I asked for permission to raise this matter to ensure that the cheap butter under the EEC scheme would be equitably distributed. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to discuss the matter.
Under Commission Regulation, 2370/77, 65,000 tons of butter, part of the now notorious butter mountain, is being distributed among the member states at a subsidised rate. According to the regulations which apply here, under Instrument No. 362 of 1977, the maximum price set here is 29p per lb, and the regulation provides that distribution must not start before 2nd December. The official designation, under subsection (2) of Article 5, is "Christmas Butter", which is appropriate and seasonal. Santa Claus has come prematurely.
We are now within a few days of the commencement of the distribution of this Christmas box and people are still at a loss to know how it will be distributed. The Government have not done much to ensure the equitable distribution of this 2,000 tons of butter, which is a substantial amount. I read in this morning's newspapers that a large city supermarket propose to issue coupons to their customers, pointing out that they would allow 1 lb. of butter per coupon per person. While the supermarket must be congratulated on their approach to the matter, such an approach is open to abuse. I am told that an advertisement appeared in last week's newspapers to the effect that any customer who bought £5 worth of groceries in a particular place would get a pound of butter for 29p between the 2nd and 9th December. This is another example of abuse.
When the distribution of surplus butter arose during the lifetime of the previous Government, they applied a system whereby the recipients would be those in receipt of social welfare benefits. It may not be the ideal system but it is preferable to a free-for-all which will be the case now.
I should like to point out that Deputy Clinton, when Minister for Agriculture, fought tooth and nail to have this surplus distributed under the social welfare butter system which applied some years ago. He wanted the butter distributed in that manner until the surplus was used up. I am forced to the conclusion that the Government are afraid to grasp the nettle in this case with the result that all sections of the community are expected to get portion of the butter but, in practice. I doubt if that will work. One is left wondering what the Government's attitude is to the needy sections of the community such as old age pensioners, widows and those in receipt of disability and unemployment benefits. Those categories come within the ambit of social welfare and if the system I referred to earlier was applied now they would get their fair share of the butter surplus. Can the Minister or the Government justify a system whereby families with discretionary incomes, who are in most cases the better-off members of our society, are placed in an advantageous position and given a greater opportunity to avail of this offer than our less fortunate brethren? The old age pensioner with an utterly inflexible income finds himself at an enormous disadvantage in this case. The person who owns a freezer will be in a position to gobble up this surplus in no time while the individual who cannot afford a freezer can only purchase the normal current consumable amount because he cannot afford the luxury of storage.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to a study carried out by the National Prices Commission concerning the elderly in our society.
That survey revealed that in the region of 40 to 50 per cent of such people suffer from different degrees of malnutrition due mainly in many cases to lack of income and the lack of nutritional content in the food consumed. Taking those factors into consideration one would have expected that the Government would have taken action to ensure that fair play would be seen to be done and that the people most in need would get the lion's share of what would be given out. Is it not true to say that the action of the Government is in line with their approach in the recent past? The Government got a substantial mandate from our people to govern because of the attractive packages contained in their manifesto. They proposed the abolition of rates and a so-called abolition of car tax but the principle behind those is that the person who gains most from that approach is the person with two or three cars living in a mansion. The person owning a small house gains least because it is likely that such a person cannot afford a car. The same approach and the same philosophy applies to the distribution of this surplus butter.
The Government had a golden opportunity in this instance to redress the imbalance and show some concern for the less well-off sections of our community. However, they failed to recognise that there is in society different strata and that because of circumstances, many of them financial, people are not equal. What did they do? They took the easy and lazy way out by doing nothing with regard to the distribution of the butter. In deciding not to do anything they have played into the hands of the unscrupulous selfish people. Those people—I accept they are in the minority—can render a scheme of this nature useless and see to it that the goodies go into the wrong baskets. That will be the end result of the lack of action on the part of the Government. The directive issued by the EEC mentions the requirements as to packaging and identification. It states that the butter shall remain in its original packing until it is cut up in small packages and that it shall be accompanied by a list of packages enabling the butter to be identified and specifying the date of removal from storage. The directive also states that packages containing butter in bulk are cut up into small packets and shall carry letters at least two centimetres high of one or more designations and the one which applies to us is that the butter at the reduced price is in accordance with regulation No. 2370/77. That is the minimum requirement for identification of butter coming to us through the scheme but that in itself is open to abuse.
I must emphasise that in all walks of life there are people who will exploit, abuse and cause damage by their exploitation and abuse. Some people will endeavour to rewrap this butter. It will be stated that it would not pay such people to do this because repacking is an expensive exercise but it should be remembered that there is in the region of 25p per lb to play around with. Financially it could be a worth-while and profitable exercise for the minority of unscrupulous people who might be tempted to do this. Under the directions in the directive there is no way under the statutory instruments or the directive one can detect this except by chance through the inspectorate. On the question of the butter surplus I understand that the dairy industry in general are opposed to the distribution in this manner of the surplus. The Irish dairy farmer is more annoyed in that he has not contributed even 1 lb to this surplus and I understand that at no time in the past did they contribute to the surplus. Our annual butter consumption is in the region of 36,000 tons which is a very large volume. The volume of Christmas butter, as it is called, is 2,000 tons.
While I appreciate the fears expressed by the dairy industry that it will upset their marketing and upset the industry in general, I believe our portion of the overall volume of the surplus butter, which is 65,000 tons, is very meagre indeed. The logic in all this escapes me, because it would seem that the countries who contribute most to the butter mountain, as it is called, are the countries who complain most about its existence. Secondly, from the list I see here, they are the people who get most out of it. In other words, they are the greatest recipients of the butter mountain. To me the logic of that is that it pays them well to ensure that a butter mountain will continue to exist. When the share out comes, they get the lion's share.
The Christmas butter is welcome. I should not like my statement to be misinterpreted. The distribution of the butter may not turn out to be fair and equitable. What I fear is that on 2nd December, which is only a few days away, there will be an ugly scramble at shop doors for cheap butter. I do not think the Minister would welcome that. Nobody could be in favour of it. It is unfair to place the onus of fair distribution on the traders. While many of them will try to ensure the fairest possible results, I do not think they can possibly carry out this function equitably.
It is not fair to the needy sections of our community to allow a free-for-all. They will find themselves on unequal terms with people who have the resources to store the butter. While all types of schemes may be operated by traders to try to ensure fair distribution, we all know there are many ways in which they can be circumvented. Families can send people in to get butter even though traders will try to ensure that they supply only 1 lb of butter per person. There are permutations and combinations which could go on for a week which would ensure large quantities of butter finding their way into one house, or one freezer.
I would ask the Minister to intervene and draw up a scheme, even at this late stage, which would ensure the fair distribution of this surplus butter. To my mind, he has an obligation to the people who gave him a mandate to do this. I would ask him not to be afraid to grasp the nettle. If he offends a small section of the community I suggest to him it is for the common good. He would have the support of all Members of the House and the vast majority of the people if he said out straight the categories of people to whom this butter should apply.
