Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Apr 1932

Vol. 41 No. 4

In Committee on Finance. - Butter Tariff—Financial Resolution.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I move:

1. That there shall be charged, levied, and paid in respect of all butter (with such, if any, exceptions as may be prescribed or authorised by statute) imported into or manufactured in Saorstát Eireann on or after the 21st day of April, 1932, a levy at such rate or several rates as may be prescribed by statute or by the Minister for Agriculture under statutory authority.

2. That the levy mentioned in this Resolution shall be charged, levied, and paid in respect of all butter (with such, if any, exceptions as may be prescribed or authorised by statute) which is held in stock in Saorstát Eireann on the 21st day of April, 1932, by manufacturers, factors, cold storage proprietors, and other persons engaged or concerned in the butter trade.

3. That the levy mentioned in this Resolution may be charged at different rates in respect of different classes of butter, and all or any of such rates may be varied from time to time by the Minister for Agriculture under statutory authority.

4. That the levy mentioned in this Resolution shall be paid to the Minister for Agriculture and shall be applied by him, directly or indirectly, in or towards payment of a bounty at such rate or rates as shall from time to time be fixed by statute or under statutory authority on all or any particular classes or class of butter, cream, milk, and milk products exported from Saorstát Eireann, or in or towards such other purposes as may be authorised by statute.

5. That the levy mentioned in this Resolution shall (save as is hereinafter otherwise provided) be payable by the following persons, that is to say—

(a) when payable in respect of butter manufactured in Saorstát Eireann, by the manufacturer of such butter, and

(b) when payable in respect of butter imported into Saorstát Eireann, by the importer of such butter, and

(c) when payable in respect of butter held in stock in Saorstát Eireann on the 21st day of April, 1932, by the owner of such butter.

6. That notwithstanding anything contained in the next preceding paragraph of this Resolution, the levy payable in respect of butter manufactured in or imported into Saorstát Eireann may be made payable in particular classes of cases by persons acquiring such butter (otherwise than by retail purchase) directly or indirectly from the manufacturer or the importer (as the case may be) thereof.

7. That provision shall be made by statute for the collection and enforcing payment of the levy mentioned in this Resolution.

I am advised that in order to comply with the Standing Orders and to follow the established practice of the House a Resolution in this form is necessary preparatory to the introduction of a Bill to deal with the stabilisation of prices the terms of which will provide a levy to be made on all butter imported into or manufactured in the Saorstát. The Resolution which has been circulated to Deputies gives an indication of the financial bearings of the proposed Bill. The position of the dairying industry is not unknown, I am sure, to any Deputy in this House. Up to the end of 1929 the prices secured for creamery butter in the Irish Free State were never from the time of the war below 160/- per cwt. The prices paid by the creameries to the milk suppliers were never below 6d. a gallon. But somewhere about October, 1929, the prices began to fall. The price has continued to fall both for butter and milk from that time up to the present—that is, taking world prices.

There were of course certain interruptions in the fall here on account of the tariff. In the year 1930 the average price which was secured by creameries for their butter was 126/-. That price, compared with the average of 160/- for the previous seven or eight years, was a very big decline. As a consequence of the fall in the prices of butter the creameries during that year were only able to give an average price of 4.9 pence per gallon for milk. The year 1931 is worse still. In 1931 the creameries were only able to give an average price of 4.3d. per gallon as they themselves could only get 115/- per cwt. The position that we were faced with became acute during 1930, and as a result of that a tariff was imposed towards the end of the year 1930. During the two winters that have passed, 1930-31 and 1931-32, the prices of milk to the producer and the price of butter did rise for a certain period. But unfortunately for the producers it was only at the time when they were at the lowest point in their production. At the period of the year when they were producing most heavily the price was low. This year it looks as if we are facing even worse conditions. For the first three months of this year Danish butter sold in the British market was lower by in or about 10/- a cwt. than for the first three months of last year, so that if the trend in prices is to continue as it has been continuing for the last two years and as it appears to continue during the first three months of this year we may expect that the export price will be down another 10/- within a year as compared with last year.

It has been the experience of this country for the last seven or eight years that the price of Free State butter on the British market has been invariably lower than the price paid for Danish butter. Some years the difference has reached as much as 21/- or 22/- per cwt., and even in the most favourable year the difference was 13/- per cwt., so that we may take it that the Free State butter this year will not at its best reach the price of Danish butter. Danish butter is now quoted on the British market at 116/-. That is, after duty has been paid and after freight has been paid. If we take it that the Imperial preference that may be given to our butter is equated by the consumer's preference for Danish butter, we cannot, if we had butter to export at the present time, expect to get more than 115/- or 116/- a cwt. for it. Now, that is lower than last year. The price is down, so that if we continue as we are we cannot hope for better conditions, and I am afraid we must face worse, in our export butter market.

There are other things which we must take into account. Denmark, which was the biggest exporter of butter to the British market, had, up to this, an alternative market. Denmark sold a certain amount of butter in Germany. The Danes were able at certain times when the prices in the British market were falling to a very low point, to deflect their supplies into the German market and thereby create a demand in the British market with a consequent rise in price. Now Germany has put a tariff of 56/- per cwt. on butter, and it is not likely that Denmark will find an alternative market in Germany again. So that the Danes will be compelled practically to sell all their butter in the British market. The same will apply to other North European countries, such as Sweden and Finland. Along with that, we have New Zealand and Australia year by year increasing their exports very rapidly.

If we take 1928, which was the last complete year in which the prices held on the British market at the normal level that had existed for six or seven years after the war, the amount of butter imported into Great Britain in that year was 6,121,000 cwts. That would appear to be the amount that the British consumers could take at the price then ruling of 160/- per cwt., and as that quantity has been exceeded the price has gone down. That quantity has been exceeded every year since. Last year it amounted to the very large quantity of 7,850,000 cwts. Denmark, New Zealand and Australia are chiefly responsible for the large quantity of butter that has been imported into Great Britain. As a matter of fact, if we take the increase of either New Zealand or Australia last year as compared with the 1930 exports, we find that that increase alone was more than the Free State was sending into the British market.

Taking those different factors into account—the trend of prices, the fact that Denmark and other North European countries are confined to the British market, and the tendency of New Zealand, Australia and other countries to increase exports—we have a very serious position to face. We believe our producers cannot continue to produce under the present prices. Our exports are going down. Last year our total exports of butter were considerably below the figure for the previous year. Even the output of our creameries is going down. They were down from 675,000 cwts. to 605,000 cwts. Although we have no figures to prove it, I am told that the quantity of butter handled by merchants is also going down. Having more or less decided that we can scarcely continue to face the competition, the question we have to ask ourselves is, can the others continue? If we think that the other countries which are exporting butter to the British market cannot continue it would be a mistake for us if we had got rid of our cows and dairy stock before there was a revival in the export market. Judging by the prices paid last year, and the trend of prices as they usually go up from spring to summer, if we do not interfere we are not likely to get more than 105/- per cwt. for our butter. That would mean that the creameries could not pay more than 4d. per gallon for milk. It would mean that the producers who are not supplying the creameries would not receive more than 4d. per gallon either, if they did so well.

It is difficult to know what the production of milk costs. From the fact that the output of the creameries is going down, and that the export of butter generally is going down, we know that producers must find it impossible to carry on. The only figures from an expert source I could get were those which were given in evidence before the Commission on Agriculture in 1922. The figure given for the production of milk in 1914 was 5.62d. per gallon. It is certainly not less now. It is probably more. I think we must do something to help producers out of their difficulty in trying to produce milk to sell at 4d. that costs 5½d.

We must remember that dairying is the basic industry in agriculture, that we get not only our butter and milk supplies through it, but also the cattle that are reared in this country. To a great extent pigs and poultry depend on the success of the dairying industry. If these are all taken together—butter, milk, cattle, pigs and poultry—they must form more than one half of the total production, both agricultural and industrial, of this country. While we are endeavouring to get new industries going we should be careful to protect the industries we have. The position at present is, taking the creameries first, that they export half the butter they produce, and the other half is consumed at home. We cannot get any more for the half we export as we must take the best price we can get in competition with the rest of the world. The only alternative left is to turn to the other half which is consumed at home and to ask the home consumer to pay more. The scheme we have devised enables us to put a levy on the production of butter and to pay a bounty on exports. Taking a creamery as an example we get returns of production and we ask for a levy of 2d. per lb. which will probably be the sum mentioned in the Bill when it begins to operate. The amount will be variable. We know that the creameries will sell half of their butter on the export market and the other half at home. That means that we can afford to pay a bounty of 4d. where we put a levy of 2d. A creamery will, apart from this, be able to export butter at 105/- per cwt. A bounty of 37/4—4d. per lb.—will give them a price of 142/- for any butter they export. It is quite apparent that if a merchant at home wants to buy butter from a creamery he will get it at the same price, that is 142/-. In effect the creameries get a bounty of 4d. whether the butter is exported or sold in the home market. Having paid 2d. a lb. as a levy a bounty of 4d. is given back for every pound produced. That is a net gain of 2d. per lb. What does the creamery get? A net gain of 2d. per lb. or 18/8 per cwt. For the purposes of calculation I am taking the export price at 105/-. If this system were not in operation the creamery would get 105/-. With this scheme it will get 123/- so that there will be a net gain of 18/- per cwt. to the creameries calculated on this price. Butter sold f.o.r. from the creamery at 142/- will enable the retailer to sell at 1/5 a lb.

Under this scheme, we do not mean artificially to increase the price of butter above that figure. If by any chance the export price of butter goes above, say, 123/- per cwt., or 142/- per cwt., then we do not mean to pre vent creameries getting more for their butter at home. Neither would we prevent retailers getting more than 1/5 per pound. We do not mean to increase artificially the price of butter above 1/5. The levy and the bounty will have to be variable. If the export price goes up from 105/- to 115/- per cwt., if we still continue to pay a bounty of 37/-, it would mean that butter in the home market would go up by 10/- a cwt., and that the consumer would have to pay an extra 1d. per lb. If the export price goes up, we mean to bring the bounty down. What is more, if the export price goes up by 10/-, we mean to bring the bounty down by 20/-, so that the home price will come down by 10/-. The more the export price goes up, the more benefit the home consumer gets, until both prices—the home and export price—meet at 123/- per cwt. If the export price goes below 105/-, then we must follow it. If the export price goes below 105/-, we could not continue to keep the creamery price at 123/- without putting the home price above 1/5 per lb. We must follow the export price if it goes below 105/-. In other words, we are going to keep the price of creamery butter f.o.r. at 123/-, provided it does not exceed 142/- on the home market.

The result we are looking for is to enable the creameries to give a better price for their milk. That is how the pool for creamery butter will be worked. There will also be a pool for factory butter, but there the proportion exported is much higher and, therefore, on a levy of 2d. the bounty will not be 4d. but will be considerably less. We have not got exact figures at present in the case of factory butter.

The big objection to this scheme arises out of consideration for the home consumer. Before the end of 1929, butter was never sold, from the war period, below 1/8 per lb. During the last two years—1930 and 1931 —the price was never below 1/3, except once. That was for the second quarter of last year. These figures are taken from the cost of living report in the Irish Trade Journal. For more than half the period of the last two years, the price of butter was above 1/5, so that the burden being placed on the home consumer is not as big as at first sight appears.

I believe that this Bill will enable producers to remain in production. I do not think that it will give them a decent profit. I am very doubtful if it will give them any profit, but it may help to keep them in production. It will possibly preserve the foundation of our agricultural industry, which is dairying. I believe that the scheme places no undue burden on the home consumer. One thing we must all realise is that the producer must get his cost of production. Consistent with that, it is our duty to protect the consumer. I move the Resolution.

Mr. Hogan (Galway):

Will the Minister say whether there will be any levy on home-produced butter sold but not to a factory?

Dr. Ryan

There will be power in the Bill to impose a levy, but I do not think that that power will be exercised for the present.

Mr. Norton

Will the Minister say if he has figures to support the contention that half the butter produced is exported and half consumed at home?

Dr. Ryan

We have figures and they show that the division is almost exactly half and half. On a good year's production, exports would exceed 50 per cent. and, on a poor year's production, export would be below 50 per cent.

Mr. Davin

Is it necessary that this motion should be passed before the Bill, which I presume is ready, is circulated to Deputies?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is the procedure. In this case a financial motion must precede legislation since a charge is to be imposed. The passage of this motion will enable the requisite financial clauses to be inserted in the following Bill.

Mr. Blythe

I should like to ask the Minister a question as to the machinery for the operation of this levy. Paragraph (1) provides that the levy shall be at such rate or rates as may be prescribed by statute or by the Minister for Agriculture under statutory authority. I do not know whether it is intended that this resolution should confer statutory authority on the Minister to fix the levy or whether the people become liable from to-day and the duty is to be charged later at a rate to be fixed.

Dr. Ryan

In the Bill, the same date will be mentioned. So far as I know, this resolution does not give us any power to levy at all.

Mr. Blythe

Does it mean that records will have to be kept by the creameries from to-day?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Davin

Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the price to the consumer will not exceed 1/5 per lb., to be fixed by the Price Fixing Tribunal or by some other machinery?

Dr. Ryan

The only assurance I can give is that we will not artificially enable the creameries to charge more than 142/-. That will enable butter to be sold retail at 1/5 per lb.

Mr. Davin

I am only concerned with the protection of the consumer. I think an assurance is necessary that the consumer will not be mulcted by the operation of a Bill of this kind.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Deputy must be very simple or he is affecting simplicity if he thinks the consumer will not have to pay for this.

Mr. Hogan (Galway):

I am not proposing to answer for the Minister for Agriculture, but I have to agree with Deputy Cosgrave that Deputy Davin must be a very simple man. The purpose of this Bill is to put the price of butter to the home consumer 4d. per lb. above the international level. That is the avowed purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Davin

That is the policy.

Mr. Hogan

That is the avowed purpose—to put the price of butter 4d. per lb. above the international level or the world price. If butter goes up from 105/- to 115/-, the price will go up by 5d. to 1/6d. That is the avowed purpose of the Bill. I do not like this Bill or this scheme, though I confess, having regard to the circumstances in which he finds himself, that the Minister has no great alternative. At the same time, I do not like the scheme. There has been a tariff of 4d. per lb. on butter for the last two years. That tariff proved ineffective except in winter. For the last two years, the price of butter here and on the English market was exactly the same in spite of the fact that no butter could come into this country without paying a tariff of 4d. per lb. The figures are now undeniable, because the tariff has been in operation for two years. What was the reason for that? The reason is that in summer time we have an export surplus. It ought now to be beyond all doubt that whenever there is an export surplus a tariff can have no protective effect. In winter, the price of butter went beyond the international level by the full 4d. That has happened during the last two years. Why? Because there was a shortage of home production.

Everybody knows that we have a surplus in summer and a shortage in winter. We put on a tariff and there we have a magnificent example of the effect of tariffs in regard to one item. In summer, when there was a surplus, the price remained at the international level. This tariff of 4d., which was a prohibitive tariff, made no difference whatever. That was the situation when you had a surplus. On the other hand, in winter, when you had a shortage, the price of butter went up here by the full 4d. It went up suddenly and came down suddenly. I venture to say that if this scheme were not in operation, in another week's time the price of butter here would be about 1s. 1d.

We begin to have a surplus about the 1st May. Of course for some time, for a week or so, the creamery managers hold back, and rightly so, to see what the market is going to be like; but by the middle of May the economic laws of supply and demand make themselves felt. They have actually done so during the last two years, with the result that the price has fallen to the international level.

I think that at this stage there ought to be a certain amount of agreement as to the effect of tariffs on agriculture. It is now admitted from the benches opposite—it is admitted by this measure—that tariffs cannot help agriculture except in the case where we are producing goods and when we have a shortage. No tariff can protect unless there is a shortage, so that so far as cattle and sheep, beef, mutton, butter, bacon or eggs are concerned no tariff can help the farmer. When I mention these items it is true to say that I have mentioned almost 95 per cent. of what the farmer produces. If we are to help the farmer we must have an export bounty; not tariffs. That is the position. After all the propaganda about tariffs during the last five years it has come down to this now. You must get this admission from the benches opposite—the admission is implicit in this Bill—that if you are to help agriculture effectively in this country you cannot do it by tariffs; you must do it by export bounties.

