Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 May 1943

Vol. 89 No. 19

Committee on Finance. - Creameries (Acquisition) Bill, 1943—Report and Fifth Stages.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 3, to delete all words in lines 12, 13 and 14, and substitute the following words:—

"Where, before the net moneys due to the vendor in respect of the price payable under a sale order or a sale (superior interest) order have been paid to him, a State authority has sent to the company a certificate".

A number of amendments here were down for the Committee Stage, and I asked the leave of the House to have them withdrawn and to bring them up on Report Stage, because I felt that they might want some dressing up. Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11 and 12 all deal with the one subject, incumbrances. It was explained here on the Committee Stage that when drawing up this Bill we did not follow exactly the lines of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and neglected to put in this question of incumbrances. The effect of those amendments will be, as I explained on the Committee Stage, that, before any money is paid over to any seller of property, any incumbrances or mortgages will first be cleared. After that, any State debts will be cleared, and the remainder will go to the person selling the property. We had some discussion on those amendments on the Committee Stage, and I think Deputies are probably clear as to the meaning of them.

Amendment No. 1 put and agreed to.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
2. In page 3, in lines 18, 19, 21 and 22, to delete the word "price" and substitute the words "net moneys". —(Minister for Agriculture).
3. In page 3, after line 29, at the end of Section 5 (1), to add the following:—
"For the purposes of this sub-section the net moneys due to the vendor in respect of the price payable under a sale order or a sale (superior interest) order shall be taken to be a sum equal to the said price less—
(I) the amount required to satisfy incumbrances (if any), and
(II) the amount required to discharge any outgoings dischargeable by the vendor, and
(III) in case the said price was determined by arbitration under this Act and the arbitrator has directed the vendor to pay a sum towards the costs and expenses of the company in the arbitration proceedings or has directed the vendor to pay the said costs and expenses of the company as taxed by a taxing master of the High Court, the amount payable to the company under the direction."—(Minister for Agriculture.
4. In page 3, to delete Section 5 (2), lines 30 to 36.—(Minister for Agriculture).

I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 4, in line 19, after the word "compliance" to add the words "within thirty days after such costs have been taxed by a taxing master of the High Court".

Amendment No. 10 also deals with this matter. Deputy Murphy raised the point here on Committee Stage that it would be possible for the Dairy Disposals Board, having purchased a given premises, to delay for a long time about paying over the money, that the person selling the property might need the money in the meantime, and that there should be some time limit put in. This is putting in a limit of 30 days from the time the costs are taxed. It is felt that that will be the last stage in the negotiations for sale; everything else will be cleared up, and the last thing that will happen is the taxing of costs. Then, within 30 days, the money must be paid over.

Amendment put and agreed to.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
6. In page 5, before Section 9 (5), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) Whenever the Minister proposes to make a sale Order in relation to any creamery premises and the chattels thereon, he shall not less than ten days before making the Order publish in theIris Oifigiúil notice of his intention to make such Order, and any person having any claim affecting the estate and interest of the vendor in such creamery premises or chattels by way of mortgage or otherwise, who has not later than seven days after the date of such publication furnished to the company particulars of his claim, shall be entitled to make representations to the Minister or, if the price to be paid for such creamery premises and chattels is to be determined by an arbitrator, the arbitrator in relation to the said price.— (Minister for Agriculture).
7. In page 5, line 29, to insert after the word "Finance" the words "and after consideration of any representations in relation to the said price made under sub-section (5) of this section,".—(Minister for Agriculture).

I move amendment No. 8:—

In page 5, to delete Section 9 (6) (b) (i), lines 33 to 37, and substitute the following:—

"(i) the said price shall be determined by an arbitrator whose determination shall be final and the arbitrator shall be such person as may be agreed upon by the vendor and the company or, in default of agreement, an official arbitrator for the purposes of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919,".

This point was also raised on the Committee Stage. It was felt by a number of Deputies that the Minister, being interested in one side more than in the other—that is, being interested in the Dairy Disposals side rather than in the proprietors who at present hold those creameries—it was unfair that the Minister should appoint the arbitrator. I agreed that there was something in that point, and now I am providing that, if agreement is not reached between both parties, the arbitrator will be appointed under the usual procedure in cases like this under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. Amendment No. 13 also deals with this matter.

