Public Business. - Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Bill, 1935.—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
6. —(1) The Minister shall cause to be kept the following registers, that is to say:—
(a) a register (to be called and known and in this Act referred to as the register of producers of non-creamery butter) of persons who sell non-creamery butter of their own manufacture, and
I move amendment No. 1:—
Section 6, sub-section (1). After the word "manufacture" in line 26 to insert the words "of not more than 20 lb. in any one week, produced and manufactured on their own farm and not sold for resale.
The object of the amendment is to exempt farmers producing non-creamery butter from the provisions of this Bill. In fact, if the amendment is accepted it will save the Department from itself. It must be remembered that 20 lb. of butter represents the produce of only two good cows for the greater part of the season. Under the amendment such people will be relieved of the necessity of registering as producers and paying 5/-, of registering as distributors and paying £1, and, relieved from paying 39/- per cwt. on the butter they produce. The Minister recognised the necessity of making an exemption in the Kerry cattle area by excluding farmers there from the provisions of the Bill. There are several other parts of the country where that argument holds good as well as in Kerry, in portions of Connemara, Mayo and Donegal, where one, two or three cows are kept and less than 20 lb. of butter per week is sold to customers. It is, I think, a great injustice that a man who produces a limited quantity of butter should be compelled to register, and go through all the paraphernalia that the Bill imposes as to registration as a producer and distributor, and as to keeping accounts and stoppages and other things that the Bill states he must comply with. That class of producer is a very important man in the country. He produces butter which he supplies to certain customers from one year's end to the other. It may be argued he gets a good price. He is entitled to get a good price, and he is entitled to all he can possibly make out of the produce of his two or three cows. If he is compelled to pay 39/- a cwt. he will simply be knocked out of business. Thirty-nine shillings a cwt. to such a man would be a terrible imposition. No matter what the Minister says, and no matter what the officials of his Department say about his getting more for his butter, he will, under the conditions that are to be imposed, get a lower price than he is getting at present. He will not get more than 5d. or 6d. below the price of the best creamery butter, and, when you take 4¼d. off that, it will leave him something very much less than the cost of production. Moreover, it will be impossible to administer the Act so far as the farmer with two or three cows is concerned. He cannot comply with the Act and it really means passing a law which cannot be complied with.
I respectfully ask the Minister to consider the acceptance of this amendment. We have been told by Senator Counihan that this amendment is only a reproduction of what has been already done for one part of the country and which ought to be done for others. Apart from that, it strikes me that we are dealing here with a class of people who are likely, if allowed to operate under the amendment, to turn out a specially attractive form of butter which a great number of people desire to get. You can get it elsewhere and why not in this country as well I cannot understand. Perhaps the Minister has an insuperable objection to the acceptance of this amendment at the moment, but if he could see his way to accept it I think it would be well worthy of consideration in the interests of the commodity itself and in the interests of a number of people living in parts of the country with which I have association.
It appears to me, but of course, I may be mistaken, that this amendment would not secure what it is intended to secure. I think the word "not" has been put into the amendment by mistake. It asks the Minister to keep a register of the non-creamery producers of butter of not more than 20 lb. in one week. But surely that is the class the mover of the amendment desires to have excluded, and that being so, the word "not" should be out; otherwise it defeats its own object. If the word "not" remains in you would have the ridiculous position that the Minister would be keeping a register of people who are not going to be affected by the Bill, and would not be keeping a register of people who come under the Bill.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
That occurred to me, but I thought some Senator would clear it up in the debate.
What about the mover of the amendment? Will he give us his view on that?
The inclusion of the word "not" is a mistake. I would like, with the permission of the Commitee, to move to delete it.
Permission granted.
Ordered: That the word "not" be deleted.
That is all I have to say at the moment. I support the amendment now that the correction has been made.
Senator Counihan is wrong in saying that the Kerry Cattle Area is excluded from the levy. That is not so. It is not exempt from the levy, but we can impose a special levy. We could impose a higher levy if we thought it advisable. It is quite possible that other parts of the country may be the same as the Kerry Cattle Area. I am hearing a lot since this Bill came up for discussion, about the farmer with two and three cows. It seems extraordinary to me that we should have a farmer with two or three cows producing 20 lb. of butter a week, and at the same time supplying milk to his own family. At the census, in connection with this matter that we had taken, the yield of a cow is 3½ lb. of butter in the week, so that a farmer would require to have six or eight cows to produce 20 lb. of butter per week and supply milk to his family at the same time. There is no use talking about progidies in cows but they would have to be prodigies if two produced 20 lb. of butter per week as well as supplying milk for the farmer's family. We, are, therefore, really dealing with middle-sized farmers in this amendment. I think this question should have been raised on section 16 where Senator Bagwell has three or four amendments dealing with the size of farms that he wants to have exempted from the Bill. Senator Bagwell has an amendment, No. 7, which alters the production from 10 lb. to 20 lb. That amendment has more or less the same effect as Senator Counihan's. Senator Counihan made the point that under section 16 a licence would be issued at a cost of 5/-. Five shillings is a small sum.
No. That only applies to the dealer; not the producer. If we were to accept all these amendments they would alter the whole finance of the Bill and would give a better price for a time for the butter produced by the people whom Senator Counihan has in mind, by 4d. a lb. which the consumer would pay. Others say we will not be able to collect the levy at all. I think Senator Counihan is right. These people would get the benefit if his amendment was carried. But in that case, we could not give them a bounty. The factories that blend butter and export it would get less bounty. That would react in the poorer areas where these factories get most of their supplies. Most of the supplies of these factories come from Clare, Kerry and West Cork. These districts are as poor as any area in the country. If this amendment of Senator Counihan is accepted it is quite possible that these particular people will get ½d. or ¾d. a lb. less for their butter because they are not in a position to supply direct to the consumer. They have butter for one six months of the year and little or no butter for the other six months. Their summer is short and their winter is long. If they have any butter during the winter it is sold to the blender. In this Bill, we are seeking to improve the position of these people especially. As I pointed out, even in anticipation of this Bill the blenders are paying more—in fact, 2d. a lb. more—than last year for that butter. If you said to the blender we cannot give the 25/- bounty we contemplated because we cannot collect it to the extent that we hoped, they would have to alter their prices.
I do not want to go into the whole issue as to how these levies and bounties would operate, but Senators must see that if the lowest class of butter, that which goes to the blender, suffers by a halfpenny or a penny a lb. then probably all butter will fall in price. Very probably those people that Senator Counihan seeks to benefit would not continue to benefit to the extent of 4d. a lb., as the cost of butter would go down by the lowering of the bounty. I think it is not advisable to accept this amendment. I did hope that whole matter would be argued on Senator Bagwell's amendments rather than on this stage of the Bill. I am afraid if this amendment is carried it would entirely alter the Bill with regard to keeping a register and so on, and I am afraid it would necessitate the alteration of many other sections. Section 16 was put in to exempt certain people from the levy. To bring people who come under Section 6 under the exemption would complicate the drafting of the Bill very much.
I would like to support this amendment. I think that people with two or three cows in very poor districts can be found in every county and even in every parish, and I think they are as well entitled to consideration as any that can be found in the Kerry area. The Minister said that the supplier with two or three cows would not be able to have as much as 20 lb. of butter a week. I altogether disagree with that. I know people who have more cows and yet cannot afford to use the butter they produce themselves. Taking an average of 1 lb. of butter per day from each cow the owner of two or three cows would easily have 20 lbs. of butter in a week. They sell that butter in the neighbouring towns and that is a point that should be considered in support of this amendment. Taking suppliers with a large number of cows they keep a certain amount of milk for their home use. They keep perhaps one day's milk which they use for their families and their workmen. I could point to many instances of this kind. Whether for large suppliers or small a strong case can be made in support of the figures in this amendment.
The Minister talked about the effect that the acceptance of this amendment would have on different sections of butter producers, and expressed the fear that he would not have enough money to pay the amount of the bounty which he considered should be given to the exporters of butter. I should like to know from the Minister whether the levy which is being imposed under this Bill is the sole source from which he intends to pay bounties on the exported butter. It appears from what he said that if we delete the section, as this amendment proposes, if these people had not to pay a levy the amount of money which he would have for paying bounties would be seriously diminished. Evidently he cannot say at the moment what the total amount of the loss would be. Is the Minister going to depend entirely on these levies for the payment of the bounties on exported butter?
