Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Mar 1934

Vol. 51 No. 10

In Committee on Finance. - Financial Resolution—Imported Butter Duty.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I beg to move:—

1. That the duty imposed by Section 1 of the Finance (Customs Duties) Act, 1931 (No. 14 of 1931), shall be charged, levied, and paid on all butter imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 1st day of April, 1934, at the rate of eightpence the pound in lieu of the rate mentioned in the said section.

2. It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this resolution shall have statutory effect by virtue of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

General Mulcahy

Perhaps the Minister will tell us something about it?

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

This is necessary for the working of the Stabilisation Act. When the Stabilisation Act was introduced this time two years it was provided that the levy must not exceed more than half the butter duty and the bounty must not exceed the butter duty. At that time the world price for butter was 110/- per cwt. and a levy of 2d. and a bounty of 4d. were quite sufficient. Last year we had to raise the duty because the world price was 66/- or 68/- and it is much about the same this year. That duty was brought forward last year under the Emergency Act and it lapsed after eight months and it is now necessary to renew it. It is necessary also to bring it before the Dáil on this occasion. The duty is being raised for the working of the Stabilisation Act and not as a protective measure, because no butter has been imported for practically three years and it is not likely that butter will be imported.

Mr. Curran

I have listened from time to time to Deputies on the Government Benches telling the House what the Government have done for the dairying industry and qualifying that by asking: If the Cumann na nGaedheal Government were in power, what attitude would they adopt? I have before me the balance sheet of a creamery society. The price given to the farmers for milk last year was 4d., the year before 4.31d., the preceding year it was 4.35d. and during the year before that it was 4.84d., so that for three or four years previously, notwithstanding the Government aid last year, the price paid to the farmers was considerably higher. This particular creamery society had collected off them for last year a sum of £5,226 13s. and they received in the way of bounty £2,440. If there were no levy or bounty the price which the farmers would have received per lb. of butter would be 13.04d. and contrast that with the figure of 11.54d. which the farmers received under the Government's scheme for a levy and bounty. This is the Government that is doing everything for the farming community. If we were working on our own we would have got more than we did get last year when the Government's policy was operating.

Of course, the Minister will tell us that we have a guaranteed price in the home market. I quite understand that, but some other means should be adopted for stabilisation besides that which is at present in force. There is no doubt the price of butter is too high for the poor people and they are developing a taste for margarine. The Minister for Agriculture admitted on a recent occasion that 4d. is not a paying price for milk. The Minister knows that it costs 5½d. to produce a gallon of milk, yet 4d. was the price which ruled last year. I hope in the future, when Fianna Fáil Deputies tell us what the Government is doing for the dairying industry, they will bear those facts in mind.

Dairying is not a paying proposition and has not been for many a long day, except in respect to subsidiary things such as the rearing of calves. If you do away with live-stock, as has been hinted at, I do not see any future for dairying, because one is dependent on the other.

Mr. Dillon

There are two matters in connection with this resolution to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention. I would like to know how he prevailed on the Minister for Industry and Commerce to allow him to operate without having to resort to that useful omnibus weapon, the Emergency (Imposition of Duties) Act. They imposed tariffs in handfuls for the last six or 12 months, and the great majority of them were never submitted to the Dáil. It was suggested to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the imposition of a tariff was a matter that ought to be submitted to the Dáil, but he said they never were submitted. He said his predecessor or the predecessor of the Minister for Finance had exactly similar powers and had used them, and he was merely using the same powers now. He forgets, of course, that the powers were not exactly similar.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is forgetting what I said. Perhaps he had better quote me.

Mr. Dillon

No, I am not forgetting. The difference between the powers which Senator Blythe, when he was Minister, had, and the powers which the Minister for Finance now has is this. If the former Minister imposed a tariff he was under a statutory obligation to come to the Dáil for approval. Under the existing legislation the Minister for Finance and his colleague can legislate ad infinitum——

Mr. Lemass

Read the Bill again.

