Vol. 41 No. 18
I move amendment 21:—
In sub-section (2), page 7, to delete at the end of line 15 the words "under this," and in line 16 the word "section."
I move the deletion of those words, as they are a repetition of the words in the sub-section. It is, more or less, a printer's error.
I move amendment 22:—
In page 7 to insert before sub-section (3) a new sub-section as follows:
(3) Any person who on behalf of other persons carries on, whether alone or in conjunction with any other business, the business of selling or arranging for the sale or disposal of farm butter manufactured by other persons shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to have manufactured such butter for sale.
Section 12, as it stands, deals with the case of the unregistered butter factory which is not registered under the Dairy Produce Act, but which purchases butter, and it might possibly, also, deal with the very large farmer of the type who might have 200 or 300 cows, if we had such a farmer in the country. It is proposed under this amendment to bring in another class— the butter factories which sell farmers' butter on commission. We feel that under the Bill as it stands, if we were to attempt to collect a levy on such butter a merchant might hold that he had not purchased the butter, and therefore was not liable to the levy. We feel that if there was such a loophole many of the merchants might avail of it to sell butter on commission to farmers rather than purchase themselves and resell it.
I would like to know what is the present intention of the Minister with regard to farm butter. When he introduced the Financial Resolution he more or less, as I remember, indicated that it was not the intention actually to have any levy on such butter. I gathered from the Minister, perhaps wrongly, that he thought that, although certain powers would be taken in the Bill, he would have to leave farm butter out of the scheme, and with amendments like these coming before us, it looks as if the intention is actually to proceed as far as possible with the levy on farm butter. I would like to know what the intention of the Minister, on reconsideration, is.
I might have been misunderstood, but what I really meant when introducing the Bill was that the butter of the farmer who sells to a consumer, or who sells a small quantity to a retailer in a very small business, would not be subject to the levy, but in a case like this, where a butter merchant or a butter factory was buying a considerable quantity of farm butter, we meant, of course, to bring such a transaction under the provisions of the Bill.
Do I understand the Minister correctly when he says that a shopkeeper who purchases farm butter in the ordinary course of his business from the farmer's wife or daughter is to be levied?
He is not to be levied, unless it is his principal business, or he is in a very big business.
That is far too ambiguous. We had better be clear about it. The shopkeeper takes in eggs and butter from farmers, and exchanges them for goods, and that is undoubtedly the main part of his business. His van goes around the country each day, and collects eggs and butter and hands out groceries in lieu thereof. It is unquestionable that buying butter is the principal part of that business, and it follows, of course, that it is part of his business also to sell that butter and those eggs, because he is not going to let them rot in his yard or store. Does the Minister intend to bring these people under the Bill, because I put a question to him on this point when he introduced the Bill originally, and I definitely understood from him that this would not include farmer's butter in any shape or form, so far as taking it into the shops and selling it is concerned. I intended to move the rejection of this, both in its new and in its old form, and I would like definite information from the Minister as to what he means by it, because it will have to be very precise. Every Deputy in this House, who has any knowledge of business in a country town, knows that buying butter, and, ipso facto, selling it, is the principal part of the trader's business, and if this is allowed to remain in the Bill that trader must be caught.
I should like to know from the Minister what class of people he intends to cover by this. As we know, butter blenders have agents in the different towns and villages buying for them in large quantities. Is that the class that is alluded to?
It appears to me that the section as drafted gives the Minister very wide powers, that he can include within the scope of the section any farmer, whether large or small, making butter in his own home. I should like to know from the Minister if this type of farmer will be included within the ambit of the section—a farmer who keeps ten, twelve or fifteen cows, who makes butter at home and sells it to shopkeepers in neighbouring towns? Is it intended that this section should cover that type of butter manufacture, or what exactly does the Minister mean by the small farmer and the large farmer in relation to this section? Presumably it is the intention of the amendment to cover the large type of farmer; I think the Minister said the farmer with 100 or 200 cows. Where does he draw the line between the large and small farmer?
Various examples have been mentioned. The retailer mentioned by Deputy McMenamin is not concerned in this amendment. As a matter of fact, we have full power already under the definition of a trader as altered by an amendment to Section 2, to deal with the person that Deputy McMenamin has in mind, and this amendment has nothing to do with him. This amendment is aimed more against the factory than the farmer. It is aimed to get at the unregistered factory people who might, in order to evade the Bill, say that they did not intend to buy any more butter, but that in future they would sell farmers' butter on commission. That is what we want to get at. It is not aimed at the retailer or the shopkeeper that Deputy McMenamin mentions. That question has been dealt with already. With regard to the question raised by Deputy Roddy, that has reference to the section as it stands, apart from the amendment, and we can discuss that when the section is put.
I want the Minister to apply his mind to this amendment. (Amendment read.) What does the King's English mean? You have not to be a lawyer to see what this means. Does it not mean that an inspector of the Department can walk into a shopkeeper and say: "You are a butter trader and you are caught by that section?" I am prepared to let the matter stand over until the Report Stage in order to have it put in another form with the words "registered premises" in it, which will include separating stations and other places registered in the Department as such. But it is as clear as anything can be in the English language that a Department inspector can walk into a shopkeeper and say: "You are caught under that amendment and you must pay the levy." What we are concerned with is what this means in law or would be interpreted as in court. It does not matter what is intended, but what we have here in the amendment.
We must take what the section is dealing with. The section is dealing with persons not registered. We have already dealt with anybody who was registered. This is to deal with persons not registered.
It is to catch unregistered people, and the shopkeeper is unregistered.
He is.
Then you catch him. That is your whole argument— that you are catching unregistered people.
That is not what the section is for.
The Minister stated that he would reply to my question when discussing the section. It seems to me that you can only deal with the section in conjunction with the amendment. As my question has a particular bearing on the amendment, I would be glad if he would reply to it now, and then probably I can offer some suggestion to him afterwards as to how he might get over the difficulty.
I do not exactly know to whom this would apply. It would not apply to blenders, because blenders are exempt under Section 2 (3). Blended butter does not come under the head of manufactured butter at all. The Minister said a moment ago that anybody buying butter on commission for blending afterwards will come under this heading. I do not know how he can, if blended butter is not manufactured butter.
There is a difference between manufactured and factory butter.
This would be a clear case of blending farmers' butter absolutely.
There is nothing about blending here. The case that Deputy McMenamin has in mind has nothing to do with the amendment. If he reads the amendment he will see it says "or disposal of farm butter manufactured by other persons."
The whole thing depends upon what interpretation you put upon the word "manufactured." It all hinges upon that.
Blending is not manufacture.
The whole thing will hinge upon the meaning you attach to the word "manufactured."
The definition of "manufacture" was quoted here by Deputy McMenamin, "the process of blending or re-working in a butter factory." This amendment says, "any person who, on behalf of other persons, carries on..." Does not that rule out the person Deputy McMenamin has in mind? I understand that the person he has in mind buys butter, or exchanges goods for butter, from the producers and sells it again to somebody else, and therefore does not come under the amendment.
Sells to somebody else. Sells in the village or town without selling to what you might call a factory merchant.
As far as this amendment is concerned, it does not matter where they sell it.
There is no definition here of manufactured butter. Manufactured butter may mean anything. The actual making of butter is manufacturing it in the strict sense of the word. Of course, in the sense meant in this Bill it means purchasing butter from a farmer and putting it through some process. That comes under another category of manufacture. The ordinary definition of "manufacturing butter" is making butter out of cream.
I read this section to mean butter other than butter that passes through a butter factory.
It is not so stated.
The idea is that this levy be collected on butter that passes through a factory. There may be other butter; for instance, merchants in towns might buy a large amount of butter and export it. That butter never passes through a factory. It is to enable the Minister to charge a levy on that butter that the section is intended.
That is rather in conflict with the blending clause.
If Deputy McMenamin will read the definition section he will see that creamery butter means butter manufactured on creamery premises; that factory butter means butter which is manufactured in or brought into a butter factory, and farm butter means butter which is manufactured in the Saorstát and is neither creamery butter nor factory butter.
The definition of manufactured butter is rather vague. One might buy from one man a lot of manufactured butter, and from another man another lot of manufactured butter, but if one blends the two butters it would not be manufactured butter according to the definition here.
That is where the ambiguity lies.
It might be wiser to leave this section over for reconsideration on Report Stage. I believe there is a flaw in it, and I am sure the Minister, on re-examination of the section, will observe that there is a flaw. It would be more satisfactory to have the section reconsidered.
I want to know from the Minister if he intends his amendment to cover people who act as agents for the large butter factors in the towns and villages?
Has the Minister considered the advisability of introducing the words "purchased from" instead of "manufactured by"? The amendment would then read: "for the sale or disposal of farm butter purchased from other persons."
The amendment is really intended to cover people who do not purchase butter but who sell butter on commission. That is the whole point. I have no objection to leaving the matter over until the Report Stage.
If the people Deputy McMenamin is speaking for, who buy butter in large quantities by way of trade, sell it to a factory, either they or the factory should pay the levy. If they do not sell it to a factory, do they not have the opportunity of selling the butter on the home market and getting the advanced price without paying any levy—the advanced price provided by the artificial increase which is being charged now to the public?
I now see what the Minister is at, but why should it not be plainly stated in the amendment? All he would have to do would be to put in the words "on commission."
"On behalf of" serves the same purpose. I am not as good a lawyer as the Deputy, but I consider the words in the amendment are sufficient, and the draftsman is of the same opinion. I do not mind leaving over this matter until I have an opportunity of consulting the draftsman.
I can assure the Minister I have no personal object in this matter.
I am agreeable to having this particular point left over until the Report Stage. Deputy Roddy raised a matter on Section 12, apart from the amendment. I indicated at the outset that the section covered the big farmer and the butter factory which is not registered under the Dairy Produce Act but is registered under the Food and Drugs Act. These are two definite classes. We exhausted every other class under previous sections and now we are trying to get those two classes in. So far as the big farmer is concerned, we have not anybody in particular in mind at the moment. I do not think any farmer would be brought under the section, but, just as in the case of other Bills that have been before the Dáil, we always have to think of the possibilities of evasion.
We were accused under this Bill of being altogether favourable to the creameries and not at all favourable to the makers of home butter. Here is a section which shows that we were very much afraid we were going to be too favourable to the maker of home butter as compared with the creameries. If the price of creamery butter is put up by fourpence, as it will be under the Bill, the maker of home butter will get a corresponding advantage of fourpence. The creamery must pay twopence, but the maker of home butter will not pay anything. In case there may be too much of an advantage in that respect, and in case some of the big buyers might find it more profitable to go into the making of home butter, we thought it well to have this power in the Bill. We have not anyone in mind at the present time and the section is put there purely because of the possibility that there may be that danger.
Amendment 22 seems to be like Mahomet's coffin. Is the Minister withdrawing it for the purpose of having it redrafted for the Report Stage?
That would be the best course and, in the circumstances, I will withdraw the amendment.
I beg to move amendment 23:
In sub-section (2), page 7, line 37 to insert before the word "There" the words "Subject to the provisions of this Act."
It is merely anticipating amendment 25.
I beg to move amendment 24:
In page 7, to add at the end of sub-section (4) the following words "in respect of butter acquired for use in a butter factory and the miscellaneous butter account shall be credited with all other moneys received by the Minister under this section."
Those registered in the register of non-manufacturing exporters might be dealing with farm butter as opposed to factory butter and sub-section (4) should give power to put the money into the appropriate fund rather than have all the money put into the one fund.
With regard to Section 15, which deals with the refund of levies on farm butter, I would like to know if any refund is to be given to those who sold butter to the buyers since the introduction of the Bill and who were told that as a result of its introduction 2d. per pound was to be deducted from them. Is there any hope of a refund?
Is the Deputy referring to the producers?
Yes.
That is not what is meant by the section. What is meant is where a merchant buys butter and pays the levy and afterwards sends the butter to the factory and the factory also pays the levy, we want to ensure that the levy is not paid twice.
Where does the home producer come in, so? Is he to lose 2d. per pound?
Only the buyers said that.
It is not good enough.
I beg to move amendment 25:—
Before Section 16, to insert a new section as follows—
Where any butter manufactured or acquired by the registered proprietor of registered premises during a levy month is placed in cold store in Saorstát Eireann by such registered proprietor before the date on which, but for this section, the levy on such butter would be payable under this Part of this Act, such levy shall not be payable until the 1st day of March next following such date, unless before such 1st day of March such butter is removed from cold store or sold while in cold store, in which event the said levy shall be payable on such removal or sale, whichever first happens.
Sub-section (3) of Section 9 was deleted, and this is to replace it. Under sub-section (3) of Section 9 provision was made for a postponement of the collection of the levy on creamery butter where such butter would be stored for winter use.
The factories felt that they had the grievance that they were not also included, and this amendment is brought in to give the factories the same rights as the creameries in the matter.
Will the rate of levy be that prevailing at the time of production or that at the time it is taken out of cold storage?
It would be the rate at the time of production.
I move:
In sub-section (1), page 8, line 56, to delete the words "butter duty" and substitute the words "rate of the butter bounty payable under this Act on factory butter at the time of importation."
The factories in this country sometimes find it necessary to import butter in order to carry on their trade. Hitherto, at least since the tariff was put on, they were exempt from the tariff in case the butter was again exported after being manufactured. If this section were adopted as it was drafted in the beginning, we would, under it, be removing from them the privilege of importing butter free of import taxes, but we had put on them, however, a levy which was equal to the import duty. They would manufacture that butter, having paid fourpence per pound levy, which would be the same as the import duty. They would, as far as we were able to calculate, only get 2½d. per pound on re-export so they would lose 1½d. on every pound imported under that arrangement. That was naturally unfair, and on reconsideration we have changed that so as to allow them to import butter at the rate of the bounty, so that they would at least lose nothing by the transaction.
Are we to understand that the tariff is modified or abolished to that extent?
Where they re-export it.
Of course, it will only apply in the case of re-exports?
That is all.
I move amendment 27, to delete sub-section (5), and amendment 28, to delete sub-section (7).
It seems to me that this Bill should not interfere with the butter trade to a greater extent than the scheme for which it is introduced renders it necessary. It seems to me that it is quite unnecessary that we should have these powers of prohibition. After all, there is now a tariff on butter coming into the country. It is not proposed, as I understand, in this scheme to raise the price of butter in this country more than 4d. above the world price. As there is this tax on butter imported, there is no danger of imports lowering the price below the world price plus 4d. Therefore it seems to me that it is quite unnecessary to have this power of prohibition of import which is taken in the Bill. Pressure of various kinds may be exerted on the Minister to cause him to prohibit the import of butter—possibly in times of scarcity, when the bounty is not really operating in the country, the winter period—and to have the price of butter raised more than 4d. above the world price. As far as I understand the scheme embodied in the Bill, it was to have the price of butter here, both summer and winter, 4d. above the world price. The power of prohibition would mean that in winter it could be raised very considerably more than 4d. above the world price. It could be raised, in fact, by any particular amount. I did not hear in any of the Minister's speeches, any justification given for taking the power to prohibit. He has not offered any explanation, and in default of some reasons I put these amendments down.
The amendments are to remove the operative portions of the section. I am really, in moving the deletion of the sections, opposing altogether the continuance in the Bill of this particular section. As I say, the Minister may have some explanations to offer, but it seems to me that they would need to be very strong. There is power under the anti-dumping Bill to impose special tariffs if the Minister has reason to fear abnormal imports or if something arose that is not covered by the existing tariff of 4d. The Government has power immediately to take steps to reduce any abnormal imports of butter that might be taking place.
It seems to me that it would be much better to rely on that power, and it is entirely wrong to put into the hands of the Minister the power to prohibit, because prohibition is less desirable than prohibitive tariffs for a number of reasons. If you put on a prohibitive tariff at least everybody is affected, whereas if you prohibit imports, if there is a shortage of supply, you may have to give a licence to individuals or groups of individuals to import, and there will be all sorts of jealousies and hardships in the making of selections of individuals who will get a licence to import where others can not. I would suggest to the Minister that he should accept the amendment, or alternatively let the section drop, and rest on the anti-dumping Bill for power to take special steps rather than take steps to prohibit.
Without expressing any opinion on the proposition of Deputy Blythe, I hardly think that reliance on the anti-dumping Bill would be a safe reliance. Surely it could happen that importers would be gradually filling up the cold stores with butter quite unknown to the Government. It does not seem to be the case that the signs that are supposed to indicate to the Government that abnormal importations are taking place would be evident. You could have over several months slightly abnormal importations, and you could reach a point where you would have practically every cold store filled with butter.
But they would have to pay 4d. per pound tariff.
At the same time, if there was any desire to avoid recognition of these abnormal importations it could be very easily effected.
The Deputy does not seem to know what the position is. Normally there will not be importations at all, and I suppose the only thing that the Minister can be guarding against is that when the stores are already filled with butter that may be sold out of them during the winter, some sort of abnormal importations will arise. There can be no question of the stores being gradually filled up with imported butter. The position is that the Minister offers this proposal to the Dáil and we have not had a word yet as to why it was proposed in the Bill, or what danger it is supposed to enable us to avert.
I think the Deputy has anticipated more or less what I intended to say. He sees the danger, apparently, from what he said. We are going to give certain benefits to the creameries and to butter producers in general under this Bill. In return for that we are seeking power in another part of the Bill to compel them, if necessary, to store enough butter for our winter supply. What is more, we are going to compel them to store and to sell under a maximum price. If we do that, we think they are entitled, at least, in return, to have the protection of getting practically that maximum price during the winter months, or as near to it as possible, unless they bring it down by internal competition. The 4d. per lb. tariff is not a very good safeguard at the present time. Looking at the price of butter on the British market even now, and considering the fact that, say, next winter, in all probability, colonial butter may be cheaper than it is at the present time, if it comes down by even 5/- or 6/- per cwt. then it can come in here at a price that will practically break our whole scheme as it stands if it comes in during the winter. If our creameries say to us that they can get 126/- at the present time, and that is putting it fairly low, and we say to them "you must store enough for the coming winter"—next August we may say that to them—they may reply, "Well, if we store, and if we take everything into account—bank overdraft, cost of storage and, perhaps, a certain amount of waste and injury to the butter stored—we would want to be assured that we would get 140/- during the winter months." I think we should be able to give them that undertaking. We could not give them that undertaking unless we could prohibit the import of cheap butter.
We do not intend to use this section unduly. As a matter of fact, the imports of butter during the last two winters have been very small. We would like to have this power to be able to assure the creameries that if we compel them to store they may reasonably expect to be able to get a good price for the butter during the winter.
Certainly the introduction of this scheme produces an entirely new situation. A tariff was put on primarily in order to enable the creameries here to get something more in the winter than they could get in the summer, to justify them in keeping a certain amount of butter off the market in the summer and to store it in the winter, and to give them some little profit for keeping it off the market and storing it. At the best, the intention of the tariff was to enable them during the winter months, for as much as was required for the winter supply, to get 4d. above the world price. But now we are taking steps to get them something above the world price, to get 4d. above the world price in the summer. We intend that the consumer shall have to pay 4d. above the world price summer and winter, and there seems to be no particular reason now why we should induce or persuade the creameries to store for the winter at all. There is absolutely no reason why, if they can get 4d. over the world price in the summer that they could not sell that butter and get the 4d., and allow whatever butter is required to meet the shortage during the winter to be imported, paying as it would the fourpenny tax. That would do no damage so far as I can see. In fact, it would allow people in the winter to buy fresh butter instead of cold-stored butter, and that would be some advantage. In that way the sort of situation that the Minister foresees would not arise.
