Dairy Produce Marketing Bill, 1960—Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 8.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 1:

In pages 6 and 7, to delete paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (2) and insert the following paragraphs:

"(c) one person being—

(i) a person who is nominated to be a member of the Board by the licensed manufacturers of cheese and as respects whose nomination notification in writing is delivered to the Minister (together with a statement in writing signed by the person signifying his consent to the nomination) before the nomination day in the nomination is year in which the nomination is made, or

(ii) if in any nomination year the licensed manufacturers of cheese do not, before the nomination day in that year, nominate a person and deliver to the Minister the notification and statement in relation to the person referred to in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph, a person nominated by the Minister whom the Minister considers to be representative of those manufacturers,

(d) one person being—

(i) a person who is nominated to be a member of the Board by the licensed manufacturers of milk powder and as respects whose nomination notification in writing is delivered to the Minister (together with a statement in writing signed by the person signifying his consent to the nomination) before the nomination day in the nomination year in which the nomination is made, or

(ii) if in any nomination year the licensed manufacturers of milk powder do not, before the nomination day in that year, nominate a person and deliver to the Minister the notification and statement in relation to the person referred to in sub paragraph (i) of this paragraph, a person nominated by the Minister whom the Minister considers to be representative of those manufacturers,

(e) one person being—

(i) a person who is nominated to be a member of the Board by the licensed manufacturers of chocolated crumb and as respects whose nomination notification in writing is delivered to the Minister (together with a statement in writing signed by the person signifying his consent to the nomination) before the nomination day in the nomination year in which the nomination is made, or

(ii) if in any nomination year the licensed manufacturers of chocolate crumb do not, before the nomination day in that year, nominate a person and deliver to the Minister the notification and statement in relation to the person referred to in sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph, a person nominated by the Minister whom the Minister considers to be representative of those manufacturers,”.

Mr. Dillon

Very well.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 7, to add to the section the following subsection:

Mr. Wycherley

Would the Minister explain under this section how the producers would be represented?

Mr. Smith

They will have the most direct form of election by the ballot of the suppliers.

Question put and agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 4:

Before Section 11 to insert the following section:

(1) A person who, in any nomination year, has signed a statement in writing signifying his consent to nomination as a member of the Board by any one of the groups of manufacturers specified in Section 8 of this Act shall not, in that nomination year, sign a statement in writing—

(a) signifying his consent to nomination as a member of the Board by any other of the groups of manufacturers specified in the said Section 8, or

(b) signifying his consent to proposal for nomination as a member of the Board under Section 9 or 10 of this Act.

(2) A person who, in any nomination year, has signed a statement in writing signifying his consent to proposal under any provision of Section 9 of this Act by any of the societies specified in that provision for nomination as a member of the Board shall not, in that nomination year, sign a statement in writing—

(a) signifying his consent to proposal under any other provision of, or by any other of the societies specified in, the said Section 9 for nomination as a member of the Board.

(b) signifying his consent to nomination as a member of the Board by any of the groups of manufacturers specified in Section 8 of this Act, or

(3) A person who, in any nomination year, has signed a statement in writing signifying his consent to proposal by any of the persons specified in Section 10 of this Act for nomination as a member of the Board shall not, in that nomination year, sign a statement in writing—

(a) signifying his consent to proposal by any other of the persons specified in the said Section 10 for nomination as a member of the Board.

Sections 11, as amended, agreed to.

Section 12 agreed to.

SECTION 13.

I have not.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

It seems to me that the Minister has brought in this measure to the House and has nominated a board without any idea as to what the remuneration of the members of the board will be. This vague way of putting it in the Bill does not give sufficient information. There is a definite obligation on the Minister to tell us in £.s.d. what will be the remuneration of the members. I cannot see what new information the Minister is likely to get that would vary any decision he would make now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The section deals with the term of office of the members of the board and remuneration does not arise.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Deputy Dillon brought in this question. It arises on Section 18, I think.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes. The question can be raised on Section 18.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

We want to let this Bill through but really I do suggest that no Minister ought to come before the Dáil with a Bill of this kind and brush aside reasonable enquiries for information. When you have considered legislation of this kind and determined the constitution of a board and the number of members it is to have and the conditions under which the chairman is appointed, somebody, sometime, must have said; "What is the basis of remuneration to be for these people?"

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would arise on Section 18—the remuneration and expenses of members of the board. We are now on Section 14.

Mr. Dillon

Very well. I will leave it till then.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.

SECTION 17.

Question proposed: "That Section 17 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Minister is reserving the function of filling casual vacancies that may arise on the board. Those casual vacancies will be filled in the very same way as the original position was filled and the probability is that these casual vacancies may be filled by henchmen, if I may use that term, of the Government Party. Whilst I agree that a Minister is a very responsible person and is entitled to have rather elaborate functions, our experience has been that, in the filling of vacancies by Ministers of State, the political qualifications of the applicants are the main ones concerned, and while I agree that the political qualifications of a person should not preclude him from the right to become a member of the board, at the same time, other qualifications should be taken into account as well.

I do not like the idea of the Minister holding this particular function of filling casual vacancies on his own with-our reference to any method of selection or recommendation from any group of bodies.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 18.

Question proposed: "That Section 18 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The question of remuneration arises now and we should like a statement from the Minister as to why he is unable to give us any idea as to the proposed rate of remuneration of the personnel of the board. I think the House should be so informed at this time, on Committee Stage.

Mr. Smith

In my time in this place, when a measure of this nature was being discussed for the purpose of setting up a board, I do not believe the question has even been asked and I would regard it as entirely unreasonable to start off by announcing the remuneration before even the matter has been considered, before the Bill was drafted, or before it passes through this House. The only thing I can say in this regard is that the Minister for Agriculture, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, will have regard to the recommendations of the advisory body.

Mr. Wycherley

The Minister seems to think that the advisory body is infallible.

Mr. Smith

I think nothing of the kind. It is set up as an advisory body representative of the interests vitally concerned, but everything they advise need not be accepted. However, in a matter of this kind, when they say the members of the Board should be remunerated on a basis which will enable them to give sufficient time to their work, that is a consideration which is capable of a fair interpretation and there is no reason why it has to be interpreted before the Bill is passed.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.

SECTION 21.

Question proposed: "That Section 21 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

These people must be given liberty to carry out a wide range of functions. There is no danger in it anyhow.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 28 and 29 agreed to.

SECTION 30.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 16, line 20, to substitute "section" for "Act".

This is a drafting amendment. The provision refers to moneys advanced under Section 30.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 30, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 31.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 16, lines 47 and 50, to substitute "subsection (2)" for "subsection (1)" in both places where at occurs.

This is a minor drafting amendment. Subsection (2) and not subsection (1) provides for the specification by the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, of purposes and conditions in relation to a grant.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 31, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

Subsection (4) of this section provides:

A grant under this section shall not be used to defray more than two-thirds of—

(a) any loss incurred by the Board in relation to the export of milk products by the Board, or

(b) any subsidy, grant, or other like payment made by the Board in relation to the export of milk products,

and a purpose or condition which is inconsistent with the provisions of this subsection shall not be specified under subsection (2) or (3) of this section.

This is the section which declares that the maximum contribution the Exchequer could make to the export subsidy is two-thirds of its cost and this is the section which provides that as our exports of dairy produce expand—I am glad to see that Deputy Clohessy is listening closely—the levy on creamery milk will grow. Deputy Donegan says he thinks that is a most equitable arrangement and that no reasonable dairy farmer will object to it. They will all cheerfully pay up and like it.

