Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Mar 1930

Vol. 13 No. 12

Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Bill, 1929—Second Stage.

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

This Bill is not as complicated as it appears to be. The purpose of the Bill is to regulate the quality of exported dead meat. It has nothing to do with live stock or with meat consumed at home. The title sets out its purpose:—

"To make provision for the regulation of the export of fresh meat and offals with a view to improving the general standard thereof, and for that purpose to make provision for the registration and control of premises used for the slaughter of animals or for the preparation and packing of fresh meat and offals intended for export, the licensing of persons engaged in exporting fresh meat and offals and the examination and certification of fresh meat and offals intended for export, to make provision for the proper packing of dead rabbits and dead poultry intended for export, and for other matters incidental to the matters aforesaid."

The first part of the Bill, which is the most important, deals with the registration of premises and the licensing of exporters. This part of the Bill provides that animals may only be slaughtered in registered premises. The dead meat referred to is beef, mutton and pork. The Bill also refers to and deal with goat flesh and horses, but they are of no importance. We can consider the Bill in regard to beef, mutton and pork. All premises where cattle, sheep or pigs are slaughtered must be registered in a register kept by the Minister. Provision is also made that before premises are registered they must be certified to be structurally suitable, suitable so far as equipment and plant are concerned, they must be clean and not in danger of contamination from drains, etc. The premises must also have an adequate supply of fresh water. Proper facilities must also be provided for dealing with offals, and so on.

The first part of the Bill also provides that a registration fee of £1 shall be paid in respect of the registration of each premises, or for the registration of any premises for any one purpose. For instance, if premises are registered for the purpose of dealing with beef, a fee of £1 must be paid by the registered proprietor. Equally, if in the same premises pigs are killed and turned into pork, another £1 has to be paid for that. The Minister may refuse to register premises for definite reasons set out in the Bill. If he is dissatisfied with the water supply on the premises, that the premises are not structurally suitable, or that the plant is not suitable, or for any other reason set out in the Bill, he can refuse a certificate of registration.

In addition to the fees that I have mentioned there are other fees which are payable. There is the exporter's fee. Every exporter must be licensed. As a rule, the exporter will be the registered proprietor. There will, of course, be exceptional cases where the exporter is other than the registered proprietor. For instance, the registered proprietor may be the Dublin Corporation. They may have certain abattoirs and may give licences to people to use them. Of course, that is the very exceptional case, but generally the exporter will be the registered proprietor. He must apply to the Minister for a licence, and satisfy him in regard to certain things, failing which the Minister may refuse him a licence. Sections 11 and 12 deal with that. When making his application the exporter must pay a deposit of £12 10s. If an exporter is exporting beef and pork he must pay a deposit of £12 10s. in respect of each, even though his export trade is carried on from the same registered premises. The deposit is of very little importance. It is simply evidence of good faith. The annual fees are what really count. They are referred to in Section 12, and they are dealt with in the Schedule. They are a per capita fee. So far as beef is concerned, there is a charge of 1/- for every beast slaughtered; in the case of pigs the charge is 3d.; mutton or lamb, 1½d. It is also 1½d. for goats, and for horses 1/-. These are the annual fees. The deposit that is paid goes as a payment on account of the annual fees.

I now come to the question of minimum fees. These are dealt with in Rule 3 of the Schedule. Obviously, it is necessary to have minimum fees. We want to obviate a situation arising such as existed in the year 1927. In the years 1926 and 1927 because of the prohibition of Dutch pork into the English market—a prohibition which was made about the year 1925—there was suddenly established all over this country small premises where pork was slaughtered. It is literally true to say that in many backyards in a great many towns all over the country pigs were slaughtered under insanitary conditions by men who had no real technical skill and who were without proper equipment and plant. At the moment, I should say that there are hundreds of places in the country where dead meat is being prepared and exported. We expect that under any circumstances there will always be over a hundred such places in the country, but at the same time it is perfectly clear, both from the point of view of the farmers and of the State as a whole, that it is uneconomic to have this trade handled in too many small places. It is certainly entirely uneconomic from the point of view of the taxpayer, because if the trade were handled in places that were extremely small then, apart altogether from the likelihood that the work would be done inefficiently, by unskilled labour and without efficient plant, there is this point to be considered: that with such a state of affairs existing the Department of Agriculture would be under the necessity of appointing inspectors to inspect and to certify all meat exported from hundreds of small centres all over the country. For that reason we provide for a minimum fee.

The maximum fee, of course, is the total of all the annual fees. The maximum fee, in the case of any of the big firms like Dennys, Shaws, or O'Maras, is simply this, that so far as pork is concerned you multiply the killings by 3d. For instance, suppose that there is only one business carried on in an establishment, that business being in pork, there shall be a minimum fee paid by the exporter carrying on that business of £50, even though the annual fee does not come to £50. I think it is correct to say that 3d. a head on 4,000 porkers amounts to £50. Suppose that he only exported 3,000 porkers, he would have to pay less than £50 on a per capita basis. But when there is a minimum fee of £50 he will have to pay that fee even though he exports only 3,000. The fee in the case of lamb is £25. For beef and mutton together the same exporter will pay a minimum fee of £75. The minimum fee in respect of either a beef exporter's licence or a pork exporter's licence is £50. The collective minimum fee in respect of two or more licences collectively is £75 where such licences include a beef exporter's licence or a pork exporter's licence, or both, such licences and in every other case shall be the sum of £50. What that means is, that for beef alone the fee is £50, for mutton alone it is £50, and for lamb £25. For beef and mutton, from the same premises, the fee is £75; for beef and pork treated on the same premises it is £75; for beef and lamb £50, and for pork and lamb £50.

Before leaving this part of the Bill I should say that we provide in Section 5 that the same premises may be registered for beef, mutton or pork, but that they shall not be registered as crating premises. It is laid down in paragraph (f) Sub-section (1) of Section 5, Part 1 of the Bill, that "a register (to be called and known as the register of crating premises) of premises in Saorstát Eireann in which the business of crating for export pork, mutton and lamb or any of them and no other business is carried on." That is to say, that where crating alone is carried on it must be registered on a separate register. That paragraph, it should be noted, does not apply to ordinary premises where not only are animals slaughtered but where crating is carried on. The paragraph only deals with premises where crating, and no other business, is carried on. There is nothing in the Bill to stop anyone from not only slaughtering and preparing, say, pork, but from crating it on his own premises. Such a person need not have the premises registered as a crating premises. That is only necessary in cases where crating and no other business is carried on.

Part 2 of the Bill sets out the regulations as to the slaughtering of animals and the preparation, etc., of fresh meat and offals. Regulations are laid down as to the manner in which animals, the meat of which is intended for export, are to be assembled and penned for slaughter; the manner of slaughtering such animals; the times at which slaughter may take place; the manner of dressing, cleaning, hanging, cooling and weighing of fresh meat and offals intended for export; and the preservatives (if any) which may be used in fresh meat or offals intended for export. Regulations are also made for the marking of fresh meat and for the packing of it at the time of export.

