I want to say on behalf of the dairy farmers, a good many of whom I have the honour to represent, that this Bill should be welcomed by the House and should have the blessing of all concerned. We should not start off, as Deputy Dillon has, by ridiculing it. This Bill envisages the establishment of a committee which will understand the problems of the dairy industry. It is obvious Deputy Dillon does not understand those problems.
Dairy Produce Marketing Bill, 1960 Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
You do not believe a word of it.
To say that all the problems of the dairy farmer could be resolved by the appointment of a parish agent under the Parish Plan is the greatest over-simplification of a problem I have ever listened to. I can speak with considerable personal knowledge of the dairy industry, and I defy anyone, whether he be an agricultural instructor or otherwise, to tell me better ways of increasing the output of my dairy farm than those I know myself. Our difficulty in Cork has been to get people to avail of the agricultural services we already have without offering them more. People may require advice in regard to particular matters but to say that by bringing one of those gentlemen into the yard of a dairy farmer, he could increase his output by 50 or 60 per cent. in the course of 18 months or two years is absolute nonsense.
Everybody knows—and Deputy Dillon should know it—that the market for dairy produce has become highly competitive everywhere. I agree with him that there is now a very wide field for milk products but I disagree with him when he says that dairy farmers have unlimited possibilities under present arrangements. We have not. In my opinion, we in the dairy industry are trying to straddle two horses at the same time. We are trying to provide beef and, at the same time, trying to provide milk. It is virtually an impossibility to go in for the unlimited production of both at the same time. That is what has been distracting the dairy farmer up to now, and I suppose it will continue to be so. Instead of concentrating on producing an unlimited or greatly increased supply of milk, he has been trying to provide both milk and beef at the same time. That has been the great impediment to increasing milk production, and nothing we can say about agricultural instructors or parish agents can change that position unless the Department and the people concerned are convinced that in the production and sale of milk lies the most money. When that becomes apparent nobody will change over more quickly to the full production of milk than the Irish dairy farmer. When he finds in one year an increased demand for calves or store cattle and no means of disposing of surplus milk and difficulty in knowing what that surplus will realise, he is very slow to go into milk production. Once he is convinced that there is a prospect of selling milk and milk products, he will produce an immense amount of milk.
If the Board operates in the right direction, as I am sure it will, the dairy farmer will realise that the future of the agricultural industry lies in milk and milk products. That is as it should be. That is why I say the Board is welcomed by those who are really interested in dairy farming. The tragedy is that so few people are really interested in dairy farming. Lip-service is paid to the dairy farmers but very few people are prepared to admit that the dairy farmers are literally the hewers of wood and drawers of water of the farming industry.
Hear, hear! Who made them that?
They are in that position because they do not know where they are going between the policies in regard to beef and milk and because of the difficulty they have experienced in disposing of surplus milk products. They very often had to dispose of them at very bad prices. That was because no real attempt was made to channel milk to any particular use and because the exportable surplus was marketed in such a haphazard manner that nobody knew what anything was worth or what would become of it.
That is why I am of the opinion that if this Board operates properly and sensibly, as I am sure it will, it will create hope and confidence in the dairy farmers. The fact that the Board will exist to see that products are properly marketed will mean a higher return for our products and will definitely have the effect of increasing milk production.
I know it is very easy to stand up here and find fault with what is being done. That is the easiest thing in the world to do. In all the criticism I have heard so far, I have not heard one constructive suggestion or any alternative.
Oh!
This Board certainly deserves a chance. The section of the farming industry concerned are the people who are entitled to deal with the marketing of their products. Does Deputy Dillon or anybody else expect the Minister or his officials to tour England or any other country in order to sell dairy products? That is not and should not be necessary. It should not be the function of the officials of the Department. To assert that the Government in establishing the Board are simply passing the buck is completely wrong and gives a completely wrong impression.
I see no reason why the Board cannot do an immense amount of work, as other boards in other countries are doing, for milk products. The cream-exporting part of the business should have got more direct representation.
It has got representation.
"More direct repreresentation", I said. It is a traditional trade. It secured a hold on the British market for a commodity that it is very difficult to sell at times because it is regarded as a luxury.
Have they not got a representative on the Board?
I know that, yes.
How could they be more directly represented?
I am glad that at least the interest is represented but I should like it to have had more direct representation on the Board.
How could the representation be more direct?
Once that representation is there, I hope some good will come of it. The sale of cream on the British market is a highly competitive business and it may not be an easy thing for the Board to increase sales. The export of cream is increasing. That development has been achieved without any aid from the State or anybody else and I suggest it should get very special consideration.
We wish the Board well in its very difficult task. It certainly will have its hands full and deserves the best wishes of the House and the people.
The first intimation the House had of the Government's intention to introduce this Bill was when a motion was tabled in the names of two Independent Farmer Deputies in Private Members' Time. The Taoiseach availed of that opportunity to announce that the Government had decided to do something dramatic in the interests of the agricultural community. We were informed in the same debate by Deputies supporting the Government, notably Deputy Moloney, that something of very great consequence to the dairying industry was envisaged in a Bill which was shortly to be introduced. Now that we have the Bill at hand and have heard the Minister's statement on it, we fail to see what aroused all these great expectations. Those who had great expectations deserve sympathy, now that we have seen the proposals about which they are called upon to be so enthusiastic.
The Minister's speech, almost in its entirety, was taken up with the mechanics of the setting up of the Board and the responsibilities it was intended to transfer to the Board. We must look at this in the context of the general policy of the Government to pass the buck, as Deputy Dillon put it, in very plain English.
The Government were elected as a strong Government. The Party in Government got it across to the people, that what the country required was a strong Government and the people, unfortunately for themselves, elected them as a strong Government. I am sure they expected that a Government having the majority this Government enjoy could face up to tasks that a weaker Government could not attempt. We find that when anything arises which contains an element of political risk, a board is established and responsibility is boarded out, so as to relieve the Minister concerned of his obligation to defend in this House the administration of the affairs transferred to an outside body. There has been monotonous repetition every time a question was asked, of the statement that the matter was not the responsibility of the Minister, that Deputies should address their queries to some other body. This unknown and intriguing person, this woman whose voice is raised to inform people they have the wrong phone number, has nothing on the Ministers in this Government. And we have the Minister for Agriculture as the king pin in this——
I take it this is just a passing reference?
