Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Apr 1941

Vol. 82 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Milk (Regulation of Supply and Price) (Amendment) Bill, 1939—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

This Bill, although rather long to read, is largely innocuous. The majority of its provisions other than the mere drafting provisions have been discussed with the milk boards and have been substantially agreed upon. There are a number of provisions for which I myself am responsible, apart from the discussion with the boards. These are designed to meet the difficulties which might arise if, through a combination of suppliers, distributors or carriers, an attempt were made to hold up supplies. Before dealing with the provisions of this Bill I would like to refer to the working of the Milk (Regulation of Supply and Price) Act of 1936. It can be said that the Act has, undoubtedly, in the main, achieved the purposes for which it was passed. It has secured the producer to a large extent against exploitation by the distributors, and has introduced a high degree of regularisation in the milk business which has been a benefit not only to producers but also to traders and to the public.

It has been represented to me that during the flush season—that is, in the late spring and early summer—country producers do not get the full prescribed price. Those producers have suggested certain measures by which this difficulty might be overcome, but, as I will explain later, I am not in a position to accept their proposals. The milk producers have the remedy in their own hands and there seems little reason why, with co-operation, payment of the full price could not be secured to producers. If producers do not stand up for the fixed price they must accept their share of responsibility for not getting it. The Bill is designed to improve the existing machinery under the existing Act. It makes provision for the winding up of affairs of milk boards, limitation of supplies of milk to sale areas by creameries, duration of contracts, and other matters.

The first point is with regard to the winding up of a milk board and arises from the possibility that a supply may be held up. Circumstances may arise which may render the continued existence of a milk board undesirable or impracticable and, in fact, it would be necessary to dispose of its assets and discharge its liabilities. If, for instance, the milk board felt that things were better without it, legally we could not wind it up. If, on the other hand, I were to decide that things would be better without it, there is no provision for winding it up. There is no provision for this contingency in the Principal Act. The question arises then what to do, after winding up a board and discharging its liabilities, with any surplus that may remain. It would be quite impracticable to try to return that to the people who paid the levies and so on, and I think it would be impossible to make any sort of dividend payment to those concerned, as it would be comparatively small.

It is provided in the Act, therefore, that the Minister for Agriculture, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, will devote those funds to the benefit of agriculture or rural industries in the areas concerned. I think that is the best suggestion that could be made under the circumstances. Arising out of the stoppage of milk to Dublin in November, 1939, an undertaking was given that creameries which complied with requisitions for milk at that time would be guaranteed a place in the Dublin market if they wished to continue when the strike was over. Only a few of the creameries desire to remain. They have, of course, to comply with the Milk and Dairies Act of 1935, but those few creameries that desire to remain must get legal sanction under this Bill. They will be limited in the quantity that they can supply roughly to the average which they supplied during the days of that period. The position of producers in the Dublin area will not be affected to any great extent by allowing these creameries in. As a matter of fact, with the exception of a few months in the late spring and early summer the farmer-producers in the Dublin area are not able to keep up a supply to the City of Dublin and the city is largely dependent on creamery milk throughout the greater part of the year. During the winter especially, Dublin is very much dependent on the supplies from creameries.

There is another class of creamery, creameries which were supplying milk to Dublin when the original Act was passed—and when I speak of Dublin here I may say that the same applies to Cork, which is another area under the Act—and those creameries are registered under the Principal Act. No limit was put to the amount of milk they might supply, and there is always a certain danger that three or four of those very big creameries might combine and make it impossible for the suppliers in the Dublin area to exist. It is proposed here, therefore, to put some limit to the amount of milk they would send. It is proposed in practice, as a matter of fact, to have this quantity decided on the average over three years.

Power is taken in this Bill also to prescribe yearly contracts for the better regulation and stabilisation of the milk trade. There are a number of suppliers here in Dublin who think that the yearly contract would be one of the most effective provisions which could be devised. I myself have great faith in it, too, as the experience has been that the distributors here are willing to take all the milk that the County Wicklow or County Meath farmers can supply during the winter and early spring; but they are cut down to a certain quantity during the flush period and, sometimes, it is even lower than during the winter time. That is unfair, and this yearly contract would ensure that the farmer who supplies a certain quantity during the autumn and winter would at least have a market for that quantity during the flush period.

Under the Principal Act, it is unlawful for any producer, unless registered with a board, to sell milk in the sale area. In the event of a stoppage for any reason, there is a certain obstacle there with regard to getting supplies into the area. To overcome the difficulty, should it arise, I am asking for power in this Bill to issue licences to persons in a sale district to acquire milk from persons who are not registered under the milk board for that district.

I think I have dealt with the principal features of this Bill. With regard to one point that may be raised, because it is a point of controversy, if you like, it has been suggested to me that I should go much further and should set up a central marketing board here or agency for milk in the milk board areas. I am not prepared to do that, at the moment, at any rate. It may be possible later on. Proposals of this nature were made by me to the various sections of the milk trade in Dublin about 12 months ago but when we came down to discuss the scheme only the country producers were prepared to agree to such a scheme. Country producers, as distinct from what are commonly known as cow-keepers, or the producers who deliver their own milk mainly from door to door, although they supply a substantial quantity, do not supply the greater part of the milk in the City of Dublin. Their supplies are less than half. It was impossible, therefore, to adopt a suggestion which had the support of that section only.

Mr. Hughes

Will the Minister say why it was impossible?

Dr. Ryan

It was impossible for me to do it. On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent these producers themselves combining. There is nothing whatever to prevent the suppliers to the City of Dublin outside the city area combining amongst themselves as a co-operative society.

Mr. Hughes

That is a pretty tall order.

Dr. Ryan

If they were willing to do that, I would certainly be only too anxious to give them every help I could but I think it would be hardly justifiable under the circumstances to bring them in in a commercial way without co-operation and create this central marketing board. I may say that it has been suggested to the people concerned that they might try to form a co-operative society and that they might try to get their idea carried out in that way, but, so far, that idea has not appealed to them. I quite admit what Deputy Hughes says, that this may be a difficult problem but, on the other hand, if they are not in a position to co-operate in that way it is very difficult to see how any Government Department can do very much in the circumstances.

Mr. Dillon

There are two aspects of this problem and they should not be lost sight of. To judge from the interest displayed by this House in this Bill one would imagine that it was of no importance but, in my judgment, it is of very vital importance. It is of vital importance from two points of view: one is the point of view of the producers and the other is the point of view of the consumers. I have identified myself as far as I can with the interests of the agricultural community of this country and I believe that the measures necessary to secure their prosperity are vital to the economic life of this country. But, when we come to deal with a commodity like milk we have got to ask ourselves the question, are we, as the Oireachtas of this country, prepared to buttress the economic stability of any part of the community with the lives—nothing less than the lives—of poor people which will be sacrificed if they do not get sufficient quantities of milk?