Mr. Dillon

They can legislate ad infinitum in respect of tariffs and, so far as one can see, there is no necessity to come before the House. Tariffs are changed and chopped and imposed without any reference to the Dáil. It is really quite surprising when we see the blushing Minister for Agriculture coming along with a proposal for a tariff. We thought that was quite an out-of-date procedure. The normal procedure would have been to go hat in hand to the office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and ask him if he would graciously condescend to consent to an imposition of this tariff under the Emergency (Imposition of Duties) Act which we passed 12 months ago.

On this question of butter, I asked the Minister for Agriculture some time ago what price he got for the butter which he exported to one of Fianna Fáil's alternative markets. I asked that question because, at an earlier date, the Minister interrupted me in a speech and said that I would be amazed if I knew the price he got for butter that he had sold in Germany, and he implied that he got 136/- a cwt. He did not say so directly, but he implied it. Accordingly I put down a question asking him explicitly what he did get. He was absent from the House at the time, and the Minister for Defence answered the question on his behalf. The reply was to the effect that he was prepared to give me the information in confidence. I refused to accept it on those terms. I repeated the question and the Minister for Agriculture refused to disclose the information I required. However, the Appropriation Accounts were published to-day, and the Appropriation Accounts deal, under one head, with the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Act, 1932, and the Butter Fund.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

Would the Deputy quote the date of the Appropriation Accounts?

Mr. Dillon

They are the Appropriation Accounts for 1932-33.

Dr. Ryan

That is right. Go ahead.

Mr. Dillon

I turned to these Appropriation Accounts, Sir, for information, thinking that I might find in these accounts an exact and detailed account by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of the way the moneys expended by the Minister in respect of bounties were administered. I was unable to find in these accounts any reference to the amount of bounty which was paid on butter exported to Germany, or, indeed, any explicit statement such as would furnish me with the information that I sought to get from the Minister by a question. However, this much I know; this much I am able to ascertain, that the administration of the bounty schemes in general has given rise to a good deal of perplexity; that it is extremely difficult to extract any detailed information at all from such examination as has been possible of the administration of these schemes. This much, also, I was able to ascertain, that it is absolutely essential that this House should know, and that this House should know at the earliest possible opportunity, what loss or profit the Minister for Agriculture has made on whatever transactions he undertook in the export of butter to Germany or to other continental countries and what levy, if any, he made upon the butter fund for export bounty on butter that he sent to the Continent. Further, it is essential for the country to know what price he accepted from continental buyers for butter which he shipped out of the cold stores of this country to the Continent.

Deputy Curran has referred to the very high price that has been ruling in this country for butter as a result of the butter levy and bounty scheme, and he has pointed out, what both he and I pointed out 12 months ago, that this scheme was going to put a burden of a very inequitable character on butter consumers in this country, and that this scheme might much better have been financed from the Central Fund by legislation in this House. I do not propose to enlarge upon that aspect of the situation at this stage, but I do propose to press very strongly for a complete and detailed statement from the Minister for Agriculture of all the transactions in which he has engaged in the sale and purchase of butter during the last 12 months with continental countries. It is essential that this House should know (1) how much butter was shipped; (2) the price the Minister got for it; and (3) the amount of bounty, if any, which he collected from the butter fund in respect of those exports.

Dr. Ryan

Perhaps, Sir, I might be permitted to reply to those two very weighty economic contributions from the two Deputies who have just spoken. Deputy Curran thinks that if his creamery were left to work on its own, things would go better and that the other creameries should be let carry on as best they could. I think it is quite a fair question for Deputies on this side of the House to ask what would become of butter if Cumann na nGaedheal were still in power. The Cumann na nGaedheal Party opposed this Standardisation Bill when it was introduced, and it is to be presumed that if they were still in power they would be opposed to it.

Mr. Curran

Do not be silly.

Dr. Ryan

I admit that it is silly to think that they might not change, because they have been changing all along. But one would think that a normal Party, such as Deputy Curran thought it worth while to join, would have some fixed ideas about prices of butter and about how to regulate the prices of butter. Take the price of New Zealand butter in England at the present time. We never got as good a price for our butter in the English market as New Zealand got until Fianna Fáil came into power, but since we came into office we did get as good a price. The price at present is from 68/- to 72/- Suppose there were no tariffs and that Cumann na nGaedheal were back in power, in friendly relations with England once more——

Mr. Curran

That does not arise in this.

