Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 May 1935

Vol. 20 No. 1

Public Business. - Pigs and Bacon Bill, 1934—Committee Stage.

Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 1:—

New part. After Part I to insert a new part as follows:—

PART II.

Regulation of the Business of the Production of Pigs.

5. —Whenever it appears to the Minister that the number of pigs immediately available or which may otherwise become available in any future period of six months in Saorstát Eireann will be so much in excess of the requirements of the pig and bacon trade as to render the unlimited production of pigs undesirable, the Minister may—

(a) prohibit the use of registered boars for the service of sows except under licence, and

(b) make regulations for the issue of such licences, the distribution and allocation of such licences in proportion to the pigs normally raised in any one district, the variation of the number of licences as between districts and all other cognate matters.

In his concluding remarks on the Second Stage of this Bill the Minister interpreted my understanding of the measure somewhat wrongly and said that I evidently thought that the curers were to get everything they wanted. That is not correct. I said that the curers would get a definite income, but I realise fully that definite income may on occasion mean little more than the cost of production. It is because I want to ensure a minimum of the cost of production to the producer, to the original essential unit of the pig industry, and because I want to eliminate, as far as possible, wasteful effort on the part of those least in touch with the market, that I have put down the amendment. As the House will realise the amendment is in the form of a token in order to allow further discussion at this stage. I hope the Minister will accept it in principle, and submit a more complete one on the Report Stage, even though hitherto he has contemplated avoiding this issue. My contention on the Second Reading was that if you are going to regiment an industry then you must do it completely.

To use a military parallel, it is fatal to go into battle with your officers and sergeants in good order and your men doing what they like in the ranks behind. The ultimate result would be that the whole show would suffer severely, and unnecessarily, and even under the most favourable circumstances the good results hoped for would not be got. I thought that the Minister's attitude on the Second Reading was seriously sympathetic, and that he knew that the measure was faulty while lacking this provision, and that sooner or later he would have to introduce a measure to cope with the problem we are discussing. I gathered also that he thought there were difficulties, and that special legislation would have to be introduced to deal with the situation which I wish to anticipate. I suggest that all the necessary machinery is available and that the matter is very much simpler to deal with than has appeared to the minds of the Minister and his officials. It may not be necessary to bring the machinery into action and it is for that reason I have given to my token a permissive character. We have all experienced the continued uncertainties of the pig market. They were stressed by the Minister and other speakers on the Second Reading, and if this measure is not to be a disappointment, particularly to the small producers, I am convinced that the powers to deal with an emergency should be available. I expect that the Minister knows as well as anybody the difficulty in finding room in a legislative programme for an amending Bill, and I urge him, for that reason, to make the best use of his present opportunity.

I do not know whether I am right in suggesting it, but it may be that the Minister put this matter on one side because of the difficulties which would arise if all sows were to be registered. Of course, that would be very cumbersome and expensive, and would mean inspection, delay, and a largely increased staff. In my alternative proposal you have all the necessary machinery, not only to hand but ready to operate. You have registered boats located at definite distances apart and apportioned in relation to the number of pigs usually bred in any one district. The owners of these boars have got lists of the people who keep sows and usually breed pigs. You have the personnel of the Department scattered over the country who could be utilised in the course of their ordinary duties for superintending, checking and advising. With this machinery it only remains to issue so many licences to each boar and make regulations for their equitable distribution. The scheme contemplates the minimum of disturbance. A friend of mine, a big pig producer, asked me what was going to happen to him. He produces 250 pigs every year. He remarked: "I suppose I will get no licence." The intention is to leave him alone. There is no doubt that there would be cases of evasion, but if owners of registered pigs were made aware that unauthorised service would mean the transfer of the boar elsewhere, or that no new application would be entertained for another one, I think adequate care would be taken to prevent unauthorised service.

It was suggested that as litters varied in size it would be hard to arrive at anything like a correct figure of requirement to fill the quota at a given time. I do not think there is much in that. The Department has a very good idea of the average number of pigs that will come to maturity from a given number of sows. I am urging this matter strongly on the Minister and on the House because, as this is a permissive section, I feel that the opportunity which this Bill presents should be taken full advantage of, and that we should not put a measure which is defective in such an important aspect on the Statute Book.