Sub-section (7) of section 41 states:
Whenever the moneys standing to the credit of the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund are insufficient to meet the payments required or authorised by this section to be made out of that fund, the Minister shall, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, pay into the said fund such sum as may be necessary to enable the said payments to be made out of the said fund.
We are now up against the proposition that if the Minister makes a miscalculation, by thinking that this amendment will take very little off the total levy, and adheres to his statement as to the amount of bounty he is going to pay, and if this amendment reduced the amount of money which he is going to receive from the levies, then the mistake which he has made will mean that there will be a call on the State funds and the Oireachtas will have to make up eventually the deficiency in the bounties. The House should be very careful because if we are going to emancipate certain sections of the butter-making community from this levy, we may be increasing the taxation of the ordinary citizen. It is a difficult question and I do not know how the Minister can deal with it. I think the principle is that the proceeds of the levy will go to pay the bounties and any diminution in the levy would mean a diminution in the bounties. If the Minister makes a mistake in calculating the amount which he will receive from the levy, and he has not sufficient to meet the bounties, the State will have to make up the deficiency under Section 41. Before the Minister concludes, I wish he would say whether he thinks the levy will pay the whole of the bounties. Does he anticipate that any miscalculations may be made which will throw further taxation on the ordinary citizen and that the Oireachtas will have to make up the deficiency? Looking at Section 41, which provides that any deficiency will have to be made good by the Oireachtas, it seems to me that we may be dealing with some bigger question than we are inclined to consider at the moment. We may find that the community will be called upon to pay whatever balance may be necessary to make good the deficiency in the bounties.
I should like to say one or two words arising out of what Senator Jameson has just said. I have several amendments down myself, and I do not want to repeat the statements that I am now going to make when they arise. This amendment has to do with the same subject, to wit, certain exemptions of certain classes of non-creamery producers from the operation of the Act. It is important to that extent although it is not so essential on the question of exemption as an amendment which I have down later on because even if this amendment were defeated, it would not prevent others from securing the exemption which is desired by some Senators in this House. Still the two things seem to hold together but my view is that if it is necessary in the national interest that a bounty should be paid on exported butter it should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund and should not be paid by taking it in levies from other producers who are incidentally one of the most valuable classes of agricultural producers. I think nobody deems it desirable to hamper or interfere with the creamery producer but I do not think we should be deterred by any idea that if this levy is not imposed, it will have to come out of the Consolidated Fund. I think that is exactly where it should come from.
The Minister says that he prefers that this question would be argued on Section 16 and on Senator Bagwell's amendment, but they are two distinct amendments. The object of this amendment is to exclude completely from the provisions of the Act the person who produces 20 lb. of butter in one week and sells it. Senator Bagwell's amendment is that this person must register and pay the registration and distributor's fee. He comes under all the provisions of the Act except that he can sell 20 lb. of butter.
Might I intervene to explain to the Senator that he is quite wrong? He and I are in no disagreement. My amendments do not conflict with his.
I agree; but Section 16 will completely go if this amendment is carried. The Minister talks about the produce of six cows. I thought they had better cows in County Wexford.
I am talking about Free State cows—the average cow.
Everybody knows that at this time of the year two cows will produce 4 lb. of butter per day. That would be 24 lb. per week. If there are cows which produce less milk, the milk will have a bigger fat content. I have seen two gallons of milk produce 1 lb. of butter. These are details which we can argue later. The Minister's main contention is that if he excludes these small farmers—these deserving and industrious people—from the provisions of the Bill, and from the obligation to pay 39/- per cwt., he will not have enough to pay bounties on the export of butter, that it will take so much from the amount he will have to pay on the butter exported to England. That is the principal objection the Minister has to excluding people who sell 20 lb. in one week, that it will take 4½d. per lb. out of the fund which he has to pay the bounty; but it is only the creameries who will get that bounty and there will be nothing going back to the man who pays the 4½d. Payments will be made out of that fund only on the butter exported.
Senator Dillon very wisely pointed out that there are many farmers in his part of the country who do not send milk to the creameries and who supply their agricultural labourers with butter. In such cases they charge a nominal price, but according to the provisions of this Bill, if they do that they will be breaking the law unless they include every lb. of butter which they sell to agricultural labourers in their return and pay 4½d. per lb. on it. I think the Minister has not put forward any sound argument for this proposition. If, as he says, the fund will not be sufficient, that is a case in which he could make up the deficiency out of the Central Fund to meet the bounty. I heard nobody on these benches objecting to that, except Senator Lynch. I hope the Minister will not persist in refusing to accept the amendments.
I wish Senators would get one thing clear—that this has nothing to do with the bounty on creamery butter. The Creamery Fund is solvent en its own. We are collecting enough levies from the creameries to pay the bounty on creamery butter and we are not going to take a halfpenny of this for creamery butter.
There is no use in repeating things, as far as Senator Counihan is concerned, because he either does not understand them or he does not want to understand them. The Creamery Fund is solvent. We will not take a halfpenny from the farmers' butter to assist creamery butter. The people who would be hit by this amendment are the people in the poorest districts producing farmers' butter. There is no doubt about that. If we do not collect this levy on the great bulk of farmers' butter, then there will not be a sufficient bounty on the export of farmers' butter and butter exported from the factories. If you do not keep up the price of that blended butter, then all farmers' butter is going to come down in price and it is the farmers' butter you are going to hit. For goodness' sake, do not say that we are trying to benefit creamery butter as against farmers' butter. If that is used as a debating argument, have it so, but it is not so. The Creamery Butter Fund has been working for the last three years and it worked out for the three years almost exactly as forecasted. There was never a halfpenny taken from farmers' butter to assist creamery butter at any time. It is suggested that I should pay this out of the Exchequer. I should like some of those Senators who make that suggestion to go further and suggest where it is going to come from. I am not going to suggest to the Seanad that we should tax anything in order to operate this stabilisation of butter prices, but would any Senator suggest the source from which the money can be got? I said here on Second Reading that when the Minister for Finance comes before you with the Finance Bill, if Senators can make any suggestion as to any other source from which the money could be got, I, for one, will agree. I am not against that at all. Why does not some Senator suggest what we should tax? Most Senators are dissatisfied with taxation as it stands. They probably will claim that the tax on sugar, tea, and on everything else is high enough already, but at the same time they tell you to take it out of the Exchequer. You cannot take out what is not there.
The Government has already increased the taxes on tea and sugar, and they ought to have sufficient money to meet this out of the Exchequer.
That sort of silly interjection is of no use.
Is it right for a Minister to say that a statement made by a member of this House is silly? I have just as much responsibility and just as much respect for the House as the Minister. He is very fond of using insulting words. He is quite famous for it throughout the country.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
You have been carrying on, Senator, sotto voce. I do not know that the Minister's reference was intended for you at all. Do not put the cap on your head.
I want to put this to Senator Jameson, that sub-section (8) of Section 41 provides that where any money is advanced by the Exchequer to the butter fund it must be returned to the Exchequer before the 31st May following. Therefore, the Senator need have no apprehension that the money will be taken out of the Consolidated Fund, because if it is it will be taken by way of loan and must be returned to it again. Our experience of the last three years has shown us that there is a great deal of export during the months of June, July and August. The bounties have to be paid out all the time that butter is being exported. From the middle of September to the end of November there is not much export. During all that time butter is leviable. It is being consumed in the home market. The fund is made up during that time. We have to get an advance of money from somewhere during the summer months. That money is paid back again during the autumn months, and provision to borrow is made in sub-section (7). Under that sub-section, power is given to get an advance from the Exchequer rather than that we should have to arrange with a bank for the loan of money. But if we get an advance from the Exchequer we have to pay it back again out of the butter fund.
That means, I take it, that the fund is raised by the levy to pay the bounty on the butter that is exported.
