The Financial Resolution is generally taken with the Second Stage of the Bill, and that course could be followed now if the House so desires.
Committee on Finance. - Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) (Amendment) Bill, 1941—Financial Resolution.
I move:—
(1) That there shall be charged, levied, and paid levies on butter held on such dates as may from time to time be fixed by the Minister for Agriculture under statutory authority.
(2) That the said levies shall be paid to the Minister for Agriculture by such persons as shall be specified in that behalf by statute, and shall be paid by the said Minister into the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund.
(3) That the said levies shall be charged, levied, and paid at such several rates as shall from time to time be fixed by the Minister for Agriculture under statutory authority, and provision shall be made by statute for the collection and enforcing payment of the said levies.
This Financial Resolution arises from the fact that the Minister is taking power to collect levies. I think I can explain the object of the levies while moving the Second Reading of the Bill if there is no objection to taking the two together.
Agreed.
It would be difficult to segregate them.
The Butter Marketing Committee, which I referred to on the previous Bill, has been in existence for several years, but was not itself as a buyer or seller of butter. Its main functions were to regulate the exports to Great Britain so as to avoid a surplus arising in any importing centre, and to assist creameries which found difficulty in getting a market. I have already referred to the fact that the British Minister of Food required a central organisation here for the export of creamery butter, and that this particular committee—the Butter Marketing Committee—was given charge of the export of butter. So long as the activities of this committee were merely regulatory and advisory, its financial requirements were comparatively trifling. It only had two or three of a staff. There was no other financial requirement. The total expenditure by that committee, as well as I can remember, was only a matter of £2,000 a year, but, when it became the sole buyer of creamery butter for export, its financial needs increased vastly, and as it will continue during the coming season as the sole buyer and exporter of butter and cheese, it becomes essential that its finances should be placed on a proper footing. Since it has handled, and will continue to handle, very substantial quantities of these products in the ordinary way of business, it will require adequate financial resources.
I propose, therefore, to take power in the Bill to enable me, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to guarantee, up to a maximum of £500,000, the repayment of sums borrowed by way of overdraft, or otherwise, by the committee. The committee was able to arrange with its bank to give it an overdraft to pay for butter before it got paid itself. The bank would, naturally, like some guarantee when dealing with a collection of individuals, and the Government would be required to give a guarantee for these overdrafts. Power is also being taken to compel the committee to keep proper accounts and for their auditing and certification by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
I had power under the 1935 Act—the Stabilisation Act—to pay the expenses of the committee in so far as they arose from butter marketing. There was a section in that Act which gave the Minister power to set up a central marketing organisation for butter. There was also power to pay the expenses of the committee, but when it became necessary for this committee to deal with cheese, as well as butter, there was no power in the 1925 Act to pay the expenses of the committee in so far as they arose out of dealing with cheese. The expenses are trifling, but as they have been paid since the 1st October, 1939, I am asking the Dáil for authority to take this power retrospectively—that is, as from the 1st October, 1939—to enable me to pay any expenses that may have been incurred in the marketing of cheese.
What is the amount involved?
The total expenses of the committee, as far as administration goes, amount to about £150 a week. I do not know if we ever segregated the expenses of cheese because the same people were dealing with both butter and cheese. With regard to the levies, some changes are being made, principally administrative changes. There is a general power to impose a levy on stocks of butter in the hands of registered proprietors and butter traders on an appointed day. As the law stands, this levy applies no matter how small the quantity. It is administratively impossible to ascertain the stocks in the hands of several thousands of small retailers on the day on which a levy becomes operative, and, in fact, the levy was not collected from those small retailers. Everyone will agree that in principle, it is wrong to have an Act that is not being enforced. I am proposing that the section should be repealed and replaced by a provision excluding stocks not exceeding 3 cwts. from any levy which may be imposed on stocks. Power to require the making of suitable returns by traders is included in the Bill. As the Principal Act stands, a levy can only be made on the first day of the month. Sometimes that has been found to be inconvenient for all concerned. An amendment has been made in this Bill so that the levy may be imposed at any time, whether on the first day of the month or otherwise. As the law stands, a levy may be imposed on any purchased butter, but, strange to say, if a creamery holds butter which it has not made itself but has purchased from another person, a levy could not be imposed on it. That, of course, was entirely inequitable, and is being made right in this Bill.
What is the Minister's point about its being inconvenient to make the levy on the first day of the month?
Sometimes, as I have said, it was found inconvenient to do that on the first day of the month. Another point that we are trying to make right concerns butter that is held by a person, and that is intended for export. Up to this, a levy on that butter was collected but recouped when the butter was exported. In this Bill we are providing that we need not necessarily collect a levy on butter intended for export, and which is subsequently exported.
Another point concerns butter held in cold storage. Under the existing legislation, a levy must be collected on butter in cold storage. That might amount to a substantial sum, and might be payable by the person who owned the butter, even though he would not be taking the butter out of cold storage for sale for several months. We are providing in this Bill that the levy will not be collectible until the butter is being taken out of cold storage. Within seven days from that date the levy will be payable. These, I think, cover the changes proposed with regard to the levy. They are largely academic points because there is not the slightest chance, I think, that there will not be any levy collected on butter this year. It will be the other way around because, with the prices prevailing for butter on the home market and so on, there will be no levy collectible, as far as I can see.
What is the position about farmers' butter, as regards levy?
There is no levy on farmers' butter. Non-creamery butter does come under this, that is, the butter dealt with by the factories. I understood the Deputy meant farmers' butter sold in towns for consumption: there is no levy on that. The levy is only on farmers' butter purchased by registered exporters.
In other words, factory butter.
Is it proposed to put a levy on that?
Perhaps, if ever a levy comes in again, but I do not think that would occur this year, at any rate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolution reported and agreed to.