I do not see that the Minister himself had any alternative but to bring in this Bill, and for a number of reasons: first, for the good reason that he mentioned—that the price of butter is very low. It does look as if the price is below the cost of production. It is very hard to see how the farmer can produce and supply milk at 3½d. to 4d. a gallon in present circumstances. It is true to say—I welcome this admission also from the Minister—that dairying is at the root of our agriculture. Dairying is the foundation of our agriculture. I have been saying that myself for the last five or six years.

Dr. Ryan

That does not make it any more untrue.

Mr. Hogan

That is why I was called the Minister for Grass. I will become a prophet now. But the statement is perfectly true, and it is absolutely vital to try to carry the dairying industry over this bad period. From that point of view, I do admit that the Minister, or any other Minister, had to do something in the present circumstances to try to help the dairying industry, especially a Minister belonging to a Government whose general policy is a policy of indiscriminate and rather high tariffs, or, to put it in another way, whose general policy is a policy of high tariffs. I leave out the word "indiscriminate" in order not to be contentious. If there are to be high industrial tariffs—and from every sign there are going to be—then the farmer is going to be absolutely bankrupted unless he gets some artificial spoon-feeding of this sort. That is plain. No tariffs can help him effectively. No tariffs on any of the main items which he produces now can help him. They cannot increase the price of what he produces. If, on the other hand, there are to be high industrial tariffs—that is to say, high tariffs on what he buys—then the farmer is going to be bankrupted unless you have this sort of artificial scheme to help him. So that the Minister for Agriculture, who belongs to a Government whose policy is a policy of high tariffs, must, whatever about any other Minister, have some such scheme as this. What I want to point out to the Dáil is this: you are all shocked now at 4d. per lb. That is what the consumer is going to pay. Perhaps the Minister could tell me now what our total production of creamery butter is.

Dr. Ryan

I have not the figure at the moment, but I will get it.

Mr. Hogan

I should say that this bounty is going to cost the consumer between £600,000 and £800,000 a year. If you add what the tariff in winter time will cost—remember the tariff is protective in regard to butter in winter and that it is the only article of our production that can be protected, and then only seasonally—I should say that this is costing the consumer close on £1,000,000 a year. Here is the point. We know exactly how we stand here. It has to be admitted that the effect of this bounty is to put up prices. The total consumption of butter is about 27,000 cwts. a month in this country. If you multiply that by 4d. you will get the amount that this is going to cost the consumer. There can be no doubt about that. In that respect, I think that an export bounty, bad and all as it is in principle, is to some extent even more defensible than a tariff. Remember that every tariff that you put on, or that we put on, on any item of production of which there was a shortage of the home products, on any item which was not being produced in Ireland up to the full requirements of the home market, every single one of these items went up in price and went up by the full amount of the tariff just as it went up in the case of butter.

We put a tariff of 4d. a pound on butter in winter. Butter went up by the full amount of the tariff. Exactly the same thing applies, and for exactly the same reason, in the case of boots, clothing and every other item which we have tariffed and which the Ministry opposite has tariffed of which there is a shortage of home production. But in the case of boots and clothing, there is this difference, that the increase can be hidden. No one will know what it is. Here we do know. In the case of butter, the consumer knows and is shocked at it, but when a tariff is imposed on an item like boots or on other industrial products, the increase can be hidden. It may be hidden in the quality or it may be hidden because it is impossible to compare the prices, let us say, of machinery here and in England—there are so many different qualities—but the rise in price is absolutely inevitable. I go this far and say that the industrial tariffs already imposed in this country have cost the farmer as consumer far more than he is going to gain out of this bounty on butter. I want to give this warning to the Ministry, that if they propose to go ahead with a scheme of high tariffs on industrial articles which the farmer must buy either to live or produce, then this scheme alone is not sufficient compensation. The amount that he will make out of this scheme could be wiped out by one ill-advised high tariff on industrial articles.

As I have said, I do not like this scheme. First of all, I do not like the general principle. I think it is wasteful. I am afraid that we are going in the same direction as Australia—high tariffs, bounties, extravagant economics if you like. There is this difference, however, that Australia is a rich continent unworked, unmined. Australia and Canada and countries of that sort can afford extravagance and experiments. We are not a rich country; we are a poor country. We are to some extent a country that has been exploited for a long time. We have not mineral resources or any other resources that these great countries have, and we cannot afford extravagance of that sort—extravagance in our national economy. This is essentially an extravagant scheme, and I will tell you why. I am afraid that the effect of this bounty will be partly to subsidise the farmer and partly to subsidise the English consumer. I could not give any scientific reason for that, and if the Minister were to say to me, "why should it—this bounty will only put up the price to, say, 145/-, and the Irish creamery manager is going to be as keen at 145/- as at 165/-?" That looks right, I have to admit, but, on the other hand, how is it that in every country where you have export subsidies there is bad marketing? We have had recent examples of it under our own notice. Take the case of Australian butter, which is good butter. Yet it was coming into the English market and breaking that market on us, and was undoubtedly selling at a price lower than they could have got, if they were standing on their own feet and marketing as well as Denmark and the Free State. There is no possible explanation of that, except that the producers who were selling had the benefit of this bounty. Deputies who were in the last Dáil will remember the case of Polish bacon. It was coming in here at something like 40/- to 45/-, and being sold at the same price as Danish and Irish bacon, and it was certainly as good. It was being sold at from 60/- to 70/-, while it was coming in here at 40/-. Why? I can only give one explanation—that there was an export subsidy on Polish bacon. What was the result? It was being thrown into this market, and if it had been properly marketed it would undoubtedly have fetched between 55/- and 60/-, the same as Danish. Whereas it was being retailed wholesale at the same price it was coming in here at 40/-. What was the meaning of that? The export subsidy, instead of benefiting the Polish farmers, was, to some extent, giving an advantage to Irish wholesalers and consumers. I am afraid that will happen to some extent here. I am afraid that there will be a tendency, especially at the beginning of the season when we are trying to get our way into the English market, to throw away our butter when we have got this bounty behind it. There will be a tendency, I fear, if you are to take a line from what has happened in other countries, to sell at less than the butter is really worth.

There is also another point. I asked the Minister whether he proposed to make a levy on home-made butter. He said that he proposed to take power to do it, but he was not clear whether he would exercise that power or not. If he does not exercise that power, I fear he will be doing a bad turn to the new creameries, especially the creameries in areas where there is still a tradition of home butter-making, and where the milk producers are inclined, unless they get very good prices and get them conveniently, to keep the milk at home and make butter. Remember that this levy, whether it is imposed on home butter or not, will put up the price of home butter by the full 4d. That is certain. So that the producers, let us say, in certain areas of Wexford, where home butter is made, and in certain areas of Clare and various other districts where new creameries have been erected, will say to themselves, "We can get a real good price now; we can get the additional 4d. without having to pay any levy at all." That will be a certain convenience and will create a tendency to keep the milk at home and make the butter at home.

That would be a very serious matter for the new creameries, if it comes about, because that is exactly what the new creameries have to fight against at the present moment—the tendency to keep the milk and make butter at home. I am afraid that, unless some arrangement is made, this scheme will accentuate that tendency. On the other hand, I admit that I cannot see a clear way out of that difficulty. I think it would be impossible, or extremely difficult, to devise a scheme whereby the levy would be paid on home-made butter. It would take too much checking and there would be a lot of evasion, but if something like that is not done, I think that the price of home butter will go up, the same as creamery butter, and I think there will be a tendency in those districts to keep the milk at home and make the butter there. That will have very serious reactions on the new creameries. That is all I have to say on this question at the moment. I take it that this matter will be before the Dáil again, and that there will be an occasion for discussing amendments of detail.

Professor Thrift

I do not want to argue the matter further at present, but I want to point out that there seems to me to be one further conclusion to be drawn from Deputy Patrick Hogan's arguments. There is a class of person in the community who is neither a farmer nor an industrialist —a very important class, too, even for the Labour members to consider. Between high tariffs on one side and agricultural bounties on the other, that class of person bids fair to be ground between two millstones.

General Mulcahy

From what Deputy Hogan, and from what the Minister said, Deputies representing the town dwellers, or having the interests of the town dwellers in any way before their minds, must find themselves in a difficulty in dealing with this particular matter at the present moment, and, leaving the proposals go without a division cannot, I think, be allowed to prejudice themselves with regard to the future action to be taken in this matter. Deputy Davin, it has been suggested, has shown a certain amount of simplicity here. I would like to share that simplicity, and point out this, that we are dealing here with an industry which is admitted now from both sides of the House to be the foundation of our agricultural industry. That being so, everything that is connected with it must bear in an important manner on the way in which the general business of the country is going to be done. The principles that are applied to it arising out of its management and its development, must certainly be regarded very carefully, and they are of importance to the development of other industries.

We have been told here that proposals will be put before us that will enable farmers in respect of the butter they sell on the outside market to get a particular price. As far as I grasp what the Minister said, he will take steps in the legislation that he proposes, by order, to so scale the bounty from time to time, that the price available to the farmers from their exports will be a fixed price. Dwellers in the towns and cities who are given to understand that that kind of thing can be arranged by legislation, will wonder why, when you have a scheme by which the amount of money to be collected per pound of butter made, and the amount of money to be paid by bounty, can be so arranged as to bring a definite fixed price to the farmer in respect of exported butter, a scheme on similar lines cannot be arranged for the fixing of the retail price or the maximum price above which the retail price of butter cannot go. I think the home consumer will expect the Minister, at a later date, to deal more satisfactorily with the reasons why the home consumer in respect of the retail price cannot be made as secure as the farmer in respect of the price for his export of butter.

The townspeople are aware in a general, confused way that there has been a considerable amount of discussion as to why the marketing of butter on the part of the creameries, and the butter manufacturers generally, is not more satisfactorily organised. They are aware that there has been a considerable amount of discussion for the last two years on this matter.

At a time when the ex-Minister for Agriculture tells us that they are going to pay 4d. per lb. more for butter under the scheme they will expect to be told something as to what is being done on the part of the farmers and of the creamery managers and owners to bring about that better re-organisation of their business for the purpose of marketing that it is suggested would make their business a better paying one to them and reduce the price at which it is profitable for them to sell butter. These two points will require to be dealt with by the Minister in more detail later on, as to why this scheme, which fixes such a terrible lot of things, cannot fix the price at which butter will be retailed here, and what the creamery industry is doing to bring about the improvement in the matter of marketing that is generally understood to be important and necessary.

Mr. Good

There is one point about this proposed addition to the price of butter that ought to be made clear. As I understand the situation, we have a tariff on butter of 4d. per lb. In the summer time there is a surplus of butter and consequently the tariff does not operate. In the winter, when there is a shortage of butter supplies, the tariff does operate and adds 4d. a lb., as I understand, to the price that consumers pay for butter. In addition to that 4d., this proposal is going to place a further burden of 4d. per lb. on the price of butter to be paid by the consumer. The net effect of the proposal will be, therefore, that in the summer time the consumer will pay 4d. per lb. in addition to the ordinary price of butter, and in winter he will pay this 4d. plus the 4d. tariff. In other words, 8d. per lb. will be the additional burden on the consumer in winter. This is the point I should wish to have made clear, as it has not been made clear so far. Are we to understand that that will be the position to the consumer under the proposals as we have them to-day, that is, the tariff and this further burden? If that be so, I suggest that this burden seems to be somewhat unfair to the consumer. Eightpence per lb. on butter in the winter time will fall as a heavy burden on the great mass of the poorer citizens of the State.

The House possibly is not aware that the Minister for Finance receives out of the tariff something like £44,000 per annum; in other words, that the consumer is taxed in order to help the Minister for Finance to the extent of £44,000, and in addition to that, he is to be taxed to help the farmer. I think that in the position in which we find the agricultural industry at the present moment, the Minister for Finance might forego the £44,000 which he is taking off the unfortunate consumer at a time when the consumer has to come to the rescue of the agriculturists. We cannot satisfy both of them in the present depressed state of industry and the reduction in the income in many households. I suggest to the Minister that that is a point worthy of consideration. If the position is as I have set it out, that the consumer is to be called upon to pay 8d. per lb. additional in the winter time and 4d. per lb. additional in the summer, certainly before this proposal passes through the House, I should like to see the revenue from the tariff placed to the credit side of the burden that is falling on the consumer at present.

Mr. McMenamin

I am somewhat at a loss to understand paragraph 1 of this resolution. It refers to manufactured butter. We know that all butter is manufactured in some sense or another. What I would like to know is if this is to be read strictly as referring only to butter manufactured by creameries or does it include also what is known in rural Ireland as home-made butter? Does this tax or levy apply to home-made butter, and if it is to be applied to home-made butter how is it to be made effective? For example, if a farmer's daughter makes 10 lbs. of butter and sells it to the local shopkeeper, he will only give her the net creamery price for it. The shopkeeper transmits that butter to somebody who owns a butter factory who puts some tons of it into some better shape than it was originally when it came from the farmers and then exports it. Is the butter factor —I shall give him that name because I do not know what the technical name is—who manufactures the butter and exports it to have the benefit of this levy and put it in his pocket? If he gets it, how is it to be transmitted to the producer? It cannot be done in my opinion. It would be utterly impossible, because of the cost, to make that effective and distribute it back again to the local shopkeeper to transmit it to the local farmers who came in with five and ten pounds of butter to his shop.

The House, I think, should not adopt this proposal as applying to creameries, because in a way the creameries are a very small part of the business. There are various counties, particularly the county of which I am a native, where the creameries are a very negligible thing. There are not, I think, more than two working creameries in that county. Is that huge county to have no benefit from this proposal and to have all the disadvantages that arise therefrom? On all the butter manufactured in Co. Donegal are the factors to receive the benefits of this levy, and is none of it to go back again to the farmers for whom it was intended? I think, in face of the apparent ambiguity in paragraph 1 of this proposal, we require some further explanation, and I think it would require some care to make sure that this levy is intended for the benefit of the farmers generally. I submit that this should go to the farmers generally, and not to the particular suppliers of creameries and other farmers who have creameries available locally, and that the large number of farmers who are not in contact with creameries and who have not any creameries in their district should not be penalised in this way.

Mr. Norton

I have got some figures here which would seem to me to afford very poor solace to Deputy Good when he suggests that the existing revenue from the tariff on butter should be utilised to reduce the price to the consumer under the levy and bounty scheme indicated by the Minister. According to the figures, our home consumption in 1929 was 981,000 cwts. of butter. According to the Minister the subsidy will amount to 37/4, making the total sum to be paid by the consumer £1,850,000. The Tariff Commission in 1929 reported that 668,000 cwts. was farmers' butter, which is not sent to the factory, and which, I understand from the Minister, will not come under the levy scheme, although in respect of that latter quantity of butter the farmers mentioned will derive a higher price, but will not be asked to come under the levy scheme. It seems to me that farmers' butter, in relation to creamery butter, will be in a very disadvantageous position, and it seems to me that there will be an inevitable temptation to those at present supplying their milk to the creameries to leave off supplying the creameries and to make their own butter because of the fact that they are not under the levy scheme and can get the benefit of the higher prices.

I suggest to the Minister that he should very carefully consider this whole matter because it seems to me that in his ostensible desire to help the creameries he may, in fact, do considerable damage to the creameries. It may result in a deflection of trade activity which now goes into the creameries into the homes of the farmers and the second position may be very much worse than the first. Still I know there are many difficulties in the way of collecting the levy in respect of farmers' produced butter. I suggest that special consideration should be given to the advantageous position in which farmers' butter will be placed under the proposals as announced to-day and that the Minister should examine carefully the reactions on that position and on the position of the creamery industry as a whole.

Mr. Maguire

I should like to say that the proposal contained in this Financial Resolution will be welcomed by the dairy farmers generally. How the dairy farmer will view this matter is not so much in regard to the technical difference between the terms Deputy Hogan has applied of a tariff versus bounty, but the question of how much per gallon he will receive for his milk. It seems to me that it will determine the success or failure of the dairy industry in this country. Let us take Deputy Hogan's figures, that the operation of this proposal will cost the consumers something like £800,000 additional yearly. If we take this figure as a fact and that the result of this £800,000 additional taxation on the consumer will bring about the success of the dairy industry in this State, then I say the sum is well spent. I would ask Deputy Hogan on the other hand to consider and to answer the alternative question. He has spent already a sum of well over £60,000 out of the taxpayers' money on the development of the creamery industry in the last few years with the result that these creameries are to-day in bankruptcy. If the only argument put up against this scheme as it stands is the specific amount of money which is to be spent to make the industry in this State a success, then the proposal would be welcomed as a sound proposal. I believe it is a sound proposal and will have good and beneficial effect.

