I move the Second Reading of this Bill. The main purpose of the Bill is to adjust certain matters relating to the export of butter and the collection of fees which have been affected by the present emergency. As the introduction of the Bill for that purpose became necessary, a few amendments were included which were awaiting an opportunity of this kind. As the House is no doubt aware, at the beginning of the war the British Ministry of Food decided that it would purchase certain commodities, including creamery butter, only through a central organisation on this side. We were, therefore, faced with the necessity for setting up such an organisation for the export of creamery butter. There was in being at the time the Butter Marketing Committee, which I had constituted under the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Act, 1935. It had been in existence for some years. This committee supervised, and advised on, the export of butter, but it did not actually export butter itself. It confined its activities largely to putting purchasers on the other side in touch with sellers on this side and seeing that prices were maintained—that there was no cutting of prices as between one creamery and another. This committee was, in the changed circumstances, the obvious body to undertake the selling of our butter as the members had the necessary experience, and there was a trained staff to deal with the matter. This, which was forced on us by circumstances, involved three substantial consequences:—(1) butter had to be exported by a body which, legally, was not competent to do so under the Dairy Produce Act; (2) it did away, to a certain extent, with my powers of control of the making of butter, and (3) it took from me the right to collect the small fee payable on export of butter which goes to meet part of the general expenses of the Dairy Produce Act, 1924. By the main Act, export of creamery butter is confined to persons registered in certain of the registers kept under that Act. It would be possible for the committee to secure registration, but that would have involved a certain amount of unnecessary expenditure in the way of setting up premises, providing equipment and so forth. It was not thought advisable to do this because it would only solve one of our difficulties.
Another power vested in the Minister for Agriculture under the main Act was that of controlling the quality of creamery butter. That extended only to creamery butter exported from the premises registered. Under the new circumstances, neither my inspectors nor myself had, technically, any right to insist on a standard for export, though I may say that the standard was not reduced in any way. To secure that no depreciation in the quality of creamery butter takes place, it is necessary to amend the Act to provide that butter sold to an approved marketing organisation, such as that set up, must comply with the same regulations as to quality, packing, etc., as have hitherto applied in the case of butter for export. Under the 1924 Act, a fee was collected off butter exported by registered creameries to meet part of the expenses of the administration of that Act. The fee was 4d. per cwt., and, in a normal year, the amount collected amounted to about £6,000. As I have explained, creamery butter is not now exported by the creameries and we cannot, therefore, legally collect any fee. Neither can we collect the fee off the Butter Marketing Committee, because they are not a registered body under the 1924 Act. While it would be possible to have this committee registered and to collect the money in that way, that would not meet the purpose of the framers of the 1924 Act, which was to collect the levy off the people who were getting the benefit of the Act.
I had, therefore, to consider an alternative method of securing contributions from the dairying industry towards the cost of administering the Acts. When the main Act was passed 17 years ago, a high proportion of creamery butter was exported. In fact, the greater part of our creamery butter was exported. In recent years, though the production of creamery butter is higher now than it was in 1924, the amount exported is less than half. It is, approximately, one-third of the creamery butter produced. To continue the old system would be unfair because the one-third who are exporting creamery butter would have to pay the part of the cost represented by the levy while those selling on the home market would go free. It is considered more equitable, therefore, to put a fee on all creamery butter produced, whether sold at home or exported. It is provided in this Bill that the fee will be 2d. instead of 4d. per cwt. This will bring in slightly more than was brought in under the original Act. Under the original Act, we collected about £6,000. The amount which will be collected under this system will be about £6,250, assuming a production of creamery butter of 750,000 cwts.
The opportunity is being availed of to take power to provide that, in future, managers of cream-separating stations and assistant managers of central creameries will be properly qualified. Under the 1924 Act, it was laid down that future appointments of managers of central creameries would be confined to those properly qualified, but no provision was made for assistant managers of central creameries or for managers of auxiliary creameries. We have now in the country many more men qualified than were available at that time, and it is not unreasonable, I think, to put in a provision requiring committees in future to appoint qualified men, if available, to manage auxiliary creameries. There is, however, a loophole in the Bill. A person shall be regarded as qualified if he has satisfied the Minister that he is, in fact, capable of discharging the duties of manager or if he possesses a certificate issued by the Minister that he is so qualified.
That provision will be necessary for some time. There are, as Deputies are aware, various grades of auxiliary creameries. Some auxiliary creameries have an intake of milk from 1,000 to 5,000 gallons. It might be quite reasonable to expect that a qualified man would be appointed as manager of a large auxiliary or as assistant manager of a large creamery, but it might be unreasonable to insist that a qualified man be appointed to a small auxiliary creamery in a remote area. This provision is being put in to give some latitude of administration in this connection. I should like to say that managers of auxiliary creameries already appointed or assistant managers of central creameries will not, in the main, be interfered with. If they are competent, as I presume they are, to carry on their duties they will continue to do so. The same thing applied under the 1924 Act. Even although managers of central creameries at that time held no diplomas or qualifications, they were permitted to continue in the positions which they held. It was only in the case of new appointments that it was insisted that a qualified man should be appointed. There are 420 separating stations in this country. I think it can be claimed that the managers of these stations are not all highly qualified. But, over the years, as vacancies occur, if we get a better type of man appointed in these separating stations we expect to have a more efficient system as a result. It would be naturally of great benefit to the industry if we could get that done.