Will the Minister say if it is compulsory on any co-operative society to buy a creamery from the Dairy Disposals Board?

It is not compulsory.

Will the Minister say what is the position regarding the two creameries in Tipperary town?

They do not come under this at all.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 9:—

In page 6, before Section 10, but in Part II of the Bill, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Whenever a creamery has been acquired by the company under the immediately preceding section of this Act, the company shall, in respect of every person who was an employee of the said creamery at the date of such acquisition, either—

(a) provide or cause to be provided suitable employment at not less favourable terms for such person, or

(b) pay such person a gratuity, calculated at the rate of one-sixth of his present yearly earnings for each completed year of his employment by such creamery.

(2) The expression "suitable employment" shall, for the purposes of the preceding sub-section, mean, in the case of a married man, employment within three miles of his usual place of residence.

I have only to repeat that there are precedents for this already under different Acts. In dealing with this matter previously, I omitted to mention the various Insurance Acts, where definite compensation was laid down for post office employees. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his statement on the last stage of the Bill, and make provision for those displaced employees. This amendment asks that the company should provide or cause to be provided suitable employment at not less favourable terms for any displaced employee, or, if the company fails to offer suitable employment on the same terms, that they should pay the displaced employee a gratuity calculated at the rate of one-sixth of his present yearly earnings for each completed year of service. Of course, "suitable employment" in the case of a married man should not be too far from his home; it should be within a distance of, say, three miles.

The Minister mentioned on the last stage that this would mean eight or ten years' salary for an employee. It would not mean any such thing. Five years' salary is very little to offer to an employee with 30 years' service, who has reached the highest stage of his earnings, and who is deprived of his employment. I am sure that, with the huge area which remains to be developed in West Cork, from Goleen to Drinagh and from Adrigole to Kealkil, there will be sufficient employment to be offered to the employees. We will have cases where there are two managers in one area, and in the case of a married man it would not suit him to go far away from his home. I think it is only right that provision should be made in those cases. I press the Minister to make some more suitable provision—say one-sixth of the employee's present yearly earnings for each completed year of service—to be at least more generous, to be fair, as I hold that the method of assessing compensation under the 1927 Act, on the basis of a man's age irrespective of service, was an unfair method. Anything based on an age limit could not be fair in cases of men with many years of employment. I think that system of assessing compensation for loss of employment was not a correct system and that a system based on years of service is the only just way in which displaced employees could be compensated. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.

We had a considerable amount of discussion on this point on the Committee Stage and I just want to put the position again as briefly as possible. The 1927 scheme commenced by allowing compensation ranging from 13 weeks to 26 weeks of the salary or wages, as the case might be, of redundant workers in the industry at that time. In other words, the maximum compensation anybody could get was a half year's salary. About 1934, a number of men—I think about 13 or 15 in all-made representations that they had not got any work from the time they lost their employment in 1927, 1928 or 1929. At that time the Department of Finance agreed to give better compensation to managers and assistant managers. It was found that these were the only men outstanding at the time because labourers and others had found employment of some kind or other. The compensation agreed to was a year's salary for those under 50, a year and a half's salary for those between 50 and 60 and two years' salary for those over 60.

I stated on the Committee Stage that I thought we would succeed in having practically all the employees absorbed under the scheme now before the Dáil, and that if by any chance any managers, sub-managers or employees did not get employment, we would try to give them the most favourable compensation agreed to between 1927 and 1934. That, in fact, would have meant for workers, other than managers and sub-managers, compensation ranging from three months' to six months' salary or wages, and for managers and sub-managers from 12 months' to two years' salary or wages. Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy Buckley have persisted in the attack, and I was reinforced in the meantime by what I considered to be a rather reasonable request from the Creamery Managers' Association. That branch of the Creamery Managers' Association covering the districts of Charleville and Kilmallock, at a meeting on 16th April, passed a resolution —which was subsequently endorsed by a fuller meeting of creamery managers in Cork on the following day—requesting that compensation might be payable at the rate of one years' salary for each ten years of service, with a maximum of three years' salary by way of gratuity, if no suitable work could be found.