I do not think it is an equitable arrangement. I do not think it is reasonable to say that the dairy farmers should carry the whole burden of the cost of expanding the exports which the country urgently requires to balance its external trade. It is notorious to anybody who knows his business that the international market in dairy produce is honeycombed with subsidies and State assistance of every sort and kind. I admit that in respect of the subsidies provided by Denmark and Holland it is extremely difficult to detect the method by which they are supplied but it is well known to anyone who is dealing with international markets in dairy produce that extensive subsidies are provided and their dimensions are virtually unascertainable except by experts of the Government administration in those countries. It is true that they present an exterior of being without subsidy of any kind and I am sorry to say that it has become the practice frequently to uphold these pretensions to our people as a justification for suggesting that the farmers are a kind of burden on the community here.

This section now adopts the principle that in the future the more dairy produce the dairy farmers produce the more they will have to pay by way of levy in order to meet the cost of getting into the extra markets which they are now being urged to cater for. Deputy Donegan says he thinks that is fair and just and right. I do not think it is. Deputy Clohessy sits in silence. Deputy Moher has entered the symposium and Deputy Ó Briain is smiling benevolently on this trinity of wisdom.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

I hope it will not. I guaranteed that it would never come lower. Mind you, then the bob was worth more than 1/6d. Now. We were casually asked from these benches what 1/- was worth before Fianna Fáil got cracking. A shilling in 1949 money is worth about 1/6d. today. That was guaranteed as a minimum with freedom to get the best price the dairy farmers could. They were the days when butter was selling on the British market for 470 shillings a cwt.

The Fianna Fáil innocents will believe anything they swallow. I believe Deputies Donegan and Clohessy believe all those stories. I do not believe Deputy Moher believes them; he is far too shrewd a practitioner. But it was he who told Deputies Donegan and Clohessy that story. It was like the 84/- a barrel for wheat. Deputy Moher told them that too. That was what got him elected in East Cork. Then he wept on Deputy Corry's shoulders saying he was completely misled. He is now misleading Deputies Donegan and Clohessy. But bear in mind we are arguing about the events in 1949. Some other time we can continue that argument. I am talking about 1960 and 1961 now. If this Bill provided a maximum levy there would be something to be said for it. But obviously it does not do that. Section 31 provides a maximum for the contributions which the Minister may make but it puts no ceiling whatever on the levy.

Mr. Smith

No ceiling either way.

Mr. Blowick

There is no upper ceiling anyhow.

Mr. Dillon

It is only the mind of the Minister for Agriculture that could think of a ceiling under the floor. That is the kind of mentality we are dealing with here. When I speak of a ceiling I am talking about something on top. The Minister thinks the farmers of this country are like files that can walk on the ceiling. There is a floor and the floor is that there should be no levy if there are no exports. There is no ceiling on the fact that if exports of butter expand the levy on milk will go up.

Mr. Smith

All depending on the market.

Mr. Dillon

If you are getting your full market price in Britain you will not have a levy. I would suggest to Deputy Moher and to Deputy Clohessy and the Deputy from Cork that they think of that closely and get all the consolation they can from it.

Mr. Donegan

We are not depending on butter for the British market.

Mr. Dillon

So we have got to that stage now. All I am concerned with is what the dairy farmers will be called upon to pay and Section 31 is the instrument designed to extract from them a steadily growing levy on the price of milk. I would remind the Minister that An Bord Gráin was established by legislation of this House for the economic marketing of the grain crops in this country. The immediate consequence of that legislation was as levy of 4/6d. a barrel on the price of wheat which I had fixed and which the Fianna Fáil Party described as the cruellest imposition which was ever placed down on the suffering heads of the tillage farmers of Ireland.

Fianna Fáil hearts bled all over Ireland about the cruelly inadequate price I fixed for millable wheat. The setting up of An Bord Gráin meant that there was an immediate price reduction on wheat of 4/6d. per barrel. Now the Minister is about to establish An Bord Bainne and Section 31 of the Bill, designed to do that, is also the section designed to do for milk what An Bord Gráil did for wheat last year and the year before.

I am delighted that the valiant soul of Deputy Donegan rises to meet the challenge of these events. I admire his spirit of self sacrifice but I would remind him that his function here is not to play the role of Joan of Are going to the stake for the cause; his role here is to defend equity and justice for the agricultural community and I say it is not fair or just to require the agricultural community to carry all the increased costs and then to say they, alone in their circumstances, will be required to accept less and less for the labour that they do. Warm as is my personal regard for Deputy Donegan, I think he does himself less than justice in appearing to proclaim that he thinks that the farmers are the only section, of the community for whom that kind of treatment is good enough.

Mr. Wycherley

I should like to know, under this section, if there is no export of anything from the country in the line of milk or milk products, would there be any levy then collected to maintain this Board? This Board is going to cost a lot of money and is the money to provide for the running expenses of the Board to be met by the two-thirds which is being put up by the Minister or by the one-third which is being put up by the suppliers? There is bound to be a considerable amount of expense before any exports take place. The nine members of the Board will cost £9,000 and their buildings and equipment will cost more and I should not like to have the producers asked to meet the first burden in that respect by putting a levy on them to pay the overhead expenses of the Board.

I want to know from the Minister will this two-thirds balance that expenditure in the first instance? I join with Deputy Dillon in saying that it is not fair to impose the complete one-third levy. If the Minister could alter subsection 4 of Section 31, which reads "a grant under this section shall not be used to defray more than two-thirds ...", to read "a grant under this section shall not be used to defray less than two-thirds...", there might be some benefit in it. The Minister might then see his way to increase the contribution from the State. Under the subsection he cannot increase it. If the Minister could alter that subsection by substituting the word "less" instead of "more" it would be a safeguard for the farmers to ensure that they would not be maintain, perhaps too heavily, to maintain their exports.

I should like to see exports growing but we must try to instil that confidence lacking so much in dairy farmers so that they will increase production. When we get a market, there will be continuity of supplies to enable us to hold our grip on that market. I think the time has come when the Government should do a little more for the dairy farmer. When we send out our agents to look for markets abroad for industry we do not ask the industrialists to pay a levy. Industry is always highly protected. Only last week we sent out agents to foreign countries to seek export markets and our industrialists did not have to pay a levy. If the Minister provided that the Exchequer would not pay less than two-thirds I think the House would then accept.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Section 31, as amended, agreed?

Mr. Dillon

No word from the trinity.

Mr. Wycherley

I could not accept that. I do not agree.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 61; Níl 33.

Tá

Bartley, Gerald.
Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Gerald.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Browne, Seán.
Burke, Patrick.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carty, Michael.
Childers, Erskine.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Corry, Martin J.
Cotter, Edward.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cummins, Patrick J.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Vivion.
Donegan, Batt.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Padraig.
Flanagan, Seán.
Galvin, John.
Geoghegan, John.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Haughey, Charles.
Healy, Augustine A.
Hilliard, Michael.
Kenneally, William.
Killilea, Mark.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Loughman, Frank.
Lynch, Celia.
MacCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
Maher, Peadar.
Medlar, Martin.
Millar, Anthony G.
Moher, John W.
Moloney, Daniel J.
Moran, Michael.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Ormonde, John.
O'Toole, James.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.

Níl

Barry, Richard.
Beirne, John.
Blowick, Joseph.
Carroll, James.
Casey, Seán.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Desmond, Daniel.
Dillon, James M.
Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
Fagan, Charles.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Giles, Patrick.
Hogan, Bridget.
Kenny, Henry.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Lindsay, Patrick.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
McAulifle, Patrick.
MacEoin, Seán.
McMenamin, Daniel.
Manley, Timothy.
Murphy, Michael P.
Murphy, William.
Norton, William.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Palmer, Patrick W.
Reynolds, Mary.
Russell, George E.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Wycherley, Florence.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl, Deputies O'Sullivan and Palmer.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 32.

Question proposed: "That Section 32 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

This section provides:

The Board shall provide itself with such offices, stores, warehouses, shops and other premises in and outside the State as it considers necessary.