As regards the suggestion made, that a particular advantage and encouragement will be given to home butter manufacturers to produce extensively to the detriment of the creameries, I do not see that that is likely to occur. The price to-day to the producers of butter will be the current price in the market. The 4d. per pound to be charged on butter manufactured will be to the disadvantage of the consumer, but will extend generally to the prices paid for home-manufactured butter or the milk supplied to the creameries. I can see no possible disadvantage from that in any way. Speaking generally, I say the scheme will be welcome; the farmers will welcome it, and for an industry so essential as the dairy industry, we should not hedge about technical difficulties as whether tariffs are a failure or whether bounties are a failure or are likely to be an advantage over tariffs.

Mr. Shaw

I feel in a rather difficult position because I represent two counties in which there is no creamery and little or no export of butter. The position is that the consumers in these counties are to be heavily penalised without any corresponding benefit. If there was a vote taken upon this proposal, I would vote against it. At a later period when the Bill comes forward, I believe I will vote against it. I would suggest this: If a bounty or a subsidy is going to be given, why not take it out of the land annuities if you succeed in pinching them? Then you could come along and benefit the farmer without hitting the consumer. That is the suggestion I make.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

Of course I represent more or less the same class of county as Deputy Shaw; but we look at this matter from a different point of view. I always held that creameries and butter production were fundamental industries in this country. At the moment, I think a rather serious position has arisen so far as our livestock trade is concerned, possibly because of want of supplies. The want of supplies in store cattle can be attributed to a very large extent to the demoralisation that has occurred in the butter producing industry for the last nine or ten years. It was in considerable confusion previously, but for the last ten years it has got into such a position that the whole industry has become almost bankrupt.

Some serious effort was needed to revive this industry, which is fundamental to all the agricultural industries we have. I notice that the consumers and distributors in the City of Dublin and round about it are standing up for their end. I hope the farmers will stand up for theirs also. I do not mean that there should be a regular battle or any enmity between the two, but there should be full and open discussion. I do not advocate that the farmers should sit down and let their rights go. I believe they should stand up for them. I do not believe that in this proposal there is the slightest risk of interfering unduly with the consumer. Most of the consumers in the cities and towns to-day appreciate fully the demoralised position in which agriculture finds itself. I notice the first thing people in most of the business firms want to know to-day is what is the condition of the country, and they always make the comment: "If they are bad now, what will we do to-morrow?" I take it that there is no very definite objection to this proposal. People will not have any real objection to a small imposition which will bring benefit in another way. As far as the livestock trade is concerned, practically 75 per cent. of what we use is imported.

The position in regard to livestock is that store cattle are unduly expensive, and when store cattle are high in price it is generally caused by a shortage of supply. The shortage of supply here was due to the purchase for exportation by English and Scottish buyers of a very young class of cattle. At the same time, two things operated definitely against the supply. One was the demoralisation in the creameries and the low price for butter; the other thing was the unfortunate result of the Livestock Breeding Act. That, unquestionably, had very bad results. On paper it looked excellent to people who were not conversant with what was taking place, and they said the administration was perfect. It was very perfect, of course, to the people who were to gain, people breeding pure-bred cattle. They considered that they would get an enhanced price by preventing farmers from keeping what was known as scrub bulls, but we forgot to ask the question were they all scrub bulls. The result is that at the present time a large percentage of cows are not in calf and they are left on the hands of the farmers supplying the creameries and other farmers who breed for butter production, for a year or sometimes two years, without giving any result.

Between the shortage of supply and the demoralisation that occurred in the creameries, the supply of store cattle is extremely short in the country this year, and the sooner we realise the position the better. Prices are not very hopeful, and supplies are extremely short. I believe that farmers generally are in a more hopeless position than they have been in for the last seventy or eighty years. An effort of this description is a business-like one; it will certainly give them if not much profit, some hopes. I hope that the Minister will go further and reorganise the creameries. I hope that he will pay some attention to the operation of the Livestock Breeding Act, so as to give the farmers an opportunity of using their own intelligence. I am a firm believer in this, that if they had the intelligence and ability to keep going under extremely adverse conditions up to the present, the less interference we have with them the better.

Mr. Doherty

Who is going to supply the intelligence?

Mr. O'Reilly

I will not make any remark. At the same time, I would like to see a little different policy adopted. I would like to see the men who brought the livestock in this country by their own efforts to a very high pitch allowed to continue, because I know no better judge of livestock than the farmer himself. I do not think he has made many mistakes. Any mistakes that have been made by him have been made since he was unduly interfered with. I hope that questions in the future will be considered from the point of view of the man at the helm —the farmer. If that is done, I do not think any serious injury will befall distributors in the City of Dublin, or people who have been depending on the farmers for the production of their food.

Mr. Doherty

This debate has taken an extraordinary turn. I have a great respect for Deputy O'Reilly, but I could not understand whether he was speaking for the breeders of livestock or for the dairy farmers. Now that he has statistics at his disposal, could he tell us how much dairy stock there is in the county of Meath, the best county in Ireland? Deputy Maguire quoted statistics for Leitrim, but everybody knows that statistics are "lies, damn lies and statistics." I support the remarks of my colleague, Deputy McMenamin. As a result of this proposal, we are going to tax the poor people in the towns 4d. a lb. extra for butter. Are the farms in Meath, Westmeath and other places to be turned into dairy farms? Does Deputy O'Reilly agree with that?

Mr. O'Reilly

Not at all.

Mr. Hogan (Galway):

Might I ask the Minister a question? In the event of butter being imported in winter, will he put a levy of 2d. a lb. as well as an import duty of 4d.?

Dr. Ryan

No. I will deal with that.

Mr. Hogan

If that is so, I want to make this point, that the tendency will be to export all butter in summer that can be exported because, in fact, the summer price will be higher than the February price, and no one will take the risk of cold storage. At present there is a considerable amount of cold storage, which is the next best thing to winter dairying. This cold storage butter is held in the creameries during the winter and the staffs are employed in making it up into pounds. If the butter is exported in the summer, the staffs will be idle in the winter and will probably be dispensed with. That is rather a detail which the Minister should take into account.

Mr. Davin

The proposal contained in this motion, as far as I can understand it, has been put forward for the purpose of securing and if possible maintaining a minimum price of at least 4½d. per gallon for the milk supplied to the creameries, and in the hope, and only the hope, that as a result of the imposition of this levy, the consumer will not have to pay more than 1/5 per lb. for his butter. The policy behind the proposal is, in my opinion, sound in so far as it sets out to maintain the dairying industry, which is very valuable and one of the principal industries in the country, but I think that the risk is very great and will perhaps prove very costly to the consumer unless the Minister, as I think he should, takes the necessary steps to fix the maximum price to be charged to the consumer for the butter. I sincerely hope that before the Bill is presented to the House in detailed form, the Executive Council will consider very seriously that aspect of the case, and having promised, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce has already promised, to set up machinery for a price-fixing tribunal, I hope they will in this case take the necessary steps to see that a clause is inserted in the Bill to ensure that the consumer will not pay more than 1/5 per lb. for butter. There is no very great inducement at the present time to the ordinary dairy farmer to send his milk to the local creamery and receive only the miserable uneconomic price of 4½d. per gallon.

Mr. Gorey

Less than that, 3½d.

Mr. Davin

I am talking of the minimum aimed at in this proposal. The Minister stated that for the three years previous to and including the year 1929, the price paid by the local creameries to the farmer was about 6d. per gallon. From my own personal knowledge, the price in my own native county was as low as 3½d. per gallon. The Minister states that the cost of production will be 5.62d. At least these figures were given to the Agricultural Commission by presumably some expert or some person engaged in the industry. Therefore the proposal is that a levy must be put on creamery butter for the purpose of maintaining the price in the export market in order to bring in a minimum of 4½d. per gallon to the farmer when the cost of production is quoted at 5.62d.

Mr. Hogan (Galway):

Nobody knows the cost of production.

Mr. Davin

I am only quoting to the House the figures which the Minister quoted in his opening statement, not knowing whether they are sound or otherwise. I would certainly take risks if we had before us a proposal which would even bring to the farmer by way of price for his milk something near or equivalent to the cost of production. It is the contention of members of this Party, and they have always contended it, that the farmer is entitled to more than the cost of production. Like every other worker, he is entitled to something for his labour and the use of his land. If we are to take any risks at the expense of the consumer, we should at least go to the extent of making it profitable for the farmer to send his milk to the local creamery. The Minister said that they did not intend to have the price increased beyond 1/5. In view of the risks for which the consumer has already paid as a result of the tariffs imposed in this country, I would not like to take the further risk of saying that the retailer will not have a little bit of his own at the expense both of the consumer and the producer in this case.

I personally am not prepared to take any risks in that connection, and I strongly recommend the Minister and the Executive Council to see that a maximum price is put into the Bill which will give effect to the resolution now before the House.

Mr. Hogan (Galway):

What maximum do you suggest?

Mr. Davin

I would not suggest a maximum beyond 1/5. I am told, and I bow to the Minister for Agriculture and his predecessor, that small farmers in the dairying centres are not enthusiastic about sending milk to the local creameries unless they are assured of something about 6d. per gallon.

Mr. Hogan

That would mean a levy of 1/- per lb.

Mr. Davin

I am not here to be cross-examined by the ex-Minister for Agriculture. I would much prefer to listen to him being cross-examined by the Deputy who has recently taken his place in this House. There is another aspect of the case which should not be ignored by Deputies representing farming constituencies. This Bill aims at securing a minimum price of 4½d. per gallon for the dairy farmer in the hope that he will remain in the industry and consequently in the hope that he will retain the market, whether the export or the home market, which he has for the sale of his butter to-day. I am convinced, and I stated so in this House a year or two ago to the ex-Minister for Agriculture, that the failure of the then Government to set up and maintain a central selling organisation for the purpose of putting our butter on the export market is the real cause of the depression which exists in the dairying industry, and is the only reason why the export of butter to the British market has dropped. The Minister for Agriculture told us, without giving the exact figures, that New Zealand and Australia have been increasing their exports to the British market and that the Danes for other reasons have also been encroaching on our preserves in that market. Why is it that New Zealand, Australia and Denmark have been able to hold and increase these exports to the British market? Because they are nations industrially organised, and until the Minister for Agriculture makes up his mind that a central selling machine must take the place of the one which the ex-Minister allowed to collapse, I have no hope that our butter exports will be maintained in the British market. Let the Minister ask for expert advice on that and I think he will get it from his expert advisers.

Mr. Hogan (Galway):

There is no central selling agency in Australia or New Zealand for the British market.

Mr. Davin

There is an organised body of farmers for industrial purposes. The nation in an organised way puts its butter on the British market, and they have a Labour Government.

Mr. Cosgrave

Where is it?

Mr. Davin

I would like to see the Irish dairy farmers organised for industrial purposes. I would like to see them have the good sense to organise for that purpose, and it is only when they are organised that they will hold their own in the British market. I do not know what views, if any, the present Minister for Agriculture has on that matter. I do know that the action of his predecessor in allowing the Irish Associated Creameries to collapse cost him many hundreds of votes from tillage farmers in the recent general election, and I hope his successor will take note of that fact.

Mr. Anthony

Votes first and country afterwards.

Mr. Davin

I suggest that the creamery managers, with the dominating influence they were allowed to hold over the local committees, were a considerable factor in bringing about the collapse of the central selling machine. I want to see the creamery managers, those of them who were responsible for that state of affairs, put into the position by legislation that they will be the servants of the dairy farmers and that they will not be allowed, as in the past, to dominate these societies and destroy the selling machine. That was the cause of having our exports reduced. I hope the Minister will take these matters into consideration before the Bill is submitted to the Dáil in its final form. I hope that he and his colleagues in the Executive Council will, in the interests of the consuming public, fix a maximum price in the Bill.

Mr. Corry

I welcome this motion. Considering the terrible condition into which the agricultural community has been plunged, I think any effort to pull the dairying industry out of the mess is deserving of welcome. I welcome particularly this effort on the part of our Minister. It is admitted from all sides of the House that the price of milk is far below the cost of production. How can anybody expect the farming community to pay for the white elephant clapped upon them by the last Minister for Agriculture when he purchased the creameries at five times their value from Lovell and Christmas and then handed them to the farmers and expected them to pay £3 a cow when they were getting only 3½d. a gallon for milk?

I have figures prepared by the last Minister for Agriculture in which he indicates the case of a farmer selling milk at 4½d. a gallon and feeding 20 cows. He calculates the farmer could pay his way and at the end of twelve months would have a sum of £18 on which to support himself, his wife and children. These are rather illuminating figures. Every proposal brought forward here during the last five or six years was a proposal totally against the farmers' interests. The landlord element was protected. To-day there are farmers paying 15 to 20 per cent. higher rents than they were paying in 1920. Estates were taken over at five and six times their value and, like the creameries, they were subsequently unloaded on the unfortunate farmers who are expected to pay their way out of the 3½d. a gallon they receive for milk. In my constituency we had, according to the 1926 census, 11,000 odd agricultural labourers employed. In April, 1930, we had 5,600 employed, the remaining 6,400 walking the roads and looking over the fences at the fine grass grown under the direction of the late Minister for Grass.

I welcome this first decent attempt in this House to pull the farming community out of the mire. Proposal after proposal was brought in here by the late Government imposing tariffs which undoubtedly meant an increase in the price the farmer had to pay for different things. I welcome tariffs. In addition to the burdens I have outlined, we have unemployed to the number of 80,000, and the cost of their maintenance is thrown on the farmers' shoulders. Those 80,000 people have to be supported by the farmers whether they are working or whether they are idle. I welcome any attempt to get employment for them. This effort undoubtedly will bring back large numbers of the 6,000 unemployed agricultural labourers in my constituency to the land. Under the late régime, an unfortunate man with 8/- a week home assistance had to support himself, his wife and children, and I admit that when he is facing an increase in the price of butter, he is facing an impossible task.

Mr. Morrissey

How much has he to-day? Has he more than 8/- to-day?

Mr. Corry

We expect that within a very short time he will have employment at a decent wage.

Mr. Morrissey

Live horse...

Mr. Corry

We had the live horse policy for ten years and we know what it meant.

Mr. S. Jordan

The horse did not even get grass.

Mr. Corry

It is admitted that the farmer cannot pay his way if he receives only 3½d. to 4d. a gallon for milk. What is now proposed? It only ensures that the farmers' prices will not be under 4½d.

Mr. Cosgrave

Will the Deputy explain that?

Mr. Corry

The proposal is that the price will not be under 4½d. I consider that 4½d. is not an economic price for milk at the present time.

Mr. O'Donovan

It would want to be 6d.

Mr. Corry

Yes, and it would even want to be 8d. if they have to pay the £3 a cow. As a result of the system of government that we had in this country for the last ten years, the bulk of the land has gone completely out of tillage. Every proposal made here by the Government in the past was against tillage and against the farmer getting any price for his tillage. Legislation introduced here during the last ten years had the effect of causing unemployment on the land and in the factories—unemployment all round. When we endeavoured to see that the farmer would get a fair price for his grain, we were threatened by some manufacturers outside, and we were told they might go. I hope soon we will be able to put them in the position of knowing definitely whether they will go or not. When we pointed out in the past the employment that would result if our suggestions were adopted we were knocked on the head and told about the danger of somebody with money leaving the country. Those people take very good care not to spend the money here.

I for one welcome this proposal on behalf of the farmers and the farming community in my constituency. I earnestly hope this is only the first of many proposals that we will see brought into this House by the Government in order to enable the ordinary working farmers to get on their feet and hold their heads above water. The present Executive Council have a big mess to get out of. Realising that, I welcome every attempt that is being made to deal with the problem facing the farming community, and this is a very sound attempt. It is an attempt to pull the farming community out of the mess into which they have been plunged by the reckless extravagance of the late Government.