In view of the persistence of the Deputies who moved this amendment, and in view of that resolution which I thought reasonable, I had further discussions with the Minister for Finance, and I am now prepared to agree to guarantee compensation to all redundant employees, that is, those employees who may prove to be redundant under this scheme, at the rate of one-twelfth of their yearly wages for each completed year of employment in the acquired premises. This compensation will be paid only where the worker concerned has at least one year's service and where I am satisfied that alternative employment of an equivalent nature is not available. The Minister for Agriculture must be the judge of whether alternative employment, if offered, is suitable or not.

Once a compensation award is made, there will be no question of suitable employment being offered thereafter?

No. That relieves the Dairy Disposals Company of any further obligation to look for work for a particular person in the organisation.

And the person in question is guaranteed his pension in perpetuity?

It is a gratuity, so he may, if he wishes, get other work. This arrangement, in my opinion, is more favourable under present circumstances than what the creamery managers have requested. The Creamery Managers' Association, it is true, asked for one-tenth. I say that we will give one-twelfth, but the Creamery Managers' Association agreed that a limit of three years might be fixed. If a man has 36 years' service, he would fare as well under the creamery managers' proposal as he will under mine, but if he has more than 36 years' service, he will fare better under my proposal. I think those concerned will mainly be men with long service. I have had letters on this subject generally from various people who are interested, but I have had letters which concern only three individuals, who have respectively 37 years', 38 years' and 46 years' service. These three men will do better under my proposal than they would under the proposal of the Creamery Managers' Association.

But were there any managers from Cork who belonged to that association present?

Charleville, I take it, covers a good area, although I am not sure what area it does cover.

I wonder if any of the managers in West Cork were consulted about it?

I got it from the secretary of the Creamery Managers' Association for the country. He referred to a meeting of the Charleville and Kilmallock branch of the Irish Creamery Managers' Association, and said that the resolution had been endorsed by a fuller meeting of creamery managers in Cork the following day, and I take it that the meeting in Cork covered the greater part of the province. I cannot say that definitely, but at any rate their request was for one-tenth, and I think we are meeting them fairly by the undertaking I am now giving, that where a person proves to be redundant, he will get one-twelfth of his retiring salary for each year of service. There will be no limit of three years or anything else. Take, for example, the person I mentioned with 46 years' service. He would get almost four times his retiring yearly salary.

Yes, but the number with under 36 years' service is much greater than the number with over 36 years' service.

I agree, but I think the number with under 36 years' service who will be redundant will be very few. It is hard to be very definite. I think there will not be many redundant and Deputies generally will agree that those who are redundant will likely be the older men. I think that if you were to take the total number that would be redundant, you would find that more of them would be over 36 years' service than under.

I am glad that the Minister has moved in this direction. He has evidently taken the view that the offer he made on a previous occasion—while being perfectly honestly made—was not a satisfactory offer. To that extent, I welcome this, although it is not what we wanted. All I can say is that it is an improvement on a very bad position.

Does Deputy O'Sullivan wish to press the amendment?

In view of the request from the Creamery Managers' Association, I shall not press the amendment.

Perhaps the Minister could give us some information as to the number of years' service in this connection? I take it that most of the employees in those creameries have a long number of years' service.

I cannot give the exact figures, but it is only natural to expect that it would be the long-service men who would be redundant.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
10. In page 6, line 47, after the word "compliance" to add the words "within thirty days after such costs have been taxed by a taxing master of the High Court".
11. In page 7, before Section 12 (5), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) Whenever the Minister proposes to make a sale (superior interest) Order in relation to any superior interest, he shall not less than ten days before making the Order publish in theIris Oifigiúil notice of his intention to make such Order, and any person having any claim affecting such superior interest by way of mortgage or otherwise, who has not later than seven days after the date of such publication furnished to the company particulars of his claim, shall be entitled to make representations to the Minister or, if the price to be paid for such superior interest is to be determined by an arbitrator, the arbitrator in relation to the said price.
12. In page 7, line 42, to insert after the word "Finance" the words "and after consideration of any representations in relation to the said price made under sub-section (5) of this section,".
13. In page 7, to delete Section 12 (6) (b) (i), lines 46 to 50, and substitute the following:—
"(i) the said price shall be determined by an arbitrator whose determination shall be final and the arbitrator shall be such person as may be agreed upon by the vendor and the company or, in default of agreement, an official arbitrator for the purposes of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919,".
Question:—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put, and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Is there any objection?