Dr. Ryan

——what would Deputy Curran's creamery get for his butter in that case?

Mr. Curran

I did not refer to that point at all.

Dr. Ryan

I know you did not.

Mr. Curran

I referred to facts as they are before me, and the Minister knows it. I will show him the balance sheet.

Dr. Ryan

I am just mentioning facts as they would have been if the Deputy had his wish of having Cumann na nGaedheal in power. His creamery would be getting 68/- on the British market—I suppose the same price would apply here. Deduct 20/- from that for expenses—and I am sure that the Deputy's creamery is not doing as well as that because he says he is a member of the Committee——

Mr. Bennett

Was 68/- the average price of Danish butter?

Dr. Ryan

No, not Danish. I was referring to New Zealand butter, and Cumann na nGaedheal never did as good as that. Danish butter is up to 90/-. New Zealand is from 68/- to 72/-, and Australian butter is lower in price. So that, if Cumann na nGaedheal were in power, the price would be 68/-. Deduct 20/- from that for creamery expenses and Deputy Curran would be getting 2d. a gallon for his milk.

Mr. Curran

That is not my point, and the Minister knows it.

Dr. Ryan

Of course, that is not your point.

Mr. Dillon

We are in Committee on Finance, are we not?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Lemass

And that entitles the Minister to be interrupted as often as Deputies wish.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Curran makes the contribution that if his creamery had no levy or bounty—under present conditions, I take it—things would be better for them. He wants to let other creameries pay the levy and to let his creamery be exempt. The whole principle of this stabilisation scheme is that for all butter produced you pay so much money into the pool, and for all butter exported you take the total amount out of the pool. Unless all the butter produced pays into the pool, the amount to be extracted by those exporting will not be as high, so that the prices go down all round. Unless every creamery comes into it, there is no doubt that the price of butter will fall. There is no way out of that. Deputy Curran says the price of butter is too high to the poor in this country. That is quite true.

Mr. Curran

I am glad you agree with that.

Dr. Ryan

It would be a great thing if butter could be cheaper. The strange thing about it, however, is that there has been an increase in the consumption of creamery butter in this country during the last two years. So that if the price of butter is higher than it was under Cumann na nGaedheal the only possible explanation is that we have not as many poor people in this country, or that the poor are better off, because they are consuming more butter. Deputy Curran will not admit that. He says they paid 4d. in his creamery. He is a member of the committee of that creamery, and I want to remind him that they paid a very bad price. They should have paid more than 4d.

Mr. Curran

Some of them paid less.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, where they are badly managed. Where they are well managed they pay more. The average price is a bit above 4d., and it is obvious, therefore, that the well-managed creamery is giving a good lot above 4d. and the badly-managed creamery is giving below 4d.

Mr. Dillon

It shows all the Minister knows about it.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Dillon was amazed that he could not find in the 1932-3 accounts what took place in 1933-4.

Mr. Dillon

I found it since, and I shall read it out for you—56/- per cwt. loss.

Dr. Ryan

It is time for us to be amazed in that case. The Deputy asks why was not this duty put on under the Imposition of Duties Act. It was put on in that way at this time last year. After the eight months we did not require it and under that Act it lapsed, because it is only operative for eight months unless confirmed by the Dáil. We did not require it after eight months so we let it lapse. I do not know whether it is good legal advice or not, but I am advised I should not try that a second time and I came to the Dáil. I am very glad that I did come to the Dáil because the two enlightening speeches of Deputies Curran and Dillon should really go on record. They will be most useful for Fianna Fáil at the next election, if we have not to use them sooner.

