I ask the House if it would agree to take the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Bill, 1935, to-day. This Bill, as the House is aware, is one that the Minister is very anxious to get. He regards it as very important that it should be in his hands without delay. For that purpose I would ask the House to allow the Report Stage to be taken to-day. I understand that the Minister and Senator Counihan, who had amendments down to the Bill, have come to an agreement, and that the amendments proposed by the Minister will meet the points put forward in Senator Counihan's amendment.
Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Bill, 1935.—Report and Fifth Stages.
I agree to have the Report Stage of the Bill taken to-day. I had two or three amendments on the Paper and the Minister has met me in, at least, one of them. As he is so very anxious to get the Bill to-day I do not propose to move any of my amendments.
All the amendments are in the name of the Minister. While it is not to be taken as a precedent that we should pass a Bill with such important amendments, after such short notice, I ask the House to allow that course to be taken to-day.
Agreed.
Government amendment No. 1:—
Section 17, sub-section (1). To delete in line 5 the words "was delivered on sale" and to substitute therefor the words "either was delivered on sale or was manufactured for some other person."
This is to cover the case of a creamery churning butter for an independent auxiliary. In such a case it would be possible for the auxiliary to escape the levy, because the butter would not be sent back for sale, but rather it might be sent back on commission. This is necessary to cover such a case as there are many such auxiliaries.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendments No. 2 and No. 4:—
Section 17, sub-section (1). Before the word "on" in line 15 to insert the words "at the appropriate rate."
Section 17, sub-section (1). Before the word "on" in line 25 to insert the words "at the appropriate rate."
Amendments No. 2 and No. 4 are purely drafting amendments.
Amendments agreed to.
Government amendment No. 3:—
Section 17, sub-section (1). After the word "proprietor" in line 20 to insert the words "or was delivered on sale by such proprietor to the registered proprietor of any other premises registered in either of the said registers."
This is a parallel case, more or less, with amendment No. 1. It is a case of non-creamery butter where one manufacturer might propose to blend for another and pass it on to him later. It is to cover such a case as the levy would be payable by the first person.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:—
Section 17, sub-section (1). After the word "delivered" in line 29 to insert the words "on sale."
This is a drafting amendment. The words "on sale" have been left out and it is necessary to insert them here.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:—
Section 19, sub-section (1). To delete in line 37 the words "levy month beginning after a specified date" and to substitute therefor the words and brackets "month beginning after the end of a specified levy month (ending after the date of such order)."
There seems to be some doubt as to the definition of "levy month." If a person is excused from levy that is not the levy month. The words are changed by this amendment so as to show that "levy month" is the month after the person has been excused. It is really a redrafting of the sub-section.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 7:—
Section 19, sub-section (2). To delete all from and including the word "levy" in line 48 down to the end of the subjection and to substitute therefor the following:—"month which begins after the end of the levy month specified in that behalf in such order and while such order remains in force in respect of such substance or class of substance (as the case may be), and no such month shall be a levy month for the purposes of this Part of this Act."
This is the same as amendment No. 6 and is also a redrafting.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:
Section 39, sub-section (1). Before the word "It" in line 23 to insert the words "subject to the provisions of this Section."
The words proposed "subject to the provisions of this Bill" have to be inserted here because Senators will see that under sub-section 6 there are certain exemptions laid down so that these words should be in. It is a drafting amendment.
Agreed.
Government amendment No. 8 (a):—
Section 39, sub-section (1). To delete in line 24 the word "creamery."
The effect of this, and the other amendments on the White Paper is to give power to vary the minimum prices for non-creamery butter as well as for creamery butter. I feel that even while we take that power nothing can be done for the moment. I agree with Senator Counihan that it is well to take the power and that it would be possible, after a while, to fix the price of non-creamery butter in regard to certain classes and particular areas. Senator Counihan mentioned, I remember, butter sold to factories. The principal reason for bringing in the Section in reference to the Kerry Cattle Area was to build up better prices. If we could get a fairly uniform quality it might be possible to use these powers and fix the price not only in that area but everywhere over the whole country. In that way, I think it is well to have this power; but, I do not want to deceive Senator Counihan or anybody else, and so, I say, I do not see any possible opportunity of using these powers at the present time.