If there is going to be a fall in winter, then what is going to happen is that in winter we are going to have people paying more than 4d. It amounts to this, that the Minister now anticipates that not only will we have to pay 4d. above the world price in summer, but that we are going to have to pay more than 4d., perhaps 6d., above the world price in winter, and that without any real advantage—in fact, with no advantage at all to the creameries here. I suggest that there has been a failure to adjust our ideas entirely to the new situation that will be brought about by this Bill, that what we ought to do is not to bother any further now about storage for the winter, to give what we say, 4d. all the year round to the butter producers here above world prices, and let the question of imports and exports be regulated by the ordinary conditions of demand and supply. Let the people sell as much as they can advantageously in the summer, and if there is a shortage in the winter, let the people who are importing what is necessary pay the 4d. tariff.
I am afraid Deputy Blythe has forgotten one thing. The key to the whole Bill is the winter storage. Supposing the creameries exported all their butter in the summer, what would they have to get out of the pool? They would have nothing to get. It is the storage in the winter that enables them to get the grant of 2d. they pay in. It is only by the winter storage they can do that.
In connection with the powers that the Minister is taking under this section, I want to put before him the position of creameries in my constituency. There is no cold storage there to any extent nearer than Belfast.
We are not on that point now.
I think it arises in connection with this.
I am opposed to this. It is an attempt in a way to interfere with the creameries in their ordinary routine business. I think it was Deputy Davin who suggested in a recent debate that we should have compulsory powers with a view to bringing about co-operation amongst the creameries. That is resented very strongly by the creameries. This Bill provides them with the means of achieving what they might have achieved by proper co-operation in selling. The Bill, I think, is useful in this way, that it may have the effect of bringing the creameries together eventually in a voluntary manner for their own protection, inasmuch as if they export too much of their butter it will have an effect on their bounty. On the other hand, if they do not export enough it will have another reaction. The Bill itself may eventually lead the creameries and their sellers as a whole to arrange their own business in a proper manner. I think the least Governmental interference there is the better, and for that reason I am rather opposed to this section restricting importation, just as I am to the section restricting exportation.
There is a danger that if this section is enforced it will enable suppliers, more or less, to corner butter and raise the price above what would be the normal price. I think it would be wiser if this section were not enforced. The tariff gives a certain amount of protection and there are, of course, the seasonal imports from countries south of the line. I should be afraid that, if this section were enforced, there would be a likehood of excessive prices.
I suggest that Deputy Brasier should look up the report of the debate when the tariff on butter was at first being imposed. It was asserted from various parts of the House that the price rose from 1/2 per lb. to 1/8 per lb. in consequence of a 4d. tariff.
On the main point, let us assume that butter is sold here and that prices so go down that loss would be entailed to the farmer. In the ordinary way, some information has to come to the Minister to enable him to exercise his powers under Section 19. Would not the same information that would justify him, if the need arose, in issuing a prohibition order under Section 19, enable him to have a proposal made to the Executive Council under the anti-dumping Act, because if you impose an additional tariff you can regulate that additional tariff with reference to the world price of butter? It will affect everybody equally. No difficulties would arise such as would arise under prohibition by giving a particular number of merchants the right to import and refusing others the same right, thus enabling one set of persons to use one class of butter and forcing another set to use another class. Any situation that might arise could be met in a way other than by prohibition. I think prohibition is really the worst way for dealing with each a problem except in very exceptional circumstances. A prohibitive tariff does not raise the type of personal questions which you will have where there is prohibition and licence. Prohibition might carry prices beyond all reason. It might carry them very considerably beyond what is intended when we have the 4d. tariff aiming at 4d. above world prices. I admit that, where butter is stored, circumstances might arise in which you would have to let it get something more than 4d. above the world price. But if we recognise that as a disagreeable necessity, I do not think we should add to it by all the undesirable factors that are connected with prohibition and with the granting of import licences to particular individuals.
Deputy Allen has raised a very important point. If Deputy Bennett were to examine that statement, he would not be against the prohibition of exports and imports. If we were to allow things to take their course, it would probably happen that, instead of exporting 320,000 cwt. of our 640,000 cwts. of creamery butter, we would export 400,000 cwts. and import about 80,000 cwts. during the winter. If we were to allow that to occur, without interfering with exports or imports, the bounty on butter would be three and one-fifth pence instead of fourpence. The finances in this Bill would be altogether different under such free trade. From the financial point of view, we would require to have this power. Whatever we may think about the question of marketing, we should first of all see that our own consumers here are supplied with home butter if they have a preference for it. It is quite evident that they have such a preference. Everybody will have noticed that, during the months of March and April, home consumers bought Irish butter when they could get Danish and New Zealand butter at perhaps 2d. per lb. less. It is evident that our home consumers want Irish butter. If we are to give creameries certain advantages under this Bill, we should see that they supply home consumers with Irish butter during the winter. That means that we must have power of prohibition of exports. If, again, we compel creameries to do that, I think we should be able to assure them that we will not allow dumped or cheap butter in here during the winter, which would put them at a disadvantage regarding their stored butter. I think one of the most necessary things under this Bill is that we should have practically complete control of both exports and imports. If we had not that power, it would be very difficult to work this Bill.
I appreciate the Minis-ter's point and also the point raised by Deputy Allen, that an export of more than half would reduce the advantage to the farmer. But I am opposed to compulsory restrictions on either buying or selling by the creameries. They seem to resent it themselves, and I think the time has not arrived when this House should, even by implication, restrict them. This Bill is built up somewhat on the lines of the suggestions made by the Creamery Managers' Association. They drew up a scheme last year. That scheme was largely on these lines, but they did not in that scheme ask for any restrictions on imports or exports. It seems to me that they do not want such restrictions. Unless we come to the point mentioned by Deputy Davin, when we will have compulsory regulation of the creamery industry, I do not see how we can accept this restriction or the restrictions which occur later in the Bill.
I am opposed to this provision simply because I am opposed to Section 25. I think the discussion on this section must be taken in the light of Section 25 because one section is the counterpart of the other. I am opposing Section 25 because any restriction with regard to the export of butter would be, in my opinion, fatal to the butter trade and fatal to the object of this Bill. If we want to assist creameries to hold the foreign market, we should put them in a position to fulfil their contracts freely and openly. Perhaps the Minister will say, in reply, that he will exercise his power of prohibition of exports with discretion. That is all very well, but if a creamery enters into a contract with a firm in England to supply butter for six or twelve months, it is obvious that it must take into consideration the provisions of this Bill. For that reason, I am opposed also to this section. If there is free importation, there should also be free exportation. If a butter merchant is going to import butter, he will import a cheaper article than is exported. Hence, there is an advantage in importing if, at the same time, we get a higher price for the article we export. These two sections have to be read in connection with one another, because one is the counterpart of the other. I am certainly opposed to giving the Minister any power to prohibit exports, and I think that we should, by some means or another, or by some machinery, provide that our exports of butter are maintained, if possible, during the entire year. I do not mind whether it is cold storage during the winter or otherwise, but some scheme should be adopted by the creameries, whereby they would be in a position to fulfil contracts for export during the entire year, because I feel that it is only by doing that the Irish creameries will ever keep their market.
What kills them at the present moment, to my mind, is that their supply is seasonal, and at the worst time when prices are worst. The proper way would be to put them into the position by a scheme of storage or otherwise, whereby they could fulfil contracts on the export side during the entire year. For that reason, it is necessary that there should be a free passage with regard to imports. If we could import butter cheaper to supply the home demand, and sell our own butter dearer by export, the situation would be helped, and every avenue should be left open and free for the creameries to carry on that business.
Some Deputies want to face both ways at the one time and Deputy McMenamin especially. He wants the Bill and he does not want it.
Oh, no.
You either want the machinery necessary for the implementing of this Bill, or you do not want it. The Deputy wants to import butter the full year round and to re-export it again.
I want nothing of the kind. I am not responsible for the Deputy's intelligence. What I said is this——
My intelligence is equal to yours. I understand what I am talking about.
I want to be clear on what I said. I said that if we were exporting the better article, our own butter, and getting a better price for it, we should do so.
I think that the people of the country will be able to eat our own butter. We were accused, the other day, of giving cheap butter to the British, and now we want to import cheap butter and give the superior butter to the British. Some of the Deputies on the Opposition Benches are trying to face both ways. They remind me of two-headed pennies. It is absolutely necessary to have this machinery in the Bill if it is to be made operative at all. It is quite fair, as the Minister said, that if the creameries are compelled to cold store butter, that cheap butter should not be allowed to come in here and to be sold in winter at a rate under that at which they cold store that butter. That is the position, and that is why it is necessary to have this machinery. Deputy Blythe asked would not the dumping Act be sufficient. It would not, because it might be necessary to break off certain restrictions at a period when it would not be possible to do so under the dumping Act. I understand that if restrictions are put on, they cannot be taken off right away, under the dumping Act, when it might become necessary. The machinery is not as easily used as the machinery asked for here, and I think the Bill would be useless without it.
How are you going to enter into contracts?
I think I can understand Deputy Blythe's point. The reason for which he objects to this power is that, in the event of a shortage of home-produced butter in the winter time, it would be possible that the price per lb. here in the Free State would go up to 1/8 or 2/- a lb., whereas the world price of butter on the London market might be only 1/- or 1/2, plus 4d. tariff, making it 1/6, as against, perhaps, 2/- here. I think there is a good deal in his point, and I would like the Minister to consider it. There is also the question to which I alluded when the tariff was imposed, that it was not good policy for the creameries of the Free State to lose contact with the English market. I pointed out on that occasion that if they wanted to compete with foreign competitors, like the Danes and others, it would be necessary to have contact with the British market the whole year round. The advantage of that policy is seen now.
Of course the danger to which Deputy Blythe alludes is somewhat lessened by the power which the Minister has in Section 25, to ensure that there will be a sufficient quantity of butter preserved for the use of the citizens of the State, but there are such things as scares, and there could be such a thing as an artificial scarcity. In that case the price might go up, and I would like to know if the Minister has power to see that the price does not go up unnecessarily above the world price. I am willing to admit that the farmer is entitled to proper remuneration for the work in which he is engaged, but, at the same time, I am out to safeguard the interests of a great many people of this State who will gain no monetary advantage from the provisions of this Bill. For that reason, I think that if the Minister could do something that would secure a price for the farmer, and at the same time ensure that the price of butter does not rise unnecessarily, and especially during the winter months, it would meet the wishes of Deputy Blythe, and the rest of us, who are more or less suspicious of that power.
Again, the question of jealousy would arise. What persons would be entitled to these licences? Who would they be, and what steps would the Minister take to see that, in the event of any scarcity arising here in the winter time, in which it would be necessary to import butter from outside, whatever butter is imported is distributed equally over the whole Twenty-six Counties? There are many points affecting this section, and I think the Minister ought to do something to meet them. I may not be as well acquainted with the dairying industry as many others, but experience has taught me that one thing that must be ensured is constant contact with the British market. That is a matter that has not been accomplished in the past, and it is one which, in my opinion, if the industry is not alone to survive, but to make progress—and I do not see any reason why it should not, in view of the advantages it has— must be attended to to bring about that contact which the industry has not enjoyed in the past, and which alone will enable them to hold their trade.
This is, perhaps, the very worst portion of the Bill. All the machinery of commerce would be held up, and markets that had been made for the export of Irish butter would be lost if there was not continuity of supply. That, perhaps, is one of the secrets of the success of our neighbours, the Danes—that they have been able to maintain supplies right through the year. Was not the aim of the 4d. tariff on butter to bring about winter dairying in this country, and maintain that continuity of supply? I believe more harm will be done to the dairying industry by the inclusion of this particular section than any other part of the Bill, and I feel that very decided injury will be done if it becomes law. Nothing under the sun can do more harm to the men who are exporting butter from this country than to break off their market and their business, which they will never get again once they have refused to supply.
The Minister could not do more injury to these men and to the exports of the country. It is very vital that we should, as far as possible, maintain commercial relations with our principal market. Nothing would certainly take its place. I am absolutely in favour of prohibiting imports as far as we can by the imposition of a tariff and using our own produce, but when it comes to losing the export trade, it is another matter. The Minister has not very much faith in his own Bill when he overlooks the possibility of increasing production here. If there is any merit in the Bill, that is exactly what it will bring about. It was the case in Australia, and certainly I am in hopes that we shall bring about increased production in winter. This is a section which I would ask the Minister not to include in the Bill.
The point which the Minister has not answered is the question of the use of the anti-dumping Act for any emergency that might arise. Deputy Allen spoke about it. I think it is possible to use that Act to meet all the requirements. It is possible under that Act, if it is believed that the duration of the tax should not be long, to make the duration as short as desired. It is possible under it to impose a tax that shall begin as from a certain date and end on a certain date. If the situation still requires it, it will be possible to make a new Order continuing the tax for a further period. In fact, I think it is possible to use that Act in such a way as to have a very flexible means of dealing with the situation—a much more flexible means than is provided in Section 19 of the Bill. Prohibition is a most inflexible thing. It means that you cannot determine effectively how much you are going to let the price go up. If you put a new tariff of 2d. per lb. on to the existing 4d. per lb. you know that the price will not go up more than sixpence beyond the world price. If you prohibit the importation of butter, and this does in fact prohibit it, then you cannot be sure how much it will go up. In order to make any system of prohibition work you would need to have some elaborate machinery, such as does not exist now, for the fair distribution of such butter as you would allow to be imported, because the price will not be very considerable, even allowing for the amount of duty to be paid. You may have the people who are successful in getting an import licence having very substantial advantages over the others who were not selected to get them, and everything as between man and man works out disagreeably.
If you do it by means of a tariff, you do not say that "John O'Donnell" will import butter and "Patrick Smith" will not. You simply put on a tariff to protect the butter in store here to the extent that the situation makes necessary, and you let whoever likes pay the duty and bring in the butter. It is really a much more desirable way. I think what Deputy Allen said about the need for altering the thing within a relatively short period can quite well be overcome by proper drafting of Orders under the anti-dumping Act. It will be easy if the Dáil is sitting, because any Order can be modified by the Dáil and brought up on Report or on a later stage. It can either be increased, reduced or abolished. If the Dáil does not happen to be sitting when the emergency Order is made, then the Order could be drafted so as to operate for a relatively short period, so that if it overran the necessity it could not overrun it very far, and if the necessity outlasted the period of the Order, then a new Order could be introduced. I think the section which says that it shall not be lawful for any person to import into Saorstát Eireann any butter except under licence granted by the Minister is introducing a bad system and, in the circumstances, a quite unnecessary system. We have practically no prohibition of imports now. We deal with the necessity for restricting imports of any particular goods by a tariff, whether high or low, and that is the best way.
I understand that the anti-dumping Act expires in October or November. Suppose the Dáil were to refuse the Minister power to renew this Act for a further period, then you will leave this legislation depending upon whether the House will or will not renew that Act. I think the Minister is right in making provision for this Bill to stand on its own feet. If the Minister is asking the creameries to keep a certain supply of butter for the winter period, it is only fair that he should have the right to see to it that those who keep that supply will be protected. It is altogether wrong to run the risk suggested by Deputy Blythe and others. That power has been taken here on former occasions, and while the power asked for by the Minister may not be necessary to any great extent, I think the Minister is right in asking for it, and that the House is justified in giving it to him.
It seems to me that most of the debate so far has taken place on a later section. I do not want to anticipate that section, but I think the decision on this might reasonably be left over until we discuss the other section, because I think one hinges upon the other to a great extent. I am definitely opposed to the later section. I am not going to discuss it now, although it has been debated extensively on this section. I would, however, like to see the decision on this section postponed until the other one is debated.
This Bill is really an experiment. There are many things in it which some of us do not agree with, but we cannot produce a better alternative. It is going to be experimental for three years, and I think that the control of the butter industry must be kept within the four walls of the measure. You cannot get outside it. I cannot see why the Minister should be in any way restricted with regard to imports or exports. I think the Minister must have control over imports and exports if we are to carry out the idea of the stabilisation of prices for butter. There is another point, which is perhaps more important than any other that I heard so far, and that is, that if the Minister holds control both of imports and exports, absolute control of the whole butter industry which he proposes in the Bill, it is more than likely that those interested in the butter industry, such as the creamery managers and others who cannot agree amongst themselves as to the best method of marketing, with this in the hands of the Minister for a year or two, will awaken to the fact that they will have to do something. Perhaps something will be put up to the Minister after this Bill becomes law which will conduce to the much better marketing of butter, and will inevitably mean the amendment of this Bill or to another Bill being brought in which will be of a much better type. If the results of this measure will be that winter dairying will be taken up—I believe it may result in winter dairying being taken up more generally than it has been in the past—I think it is also necessary that all the powers should be reserved to the Minister in this Bill for the purpose of enabling the people to see exactly where they are in regard to winter dairying and seeing whether it is a feasible thing or not. I do not think it is wise to remove the sub-section which Deputy Blythe has proposed to remove. Neither is it wise to interfere with Section 25. As I said before, the whole control of the butter industry is better within the four walls of this measure than to bring in the anti-dumping Act or anything else to interfere with the first attempt to get real control of one of the most important industries.
I would like if the Minister would give us some explanation of this section.
Take Section 23 and Section 24 together. Section 24 deals with general exemption licences and Section 23 with special exemption licences. We have discussed at length Section 19, which deals with the prohibition of butter imports. Section 21 practically does the same in regard to dairy produce. Section 22 deals with the penalties to be inflicted in case an order is contravened, and Section 23 deals with the case of licences. Really there are four or five sections dealing with dairy produce for the one dealing with butter, because there are various ways of supplying dairy produce, supplying milk to the creameries, sending cream from a separating station to an auxiliary creamery, and so on. Section 23 deals with special import licences for dairy produce.
There seems to be no meaning attached to the words "special import licences."
It is opposed, more or less, to Section 24 dealing with general licences.
That is only for Northern Ireland.
Section 23 more or less corresponds to sub-section (2) of Section 19.
I move:—
In sub-section (1), page 11, to insert at the end of the sub-section the words "generally or butter of a specified class."
There has been some discussion on the general provisions of the section with regard to the restriction on the export of butter. I think I have already referred to the two or three occasions on which we may possibly find it necessary to introduce a certain amount of inducement to creameries to store. We may possibly find it necessary to use some compulsion. As the section stands without amendment we would practically have to prohibit exports completely, that is to say, issue a Prohibition of Exports Order applying to creamery butter, factory, and all other butter, while, probably, we would have only one class of butter in mind—creamery butter. We might not have any reason whatever for interfering with the export of factory butter. By inserting this amendment it will be possible to make an Order referring to a particular class of butter.
I am opposed to the section largely for the reasons I gave on Second Reading. I am also opposed to the views expressed by Deputy O'Hanlon a moment ago. Deputy O'Hanlon suggested that we should give the Minister powers within the four walls of the Bill to regulate the control of this industry in toto. If the House is prepared to give the Minister that power which is tantamount to the suggestion of Deputy Davin that we should impose compulsion on creamery managers and proprietors of butter factories as to how to regulate their business, well and good. Creamery managers themselves, however, as a body, are largely opposed to it. The various creameries, as far as I have been able to interpret their wishes, are opposed to any compulsion in the carrying on of their business. Part 5 of the Bill, particularly the first section, which is the key to the whole Bill, gives the Minister power to step in at a very vital part of the dairying industry and to make a break in the continuity of all butter supplies in the British market when, and as often as, the Minister likes with, perhaps, some regard to the convenience of the exporters.