Is it seriously suggested that this board should go into the retail trade in Ireland?

Mr. Smith

These levies will enable the Board to meet its expenses, including the dairy industry's proportion of the deficit arising out of the export of milk products. There are also provisions in Sections 36 and 37 for levies on butter sales and stocks.

Mr. Dillon

I can very easily understand the consequential provisos mentioned in Sections 36 and 37 if the principle contained in Section 35 is accepted. I want to draw the attention of the House to this important fact. We have been keeping continually under our control in Parliament the whole question of levying farmers' milk, and any Minister for Agriculture who proposed such a levy had put upon him the obligation of coming before Dáil Éireann and justifying it to the Dáil.

Earlier to-day, on the question of the status of the Milk Board after the passage of this Bill, the Minister for Agriculture, I understood facetiously, interjected that after the passage of this Bill he would answer the Parliament for none of the things done in pursuit of the powers conferred on the Milk Board by this Bill. I do not know whether the Minister meant that seriously or not. Perhaps he would say now did he mean that seriously?

Mr. Smith

Of course, if we enact legislation here giving powers to such a body, it will remain their responsibility to operate within the limits of the laws laid down by this House.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister then went on to say that although he had already said that the levy could not be discussed he thought that when he came into the House with a Supplementary Estimate to pay his two-thirds these matters could be raised. I want to say that we should not, by passing Section 35, accept for one moment the proposal that the action of the Board in making a levy is not subject to review by this House. We should assert most emphatically that if a Deputy representative of the farmers of this country believes that this levy has been made ultra vires the Bill that he should have the right to raise the matter here and query the Minister for Agriculture on what has been done.

I think it would be most deplorable that we should accept the principle that Ministers should have the right, by setting up boards, to exonerate themselves from their liability to answer Parliamentary questions. That is a tendency that is growing. One of the greatest bulwarks of liberty is the institution of the Parliamentary Question. We have all seen the ludicrous spectacle of a Minister for Transport and Power who is responsible for C.I.E. and the E.S.B. coming into this House day after day——

Mr. Moher

We have gone a long way from the drop of milk.

Mr. Dillon

That is the way that the simple man is led agley although I would not describe Deputy Moher as a simple man. The Minister for Transport and Power, when he is questioned with regard to the activities of the E.S.B. or C.I.E., makes the answer that he has no function in the matter. The Minister for Agriculture now seeks to set up an Board Bainne to exonerate himself from answering for the things for which he has traditionally answered down through the years. I think the House ought to carefully watch Section 35 in order that we may retain our right to keep these matters under review and to require the Minister for Agriculture to answer for them to Dáil Éireann. We ought to assert that Dáil Éireann does not delegate that right to any Board or anybody else but insists on its right to have the Minister for Agriculture of the day answer to Dáil Éireann for any tax or levy that may be put on the creameries of this country.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

This section confers too much power on the Board, It states that the Board may, whenever it thinks fit, make an order fixing a rate of milk levy. That indicates clearly that that Board will have the sole responsibility for determining the amount of the levy and if any member of this House is dissatisfied with the matter there will be no use raising it here because the Minister will say that he had no hand in determining the levy which was put on by the Board to which this House gave the power.

An issue of such importance as this has been introduced at a most inopportune time when the House is just coming up to the recess. I think that should not be the case. I think that at this stage it would not be any harm at all if the Minister reconsidered the advisability of adjourning this matter until after the Christmas recess. In so far as Section 35 is concerned, I do not agree with giving the Board such wide powers and I must again protest at the bringing in of this measure just prior to the rising of the House.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Deputy Dillon mentioned my name and I find myself in the unlikely position of being a metaphysical improbability—I am in the middle of what Deputy Dillon described as the trinity. May I say that, as a lawyer, I share the misgivings of other members of this House at the continuing process of the past thirty or forty years whereby Parliament divests itself of its functions in various ways. The practical outcome of a practice of this nature is that a member of Parliament is directed to a board rather than to a Minister.

I should like to remind the Minister for Agriculture of an occasion here when I asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he was prepared to stand over the attitude of one of these bodies in refusing to give me and other representatives of my constituency an interview unless and until we withdrew an application for a break down of the figures on which that particular Board had made its decision. The Minister told me that he did stand behind the decision of the board, and that he stood over the attitude of the board. I am afraid we have to face the fact that once we do give these powers to bodies, even if it is right to give them, we then find ourselves in the position that even though we are members of Parliament they can refuse, and do in fact refuse, to give us information which can only be described as reasonably requested.

There are two sides to this question. There is, indeed, the point well taken by the Minister that you either set up a board and give it functions or you do not set up a board and give it functions. But, the trend of legislation in this country over the past few years has in fact progressively denied to members of this House the opportunity, if not the right, of being furnished with information that they are entitled to as such. They are not in theory denied the opportunity because the Minister will say to you that you can write to the secretary of the board and that he is obliged to furnish you with the information. In point of fact they do not furnish you with the information, do not justify their decision if you ask them to justify it and, if you press the issue, they are inclined to tell you, with some show of authority, that the Legislature gave them these powers and that they propose to exercise them.

In Section 34, to which we have already agreed, which concerns the establishment of regional and advisory committees, there is something which very properly was left entirely within the discretion of the board but in the matter of a levy, while in theory the obligations of the board are clearly set forth and while the intentions of the Legislature and of the Minister are clearly set forth in the Bill and in this debate, the fact remains that, so long as this section is allowed to go through, a matter as vital as putting a levy on milk can be done, not merely without consultation with the Minister or this House but, in effect and in practice, without the possibility of reasonable inquiry even by Members of Parliament. Ultimately, if members of this House are not entitled to be furnished with information by this and similar boards one can readily imagine the ordinary member of the public will get very short shrift indeed.

Does the Minister think that if he put in the words "subject to the consent of the Minister" that would set up a sort of class warfare between his Department and the officers and members of the board being created by this Bill? Perhaps he does but even if there would be some unnecessary friction it would be preferable to continuing this process of vesting functions, more and more of them in successive boards, each time removing a little bit of the effectiveness and value of the members of this House. Ultimately, we are watch dogs for the rights of citizens. It is humiliating and infuriating to be told that you cannot get information anywhere because one person has no function and the other will not give it.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Deputy Seán Flanagan has expressed views that are held by a very large number of Deputies. Day after day, week after week we have all come up against the frustration of trying to extract from State bodies information that we are told is obtainable by communicating with them. We could give several examples where such bodies have denied audience to members of this Dáil unless they were prepared to conform to terms set out by the body. It has certainly gone well beyond the stage which could reasonably be regarded as sufficient to excite criticism and create disturbance.

On occasions when the House acceded to requests from Ministers to set up boards such as the one contemplated in this Bill certain verbal assurances were given by the Minister seeking the support of the House but we found in practice that the verbal assurance was very far from observed when it came to the actual effort to meet these bodies. It is because of these very disturbing experiences that we are so concerned by yet another development and the creation of still another board which may remove from this House more and more of the duties, obligations and responsibilities normally attaching to public representatives.

We consider that the imposition of this levy on the milk producer is unjust and unfair and is depriving this section of the community of a facility that is afforded to every other section. The Minister for Agriculture should be the watchdog of agricultural interests in the Government. If this were part and parcel of a general scheme to pass back to various sections of the community charges heretofore borne by the State, whereby, for example, the industrialists would be obliged to pay a levy to assist in the marketing of their products, it might be all very well but we find that industrialists are helped, and rightly so; we do not begrudge them any facilities that the State affords them in the marketing of their surplus goods. It is a good thing for the country that there should be an expansion of industrial and agricultural exports. But, we do not see any evidence of any contribution being levied upon the industrialists in the same way as the agriculturist is now being charged to the extent of one-third of the cost of subsidising exports.