Part 3 of the Bill deals with the veterinary examination and certification of fresh meat. The Minister shall have power to appoint veterinary surgeons for the purpose of examining all animals ante-mortem and post-mortem. The Bill provides that no dead meat shall be allowed to leave this country without a certificate from a veterinary surgeon as to its soundness and quality and without having the appropriate mark on it.

These are, generally speaking, the provisions of the Bill. The necessity for the Bill is quite clear. First of all, I may say that we have almost given an undertaking to the British Government to introduce and pass a Bill like this. That is the sort of undertaking that one must honour. They, in fact, are the people who buy. They can buy on their own conditions. As I stated earlier, in the year 1925, for reasons mainly connected with foot and mouth disease, the British Government decided to prohibit the import into Great Britain of fresh meat from the Netherlands. At that time the trade of the Netherlands with Great Britain in pork alone amounted to something like £5,000,000. They did far and away the greater portion of that trade with Great Britain. The balance was done, to a great extent, by the British farmers themselves. The Free State had only a small proportion of it—some thousands of pounds. When that prohibition was suddenly imposed the result of it was that the English market was left unsupplied by far the biggest supplier.

That, of course, afforded a great chance to the Irish farmer and to the Irish business man generally. Taking everything into account, they took their chance fairly well. It is a fact that the Irish farmer and the business man reacts very quickly to market conditions. They saw at the time that there was an extremely good market for fresh meat on the English market. They saw, now that the Netherlands was out of the business, that, with the exception of Great Britain itself, Ireland was the only country that could supply that trade. The result was that the exports of fresh meat from Ireland, which in 1925 were only value for a couple of hundred thousands, increased to between £200,000 and £300,000 in the year 1928. That was a very big increase in the course of a couple of years. During that period all sorts of factories were established and methods had to be improvised. People were doing a good business and making a certain amount of money owing to the dislocation of trade caused by stoppage of the Dutch supplies. To some extent in the North, but particularly in the South, small dead meat factories appeared here, there, and elsewhere. The British had to take our dead meat, for they could not get it elsewhere. What we forgot was that we were not the only possible suppliers. There were the British farmers.

What happened was that factories were established here quickly, under insanitary conditions by small men who had neither capital nor skill. These were found to be inefficient. In 1927 the British could afford to be a bit stiffer and make representations to the Department of Agriculture and say that they would not take our dead meat, or they would give it the same treatment as they gave the Dutch, and which they are entitled to do. We take a threat of that sort seriously in the Department of Agriculture. We conceive it is our duty to make certain that the article we send to Britain is acceptable to our customers. In the negotiations I have had with them I have given what amounts to an undertaking to the English Ministry that so far as legislation can do it we will see that as regards the quality of the meat that goes to England they will not have any excuse for stopping the meat. Hence this Bill. There are great possibilities in the matter. As I pointed out, the imports of fresh meat from Holland alone amount to £5,000,000. There are other imports, such as imports of New Zealand and Argentine lamb, into England, and there are also supplies from the English and Scottish farmers. There is a big market there for us which we should be able to supply and with profit. We should be able to get the advantage of the trade which the Dutch used to have there and to hold our own in the English market. We are nearer that market than the Scottish farmer, or, to a great extent, than the North of England farmer, and we ought to be able to get a great proportion of the Dutch trade and prevent the English farmer encroaching too much on our trade in these markets.

I have every confidence that this Bill will give a good return to the farmer. It is modelled more or less on the lines of the Dairy Produce Act and the Agricultural Produce (Eggs) Act. There is no question about it but that all the fresh meat exported from this country must be killed under suitable conditions and where there is proper equipment and plant. The work must be done properly and it must not be done according to haphazard methods. If all the meat exported to England is examined and certified by veterinary surgeons there is every chance we will be sending better meat to England and more regular supplies than in the past. If that is so it will show itself in the prices. I have every confidence that whatever the administrative cost of this measure will be it will be money well invested, and will give a return to the farmer in the way of better prices.

I have no connection with or no more knowledge of the industry which is to be governed by this Bill than the man in the street. The Bill comes from another place where such knowledge is well represented, but it may not be altogether out of place for a person who looks at the Bill from an independent and unconcerned point of view to express a few opinions about certain parts of it. The objective of the Bill is, of course, quite unexceptionable. It may be that it cannot be obtained without the great increase in the powers and activities of the State which are outlined in the Bill. While one has to be critical of the activities of the State in matters of industry and commerce, I recognise there must be limits to the policy of laissez faire, particularly in such an industry as this, but I do think that where the powers and activities proposed to be taken by the State are so great and far-reaching as in this Bill —where the industry affected is connected with the greatest of our industries, and might become a much larger part of it than it is now, and where the expense to be imposed on the individual and incurred by the State is so considerable, the duty lies upon us to satisfy ourselves that all this control, by permission, regulation and inspection, is absolutely necessary and that it is provided for-in the cheapest possible manner. When the Bill leaves the Seanad you should have nothing in it which is unfair to those now engaged in the industry, because it must be remembered that after all from the national point of view we should look for a return for all these expenses. The Minister is very enthusiastic about these matters, and quite rightly so, but we ought to be quite certain that a Bill which goes so far as to leave practically nothing on the administrative side to the people engaged in the industry is entirely justified and necessary, and that the expense is entirely justified also, because I imagine the expense will be very considerable, and the industry is not now big enough to pay for it, to put it that way, but it may become so.

I am in agreement with the principles of the Bill. The Minister has stated that it is imperative on him to introduce legislation on the lines of this Bill in compliance with regulations of the British authorities. I am confident that when this measure is in operation it will result in a very material advantage for our dead meat exporters. I cannot see much that anyone could take objection to in this Bill, but no matter how simple and harmless a Bill may look, it can be made very objectionable in its administration. I am of opinion there should be some appeal from the inspectors to an independent authority. From our experience of inspectors with regard to the shipping of live-stock, we feel they can be very drastic. In this case I would not ask for an appeal to a court of justice, or that a tribunal should be set up to hear appeals, but that the Minister should consider allowing something in the nature of an appeal, such as the exporter being allowed to call in an independent expert to report to the Minister, who can then decide on the issue. There are at present British regulations prohibiting the entry into Great Britain of cows affected with tubercular udders. That regulation is very drastically carried out at the ports—so drastically that it has almost become a calamity. In a country such as the Free State, with its enormous number of cows, there must of necessity be a great number of cows to be disposed of from year to year, and except we are allowed to have these cows exported it would be a serious loss to the farmers. I contend that the orders are carried out too stringently, and they are not administered in the same way at the Saorstát ports as at the North of Ireland ports, and consequently the majority of our cattle are now exported through Northern ports.

Cathaoirleach

Are we not going outside the scope of the Bill?