The Minister has gone some way to meet my point, but I would like to have a little further assurance from him if possible. A very considerable amount of non-creamery butter will be sent from Kerry and Clare into other areas and would have the effect of reducing the price of butter in those areas below the cost of production. In some parts of the south of Ireland, I understand, at present butter is selling at 5d. and 6d. a lb. If that was brought up to parts of the country like Kildare, Dublin and other of the Leinster counties the market might be flooded so that it might cut out creamery butter or considerably cut down its price so as to make it nonproductive. Of course, when the Bill is working the Minister will see the snags in it and will, I presume, do his best to remedy them.
The Minister, I am sure, will be sufficiently vigilant in the interests of all the people concerned to whom Senator Counihan has just referred. The Minister will be sufficiently vigilant to have the interests of those people protected by supervision, by competent inspectors and people of that class, who will be able to advise him as regards the different schemes in different areas. If he does that I think the apprehension of my friend will have no reason for its existence.
This amendment gives the Minister the power that Senator Counihan desires.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8 (b):—
Section 39, sub-section (2). To delete in line 30 the word "creamery."
The Minister put forward some very cogent arguments yesterday as to why no minimum price should be fixed for farmers' butter. I would agree to this amendment only on the distinct understanding that the Minister is merely permitted, when the occasion arises, to fix a minimum, price for farmers' butter. I am not at all impressed by the arguments of Senator Counihan and the fear he expressed here that butter will be sent from Munster to the various counties in Leinster, so reducing the price of butter here. I would only consent to regulation of the price of farmers' butter on the understanding that we are only giving the Minister permission, when the circumstances are favourable and when it is possible to grade farmers' butter, to fix a minimum price. I understand from the Minister that the word "may" in sub-section (2) is not mandatory but is permissive. That being so, I think no harm can be done by accepting the amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
The following further Government amendments were agreed to:—
8 (c). Section 39, sub-section (2). After the word "butter" in line 30 to insert the words and brackets "of any specified class (defined in such manner as the Minister shall think proper)."
8 (d) Section 39, sub-section (2). To delete in line 33 the word "creamery."
8 (e) Section 39, sub-section (2). To delete paragraph (c).
8 (f). Section 39, sub-section (2). To delete in line 40 the word "creamery."
8 (g). Section 39, sub-section (5). To delete in line 49 the word "creamery."
Government amendment No. 9:—
Section 39, sub-section (6). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
(6) Nothing in this section shall apply to or render unlawful any sale of butter at less than the minimum price under this section by the registered proprietor of creamery premises to a regular supplier of milk to any creamery or cream separating station owned by such registered proprietor, where such sale takes place under and in accordance with an authorisation in that behalf given by the Minister to such registered proprietor.
This amendment deals with cases that require a little explanation perhaps. Some creameries complained that they were afraid that under this Bill they would have considerable difficulty in holding their own suppliers, because if these suppliers turned to making farmers' butter they would be able to have that butter free of levy. It is quite true that whatever levy we impose on farmers' butter, it can only be imposed on farmers' butter that is sold and not on butter used in the farmer's own house. It is quite conceivable that a farmer with three or four cows, who might not be too badly off, might decide that it would be better to make his own butter rather than go on buying butter from the creamery at 1/5. This amendment would not excuse the creamery from paying a levy on the butter that it would sell back to its own suppliers, but it does allow the creamery to sell such butter at a reduced price. That means that the minimum price is not mandatory on the creamery in selling butter to its own suppliers.
