I beg to move: That the Bill do now pass.
Public Business. - Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Bill, 1935—Fifth Stage.
I think it is clear to the House—I am sorry we were not able to convince the Minister on the matter—that we have two principal objections to this Bill. We think that the Minister could have helped the dairying industry without having to encounter those objections. Those objections were voiced during the previous stages of this Bill. Unfortunately, they were not met, and, therefore, we find the Bill, in some of its provisions, exceedingly objectionable at the moment. I say there are two objections, but they really hang together. One is the levy on farmers' butter, and the other is the rather drastic powers of inspection which the Minister has or thinks he has under the Bill as it now stands. These two objections hang together because I am convinced that had he dropped the particular method of financing the dairying industry by means of this levy the very objectionable powers of inspection that he has in the Bill would not have been necessary. Again and again, during the debate on these two matters, the Minister was challenged to put up some kind of defence for this method of financing dairy produce in this country. He was asked what precise advantages the levy system had over the paying of the amount of the levy out of the Central Fund, out of the ordinary tax, in other words. I think it was common property, and I think there was full agreement on every side of the House, and the Minister did not dispute it, that in reality the levy is a tax quite as much as the sugar tax, the beer tax, the tobacco tax, or any other tax. It is a tax that has to be paid by the people and by them alone, paid fully, I cannot say in what proportions, by the consumer of butter and by the producer of butter. Different views may prevail as to the exact proportion in which each of these two classes will bear the loss.
I am convinced that a certain amount will fall on the producer— the farmer—a great deal more, I fear, than the Minister is inclined to allow. It is quite as much a burden and quite as much a tax on the people as if he had taken straight out of the Central Fund the requisite amount of money. Furthermore, he could have done that, and all the objections that have been raised against farmers' butter being subject to this levy and the bad effect it will have on the sale of farmers' butter would have been overcome. The Minister has not shown that it would cost more. In fact, it would cost somewhat less, because it seems to me he would require fewer officials to carry out the administration of an Act so financed than the particular measure he now intends to put into operation. I see only one reason that could appeal to the Government for the adoption of this particular method of financing the dairying industry and it is this: it conceals from the general public the fact that a tax is being paid. They will feel it in their domestic budget and they will feel it in their expenses, but when the year brings around the annual consideration of the running expenses of this State that particular tax will not appear in the Budget Statement of the Minister for Finance; he will not have to mention it in his Budget Statement and, as a corollary to that, the number of officials that the Ministry will create under this and other measures like it will not have to appear. They will be paid by the producer and the consumer, but they need not appear in the annual Estimates. That concealment of taxation, that concealment of the creation of officials all over the country, will assuredly arouse the indignation of the farmers. That concealment will take place so far as it can be managed owing to this particular method of financing.
In that connection I might mention another consideration. There is a great deal of talk, even from the Labour Benches, especially when Deputies there get indignant against other political Parties or even against the other branch of their own Party, about Parliamentary institutions and the necessity to uphold them. One of the most important things that a popularly elected Chamber can do is to keep a strict control on State finances and on taxation, and yet this Bill and other Acts that have been passed are outstanding examples of a bad practice in this respect. What is happening? Considerable sums of money are withdrawn altogether from the examination of this House. They cannot be examined and when the time to consider the Budget comes around they do not appear. Millions in the way of taxes are being imposed on the people as a result of this and other legislation like it and there is no ordinary opportunity given in the annual discussion on the finances of the country to have the matter fully examined. This House is losing control over the taxation of the country, and for what? The Minister says it is an easy matter to ask that the financing of this industry should be paid out of the general taxes. He is paying it out of taxes anyhow. All he does is to pretend he is not doing it by calling the tax a levy.
We saw how the Minister for Finance, in his Budget Statement, grasped at that particular method of cutting down the picture of the total sums. He mentioned £250,000 that he was taking out of the Budget statement, but it was quite clear that he was not taking that £250,000 off the shoulders of the taxpayers—they were to pay it as a levy on wheat. It is the same with the Minister's methods in this Bill. The Minister was asked to show the advantages of this particular method of taxation over other systems. It is quite clear from certain clauses in this Bill, and from certain nominal concessions that the Minister seemed to make the last day, that this must be looked upon by the farmers who produce the butter as a burden. The concession which the Minister seemed to make to a large portion of Kerry is in itself an admission that otherwise the Bill is a burden. He refrains, quite rightly, from putting this burden on that particular portion of Ireland, because it has been so hard hit by the policy of the Government in connection with the cattle industry. On the last day he increased the figure of 5 to 10 lbs. in the Bill in respect of the amount of butter that could be sold without being registered, under a special licence. It was merely a nominal concession, because the Minister can vary that figure up or down. But the fact that he made a concession of that kind to what he called the more deserving class, the small farmer—that was his own phrase—is proof that even in his mind the Bill will put a burden on the farmers. There were several other remarks running through his defence of this Bill, and several remarks from Deputies on the benches behind him, which have a particular significance. The Minister said that when we were taxing people who sent their butter to creameries it was only just to tax those who were escaping—he thus admits he is imposing a burden. There is not the slightest doubt that the fears widely entertained in the country by members of all Parties, by supporters of the Minister quite as well as by anybody else, are well grounded. Why else should we have some of his staunchest supporters in Kerry protesting, and vigorously protesting, against this Bill, if it is to be the advantage to the farmer that the Minister suggests? Why is it that even his own followers are denouncing it? Does he accuse his own followers of wishing to make Party capital out of it? If he accuses us of wishing to make Party capital out of it, let him ask himself how could we attempt to do so unless we thought that it was a burden and that the people would feel it to be so.