I am developing the argument that we should have an appeal from the inspector's report. I do not want to say that we want to export to England unsound or tubercular cattle, but the inspectors, at the moment, are rejecting cattle which are perfectly sound. They are not excercising any sense of discretion or commonsense—as they do in the North of Ireland. It is a well-known fact that practically all the cattle rejected at the Port of Dublin can get through to Great Britain by the North of Ireland ports. If there is to be preferential treatment by cattle being exported through North of Ireland ports, it is up to the Minister to protest, for although England is our best and only customer—95 per cent. of our exports go to England, and 95 per cent. of our imports come from England—there is no reason why we should not be as well treated as any other country by England. I appeal to the Minister to insert a clause in the Bill making provision for an appeal from an inspector's decision. The Minister is all out, and rightly so, for quality, but he is neglecting an important part of the agricultural industry, and that is the handling and marketing of livestock. If we want business in England we should have our livestock better handled at the Port of Dublin, through which 840,000 animals pass every year—more than half the export of the Free State. The handling of these cattle at the port is simply disgraceful. We can produce as good meat as is produced in any part of England or Scotland, but it is all knocked on the head by the handling at the Dublin Port. It would pay the State to put up proper accommodation for the resting and feeding of cattle. If we want our cattle to produce the proper quality of meat at the other side that must be done.

This Bill is unusual inasmuch as I have had the advantage of hearing the Minister explaining it before the time of the House and my own time was taken up by making uninformed remarks upon it. I wish other Ministers would follow that example and give a precis of what a Bill is when it comes before us for Second Reading. From the statement the Minister has made one cannot exaggerate the importance of the Bill. As Senator Bagwell has said, no one can cavil at or object to it, particularly as it is merely a matter of satisfying the English public and protecting food. I think the Bill ought to include a provision to prevent tubercular teats getting through Belfast. Nothing could be too stringent to prevent inferior food going out of the country and getting the country a bad name—and one consignment would do that—particularly as we are challenging the English farmer in his own market. England is waking up to the realisation of its own market. It has often surprised me that poultry raising has not been seized on by Englishmen themselves. The fish export trade is not as stringently protected as it ought to be, and some of the export conditions are scandalous. Broken fish are put in in order to fit them into small packages that go to England. It takes months to recover the good name lost by such an occurrence as that. As to Belfast being allowed to export cattle that would not be passed at the port of Dublin as fit for export, if foot and mouth disease occurred amongst a consignment of cattle from Belfast in England the disease could be traced to the village from which the beast came—probably some village in the south.

It is very possible England will develop the Empire trade movement without which she cannot exist much longer, and be put in the position of doing to us what she did to Holland in 1925. Some of the abattoirs in the City for supplying meat locally are a scandal to civilisation. I know certain factories that export in this country are pretty nearly perfect. It is a pity that a tax could not be levied so that the perfect factories would not have to pay for the insanitary abattoirs. This Bill will result eventually in there being three or four dozen properly authorised packing and slaughter houses. When one sees a factory like Slattery's of Tralee sending out a package of hams and pork that could not very well be improved on it seems a pity that in a trade in which the profit is so small—a few pence on the offals represents a matter of profit and loss—the perfectly good factories should have to pay for the imperfect ones.

I am glad some of the political people have not called this a coercive measure and tried to resist it. We cannot dictate to our customer. In fact, we cannot sell to the customer without buying. It is only fatuous people with shadowy hopes who make the pretence that you can sell and not buy. We must supply the best meat to the English market until we have secured an incontrovertible name for supplying the best meat in the world. At present some of the credit due to Irish meat goes to Scotland for the finished article, for Irish cattle are finished there in six weeks. So far as the dead meat trade is concerned, we cannot get too good a name, as a barrier against foreign food may be raised to the exclusion of Holland, Argentine and Denmark, and we are now for the first time entering into direct competition with the English farmer in his own market.

I am altogether in agreement with the Bill. With reference to Section 42, which deals with the export of poultry, I might say that poultry raising is important in the part of the country from which I come. Poultry-raising has developed enormously since the opening of the Fishguard and Rosslare line. More and more the practice has been developing of sending poultry direct from the farmers to the wholesale people in England and not to the dealers. The trade is almost entirely in dead poultry, and is principally with London, a little going to Dublin. I would like some explanation of the section. I notice that there are heavy penalties for the infringement of the regulations laid down regarding the method and manner of packing, and so on. Has every farmer's wife or farm labourer's wife who sends a packet of dead poultry to London to be registered or to have a licence? I should like to be clear on that. I think it would be very desirable that the dealers' premises should be registered. I think that would be very good.

There is no reference to dead poultry except what is in Section 42, and that merely deals with packing and transport. There is no necessity to have licensed premises, because there is no provision for them in the Bill.

Nor registrations?

Will there be any inspection of dead poultry in transit?

Will packages that are sent out by farmers' or labourers' wives be inspected?

Cathaoirleach

These are detailed points for a Committee, and they had better be dealt with in Committee.

I support most heartily the general purposes and intentions of this Bill, but I think it is liable to certain criticisms, both on the Second Reading discussion and perhaps also in regard to certain Committee points that might be mentioned. As the Minister has pointed out, the Bill is made necessary by the fact that the British Government, for the protection of the British public, have intimated that certain conditions would have to be complied with, and the Minister therefore responds. He has also said that this is in accord with previous Bills of a similar nature dealing with dairy produce and eggs for export. My first criticism is that this class of legislation should come from the Department of Agriculture, distinct from the other Departments, solely with regard to the export trade.

It means that as far as the Government is concerned, on this legislation at any rate, any faults in the slaughter-houses, any faults in the distribution, any faults in the packing are not going to be interfered with so long as the meat will be consumed only by people in Ireland. Dublin people, for instance, may be obliged to take pork or beef or mutton from any part of Ireland in a condition in which the English Government will not allow the London people to get it. That is a fault, in my opinion, due to the non-co-ordination of various Departments. Whatever conditions are necessary for the protection of the British consuming public ought surely be applied for the protection of the Irish consuming public. But the Minister has thought well to deal with this from the point of view of producing commodities for sale in the English market; his desire is to create and to maintain a standard for the sake of the trading benefits. I think that is quite commendable, but having regard to that, there are certain considerations to which attention should be drawn.

The Bill makes reference to the size of the package, says that the conditions are only to be effective in regard to a certain class of trade, and mentions that fresh meat exported in one lot or consignment which does not exceed in total gross weight twenty-eight pounds will not be affected by Section 38 dealing with the export, and similar provision regarding other classes. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the modern tendency, which is to market choice portions of animals in small lots, much less than twenty-eight pounds. We know that the tendency of the market, not only in this country but in America and England, has been to advertise these special choice portions. Supposing that a slaughtering business is established in this country which decides to cut up the carcase and market it in small packages, carefully sealed and guaranteed to be hygenic in every way, and they are able to get better prices for perfectly produced and marketed goods, there will be no protection under this Bill for the British public, and there will be no assurance that the conditions sought to be imposed in regard to the larger packets will be equally applicable to the smaller packages. I think that the Minister ought to take note of that fact and ought to be prepared to see the possibility of a very considerable increase in that class of trade.

Then I draw attention to Section 39, the provision which deals with the minimum limits of weight. There may be certain prohibitions; the Minister may prohibit the export of carcases which are within certain limits of weight if the export of such carcases is detrimental, in his opinion, to the live-stock industry. I wonder whether the Minister is wise in limiting his powers to questions of weight. Supposing that it would be in his view detrimental to the interests of the industry if breeding stock were killed and exported, would it not be desirable that he should have power to prohibit the export of such classes, which could be achieved if the words "within certain limits of weight" were eliminated?