It is only a passing reference. This proposal now is a continuance of that policy — a continuance on the part of the Minister for Agriculture, on this occasion, of the creation of the second child of his brain in relation to this sort of thing. We all know of the major problem the Minister had to contend with in regard to wheat. What did the Minister do? He resolved that problem by ridding himself of all responsibility, by setting up An Bord Gráin. That relieved him of any particular responsibility but it did not work well for the unfortunate people who were sold the pup. The wheat growers have an entirely different view today.
Now an effort is being made to bring into being An Bord Bainne which will promote the same end as that for which An Bord Gráin was brought into being in relation to wheat. Let us hope the same pitiable consequences do not flow from An Bord Bainne. When we look at the problem we are asked to face in this Bill in regard to the marketing of dairy produce, we must review for the moment the situation in which we found ourselves a decade ago. Far from having any problem of the marketing of dairy produce, we did not have enough dairy produce to supply the requirements of our own people.
Not very much more than a decade ago, butter was rationed and the problem then was to bring production up to the point at which rationing could be dispensed with and to continue that advancement so that we would be able to guarantee supplies of dairy produce to outside markets. We could not hope to make any progress in securing those markets until we had the first essential — a guarantee of being able to supply any markets procured. Towards the end of the increase in production, the first action of the Government was to put an end to calf slaughter so as to preserve the cattle population in the south of Ireland. If that had not been done in 1948 by the then Government, what necessity would there be to-day for any Board to concern itself with the marketing of dairy produce? We would not have enough butter for our own people. Following that, we embarked on the provision of ground limestone, after which we introduced the Farm Building Scheme, the Land Project and secured markets for cattle in dairying areas.
I should mention here the increased value of the skim milk brought home from creameries in consequence of the increased conversion value of it as feed for pigs and other such animals which we were able to produce to a greater extent and which brought a reward by contributing towards the overall profits of the dairy farmers. It is regretable that now there is a diminution in those profits because of the decrease in the value of store cattle and the fact that people delivering milk to creameries now suffer a reduction equal to 3d. or 4d. per gallon in the price of milk. This happened because of the deliberate reduction brought about in the monthly cheques paid by the creamery societies. It is a fact that the reduction people have suffered in their incomes because of the decrease in the numbers of young cattle is equal to 3d. or 4d. a gallon in the price of milk.
The Government resorted to a method which they had already applied to wheat — the imposition of a penny levy on the milk producers. Then, at a later date, a penny increase was given in the price of milk. Of course, that was not peculiar to the agricultural industry: we know the extra charge borne by every Department for increased salaries for all sections in order to meet the higher cost of living. But the increase given to the dairy farmers was balanced by the levy on the creamery milk suppliers in order to create this fund which the Government have had for some years past.
Now it is intended to charge this Board again with part of the cost of subsidising the production of butter for export. Before this, this cost was borne entirely by the Exchequer. We do not find that people who produce other goods for export are called upon to produce any money by way of levy, but here we see the agricultural community again selected for unfair treatment. Seemingly, the blow will be softened because they are invited to apply the blow themselves. I cannot see the reasoning behind the idea that if you get people to hurt themselves, they will suffer less than if the blow were delivered by an outsider.
Through the enactment of this Bill, the position will be that the Minister can fall back on Bord Bainne as readily as he did earlier on Bord Gráin in relation to wheat. On the last occasion, the Government were very much embarrassed by the conditions in the dairying areas and they had to resort to the creation of an outside body. There was the Milk Costings Commission, the carrot dangled some years ago by the Government. Of course it did its job. It diverted the attention of the people from their problems then and directed their attention to the Commission itself. This carrot was left dangling for a long time and when it was all over, we were as wise as we were at the start.
That Commission served its political purpose. Can it be regarded as unfair if we suspect, in the creation of this new body, something similar to what was adopted by a Minister for Agriculture in a Fianna Fáil Government on two other occasions? We are prepared to wait—since we can do nothing else — for the outcome of this body's deliberations. Time will tell whether it will succeed in securing the markets we had all hoped could be secured so as to guarantee that the producer will be saved from the impact of any reduction in his income in consequence of over production. Deputy Dillon went into more detail. We see great possibilities in securing markets for milk products in countries in more than one continent. We have diplomatic representatives in many countries. In placing responsibility on this board for the marketing of dairy products do we completely relieve our diplomats abroad from any obligation to secure markets for agricultural products?
Other organisations are in existence to promote the sale of industrial goods. These bodies are financed out of State funds. They are not directly contributed to by industrial producers and industrial exporters. This represents a break-down in the guaranteed price of milk delivered to creameries. There was also a break-down in relation to the price of wheat.
It would be very difficult to prevent the farmers from fearing, as they once did that, were they to work harder and respond to appeals to produce more, there would be a diminution in their incomes because of a fall in prices. By exacting a levy on the exportable surplus, we are re-enacting what was done in relation to An Bord Gráin.
This measure will be interpreted by many producers as another heavy impost. It would have been well worth while to retain the complete subsidy from the Exchequer towards the cost of exporting any surplus rather than to break the price guarantee which was responsible for bringing about the increased production we all wanted and which happily we have. It is to be hoped that the reduction in the delivery of milk to creameries, recorded for a couple of years, will show an upward movement until it gets back to the position it enjoyed some four or five years ago. If, next year, we have an exportable surplus of butter I hope it will be achieved by increased production rather than by a reduction in consumption in this country.
