. I did and I do.
I make this further statement. I resent the allegation that, on a board of six, with an independent chairman, with three curers, two representatives of the producers and a representative of my Department, the representative of my Department will line up on the side of the curers. That is an unfair allegation. It is not justified in any shape or form. In all matters of reason and where the vital interests of the industry are concerned, it should be taken by everyone that the representative of the Department of Agriculture will be on the side of the producer.
It is a good weapon to use against the Minister but it is not true to say that the curers are being given a monopoly on the Board. In fact, I think the Board is much better balanced now as a result of this change, and that has nothing to do with the visit of Mr. Parkinson. I had Mr. Parkinson's book in a drawer in my desk for 12 months. I was sick for a short time and I read it, long after the period during which these discussions were taking place. It is no harm to say that it did not impress me in the least.
Apart altogether from Parkinson's view on these matters, my own view was that irrespective of what a committee such as the advisory committee recommended—after all, evidence was not tendered to them of a kind that would enable them to vet this question fairly; it was not part of their function, and they just threw out the suggestion of 3:3:2:1.—where you want a business board, it cannot be too small, but there is no purpose in making it unwieldy.
I believe it is on the person and the qualities of the man chosen to assume the day to day responsibilities that in the main the success of these efforts will depend, and I believe that a board of the size we decided upon is more likely to be compact and effective than a larger body.
I am not being stubborn on this matter. It is not a matter of my wanting to reject this proposal. As I explained on Second Reading, this is a decision which I made in a very deliberate way, not for the purpose of securing peace, but for the purpose of doing justice as I think it should be done, having heard the complete case made. It is not a matter of major or minor curers. We all know there are curers who have interests and connections in other countries, and we all know there are co-operative concerns. Amongst the curers, we know there are two or three different classes, and, in my view, they were not unreasonable in saying that the price of the pig is secured by Government guarantee in the main, and that the marketing of bacon should be the substantial concern of themselves. They said: "The factories as they are are our property. You are treating us as if we have only a sort of passing interest in them. We should at least have more representation on that body."
In order to meet that case, I said: "We will surrender one of the two Department representatives, thus giving you three." All the time we were maintaining that fair balance on the assumption that our representative would naturally be on the side of the producer where the case was a reasonable one. We would have it three-three with an independent chairman. Even the method of choosing the chairman is set out. It means he cannot be chosen except by the majority, and the majority cannot be secured unless through the deliberate decision of the representative of the Department of Agriculture. Not only is this a just arrangement, but I disagree entirely with those who say it will not work. I believe it will work, and work well. For that reason, and having regard to the fact that this change was made in the most deliberate fashion, I would not dream of accepting this amendment.
One would at least expect that the Minister for Agriculture would be always on the side of the producers. But he can give the assurance in this instance that he is on the side of the producers by acknowledging the producers are at least entitled to equal representation on this Board with the curers. We have about 120,000 pig producers here. Are they not the primary people, the people to whom we should give first consideration? Are we not aware, too, that the two points that will affect, adversely or otherwise, the whole future of the bacon industry are quality and continuity of supply? If we want to get the goodwill and confidence of the producers and to get them to go in for quality and continuity of supply, the best way of ensuring that is by giving them equal representation with the curers.
Let us look at the equity of the whole matter. The producers are a lot of units scattered throughout the Twenty-Six Counties. They are completely unorganised. They cannot speak with one voice. No matter how they would be represented on a board of this kind, nobody could say they had adequate representation. The curers are in a different category altogether. They can be called together in a few hours. They have their phones beside them on their desks. They are an organised body as the manufacturers of bacon. Their position should not get the same sympathy from the Minister in the setting up of this Board as the producers should.
Let us take the Six Counties. We should open our eyes and reflect on the fact that bacon products in the Six Counties bring in about £25 million a year, three or four times what they bring in here. That fact alone should compel us to look carefully on all this wide question. At the very outset, when an effort is being made to reorganise the bacon industry, in order to ensure the goodwill of the producers they should get the same representation as the bacon curers are getting.
What is done cannot be undone. However, Deputy Dillon's amendment gives the Minister the opportunity of undoing the harm already done. No doubt there will be a big outcry against the constitution of this Board. I have no doubt the producers will look on it with a certain amount of scepticism and will not work willingly to carry out the requirements and aims of the Board unless the Minister shows a better spirit of cooperation and goodwill towards them. As I say, they have no one to speak for them. The only people claiming to speak with any national voice on their behalf are the National Farmers Association. When they have no way of making their case, as the curers had, before the Minister, it is all the more reason why we should give them that sympathy and consideration they deserve.