Mr. Blythe

The introduction of this proposal is an indication of the Government's view of the serious position of the dairying industry. The proposal that is before the House is really a very important and drastic one. It is no less than a proposal that the consumers, the purchasers of butter, should be taxed to the extent of £850,000 per annum in order to assist the dairying industry. In the present circumstances it is a very serious thing to levy a new tax to the tune of £850,000. The Government which proposes that new taxation on that scale should be levied must be convinced that it is absolutely necessary. If they are convinced that it is absolutely necessary that the dairying industry should have this assistance to the tune of £850,000 per annum, it is to be hoped that in all their policy they will take care to secure that that assistance remains with the dairying industry. If we take the price of butter at 105/- per cwt., ten per cent. on that would be 10/6. It would be very easy, therefore, if any action of the Government put up a tariff barrier or led to a tariff barrier to that extent coming between this country and its butter market—it would be very easy for half of this assistance, which is now deemed to be absolutely necessary, to be lost to the dairying industry. I can only hope that this serious position and this serious attempt which is being made to deal with the position will be borne in mind by the Government itself, and that they will not do something to take away the benefit of the sacrifice which the consumer is now being asked to make.

Mr. Anthony

I am opposing this motion. We have heard from Deputy O'Reilly that the residents in the cities and towns will not be unduly pressed if this resolution passes. I suggest to Deputy O'Reilly and to this House that even at his own computation of one and a half million pounds that figure alone would indicate the extent to which, in Deputy O'Reilly's opinion, the residents of the cities and towns will contribute to this impost. If I thought that by supporting this motion I would be the means of giving employment to a couple of hundred extra persons in the country, I would readily support it. But in view of the fact that we have had here on occasions a discussion as to the merits of the dairying industry versus the tillage industry one is compelled to examine the question closely.

I think it is conceded on all sides that the tillage farmer gives a good deal more employment than the dairy farmer. For that reason and also in view of the fact that this measure contemplates the giving of relief to the dairy farmer and says nothing whatever about the tillage farmer, I am rather surprised that many of those who previously advocated the cause of the tillage farmer have espoused the cause of the dairy farmer so warmly. Bluntly and brutally this motion proposed to inflict on already impoverished people —impoverished because of unemployment—further taxation on a staple article of food. The chief articles of food in the menu of the ordinary working people of this country are bread and butter. We are also aware that bread is the staple food of the poorer portion of our population.

We know from those who can speak with authority, from members of the medical profession and others, that butter is looked upon as one of the easiest and best of the fat producing and sinew producing commodities that can be given to children and adolescents. It might be said of course that the extra cost of butter to the consumers in the cities and towns of the Free State will not very largely affect the poor because it may be argued that the poor have not the money to buy butter even at its present price and that consequently they will not be able to buy it at the increased price. I do not suggest for one moment that the Minister for Agriculture is so inhuman as to inflict upon a class of the community to which I refer further grievances and I am slow to believe that he gave this measure the serious consideration that it deserved. I think that he must not have had regard to its repercussions and reactions on the vast majority of the citizens of this State. He must not have had regard to its effects and reactions on the very poorer classes of the community. It may be said of course that many of these people are already in receipt of home assistance and in receipt of relief in kind. Again I suggest that relief in kind will be very considerably reduced and that the home assistance authorities and other relieving authorities such as the St. Vincent de Paul Society and other Welfare Societies will have to reduce very considerably their expenditure on commodities such as butter.

Certainly I do not want to inflict a further burthen on my poorer neighbours, particularly on young children. I am not going to partake in what I might call another slaughter of the innocents. We had a suggestion from Deputy Davin, and a very admirable suggestion it would be under other circumstances, that maximum prices should be fixed by a Food Fixing Authority. Whether maximum or minimum prices be fixed under this measure now the fact remains that the price of butter will be increased by 4d. a lb. That will be the minimum increase. I think therefore that 1/5 per lb. will be the minimum price of butter in the Saorstát. Members of the present Government, Ministers and others, have stressed all over the country before and after the Election the importance of our home market. The Minister in his statement to-day, in introducing this resolution also stressed the fact of the importance of the home market. He said in the course of his opening statement that 50 per cent. of the butter would be exported—that would be the exportable surplus, and that the other half would be consumed at home. The Minister quoted figures from Denmark and other countries. New Zealand and Australia were mentioned. I wonder if the Minister has looked into the future and attempted to gauge what may occur if certain legislation that is contemplated here is proceeded with? How long are we going to retain that export trade? The export trade is principally if not wholly with Great Britain. If and when the Oath is abolished and the land annuities retained, and perhaps some other measures of a provocative nature to the other people to the contract introduced and passed, has the Minister any guarantee that that export trade will continue?

Mr. Allen

What has that got to do with this question?

Mr. Anthony

There are two parties to every bargain, and if the second party does not want our export butter what is going to become of the 50 per cent. surplus that will be in this country?

Mr. Aiken

We can afford to eat it ourselves.

Mr. Anthony

The poor people cannot at 1/5 per lb. The Deputy may be able to do so and I may be able to do so but the very poor will not. There is no doubt that if this tariff is persisted in it will have only one effect and that is to raise the cost of living all round. There will be no corresponding increase in the rate of wages or in the salaries that will be paid for some time at any rate in this State. Economies are being effected all round in State Departments and perhaps in many business houses to-day. This tariff will have a very disastrous effect in many ways. It will have fatal—and I use the word advisedly—reactions on the very poor who will not be able to purchase butter and in these circumstances will not be in a position to give a sufficiency of butter to their children. If we pass this Resolution and if it ultimately goes on the Statute Book I will follow up what was suggested by Deputy Davin by asking the Minister to lighten the load in so far as he can by the setting up of some board to deal with prices. My experience of tariffs has been that if a tariff of 4d. is put on, the middleman puts it up to 6d. or puts on an extra charge at any rate. The 1/5 that is mentioned as the price of butter will amount to 1/10 on poor people who purchase their commodities in small quantities. They usually purchase butter and other provisions in small quantities and they will be paying at the rate of 1/10 or 2/- per lb. and not the 1/5 that is suggested in the motion. I am opposing the motion because I think it will be a tax on the very poor who can ill-afford it.

Mr. McGilligan

I rise mainly to welcome the rate at which the education of the new Government is proceeding as evidenced by remarks—some of which might almost be scheduled hereafter as axioms for the benefit of the House—proceeding from the Minister for Agriculture to-day. He tells us that the dairying industry is basic in our agricultural economy. He would not have made that pronouncement in the same direct way several months ago. He says further that we must see that while we try to get new industries going we preserve the existing industries. I am afraid the existing industries were not so much in the Minister's consideration some months ago. He also states that we cannot get more for what we export and that therefore we have to tackle the home consumer. I have heard the argument put up about the exportable surplus of many articles and I had not the benefit of the advice that the Minister for Agriculture so clearly put, that you could not get more for what you were exporting by artifical means. I welcome any expression of opinion on his part.

He explained that, for reasons which he did not detail, Danish butter has been much more sought after in the English market than Irish butter. At any rate it fetches a higher price. He says that if the Imperial preference continues and equates the consumers' desire for Danish over Irish butter, then you can estimate the price of Irish butter at a certain point. But supposing we lose the Imperial tang— and it is not welcome in other regards —and that the Imperial preference does not equate the consumers' desire for Danish butter, how much extra must we put on to the bounty that is now asked in order that our butter will be sold under the then conditions on the English market? We also got the point of view from the Minister to-day that I think shows an awakening appreciation of tariff policy throughout the world and its repercussions in this country.

The second item in the Minister's account of the circumstances that have operated against Irish butter in the British market was that Denmark had been tariffed out of some other countries and that Northern European countries, suffering in some other way, had joined Denmark in an attack on the British market. At any rate, let us learn the lesson that you do not do away with goods operating against you merely by imposing a tariff on them; you are going to meet them in a variety of ways, and you do not annihilate foreign goods by simply imposing tariffs on them in your own country. The third item that weighs heavily against Irish butter in the British market, we are told, is that production has increased in New Zealand and Australia. Supposing, again, if I get back to my first remark, that we lose our Imperial tang, and that New Zealand and Australia increase that particular Imperial preferential flavour, and that they proceed to send more butter at better rates to themselves under the preferential system into the British market, where then is the Irish producer of this particular article? I said that the Government were being educated. I should have made one exception. The Minister for Defence, when that question was put to him, said that we could eat the butter ourselves. It would be the happiest way of bringing the Minister for Defence to an end if we made him sit down to eat all the surplus butter in this country. Deputy Davin showed himself in his usual mood of contradictories to-day. He is always in favour of extra social services, but against increased taxation. He is against profiteering, but he wants fair prices for various people. He thinks that the farmer-producer, like the labourer, ought to get something more than the mere price of his raw material or the cost of extracting that, that there must be something over and above for his labour. But the retailer is the man against whom Deputy Davin must always sharpen his knife. Under this bounty scheme Deputy Davin wants the retailer compulsorily brought down to a price of 1/5 per lb.

Deputy Davin thinks—in that he was joined, although I am not sure that he would welcome it, by Deputy Corry—that if you do not make this subsidy big enough to ensure a price of 6d. per gallon to the producer, it is not much good. We have got to get figures sometime or other. We had confusion in the figures to-day. We have sometime or other to get clarity in the figures as to what this means to the consumer. So far as any calculations I have been able to make go on creamery butter alone, leaving factory butter out of consideration for the moment, the 2d. levy in order to give a 4d. bounty on fifty per cent., export, will mean a cost to the consumer of at least £600,000 per annum. That £600,000 per annum, as Deputy Davin should know, means bringing up the price of milk to the producer from 3¾d. to about 4½d. It adds three farthings. Bring it up to 6d., another 1½d. Three times the subsidy now proposed; three times the cost to the consumer; £1,800,000 to be spent extra by the consumers of butter in this country—the great proportion of those will be small children—in order to give the farmer-producer the price of 6d. per gallon which Deputy Davin thinks he ought to get. Deputy Corry wants to go to 8d. That will bring us to the region of £3,600,000, but that is fatuous. Deputy Davin, while wanting the farmer-producer to get 6d. per gallon, wants the retailer shut down at a price of 1s. 5d. I doubt if he could get butter at less than 1s. 9d., but, as I said, these are the contradictories that one always expects to get from Deputy Davin.

Mr. Davin

Debating points.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy wants a price limit fixed compulsorily on the retailer. He did speak of 1s. 5d.

Mr. Davin

Under this proposal.

Mr. McGilligan

Even under this proposal, he speaks of 1/5. I wonder if the Minister for Agriculture is going to accept that point of view, because if one could be sure that a retail price of 1/5, or something about that, could be fixed and could be achieved—a different thing—under compulsory price-fixing machinery, a lot of the disquiet that will be necessarily caused to the consumers would disappear. I know of no price-fixing machinery yet proposed likely to achieve this particular end that Deputy Davin desires. I do not see how in the case of such a thing as butter one can ever get a price fixed when the item of quality will enter so much into consideration.

I spoke of the point as to Imperial preference, and I want now to return to it. Take my own calculation of £600,000 as the cost to the consumer by reason of this scheme—£600,000 profit to the producer of creamery butter alone, neglecting the factory butter item as we have not been given any indication whatsoever of the quantities in that case. That £600,000 is to be given a bounty of 4d. on 50 per cent. of the entire production of the country, which represents the entire export of the country of that particular class of butter. That is supposed to give an addition of 37/4 on the exportable amount. That is to say, it will give 18/8 over the whole amount produced. That is, taking a basic price of 105/- in England. Suppose 10 per cent. is lost and you lose the 10/- to which Deputy Blythe has referred, it seems to me that the addition to be made to the bounty to put us back in the position we would then have departed from would be about two-thirds of the present rate—that to give only 4½d. to the farmer-producer we will have a cost to the consumer not of £600,000 but of that, plus two-thirds. We will then have a round million as the cost to the consumer here. We should not neglect the consideration that the ten per cent. advantage which we have and which the Minister for Agriculture hopes will continue to equate the consumer's desire for Danish butter may be raised at the Conference at Ottawa to something higher than ten per cent., and that what we may be endangering by activities of another type is not 10 per cent. but 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. We have been told often in this connection that our goods are not bought on the other side through sentimental affection for us but because they are required.

I am sure the Minister for Agriculture has the figures regarding butter supplies to the United Kingdom. I speak from memory. So far as I remember, for about four years past the amount of Irish butter imported into the United Kingdom represented between 9 per cent. and 7 per cent. of the entire butter import there. In the same years the Danish figures were between 40 per cent. and 35 per cent. Is it a very big thing to do without the 9 per cent. or 7 per cent.? Could not the people who supply from 40 per cent. to 35 per cent. be brought up by 7 per cent. or 9 per cent. if we decided not to sell the British consumer any butter, as we might decide if the funny nationalism abroad at the moment becomes any more rampant? Deputy Anthony has made a point about the increased cost to the consumer here and referred to the fact that it is going to fall most heavily on people with families, particularly people with young families. It will fall, as he said, particularly heavily upon poor people with large families.

Mr. Briscoe

Who buy only margarine.

Mr. Anthony

This, I suppose, will help them to buy more margarine.

Mr. McGilligan

If one compares the economy of the consumer in this country and in Denmark on this particular item I think it will be found— again I speak from memory; I have not recently gone into the figures— that the consumption of margarine per head of the entire population of Denmark is ten times what it is here. There is a danger that if butter prices be raised here the poor person with a large family of young children may be driven to the use of another substance. The reactions of that upon the agricultural economy——

General Mulcahy

And upon health.

Mr. McGilligan

——is a thing that must be regarded.

Mr. Briscoe

What is the consumption per head of butter in Denmark?

Mr. Cosgrave

About one-third what it is here.

Mr. McGilligan

It is very much less than it is here.

Mr. Briscoe

What are the figures?

Mr. McGilligan

I have not got them here but I can get them. The Minister for Agriculture must have them in his records and they would be illuminating if produced when this Bill comes to be debated in its further stages. It is difficult to make up one's mind on this proposal. One must attend to those who come from the agricultural communities and those who, in a special way, may be said to represent those communities. And they put the case very strongly, that unless some measure of this sort be passed this one end, as we are told, of a basic part of our agricultural economy may be very seriously weakened. On the other hand, somebody must speak for the consumer. The consumer never, because he is not so well organised, can make the same dramatic protest that the producer can make or have made for him. At any rate, this will have to be further examined with more figures than the Minister put before us to-day. We will have to find out: is this likely to fail in its objects? Is the point of view put forward by Deputy Davin that this increase of 4½d. means nothing, and that it would be better go the further step and increase the demand upon the consumer, or will we have to consider what case, because no case has yet been made in any great detail, is there that this subsidy should be given to the farmer producer at all?

Deputy Maguire objected to Deputy Hogan contrasting the method of subsidy as opposed to tariffs. He was not contrasting with a view to objecting to this or that particular line. As a matter of fact, I think Deputy Hogan's point of view was in favour of subsidy as opposed to tariff, and anybody's point of view I think must be in favour of subsidy as opposed to tariff for this reason that when you grant a subsidy you know the extent of it. You can, in the main, follow out where the money is going. You can see whether it gets to the producer whom you want to benefit, or how much is taken by the intermediaries; you can see in the end what results accrue from what has been done, and much more systematically and accurately see what it is costing the consumer, whereas in a tariff everything is cloaked and hidden.

On the industrial side examples could be given of the same thing. Certain firms were guaranteed money under the Trade Loans Act. When they came to an end there was a certain shudder through the House when it was realised that State money to the extent of £30,000, £40,000, or £50,000 had been lost. If these industries had been tariffed, not merely might the £40,000 or £50,000 be lost in the sense of waste, but there would be no end to it: there would not come a point when the fund was exhausted, where one had to make up his mind to go on or to cut one's losses. Subsidies always are to be preferred as a direct aid to a tariff which is secret and hidden, the repercussions and re-actions of which can never be properly followed.

I suggest to the Minister that before this is debated again we should have, more clearly than he gave us to-day, the figures with regard to whatever other types of butter are going to be brought into this scheme than creamery butter: that we should have from him an accurate estimate of the profit that is going to accrue to the producers and, necessarily, the cost to the consumers. He should tell us, further, what extra subsidy would be required in case we lose the preferential position that we have in this market, and in case we were faced with, say, an increase of about one-third of the present production for the British market from New Zealand or Australia.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Aiken)

Deputy McGilligan is very concerned about the imperial tang as he called it. He is afraid that if certain proposals are adopted by the people of this country that the knot that binds us to England will be severed and that we will be compelled to use up our own products. We hope that if we are forced to eat our own butter in this country Deputy McGilligan will take a little of it, and that it will improve his temper more than the dinners he took over in London.

Mr. McGilligan

There is Irish butter over there too.