In Departmental returns we find that in 1956 there was a very small increase of some thousand cwts. of butter consumed over 1955. The withdrawal of food subsidies and the great increase in the price of butter resulted in a reduction by 60,000 cwts. in the amount of butter consumed in this country in 1957vis-a-vis 1956. Again in 1958, we had a reduction from 700,000 cwts. to 684,000 cwts. Therefore, if there is an exportable surplus next year, one of the factors creating it will be that we have placed Irish creamery butter beyond the capacity of too many Irish families to buy and consume.
Rather than create a situation in which there would be reduced consumption at home, we should try to develop the home market and also to increase production. We could then export our surplus. These are reasons why we feel there is not in this Bill all that the Government would like us to believe. We hope and trust it will be to the benefit of the agricultural community and that it will not prove as we suspect, a mere passing of responsibility. We see in this measure a repetition of enactments which were face-savers for the Government in circumstances that they found embarrassing. A continuous shedding of responsibility will not lead this country into the happy position in which we should all like to see it.
It is not good enough continuously to take from this House the opportunities that should be the right of this Legislative Assembly. We should retain our right to make frequent inquiries into marketing as well as into many other operations of State management. If these rights are handed over to a board the Minister will be in a position to say: "I have no responsibility in the matter. It is a matter for An Bord this or An Bord that." That would be the end of the question. Ultimately, such procedure will lead to frustration among those engaged in this industry.
It is well that there is enthusiasm among agricultural organisations who are prepared to give of their best to educate and bring modern facilities to the doors of many thousands of our farmers. These men and women are prepared to shoulder a lot of responsibility. Possibly they are prepared to shoulder more responsibility than they would if they knew all the factors involved. It would be criminal to abuse their enthusiasm by unloading so much responsibility on them and then saying: "We have washed our hands of it. That is no longer our problem. That is now the problem of such and such an organisation or such and such a group of representatives of organisations in a Board we have created." That would do much more than dampen the ardour of those undertaking such responsibility. It would have a very detrimental effect on the future of our agricultural industry.
I have no doubt but that this Bill, which is to set up An Bord Bainne, will be welcomed by everybody who has the interest and future prosperity of this country at heart. Over the past few years, rapid and radical changes have taken place in political, cultural and economic fields throughout the world. In the economic field, methods of salesmanship have improved out of all knowledge. The nation which is willing to rest on its oars and simply throw its produce on the export market in the hope that it will sell itself soon finds itself accepting the lowest prices and also finds itself with large surpluses left on its hands.
A small nation such as ours, which is competing with large and well-developed nations, must make up in efficiency what it may lack in production and wealth. When we realise that agriculture is the back-bone of our economy, it is only right that we should make every effort to improve the salesmanship of our agricultural produce on the export market. It was with this aim in view that the late Seán Moylan, when Minister for Agriculture, asked this House to vote £250,000 for market research and it is mainly on the results of this research that this Bill has come before the House.
The dairying industry and the cattle industry which is allied to it accounts for a very large percentage of our agricultural output. For that reason, it is only right that it should get priority when we come to consider ways and means of selling our agricultural produce on the export market. Since I came into public life, I have been particularly interested in this matter of marketing our agricultural produce on the export markets. To be candid, I wondered why more was not done in regard to this vital matter many years before. As I mentioned on an Estimate for the Department of Agriculture a couple of years ago, I made a survey of shops and stores in the Liverpool area, mainly with the intention of trying to find out why our butter was then fetching such a low price on the British market. At that time, I was not aware that the bulk of our butter was being sent to the Liverpool area. When I read the Advisory Committee's report, I found that their findings were very much the same as mine. Possibly the reason for that is the fact that the bulk of our butter is being sold in the Liverpool area.
The securing of an economic price for our creamery butter is, and will continue for some time to be, one of our biggest problems. When we consider that three-quarters of the milk products exported by us in 1958 consisted of creamery butter, we can realise the great problem which faces us in this matter. There is a suggestion by the Advisory Committee, which I believe is a good one, that we should be in a position to change from producing one type of milk product to another type when the market is found more favourable for the other type. We will all agree, however, that this is not something which can be done quickly. It is a matter which will take considerable time and for which a considerable amount of planning and organisation will be needed.
I am in agreement with the Advisory Committee that whatever measures we may take in the interim to help in the disposal of our surplus milk products, the future of the dairying industry depends on a long-term, well-planned policy. From what I can gather from the Advisory Committee's report and from the various investigations I have made myself, I feel that we will all agree the foundation stone of a reliable export trade must be a regular supply to the export market. In most stores which I visited in the Liverpool area, I found that the shopkeepers and customers were well satisfied with Irish butter, well satisfied with its quality, but it was pointed out to me that when a customer bought Irish butter for a number of weeks and had acquired a taste for it, he found he was no longer able to get it because of a short supply here at home. The result was that, perforce, he had to change over to buying butter from some other country and eventually he acquired a taste for this other butter and rarely returned to buying Irish butter when it came into supply again.
It is shown in the report that when a plentiful supply of butter was being exported to Britain, the difference between the price of Danish and British butter, on the one hand, and of Irish butter, on the other, was very great. On the other hand, when the supply of butter from this country was scarce on the export market, the differential in price between Irish and Danish butter closed up very considerably. I am convinced that this was not caused by the normal supply and demand conditions. I say this because, in the first place, we supply a very small percentage of the total amount of butter consumed in Britain and, in the second place, it is reasonable to assume that when we had large supplies of butter here, both the Danish and British also had large supplies of buttter.
I feel the reason why the prices closed up when we had only a small supply to export was that there was a small circle of people in Britain who were really anxious to get Irish butter and were willing to pay for it when it was in small supply. When Irish butter is cut off from the market altogether, the exporters find that to get into the market again, they must start rock bottom. As I mentioned before, people after a certain time lose the taste for Irish butter and in order to try to get them to acquire this taste again, Irish butter has to be sold at the lowest possible price.