It is all very well for us to legislate to ensure that the producers of milk will get from the consumers an economic price but there is no use ascertaining the economic price for milk, fixing it and then discovering that those who most require milk are unable to pay that price and that we, by our act, have converted milk into a commodity analogous to champagne.

In this city at the present moment— and the same is true of many other cities in the State—there are thousands of nursing mothers and children who are not getting the milk that they require. They are not getting it because they cannot afford to pay for it; for no other reason. In my judgment, to pass a Bill of this character, designed to secure an economic price for the milk producers supplying urban areas in this city, without adverting to the other aspect of the case, is irresponsible and wrong.

Deputy Hughes has a unique acquaintance with the peculiar problems of the milk producers who are supplying urban areas and I have no doubt that he will deal in detail with the specific proposals made by the Minister in this Bill in so far as they react upon these men, men who have a right to every consideration and men who, we must remember, at our insistence, have spent large sums of money in equipping their cow-houses and dairy establishments with modern and up-to-date appliances in order to conform to the regulations made under Acts analogous to the Bill we have before us at the present time. Their interests must be safeguarded or they will "go bust". I am making the case that the consumers' interests must be protected or they will die, and we here in this House have got to make up our minds to bridge the gap between those two legitimate claims in one way or another. I take the view that people who can afford a moderately high standard of living may properly be required to pay the agricultural producers in this country an economic price for their produce. Therefore, I say it is fair to fix an economic price for milk and require the residents of Merrion Square and the more prosperous parts of the city to pay that price. But we cannot do that unless at the same time those who can not afford that economic price, but who must have that milk if they are to survive, are provided for. This submission, Sir, would be true at any time but it is peculiarly true at the present moment.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is not concerned about its truth but is about its relevancy.

Mr. Dillon

This is a proposal to stabilise the price of milk.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is seemingly under some misapprehen sion. This is an amendment to an Act which did stabilise the price of milk. The question of stabilisation is not at issue.

Mr. Dillon

Yes, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question of stabilisation, simpliciter, does not arise.

Mr. Dillon

Oh, no, Sir; but this Bill is entitled "Milk (Regulation of Supply and Price) (Amendment) Bill".

An Ceann Comhairle

Quite.

Mr. Dillon

The question is whether the effect of this Bill will be so to regulate the supply and price as to make milk inaccessible to certain sections of our community.

An Ceann Comhairle

I was just directing. The Deputy should direct his remarks to the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

Yes. We are confronted with a situation in which all of us know that next autumn the feeding of our people is going to be a very material problem, and, in my submission, when we are confronted with the problem of guaranteeing our people against hunger—and that is a first charge on the entire assets of this community—we have got to ask ourselves, not only have we the will, but have we the way to give that guarantee? That we have the will, I do not think can be doubted by anyone. That we have the way, I submit, is also clear. But we only have the way if we use the commodities which we can command to the highest possible advantage. Those commodities would be several—potatoes, fish, sugar, eggs and milk. Now, the first four have no relevance to this Bill, but the fifth has.

An Ceann Comhairle

The provision of free milk is outside the scope of this Bill, of which the main provisions, apart from mere matters of machinery, are the prevention of combines, the fixing of yearly contracts, the stabilisation of prices, and to license unregistered people to supply milk to the City of Dublin in cases of emergency.

Mr. Dillon

All right, Sir; but if we are going to facilitate further the fixation of price and the limitation of supply to the City of Dublin, we have got to do that with this mental reservation: that no fixation of prices, and no limitation of supply to the City of Dublin shall operate to drive the price of milk up to a figure which the poor cannot afford to pay. Now, the only way we can do that under this Bill, without bankrupting the producers of milk in and around the City of Dublin and other cities, is to say, quite deliberately: If we ask Oireachtas Éireann to pass this Bill, we say at the same time that we will, if necessary, establish in this city, and in every other necessitous city in the State, depôts where pasteurised milk can be purchased by necessitous mothers and children at prices which they can afford to pay. I would bring that milk from the farthest end of this country, if that were necessary, into the City of Dublin, pasteurise it here, and offer it for sale to the poor, and I would impose no means test. Mind you, my submission is that you cannot proceed with this prices fixation and further regulation of supply unless you are prepared to give this guarantee against hardship.

I would bring that milk in from whatever source I could get it, and I would pasteurise it, because we cannot hope to get Grade A milk from all over the country, and I would then give notice to all and sundry in this city that if they wanted milk for the preservation of their own health and that of their children, any person who presented himself at the depôt with a pint bottle and twopence would get a pint of milk, and would get it as often as he applied for it. The only means test I would impose is this: "If you are prepared to walk to the depot, and bring your bottle for the milk and bring it back, you will get the milk at 2d. a pint", or even less, if that were necessary in order to bring it to the poorer sections of our community.

Now, I want to warn this House that there are many elements abroad in the country at the present time who seek to represent us in this House as being controlled by vested interests of one kind or another in the country— whether it be farmers' organisations, manufacturers' organisations, or other organisations—and that, submitting to pressure by these highly organised bodies, we are indifferent to the sufferings and difficulties of those who have met with reverses as a result of the crisis that has hit the country and the whole world at the present time. Against that allegation we have got to take effective precautions. If the morale of our people is to be preserved we have got to let them know that the resources of this country will be mobilised, first, to feed the people, and then, and only then, to protect the interests of any vested interest, whether an agricultural or an industrial one.

Statistics have been furnished time and again to demonstrate the fact that poor women in this city, about to have their babies, are suffering from malnutrition when they go into the lying-in hospital, and that that largely results from their inability to consume sufficient quantities of milk because they cannot afford to buy it. Evidence has been produced time and again— sometimes in a very mischievous way —to show that infant children of the poor in this and other cities even die from the want of food, and principally from the want of adequate supplies of milk. I think that recent scientific investigation in America has made it clear that the introduction of the whole-meal loaf makes the supply of milk even more vital a necessity. It used to be believed that, on all scores, the whole-meal loaf was a more nutritious food than the white loaf. Modern investigation suggests that the phytic acid contained in the wheat grain and incorporated in the whole-meal loaf operates to destroy calcium in the normal diet, and that a person consuming whole-meal bread without a sufficient calcium intake is in fact losing an essential part of the calcium that is required. That makes an abundant supply of milk far more necessary to-day than it has been at other times. I am not suggesting to the House, and I do not want the House to imagine that it is suggested, that the whole-meal loaf is inferior, generally, to the white loaf. I do not think it is, but it requires a dietetic adjustment, which is perfectly easy to make if that flaw in the whole-meal loaf is to be corrected in the normal diet of the people. That can be corrected by increasing the ordinary calcium intake of the average citizen. Now, 90 per cent. of our people derive the calcium element of their diet from milk. Therefore, urgent as it is at all times, in view of the vitamin content of milk, that the people should have an abundant supply of it, it is doubly urgent now amongst those sections of the community, the staple part of whose diet is bread and milk in one form or another.