As I say, the main objection that we have is the damage that we feel that this particular Bill, which deals with farmers' butter, will do to what the Minister admits is a necessary industry in many parts of this country, especially where they have not creameries. I do not see how he can escape from the conclusion that, if you put up the price of farmers' butter, you will put it in a worse position from the point of view of competing with creamery butter. At the present moment, farmers' butter is sold at a price under that of creamery butter. It has that distinct advantage and, at a time when there is a drive—I do not say that the drive has any particular merits; I do not say creamery butter is better, but, none the less, it is admitted that there is such a drive—in favour of creamery butter I think that, to put the producer of farmers' butter at a disadvantage by increasing the price of that butter in competition with creamery butter, is a practice that, certainly, ought not to get the approval or consent of this House. Furthermore, it is quite clear that you are going to kill, as far as in you lies, what the Minister confessed to be the most remunerative and the best of all forms of butter trading— that is, where the producer sells directly to the consumer. I do not see how that practice will continue to work smoothly when this Bill becomes operative. On the other hand, you will hold out big inducements to something in the nature of smuggling, and, in order to deal with that, you will have to increase the number of officials, and both the consumer and the producer will have to pay for these extra officials, whether these appear in the list of Estimates or not—hordes of new officials.
For these reasons we are opposed to the Bill as it stands, especially with regard to the clause dealing with farmers' butter. We think that any good the Minister intends to do by this Bill could have been equally well done if he had adopted a different method of financing the Bill, and the only reason that I can see as to why he did not adopt that is that the Government wants to conceal from the general public, as far as they possibly can, the amount of taxation it takes to run this country.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to what the position of consumers of butter in this country is going to be as a result of the passage of this particular Bill. The Minister for Agriculture, speaking yesterday, told us about the very fine price that farmers in this country were getting for their butter. He did not tell us, however, the reasons for that. The fact is that creamery butter purchased in this country, which is offered for sale on the other side at 10d. per lb. is being retailed in this country at 1/5 per lb., and that, in order that the farmers may get the price which the Minister talks about, the consumers in this country are taxed to the extent of 7d. per lb., so far as the creamery butter is concerned. The position, at the moment, is that, so far as great numbers of people in this country are concerned, creamery butter has reached a prohibitive price.
Now, I think there is, roughly, about double the quantity of home-made or farmers' butter consumed in this country as compared with creamery butter. We know that, so far as the workers and the poor are concerned, if they can obtain farmers' butter they prefer it, apart altogether from the question of the difference in price. They very much prefer it to creamery butter. They say that it is much more economical and that, as the saying is, it goes very much farther. Of course, there is also the inducement of the difference in price. When this measure becomes law, however, they will be compelled to pay 4d. per lb. extra for any farmers' butter they may purchase. That is a very heavy tax on any family, but it is a particularly heavy tax on the working man's family where they probably consume more butter per head of the family than in the case of a family that would be more wealthy. However, the danger that I see with regard to those heavy taxes upon butter consumers is the danger that either the people will use less butter because of the high price or, perhaps—what would be almost as bad—they will be driven away from butter to the purchasing of margarine at a much lower price. I think that there is a certain danger there. Let us take the position that they will be forced into when this measure becomes law. Let us take, for example, what would be a small—even a very small—consumption of butter by a household. Let us assume that they consume 3 lbs. of butter a week; at 1/- per lb. that would be 3/- a week. If this Bill becomes law, that household will have to pay 4/- a week for 3 lbs. of butter. I think that that is a very serious matter and a serious imposition on the people of this country. Coupled with that, you are going to have very heavy expenditure with regard to the machinery which will have to be devised by the Minister's Department to deal with this matter. There will have to be extra expenditure for the number of inspectors who will have to be appointed to see that the law is complied with, because, I am perfectly satisfied that, unless you have a very good machine and great numbers of inspectors, the compliance with the law will be very slight. I am satisfied that, even with all the Minister's Department may do, there will be evasion of the law.
Deputy Professor O'Sullivan has stated that, apart from the Budget altogether, all these numerous taxes, unfortunately, are leaning particularly heavily on the poorer sections of the community. We heard from the Minister for Industry and Commerce two statements on Monday night when he was concluding a series of speeches from Athlone Broadcasting Station. One statement was that the cost of living had been falling in this country and that it must contine to fall. How anybody, in the face of the Budget or of this Bill, can say that the cost of living in this country is going still lower, I do not know. The other statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce was that the standard of living had improved and was improving. It seems to me that, if you are going to make people pay the price of 4 lbs. of butter in order to obtain 3 lbs. of butter, it is hardly improving the standard of living; or they can only use 3 lbs. now where they formerly used 4 lbs. of butter. It must be remembered that there is only a certain amount of money to be spent by each household, and that amount cannot be exceeded. To my mind, there is an increase and a very definite increase in the cost of living and I doubt if this measure is going to be any benefit to the creameries, at least not in this form.
Like Deputy J.M. O'Sullivan after hearing of the manipulation of the levies that have been imposed not for revenue purposes but for the benefit of a particular industry or section of that industry, and after hearing the Minister for Finance claiming the ownership of those levies and a beneficial interest in them, I certainly will vote against any Bill that is introduced into this House ostensibly to help the industry. I will vote against any such Bill because I have no confidence, after the revelations over the Budget, that that money which was collected for a specific purpose would be used exclusively for that specific purpose. It is monstrous that money that should be used to help an industry or a branch of an industry should be diverted to the purposes of general revenue. If because of new ideas in connection with that industry it becomes necessary to organise it on a new basis, the Minister for Finance becomes a stumbling block to any such reorganisation that may be needed.
That is so because of the Exchequer interest he claims that he has in the money levy. For instance, in the Pigs and Bacon Bill a levy of 10/- per pig was imposed to help the bacon industry. Nobody in this country thought for a moment or believed for a moment that not one 10/- of that money would go for any purpose except to help the bacon industry. Notwithstanding that, we had last week the Minister for Finance claiming a beneficial interest in the £250,000 which had been imposed on that industry. We had that regardless of the fact that the House at the request of the Minister for Agriculture has reorganised the industry and provided for new levies for the purposes of reorganisation. We have the Minister for Finance informing the House that he reluctantly gave way to the representations made by the Minister for Agriculture. He said he accepted the principle, but not the abolition of the levy right away? Why? Was it for the reason for which it was imposed? Not at all. It does not matter about that. But it was to hang on to the money. Every seller and buyer and dealer in butter has to be registered and to pay a registration fee, and a levy on the butter they sell. All this money is going to be dumped into the coffers of the Minister for Finance.
