Fortnight Publications Ltd.

Psst... Want to Buy a Meat Plant?Source: Fortnight, No. 123 (Mar. 19, 1976), p. 5Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25545754 .

Accessed: 24/06/2014 22:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.134 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:29:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FRIDAY 19th MARCH 1976/5

Then there is the question of what it is to cover. It is easy enough to ban torture or inhuman or degrading treatment as in the European Convention/But these practices are

already unlawful, as the success of

the various actions arising out of

interrogation in depth and other

practices introduced in 1971 has shown. Would a further constitutional

guarentee against that kind of thing really make much difference, especial ly if it is admitted that provision must

be made for derogation during emergency conditions? The Commis sion's discussion document admits that a Bill of Rghts might in fact create expectations which could not be satisfied in practice, and that it might be least effective when it was most needed. There are similar problems in the field of discrimination. It is

arguable that sectarian employment practices are better dealt with by administrative means like the Fair

Employment Agency, currently under consideration at Westminster, than by an absolute constitutional guarantee. It is also arguable that the basic issue

of sectarian segregation in education would be as insoluble under a Bill of

Rights as it is in practice. Is a constitutional guarantee against reli

gious discrimination in the allocation of state funds to take precedence over a constitutional guarantee of freedom to practice and to teach a particular religious way of life? The Standing Advisory Commission has little to say on these matters.

Then there are the equally difficult issues of political rights like PR voting and the drawing of electoral boundaries, and the protection of citizens and communities against discriminatory government action. These matters cannot be settled until the form of future government has been worked out. As the working paper itself admits, 'it would be difficult and perhaps divisive to

envisage introducing a wholly new and

comprehensive Bill of Rights except as

part of a widely supported major constitutional settlement.' It would be

more helpful if the Feather Commission came out into the open on this issue and produced drafts of the various Bills which might help to

guarantee various forms of political settlement. By attempting to set its

work in a completely neutral political framework and pretending that it is

wholly independent of the Northern Ireland Office, the Feather Commis sion is encouraging just the kind of futile sloganising which it has condemned.

Psst... Want To Buy

A Meat Plant? Imagine approaching a farmer and

asking for around ?500 now as an investment in an agricultural mar

keting project whose final form remains undecided. If pressed you can "ell him that his money will more than likely be used to buy a meat

plant, even though other plants throughout the province are presently facing a crisis and may have to

operate on a three day week. No one would be surprised if you were given a

rustic go forth and multiply. Yet this is precisely what the Ulster Farmers

Union is out to do. The UFU have set up an organisa

tion called Ulster Farmer Investments Ltd. to enable producers to become

directly involved in marketing produce, especially fat cattle and

sheep. They hope to raise from their members and other farmers around ?2 million over a six week period to launch the project, though a firm

decision as to how UFIL will operate will not be made until the money has been subscribed. A small project group, serviced by the Livestock

Marketing Commission, have selected thirteen possible investment options, but the likelihood is that they will recommend either partial or complete ownership of a meat plant. One

advantage this would bring would be to supply farmers with some idea of the costs of processing and

marketing. The UFU claim that for

many years farmers in Ulster have received significantly lower margins for fat cattle and sheep compared with those obtained in Britain. So

they intend to 'stir up' the meat trade

by providing farmers with a strong marketing voice.

The intrusion of the LMC into this affair is particularly interesting. Less than two years ago the Department of

Agriculture was considering whether to replace the LMC with some other

body for it was felt that it was not

fulfilling its expected role and further more was biased toward the UFU and

against the meat plants. In civil service parlance the LMC did not

enjoy the confidence of the meat

industry. There was even, some

discussion as to whether an

organisation supported by the Government and biased toward the

meat companies should be establish ed so that the meat plants could work

together and engage in price collusion. However, the LMC sur vived.

It would unfair to dismiss the whole UFU exercise at this early stage, but there are few indications that it will succeed. A few years back the NIFC attempted to buy a meat

plant for similar reasons to the UFU, but the meat trade closed ranks and the scheme never got off the ground.

There is every likelihood that history will be repeated. Moreover, although Mr Smith of the UFU staff told Fortnight that the take-up of shares had been reasonable from every area of the province, it is strongly rumoure<Hhat most ordinary farmers are none too keen to part with their

money (despite being provided with individual envelopes so that their

neighbours will not know their business) on so uncertain an adventure. There has, however, been a good response from the dairy sector,

especially the large co-operatives, who are particularly interested in securing better returns for culled fat cows.

However, the UFU is unlikely to raise the sum they desire unless a much broader cross section of farmers decide to invest.

If the ?2 million target is not reached the UFIL could still become involved in a more moderate

marketing scheme, but such a failure will be a bitter blow to the UFU lead

ership. The possibility is that they will consider some form of marriage with the FMC plant in Newry.

The Department of Agriculture's role in this venture is not clear. It is known that they carefully monitor

profit trends for all the meat plants in Ulster and indeed persuaded the

companies involved to harmonize their accounts. Their long-term aim has been to increase efficiency of the

plants but in achieving this they have wavered between encouraging compe tition in the industry and drawing the firms into some form of cartel.

The Government is likely to be

backing the UFU move and therefore seem to have shifted back toward

encouraging a more competitive industry.

One organisation which has shown its keen commercial sense in this affair, however, is the Allied Irish Bank. They were the only bank who bothered to write offering temporary investment facilities for share

subscriptions once the scheme had been publicised. Naturally the UFU gave them the job.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.134 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:29:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions