Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Special Committee Pigs and Bacon Bill, 1934 díospóireacht -
Thursday, 4 Apr 1935

SECTION 4.

I move amendment No. 2 :—

To add at end of section the words " but shall not in any one year exceed the sum of fifteen thousand pounds."

There are two other amendments on the Order Paper similar in principle to this. If the Deputy now makes his case for the three amendments, I suggest that the decision on this amendment will cover the other two.

My idea in proposing this amendment is to save the Minister later on. He has stated that the cost of this measure to his Department will be £14,000, and that the cost in connection with the two boards to be set up will be £4,000 each. My idea of limiting the expense to the sum set down in the amendment is to save the Minister from the pressure that will certainly be brought to bear upon him by people who will want to get in on the back of the pig trade. Take, for instance, the veterinary profession. This measure will afford an opening for the appointment of any number that the boards or the Minister may choose to make. If the hands of the Minister are not tied in some way, and if he has not something to point to in the Bill such as a provision of this kind, there will be pressure brought to bear upon him. A very strong case is certain to be made to him in connection with appointments. They will point to the reduction in the number of cattle for one thing. They will say that farmers are not able to pay, that trade is bad and that the profession is overcrowded. The Minister will find it very hard to get over arguments of that kind unless he has some provision of this kind to point to. With it he can say that he is limited in the amount of money that he can spend.

This is a very important question to discuss on an amendment to a definition section. I think that this question would arise more appropriately on some of the later sections.

Minister for Agriculture

The other two amendments relate to the boards. Deputy McGovern is afraid that the expenditure in connection with this measure may be too big. I would point out to him that we are limited to a very great extent. We are limited, for instance, to a fee of 6d. per pig, and on present killings that would not bring in more than £21,000 or £22,000.

Is it out of the fees collected that the veterinary surgeons and inspectors will be paid ?

Minister for Agriculture

Yes.

Will there not be any money voted by the Oireachtas ?

Minister for Agriculture

The Bill does not say that we cannot take money from the Oireachtas as well.

Are we now dealing with the expenses of the Department or the expenses of the two Boards ?

Minister for Agriculture

The question of the Boards does not arise on this amendment.

I suggested that the case for the three amendments should be discussed on this amendment. The other two amendments deal with the expenses of the Boards.

They are separate then ?

I consider that the same principle underlies all three.

Minister for Agriculture

It is almost impossible to give an estimate of what expenditure may be necessary in the case of a Bill like this. The Department of Agriculture estimates that the expenditure may be between £15,000 and £16,000 on administration and to meet veterinary expenses, but it would be very difficult to give an accurate forecast. I do not think, however, that the expenditure will be more than the figure I have given. Our estimate is based on our experience in connection with the Fresh Meat Act.

That, in itself, is not a valid objection to this amendment. The purpose of it is to provide that, in the event of the Minister finding it necessary to spend more than £15,000, he will have to come back to the Dáil and seek additional authority, so that the general question of the success of the Bill, from the financial point of view, will be brought up for rediscussion if the Minister exceeds the very loose estimate he was in a position to give when the Bill was introduced.

Surely those who will be responsible for the administration of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, would not encourage the expenditure of money that was not justifiable. Therefore, is it wise to attempt to tie their hands to a certain sum, even though all were agreed that it was desirable to spend more ?

There is no restriction imposed on the power of the Minister to come back to the Dáil with an amending Bill to ask for authority to spend more than was stipulated for in the original Act. What the amendment does is to impose on him the duty of coming back to the Dáil if he wishes to exceed the original estimate, and I think that is a sound principle.

Has not the Dáil already passed a Financial Resolution empowering the Minister to spend whatever money is required to put this measure through ?

And on that occasion the Minister gave an estimate of £14,000. It was arising out of his statement that I put this amendment down.

Deputy Maguire

How did Deputy McGovern arrive at the sum mentioned, £15,000 ?

I would not object to £20,000, but I would like some definite limit.

Deputy Maguire

Is the Minister in a position to estimate fairly accurately what the cost would be ?

Minister for Agriculture

The estimate I gave was between £15,000 and £16,000. We are limited to 6d. per pig, which gives a little more than £20,000. Of course, that will have to go before the Dáil on the Estimates each year.

Was it not your statement that about £1,000 to £1,500 would be required in your Department and about £15,000 for the other items, inspection, etc. ?

Minister for Agriculture

That is right.

And you think that the Boards would cost from £4,000 to £5,000 each, making £16,000 and £1,000 thrown in for other things. The lot would amount to £27,000. I suppose a fair estimate would be £30,000, on the basis of expenditure that cannot be foreseen. If a figure is stipulated I do not think anything less than £30,000 should be stipulated. I have an open mind as to whether anything should be stipulated.

Minister for Agriculture

This refers to what the Minister spends.

£1,500 or £2,000 on the figures mentioned.

Minister for Agriculture

It is rather a novel principle to introduce. If it applied to every Bill and if the Minister was limited, we could drop estimates altogether.

The Minister would find it convenient for himself if he could make a close estimate.

The amendment to this section refers only to what the Minister may spend. We are dealing with two other amendments as to what the Boards may spend. It seems to me that we cannot very well discuss the three amendments together in relation to what a Department may spend. We must take the Boards into account. It would be unwise to limit the amount in case all the interests concerned thought it well that more should be spent. For the sake of £1,000 or £1,500 the Minister should not have to come forward and tell the Dáil that more money was wanted. That would mean an amending Bill.

It has to come out of the pockets of the producers and from the pig trade.

When the Minister's Estimate comes up can we not say what we like on it ? What other opportunity will we have to criticise the administration ? Perhaps it would be a better way to criticise administration on the Estimate, if the Department exceeds what we think they should expend.

I am putting the amendment.

That would be wrong there, because the Minister's own figure is only about £15,000.

Minister for Agriculture

No, the inspection will be paid out of that.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 4 agreed to.
Barr
Roinn