Deputy Dillon wants to know how we did on the German butter. I told him on that occasion how we did on the German butter. I told him that he would be amazed if he knew how well we did. He comes back and asks what did we get. If he looks up the returns, whether of exports or imports or output or production in this country, he will notice that where there is only one firm involved the name of that firm could not be given, because one particular firm does not like to have its business disclosed. In this particular case we do not mind. The Dairy Disposals Board's accounts will be audited—not of course for the year 1933-34 in the year 1932—they will be audited the year after, not the year before. The Deputy will then have an opportunity of seeing how we did on the German butter. We consulted the person in Germany to whom we sold the butter. We told him that there was a rather curious Deputy in the Dáil who wanted to get more information and we asked him if he had any particular objection to our giving the information. He said he had absolutely no objection to my giving the information to the Deputy in confidence, but he objected to the information being given to the Dáil. I am prepared to give that information to any Deputy who comes to me and he can see how we did on the German butter.

Mr. Holohan

Why not tell us now?

Dr. Ryan

Because I was told by the buyer of that butter in Germany that he did not want it discussed publicly, but he was prepared to let me give it to any Deputy. I am certain that if Deputies opposite saw the information they would say no more about it, because it would not suit to disclose it at the Blue Shirt meetings.

Mr. Holohan

Do not bother about the Blue Shirts.

Dr. Ryan

We do not bother very much about them. Deputy Dillon says the accounts of this transaction in the Appropriation Accounts are very perplexing. I must make some sort of an appeal to the Comptroller and Auditor-General to simplify these accounts in future for Deputies of the calibre of Deputy Dillon, but I think most Deputies will understand those accounts if they look through them. I do not think there is anything difficult about them. The Deputy wants to know how much butter we exported, the price, and the bounty paid. The bounty paid is the bounty payable under the Act. The bounty under the Stabilisation Act must be paid when butter is exported. On the other hand, there is in addition to that a Government subsidy. That was not paid because it was not necessary. That was a matter of 30/- at least that we saved on the German butter. In addition to that, the Dairy Disposals Board made a very good profit on the butter exported to Germany. So that really this alternative market, which meets with the sneers and the contempt of the people opposite as compared with the great British market, in the case of butter at any rate, was a better market than the British market for that particular deal last year. What it may be in this coming year I do not know.

Mr. Dillon

Fortunately we are in Committee on Finance. I thought I would lead the poor innocent Minister up the alley, and I succeeded. He, of course, forgot that he had been engaged in this business in 1932-3 as well. He says to-day: "No bounty, no subsidy."

Dr. Ryan

I said a bounty was paid but no subsidy.

Mr. Dillon

He said that a bounty was paid but no subsidy. The Comptroller and Auditor-General on page 36 of his report states that no bounty and no subsidy were paid on the butter exported by the Dairy Disposals Company. Of course, the Minister may be right or the Comptroller and Auditor-General may be right, but I think the Minister will agree that when he contradicts himself categorically in Dáil Eireann it makes the reading and understanding of those accounts a little difficult and complicated.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is a year behind. That is the year before.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister for Industry and Commerce has quite enough trouble of his own without coming to the assistance of his unfortunate colleague. The Minister for Agriculture is glad to report that the German market was a most remunerative market. The astonishing part of it is that we do not all send out our butter there and make our fortunes out of it. Let us see what his experience was the year before on the German market. 11,198 cwts. of butter were purchased for £66,000.

Mr. MacEntee

Am I right in assuming that the Deputy is quoting from the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Appropriation Accounts?

Mr. Dillon

I am quoting in respect of the Minister's statement—

Mr. MacEntee

I am asking the Deputy what he is quoting from.

Mr. Dillon

I do not propose offering the Minister that information. I am quoting from statistics that have reached me—

An Ceann Comhairle

When statistics, or official statements of accounts are quoted from, the procedure has been that the Deputy gives the reference.

Mr. Dillon

If you desire me to give the reference I can say that this information has come to me through the medium of the Appropriation Accounts 1932-33.

Mr. MacEntee

And I presume from the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Appropriation Account?

Mr. Dillon

I am quoting figures, and if the figures I quote are incorrect it is quite competent for the Minister for Finance to correct them.