That would be a very dangerous principle to adopt. Our difficulty in competing with foreigners in the British market has always been that we have never for a good part of the year been able to maintain our supplies. This provision gives the Minister power to make a break in our regular supplies at any time of the year when there is a tendency to export too much butter. As I say, it is a dangerous principle to adopt. I have as much evidence as anybody in the House that the creamery managers are definitely in opposition to it. I said on the Second Reading that a considerable portion of our butter is sold on a semi-contract system. That is, somebody or other arranges with the big English customer to supply him for the greater part of the year with butter. How is he to enter into a contract for the supply of that butter if he is subject to the provisions of this Bill, when the Minister might possibly step in at any time and prohibit his exports? There are, of course, in a subsequent section powers for special licences and for the revocation of special licences if they are granted, and this will be altogether confusing, and it will be impossible for anybody attempting to make a contract.
Outside a contract it is still more dangerous inasmuch as it would break our supplies in the British market at any time, and the breaking of continuity of supply of our creamery produce in the British market will place us in a less advantageous position than that occupied by our competitors there. Unless we accept the principle that we are going to have compulsory control of the creamery industries—and the creameries are against that—I do not see how we can accept this section. I am in opposition to it.
This section is another key to the powers sought in the Bill. In effect it aims at organising the butter industry on a commercial basis. I do not see the slightest danger in giving those powers to the Minister or to the Department. If the butter industry had been properly organised it could have taken these powers to itself long ago. There is less danger with these powers in the Minister's hands—in the hands of any Minister for Agriculture—than in the hands of the butter industry. There would be far more danger, if they were in the hands of the butter industry, if it were highly organised, that all those happenings referred to by Deputy Bennett would come about. The same would apply to other departments of the agricultural industry. In no department has the agricultural community been successful in organising itself on a commercial basis. This is a start, so that one section may be organised.
I think Deputy Allen misses the whole point. A certain power is given to the Minister. Let us assume a creamery has sufficient butter in cold storage or, by means of a fresh supply during the entire year the creamery manager is able to fulfil a contract. What will be the position of that man if he is foolish enough to enter into a contract? He may lay himself open to a law suit. The Minister may say "No; I would not issue an order in that case." Assume all the merchants enter into contracts and the Minister finds it necessary to issue a prohibition order. Against whom is he to issue it? Which of the contractors will he select?
I suppose Deputy Allen will tell me that we should eat our own butter. Of course we should, but this is a business matter, and the idea is to fulfil a contract without any danger to the contracting party. Assume it is necessary to import butter in order to export it for the purpose of annual contracts. I say import it and fulfil your contract and maintain the continuity of supply in the export market if possible. There may, unfortunately, be periods when one would have to import, but it is not likely that any merchant in the Free State is going to export butter at a cheaper price than he would get in the home market. Merchants are not so patriotic as all that. I am opposed to this section.
I would like to ask the Minister if it is not a fact that the percentage of Irish butter exported to the British market is only a fraction over 4 per cent. of British imports of butter and the exports of creamery butter are a fraction under 3 per cent. There is a lot of talk about the continuity of the export trade and this will show the importance of it. I should like further to ask if it is not a fact that this Bill is primarily introduced in an endeavour to help the dairy farmer. The dairy farmer would not find a place in the market if it were not for the artificial assistance which he has got. He would be getting about 7d. a lb. for creamery butter; that is the price he would be getting for his milk. Is it not also a fact that the tendency of all agricultural products is downwards, that the supply is more than the demand can absorb at an economic price to the producer? The discussion in this House concerns petty details and I am of the opinion that that discussion should be curtailed by Deputies themselves. The Minister should be given the opportunity that Deputy O'Hanlon referred to a while ago.
I consider this section is of the utmost importance to the Bill. Having agreed to the section earlier in the Bill giving power to the Minister to prohibit the imports of butter, if we now refuse power to the Minister to ensure that a sufficient supply of butter is retained in the country, what position do we leave the consumers in? I was rather surprised at Deputy Bennett's attitude on this section, seeing that he was in agreement with the earlier section.
No.
I understood the Deputy was. In any case, the House having agreed to the earlier section, I am sure that Deputy Bennett will agree that it is necessary this section should be retained. What does it seek to do? It seeks to ensure a necessary supply of butter in the country for the people. That may be secured without this clause, but on the other hand, it may not. There is nothing to prevent the exporters of butter taking advantage of all the encouragement they are getting on their exports, pocketing the profits and leaving the country at the disadvantage of an insufficient supply. Since no outside butter is to be imported, what position are we going to leave the consumers in?
This section is necessary because it will compel those engaged in the production of butter to ensure that the needs of the people are satisfied. Let them take what action they like, active co-operation or anything of that sort, but it is very necessary to ensure that the interests of the consumers are not exploited by individual creamery concerns interested only in the making of money for their own advantage. Deputy McMenamin says there is a terrible danger that we may lose contact with our markets across the water. Continuity of supply may be a good thing, providing it is profitable to the producer. We have reached a stage now when continuity of supply is no longer a big issue. What is far more important to us is the existence of the industry itself in such a position that it will supply the needs of our own people. It is with the end in view of doing that, of improving the dairying industry of the country, that this Bill was introduced, and I can see no danger arising in that direction. I believe the Bill will result in increased production, sufficient to meet the entire demands of our own people liberally, summer and winter, plus sufficient for an increased export trade. That will ensure continuity of supply on much better terms than the exemption of this clause would, because that would have the effect of placing consumers in this country at the disadvantage of having no butter supply during certain periods of the year.
I do not see that there would be any gain by having the section altered. We never had continuity of export in this country. We lost our contacts with English firms year after year. I think the first duty of the Minister is to see that sufficient butter is kept in the country now that the import of butter is prevented. It is clearly the duty of the Minister to the consumers of this country to see that a sufficient supply of butter is kept in cold storage to meet the winter demand.
In dealing with the question of cold storage, I would appeal to the Minister to use all his power and influence to see that cold storage facilities are available in every part of the country. The position with regard to the Co. Tipperary is that we have to send our butter to Dublin, Cork or Waterford to be cold stored. We have to pay railway carriage on it there, and pay the owners of the cold store for keeping it. We have to pay again when it is being brought back, with the result that our people have to pay a very enhanced price for butter in the spring months. I would ask the Minister to see that the butter, when cold stored, will be kept as near as possible to the consumers. I think it would possibly do no harm, from any angle, to leave the section as it stands. Changing it will not, in my opinion, do any good to the dairy farmer.
I would like to know from the Minister if, in framing the section, he had before him the 1923 Butter Cold Store Order, and if he remembers the evil consequences that resulted from the enforcement of that Order in the butter trade generally?
I think the objection to this section is very largely the objection: that was urged to a previous section: that is, that it is not automatic as between individuals, that it means that the Minister has got to cut in at some time when the export trade seems to him to render it necessary. He is going to be obliged to cut in in a way that will affect different creameries differently. He is going to do something that will probably be injurious to one creamery and quite harmless to another. It would be better, I think, if the Minister feels that any adjustments are necessary either in regard to bounty dates or bounty rates, dates or rates of payment of levy, that he should try and get a system that would secure what he desires automatically; that once he has made an Order he should not have to interfere with the trade of individual creameries or individual exports. There are people who will very definitely be injured if an export Order is suddenly imposed, while there will be other creameries whose trade will be such that they will not have to bear that particular burden at all.
A thing like this would be quite easy to operate if you had some central system of selling. In that case the order would really apply and would be operated through some central body, and the effects of it, whatever they were, would be pooled. But what is proposed here is a system that will allow exports to go on until the Minister feels that the situation is alarming. Then he has to come in with an export order, preventing the export of all creamery butter. The Minister, I think, will be able to see himself how unfairly that might operate in certain circumstances. Presumably that order is going to be inflexible. It is going to mean total prohibition at whatever stage he puts it on. Probably that will mean that too much is kept. In order to get rid of that possibility of excess, provision is made in a later section to give special export licences to particular individuals.
I think this whole system of prohibition and export licences is going to give a tremendous lot of administrative trouble. It is going to cause a great deal of uneasiness and bitterness from time to time in the country. It will be impossible to prevent very strong feelings of injustice arising, and my own belief is that the objects the Minister desires to obtain may be perfectly well obtained by other types of machinery. I think he should be prepared to adopt that other type of machinery so that his Department will not have to be continually making a choice between individuals. The Minister himself can, I think, foresee the terrible difficulties and dangers even that surround one when dealing with the trade of a country along the lines apparently that it is contemplated to deal with it here.
I would like to know if any Deputy has any creamery or exporter in mind who maintains contracts the whole year round? It has been put up to us that the big danger in this is that it is going to mean the breaking of these continuous contracts. I have heard of a few individual creameries that have exported a very small amount of butter last winter, but would any creamery maintain a contract throughout the last two years and sell butter on the British market at, say, 110/- when it could get 150/- here through the tariff system? I have heard of no continuous contracts being maintained during the last two years. Yet we are accused in this Bill of going to break these imaginary contracts.
Then we are faced with a hypothetical poser from Deputy McMenamin: Supposing every one has contracts, how are we going to deal with them; supposing some have contracts to supply the home market and others the foreign market, how are we going to deal with them? Quite obviously we would pick out the people supplying the home market and say to them: "You are supplying the home market, and make sure you are going to supply it the whole year round." If that was not sufficient, we might go to the others and try to deal with them as equitably as possible. I do realise that there will be a certain amount of trouble under this section, but without it the whole scheme would be defective.
We will probably adopt the suggestion of Deputy Blythe, that is, to vary the bounty to a certain extent, and try to get the creameries, by showing them that the difference between the price they would get by exporting and the price they might expect to get by storing, would be sufficient to induce them to store without any compulsion. We think it necessary to have this power of compulsion, so that if we want it we can use it. I hope myself it will not be necessary to use that power, but I think it is well that we should have it.
I move amendment 30:
In sub-section (1), page 11, to insert at the end of the sub-section the words "to which such order relates."
This is a consequential amendment on amendment 29.
These amendments are much the same in intent as amendments 27 and 28.
I do not propose to move them, partly because the matter has been decided on the vote just taken, and also, partly because I am, to a very large extent, satisfied by what the Minister has already said, when he indicated that he was prepared to use other means towards achieving the purpose of amendment 25, before resorting to prohibition and that his policy was to use prohibition as a last resort, and not merely as the first method in the event of the failure of persuasion.
Before moving this, I would like to have your ruling on amendment 36, because I only put down amendment 33 as a second best to be moved, as I understood that there was a danger of amendment 36 being ruled out of order. If it were not ruled out of order, I would not move amendment 33.
Amendment 36 makes mandatory what is left to the option of the Minister in amendment 33, and it seems to me to be out of order, as outside the scope of the Bill, as read a second time. In private discussion with the Deputy, I suggested a compromise which he has embodied in amendment 33, and I am allowing that amendment for the purpose of having the question discussed in the only possible way it can be discussed, consistent with the principles of the Bill. I am ruling amendment No. 36 out of order.
I move amendment No. 33 in the hope that, not merely will the Minister accept it, or accept the principle of it, but that he will express to the House his determination, if the amendment is passed, to make use of the powers that this particular amendment would give him. It would be easy, I know, for the Minister to accept the amendment, and to take no further action on it, and although the Bill would have been altered, the position would not really have been altered at all. The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Minister, and to induce the Minister, to take active steps to bring about the establishment of a central marketing organisation here. It might have been argued quite rightly in the past, that the establishment of a central marketing organisation was not really the Minister's business; that while it might be correct for the Minister to argue in favour of such an organisation, it was not his business to take any steps to bring it about; that the creamery industry should organise its own marketing in the way that every other industry organises its marketing, and that the Minister should not try to show them how to do their business, or interfere with the manner in which they were doing it, but the introduction of the Bill seems to me to introduce an entirely new situation, because the Bill asks the consumer to pay a very substantial subsidy for a period, at any rate, to the creamery industry, and if the general consumer is paying that substantial subsidy to the creamery industry, then, the general consumer, acting through the Minister, is entitled to take steps to see that the proper results are got from this large sum which the Minister says will be round about half a million—and I think it would be more.
It would certainly be a terrible thing if the consumer was obliged to pay this very large sum in cash through the extra price of butter, and if, as a result of that, the industry got very little benefit, and that the price cutting, which frequently has damaged Irish butter on the British market, was intensified, so that the price that the consumer in England would pay would be actually lower than it would be if this Bill were not introduced. I believe there would be very grave danger that the introduction of this Bill, if further steps are not taken, would result in some subsidy being given to the British consumer, and would result in price cutting being carried so much further that the English consumer would get his Irish butter some fractional amount cheaper than he would have got it if the Bill had never been introduced. We know that there was an attempt a few years ago at the establishment of a central marketing organisation, and that, in fact, such an organisation was brought into being and operated for a period. So far as anybody outside can gather, it appeared that the reason for that organisation finally collapsing was that it failed to gain the support of the whole of the industry.
When the I.A.C. was being formed and meetings were held, almost all the co-operative creameries attended the meetings and expressed their approval of the principle of an organisation, and expressed their readiness to co-operate in the formation of a central marketing organisation, but, as the work progressed, it was found that a considerable number of these creameries would not actually become members of the I.A.C., and would not sign contracts to sell their butter through it, so that the new organisation started work with only about 80 per cent. of the creameries as members and selling through it, and with only about 60 per cent. of the butter being sold through it.
I believe that during the period that organisation operated it really did confer benefits on the creamery industry. But, if it was able to confer benefits on the creamery industry as a whole, the creameries which remained outside the association were, in many instances, able to get all the benefits that members were able to get, without bearing any of the expense of maintaining the organisation. In certain cases they were able to get greater benefits, because where pooling has to take place, as it has in such a scheme, a particular creamery manager in the organisation is never able to get the advantages of the day-to-day fluctuations. A really good manager outside, when you have an organisation preventing the market being broken, as this organisation would do, can get the advantages of the market being maintained, and can get all sorts of other advantages by pushing English butter in places where the organisation thinks it desirable to keep the supplies as moderate as possible, and by taking advantage of the day-to-day fluctuations. So that I think certain individual creamery managers were able to show better results than their neighbours who were in the organisation, though not better results than they themselves would have obtained if the organisation had not been in being. They were in that happy position outside that they got all the benefits, and they were able to take advantage of any chance opportunities of doing better, and they had not to bear any of the costs.
Naturally, in the establishment of a central marketing organisation, you do come up against the individualism of the creamery manager. You will find large numbers of them who have the instinct for buying and selling and who really prefer to do their own marketing. They will get more satisfaction in taking a trifle less and selling themselves than by getting something more and selling through a central marketing organisation. You had managers who remained outside, and who got the advantage of the work of the Association, boasting of how much better they had done than others who were inside. Consequently, you had from the beginning, as a result of this failure to get the whole of the creameries into the organisation, a widespread propaganda against the central marketing organisation going on. You had new dissatisfaction being created; you had all the unreasonableness that will arise in the working of a new scheme, and you had the failure to recognise difficulties. You had the people wanting all the advantages and refusing to submit to any of the disadvantages. It became apparent, very early in the work of the organisation, even apart from certain losses that arose, as I believe, through a misguided policy, that the organisation was not going to be able to stand the acid criticism from outside. There was nothing to help the organisation. The people who went in had to bear the burdens, and they could get nothing better than those who remained outside.
The Minister, if he accepts this amendment, will have machinery to make it possible to have a new organisation established and to give it support. That will prevent the criticism and individualism which operated in the past from undermining it. I think the Minister should accept the amendment and make up his mind to employ the pressure or offer the inducements that are possible under this amendment in order to ensure that the creameries would come together again and that a new organisation would be established in which all concerned can profit by the lessons of the previous attempt and avoid any of the errors made previously.
It is quite clear, as Deputy Davin said yesterday, that the individualism that characterised the marketing of Irish butter in the past is out of date. I believe it is true that great improvements can be effected by an efficiently-conducted marketing organisation which will be so supported that the energy of the managers and officials will not be taken up fighting enemies in the Saorstát. I do not think I need go into the things that were attempted, and, I believe, to a large extent accomplished, by the organisation that was established. They are apparent. Everybody knows that the practice of undercutting in quotations is rampant; that if a manager wants to sell and hears that the next creamery is selling at a certain price you will find him cutting it by 1/-, quite unnecessarily dropping prices, in a way which would not occur if there were a central organisation. Of course, there is the whole question of getting into districts where Irish butter is not largely sold. There is the question of not having excessive amounts sent out. There is the whole question of organising transport, transit, cooling, chilling and so on, all of which can be undertaken by a central organisation, but which are impossible for an individual creamery. The opportunity is put into the hands of the Minister and the Department by this amendment and without it I think that difficulties of all sorts will be occasioned in the operation of the Bill. We have heard talk about the prohibition of exports and imports. The whole question of supply could be much more satisfactorily arranged if the Minister had one central organisation to deal with. He could enforce his requirements through that organisation in such a way as not to cause hardships to individuals, and not to oblige him to make a choice between individuals in respect of imports or exports.
I believe that the machinery of the Bill, even for the bare purpose of the Bill itself, is incomplete without a central marketing organisation, and that if we have not this organisation we will have, to an undue extent, the operation of the psychological factor which is always present when there is an export bounty. Because of this tendency to competition, we will have people who have the bounty of 4d. on export cutting prices beyond reason or necessity, and we will have, in fact, a loss to the country of a considerable proportion of the large sum which is going to be taken from the private consumer.
The amendment if accepted does not oblige the Minister to take any rash measures, but it does enable him to send, if he chooses, for such representatives of the industry as he likes and to inform them that it is their duty to take steps to organise their marketing centres and to inform them further that he has now a weapon in his hands which he proposes to use in case the industry does not itself act without pressure. I believe he would be justified in the interest of the country from every point of view in using the instrument which this amendment will put in his hands for the purpose of bringing this organisation about. I think that without pressure from the Minister it is hopeless to expect that any steps will be taken in the industry. There may be differences of opinion as to whether the attempt to form the I.A.C. was premature or not but the fact that the attempt was made and that the organisation had to be wound up would make the difficulty of a new start, without support from the Minister, such that no group of people could undertake the labour and the propaganda that would be involved and the criticism and attacks which would certainly follow, as can be clearly seen by the criticisms that have been levelled in the past.
I would urge the Minister to accept this amendment, because it appears to me that the establishment of some kind of selling agency is a natural corollary to the passing of the Bill into law. We heard a great deal, not alone in the Dáil but outside it, about the work of the I.A.C., and I think the Minister himself stated a week or two ago in this Dáil, in reply to Deputy Davin, that the failure of that organisation was due mainly to the opposition of the creamery management. I assume there is still a section of the creamery managers opposed to the establishment of any such organisation at the present time. I know that such opposition does exist and that there was a feeling in the past that the business of selling was a matter entirely for the creameries themselves. I quite agree that if the position were quite normal the business of selling should be left in the hands of the creameries, but the position is not normal and it is getting more abnormal day by day.