The whole of the bounty is paid out of the fund. Senator Counihan is not right when he says that we are trying to get the bounty in order to pay the tariff going into Great Britain. I pointed out on the Second Reading of the Bill that the equivalent of the tariff has been paid on most occasions by the subsidy out of the export bounties. Senators will remember that the Act that was passed in 1932 was introduced in the month of April of that year before there was any tariff going into Great Britain. It was brought in to try and bring the price of butter here above the world price. It had nothing to do with the economic war. The economic war part of it is fixed by the Export Bounties Fund and does not arise here at all. I was never opposed to the bounties under this Bill being paid out of the Exchequer. The only difficulty that I have is this: if the money is to come out of the Exchequer what are we going to put a tax on in order to raise it? If Senator Counihan and Senator Bagwell have any good suggestions to make in that direction, and that these suggestions meet with the approval of all Senators, then I am sure I will have no trouble in getting the Minister for Finance to accept them.
Passing from that, I still hold that the 2-cow man that can produce 20 lb. of butter in a week is the exception, because if we had cows in this country that were able to produce that quantity of butter we could become almost as big exporters to the British market as New Zealand. At present we only export about 20 per cent. of the quantity that New Zealand is able to export. But if the cows all over this country were as prolific as Senator Dillon's cows or Senator Counihan's then, as I have said, we would soon be as big exporters of butter as New Zealand. In the case of the man with two or three cows, it is usually found that they are not all in full milk at the same time. Such a man will always try to have some milk and butter for his own family all the year round. As a rule, one cow will calve in the autumn and the other in the spring. He is never embarrassed by having his two cows giving ten gallons of milk a day, as Senator Counihan pointed out, for the reason that the two cows would not be in full milk at the same time. I hold that it is for the man with six or eight cows that Senator Counihan is arguing in this amendment.
I want again to point out to the Seanad that if this amendment is accepted it is going to alter the Bill entirely. At the moment, I do not quite know what its acceptance would involve. It would mean, I think, that very little levy would be got off farmers' butter. There are not, I venture to say, 2,000 farmers, certainly not more than 4,000 or 5,000 farmers in this country, selling more than 20 lb. of butter a week. That would mean that all the other butter would be free of levy. The result would be that we would get no levy at all. Therefore, we could give no bounty, and then would have to come down to the world price for butter. That would mean 6d. per lb. for farmers' butter. If the blenders had to export farmers' butter at 6d. per lb., might not the grocer, in competition with them, intercept some of it and sell it to his customers at 7d. or 8d. per lb. Therefore, the effect of the amendment would be that farmers selling butter would have to put up with a price of 7d. or 8d. per lb. for it.
I may have stated inadvertently that the bounty was to help the creameries. What I meant to convey was that the tax on the non-creamery butter was for the purpose of raising the cash to pay the bounty on non-creamery butter exported, and that none of that money would come back to the man who was selling 10 lb., 14 lb. or 20 lb. of butter in the home market. There is no question, but that the tax of 4½d. per lb. will hit that class of man desperately hard. It is not going to increase the price for his butter to the home consumer by 1d. In connection with a number of Bills that have come before this House, we have again and again heard statements to the effect that they would bring great results to producers. Experience has shown that the opposite has been the case. The House will remember that statements of the kind were made here in connection with a number of Bills dealing with agriculture. Those Bills were applauded by some of my friends here. They were to bring great benefits to the farmers, but when they were put into operation we discovered that they had the opposite effect. I think that the farmer who is selling 20 lb. of butter a week deserves consideration, and I ask the Seanad to support my amendment.
I do not feel that I can walk into the division lobby and vote on this amendment without first giving some reasons for my vote. Senators to the right and to the left are saying that the Minister ought to accept the amendment, so that a Senator like myself standing, so to speak, in the centre, is in a rather difficult position. I, like many others, am a dairy farmer, and for the past couple of years I have been paying a levy at the rate of 4d. per lb. on butter. The farmer who sends his milk to the creamery is getting 11d. per lb. for his butter fat. One lb. of butter made up will not contain 1 lb. of butter fat because it will have at least 16 per cent. of water. Neighbours of mine, during the past couple of years, have been in the position of being able to obtain 1/6 per lb. for their butter, while I was selling my butter fat to the creamery at 11d. per lb.
I have no desire whatever to tax my neighbours. I know that most individuals feel that every tax is unjust. I presume that the majority of Senators know that, if we had what is taken from us as a tariff on our butter going into England added to the present price of creamery and farmers' butter, then we would be coming nearer to an economic price for the butter that we produce. If we had an open market with no tariff against us then, as I said on the last occasion, the price of our butter, in common with the price paid for Australian and New Zealand butter, would to-day be round about 80/- or 85/- per cwt. No farmer in the country would be satisfied with that. Farmers would not keep in butter production if that was the highest that they could obtain for their butter. It is quite true to say that before there was any economic war it was found necessary, by the introduction of legislation, to raise the price of farmers' butter. It is now round about 100/- per cwt. In order to pay that price there is a tax on the creamery-farmer and a bounty contribution from the State. It seems to me that in present circumstances there is a very great temptation for many of our creamery farmers to leave the creameries and go in for this other type of butter production. Take the case of a man with nine or ten cows. He can turn out from 30 to 40 lb. of butter in the week. If he can get 1/6 per lb. for that butter, then he is going to receive as much money in one week for it as he would get from the creamery in a month. I have examined the figures very closely myself, and I find that that represents the position.
With that situation you can have internally such intensive competition here through a disorganised industry as to reduce the price of farmers' butter so low that the consequences of it at the moment cannot be foreseen. It may be said that one can go back to the creamery, but if you do the creamery may be closed, because if, for the reasons I have stated, suppliers have left it and gone in for the other type of production, the operating costs would have become so high that the only alternative left to the creamery was to close down. I know a number of creameries that have had to close because farmers found this other type of butter production more profitable. These creameries are standing there to-day, a tribute to the efforts of a certain number of people, as well as a tribute, perhaps, to a lack of a proper spirit of co-operation in the district as a whole.
The Minister has indicated that this tax on farmers' butter has already had the effect of raising the price of it in the open market. I have no knowledge of that; I have to accept what the Minister states. Some people may say that that is not true. I feel that if we are going to have, as we can very well have, a higher price for the farmer who will manufacture his butter at home than the creamery farmer can get for his butter fat a great many of our creameries will not be able to keep going and we will have so many people turning out farmers' butter that the price will be very much lower than it is to-day. That is the situation, frankly, honestly and fairly, as I see it. I cannot feel that I could walk into the division lobby against this amendment that is so strongly advocated and that is really so popular because, as I say, no individual wants to carry an added burden of taxation. If the Minister would accept a suggestion from me, I would urge that he would procure from the Land Annuities Fund what would make up the difference.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator is out of order.
You will not pay the annuities.
If it is the Minister's view and the view of the officials in his Department that this levy is going to raise the price of the farmers' butter generally, including the man with three or four cows, who has not been able in the past to turn out butter of a sufficiently high standard to secure trade in the towns and who has had to take his butter into the open market and sell it to the factories at whatever price he can get, I have no information to contradict that view; I have to accept it. Senator Counihan questioned that, but it does seem to me that the possibilities are very strongly in favour of the Minister's case, that this tax is going to raise the general level of the farmers' butter which is being sold to the factories, but the levy is going to be imposed on such a very small section and the total receipts will be so trifling that it is not going to have any appreciable effect in raising prices. I am to pay the tax myself. I do not like to have to pay it. As I said the other day, if the economic war were not in progress and Britain were not collecting a tax on farmers' butter I may not have to pay the tax at all. I sympathise with myself if I pay, but if I do not pay I admit that the return to myself will not be as high as it is. So far as I am concerned although I do not like to do it, I am going to vote against this amendment.
I would like to say in connection with Senator Baxter's speech that I am greatly surprised at the tone of it. I was surprised to hear Senator Baxter say that he is content to pay 7d. a lb. here as a consumer and 4d. a lb. as a producer at the creamery to send butter to England at 50/- per cwt. I am not in any way convinced by his speech. He bases his case altogether on what may happen when this Bill becomes an Act—that the towns and villages of the country will be flooded with farmers' butter. I disagree with that. In my experience the creamery has advanced by leaps and bounds in recent years. I am sending milk to the creameries for 40 years and I absolutely disagree with the statement of Senator Baxter.