Mr. Anthony

On a point of order, is it correct or is it in order to quote from the Appropriation Account for 1932-33 which has been placed in our hands to-day? I should like to have the position regularised. I do not want to intervene in the debate at all, but on some of the other Estimates it may be necessary to quote from this report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is in order to quote from the Appropriation Accounts on the Estimates, but it is not usual to discuss the Appropriation Accounts before then.

Mr. Anthony

In relation to the Estimates only?

An Ceann Comhairle

In relation to the Estimates. The Chair has not ruled Deputy Dillon out of order.

Mr. Dillon

Surely it is in order to quote from any document published by the authority of the Dáil and for sale to the public?

An Ceann Comhairle

I have not ruled against the Deputy.

Mr. Dillon

I thank you. I do not wish to be taken as in any way infringing on the rules of order.

Mr. MacEntee

I think the Deputy is not quite candid. He states that according to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General bounties and subsidies have been paid. The Deputy is now discussing in the House a matter which is contained in that report. It is usual to refer that report to the Public Accounts Committee, and hitherto it has not been usual to discuss anything in the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report until the report of the Committee of Public Accounts had been received.

Mr. Dillon

I am quoting from a document which is for sale to any member of the public for 2/6 in Nassau Street. It is not a confidential document circulated to Deputies. It is on sale at the counter to any member of the public who comes in and puts down 2/6. The Press could publish the full contents of it to-morrow morning without licence from the Government.

An Ceann Comhairle

And the Deputy has not been precluded from reading the document.

Mr. Dillon

Precisely. I desire to repudiate the absurd contention of the Minister for Finance that I am in any way infringing on the rules of order. I have already pointed out that although the Minister here said that a bounty was paid but no subsidy, the report from which I am reading states the exact opposite. Now we are to consider the prosperous and valuable market to which the butter is exported. It is like the German buyer who is buying our cattle at a penny a lb., and we are to be profoundly grateful to the Fianna Fáil Government for getting us this alternative market. We pay him a fat sum every week to come over here and take our cattle away at a penny per lb. That is the alternative market?

Mr. Lemass

On a point of order, is this speech relevant to the motion before the House?

Mr. Dillon

Now we have another alternative market.

An Ceann Comhairle

On the point of order, the motion before the House is:

That the duty imposed by Section 1 of the Finance (Customs Duties) Act, 1931 (No. 14 of 1931) shall be charged, levied, and paid on all butter imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 1st day of April, 1934, at the rate of eightpence the pound in lieu of the rate mentioned in the said section.

The price of Irish cattle in Germany is certainly not relevant to that motion.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister explained that this was part of the administration of the Dairy Products (Stabilisation) Act.

An Ceann Comhairle

It does not follow that all the other parts are relevant.

Mr. Dillon

No, but arising out of that, the question was raised as to the price he was getting for butter in the German market, and he himself to-day contradicted information which he tendered to a Committee of this House, and to the public through the medium of this report. He has gone on to say that the price he got in the German or continental market yielded him, through the Dairy Disposals Board, a handsome profit. I am now examining that market, and examining the veracity of that statement. I refer to the transactions which took place during the financial year 1932-33.

Mr. MacEntee

Surely that is a matter which should arise more appropriately on the Vote for the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Dillon

11,188 cwts. of butter were purchased for £66,000 and sold on commission to this continental agent for £39,936 2s. 9d. The loss on this transaction was £31,389 17s. 10d. We bought the butter at 119/4. Our expenses in negotiating the sale of the butter were 8/-. The gross cost of the butter was, therefore, 127/4. We got for the butter delivered 71/4, so we lost on the butter 56/- per cwt. That is the nature of the alternative market which is being provided for the farmers of this country by the Fianna Fáil organisation. Will they allow us, on this occasion, to congratulate them? In view of the fact that those figures are available to the public in respect of the transactions in 1932-3, I think it is absolutely essential that the Minister should justify himself before the House in the statement that the Board made a profit on the butter transactions into which he entered during the year 1933-4. He lost 56/- a cwt. in the previous year. He says he made a profit this year. I think the House is entitled to know how he did it. I think the House is also entitled to know why it is that he furnishes the House with one version of the facts when he is speaking here, and, through their Committee on the Appropriation Accounts, with an entirely different version of the facts.

