I desire on this section to take the opportunity of asking the Minister to have one point cleared up. The Minister said that under the Principal Bill there was a definite stabilisation price, and the difference between the stabilised price and the export price was made up by means of a levy. Now he says that is going to be altered and that there is not going to be a stabilisation of prices. As the result of the Bill the price is going to vary. Would the Minister explain to us the whole process?
Public Business. - Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Bill, 1933—Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I am sorry I did not make myself understood. The Principal Act was in operation from 21st April to 31st July. During that period there was not a stabilised price. If the Senator would cast his recollection back to that period, he will find that after the Bill went through first the retail price of butter was 1/5. Afterwards it came down in price. From the 31st July to the end of March the operations of the Principal Act were practically superseded by the Government subsidy. When the British tariffs came on, the Government announced its policy of keeping butter at a stabilised price for the remainder of the year. We are now, as it were, going back to the operations of the original Act. The Government subsidy will be given this year, but on a different basis. That is, it will be given on the basis of so much per cwt., but there will be no guarantee to the creameries as we had last July. We are not giving any guarantee that we can keep it up to a certain price. They were working on a bounty under the Principal Act. That is, they got 45/- on top of the world price, whatever it might be.
Might I ask the Minister whether, under the Principal Act as far as it has been worked so far, he has any figures to show what is the amount of the subsidy and the bounty that has already been paid—that is the gross figures for any calculated period?
As I said already the period was from 21st April to 31st July. The levy receipts during that time were from creamery butter £246,000, from factory butter practically £48,000, and from miscellaneous receipts £1,700. The amounts paid out of the pool were practically the same. In the case of creamery butter the bounties exceeded the levies by £2,000. In the case of the factory butter pool the bounties and levies were equal and in the miscellaneous pool there was a sum left over of £1,200. It is rather hard of course to judge from a period of two or three months whether the levy or the bounty was fixed at the proper amount or not because at some periods of the year production and export would not have the relation of 50 per cent., a relation which they would have for the year as a whole. Unless you take a sample period there would not be a proper relation between production and export and you would not get a proper result.
So far the gross amount involved has been about £300,000?
Yes.
When the Minister uses the word "levy" what does it mean? Is it a levy on the manufacturer of butter?
Yes.
And he pays that?
Yes.
He recovers that from the consumer—he does not pay it out of his own pocket?
No.
Then he gets a bounty. On the one hand he is paying money to the Government and on the other hand the Government is giving him a bounty. This matter has bothered me completely. What is the relationship between levy and bounty? I cannot understand it.
Let us take the case of a creamery, a creamery doing its share of export business.
It is only paid on the export?
It is exporting half. Suppose it turns out 15 cwts. of butter and pays in 3d. per cwt. to the creamery pool, that is 3/9d. Perhaps I should take the example of last year which was not so complicated. Then we had a levy of 2d. and a bounty of 4d. Suppose a creamery turns out 2 cwts. It paid in 2d. on one cwt. but when it exported the other cwt. it got all the money back on the cwt. exported because the bounty was twice the levy. The object of the scheme was this: that the creamery would not sell the 2 cwts. on the home market unless it got 4d. more than the world price because the manager knew he would get 4d. per cwt. out of the pool by exporting the butter. It has the effect of artificially raising the price of butter on the home market. That is the whole object.
Is not the object also to make a farmer who does not send his butter to the creamery pay as well?
That is a secondary consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
Remaining sections and Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill ordered to be reported without amendment.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
Bill reported to the House and passed through Report and Final Stages.