I do not wish absolutely to contradict the Minister's statement that the price of butter has already increased as a result of this Bill. The Minister really never knows anything about his own constituency, but in that constituency the price of butter has gone down very much in the last fortnight.
Butter sold to shopkeepers.
You were talking about something else; you always are.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Please address the Chair, Senator.
Farmers for generations have been in the habit of taking butter to the shops. Grocers will not be able to take their butter in future. They will be notified to that effect. The Minister's arguments are altogether in the air. There is nothing solid to go on. Talking about the economic war, why, if we had our markets open to us for other products it would not matter to us very much whether we got 2d. or 3d. a lb. for our butter, which is a sideline. There is nothing solid to go on in this Bill. It is a confused and complicated thing.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
The question before the House is a particular amendment. The Senator can discuss the Bill on the concluding stage.
Senator Dillon has said that these increased prices are only a pious hope or something like that. I consider the amendment necessary.
I do not wonder that there is so much silence on the opposite side of the House because I think the Opposition has done a very great service to the Government in connection with this Bill. If the Bill had been allowed to pass in its original state, only allowing 5lb. of butter to be sold without licence, I have no hesitation in saying that it would have done enormous injury to the Government. It was most unpopular. Through the intervention of the Opposition, it has been improved and we are likely to improve it still more. If we can get an amendment carried increasing it to 20lb. it will be a great improvement and I can assure you that it will do a great amount of good to the present Government. There is great anxiety about creameries. I think I know as much about creameries as most people. To my cost, I tried to uphold the creameries at a time when it was not so easy to keep them going. There was no such thing as loans or privileges of any kind. I started a creamery and a number of guarantors, including myself, were very near being cut out of business through it. We had not so much sympathy then. The sympathy seems to be all in favour of the creameries as against people who are trying to manufacture their own butter. In the county from which I come, and I might also say the adjoining County of Cavan and the greater portion of Donegal, very little butter is sold in the public market. Most of the butter is sold from the farmers' houses in the local villages. If we now pass an Act that will injure that industry we will do an amount of harm from the health point of view, if from no other. At the present time agricultural labourers and artisans are able to get good farmers' butter, which they prefer very much to creamery butter when they can get it at a reasonable price. If those farmers are driven out of that industry and are forced to come to the creamery I feel that a lot of people will be deprived of butter for their families. As I said on the last occasion, it will have a very demoralising effect.
In the county that I come from—I am not ashamed to state it—our best industry is smuggling. Perhaps the Minister would not have the time, but I think it would be a good thing if he would come to the County of Monaghan and spend a week or two on the Border. I would undertake, if he would be satisfied with my humble residence, to put him up and to drive him around so that he might see the tremendous industry that is carried on.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
What the Senator says is out of order, but it is extremely interesting.
I think this is a matter that should appeal very much to Senator Foran.
He professes to have a great interest in the agricultural labourers and in the poor man. I am making an appeal for the poor man and for the agricultural labourer because in the district I come from they cross the Border to buy their butter in Northern Ireland at 10d. a lb. The agricultural labourer crosses the Border and buys his sugar for 2¼d. per lb. He would have to pay 4d. in the Free State for it. That is only an example. We are held up, and I am proud of it, as one of the best paying counties in Ireland. We pay our rates well. We attribute a great deal of that to the smuggling industry we have there.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator, this is the first time I have known you to be out of order.
I bow to the ruling of the Chair. I know the Minister has a very difficult task. I know that he is in a difficulty trying to help the creameries while not doing too much injury to the farming industry. At the same time the Minister has stated that there are a few districts that will suffer because they only have butter for a few months in the year and as a result they sell their butter in the market at a very bad price. We are not in that position. We get a fair price for it throughout the year. I hope that one district of the county will not suffer at the expense of another. I think the Minister would be well advised to accept the amendment before the House.
Before this amendment is put, I should like to say, apart from the merits of the amendment at all, that I think if it is carried it is going to disorganise the machinery of the Bill which provides that nobody shall have the right to sell butter except he is registered. Section 16 gives power to the Minister to grant certain exemptions. If this amendment is carried it will mean that anybody who does not sell butter in excess of 20 lb. per week will not have to register at all. Consequently, he will require no exemption. It will mean, in effect, that the overwhelming majority of those who produce butter in the country will not be registered at all. Some people, undoubtedly, will take advantage of that by not registering, although they do sell in excess of 20 lb. It will be the task of the Government, or those charged with the administration of the Act, to go round and make raids and investigations throughout the country in order to ascertain whether those who have not registered are selling less than 20 lb. of butter per week. The principle involved in this amendment think, be dealt with on Section 16 and not on this section. If the Bill is to be administered as an Act, you must have the necessary machinery and, to be fair to those who desire to observe the law, you must have a check. You cannot have that check unless all those who desire to sell butter are registered. I suggest to Senator Counihan that he withdraw this amendment and let the issue be decided on Section 16. If the amendment were carried, it might do an injustice to those who want to observe the law and it would certainly throw out of commission the machinery of the Bill.
One sometimes changes one's opinions as a debate like this proceeds, because one gets fresh points of view. I think that there is a great deal in what Senator O'Farrell has said. I think that Senator Counihan might withdraw his amendment without fear that any harm would be done to the amendments which I have down later. On Section 16, we can decide what line we will take on the general principle. If this section be left unamended, we can deal with the question of exemption later. Registration does not necessarily control exemption.
The amendment was put down with quite a different object from what Senator Bagwell thinks.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Do you desire to withdraw your amendment or do you not?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
You have already given ample reasons.
The reason I cannot withdraw the amendment is that I want to exclude those people who sell up to 20 lb. of butter from the provision of the Bill in respect of both registers. I say definitely that that provision will never be carried out— that the people who make up 5, 6 or 10 lb. of butter are not going to register on either register.
What Senator Counihan does not understand is, I think, that the very same object can be achieved by amending Section 16.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is so.
Amendment, as altered, put and negatived.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
(4) Where an application, for the renewal of the registration of a person in a register kept in pursuance of this Part of this Act is made after, but not more than one month after, the expiration of such registration, the Minister may, if he so thinks fit, renew such registration retrospectively as on and from the 1st day of February next after such expiration.
I move amendment No. 2:—
Section 8, sub-section (4). To delete in line 16 the words "may, if he so thinks fit," and to substitute therefor the word "shall."
This amendment seeks to make it compulsory on the Minister to renew registration. The tendency of all Ministers at present is towards becoming practically dictators. I may say that their predecessors were tending somewhat in the same direction. I think that the Seanad should try to curb the powers of Ministers. The House should not allow Ministers to become absolute dictators in every walk of life. For that reason, I put down this amendment—to make it compulsory on the Minister to renew registration.
In the ordinary case, there is no doubt that renewal would be granted. The desire of the Department would be to get the levy from everybody selling butter and there would be no question of refusal to renew. There is a type of case, however, in which it might be dangerous to compel the Minister to renew. Let us take the case of a butter dealer who might, during the month of February, be dealing in butter, not having renewed his registration. An inspector may come along in the middle of the month and say that he will prosecute him. In that case, if Senator Counihan's amendment were carried, all the dealer would have to do to get out of the prosecution would be to apply for a renewal. He would then have to be registered retrospectively and, in that way, he would get over the charge. That is the only case I can think of in which the Minister would exercise his discretion and refuse registration until the court had heard the case. There is not a great deal in the provision. As a matter of fact, I think that the sub-section could be dropped, because the position is that if a person comes along before the year is out he must be re-registered for the following year. This sub-section says that if he comes along within a month he may be re-registered retrospectively if the Minister thinks fit. The same would apply if he came along three months later, although he would have to be registered afresh. It would make no great difference if the sub-section were left out. A person would not be refused a renewal unless there was a prosecution pending against him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
Amendment 3 (Senator Counihan) not moved.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12
(1) The Minister may at any time alter or amend any entry in a register kept in pursuance of this Part of this Act on the application of the person to whom such entry relates or for the purpose of correcting any error or inaccuracy in such entry.