It is not money that we are considering in this Bill at all. It is how we will help the butter industry. Money is an entirely secondary consideration. New ideas may come along. The Minister may have to change his viewpoints. I have nothing to say against his doing so. It is a sign he is watching his business and observing the trend of the markets and the trend of production and that he is not afraid to come into this House to suggest a change in his own scheme if he is convinced that owing to the conditions that have arisen or because of having acquired new experience a change should be made. If the House is going to implement that and to pass legislation for imposing a change, what guarantee has the House that the bulk of the money levied may not be used for revenue purposes? As Deputy J. M. O'Sullivan rightly said, one cannot find out how much of it has been used for revenue purposes and how much for the industry. Were I 101 per cent. convinced as to the benefits of this Bill, yet, because of the revelations in the Budget debate about the finances in similar measures already passed, I would vote against it. I would do so not because of the value of the butter scheme itself, but because the finances would be handled subsequent to this enactment by the Minister for Finance.
I am opposed to the Bill on other counts. There is one objection especially to this Bill that has not been laboured in this House up to the present. To my knowledge, it has not been mentioned. I was in the County Louth last Sunday. Perhaps Louth is the first agricultural county in Ireland. They produce a great deal of butter there, but there is no creamery in the county. On last Saturday butter could not be sold in Drogheda market at 8d. per lb. The butter had to be brought home. I do not blame the Minister for that. I do not even, from the butter point of view, blame the economic war for it, though it is clearly a consequence of the economic war. I blame another point of view for it. The other point of view that I consider might have caused it has not been considered by the Minister. I must say frankly that I did not consider it myself until it was brought under my notice on Sunday last. I saw clearly the whole position once it was mentioned. I am sure the House will see it too once it is mentioned here. It is common knowledge to every Deputy all over the country that there was quite an industry in this country outside the creamery areas in the summer time. People who had a surplus of milk went down to the creamery districts, bought calves there and reared them on their own surplus milk. Owing to the economic war that business no longer pays. Never before was there a surplus of butter in Louth. Now it does not pay to rear the calves. The people have to choose between throwing out their milk or turning it into butter. They are making butter, but now they have no market for this butter.
In framing this Bill I am afraid the Minister was considering entirely too closely the interests of the few creamery counties and neglecting the interests of the many other counties. What about the County Louth? I am only mentioning that county as an example, because it was there that this was first brought to my notice. The same thing prevails in Meath, Westmeath, Longford, Roscommon and perhaps Monaghan. I do not think there is any creamery in the first-named counties. It was the usual thing for large numbers of dropped calves to be brought up from the creamery counties to the counties where the farmers made their own butter. These calves from the creamery areas were reared on the surplus milk in the counties I have mentioned, and in a few others as well. That system does not hold now. The Minister for Agriculture has schemed all the time to bring adequate returns to the creamery counties, ignoring the other counties. Does not the Minister see that because of the economic war these people are left with surplus butter? The Minister has taken no steps whatever to help them. Now he proposes to levy on these people 39/- a cwt. on factory butter. He recognises that factory butter is inferior to creamery butter by 9/- a cwt. I had two amendments down for the Report Stage in this Bill, but I was informed they were not in order for the last stage. The amendments were dealing with this position that I am going to speak about. I believe I am right in stating that the central feature of the Minister's scheme is to guarantee for the exporters of butter 102/- per cwt. for creamery butter, and 93/- for factory butter. On that basis, clearly, the Minister recognises that the public have a preference for creamery butter as against factory butter measured in money to the extent of 9/- per cwt. Clearly it is not fair, even if other things were equal, to put the same levy on butter worth only 93/- as on butter worth 102/- per cwt.
There is no use in saying that everything in the Bill is wrong; but the Bill has got to the stage that it is going through. In view of that position, I put that argument to the Minister on the ground of fair play for the two kinds of butter concerned. Is there any reason why the handlers of factory butter in this country should pay the same levy on a commodity that does not fetch as high a price as creamery butter by the margin of 9/-? I suggest to the Minister to reduce the levy on factory butter by the amount of the difference in quality, if you like, indicated by the price fetched in the same market. In other words, have a levy on factory butter of 30/- when the levy on creamery butter is 39/-.
That will help to some extent those areas in which the market for milk heretofore was the rearing of extra suck calves. That market has been wiped out. The corresponding market for milk in the creamery districts was for the making of butter. That market has been seriously damaged; we all admit that. The Minister wants to aid that market and is endeavouring to do that in this Bill, as he did in previous legislation. But he may not, under the Bill, aid districts in which the market for milk was the rearing of suck calves, and he should give them a little consideration in the levy. I can see a certain amount of equity in the levy; but if we are going to deal with it on the basis of equity, we must have equity all round and consider the value of the product that is being dealt with. That product must be dealt with on an equitable basis. Therefore, while there is something to be said for the equity of the levy, and the strong case that the Minister made, I suggest to the Minister that those areas where the factory people buy their fresh butter are the areas where they formerly reared suck calves. I, therefore, suggest that he should give them the advantage of 9/- less in the levy on their butter.
Now we come to the farmer's butter proper—those areas where the butter leaves the farmer's premises in a finished condition and is consumed in that form. In such areas the sale of butter is very often in small quantities. In framing these amendments that were disallowed——
The amendments were submitted by the Deputy on the Report Stage and they were ruled out of order. On the Fifth Stage only textual amendments may be made. The Deputy must not advocate his proposed amendments now. He is confined to giving reasons why the Bill should or should not now pass.
I am afraid there is a misunderstanding. I was not suggesting amendments on this stage, but I was making suggestions——
That the Minister should make the amendments the Deputy was not allowed to move.
That the Minister should consider introducing these in the Seanad.
Which is very like suggesting amendments.
Then I will put it this way, that there are objections which I have to the Bill in its present form. I suggest that I might be permitted to proceed on these lines.
That will not get over the objection of the Chair to mentioning amendments on this Stage which were ruled out of order on the Report Stage.
I suggest that as they were ruled out of order on the Report Stage——
It is not the fault of the Chair that the amendments were not submitted on the Committee Stage. By not submitting them on the Committee Stage, the Deputy lost his opportunity.