It appears to me now that if the industry is to survive at all, the State will have to interfere to a larger extent than it has interfered up to the present, and that not alone must it have control to a greater extent over the actual production of butter, but it will have also to interfere in the selling of butter outside the country. Some of the arguments used against the establishment of a central selling agency were that it would not have the effect of altering the international price level because of the very small amount of butter we export from this country. I quite admit, of course, that it would not have the effect of altering the international price level in the slightest, but it would certainly have the effect of stabilising the price of butter exported from the country. It would prevent the possibility of the occurrence of any wide divergences between the price received by one creamery and the price received by another.
At the present time the creameries are entirely at the mercy of the wholesalers on the other side, and, as a matter of fact, opportunities of selling butter on the other side are gradually lessened because of the growth of big combines or the number of big firms. The purchasing in such cases is done through one combine or through one central house. It is quite inevitable in conditions such as these that Irish creamery butter should stand very little chance of commanding a fair competitive price as compared with butter from New Zealand, Australia or Denmark, which butter is sold through highly organised agencies in London. The Minister in this Bill has an opportunity of establishing some form of selling agency. I think the Minister himself does favour the establishment of such an agency. I am quite sure that a big number of creamery managers throughout the country, and certainly quite a number of people very much interested in the development of the creamery industry, are satisfied that it is necessary that such a selling agency should be established. I realise the difficulties in the way of the Minister. I realise that an agency of that kind cannot be established at once. I realise that the Minister will have to overcome certain very big difficulties before he does succeed in getting such an agency actually working, but I do say that the existence of such an agency is absolutely necessary in the interests of the industry itself, that if it is to survive some such selling agency will have to be established. I cannot see any possibility of the establishment of such an agency without the interference of the Minister and without a very large measure of control by the Minister himself. I hope he will avail of the opportunity presented to him by this Bill to see that such a selling agency is established. I hope for that reason he will accept the amendment proposed by Deputy Blythe.
Deputy Blythe gave us to understand that he would have preferred to move amendment No. 33 were it not that the Ceann Comhairle ruled it out of order. That was asking me to bring in a central marketing scheme before June 30th. I must say that the confidence that is shown in my ability to do this is rather embarrassing. I think the ability of my predecessor, Deputy Hogan, was not under-rated by the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and considering that Deputy Hogan made various attempts at this scheme for a number of years, if they have confidence in my ability to establish it in four or five months, I must say I am highly complimented. However, I do not think that I will be able to bring it about in four or five months. I assume that if I were to follow on with the work carried on by Deputy Hogan and his predecessors in getting the creamery business organised properly, it must eventually come to central marketing. I say, however, that under this Bill practically nothing can be done in that way. Take for example, if I were to issue an order stating that I would give a special rate of 4d. to those who would join a central marketing organisation and that to those who did not join I would only give 2d. What would happen? Supposing even 90 per cent. joined the central selling organisation and that only 10 per cent. remained out, would the 10 per cent. not sell all their butter in the home market? They would be no worse off in that way by remaining outside the central selling organisation and we would get nowhere. Therefore under this Bill I see very little hope of doing anything.
I do certainly agree with the principle of central marketing. Looking at it from a detached and general point of view it must be sound. I will go further and say if you want to proceed with co-operation the logical step in co-operation would be combined marketing. If you want to push the idea of the organisation of co-operative creameries to a logical conclusion we must have central marketing in the end. Deputy Blythe referred to the effects of central marketing in this country. It was tried in 1928 and a very large proportion of the creameries, numerically speaking, joined that organisation, but in volume of butter output of course it was not as big. At any rate a large number joined and at the time I think a very good case could be made for the Government compelling those who remained outside to come in if the Government of the time were keen on central marketing. That was not done. As Deputy Blythe says when there is a scheme of central marketing we will always have individuals who remain outside reaping certain benefits that are there because of the central marketing and because they can get these benefits, they are able to turn to their supporters and their admirers and say: "I did better than the central marketing." They are always able to make a case like that; that is only natural. In certain countries, when 75 or 80 per cent. join a central marketing organisation, there is a law to compel the remainder to come in.
There are certain individuals who are good marketers and who, perhaps, have a reputation for having good produce. I am sure we have such in this country. We probably have creamery managers who are very good at marketing, who have a reputation for good produce and are able to get a better price than the general price ruling. They will naturally be opposed to central marketing because they will lose, at least for a while. That loss would possibly be temporary and if central marketing was a success, as it should be if everybody was in it, possibly even the best marketers would benefit by going into it. For a while, anyway, we will find it hard to get certain individuals to come in.
On another occasion it was mentioned that we were losing considerably by not having a central marketing organisation. It was said of our creameries that they were inefficient and not able to get their price because they could not do things as well as Denmark. You will find that is not true. The working expenses of the creameries here are very little higher than in Denmark, about one shilling a cwt. We find that in regard to marketing expenses there is not a big margin of difference. When we come to put up arguments to people in the creamery business we find that the arguments are not as strong as we believed.
I believe there would be an advantage in central marketing, but we cannot do anything under this Bill. There is a considerable amount of distrust and suspicion of central marketing amongst people in the creamery trade, and if we can give them a little time to get over that it will be all to the good. We shall have an Advisory Committee appointed to advise the Minister with regard to the working of this Bill. That Committee will give practically its whole time to marketing. This Bill deals with marketing. The Committee will be representative of the creamery industry, the factory butter industry and others. The Committee will direct its whole attention towards getting the best price for butter. I think they will examine the whole position of central marketing and I think they should get an opportunity of considering that position with a view to finding out what can be done. I am sure they will give it the greatest possible consideration.
Amendment 33, which is proposed here, is more in the nature of a permissive amendment than a compulsory amendment and I do not see any objection whatever to accepting it. To be really on the safe side, I will ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment until the Report Stage in order to see if it is absolutely right from the drafting point of view.
Amendment 36 is out of order.
I beg to move amendment 37.
In page 12, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) The creamery butter account shall be debited with all moneys paid by the Minister under this section in respect of creamery butter, the factory butter account shall be debited with all moneys paid by the Minister under this section in respect of factory butter, and the miscellaneous butter account shall be debited with all moneys paid by the Minister under this section in respect of farm butter."
In this instance a sub-section has fallen out of its proper place. Sub-section (4) to Section 30 should really be sub-section (4) to Section 29. This amendment makes the necessary change.
I beg to move amendment 38.
To delete sub-section (4).
I explained the position on the last section.
On Section 31, I would like to point out to the Minister that there is a limited time within which the levy must be paid. There is no obligation on the Minister to pay the bounty within a limited time. He can hold up the bounty as long as he wishes. Would it not be better if there were a definite period within which the minister should be satisfied that the obligation of the Act are complied with and the bounty then paid? The reason I make the suggestion is that there will be a lot of capital held up belonging to creameries and butter exporters. There will be a lot of money out while they are awaiting payment of the bounty.
It will be difficult to amend the Bill so as to compel the Minister to pay the bounty within a certain time. As soon as the Minister is satisfied, the bounty will be paid.
The Minister, I am sure, sees the point I have raised. I am raising it only as a matter of interest.
I do see the point. It is hard to foretell how long it might take before the bounty can be paid. As soon as the regulations are prescribed we will be in a better position to see when it can be paid. Ordinarily, it would be paid immediately the conditions are complied with.
If it be at all possible I would suggest to the Minister that the bounty payments should be made to the creameries about the time of the month they send out the cheques to their ordinary suppliers. If that could be done, it would give great satisfaction. It would be well if the payments could be made about the 14th or the 15th of the month, when the creameries themselves send out their cheques.
That may be possible, but I am not able to say anything definite on it at present.
I move amendment 39:
At the end of sub-section (1), line 10, to add the words "(e) cheese."
So far as I can see, cheese is the only milk product excluded from the scope of the Bill. There is a good deal of cheese manufactured in the country. The Shandon Dairy Co. of Dungarvan are fairly large makers of cheddar cheese. They have a good export trade. The cheese they make is of excellent quality. I think the manufacture of cheese should be encouraged, especially of the cheddar variety. The cheese made here is much better than some of the imported cheese. The creameries of Killenaule, in the County of Tipperary, and Lissard, in the County of Cork, are also cheese makers. Many of the creameries could get into the manufacture of cheese if some encouragement was given to them under this Bill.
From inquiries we have made, the position with regard to the amount of cheese at present made in the country is that it is not at all equal to the home requirements, even though we do not consume very much cheese compared to other countries. The cheese produced here, I understand, is of only one or two varieties. There are many kinds of cheese coming into the country which would not be produced here. I agree with the Deputy that we should encourage the production of cheese as much as possible. We should encourage any milk product that we can make here, so as to help the milk industry. The Deputy will see that we are taking power in the Bill to include any milk product at any time. We can put cheese on the list at any time that a case is made to us. I want to assure the Deputy that I have every sympathy with his amendment, but I would prefer to leave this to the Advisory Committee that is to be appointed. I feel that if a reasonable case can be made for it the Committee will perhaps include it.
On behalf of Deputy Doyle, I move amendment 40a:—
"At the end of sub-section (1), line 10, to add the following new paragraph:
‘(e) any milk product used in the manufacture in Saorstát Eireann of any other article of food which is subsequently exported.'"
The purpose of the amendment is to arrange for a drawback similar to the drawback arranged in respect of any dutiable article which either is reexported or is used in an article which is exported.
Our intention is to meet the point in this amendment by amendment 53.
Would that amendment require to be elaborated to read: "Where the Minister is satisfied that any butter or any other milk product...."?
There would be very great difficulty in including "other than butter" under manufactured articles exported. We would be able to check the amount of butter going into a biscuit or a chocolate factory, but it would be very difficult to check the amount of cream or whole milk going in. I think it would be impossible to keep a check on"other than butter."
This is a very important question in view of the quantity of butter used by a certain factory, I do not know what the figure would be, but they must use a large quantity of butter annually. Take it that they buy butter at 4d. per lb. extra and that it is used in the biscuits and cakes they export to other countries. These biscuits and cakes will be competing against biscuits and cakes made of butter purchased at the world price. That will necessarily mean that the Irish firm will be placed at a big disadvantage.
I think the Minister's subsequent amendment will cover the matter. I do not know whether he has any means of enquiring whether there would be any substantial quantity of other milk products used in manufactured goods intended for export. I do not know whether the question of cream is of any substantial importance or not. The Minister would probably have the means of finding out, but if it were it would be worthy of consideration.
As far as I can make out, in the good class sweets and chocolates they use butter to a certain extent, and, of course, in biscuits. Other milk products would not be used in the best class manufactures.
I move amendment 41:
In sub-section (1), page 13, line 29, to delete the words "per pound."
This is a drafting amendment.
I move amendment 42, as follows:—
To delete sub-section (2) and substitute the following sub-sections:—
(2) Until regulations are made under this section prescribing the rate at which bounties are to be paid under this Part of this Act in respect of bulk cream, the rate per pound of the butter equivalent of bulk cream shall be twopence.
(3) Until regulations are made under this section prescribing the rate at which bounties are to be paid under this Part of the Act in respect of any milk product (other than bulk cream) the rate per pound of the butter equivalent of such milk product shall be twopence.
This amendment is designed to give us power to make regulations which will deal separately with the items referred to rather than to deal with them all on the same basis.
I oppose the section. Part 7 of the Bill, for some reason, purports to give a bounty of a penny per lb. on cream and 2d. per lb. on other milk products.
I should have explained that. If the Deputy looks at the amendment recently circulated, he will see that the amount is 2d. on everything.
That is not my point. In this part of the Bill, the Minister proposes to pay a bounty on cream and milk products, and there is no provision for a levy. Under Section 35, this is to be charged on the butter bounty. Am I correct in that?
Yes.
Surely the Minister should make some provision to save himself in that respect. I could not put in an amendment for the simple reason that this is a money matter. I want to know what the Minister proposes to do. Does he propose to amend the Financial Resolution? So far as I can see, this is to be charged on the butter fund without any compensation. If a creamery wants to make money, it will start to export cream and other milk products, because it will not have to pay any levy. Am I correct in that?
Yes.
Something must be done to protect the creameries who are going to make butter. The Minister must amend his Financial Resolution authorising him to impose the levy or put in another sub-section in this section authorising him to make a levy on these products. If that is not done, the butter trade will be ruined. The creameries will start to export cream or milk products and get the bounty without paying any levy.
I support the suggestion made by Deputy McMenamin. Has the Minister calculated this matter closely? Take the figures for 1930. The suggested bounty on exported cream, condensed milk and dried milk would be £116,000. That would be more than one-fifth of the amount coming from the 4d. per lb. on creamery butter exported during the same year. This bounty will come out of the creamery account, and assuming that exports equal the exports for 1930 how could the creameries exporting only butter get 4d. per lb.? There would not be sufficient money to pay it.
In opposition to that, suppose we were to give no bounty on the export of cream or milk products, is it not quite evident that they would all go into the production of butter, and that the bounty would have to be paid on the butter exported, so that it would come to the same thing? The exporter of cream and whole milk is going to get 2d. and to pay nothing. That is a net 2d. The exporter of butter pays 4d. and gets back 2d. That is a net 2d. They will all have a net 2d. If we did not give anything to exporters of cream or milk products, these would probably be all turned into butter and exported and the money would come out of the same pool. If we saw that people were going into one particular product, and that it was being exported to an extent that was bad for the general trade—if, for instance, everybody went into tinned cream—we could lower the bounty for that particular product and try to regulate the trade. We have that power, but we thought it advisable to start them all off on a level.
You would, if your fund ran out, necessarily have to reduce your bounty on butter. These figures would not permit you to give 4d. per lb. on the butter exported. This is a weakness in the Bill, and I suggest that the Minister should have the matter examined before the Bill is finally passed.
It was taken into account.
It is evident that you cannot have 4d. per lb. on the butter.
We are hoping that we will be able to do so.
I move amendment 46, as follows:
In sub-section (2) (a), line 49, to insert before the word "direct" the words "on or after the 21st, day of April, 1932 (whether before or after the passing of this Act)."
Under the Bill, as it stands, exporters of cream and milk products would not have the same benefit as exporters of butter, because they would only get the bounty from the time of the passing of the Act or some time afterwards. This puts them back to the 21st April, the same date as that from which the butter bounty will be paid.
Is that the date for the levy?
The bounty. These people are not paying any levy.
I move amendment 47:
In sub-section (2), page 13, to delete paragraph (c) and substitute the following paragraph—
"(c) it is exported by the manufacturer thereof or by the registered proprietor of creamery premises."
We want to see, when we do pay bounty, that the cream is exported by the manufacturer or by the registered proprietor of creamery premises. The cream exporter who buys cream cannot get the bounty as the Bill stands. This will enable us to give the bounty on cream to the manufacturer or to the registered proprietor of creamery premises. Certain creameries make contracts to supply cream to parts of Great Britain. At certain seasons, or even for a few days now and again, they may be short and may have to buy cream from a neighbouring creamery to fulfil their contracts. In such a case, it would be unfair to refuse to give them the bounty because, naturally, they will pass on the good price to the creamery from which they bought. It is necessary to allow them to get the bounty even though they have bought from a neighbouring creamery.
I move amendment 48.
In sub-section (2), page 14, to delete paragraph (d) and substitute the following paragraphs:—
"(d) in case such milk product was or is exported on or after the 21st day of April, 1932, and within twenty-one days next after the date of the passing of this Act, it was or is exported by a person to whom a milk product (export) licence in respect of such milk product has been granted by the Minister under this Part of this Act within the said twenty-one days,
(e) in case such milk product is exported after the expiration of twenty-one days next after the date of the passing of this Act, it is exported by a person who is for the time being the holder of a milk product (export) licence in respect of such milk product granted by the Minister under this Part of this Act and is so exported in accordance with the terms of such licence."
There will be schemes for bounty on milk products for the "preliminary period," as it is called, from 21st April until the Act is passed. That will be payable to those who subsequently get a licence to export. It will be necessary to have a licence to export.
As to the second clause after that— any time within three weeks from the passing of the Act, or subsequently, in the next three years, nobody will be entitled to a bounty on exported milk products unless they have a licence to export—I do not know if there is any further explanation needed. The point is just that we cannot be compelled, whatever the Bill may state, to pay, unless a person had a licence to export.
Is it understood, in connection with that, that everybody at present exporting will be given a licence?
No. What I mean is that licences may be withdrawn at any time.
But will the people at present exporting butter automatically be entitled to a licence, or are they to be squeezed out of business?
No, they would not be squeezed out, but I could not say if they would all be given licences. For instance, if there was a charge against an exporter that he was exporting cream below the standard at which it was certified to be——
Unless there was some charge——
Apart from that, they would be given a licence.
I move amendment 49:
"Before Section 37, but in Part VII to insert a new section as follows:—
"(1) Every person who claims to be entitled to a bounty under this Part of this Act may apply to the Minister under this section for payment of such bounty.
(2) Every application under this section shall be in the prescribed form and shall contain the prescribed particulars.
(3) If any applicant in any application under this section makes any statement which is false or misleading in any material respect, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine of one hundred pounds."
There is a new section to be inserted here. It appears that without this section we could not be legally bound to pay the bounty, or, at least, without the two sections put together.
On Section 37, there is something in it that I think brings out the weakness of the position, to which I referred on Section 34, as to the Minister getting money from the Exchequer to make up deficiencies in the butter fund. Will that be done as a loan?
That is so.
That shows that you are anticipating the trouble to which I referred as to not having enough money to pay the bounty.
There is no doubt that at one particular time of the year we will be considerably overdrawn.
I have put these amendments on the Paper as alternatives. They are, whichever the Minister chooses, designed to remedy what I think is an oversight in the drafting of this section. The section gives extraordinarily wide powers to the Minister, at present, and, so far as I can see, if there were a surplus in the Miscellaneous Butter Account, he might decide to buy himself a herd of dairy cows, in order to promote the dairy industry. I think, on the whole, that, as the factory butter and the farm butter accounts are so closely related, if the miscellaneous butter account which, I think, is built up from farm butter, should prove to have money to credit, which is not required for any purpose connected with that, it might be transferred to the factory butter account, especially as anything that would tend in the slightest degree to increase the factory bounty would apparently be required. I think, in any case, that some amendment to Section 39 is necessary, and that the absolutely unfettered discretion given to the Minister in it is not a discretion he would ask for on further consideration.
I agree with the Deputy. I do not want any great powers under this section at all, but, strange to say, the Cork butter merchants and factories who send up their comments on the Bill, advised that whatever money would be given here would be given towards the improvement and education of the people in the districts where they buy their butter. The suggestion was that we might be able to pay for a few extra dairy instructors, but if the Deputy would be satisfied to put in as an alternative method of disposing of the money——
If the Minister accepts amendment No. 52, instead of amendment No. 51, it simply means that he prepares a scheme to submit to the Dáil. It is much the same as a Supplementary Estimate or something like that.
Might I suggest that amendment 52, if it was only for the Minister's own sake, would relieve him from the barrage to which he would be subjected if there is any balance in this fund. If he has the absolute disposal of it, his life would be made a misery by deputations from every county in Ireland asking for some of the money.
Would it not be better to let any surplus that would remain over at the end of the financial year go forward to the same account next year?
That might happen, even if this amendment No. 52 were accepted.
I would not mind accepting amendment No. 52, if I thought it was not going to take a long time to dispose of it in the Dáil.