(2) The Minister shall, upon the application of a person registered in a register kept in pursuance of this Part of this Act, cancel the registration of such person in such register.
(3) The Minister may at any time, without any such application as aforesaid, cancel any registration in a register kept in pursuance of this Part of this Act if he is satisfied—
(a) that such registration was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, whether fraudulent or innocent, or
(b) that the person registered in such register has ceased to carry on the business in respect of which he was so registered, or
(c) that the person registered in such register, if an individual, has died, or, if a body corporate, has been dissolved, or
(d) that the person registered in such register has contravened any provision of or any regulation made under this Act.
(4) Before cancelling (otherwise than in accordance with an application in that behalf made under this section) the registration of any person who is registered in a register kept in pursuance of this Part of this Act, the Minister shall give to such person or to his personal representative or liquidator (as the case may be) at least fourteen days' notice in writing of his intention so to cancel such registration, and shall consider any representations made within fourteen days after the service of such notice by such person or personal representative or liquidator (as the case may be) and shall, if requested, cause an inquiry to be held in relation to the matter.
I move amendment No. 4:—
Section 12, sub-section (3). To delete all from and including the word "without" in line 36 down to and including the word "Act" in line 38 and to substitute therefor the following:—"apply to the Circuit Court Judge of the circuit wherein a person registered in a register kept in pursuance of this Part of this Act resides or carries on business for an order cancelling the registration of such person in such register, and the court shall make such order."
The arguments I used in the previous case apply to this amendment. The question I should like to ask the House is what courts are for if it it is not to consider offences. Is it not more likely that a court, hearing a charge against some individual, would be able to give a more detached and impartial decision than either an inspector of the Department of Agriculture or the Minister, who would be influenced by the inspector? We do not know what class of inspectors will be appointed under this measure when it becomes an Act. Where a man is in danger of losing his livelihood, I think there should be no objection to procedure by which the Minister would apply to a court to have the registration cancelled.
This is the usual clause which appears in the Dairy Produce and all similar measures. When notice is served on the licensee that he will be removed from the register, he is informed that he has fourteen days to make objection and that, if objection is made, an inquiry will be held. For the last three years, I have been administering the Dairy Produce Act, the Eggs Act, and the Cereals Act and, over and over again, I have signed notices to registered persons that their names would be removed from the register unless they applied within 14 days for an inquiry. I have never, in that time, been asked for an inquiry. If they had asked, an inquiry would have been held. I mention that to show that it is only in cases where there is absolutely no doubt that this is done.
It often happens that a person goes out of business. An inspector goes around every fortnight or every month. He finds that a man has gone out of business. He has to get returns under the Act because the person is registered and, therefore, has to call occasionally. Eventually, he comes back to the Department and says that the man in question has gone out of business but did not ask to have his licence revoked. All we can do is serve notice on him saying that the Minister proposes to revoke his licence unless he lodges an appeal. If we get no appeal, the licence is automatically revoked. A person may die, leaving relatives who are not interested in the business. They do not take any steps to carry on the business or to have registration revoked. We have to carry out the same procedure in that case. Under (a) where we find that registration was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation—I personally have never come across a case of that kind—if we serve notice on the person concerned and give him 14 days to appeal against revocation, while offering to hold an inquiry if requested, I think the person is well safeguarded. These inquiries are public and the registered person can engage senior counsel if he chooses. No Minister is going to risk a public inquiry like that unless he has very good grounds—much better grounds than he would have if going to the District Court. He might go to the District Court and take a chance on the District Justice giving a decision in his favour but here he has to justify himself at a public inquiry at which senior counsel may be representing the person aggrieved. In these circumstances, I am certain he will take no chances. The power has been used so sparingly that not one person has ever asked for an inquiry under these Acts. It would be very troublesome to go to the District Court, especially under a Bill like this, with so many registered people, some of whom perhaps might go out of the production of butter or might sell their cows and go in for a different system of farming. We would have our inspectors calling every fortnight looking for returns. We must do something. A man might say that it did not matter to him if his licence was revoked as he did not require it any longer. What can we do except to serve notice? Senators need not be afraid of this. If a registered person was an irresponsible person, not caring whether the licence was revoked or not, we would have to have a provision for getting the costs involved and for the trouble of going to court. The present system is much easier and I am sure it is fairer. I do not think any Senator can mention a case connected with the Department of Agriculture, during my term of office or that of my predecessor, where there was any grievance under sections like this in any of the Acts that were passed.
I have no doubt about the present Minister for Agriculture or about the officials of the Department, but, there are new inspectors coming along, and another Minister may come along. We should remember that we are legislating for the future. I have no doubt about the present Minister and his officials seeing that justice is done, but it is better if a man is going to lose his licence that the courts of the land should be called in to decide the matter, and not the Minister. The Minister says that enquiries were not asked for. If so they can serve notice and bring people before the courts.
Probably would not reply.
If a man is to lose his licence he should have a perfect right to go to the courts. The courts are there to decide issues of that kind. We should not be setting up another court where the Minister is judge and jury, and where, if he thinks fit, he can give a licence or revoke it. Such power should not be given to any Minister. I have no doubt whatever about the present Minister and officials in the Department seeing that justice was done.
Does not the Senator know that if I am to be replaced, I am to be replaced by a better man?
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."
Section 12 (4) states that the Minister is to cause an inquiry to be held. There is nothing in the Bill to show who is to hold the inquiry. If the sub-section remains as it is what protection is offered to a person whose licence is taken away?
That question has been raised. The position is probably governed by the practice. It is better defined in the Local Government Acts where the inquiry is held by some senior inspector. I do not know if the Department of Agriculture was ever asked to hold an inquiry. I was never asked to hold one since I came into office. If I was asked to do so, it would be held by some senior inspector who had not been dealing with the case.
One of your own inspectors?
It would be a public inquiry and the person concerned would be entitled to be represented by counsel.
Would not the section be improved if a clause was introduced stating who would hold the inquiry. Senator Counihan wanted a court. As that proposal has been decided the sub-section remains. There seems to be an omission when the Bill does not say who is to hold the inquiry. If a statutory body of some sort would deal with the matter, or if it was left open to the Minister to appoint anyone he liked to hold an inquiry, that should be mentioned. It would be better for the Department if that was done.
There is considerable experience of this type of section in other Acts. I know one individual who was dealt with under another Act. If a man dealing in eggs, butter, or other agricultural products commits an offence the practice has been to take away his licence. In my opinion such a man would not court an inquiry in public. In the instance of which I have knowledge the licence was taken after the person concerned had been warned and delivered the goods. As far as the public was concerned there was no publicity. Having paid the penalty, the man's licence was restored after some time. It would be a real injustice to bring a man into a public court to have him examined by lawyers. So long as the administration remains as it is I think the present method is probably more favourable to the parties concerned than to have to go into court.
Sections 12 to 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister may, if he so thinks fit, on an application in that behalf being made to him in the prescribed form and manner, grant to the person, making such application a licence (in this Part of this Act referred to as an exemption, licence) to sell during the period mentioned in such licence the quantity of non-creamery butter specified in such licence.
(2) Every exemption licence shall contain and be subject to the following conditions, that is to say:—
(a) all butter sold under such licence shall have been made by the licensee on a farm owned or worked by the licensee and shall have been so made from milk supplied by cows owned by the licensee; and
(b) the total quantity of butter sold in any one week by the licensee shall not exceed such quantity as may be prescribed by regulations made under this section or, if no such regulations are made, ten pounds; and
(c) the butter sold under such licence shall not be sold to any person for resale by such person.
(3) The Minister may attach to an exemption licence all such further or other conditions as he shall think proper and shall specify in such licence.
(4) The Minister may at any time revoke an exemption licence.
(5) Every licensee under an exemption licence who fails to comply with any of the conditions contained in such licence shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction therof to a fine not exceeding two pounds.
The following amendments though somewhat different are connected and as there is a prospect of a division on one of them, for the convenience of the House and the Minister I suggest that I should deal with them together:—
Section 16, sub-section (1). To delete in line 24 the words "may, if he so thinks fit" and to substitute therefor the word "shall."