The more important criticism I have to make from my point of view is with regard to Section 47 (3), which says that Section 50 of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, shall not apply in respect of registered slaughtering premises. This brings me back to the point that I raised in regard to the protection of the home consumer. Section 50 of the Towns Improvement Act says:—

The business of ... slaughterer of cattle, horses, or animals of any description ... or other noxious or offensive business, trade or manufacture shall not be newly established in any building or place within the town without the consent of the commissioners ... and the commissioners may from time to time make such bye-laws with respect to any such businesses so newly established as they may think necessary and proper in order to prevent or diminish the noxious or injurious effects thereof.

If Section 50 of the Towns Improvement Act is repealed in respect of slaughtering premises it would seem to me that it would be quite possible for a slaughtering premises which is registered to be established to carry on a business in any fashion whatsoever, as far as the public is concerned, so long as it complies with the provisions regarding hygiene and equipment which the Minister himself may set up, and he has regard only to the export trade. The local council has regard to the nature of the slaughterhouse and its effects upon the inhabitants, but the Minister by this repeal is removing power from the local council to protect the inhabitants against noxious industries. I think that that is a serious defect, and I would ask the Minister to give consideration to it, unless he can put me right and show me that I am entirely faulty in my reading before the Committee Stage is reached.

The question, too, arises, perhaps only indirectly, as to whether it is wise to confine the provisions of this Bill to meat which is being sold fresh —that is, carcases of animals sold in a fresh condition—and whether similar provisions ought not to be applied, say, with respect to bacon. You have a factory which is registered for slaughtering and for sending away pork, but another portion of the factory will be curing and sending away similar carcases, probably bought in the same market. In one case it is bacon, and in the other it is pork. If one is looking ahead to maintaining the name and the prestige of the Irish export trade with respect to these things, it would seem to me desirable that the same amount of confidence should be available and should be given to the bacon and ham trade as is sought to be assured in respect of the fresh meat trade, and it would not, I should think, be very difficult to ensure that the bacon trade would be placed in a similar condition in regard to hygiene as the fresh pork trade.

But I lay special stress upon the point regarding noxious industries and the attempt to deprive town authorities of the right to prohibit such industries in the interests of their citizens which the Minister, according to the Bill, seeks to remove from town authorities.

With reference to the last difficulty in Senator Johnson's mind, when I read through this Bill the same point occurred to me, but after all, I considered that probably these slaughterhouses which export will have to be under some power. Moreover, the licence will only be granted after inspection by a responsible officer, appointed by the Department, and in all probability he will see that all the requirements of public health in respect of the site and the construction of the premises will be complied with. In the course of this discussion a good many questions of importance have been raised, and coming, as I do, from the country, I have some interest in this matter, and perhaps a little knowledge of it. Senator Counihan referred to a matter which will, of course, be one of some difficulty. There is no doubt that official interference with any industry is a source of irritation, and may be a source of trouble unless that interference is guided by common sense and prudence.

I have some experience of that in regard to various industries which are subject to official inspection. But that would be a difficulty in administration. I am sure that that will work itself right in the course of time, and the sooner it works itself right the better. Perhaps Senator Counihan's speech will induce the inspectors, while doing their duty with the greatest care, of course, to exercise what used to be known as the suaviter in modo, combining with it the fortiter in re; let them do their duty, but let them do it in such a way as to cause the least possible irritation. It is rather a serious difficulty, and it hampers trade to a considerable extent, but the benefits that are likely to accrue from the high quality of the meat which will be exported under the Bill are so great that really these irritations will probably be of minor importance. However, it is right, I think, to point out that as much relief as possible should be given to the proprietors of these slaughtering houses. To make up for the mere fact of having their premises liable to the visits of a Government official at every hour in the day, some relief should be given to them. There is, as the Minister has pointed out, a minimum charge of £50 in respect of the slaughtering of beef, and for other animals of £75. In addition to that minimum charge there is a per capita charge of a shilling——

I do not think that that is so—not in addition.

I wanted information on this. Is that minimum charge to merge into the per capita fee?

Then my objection in that respect goes. I looked through the Bill to see where that was made quite clear.

It is in the Schedule.

If that is understood, well and good.

Yes, we are agreed on that.

I wanted to know if the Minister was satisfied in his own mind that the wording of the Schedule was perfectly clear.

I am, but if there is any doubt about it we can discuss that point on Committee.

Because in documents where there is such a merging it is made perfectly clear that the dead charge—what I call the minimum charge—is merged in the per capita charge. If the Minister considers it is clear enough, I, for one, am quite satisfied with it.

Cathaoirleach

You can raise it in Committee again if you wish.

It is in the Schedule, paragraph 7.

Yes, I saw that. That was the only objection I had.

I think everybody will compliment the Minister for bringing in this Bill to improve the export meat trade. I want to join with the two other Senators who regretted that nothing was being done for the meat that is being consumed at home. As a member of the Public Health Committee in Dublin for a number of years—and there are other Senators who will bear me out, including Senator Farren, I think— I say that the conditions under which meat is slaughtered in Dublin for home consumption, are anything but desirable. There is one abattoir here, an abattoir very much out of date, but the vast majority of the meat that is consumed in the city and its environments is killed in slaughterhouses which are not suitable for the purpose. I do not know whether it is the Minister's Department that could give us help in this matter or the Department of Local Government, but if it is under the Minister's Department, I think the next assistance he should give for the protection of meat should be for the protection of meat consumed at home. There should be registration of slaughterhouses throughout the country. There are no abattoirs in the country, but in all towns there certainly should be some kind of registered slaughterhouses.

I am very much in favour of this Bill which, I think, will do a great deal of good, but a peculiar position will be created by it with regard to pork in two or three of the counties bordering Northern Ireland. In these counties the pigs are sold dead—they are killed in the farmyards — and the Northern buyers come in and take them to Belfast. Of course, that constitutes export. Will the same restrictions apply to them as will apply to the export of fresh meat to England? If they do, of course our farmers will have to cart their pigs into a neighbouring town across the Border, and have them slaughtered there. If that is necessary it will hit our country towns very much. You will have to give the same facilities to County Monaghan towns to handle dead pork as they have in County Armagh towns, and I would like to know what it is proposed to do in that connection.

I am reluctantly obliged to agree that this Bill should get a Second Reading. As has been remarked, all these restrictions by Government officials in the transaction of business are tiresome, and in many cases lead to a state of things that makes one wish that one was not in business at all. However, since the buyers in England want inspection, we have got to agree to it, and it is only because that is a fact that I agree to this Bill going through. Senator Johnson backed the Bill, and said he was sorry that it is not more orastic, particularly that it does not concern dead meat used in this country. In the City of Dublin there is an abattoir, and all the meat killed in the abattoir is inspected. There are other slaughterhouses in the city where meat is not inspected, but that is a matter for the local authority. There is no reason at all why the people of Dublin should not have their meat as well inspected as people in London. It is not the purpose of the Bill to provide for that at all; that is a matter for another Department entirely, and hence all the remarks with regard to that were really outside the object of the Bill, which deals only with the export of fresh meat.