I think it would take about the same time as a small Supplementary Estimate, which usually takes about half-an-hour or thereabouts.
The difficulty would, then, perhaps be that we would have the whole Bill discussed again on that particular motion when it came before the Dáil. You might have the whole Bill discussed, if you had only £5 to put forward.
Of course, if the amount was small, the Minister need not interfere, but would let it be carried over, but if the amount was big, he could formulate some scheme for disposing of it. His position, then, would be the same as if he wanted some new scheme in the Department of Agriculture and brought forward a Supplementary Estimate for it. These supplementaries are often brought forward and they are generally passed in a very short time.
Our real difficulty in this matter is that we have no idea of what it amounts to. It is the one fund in respect of which we cannot make any close estimate. We can estimate the others very closely but in respect to this one, we cannot. If we thought it was going to amount to a couple of hundred pounds, it could lie there for two or three years. If it amounted to two thousand or three thousand pounds it might be very useful to put into the factory butter account, but if it amounted to £17,000 or £18,000 we might think it too much to put in.
If the Chair would allow me to withdraw amendment No. 51 and move amendment No. 52, I do not think the Minister could have any objection.
And if any difficulty should arise in the way of a protracted debate and embarrass the Minister in any way, let him introduce an amending Bill.
Will the Deputy withdraw amendment 52 until Report Stage?
Yes, if the Minister undertakes to consider an amendment for submission then.
I move amendment 53:—
Before Section 42 and in Part IX to insert a new section as follows:—
42. (1) Where the Minister is satisfied that any butter on which a levy under this Act has been paid has been used in the manufacture in Saorstát Eireann of any other article of food which is subsequently exported, the Minister shall pay out of the butter fund to the person who manufactures and exports such article a bounty on such butter and such bounty shall be at the same rate as the bounty for the time being payable under this Act in respect of butter of the same class at time of the manufacture of such article.
(2) The creamery butter account shall be debited with all moneys paid by the Minister under this section in respect of creamery butter, the factory butter account shall be debited with all moneys paid by the Minister under this section in respect of factory butter, and the miscellaneous butter account shall be debited with all moneys paid by the Minister under this section in respect of farm butter.
I have referred to this section already. The aim of it is to compensate manufacturers of certain articles of food, such as biscuits, high-class chocolates, and sweets, who may use butter in the manufacture of such articles.
When going through the Bill after Second Reading, I thought it would be fair for both parties to the contract to give them an opportunity of withdrawing, but on reconsideration I would prefer not to move the amendment, because the producer or supplier who may contract has the option of putting on the 4d. per lb. The other person who is taking the butter or the milk, as the case may be, has the option of breaking the contract. I think it is not necessary to give the supplier the option of breaking the contract, and so I prefer not to move the amendment.
I move amendment 55:
In Part I, to insert in the appropriate place the words: "Bandon Co-operative Agricultural and Dairy Society, Limited, Bandon, Co. Cork."
This Society was a sort of mutual benefit society up to 1929, when it was compelled to erect a new central creamery at a cost of something like £5,000. At the present time the Society is £1,800 in debt; £1,200 for machinery and £600 on contract. They had to take over the liabilities of other small creameries in the neighbourhood. For Castlelact creamery they owe £450 for milk supply and for Crossbarry they owe £700 to the bank. Along with that, there was a new branch creamery erected at Enniskeane at a cost of £1,600, which had to be borrowed from the bank. With these liabilities, and the position of the dairying industry at present, the Society feels that unless it gets some preference, the same as the other creameries inserted in the Schedule, it will not be able to keep going. I ask the Minister to include it in the Schedule so that it may get the benefit of this levy.
I wish to support the amendment. The facts the Deputy has related are perfectly correct. My only trouble is that there are some others in the same district which are very much in the same condition, such as the Lisavairde creamery, which I cannot leave out. Apparently, we are going to have a long discussion as to the financial condition and prospects of each creamery which it is proposed to insert in the Schedule, and I think it would be better if the Minister gave us his opinion with regard to the Schedule before these amendments would be moved, because he might think we were wasting time if he is not going to accept the amendments. My own idea is that it is very invidious to include all these creameries, and I would be more or less disposed to give the Minister a free hand, so that from time to time, according as circumstances may dictate, he can put on or take off the Schedule certain creameries, after proper examination of the circumstances.
Is the Minister satisfied that the inclusion of these creameries on the Schedule is not going to be a danger to the ordinary creamery competition? That is a point which many creamery managers have pointed out to me—that with the preference given to them they will be rather dangerous competitors to the other creameries which will have to bear the cost.
I want to ask on what principle can this be defended? I have no feeling about the Bandon or any other creamery, but on the broad general question, if a creamery gets itself into financial difficulties with the bank, why should the State rush in to pull the bank out of the mess? If the bank makes a bad debt, let the bank bankrupt the company and let the company buy back the property at whatever it will realise. If the bank was so imprudent as to advance money on insufficient security, then the bank should carry the baby and not the State. I think this business of the Schedule is hopeless. If the Minister adopts the Schedule proposed, we will all be bombarded with requests to get on to it.
Objection was raised to certain power which I assume in this Bill, but I would not take the powers Deputy O'Neill is offering me of putting on or taking off at my pleasure. I shall deal with the whole of these together. We have a certain number of creameries on. One of the things we are not going to do is to take a creamery on here because it got itself into difficulties with the bank owing to bad management or something like that. But there is a type of creamery on the list started more or less in modern times, which did not get a chance of getting over the initial difficulties before prices fell. These creameries were set up in recent years in districts where creameries were nonexistent before 1927. There was no tradition of the creamery industry in these districts and these creameries may have had a rather hard time to get going. Costs of construction were high, especially when compared with the price of butter for the last couple of years. On account of the high cost of construction, and the subsequent rather quick fall in the price of butter, they were unable to meet the interest on the bank debts, etc., and at the same time pay an economic price to the supplier, with the result that you had in these districts, where there was no tradition of the creamery spirit, people who were only one or two years going to the creamery, and it was quite easy for them to go back to home butter-making, or the rearing of calves, or getting some other way of disposing of their milk.
Is that desirable?
I do not know. Perhaps it is. What it led to is this: that some of them were true to the co-operative spirit and thought it up to them to stick to the Society, and to go on supplying the milk whatever the price may be. Others, who acted in a more selfish way, perhaps, left the creamery and went back calf rearing, etc., and consequently reduced the supply of milk to the creamery and the creamery, still with the overhead charges, had to reduce the price. Every time the creameries lowered the price the supplies went off, with the result that they got into a hopeless state. The vicious circle went on. The price went down and the more the price went down the more the suppliers went off.
There could be a case, I think, made for a certain number of creameries like that. I think the point of view could be defended that it is better to let them go. That can be defended, but I do not like to take that position. I think that if they were established and as a certain amount of State funds were put into them, as a certain amount of money was put into them by the farmers who were advised and advised fairly strongly by the State and by the co-operative movement to go into the creamery business, it is up to the State to stand by them even to this small extent. We got all the creameries that might be concerned under this heading and we examined them to see what creameries we should put on the scheduled list. Everybody will realise that we must keep the list small. If we put, say, half the creameries on the list there would be no advantage, but, on the other hand, if we put, say, 2 per cent. on the list the advantage would be correspondingly increased. They have, furthermore, to fulfil these conditions:—that they were established in recent years, established since 1927, that they were established in districts where there were no creameries at all, that they have capital liabilities which are excessive in proportion to milk intake, that they are losing their milk supplies as a result of the fall in price, and that they are not in competition with other creameries. That is a condition that rules out many other creameries. There are many creameries down in the amendments proposed, and they should really be on the scheduled list except for the one reason that they are in competition with other creameries, and the other creameries would, naturally, object to their going on the scheduled list.
There is the further condition that they are in this precarious condition and could not continue to operate unless something substantial were done for them, and, finally—this is in reply to what Deputy Dillon said— that they are not in this condition as a result of bad management. We could get many more creameries on this list who are in a very bad financial state, but that state is probably due to bad management.
First of all, there was a list proposed by Deputy O'Leary from the Gaeltacht. There were eighty in all. Some of them as I mentioned last night are amongst the most successful creameries in the country. There are others perhaps which are fairly badly off, but they do not comply with the conditions that I have already given. Some of them were established long before 1927. Some of them are in competition with other creameries and at any rate, not one of these creameries situated in the Gaeltacht has complied with the conditions laid down. The Bandon Co-operative Creamery is also there for a long time. They have capital liabilities.
The new Bandon Co-operative Society was established in 1929.
There was a creamery there before.
It belonged to the Mutual Benefit Society.
At any rate, they are not, as far as we can find out, losing the milk supply owing to poor prices. In other words, they are not losing milk supplies any more than ordinary creameries throughout the country, and they do not comply with any of the tests. The next on the list is St. Brigid's Co-operative Creamery, Ballinamore, Co. Leitrim. There we have a creamery which does fulfil the conditions in so far as it is a new creamery and has capital liabilities, but it is in competition with three other creameries in the district. Then we have a list of creameries in Donegal which were put down by Deputy McMenamin. None of them was established in recent years, since 1927. None of them has capital liabilities that are out of proportion to what might be considered normal for creameries and none of them is losing milk supplies as a result of capital liabilities. Then there is the Collooney Creamery, Co. Sligo, which fulfils many of the conditions, but it is not a new creamery. It fulfils the condition of having capital liabilities and as a result of that losing milk supplies, and it is not in competition to any extent with other creameries, but, as I say, it is not a new creamery.
Is the Minister disposing of these amendments without hearing anything in their favour?
I am at the moment offering a few remarks to see if I will be contradicted later. There are three creameries proposed by Deputy Desmond, but they are near the City of Cork. These creameries are new, but they are in a good financial position, comparatively speaking, and they are not losing their milk supplies. They are getting a fairly good supply.
They have difficulty in getting it at all.
Not more than the ordinary creamery. The next on the list is Woodstock Creamery, Co. Kilkenny. That is in competition with Thomastown and Graiguemanagh and it is not a new creamery. Then we have the Maudabawn Creamery and the Bunnoe Creamery, Co. Cavan. Here we have competition again in both cases, and I think that the trouble in Bunnoe is due to another matter altogether. The Blackwater Valley Creamery in Co. Waterford is competing with other creameries, and compared with other creameries they are not in a bad condition. The Borrisokane Creamery, which is put down by Deputy Morrissey, is not losing its milk supply at all.
Oh!
It is not out of proportion, at any rate.
I have a letter from the manager which will give evidence indicating that they lost 64,000 gallons on last year's supply.
Out of 1,000,000 gallons, 64,000 would be nothing.
The highest figure at peak time is 2,000 gallons a day, but it goes down to practically nothing during four or five months in the winter and spring.
The Minister's information on that is not very accurate.
It is the one creamery left out that does fulfil all the conditions specified. There is very keen competition there with the private butter makers.
I have not personal knowledge, but I am told it is a thriving concern.
I will give the Minister the manager's letter if he wishes.
All right. As regards Mahon Bridge separating station in Co. Waterford, that is situated in a creamery district. It is owned by a good society. It does not fulfil any of the conditions mentioned. It is not a new society and it is doing very well. As regards Annagelliffe Creameries, they are competing with other creameries and they are not new. The Magheracloone separating station in County Cavan is one that fulfils many of the conditions, but it is owned by a very strong central creamery, Lough Eagish. The Crettyard separating station in County Kilkenny is owned by an old-established society and it is not new. The premises at Templemartin, Co. Cork, are owned by East Muskerry Co-operative Dairy Society Ltd., an old-established society, and they do not fulfil any of the conditions laid down.
As far as I have been able, I have examined these individual cases that came up for consideration. Many more came up for consideration also by letters from the different societies and creamery managers. They did not have the service of any Deputy who could put in an amendment on their behalf. They wrote asking to be put on the list. We examined every one of them as carefully as possible and we found there was some big objection in each case against putting them on the Schedule. If we were to discuss those particular amendments first and dispose of them, we can then consider the Schedule as it stands and the Dáil will have an opportunity of either approving or rejecting it. I think we should consider the amendments first in order to see whether they should go on the scheduled list. So far as my enquiries in each of these cases have gone, I will have to resist putting any one of them on the Schedule.
I think the case the Minister has made on behalf of the creameries on the scheduled list applies particularly in the case of Bandon. He has made a very good case for Bandon. There is no bad management there. The creamery is excellently conducted. Through no fault on the part of the management they had to build a new central creamery. They took over the Castlelact milk supply and also that of Crossbarry, for both of which they are liable to the extent of £1,000. Enniskeane is a new branch, costing £1,600. Bandon fulfils all the conditions required by the Minister.
As regards Bandon, I will ask the Minister to reconsider his decision. I think he was under the impression that it was not a new company, and it was accordingly disqualified. As Deputy O'Donovan has pointed out, the central creamery was built in 1930. It was built pursuant to a notice served by the Department of Agriculture in December, 1929. They were compelled, through no fault of their own, to expend the large sum of over £4,000. Between this and the Report Stage perhaps the Minister will be good enough to look into the matter. I suggest that the conditions he has referred to, and so fairly put before the House, are one and all complied with in the case of the Bandon creamery.
How many auxiliaries are there in connection with the Bandon creamery?
As far as I can see, Bandon does not fulfil any single condition that I laid down. It is not new.
It was built in 1930.
It has not excessive capital liabilities. It is not losing milk supplies as a result of capital liabilities. It is in competition with many other creameries around and it is not in a precarious condition. There is no reason why it should go on the list.
Will the Minister say if there is any creamery in Co. Cork that fulfils his conditions?
Not that I know of.
There is no use in wasting time if the Minister will not accept our amendments.
That is what I want to avoid.
We are anxious to facilitate matters as much as possible.
With regard to the Blackwater Valley Co-operative Society——
We will have to take the amendments separately, and at the moment we are discussing amendment 55.
On a point of order, I have no objection to having all these amendments discussed together, but there is the possibility that Deputies may want to discuss a certain creamery in particular, and, if the Minister's attitude upon that creamery is not satisfactory, a Deputy may want to get the decision of the House upon it.
I was anxious to allow the Minister to indicate his line towards the entire Schedule, and then I thought it would facilitate the House if each amendment were taken separately. Obviously, there cannot be a great deal said for or against that has not already been said on the main question.
I am quite agreeable to that course.
[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]
On behalf of Deputy Mrs. Reynolds I move amendment 56:
"In Part I to insert in the appropriate place the words: ‘St. Brigids Co-operative Creamery, Ltd., Ballinamore, Co. Leitrim'."
The Minister stated that this creamery fulfilled all the conditions laid down by him except one, namely, that it would be in competition with adjoining creameries for a milk supply. But there is one creamery on the Schedule that will certainly take away a milk supply from an adjoining creamery. If the Minister allowed that creamery to be placed in the Schedule, why is he not prepared to allow this creamery to be placed on the Schedule, seeing it has fulfilled all the conditions he himself laid down except one. I shall give the name of the creamery to which I refer—Dowra Creamery. There is another creamery within five miles of Dowra and, in all probability, Dowra Creamery, enjoying the advantage of being placed on the Schedule, will draw away some of the supplies from the other creamery five miles off. If the Minister made an exception in one case, why not make an exception in this case? I am quite prepared to allow the Minister to consider the position of this creamery between now and the Report Stage. If he is not prepared to do that, I shall have to inflict upon him a very long statement dealing with conditions relating to this creamery.
There is no creamery to which I gave so much attention as St. Brigids Creamery. It is really very close to some other creameries and in competition with them and I am afraid it would not be right to put it in. If it is alleged that Dowra Creamery is in competition with other creameries, I think it would be better for the Deputy to tackle the problem by way of putting in an amendment to have Dowra Creamery removed from the Schedule. I was not aware that Dowra was in competition with other creameries. The question is whether St. Brigid's should be in the Schedule or not. I did examine that case very closely and got all the particulars possible. I think the competition between St. Brigid's and some other creameries is very keen. Certain circumstances about this creamery should be examined, but I do not think they come under this Bill. It is due for consideration on other grounds, but not so far as this Bill is concerned.
Am I to understand that the Minister is prepared to consider the circumstances relating to this creamery under some other scheme at a later stage?
From another point of view.
I assume that when the case is examined this creamery will enjoy even greater advantages than inclusion in the Schedule would give it.
I move amendment 57:
In Part I to insert in the appropriate places the following:—
"The Finn Valley Co-operative Agricultural Dairy Society, Ltd;
The Lagan Co-operative Agricultural and Dairy Society, Ltd.;
Ramelton Co-operative Agricultural and Dairy Society, Ltd.;
Drumholme Co-operative Agricultural and Dairy Society, Ltd.;
Inver Co-operative Agricultural and Dairy Society, Ltd.;
Beleek Co-operative Agricultural and Dairy Society, Ltd."
I have examined the conditions the Minister has laid down in regard to the inclusion of these creameries. By those tests, none of the creameries in which I am particularly interested could be included except Inver Creamery. I take it that the Minister has reports of that creamery before him and I wonder if he will include it. It is situate in a very poor district in the Gaeltacht.
According to the accounts, the amount of butter involved last year was only 277 cwts. They lost on the year, according to the balance sheet, £251 10s. 4d. I explained last night the reason for this state of affairs. These small farmers are charged a fairly decent sum for animals for stud purposes. The various districts in the Gaeltacht of Donegal are very seriously affected in this way and the milk supplies to this creamery suffer. For that and other causes, the creamery is in a bad way. I think this is a case for inclusion in the Schedule. So far as the other creameries are concerned, on examination, I could not make a case which would bring them within the conditions fixed by the Minister.
Am I to take it that the Deputy is putting forward his amendments only in respect of Inver?
I put that forward specially. I leave the others to the Minister.
I do not wish to take up time in reiterating every word that Deputy McMenamin has said. Being familiar with the area in which Inver Agricultural Society operates, I can endorse absolutely all that Deputy McMenamin said relative to it.
I am afraid Inver is not a new society.
It comes substantially within your qualifications.
It has the unique qualification, if it is not new, that it is a Gaeltacht creamery.
And a very poor Gaeltacht.
Will the Minister consider the matter between this and the Report Stage?
I shall.
I move amendment 58: "In Part 1, to insert in the appropriate place the following: "Collooney Agricultural and Dairy Society, Ltd., Collooney, Co. Sligo." The Minister said that this creamery complied with all the conditions he laid down except one—that it was an old creamery. He is familiar with the circumstances of the creamery at the moment. I took it from the Minister's statement a short time ago that he is considering some scheme for assisting creameries out of their financial difficulties—or, at least, that portion of the scheme would deal with the condition of financially embarrassed creameries. If the Minister has such a scheme under consideration, and if he is prepared to give an undertaking that he will consider the position of this creamery in relation to it, I am prepared to let the matter stand over for the present.
I said that I thought St. Brigid's was deserving of special consideration, but there is no such general scheme being considered at all. I only referred to St. Brigid's, and I was not referring to Collooney. Collooney is an old creamery. It has been there for a good many years, and the present circumstances of Collooney are not due to the fact that the price of butter fell soon after Collooney was built. It has been there for a long time, and I believe it was doing very well for a considerable time in the beginning. Their situation is due to other unfortunate circumstances in regard to management and so on, and the bringing of such a creamery under this Schedule was not contemplated.
I move amendment 59:—
In Part I to insert in the appropriate places the following:—"Carrigaline Co-operative Creamery, Ltd., Co. Cork; Imokelly Co-operative Creamery, Ltd., Co. Cork; Ballinhassig Co-operative Creamery, Ltd., Co. Cork."