No industry could stand this type of fluctuation. We have got to try to streamline our exports of butter and our salesmanship, just the same as we are endeavouring to streamline the sales of our industrial goods on the foreign market. I feel that the present policy of sending supplies to a small area in Britain is the sensible one, so long as our supplies are limited. When an area is selected by An Bord Bainne and when it is satisfied that it will be able to supply the market regularly, then it should embark on an intensive advertising campaign to endeavour to sell as much of our butter as possible.
While on this matter of advertising, I should like to point out that a lot of nonsense is being talked about advertising. We are advised by this body and that body that we should advertise ad lib but we must realise that when we advertise it is good business practice —in fact, it is the only business practice — to be in a position to supply the market. It is extremely dangerous to create a demand for a product and then be unable to supply that product regularly because it not only damages the product when it comes into plentiful supply again but damages the sale of other products from the same source.
The question of agents was dealt with in the report. I am inclined to feel that the fewer agents we have, the better, particularly when our supplies are not large. An agent is much more interested in selling a commodity when he has a considerable amount of that commodity to sell. If we increase the number of our agents and each of them has proportionately less to sell, his interest in selling our product will lessen. Several areas have been mentioned in the report as being areas into which we should endeavour to get our butter. Glasgow and Cardiff were mentioned. I feel that Glasgow would be an excellent area to select because a considerable number of our people live there.
I would agree to a considerable extent with the Advisory Committee that we should not rely too much on sentiment in the matter of selling our goods on the export market. When we look around and ask ourselves how many people who go into our shops ask specifically whether an article is Irish-produced before buying it, we realise that the number is relatively small. When we, with an economic necessity to buy Irish, are not as interested as we ought to be, we should not rely too much on our people abroad, who have not the same economic necessity as we have, doing better than ourselves. At the same time, I feel it would be easier to promote the sale of Irish-made products in a city where there are a considerable number of Irish people living than in a city where the people are strangers, so far as this country is concerned.
The question of packaging was fully dealt with in the report. Personally, I was always inclined to favour the packaging of butter here at home, first, because it gave employment and, secondly, because we would be certain that the butter sold as Irish butter on the export market was Irish. I appreciate from the report that there are very considerable difficulties in the way of exporting our butter in packaged form.
There is one suggestion in the report which I feel could lead to considerable controversy. I refer to the suggestion that we should consider safeguarding our butter exports, at a time of short supply by importing foreign butter. That is a very wide problem. I believe the Danes do something like that. Of course, really to overcome the problem with regard to our exports of butter to the British market, we would have to get to the point where we could supply the market regularly and we must carry a certain amount of the burden in the interim period.
With regard to the sale of cheese on the export market, I would say the main difficulty is caused by the fact that we consume so little cheese here at home. In any of our native industries — I am not referring now to industries set up for export only—it is regarded as a necessity that we should have reasonable home consumption of the article produced, in order to be able to compete successfully on the foreign export market. I believe we should try to promote cheese consumption at home to help our cheese manufacturers to export successfully. A suggestion was made that we should begin with the children. That is a good idea, because after a certain age, it is difficult to acquire a taste for cheese to the extent that it will be consumed in considerable amounts.
Apart from the discussions on this Bill, reference was made on a number of occasions to the possibility of getting our milk products into the markets of the newly-free States in Africa. I have no doubt that the Danes and the Dutch are doing their utmost to get into these markets, but I feel that we have an advantage over them in so far as there is a fund of goodwill for this country in many of these newly-free States because of the very fine work of our missionaries in developing hospitals, schools, and so on.
Reference was also made in the report to the possibility of selling butter in areas other than those already mentioned in Britain. I made a suggestion some time ago that it might be possible for us to establish something on the lines of a supermarket in London, a place where Irish goods would be on view and for sale, a place to which people interested in buying Irish goods could be directed. If we had something on those lines, we might be able to develop and expand our sales in that area. Again, of course, we come back to the question of whether or not we can supply the market. As I said before, our main objective should be to create a regular supply to small areas, first, and develop from there.
I am glad to note that there will be a number of people on the board who are experts in the production of milk products, that the chairman of the board will be elected by the members and that there will be as little red tape as possible. I should like to wish the new board well. I have no doubt it will do a considerable amount to improve the dairying industry.
I am glad to note from the Minister's statement that he welcomes the tendency towards increased milk production. Milk is the basic product of our agricultural industry and our cattle and pig industry really depend on it. It is an accepted fact that agriculture is our great industry. Naturally, we in the southern counties are very interested in anything which appertains to the dairying industry. If the setting-up of this board means some prosperity for the dairying industry, which is very much in the doldrums, everyone must welcome its establishment. If the board produces a ready answer as to how this industry is to be put properly on its feet, certainly no one from any side of the House will quibble with it.
Everyone is aware that there are fluctuations in the dairying industry, seasonal and otherwise. The year before last was a fair indication of how the weather can affect the production of milk, or the production of butter, into which the bulk of our milk is channelled. In the past year, we did not have substantial exports of butter and, consequently, the money made available by the House to support such exports was not needed.
The dairy farmer is always concerned with the fact that the more milk he produces, evidently, the more difficulty he runs into. The question was raised here this evening as to whether the Irish farmer should go in for dairying cattle, or cattle for beef. We are well aware over the years of the problem which is created when we have an exportable surplus of butter. In our attempts to get into foreign markets, we find that the exports of such products as butter and cheese have to be subsidised. That means that the people must produce to support and enable that product to be put on the market which is, in the main, the British market. That leaves the farmer — and certainly the southern farmer — in the position that he cannot wholly concentrate upon milk. In addition, perhaps it would not be wise, having regard to the present tendency of cattle prices, to go in for cattle entirely. Consequently, traditionally for a great many years we have had the dual purpose cow as the foundation of both the dairying industry and the cattle industry in this country.
The functions which this Board is now to carry out seem to me, from reading this Bill, to becatered for already in, as has been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, the machinery of the Butter Marketing Board. Having read how the personnel of this Board are to be selected and noting from the Minister's speech that there is to be a representative of cream exporters, I must confess that at the moment I have not been able to find directly where this representative is among the members set out in the various sections.