I put it to the Minister that before this Bill passes through the House he should furnish us with a specific guarantee that this winter and this summer no poor household in this city or in any other city in the State will be allowed to go without sufficient milk because they are not in a position to afford it.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think the Deputy is rambling far away from the Bill, and he has got considerable latitude.

Mr. Dillon

I am asking the Minister, Sir, before he takes further powers to regulate the supply and price of milk in Dublin, to give me a guarantee that any act he does under this Bill will not operate to deprive the poor of milk. I ask him, further, to say that if any act of his would so operate, without ancillary action to correct it, that ancillary action will be taken. I regard this as absolutely fundamental and of first-class importance. I regard the opportunity to give that undertaking now as an invaluable opportunity to correct the harm that is being done by certain irresponsible persons who talk a lot but think very little. I want an absolute assurance, before this Bill passes, that whatever may happen in respect of other foodstuffs that we cannot control, at least for the duration of this crisis and, if possible, for evermore, sufficient supplies of our milk surplus—and there is a surplus of milk in this country—will be diverted to the poor, to our own poor, whatever the cost may be, before any further steps are taken to protect the legitimate vested interest of the milk producers who normally supply our cities and our towns.

Mr. Hughes

Having read this Bill, and listened to the Minister's statement, I am disappointed with his efforts to face up to his responsibility in the matter and his failure to ensure some degree of stability in the production and supply of milk for the City of Dublin. The 1939 strike was settled on the assurance of the Minister that he would bring about better and more stable conditions for the milk producers and that there would be no victimisation. If this is his effort to implement that promise, to show that his word is his bond, then I suggest to the House that the Minister has let down these people and has failed to fulfil his promise. There is nothing in the Bill, to my mind, that would commend it to any section of the trade. It is difficult to find a single clause which is designed to remedy the chaotic conditions that exist in the Dublin milk trade. It is well to recognise that the 1936 Act failed completely to regulate the supply of milk or bring about stabilisation. This amending Act completely ignores that aspect of the case. The Minister replying to some questions put down by me a short time ago, and again in his statement to-day, said that he tried to secure agreement between interested parties and that he failed to get that agreement. Now, I think the Minister was an optimist when he expected to get agreement between conflicting interests. Failing to get the agreement that he desired, it was manifestly his duty to bring in a measure that would not only secure stability from the producers' point of view, but would secure the best quality of clean milk produced under proper hygienic conditions for the consumer in the city.

Despite the fact that considerable sums of money have been spent, not only by the State but also by the individual producer in his effort to bring his cow-sheds within the regulations and produce clean milk, we now find elaborate provisions in the Bill for the introduction of additional creamery milk to the city. This milk is not produced on farms that are subject to the milk regulations. For all we know, and for all the Minister knows, this milk may be produced in many cases under dirty and insanitary conditions. In other words, the Minister, in my opinion, deliberately torpedoed the clean milk regulations as they affect the City of Dublin for the purpose of rewarding those creameries which assisted him to deal with the milk strike. I think that is the chief purpose of the Bill. I would ask the Minister why are producers encouraged to spend considerable sums of money on modernising their cow-sheds and bringing them up to sanitary requirements if their efforts are ignored and their interests unprotected? We must not forget that aspect of the case. I suggest to Deputy Dillon, when we talk about a milk supply for the city, that we must not overlook the facts that the milk produced in the production area is produced under conditions altogether different from those which obtain in the case of milk produced in the creamery areas.

To illustrate what has happened I need only mention that 32,412 gallons were delivered in the city by registered creameries in November, 1936, and that 111,424 gallons were delivered by creameries in November, 1940. In addition, the Minister permitted three additional creameries to supply milk to Dublin. They are sending an aggregate of 1,000 gallons daily. This brings the aggregate for all the creameries up to 137,000 gallons as against 32,000 gallons in 1936. Deputies will see from these figures that there is a steady drift of milk away from the butter-maker to supply the Dublin trade, with the inevitable result that the number of registered milk producers, producing milk under proper sanitary conditions for the Dublin area, has fallen from 1,800 registered producers in August, 1937, to 1,500 in 1940. Is that situation in the best interests of the health of the people? After all, the ideal way to produce milk for human consumption is the method by which it is produced in the Dublin production area. That is what the Minister aimed at in laying down the conditions in the 1936 Act. He has departed from that in the amending Bill now before the House.

The milk requirements of the city have been supplied for some years by three interests, namely, the association of milk producers, the Dublin cow-keepers, and the creameries. The Dublin cow-keepers produce and retail milk direct to the consumers. The milk producers sell to the trade who handle the distribution end of it. Each group supplies its quota, in practice, although not bound to do so by law. As the requirements of the Dublin area have remained static for a long period, it is obvious that an increase in the quota of one group would entail an automatic decrease in the quota of the other groups.

This in effect is what the Minister is doing by increasing the supply from the creamery areas. He is automatically helping to reduce the quota of milk from those people who have equipped their cowsheds to produce milk under proper hygienic conditions. To my mind, there is but one way of dealing with the matter and that is to allow each group its share of the market, which is the actual supply under the Regulation of Supply and Prices Act of 1936, excluding of course the strike period of 1939. This would give each group scope for an increase or decrease in the number of individual suppliers but would confine each group to the quota which represents its share in the Dublin market. If there was an increase in milk consumption, each group would share in the increase but each group should definitely have to maintain its quota over the 12 months. The Minister has referred to this himself. The one group of people in particular who are suffering from the present system in operation are the country milk producers. While they are able to market their maximum production during the winter and autumn periods, there is no market for their full production during the flush summer period. What is actually happening is that the Dublin cowkeeper, whose production falls off during the high cost of production period, the winter period, is permitted to market his full production during the flush period, when it is cheap to produce milk. If, as the Minister himself actually agreed, you had a contract operating over the whole year, that contract would protect the interests of the country producer. I do not think it is fair to ask the man who is victimised during the flush period, when you can produce milk cheaply, to produce milk during the highest cost of production period, the winter period, and come in and supply that milk when the cowkeepers' production has fallen off.