I would ask the Minister to consider one of these creameries or two of them or perhaps the three of them. I have not got the facts myself, but I expect the Minister knows all about them. Some of them, I may say, are in very poor circumstances.
As I said in my general statement on these creameries, these three creameries in County Cork do comply with certain conditions inasmuch as they are new, but they are doing very well. They are not losing their milk supplies as a result of bad prices or as a result of overhead charges, and they are preserving their milk supplies reasonably well, as compared with the general body of creameries in the country, and I may say, also, that, financially, they are not anything worse off than many of the old creameries in the country. I think it would be unfair to take anything out of the general pool in order to help them, because they are not, I do not say deserving of it, but they are not dependent on extra help to get on.
Would the Minister extend the same consideration to Deputy Desmond's amendment as he is prepared to extend to Deputy McMenamin's amendment? Perhaps, before the Report Stage is reached, Deputy Desmond will have further information in regard to these creameries. The Bill is one which states in its preamble that it is an Act "to promote the stabilisation of the price of butter and certain other milk products" and the Minister must be aware that, while these creameries are relatively successful, they are, at the same time, worthy of some consideration from his Department. If Deputy Desmond is prepared to withdraw this amendment for the time, will the Minister give further consideration to it before Report Stage, if, and when, further information is forthcoming?
I do not think so. The reason why I promised to look again into the question of the Inver Creamery was because Deputy McMenamin mentioned a fact of which I was not already aware, but in the case of Carrigaline, Imokelly and Ballinhassig, I have got a fair amount of information about each one of them individually, and I know from the information I have got, that they are not in want any more than any ordinary creamery in the country, of special help. They have special advantages. They are supplying, as the Deputy is aware, the Dairy Department in University College, Cork, and they are getting a good price, as good a price as perhaps any of the old established creameries.
Is the Minister prepared to extend some little help to creameries which have proved themselves to be fairly efficient in fairly difficult circumstances? I would suggest that before rejecting this amendment, the Minister should await a further opportunity of, if you like, a little examination. I know from my experience of the Minister that if a good case can be made, he is prepared, at all times, to listen to it and I suggest that he waits until the Report Stage when Deputy Desmond will be able to bring further information before him.
Do not have a levy at all and give them no bounty.
Could the Minister not agree to what I have suggested?
I really could not, because, after all, it would mean that we would have the whole list over again on Report Stage.
I move amendment 60:
In Part I to insert in the appropriate place the following:—"Woodstock Co-operative Creamery, Ltd., Co. Kilkenny."
The Minister stated that this creamery was in competition with Thomastown and Graiguenamanagh creameries, but so far as I know the district, I do not think they can be near enough to compete in the collection of milk.
They are six miles apart.
It seems to me that they are too far from that side. The Minister also said it is not new, but from representations which have been made to me I believe that, in certain other aspects, as far as I can gather from the Bill, it is going to suffer from certain other adverse effects, and so far as I can gather from the district, it seems to me that it will probably need to be scheduled just as much as a number of the others in the schedule. As to competition between it and the other creameries, I do not know whether it is competition in selling butter. I do not think it would be an economic area in collecting milk.
The competition, in any case, does not refer to selling. It refers to the collection of milk.
Are they not seven or eight miles apart?
I would not be sure of what the exact distance is.
They must be. It is over five miles from Thomastown to Graiguenamanagh.
I thought it was a sort of economic area in which a creamery could work more or less mathematically, and that, from my own knowledge of the district, the distance between these creameries means no overlapping of the circumferences of the circles.
The distance is different in different places. In parts of Limerick, where creameries are very thinly studded on the map, the distance would perhaps be only two, or two-and-a-half miles, but, in other places, farmers bring their milk, perhaps, five miles to a creamery, and a distance of six or seven miles, if there is that distance between Thomastown and Inistioge, would mean competition.
Is not the unit based more on the quality of the land and its capacity for feeding cattle? I thought that in a district where there was poor land and where the people could not keep many cows, the area would be big. I did not think it was a matter of the number of creameries, but rather the production of milk that can be obtained in a district.
The Minister will remember, if he knows the district, its peculiar formation. It is right in the centre of a lot of mountains and this Woodstock area is in a pocket. So is Thomastown, practically speaking, and to get to Graiguenamanagh you have to cross over Brandon mountain. The conditions here are altogether different from those you meet anywhere else. There are really two pockets. Thomastown is a pocket, with a mountain separating it, and Graiguenamanagh is even worse still. The Minister must have some knowledge of that particular area.
I have often been there, but, of course, there is also the point that it is not a new creamery.
I move amendment 61:
In Part I to insert in the appropriate places the following:—
"Maudabawn Co-operative Creamery, Ltd., Co. Cavan; Bunnoe Co-operative Creamery, Ltd., Co. Cavan."
And amendment 64:
In Part I to insert in the appropriate places the following:—
"Annagelliffe Creameries, Ltd. (including the following auxiliary stations:—Kill, Carrickallen, Curraghoe, Bogesky, Billis, Poles, Crosskeys, Grousehall, Moynehall, Nahilla and Redhills), Ballyhaise, Co. Cavan."
When I came up here a few days ago, I made a very exhaustive examination of the whole situation, and was prepared to lay a considered case before the Minister, but, from what he has just said, I do not think there is any use in putting any considered case before him, in regard to any of these. I mentioned Maudabawn and said that there could be a good case made for it. I think it is one of those which should really be accepted. The cost of manufacturing butter at a separating station is 17/9 per cwt. In the case of Maudabawn separating station the manufacturing charge at the central was 5/6 for 1931, so that the total cost of manufacture amounts to £1 3s. 3d. per cwt. But, as this separating station was built on borrowed money, and is now paying an annual instalment of £176 to liquidate this debt, the burden is considerable, considering the present depressed prices. On the butter output for 1931, this £176 would represent a cost of 7/- per cwt. which when added to the total manufacturing cost of 23/3, would represent a charge of 30/3 per cwt. The average price received for butter was 118/3, so that the expenses which had to be met exceeded a quarter of the value of the butter produced. As I say there is a fairly good case to be made for that creamery. It is a new creamery set up in an area where it is not competing with any other and where no creamery existed before. If it fails, the people will undoubtedly go back to producing on the farms themselves. A somewhat similar state of affairs exists in the case of the Bunnoe Co-operative Creamery Ltd., so that I think these two particular creameries should get consideration. The Annagelliffe Creamery, like the others is also a new one set up since 1927. It is in a peculiar position, as the various auxiliaries own the creamery and had to take shares to start the business. The liabilities at present amount to £3,817 10s. 9d. It is a new creamery competing with others, and falls short in some respects of the rigid things indicated by the Minister. I suppose, therefore, I cannot press that case, but I would press the case of the Maudabawn and Bunnoe creameries, which I hope the Minister will accept.
In the case of the Annagelliffe Creamery mentioned by Deputy O'Reilly, it is of course competing with other separating stations, and it is not a new creamery as understood in the Schedule. However, the Deputy is not pushing that. Bunnoe is competing with other creameries at Cloverhill and Kells. The trouble is not due to any overhead charges, but to legal troubles which it had, and which I hope it will be able to get over. Apart from that it is getting on fairly well. At any rate it is competing with others. As to Maudabawn, the Deputy holds that it is not competing. As a matter of fact, it is competing so successfully that it has taken milk from an adjoining creamery. The complaint which comes to us is that an adjoining creamery is suffering from the milk being taken from it. If we were to subsidise Maudabawn to a certain extent, to enable it to do a little better than the adjoining creamery, it would probably be complained that we were reducing the milk of the adjoining creamery. It is competing very keenly and I do not think we can accept the amendment.
I move amendment 62:
In Part I to insert in the appropriate place the following:—"Blackwater Valley Co-operative Creamery, Cappoquin, Co. Waterford."
This is a creamery that is placed in a peculiar position. The Minister said that the Blackwater creamery was joined with the Ballinamult Co-operative Society. The Blackwater Society is an independent one. It separates the milk in Cappoquin and pays 8/- per cwt. to Ballinamult to manufacture the cream into butter. It also costs the society 10/- per day to convey the cream to Ballinamult, a distance of about nine miles. The creamery is situated in Co. Waterford, practically the outpost of the creamery district, and is within a few miles of the principal buyer in Co. Waterford, at any rate, and one of the principal buyers in the South of Ireland, of farmers' home-made butter. The creamery was erected in 1927 and was built by means of a loan. I suppose it has paid back some of the money—I hope it has. It is not in any way connected with Ballinamult, beyond paying for converting the cream into butter. The supply of milk, even last June when milk was plentiful, was only 1,000 gallons per day. If the Minister would reconsider the case of this creamery I would be satisfied.
The principal point I made against the Blackwater Valley Creamery was that it was in competition with Cappagh and Knockmeal. That is the objection to including it in the Schedule. Apart from that, I believe that the creamery is not really in a precarious position financially, as the others on the list are. That, of course, is a matter of opinion. The Deputy might not agree with us in that. At any rate, the creamery is in direct competition with these other creameries, and that is the reason we have to resist its going on the Schedule.
I admit I have not seen the balance sheet.
I move amendment 63:
"In Part I to insert in the appropriate place the following:—
"Borrisokane Co-operative Creamery, Ltd."
I am rather confident that the Minister will accept this amendment in view of the fact that this particular creamery meets all the conditions which he has laid down. In so far as I could follow him in his statement on the various amendments to the Schedule, his only objection to this particular creamery was that it was not losing its supplies any more than any other creamery. I am sure the Minister making that statement was acting on information which has been supplied to him but the information which has been supplied to me by the manager, and by certain members of the Committee of Management of this creamery, is that they have lost very heavily in supplies. This is a new creamery started in an area where as far as I know there was never a creamery before, and it is not in competition with any other creamery. To my own personal knowledge, because this creamery is situated a very short distance from where I live, it is much more deserving of being included in the Schedule than many of the creameries which are included. I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that if he wants to give a chance to a creamery such as this, which was started in a district which in the course would not be looked upon as a dairying industry, even in Tipperary, he should include it in the Schedule. If he does that it will be of assistance to the creamery concerned. If he does not do it I am afraid they will find it difficult to carry on. I should like if the Minister would give his earnest consideration to this matter.
I desire to support the amendment moved by Deputy Morrissey. Like Deputy Morrissey I know the district intimately. It was up to 1928 and is yet practically a completely tillage area. It was only when the farmers got completely broken up in that area in regard to the production of barley, potatoes and other crops for which they could not get sale, that they went in for the dairying industry. This creamery was erected in 1928 at a cost of £2,000. As far as I understand from a letter from the manager, it was taking for the last year 64,000 gallons of milk less as compared with the previous year. That, he says, is largely due to the fact that the farmers there are going back to the production of homemade butter.
If you will allow me, a Chinn Comhairle, I will read the manager's letter. It is dated the 14th instant and it will go to show as I am sure the Minister will agree, that the manager at the time could have no idea of the conditions laid down by the Minister himself which would entitle them to special consideration and entitle them to be included in the Schedule. The letter states:—
As we are a new creamery and did our best to discharge our liabilities up to the present we cannot understand why we are not to benefit as well as neighbouring new creameries. We are in the centre of a tillage district and have to employ a fleet of eight lorries to collect our milk and the average supply of each person is about five gallons and we have to collect on a radius of over ten miles. Our cartage rate each year from the society comes to a large sum and the halfpenny per gallon deducted from each supplier for cartage in summer and three-farthings in winter leaves them a very small return. Our milk supply last year shows a reduction of 64,000 gallons and this year gives evidence of a much larger reduction. Our creamery is an independent auxiliary working since May, 1928, and cost £2,000 to erect and equip. Even if Roscrea is the only creamery to benefit in Tipperary we may add that Roscrea and Borrisokane are the only two creameries in the county which are situated in a real tillage area and of the two Borrisokane suffers most on this account where the matter of milk production at its best is only a secondary consideration to the suppliers during the past two years.
Another serious problem which our society has to contend with is the home butter making which is still carried on here very extensively and farmers who were suppliers to this creamery a few years ago have gone back to this system again as they find it pays them better to churn their own milk and sell the butter to private customers. This class of people who are numerous in the district will, of course, be bounty fed by the increased price of butter in the country and with perhaps no levy.
I tried to ascertain for myself, as well as I honestly could, what the facts and figures connected with this creamery were. I went into Plunkett House and I saw the gentleman in charge of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society with whom I discussed this matter. He was of opinion that this is the one creamery in Tipperary, next to the one which the Minister has scheduled, that should get special treatment under the Act. I know something about creamery work myself, having been secretary of a creamery for something like 20 years, and knowing the conditions under which this creamery is trying to exist, I would strongly impress upon the Minister to include Borrisokane creamery in the Schedule.
It is quite true, as Deputy Morrissey said, that this is a new creamery and that it is not in competition with another creamery, but with regard to the other conditions I stated, it is not losing milk as the result of a fall in prices. I stated also that it is not in a precarious condition financially. They did lose practically 63,000 gallons—62,231 gallons—last year, but they still had 382,000 gallons. They therefore lost 14 per cent., which average loss on the milk supply last year. This creamery also is in a very good position, and is evidently very well managed because they paid an average price last year of 4.72 pence per gallon, or 12.55 pence per lb. of butter fat. That appears to be a very favourable position, taking the majority of creameries. I would say that there is a very small percentage of creameries that could beat that price, so financially Borrisokane cannot be in a bad way. It is really standing on that, that we have excluded them from the list—that they have kept up the supply, and that they have paid as good a price as any creamery could be expected to pay last year.
I think the Minister has strengthened my case. The Minister tells us that it was nothing abnormal for a creamery society started in what was purely a tillage district to lose, roughly, 63,000 gallons of milk in one year. I suggest to the Minister that it is not fair to say that it is only 14 per cent. or roughly about the average. You cannot compare a dairy society in Borrisokane with, say, a dairy society in South Tipperary or Limerick, which is a purely dairying district.
Surely the Minister is not going to hold that because a society is well managed, according to himself, and run in a very efficient way, that this a reason why it should be debarred from the benefits of this measure by being excluded from the Schedule? Surely the Minister is not going to give a bounty for inefficiency? This society was started by farmers in an area which was purely a tillage area three years ago. It was started by farmers who were prepared to put up anything to the extent of £2,000. It has been run upon fairly good lines, being very efficiently managed, and it should receive more serious consideration. Because of the slump, that society lost in one year 62,000 gallons of milk, and surely that society is entitled to the benefits of this measure?
That is the position of the Borrisokane society. That society is away on its own so far as Tipperary is concerned. It is situated in an isolated area; it is not in competition with any other creamery, and it is of immense benefit to the farmers in the area. If the Minister is going to deny that creamery inclusion in the Schedule on the grounds, first of all, that it has been so efficiently and well run that it has not suffered as much financially as other societies, and, secondly, because its supply of milk has not decreased more than 63,000 gallons in one year, I think that his case is a very poor one. I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter.
Deputy Morrissey forestalled me. The Minister spoke with reference to the management of this society. He said it is well managed and is in a good financial position, or words to that effect. Is it because the creamery is well managed that it is being excluded? Are we to understand that if it was badly managed, if they were in a bad financial position, they would get preferential treatment? Does it mean that we are to subsidise inefficiency?
I would like, again, to point out that, according to the conditions laid down by the Minister, Borrisokane is definitely entitled to be included in the Schedule. First and foremost, the creamery was erected since 1927; as a matter of fact, it was erected in 1928 and that will not be denied. It does not clash with any other creamery, and that is another of the conditions laid down. The third condition is that in order to entitle the creamery to benefit, it should be losing its milk supply as a result of competition with home butter producers. These are three of the conditions laid down by the Minister, and I will stake my reputation on it that Borrisokane complies with those conditions. I would be inclined to press this matter very strongly, because I am fully convinced that this is the one creamery in Tipperary, next to the one in Roscrea, to which you are giving financial benefit, that a very strong case could be made in respect of.
I did mention that Borrisokane was well managed, but I did not say that was the reason why it was not in the Schedule. If I were to pick out all the creameries that are badly managed, and if I were to put them on the list, the Schedule would be fairly long. That was not the test. I said they lost 14 per cent. of their milk supplies and that was the average loss with all the creameries last year. Therefore, their loss was not abnormal.
That is not a fair comparison at all.
It is. Taking the purely creamery districts of South Tipperary and Limerick that were mentioned by Deputy Morrissey, where there is no tradition of going back to home butter making, even there they lost 14 per cent. With the usual loss of cows, and with the lower yield owing to the bad year, there was an average loss of 14 per cent. in all creamery districts. If there was only a 14 per cent. loss in Borrisokane we may take it for granted that they did not lose their milk supplies owing to overhead costs, or the poor price they gave for the milk. In support of that I said that they gave as good a price as the majority of creameries. It is not because they have good management there that we are not putting them on the list. Their overhead costs did not prevent them giving the same price for the milk as was given by practically any established creamery. The fact is they do not fulfil the conditions laid down. These are the main reasons.
The Minister has referred to overhead costs in the Borrisokane Creamery. Whilst the Minister has given us comparisons with regard to the loss in milk supplies, he has not given us any figures which would go to show what were the overhead costs in Borrisokane as compared with any other creamery in Limerick or Tipperary. I suggest to the Minister that it is easier to run a creamery, and to get people to supply milk to a creamery in Limerick or in the dairying parts of Tipperary than it is in Borrisokane, which has no dairying tradition behind it, and which has always been a purely tillage area. I suggest that a 14 per cent. reduction in the milk supply in Borrisokane is a much more serious matter to contemplate than a similar reduction in Limerick or South Tipperary.
The Minister has not advanced a single argument against the inclusion of this dairying society in the Schedule. He has attempted to show that this society does not meet with all the conditions he has laid down. The Minister said he did not suggest that it was because this society was efficiently managed that it was being excluded, but the Minister has not suggested any other reason. There is no doubt about the Minister's two points in refusing to include this society in the Schedule —one, that their loss of milk supplies last year was not abnormal, and two, that they had not lost any money, and that they were an efficient and well-managed society.
We are forced to the conclusion that this new society, which was started in a place where there was never a creamery before, that is not in competition with any other creamery, but that has to meet competition from home made butter, is not being fairly treated, The only reason the Minister can advance for refusing to include it in the Schedule is that it has been well managed, and that it has not lost more than 63,000 gallons of milk last year. As one who knows a little about the history of the starting of the creamery in that area, I say it will be a very bad thing for that district and for a very wide radius around the town of Borrisokane if this creamery is not able to continue.
I respectfully ask the Minister, for the sake of the industry itself, and for the sake of the very wide area served by the creamery, to include it in the Schedule. The Minister will find that a much better case can be made for the inclusion of this creamery in the Schedule than can be made for many of the creameries already set out in it.
I have now got something in connection with the capital liabilities of this society. They are not anything abnormal. A considerable proportion of the £2,000 borrowed in 1928 has been paid off. The only capital liabilities that they have got now would be about £500. I said already that they paid 4.72d. per gallon for milk last year. There are many creameries in Tipperary that paid less. If Deputy Morrissey takes that into account, is he prepared to put a burden on the creameries that are paying less, to enable Borrisokane to pay more, because that is what it amounts to?