Mr. Bennett

On the question of the alternative market, the Minister said it was a better market than the British market. I suppose in Fianna Fáil minds there are relative definitions of the word "better". To our minds a better market means a market in which one gets a better price, and in which one can at least sell an equal quantity of the commodity one is exporting. The House would like to be informed as to what amount of our butter would be accepted in the German market. Is there any comparison at all between the amounts that would be accepted in Britain and in Germany? I do not think the Minister can convince us that Germany will accept anything at all equivalent to the amount we could sell to Britain. Some eight or nine months ago in a discussion on some other motion the Minister for Agriculture definitely promised, I think it was Deputy Dillon, that a day would be given for the discussion of the whole dairying question. We have never had a day since for that discussion. I personally would like that the House would shortly be given an opportunity of discussing the dairying industry in full-not in regard to any particular item of it-because obviously to get into a discussion of all the particular items of the dairying industry to-day would be, if not out of order, inadvisable on this particular motion. There are one or two things that I should like to make allusion to. One is the statement of the Minister that if certain things did not arise— if the economic war were not there and other things did not arise—the Irish farmer would be getting 68/- for his butter in Britain. I should like definitely to deny that. The price of Danish butter, on the average, in England—I cannot give the exact figure but I can give a rough calculation—was somewhere about 90/- or 92/- during the last 12 or 14 months. The Minister was wrong when he said that we never approached the price of Danish butter. We did approach the price of Danish butter during the Cumann na nGaedheal administration and if my memory serves me aright, on one occasion we even passed the price of Danish butter.

Mr. O Briain

When was it?

Mr. Bennett

I said "if my memory served me aright." I shall look up the quotation and send it to Deputy O Briain by parcel post because it is a fact. I have never said anything in this House which was not a fact——

Mr. Dillon

Anybody who knows anything about it knows that it is a fact.

Mr. MacEntee

Sir Oracle!

Mr. Bennett

The Minister is not in that happy position himself.

Dr. Ryan

He did not apply that to the Deputy.

Mr. Bennett

The Minister for Finance had better keep quiet with regard to the quotation of facts or the relevancy of certain arguments.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is wandering now.

Mr. Bennett

I shall look up the matter, as I say, and send it to Deputy O Briain. The fact remains that on one particular occasion, the price of Irish butter did pass the price of Danish butter, and it was never a terrible lot behind it. One could assume that if everything was normal and if we had not all the disturbance that we have with England, we would have been getting somewhere around 80/- a cwt. for our butter in the English market. We would be getting that price, with free trade, without the economic war and without, I dare say, the hostility there may be against us on the part of certain buyers in England, but it is inevitable that if you hit another man in the face, he will give some little delicate tip back, and I have no doubt that we possibly are suffering in that way in relation to the price we are getting for our butter in England. The Minister said that we could not have provided anything equivalent to the fourpence per gallon for milk which they have provided. The Minister himself is giving a direct subsidy of 31/-. I do not say that he always uses it, but he has the power to use it, and he uses most of it, and if we applied that, having a free market, and if we had not all this ridiculous fight that we have, to the current price of butter in England, we could produce the price of 4d. per gallon for the farmer, without any imposition on the home consumer. That is definite. We could produce that without any imposition on the home consumer. The Minister says that we all voted against the original Dairying Act. We did not all do so.

Donnchadh O Briain

You could not go back to Limerick, if you did.

Mr. Bennett

There are some members who did not, but I should like to refresh the Minister's memory by stating that even though a few of us voted for the Minister we definitely expressed our opinion that the Act would not do fully what the Minister hoped it would do. I, myself, asked the Minister, at the conclusion of that debate, if that particular Bill gave the creamery proprietor or the farmer any power that he had not already got from the Cosgrave Administration, and the Minister said that it did not, so that, in fact, all that that particular Dairy Produce Act did was to compel certain people to do something which they might have done freely. Compulsion is not very useful in this country or any other, and compulsion did not do very much in this particular matter, because the Minister had to depart from this Act before it was very long in operation. I do him the justice of saying that it was mainly the economic war that caused him to depart from it, but if it had not arisen the Minister would have been forced to take other measures to keep the price of butter up.