Will the people in the North of Ireland have to submit to the same regulations as we will have to submit to, and if they will not have to, will we not be very seriously handicapped? I suppose the regulations in England will apply to the North of Ireland. Are they as stringent as the Minister's regulations will be? Will the English farmer, whom we are fighting in his own market, have to comply with regulations as stringent as ours? If that be the case, then everything is right. But are we not, for the sake of pleasing people on the other side, introducing too many restrictions on the free flow of a trade which is of very great importance? Of course we were agreed on the Acts dealing with eggs and butter, but I do not know whom the Minister consulted with regard to this Bill. Who gave him authority to bring it in? It was agreed that the Dairy Produce Act and the Eggs Act were necessary. The Minister now says that he has brought this Bill in because the British Government ordered him to do so. The farmers of this country did not order him as far as I know, and he has not the same reason for it at all as he had in the case of the other Acts. We agreed to work under compulsion before, and because we agreed, and because we allowed farmers to be fined when their milk cans were not clean, the Minister comes along and off his own bat brings in these new regulations. By and by we will not know where we are. Talk about Socialism; why, this Government is the most Socialistic Government on the face of the earth. Everything we do is looked after, and by and by we will be able to do nothing without seeing what are the regulations that we must obey.

It is not with reluctance that I support this Bill; I wholeheartedly support it. It appears to me that the only objection that has so far been advanced against it is on the question of expense. I think that Senator Bagwell spoke about the expense and that Senator Comyn more or less dealt with the same matter. We should ask the people who will reap the reward from this Bill to pay something towards the expense. The Minister proposes to do something for this trade that will be of immense benefit to it and to the country generally. The Minister was, of course, jocose when he said that he was compelled to bring in this Bill because of an agreement with the British Government. It is not in the interests of the British Government that this Bill was brought in but in the interests of the dead meat trade of Ireland and in the interests of the farmers of the whole community, because it will mean that the export trade in fresh meat will increase considerably and thereby will be of benefit to them.

The only other criticism of the Bill was on the question of Government interference. Surely the Government are entitled to interfere with any person who is injuring the good name of the trade of the country. Do we not know from our own experience that when the majority of the creameries were producing the best butter and sending it to England, a few of them were producing bad butter, and as a result Irish butter got a bad name on the English market? It is in order to safeguard the interests of those people in the trade who are prepared to do their business properly that these inspections must be held. No hardship will be inflicted on any man who carries on his business in a proper way, but I hope serious hardship will be inflicted on people who endeavour to export food that is not fit for consumption or that is not properly packed and graded. It is all very well to talk about inspectors creating annoyance and trouble. I think Senator Counihan was in favour of an appeal against the inspector's decision. It is humorous to hear it advocated that a man should be entitled to have an expert's opinion in such a case. Could we not have an expert's opinion on every question? A veterinary inspector is a public servant and has his duty to perform. It is suggested that if he sees a carcase that is not fit for export, the person who owns that carcase should be entitled to refer the matter to an expert. That is ridiculous, and it could not be carried out. It is all very well to talk about these inspectors. Have we not to suffer from them in everything all our lives? If I am building a house, when I lay the pipes I must notify the Dublin Corporation, who send an inspector to test them, but if he does not pass them after the smoke test, I cannot bring in an expert; I have to put them right and satisfy him before he will pass them. These regulations are not introduced for the purpose of harassing people, but for the protection of public health, and that is an important thing. Surely the Minister is entitled to bring in this Bill. It has not been brought in in the interests of the British public but in the interest of the commerce and trade of this country. There is a market in England that is capable of bringing into this country not £200,000 but between two and four million pounds, and if that market is there, there is no reason why we should not get it. We can produce beef, mutton and pork, but what we lack is the proper finishing and packing of it. What the Minister proposes is to see that that is done in the interests of the people generally, and I think he is to be congratulated on the Bill.

I am more than anxious from my experience in the cattle trade to say a few words about the Bill brought forward by the Minister. I asked friends of mine in the trade to let me know what they thought about the Bill, and I told them if there were any drawbacks or causes for complaint I would voice them here. I am glad to say that as far as my inquiries went, I have heard nothing but what was in favour of the Bill. The conditions laid down may appear to be harsh, but they are more or less required. Personally, I am not, and never was, a lover of dead meat at all. I allude to concerns such as the Drogheda meat factory, which I opposed from the start. Even with the Bill that is now before us, I believe the only trade that will last will be the livestock trade. Ship the livestock and let the people across the water do what they like with it. But to make the dead meat trade industry a big one safeguards such as are included in the Bill are necessary, so that there will be no complaints. I have no hope that the dead meat industry will be a success in any shape or form. Even if it is, it must be remembered that it is only during portion of the year dead meat can be handled. You have to consider the climate, and the weather, and there is no possibility of its being a continuous trade all the year. In my opinion, it is a trade that will fail in many cases. I have not heard any very strong opinions expressed against the Bill, but, on the contrary, those I made inquiries from give it every praise, and considered that every effort should be made to carry on the dead meat industry when the conditions are favourable. Complaint has been made about the manner in which animals are slaughtered in many cases. This Bill will ensure that the dead meat trade is carried out under conditions of cleanliness, so that the quality of the exports will be second to none.

With regard to conditions in Dublin, I was very sorry to hear comments about the Dublin abattoir. To my own knowledge, the operations are carried out there under perfect conditions. The meat is under strict supervision of the veterinary branch, and anyone who has any complaints to make can have them remedied. As to the quality of meat sold in Dublin, I say without fear of contradiction that the best of meat is sold in this city, and that better could not be got in any part of the world. I heard that view expressed repeatedly, and personally I know that it is a fact. If anyone cares to look under the surface it is possible there may be isolated cases where complaints might be made, but, generally speaking, meat is not better handled anywhere than in Dublin. In my opinion, there is no necessity for any uneasiness about this Bill. I think it might go through with perhaps some little change that can be made on the Committee Stage. On the broad principle I think the measure is one that no one could find fault with. I know that complaints were made in England that on some occasions meat that reached the market was not in proper order. It is because of that that the Minister has introduced the Bill, and I congratulate him on doing so. It can sometimes be said of our country that we have to pass stringent laws for our own good.

I welcome this Bill like many other Senators. It has very many salutary provisions, and I think it is an earnest to our customers that we are trying to do our best and to deliver only one quality, and that is the best. That was immensely impressed on me last summer when I had the good fortune to meet some of the wholesale provision traders who came to see this country. The chairman of that party said to us: "Your products, thanks to the different Acts your Minister for Agriculture has put on the Statute Book, have improved out of all knowledge. The only trouble is that you only provide us with five per cent. of what we require. Provide more," he said, "and we will take it all, if the quality is right." This Bill is only another step in raising the quality of our products, and I am quite sure that as a result nothing bad will go across. I believe that the Minister has in contemplation further legislation which will deal with the point raised by Senator Counihan and prevent the exportation of tubercular cattle, and that there will be abattoirs which will dispose of them, and so prevent anything that is not first quality going out of the country.