No, Sir, except that, on Fifth Stage, we should like the Minister to clarify the position that we were arguing on the Second Stage of the Bill as to the position of the Dairy Disposals Board. Would the Minister give us some indication as to whether most of the creameries concerned will be handed over to the farmers' co-operative societies as soon as possible. Take, for instance, the position of the creameries in West Cork, Limerick, Tipperary and Kerry; I am satisfied that the co-operative societies would be prepared to take them over. Will the Minister undertake to facilitate the speedy taking over of these creameries?

There is another point I should like to make before the Minister replies, and that is in connection with areas in West Cork where there are no facilities for the marketing of milk. There is no organisation already existing for the marketing of milk there. Will the Minister undertake to say that these areas, where no proprietary or co-operative creameries, or any other organisation, exist, will be the first to be organised, and that a market for milk will be provided as soon as possible?

There are two of these creameries in County Limerick, and one in particular, about which the suppliers have a feeling that there is a danger of their being closed down. I understand that no decision has been come to yet as to whether these creameries will be closed down or not, or whether some of them are redundant. I raised this matter on the last occasion, but one of these creameries definitely is not redundant, and my suggestion is that that creamery should be handed over to the nearest co-operative society, as an auxiliary.

Before this Bill passes through the House, surely the Minister will take advantage of the occasion to give the House some indication as to what the Dairy Disposals Board intends to do. Of course, we do not know where the present Minister or his colleagues may stand as a result of the forthcoming election, but I understand that the Dairy Disposals Board is a semi-autonomous body, and I should like to know what is their present state of mind. Do they regard themselves as a kind of an immortal body that will never die, or do they regard themselves as a transient body? If they are able to make up their minds on that question, and if they are going to survive, then I think that they ought to adapt themselves to the new role, but I suggest that if they are going to survive indefinitely, it would be better for the Minister, instead of introducing little Bills now and again, to remedy some crisis that has arisen in West Cork, Kerry, Tipperary or Limerick, to take steps to make solvent the whole dairying industry in those areas. If that is the intention, I suggest that the amalgamation of small creameries is not enough, and that the elementary fact should be brought to the attention of the grassland farmers that you cannot operate a dairying industry successfully with a 200-gallon cow. An endeavour should be made to persuade such farmers to go in for the 500- or 600-gallon cow, with a view to maintaining a proper milk yield.

Deputies may have noticed a speech in to-day's papers by Father Coyne, the chairman of the I.A.O.S., in which he said that the production of butter has dwindled in this country during the last six or seven years. Now, anybody who has been scraping butter on his bread in the last few months must be well aware of that fact, and surely the Minister must be aware of it. Surely, also, the extremely able men who constitute the Dairy Disposals Board must also be aware of that fact, and must know that it is a problem of major importance. Are they, then, going just to shuffle along and expect doles from the Exchequer in order to patch the ship, so to speak? I do not think that there should be any necessity for this ship to sink at all. I think that if it were steered properly, it would go all right, but as things are at the moment we are heading for destruction. There is, however, always a group of men from West Cork, Kerry, Tipperary, Limerick, and so on, who are on the qui vive to jump on anyone who would dare to suggest that there is any reform required in the operation of the creameries of the country. That is merely sticking their heads in the sand. Reforms in the operation of the creameries are urgently required. Reforms in the whole method of carrying on the dairying industry are urgently required if the dairying industry is to survive. No amount of doles from public funds will keep the dairying industry in existence if the dairying industry does not do its own work. It is not doing its own work if it is trying to feed cattle on fields of weeds. Everybody in this country knows that a great deal of the pasture land on which milch cattle are fed in summer in the south of Ireland is badly in need of re-seeding and rehabilitation.

The Deputy is now far away from the purchase of creameries.

Is not this the Fifth Stage of the Bill?

Quite, to consider what is in the Bill. The Deputy asked permission to go somewhat outside it. He is away over the ranches now.