Might I suggest to the Minister that he should consider these suggestions when the Bill goes before the Seanad? Anyway, the objection I have to the Bill in its present form is that the factory people have to pay a uniform levy with the creamery people; also that farmers, who make butter on their own premises and dispose of it in small lots, will have to pay a similar levy to the creamery people. In view of the fact that they have lost completely the market that existed for their surplus milk heretofore, I consider that, after accepting the principle of the Bill, it would be better if the levy were no more than 2d. per lb.
The Deputy is on very thin ice.
I am afraid I am on thin ice. I was going to make another point, but perhaps I might get on to thinner ice and I will not make it.
In view of the statement made by Deputy Belton that the Bill has reached a certain stage and that it is going through, it is questionable if it is really necessary to have any debate on the Bill at all. I should like, however, to refer to the statement of Deputy Belton with regard to the levy on farmers' butter, factory butter and creamery butter, and the differential prices which the Minister has stated for creamery butter and factory butter. I should like to say that it is far more expensive to turn milk into butter in the creameries than it is to turn milk into butter in the farmers' homesteads. They can do it very much less than it costs the creameries. In view of that, I do not think that there is really any reason why the levy on farmers' butter should be a different one from that on creamery butter. The policy of the Department since its inauguration under the British Government by Sir Horace Plunkett has been to back up the creameries and put down farmers' butter—at least to turn all the milk into the creameries. That has been found impossible, although it has gone on for 50 years. If the farmers got anything like the same assistance from the Department as the creameries have got, I do not think the creameries would be in existence at all. But the farmers did not get the support of the Department. It was the creameries got it, and we have arrived at the stage in which we have a tremendous amount of capital sunk in creameries. Of course, the Department are perfectly right to endeavour to get them going.
The Opposition have stated that the farmers will have to pay the levy, but Deputy Morrissey said a few moments ago that the consumers will have to pay. They cannot both pay; only one of them will pay. He also stated that the price of butter would go up to 1/4 per lb. from 1/- and that poor families who are consuming 3 lbs., of butter a week would have to pay 4/- instead of 3/-. I do not think that is so either. I believe what will happen will be that the price will come down to a figure at which butter will be sold with a levy of 4d. per lb. That will be something about 10d. or 11d. per lb., and that is not a bad price considering international prices.
I hope the Minister is listening to that.
The Minister will be able to take care of himself. I have no doubt about that.
Dr. Ryan
The Deputy is a sensible man, anyway, after all the nonsense we have heard.
We had Deputy Morrissey saying that people prefer farmers' butter to creamery butter. Some of us do and some do not. The great bulk of the working classes do not prefer creamery butter. I remember 15 or 16 years ago when the food control under the British Government was transferred to the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture compelled us all to keep a certain proportion of our butter for the use of working-class people during the winter. At the meeting of the Department under Sir Hugh Barrie, who was President at the time, we who packed farmers' butter and also packed factory butter suggested that they should permit us to ship all the factory butter, that there was no market for it in this country, and that we would buy an equivalent quantity of creamery butter to hold for the winter. We were refused permission and the trade lost hundreds of thousands of pounds as a result. The Department of Agriculture did not give us any assistance whatever to try to get back from the British Government what we should have got at that time. Having made the mistake they stuck to it and did not give us any help to get the money back from the British Government; and we might have got it back. So that it is not correct to say that the people prefer farmers' butter. Some of us do, but we prefer it when it is good and fresh. It certainly is more palatable and appetising than creamery butter when it is good, but it is not always good.
Last evening, in the Budget debate, Deputy McGovern, speaking of butter, referred to the fact that you could buy butter in Northern Ireland at 6d. per lb. less than you could buy it retail in the shops in the Free State. It is just as well to recognise the facts of the whole position in this country and in all countries. There is no country in the world except Great Britain and Northern Ireland where the retail price of butter is not as high and higher than in this country. So that the working classes or other people are not paying any more for butter here than in Denmark, one of the biggest butter-producing countries which last year shipped 50,000 tons of butter.
I hope the Minister is still listening.
Dr. Ryan
That is right.
It is just as well that the Minister would listen and just as well that Deputies would get it into their heads that the price of butter to the consumers in this country is not any more than in any other country, except England and Northern Ireland.
That does not square with what the Minister told us last week. He said that the best price in the world was paid here.
Dr. Ryan
The best price to the producer.
It would be just as well if the Deputy did not interrupt me.
I am sorry.
Deputy Belton referred to butter that could not be sold in the Drogheda market at 8d. per lb., and said that it had to be taken home. Eightpence a lb. is not a bad price. The price for colonial butter, Argentine, Lithuanian and Siberian butter is only slightly over 8d. The bulk of the other butter is less than 8d.
But you take a 4d. levy out of it.
Siberian butter is sold at 7½d. in the English market. There is a good deal of ignorance or pretended ignorance on the part of the Deputies opposite as to what the levy and the bounty are for. The levy is to create a pool out of which the penal duties can be paid. The Australian farmers several years ago created what they called the Patterson scheme. They put a voluntary levy on themselves of 1½d. per lb. on all butter manufactured in the country, and out of that they created certain markets. They gave a bounty of 4d. or 4½d. per lb. The penal duty on our butter at the present time is about 20/- a cwt., a little over 2d. per lb. The bounty and subsidy paid to farmers last year in the Free State went up to 80/- per cwt., or perhaps a little bit more. What was the 60/- over and above the 20/- for? It was to help the farmer to continue in his industry and get a price for his milk that would enable him to carry on. The Opposition is continually pretending that that extra money does not go to the farmer. Any levy that is made on the farmer goes back to the industry as a whole. I do not say it goes to the particular farmers who may be getting an extra price for their butter and who now will have to pay or have deducted from the price they receive for their butter, a levy of 4½d. per lb. They may not get it back, but the industry as a whole gets it and it helps to make the industry pay where otherwise it could not be carried on. If you had to take the price on the British market to-day and deduct the charges from it, no creamery could pay more than about 2d. per gallon for milk.