The Bill itself is rather drastic, but I think anyone who reads the newspapers, even to-day, and sees after other Acts have been in operation for two or three years, prosecutions taking place with regard to dirty eggs and unclean milk cans will realise that if you have half measures there will be at once a tremendous slacking off. If there was any slacking as regards our remaining produce prices would fall and this country would get a bad name in the markets. I do not think the provisions of this Bill should be reduced. One other point I would direct attention to: this Bill is the best possible propaganda for England or anywhere else. I do not think this House realises the amount of insidious anti-Free State propaganda that is carried on, partly inimical propaganda and partly trade propaganda. As regards fresh meat certain English papers have published a great many articles describing the exports from this country in most extraordinary terms. I believe the Minister has seen some of these articles. This is the very best way to counteract that propaganda. Having passed this Bill I hope the Minister will take steps, not only to let the British public know that we have passed it, but to keep on telling them that we have done so and other Bills like it, because unless you continue your advertisements your sales and values will quickly fall.

I wish to raise one point with regard to these exports. It occurs to me that beef and mutton exports are not quite in the same category as certain other products dealt with in previous Acts. For instance, you may say there can be only one quality of eggs and one quality of creamery butter, but in beef I think the Minister will agree that the quality varies, and that one absolute standard of excellence cannot be set up as in the case of the other products. I would like to have the Minister's view with regard to the different grades of beef. Undoubtedly there is a market imposed by economic conditions for low grade beef in England, and I think it is only fair, provided the article is sound, that Irish producers should be allowed to meet that demand. Every cow that is thin or old is not necessarily tubercular, and there is quite a profitable trade especially now that the export of live cows is made so stringent, as Senator Counihan pointed out, for the export of sound but inferior carcases, I hope no steps or drastic action will be taken under this Bill to close that market. It is a legitimate business, we admit it is not a high class market, but after all there is a demand for that class of produce.

The only thing I have to say about this Bill, which I approve of, is that in this country the result will be that we will be obliged to eat all the bad meat and to send all the good meat to the other side of the Channel. I think that is a rather sad thing. It may be necessary to do so. I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with Senator O'Connor's views about the meat supplied in Dublin. I am not able to get good meat in Dublin and none of my friends are. Both the bread and the meat in Dublin are unnecessarily bad. If something could be done to see that the meat sold in Dublin shops is improved I would be glad. I agree with what Senator Sir John Keane said that if a bar was put on the export of indifferent meat it would all have to be consumed in Ireland. I would like people outside Ireland to get a chance of eating it as well as the people in Ireland.

I have no doubt that the operation of this Bill will tend to advance the character of Irish produce generally, but I want to voice some of the same sentiments as those expressed by Senator Moore that there is a tendency in legislation since the Free State was established to provide every facility for sending away all the best quality of our agricultural products which, to a great extent, necessitates that the inferior products have to be consumed at home. There is necessity for strengthening the method of inspecting foodstuffs. I want to draw attention to a fact which is patent to everybody. I am connected with some public bodies. We advertise for the best quality beef. We get it supplied at a price which is lower than that at which it could be bought in the market. To my mind there is something suspicious about that. We get beef, but not the quality that was advertised for. That is the experience of all the public institutions. If inferior meat is to be kept at home, there should be stringent inspection here in the interests of the health of the people. The same applies to eggs, butter and bacon. Now that meat is being added, I think the time has arrived when food products for sale at home should be subject to the same stringent inspection as those intended for export.

I would not have intervened in this debate at all but for statements that were made in the course of it. One was a statement made by Senator Farren in reference to Senator Counihan's suggestion—who has a great deal of experience of this trade—that some kind of appeal should be provided I agree with Senator Counihan, and I think Senator Farren was not at all justified in attempting to cast ridicule on the suggestion. I do not think it need be a very formidable sort of appeal, but there should be an appeal from the decision of one inspector. Some men are liable to make mistakes, and, having made them, like to stick to their opinion. I think there should be some method of appeal provided to a senior inspector or to something of that kind. I think an appeal would add to the smooth working of the Bill. The other point I draw attention to was one raised by Senator Bagwell. I throw the suggestion out for the Minister's consideration. Apparently a charge is to be made per capita for the inspection of the different carcases. I come from a part of the country where we rather pride ourselves on the excellence of our bacon factories. I believe it would be most unfair to make excellently run factories with which no fault could be found pay for the deficiencies of others. The charge for the inspection of an animal which is described as beef is one shilling, and for the inspection of a pig is three pence, or one-quarter. Taking them by weight, a pig will not weigh quarter what a carcase of beef will weigh. I throw out the suggestion for the Minister's consideration with a view to revising the rates provided in the Schedule.

I think this Bill is absolutely necessary, especially in view of the fact that within the last four or five years we have had an enormous increase in the export of dead meat. That enormous increase in our export trade came about as a result of meat which was sent to England from other countries being found inferior. That was primarily the reason why the British Government prevented certain countries from sending in meat. These other countries were reeking with foot and mouth disease, while this country was exempt, and for that reason we did not come under the ban. I welcome the principle of the Bill because we are all of opinion that if we want to carry on an export trade we must command the confidence of our customers. This Bill deals with the examination and inspection of meat. I believe it is almost impossible to judge if animals are tubercular before slaughter. We had various examples, including what Senator Counihan suggested had happened at the North Wall. As a matter of fact I know a case where an inspector excluded a cow from being exported. The animal was taken back by the owner, the mud that had accumulated on it was washed off, and it was then brought back in a fresh batch and passed for export by the same inspector. That goes to show that it is almost impossible to judge ante mortem if tubercular disease is present. Another aspect of inspection before slaughter that occurs to me, refers to the inspectors. Are they to be whole-time or part-time officials? If they are only part-time it will be found that if a particular veterinary surgeon or inspector is absent on a private case, he may not be able to get back to the factory in time to inspect animals, with the result that the factory staff would be held up waiting for him to pass animals before they could be killed. That brings me to the question: How far are these officers to go in their examination of the animals? There seems to be considerable difference of opinion as to the most effective system of examination as between localisation and generalisation of inspection. For instance, in London I think the system of localisation is preferred, while in Glasgow they go the whole hog. In France it appears they require that the heart, the liver and the lungs must be left in the animal before it is passed. There seems to be a difference of opinion in different countries as to the system of inspection, and as to the way in which animals should be passed. For instance, there is the case where the glands of animals may be affected, but there is no reason why, if the heads are cut off the remaining portions would not be perfectly sound and fit for human consumption. That brings us to another question, as to what is to happen to condemned animals. I know one factory in my county which has recently installed machinery, practically forestalling the provisions of this Bill, and they find with condemned animals or even with animals that happen to die on the farmer's hands, and that they take in, when put through a process of fumigation, they come out eventually in a liquid. When that liquid is dry you have what is known as meat and bone meals. If animals are tubercular, even though they go through the whole process of fumigation, boiling down and drying, and are made into meat and bone meals, will that meal be considered free from tubercular disease? It is considered by practical farmers to be one of the best feeding stuffs for young stock, especially for pigs. There is another aspect of this Bill, so far as the dead meat is concerned, and that is that the Bill only deals with exports. It is not in keeping with Acts such as that dealing with the creameries. The provisions of that Act brought, to my own knowledge, prosperity to farmers.