If the Government persist in their action in this regard it will aggravate the fear that exists in too many minds to-day. It is a mistaken fear but, nevertheless, it exists and must be rooted out if we are to make progress. The fear is there to-day that if these people work harder and produce more and answer the call from all sides, in the long run they will suffer a reduction in their incomes. That is the principle on which we opposed the levy in relation to An Bord Gráin and that is why we oppose it in relation to An Bord Bainne. We see in it a removal of the firm guarantee of price which farmers had for some years and which had a dramatic effect in increasing production. As well as that, the Government are absolved from their obligations in this respect, obligations that were borne under most difficult conditions by their predecessors. There was never a question of shedding the responsibility that the Government had to bear in relation to the problem.

We are fearful of the Government's pursuing this policy of taking away responsibility from the members of the Oireachtas, transferring them to outside boards and making these so independent a that they are not answerable to anybody. The effect is to take away from the lawfully elected representatives of the people the forum they have always had here for extracting by Parliamentary Question information in the interest of the public.

The money was collected on butter.

Mr. O'Sullivan

But the Minister was answerable to this House for it.

Mr. Smith

This is nonsense.

My memory briefs me fairly well on the history of this industry.

What the Minister is doing is empowering the board to impose any levy they want on farmers. The Minister's argument is that the farming community have every protection and that he must come back to the House to get the money to finance the operation of this section. I see in it the old story where the levy is imposed first. In this case the money is to be taken off the farmers seven days after the last day of the month. At the same time, the Minister is trying to put across to us that the money must be voted here by the House. He forgets that this board can do what they like.

In other words, it is creating another monopolistic body. I think the Minister should find it easy to accept the view that the board should be under proper Parliamentary control. We spent most of yesterday debating another measure in which we were endeavouring to divest Parliamentary control. What is the point in having an Irish Parliament if it has no say? We are building up a political situation here where we have a series of boards who control everything. That is not the principle of a democratic State. I await with interest the Minister's views on this section. As far as I can read it, it is entirely in the hands of the board to do exactly what it likes about milk subsidies.

Mr. Donegan

Whatever the merits or demerits of the levy that this board may find they will have to impose, I have never known a board more weighted in favour of the actual producers. If Deputies care to study the Bill they will find that the board is practically in the hands of the producers, apart from one representative from the Department of Agriculture, and I cannot see why, if there is difficulty about the price of milk, those people cannot settle it themselves without having it brought in here on a political issue.

I do not say that the board, as suggested in the Bill, is a really good one, but the issue of whether there will be or will not be a levy is another matter. I cannot see why this board, weighted as it is in favour of the producers, would be guilty of doing anything wrong about the price of milk. There is the provision under which the operations of the board must come before the House in certain circumstances and I do not see how any Deputy can be precluded from making observations in the House on the board.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Deputy Donegan is in a peculiar frame of mind today. How can he, representing a rural community, come in here and say that everything will be all right under this board? Is not that what we were told when previous boards were appointed—that the right personnel would be appointed to them? That is not how these boards have turned out. These boards that we set up here act in the most dictatorial fashion. Here we have a Fianna Fáil farmer from North Cork telling us that he is quite satisfied to hand over the important powers which this Bill confers on the Board without any worry whatever and says that when the nine appointees will be known they are bound to be men who will deal with the matter more effectively than it will be dealt with in this House.

Mr. Donegan

Are they not the people concerned?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Minister is safeguarding his own interests because here and there through the Bill in the various sections are subsections which give him the right to ensure that there will be a number of Party nominees on the job. We have too much of that here and it has been stressed again and again by various speakers in discussing the advisability of setting up such boards at all. I think it is completely out of place, judging by our knowledge and experience of the dictatorial boards that have been set up in the past, to say that everything will be all right as Deputy Donegan suggests.

When we set up a board such as the Milk Board, the Grain Board, C.I.E. or the E.S.B. we give them certain functions and a complete monopoly in a certain field. In the case of C.I.E. we removed the competition from them and threw a mantle of protection around them, backed up by State and public funds. We do the same for the E.S.B. and we shall do the same with An Bord Bainne that is now visualised. Whatever activities they are responsible for, whether the members of this House approve or otherwise, they will not be open for discussion here.

I completely disagree with the statements of the previous speaker that the fixing of a levy on milk should be a matter reserved entirely to the board. Section 62 is the usual section embodied in such legislation and, as we know, it means nothing except when the Government of the day is anxious to change legislation. It is quite useless so far as Opposition members are concerned to invoke the aid of Section 62 of this Bill. That is only a cover-up. As Deputy Sir Anthony Esmonde said, that section appears in almost every Act. The whole matter that we are debating here on the eve of Christmas, as so many Deputies have said, is that we are handing over power for the past number of years to this board that board and the other board and I think, that they have been found wanting in their activities. We were told by the Taoiseach the other day that he has no power whatever over the C.I.E. Board at present and that what C.I.E. does, and how they do it, is a matter for themselves and that this Parliament, this House and he himself, as Leader of the Government, have no function whatever. We must be very wary about these boards and I propose to well at some length on the setting up of these boards in tonight's debate if I have an opportunity of contributing to it. This is a big question and I entirely disagree with Section 35 of the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

I want to direct the attention of Deputy Donegan in particular to the complete delusion under which he is labouring. He believes that this board, being largely representative of producers, can confidently be relied upon to protect the interest of producers and to ensure that no unreasonable levy will be made upon the milk delivered by the producer to the creameries. I do not think Deputy Donegan has read the Bill because if he looks at Section 42—he has the Bill before him—he will see that:

(1) The Minister may from time to time give the Board a direction in writing requiring it—

(a) to make and carry out during such period or periods as may be specified in the direction a scheme for the payment to the registered proprietors of creameries of allowances towards the cost of the cold storage, by or on behalf of the proprietors, of butter, or

(b) to suspend, or provide for the cesser of, as from a date specified in the direction, in whole or in part, of a scheme under this subsection and payments thereunder.

Under subsection (2):

The Board shall comply with a direction under subsection (1) of this section.

Section 43 states:

The Board shall purchase at the price which stands fixed for the time being under subsection (2) of this Section and is appropriate in relation to the purchase of all butter which——and the butter is then described.

Subsection (2) of that Section says:

The Government may from time to time fix the price of butter for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section or may fix two or more prices varying in accordance with either or both of the following, that is to say, the quantity of butter sold and the method of packing the butter, and may specify a date or dates as on and from which purchases shall be made at the price or prices so fixed and the Minister shall notify the Board in writing of the price or prices so fixed and the date or dates also specified.

Now we come to Section 44 which reads:

Wherever the Board sells butter which—

(a) is intended for consumption in the State, and

(b) is of a kind which conforms with the provisions in relation to creamery butter of the Dairy Produce Acts, 1924 to 1947, and the regulations made thereunder or is important butter,

the sale shall be made at the price which stands fixed for the time being under subsection (2) of this section in relation to such sale and is appropriate in relation to the sale.

Subsection (2) says:

The Government may from time to time fix the price of butter for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section or may fix two or more prices varying in accordance with either or both of the following, that is to say, the quantity of butter sold and the method of packing the butter, and may specify a date or dates as on and from which the price or prices so fixed shall apply and the Minister shall notify the Board in writing of the price or prices so fixed and the date or dates so specified.

Section 45 transfers the funds of the Dairy Produce Fund to the company but if Deputy Donegan studies these sections he will discover that the board, in fact, has no discretion in regard to the amount of the levy it is required to make. But the Minister is in the glorious position that he claims today the right to say if anybody asks him why did the board levy 2d. or 3d. per gallon on milk his answer will be: "That is none of my business; go and ask the board." But in the section of the Bill he has the right to direct the board to do a series of things which involve them in the obligation to raise from a source other than the treasury the funds necessary to carry out the Minister's direction——

Mr. S. Flanagan

But that does not include the milk levy.