I believe with Senator The McGillycuddy that eventually something on the lines suggested by him to restrict the production of pigs will have to be adopted, but that time has not come yet. When it does come there must be greater consideration as to how production is to be restricted. If the Minister is thinking of accepting the amendment I want him to consider what is going to happen to the feeder of pigs who does not produce. You are going to restrict the production of stores and if that is done you are leaving it in the hands of producers to raise prices considerably above the cost which would make it remunerative to feed pigs. At present, a good many small farmers and agricultural labourers are going to keep pigs whether they pay or not. They reckon the pig as having a sort of saving value. A big farmer who produces and feeds pigs for profit would be able to do without them if the price of stores went too high, but the small farmers and labourers will keep a pig no matter what the price of stores. The Senator realises that more consideration must be given to the restriction of production. For that reason the amendment should not be accepted at present. There is no reason why pigs should be produced to any great extent at present prices, and I do not think that situation will arise for some time.

I should like to remind Senator The McGillycuddy and other Senators that we are seeking to solve the bacon problem in another way in this Bill, and it is not by limiting production. I feel that if it came to the limitation of production of pigs it will be a rather big thing to do and will probably require very elaborate machinery. If Senators read the report of the Pig Industries Tribunal they will have seen that when the Dutch set out to do that they had a very big organisation, a central organisation, district committees and parish committees. In order to get any sort of justice between farmer and farmer you would require to have machinery of that kind. I must say that this is a very ingenuously-drafted amendment and is very concise. It contains a great deal because it would give power to reduce the number of sows. It is put in a terse way. On the other hand, perhaps there should be safeguards so that certain things are taken into consideration, and that a person over three years in production should be considered more than a person who is only trying to get into production. There are also other difficulties. I think the Senator saw the difficulties in his amendment. If parties disputed about what was to be done the only way we could act would be to threaten to remove the licence from the owner of the boar. I think under existing legislation we have not got that power. Once a licence is given, unless the boar is found on examination to be below standard under the Live-stock Breeding Act, that licence cannot be removed. There would be difficulties of that kind. A person may go on disobeying our order and we have no way of dealing with him because there is no penalty of any kind provided for. A very big consideration was also raised by Senator Counihan, that it might not be the best way to deal with it, because the people who are fattening pigs—the big man or the small man, as the case may be—must get for those pigs a certain price; otherwise, it would not pay them. If the producers of small pigs felt there was a great scarcity they would put up the price, especially if they knew that a competitor could come into the market. So I think it may not be the best way to deal with it. I think, on the whole, I could agree to accept this amendment, but I think it would be dishonest to do so, because I do not think it would be workable. Perhaps it is the best way that could be suggested at the moment, but I do not think it could be worked. If it comes to the stage where we have to regulate production, I am afraid it will mean another Bill and certainly a more elaborate Bill to cover a case of this kind. Probably there would have to be a number of clauses containing safeguards for the producers. I am sure Senators would like the producers safeguarded against the Minister; that the Minister would not have an absolute discretion. I would like to ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment, because I do not think it could ever be worked. We shall have to bring in a special Bill if the occasion arises.

Mr. Healy

I should like to ask Senator The McGillycuddy a few questions with reference to this amendment. The Senator is perfectly aware that in County Kerry, where he comes from, the small farmer tries to have young pigs about the time when feeding is plentiful. He knows just as well as I do that young pigs are fed on small potatoes and that sort of thing in the harvest time, when feeding is plentiful. I wish to ask the Senator this question: If this amendment was accepted by the Minister, and if he endeavoured to put the regulation into force, how could he prevent a man from getting a sow served in Kilgarvan or Kenmare? The thing is altogether illogical.