In answer to the Minister, I am not prepared, and neither I am sure is he, to put a premium on inefficiency. At the same time, I am not going to victimise a particular society or a particular manager because he has been so efficient and his society has been so well run that not only has he succeeded in wiping off heavy capital liabilities, but is also able to pay a better price than others for milk. Perhaps that was due to the fact that it was rather an innovation in that particular district. I would say, in regard to the other points put forward by the Minister, that it, in my opinion, is an added reason why this particular dairy society should be included in the Schedule. I think the Minister will see the fairness of helping a society which, in the Minister's own words, has helped itself and is prepared to do its own part. I am not talking of one society as against another. I suggest that the Minister has not shown to the House that this dairy society does not meet with everything that he has laid down in his speech. Therefore, I do not see why it should not be included in the Schedule.
Is it not the Minister's object to prevent societies, which are in a precarious position, from failing altogether? Here we have Deputy Morrissey telling us about the excellent way this society is managed and of its financial position. In these circumstances he is asking the Minister to give a subsidy to this society, which is in no need of it, at the expense of others.
That is not my case. What Deputy Dowdall is now referring to is the case that was made by the Minister. I did not make that case, but the Minister did.
At any rate that is the position of the society.
That is right.
The fact that the Minister quoted 4.72d. per gallon paid does not give some of us a very clear idea as to what the people actually got. In the course of the letter which I read from the manager, and which has not been contradicted in the smallest iota, the loss to that creamery on last year's supply was about 64,000 gallons. The manager stated further that all the milk is brought to the creamery in lorries. The farmers themselves out of that 4.72d. per gallon, have to pay according to the statement of the manager a ½d. per gallon. That ½d. per gallon has to be deducted from the 4.72d. There has also to be deducted out of that 4.72d. ¾d. per gallon in the winter months. When you have made these two deductions you get near to the actual amount that the suppliers to the creamery are getting.
I move amendment 67:
In Part II to insert in the appropriate place the following:—"Crettyard separating station attached to Castlecomer Co-operative Creamery, Co. Kilkenny."
So far as I can see, no matter how one urges the case of these creameries, the Minister is able to come along and say that they do not fulfil the conditions he has defined in his own mind. I think he has stated that this creamery is "thriving." I presume that in this country, as in most other places, one can assume that when a thing is thriving it is being well managed and, on the contrary, that when a thing is not thriving it is evidence that it has been founded in an unsuitable place or is being badly managed. I do not know whether the Minister can assure us that every one of the creameries included in this Schedule do fulfil all his conditions. But it does seem to me a perfectly ridiculous thing that, although the Minister has not stated that his purpose is to subsidise inefficiency, every statement I heard from him seemed to imply that. The Minister has referred to the overhead charges of certain creameries being abnormally high. One of the first duties of an efficient manager or director of a creamery should be to see that the overhead charges are low. In the case of those creameries that are not directly in a creamery area, this Bill may, from the suggestions we have heard, actually have an adverse effect. Apart from that, I should imagine that the statements of the Minister might easily tend to encourage managers to show a little less efficiency in their management. Once they can show that inefficiency, they can be sure of the paternal benevolence of the present Government.
I would like to know if the Minister refuses absolutely to include any creamery which, no matter what difficulties, or what bad circumstances it has to face, is actually, in his own words, thriving.
I did say that this society was thriving. It is an old established society also, of course, and in that way would not be entitled to inclusion in the Schedule. It is old established; they have not got capital liabilities out of proportion to their milk supplies, and they are not losing milk supplies as a result of these capital liabilities. The result of all those things is that it is a thriving society. The same thing might be said of, perhaps, 300 or 400 societies in the country, and I said already that if we were to put creameries that have bad managements on the scheduled list, it would be very big, and if we put thriving, well-managed societies on the list, the Schedule would be much bigger. That was not the test. There were certain tests of being newly established, and so on, and as I said when speaking at the beginning, the type of society on the scheduled list is the society established since 1927, in districts where creameries were not previously established, and where the creamery tradition was not know, and as a result of the fall of prices after a couple of years, the people who had been supplying these creameries went back to the old methods of disposing of their milk. That does not apply to the Crettyard Creamery, which was established long before the fall in prices, and, therefore, it does not come under the Schedule.
On behalf of Deputy Vaughan, I move amendment 68:
In Part II to insert in the appropriate place the following:—"Premises at Templemartin, Co. Cork, owned by the East Muskerry Co-operative Dairy Society, Ltd."
I believe that, in this case, I have a branch creamery that will fulfil all the requirements of the Minister. This is a branch held by the East Muskerry Co-operative Dairy Society, and it was established in a purely home butter making area in 1928, and cost upwards of a couple of thousand pounds. I understand that, at that time, the farmers in the district promised to give all their milk supplies to this East Muskerry Society, but since the branch was established the farmers have not carried out their promise, and the result is that in this area, where it cost £2,000 to build this branch, for the first ten days of this month, they had only an average of 600 gallons of milk. There are, I understand, over 360 cows in the area held by farmers who are making their own butter, and I think that when they are in competition with the home producer, this branch of this society should get recognition, and should be included in the Schedule. I think there is a very good case for it. This creamery is outside my area, being situated in North Cork.
I have a letter here from the creamery manager, written to Deputy Vaughan, in which he states that he has written to Messrs. O'Leary and Moylan in regard to this matter. Deputy Vaughan is unable to be here, and Deputy O'Leary, I understand, is away also, but I think Deputy Moylan is in the House, and I believe that when he was looking for votes in the recent election, he made any amount of promises to the people, and I am sorry he is not here to support this amendment. I think the branch fulfils all requirements and I hope the Minister will consider it favourably.
I should like to ask the Minister if it is the intention of this Bill to separate the separating stations from the main creameries. They cannot be divided, because the separating station is a feeder to the main creamery, and if the main creamery is not doing all right, the separating station is not. It is not an independent body and cannot be dealt with by itself. In reference to what Deputy O'Donovan has said, with regard to the 600 gallons of milk received in ten days by the East Muskerry Society's branch, 600 gallons for an auxiliary, in the first ten days of May, is very good.
Oh, no.
I am rather amazed to hear Deputy Dowdall say that 600 gallons of milk is very good. I want to support the application of Deputy O'Donovan. Undoubtedly, it is difficult to understand exactly what is the precise point at which the Minister will regard a creamery as being sufficiently efficient to be admitted to the Schedule and sufficiently down-at-heel, if I may use the phrase, to qualify for admission. It is difficult to understand what is the precise point at which the two ends meet. I consider that a very strong case has been put up for the largest number on the Schedule, and I am only surprised at the fact that the Minister has rejected, almost completely, the whole Schedule amendments. I feel that this is a creamery which certainly deserves to be included, and I would ask the Minister to accede to Deputy O'Donovan's request.
There was a similar case to this already discussed—the case of Magheracloone, which is a branch of Lough Egish. The point raised by Deputy Dowdall, of course, disposes of it. You cannot separate the auxiliary from the central premises of the same society, and here Templemartin is part of the East Muskerry Co-operative Society, and we cannot admit one particular part and not take on the whole society. I think that Deputy O'Donovan has more or less admitted that the East Muskerry Co-operative Society is long established, and in a good way, and that the whole society would feel that they had not any claim to get on to the Schedule. I was asked, also, by the last Deputy, where exactly did we draw the line. I have repeated it over and over again—whether the poor price paid for milk was not due to bad management, but to conditions over which a particular society had no control, being established in a non-creamery district, being in competition with home butter makers, losing their supplies owing to big capital liabilities, and having to give a poor price for milk and getting into financial difficulties in that way. That is the type of society that is in the scheduled list. Whatever case may be made for Templemartin, it is part of the East Muskerry Co-operative Society and, therefore, could not be admitted.
Is that definitely in the Bill? Where is it in the Bill?
It is not definitely in the Bill, but I said that I had already made that point on the question of the Magheracloone society.
I cannot see why it should not be included.
The Minister has rejected one in an amendment by Deputy Desmond, the Imokelly Co-operative Creamery in Co. Cork, which is most efficient, newly built, and in a non-creamery district. It is practically a tillage district, and the creamery is carrying on under difficulties, but, at the same time, it is exceedingly well managed. I would be glad to discuss that with the Minister in another place if he will permit me, because I think it is certainly a creamery that answers the description just given by the Minister.
I would be glad to meet the Deputy, but we have already discussed it here.
Will the Minister not admit that the East Muskerry Co-operative Dairy Society has a very good claim on behalf of its premises at Templemartin, and that it should be included in the Schedule?
The East Muskerry Society is an old-established society, and in every way I think it would be impossible to take it on to the scheduled list. It has not capital liabilities out of proportion; it is not losing milk supplies, and it is in competition with other societies.
But I am dealing with the Templemartin branch.
We cannot separate the branch from the society.
The auxiliaries might have to bear their own capital liability. If the main creamery took them over in full partnership and assumed the liabilities out of proportion, it would be a question for consideration. It depends on the terms under which they were taken into the central creamery. I know from experience that some of them would not be taken in and had to go on as auxiliaries with liabilities hanging over them. I do not know anything of the circumstances in this case.
It was actually built by the central creamery.
I suggested to the Minister yesterday that in fact we were voting for these various societies a substantial subsidy and that even if he amends the Bill on Report and prevents the position arising where they might get the full benefit of 1½d. per lb. for three years, some of these societies are going, at the expense of the creamery industry as a whole, to get a very considerable subsidy. The biggest of them might get £2,000 in this year. It might if there is a reduction get two-thirds of that next year and one-third the year after. That is, we might vote that society, by passing the Schedule a sum of £4,000. If instead of taking it out of the Creamery Butter Fund it was being taken out of the Central Fund here, we would have an estimate submitted and details supplied by the Minister giving some justification of that vote of some £4,000 to a particular society. Other societies in this list will obtain as a result of the passage of the Schedule lesser amounts than that, but taking all together the amount that will have to be subscribed by the other creameries is a fairly considerable one. There is, in fact, I think, no very great justification for asking the other creameries to subscribe that amount, even assuming that these societies are all in dire straits and that the circumstances are such that in all cases somebody ought to come to the rescue, even the general taxpayer. Societies that are not on the Schedule and which it was proposed to put on it have been discussed at some length. I think that we should have some details as to each of the societies mentioned in the Schedule. I do not know that the Minister could give them at very great length. It may not be that the case is so bad that we should come to the rescue, or it may be that if the Dáil does not take the money from the other societies and allows these particular institutions to face their own difficulties a way would be found of facing them. Certainly, in the not distant past, it has happened in many cases that a society found it impossible to carry on, and there was not the means of giving it an annual subsidy such as is provided by this Schedule. Shareholders had to lose and guarantors had to pay up, and the general situation had to be liquidated locally. There is a great deal to be said when these difficulties arise, if too widespread a problem is not created, for allowing those concerned with the plan for organising which may have been a bad plan or with the management, which if not bad, may have been of an indifferent character for a period of years and therefore responsible for the plight of the creamery, to face up to their difficulties. In any case before the sum is voted I think we ought to have some details as to the situation of each society.
I am opposed to the Schedule. I do not think a great case has been made for any creamery being given a preference over the rest of the creameries. Possibly as good a case could be made out for the creameries on the Schedule as for any other creamery, but a case can also be made for some of the creameries in the established creamery districts. I might have made a case for very many in Limerick and Tipperary—creameries which have very big overhead expenses, and which are mainly in the position of new creameries, inasmuch as they have had in the last few years to take over various concerns bought out with Government assistance. They have had to bear the expense of these, and they are practically in the same position as new creameries. They have got very large overhead expenses and debts. They are forced to pay a contribution for a number of years to pay these debts. They are in a position which is quite as bad as that of any creameries in the Schedule. They are now being asked to subsidise these other creameries. The Minister said that one of the conditions of being placed on the Schedule was that a creamery did not compete with others. Possibly, these scheduled creameries do not compete with others in regard to milk supply, but they do compete very largely with the other creameries in other ways. For instance, if there was a contract for butter to be given by an asylum or some other big institution in Limerick, or some other place, a creamery in Roscrea or Scariff, subsidised to the extent of 1½d. per lb., would be in a position to contract at a lesser price than local creameries, and thus get the contract. They will be in a position to undersell other creameries in the public market if they wish and compete where other creameries could not compete. I do not say they will. There was a good case made here for some other creameries to be put on the Schedule, nearly as good as could be made for those which are included. As I said, I am rather opposed to the whole scheme. It is unfair that creameries, which are themselves struggling and have large overhead expenses should be asked to assist other creameries which, in the main, are not worse off than the creameries which are asked to help them. It is placing the whole of the existing creameries in a very bad position. I do not think the Schedule should be accepted as it is, not to speak of the additions that were proposed to be made to it to-day.
To my knowledge, there are creameries of old standing with very heavy financial commitments. I know one where the figure is £12,000 or £15,000. They are now asked, in addition, to bear their share of the subsidy contained in this Schedule. We have not been given the details which are necessary to know before we can give an intelligent vote on this question. We should know the financial position of the creameries which are included in the Schedule. There is one Wexford creamery included which, a few years ago, was doing an exceptionally good business. As a matter of fact, it was turning out compound meal.
That is all to their credit. I do not know what the position of that creamery is now. I do know the position of creameries nearer home which are in a very serious financial position and which are asked to subsidise these other creameries. I do not think it is fair for the members of the House to be asked to give a vote on this matter without knowing the facts. I suppose the Minister does know the facts. If he does know the facts I think it is right the House should have the figures. If he has not the figures now we can wait until he gets them. There is a big principle involved here because of the financial position of some of the creameries. I am not exaggerating when I say that there is one creamery in my county which is between £12,000 and £15,000 on the wrong side of the ledger.
I join with Deputy Gorey and Deputy Blythe in stating that we would need some information from the Minister in regard to these fourteen creameries. I do not know what their conditions are but I hope the Minister will give us that information before he asks us to come to a decision. I know something about the case of the 33 creameries which were mentioned in the amendments and I think that each Deputy who put forward a case, knowing the circumstances in each case, believed that he had quite as good a case for inclusion in the Schedule as any creamery that is included. I think it is unfair then to find creameries that are supposed to be badly off in the Schedule, while others which are equally badly off are asked to carry them on their shoulders.
I believe there is a better future for new creameries, started under certain conditions, than for old creameries which are in a bad financial position. I see no chance of these latter bettering their position; on the other hand, the position of new creameries offers better possibilities. For instance, an old creamery, which I know and which has been established for fifteen or twenty years has overhead commitments of between £12,000 and £15,000. What prospects are in front of that creamery that it should be asked to give a subsidy to other creameries about which we know nothing? There is no future before certain creameries with large commitments. I would like to know what is the future of the creameries in the Schedule and what are their commitments.
I would not give much for the future of some of them.
Some of them that are in the Schedule?
Yes.
And some of them that are off it.
I tried to explain the position of these creameries on two or three occasions to-day. They were established in districts where the creamery tradition did not exist and there was a big risk for the farmers who established them. There is no doubt that their establishment was considered right and good by Government policy at the time. There was a good deal of money spent by the Government in the establishment and organisation of creameries, and farmers were freely advised to go into the creamery business as having the best future. Farmers in some of these districts established these creameries and guaranteed a certain amount of money. I know some of them personally who guaranteed big sums in loans and so on. The fall in prices came on them suddenly and they were not able to pay up their debts, and I do not know whether it is possible even to save them now. Deputy Hogan, the ex-Minister for Agriculture, asked me on the day on which I introduced the Financial Motion what we were going to do for the newly-established creameries. He evidently understood the difficulty they were in. I do not know whether it would be advisable to give to the Dáil the exact financial position of each of these creameries. I think it would not be advisable or fair. I am prepared to give the cost of putting them into the Schedule.
Deputy Blythe, I think, last night raised the question of whether this treatment could be made to last for only one year. I said our intention was to make the advantage less each year for the three years. I thought at the time it could not be put into the Act. I think now it can, and we are asking the draftsman to draft an amendment which would be somewhat on the following lines: that for the present year the levy payable by the scheduled creameries would be not less than one-fourth of the general levy, that next year it would be not less than one-half, and in the third year not less than one-fourth. Assume that there is a levy of 2d. for the whole three years. In that case the levy on the scheduled creameries would be a halfpenny next year, a penny the second year, and three halfpence the next year. Assume again that they have the output of butter for the three years that they had last year. I think perhaps we are assuming a lot there because the supplies are going down. If we take the first two or three months of this year as compared with the first two or three months of last year the supplies are down, but even assuming that they have the same output as last year, the total cost for the whole three years would be £18,000 and £18,000 would be about one per cent. of the whole. I do not think it would be a big burden on the remaining creameries to contribute one per cent., as a subsidy if you like, for these particular creameries to see if we can save them from failure.
Deputy Bennett, who represents Limerick, and the Deputies who represent Tipperary, certainly have a grievance in our asking the established creameries to come to the rescue of the new creameries, but as we are, however, asking consumers to contribute to the pool for the benefit of all creameries, perhaps these creameries would not be so ungenerous as to refuse to contribute under that pool one per cent. of the total towards saving the new creameries. There is no creamery, I think, that would benefit to the extent of £2,000 this year. The highest amount I find here would be £1,593. That is on the basis of 14/- per cwt. on the same output as last year. The contribution this year would be £9,071, next year £6,046, and the third year £3,055, giving the total I have already given of £18,000 odd. I do not know, as I said, whether it would be advisable to lay the full financial position of these particular creameries before the House, but I could consider that question if I am pressed to do so.
The point I wanted to raise does not so much concern the 1 per cent. I do not think that in Tipperary they would be so greedy as to deny 1 per cent. Let us take any one of the creameries in County Limerick that had to be purchased under the recent Act. I am sure my colleagues on the Government Benches, Deputies Crowley and Ryan, know the position very well. These creameries are very heavily burdened. They have overhead charges that none of us can relieve them of. Let us say that they have a market in Dublin, that they are supplying a wholesale house in the city with a large amount of butter. The position is that one of these other creameries might step in and undersell them. A small amount allowed on a large quantity of butter, as every seller knows, is a big inducement to a buyer. It need not be a big amount per cwt. in order to collar a creamery's trade. These assisted creameries will be in a position to undersell here and there.
Can the Minister give us the dates in connection with these creameries and the manufacturing costs?
We could give certain information, perhaps. I have not got that particular information at the moment.
As regards the creamery that is going to get £1,500 in one year, what are its capital commitments?
I think the best thing to do would be to allow this thing to go through, if the House is agreeable, and then some Deputy could put down an amendment on the Report Stage to reject the Schedule. By that time, I could give more information.
Is there a prospect that this amount would enable all or most of these creameries to survive? Even though the amount that may be taken from Deputy Bennett's creamery is only 1 per cent. there is no use in taking that 1 per cent. from that creamery and giving it to one of these creameries. There is no use in taking £9,000 from a number of creameries, all of which have their difficulties, and handing it over to these other creameries unless there is a prospect that, with that assistance, those creameries will be able to get out of their difficulties. If they are so badly situated that they are worse than any case that could be brought forward here this evening, and if the prospects of the butter prices are what the Minister seemed to fear earlier in the day, then the outlook for the creameries is indeed gloomy. We are told by the Minister, and this is the fundamental thing in his selection, that their condition in no case is due to bad management.
That is right.