The Dairy Disposals Board is in it.

That is not the re-seeding of land.

All these questions arose on the Second Stage and the Minister, in concluding on the Second Stage, blandly ignored the whole question.

On Second Stage the Deputy might discuss what he desired to see in the Bill.

If the Chair thinks this is irrelevant, I am quite prepared to abandon it, but the Dairy Disposals Board is there and this is a Bill further to prop up the Dairy Disposals Board and to make it more important in the dairying industry. I want to know what it intends to do. Is it just going to go on "futhering" around, or is it going to do something constructive, or is it going to die? These are questions that the Minister seems profoundly reluctant to answer. I think the Minister should get up boldly and say he is advised that the Dairy Disposals Board proposes to survive for ever and that it has a certain programme of action of a more comprehensive nature than coming into this Dáil looking for doles and subsidies; that it means to take the steps necessary to make the dairying industry self-supporting, if possible. If it does that, I think there is a good deal to be said for allowing it to survive for ever and giving it wider powers and a more clearly defined function. But, if it is not going to face that enterprise, then I cordially agree with Deputy Bennett and Deputy O'Donovan, that it ought to return the creameries to the co-operative societies throughout the country and go out of existence. There is a great deal to be said for either of those courses but nothing at all to be said for the middle course of hanging suspended, like Mahomet's coffin, between heaven and earth, all of us watching it with eyes staring to see when it is going to fall down.

Let us make up our minds what we are going to do. I hope what I have said will wake Deputies to the necessity of making up their minds. I have listened with most careful attention to the Deputies from West Cork, Limerick and Tipperary and I cannot find any one of them who will get up and say boldly what he really wants: does he want the Dairy Disposals Board to take over the creamery industry of the country, or, if he does not want that, does he want the Dairy Disposals Board to go out of existence and let the co-operative societies carry on themselves? I know quite clearly what I want but, as the Ceann Comhairle has just said, what I want belongs to the Second Stage, not to the Fifth. I cannot get out of the Cork and Limerick Deputies what they want—and that goes for Deputies from both sides of the House. They will not tell us what they want and until they all make up their minds what they want and effectively pursue some recognisable line of policy, I am telling you, as I have often told you before, and have so often been vindicated by the event, that the creamery industry will continue to slither down the hill from one degree of degrading bankruptcy to the next. Some of the best farmers in this country are engaged in the dairying industry and their collapse is largely due to the refusal of the Deputies in this House to face the facts. It is a shame for Deputies who profess to represent these men that they are afraid to face it.

Why does not the Deputy go down to West Cork and tell the people what to do?

Are there not enough there without my going down?

The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.

Maybe you know what you are talking about, but, God knows, others who listen to you do not know. Maybe you know yourselves. I have been listening for ten years and do not know what you have been talking about yet, and I do not believe a single one of you has the courage to get up in this House and say what he believes. Do you believe the Dairy Disposals Board ought to go out of existence or not?

You think it ought not to go out of existence?

If you think that, will the Deputy ask the Deputies from West Kerry do they think it ought to go out of existence? They will be roaring like a lion. Make up your mind what you want and then do something effective, but what you are doing for the last ten years has wrought nothing but havoc. Do any of the Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party remember ten years ago when the Minister introduced his first Creamery Bill? You all thought that the hour of fate had struck and that the dairying industry would be a gold mine from that day forward. There was a grand subsidy scheme. Everyone was going to get a grand price for butter. They were like a cat with two tails. What happened?

God save the mark! You provided an opportunity for the unfortunate devils operating the industry to sink lower and lower down.

Did the Deputy see what profit had been made in the dairying industry in West Cork?

I saw what you were making in the last 12 months—a small one—but the Deputy seems to think every time it is gone bankrupt we can start a European war in order to float it again. We cannot. I have no doubt it is making plenty of profits now, but you cannot start a war every 20 years to render the Deputy and his friends in West Cork solvent. If the Deputy's creameries are making such loads of money as he describes, why has he to come to Dáil Eireann to ask the taxpayers to help to compensate the redundant employees? I have a shrewd suspicion that you can sing whatever tune you like—at one time of poverty —and the Government has to pay your redundant employees compensation to which they are entitled—the next minute, you have so much money you do not know what to do with it. Between the two conditions the dairying industry will collapse. It ought not to be allowed to collapse, because it can be put on its feet. It can be made a profitable enterprise, and can be made to contribute something very important to the whole agricultural economy of this country. Sooner or later you have to face it.