The Minister probably would have to arrange that so many licences would be issued at a certain time of the year; a time that would fit in when the small potatoes were available. That would cover the matter raised by Senator Healy. Senator Counihan, I think, said that the thing had not been deeply considered. As a matter of fact, it has been considered by half a dozen different counties, and it has been considered at very great length in the Dáil. The Minister has said definitely on several occasions that it is only the difficulties and repercussions and want of legislation in certain particulars which have prevented him taking the powers that are suggested. He mentioned the case of the small farmer and the labourer who would like to have their pig. It is really the product of that type of man that I wanted to bring in under this amendment; the man who gets, say, 24/- a week, or works broken time. As regards penalties, the Minister said there was no power to impose a penalty on the owner of a registered boar. In many Bills that were before the House, I have seen penalties broadcast in every section. I feel quite sure that that difficulty could have been got over and would have been got over quickly if the Minister really thought it was advisable to accept this amendment. As I said in my opening remarks, I put down this amendment as a token. I know it is not perfect and that it could not possibly be perfect, but I put it down to draw attention to the importance of a thing which I am convinced should be in this Bill. I very much regret that the Minister cannot manage to take a freshly-drafted amendment, and I have to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 6 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the words "send by post to the Minister not later than three days after the expiration of such accounting period a return." It seems to me that three days is really too short. I think the Minister ought to look into that point. I think it ought at least to be seven days. Anything may happen in the post. A man would have committed an offence by not having sent in his return within three days. I do not think it would raise any complications for the Department if the time were extended.

Line 15 would also require an amendment and sub-section (4) would need a further amendment, because there you have the words "as soon as may be after the seventh day after the expira tion of every accounting period." I think the Minister should look into that, as it may turn out to be unfair to the minor curer.

The Senator might introduce an amendment on the Report Stage.

I do not see any objection to seven days, but I do not think it would be necessary to amend sub-section (4).

I agree.

Section 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sections 16, 17 and 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
(1) Immediately upon the expiration of the preliminary period the registration of every person then registered in the register of minor curers shall be cancelled with effect as from such expiration.
(2) Where a registered minor curer is convicted of an offence under any section of this Act or under Section 9 of the Control of Manufactures Act, 1934 (No. 36 of 1934), the Minister may cancel the registration of such curer in the register of minor curers or, where such person has been registered in such register in respect of two or more sets of premises, all the registrations in such register of such curer.
(3) Where a registered pork butcher is convicted of an offence under any section of this Act or under Section 9 of the Control of Manufactures Act, 1934 (No. 36 of 1934), the Minister may cancel the registration of such butcher in the register of pork butchers or, where such butcher has been registered in such register in respect of two or more sets of premises, all the registrations in such register of such butcher.

I move amendment No. 2:—

Section 19, sub-section (2). To delete in line 54 the words "Minister may cancel" and to substitute therefor the words "Court may, on the application of the Minister and in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed, order the cancellation of."

In the section as it stands, the Minister takes power to cancel the licence. The object of my amendment is to take that power from the Minister. In the first instance, the person from whom he proposes to remove the licence will have to be convicted in court. The amendment suggests that when the prosecution takes place, the Minister may apply to the court to have the licence cancelled altogether. There are cases where minor or technical offences could be committed. In such cases the Minister could revoke the licences. In the case of publicans, fines are sometimes imposed but the licences are not endorsed. I think the Minister would be wise to allow the judge to decide whether a licence should be revoked or not. The judge would be able to give a more impartial decision. I think the people concerned would have more confidence if it were left to the judge to say whether the licence should be revoked or not. Of course, I do not want to cast any reflection on the Minister or on his inspectors. This Bill possibly will be in force for all time. I hope we shall not have the present Minister in power for long unless he changes his present policy.