Mr. Dillon

These sections include a section in which the board is obliged to buy butter at certain prices and the butter will then be disposed of by the board. In regard to the domestic market the Minister will fix the prices at which the butter is to be disposed of in the domestic market but in respect of any butter over and above that the board must sell it wherever and however it can but it must raise sufficient to liquidate the losses after two-thirds of the losses have been made good. I do not think Deputy Donegan understands the Bill. What we are claiming now is, that in that section, where events which the board itself cannot foresee, can bring in a statutory obligation upon the board to impose a levy on milk, we in this House should be entitled to raise the query: "Why, or how, does the new board claim the right to levy 2d. or 3d. a gallon on creamery milk?"

We in this House should be entitled to raise the query why, and how it is, the Milk Board claim the right to levy 2d. or 3d. a gallon on creamery milk? The Minister says "No. Once you have passed this Bill no one in Dáil Éireann will have the right to ask that question. It will be a matter within the discretion of the board." I want to point out to Deputy Donegan it is not within the discretion of the board because the Minister takes power, by order addressed to the board, to fix the price at which it will but butter, and to fix the price at which it will sell butter on the home market and he leaves with the board the obligation of selling the rest of the butter, and all the other dairy produce which it may have had to purchase, for whatever price it can get, plus the residual obligation of making good any loss sustained by it in that operation after it has received from the Treasury two-thirds of whatever the total loss may be.

Now, that simply means that we are creating a board and we are telling the farmers that it is absolutely essential from the point of view of the national economy, and this is something with which I entirely agree, to expand production. I make the case that, if it is in the national interest to expand production and that creates a marketing problem, it is contrary to sanity to say to the people whom you are asking to expand production: "The more you expand the less you will get." I want to compare the procedure here envisaged vis-á-vis the creamery milk suppliers with the procedure we adopted in the 1956 Finance Act when we were dealing with industrial exporters, and I want to defend what we did.

I am always being challenged—even by my own supporters—with having no interest in anybody but the farmers. I should like to compare now what we did for the industrialists in exactly this situation. The industrialists said: "We have been exhorted to establish industries to furnish the home market, and we undertook to do that under high protection; but we admit that, paying the wages we do and with the equipment we have, with the limited market which the Irish home market represents, we have no competitors if you compare us with Northampton or New England and, therefore, it is impossible even to go out and secure permanent foreign markets; one of the heaviest charges we have to carry is corporation profits' tax and income tax."

Mr. Smith

The records will show. I could not say such a thing. I did say that if we legislate to give certain functions to a board it should not be the business of a Minister, or anybody else, to poke into the way in which that board transacts its business unless and until there is a discussion here, for instance, on the presentation of the financial accounts, or something like that. That is what I said.

Mr. O'Sullivan

It is just to that that we are objecting.

Now the Government say to this Board that if its export losses this year amount to £900, £9,000 or £1,000,000 that we will give them two-thirds of any sum that may be necessary to dispose of these surplus milk products. As Deputy Donegan has said, the Board is composed of people who have a deep interest in the industry and I am, in this measure, giving effect to the report of the advisory committee which was composed of people who were interested in the industry and who knew that, if we are going to go out and encourage the production of milk and then dispose of our milk products, it would not be reasonable to think that the industry would not make some contribution towards the effort to improve its productivity and its profits.

What Committee would recommend that a board should be set up to improve an industry and that the State should bear all the cost of that improvement? Do you think we would be taken seriously in that or that it would be taken seriously by the consumers of milk products who are, in the main, the people who are supporting the milk producers.

I could talk about all the matters mentioned here, about the utility of boards and about the injustice of handing over of delegating functions to these boards. The only thing I said in this House, and I would say it to myself, is that I would regard myself as being very foolish if I took part in a deliberative assembly as to whether a board should or should not be set up and then, immediately that proposal had passed into law, that I should start to trick with them, interfere with them and ask for information which I should know in advance would not be available to me once I had taken the original course.

I do not like people who try to have it both ways. There are a lot of people in this country who want to have the hide and the price of it. What I do say to-day and what I have said outside is that any man is entitled to his view as to whether it is a good thing to delegate these responsibilities and to hand them over to a board. Any Deputy can have his own view as to the wisdom of such a course but I also say that when Parliament makes a decision by a majority vote of this House we cannot expect to have it the other way the following day. If Parliament, having given powers of this nature to a particular board, think that they are too extensive, Parliament can easily rectify that. That is the reasonable way to approach this matter.

It is childish to come in here and ask a Minister for Agriculture when he is going to give effect to the report of such an advisory committee and then, when he is giving effect to it, to say that we do not want the board to have that much power. If any member of this House, no matter who he is or how experienced he is, thinks he is going to put that sort of stuff over on the public or that he is going to affect the public mind in a political sense by saying these things he is making the mistake of his life.

I do not mind if we talk over the Bill for the next seven days but there is no justification for all the repetition that we have had here to-night. I have made my point on this matter. It was recommended to me by the advisory committee but if it was never recommended it would still be in this Bill because I think if is fair. I shall go out to the country as a politician and, with my colleagues, meet the people who are affected by these provisions. When my point of view and the other point of view have been stated we should not have this futile and endless repetition which gets us nowhere.

Mr. O'Sullivan

There is one good answer to that and that is that it took a lot of repetition to get the Minister to his feet—not that we are any wiser than we were before he got up. The Minister defends the principle he has introduced and, in addition, introduces a third point, that of the impact on the public mind. Let me ask the Minister in what other Department of State in connection with the marketing of goods outside this country are the producers required to pay anything by way of a levy?

There is in existence in relation to industrial exports a body known as Coras Tráchtála. Is there any industrialist in this country who has objected to the fact that Coras Tráchtála operates under State funds and that industrialists do not contribute directly to the expenses of Coras Tráchtála? How could anybody in the agricultural community feel that this board would have less authority if the State carried the entire cost as it carries it for Coras Tráchtála?

Do not start "puff, puff" again.

Mr. Wycherley

Mr. O'Sullivan

On a point of order, on the fixing of the levy, as it is the board who do it, surely Deputy Wycherley is in order in saying that the board would be unsympathetic to the interests of the producers?

Mr. Wycherley

Under subsection (3) (a) the board may, whenever it thinks fit, make an order fixing the rate of the milk levy and specifying the date on which the rate so fixed is to come into operation. In fixing the milk levy I do not think the board would in any way favour the producers because the majority of the board are not representative of the producers.

Mr. Moran

Whatever relevancy there may be in the Deputy's suggestion, surely it is not relevant to this section.

Mr. Dillon

(2) The amount of milk levy due by a registered proprietor of a creamery or a cream-separating station in respect of milk purchased or acquired in any month shall be paid to the Board not later than seven days after the last day of the month.

(3) (a) The Board may, whenever it thinks fit, make an order fixing the rate of milk levy and specifying the date on which the rate so fixed is to come into operation.

(b) The Board may, whenever it thinks fit, by order revoke or amend an order under this subsection including an order under this paragraph.

(c) An order under this subsection may fix different rates of milk levy in respect of different periods specified in the order.

(4) In this section "milk" means whole milk.

There is no provision here for refunding the levy to a creamery in respect of milk purchased for liquid distribution. So far as I can see, while there is power to make an Order under the subsection fixing the different rates of milk levy in respect of different periods specified in the Order, there is no power to make different rates of levy, or to exempt from levy, milk purchased or subsequently sold for liquid consumption in the home market. As far as I know, if this levy ran up to something like twopence per gallon, which would produce at present rates approximately £2,000,000, it would have a very grave effect on the creameries which were distributing milk for consumption and I do not think the Minister means to interfere with that trade. I should be glad to know if the implication of levying milk for that purpose has been considered.