Mr. Aiken

The situation is this: that we are importing so much that we have to export something in order to get the credits abroad to pay for what we import. Last year our adverse trade balance went up as compared with the year 1930. It rose from £11,023,000 to £13,397,000 last year. If we allow our farmers to go out of the production of butter, then that adverse trade balance is going to be added to, and until we can take steps in this country to produce some of the goods we import, we have got to go ahead and export a lot of goods which, if things were normal and right in this country, we would like to see retained and consumed here.

For a number of years past, in order to make up for the adverse trade balance, we have been selling a lot of our factories. I would prefer, for a short time, to sell butter to foreigners instead of selling our factories in order to make up our adverse balance of trade. If we were balancing our imports and exports, and if our farmers found themselves in the position that they could not produce the butter that we require without a subsidy, I would say that they should be subsidised. The producer, in order to remain in production, will have to get at least the cost of his production. Our farmers should not be asked to work for a slave wage any more than the workman in the towns or the capitalist who puts his money into an industry and expects to get a dividend out of it.

There has been some talk about taxing the impoverished consumer. The situation is this, that if we do not give this subsidy our farmers are going to go out of the production of butter altogether, and we are going to have them thrown on the unemployed market and on outdoor relief. The position that unfortunately we are up against is this: whether we are prepared to tax the consumer in order to enable our farmers to continue in production, or whether we are going to let them out of production and then tax the consumers and everybody else in order to keep them on home assistance. I prefer to keep the farmers in production. Unfortunately, we are in the position, seeing that we import so much, that we have got to subsidise the export of butter for a time. If what Deputy McGilligan alluded to happened, if we retained here the land annuities——

Mr. Gorey

Which you have no right to collect.

Mr. Aiken

Whether we have or not we are going to do it. If Deputy Gorey does not pay we may re-introduce the Public Safety Act that he passed and we will see how he likes Arbour Hill for a while.

Mr. Gorey

You have no right to collect.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister should deal with the butter.

Mr. Aiken

The position is this that in order to pay the land annuities that we are sending to England we have had to rob our people of £3,000,000 worth of our produce which they could very well have done with. The only way we had to pay the land annuities and the other monies we send out is to export the foodstuffs which were so badly required by our people. Anyone who talks about the impoverished consumer in the country should stand with us in retaining at home the products which at present go to meet the land annuities and other payments There is no necessity to go into this any further to-day beyond dealing with one point that Deputy McGilligan made when he said that Denmark was sending into England 35 to 40 per cent. of the total British imports, and that the Irish Free State was only sending in 7 to 9 per cent. He asked what would happen us if we lost the 10 per cent. if England ceased to love us. Then she might get to love us as much as she loves Denmark and import from us from 30 to 40 per cent. instead of from some other country.

Mr. Dillon

I am in agreement with the principle of this proposal. Deputy Anthony, in referring to it, said there would be no immediate benefit. There would be this immediate benefit that one of the most important branches of the principal industry in this country will be saved from destruction, and unless something is done to save it and done quickly it will not be a question of live horse and get grass because there will be no grass for the horse to get and no horse to eat it when the grass comes.

What the Government propose to do now is to fill the vacuum that nature has left. Nature has produced no grass and the Government has to provide it, but I find fault with the way in which the Government propose to find it, because, at whose expense are they doing it? They are going to provide it at the expense of the poor, and the children of the poor, which is that section of the community least able to afford it. I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that there is a grave obligation on them to provide this money, and to take this remedial course they propose. There is no doubt whatever that the late Government failed miserably to protect the dairying industry in this country, and their schemes collapsed in ruins. Now there is a proposal, and in it, I think, is contained the germ of a possibility of success. That proposal, to my mind, is good in its application, but I find fault with the source to which the Minister looks for the money necessary to finance the operation.

I listened with attention to experienced legislators talking on this question, and from no single one of them did there come any alternative suggestion of some other source from which the Minister could get the money. Everybody was anxious to explain the iniquities of seeking the money from the source proposed, but nobody has any other proposal to make. Deputy Briscoe, who, I understand, is the representative of the downtrodden and the oppressed, his sole contribution so far has been to say that the people who are referred to as the poor always eat margarine.

Mr. Briscoe

Out of 14/6 a week they cannot get anything else.

Mr. Dillon

My view is this, that if there was a benefit out of the world slump, it was that it brought butter within the reach of the poor, who heretofore were forced to eat nothing but margarine, and I regard it as nothing less than a crime that when such a foodstuff as butter comes within the reach of the poor, who eat margarine, this Dáil should intervene and snatch it out of their reach on the ground that there is no other source from which to get the subsidy.

I do not want to misrepresent Deputy Briscoe, or his interjection, but I would like to remind Deputies of this —and I refer to some of our medical colleagues for confirmation—that it is perfectly true that the consumption of margarine in Denmark is far higher than it is here, and it is also true that there developed in Denmark a disease hitherto unknown to medical science, and which defeated medical science for many years, until eventually it was discovered by physiologists that it was due to the fact that the Danes were exporting almost all their produce with vitamin contents, and consuming margarine and other substitutes, with the result that the whole juvenile population was being struck down by a fatal disease. The intervention of research did succeed in getting legislation passed which protected the Danish people from their own economists.

I do not propose to criticise the Minister's search for a source of revenue without proposing something which he might try. Why on earth if it is necessary to raise this money— and I quite agree that it is—could he not make the Minister for Finance come out boldly and raise the money and apply it to the right end? Why could he not raise it in the ordinary way by revenue? Let him put back the tax on tea. Tea never did anybody any good. It is purely a luxury, and if they drank less tea, they would be a great deal better off. Those who cannot resist the stimulating draught, let them pay for their stimulation, and let the money raised on tea provide at least a part, if not all, of the money necessary for this emergency legislation for the purpose of protecting an essential industry. I am not stirred by dyed-in-the-wool Free Trader or Protectionist either, and I believe in meeting every difficulty as it arises, and if it is an emergency, meeting it with an emergency. This is an emergency. A large part of our people will be thrown into bankruptcy, and hopeless discouragement, if this new departure for the protection of the dairy industry fails. But it will not fail. I believe that the Minister is travelling in the right direction, but he has no right to succour one section of the community at the expense of the least protected and most defenceless section, and the poor in this country would expect from Deputy Norton, not a solitary expression of solicitude for the creameries of this country, but an expression of solicitude for his own people—the labouring classes in this country. Deputy Norton's sole contribution to this debate was this—is the course of action proposed by the Minister not calculated to injure the creameries? There was not a word—I am subject to correction—about the poor people in this country, who had butter brought within their reach, and who are to have it snatched out of their reach by Deputy Hogan's tariff and the new subsidy of the Minister for Agriculture. I think that is a deplorable fact.

From this debate two essentials emerge: (1) the dairy industry must be protected; and (2) the poor should not be victimised, but to my mind the only way out of that is for the Minister for Agriculture to have courage and come out, not by any backstair method, and tell the whole community that they have got to come to the assistance of their neighbours or their neighbours cannot survive, and that if they want to drink tea they will have to pay for the privilege, and that the payment they make for their enjoyment will be used for the useful purpose of rescuing an important branch of the principal industry in this country from the bankruptcy which threatens it after ten years of Cumann na nGaedheal administration.

Mr. Cosgrave

This particular proposal is, to my mind, almost as important as any of the Budgets that have been introduced in this House, during the last few years. Certainly the sum of money that is required is much in excess of any sum which the Minister for Finance had to apply for during the last few years. Deputy Dillon went very close to the point when he said that the Minister did not get any assistance in having alternative proposals put before him. He did not ask for any; he did not indicate he was prepared to accept any. At no time was there any such thing in anybody's mind. This was one proposal standing by itself and I must say, that in my long experience here, whenever a proposal of this sort was brought before the House, during the last ten years, more than one Minister sat there, and more than one Minister replied to whatever criticisms or suggestions or questions were put from the Opposition or from any member of the House, in connection with it. Only one Minister has spoken here, apart from the Minister for Agriculture, on this very important and very big subject involving such a large sum of money.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

It is not out of discourtesy but that we expected that the major discussion would be on the second reading of the Bill.

Mr. Cosgrave

This is a very important occasion at the moment, and the Minister who has just spoken concerned himself with everything except the proposal. He spoke about the adverse trade balance and all the bunk we have heard for the last ten years. One side of a balance sheet was taken up and nothing at all said about the other side.

I would like to ask the Minister who has just spoken if he inquired from the Currency Commission whether or not any of the investments held in this country have had to be sold during the last four or five years to make up that adverse trade balance. They are not now at the cross-roads. They will have to answer for whatever proposals are put before the House. They have not got a politically uneducated public to deal with. They have to stand over every proposal which they put up here. I must say that after listening to the contribution of the Labour Party I am not surprised at their numbers going down.

Mr. Corry

Like your own.

Mr. Cosgrave

Money is required for this industry. It is not, as Deputy Dillon said, an industry that requires to be protected. It does not require protection; it requires to be subsidised. If the House admits that and is prepared to vote the money, the whole question that concerns us here is, what is the best method of doing it? What method will best bring all the money that it will cost to do it to the assistance of that industry? Does this method? I do not see how it does.

Mr. Corry

What about the ex-Minister's scheme?

Mr. Cosgrave

Perhaps the less said on that subject the better. The creamery industry was re-organised by the ex-Minister for Agriculture in the best possible manner and at the cheapest possible price.

Mr. Corry

Where is it now?

Mr. Cosgrave

So far as the reorganisation is concerned it is a sound reorganisation.

Mr. Corry

£3 per cow.

Mr. Cosgrave

We can deal with the £3 per cow another time. If the Deputy puts down a motion saying it ought to be reconsidered, we will deal with it, but do not allow such irrelevancies to detract public attention from weak and almost unworkable proposals such as we have here.

Mr. Davin

Accepted by the ex-Minister.

Mr. Hogan (Galway):

The ex-Minister accepted the principle of assisting the industry. So far as this scheme is concerned it is not an original scheme. The scheme came before us six months ago and it was turned down as not being on a sound business basis because the costs on the particular sections of the community upon which they would fall were unfair and, secondly, because there was no guarantee that the levy which would be imposed upon the people of the country would assist the industry. The Minister did not deal with that point. He has no other Minister of the Executive Council there to support him on it.

Dr. Ryan

I am well able for it.

Mr. Cosgrave

What are they doing? Surely there are not more communications to be answered, or if there are this is a matter that is more serious and much more vital to the people than empty formulas or things of that sort. What are they there for and what are they getting paid for? Here is a vital basic industry. One Minister brought up his proposals and carried them with the Executive Council, each one of them saying, "It is your funeral, it is your job, it is your baby; you will look after it."

A Deputy

We are well able to.

Mr. Cosgrave

Unfortunately the Minister can only speak at the beginning and at the end of the debate. When asked a question he said, "I will answer that at the end of the debate". Two or three points emerged from anything worth hearing this evening. Nobody knows what it will cost. The Minister himself did not mention any sum.

Dr. Ryan

The estimate I made was £415,000.

Mr. Davin

Doubled by Deputy Hogan.

Mr. Cosgrave

If the estimate be £415,000, then I take it that the levy which is proposed to be made will be 3d. per lb. on butter and that the export bounty will be 1½d.

Dr. Ryan

No. 2d. and 4d.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think the Minister will have to look up his figures again. The whole creamery production of butter is approximately 700,000 cwts. The export is approximately 320,000 cwts. Are these the figures which the Minister has got?

Dr. Ryan

The production was 607,000 cwts. last year.

Mr. Cosgrave

690,000 cwts. as a matter of fact is the correct figure.

Dr. Ryan

That was the year before. The Deputy is referring to the year 1930.

Mr. Hogan (Galway):

What about the factory and home-manufactured butter?

Dr. Ryan

We are dealing with the creameries for the moment.

Mr. Hogan

The question is, what the country is going to pay for.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is a question of the Deputy's speech.

Mr. Cosgrave

I presume I will be allowed to ask the Minister a question?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am only trying to prevent interruptions.

Mr. Cosgrave

The production is 690,000 cwts., as given on the third and fourth pages of the report. On that basis the levy of 2d. amounts to £644,000. The Minister said it will be £415,000. Will the Minister indicate to the House what segregation of sales for consumption in the country and for export is going to regulate the economy of each particular creamery? The levy will be collected or imposed, as the case may be. The next question for consideration in the creamery or in the combination of creameries is what is going to be exported? Obviously it would be to the interest of any creamery to export all the manufactured butter and not to sell any at home.

Dr. Ryan

Why is that?

Mr. Cosgrave

Because it is going to get the bounty. Is not that so? How is that going to be managed?

Dr. Ryan

I explained that in my opening statement. For example, if the export price is 105/- and the bounty 37/-, that is 142/-. If the home buyer gives 142/-, naturally he will get it.

Mr. Cosgrave

I am afraid I will have to agitate the Minister a little bit on that. Take a particular creamery. The manager wants to export two-thirds of the butter manufactured because he will get something extra on it over and above what he gets for the other one-third. Something will come back in respect of that two-thirds I have mentioned by way of bounty from the Department of Agriculture over and above his price. What regulation and what system will be inaugurated so that there will be a fair distribution in respect of the bounty that will come?

Dr. Ryan

If the home buyer cannot get it at 142/- then the bounty goes down.

Mr. Cosgrave

We will assume that the home buyer pays 142/- and he gets, as I have said, one-third of the butter. Two-thirds are ready for export, and a bounty is wanted on that. The bounty will be an advantage to him to deal with the export business.

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Cosgrave

No advantage? What will be the regulation in respect of that particular thing with regard to the winter business? It is always an advantage to sell at once, I take it. There is cash in it and it will be sold at once. Are not we sending up our imports at the end of the year when we have no butter? Will there not be an increase in the imports, and will not that be against the dairying industry, unless some special steps are taken to improve winter dairying? That will not be done in a year.

Dr. Ryan

I understand the point. Deputy Hogan made the same point: how to provide for the winter supply, that it would benefit naturally the creameries to export all through the year if they had the butter because they would have the bounty and there would be no benefit in storing for the winter. There will be power in the Bill to deal with that. First there will be power to vary the bounty if we see that the butter is going out too quickly in July or August or September, the months in which it ought to be stored for winter. The bounty can be lowered so as to encourage them to storage for the winter. And if the encouragement is not sufficient we will be looking for power in the Bill also to actually prohibit the export of butter at certain times.

Mr. Cosgrave

In the first place the whole production in butter is represented on a fifty-fifty basis as between creameries and farmers. That is accepted. Now in respect of this levy it is on the creameries only it is to be imposed. I take it that the physical impossibility of doing the other thing will render it almost impossible.

Dr. Ryan

The creameries and the factories.

Mr. Cosgrave

So that the ordinary farmers' production escapes?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Cosgrave

Obviously according to that it is not a fair arrangement. It does not appear to me to be a fair arrangement because one of the most important items in connection with our butter industry or in connection with any industry is the excellence of the product. There is no close inspection of the farmers' production. It may be good, but the fact is that it does not get the high prices that creamery butter does. Consequently there is almost an invitation, by reason of this particular levy, to farmers to start manufacturing butter on their own farms and the consequence would be a reduction of the quantity of milk going to the creameries. I have observed and I am sure the Minister has observed the extraordinary difference in the cost of the manufacture of butter in some creameries as against others. There are some creameries in which the cost is practically half what it is in others. The difference will be realised when I say that it amounts in some cases to 27/- a cwt. If the whole creamery industry is worthy of support one of the main considerations ought to be ensured, that is they ought to be made as efficient and economic as possible. This particular proposal endangers this economy by reason of the attraction there is to the farmers to manufacture in their own homes. Even if they send a certain proportion of their milk to the creamery and keep a certain proportion at home all the time the cost must be rather against whatever milk goes to the creamery and must tend to increase the cost of butter manufactured in that place. I suggest to the Minister that if a certain sum of money be required to support the creamery business and to subsidise the creamery industry in this country let him find out the amount necessary and come to the House for it in respect to taxation or something else. The point mentioned by Deputy Dillon is an important point. I do not know that there is any article of food in which the vitamins are so pronounced as in butter. There is no article so commonly used in the country, particularly by the young, and indeed by all classes and sections of the people.

Mr. Davin

Does not the same apply to tea?

Mr. Cosgrave

Not at all.

Mr. Davin

What about the women?

Mr. Cosgrave

For example I would have the temperament of Deputy Davin if I took to drinking tea. He is timorous, supercilious and provocative. I am none of these things.

Mr. Davin

You are a good advertisement for Oxo.