Section 16, sub-section (2). To delete in line 39 the word "ten" and to substitute therefor the word "twenty."
Section 16, sub-section (2). To delete all after the word "pounds" in line 39 down to the end of the sub-section.
Section 16, sub-section (3). To delete the sub-section.
Section 16, sub-section (4). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "on the ground that the conditions attached thereto have not been complied with, but not on any other ground."
On the Second Reading the Minister will remember I made it clear that I objected to the principle of the Bill, as it seemed to me to be tending to interfere with one of the most desirable types of agriculturist we have: the farmer producer of butter. At that stage if I thought there was any chance of getting the House to amend the Bill by cutting out Parts II and III, dealing with the farmer producer, I would have moved to that effect. That is why I have put down these amendments, the object of which is to exempt from the operations of the Bill and the levy, farmers who produce not more than 20 lb. of butter per week. These are definitely small men who would be hit by the 4d. levy. I have limited the amendment to 20 lb. because that quantity is sufficient to make a difference between getting out of business or otherwise. If the amount is made 10 lb. it is hardly worth while. The wording of amendment 6, instead of leaving the matter dependent on the Minister's decision, removes all possibility of preferential treatment. A small man would have the right to go on producing a certain quantity and not paying the levy.
I am glad Senator Bagwell in the amendments dealt generally with this section. The general effect of the amendments would be that any person who was selling less than 20 lbs. of butter per week would be entitled to a licence and exemption as a right. In fact the amendment goes further than Senator Counihan's amendment, in this way, that the butter could be sold to a dealer for re-sale. Senator Counihan at least limited exemption to people who sold butter direct to consumers but not for re-sale. These amendments would knock out the provision about re-sale and would make it impossible to deal with grocers and dealers. If an inspector went into these places he would be confronted with butter, some of which was exempted from levy, and some of which was not exempted. It would be difficult to decide on what amount of butter there should be a levy. Another amendment says that the Minister should not attach any conditions to the licences, and lastly, that he should not revoke a licence unless the conditions attaching thereto were not being complied with.
Now, of the five amendments, I would be inclined to say that No. 10 is the amendment that could be agreed to. There is no intention of ever revoking one of those licences unless some condition has not been complied with. Now, to come back to amendment No. 1. If these five amendments were carried, it would put the Bill into a worse position than even if Senator Counihan's amendment had been carried. The first of Senator Bagwell's amendments is intended to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may." There are a few cases in which discretion should be left to the Minister. I think it would be very difficult, if there were three or four adults living in the same house, for example, a father, mother, son and daughter, to resist the claim of each one of the four of them. They could come along and each look for a licence for 20 lbs. of butter and it would make the whole thing impossible to work. It may be argued that this particular amendment does not go as far as that. I am afraid it does. Another case I have in mind is this: it was mentioned by Senator Baxter. Suppose a person leaves a creamery whose suppliers are desirous of co-operating with their neighbours. These people relying upon the creamery would have dispensed with their dairying apparatus, their instruments for churning, and so on. Now, this person might leave the creamery because he may have some grievance, or perhaps he might come to the conclusion that making farmers' butter would pay him better. I say that particular individual should not get a licence. Certainly, if we had a co-operative Act, which we propose to introduce some time or other, that person would not be allowed to leave the creamery. I hope Senators will see the justice of not giving such a person facilities, and thereby enabling him to leave his neighbours, with whom he had promised to co-operate, in the lurch. He might come out and seek to get an exemption licence under which he would get 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/4 for butter, compared with what Senator Baxter said represented 11d. for butter fat which is not the same thing as butter. So that I say the Minister should have discretion. I do not see how any Minister could resist an exemption claim at the moment, at any rate, except for the reasons I have given. There may be others. Take the first amendment, where it is obvious that more than one member of the household would look for an exception and secondly where a person who left a creamery might come out to make farmers' butter after leaving his neighbours in the lurch. These are two instances that occur to me in which a licence should be refused.
The Minister was very condescending in his willingness to accept amendment No. 10 which practically means nothing except the other amendments were carried also. I do not think we could say much on this amendment that has not already been said on amendment No. 1. The Minister quoted Senator Baxter as saying that a man would only get 11d. for his butter fat. But creamery suppliers are guaranteed 100/- per cwt. and they may for butter sold in this country charge up to 144/- per cwt. There is the great difference and without repeating what I said before I think this amendment ought to be accepted. In this amendment there is one guarantee, that everybody must register, and I think that will fix up Senator Bagwell's point.
I have only one thing to say as regards the Minister's observations on the first amendment and that is that it appears to me that the claim of four people in one household to be exempt does not present any real difficulty. In such a case the Minister would refuse a licence and he would be quite right. The conditions and circumstances would preclude that. They cannot all own the farm and if they did it might be that they could not produce more than 20 lbs. of butter.
This difficulty did arise in the Milk Marketing Board in Great Britain. It would be very difficult for my Department to investigate who owned the farm. I do realise that sub-section 2 (a) does give a certain safeguard. If the word "shall" were put in instead of "may" I would have to justify myself and to prove that they did not all own the farm.
If I were Minister, which is an extremely unlikely contingency, I should refuse the licence in that case.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Bagwell, John.
- Bellingham, Sir Edward.
- Bigger, Sir Edward Coey
- Brown, Samuel L., K.C.
- Browne, Miss Kathleen.
- Counihan, John C.
- Dillon, James.
- Douglas, James G.
- Garahan, Hugh.
- Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
- Kennedy, Cornelius.
- MacLoughlin, John.
- Toal, Thomas.
Níl
- Baxter, Patrick F.
- Boyle, James J.
- Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
- Comyn, Michael, K.C.
- Cummins, William.
- Fitzgerald, Séamus.
- Healy, Denis D.
- Honan, Thomas V.
- Keyes, Raphael P.
- Linehan, Thomas.
- Lynch, Patrick, K.C.
- MacParland, D.H.
- Moore, Colonel.
- O'Farrell, John T.
- O Máille, Pádraic.
- Robinson, David L.
- Robinson, Séumas.
Tellers:— Tá: Senators Bagwell and Counihan; Níl: Senators S. and D. Robinson.
Amendment declared lost.
I ask leave of the House to withdraw amendment No. 7 and the three following amendments because they all hang together. As the first one has not been carried, there is no use in my proceeding with the others.
Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 18.
3. The rates at which the levy under this Part of this Act on butter shall be payable in respect of the month of April, 1935, and every subsequent levy month commencing before regulations under this section fixing rates of levy on butter have come into operation shall be as follows, that is to say, on creamery butter 39/- per cwt., and on non-creamery butter 39/- per cwt.
I move amendment No. 11:—
Section 18, sub-section (3). To delete in lines 33-34 the words "thirty-nine" and to substitute therefor the word "twenty."
The object of the amendment is to alter the levy on non-creamery butter from 39/- to 20/-. I do not think it requires very strong argument to convince the Seanad that it is not just or fair to charge the same levy on butter which is only making 8d. and 10d. per lb. as on butter which is being retailed at 1/5 and 1/6 per lb. Senator Baxter talks about the creamery paying this amount but the creameries are guaranteed 100/- per cwt. and they are getting very much more. The levy is paid over to the creamery on the biggest portion of the butter exported but no matter how high the levy is on non-creamery butter, it will not come up to a terrible amount. If any money is required I would suggest to the Minister that he should find it in some other way than by levying it on farmers of all descriptions. He has insisted on keeping the farmer who has only one or two cows in this Bill and on making him pay 4¼d. on the butter he produces. If he accepts this amendment and changes the levy to 20/- per cwt. he will be doing something reasonable. I still contend that it is not right to levy anything on this butter but as the Minister has insisted on his proposal, I think it only right to have the levy reduced to 20/- per cwt.
I do not think that Senator Counihan exactly realises what the amendment means. If he looks at the sub-section he will find that it says that:
...the rates at which the levy, under this Part of the Act, on butter shall be payable in respect of the month of April, 1935, and every subsequent levy month commencing before regulations under this section fixing rates of levy on butter have come into operation shall be as follows:—that is to say, on creamery butter, 39/- per cwt. and on non-creamery butter, 39/- per cwt.