The Minister should take this amendment very seriously. The last time such a Bill was passed here, it was passed with a certain amount of prejudice and political tinge. The pig producers are people who judge by results. In that instance, as a result of the Pigs Marketing Board, afterwards the Pigs and Bacon Commission, the curers were brought before the Prices Commission. I have the report here before me. I would remind the Minister that in 1935 the curers got £39,000 in excess profits. In 1936, they got £210,000 excess profits when the pound was worth a lot more to them than the pound was worth to farmers and, especially, pig producers. At that time the producers were selling their pigs for 50/- or 55/- each.
I consider that these Boards had what was supposed to be equal representation for the producers and the curers, but the curers were able to snap their fingers at the Board. In the light of that and in the light of experience of the Pigs Marketing Board and the Pigs and Bacon Commission, the Minister should give the producers more representation on this new Board than the curers.
It is a formidable proposition to say that the curers have more invested in this business than the producers. On reflection, I think the Minister will realise such a proposition is grotesque. Of course, the investment of the producers is infinitely bigger absolutely, and relatively from the point of view of the individual. It can in many cases be a great part of the producer's entire resources. The Minister says that the curers convinced him by saying: "After all, the price of pigs is guaranteed by the State and, therefore, the producers have no particular grievance if they are not adequately represented on this Board." Nothing could be further from the truth. The price of Grade A pigs is guaranteed by the Government, as is the price of Grade A1. I think it is true that curers are required to give not less than 5/-a cwt. for Grade B1. What the Minister forgets, of course, is the levy. That is going to come off the price of pigs inevitably. But, over and above that, the case of the producers is this. The ultimate fate of the whole industry, going right back to the breeding sow and her progeny, depends on the efficiency with which the end-products —that is, bacon, sausages, open-pack meats and the other by-products of the pig and bacon industry — are marketed. It is on the marketing and on the processing that the value of the sow's progeny depends.
Everything connected with this industry is of vital interest to the producer, of far more vital interest than to the curers, because what the Minister appears to have overlooked entirely in his discussions with the curers is that they are the only people whose margin of profit is absolutely guaranteed. When the amount of the subsidy is being determined, it is fixed at a figure designed to give the curer an absolutely cast-iron profit margin. If he is exceptionally efficient he can get more than the fixed margin of profit; if by his own incompetence or lack of diligence he gets less, that is his own funeral. It is not outside his resources to correct such a deficiency and to secure for himself the full margin provided by the guarantee.
There is no such guarantee for the producer. The producer gets guaranteed prices for certain categories of pigs but those pigs have to go through the ordeal of grading and, in addition, the producer has to pay for feeding stuffs and the other costs that fall upon him in the course of pig production. I do not wish to be discourteous in any way but I am bound to say that whatever mental wrestling the Minister went on with himself in the process of arriving at the decision he has communicated to us cannot be the concern of this House. What is important from the standpoint of the House is what will be the effect of this decision or the prospects of this departure. The Minister was wholly wrong in accepting the arguments put to him by the bacon curers, as described by him here to-day. Such arguments were wholly invalid and if they were advanced to me I would have felt constrained to describe them as presumptuous and fantastic.
If the curers' representatives came to me and said: "We have more money invested than the producers" I would have laughed at them. If the curers said: "After all, the price of pigs is guaranteed by the State whereas we, the curers, have no such guarantee", I would have laughed and told them: "You have a guarantee of 30/- to 35/-per cwt. with a further guarantee that, if you can get more, you are entitled to get it but in no circumstances can you be constrained to take less." That is all an integral part of the scheme.
To suggest that the producers have a more effective guarantee than the curers is fantastic and ridiculous. But let us not lose sight of the heart of this matter in our criticism of the arguments to which the Minister has referred. The heart of this matter is: is this new body to get a fair chance to do the job which is being assigned to it? If the participating parties feel they are all getting a square deal, this body will get a fair chance of functioning effectively. If you leave one of the parties to this transaction with a sense of grievance, this Board is not going to function satisfactorily. That is what really matters.
