The Minister displayed some irritation when I interjected a comment on what has been said by his Leader and his associates on a prior occasion about the British market; but I think it is an interesting comment and something that Deputy Brady ought to listen to with care, because he, and people like him, believe that President de Valera thinks that the British market is gone. A great many innocent people in this country take the same view, as a result of such statements. Now, however, they listen to the Minister for Agriculture, when he is really talking business and coming down to the hard tacks of his Department, saying quite blandly: "I asked the British people to come over here and talk to me, and they say, ‘Send us all the butter you have so long as you let us know in time what quantities you have for disposal'." The Minister says here that these British distributors are willing and anxious to co-operate with us not only in that regard but that there is no limit to what they will take from us if we will only let them know beforehand what quantities we have for disposal. In view of such statements, would Deputy Victory and Deputy Brady take note of that and realise that they are only being made fools of when President de Valera gets up in Ennis and says that the British market is gone? Would Deputy Victory and Deputy Brady realise that when President de Valera says that, he is only saying it for the purpose of impressing on the virgin minds of Deputy Brady and Deputy Victory that they should have some sense of responsibility and that they should not allow themselves to be made fools of on the platforms of this country at the instigation of President de Valera or anybody else? The market is not gone. Even if President de Valera and others of the Cabinet would say: "The British market is gone, thank God," the Minister for Agriculture says that the market is still here; that it has not gone; and the Minister for Agriculture goes on to say that if only our own producers would co-operate with the British distributors, a great many of our difficulties would be solved for all time. Would these Deputies get that into their heads and would they apologise to their constituents and say that they now believe that President de Valera was only making fools of them?
The Minister has spoken to-day about central marketing. To hear the Minister speak of it one would imagine the problems to which he referred to-day were of yesterday's growth. These are problems that have perplexed the butter-producing industry for the last ten years. May I say that so far as I am concerned the Minister will have all the help and co-operation I am in a position to give him in instituting some kind of a central marketing system which will place our exporters in a position to deal with the British distributors on an equal footing? Where you have a number of creameries competing against one another for the custom of individuals in the British distributing trade it means that our creameries are at the mercy of the British wholesale distributors. I have a considerable experience of the applications which one receives from British wholesale distributors where they ask you to forecast accurately the quantity of the commodity that you want to sell them and add: "We have no difficulty in distributing it, but we must know in advance what you are going to send us." The Minister knows as well as I do that it is not always possible to give an accurate forecast of what one particular unit in the creamery industry will be able to ship in any given week, but it is possible to forecast, with pretty considerable accuracy what the entire industry will have for disposal from time to time.
If you could once bring all the product of the industry which it was intended to export into the hands of one central authority, that central authority would find it a comparatively easy thing to advise his consignees what quantities he would expect them to take in a given period. Furthermore, I will submit that when this central marketing is set on foot we should make a very vigorous endeavour to grade our marketable produce. At the present time in the Department's surprise inspections a very close and exhaustive grading is done on the basis of which marks are awarded. Certain creameries are distinguished for the excellence of their produce as compared with the local competitors. I would like to see the Minister examining the possibilities of grading the butter for the export market and setting the seal of Departmental approval on certain butter as being first grade butter, on other butter as being second grade butter, and I expect there would be other butter perhaps of a grade which he would not recommend for sale to retail customers, but of a grade which ought to be confined to the confectioners' trade or for utilisation in some other similar way. I have not the slightest doubt that if the Minister would do that a great deal of the difficulties we have to face in the British market will disappear.
The Minister has said, quite casually, that Danish butter is making 20/- a cwt. more than our butter on the British market. That does not seem to surprise him. He seems to think we ought to be very grateful that we can keep neck and neck with New Zealand and Danish butter. We have beaten Danish butter on the British market; on certain occasions we have got a couple of shillings more than has been got for Danish butter on the British market. Within the last few years we have got as big a price as Denmark has got for her butter in the British market. May I submit to the Minister that if he can do two things, one, to reform the system of marketing on the lines I have suggested and, two, stimulate winter dairying in this country— secure that our producers will be in a position to supply their customers not only in the plentiful summer months but in the scarce winter months as well—we may reasonably expect not only to get as good a price for Irish butter on the London market or any other part of the British market as Denmark is getting, but a better price? That ought to be the ambition that should be set before us.
I think the Minister is imprudent in implying, publicly, that he is contented with a situation wherein Irish butter is valued 20/- a cwt. lower than Danish butter. That does not reflect the true values of the two commodities and it is only because we are failing to market our butter efficiently and failing to maintain all the year round supplies that our butter is not making as much as Danish. That is the kind of position the Minister could really remedy if he would put his mind to it, if he would make up his mind once and for all that the British market is not gone, thank God, and if he would adhere strictly to his North Wall declaration that the British market is now, and forever will be, the best market we have in which to dispose of our agricultural surplus.
Those general principles arise on the consideration of this Bill. The Minister has gone into the Bill in great detail. I prefer to state three grounds upon which I think this Bill ought to be opposed. One is because it perpetuates the system of providing for the necessary subsidy by way of a levy. If it seems necessary to the Legislature, that we must have, during a period of crisis and difficulty, an artificial price for butter in order to carry on the dairying industry while world conditions are in confusion, then my submission is that such subsidy as may be necessary should be charged on the supply services. There is no logical reason at all, if you have to raise £400,000 or £500,000 for the dairying or any other industry, why you should raise it from a group of the community arbitrarily selected, such as the butter consumers. Why are they any more liable for the social duty of carrying on this industry in a time of crisis than any other section of the community?
I say it is highly undesirable to finance a subsidy of this kind through the medium of a levy and that the Minister should come to the House, boldly and courageously, tell the House what sum is necessary to provide the assistance which the industry requires if it is to survive, and ask the House to provide the money at the expense of the general taxpayer and not at the expense of one particular section of the community. There is a dual advantage. Firstly, the burden is farily spread and secondly, the Legislature is in a position to perceive at all times what the necessary step for the protection of the industry is costing, and there is no concealment such as takes place under the system of raising levies and putting these charges on to the retail price of butter in this country instead of letting the article sell at the most advantageous price here or at the world price and assist the industry by such subventions as may be necessary from the supply services.
I say that specially because it seems to me that there is force, and that is the second reason why I object to this Bill. I object, and my contention is that we are paying inflated prices for butter in this country in order to provide cheap butter for a foreign market. I entirely agree that owing to world conditions something must be done to carry on the dairying industry until world conditions rectify themselves and until economic prices are forthcoming for dairy products. But in the meantime, if it is absolutely necessary to dispose of any butter on the part of the dairying industry at about 77/- per cwt., surely it is our own people who should get the advantage of such a state of affairs. Surely there is no conceivable sense in saying that the poor person in Dublin must pay 1/5 a lb. for butter whereas a similar person in Manchester can get the same quality butter at 10d. a lb. Owing to this levy system we are making the consumer of butter carry the whole burden. If we were to make the taxpayer carry the burden we would make the butter cheaper for our own people instead of charging 1/5 a lb. for it here as against 10d. a lb. in Manchester and the English cities. If we were to sell the butter here at 10d. a lb. the result would be that the sale of margarine would be wiped out. Would not that be a very good plan? Would it not be much more desirable than shipping it abroad at nearly half the price at which it is being sold at home? If the butter has got to be disposed of at a cheap rate, why not dispose of it at home at a price at which our own people and those who are constrained by economic circumstances to eat margarine could purchase butter instead?