This Bill does not show any ingenuity in the way of indicating how large co-operative schemes could be carried out under it somewhat after the manner indicated in other measures dealing with the agricultural industry passed by the Oireachtas. There is nothing in it suggesting how a huge scheme of cooperation might be carried out for the benefit of farmers with a system of guaranteed prices in the case of those keeping up regular supplies of pigs or other livestock throughout the year. If some provision of that kind were made in the Bill, the farmers of the country would have a direct interest in the development of the dead meat trade. Such a scheme would, I think, also help in the matter of competition. With regard to competition, I believe this Bill is going to cut out a great number of the smaller exporters. If that should happen, then the position will be this: that the control of the dead meat trade will fall into the hands of a few. We know that when combines are formed, when a particular trade is controlled by a few, that the motto of those controlling it very often is not to promote the carrying on of it, but to get rich quick and retire. If steps had been taken under the Bill to ensure the co-operation of farmers and the establishment of factories, the competition necessary for the welfare and development of the trade would thereby be provided. You would be ensuring that the farmer was getting the best possible price that could be paid for his stock.

There is another aspect of the situation that the Bill fails to deal with. England and other countries issue prohibitions with regard to the importation of certain classes of meat. As far as I know, there is no prohibition in force here in regard to the importation of certain kinds of meat not suitable for consumption among our people. As far as I can see, any country in the world can ship any meat it likes into this country. There is nothing, as far as I know, to prevent outside countries doing that. I think that is a dreadful state of affairs. It means there are no safeguards with regard to what our people consume in the matter of foreign meats. What is happening at the moment in this country is, that farmers are going into the local markets and selling their fat pigs at a figure that represents about 6d. a lb. The farmer does that, and later goes into the local shop and buys American bacon, for which he pays 1/2 per lb. How can conditions be prosperous here with such an economic outlook as that amongst the farmers?

With regard to the meat that is served in Dublin, we had different opinions expressed on that by members of the House. From my experience, I believe that what the Dublin restaurants supply to their customers is foreign meat. I know that for a fact, because I had a discussion on the matter with the proprietor of a Dublin restaurant. Some time during the winter I saw lamb listed on the menu of a Dublin restaurant. I asked for some. When it was served I thought it looked rather dry and white. Of course, I admit that I am a better judge of lamb on the plate than on foot. I asked the proprietor if it was foreign meat. He admitted that it was— that it was chilled lamb from the Argentine. I believe that, as regards the majority of the Dublin restaurants, they do not serve home-killed meat at all. That is another reason why I think a special Bill should be introduced to stop the importation of foreign meat into this country.

I should like to refer to the question that was raised by Senator O'Connor as to which is the more desirable trade to carry on—the dead meat trade or the exportation of livestock? With regard to the exportation of livestock, I believe that a good deal still remains to be done to improve the position there. When Irish exporters send livestock across to England they are responsible for their condition for a period of 30 or 40 days after the cattle have been landed. If during that specified period, the animals, for instance, developed foot-and-mouth disease they have to be slaughtered at once, and the Irish exporters are obliged to sell them at a loss. I know that there is some fund to which farmers subscribe out of which compensation is paid in respect of such losses. The position here is that our best beef is not killed for home consumption. Our best beef cattle are bought up, sent across to England alive, and slaughtered there. What happens then? When our best beef cattle have been slaughtered on the other side they are retailed across a counter in England and sold as best English beef. We suffer a great disadvantage as a result of that, and some means should be taken for dealing with it.

I take it that Senator Bagwell will agree that you must either have this Bill or allow things to go on as they are at present. I gathered from the Senator that his objection to the Bill is that there should not be any interference at all. The alternative, of course, is to let things alone. We cannot afford to do that. Our strongest competitors are not letting things alone. Our Dutch and Danish competitors in the English market are all regulating their farmers and giving them State assistance to deal with this trade. This Bill deals only with exported dead meat. It is a legitimate thing, I suppose, to say in connection with a Bill like this that it is a pity some other Bill has not been introduced dealing with meat consumed at home. I can quite well understand Senators being in favour of regulating and grading up the quality of the meat consumed at home, while at the same time being in favour of the purpose of this Bill. On the question of grading up the quality of the meat consumed at home, that is an extremely difficult question. I think Senator Duffy hit the nail on the head when he remarked that the way of tackling that question is on the line of strengthening the public health regulations. Of course that is a matter that does not come within the purpose of this Bill. It is a matter that would hardly come within the competence or scope of the operations of the Department of Agriculture.

Senator Wilson wanted to know who gave me authority to introduce this Bill, and volunteered the statement that the farmers of the country gave me authority to bring in the Dairy Produce Act. The authority for the Dairy Produce Act was the Oireachtas and not the farmers of the country. The farmers of the country have just as much to do with this Bill as they had to do with the Dairy Produce Act. In introducing this Bill I had, to a considerable extent, the authority not only of the farmers of the country but of the exporters concerned. This Bill, which is a highly contentious one, took a long time to prepare. During that time we took occasion to consult the representatives of practically every interest directly or indirectly affected by it. We had long meetings with practically all the bacon curers and exporters of dead meat. Not entirely, but to a great extent the Bill is an agreed one. The principle of it as well as a certain number of the details have certainly been agreed to. Senators have referred to the fees under the Bill. I did get representations with regard to the minimum fees and, as a result of these representations, I reduced the minimum fees not to the extent asked for but to a considerable extent. With regard to the annual fees, which are the fees that really count, they were suggested by the South of Ireland Exporters' Association. They circulated a printed document in connection with this Bill. They submitted that the Bill should be re-drafted and amended as follows: "It is submitted that there should be only one Licence for Cattle, Pigs and Sheep, instead of three licences, and that the minimum fee should be £20 for such licence and that the maximum fee should be calculated on the number of cattle, sheep and pigs annually exported on the basis of one shilling for each head of cattle, 3d. for each pig and 1½d. for each sheep."

Remember that this particular organisation represents the smaller men. The fees that the association suggest there are the fees that are in the Bill. The annual fees are the important thing. I do not think Senators would expect me to get agreement on every point where you have vested interests to deal with. I do, however, submit that it is rather startling evidence in favour of the reasonableness of the Bill that on one of the biggest matters dealt with in the Bill I have got agreement. I think that should settle the question as to whether the fees are reasonable or not.

Senator Johnson suggested that, having regard to the fact which everybody knows, that both fresh meat and cured meat are, in a great many cases, dealt with in the one premises that we should take advantage of the Bill to deal with both. My first objection to that is that entirely different considerations arise with regard to cured meat. There is never any complaint from the hygienic point of view about cured meat. The problem with regard to bacon is that it is not unhealthy or dirty. It has nothing to do with its freshness. The problem we would have to deal with there is whether the bacon is of the particular quality required. With regard to our export trade in bacon we have had no complaints. In fact, the reports are that our bacon is recognised to be extremely good. We do get complaints that it is not lean enough, that the pigs are not of the right quality, that the sides are not long enough, and, generally, that we should develop, say, a different type of pig, a pig considerably thinner than the one we produce at present and not with such heavy shoulders. It is not a question of health or hygiene at all.

My point was that the British authorities very probably follow the lead of the American authorities and require a certificate with regard to the hygienic conditions under which the bacon was produced—that they may require such a certificate perhaps in the near future.