I have put forward proposals which I believe would provide a basis on which this Board would have a fair chance of functioning smoothly and effectively. I am certain the basis proposed by the Minister will not produce that kind of result. I put forward a proposal which, by and large, I believe to be substantially equitable as between producer and curer. I am quite satisfied the Minister's proposal is quite inequitable from the point of view of the producers and quite improperly weighted in favour of the curers to the ultimate detriment not only of the producers but of the curers themselves. I believe it will create ill-will and acrimony where there should be an atmosphere of good-will and co-operation.
I regard these amendments as being almost fundamental. I cannot accept, and I will not accept on behalf of this Party, the proposal of the Minister. I must urge Deputies to take a decision on this matter; I urge them strongly to adopt the proposals contained in my amendments in preference to those put forward by the Minister.
Everybody in the House will wish the Minister success with this new Board. Certainly I do, but I must say that having listened to him a few minutes ago, I am of the opinion that he made a bad case. I may be quite wrong in the impression I received but I think the Minister does not believe in his own case and I feel, if he had his way, he would rather go back to the original suggestion of two from the producers, two from the bacon curers and one from his own Department. As the lesser of two evils it would be a better Board than that now proposed, of three from the curers, two from the producers and one from the Department and a neutral chairman. The Minister would agree that it is essential for the success of this Board, upon which so much depends, that it should have the good-will of the most important element, that is, the people who produce the raw materials. If the farmers are to feel they are in a permanent minority, in spite of the Minister's assurance that his nominee will always vote on the side of the producers, I think the Minister is starting off on the wrong foot.
I am afraid I did not go just as far as that.
Will the Minister hear me out?
I shall, but it is only a matter——
In any event, why should the Minister's representative always be on the side of the producers?
I did not say so.
That is the upshot of what the Minister said.
In all reasonable matters.
May I put it then in this fashion? The curers put up the argument that with two representatives of the Minister on the Board the discussions would be loaded against them. The Minister apparently accepted that argument and reduced that representation to one nominee. Irrespective of the form of words the Minister used, he certainly gave me the impression that this House could accept as a matter of fact that his representative would side with the producers if necessary against the curers, making it three all, with a neutral chairman. I do not recall the Minister's exact words but to the best of my recollection that is what the Minister said. I say the Minister's nominee should be neutral and not necessarily on the side of the producers. His interests should be the interests of the industry as a whole—producers, curers and consumers—and the market which we all hope they will get to the benefit of everybody concerned.
If that interpretation is correct, I suggest that the present setup is weighted on the side of one interest, albeit a very important one and one which, as regards my own constituency, provides a very important share of the economy of Limerick city by way of employment. I think the amendment suggested would give greater confidence to the producer, whom we all want to encourage and who, in the final analysis, is the most important element, because if he does not produce pigs, the curers cannot cure them and the transport interests and others will not have anything to get by way of bacon or other products from the curers.
Furthermore, I should like to say that I got the impression from listening to some speakers that there is going to be a tussle on this Board between the two main interests, the producer and the curer. It would be very wrong that that impression should get out. As I understand it and would wish it, and the Minister, too, the idea of this Board is that the interests represented on it should pull together in the interests of the industry as a whole. If that is so, it is essential that the producer, who is the primary interest and a most important one, should feel that he is adequately and fairly represented. If the Minister could, by making a further change, ensure that the producer's interest is satisfied and a fair balance maintained, with his nominee keeping an open mind in the interests of all concerned, it would be a better solution than that which he now proposes.
I should like to say that I did not give any such assurance as that attributed to me by Deputy Russell. I do not mind anybody checking or examining the records, for he will find that I did not give it in that form. I said that I resented, as I do resent, the proposition that the curers are being given a monopoly, that the Board is being weighted entirely in their favour. That assumes, of course, that the representative of the Department of Agriculture would line up against the producers. I resent that. I said that it was natural to assume that in all fundamental matters affecting the industry, the representative of the Department of Agriculture would naturally be on the side of the producer. I do not know whether the case I make is convincing to Deputy Russell or anybody else, but I thought I made a very excellent case, and I want to assure the House that the reason for the change was that conviction was carried to me by the force of the arguments I heard. I am still convinced that justice is being done, and notwithstanding Deputy Manley's plea, let me say that, naturally, the fundamental interest of the Minister for Agriculture should be in those who are vitally concerned in the industry, but he has also, in a question of this nature, the responsibility of doing justice even to the 39 or 40 families who might be interested in this business as against the hundreds or thousands of people who may be producers. He is bound to try to do justice to them all.