Is there anyone here connected with the farming industry who would say that it would pay him to rear cows, feed them, attend to them, milk them, and get 2d. a gallon for the milk? Now it is just as well that the people would get very definitely into their heads—the Opposition might also try to grasp the fact—that the money which is being taken in the way of levies is going back to the farmers on pretty well all their goods. Certainly in the case of butter it is going back to the farmers, and they are getting, in addition to that, a good deal of money that is taken from the consumers by charging an extra amount over and above what they have to pay in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. While Great Britain and Northern Ireland have got to pay a considerably lesser price, all the countries in the world—even Denmark— have got to create in some form or another some fund by which their farmers can carry on the main industry of all these countries, agriculture. If they did not create these special funds the agricultural industry in all those countries would go down. In those circumstances England might be in a very bad position so far as her supplies from other countries are concerned, and probably would not get her butter and other things so cheaply. As I said when I started, I question whether, in view of the fact that this Bill is going through, it is advisable to say anything on the matter, but it does seem to me that whether the money is a tax, as Deputy O'Sullivan says, or whether it comes out of the Central Fund, it is going back to the farmers, and in those circumstances I do not consider that the Opposition should have a tremendous lot to say on that point.
There is just another point which was discussed already on one of the amendments last week, that is the right to search. I have not seen the Bill, but I believe that in the Butter Stabilisation Bill which was brought in by Deputy Hogan there was some such provision. If there were, I cannot see that there should be any cause on the part of Deputies on that side of the House to kick up such a furore about this right to search, because anybody with any sense will know that it will not be used in any way which will cause trouble to anybody who is not committing a wrong. Anybody who is, of course, will have to put up with it. The only point which I want to stress again is that the Opposition contend that the farmers pays. Deputy Morrisey contended that the consumer pays. Well, one or other should pay.
A Chinn Comhairle, might I ask the Deputy a question, through you?
The Deputy has concluded.
Might I ask him a question?
The Deputy may speak only once.
It is a pity that Deputy Dowdall is not Minister for Agriculture. Mind you, I should like to see him Minister for Agriculture. It is not the first time that we have had some instance of Deputy Dowdall's honesty in dealing with matters which relate to business or politics. I remember quite recently reading a statement from him in which he said that as far as tariffs were concerned he was going to make the most of them. Quite right. That is exactly what they all do, and there is no use in pretending they do not. Deputy Dowdall comes in to-day and he tells us that the farmers can make butter at very little cost, and that the costs of the creameries are much greater. Consequently the man who makes the farmers' butter at home must be taxed in order to make up for the other man. There is a certain amount of inconsistency about some of the statements made by Deputy Dowdall, or at least if he is not inconsistent it is possible that he is not very well informed on some of the matters. I am not saying that with regard to butter exactly, but with regard to the creation of a fund out of which the duty would be paid. We thought that was the case with pigs.
Dr. Ryan
What fund?
There was an Excise duty of 10/- being charged for some time back on pig carcases. Is not that so?
Dr. Ryan
Yes. Where did it go to?
Exactly.
Dr. Ryan
It went into the Exchequer.
It went into the Exchequer. The country understood that was for the purpose of creating a fund to stabilise the price of Irish bacon.
Dr. Ryan
For export bounties.
Exactly. But the Minister in his Budget statement denies all that.
Dr. Ryan
He does not.
Absolutely.
Dr. Ryan
He does not.
The Minister in his Budget statement says he has to forgo that tax now, because it is going to be levied by other people; in other words the Pigs Marketing Board, controlled by the Minister for Agriculture, is going to do this job. But he further states that he is going to recoup himself to the extent of £190,000 by a tax of 6d. per cwt. on wheat, and a tax on oil to bring in £250,000. That is to recoup himself for the loss of 10/- per carcase on pigs.
Dr. Ryan
Yes, and the export bounties are still hit.
And we have the Pigs Marketing Board, according to the Minister for Agriculture, going to deal with the levy on pigs for the purpose of stabilisation also. Are we going to have it done both ways?
Is this a Pigs Bill?
Dr. Ryan
I refuse to instruct the Deputy any further.
Deputy Dowdall tells us we ought to be perfectly satisfied that this levy is all coming back to the farmers and to the butter makers. We are not. The Minister for Finance has denied that as far as the pig carcase levy is concerned, it came back to the farmers. He says he must make that go to the Exchequer until the Pigs Marketing Board is going to give us a levy again in another form. This artificial forcing up of prices is definitely a bad way to do business, but it is the Government's method of inflicting, if you like, a certain amount of taxation without showing that it is taxation. My objection to the Bill is that the Minister has not told us—and I do not think he could very well tell us; I do not think there are any statistics which would show it—what is the relative amount of butter manufactured in the farmers' homes and in the creameries. I do not think we can get that, nor the amount which is consumed at home, but there is, of course, no doubt that the amount of farmers' butter exported is very small in comparsion with the amount of creamery butter. I have here a publication issued this year by the Department of Industry and Commerce, Agricultural Statistics, 1927 and 1933. It shows the numbers of cows supplying milk to creameries, and the numbers not supplying milk to creameries. There are only ten counties which are creamery counties. In five of those the number of cows supplying milk to the creameries is in excess of the number not supplying milk to the creameries. In the other five the majority of cows are not supplying milk to creameries, but the numbers are pretty level. The remaining counties all over the country —the other 16—have no creameries at all. We have in the Saorstát, according to those figures, 702,000 cows not supplying milk to creameries, and 519,000 cows supplying milk to creameries. As a matter of fact, we have 50 per cent. more cows not supplying milk to creameries.
My case is that this levy upon farmers' butter is to assist the creamery districts. I maintain that it is unfair and inequitable. In districts other than creamery districts we have mixed farming, a good deal of tillage. Take the counties of Galway and Roscommon. There are no creameries in Galway to my knowledge, but there are quite a few in Roscommon. There is in those counties a pretty large business done in farmers' butter, particularly as regards sale to private persons. The amount of creamery butter sold in those places is very small. It is manifestly unfair to put a tax on these people, or on a mixed farming industry, in order to benefit other districts. The effect of this Bill will be largely in keeping with the effect of many measures passed by the present Government. In my opinion, it will tend to kill thrift and industry and initiative as far as the home is concerned. It is manifestly unfair to ask a farmer's wife, who has been endeavouring to assist her husband in finding the necessary money to feed and clothe the family and keep things going, to pay 4d. a lb. on the butter she makes at home.