Mr. Cosgrave

The other point I want to put is if the industry requires a particular sum of money let us be assured it is going to get it. We are not sure according to this. For example, it is on the cards that with this bounty butter may be sold at a lower price in England by means of the bounty than it would be normally. It is well known amongst business men that the more difficult it is to get money the keener people are to get it. Here there is some waiting and there is naturally a disposition to be careless, and a better system to my mind could be devised than this one. We are not placing the burden fairly upon all the people. Half the butter produced is going to escape the imposition; the other half is going to bear it, and I venture to say the industry is not in a position to maintain any other onslaughts or to deal with less milk than what it is dealing with, and any interference with the supply of milk to the creameries would be, I think the Minister will agree, one of real danger in connection with this proposal.

Last year we proposed to come to the relief of the rates to the extent of £750,000. The Party opposite wanted £1,000,000. The difference between £750,000 and £1,000,000 is £250,000 which is half the estimated cost of this proposal. Nobody will object to give what assistance is required to any industry of the importance and magnitude of the dairying industry in this country, if we are satisfied that it is a sound proposition. This to my mind is not a sound proposition. It fails in the first degree by taxing half the production and leaving the other half free. It fails in the second place in that the whole sum cannot be devoted towards industrial needs here, but may actually succeed in increasing the price of butter to our own people and cheapening it to the British. And I am sure as I stand here that if we brought in that proposal some months ago, Deputy Corry and Deputy Briscoe and all the back benchers at the other side of the House would be out at the cross-roads night, noon and morning, telling the people that we were taxing our own people and endeavouring to relieve the British people by this proposal.

Mr. Alfred Byrne

All the speakers in this debate used the figure of 4d. per lb. as the amount of increase on the price of butter. If that is the correct figure, if that is to be the increase all-round in good seasons and in bad seasons, I am beginning to wonder what amount of butter, if any, will be used in the working-class districts of Dublin, and especially by the very poor. At the moment, and there is no use hiding it, the very poor of Dublin City are living on bread and margarine and tea three times a day. I think that is all they can afford out of the food tickets of ten or twelve shillings allowed to a man, his wife and three children in the city. The worker's delicate wife might try to get a half-pound of butter on her food ticket. I am glad to see that Deputy Sir James Craig is here, and I am sure from his medical experience he will tell us that there is nothing more essential for a delicate woman than butter. He will tell you why we have in the poorer districts of Dublin ill-nourished children. As Deputy Dillon and Deputy Cosgrave have stated, by this proposal you are putting beyond the reach of these people the possibility of securing even that small quantity of butter. I think the burden is not a fair one. We have a population of close on 500,000 people in the City of Dublin, and they will be bearing their share of this burden without the slightest advantage. I am very anxious to know what our Dublin Deputies will say to the people when their attention is drawn to the unfairness of the burden that they are going to be asked to bear. Is it right that the people of Dublin and of the towns and cities throughout the country should be asked to bear this when we all know that a large number of them are suffering serious hardships and undergoing grave injustices at the moment? I make an emphatic protest so far as this imposition on the people is concerned. I think it is unfair to the Dublin working classes and to the poor of Dublin.

I hope before the motion is put that some of the medical men in the House will explain the want of nourishment in margarine which our people are forced to buy. If this Bill is passed a larger number of people will be forced to buy it for their children. I was rather surprised that the only Minister who supported the Minister for Agriculture spoke only for three minutes. He commenced by saying that we import so much we have to export something. If that is his reason for supporting the motion surely exports, unless they are for the good of the country and at a profit, should not be indulged in. Export something that our own people have to bear the loss on. As Deputy Cosgrave put it, export something that may be sold cheaply in other countries as the result of the imposition here. It was good to hear Deputy Aiken, the Minister for Defence, admitting that we have a customer worth cultivating and that it was necessary to export something, but I earnestly hope that this type of export will not take place, that exports will not grow in this way and that in order to export to balance one side of your Budget you will put this imposition on your own people. If industries are to flourish in this country serious thought ought to be given to them. I heard the Minister say in introducing the motion that we must take care that in helping one industry or in building it up we do not knock down an existing one. I hope that when efforts are made to build up industries, consideration will be given to the industries which are existing at the present moment and which are giving reasonably good employment. There is a greater reason now than ever why our people should not be taxed further, especially through their foodstuffs. Every Deputy knows that within the past few weeks there has been a tightening up process somewhere that none of us can put our finger on at the moment, and that unemployment is growing. Our building trade is at a standstill, our people are approaching every day our Home Assistance Board and getting that small—I will not use the word miserable—food ticket of 10/- for a man, wife and two children out of which they have illegally to coax a grocer to give them a half-crown or so to pay their rent and avoid eviction. I would ask the Government that in helping one section of the community they should not put a burden on people who are least able to stand any further burden.

Mr. Briscoe

As one of the Dublin Deputies to whom Deputy Byrne has referred, I am quite satisfied with the proposition of the Minister for Agriculture. While Deputy Byrne and other members of the Opposition were speaking I looked back and asked myself was I dreaming or was I really facing facts as they were. Deputy Byrne is very solicitous now for the poor of Dublin, the poor who, he admits, have to buy margarine, but recently he went out in support of a Government that had taken from the very poor—the old age pensioners—a shilling a week. Deputy Byrne comes along now and is very concerned about the very poor and about what is going to happen to them arising out of a serious effort to save from absolute destruction what is admitted to be one of our most important industries. The fact that this industry is getting worse from year to year does not seem to concern the Deputy. What would happen if the industry ceased altogether and we had more very poor in the city? I do not really understand the Deputy. When he joined forces with Deputy Cosgrave in opposition to us he held out the horror that we might have conditions here such as had been witnessed in Spain. The Deputy forgot all he said and went to celebrate the first anniversary of the establishment of the Government he condemned when he was opposing us in the City of Dublin.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This has nothing to do with the butter bounty.

Mr. Briscoe

I made an interjection when Deputy McGilligan was speaking because I felt that this unreal contribution to the debate was deserving of some interjection. Deputy McGilligan not so long ago stated definitely that it was not the duty of the State to provide work for the unemployed people or to provide sustenance for them.

General Mulcahy

Would the Deputy quote Deputy McGilligan?

Mr. Briscoe

Perhaps Deputy Mulcahy would look up some of the posters we issued and the advertisements in the Press which gave these quotations. Perhaps he would compare them with some of the literature he issued.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps we would get away from the Election and come down to the butter.

Mr. Briscoe

I merely want to say that I support this measure because I believe it is one really honest effort to save from extinction one of the most important industries we have in the State at the moment. In supporting it I also desire to cast back again to those Deputies who opposed it the unreal contribution which they made here, and by certain references I want to prove that some of these contributions to which we have listened are merely hot air and have nothing to do with considering the real situation. I am not one of those who, because I know of the existence of a certain situation in this city, hope to see a chronic state of poverty. I hope to see in the near future as a result of the efforts that will be made by this Government a revival of industry and a revival of employment in the country, and that you will not have people existing on 10s. per week outdoor relief, for whose sake we must not impose any subsidy or any protection for industry because the 10s. they receive does not permit them to pay any increased price for food. I hope to see very shortly a revival of industry, work and decent wages given to people so that they can help, by purchasing Irish produce, in keeping in employment people in other parts of the Free State.

Deputy Byrne seems to think that we are always going to have this state of chronic poverty, but I hope to see a different state of affairs. I hope to see, as a result of this effort by the Minister for Agriculture, a stoppage in the sale of cattle that has been going on because farmers found it was impossible for them to exist or to continue to deliver milk to the creameries at the price they were getting. What does this proposition intend to do? It intends to ensure that at least the riches we have in the State in the shape of cattle shall be preserved, and to bring about the production of butter by ensuring that farmers will not be discouraged by the continual decline that has been noticed in that industry for a number of years past.

Deputy Dillon referred to my interjection. I made that interjection because I realised that unless something of this nature is done, unless the Government sets about examining each industry on its own merits, protect those that are there and assure them of a continued existence, striving to create new ones or revive old ones that have gone out of existence, not only will we have a big portion of the community living in conditions of poverty and eating margarine, but you will have a considerably larger number living in the same conditions. It was only this week that the Board of Assistance in Dublin referred to the fact that former ratepayers were now seeking outdoor relief, and surely Deputy Dillon does not consider that we have any responsibility for that situation. We realise the seriousness of it, and we realise that by measures such as this, by trying to give some security to the industries we have, we will save them from extinction and save other people from falling back on outdoor relief for the means of their subsistence. It may be out of order to give illustrations to show that certain Deputies do not mean half of what they say. That is what I tried to prove by giving these illustrations. If the Opposition now want to see any improvement in the State or in the conditions of the people, and if they want to see any success so far as the country is concerned, they will understand that the methods they have tried have failed, as Deputy Dillon said, particularly in the creamery districts, miserably failed, and that this Government is going to try to do something to benefit from the failures of their predecessors. I hope that in a very short space of time the Minister for Agriculture will be able to show that he is quite satisfied and has quite justified himself in this Bill.

Mr. Bennett

Nobody denies, I think, in the whole House, that the position of the farming industry is such that some provision must be made to bolster up the dairying industry if it is to continue in existence, and for that reason, I propose to support this motion, although I perceive various difficulties and dangers in the working of it. One danger I see in this proposal is that the Minister does not propose to make any levy on farmers' home butter outside the creameries. At least, I understood the Minister to say that.

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Bennett

If he does not propose to make a levy on farmers' butter—I really think it would be rather difficult to impose such a levy—it will have the effect, mentioned in a few of the speeches on this side, of enticing farmers, particularly in those districts where there are new creameries, to manufacture their butter instead of sending milk to the creameries. It will have a very bad effect on creameries such as were recently established in counties like Carlow and Wexford and perhaps in Donegal, of which a Deputy spoke a few moments ago. There is another danger that I see, the possible danger that the import of butter into this country, which had nearly ceased as a result of the tariff of two years ago, will be revived as a consequence of this levy. The Minister said that he proposed to make what we might call a modification of the levy during the summer months, so that a quantity of butter would have to be held over for the winter months. I think he will find some difficulty in making such a provision. I was interested in something Deputy Dillon said which was repeated on the Opposition Benches, that the programme of the previous Minister for Agriculture practically resulted in the consequences which we now see, the difficulties in which agriculture finds itself. I do not think that in this House a more extravagant statement was ever made.

Anybody who knows anything about the dairying industry in this country knows that the legislation put into effect by the former Minister for Agriculture was successful in reorganising that industry and in putting it in such a position that the butter we export to-day is equal to, if not better in quality than the butter imported by England from the Danes and our trade opponents in other countries. Anybody with any conception of the industry in counties like Limerick and Tipperary must know that five or six years ago, there was a grave danger of the creamery business ceasing to exist if the Minister had not taken some steps to prevent that occurring. Speaking of this matter during the election recently, some of us were not afraid to face the issue and we told the farmers that the opposition offered to the late Minister's policy both in this House, and on platforms outside, was a false opposition.

The position that we see the agricultural and the dairying industry in to-day was not caused by any legislation passed by the last Government but is a consequence of world depression. It is only now that the Fianna Fáil Party recognise that. The onus now lies upon them to provide remedies for agricultural and other industries. When legislation was proposed for the reorganisation of the creamery industry the prices of butter and milk were much greater than they are now. I might answer Deputies Dillon and Corry, who are both absent just now, by repeating what I said during the elections. I said that if the price of milk which a few years ago was 7d. and which has dropped to-day to a little more than 4d., had remained at 7d. and if the world depression had not brought about a reduction in price, there would not have been one word of criticism of any legislation brought in by the late Minister for Agriculture.

The position of the farmer, the industrialist and the workman to-day is a consequence of the cycle of world depression which began in 1921 and which has continued up to the present time. The Fianna Fáil Party have up to now failed to recognise that. The onus of government is now placed upon them and they are beginning to realise the difficulties of legislation. I was rather surprised to-day when I did not hear from the Fianna Fáil Benches the slightest consideration for the consumer. If I remember rightly, when a tariff was introduced some two years ago and when the present Government occupied the benches we now occupy, we were almost deafened with cries of compassion for the unfortunate consumer who might possibly have to bear some portion if not all of the tariff then proposed. To-day, when the Minister for Agriculture submits a resolution putting into effect a similar tariff to what was then imposed—a tariff which many of us here believed would not be effective in protecting the butter industry during the summer—we do not hear one word about the imposition on the consumer. There was something said in a mild way from the Labour Benches, and a good deal from the Independent Benches, but even Labour Deputies did not put forward their usual considerations for the unfortunate consumers in the towns and villages.

If there is to be a great benefit conferred on the farmer by reason of this levy, I, for one, will not have any tears for the plight of any other members of the community. I always have had sympathy for the consumers, but, to my mind, the position of the agriculturist just now is worse than the position of any other section of the community. Any benefit that can be given to him, at whatever cost, will have my support, and I hope the support of all farmer Deputies in the House. I do not anticipate that the burden from this levy will be so serious and have such an effect as Labour and Independent Deputies have indicated. I do not believe that the addition of 4d. to the summer price of butter will raise the price to the consumer anything more than the price of butter during the last three or four years. If there was not some measure like this to bolster up the price, butter promised to sell this year at a figure unprecedented in the history of the industry. There is no grave danger that the price to the consumer this summer will be to any great extent above the average price of late years.

There are other dangers in this levy of which one might speak. We have, however, to wait until we see the Bill before we can enlarge upon them. I hope that there is no great danger of retaliation in the export market by reason of any legislation that may eventuate in this House. I hope that any difficulties that may face us will be composed in some manner that will not antagonise the English consumer of our products. As some Deputies pointed out, there is a danger of reaction to certain proposed legislation. There is possibly the danger that the enjoyment of the preference which we have over our foreign competitors may in conceivable circumstances lapse. I hope that no action on any side of the House will help to bring about such a state of affairs. I hope that any legislation that may be considered in this country will not have the effect of bringing conditions in other countries back to what they were in 1921. I remember a visit I paid to England in 1921. I walked down the streets of York and I was impressed by a notice on a butcher's stall "No Irish sold here." Further down in a retail butter store I saw a similar notice "No Irish sold here." There is a danger of a similar state of affairs occurring in the near future.

Mr. Allen

What has this to do with the matter under consideration?

Mr. Clery

The Deputy is obviously making suggestions to those across the water.

Mr. Bennett

I hope that a similar state of affairs will not result because of any legislation that may be adopted by the Government of the Free State. I do hope that whatever benefit the farmer may get from this 4d. levy will not be off-set by the loss of the ten per cent. preference which would wipe out most of it. I do hope, too, that the benefit will not be off-set by the antagonism of the English consumers to our products. We will have more to say on this subject when the Bill is before us. I only say now that, so far as I am concerned, inasmuch as it proposes to benefit the farmers, I am supporting it.

Mr. Brasier

I am in active sympathy with any effective proposal which will in any way alleviate the present unfortunate position of the dairying industry in this country. I think it is common property that the position of affairs is due to widespread over-production and to a decrease in the purchasing power of countries which are large consumers of dairy produce. The Minister for Agriculture told us that prices held until 1928. I want him to examine the position of affairs which resulted in the fall of prices then. Production was encouraged by Australia. This plan which is now proposed by the Minister for Agriculture was similar to the plan introduced by Mr. Patterson, the Minister for Markets and Migration in Australia, who imposed a similar levy on the home consumer and a bounty on exports from the country. The British market was a large consumer of that produce. Its purchasing power was high. It also consumed a very large portion of our products for which we got a very good price. But there is one danger in this. Is it proposed by the Minister for Agriculture to take off the tariff of 4d. on butter? If it is then there is danger that we will be exposed, owing to an increased price for butter in this country, to the imports from exporting countries other than our own. That is a consideration which the Minister must take into account.

I would probably have welcomed this proposal in 1925 or 1926 or up to the time that the price of butter fell in 1928. But that plan which raised the prices very materially in Australia from 1/3 to 1/6 may operate in the same way in this country. There was an increase of from £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 in the imports of butter into Australia. Have the benefits of that scheme continued to-day? If they have, then I certainly would be very glad to have it tried in this country, but under the altered conditions which exist internationally, and particularly in the country to which we send most of our butter produce, I am doubtful if the effect of that scheme would be such as outlined by the Minister for Agriculture.