I think the Minister is quite well aware of the many evils which flow from that situation. I am sure they have been represented to him over and over again by those who are interested. For instance, those country producers sell to the wholesale trade, and the wholesalers may take a supply on Monday and Tuesday mornings but may simply pass the man's gate on Wednesday morning and not take up his cans, leaving him with a supply of milk which he normally expected would arrive in Dublin for consumption. Because he normally expected that milk to be consumed in the city he has not provided himself with any alternative means of disposing of it, and in a great many cases it simply has to be poured down the drain. The Minister, apparently, has not taken cognisance of that fact at all, and has provided no method of dealing with it. Although under the Act a man cannot buy under the fixed price, in effect a great many wholesalers are buying quantities of milk at less than the fixed price, because the producer, in order to avoid the possibility of having milk left on his hands one or two days a week, makes an arrangement with the wholesaler; at the end of the month, although he is paid the price fixed by law for the milk, there is "a hand-back." That has definitely occurred in a great many cases. The man who is honest enough to object to that sort of rotten system, and to fight against it at any cost, is the sufferer; an injustice is being done to him.

There are other things from which this particular group suffers. There is a certain amount of duress used by the wholesaler in an effort to execute contracts. In some cases I think it has been brought to the Minister's notice that there is intimidation used by certain wholesalers to compel producers to buy goods in return for the milk. Again, the producer is at the mercy of the wholesaler. The man who is prepared to enter into that arrangement will get his milk taken from him regularly, while the man who objects to it, and very rightly objects to it, will find that he is the loser, as his cans may be left behind on two or three days a week, or he may lose his contract. I think the Minister himself has actually stated that he favours this idea of a central marketing agency. He suggests that producers have the remedy in their own hands, that they can do their own marketing by forming a co-operative society. I agree that that could be done, and that that is a way out, but it is rather a tall order for the type of individual who is engaged in the production of milk for the city. I am afraid the interest as a whole is not sufficiently strong, and there is not sufficient co-operation between the various individuals. Possibly, there is not sufficient capital. They have no experience whatever of the distribution of milk in the city, and they are rather reluctant to face up to tackling the problem themselves. A fixed price over the whole year and a central marketing agency would go a long way towards solving the many problems and grievances from which those people suffer.

The Minister has made no attempt at rationalisation; the one right which remained with the various trade interests, namely the right to elect its members to the board that operated this scheme, is now taken away under Section 6. The Minister has not told us the idea behind that section. My interpretation of the section is that in future we have no guarantee that the board will not be the nominees of the Minister. Under that section as it now stands, if the Minister so wishes. he can nominate the panel from which the registered producers would elect their board. I do not know what is the intention behind that section. I think it is only right and proper that they should nominate their own representatives and elect their own board without allowing any outsider to come in.

Dr. Ryan

I am afraid the Deputy has got that incorrectly. That refers to a limited company. Under the original Act, a limited company could not put on a person, because it must be a proprietor. This enables a limited company to put on one of their number. It is not taking anything away from the original electors at all.

Mr. Hughes

It does not interfere with their election at all?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Hughes

I am glad to know that. From what the Minister has said, I feel that he is conversant with the problems that are there. I feel that he appreciates the many problems and hardships from which those producers suffer, particularly the country producers in North Kildare, County Meath and County Wicklow. But he has not faced up to the problem, and he has not attempted to solve it. Instead of introducing legislation designed to bring about a better order of things within the area, the Minister has brought in this Bill. I think it is going to create greater chaos, and leaves those individuals with whom I am personally concerned absolutely unprotected.

Mr. Corry

I was rather surprised when Deputy Hughes spoke that he did not deal with the greatest danger that faces the producers here and that is the danger that lies in the proposals made by Deputy Dillon. Deputy Hughes made no allusion to Deputy Dillon's move to wipe out the producers. So far as Deputy Dillon's very definite proposals to wipe them out are concerned, Deputy Hughes was silent on that point. I wonder it Deputy Dillon were to bring in a motion embodying the ideas he put forward, would Deputy Hughes feel inclined to support it? I do not see how the Minister could, except by the present method of prosecution, deal with people who are under-buying milk. If there is want of co-operation among milk producers, that is their own look-out. We cannot go further here than to enact legislation determining a certain price. If they are shabby enough to undercut one another by backhand methods, it is their own look-out.

Mr. Hughes

The milk is left on their hands.

Mr. Corry

How is the situation going to be remedied, and how much more will be left on their hands if Deputy Dillon's scheme were in operation?

Mr. Dillon

None at all.

Mr. Corry

The suggestion was made that the milk should be purchased from the creameries, brought to Dublin and pasteurised and then everyone with a pint bottle and 2d. will get a bottle of milk. I can see a lot of fur coats going to Deputy Dillon's shop for cheap milk. We will see the farmers of County Dublin and County Wicklow, in whom Deputy Hughes seems to be so interested—men who probably had to go to the bank to raise money to enable them to erect cow-sheds and to comply with the various regulations — with plenty of milk left on their hands if Deputy Dillon, who is Deputy Hughes's leader, has his way. Are those Deputies going to disown their leader? That would certainly be the position if Deputy Dillon had his way.

Provision should be made, and I think rightly, for distributing cheap milk among those who cannot afford to pay a high price for it. Let that provision be made by way of subsidy, just the same as provision was made for buying bread, which is as essential as milk, for the necessitous poor. But because the bread belongs to an industrial class and the milk belongs to the old farmer, anything is good enough for the old farmer. That is the policy of Deputy Dillon. It has always been his policy and I was not surprised to hear it enunciated here this evening.

I am sorry the Minister is making provision for the creameries. The usual procedure adopted in other cases is to send the blackleg home, and I suggest that the blackleg in this case should also be sent home. When the war is over and friendly relations are re-established, there should be no room for the milk sent in by these creameries that sent it in during the strike. There actually was no room for that milk in Dublin at the time, and there is no room for it at the present moment. The only purpose served is to push out somebody who went to great expense preparing stalls and sheds and fixing up buildings in accordance with the regulations in order to send milk to the City of Dublin. I think it is unfair that milk that is regarded as surplus milk should be allowed into any city.

We are all aware of the difficulties that existed before legislation in connection with milk production was enacted. I am aware of the conditions that existed in Cork. I can instance the case of a farmer who sent 40 gallons a day to Cork City. Ten gallons were bought at 8d. a gallon and the remaining 30 gallons were bought at 3¼d. a gallon, at what they called butter-fat prices, and that cheaper milk was used to drive some of the other producers out of the market.

This Bill is very necessary for the protection of the producers who supply towns and cities. There was already a surplus of milk in Dublin, and there will be a much greater surplus if the creameries are permitted to get 1,000 gallons a day in. I think the Minister, now that the war is over, should let the blacklegs stay at home. I approve of the yearly contract system. We have generally found that farmers who, under great difficulty, kept up their milk supplies throughout the winter, found themselves in the summer, when milk got plentiful, wiped out by some creamery with a licence—a creamery that had not a gallon of milk to send in during the winter. In the County Limerick the cows are eight months milking and four months dry.