This is only fixed until regulations are made. That means that the people concerned who have been buying butter—grocers, traders, manufacturers, and so on, who have been buying butter for sale on the home market—are buying it knowing that this is the provision in the Bill. They are buying it knowing that they have to pay a levy of 4¼d. a lb. If Senator Counihan's amendment were carried it would bring that levy down to 2½d. per lb. and it would only have the effect of putting 1¾d. into every trader's pocket in respect of every lb. of butter they have bought since the 1st April. It will not make any difference to the farmers because after the Bill is passed regulations can be made altering the levy, if advisable, but until regulations are made this only affects those who have been buying butter up to the present and until the Bill is passed. I do not think that Senator Counihan means to confer that benefit on traders who have been buying butter for the last two months, under the impression that they would have to pay a levy of 4¼d. per lb. They have taken account of that in their books and have bought their butter on that assumption. There is no reason why we should present them with a profit of 1¾d. which they did not expect. This amendment would have no effect on the farmer who has sold his butter. It only applies to butter already bought.
The Minister says that this 39/- is only a temporary arrangement. I should like to know what the levy is going to be when the Minister makes his regulations. I am satisfied to withdraw the amendment if, on Report Stage, the Minister will introduce an amendment to make the levy 20/- immediately after the passing of the Bill. It would not interfere with the levy he has put on the creameries. I think it is important that we should realise that somebody has to fight the cause of the farmers who are butter producers and who are not sending their milk to creameries. If the Minister will retain the levy of 39/- for the people he mentioned, I am satisfied, but in future let it be only 20/-.
I do not want it to be taken that we can fix the levy at 20/- after the regulations are made. The bounty necessary for the butter exported will determine the levy. If there is a good collection it may be possible to make the levy less after some time. I do not know whether it will be made less or not and I could not possibly agree to accept the amendment in that way. If Senator Counihan only realised it, I have been fighting the cause of these farmers, for whom he says he speaks, in the Dáil for the last two months against the Senator and others.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in order to comply with the Minister's request to exclude the people who have butter on hands at present and I shall put down an amendment on Report Stage to make the levy in future 20/-.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 18 to 37, inclusive, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 38.
Question proposed: "That Section 38 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister in this section has taken power to do various things. He may, by order, fix the maximum price at which any specified class of butter may be sold and he may at any time, by order, revoke or amend, any order previously made under the section. I take it the Minister is going to do this after consultation with representatives of the industry because if that be not so, I think it should be so.
I should like to hear the Minister on that, because it may raise some doubts in the minds of certain people. I think it should be clear that it is so. Sometimes one hears complaints that such-and-such is done without consultation. I think there should be a sub-section in this section that would indicate that any regulations or orders made would be made after consultation with the representatives of the industry.
I wonder would it be very wise to consult representatives of the industry connected with the sale of a specified description of butter as to whether the Minister ought to fix a maximum price? I think the buyer of the butter has as great an interest in the maximum price as the representatives of the industry. I think it would be very unfair to consult representatives of the industry without hearing the other side. The Minister, in that case, would be quite certain to get an advice which would be favourable to the vendors of the commodity and not favourable to the consumers. For that reason, it would be wisest to leave matters entirely in the discretion of the Minister and let him if he thinks proper consult whom he wishes.
Under the Agriculture Act, the Minister has power to set up a consultative council to advise him on any matter. That power was availed of when the Stabilisation Act of 1932 was passed and a consultative council was set up. That consultative council will be appointed if this Bill becomes an Act. All classes are represented on the consultative council—managers of creameries, suppliers to creameries, producers of farmers' butter, buyers of farmers' butter, and consumers. That body would always be consulted on any order that has to be made under a section such as this. I do not say at the moment that this section will be made operative. This section was inserted so that we could use it if necessary. There was, as a matter of fact, an attempt made about last February 12 months to corner the butter in the country because it was known that we kept a certain amount of butter, the quantity sufficient for our needs in the winter. There was an attempt made to corner that butter, but luckily we were able to deal with the matter at the time because the Dairy Disposals Board held a lot of butter. By placing that butter on the market they countered the attempt that had been made to corner the market. There was also a threat made by me that foreign butter—Australian butter— would be licensed-in, if necessary, to bring down prices. At any rate, the threat to corner the market and put up prices was not carried out. Instead of using blackmail methods to deal with such a situation, should it ever arise, we think it is better to take power in the Bill to deal with it. It is only in such cases that this power would be used. Everyone knows that there is a certain amount of butter there for the winter. It is possible that three or four people might combine to try and corner it, and then about the month of February put up the price. We can deal with a situation like that under this section. The consultative council would be called together to consider it.
This sub-section puts no obligation on the Minister to do anything. It says that the Minister may, at any time by order revoke or amend any Order previously made by him; that is to say, the Minister is given a discretion. The Minister cited a particular case, but when the Oireachtas is passing an Act it cannot anticipate the classes of case that may arise. The Minister is taking power to fix prices, to make Orders, to revoke Orders and to do quite a number of extraordinary things. I think that if an obligation were put on him to consult the Consultative Council, then everyone would feel more satisfied.
As the Senator has no amendment before the House we cannot do anything at present.
Senator Baxter has suggested that certain words should be inserted in the section making it imperative on the Minister to do certain things which he is bound to do, using his discretion in a judicial way. That, I think, would be casting a reflection on the Minister. It is a thing that the House should not be a party to. I, for one, would not approve of having a covert reflection on any Minister inserted by way of amendment, and while I am a member of the House I will vote against such proposal, no matter what the Minister may say.
That question does not arise now as there is no amendment before the House.
Section 38 agreed to.
SECTION 39.
I move amendment No. 12:—
Section 39. After the words "creamery butter", wherever they occur, to insert the words "or non-creamery butter."
I think that this amendment might be discussed with amendments 13 and 14. The Minister is taking power to fix maximum and minimum prices for creamery butter as well as power to make a levy of 39/- per cwt. on creamery and non-creamery butter. But he is leaving the producers of non-creamery butter to go and fish for themselves in getting a price for their butter. The price of it may come down to 5d. or 6d. per lb. I understand that it is the opinion of fairly sound authorities in this country that that will be the price after the levy of 39/- per cwt. is put on. I had a letter dealing with this, which I regret I did not bring with me, from a producer of non-creamery in the County Tipperary. He wrote to a very important Dublin buyer of non-creamery butter asking him what he thought the price of that butter would be in his factory after this Bill had become law. He replied that the outside price of it would be 5d. or 6d. per lb. In order to prevent that taking place I have put down amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14. In amendment No. 14, I propose:—
To add at the end of the Schedule the following:—
2. On non-creamery butter—
(i) in the case of a consignment of not less than 5 cwts—£5 12s. 0d. per cwt;
(ii) in the case of a consignment of less than 5 cwts—£6 0s. 0d. per cwt.
The minimum price set out in the Bill for creamery butter is £7 1s. 0d. per cwt. for consignments of not less than 5 cwt., and £7 5s. 0d. per cwt. for consignments of less than 5 cwt. I am proposing that the prices should be fixed at £5 12s. 0d. and £6 per cwt. If the Minister will accept the principle of the amendments, I do not think we will quarrel about the price that he will put in the Schedule as the minimum price. I think that in all justice non-creamery butter producers should be treated in the same way as the creamery butter producers. Both will have to pay the same amount of levy. Therefore, I think both ought to be safeguarded in the matter of price.
The objection that I have to this amendment is that I am afraid it would be altogether unworkable. Every one will admit that farmers' butter is not of uniform quality. Creamery butter is practically uniform in quality. It is made under regulations issued by the Department. It must be made in a certain way, and, therefore, the quality is as near uniformity as it is possible to have it. If a minimum price were to be fixed for farmers' butter you would, I think, be creating a very difficult situation. Certain consumers would consider that some of it was worth nothing at all. They would not buy it. More of it might be considered to be superior in quality to the best creamery butter, and, on that account, I believe that many people would be prepared to pay more for it than for creamery butter, the reason being that they preferred it. You have farmers' butter that is worth 1/4 and 1/5 per lb. If we were to fix maximum and minimum prices we would probably injure that butter because, in practice, I fear, the minimum price would become the maximum. Hence you would have the price of that butter coming down to perhaps 1/1 per lb.