Whatever other misfortunes may have happened to them, their management did the best that could be done in the circumstances. Therefore, it looks as if they are creameries that were a mistake from the beginning. That must be the case with regard to some of them. Possibly, they are situated where they ought not to be and if there were better prices and there was some inducement to increase milk supplies they might have done well. But, situated in these areas, and circumstances being as they are, it would look as if they had no prospect at all of improving their position. Therefore, it may look as if it were throwing good money after bad to give them any particular subsidy or to treat them specially in any sort of way.
Suppose butter conditions had been a little better this Bill presumably would not have been brought in. I do not know whether the Minister would have introduced any special proposals to help those creameries. If he would not, then I do not think that help should be given to them now. I think it is an entirely wrong principle, because we have a Bill that enables help to be given to creameries without the proposal running the gauntlet in the way it would have to run it if a Supplementary Estimate were introduced in the Dáil—it is not right to seize on that opportunity or to allow the people making the claim to avail of that opportunity and to get assistance. To put the matter in a slightly different way, would the Minister, if he had to come to the Dáil with a Supplementary Estimate and ask £18,000 a year—
For three years.
Then let us say £9,000 for this year. If the Minister had to ask that that sum should be voted for these creameries, would he have asked it? It seems to me that it is extremely doubtful. If the fact is that he would not have done it, then the mere circumstance that the money is not going to come out of the Exchequer but out of another special fund is no reason why these particular societies should be given this special help. If that is the position, then I think the reason for not coming to the Dáil is that the Minister would not feel that he could say this £9,000 would be followed by another £9,000 and that would save the societies and enable them to get on their feet. I presume that would be the reason the Minister would have. If the prospects are not really good, then this help ought not to be given to them. One of the difficulties we have in discussing the matter from this side is that we have practically no information.
If the Deputy asks Deputy Hogan, he will have all the information.
Deputy Hogan would probably not remember it.
He remembers it all very well.
Of course, we have information such as the Minister for Agriculture gave me in reply to a question the other day, showing the amount of butter made by the societies mentioned in the first part of the Schedule; but that hardly goes to the root of the matter. We would want to know manufacturing costs, the trend of milk supplies, capital liabilities and how the societies were financed. It may be that in many cases it is simply postponing the bitter end and that it would be much better and more economical to let the end come. There is another possibility and that is that a much larger sum frankly voted to relieve them all at once might put them on their feet and give them a prospect, whereas the dole they will get in this way for a couple of years might simply enable them to hang on. I see that the Minister, perhaps, needs to consider what he would say with regard to each particular creamery.
Could the Minister possibly give us some information without naming the creameries, a sort of sample figures? They would really, of course, have to be taken as sample figures when we had not the names to which they related.
I do not know if the Minister would be in a position to give us figures. Several of us could get up and give figures for other creameries. I am quite certain we could give figures for various creameries that should have the result of placing these creameries on the Schedule. I am quite certain that I could pick out a number of creameries in the County Limerick that are burdened with various costs and that I could make a good case for having them included in the Schedule.
I do not think the Minister should give information with regard to the individual position of creameries or that he should furnish names. Whatever chance of success the creameries have by getting relief under the levy, if their names are published and it becomes known their condition is not good, then I think that would prevent them ever getting on their feet.
This is the one thing in connection with the whole Bill to which I have a decided objection. I wish to support the view put forward by Deputy Blythe and Deputy Bennett. Having regard to the conditions under which it is proposed to give this extra bounty it is apparent that it was unwise to bring these creameries into existence. If the Dáil takes up the attitude of subsidising an industry that should not be there at all, then I think it is setting up a very bad precedent for itself.
I happen to be associated with one of the creameries in a scheduled area and to know something about the others as well. Deputy Gorey referred to one creamery that was producing pig meal. That creamery was started, thanks to the energetic work of the Secretary of a co-operative society. The creamery was started in the district with good intentions. All these creameries were going well until the collapse in prices came a couple of years ago. If that collapse had not come they could have carried on. Their suppliers were perfectly satisfied until the collapse came. But when the bad prices came the farmers were not sufficiently versed in the principles of co-operation to stick to their creameries. Some of the suppliers left. I can assure the Dáil and the members who have been rather critical in regard to this matter that the fact of this Bill coming along has had a very steadying effect on creamery suppliers. In connection with the creamery that I am attached to I had a canvass made of all the suppliers who are carrying the liabilities for the loan made available for the setting up of these creameries by the late Government. They are satisfied to come back and continue their supplies. In fact the supplies have increased this year as a result of this Bill being introduced at the right time.
In reply to Deputies who are critical about this I would say to them that this will be money well spent. Even the other creameries that are called co-operative should come in and help their weaker brethren so as to make available for the latter the one per cent. to which the Minister refers, to help them over their difficulties this year, next year and the year after. We hope that things will be better in the future. We hope, too, that there will be real co-operation amongst all the creameries, that this measure will lead to methods being devised for the profitable selling of our produce and that we will all contribute our share towards that desirable end. I attended a conference recently which was representative of a number of these newly established creameries. Everyone of them was anxious to go even to the extent of agreeing to have a compulsory bringing together of all the people connected with co-operative societies for the purpose of selling their butter. Deputy Gorey referred to one society that was producing pig meal. That had nothing at all to do with the other society. It is quite distinct. It is a co-operative society as such that is responsible for the making of the pig meal, and it has nothing at all to do with the running of the creamery at that particular centre.
Have they not a common balance sheet?
No, they have no connection whatever. The creamery has to carry its own responsibilities. The responsibility of paying falls on the milk suppliers, on the loyal members of the society who send in the milk. I think in view of the fact that money was made available by the Dáil in recent years for the setting up of new creameries, that now the people connected with them should be encouraged, and I think this money will be well spent I can assure Deputies that the money will be well spent. I have every hope that the creameries will survive and will make good if given help now.
Deputy Blythe did put me a question which I suppose, if I were logical, I would have to admit, that this Schedule should not be here at all. The Deputy asked me if this Butter Bounty Bill had not been necessary would I come to the Dáil and ask for £18,000 to save the creameries? I am afraid I would have felt that I would not be justified in doing so. But when the Bill came along then it looked as if these societies could be saved. We thought, however, that they would want a little more help than this Bill could give them and that is why they are put on the scheduled list. I cannot answer for them all. I have examined them on paper, and it looks as if they can be saved under the Bill with this additional help. I have spoken to about four managers of societies on this list. They believe that they are going to get on their feet again and that they will be able to pay off part of their capital liabilities. I cannot promise further than that and neither could they, because they do not know how prices are going to go.
With regard to what Deputy Bennett said, I do not think there is any danger that a scheduled society will injure an established society in Limerick or elsewhere. As a matter of fact, we are not going to put them on the Schedule either to take a milk supply from an adjoining creamery or to injure established creameries by underselling. If such a complaint were made against any society on the list we have the power immediately to remove it from the list, and it would be done, of course, in that case.
With regard to old creameries and to the new creameries that are in a bad way, the only thing one can say is that the old creameries got their chance when good prices were going, and if they did not make good, well, there are so many of them with capital liabilities that we could hardly deal with them under this Bill. We can say with regard to the new societies that they did not get a chance, even with the best of management. No matter what the management was, the conditions that prevailed were against them, and it was the conditions that beat them. We think as they did not get a chance we ought to give them a chance under this Bill to get on and succeed. The sum that I have mentioned of £18,000 to be spread over three years is not excessive. Still it may be sufficient to tide them over their present difficulties and give them a chance to get on.
Could the Minister say whether the creameries that are scheduled are engaged exclusively in the production of milk products or whether some of them are also engaged in general business?
I am not able to say as regards all of them. There was one mentioned by Deputy Gorey and Deputy Gorry. In that particular case the creamery was set up by the co-operative store that had already been there for some years. But the two concerns are separate so far as finances and banking transactions go.
Might not a co-operative store do a little bit in carrying on its back, during a critical time, a sister society in view of the fact that the operations of the former are, generally speaking, not subject to such catastrophic pressure?
I think they have done that to the limit of their ability.
In view of the fact that the Finance Bill is not passed, might I ask the Minister for Agriculture to use his influence with the Minister for Finance? Certain help has been given to these creameries. I do not quarrel with that at all. I approve of help being given by the State. The Minister has made the very frank admission that if he were head of the State he would not vote £18,000 to save them. Many of these creameries are in a very bad way. They are complaining of the prices they are getting and their position is so bad that this Bill had to be introduced to save them. How can the Minister ask them to put up £18,000, which he would not recommend the State to do? Deputy Gorry talked about co-operation, but that is carrying co-operation too far. I accept what has been said about the particular creamery named. It is all to its credit that it branched out in the other directions. But it is not fair to ask the creameries that this Bill was introduced to save—some of which have extraordinary commitments, as I know—to do a thing which the Minister would not ask the State to do. I think it is a preposterous proposition to ask a few creameries to do that, and I think the Minister has not given due consideration to the matter. In view of the £29,000,000 which we are going to spend next year, the Minister should be able to get the Minister for Finance to find £9,000, the portion which would be required this year.
It is extraordinary to hear Deputy Gorey, and other Deputies, criticising this Schedule when, only a few minutes ago, they walked into the Lobby, trying to include other creameries or other societies in the same Schedule——
Because of that.
When they talk like this, do they ever think of their inconsistencies? I know one of the creameries included in the Schedule. As the Minister said at the outset, he proposes to come to the rescue of these societies simply because most of them, if not all of them, were established in recent years.
He proposes to come to their assistance!
He proposes to give them assistance in this way because they were established in recent years and for other reasons, one of which is that dairying in these areas was not a tradition. I have considerable knowledge of the Dowra case, and I know that dairying was not a tradition in that district. Deputy O'Shaughnessy said that it might have been unwise to start these societies in these areas. But Deputy O'Shaughnessy should remember that a lot of institutions in the State were unwisely established and are a bit cumbersome and that if they were out of the way the taxpayer would be much better off. That they were unwisely established is no reason why we should say that we will not come to their rescue in any shape or form. They were induced to establish these societies and it is not unfair, or unreasonable, to come to their assistance in this way. Deputy Gorey referred to the fact that the Minister would not come to the House directly and ask for a vote for £16,000 or £18,000 for these twelve or thirteen societies. It seems to me that the Party of which Deputy Gorey is a member spent its last four years of office in trying to impose burdens on the taxpayer indirectly. There is very little difference in coming to the assistance of these societies in this way and coming to their assistance directly. This is tantamount to helping them out of taxation and I think the Minister is perfectly justified in choosing this way instead of the other way. I cannot understand the attitude of those Deputies who criticise this Schedule, seeing that they voted for the inclusion of other societies on a much better footing.
My only regret is that they are not in a much better position. Some of them are not in as good a position. To my own knowledge, some of them are in a most unfortunate position. That is why I am speaking on the matter. When I know a society with £12,000 on the wrong side of the ledger, I know they are in a worse position. I have no objection to the State coming to their assistance. I do object to other creameries coming to their assistance. I have no objection to this £18,000 being added to the £29,000,000, but I do object to its being dealt with in this way.
When dealing with an amendment in respect of St. Brigid's Co-operative Society, of Ballinamore, and with Inver Creamery, the Minister suggested that he had in mind a scheme for assisting creameries. I understood that Deputy Roddy withdrew his amendment on a suggestion of that kind from the Minister—that he had a scheme in mind which would render financial assistance to creameries in a difficult position.
I made clear to Deputy Roddy afterwards that there is no other scheme for dealing with creameries in general. There was one circumstance connected with St. Brigid's Creamery which would justify its being dealt with in another way. With regard to Inver Creamery, I asked Deputy McMenamin to mention it again on Report Stage, because I had not sufficient information regarding it.
With reference to the remarks made by Deputy Smith, I should like to point out that, unfortunately, the amendment was considered before the Schedule. We did not know whether the Schedule was to remain, and when the Schedule was there Deputies on this side considered that these creameries had as much right to get on as others which were there. Deputies had a perfect right to vote for their inclusion and to criticise the Schedule afterwards. Those Deputies who voted in that way were quite justified in the circumstances.
Why not include all the creameries?
Certainly.
Deputy Smith charged us with inconsistency in seeking to have additions made to the Schedule. If there is inconsistency, it is, I think, due to a certain reticence on the part of the Minister. Last night, the Minister seemed disposed to give us information about these creameries. To-day he seems disinclined to give it. He seems to feel that there are reasons sufficiently strong to prevent his doing so. I would not say that there can be no such reasons, but I doubt if there are reasons which would prevent him giving us this information. Deputy Dowdall said that details should not be coupled with the names of creameries because that would destroy any chance these particular societies might have of making good.
I would take leave to say that this is not self evident, by any means. It is not as if there was any doubt at all cast on their position. All of us know that, in the case of a business house, the position sometimes is, that if any doubt at all is passed on its credit, or on its ability to meet its obligations, very serious harm ensues, and you may bring down a business house by casting doubt upon its credit, but I do not think that these creamery societies are in that position at all. Probably their only liabilities are liabilities to the bank, secured by guarantees, and in other ways, or perhaps, liabilities to the Department of Agriculture, and they are not looking for any more credit.
The difficulty presumably in these cases is that every month they continue working, they are adding to their liabilities and eating up any overdraft that might be sanctioned and that they are in danger of coming to a standstill. But unless you had these circumstances I would take leave to submit, subject to the Minister correcting me, that no harm would follow the disclosure of the whole circumstances of these cases. They are not general trading societies —there may be some, but I do not think that there are—they are not people looking for two or three months credit from a wholesale house, or anything of that sort. They are not going to lose milk supplies by any disclosure of their position because the milk suppliers are their members who know how things are.
Therefore, the more I think over it, the less I am disposed to accept what the Minister said about the unwisdom, or the possible unwisdom, of giving the information. I think we would know better where we were if we had it, and I do not see what possible harm it can do them. It is not going to cause the banks to close down on them, because they know already what their position is, or their milk suppliers to go away for fear they would not get their cheque, because the milk suppliers know all about their position, too, and if there is any question that knowledge to the general public might affect them, in any way, then that harm is done by putting them in the Schedule. The mere putting of them into the Schedule is a declaration that their position is almost desperate, and, that being so, I think that, all things considered, it would be better for the Minister to tell us all about them.
Every member of the House then who has a feeling that some creamery, in his particular area, is not getting fair play, by not being put in the same position as these people, will have something on which he can really come to a firm conclusion. All sorts of people can hear the tale of the difficulties of the creameries in their own areas. They can get pressure from their own area to have a particular creamery put in the Schedule, so that it may get any advantages that are going. It is a natural thing that every creamery should seek to get this extra 14/- a cwt., and natural that Deputies, knowing the difficulties of these creameries, should be disposed to add them to the Schedule unless they have information that will convince them that the condition of these creameries in the Schedule is, in some way, more deserving of consideration than others.
It is very hard to say—though this is a factor—that the mere date of starting of a creamery gives it justification. I dare say that a creamery started within the last two years, and started with a good deal of, shall we say, inducement, on the part of the Government, and a loan from the Department of Agriculture, and so on, might have some sort of special claim, but so far as any other creamery is concerned, it is doubtful. In any case, we should know whether this question of the date of starting is the only thing which is putting some creameries on, and keeping others off the scheduled list. I do not know how many of these were started within the last couple of years, or how many were started within the last five or seven years. It is extremely difficult for Deputies to discuss the Schedule or to have discussed properly even these amendments made to the Schedule, when we have not got the information. I think it is information which, if the Minister were coming to the Dáil for a Vote of money, he would be practically obliged to disclose. It is the sort of information, at any rate, that is always disclosed when a Vote is brought forward for the assistance of any institution. It is common in institutions that the accounts may be laid before the Dáil. I was thinking, when the Minister suggested the doubtful propriety of giving these details, of the analogy of a business house, and I was inclined to agree with him, but, as the discussion went on, I must say that my mind came to the view that there was no reason on earth, except that the feelings of some people concerned might be hurt, why he should not give all the story.
I must say that I think Deputy Blythe has done me a wrong in saying that I have become reticent about the information. I was under the impression last night that the only information he asked for was what was going to be the cost of this particular thing. I prepared this table of the cost and I gave the total here, and I said that if information as to an individual creamery was wanted, I could give it. I did not know that the Deputy wanted information from the other point of view and when I was asked about the financial standing of these particular creameries here it was the first time it was put to me and I said that I did not know if it would be proper to give that information in the Dáil but on thinking over it, I also have come to agree with the Deputy, that there is no propriety in it and that it should be given. I have not, however, got it here and could not possibly give it to-night, but I could, say, on next Tuesday, have the date of registration of these creameries on the scheduled list, and I could have their capital liabilities. I do not know if anything else is required.
The prospects of milk supply.
Yes, I could give a few notes about them, but I think we cannot get any further to-night. I would suggest that the Schedule be allowed to go through, and if Deputies wish they can put down an amendment on report to have it rejected if the information is not satisfactory.
Deputy Smith drew attention to a certain creamery on this Schedule, and I think I pointed out earlier in the afternoon that that creamery would really be in competition, so far as milk supplies were concerned, with a neighbouring creamery. If a creamery of that kind found its way on to the Schedule, it may be that other creameries have found their way there, too, creameries which would be in competition with other creameries. The Minister said on more than one occasion this evening, that that was one of the reasons why he would not allow the creameries referred to in the various amendments to be included. It seems to me that, regardless of distance and regardless even of other considerations, there would be the inducement to the suppliers of milk to neighbouring creameries to send their supplies to the creameries included in the Schedule, and there is also, of course, the other factor, that these creameries which are getting such favoured treatment in this Schedule will offer a certain inducement to milk suppliers to neighbouring creameries to send their supplies to them.
It is doubtful after all if the Minister is really justified in treating the older established creameries in the off-hand way in which he treated them here this evening. After all, the shareholders in nearly all these cases were responsible for contributing the capital on which they were started, and they have secured the money which has enabled the creamery to carry on, particularly during the bad years. They are responsible for securing the money from banks to enable the creameries to carry on for the last four or five years.
It seems to me that creameries of that kind, which now find themselves in a very bad financial position, deserve some special consideration. The Minister enumerated a number of reasons for the position which these creameries find themselves in to-day. Amongst other things he said it was due to bad management, or to the fact that the milk supply had deteriorated, and so on. He omitted one factor, however, which is that the population of dairy cows in some of the areas from which these creameries draw their milk supplies has diminished seriously. Consequently, butter production with them has not been in an economic position for many years. Butter production in some of these cases is costing up to 40s. or 50s. per cwt. In conditions such as these, with a depreciating milk supply, with the cow population deteriorating or diminishing in numbers year by year, it was inevitable that these creameries would get into greater difficulties the longer they continued in existence. Many of these creameries are not getting an economic milk supply. It seems to me that in any scheme the Minister may be considering, not alone in connection with this Bill, but in connection with the rehabilitation of the creamery industry in this country, he should consider the advisability of reorganising the creamery areas in certain counties, so as to secure an economic supply of milk for these creameries. It is quite useless, in a case of that kind, to come to their assistance financially without, at the same time, ensuring or guaranteeing to them an economic milk supply. There are a number of counties in the West and the East where creameries are competing against each other for a supply of milk. In these counties, the areas which serve these creameries, or have served them in the past, are not economic now for various reasons which the Minister understands very well. Some of these creameries could probably be closed up altogether, and the supply of milk they are receiving at present could be diverted to neighbouring creameries. I hope the Minister will consider this matter when he is, at a later stage, considering schemes for the rehabilitation of the industry in the country.