The Bill might be amended in respect to the amount of milk to be sent in by the ordinary creamery. That would come under Section 25, dealing with the greatest quantity of milk to be sent in during any standard year. Last summer was an extraordinary period so far as milk is concerned. It was a particularly dry year and there was a great milk scarcity. If you take the supplies of milk last year as a basis, then there is little use in having that section.

I am amazed at the attitude adopted by Deputy Hughes, who has fairly consistently looked after the ordinary farmers who are supplying milk to the city. I am surprised that he allowed Deputy Dillon to get away with the proposals he made.

Mr. Hughes

I have no control over Deputy Dillon.

Mr. Corry

I did not hear any condemnation of Deputy Dillon's speech from Deputy Hughes. Of course, where the broad, agricultural community are concerned, Deputy Dillon will shout for them; but when it comes to a mere handful of farmers, they do not count. Ballaghaderreen is very far away from the farmers in Dublin.

Mr. Dillon

And Deputy Corry is far away from the poor of Cork.

Mr. Corry

I looked after the poor of Cork when Deputy Dillon's firm were selling light-weight bread in Ballaghaderreen.

Mr. Dillon

You will get your rackrent for the milk as you got your rackrent in the past. It is not the first time you got rackrents, my boy.

Mr. Corry

I never had anything to rent, not to mind rackrent.

Mr. Cogan

Unlike Deputy Corry I fail to see any great clash of opinion between the views expressed by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Hughes. I think Deputy Hughes very ably stated the case for the milk producers. That case is based on the fact that milk producers have by legislation been compelled to expend large sums of money on the improvement of the cows' sheds, to bring their system of production into conformity with the requirements of the law. Seeing that such high expenditure has been imposed upon them by legislation passed in this House, I consider they are entitled to protection to ensure that they will get a fair and a reasonable price for milk. That was the object of the original Act. Deputy Dillon stated that it was urgently necessary that the poor should be able to obtain milk at a price that they could pay, and that it would be a tragedy if the children of the poor were allowed to die because they could not obtain milk. There is a way to bring the two viewpoints into conformity. All along there has been too much power vested in the hands of wholesalers in the milk trade in Dublin. Great profits have been allowed to these people. The only solution of the difficulty is to wipe out the wholesalers and to place the milk trade of the city in the hands of a public marketing body established on co-operative lines by legislation passed in this House. That was the only way in which a satisfactory solution could be found. Such a central body could provide that those who could afford to pay an economic price for milk would be compelled to do so, and that an adequate supply of cheap milk would be provided for the poorer classes.

Deputy Corry referred to the failure of producers to co-operate with one another for the protection of their interests. The Minister and Deputy Corry must have short memories if they do not remember the vicious and drastic action that was taken by the Government against milk producers when they attempted to co-operate for their protection. It should be remembered that extraordinary powers were resorted to by the Minister to break down and destroy co-operation between milk producers. Even the powers of censorship, which were given to the Government for the special purpose of preserving our neutrality, were used to prevent producers co-operating. The Minister does not forget that creameries were not only encouraged but compelled to supply milk in order to prevent milk producers co-operating in their own interests. Now the Minister and Deputy Corry blame the producers for failing to co-operate. Deputy Corry says that they should not supply milk under any circumstances except at fixed prices. In justice to the milk producers, it should be stated that they have done their best to co-operate. The problem of distributing milk in Dublin is a big one and is not one, as the Minister suggests, that producers in rural areas could undertake. That would require the co-operation of the State and of the Department, in the setting up of a central body to control the entire distribution of milk, and until that is done it is only wasting time to be passing Bills of this nature.

Mr. Fagan

I wish to protest against the introduction of this Bill. In my constituency many people have spent large sums of money in improving their dairies and cowsheds. If creameries are allowed to supply milk in the summer time that will mean, as Deputy Hughes pointed out, that a quantity of milk would be left with producers. It is not fair that the Minister should allow creameries, even though they supplied milk during the strike, to come into the trade now. As Deputy Corry suggested what happened during the strike should be forgotten. The creameries have a method of dealing with surplus milk by making butter, while farmers have no such remedy. I ask the Minister to amend the Bill and to confine the creameries to the making of butter. Creameries have not to comply with the dairies and cowshed regulations and have not to spend large sums of money in improving their accommodation.

Mr. Byrne (Junior)

As the representative of a large working class area in Dublin I feel it my duty to join with Deputy Dillon in asking the Minister not to do anything which might tend to reduce the already insufficient quantity of milk available for the children of working-class people. If the Minister considers that milk producers must get a greater return to cover their expenses and to give them a fair profit, then I ask him to consider providing some other means than reducing the quantity available for kiddies in the slums.

Mr. J. Flynn

Deputy Dillon's speech on this Bill indicated what is likely to happen. It appears to me that Deputy Hughes and Deputy Fagan were speaking for a small section of the producers who were put to expense but it should be remembered that that expense will recoup itself. In the past that section might, in my opinion, be described as a privileged class, as they had a complete monopoly of the milk trade. I agree with Deputy Dillon's plea that milk should be provided for our cities and towns no matter from what source it came. Farmers in Kerry, Cork and Limerick supplied milk to Dublin during the strike and if necessary may be asked to supply it now in the emergency, at a fair price, having due regard to the requirements of the poor. In any adjustment of the economic price to be paid to farmers I suggest that it could be so arranged that milk could be transferred to the cities and towns at a reasonable cost. If there is to be a further reduction in the price to the poor, milk might be made available at the minimum cost by the Minister setting up machinery to deal with that aspect of the question, so that there would be a fair adjustment between producers and people who find it difficult to purchase milk.