Deputy Dowdall said that if the farmer losses the customer cannot also be losing, but he might to the extent of half-and-half and I think that will happen. There are many people supplying private customers, relatives of their own, probably brothers or sisters, people in a small or a large way of business in the towns and villages, and a farmer's wife in such cases will not like putting on the full levy and, in fact, will not put it on and, in the circumstances, it is quite possible the levy will be shared. In any case it is unfair and it is going to make for a certain amount of fraud. There is no doubt people will endeavour to evade the law, and they will evade the law, and anything that tends in that direction is bad business. I think the Government ought to feel the effects of that type of legislation already.
The Minister mentioned that some years ago under the previous Administration, when butter was fetching a better price than now, farmers even then did not increase the number of their cows. The Minister was endeavouring, I think, to lay the blame for that at the doors of the then Administration. It is evident, of course, to any person who troubles to think about the situation, why the farmers did not increase the number of their cows. The reason was that they made money more easily by feeding calves. They probably found that so far as the butter market was concerned it was already overstocked and in any case cattle were then a paying proposition and no human being will endeavour to make money out of an industry of any type or kind if he can make it more easily in another way. That is human nature.
There is no doubt the possibility mentioned by Deputy Belton will arise all over the country—there will be more farmers' butter than ever before for the reason that people are not rearing calves, the cattle trade being in its present deplorable position because of the effects of the economic war. I do not think that the Government are treating fairly those farmers, and particularly the smaller farmers, who have been endeavouring to meet their obligations. I do not think those men ought to be regarded as beggars on the threshold of the Department of the Minister for Agriculture when they ask that whatever bounty is to be paid on butter ought to be paid by the Government out of taxation. Those men have already contributed much more than their quota to taxation. Since 1933, the Government have been collaring the annuities and putting them into the coffers of the Exchequer. According to a reply which was given to me in the House, at the beginning of this year the Government had benefited to the extent of £7,100,000 from that source alone. It almost all represented annuities.
The Deputy will please confine himself to butter.
A portion of the £7,100,000 was composed of grants for county councils. When the farmers have made that contribution indirectly I think they are entitled to some consideration, and they should not be asked to pay a further levy upon their butter. I do not agree with Deputy Dowdall that there is in any other Act previous to this a clause which entitles an inspector to go into a house and exercise the same powers as are being given in this Bill. It is an infringement of the rights and liberties of citizens that farmers and their wives should be open to this type of annoyance. Perhaps those powers may not be carried out in some places as strictly as they might be carried out, but I have a fair idea what inspectors are and everybody knows that you will get types of individuals who will endeavour to satisfy their curiosity by going into houses to find out what is going on. It is unfair to have that particular section in the Bill. On the whole, this is rather a mean, cheap way of making either the farmers or the consumers pay something which they ought not to be asked to pay. If they are entitled to a better price for their butter the Government are getting enough out of the farmers already to increase the existing price without putting on such a levy as this.
There is no doubt that the attitude of Deputy Brennan and others who come here pretending to claim that they are speaking for the farmers is, to use Deputy Brennan's own words, mean and contemptible. This Bill endeavours to give the farmers something towards the cost of production. Deputy Brennan gave us some figures. He said there were 702,000 cows not supplying milk to creameries and 519,000 cows supplying milk to the creameries. Is Deputy Brennan prepared to follow that up by showing that all the butter made from the milk of the 702,000 cows was consumed in this country and the butter made from the milk of the 519,000 cows was all exported? I would like to hear from Deputy Brennan, since he gives the figures so glibly, what proportion of home-made dairy butter is consumed here and what proportion is exported. I would like to know what case he can make why the farmer who is lucky enough, on account of the Butter Price Stabilisation Act, to get up to 1/2 and 1/3 a lb. for his butter—I know farmers getting that—should not contribute some portion of the 1/2 or the 1/3 to assist his neighbour who has to export his butter and sell it for 8d. or less than 8d.
Looking at the position for the past few years here, we have seen Deputies over there, who realised the position and who knew the position, absolutely breaking away from the wing of Deputy Brennan and the rest of them, and walking into the Lobby of Fianna Fáil to vote, because they realised that, only for the action of the Government in stabilising the price of butter in this country, there would be no butter here at all. No man will keep a cow or make butter if he can only get 2d. a gallon for his milk, and that is all that they would get if the Government had not taken action. Instead of that the price has been bolstered up in this country, and this is the means that has been adopted for bolstering it up, but when it was found that there was a certain proportion of farmers in this country who were getting 1/2 and 1/3 per lb. for their butter, as against other farmers who were only getting 6d. and 7d. per lb., it was thought only fair that the farmers who were being protected to such an extent that they could get 1/2 and 1/3 should contribute something out of that in order to help the farmer who was only getting 6d. and 7d. That is the meaning of this Bill. Deputy Brennan, I suppose, says that this proportion of the farmers who are exporting their butter to the English market at the present moment should put up with anything.
(Interruptions in Public Gallery.)
If their comrades in the Dáil had the same pluck as their dupes in the Gallery, we would do far batter. However, that is the position that Deputy Brennan wants to endeavour to bolster up here. I consider that the Bill the Minister has introduced is the only way of meeting that loophole, and I expected that, when it was introduced here, it would receive the support of every Deputy in the Dáil and that they would not endeavour to turn it into an absolutely Party matter. However, it seems that every Bill that is brought in here has to be turned into a Party matter and that, whether it is good or bad, it has to be opposed and every possible loophole found for opposing it. Apparently, that is the attitude that has been adopted with regard to this Bill. This Bill, undoubtedly, will confer a benefit, and a large benefit, on a large number of farmers who are home butter-makers and who, unfortunately, have not that very handy market that their neighbours have for selling their produce and who have to export it. That is the object of this Bill, and I am rather surprised at the attitude that has been adopted towards it.