Unless I am mistaken in my reading of the sections, three are to be members of the Board on the basis of the co-operative dairying societies in nine counties. One member is to be selected by the Dairy Disposal Company; one from the manufacturers of cheese; one from the manufacturers of milk powder; one from the manufacturers of chocolate crumb; one nominated by the Minister who is a representative of the company which is the Dairy Disposal Company; and then an officer of the Minister. Those, so far as I can make out, are the nine members of this Board. I do not know how the cream exporters are to have representation unless some direction is given that one member shall be a representative of those who are now known as the Irish Cream Exporters Association.
Again, while the various co-operative dairy societies in nine counties are to have the choosing of three members, a body which, in the south of Ireland, has concerned itself very much with the interests of the Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association, has no direct representative on the Board. In addition, the technical experts of the industry, so far as the co-operative societies are concerned, the managers, have not secured any representative on this Board. I think that, when a board such as this, by which it is hoped to improve the dairying industry is constituted, we certainly ought to include on it one of these people who represent the technical side of the production of milk products.
I note from the Minister's speech that some of the products of milk come under the control of the Board, but there are certain products exempted and in that respect, the Minister mentioned certain types of cheese. I should like the Minister to indicate to us what special varieties of cheese are to be exempted from the marketing functions of this Board and also to indicate to us, if the price of Irish cheese fluctuates on the British market as it does at the moment even with a subsidy, will the Board accept responsibility then for the marketing of cheese without loss to the producers of cheese?
Another question which suggests itself is: by what means and in what markets does the Board intend to develop the export of cheese? What assistance will the Board give to the existing manufacturers of cheese who undertake research and development of other varieties of cheese, its packing or its presentation? I notice that milk powder is to be exempted. Perhaps the Minister would indicate whether it is the intention of the Board eventually to take over the purchasing and marketing of milk powder, both whole milk and skim milk? I understand that an American company who are interested in the purchasing of whole milk powder from Ireland are coming here. Perhaps the Minister would indicate, if there is any contract with this company, the basis of the contract and what quantity we may expect the company to take. In regard to the purchase of such products, the manufacturers of milk powder would be very interested to know what price they might expect, what the market tendency might be and whether an export subsidy will be applied to the export of milk powder. I am sure that standards of cleanliness will be required. What steps will be taken by the Department to ensure that a bacteriologically clean milk supply will be available to measure up to these standards?
At the present time, the marketing of milk powder and chocolate crumb is to be left outside the jurisdiction of the Board. These products are to be exempted. Since they are being exempted, it occurs to one to ask why these interests should have representation on the Board. If they are to be removed from its jurisdiction, why should those interests have direct representation on the Board?
The hopes expressed for the success of this Board are sentiments which everybody connected with the dairying industry will endorse. If, indeed, only half these hopes are realised they will play a tremendous part in relieving the anxieties of dairy farmers at the present time. They have experienced over the years, and are still experiencing, great difficulties in a difficult trade. Not alone have they to shoulder the burden of an uncertain market but, in regard to the production of milk, they are engaged in the very vital task of eradicating bovine tuberculosis. Both phases of the industry are fundamentally connected. The dairy farmer who is faced with the problem of clearing his herds, and the vast capital expenditure involved in that, will welcome this Bill provided that the setting up of this Board will give him an adequate return on the milk he produces.
The dairy farmers will require, however, from the Minister, an assurance that the activities of this Board will produce for them a speedy solution of the problems with which they are confronted. If the Board succeeds in doing that, then I, as a representative of a dairying area, welcome the measure. When the Minister comes to reply, I invite him to answer the questions which the dairy industry sees fit to pose at the moment.
As a representative of one of the main dairying areas in the country I welcome this Bill. May I say that I have been rather disappointed with the reception given to the Bill by some members on the Opposition Benches? The allegation was made and repeated that the purpose of the Bill is to enable the Government to shelve their responsibilities in regard to the marketing of dairy produce. There is nothing to sustain that allegation as far as the Bill is concerned.
We have to go back many years to find out the real reason for the introduction of this measure. Producers of milk, whilst appreciating the good work done by the existing marketing machinery under Government auspices, have a feeling that an organisation directly under their control charged with the responsibility of marketing would do a better job. We all know the mental attitude of people generally, whether they be business people or engaged in agriculture, towards the handling of business matters by a Government Department.
I should like to avail of this opportunity to say that the marketing organisation under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture has done a very good job. How good that job has been will be realised only when the new board comes to tackle the same problem and gains some experience. Until we read the very comprehensive report of the Advisory Committee many of us did not realise how complex the problem is. Successive Governments have played around with the idea for some years that a thorough investigation should be made into existing conditions with regard to marketing. The decision taken by the late Minister for Agriculture, Senator Moylan, to set up a marketing board was a very realistic approach to the problem. The advisory committee was set up in due course, and set to work. As a result, a very comprehensive report has been introduced. Certain recommendations have been made, and the Bill now before the House is framed generally on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee.
We shall do good work for those whom we represent and for the country as a whole if we confine our remarks now to the measure before us for consideration. I have listened to some rambling speeches here this evening dealing with the operations of other Government boards and, in my opinion, these have no relevance, good, bad, or indifferent to the measure now before us.
The first consideration is the responsibility the Government should have in relation to the marketing of agricultural produce. Should a Government have such a responsibility in relation to agricultural produce any more than they have responsibility for the marketing of industrial products? We know that the dairying industry has not had the same opportunity of becoming organised as other industrial activities have had. It was for that reason presumably that the Department of Agriculture, 20 or 25 years ago, took on the job of organising the agricultural market.
I have been told by those in the creamery industry that the position 35 years ago was chaotic, just before the Dairy Produce Acts came into operation. In various parts of the country we can still see the remains of creameries which went out of commission. The creamery organisation did not seem then to be able to survive. Co-operative creameries did not have either the co-operation or the allegiance that they deserved. There was a trade war on the whole time between these creameries and those owned by private interests. By and large, as a result of Government intervention, that state of affairs was corrected.
