I do not think I am an unduly sensitive practitioner in the ordinary business of Parliament but I do think that if we are to make the machine work at all there are certain fundamental courtesies that we should try to extend to one another, no matter how trenchant our feelings may be and that, if one wishes to comment, at least on the Second Stage, one should have the courtesy to listen to what the Minister has to say in his effort to give the Deputies in advance the information which they would rightly seek if the Minister failed in his duty to provide it.
Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) (Amendment) Bill, 1956—Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The Minister might be courteous enough to accept what I said, that unfortunately I had not the opportunity of listening to him. It is courteous to accept what a man says.
I make that observation because each individual point mentioned by the Deputy could not have caused the misapprehension under which he obviously labours if he had been here for me to explain them to him. Each of the difficulties in which he found himself resulted from an entire misinterpretation of the section to which he referred. This Bill, in fact, is a Bill designed to allow a number of the Orders referred to by the Deputy as being onerous and undesirable in normal times to lapse, but inasmuch as the Supplies and Services Act, the governing Act, is itself going to lapse, it was thought necessary that we ought to retain under this code the power to make these Orders again if the necessity arises. Every word of criticism that Deputy Aiken applied to these Orders would probably apply, if they were justified — and I do not think they were — to his own colleague.
Most of the Orders are still in force.
I am not saying that there is any justifiable criticism of them but, if there were, it would apply to his own colleague who made them, or to his colleague Deputy Tom Walsh who kept them in operation from 1951 to 1954. If Deputy Aiken had been here to hear my explanation of them I do not think he would have felt the same apprehensions, but in fact he appeared to believe that this Bill was designed to make these regulations, the truth being that this Bill is brought in in order to allow them to lapse but to retain the power, which is general under the Supplies and Services Act, but which is particular in its relations, exclusive to the dairying industry, under this amending Bill.
The Minister is keeping on some of the powers which he himself took.
Yes, and if I felt that Deputy Aiken——
Is that a forgery—"James Dillon"?
——was not just being cantankerous, I would very largely agree with him.
There is a sheaf of these Emergency Powers Orders.
I think there is a number of powers in the existing Orders that it is not expedient to retain as permanent features of our legislation, but it may be very expedient to retain the power to bring them in if an emergency of any kind should arise in future and I think even that is debatable.
If you were living in the days of William Ewart Gladstone, when the world moved at a slow and steady pace, there was always time to come into Parliament and get by statute a power requisite to deal with an existing situation, but in the modern world in which we live things happen so fast that, if you denude yourself of the power to make these regulations, you very often find that wholly unnecessary damage has been done in the inevitable interim involved in going through the pretty tedious procedure of drafting a Bill, submitting it to the Government in draft form and getting their authority to put it in White Paper form, bringing it back to the next meeting of the Government in White Paper form and getting their authority to get the First Reading, then getting the First Reading in Dáil Éireann, then getting it printed and then getting a Second Reading. There may be something in it because of which some Deputy in any part of the House may say: "No. I object to taking the Committee Stage now", and another week elapses. All that time, serious complications may be arising and you cannot bring them under control.
The Minister is still operating most of the Emergency Powers Orders.
As Deputy Allen says, the Minister is still operating, and must operate, most of these regulations now, but I can see Deputy Aiken's point of view that some of them do seem to relate strictly to emergency situations. I can sympathise with the man who says: "Why do you want power to control butter boxes?" There again Deputy Aiken is under an illusion. I have at present the power to permit a creamery to use a butter box twice and, where that is considered desirable, to require the shopkeeper not to sell the butter box for more than the creamery is prepared to credit him with if he returns it to the creamery.
That butter box Order was the Minister's own and he said at the beginning of the speech that all these powers were Fianna Fáil powers.
The Deputy did not read what I said. Listen to me. I wish I could get rid of that Order at the earliest possible opportunity for I would like to see the entire butter trade in this country done in fibre board boxes manufactured in Waterford, Athy or elsewhere. Why bring in Swedish timber boxes from Sweden if we can use our own? People may say: "Why do not you do it?" The answer is that if I issued a ukase in the morning that it must be done, I could cripple a whole lot of small creameries in the country because the expense on them of getting rid of the existing stocks they have and in changing their arrangements and doing all sorts of odd things that you would not know about if you were not in daily contact with creamery managers and creamery committees, would cripple the small ones.
A lot of people would say: "What are you fussing about? Why not tell them to use what they like?" I will tell you. It took us three years to test and establish a satisfactory specification for fibre board boxes to hold our butter. You would think that was extraordinary when you remember that New Zealand has been using fibre board boxes, that Denmark has been using them. You would ask: "Why cannot you use them without any more test?" It is because we discovered that the kind of butter we make in Ireland is not susceptible of the same packing process as is used in New Zealand or Denmark.