All of you think that I am repetitious in continuing to harp upon this theme. Deputies do not like to listen to me harping upon this theme. The facts as I set them out are none the less true, and until Deputies come to realise that and are prepared to act upon the recognition of these facts, the perennial complaint of these counties will be heard in this House. There is no reason why these farmers, who should be prosperous and independent men, should be continually coming to Dáil Eireann for doles and subsidies. It is the failure of the Minister, the failure of his advisers, and very largely the failures of the Deputies who represent these counties and who support the Fianna Fáil Ministry in this House, to do their job, that has resulted in leaving the creamery industry in that position.

I hope and pray that after the next general election we will have a new Government to deal with that situation but, in the meantime, I repeat my question to the Minister, whatever Government is sitting in the Front Bench, what does the Dairy Disposals Board intend to do? Are they going to live on for ever or are they going out of existence? If they are going to live on for ever, what do they intend to do in regard to this industry? If they intend to go out of existence, when will they go out of existence? The people who would be operating these creameries in the absence of the Dairy Disposals Board have a right to know.

Deputy Bennett asked a question about what the intention was with regard to those units that would be coming into the possession of the Dairy Disposals Board under this Bill. I mentioned here before, I think, although I do not claim that full consideration has been given to the matter yet, that units like, say, Kilmallock and Ballinascarty and those units in Kerry will pass over almost directly to the existing creameries. Whether the supply passes over or the premises, I could not say, but the supply, at any rate, will pass over to the creameries.

The supply is the essential thing?

Yes. That answers also the question put by Deputy O Briain. I am not sure whether it is the supply that is going to be passed over, or whether some of the units will be kept open. That is a question that will have to be considered more in detail when the time comes. On the other hand, there are certain units in South Cork —Skibbereen, for example—which I think the Dairy Disposals Board will have to hold for some time, because there is a need for organisation in that whole area and they could not be passed over until that organisation is completed. I do not know how long that organisation may take.

That leads me to another question that was raised by Deputy Dillon. He asked what is the intention of the Dairy Disposals Company. I think what Deputy Dillon means by that is the board of the Dairy Disposals Company. The board is in a rather peculiar position. The board of an ordinary company outside would be composed of shareholders, people with considerable interests in that company, and in that way the board of an ordinary company would not only carry on the business of the company from day to day, but would be largely responsible for deciding policy. The board of the Dairy Disposals Company is in a different position. The members of the board are only nominal shareholders, if anything. The Minister for Agriculture is the shareholder in that company; he owns it and appoints a board to carry on the day to day business. Policy has always to be decided by the Minister for Agriculture and whether it is advisable for the Dairy Disposals Company to be put on a permanent basis, or whether it should be wound up with the greatest dispatch, would be entirely a matter for the Minister for Agriculture.

The members of the board will carry on as long as they are asked to carry on, and they are not interfered with in any way in their ordinary business activities. What they pay for milk, how they sell their butter, and where they get their supplies—all these are matters for the board and they are not interfered with in any way; but in the matter of taking over a new area, or selling an existing property, they are not empowered to do that without getting the authority of the Minister for Agriculture, and in these cases the Minister has, in turn, to get the sanction of the Minister for Finance.

Has the board discretion if it wants to conduct research work or carry out experiments or give demonstrations?

The members of the board have really a great deal of discretion. I should say that the board has practically as much discretion as an ordinary business board outside would have, as between one annual meeting and another. You may take it that the Minister stands more or less in the position of shareholders at a meeting in regard to policy.

Could the members of the board authorise individuals to go to an area like Kilmallock, plough up a field there and seed it with seeds suitable for pasture as a kind of demonstration of what might be done?

The members of the board have done business in the way of providing manures for their suppliers on a favourable basis, and also providing lime. They have tried to improve the pasture in some of the poorer areas that were developed, say, in West Kerry. On the other hand, it is laid down as one of the instructions under which they are acting that any capital expenditure must be approved by the Minister for Agriculture.