Great difficulty would be experienced in dealing with farmers' butter that was considered not to be worth the price fixed for it. There may be certain consumers here who would be prepared to use farmers' butter, even though it was not very good, if they got it cheap. They would not be allowed to buy it and would have to go elsewhere. In the case of confectioners, and the manufacturers of confectionery of all kinds, they usually buy farmers' butter through the factories. They would be bound by this amendment if it were passed. They might possibly say that the butter was not worth the price fixed, and might prefer to take creamery butter at a higher price rather than risk taking farmers' butter of uncertain uniformity. There would be great difficulty in deciding the price that we should fix, because it is almost certain that no matter what price we fixed it would be too low for some of the butter and too high for a great deal of it. The result would be to knock it out of the market altogether.
But, supposing that we got over that difficulty, we would then be faced with the difficulty of enforcing observance of the fixed price. I do not anticipate any great trouble in enforcing the minimum price for creamery butter because, as I have already pointed out, there are cooperative societies in existence and they would be inclined to co-operate with one another in keeping prices up. They are in a rather well organised trade. These societies combine occasionally for the purpose of dealing with certain questions, and on the whole there is a very good spirit amongst them. They usually carry out any promises they may give to one another, so that without any supervision at all I think the creameries would be inclined to pay the fixed prices.
As regards the class that Senator Counihan's amendment deals with, you have farmers all over the country, and, consequently, great trouble would be experienced in enforcing the minimum price. I think it would be impossible to do it. For instance, how could we control farmers who sell their butter direct to consumers? You also have farmers selling their butter to blenders in the open market. In that case, possibly, we could see that the minimum price was paid. Take the case of butter bought by blenders. They are paying from 8d. to 8½d. per lb. for it. Possibly they could pay 9d. I do not know. With the levy and the bounty that is set out in the Bill, I think that is the most they could pay. The price in the export market is about 73/- per cwt. at present. If you let the export bounty that we are paying go against the tariff and add 25/- to the 73/- you arrive at the figure of 93/- or 94/- per cwt. for butter at the present time after you have made an allowance to meet expenses. The expenses referred to are intended to cover the cost of transit to England. When you deduct the expenses for blending, allowing, say, 10/- per cwt., that brings the price down to about 84/-, so that the blenders cannot pay much more than 9d. per lb. for this butter. If we fix the price at a 1/-, that butter cannot be disposed of. It will be left there and no one will buy it.
If the industry were organised sufficently and we were able to classify farmers' butter, something might be done, but, in the absence of that, I fear the amendment would not be workable. In view of all that, the Senator, I hope, will realise that where you have butter, some of which is worth 8d. and more worth 1/5 per lb., with butter of varying qualities in between, it would be impossible to enforce a minimum price. If you had a minimum price of 8d. at the present time, I am afraid it would have a bad effect on buyers all through the country. As we have not a uniform quality in farmers' butter, I think it would be a rather dangerous thing for the House to accept the amendment.
If it is considered impossible to have maximum and minimum prices for farmers' butter, there should be no difficulty in fixing prices for factory butter.
Even there you have different qualities of butter. The Senator knows a good deal about the butter that is produced in County Kerry. I myself was in the butter markets in that county on a few occasions. There is no doubt from what I saw that there is a great difference in the quality of the butter that is marketed there. Some of it might not be worth 5d. per lb. If the general price were 8½d., probably some of the butter marketed would not be worth 5d. A difficulty would arise then as to what was to become of that butter if we could not get any one to take it even at 5d.
But the Minister is not putting any restriction on the factories as to the price they will pay. What I want to guard against is that the factories will not be allowed to send buyers through the country to cut down prices. I think that if the factories were compelled to pay a minimum price it would be a great help to producers.
If the factory is to have a minimum price the result will be that the proprietors of the factories will not buy cheap butter, and the difficulty that the Minister has already adverted to will also arise there.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 13 and 14, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 39 to 46 agreed to.
SECTION 47.
Question proposed: "That Section 47 stand part of the Bill."
On this section, a fine of £100 is provided in the Bill. It sounds drastic, and if it is not intended to impose such a fine, it ought not to be placed at such a high figure. Here we have provision for the cancellation of registration of premises on conviction or failure to pay levy. Perhaps the Minister has good reasons for having the section as drastic as it is. If so I should like to hear them.
I think what I said here before about the revocation of licences would apply here. In all those Acts where there are levies—I know it was in the last Act of this kind, the Cattle Act, and some other Acts where levies are collectable — cancellation is only used as a last resort. If a person did not pay the levy the Department got after him. If he paid it and said it would be all right in the future we certainly would not cancel his licence. It is only where he is absolutely hopeless and continues to defy us that it will be done.
It is permissive cancellation.
Yes, it will not be used except in very extreme cases.
You may have a manager, for instance, who is not doing the business for a creamery that he ought to do and cancellation might impose a great hardship on a whole district. It sometimes happens that an individual is very hard to deal with. The only way to deal with him is to remove him altogether, but it often happens that the people in charge do not take that step or, for various reasons, are incapable of taking it.
There is provision for 14 days' notice. If a workman is negligent then of course the employer has plenty of time during the 14 days to make representations to the Minister and to dismiss the servant.
I do not think a case such as Senator Baxter mentioned would ever occur. In any case not alone is the manager notified but also the chairman. There is always a certain fear that a manager may try to conceal his shortcomings from the Committee, so that when a notice goes to the manager notice also goes to the chairman. I should like to point out also that if there is any offence like failing to keep records, the person concerned could bring the Minister to court to show cause why he removed him from the register.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 48 to 50 agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule stand part of the Bill."
With respect to the Second Schedule, the minimum price is fixed at 141/- per cwt. You will notice that what is tantamount to the price to the retailers is fixed at 4/- above that figure. That is not the point that I wish to put to the Minister, although it only amounts to three-sevenths of a penny per lb. Senator Counihan, when speaking on his amendment seeking to include a minimum price for non-creamery butter, fixed the amount at 8/- per cwt. That three-sevenths of a penny per lb. profit to the wholesaler, in my opinion, is sufficient to enable him to continue business but the quantities mentioned, I submit to the Minister, would bear changing. In the case of Dublin a consignment of less than 20 cwt. of butter may be bought at £7 5s. 0d. per cwt. If a number of retailers join together and purchase in bulk just slightly over 20 cwt. they will get it at 4/- per cwt. cheaper and I do not believe that the amount of the saving will be passed on to the consumer. I believe that wholesalers serve a very useful purpose in the life of the community and I can see a way here where their whole trade will be jeopardised. I suggest, for the consideration of the Minister, that the amount of 20 cwt. should be increased to 60 cwt. in the first instance, not necessarily in one consignment but spread over say a week. That would make it more difficult for a body of retailers to come together and do a wholesaler out of his legitimate trade. The same position would exist in the country, and I suggest that, in order to obtain a price of 141/- per cwt., all purchases should be made in lots of 60 cwts. and so obviate any difficulty for the wholesale trade and enable them to serve what in my opinion is a very useful function. I suggest that the Minister should consider the matter and if necessary bring in an amendment on the Report Stage.
I might mention that this matter was considered very carefully and, as a matter of fact, the trade generally—wholesalers, retailers and creameries—were consulted to a certain extent. At any rate, in regard to this Schedule, I do not think that any purpose can be served by bringing in an amendment, because if a case were made afterwards that the figures are unfair to any particular interest or if trade in general could be improved by altering the figures, we can make the gap of 4/- wider or narrower or raise the 20 cwts. All these matters can be considered when the Bill goes through and alteration can be made by Order. This Schedule only holds until an Order is made, so that it would not be necessary to amend it. It certainly would not be necessary to hold up the Bill to amend it.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Question:—"That the Bill be reported to the House"—put and agreed to.
Report Stage ordered for Thursday, June 6th.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, June 6th.