You can use a fibre board butter box in Denmark of an entirely different specification from the minimum which we insist on but if we do not insist on that minimum, half the butter we consign would arrive in battered boxes with the butter subject to contamination. But if I had taken a snap decision on that, I might have specified too strong a box. That could have put 6d. a cwt. on the packing costs of butter. On the other hand, if, in an attempt to spare the creameries as much expense as I could, I consented to a specification 3d. per box too low, the mills that made the box would have geared themselves up to the production of that box and I could have involved them in losses of thousands of pounds by condemning the weak box after I had allowed them to embark on its manufacture.
We have now arrived at what we believe to be a standard specification which gives marginal safety so that anybody who wants to go over to fibre board boxes can do so, and I hope the whole question of the existing timber butter boxes will cease to be of significance hereafter. In the meantime, I have the greatest sympathy with the person why says: "Why on earth do you not take your nose out of butter boxes altogether?" My answer is simply to say that the moment my technical advisers tell me it is safe to do so, there is nothing I would welcome more. But it is only a fool of a Minister for Agriculture who surrounds himself with technical advisers in a business as tricky as the creamery industry at the moment and who says to those men with 40 years' experience in the job: "It does not matter what you say; I am going to do this."
Is it a fact that the Order was made originally to save timber during the war?
Yes.
During the emergency. And that butter would cost 1/6 or 1/- a lb. more than if you had used the board boxes?
I think the fibre board box is coming and I imagine that within the next five years you will not see a timber box in use in this country. There are pluses and minuses. If you remember the shape of the pyramid butter box and remember the cold storage of butter in pyramid boxes, and offset the economy in cold storage costs when you are able to pack butter like bricks in square fibre board boxes, that deducts something from the cost. That consideration may be involved in the question of fibre board boxes used once as opposed to using timber boxes three times. Over and above that, it is not desirable to send Irish butter abroad in boxes that have all the appearance of having been knocked about for some time. We cannot contemplate exporting butter which is badly packed and we must ensure that when it is exported boxes will be used that will ensure its arrival in perfect condition.
You have nothing to put into any box we send out to-day.
Well, we are coming to that. I did not think Deputy Allen would fall into the fault of which I acquitted him on a previous occasion while Deputy Walsh was floundering in it. Deputy Walsh was glorying in the fact that the bottom had fallen out of the cattle market.
That is completely untrue.
I did not.
I thought Deputy Allen would never fall into that mistake, but instead I find him saying: "You will never export butter again" and he shakes his gory locks at me. I would first like to ask Deputy Allen to inquire why is it that at the present moment there are no exports of butter. Deputy Aiken was very eloquent about this and he says: "You pointed the finger of scorn at us when we subsidised exports of butter back in 1936 and 1938 and now look at you! You are quite prepared to contemplate exporting butter in the same circumstances." But there is a little figure in this equation to which Deputy Allen and Deputy Aiken have not referred. I will supply it for them. In 1938 we manufactured 766,000 cwt. of butter and our people ate 450,000 cwt., so that altogether we paid the British people to eat 328,000 cwt. of that butter. In 1955 we produced more than we produced in 1938 but we paid the British people nothing to consume any of it and our own people ate the lot. Was it better to have seen the standard of living of our people rise to the point where they ate all the butter that was made, more than was made in 1938, and was it better than to say to our people: "You are eating too much; you are living too well; you eat ‘marge,' we will ship 366,000 cwt. of butter to Great Britain and we will pay the British to eat it?"
What about the time we had to put on the gas masks?
Is not that consideration a facet of this Bill?
Order! The Minister should be allowed to speak without interruption.
I sat patiently while Deputy Aiken and Deputy Allen were doing their stuff because I knew they were putting their heads in a halter, but now when I pull the halter let not Deputy McGrath take fits in the back benches. It is not my fault that they put their heads in the halter.
It is you who killed the Irish butter industry.
Would the Minister have the figures for 1932, 1933 and 1934? I see he has a list there.
What figures?
For home consumption.
I have not the 1932 or 1933 figures, but in 1934 it was 769,000 cwt.—this is the production; in 1935, 827,000 cwt.; in 1936, 837,000 cwt.; in 1937, 758,000 cwt.; and in 1938, 756,000 cwt.
And the figures for home consumption?
I do not know. In 1936, I know we produced 837,000 cwt. and of that 462,000 was used at home.
What would it be if milk were 1/- a gallon?
Milk was then about 4d. a gallon.
It was 3½d. under Fine Gael.
(Interruptions)
It was 6d. at the time.