I think Senator Counihan is really over-anxious on this point. Many Bills have gone through where power was taken to cancel licences without going to court at all. Practically every Act that went through has that provision—the Dairy Produce Act, for instance, the Eggs Act, the Fresh Meat Act, the Cereals Act and the recent Cattle Act. In every one of these Acts there is a section setting out the grounds on which the Minister may cancel the licence of the premises that are being dealt with under those different Acts where the Minister was of opinion that the Act was contravened by commission or omission. The Minister need not go to court to cancel a licence if an Act is contravened. Here at least we have to go to court. In this Bill the same power is not claimed. The Minister cannot do this unless the judge first convicts. If the Senator were to look up those cases, I think he would find very little cause to complain. It is extremely difficult, as a matter of fact, to get any person's licence cancelled under any of those Acts. First of all the inspectors, usually on their own initiative, overlook the first few offences. When they report a person to the Department, it is rather serious; then, of course, a first report by an inspector is not taken as seriously as subsequent reports. He has to report several times before the Department takes action. By the time the matter reaches the Minister several representations have been made. Of course, the Minister has to hold an inquiry and it is extremely difficult to get a cancellation through. At any rate, nobody could contend that a cancellation could take place without thorough examination. In this Bill, we are not going as far as we did in other Bills. We have to bring the person to court and get a conviction before a cancellation takes place. Now, it was felt by the Department of Agriculture before I went there— because when Deputy Hogan was Minister for Agriculture he had the same clauses in Bills—that whenever there is a contravention the Department is in a better position to know whether there should be a cancellation than even a judge. They are in a better position to know whether there is a tendency in the district to contravene the Act in that particular way. You have to remove a person sometimes from the register to show that drastic action is really going to be taken. Sometimes these people are again restored, but sometimes not. I think, and the Seanad agreed with me on the occasion of a former Bill, that the Department—for it is the Department in these cases more than the Minister that acts—is in a better position to judge whether cancellation should take place. The judge's function is to inflict a fine. I think it may be taken that this power is never used lightly or without the greatest possible consideration, and I think the Senator should withdraw his amendment.

I can assure the Minister I did not put down this amendment as in any way a matter of obstruction, or with a view to causing any reflection upon the Minister or his inspectors. In this particular case he will have to bring the culprit into court. He may have to ask to have the licence revoked. If he does not want to have the licence revoked he may press for a fine. There are poor butchers in this country, and minor curers, who feel that influence could be brought to bear upon an inspector to have them watched. It is easy to find an excuse for bringing a person into court. I do not agree with that, but to create greater confidence I think the Minister would be well advised to accept this amendment or at least to accept the spirit of it and bring up one on his own account on Report Stage.

I think there is a certain matter of principle involved in this, on which I would like to express my view. The proposition is that the justice should have power to cancel a licence, that is, on the application of the Minister. If a judge is satisfied that the offence is committed on the case made by the prosecution and he inflicts a penalty that is the utmost you should ask the judge to do on the evidence up to that moment. This is a case as to whether it is desirable that a licence should be cancelled and all the other factors have to be taken into account—the effect of the cancellation upon a man and his living and all the rest. It seems to me that it is undesirable that that should be the procedure in this or in the general run of such cases. If there is going to be an appeal to the justice it should be a separate case made after the conviction has been secured and not an automatic operation, or even appeal in the case made for the prosecution. It is for the Minister to come to the magistrate and to press for a certain penalty—it may be half or for the lot—but it is in the option of the justice. Now he is asked to ask for a penalty of a particular amount. It is like the Continental system where the prosecutor demands the death penalty or 20 years' imprisonment and where that is part of the prosecution. Before we proceed to adopt such a method I think we ought to consider it very carefully. It seems to me the proposition in the amendment goes a good deal farther than the Senator thinks.

I think we ought all to be grateful to Senator Johnson for the manner in which he explained to the House how utterly unworkable this amendment would be if it were made part of an Act. The criticism that Senator Johnson has made is absolutely clear and convincing to anybody who followed the discussion. The introduction of a section of this kind, with penal consequences into the Bill, is, I think, without precedent in any Act of Parliament passed by any Legislature. I think we ought to be very grateful to Senator Johnson for calling our attention to this matter.

I agree thoroughly with this amendment which has been moved by Senator Counihan. After all, District Justices are fully qualified men and if they hear a case I think they should be allowed discretion to withdraw a licence or not. It should be in the Minister's discretion to put it to the justice, to know whether these people are entitled to hold a licence. My point is that the discretion should be left with the justice.

I cannot agree with Senator Lynch's eulogy of Senator Johnson's condemnation of the amendment. After all, the act of a district court when the magistrate has endorsed a publichouse licence for breach of the licensing laws is on all fours with what Senator Counihan asks in this amendment. I think it is a very good way out of the difficulty that presents itself, as explained by Senator Counihan, namely, that to the people affected, even without the Minister's personal knowledge, a wrong might be done. I think it would instil confidence into the people concerned if the Minister would accept the amendment and allow it to pass.

Will the Minister consider an amendment on the lines that I have indicated and bring it up on Report Stage?