In recent years we have been faced with fluctuations in supplies of dairy produce. I doubt if any other organisation could handle such a complex problem as one which is representative of all the interests concerned and I am glad to note from the Bill that such a very close examination has been made of that aspect of the matter. The Minister is endeavouring to create now an organisation which should have every opportunity of being a success. The task before the board will not, however, be an easy one. The report of the advisory committee lists in great detail the various problems that have to be tackled. I think the board will have a very big job of work before it.
The construction of the board, in accordance with the terms of the Bill, makes for confidence and optimism that a body will now be set up capable of facing the task and doing a good job. For the first time the producers. have an opportunity of selecting their representatives and I know they will select persons who will be capable of discharging the duties assigned to them. That is a very important aspect of this Bill. When one gets an opportunity of selecting someone to do a job for one, one has much more confidence in that person than if the representative were nominated by somebody else.
One thing that impressed me very much is the provision in the Bill for the appointment of senior executive officers of the board by open competition. This arrangement is highly desirable because it ensures that the best men possible will get those assignments. In fact, the Bill goes out of its way to determine that no appointments except those of a minor nature can be made by any other means. The Minister had been very wise in doing that.
The aim of the Minister in introducing this Bill is to ensure that a general reorganisation of marketing conditions will take place. We note from the report of the advisory committee the difficulties that exist under the present arrangement. The report lays great emphasis on the lack of a continuous supply of milk products and that is the greatest problem the new board will have to face. The pattern of things in the dairy industry has been such that a substantial supply of our total milk produce comes in in the late spring and summer months. We are never able to keep up a reasonable volume of supply over the winter period and the early spring. But for the fact that the Butter Marketing Board has made available a system of cold storage our general supplies to the British market would be absolutely disorganised. However, butter coming from cold storage after some weeks is not as palatable as when first produced, and the new board will, at the outset, have to take some steps towards persuading our farmers to produce even limited minimum quantities of milk during the winter periods.
In the past few years the average supply of milk to the creameries has been around 300 million gallons per annum. That is very substantial and its volume constitutes a great problem as far as the export of its products is concerned. The feeling among dairy interests has been that too much of our milk goes into the production of butter. We are always pressing on various Governments to take steps to divert a good deal of the milk supply to other purposes. Very praiseworthy efforts have been made by Governments, semi-Government and outside organisations to that end in recent years. The quantity of milk going into chocolate crumb has been substantially increased over the past few years and it shows promise of expanding in future years. The price paid for milk diverted to that purpose is in fact more favourable than if it were put to any use.
There are certain drawbacks, however. While compensation is paid for the loss of the skim milk, the farmer is at a disadvantage by the lack of it for the rearing of young stock.
We know that there is great promise too for future development in cheese. Not alone have the Dairy Disposals Company seen fit to erect a very substantial cheese plant in Limerick but we also have a well-known European interest setting up a similar factory in another part of the country to do likewise. I think that there is still room for expansion in that regard. The home consumption of cheese is deplorably low but it is a product that was never pushed on the home market. One speaker here made a good point in that connection when he suggested that young people of school-going age should be persuaded to use cheese products as a substitute for butter so that they would become cheese-minded in their later years. We might then be able to stimulate considerably the home market for cheese.
We have also the conversion of milk into milk powder. I do not think that there is a very substantial market in Britain for that product but I do feel that we should take advantage of the market that exists in African countries where there is a fund of good will for the Irish nation as a whole. We may be able to dispose of quite a lot of milk powder in those countries. It is something which lends itself to quick and inexpensive transport. Butter, in my opinion, will still form a substantial part of the products from our milk and we will have to concentrate our attention, generally speaking, on the markets for butter in Britain and in any other countries where we can find them.
Whenever discussion takes place on the question of the Irish butter marketing organisation in England, people here and in England complain that Irish butter is never available for sale there. I think the reason for that is that the supply does not form a very substantial part of the total consumption. It is quite understandable why the product is not generally available in any of the bigger cities in England when we cannot maintain a continuous supply. In the marketing of any article, the first essential is continuity of supply, apart from the quality of the article and the usual other requirements.
The biggest difficulty our new Marketing Board will have—I expect it will be charged with this responsibility also because it relates to supply —is in keeping up a regular, systematic supply to any market it may find. I do not think this very onerous task will, however, prove to be beyond the capabilities eventually of the new Board because the people who are likely to be on that Board will be men of experience and foresight; many of them with business ability. I am sure their combined efforts will enable them to cope with their many problems.
The question of cream exports, whether tinned or otherwise, has been dealt with in the report. We are glad to learn that fresh cream exports during 1959 brought in the very substantial sum of around £380,000. One thing in the report at which I was amazed was that the total amount of cream exported to Britain and the Six Counties constituted about 8 per cent. of the total exports of these countries. There is a great possibility of development in relation to cream. The satisfactory feature about it is that evidently it does not require any subsidy from the Exchequer. For that reason alone, we would be well advised to have our new Board concentrate on pure cream as much as possible. The demand for fresh cream appears to be growing, and the cream produced in this country and sent to England seems to command a ready market there at a very remunerative price. I understand the sale of cream is mostly confined to a number of the bigger centres in England and there is a very wide field to be explored still in the sale of that product. I sincerely hope the new Board will pursue that at the earliest possible moment and get the results that are expected.
In regard to the constitution of the Board, the Minister is setting out to have the Board appointed along very practical lines. The co-operative societies who receive about three-quarters of the total milk intake by the creameries are getting representation on the Board in proportion to the volume of their supplies; likewise, with the Dairy Disposal Company. One matter which is not quite clear in the Bill is in relation to the detailed method of election of representatives from the co-operative creameries. The Minister, in his opening statement, explained that the creameries would appoint three representatives to represent the co-operative creamery societies in the country as a whole.