Milk was 4d. a gallon then, and calves were worth 7/6 or 10/- and everybody was going home with a parcel of free beef under his oxter because he could not sell it anywhere.
And a white turkey under the other.
Mark you, I did not ask that question; it was the Opposition who asked it. I did not refer to that at all. It was they who wanted to know the price of milk in 1936. What was the price of a calf?—7/6 to 10/-. What was the price of a bullock?— £3 15s. if he had four teeth.
In 1936? That information is not correct. It was in 1934 that these figures applied. They had gone up beyond that in 1936.
Milk was gone up?
Yes, it was 6d.
That is the time the Minister was running around in a blue shirt.
I am quite prepared to accept that price. It was 4d. a gallon after two years of Fianna Fáil, 6d. a gallon after four years and God knows what it would have been if you had continued——
It is now 1/7 after Fianna Fáil——
Instead of 1/- as the Minister would have it.
The Minister is getting very little opportunity to speak. These interruptions must cease.
Tell us how are things in 1956?
In regard to the prospect for the coming year, I think a possibility is there—it is only a forecast because it is largely conditioned by weather conditions, as we all know— but I think there is a prospect that in the coming year there will be butter exports, that we shall have an exportable surplus of butter over and above our people's capacity to consume after the Government have provided a subsidy of 5d. per lb. to induce them to consume their own butter. After they have consumed all the butter they can eat, I think it is possible—I cannot go farther than that at the moment—that there will be an exportable surplus of butter. We know that Fianna Fáil were praying and storming heaven that we would have to import butter this year and it broke their hearts that we did not. The fact is that we had a "fluky" kind of autumn. Last September I thought we might have to import butter but on account of the very mild autumn and winter we did not have to import it at all.
So much the better.
So much the better. With the mild weather and abundant feeding, it is likely that cattle will go out fitter this spring and I do not think it is at all impossible—mind you, that is as far as I can go at the moment—that we shall have an exportable surplus.
And the subsidy to John Bull will be twice that which John Bull himself is giving.
Do you tell me that? I know that Deputies opposite were praying and storming heaven that the price of butter on world markets would slump but the Deputies opposite will excuse me if I hope and pray the trend will be in the other direction, so that our exports will go out at more economic prices.
What price will the farmers get for their milk?
Deputy Donnchadh Ó Briain, with the circumspection which has been referred to in the Scripture and has been likened to a cat walking along the top of a wall covered with glass, made reference to the report of the Costings Commission. He reminded me of the turtle in Alice Through the Looking Glass who said: “Will you, won't you, will you, won't you, join the dance?” I am told that the members of the commission got a preliminary report on the 1st March, five days before they staged a march in the city, and believe it or not, I am damned if I can get them to give it to me. I understand by rumour, but this is only unofficial——
Off the record?
Not off the record; I am bound to give the House the best information I have. I cannot get this commission to give me that preliminary report. They have their reasons for withholding it but I think they are treating me a little hardly by not giving me whatever information they have got?
What is the rumour?
The rumour is that the preliminary report related only to milk produced for consumption in the Dublin and Cork liquid milk areas.
That has been announced by the Government Information Bureau.
Yes. The Deputy need not get cross.
I am not getting cross.
I know Deputy Ó Briain will sympathise with me when he thinks of the members of the commission having the report now for close on three weeks and not having told me what is in it though they paraded the town having it in their pockets. The rumour—and let me point out it is no more than a rumour—which has reached me is that they have been advised by their technical directors that the prime cost of the production of one gallon of milk, including labour and raw material, is 1/3¾d. per gallon. The farmers' representatives, I understand, claim there ought to be an estimate providing for payment of management and compensation for capital. According to the rumour, I understand that the figures they have in mind are 4½d. for the management of the cow and 4½d. for the recruitment of capital invested in the cow. I do not profess to be an expert in such matters or to be in a position at this stage to discuss the merits of this. All I say is that rumour has it that the prime cost has been fixed at 1/3¾d. per gallon and that the cost of raw materials and labour are included in that.
The whole year round?
Yes, the average cost for the whole year round. I must tell Deputies again that I cannot give them a categorical answer for I do not know. I have not got it. I have given the rumour I have got and it is in respect of liquid milk for human consumption produced in the months of January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December, on the usual contract basis, that the farmer undertakes to deliver a uniform quantity day in day out to the wholesaler.
What price is he getting?
The average price, taking the whole year, has been estimated at something between 2/2 and 2/3 per gallon. The prime cost of production is said to be something in the order of 1/3¾d. per gallon. The house must not forget that the claim is made that there ought to be an allowance for interest on the cow and for management of the cow. I do not profess to be qualified to discuss the merits of these claims and counter-claims. I have given all I have got. I have been assured that the corresponding information in respect of creamery milk will be made available to the commission by their technical director before the end of this month. I would be inclined, in common sense and reason, to accept that assurance but I would not criticise anyone if there were two or three days' difference. I feel sure they will be made available at the end of this month.