I am providing in this Bill that the existing chairman of the Bacon Commission, who is a deputy veterinary officer in my Department, is to continue as chairman of this new Board. It is to be a Board of six, composed of three curers, two representatives of the producers and a representative of my Department, with a chairman appointed by me from my Department, too. How that Board can be regarded as one weighted against the producer is something that amazes me. I am not in the least afraid that this Board will start off with any prejudice in the minds of any section of public opinion at all. I genuinely feel that it is a far better balanced Board, more compact and better from that point of view, and better balanced from the point of view of doing its business, and I am not looking forward to the strife and struggle that nobody wants to see taking place. The Board has a job of work to do and it is not an easy one. I do not see why there should be any real conflict between them. How a decision coming from the existing chairman who is a deputy veterinary officer of my Department, an official of my Department, two producers and three curers can be said to be weighted against the producer just does not make sense to me.
I am not trying to look for a perfect symmetrical pattern in anything the Minister is proposing, but in a broad way we are doing something to frame the economic institutions of the country, the councils and the institutions that can affect our future, and in view of what the farming community and the agricultural community generally mean to the basis of the economy here, could the Minister say on what pretext the actual producers on the farm are given smaller representation on an institution of this kind than those who in the factory process the product produced? It seems to me that, apart altogether from anything like symmetry of organisation, there is a fundamental absence of principle, and if we look at the way in which we are forming our institutions for the management and carrying on of our economic production and its disposal, it seems to me that there is a glaring blemish in the Minister's proposal, in that in a matter which is primarily agricultural, and very definitely a matter of agricultural production, he says to the representatives of that production, those who are responsible with their finance and their work for producing the raw material, that they must take an inferior position to those people who are organising and running a factory and producing the final product.
I cannot convince those who do not want to be convinced by my argument, but I have marshalled all the reasons that occurred to my mind, and I have to assure the House that not only was I not talked into it but I am not so easily brought around to seeing a new point of view on the basis of an approach by interested people. At the same time, in this case, I was satisfied and am still satisfied now that the structure provided for here is a sound and fair structure and that it will prove entirely workable. That is my judgement, and after all I am entitled to pit my judgment against that of anybody else in this matter.
The Minister surely understands the importance of public understanding and the great tendency on the part of every organisation in the country to appoint public relations officers. Looking on himself as an important public relations officer in this matter, in relation to the man in the street, would he say in a few simple sentences to the man in the street why, in the setting up of a body of this kind, the producers, being the people who represent the agricultural industry over the whole country and all that that implies, are being reduced in the matter of representation to an inferior position to those who own, who have set up and who have carried out work in factories?
I have no doubt the Minister wants this Board to be a great success, as does everybody else in the House. I put it to the Minister that if he gives the producers the representation which Deputy Dillon asks for, it would be good for the Board, good for the Bill and good, as Deputy Mulcahy has just said, for the public relations officers associated with this Bill, if there were any such persons. It would improve the attitude of the producers towards the new Board. It will not be good to have the farmers saying: "We have only representation of two and between the curers and civil servants there is representation of five against us." It would be better—and I appeal to the Minister to look at it in this light—if the farmers could say: "The representation for the bacon curers is three, for ourselves three and for the civil servants, one."
Question put: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 29.
Tá.
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Seán.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Johnston, Henry M.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Toole, James.
- Ryan, James.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Teehan, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Níl.
- Beirne, John.
- Burke, James.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Dillon, James M.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hogan, Bridget.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Lindsay, Patrick.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Russell, George E.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies Crotty and Palmer.
Question declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
Did the Minister say that he has already chosen the chairman?
Yes. He is provided for here in Section 8.
That section gives the Minister power to make the appointment. In the course of the discussion on the amendment, did I understand the Minister to say that he had already decided on the chairman?
The intention is to appoint the existing chairman.
Mr. O'Leary?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 10, line 35, to delete "the Act of 1939" and to insert "of that Act or subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of section 6 of that Act".
This is a drafting amendment. Section 7 of the 1939 Act prohibits the two ordinary members of the present Commission, who are Departmental officers, from having any beneficial interest in a business concerned with pigs or bacon. Section 10 of this Bill is intended to remove this prohibition in the case of curer and producer ordinary members of the reorganised Commission, but the section as drafted, applies only to such members nominated at the commencement of the three-year periods and would not cover curer and producer members nominated to fill casual vacancies arising during the three-year period. This amendment will remove that difficulty.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 11 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."