As far as I have examined the position up to the present, I think that the permission under this sub-section would not be given to creameries in general. It would be given to creameries where they could make the case that they were surrounded to a great extent by producers of farmers' butter, and that there was a great temptation on suppliers to leave them and to go back to the making of farmers' butter. On the other hand, in creamery districts where there is no danger of that, it would be better for the creamery society if this permission were not given, and it will not be given in such cases. In other words, unless the creamery is able to make the case that it requires this permission for its own salvation, the permission will not be given. Naturally, in its own interests the creamery will not ask for it unless it is up against great competition from farmers' butter produced in that district.
I do not object to the provision in the Bill which allows suppliers of butter to get the butter free of duty.
It only allows them to get the butter at a lower price than the minimum price.
I intended to put down an amendment which would allow employees on a farm which produces non-creamery butter to purchase that butter in the same way and, I think, they have the same claim as suppliers to a creamery. I should like, before we pass the Report Stage, if the Minister would give the same terms to the employees on a farm which produces non-creamery butter so that they could be supplied with that butter free of levy.
I think that this is a very useful provision, but I wonder is it sufficiently comprehensive? Take the case of a farmer who has 30 cows sending milk to the creamery, with farm hands such as Senator Counihan refers to. If the creamery has to pay a levy on the butter used in his house, the probability is that he will separate the cream from some of the milk and convert it into butter in his own house rather than pay the levy; so that I think that proviso is not sufficiently comprehensive to meet the object which the Minister has in view. However, as the Minister has considered it—if he thinks that the farmer is willing to pay the levy to the creamery on the butter consumed in his own house—after full investigation such as he must have made, of course, I am satisfied, but I am very doubtful that any farmer, certainly any farmer with whom I am acquainted, will be very eager to pay the levy. I think what he would be more inclined to do would be to separate the milk by his own separator. They have all separators, and they can separate the cream from the milk and have it churned and have the butter required for their own houses made in their own dairies. While I say that this proviso, in my opinion, is not sufficiently advantageous to the farmers, I am satisfied if the Minister is.
Do you not think that any further concession would be unworkable?
I do think that any further concession would be unworkable and that is the difficulty of the situation. However, I am not a critic.
The point which Senator Counihan has put forward is that the farmer spoken of by Senator Comyn, who keeps some of his milk and makes it into butter, might be permitted to sell that butter to his employees free of levy.
That is clear from the amendment and the proviso.
I think we should not worry about that.
Would the Minister say that it is clear?
The Minister cannot construe Acts of Parliament for you.
First of all, if the people who are working for a farmer are getting butter as part of their wages, I do not think that that butter would come under this Bill at all. I do not see how it could, because the butter is not sold as defined here. Then, under Section 18, the matter can be dealt with. I told Senator Counihan that we had ample powers to deal with the matter. Under Section 18 we have, I think, very ample powers. Sub-section (2) of that section states:
The Minister may by regulations made under this section do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—
(a) prescribe different rates of levy on different substances and on different classes (defined in such manner as the Minister shall think proper) of any particular substance.
I think no draftsman could have given wider powers than are given there. I am quite sure that the Minister could provide that any class of butter could be disposed of in a particular way and make regulations that would cover that. I said to Senator Counihan before the House sat that we had ample powers to deal with the matter, and that is the section I had in mind.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9 (a):—
Section 40. To delete the word "creamery" wherever it occurs.