I know Deputy Ó Briain will agree with me that these figures should be made available to me at the earliest opportunity so that I can communicate them to Dáil Éireann. I want to repeat in public what I have repeatedly said before, that I want those figures at the earliest possible moment, so that I may bring them to the knowledge of the only body in Ireland that is entitled to pass final judgment on them—Oireachtas Éireann.
There are a lot of people throughout the country who seem to be making the claim that there is somebody superior to Dáil Éireann. The sooner they get that notion out of their heads the better. We are the elected representatives of the people of Ireland and we can pitch any Government out of office at our will. We, the elected representatives of the people of Ireland, can determine policy and enact the law and we are the only authority in Ireland qualified to do that, whether we be the humblest creatures or the most exalted aristocrats in the land. But let nobody allow the illusion to grow in his mind that any outside interest in this country will ever grow so powerful that the Legislature of Ireland will be obliged to bow to its will. We are the Government of the Irish people and, whatever Government sits in these benches by the authority of Dáil Éireann is the sole authority entitled to govern in the Irish Republic.
I should be most happy, if Deputies on the other side really consider it necessary to go through this Bill in detail in Committee to afford them every opportunity of doing so and to convenience them in every way. I have not the slightest doubt that on consideration of the several sections they will see with me that, far from attempting perpetual, unnecessary, restrictive regulation, this Bill is designed to make it possible to suspend most of these regulations but to retain the power, should the necessity arise, of bringing them back into operation, without allowing invaluable time to elapse while the procedure of ad hoc legislation is being availed of.
If that view prevails on the Opposition, I suggest we might get this Bill out of the way so that the general operation of making the Supplies and Services Act unnecessary can be expedited in every way. On the other hand, if the Opposition feel that further examination of the Bill is requisite, then I am in their hands and it is their convenience that shall be met in connection with the Committee and Report Stages.
I want to say, in conclusion, that Deputy Lemass who, I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, had cast himself for the role of the busy bee of this Legislature, appeared to be highly critical of the length of time it takes this Government to produce legislation and submit it to the Dáil for its approval.
Deputy Lemass did not speak on this Bill at all.
Do not be cross now. He spoke on the Supplies and Services Act, a measure which this Bill is designed to supplant. I think it is only right for the record to mention, first, that the amount of legislation which has been disposed of in this House at the instance of this Government in the last fortnight constitutes a record.
The Opposition may be thanked for that.
That was with the co-operation of the Opposition.
I am not apportioning blame. I am simply recording the fact.
If the Minister wants it slowed up, we will slow it up.
Oh! A master hand is speaking. I want to make this further point. I do not think it is a healthy thing that the efficiency or the effectiveness of the members of this Parliament should be measured by their capacity for churning out legislation. I think sometimes the mistake young Parliaments make—and old Parliaments, too—is that they are too fond of legislation; and, if they would give legislation a rest occasionally, it might be a very good thing. If the Dáil does not produce a single Act in any particular month of our session, that does not necessarily mean that either this Dáil or this Government has failed to do its work. There is plenty of work.
We seem to be getting away from the Bill.
And all the legislation was only frippery. All this legislation the Minister talks about passing in the last 12 months is only frippery.
Whatever way we approach this, the Opposition take the point of view—if you pass Acts of Parliament, they are of no significance; if you do not pass them, they would have been of extreme significance if you had passed them. I can assure Deputy Ó Briain that we are passing the legislation we think necessary for the welfare of the community over which, for the time being, we preside; and we shall turn with confident hope to Deputy Ó Briain for his co-operation in the enactment of any other legislation which may be requisite to that end. But we will not collaborate in any attempt by him or his colleagues to present the picture of the busy bee buzzing about nothing at all.
Question put and agreed to.
The Minister asked a question as to whether we would be prepared to agree to give all stages to-day. I suggest the Minister should take this Bill for a couple of weeks, have a look at it, think on what he would have said, had this been brought in by a Fianna Fáil Minister as permanent legislation, and amend it accordingly.
I am entirely in the hands of the Opposition.
Deputy Aiken did not even read the Bill until he came into the House to-day.
That is as untrue as everything else the Parliamentary Secretary says.
There is no urgency. If it suits, the first day after the Easter Recess will be perfectly all right.
And let the Minister in the meantime take his nose out of the butter box.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 10th April, 1956.
The Dáil adjourned at 3.50 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 10th April, 1956.