It is not generally known that there are co-operative dairy society members, a small number I admit, who are not milk suppliers and similarly, there are milk suppliers supplying milk to the co-operative creameries who are not members. I do not know what obligation, if any, is imposed on the society to call all their members or suppliers together for the purpose of giving them a direction as to the persons to be supported for election to this Board. If the system is as democratic as it is in the case of the Dairy Disposal Company, each co-operative society should be obliged by statutory regulation to convene a special general meeting for the purpose of giving the ordinary supplier an opportunity of choosing the person or persons, as the case may be, he desires the society to support for membership of the Board.
If that pattern is to be followed, the system proposed for selection by the Dairy Disposal Company would not be quite in harmony with what it is proposed the society should do. I make a suggestion to the Minister for what it is worth, that each of the several groups of creameries under the control of the Dairy Disposal Company be regarded as a unit; each unit according to the number of suppliers would be apportioned a number for the purpose of forming an electorate. In due course, that electorate would meet and from the people composing the electorate, one person would be appointed to represent the Dairy Disposal Company. That would bring it into line with the system it is proposed to adopt in the case of the co-operative societies. In any event, it is satisfactory that every milk supplier to a Dairy Disposal creamery will get an opportunity of having his say in the appointment of the person who is to represent the Dairy Disposal Company. I do not know whether the suggestion I have made to the Minister would work out in practice but I think it is worthy of consideration.
The ordinary milk suppliers naturally have a very keen interest in the legislation contained in this Bill. They think it is a practical approach to a very grave problem and that the economic position should be improved in course of time when the Board gets on its feet. The producers realise that the Board will not have an easy task on its hands. They will, however, have a reasonable amount of patience in awaiting the results which the Marketing Board activities will bring in the early stages of its work. I am sure that, with co-operation, a smooth change-over from the existing organisation to the new will take place. We are dealing with the rehabilitation of the biggest and most promising industry in the country. Every Deputy should consider this legislation in a proper spirit and this House should give a lead so far as co-operation is concerned. It is natural that there should be criticism, and I am sure that nobody would welcome positive criticism more than the Minister.
In conclusion, I again pay tribute to the various Government organisations which have been dealing with the dairy industry since the establishment of native government. They have done a good job, and a job which is not appreciated as it should be. We shall have to wait and see if the alternative we are proposing by this Bill brings about the better results we expect. I sincerely hope it will.
This is a rather lengthy Bill. It contains 64 sections, various subsections and various subdivisions of some of these subsections. When we realise that dairying and its associate products form an integral part of our agricultural economy, indeed an indispensable part, we are not surprised that a Bill catering for these activities should be a compre-. hensive Bill. The fact that this Bill is before the House is an indication that the Minister and his Government are anxious about the future of the dairying industry. It is also a vindication of the often-repeated contention that the dairy cow is the basis of our agricultural development. If this Bill or a similar Bill succeeds in its objective and provides the markets envisaged, then the dairying industry is assured of a permanent future.
Side by side with that will go the expansion of our livestock trade, which is such a valuable economic factor. Deputy Donegan, in his remarks here, could be misinterpreted. He said we cannot go in for beef side by side with dairying. I am sure what he meant to convey is that the dairying industry is native to certain localities and that, side by side with that, must go the development of beef cattle. We in the south raise many cattle that find their way into the midlands, to Meath and Westmeath. If they were not there, it would be a very serious matter. Therefore, the dairying industry is indispensable to the production of beef.
In these days of intense competition, we must face the fact that our quality must resist a challenge from any other nation in the markets into which we hope to send our products. Side by side with quality must go packaging under the most hygienic and attractive conditions. Behind these two requirements, there must be expert salesmanship. That is the kernel of the whole success envisaged in this Bill. It is quite true we are making a late start and that this Bill is many years late. At the same time, we are a young nation. Our milk producers were scattered units throughout the country. In later years, they were organised into creamery areas and they are now in a position to increase production because of the possibility of increasing the fertility of their lands.
Therefore, we welcome this Bill, even at this late stage. We hope it will be a success. In the past, our people had not the financial resources and opportunities because of their scattered way of life. They had not available to them the modern travel facilities we have now. It would have been impossible for them to get together in an organised way in order to push their products into foreign markets. It is quite true that our products do not find their way even to the market nearest to us, Great Britain. People on holidays there, those who have gone on business and those who have gone there to work, all contend that they have found it almost impossible to secure Irish dairy products in the various centres in Great Britain. The market is there, provided we have the quality and the push to see that our goods find their way into these areas. If the Board succeeds in its objective, it will have broken virgin soil.
I do not know what the Minister has in mind when he gives power to the Board to secure premises and to purchase land. Does he intend that the Board should extend its activities and purchase premises abroad? Does he intend that the Board should establish agencies abroad? Does he intend that distribution centres under the authority of the Board should be established in other countries? I think that would be wise, if possible, but it may be too costly. I am sure the Minister will explain to us what is in his mind. Will he put any plans at all before the Board or will he give them a free hand entirely? Will he not lay down some general plan which the Board could usefully follow?
The Board has power to impose levies. It may happen that the Board will grow into a vast organisation. It will have to pay officials, if it is to extend its aims and objects. Perhaps the Board in its extension may impose levies that would be a burden eventually on the producers. The larger the Board becomes, the more levies it will impose in order to defray its expenses together with whatever the Government will provide for it out of the Central Exchequer. I can see the Board becoming a very important body. It will build up a very large retinue of officials in the course of time. That will be a tribute to the success of the Board, probably, provided it does not become unwieldy and over-expensive and a burden on the producers.
I am not in a position to speak about the composition of the Board, but I would make this suggestion to the Minister. I make it in all earnestness for the sake of the future of the dairying industry. I would include on that Board one representative from the N.F.A. and one from Macra na Feirme. I know nothing whatever about these associations except what I read about them. They are voluntary organisations speaking with a national voice and their inclusion would give a national complexion to this Board. More important than all that is the fact that it would bring these representatives of producers into close contact with the realities and the difficulties of securing markets abroad and they, in turn, would be more appreciative of the difficulties and less critical. They would be able to tell their farmer colleagues of their experience as members of the Board. I appeal in all earnestness to the Minister to consider that point in his own interest and particularly in the interests of the country and of the dairy farmers.