Mr. Smith

I do not think there should be any difficulty about the point the Deputy makes. I know a number of creameries at the moment which purchase milk for conversion into butter and other products and which are also registered for the purpose of selling liquid milk. They have to keep records even now. They are two distinct businesses and the records they keep now should suffice for the purpose of any levy that may be imposed by the board on liquid milk purchased for industrial purposes.

Mr. Dillon

That is not in the section.

Mr. Smith

It does not have to be.

Mr. Dillon

Oh, yes, it does. The section says all milk purchased by them.

Mr. Smith

If the Deputy turns to the definition of registered proprietor in Section 2, he will find there what is intended.

Mr. Blowick

He will find it in the Dairy Produce Act. That is not very enlightening without the 1924 Act.

Mr. Dillon

I warned the Minister when he was embarking on the £15 scheme in respect of T.B. cows in the south that he was going to wind up in trouble. I think he has. Now he has plenty of trouble on hands. Think of what will happen here. The Minister knows as well as I do the almost insoluble difficulties created for the Department in trying to control the intake of this milk and ensuring that no stuff went into bottles that was not produced in registered dairy premises. The Minister and I both know, despite the utmost vigilance of our staff, that neither of us was ever satisfied that we effectively excluded unauthorised milk from being pasteurised and bottled.

How in the name of Providence, if a creamery is taking in 10,000 gallons of milk per day and is bottling 1,000 gallons a day, is the Minister going to satisfy himself that the levy is being paid on all the milk on which it ought to be paid? In the old days we used to have the rough measure of butter output. We multiplied the butter by 2¼ gallons and found out approximately how much milk passed through the creameries. Take the case of a creamery sending part of its milk to a cheese factory, on which levy must be paid, part to a chocolate crumb factory, on which levy must be paid, processing part of it into butter on its own premises, in respect of which levy must be paid, and possibly sending part of it to Dungarvan, Ballyclough or Tipperary for conversion into dried milk, on which levy must be paid, and, at the same time, pasteurising and bottling part of it and selling it in a neighbouring town, and in that case the levy need not be paid. Would it not be reasonable to suggest that sums running into thousands every year could go astray if creameries made returns suggesting that their sales of retailed bottle milk were far in excess of what they actually were? The money involved would run into a substantial sum.

However, I do not think that is the most important aspect of it. I do not think we should willingly legislate in a way well calculated to put temptation under a man's feet. And a penny a gallon when you are handling vast quantities of liquid milk—and this levy might even be 2d. per gallon—can run into a very substantial sum. I do not know what administrative machine the Minister can devise to exempt milk received by a creamery and subsequently sold for liquid consumption from the impact of this levy. I should be glad to know has he considered the machinery that will operate to achieve that. Will he just require the manager to make a daily return of the amount of milk sold? Will there be some system of check or is he simply going to let it rip and make estimates? There must be some machinery in his mind where such large sums of quasi public money are involved.

Mr. Smith

I cannot say any more than I have said. This business has been carried on for years by some creameries. They are registered under the Milk and Dairies Act for the public sale of milk for liquid consumption after pasteurisation and they are registered under the Dairy Produce Act, 1924, for the purpose of purchasing milk for conversion into industrial milk products. I have, been puzzled for a long time as to how this business was supervised and how they could be assured they were only accepting milk from registered dairies.

Tá

Bartley, Gerald.
Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Gerald.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Browne, Seán.
Burke, Patrick.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carty, Micheal.
Childers, Erskine.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Collins, James J.
Cotter, Edward.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cummins, Patrick J.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Vivion.
Donegan, Batt.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Padraig.
Flanning, Seán.
Galvin, John.
Geoghegan, John.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Haughey, Charles.
Healy, Augustine A.
Hilliard, Michael.
Humphreys, Francis.
Johnston, Henry M.
Kenneally, William.
Killilea, Mark.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Loughman, Frank.
MacCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Maher, Peadar.
Medlar, Marting.
Millan, Anthony G.
Moher, John W.
Moloney, Daniel J.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moran, Michael.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
O'Malley, Donough.
Ormonde, John.
O'Toole, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Smith, Patrick.
Teehan, Patrick J.
Traynor, Oscar.

Níl

Barry, Richard.
Blowick, Joseph.
Burke, James.
Byrne, Patrick.
Casey, Seán.
Coburn, George.
Dillon, James M.
Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
Fagan, Charles.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Giles, Patrick.
Hogan, Bridget.
Jones, Denis F.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Lindsay, Patrick.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
McMenamin, Daniel.
Manley, Timothy.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, Michael P.
Coogan, Fintan.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, Declan D.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Desmond, Daniel.
Murphy, William.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Palmer, Patrick W.
Reynolds, Mary.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Ryan, Richie.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tierney, Patrick.
Wycherley, Florence.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 36.

A penny a 1b. on the total consumption of butter in this country is the equivalent of four-ninths of a penny on the total amount of milk used. Four-ninths of a penny on the total milk used in the production of butter runs into a pretty substantial sum per annum. I often wonder are we following a wise practice in continuing that charge. I know that during the period of scarcity immediately after the World War there existed a difficulty that had never existed before and that was that there was no butter market in Great Britain. That meant if you wanted to get New Zealand butter you had to enter into a contract in New Zealand and if you did enter into a contract as of to-day in New Zealand butter you got no butter delivered here on foot of that contract for about two to three months after the contract was completed, because the butter actually had to come here from New Zealand. With the return to normal in the '50's, stocks of butter are now maintained in Great Britain to supply the British market and any other European market in which New Zealand deals, so that long delay is no longer an obstacle to purchasing supplies of New Zealand butter.

Our people, peculiarly enough, do not like Danish butter because Danish butter is manufactured from ripe milk. Although that butter commands on the London market a premium of anything from 10/- to 20/- a cwt. more than the price paid for New Zealand or Irish butter, our people do not like it; they called it "Dillon's yellow butter". The interesting thing about "Dillon's yellow butter" was that it cost a great deal more than the butter to which they were accustomed and they were getting it at a sacrifice price. However, popular taste is popular taste and we never got into the habit of eating Danish butter. New Zealand butter, as far as I know, is made by the same process as our own butter and is virtually indistinguishable from it, so there is no similar difficulty about filling a gap of supply for consumers with New Zealand butter.

Two matters fall to be considered. We are trying to expand our exports abroad arid for that purpose we ought to try to bring our processing costs as low as we can. We ought to operate the creameries to the maximum capacity and try to keep our costs of production as low as we can, thus reducing so far as we can any losses in which we may be involved in export markets.

Here is an economy we can make and it would run into a very substantial sum. The average consumption of milk for conversion into butter for the domestic market is 240 million gallons per annum, approximately. A halfpenny a gallon on that would yield £500,000 per annum. Is it worth considering the possibility of eliminating that heavy charge of £500,000 a year and bringing in New Zealand butter for two months while domestic production was not equal to domestic demand? I think that is worth considering. It is not that we shall be short of butter; on the contrary we shall be exporting more. Two courses will be open to us: we could either levy the incoming butter to equate the price, because we buy the New Zealand butter at world market prices, and use that money in relief of the levy on milk that will have to be made to pay the charge that falls on the producer when we are exporting our surplus productions. We could use that £500,000 a year to reduce the cost of butter to the consumer in this country.

In addition to that, there is a great deal of storage in the country, most of which could be advantageously used in connection with the dead meat trade because you have got to bear in mind that the storage is there and you must not encourage people to bring in expensive cold storage in one year and embark next year on something else which would result to them in very expensive capital outlay for which there is no profitable return.

If we were to save £500,000 a year by this advice, we could use the cold storage facilities for the storage of turkeys at Christmas or for a variety of other products for which could storage is required. With the growth of deep freeze, which is operating now in every provision shop in the country even in small towns, I think many of these cold stores could be profitably used as depots for frozen vegetables, frozen fowl and frozen fish.