What exactly does Section 20 do?
Under the 1939 Act, levies payable by curers on pigs used for bacon production are payable into the general fund of the Commission and subsidies on exports of bacon are payable from the Commission Stabilisation Fund. Subsidy on the export of bacon did not arise until 1956. Section 5 of the 1956 Act provided that the Commission should pay into the Stabilisation Fund any moneys in the general fund which, in the opinion of the Commission, were not required for the purposes of that fund. The levy imposed for subsidy purposes is collected with the levy required to meet the operational expenses of the Commission. At present the total levy is 15/7 payable on each pig carcase used for bacon production. Of that amount 15/- is earmarked for subsidy and, because of the manner of collection, it must be paid, in the first instance, into the general fund. The 1956 Act also provides that Exchequer contributions for subsidy purposes should be paid into the Stabilisation Fund.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Question proposed: "That Section 23 stand part of the Bill."
I think Section 23 and Section 25 can be read together because they both relate to the fixing of quotas and grades. Am I right in believing that taking these two sections together the new scheme provides that export bounty will be paid only on the quota fixed by the Minister for export by each individual factory and that if a factory exports more than the quota fixed by the Minister it will not be entitled to any bounty? Under the existing system before the passage of this Bill, the Minister's quota of a certain grade for a given factory is a minimum quota. He can direct the factory to export so much Grade A bacon and they must do it but if they export more than that of Grade A bacon, they are still entitled to get the export subsidy on it. Am I correct in believing that the provisions of Sections 23 and 25 would substitute for the existing flexible arrangement a more rigid revision and the factory would be entitled to get an export subsidy only on the precise quantity it was directed to export by the Minister's order? Such an arrangement would have to be explained and justified and I think the flexible arrangement which exists at present is better and more equitable.
The note I have on Section 23 is a very long one but the note dealing with the point raised by Deputy Dillon is as follows:
Subsection (7): It is provided here that the Commission shall not require a curer to sell to it more bacon than he is required to export under his external sales quota. The Commission is being obliged to buy from each curer who offers it as much bacon as the curer is required to export under his quota. The Commission is not being prevented from purchasing a greater quantity of bacon from a curer if it wishes.
Does that not meet the Deputy's point?
Not quite. Suppose the reverse situation arises. Suppose the Commission expresses its readiness to accept 100 cwts. from a curer in this particular week and the curer has 140 cwts. available for export and says: "I want the Commission to buy this and give me the guaranteed price." The curer may not export it himself. He can only export it through the Commission. What is the position if the Commission says: "We will not take it. We will take only the 100 cwts. which we stipulated?"
I am told they would continue to buy it on the excess. They do that at the moment and they will continue to do that in the future for any quantity in excess of the quota fixed.
If that is perfectly clear it is satisfactory. The present position is this. You have a certain curer who is not concerned to look for export markets. On the other hand, you have another curer who has been very diligent in establishing contacts in order to export as much Grade A bacon as he can. That curer has accordingly geared himself to provide for the domestic market and for this extra export market he built up for himself. Under the new dispensation, if the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Board take a global quota of the bacon and divide it up amongst several curers the diligent curer, who has been trying to build up this export market and who has geared his total output to his domestic demand, plus the export market he has built up for himself, will find himself in a position in which, where prior to the passage of this Bill he sold 150 cwts. at home and 140 cwts. abroad, that is 290 cwts. altogether, he is told that his quota is 100 cwts. for export. He still has his domestic market. He has got a quota of 100 cwts. for export. He has a surplus of 40 cwts. He does not know what to do with it. If he says to the Board: "I have 40 cwts. more Grade A bacon available than you gave me a quota for", will the Board take that bacon and export it for him?
The Commission will fix the global quota and will apportion that between the curers. They are given legal power to oblige the curer to fill that quota. After that has been achieved, then what is left is to be sold, I take it. If the home market is capable of absorbing it, naturally it will be sold in the home market. If there happened to be an excess over what is necessary to meet the home market demand and if each curer filled his sub-quota, I would expect the Commission to meet the type of case to which Deputy Dillon has referred.