There is not so much in the Bill as one would think at the start. There was a good deal of substance in most of what Deputy Donegan said this evening. He asked if we expected the Department of Agriculture to send officials to other nations in order to sell our goods. I do not think anybody expects that, but there is nobody more competent to make a survey of the market possibilities in Great Britain than our Department of Agriculture. Our Department of Agriculture is internationally known and has the confidence of the people of this country because of its many experts and its efficiency. I have no doubt that these men could make a survey of the market possibilities abroad and very considerably help the Board to get off to a good start.
There is an urgency now. The later we start, the more difficult the problem and the greater the competition we have to face. While we were building up over the years and did not realise the value of exports for the survival of the nation, other nations had got into markets that we might have gone after, had we been in a better position to undertake these responsibilities.
I do not think that in the Bill as presented to us now the Minister has retained sufficient powers to preserve the supremacy of this Parliament. I believe in democracy. This Parliament should be supreme in the eyes of the elected Government on all occasions. In connection with certain national activities which are controlled by boards, we sometimes hear Ministers state that the Minister has no function in the matter. Such replies indicate stultification of the House. This House should be supreme on all occasions and the Minister should retain sufficient powers so that the House would be supreme in connection with the Board's activities.
First of all, it lessens the functional value of this House, if we delegate all our responsibility to public boards or independent boards. In that way, autocracy would be built up and that would not be desirable. We have that in the case of C.I.E. to some extent and in the case of the E.S.B. I shall not go into that matter now but I would not like to see this Board put in the same category as these bodies who have become rather autocratic in their approach.
There has not been much criticism of the Bill. This Parliament would have no function at all if we were all in agreement about every point in a Bill. It is a good thing that there is this exchange of views. It would be better still if we could deviate from the practice that has been established here and that when Bills are to be introduced, the Minister, by a motion, would initiate a debate so that he could go back to his experts, having heard the views expressed by members of the House. In that way it might be possible to produce a Bill which would be more generally acceptable, perhaps that would be more in keeping with the circumstances and the needs of the country.
Some of the early speeches made on this measure tended, I suppose, in a jocose way, to accuse me as Minister for Agriculture of a desire to transfer my responsibilities to a body such as the Board it is proposed to set up. All I can say in that regard is that while I do not claim to know the minds of all the Deputies, I venture to hazard the guess that I, more than any other, have the deepest suspicion and the gravest doubt about the utility of boards unless the task being given to them is, in the opinion of those with some considerable judgment, one which can be handled more efficiently by such a body than in any other fashion.
If I were asked which aspect of agriculture would seem to fit in with a board such as that proposed here, I would certainly say the dairying industry. I and some of the other speakers here have paid tribute to the manner in which the affairs of that industry have been looked after by the Butter Marketing Board, but in recent times, we have all realised that the scope that was possible in their case was very limited. It was limited in the sense that the price determined by the Government for butter determined the price of milk. Those who were handling the milk sent by farmers to creameries were influenced, naturally, by the assurance which they had as to what they would receive for the product. If they converted that milk into butter, the price was known in advance. If the milk was converted into cheese or any other milk products, there was no such assurance.
I have read the report of the Advisory Committee on this subject and I hope the Deputies who are interested in this matter have read it. I did not find myself in agreement with all they recommended but I was very impressed by their reasoning and their understanding of many of the problems that confront the dairying industry. Their recommendations were very instructive. You sometimes find that people talk and write about their failure to find Irish butter on sale in Britain — in such centres as London. Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham. They have no appreciation at all of the very small percentage of Irish butter imported by Britain in relation to their total imports. Any one who reads the recommendations of the Advisory Committee as to the line of action that should be pursued by a body like the one suggested here could not fail to be impressed.
During this debate, there were very few contentious questions raised. This advisory body, which was set up to deal with milk production, was composed, among others, of creamery managers and representatives of other commercial bodies, chocolate crumb interests and cheese-making interests. There are many proposals made by the body which I would not hesitate to meet, but there are others which I am prepared to argue about with anybody. A number of questions were directed to me to which I should like to reply briefly. I was asked, for example, why I did not adopt the recommendation to appoint representatives of the Creamery Managers' Association.
I can assure the House that I gave a good deal of thought to that question. Not only that: I met a deputation from the Association which, I agree, is composed of very excellent people. However, I cannot see, having regard to the case that could be made for representation for several other important interests, why the Creamery Managers' Association should have the right to appoint one man on the Marketing Board. I knew that if the electorate of the co-operative societies and the electorate of the Dairy Disposal Board chose, they could, and possibly will, elect a creamery manager. There is nothing to prevent them. In addition, I knew that the chocolate crumb industry was being given representation and that there was always the possibility that the person who would represent that interest might be a creamery manager.
As I said, much as I regard creamery managers as an excellent body of men, I am not prepared to see this Board composed of nine individuals representative of all those interests, made up entirely of creamery managers. I can assure the House it was not a question of ignoring the creamery managers; I took this course after consultation with my advisers and using my own judgment and I think I was justified in taking it.
I was asked also why, since the chocolate crumb industry was excluded from the Board's activities, that industry should be represented on the Board. It is vital to remember that the Board will have power to support from its resources the producers of chocolate crumb and therefore it is only right that that industry should be represented on the body. It is also true that the Board will be free to give financial support to the manufacturers of milk powder. That being the case, it is only fair this industry should also have representation.
We have in recent times been trying to cope with this problem, knowing it would take us some time to bring the Board into existence. I would point out that I am not saying this in order to create the impression that a body like that visualised here will give us a milk and honey situation, as far as the dairying industry is concerned. I do say, however, that I think the Board, properly staffed will be very well able to judge what policy should be pursued in the tackling of the various problems to which I have referred.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 14th December, 1960.