Deputy Corry said that this as a measure to give the farmer the cost of production. Does it do that? I think that there is general agreement in this House that something had to be done for the dairy industry, but where we differ, and materially differ, is as to the ways and means by which that should be brought about. We say that the levy of 4d. or 4¼d. per lb. is not the way in which that should be done. Everybody here —or, at least, Deputy Corry and a good many of the farmers here—knows something about the dairying industry. I was amazed at Deputy Dowdall saying, a while ago, that, when this Act would be in working order, 10d. per lb. would settle it. If you take the 4d. off that, what is the producer getting? I remember the present Minister for Agriculture stating here in this House that it cost 5½d. to produce a gallon of milk. I have said in this House before, that around about 4d. would be an average price down through the country, and it has been suggested by some of the Minister's supporters that they were not getting quite 4d. Now, it is idle to suggest—and I think it has been spoken about somewhat in this House —that it is for the benefit of the creamery districts that this Bill is being introduced, so far as the tax on farmers' butter is concerned. There is one thing that I would say, as representing a cereamery district, and that is that if we have to be benefited at the expense of the people who produce farmers' butter, we certainly do not want it. If we cannot be benefited in any other way than by taxing the small farmers of the country who make a few pounds of butter every week—if that is the only way in which the dairying industry can be bolstered up, I must say that it is not much of a boast for anybody.
I put it to the Minister on a previous occasion that, if he wants to help the dairying industry, he only has to look across the Border at the situation which obtains there at the present time where milk is from 5d. to 7d. a gallon.
Dr. Ryan
Sevenpence?
Yes.
Dr. Ryan
I know that the price is going up here every day, but not across the Border.
Does the Minister deny that that is the situation there?
Dr. Ryan
Absolutely.
I have said that it is from 5d. to 7d. a gallon.
Dr. Ryan
It is 5d.
Does the Minister say that it would not go as high as 7d.?
Dr. Ryan
It would not.
I will give the Minister a little information in connection with that. A person who is producing Grade A milk in Northern Ireland——
Dr. Ryan
Grade A milk, yes.
——can get 7d. a gallon for any surplus that he has to turn into the creamery.
Dr. Ryan
That is Grade A milk.
Well, is not that a big advance compared with the price here? If the Minister wants to benefit the dairying industry can he not adopt something like the same system and put the tax on the Central Fund if he wants to help the industry?
Dr. Ryan
And how?
How are you doing everything? How are the institutions of the State being run except by taxation through the Central Fund? In my opinion that would be the way in which the dairying industry could be stabilised. I wish to refer only very briefly to the other sections of the Bill which are particularly objectionable. I refer especially to that section of the Bill which gives power to an official of the State to enter a farmer's premises any time he likes. That ought not be necessary in this or any other Bill, and especially in the case of a Bill connected with the dairying industry.
Dr. Ryan
I explained when this Bill was last before the House why it was so urgent. That was because it will have to operate from the 1st of April, and it would be rather inconvenient for people who are dealing in butter to have to pay up for the back time. The Opposition on Friday last asked to have the discussion on the Fifth Stage put back until to-day. I wonder what they gained by the delay. Was it for the sake of what was said here to-day or what was said elsewhere that the discussion was put back? In my opinion nothing was said on the floor of the House to-day as to why this Bill should be delayed or put back for a week. That delay has put the people in the creameries to much inconvenience. It shows the little concern the Opposition have for the dairying industry in this country.
As much concern as the Minister, and I should say much more.
Dr. Ryan
When we have a position like this there is one thing on which we can congratulate ourselves: that is that the members of the Opposition are sure to contradict each other. Deputy J.M. O'Sullivan says we are going to tax the smaller farmer. But Deputy Morrissey says it is the consumer we are going to tax.
I said both will pay it.
Dr. Ryan
Right. The last time we were told that the small farmer would pay the whole lot. I wonder what has brought about the change?
The Minister has quoted me as saying what I never said. I am sorry to interrupt him, but I want to say that I went distinctly out of my way to state that it would be paid in different proportions between the small producer and the consumer. I shall not interrupt the Minister again.
Dr. Ryan
I accept what Deputy O'Sullivan has said, but at any rate there were speeches from the Opposition Benches, particularly on the last day, in which there was talk of 4½d. per lb. coming out of the producers' pocket. I have not taken any powers in this Bill that were not in the Dairy Produce Act of 1932. When I brought that measure in here it was opposed, but the working of the Act subsequently met with general approval. I know that the Front Opposition Bench voted against it that time, but they have spent the following three years denying they did so whenever they were accused of having done it. I thought that when we were bringing in a Bill with the same provisions we would not meet with any obstruction such as we have met with in this Bill. Under the 1932 Act we have power to levy on creameries, the distributors, and the farmers.
What is the necessity for this Bill, so?
Dr. Ryan
Because the 1932 Act expired on the 31st of March. That is the necessity for the Bill, and the Deputy ought to realise that before now. We brought in this measure because from our experience during the last three years we found it necessary to change some administrative details. One of the biggest changes was not to collect a levy off the butter that is exported, but only to collect the levy off butter consumed at home. The second change was that under this Bill everybody is liable, whereas they were only liable under the old Act where notice was served. We only serve notice where new people were dealing in butter. We are asked now why not pay the expense out of the Central Fund. Naturally farmers would like to get more for their butter. I would like to see the Opposition Deputy who would say that farmers are getting enough for their butter. Would it not be delightful to see a Fine Gael Deputy who would say that the farmers are getting enough? If the farmers were getting 2/- a lb. for their butter, is there a Deputy here who would say he was getting enough? They would all want to give the farmer as much as possible. Deputy Curran said that the cost should be taken out of the Central Fund.
It is the Minister's job to get it.
Dr. Ryan
If Deputy Curran were here on these benches I wonder if he would vote against the tax on tea or the tax on sugar, or the tax on tobacco, or against any tax. The farmers of Tipperary would, I am sure, like if they were given a better price for their butter, but coupled with that they would say "Do not tax us." Deputy Curran wants to have it both ways, and he will not have it either way.
Both ways, like the Minister.