Mr. Healy

There are different degrees of offences, I presume. One may be greater than another. According to this Bill all offences appear to be the same. I suggest to the Minister that he should consider this matter between now and the Report Stage.

I cannot give any undertaking that I will bring in an amendment on the Report Stage on this matter, but I will consider it.

I shall bring up this amendment on the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3 is on all fours with No. 2 and is not moved.

Section 19 agreed to.
Sections 20, 21, 22 and 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister shall have absolute discretion to grant or refuse to grant an application for a licence.
(2) Where—
(a) an application is made before the appointed day for a licence in respect of any premises, and
(b) the applicant satisfied the Minister that—
(i) he was at the date of the passing of this Act carrying on the business of curing bacon, and
(ii) he manufactured at such premises, during the qualifying period, not less than two thousand two hundred hundred-weights of bacon,
the Minister shall, subject however to the provisions of sub-sections (7) and (8) of this section, grant such application.
(3) Where—
(a) an application is made, after the expiration of the preliminary period and within one month after such expiration, for a licence in respect of any premises, and
(b) the applicant was, immediately before such expiration, registered in the register of minor curers in respect of such premises, and
(c) the applicant satisfies the Minister that he manufactured at such premises—
(i) during not less than fortyfive weeks in the first twelve months of the preliminary period, at least one thousand five hundred hundred-weights of bacon, and
(ii) during not less than fortyfive weeks in the remainder of the preliminary period, at least two thousand two hundred hundred-weights of bacon,
the Minister shall, subject however to the provisions of sub-sections (7) and (8) of this section, grant such application.
(4) Where—
(a) an application is made after the appointed day for a curing and slaughtering licence in respect of any premises, and
(b) the applicant is the holder of a curing licence in respect of the whole or any part of such first mentioned premises,
the Minister shall, subject however to the provisions of sub-sections (7) and (8) of this section, grant such application, and thereupon such curing licence shall cease to be in force.
(5) Where an application is made at any time for a licence in respect of any premises and the applicant satisfies the Minister that—
(a) he represents a company of not less than one thousand shareholders, and
(b) that each shareholder is a pig producer,
the Minister shall, subject however to the provisions of sub-sections (7) and (8) of this section grant such licence.
(6) Where the Minister proposes after the date of the establishment of the Bacon Marketing Board to grant, otherwise than under sub-section (3) or (4) of this section, a licence, he shall consult the said Board before granting such licence.

I move amendment No. 4:—

Section 24, sub-section (2). To delete in line 34 the word "satisfied" and to substitute therefor the word "satisfies."

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:—

Section 24, sub-section (5). To delete the sub-section and to substitute the following new sub-section therefor:—

(5) Where—

(a) an application is made at any time by a company, registered under the Companies Acts, 1908 to 1924, or a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, for a licence in respect of any premises, and

(b) such company or society satisfies the Minister that the number of its shareholders or members is not less than one thousand and that each shareholder or member is a pig producer in Saorstát Eireann, the Minister shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (7) and (8) of this section, grant such licence.

On the Report Stage of this Bill in the Dáil an amendment was accepted but when it was examined afterwards by the draftsman it was not found suitable. This amendment is merely a re-drafting of that amendment, there is really no change.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 6:—

Section 24, sub-section (6). To delete in line 16 the word "Bacon" and to substitute therefor the word "Pigs."

The section as it stands provides that the Minister when granting a new licence should consult the Bacon Board. I think it would be more to the point that he should consult the Pigs Board. After all, the Bacon Board would not be very much in favour of setting up another factory which might be in opposition. The Minister, I think, should change from consulting the Bacon Board to consulting the Pigs Board.

Does the Senator realise what consultation means? It does not say that I am in any way bound to accept the verdict of the Bacon Board. I have only to consult them. I have no objection to consulting both Boards.

Very well; I agree. I ask leave to withdraw this amendment and I will bring in an amendment on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 7:—

Section 24, sub-section (6). To delete in line 17 the word and figure "or (4)" and to substitute therefor the word and figures "(4) or (5)."

This amendment is consequential upon amendment No. 5.

Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That Section 24, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Progress reported.
Committee to sit again on Wednesday, 5th June.
The Seanad adjourned to Wednesday, at 3 p.m., 5th June, 1935.
Barr
Roinn