There is a very serious danger that if it is not effective the only result will be to cheapen produce in the foreign country without giving any real benefit or advantage to the dairy farmers of this country. I would take very great exception to any act of ours which would in any way cheapen produce for another country and at the same time place impositions upon the people of this country. I do look with a certain amount of alarm to any increase in the cost of living. I would suggest to the Minister for Agriculture that there is another way. The ex-Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Patrick Hogan, has informed the House that the tariff that was imposed on butter was ineffective. In that case it was valuable as revenue. I would suggest that that tariff, if it is re-imposed, will be used as a means of helping the producers in this country and not raising the price to the consumer. In Australia the very fact that butter was raised, attracted immediately butter from New Zealand and so there were increased imports. Though the Patterson plan was welcomed in Australia there was immediately a strong agitation raised for the imposition of increased protective tariffs. That is what we must do to-day if we are to put this plan into operation. In Australia the plan was tried and operated at a time of great prosperity, and when production was not so good as it is to-day, and when the purchasing power of every country was very much larger. Whether that purchasing power was artificial or not, I feel, with the depression which exists in our own country and the depression which exists in the country that we have been accustomed to look on as our market, that very great caution will have to be observed in putting into force any plan of price fixing. We are contending with almost an international price fixing.

Some countries, such as Australia, export sugar at £9 a ton while imposing a very much higher price on their own consumers. They do this for the purpose of subsidising exports. What is the history of Australia to-day? What is the position? I do not think we could regard it as an enviable one. The people who are returning home from Australia, people who are regarded as assistants to production, do not regard it as an enviable one. There are other methods by which we can help the farmer. We can lower expenses. We can cheapen his overhead expenses. We can cheapen the cost of production by reducing the price that he must pay for his requirements on the land. I have endeavoured to do that myself with regard to such things as the co-operative movement, and I venture to say that I have succeeded in a good many cases.

I feel that it would be advisable for us to be very cautious as to what prices we fix and as to increases on the home consumer. There is just as much distress on people who are nonagricultural as there is amongst agriculturists; for this reason, that the latter are particularly depending on the agriculturists. I will be very cautious indeed in supporting any scheme which puts up the prices of food for the people. That is a danger that they will deeply resent. I feel that the Minister would be better advised in seeking some other way of subsidising exports from this country, because an attractive high price will undoubtedly defeat that very plan by increasing imports into this country, and at the same time defeat the means whereby the Minister hopes to receive revenue to subsidise exports.

Mr. Moore

I regret that Deputy Bennett is not speaking now after the speech to which we have just listened. Everybody in the House must have been disappointed with Deputy Bennett's speech. Considering that he has been a prominent farmer-Deputy here for the last five years, and that he represents the leading butter-producing county in Ireland, we expected to hear a great deal more about the subject under discussion than he told us. Deputy Bennett seems always to yield to the temptation of imagining what would have happened if history had taken a different course and if world depression had not set in. He likes to consider what effect that would have had on Fianna Fáil and on his own Party. This evening I heard him, for the third or fourth time, indulge in that useless sort of speculation. I thought that this was an occasion on which he would not waste time in that way.

I thought Deputy Bennett would have dealt with some of the questions put by the last speaker. I thought Deputy Bennett would have told us whether Limerick farmers have reached a position where their cost of production cannot be reduced, whether they are producing butter as economically as is possible, whether they are marketing their butter as economically as is possible, whether he feels they have reached rock-bottom, and that some such scheme as that which we are discussing is essential to the salvation of the important industry about which he knows so much. The discussion has been prejudiced by a number of speakers. It has been very much prejudiced, in my opinion, by the attempt to link it up with the misfortuness of the poor. The moment that question is brought into an economic discussion, the moment certain Deputies take upon themselves the mantle of protectors of the poor, the discussion, I hold, is at once seriously prejudiced. That is what happened this evening. When Deputy Dillon said that the Minister for Agriculture was snatching from the mouths of the poor the little bit of butter they had lately been able to get, he was, of course, making an appeal to which every one of us instinctively responded.

Mr. Gorey

The Party Whip would not let you.

Mr. Moore

Was it fair, in dealing with an economic question—a question which ought to be discussed purely on economic grounds—to bring in matters of that sort? What was Deputy Dillon's real point? That the farmers should continue to supply butter at a price below the cost of production to meet the needs of the poor?

Mr. Dillon

No.

Mr. Moore

Is that practicable? I do not think that those who feel for the poor can be divided into parties. If there is any virtue in the House, we ought to be 100 per cent. in favour of the poor people having butter. But is not Deputy Dillon's proposal simply that the supply of butter to the poor should be subsidised? He does not deny that farmers are marketing butter at a loss at present. Deputy Dillon wants that to continue, and he wants the subsidy that is necessary to come from other sources. Therefore, he is in favour of the system of having butter marketed at a price that does not pay for production. Here the question immediately arises both for himself and for Deputy the Lord Mayor—Why should the subsidy not go to milk? They are both, I presume, thinking of the poor people of Dublin. Certainly Deputy the Lord Mayor is thinking of the poor people of Dublin. If a subsidy were given to any article of food for the poor, assuredly it would much more properly go to milk than to butter, because milk is more essential to children than is butter.

Mr. Gorey

Milk at 4d. or milk at 1/- or 1/2?

Mr. Moore

That interruption is utterly irrelevant. I am afraid the Deputy was not listening to me at all.

Mr. Gorey

Why should we listen to you when you speak in that way of milk in Dublin and milk in the country?

Mr. Moore

In my opinion there must be other ways of enabling the poor people to get good food at a price which they can afford to pay than this method of continuing the production of an article to be sold at a price below the cost of production. I do not think it will help the poor if you allow such a big industry as the dairy industry to continue in its present state, if you run the risk of the farmers—even an insignificant number of farmers—going out of production. If they go out of production, even to the extent of five per cent. or ten per cent, it is not going to help the poor in Dublin, Cork Limerick or anywhere else. Those who think they are serving the poor by opposing this scheme, while they mean well, are in my opinion, not acting wisely.

Mr. Dillon

Would you permit me to say that the Deputy has wildly misrepresented what I said?

Mr. Moore

I beg the Deputy's pardon. I listened very carefully to him. Deputy Dillon held that there should be no interference with the price of butter, but that butter producers should be subsidised in another way than by a levy on the general public. Is that a fair interpretation of what the Deputy said?

Mr. Dillon

No.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Moore should address the Chair. We cannot have this cross-gangway discussion.

Mr. Moore

I think the report will show that I am correct. Other attempts were made to prejudice the scheme. We were told that this was another of the schemes that are in a class with tariffs and that tariffs are always paid by the consumer. We were told by an ex-Minister that industrial tariffs had been paid to the full 100 per cent by consumers.

Mr. Hogan (Galway)

You were told nothing of the kind.

Mr. Smith

There are more ex-Ministers than you.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have this interruption. If Deputy Hogan wants to make an explanation, he can do so.

Mr. Hogan

If Deputy Moore puts in the phrase "in respect of any article of which there was a shortage in home production" it will make all the difference in the world and he will be right.

Mr. Moore

If Deputy Hogan would look up the speech made by his colleague, Deputy McGilligan, on the 4th June, 1930, in which he described a scientific analysis which his Department had made of the result of the tariffs imposed here, he would find that he is in very strong disagreement with Deputy McGilligan. Deputy McGilligan divided the tariffs imposed into three or four different classes. In respect of some of them he implied—he did not state definitely—that there was actually a lowering of the price here and that people could buy the goods here at at least as low a price as British consumers could in their country. He mentioned other cases in which the tariff had not raised the price. He stated that in other cases there was a slight premium—that part of the tariff was being paid by the consumer. He mentioned other cases in which the full tariff was being paid. The classification does not correspond with Deputy Hogan's theory. It would not in any way correspond with the theory that when there is a shortage here the consumer necessarily pays the full tariff. As a matter of fact, Deputy McGilligan said, in respect of the most prominent of the tariffs, that those who chose to buy Irish boots and shoes paid only 7 per cent. of the tariff. Deputy Hogan and Deputy McGilligan should have a little chat on that subject because, on this question of tariffs, we would all like to be agreed. It is ridiculous that it should be argued in a Party way every time. The circumstances of the country now demand that we should discuss these questions free from prejudice. On the whole Deputy Hogan prejudiced this discussion this evening by unnecessarily bringing in the statement that I have quoted. It is too soon yet to decide in favour of the details of the Minister's scheme but so far we have not heard anything in the way of an alternative from any side of the House.

Mr. Gorey

Yes, you have.

Mr. Moore

Until we do, we have to recognise that the Minister's scheme is the best one that the Department could put forward, and that it is essential that the position of such a great industry as dairying should be remedied at once. We have no alternative but to support the Minister's proposal.

Mr. O'Neill

With the general principle of the resolution the whole House will agree—that something should be done not only to enable Irish butter to meet competitors fairly on the export market, but to command its own position and value on that market. However, it is when we come to consider the machinery by which that support will be given to the industry that we begin to take different turns. I think the House will agree on the main point, and having done that it may be easy hereafter to devise ways and means of giving the necessary help. It seems to me that the resolution has been drafted in a rather hurried fashion and without any regard to the difficulties and cost of raising this levy. Above all, it would seems that the expense of the levy is going to fall heaviest on the home consumer. The Minister has not told us what the amount of the levy will be. I believe it will be anything from 2d. to 4d. Whatever it may be, there is one fact outstanding that practically two-thirds of all the butter in Ireland is home-manufactured butter. That butter is not produced in creameries. How is the Minister going to get after that butter? The levying of the tax is going to be a difficulty there. It will be necessary to send inspectors to the homes of people who have separators to stay there until the milk is taken off, or to follow the farmer who makes the butter into small shops or watch him at cross-roads. The resolution states that the tax will be payable by the manufacturer. Otherwise it would have to be raised from the person to whom the farmer sells the butter. Whatever way it is raised, it is quite evident from the resolution that the farmer is not going to get the benefit of the tax. The wholesaler, in the first instance, who afterwards becomes the retailer, pays the tax and passes it on to the consumer. Eventually the consumer of butter in Ireland will pay to the extent of £850,000, so that the English consumer of Irish butter will get it at 4d. per lb. cheaper. I agree with the general principle of the Bill, and when it comes before the House at a later stage, we may be able to get a way out of the difficulties that at present confront us. I would like if the Minister would state the amount of the levy and if he could give some idea of the machinery by which the levy will be collected. He should also state if the Resolution gives him authority to impose the levy immediately, and if it is the intention to put it into operation at once. The House might also be informed when the Report Stage of the Resolution will be taken so that reasoned amendments might be prepared.

Mr. O'Shaughnessy

As a representative of the farming community I welcome the introduction of this motion. It has been introduced for the purpose of relieving the dairying industry. The dairying industry needs this assistance. To-day, in another place I gave the Minister an example of the condition of that industry. I belong to County Limerick, which is one of the greatest dairying counties in this State. I could give unmistakable evidence that although in recent years we may have increased our supplies to the dairies, we have a very much decreased number of cows. In other words, the dairying industry is in grievous danger, and if something is not done for it there is a risk of its extinction. I would be surprised to hear a discordant note here, having regard to the fact that, although it may be said the motion only affects suppliers, it should be remembered that it affects every section of the community, because if the dairying industry disappears every section will suffer. Coming as the motion does from a new Government I very much appreciate its introduction, because it shows that the Government understands the needs of the people. This Government have the essential quality that makes for good Government. They know the condition of the people, and, as far as I can go, I will support the Government in the furtherance of this measure.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

Mr. Morrissey

Coming from Tipperary, a county which produces a great deal of butter, I feel that I can claim to have some little knowledge of the state of the farming industry and of the dairying industry. I am not going to contend that that industry is not in need of assistance and that the farmers are not in a bad way. But I want to submit that we should have some regard for the consumers. At the risk of incurring the displeasure of Deputy Moore, and of being accused of trying to prejudice the issue, I want to say that it is the duty of those of us who primarily represent the poor, to see that in trying to assist the farmer an unbearable burden is not thrown on the poor.

I do not think it can be claimed, or will be suggested by any member of this House from any side, that this Dáil has not attempted to improve the position of the farmers of the country, and rightly so, but I suggest that it is unfair, it is not just, that an imposition of at least 4d. per lb. should be put upon butter in the hope that the farmers will get ¾d. per gallon more for their milk than they are getting to-day.

We are not absolutely certain that this measure is going to help, to any material extent, the dairying industry, but we are certain of this fact that it is going to place a very heavy burden on the consuming public and, in particular, on the poor of the country. The poor people in the towns, cities and villages and the working class people are, in the main, consumers of butter. They are the people who have to pay the highest price for Irish butter. I submit that in view of unemployment, and of the downward tendency of wages, the effect of this imposition will be to drive people from butter to margarine. That statement was made by some other speaker earlier in the debate and was pooh-poohed from certain parts of the House. I suggest to any Deputy who will try to look at this question in a reasonable way that if Irish butter is being retailed in Dublin City tomorrow, or in any town or village in the country, at, say, 1/2 per lb. the workman's wife will go and purchase it when margarine is at, say 1/- per lb., but if the price of Irish butter is increased from 1/2 to 1/6, that will make a very big difference in the weekly budget of, say, an agricultural labourer earning from 10/- to 15/- a week or a road worker earning 27/- a week, or an unemployed man who is fortunate enough to be drawing unemployment benefit to the extent of £1 a week for himself and his wife. This increase of 4d. a lb. in the price of butter will make all the difference in the world to such people.

I am speaking now as one of the representatives for one of the principal dairying counties in this country. I am sure I will not be thanked by many of my constituents, but I consider it my duty to protest against this system of robbing Peter to pay Paul, taking from the very poor, if you like, in order to help the poor. It is unquestionable that the farmers are in a bad way. Most people in this country, no matter what position they occupy, are in a bad way to-day, but there is no section of the community in as bad a way as the working classes. We must remember, also, that less than 12 months ago this House imposed taxation to the tune of £750,000 on what we may call the consumers, because it was provided that that amount of money was to be raised in such a way that it would affect, only to a small extent, the agricultural community.

We got some figures here this afternoon. Nearly every speaker had a different set of figures, telling us what it was going to cost. If we take an average figure I think we can safely say that between this imposition of 4d. a lb. and the 4d. a lb. that operates in the winter the cost will be at least £1,000,000 a year on the consumers of butter here. I submit that they are not able to bear that burden, and that it is too big a price to ask the consumers to pay for the very small improvement that it is intended to bring to the dairying industry,—an increase of ¾d. per gallon more for milk than is being paid to-day.

Dr. Hennessy

While I would be very glad to see an obvious and honest subsidy given to the dairy farmers of Ireland, I must object to the camouflage of this subsidy proposed by the Minister for Agriculture. My objection is influenced by the fact that I am a city representative. I cannot understand why the unfortunate people of the Coombe, where they are leading a struggling existence, some on outdoor relief and others with moderate wages, should be taxed to find the bulk of this subsidy. The farmers throughout the country are consumers of butter to a very great extent. The consumption of butter by the members of their families and their work people is very great. Most of that butter is bought from the creameries so that this will mean a tax on the farmers themselves. It will mean that the farmers will have to contribute a very big proportion of this subsidy as arranged. I know the County Limerick pretty well. It is a grass county. Reflections are sometimes made upon grass counties, but still, it is an extraordinary thing that no industry I know of, gives more employment than dairy farming, and dairy farming is mainly supported by two-thirds of the grass county. The land there is used for raising beef. That serves a purpose also, but we must bear in mind that these principally grass counties, which are sneered at here by certain representatives, have the largest proportion of insured persons of any counties in Ireland. The persons insured are working on the farms so that the grass serves a very different purpose to that which we are sometimes asked to believe.

Now I understand that butter made by farmers in their own homes is exempt from this taxation. They are to be exempt from contributing to the subsidy. I do not think that is desirable, because this is an age of standardised food, and if you are exporting butter to the English market you must have it of the same colour, of the same flavour and containing a uniform amount of salt. The only way you can secure that is by encouraging farmers to send their milk to the creameries, where it will be manufactured into butter. We are told that the price of milk will be reduced as a compensation, say, to the poor people and to the rich people who use it. I do not see how that will compensate them very much. We may say that milk in the country is sold at 11d. per gallon to be sent to Dublin, but we forget the very great overhead charges that have to be met in Dublin in retailing the milk.