Would the Minister consider it expedient to undertake such enterprises as that?

I would not see any objection to it, if it were possible to carry it out. With regard to the Dairy Disposals Board, I think the Dáil will have an opportunity, perhaps not before the election, but possibly during the coming year, of discussing its activities. There is a Bill being prepared in order to avoid any controversy that may arise. The Minister for Agriculture, whoever he may be, will bring that Bill before the Dáil in the coming session, because it will be necessary, and there will be an opportunity of discussing the future of the Dairy Disposals Company. I think it should prove to be a most interesting discussion. There is no doubt that very good arguments can be put up on both sides and the Dáil may have some difficulty in deciding whether the Dairy Disposals Company is going to be put on a temporary basis or whether it is going to be made more or less a permanent institution.

Even if the Dáil decides it is to be put on a temporary basis, it will still be necessary to carry on for some years, because I do not think it will be possible to get co-operative societies to take over some of the units. For instance, it will hardly be fair to ask co-operative societies to carry on those units that were set up in places like West Kerry, which were obviously going to be a non-paying proposition for some time. I should like to say that they have done better than any estimate that was made. That does not say, of course, that they could be put entirely on a paying basis from this onwards. The Bill will give an opportunity for the type of discussion that Deputy Dillon would like to see.

As regards another point raised here on the Second Stage, dealing with the accounts, since the last stage I have had the accounts made out in what is, I think, a rather intelligible form. Copies of these accounts will be found in the Library by any Deputy interested in finding out the present financial position of the Dairy Disposals Company.

With regard to the larger question, which the Ceann Comhairle thought was hardly relevant, perhaps I should say something. The wider aspect of the creamery industry is not being neglected. The committee set up to deal with the planning of agriculture has taken the creamery industry as its first subject—the creamery industry in general and, of course, the cattle industry will go with that. So far as my information goes, they should be in a position to present a report in the very near future. I think they are already drafting it. The report will deal with the whole subject of dairying, including, I expect, relevant questions such as pasture and other questions such as were raised here by Deputy Dillon.

These Bills that come in from time to time hardly can be referred to as merely stop-gap Bills, because some of them have rather permanent tendencies and are of far-reaching importance. For instance, the Bill referred to by Deputy Dillon was brought in here in 1932 and it did undoubtedly have a very good effect because, even though our production of creamery butter is low now, it has not gone so low in the cycle of production since 1931. I do not know whether we can deduce from the experience of 20 years that there is a never-ending series of cycles in this business, but it is rather strange that we had almost a similar cycle ten years ago. In other words, the creamery production was high in 1926, 1927 and 1928, and it came to its lowest point in 1931. Then it reached a high production in 1935, 1936 and 1937 and it came to its lowest point—I hope—in 1942. If there is anything in the theory of cycles, we may be going to face an upward tendency. I do not think there was any other point of importance raised.

What is the intention of the board with regard to organising the areas where no creamery exists?

That point is not covered by this Bill, but I think it is only reasonable to expect that if certain of those units are being handed over to a co-operative, that co-operative will be expected to organise the areas allocated to it.

But if the co-operative refuses?

They cannot be compelled to under this Bill. There is another piece of legislation which will be coming before the Dáil within the next year or two. I refer to the Co-operative Bill which has been in process of drafting for well over 20 years. That Bill will deal with the question that was raised by Deputy O'Sullivan. It is only when it goes through that a co-operative society can get a definite area, and a guarantee that no other co-operative society can interfere with it in that area. In return for the security it gets, an obligation should be put upon it to develop the area properly.

That does not answer my question. There are some areas that are not developed, and why should not the Dairy Disposals Board organise them in the same way as they organised the Beara peninsula?

Perhaps they will.

Suppose farmers who have been supplying milk to the Cork and Kerry creameries decide, when the latter disappear, to form a co-operative of their own, can they do it under this Bill?

No. This Bill has nothing to do with that. The Dairy Disposals Board will, of course, have some influence in deciding on the co-operative, and they may come in as a particular unit. To that extent, of course, the Bill deals with the Deputy's point.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share