Mr. Bennett

I did not intend to intervene in this debate but for one or two references to creameries. Deputy Corry seemed to suggest that the creameries were going to dump surplus bad milk on the citizens of Dublin and Cork. I resent any suggestion that supplies of milk sent to Dublin from creameries were not good. Every precaution is taken to see that that milk is fit for human consumption. Thousands of people who do not indulge in milk to the extent that might be desired would be very glad to get enough of that good milk. Does anybody suggest that creameries should be put into the position that at one time they would be compelled by legislation or by order to supply milk to certain places, and that shortly afterwards, when the crisis was over, they should be debarred from doing so? No Minister should be asked to do that. The Minister should not be requested to do that, because it would be unjust and unfair. Like Deputy Cogan I do not desire to injure milk producers who are supplying the cities. My interest is primarily in milk producers in the country who supply creameries. As Deputy Dillon pointed out, the position is that some small consumers cannot get sufficient milk to colour their tea. If the milk supply is to be regulated all round, there must be some central body to ensure that a sufficiency of milk goes into every household. That is more desirable now when butter production is not a very economic proposition. Legislation has debarred creameries to a greater extent than any other business from providing milk for human consumption. I was at a meeting in Limerick City recently at which the Taoiseach was asked to express his views on the question of poor people having milk made available to them, and he was surprised when informed that creameries were debarred from selling milk even to the poor in their own districts. I should like to see the Minister bringing into some other measure a provision enabling creameries to sell milk for human consumption in their districts. One Deputy suggested that farmers should be compelled to wash the cows' udders. I do not think that Deputy realised the restrictions that are imposed on farmers who bring milk to creameries. He would only have to undertake such work for a month to find his milk returned if it was not up to standard. The Department of Agriculture insists upon milk supplied to creameries being clean milk, and I resent any suggestion that milk sent to creameries was not in every way good milk and suitable for human consumption. That would be a slander on farmers and milk producers. It would be an injury to the country to suggest that milk produced in creamery districts was not good milk. God send the poor people in Dublin, Cork and Limerick such good milk and enough of it.

Donnchadha O Briain

Ba mhaith liom cur go láidir i gcoinnibh na cainnte a chualamar sa díospóireacht seo faoi na huachtarlanna. Chómh fada siar agus a théigheann mo chuimhne, tá bainne á dhíol in Ath Cliath, ag na huachtarlanna i mBeul Feirisde, i gCathair Corcaighe, i gCathair Luimnighe, bainne foghanta ná féadfadh aoinne locht d'á laighead fháil air. Má tá ailt áirithe sa Bhille seo atá ós ár gcomhair ag taghairt do na huachtarlanna sa deisceart, níl ann ach an ceart. Tá oiread ceart ag an Aire an margadh do'n bhainne a bhí fachta ins na cathracha ag na huachtarlanna, an margadh san a chosaint dóibh; chómh maith is atá sé ad' iarraidh cabhrú leis na feirmeoiri i gCeanntar Bhaile Ath Cliath. Mara ndéanfadh sé é sin, bhéadh éagcóir mhór á déanamh aige ar na huachtarlanna. Tá ana-shuim agam freisin i gceist an bhainne do na daoine bochta. Sílim go bhféadfadh na feirmeoirí i gCeanntar Bhaile Ath Cliath, atá ag díol a gcuid bainne sa Chathair seo fé láthair go bhféadfaidís an chruadhcheist seo a leigheas iad féin, dá gcuiridís chuige i gceart. Dá gcuiridís na feirmeoirí sin a gcinn le chéile, gheobhaidís comhar-chumann a chur ar bun annso in Ath Cliath a sholathróchadh bainne saor do bhochtaibh na Cathrach so, gan aon phinginn a chailleamhaint iad féin. Níl aon tsúil agam go ndéanfaidh na feirmeoirí atá i gceist agam a leithéid. Fágfar fé'n Riaghaltas é, mar is gnáthach. Ní mar sin a bhí an scéal ag feirmeoirí an deiscirt dachad bliain ó shoin, nuair a chuireadar na huachtarlanna ar bun iad féin gan chabhair ó aon Riaghaltas.

Captain Giles

As I come from a milk-producing county, I should like to take part in this debate. In this case, we have the city and town Deputy ranged against the country Deputy. We, in the country, realise what it cost to build up this industry. It cost more in labour, suffering and wages than it did to establish any other industry. There are more restrictions under the Milk Acts than apply, perhaps, to any other industry. If farmers do not produce to the satisfaction of the different parties, they must go out of business. To meet the requirements of the different Acts, our farmers have gone to enormous expense. If they do not get an economic price for their milk, they must go out of business, and that after building a huge debt which they may never be able to liquidate. If an economic price be provided for the producer, it is bound to hit the poorer sections in the cities and towns. It is the duty of the country to afford an economic price for the milk produced, and the gap which divides the producer from the poor consumer should be bridged by the State. In fixing an economic price for the producer, we should, certainly, be hitting at the poor, but the State can overcome the difficulty by bridging the gap as I have suggested.

One thing I am more or less against is that of allowing the creameries to retain the foothold which they obtained in Dublin when they stabbed the regular milk suppliers to the city in the back. That arrangement, if we want to cure old sores, should be dropped, and that market should be given to those who have been in the habit of supplying Dublin with its milk. It is not fair to see these people take over so large a part of the requirements of the city, and I ask the Minister not to allow it to continue. I think that the Minister realises that one of the greatest sufferers by the foot-and-mouth plague is the milk producer from in and around Dublin. Vast herds, consisting of some of the finest cows in Europe, have been wiped out because of this disease. The men concerned will continue in the industry which they helped to build up if they are allowed to do so. After the huge loss they have suffered, I think we should endeavour to meet them by fixing an economic price for milk.

This Bill does not go far enough. I know that it is almost impossible to bring in a Bill which will meet with the approval of producer and consumer. At the same time, if the milk industry fails, it will be a calamity to our country. It is next to our cattle industry—if it does not come before it. I ask the Minister to stimulate this industry by the means I have suggested, as milk is one of the first essentials of life, especially to poor people who are rearing young families. With goodwill on all sides now, the Minister should make an effort to stabilise this industry because, month after month, there are complaints about the way these petty restrictions are operated. Small farmers who set up in this business a few years ago with overdrafts and bought eight or ten cows cannot get the price necessary to make the industry a paying proposition. They will be the rest of their lives paying back the money they borrowed to buy stock and to build cowsheds.

This is one of the industries which need serious consideration. Milk Bills are passed over too lightly in this House when we realise all the brain work that goes into the industry and all the employment which it affords. Now that there are hopes of getting agreement, I ask the Minister to bring in a decent Bill. There is no use in trifling with these little remedies and having Deputies from the country saying that producers are not getting a chance and city men getting up and asking about the poor. We are all concerned with the interests of the poor but it is the bounden duty of the House to afford every facility to those who are building up the industry. No thanks would be due to the Minister for giving milk producers a fair crack of the whip. We shall all stand behind the Minister if he decides to bridge the gap as I have advocated.

We are not going far enough in meeting the producers. They are a first-class type of people, industrious and business-like. They pay good wages and, while most people are asleep in the mornings, they are out milking and getting their milk away to the city—at three, four, or five o'clock in the morning. This industry is typical of the other branches of agricultural effort. A fair price is never forthcoming. The producers are working from morning till night for very little profit or for no profit. That is all because people do not realise that agricultural production is the basis of this State. If the Government do not meet the reasonable requirements of the agriculturists, then it would be better for them to get out and let some other Government tackle the question. Milk production is one of our main assets and, if the poor are in danger of being mulcted by an increase of price, then it is the duty of the State to provide the difference between what they can pay and what is an economic price.