I would be glad to hear from the Minister whether the insertion of this section suggests that he is taking an irrevocable decision about storing our own butter in order to provide a 100 per cent. supply for the domestic market or whether this substantial annual charge could not be avoided to the advantage of either the producer or the consumer, or perhaps to the advantage of both in the years to come.

Mr. Smith

There is nothing irrevocable about it. I can see the purpose behind the plan envisaged in this section. If we did not have in the past some means by which we could store our summer surplus of butter I cannot see very well how we could have maintained an even price, and given an assurance to the producers that we would try to maintain that even price throughout the year. I do not know what the merits are of Deputy Dillon's proposal but this levy is included in the price of butter to the consumer. I do not think there is anything wrong in that. What is proposed in this section and the sections that follow is really the continuation, under new auspices, of a scheme or practice that has been going on for years. I do not think there is anything wrong with it. I do not know what the board may have to say in regard to such matters when they come to examine the whole field for which they will be responsible.

I have not yet heard anyone try to demonstrate that there is a flaw in my reasoning. If that is so, surely the prospect should provoke more interest in the Minister for Agriculture than he appears to show. I do not think it is enough for him to say that he is passing this over to the board to let them do what they please. It is very hard to ask the board to make a radical change of this kind the moment they take over. They are a new body. They will naturally go to lengths to try and avoid colliding with any vested interests in the country. Accordingly, if this is a thing we ought to do, I suggest the Minister should seriously consider doing it before transferring that responsibility to An Bórd Bainne.

I should dearly like to hear what some of the experienced Deputies who constitute the trinity behind the Minister are thinking on this matter. They are probably saying: "I suppose he is right as he usually is." I am encouraged by the affirmative nods of some of them. Unfortunately the Minister cannot see the nods or perhaps he would not feel very pleased if he did. I heard him make some observations to some of his older colleagues this evening that made me suffer vicariously on their behalf. Is there no Deputy interested in half a million pounds?

Mr. Dillon

I shall not, but surely I am entitled to express surprise that no member of the Fianna Fáil Party is prepared to get up and express in audible accents the agreement that they are whispering to and fro along the second bench of their Party.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 37.

In this section and in section 39 of this Act "butter trader" means a person (other than a registered proprietor of premises), who carries on for trade or gain, whether alone or in conjunction with any other business, the business of selling, by wholesale or retail, butter.

Suppose you place upon yourself the obligation of checking the butter stocks of every retail butter shop in Ireland, does that not oblige you to make a visitation to every butter shop in Ireland? You may not collect a levy except on three cwt. or more but would you not be obliged to inspect every premises to know if they had three cwt. or more?

Mr. Smith

I hardly think so.

Mr. Dillon

I think so. How would you find out otherwise?

Mr. Smith

Those who carry out this investigation will be guided by a list of fairly large retailers which they have prepared and it is on these people they will make the check—the people who would be expected to have at least three cwt. of butter. That would reduce the amount of investigation required very, very substantially.

I am told that it is the same section as in the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Act except that the board is substituted for the Minister.

Mr. Dillon

Certainly I never heard we had any power to issue a certificate against a retail shopkeeper which was prima facie evidence of his debt due. I was never conscious such a power existed. I can well imagine vis-á-vis creameries it was possible for the Butter Marketing Board to recover levies in this way because the records were there and there was a constant interchange of correspondence with the the Butter Marketing Board. We do these things step by step. This is roughly the same procedure conferred upon the Land Commission by this House at the time of the troubles in connection with the land annuities. This House was prevailed upon then to authorise the Land Commission to short-circuit the courts and to recover by handing to the Sheriff a certificate that the annuities were overdue. I know the number of abuses that arose in that connection were relatively few, but I have known one man to have a decree issued against him for another man's annuity and to have the bailiffs sent out to his house on foot of a document issued by the Land Commission without any reference to the court at all.

Question proposed: "That Section 39 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

Would the Minister advise us if there are any other obligations involved in this section? Is it to be relative to returns?

Mr. S. Flanagan

What about 39 (e) ? There is no time specified for compliance. You just have to comply. There is a period of three days specified in paragraph (b) but that is the only place there is a question of time being allowed. Three days is a very short time in which to comply and you are liable to a fine of £20 for the first offence.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 40.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 21, line 57, and in page 22, line 1, after "Such", in each case, to insert "documents or".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 40, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 41.

Or alternatively for the purpose of legal proceedings, whether civil or criminal. I see the point.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 42

(a) to make and carry out during such period or periods as may be specified in the direction a scheme for the payments to the registered proprietors of creameries of allowances towards the cost of the cold storage, by or on behalf of the proprietors, of butter, or

(b) to suspend, or provide for the cesser of, as from a date specified in the direction, in whole or in part, of a scheme under this subsection and payments thereunder.

Subsection (6) of the section says:

If you were to permit the creameries to sell butter in that way do you not see the competition that there would be amongst them?

Mr. Dillon

Not at all. Let them buy what was coming in at approximately what it cost them to produce butter at home. The Minister would thus save £500,000 in storage costs and accumulate a further not inconsiderable sum to meet the cost of production or the cost of the levy or to reduce the price to the consumer, whichever he likes to do. I think the Minister would save £500,000 and he would easily pick up, in respect of a levy primarily designed to maintain a table price throughout the year, another £100,000 for imports of butter. I do not think it unreasonable in the course of a discussion of this character to ask the Minister his reaction to that proposal with which he must be intimately familiar. He knows as much as I do about storage costs of butter, the procedure we operate and the alternatives that are available.

I was told within the last hour when I raised this matter that the Minister had decided to transfer all responsibility in regard to decisions relating to all future policy to the board. It now transpires under Section 42 that in fact this is a function the Minister will retain in his own hands. Does the Minister feel free to say that we are getting fair value for the £500,000 by the present system or would he think that, if a change would yield between £500,000 and £600,000 which could be used for the consumer or the producer, we ought to make the change ? That is a reasonable request to make, that the Minister would give us his opinion upon that. Surely the Minister is prepared to tell us whether he would consider the matter.

Mr. Smith

I commented on it, when the Deputy last raised it.

Mr. Dillon

The comment the Minister made was that he had determined to resolve this matter because he had transferred responsibility to the Board, but in fact he has not.

Mr. Smith

That is not so. I have not made such a statement.

Mr. Dillon

What was the statement? Does anybody know? I shall not accept this section if the Minister is not prepared to give us information.

Question put.

The Committee divided:— Tá: 61: Níl: 40.

Tá

Bartley, Gerald.
Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Gerald.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Séan.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Browne, Seán.
Burke, Patrick.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Egan, Nicholas.
Fanning, John.
Faulkner, Padraig.
Flanagan, Seán.
Galvin, John.
Geoghegan, John.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Gogan, Richard P.
Haughey, Charles.
Hilliard, Michael.
Humphreys, Francis.
Johnston, Henry M.
Kenneally, William.
Killilea, Mark.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Loughman, Frank.
Lynch, Celia.
Carty, Michael.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Collins, James J.
Cotter, Edward.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cummins, Patrick J.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Vivion.
Donegan, Batt.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
MacCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Maher, Peadar.
Medlar, Martin.
Millar, Anthony G.
Moher, John W.
Moloney, Daniel J.
Mooney, Patrick.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
ÓCeallaigh, Seán.
Ormonde, John.
O'Toole, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Sheldon, William A.W.
Smith, Patrick.
Teehan, Patrick J.
Traynor, Oscar.