I do not want to prolong the debate. It is not possible to go into the items of the dairying industry to which I particularly wish to allude. I rose principally to try to induce the Minister to promise us a definite day on which we could thrash out the dairying industry between us once and for all, and examine where we are drifting and find out in what way we could better the situation generally. One would like to go into the question of the sale of calves and, possibly, the sale of dairy cows. I am not going to refer to them now, but one cannot discuss the dairying industry properly unless one goes into these matters. On the butter question, however, I should like to state that if we had free sale in Britain, if there were no discrimination against Irish produce in Britain, the price we would receive for our best creamery butter would not be very much below what the Danish are receiving. We, in this country, make quite good butter, and the Minister realises that; I think he said himself that the best Irish creamery butter is not surpassed by the best creamery butter of any other country. With good circumstances and good salesmen and everything else required in relation to the sale of butter, our price would not be very much below the Danish price. The price we would have been receiving in what I might call a free market would have been somewhere about 80/- a cwt. A very small subsidy—£1 per cwt. or something equivalent to that—would have sufficed to keep the price of butter at the level at which it has been kept in this country without all the levies, bounties, a direct subsidy of 31/-, and without mulcting the consumer to the extent of 4d. or 5d. per lb. I hope the Minister will say, definitely, that he will give a day for the discussion of the whole dairying industry, because, obviously, this is not a motion on which one could discuss all the ramifications of the dairying industry.

Mr. Curran

I want to make just a few remarks to the Minister. I understand that I am entitled to have a couple of tilts at him. He accused me of being a member of a very badly-managed creamery society. I will produce my balance sheets to the Minister and he will find that it is not anything like what he says it is. It is a reasonably well-managed creamery society. What I am personally concerned with is the price which the farmer gets for his milk. I got 4d. last year, and that represents 10d. for the raw material— for the amount of milk that goes to make butter.

Donnchadh O Briain

You have bad cows.

Mr. Curran

Would the Deputy develop that point?

Donnchadh O Briain

If you have——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Curran.

Mr. Curran

The Deputy says that I have bad cows. I cannot see the point. I said that it takes about 2½ gallons of milk, roughly, to make a lb. of butter. Very probably Deputy O Briain does not know, but that is roughly what it is. That is 10d. I get for the raw material, and that is what I am grumbling about. I see the Minister for Agriculture shaking his head——

Dr. Ryan

It is far too low.

Mr. Curran

Is the Minister satisfied that that is what I am getting?

Dr. Ryan

You should get more.

Mr. Curran

Exactly. That is what I am trying to bring about. The Minister said that subsidy is not paid at all, so it seems that the producer is being mulcted for everything. As I pointed out a while ago, we paid to the Minister's pool £5,256 and we got back only £2,000 odd. That is not a very good proposition, so far as we are personally concerned. The Minister is constantly asking for suggestions as to this, that and the other thing, and what I would suggest to the Minister is that he should give a direct subsidy and do away with the levy and bring the price up as a charge on the Central Fund or in some way other than the levy that is put on at present. I do not mind what market you sell butter in so long as we get a price for it. If the market is in Turkey, if it is better than the British market, that is the place to put it. I do not care a twopenny ticket what market it is or where it is so long as the farmer is paid a decent price for the article he produces. That is all I am concerned with.

Dr. Ryan

Perhaps I was wrong in saying that the creamery of which Deputy Curran is a member is badly managed, but it was because I took an a priori view. I thought it was badly managed when Deputy Curran said he was a member of the committee. I said there was no subsidy paid on butter going to Germany but there is a subsidy paid on butter going to Great Britain and other countries. The direct subsidy varied from 30/- a cwt. down to 24/- at one period of the year. That item is costing this year £600,000. If we were to do away with the levy and the bounty and replace that by a direct subsidy it would cost, roughly, £500,000 additional. I am surprised at Deputy Curran advocating increased expenditure and increased taxation. Deputy Dillon retreated from the 1933 position with regard to German butter. He went back to the 1932 position and tried to make a point on that when he was dealing with the 1933 position. When passing, he made a most unjustifiable attack on the German buyer who comes to this country to buy cattle. Whatever Deputy Dillon's feelings may be as between England and Germany, I think he should not make an attack on a buyer coming to this country to buy our cattle.