Mr. Allen

Most Deputies who have spoken gave the impression that this legislation and the previous Act—the Act regulating prices—were designed to compensate the farmers for expenditure under the Milk and Dairies Act, 1934. That is a wrong impression. This legislation was not brought in to compensate any section of farmers for bringing their dairies and cowsheds up to the standard which was considered necessary. The original Act has justified itself. The main reason for it was the chaos which existed in the Dublin milk supply area at certain periods—notably the four months in which we have most sunshine. During the other eight months, there would be no difficulty in selling all the milk that would be normally supplied in the City of Dublin.

Deputy Hughes does not think that this legislation will entirely get over the difficulty. While it has been proved in the last five or six years that the Act has improved the condition of the Dublin milk supplier in the country very much, I cannot think of any legislation which the Minister might bring in that would provide for the summer period and the big increase in milk that most producers are able to supply during the summer period to the Dublin sales area as compared with the winter. The producers, if you like, have it in their own hands to produce more in the winter, but we know the difficulties in connection with that.

Mr. Hughes

I suggest that the Deputy should distinguish between the producer and the cowkeeper.

Mr. Allen

I do not see where there is any distinction.

Mr. Hughes

There is a definite distinction.

Mr. Allen

They produce double the amount of milk in the summer that they do in the winter. With regard to the views put forward by Deputy Dillon, I am in thorough agreement with him. I can see his point of view. I can see the danger of legislation like this making the price of milk too dear for poor people, but, having some knowledge of the matter, I know what it meant to the producer who had put all he had into the business and who was made bankrupt owing to the conditions that existed in the City of Dublin during certain periods of the year. It is very difficult to reconcile the two points of view. When Deputy Dillon or any other Deputy speaks about the State bridging the gap we should remember where the State has to get the money. It comes as much from the poor as from anyone else. Many of the poor will have to subscribe to the pool. That is the trouble about it.

Mr. Dillon

How?

Mr. Allen

In taxation.

Mr. Dillon

Bad and all as you are, and you are very bad, you have not started on the destitute poor yet, except through their food.

Mr. Allen

I think, when the Budget is brought in, Deputy Dillon will tell us that the poor are being taxed as well as the rich. He will tell us that the poor are also paying taxes. On every Budget discussed here we have had it from Deputies that the poor are paying their part of the taxation.

Mr. Dillon

You did pile a good deal of taxation on them, but there is no need to pile more.

Mr. Allen

If we have to provide more subsidies, we will have to pile on more taxation.

Mr. Dillon

That is the Fianna Fáil way of doing it.

Mr. Allen

I hope this Bill will be passed, and I am sure that it will improve the position of the milk producers.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Dillon and other Deputies have made clear what the difficulty is in legislating for this problem of the supply of milk to the cities and towns, namely, trying to please both the producer and the consumer, trying to provide for them both. There is always the danger, as was pointed out, that if you try to buttress up, as Deputy Dillon put it, one section of the producers like this, it may inflict an undue hardship on some section of the consumers. Deputy Dillon made a suggestion with regard to depôts where consumers would call for milk from creamery districts that could be sold at a comparatively low price. As a matter of fact, that experiment was tried and it was not a great success for many reasons. I do not think it was tried long enough to prove conclusively that it was a failure, but it did not succeed as well as might have been expected.

Mr. Dillon

Were the people too lazy to go to the depôts?

Dr. Ryan

Really the people for whom it was meant did not support it very well. It was rather the better-off people who supported it. There was the usual story put out that the milk came from creameries and therefore was not good milk. The poor people are more inclined to believe stories like that than the better-off people, and the result was that the better-off people took advantage of the cheap milk.

Mr. Dillon

That could be easily overcome if the milk were pasteurised.

Dr. Ryan

I agree. There is, of course, a free milk scheme, but that only covers certain classes of the poor and children under a certain age. The Government have under consideration at the moment various schemes for a subsidy on milk consumption, probably for certain classes, not for everybody. If the Government can succeed in evolving a scheme of that kind, it might perhaps meet the difficulties that Deputy Dillon and other Deputies had in mind. I think it will be admitted that consumers who have their milk delivered at the door can afford to pay the price that is being charged.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Dr. Ryan

But the poor woman who goes out with a jug must limit her purchase to the size of her purse, and her purse is a very small one.

Mr. Dillon

That is the trouble.

Dr. Ryan

These are the people we are trying to provide for under such a scheme, either on a cheap or free basis, probably on a cheap basis.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Dr. Ryan

As I say, that is under consideration, and I am very hopeful that something will come of it. I am looking at it not alone from the point of view of the poor, but also from the point of view of the amount of milk products in the country and the rather poor price that we will get for any surplus we export.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Dr. Ryan

Therefore, as Minister for Agriculture, I am taking a particular interest in that scheme. I should like to point out, however, that this amending Bill does not in any way alter the price that will be paid for milk in the city or in Cork. The price is discussed, first of all, by the Board. I am talking now of the procedure under the Principal Act. The Board come to a decision as to what they think would be a proper price. As a matter of fact, they very seldom come to a decision, because there are usually three or four opinions on the Board. I think on one or two occasions we had a unanimous decision, but that is a rare occurrence. The chairman of the Board then sends that report to me with his recommendation and I have then to make the final determination, that is, to fix the price. That procedure, of course, is not changed in any way by this Bill, and therefore any discussion in regard to the price of milk does not really arise on this amending Bill, and discussion should be rather directed to the question of whether or not the Principal Act should be continued. Deputy Hughes stated that I was expecting too much when I wanted agreement amongst all concerned in order to get some sort of co-operative scheme working. I did not want agreement amongst all concerned, but only amongst the producers. There may, of course, be conflicting interests between the two classes of producers.

Mr. Hughes

As distinct from cow-keepers.

Dr. Ryan

Cow-keepers included. Perhaps that is what the Deputy has in mind—that there are conflicting interests there.

Mr. Hughes

Quite so.

Dr. Ryan

Perhaps there are. Naturally, I did not expect to get agreement between retailers and wholesalers and producers; I only wanted agreement between all the producers. If that had been forthcoming, we might have been able to go further. Again, there is the big question of what might be called the rationalisation of the industry. Rationalisation is under consideration. I do not say that we will arrive at any conclusion on that matter immediately; it is a matter we had to put back for further consideration. Some Deputies have stated, and I think myself that we will not satisfy the producers, the consumers, or anybody else until the whole question of the rationalisation, not only of production but of distribution and everything else, is settled.