Níl

Barry, Richard.
Blowick, Joseph.
Burke, James.
Byrne, Patrick.
Byrne, Tom.
Casey, Seán.
Coogan, Fintan.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Desmond, Daniel.
Dillon, James M.
Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
Fagan, Charles.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Giles, Patrick.
Hogan, Bridget.
Jones, Denis F.
Kenny, Henry.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Lindsay, Patrick.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
MacEoin, Seán.
McMenamin, Daniel.
Manley, Timothy.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, Michael P.
Murphy, William.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Palmer, Patrick W.
Reynolds, Mary.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Sherwin, Frank.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tierney, Patrick.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Nil; Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty.

Question declared carried.

Sections 43 and 44 agreed to.

SECTION 45.

Question proposed: "That Section 45 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

Could the Minister give any indication of the sum to be transferred to the board?

Mr. Smith

In page 24, line 22, to delete "income and expenditure account,".

This is a drafting amendment proposing to delete certain words which are unnecessary in view of subsection (1).

Mr. Dillon

Why do you want to take out those words?

Mr. Smith

I wanted information on more or less the same point. Some Fianna Fáil Deputies said tonight that, after all, the Minister and the Government were responsible to the House. The section said: "The board shall furnish to the Minister, at such times and in such form and manner as the Minister may specify, such information regarding its proceedings under this Act as the Minister may request."

We have had an amount of trouble in this House in recent times especially in regard to information sought by members in respect of State or semi-State bodies. I wonder would the Minister care to comment now on whether, if he is asked a question in the House as to the proceedings of this board, he will be in a position to give the information? As it now stands the section says that the Minister may get all the information he wants; therefore it is not unreasonable to suggest that he should be in a position to make that information available to Deputies.

Mr. Smith

It is not unreasonable that the Minister should expect to get the information he requires, seeing that the Exchequer may be involved in paying very substantial sums to meet the export losses but how a Minister would determine questions that would arise in that regard without having been furnished by the Board with the information is something I do not know. What bearing this matter of furnishing the Minister with information has upon the insertion of questions in the Order Paper is something I cannot see.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Will the Minister now answer the question?

Mr. Corish

Surely if the Minister says he requires this information and, as he told us, there is the consideration of the cost to the Exchequer, he must realise that the Government is not the Exchequer and the Minister for Agriculture is not the Exchequer. This House votes the money to the Government to give to the board. If the Minister wants the information, as he has said, it is not unreasonable that the Deputies who voted the money to him should get that information.

Mr. Smith

The annual accounts will be presented to the House.

Mr. Lindsay

Accounts, my eye! We had them before.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I want to support Deputy Corish. In relation to a measure such as this we have had quite a lot of experience in the past. In the past two years we had the spectacle of the Minister in charge of a Bill in this House giving an undertaking to the House that a certain statutory board about to be established would act in a certain way in relation to its statutory obligations. We found that undertaking was departed from when the Board was in fact established. Here is a section in which the Minister is empowered as a member of the House, elected by the House, to get certain information from a board being established and Deputy Corish has asked the Minister in charge of the Bill to give his view as to whether he, as Minister for Agriculture, is prepared to answer due and proper Parliamentary Questions by Deputies in relation to the activities of this board. I think that is a reasonable question to be raised by Deputy Corish and the Minister has not even attempted to reply to it. Is it in fact the Minister's intention in establishing this board that, when Deputies here ask for information concerning its activities, they will be met by a Ministerial reply that this is no part of the functions of the Minister, and that no information is to be given to Deputies?

Mr. Smith

Seeing that so many of my colleagues have been accused of having given assurances in the course of the discussion——

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Taoiseach did it and departed from them.

Mr. Smith

——on a similar provision I am desperately anxious not to make any commitment in that respect and to leave the House under no delusion. In fact, when Deputy O'Higgins was not present during the discussion this evening, we had several references to this matter and I tried to make it clear that, to whatever extent I am still responsible after the passage of this Bill into law for legitimately making information available to Deputies, I shall certainly discharge that responsibility.

Mr. Kyne

Is it not clear that this is the very thing of which we are accusing the Minister? He seeks to get information which he refuses to convery to the Dáil. Surely that is most unreasonable. Surely the people who pay the piper should call the tune? Is it not the public that are being denied through the Dáil the right to get the information which the Minister has available and must get under this section? The Minister is flouting the authority of the people and it is a disgraceful attitude for him to adopt.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

May I ask the Minister in regard to Section 48——

Mr. Moher

I thought the Deputy was interested only in three fresh subs?

Mr. Dillon

That kind of insolence will get you nowhere.

I will not.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The position then will be that the Minister will withhold from the House information he will get from the board under this section?

Could we get the information the Minister will be authorised to get, that is, the information as to the impact on the board of the Minister's actions?

Mr. Smith

The Deputy could get only such information as I might decide I was entitled to give having regard to the board's responsibilities and mine.

Mr. Wycherley

The present Minister will not always be Minister for Agriculture.

Could the Minister not give the House some indication of the kind of question in a simple matter like the price of butter or milk products?

Mr. Smith

The ground would not be sure enough for me.

Mr. McQuillan

Might I say in respect of the day-to-day administration of State and semi-State bodies that the Taoiseach was asked some time ago whether he would be prepared to consider setting up machinery under which these boards and companies could be brought more under the control of the Oireachtas. On that occasion he stated that, if there was a desire expressed by the House in that regard, he would give consideration to making time available for discussion on the activities of such boards. The test of the matter will lie in what is the first question asked.

We had the experience of other boards being set up here, and when a certain line was taken by the Minister on the very first question put down, that line was followed up afterwards and very reasonable questions that should have been allowed were excluded from the Order Paper. The Minister should give very careful examination to the first question in order that the widest possible scope be allowed for subsequent questions. It is very easy for the Minister, or the next Minister, to say a precedent has been established and that the information cannot be made available.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 49 to 51, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 52.

Question proposed: "That Section 52 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Sullivan

This section says:

Every debt and other liability (including unliquidated liabilities arising from torts or breaches of contract) which immediately before the transfer date was owing and unpaid or has been incurred and is undischarged by the Committee shall, on the transfer day, become and be the debt or liability of the Board and shall be paid or discharged by and may be recovered from or enforced against the Board accordingly.

Section 53 agreed to.

SECTION 54.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 10:—

In page 25, line 36, before "Every" to insert "In".

This is a drafting amendment to clarify the wording of the section.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 54, as amended, agreed to.

Section 55 agreed to.

SECTION 56.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 11:—

In page 26, to delete subsection (10).

This subsection is unnecessary because it is already provided for more comprehensively in the Customs Act, 1956, that every person who exports or imports goods in contravention of any enactment or any statutory instrument shall be guilty of an offence under the Customs Act, for which severe penalties, including forfeiture, are prescribed. Investigation of similar offences under the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Acts has hitherto been conducted by the Revenue Commissioners and it is not proposed to depart from that practice.

Amendment agreed to.

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 57.

Question proposed: "That Section 57 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Dillon

I do not know the effect of this. It is legislation by reference. Could the Minister give us a short indication?

Mr. Smith

This section is complementary to Section 1 of the Bill and is referred to in detail in the notes on previous legislation which have been circulated with the Bill. Section 1 enables the provisions of the Bill to be brought into operation gradually, while this section makes corresponding provision in regard to suspension, by Order of the Minister, of the parts of the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Acts which are being replaced in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 58.

Question proposed: "That Section 58 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

What is the meaning of the section?

Mr. Smith

Briefly, its effect is to treat creamery butter consigned to the Board as butter consigned for export so that quality control, as prescribed under the Dairy Produce Act, 1924, for export of butter, will apply.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 59 agreed to.

SECTION 60.

Question proposed: "That Section 60 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

This is the usual provision, is it not?

Mr. Smith

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 61 to 64, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Agreed to take remaining stages now.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 15 Dec 1960

Dairy Produce Marketing Bill, 1960—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Dec 1960