If that is so it would be quite easy to give it. It is a fact that we will inspect for the purposes of the fresh meat trade practically all factories where bacon is cured. If at any time such certificates were required in respect of cured meat, the fact is that we have our inspectors there for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Bill. If at any time we introduced a Bill to deal with cured bacon a number of other considerations which I need not go into now, would arise. Senator Sir John Keane was quite right when he pointed out that we do not profess in this Bill to grade beef or pork. As he pointed out, there is a market in England for all grades. It is desirable that, as far as possible, the bigger proportion of what we produce in this country should be first grade. The trade relations between the British and ourselves are almost unique in this sense. We export practically all our cattle. For all practical purposes we supply the whole of the home market, but that is only a very small proportion of our total trade. We are unlike the Canadians in this, that while we export practically all our cattle to England they send only an infinitesimal portion of their cattle to England. They are in the position that they can pick out the cream of their cattle. We are in the position that we must have a market for our cows and for all grades of our old and young stock.

All that this Bill professes to deal with in the export fresh meat trade is (1) health, (2) freshness, (3) cleanliness, and (4) placing it attractively on the market. We do not grade it and say that it is first, second or third class. It says that it is fresh meat and that is all that is required.

It was suggested that we might take the tax off the best factories and make the other factories bear it all. That would be impracticable. To say that one or two of the big factories that are carried on really well should be exempted entirely, and that the smaller and less efficient factories should pay the whole cost is logical enough from one point of view, but it is not practicable. Moreover, it has to be remembered that the big factories will, relatively, get greater advantages from this Bill than the smaller factories. There is no question about that. They will get far greater advantages than the smaller factories, because even though they were exporting the very best before this Bill was passed, nevertheless they had to suffer by reason of the fact that there were other factories not doing that. As a result of this Bill, they are bound to gain a distinct advantage in the matter of prices, by reason of the fact that what they are exporting now will be certified to be of the right quality. They will get full advantage for that. Senator MacEllin made a number of points which were hardly relevant to this Bill. The Senator spoke of getting foreign meat in a Dublin restaurant during the winter time. I understood the Senator to say that it was a lamb he got. What sort of lamb would the Senator expect to get in Dublin in the month of January?

The local product should be preferred to foreign meat.

As regards lamb, there is no such thing as a local product in the month of January. You cannot get lambs economically in January or even in December.

I think it is quite practicable to have home-reared lambs in January.

A certain amount, but it is not practicable to have home-reared lambs here in December, January, or even in February.

I think it is practicable in January and February.

I will leave it at that. The Senator also referred to the amount of foreign meat coming in here. The amount of beef coming in here is practically negligible. If there is, say, £100,000 worth of Argentine beef coming in here, well that is just the same as if you said that there are a few parcels of foreign wheat going into Canada. It has to be remembered that we export £20,000,000 worth of live stock, in addition to producing what we consume at home. If someone, for trade reasons, imports into this country £100,000 worth of beef, well the point is that it is not worth talking about and that it does not matter twopence to us. An import like that should not be used as a basis from which to make general deductions. The real analogy would be the few small parcels of wheat that go into Canada, the biggest exporter of wheat in the world.

Senator Counihan suggested that under Section 20 power to appeal to the Minister should be given. Section 20 provides for the inspection of registered premises. A veterinary inspector can go in and make a report to the Minister. Notice may be served under one of the sub-sections requiring that the premises, or any specified portion thereof, be cleansed; that the equipment, fittings and appliances, or any part thereof, be cleansed. In other words, the veterinary inspector is given power to inspect. If he is of opinion that the premises are not clean, or that the equipment is not good enough, he can report to the Minister, who has power to refuse to register the premises. The Senator suggests that power of appeal of some kind should be given to the would-be registered owner; that power should be given to the would-be owner to call in a third party and get a certificate from him; that in cases where an animal is to be examined an owner should have the right to call in an independent veterinary surgeon to certify that, in his opinion, notwithstanding what the inspectors of the Department of Agriculture say, a particular animal is not, for instance, tubercular. As the Bill stands, there is nothing to prevent an owner doing that. He has that right at present. I am constantly assuring Senators that we do not interfere with the common law. All that this Bill does is what it professes to do. It does not interfere with any man's right to call in another veterinary inspector. All that the veterinary inspector does at present is to send a report to the Minister. That is all that is provided for. It is all that the Minister asks for, and it is all that the Seanad could possibly ask for.

It will be throwing the responsibility on the Minister to decide.

There is nothing to prevent them calling in such a man as the Bill stands.

There should be the right to have a senior inspector's opinion.

If a veterinary inspector reports to me, that report really comes from his local chief to the senior inspector, who often disagrees with the man under him. It is a common thing. There seems to be an impression that once a civil servant says a single word the hierarchy above agree with him. That is not my experience. As a general rule there is agreement. In a big percentage of cases the opinion in the inspector's report is not accepted entirely, and in a great many cases not accepted partly, by the man above him. Senator Johnson pointed out that we are taking certain powers which the urban councils and the corporations have in connection with Town Improvement Acts, and that while our inspectors will examine closely the premises, plant, and generally the operations carried on, they will examine them from the point of view of seeing that the meat is treated properly, and is in an exportable condition, and not from the point of view of the general public and the amenities of the neighbourhood. I am not going so far as to say the point is sound, but I am willing to consider it in Committee.

Senator Miss Browne referred to Section 42. There is no reference in any section but 42 to poultry. So far as poultry are concerned, the law will be as it stands at present, except as modified by Section 42. Premises will not require to be registered and exporters will not require to be licensed. There will be no necessity to inspect the premises from which they are exported, but the section give the Department's inspectors power to examine dead poultry going out, and if they find it going out in a bad condition they can stop it.

What I am concerned with is to prevent throwing back the export poultry trade on the middlemen.

There is not the slightest danger of that. There is nothing to prevent anybody or any organisation from packing poultry without interference or inspection by an officer of the Department or any other officer. There will be no occasion for a licence, or to pay an exporter's fee. All that is necessary is to conform to the standard package and to pack in the prescribed way. It is as easy to pack the right way as the wrong way.

I think it would be a good thing to improve the packing. We have eliminated the middleman, to a great extent, and established a direct trade with the other side. I would like to prevent anything that would interfere with that.

Would the Minister say where the minimum fee is merged in the per capita, for I have not been able to see it?

Section 7 of the Schedule says:—

"The exporter's half-yearly fee payable by a person in respect of any registered slaughtering premises for the second half-year of any year shall be—

(a) where such person held only one exporter's licence in respect of such premises at any time in such half-year, the basic figure for such licence for such half-year together with—

(i) if such licence was not in force at any time during the next preceding half-year, the amount (if any) by which the said basic figure falls short of the minimum fee in respect of such licence, or

(ii) if such licence was in force at any time during such preceding half-year, the amount (if any) by which the total of the said basic figure and the basic figure for such licence for such preceding half-year falls short of the minimum fee in respect of such licence..."

Would the Minister accept words to make that more clear?

Certainly. It was difficult to draft this. The people who drafted it are satisfied it is clear, but if the Senator has a suggestion to make we can consider it on Committee.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 19th March.
Barr
Roinn