This is the fact. There may be two curers, one of whom goes all out to set up retail outlets at home, goes all out to trade exclusively in the effective domestic market, and the other of whom goes all out to export as much as he can in order to help in the general export drive. As a result of his diligence and public-spirited activity in the export market, he sells 100 cwts. at home and 150 cwts. abroad. Each curer produces, say, 250 cwts. a week. One is selling in the domestic market and is protected. The other sells 100 cwts. at home and 150 cwts. abroad. Then the Board steps in and takes the whole available export quota to itself. That is then parcelled out to all the curers on the basis of their total output.
The curer who has never exported any bacon in the past gets the same export quota as the man who has been diligently exporting. As a result of giving part of the global quota to the curer who has never exported before, the man who has been exporting diligently finds that he gets a smaller quota than he is in a position to fill. He has a surplus left on his hands for which he has no domestic market and for which his export market has been artificially cut down by the Board in order to spread the global quota over all the curers.
I want to be reassured that the diligent exporter in the past will not find that his export quota is cut below his capacity. If he has more to export than the quota fixed by the Board provides for, the Board should either buy it from him or permit him to export it himself. Otherwise, the fellow who never looked for exports at home now has a larger market than he ever had before because he has the domestic market he built up himself, never before having had to look for an export outlet, and the market created for him by the Pigs and Bacon Commission. On the other hand, the man who has brought down his costs of production as a result of his diligent search for export outlets now finds that under the new dispensation his domestic market remains approximately what it was, as big as he could make it, but his export market has been reduced. If his total output is reduced, his overheads will go up and his unit may become uneconomic. All I want is the assurance that, in respect of the man who has been diligently exporting, the effect of this quota will not be to allow him to export less in the future than he has exported in the past.
I was trying to follow the reasoning behind the case made by Deputy Dillon. I cannot see how that would arise. Let us assume that in the past a particular curer did not strive for an export market and merely aimed at satisfying whatever trade he had in the home market and that another curer catered for both the home market and the export market. I cannot see how, in the new circumstances, the position Deputy Dillon has described would arise. I am the curer, say, who confines his activities to the home market. Under the new set-up, the global quota will be fixed. It will be apportioned to the curers on the basis of killings and all these factors.
What factors? Will it be apportioned according to killings?
On the basis of killings, the amount of bacon produced from pigs. I am the man who has not done any exporting at all. I will find myself having to export a percentage of bacon which I formerly sold on the home market.
You will expand your production.
No. Deputy Dillon is the curer who has been catering for both markets and he will find now maybe that some of the export market he had will be given to me. However, if that does happen, portion of the home market will be made available as a result of some of my supplies going to the export market.
You will expand your production.
That is another matter.
The Minister has stated my case perfectly. What he has been given is a section of a market he has never had before. He is selling 300 cwts. a week at home and he gets an order to deliver 50 cwts. a week abroad. All he has to do is to send out the kettler to gather in 50 more pigs for him and he expands his production by 50 pigs a week. He supplies the foreign market but retains the domestic market of 300 cwts. Now I have been sweating to get as big a share of the domestic market as I could and I have got only 100 cwts. However, I did not sit on my sash. I went to London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Bristol and Cardiff. I sought markets there and I expanded my production by selling more pigs in the British market.
When this measure comes in, part of that market I built up in Great Britain is to be taken away from me and given to the man who is already selling 300 cwts. on the domestic market. The fact that he finds a supplemental market of 50 cwts. of bacon a week does not mean that he will withhold that quantity of bacon from his home customers. What he will do is send out the kettler to bring in the pigs from remote areas to him until such time as he can build up supplies in his own place.
At present if a curer has a particularly good period and the supply of pigs in his own district falls, he will go to other areas. You will find the Cavan curer purchasing pigs in Cork just as in different circumstances you might find the Cork curer buying pigs in Mayo. Ordinarily, the Cork curer will buy his pigs in Cork or in the counties immediately adjoining Cork, but if there is a sudden expansion in demand and his stocks are low, he will send to wherever he can get them. There is a considerable body of respectable men in this country who make a good living in that way in the kettling trade. It is of great advantage to the producer and a great service to the curer.
What I want to ensure is that we will not inadvertently penalise the curer who has been doing his best to expand our total market for pigs and bacon by getting foreign trade after the domestic market has been saturated. The Minister made it quite clear that he is under the illusion that, if Smith's factory is selling 300 cwts. on the domestic market and is now required to export 50 cwts., under the new dispensation that will reduce Smith's supplies on the domestic market to 250 cwts. leaving 50 cwts. for Dillon's factory to pick up. That is quite wrong. That will not happen. Smith will stick to his domestic market.