I do not believe in all this talk about profiteering in the case of milk, because the cost of its distribution here is a very big item. Quite a number of people are engaged in its distribution, and overhead charges, rents and rates have to be reckoned with. In view of that I do not think that any tribunal set up to investigate this will be in a position to reduce very much the price of milk for the poor or the rich people. I suggest that the best way to approach this would be by an open subsidy and to distribute the taxation on another incidence altogether. I believe that something must be done to save the dairying industry, that it is worth while spending money on saving it, but I think that the scheme proposed by the Minister for Agriculture will prove an illusion.

Mr. Gorey

I am a dairy farmer myself and I am selfish enough to accept a subsidy, no matter how it comes. I make that confession here quite honestly, but I do object to the method. An article is good or bad, according to the workmanship and material put into it, and this subsidy is good or bad, according to the material and care and work we are going to put into it here. We do not want to make any political capital out of it, but I do believe that many farmers in the country would almost prefer not to get the subsidy at all than have a subsidy the brunt of which would be borne by the very poor. There is no doubt about that. We are all agreed that a subsidy is needed. Why not take it out of revenue? Why not agree to the democratic principle with regard to taxation? We are all agreed there should be income tax, but this is a reversal. It is taxing the poor people who cannot afford to pay taxes. Is this carrying out some of the programme of the elections, where you promised to give everything to everybody, at no cost to anybody? This is feeding the farmer largely on his own tail.

The farmer is one of the largest consumers of butter in the State, and he will have to pay the enhanced price, which does not mean half so much as you pretend it means. In addition, you are going to hang on a big costly machinery for collection, and all the rest. You are going to have, as Deputy Davin says, the danger of profiteering. You can avoid profiteering, machinery and all these expenses by a State subsidy. You will have a better Bill and remove the blemishes that are suggested here. I am glad that the discussion has taken place, because I hope that the Minister will be converted to a different method of raising the money from that which he suggests. The method of raising the money is the only difficulty, and I think that method is wrong. I merely rose in the hope that when the Bill was introduced it will be on the lines suggested from this side of the House.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I do not think the question raised by Deputy Gorey had been raised before —that it was going to be a costly scheme to collect money from the farmers, most of which the farmers will have to pay by buying the butter back. First of all, it is not going to be a costly scheme. It will be run at very little cost—probably in or about £3,000 a year. The cost to the consumer was pointed out by some Deputies at £1,000,000—I think Deputy Morrissey reached the million figure. It started at £600,000, and somebody else put it up to £850,000, and by the time it came to Deputy Morrissey, it had reached £1,000,000. But Deputy Gorey says that the farmers themselves are going to eat all the butter—

Mr. Gorey

Is there any necessity to be extravagant in your language?

Dr. Ryan

You said most of the butter.

Mr. Gorey

I said a considerable amount of it.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Hennessy said also that the farmers would pay most of this subsidy, so that nobody is going to suffer at all, except, if we are to judge from the speeches—

Mr. Gorey

And nobody is going to benefit.

Dr. Ryan

Except the people who live on 8/6 a week—people of whom the Lord Mayor of Dublin spoke—the family getting 10/- a week, and paying 2/6 for rent—they are going to pay 4d. extra on butter. These are the sort of estimates given of how this thing is going to be judged. I do not know how the figures were got. If we are to take the amount of butter consumed in this country contained in this "Agricultural Output of Saorstát Eireann" which is the latest we have, on the division of the output of butter into the amount consumed by the urban population, the rural population and the amount exported——

Mr. Doherty

What is the latest date of that?

Dr. Ryan

1926. That is the latest issue. The value of butter consumed by the urban population, otherwise than by the agricultural community, in that year was £1,778,000 and the price of butter in the same year was 1/8 a lb., so that if we increase the price of butter by 4d. a lb., which is the maximum we can do under this proposal, one-fifth of that sum is the most we can impose on the community buying butter in this country—that is, somewhere about £300,000 to £400,000, according to these figures. We can judge also from other figures the amount of butter produced by the creameries in 1929, and the amount produced by the factories; the amount consumed at home, out of the production of the factories, and what was produced on the farms, and the figure would work out again somewhere about £400,000.

Mr. Hogan

Does that include the cost of factory butter as well?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. I have not got the exact figures here that we worked out when drawing up the Bill, but I promise to produce them again at some other stage of the Bill. I do not believe that the cost of this scheme going through can be higher to the consumer than in or about £400,000, and that is on the assumption that we are going to put up butter by 4d. a lb. I mentioned already here to-day that for the last two years only on one occasion was the retail price of butter under 1/3, and if you take the difference between the price of butter this year and the price of 1/3 for the last two years, we are going to put it up 2d. a lb.

Deputy Davin asked me if I could give an undertaking about this price. I said in my opening statement that, as far as we could go, we would not allow the retail price of butter to go above 1/5. We can do this much. We can see that the creameries will not be enabled, through this artificial method, to charge more than 142/- per cwt. for their butter, and I said that we believed that that would mean that butter would be sold at 1/5 per lb. I have gone further than that, however, I have got an undertaking from the biggest distributor in Dublin that as long as the price of creamery remains at 142/-, the price of butter here in Dublin, so far as he is concerned, will not be more than 1/5. I have no other machinery than that. To go into price fixing would need an altogether different Bill from this, and I do not think I could meet Deputy Davin by putting in a clause for price fixing purposes. That would entail a Bill in itself. Another question raised by Deputy Hogan and other Deputies was the danger that there will be under this scheme to the new creameries; that we are going to collect the levy on the creamery butter and that we are going to give a bounty on the creamery butter exported. Naturally the price of the farmers' butter will go up in sympathy with the creamery butter and they will not have to pay the levy. That is quite true.

Mr. Doherty

Why?

Dr. Ryan

If the Deputy does not understand that I cannot explain it. He should not be here if he does not understand it. It is quite obvious that the price of the farmers' butter will go up in sympathy with the price of creamery. There is a danger that the new creameries may suffer and we intend to provide some protection for the new creameries that are in very strong opposition to the ordinary farm butter-making in their own area. There might be a grave danger of the people going back to make their own butter if they were getting more for it.

Mr. Hogan (Galway):

What are your lines?

Dr. Ryan

Power will be taken to vary the levy in particular cases. Particular creameries will be named in the Bill. Deputy Hogan also said that he was afraid that wherever this sort of artificial method of marketing was adopted it did not give much incentive to the people to do the best form of marketing. He instanced the case of Australia, and also of Poland with regard to bacon. I think if the Deputy will examine the figures with regard to Australia he will have to admit that Australia improved her marketing considerably during the last three or four years. The price of Australian butter in the British market has gone down naturally like all other butter, but relatively to New Zealand I find it has come much closer to New Zealand butter last year than the year before. For the year before there was 11/- of a difference, and last year the difference was only 4/-. So that I think it cannot be disputed that Australia has done something towards the improvement of her marketing, even though the scheme was in operation for the last five or six years. I might also mention that the volume of exports from Australia has increased remarkably during the last three years under the scheme.

In the same way I think that we can hardly draw a conclusion from the case of Polish bacon, because Poland came into the British market and the market here as a new country supplying bacon against countries that were well-established like Denmark, the United States, England and Ireland, and there was a prejudice, I suppose, against the buying of Polish bacon which had to be worn down. In any case, I think that the thing that must be kept in mind is this—it was already stressed by the Minister for Defence—that we must keep in production. That is the thing that must be kept in our minds all the time. Practically every Deputy has admitted that something must be done for the dairying industry. A good many Deputies, who were probably anxious to see this scheme going through, felt it was rather up to them to make some objection and said that we were raising the money the wrong way; that we should raise the money by taxation rather than by putting it on the consumer.

Mr. Gorey

Is not this taxation?

Dr. Ryan

All right, it is taxation. That we should raise it in some other way, rather than by putting it on the consumption of butter. I am not averse to that scheme at all. I do not think any member of the Executive Council is averse to it. But we find that we are left in such a position that we have to look for some millions of pounds to balance the Budget this year and we have to tax different things. So that if I want to put a scheme like this through I have to look after it myself, without going to the Minister for Finance who has enough to do to make good the deficiency of the last couple of years.

Mr. Gorey

It is better to look for it where it is than looking for it where it is not.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Good was mistaken in thinking that the price would be increased 4d. over the tariff price. That is not right. The tariff is 4d. During the winter of course there is no intention whatever of putting on a bounty in addition to the tariff. It would be impossible in the first place, because they work more or less parallel. The intention is to reduce the price to the consumer in the winter by keeping a level price all the year round, so that really there will be that advantage to the consumer, at any rate, that he will get butter at 1/5 in the winter as well as in the summer.

Mr. Good

Will the Minister say what is the meaning of the words in the first paragraph of the resolution: "There shall be charged, levied, and paid in respect of all butter imported into or manufactured in Saorstát Eireann...?"

Dr. Ryan

"With such, if any, exceptions as may be prescribed or authorised by statute."

Mr. Good

There is an ambiguity. I have no doubt that the interpretation is as the Minister puts it, but it conveys quite a different interpretation.

Dr. Ryan

I am not well up in these legal documents but anyway there is going to be no change as far as the tariff is concerned. Perhaps this is necessary to keep the tariff as it is, or something like that. The Bill will make the matter much plainer when it is introduced.

Mr. Good

What will the increase in the price be in addition to the tariff? We will have a 4d. tariff in the winter, because there will be a shortage of home-made butter. What will the subsidy increase that 4d. by, or will it increase it at all?

Dr. Ryan

Not at all. There will be no levy at all during the winter.

Mr. Anthony

The Minister says that the maximum price in winter will be 1/5. If this bounty did not operate, what would the average price of butter be in the winter?

Dr. Ryan

It went up to 1/7 towards the end of last winter. It was 1/4 at the beginning and 1/7 at the end.

Mr. Hogan

Is not the real position that this will not interfere with the winter price, but leave it the same as with the tariff? Is that the intention?

Dr. Ryan

The retail price will be lower under this scheme. It will be 1/5 all the time.

Mr. Anthony

If the Minister suggests that if the bounty did not operate the price would go up to 1/7, is it not obvious that 1/7 per lb. would be better for the farmer than 1/5? What good is the bounty then?

Dr. Ryan

It would if he got it. 1/2 or 1/2½ all the summer; 1/4 for most of the winter, and 1/7 for a month at the end, would not be as good as 1/5 all the year round. As a matter of fact, it has been contended by many Deputies that the consumer is going to pay much more under this scheme than he has paid. That is going to the farmer anyway, so that the farmer must be better off. There is nobody else to get it.

Mr. Good

What will the increase in the summer price be?

Dr. Ryan

A maximum of 4d. It cannot be more than 4d.; it may be less.

Mr. Hogan

Am I right in stating that the intention is this: to put on the bounty and to retain the tariff but at the same time to see to it that the summer price shall be raised by no more than 4d. over the world price and the same in winter?

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

Mr. Hogan

If the world price goes up to 1/3 in the winter it will be 1/3 plus 4d.?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Hogan

Unless there is a price-fixing machinery.

Dr. Ryan

It would not be price-fixing but we would always have a remedy. We can allow butter to come in.

Mr. Hogan

Supposing the world price in summer goes up to 1/3, will not the summer price of butter here be 1/7?

Dr. Ryan

No, as a matter of fact in that case I understand we come down to meet the price. Probably it would be 1/3 here also, because we meet it at 123/- per cwt.

Mr. Brasier

If the tariff is effective the levy will not be productive. The levy will not be productive at the same time as the tariff is effective.

Dr. Ryan

Yes. A lot of these questions will be made plain in the Bill. The Bill is much more detailed. In reply to Deputy Norton, we have of course considered very carefully the advantageous position that the farmers will be in in regard to the creameries and we are trying to provide against that as well as possible. The point was made by Deputy Hogan that there might be a tendency to export during the summer. If we say to the creameries we are not going to allow a charge of 142/- in the winter any more than in the summer there will be a tendency to export, and why should anyone cold store? We mean to vary the bounty in such a way as to lower it in August and September, when they should be storing it for the winter, and to give an incentive, whatever it should be, of a few shillings a cwt. or so to store for the winter. In that case also there will be provision made not to collect the levy until the butter is taken out of cold storage.

Mr. Hogan

It will come up later on.

Dr. Ryan

Yes. Deputy Blythe and Deputy McGilligan were very much afraid we might lose the ten per cent. preference. I do not know why that question should be raised now.

Mr. Hogan

Why not?

Dr. Ryan

We had not anticipated that this ten per cent. would be lost. If and when it is lost it will be time enough to face the question. Deputy McGilligan said that I had learned certain things. He put me a certain question. He said suppose we should lose the ten per cent. preference how are we going to make it up, and then he said Denmark, not being able to put butter into Germany, had to send it to England, so that you cannot annihilate trade by tariffs. That, I suppose, is the well-known axiom of the indestructibility of matter. Deputy McGilligan said you cannot annihilate butter by tariffs. How is Britain going to annihilate our butter if she takes away the ten per cent.? I asked Deputy McGilligan to solve that. If she takes off the ten per cent. and if Great Britain puts a tariff against us how is she going to annihilate our butter? Take this row we are accused of getting into with the British and suppose we get three million of land annuities and that they withdraw the preference, how much will that be worth? How much do we get for our butter and eggs in the British market? Our preferences amount to half a million pounds, so that Deputy Gorey or anybody else would take the three million pounds in that case. It would be a very good bargain if we could pull it off.

We are told further that the ten per cent. may be actually raised at Ottawa. But so far as we can learn from the statements of British statesmen and others there is just the possibility that the ten per cent. may be taken off altogether. We do not know what way it is going to go.

Deputy Anthony said if he thought this was going to guarantee employment to another 200 men he would support it. But as a Labour representative he is not a bit ashamed to say that he will not support any proposal to get the farmers out of the difficulty of producing milk at costs under the costs of production. As long as we made a farmer produce milk to be sold at a cost under the cost of production, Deputy Anthony, as a Labour man, will make them do so. He says we said nothing about tillage. Have we any guarantee, Deputy Anthony wants to know, that our export trade will continue, provided we do certain things with regard to the removal of certain other things. Have we any guarantee, he asks, that our export trade will continue if we do something for the dairy farmers and the keeping of cows. Have we any guarantee with regard to anything in regard to the import or export market? I cannot give a guarantee, but we are doing our best to provide for the continuance of our export trade as well as for the maintenance of our home market.

Deputy Dillon made a complaint that the money comes from the wrong source. He said that the slump brought butter within the reach of the very poor. I do not think it did. Deputy Dillon also spoke of the diseases, and in this he was seconded by Deputy Cosgrave, caused, he said, in Denmark by the want of vitamins, and because the people were not eating enough fresh meat and butter and eggs and other things; they were exporting these things to foreign markets and eating margarine themselves. We were warned that if we had this bounty on the export of our butter we may have the position that all our fresh butter might go to the British market and that we would have to live on margarine and suffer from the want of vitamins. I do not know which vitamin it is, and, therefore, cannot discuss it. It may be the vitamin which is in lettuce or cabbage and, therefore, we are all right. Deputy Dillon suggested a tax on tea, and Deputy Cosgrave said that butter was an important article of food and should not be taxed. Note the hypocrisy of a man who was leader of a Government for nine years and several times raised the tax on sugar, an essential article of food, and now declared that butter should not be taxed because it is an essential article of food. Deputy Bennett went back to 1921, and told us about the placards put up in England against this country saying "No Irish goods sold here." Yet I think if we go back to 1921 and find out what our trade with England was then and what our prices were like, we have to come to the conclusion that the placards put up in shop windows were not effective. They were not trying to sell goods to the bigots who tried to stop our goods. They were sold in England and got good prices. Deputy Brasier wants to know has this benefited Australia. I think it has. I think, from the quotations Deputy Brasier gave, he has a good knowledge of the conditions in Australia himself and can form a sound conclusion.

Mr. Hogan

Is it still in existence in Australia?

Dr. Ryan

It is.

Mr. Brasier

Is it effective?

Dr. Ryan

With regard to the question put by Deputy O'Neill, as to what is the machinery, the machinery is very well set out in the Bill. I think there would be really no use in going into the matter now. We hope that the Bill will be circulated in a few days. As I say, a lot of those points which are more or less going into detail will probably be explained more lucidly in the Bill. This financial resolution is more or less a synopsis of what we are putting in the Bill. I think many of the questions that Deputies have been asking and that have been agitating their minds will be clearly explained in the Bill. Really the only question now before the House is the question of whether the House should allow us to go on with this matter or not.

Question put and agreed to.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Resolution reported and agreed to.