That is the same as the other amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Before the Bill passes its Final Stage, I should like to say that I think it does not meet the necessities of the case. Taking into account that if we were living in normal times this Bill would only add something like 1d. per gallon to the value of farmers' milk, it must be considered by all farmers as a very small contribution. We have not been told by the Minister or by others what really was the reason for the Bill. I am not going to suggest now that it was the economic war, for the reason that the principal Act was passed before the economic war commenced, but I believe, and suggest, that the reason for this Bill was mainly the self-sufficiency and high protection policy of the Government, a policy that has raised the price of the farmers' requirements and the necessities of their households and farms, consequently increasing the cost of living for them and increasing the cost of production. In addition, they had to face the great cost of Government and all the other overheads which they had to bear in the last few years. While this Bill is very welcome, it seems to me that it is totally inadequate to meet the situation, and I believe it does not compensate at all for the great disabilities and all the inconveniences that are likely to arise from it and all the expense involved in it, such as the registration of all farmers who sell butter, creameries, and so on. I think that it is totally disproportionate to the great cost of the personnel that will be required to work it and totally disproportionate to the returns. I suggest, for instance, taking into account the present conditions—and we must refer to the present condition of the farmers as well as those that existed when the principal Act was passed—that the main interest of dairy farmers is, practically speaking, gone. I suggest that the cattle rearing end of the dairying is the main portion of the industry; it is the one that carries it to economic success, and that is, practically speaking, gone at the moment. In saying that, I speak with complete knowledge and authority. For instance, up to about a week ago, in one concern that I know of, 7,600 calves have been slaughtered this year. These calves were slaughtered for the sake of their skins and for the sake of putting them out of the live stock economy of the country. That is a very dangerous situation for public representatives to contemplate.
Taking all these things into consideration. I think this Bill is absolutely inadequate. I know that the Minister is not responsible. I do not blame him except as a single member of the Government. But taking into account the policy of the Government in all these matters, I believe that this Bill will have to be rehashed if the people are to be kept in production at all. Many farmers at the present moment cannot send their milk to the creamery under ¾d. or 1d. per gallon. That cost comes off the possible 4d. per gallon that they will receive for their milk. I know that those farmers have not plain ordinary food; they have not even the ordinary offal as food. I speak again there with knowledge and authority. Under the present condition of the national economy, I say that this Bill is more or less waste paper; that is honestly what I believe about it. Taking into account the expenses, the registers, the levies and the subsidies and all the rest, I think it is absolutely inadequate. I wish to place on record my belief that the Bill is almost useless.
I do not think the Bill is useless. I agree with Senator Dillon that farmers are naturally reluctant to submit to regulations. There are a good many regulations in this Bill and, of course, they would be intolerable if there was not behind them the wise national purpose of supporting the farmers and benefiting them as much as possible. In case anybody might consider what Senator Dillon said a censure on the administration of this particular Department, I would like to say that, having studied the work of the Department in the country and in the city, I am of the opinion that this Department is fighting very hard and very successfully the many great difficulties that were in its path. The first tremendous difficulty was the world conditions as regards agriculture; that is a thing that affected all nations. And the second difficulty they had to face——
Of their own making.
—— was the little trouble that we have with the sister island, the private business we have, the local war that has been imposed upon us, on the suggestion and at the instigation of my friends on the other side because it was they who first told the English what to do.
Who fired the first shot?
Who told the British to fire the shots? Who made the balls for them?
Is there any chance of getting back to the Bill now?
We are entitled on the Final Stage of this Bill to consider the policy behind the Bill. My friends do not want to hear what they know I am going to say. Before this economic war started some of my friends went around the country saying: "I will tell you what will happen. The British will put a tariff on your butter, the British will put a tariff on your cuneens and on your yearlings, the British will put a tariff on your two-year-olds and on your springers." It was said so frequently that the British in self-defence had to do it. Who is responsible for the economic war?
Whoever fired the first shot.
I here charge and deliberately charge the gentlemen on the other side with being responsible for the economic war and promoting the measures that were taken by Great Britain.
Is this an election meeting?
What are the world conditions that rendered it necessary for the Government to regulate the conduct of agriculture and the business of the farmers?
We are at the Dairy Produce Bill, Senator.
So far as the dairy industry is concerned the world conditions were these: that great supplies of butter were coming from Denmark, Australia and New Zealand, and it was necessary that we should hold our place in the British market.
Hear, hear.