If I can.
Yes, and he will expand his output by a further 50 pigs, the foreign quota given to him. What the Minister appears to have forgotten is that that foreign quota is going to come off the sales of another curer. Unless the Minister says to me that the Commission will buy that bacon from the other curer a situation might arise in which the diligent curer would have his output reduced, his costs of production consequently raised and his profits thereby eliminated. If the Minister says to me: "If we fix the export quota for a curer as 100 cwts. a week and it transpires that he has 140 cwts. of Grade A. bacon, we will take it from him," that is all right. Unless he can say that, it is a very serious flaw in this legislation.
I can follow the Deputy's reasoning up to a point but I cannot arrive at the conclusions he apparently arrives at or agree that they are the proper conclusions. When the Commission are fixing the global quota, they must have regard to a number of very important factors, the pig population, the number of pigs slaughtered, and so on, if, as recommended in the report, the aim is some degree of continuity of supply. In fixing the global quota, they must have regard to the estimated requirements of the home market. They will merely say that so much of our total production will be required at home and the size of the quota fixed by it will be influenced by that fact. When that global quota is fixed and apportioned amongst the curers, all that would be left would be what was estimated to be the amount normally absorbed by the home consumer.
If the conclusions at which Deputy Dillon has arrived by the process of reasoning he has given us are correct, how does it come about that it is necessary to insert in this Bill exacting provisions to oblige the curers to fill their export quota?
Because the quota was there for the particular grade of bacon.
If it had been an attractive proposition, it would not have been necessary to make the conditions so stringent and to provide penalties in the event of failure, and so on.
When the Commission are fixing the global quota, that must be fixed on the basis of availability of supplies. I cannot see how the type of curer the Deputy has described can seize the additional quantity now given to him and provide for that, although it is something for which he did not make provision in the past, and, at the same time, take up all the pigs he wants for conversion into bacon for consumption on the home market. I cannot see how he can achieve that in the setting I have tried to describe.
Perhaps the Minister will look into the point again?
I shall have another look at it, yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 24 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Question proposed: "That Section 27 stand part of the Bill."
I wonder does the Commission contemplate considering the desirability of investigating the possibility of re-establishing the market for live pigs? While it is eminently desirable to expand our exports of bacon and pig products of every kind from our factories, we should not lose sight of the possibility of doing a deal with the British Government whereunder we could also export live pigs. It is a great mistake to allow a prejudice to grow up in our mind, which we have inherited from the war days, that we ought to limit our production to the capacity of our factories to handle livestock produced in this country. I should like to see our factory potential taxed by the supplies that would pass through them, but if, over and above that, we could set up a satisfactory market for live pigs, I do not think we should hesitate to expand and develop that at the same time.
The activities of the Commission are limited here, but I am told that under existing law the Commission has power to purchase surplus pigs and dispose of them in any way it finds beneficial.
I hope the Minister will consider that proposal.
I hope the Commission will not take it on itself to be monopolists in the shipment of live pigs.
As a matter of fact, there is no provision made in this Bill for the Board's engaging in any activities of that kind. I have said that the Commission as at present constituted has power to purchase surplus pigs and to dispose of them in the most profitable way possible.
I have nothing to say to that but I do hope that the Commission will not take it on itself to be the sole shipper of pigs because that would be detrimental to the pig producers. If it is profitable at any time to ship a certain type of pig, it would be a bad thing if shipments of that type of pig were in the hands of one group or board. It would be better for the producers if there were competitive buying for that type of pig. That has happened before and was a source of great encouragement to pig producers.
If there was a trade for certain types of pig, whether pork pigs, light pigs, sizeable pigs or heavy pigs, people might say that it was a frightful state of affairs to ship sizeable pigs when we have factories to process them. We ship sizeable cattle, thank God, and walk them out and we have factories that could process them here. But for the fact that we walk these cattle out, the factories would give much less for the cattle that they buy. It creates a good balance to have competition. If some change took place in the pig trade in England or if the Minister saw fit to do it live pigs should be subsidised in the same way as bacon and anybody who liked to buy the pigs and ship them as live pigs should be at liberty to do so. The Minister should be careful and not allow the Commission to take that power unto itself.
It is hardly likely to happen.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 28 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 18th April, 1961.