Mr. Allen

For the whole country?

Dr. Ryan

For the cities, anyway. I do not know about the whole country. Another point made was that we were allowing creamery milk to be consumed here and were not asking for the same conditions with regard to its production on the farm as we were demanding from the farmer who is supplying milk direct to the City of Dublin. That is true, but, on the other hand, the creamery that is sending up that milk is registered under the Milk and Dairies Act of 1935. It must see that the milk it sends up here is properly pasteurised. In that way, the milk is perfectly healthy. In fact, I think it could be said that it is safer even than the milk that comes from the farmer, because it is guaranteed to be free from disease. There are many opinions about that. I do not say that, on the whole, it is as wholesome as fresh milk that comes from the farm, and that is produced under the proper conditions.

Mr. Dillon

Is all milk that comes from the creameries fully pasteurised?

Dr. Ryan

Milk that is now used for human consumption must be pasteurised.

Mr. Hughes

Does the pasteurisation interfere with its vitamin content?

Dr. Ryan

That is a matter that is disputed.

Mr. Dillon

It certainly interferes with the tubercle bacilli.

Dr. Ryan

There are medical officers of health in England who will not allow pasteurised milk into their cities, and other medical officers of health who will not allow anything but pasteurised milk into their cities. It is really a matter of opinion. Deputy Hughes suggested that a fair way out of this might be to give each group its share. What he had in mind, I think, was that if the cowkeepers had a certain percentage, if other producers had a certain percentage, and if the creameries had a certain percentage there should be an adjustment between them as regards supplies. I do not think that would be possible.

Mr. Hughes

Does the Minister agree that it would be desirable?

Dr. Ryan

It would be desirable, although I think that on the whole the creameries have the greatest grievance, since, under this Bill, we are going to say to them: "You must not supply more than a certain quantity." We are not saying that to any producer inside the area.

Mr. Hughes

What standard are you taking?

Dr. Ryan

The standard year will be based on the years 1937, 1938 and 1939. Up to this, the creameries that were in could supply as much as they liked. We are now putting in this limitation. On the other hand, if the Board is short of supplies, as it has been on many occasions, it can go to those same creameries and say to them: "Even though we have put a limit of 500 gallons a day on you, now, because we are short, we want you to give us 1,000 gallons a day." There was no legal limitation on the creameries up to this. There was a sort of understanding, and I think the creameries have been very decent. They have kept down to a certain level. When the producers here had not milk, and when consumers wanted it, the creameries were willing to come forward and give more milk in order to fill the gap. Therefore, I think they really have a greater grievance than any of the other groups in being limited in this way at certain times. There is this, of course, to be said, that when there is a great flush of milk here, the creameries are not so interested, because the price is then much lower. That applies to May, June and July. The price is lower then, and it is more difficult than at other times for the creameries to transport the milk. The margin of profit is low, since the price ruling about that time is not very much. It is much more profitable for them to send up milk during the winter. Luckily for all concerned, the business is more profitable for the creameries when milk is scarce. I think all the groups fit fairly well together on that account. It suits the creameries to send supplies at one time, and it suits other producers to send milk at another time. As I have said, they are all working fairly well together, and so far the board have had very little trouble in trying to keep supplies up.

Deputy Hughes gave certain figures with the object of showing that the creameries sent up a good deal more milk in October, 1940, than they did in the same month of 1939. I am quite sure the creameries did not do that of their own volition. As a matter of fact, the board, during that time, was canvassing creameries to send more milk, and found it very difficult to get supplies. They had even to go to creameries not registered in this Dublin area and ask them to send milk over a certain period. The board, of course, have power to bring in milk from a nonregistered person in a time of shortage like that. They exercised that power last autumn.

Mr. Hughes

I think it is correct to say that there has been a considerable falling-off in the number of producers in the Dublin area.

Dr. Ryan

I know some of these producers. They told me that they have found the business is not a paying one.

Mr. Dillon

Including some of your Ministerial friends?

Dr. Ryan

The men I was speaking to assured me that, though they were getting the published price—there was not any question of a "hand-back" or anything like that—they would prefer to depend on some other class of farming than milk production: that is, when they took into consideration all the trouble involved in milk production, the expense of replacing cows, and so on. Deputy Hughes said that a "hand-back" is taking place in many cases. It is impossible for the Department to do anything about that. All we can do is to get a law passed here.

Mr. Hughes

But that matter has been brought to the Minister's notice already?

Dr. Ryan

Certainly. As Deputy Allen has pointed out, I do not see what we can do in that matter except to prosecute if a case is brought to our notice.

Mr. Hughes

I suggest to the Minister that, if he were to fix a quota for each of the three groups, it would eliminate this practice of the "hand-back."

Dr. Ryan

During the flush period it would be very difficult. I did hear about the other matter that Deputy Hughes mentioned—of one wholesaler who adopted the practice of asking suppliers to buy certain commodities from him. There is, if you like, a veiled threat in that—that the contracts would not be continued unless the supplier did what he was asked to do. I had thought of dealing with that, but it is not a matter that could be dealt with in this Bill. It belongs to another code altogether. It would hardly be a matter for my Department. We are in touch with the legal Department to see if it can be dealt with. It would probably be a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Whether that is so or not, we are in touch with the legal Department to see what can be done. I think it is a thing that should be stopped if at all possible.

Another matter was raised by Deputy Bennett, who said that we should allow creameries to sell milk in their own districts for human consumption. I agree absolutely with that, and have been pressing the Minister for Local Government to amend the Milk and Dairies Act in some way during this crisis, to permit milk being sold in that way, not only by creameries but by farmers. I would be delighted if Deputy Bennett would help me with the Minister for Local Government in that matter.

Mr. Hughes

Will the Minister make provision for free milk under a free milk scheme?

Dr. Ryan

I think those are the principal points raised. The debate was finished by Deputy Giles coming back to the point where Deputy Dillon started, namely, that though it is difficult we must try to reconcile the interests of producer and consumer.

Mr. Dillon

I should like to ask the Minister one question. He speaks of pressure on the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to permit farmers and creameries in rural Ireland selling milk to the consumer. A Deputy put in a question as to whether they might also sell milk under the free milk scheme. May I sound a note of caution there and suggest that, if local authorities are to buy milk to distribute it to the poor, a preliminary precaution should be taken by pasteurising the milk, if it is not Grade A quality, before distribution? Milk is the standard nourishment of the poor, who are peculiarly susceptible to infection.

Dr. Ryan

I agree, but there are districts which are miles from any creamery.

Mr. Dillon

Surely every creamery has a plant for bringing milk to a certain heat, and that could be used.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, but some districts are miles from creameries.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 30th April.