In order to hold our position in the British market it was necessary that some subsidy should be given to the persons who exported butter.
I thought we did not want the British market any longer.
Still my friends were taking advantage of that. I know a number of people who up to the present have taken advantage of that state of things. The regulations in regard to creamery butter had the effect of raising the prices of all classes of butter at home — not merely creamery butter, the butter upon which there was a levy—and a number of farmers who made their own butter derived distinct advantage from the rise in prices. It is essential now, seeing that they are getting that advantage, that they should contribute as well as the other farmers to that result. I know farmers within a mile of a creamery who have 30 or 40 cows. They will not send their milk to the creamery; they separate the milk at home, churn it, and sell the butter at home. They are getting all the advantage of those regulations and those charges that are made and they are paying nothing for it. They will have to contribute when this Bill is passed. This is a just Bill. It does impose regulations on the farmers which are onerous and which will be resented, but they are necessary regulations in the present condition of the world, and I am sure that the Bill will have good results. I hope that the benefit that the farmers will derive from this measure will not be so small as Senator Dillon fears. I have also a very great wish and hope that the condition of the farmers will be still further improved and that further relief will be given to them, in addition to the relief contemplated in this measure.
Senator Comyn's Party preached a policy of self-sufficiency, of catering for our own needs and ignoring all outside markets. It was definitely laid down by certain of their higher spokesmen that the British market was gone, thank God, and would not come back. Now, according to Senator Comyn, we must not alone get back the British market but we must maintain the hold which we had on it in the past. In order to maintain that hold which we had on it in the past this apostle of self-sufficiency advocates a policy of imposing a levy on the poorest and the smallest of our farmers. Those farmers who are not near creameries will have to pay 4d. per lb. to maintain that policy. To support that policy of maintaining a hold on the British market, the poorest of our workers will have to pay 5d. or 6d. per lb. more for their butter than they paid before. I would like if Senator Comyn or some other apostle of that doctrine of self-sufficiency would deal with these two aspects of the problem, and not try to confuse the issue by trying to prove to the Irish farmer that his position is bettered by legislation of this kind. I do not blame the Minister for Agriculture. As I said before, I have very great respect for that man. I have reason to have respect for the man who is doing the best he can in the position in which he finds himself. The position is not of his own making, I hope. He has my sympathy. He is doing his best in a difficult position. But it is a pity that the issue should be confused. It is a pity that we would not face the problem straight. It is a pity that the case would not be accurately stated, if it is being stated at all. I should like that somebody would deal with these two aspects of the case, whether the position of the farmer is being bettered by an imposition of 4d. a lb. on the butter that he sells on the home market and whether the position of the poorest of our workers is improved by the fact that they have to pay 5d. or 6d. a lb. more for their butter than if this situation had never been created.
I think the arguments put forward by Senator Dillon and Senator O'Hanlon would go very far to prove that a policy of self-sufficiency in this country would relieve us of a lot of trouble. If we had no butter to export we would have no trouble in this country, except to put a tariff of 6d. or 8d. per lb. on butter coming into the country and allow our farmers 1/4, 1/6 or 1/9 a lb. for their butter. It is because we have a surplus for export that all this trouble arises. It is because we have to export to a market out of which no farmer can live. I remember saying that it might have been metaphorical to have said that the British market is gone. When we had a market where we got 160/- a few years ago and where we now can get only 80/- it is no exaggeration to say that that market is gone. It is gone as a good market. Certainly it is no great use to anybody. But we must get rid of our surplus and, as Senators know, the surplus regulates the price of all. That is why we try to bolster up the price of that surplus. so that the internal price will remain at a certain level. In that way, I think no better demonstration could be given of the absolute flop in the British market. It is gone as a market. I mean that it is of no use to us as far as butter is concerned. No better demonstration of the truth of that statement could be given than the necessity that has arisen for a Bill like this.
Question put and declared carried.