Dr. Ryan
Not like the Minister. Every Deputy here on this side is agreed that it must be done in this way. Deputy Morrissey agrees with me that the small farmer gets nearly as much for his butter as is paid for creamery butter. I agree, for the very reason that he gave, that the farmers' butter is as good as creamery butter. Some people will pay as much for it as for creamery butter and, in some places, they are prepared to pay more. Is it not just to tax the people who are buying farmers' butter when it is as good an article as the creamery butter? There will not be very heavy administrative expenses under this Bill. There will be no necessity for them. There will be only eight or nine inspectors. One would imagine from Deputies opposite that the inspectors take such a delight in searching people's houses that they would do it for nothing. But we will pay them. Deputy Belton and Deputy Brennan raised the question of where the money is to go and whether the Minister for Finance can get hold of it. It is disappointing to have to instruct Deputies upon the provisions of the Bill. If they would only read the Bill they would save a lot of time. Deputies can see under Section 41 that every single halfpenny collected must be paid into the Stabilisation Fund. It would be illegal to pay it to the Minister for Finance. It would be illegal to pay not only the levy but also the registration fee which is an innovation because these fees are usually paid to the Minister for Finance. But, under this Bill, the registration fees and the levies must be paid into the Stabilisation Fund. Apart from the cost of the inspectors nothing can be paid out except they improve the scheme of marketing for butter, so that under this Bill, whatever Deputies opposite say, there is no possibility of doing anything with the money collected except to pay it into the Stabilisation Fund and there is no possibility of paying anything out of that fund but this money to which I have referred. Deputies ought be able to see the difference between this and the excise duty on bacon which goes into the Exchequer Fund.
That excise duty was put on bacon to enable me to give a larger export bounty on pigs and bacon. In the beginning of the financial year 1934 we had voted a certain amount for export bounties on pigs and bacon. During the year the curers came to us and said they wanted a larger bounty. We put it to them in the Department of Agriculture that they were getting a much better price at home than for their exports and that, therefore, we could exact a levy on production and give it to them on their exports, and they agreed. That is being continued. The export bounty is still on the high level and the Bacon Bill will not come into operation until September. Whatever Deputies Bennett and Brennan may think about that position it is quite a different one from this butter stabilisation arrangement.
Deputy Belton talked about butter at 8d. per lb. in Drogheda and asked why that was. In the first place, there is no doubt from many of the letters we have received in the Department of Agriculture that people all through the country have been frightened and their position made insecure by the speeches that they have read from Opposition Deputies, because they were beginning to believe that we might go back to the 1st of April and collect the 4d. per lb. from them, which is not true. When it was explained to them what the provisions of the Bill are, the market settled down in these various towns. In the second place, the price of butter the world over is very low. Deputy Belton talked about benefiting the creameries. We are not benefiting the creameries. Deputy Morrissey said creamery butter was selling at 10d. per lb. in Great Britain. If we were free from the economic war and the levies and bounties and the tariffs going into Great Britain, and if our creamery butter was being retailed at 10d. per lb., what would the creameries get for it? The present price on the British market is 76/- per cwt., and the cost of production has to come out of that. That will give an idea of what the farmers would be getting if there was no Bill or anything else.
We will, however, leave that aside and take this Bill and see what is going to be the position of the creameries and the farmers under the Bill if passed as it is. The creameries are getting 100/- per cwt. on an average for butter. The average working expenses of a creamery are 20/- per cwt. That means 80/- to the producer; which is 9d. per lb., roughly, Under the Bill, I was calculating, and Deputy Belton accepted it as the basis of his argument, that factory butter would realise 93/- as against 100/- for creamery butter. The working expenses of the factories are only about 9/- or 10/-, as compared with 20/- for the creameries. Taking 9/- or 10/- off 93/- you get 83/- or 84/- per cwt., which is as good a price, and even a better price, than the factories can give to the producer, than the creameries give to their producers.
Is 9d. per lb. a fair price?
Dr. Ryan
It is not; but I am saying that we are as fair to the farmer who is going to the creamery as to the farmer who is not going to the creamery. Deputies have the idea, evidently, that the Department of Agriculture have been trying to favour the creameries under the Bill. That is not true. Under the Bill the producer of farmers' butter will be left in the same relative position as he would have been if there had been no Bill. That is the long and the short of it. He is getting the same bounty and paying the same levy. The price of creamery butter is going to average 100/- per cwt., and factory butter about 93/-, and that is really putting the factory butter in a little better position than it would be if there was no regulation at all, as compared with creamery butter. The result is that is producer, whether of factory or creamery butter, is getting about 9d. per lb. for his butter. That is the net result of the whole thing.
Suppose we were to listen to Deputy Belton and say we must collect a smaller levy from the person producing farmers' butter, would it not be arguable also that we should pay a smaller bounty then? That would leave us again in the same position. I do not think that any Deputy can honestly argue that, under the Bill, we are benefiting the creameries in any way as against the producer of factory butter. I should like to ask any farmer—Deputy Curran, for instance, who, I think, supplies a creamery— does he think that it would pay him better to bring his milk once a day to a creamery and get the same price, as it would to make his butter at home and bring it once a week to the market. I think he would be better off making farmers' butter than bringing his milk to the creamery every day. I think, if anything, we are giving the benefit to the maker of farmers' butter and the butter that passes to the factory.
I do not see how this Bill is going to make for fraud, as the Opposition has pointed out—that we are going to encourage people to evade the levy. If people are anxious to evade responsibility in that way, we will try to get after them; and, if we succeed, perhaps we may be able to collect almost 100 per cent. of the levy. I think we will get after them. It is rather a poor opinion to have of the people of the country, that they are going to evade the levy. It is also a poor opinion to have of the officials, that they will take a delight in searching people's houses from curiosity merely. I do not think the Opposition believe that.
Is not that happening every day?
Mr. Ryan
I do not think the Opposition believe that the suppliers of butter would be so depraved that they would try to evade the responsibility of pay ing the levy; or that the officials would take a delight in searching people's houses for no other reason except curiosity. In conclusion, I should like to stress the point, because it is necessary to have it stressed, as the Opposition have created a false impression in the country as to the effects of the Bill——
Are you afraid of it?
Dr. Ryan
I want to see that the small farmers will get what is due to them, as the Opposition are not concerned with them. The Opposition are only concerned with seeing that the markets are brought down so as to discredit this Government, no matter what the small farmers may suffer. I want to tell the small farmers that they are entitled to get as good a price for their butter now as ever they got, because this Bill is not in operation yet as far as they are concerned. I think the Opposition ought to let the small farmers get what they are entitled to and not try to create this impression throughout the country.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 37.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Curran, Richard.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Nally.
Question declared carried.