Mr. Holohan

There was no attack.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Holohan will work himself up to make a speech some day. The bounty was not payable on that particular consignment of butter in 1932, and if Deputy Dillon knew the law he would know that no bounty was payable on it because one of the provisions of the Stabilisation Act is that no bounty can be levied on butter on which a levy was not paid and no bounty can be payable on butter produced from the 1st December to the 31st March. The export of butter in March, 1933, therefore, had no levy paid on it and it had no bounty paid on it, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General was right in saying that no bounty was paid on it. Deputy Dillon has to be instructed on every point he brings forward. The Deputy raises silly points and Ministers are always having to instruct him. It is really a waste of time having such Deputies in the House. The Deputy says we got only 71/4 for the butter sent to Germany. The price in the British market was 66/-. We got 71/4 for the butter exported to Germany. That was not very bad at all. It was 5/4 a cwt. better than the British market.

Mr. Dillon

Did you not get 97/1 per cwt. for butter in the British market?

Dr. Ryan

Not at that particular time. I think it will be found that that was at a different time.

Mr. Dillon

You realised £241,071 on butter sent to the British market in one period and that worked out at 97/1 per cwt.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy ought to know that the price is not the same all the year round. The price varies as the year goes on. Deputy Bennett made a few suggestions about past discussions. I think the Deputy was right. We had a good deal of time spent on the discussion of this matter last year but when, some time after, that the Vote for my Department came up for consideration we had three days' discussion additional on it and we will have another three days' discussion on it on the Estimate for my Department.

Mr. Curran

It will not be worth it this time.

Dr. Ryan

We will talk about everything that the Deputy mentions from the slaughter of calves to the slaughter of old cows, the price of butter and the price of eggs that Deputy Dillon was talking about in Glasgow. The price of Danish butter was always above the price of Irish butter. I am quite certain if the Deputy will go back and examine the prices from 1923 to 1931, for the period the late Government were in control, he will see I am right. It must be admitted that when the late Government were in control they did quite a lot to improve the quality of butter in this country but I think the Deputy will find that at no period did the price of Irish butter come within 14/- a cwt. of the Danish butter. The average difference would be 23/- a cwt. I am giving these figures from memory but I know they are correct. At no time did they come within 14/- of the Danish price. Deputy Bennett said it is all very well to talk about the price of butter in Germany being better than the English price. But could we get better terms if there had been no difficulties about imports? We are getting into Germany with a certain amount of butter and, as far as the amount we are sending, we are doing well with it. He says if we were on better terms with England we would possibly get better prices than we get, and that hitting a man a slap in the face will not induce him to give you a good price for what he is buying. I read a paragraph in the London Times of the 14th of March, and it will show you what the people who do not hit England a slap in the face are getting. This paragraph says:—

"At the suggestion of the Prime Minister of New Zealand (Mr. Forbes) a round table conference assembled at Parliament House to-day to consider the plight of the dairy farmers owing to the serious fall in the prices on the British market and to attempt to devise a workable method to improve their position.

"The Prime Minister presided and read telegrams which had passed between the New Zealand and the British Governments in respect of quantitative restriction of dairy imports. New Zealand asked whether the adoption of a practically free tariff on British goods would enable New Zealand produce to obtain a free entry in the British market. Great Britain replied that tariff and quota problems were quite separate."

In other words, they do the same to New Zealand as they do to the people who give them a slap in the face. They said that whether you take off the tariffs or not we are not going to allow your dairy products in free either quantitatively or free of duty. The paragraph continues:

"The British Government were committed to a policy of regulating imports."

That was the result of the advance on the part of the New Zealand Government towards the British Government.

Resolution put and agreed to.

Report Stage fixed for Wednesday the 11th of April.