Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Jan 1961

Vol. 53 No. 10

Dairy Produce Marketing Bill, 1960— Report and Final Stages.

Mr. O'Quigley

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, to delete lines 3 to 12 inclusive, and substitute the following:—

"( ) (1) Regulations may be made by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance providing for

(a) the assignment to the Board of such additional functions as the Minister may consider necessary in relation to milk or milk products,

(b) making such provision as the Minister considers desirable or necessary in relation to matters ancillary to or arising out of the assignment of functions to the Board under this Act or the performance by the Board of those functions.

(2) Regulations made under subsection 1 of this section may be revoked or amended by regulations.

(3) Where regulations are proposed to be made for the purposes of this section, a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulations shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.

On the Committee Stage, there was a fairly lengthy debate on Section 5 which specifies the functions which An Bord Bainne will have and on Section 6, which is the subject of this amendment, particularly with regard to the assignment by Ministerial regulation of additional functions to the Board. The section which assigns the functions to the Board, Section 5, is a fairly lengthy section and one cannot imagine that there are many other functions that could be assigned to the Board. Consequently, it must be taken that the functions the Board may acquire authority to discharge will be minor functions or will be major functions which it is not intended at this stage should be vested in the Board. If it should be a major function which it is not intended to vest in the Board at this stage, it is not good enough in my opinion to assign such major function to An Bord Bainne merely by way of ministerial regulation.

The House will note that it is not alone the Minister for Agriculture who is involved; the Minister for Finance is also involved under this section. Any regulations made under the section can be made only with the consent of the Minister for Finance. We must take it, therefore, that since the consent of the Minister for Finance is a prerequisite to the making of regulations, public moneys will be involved. If that is so, then it should be a minimum requirement that both Houses, and particularly the Dáil, should have some say in relation to the involvement of public moneys in the additional functions of the Board.

I do not think any difficulty would ever arise if this amendment were accepted. On the contrary, it has a certain value from the point of view of parliamentary democracy. When I mention parliamentary democracy, I mean that it is only right and proper that the representatives of the people should retain control, particularly control in matters in which finance is involved. I do not seek to hamper the Minister or An Bord Bainne in the discharge of their functions. I merely seek to ensure that any new functions given to the Board will be given only after full parliamentary discussion.

The amendment suggests nothing new or revolutionary. Under the Social Welfare Act, the schedule of specified employments may be amended by order and that order must first be approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. The same situation obtains in relation to changes in the contributions. That is a convenient method of amending legislation. It has much to commend it as against regulation. Regulations are tabled almost, one might say, clandestinely. They are seldom seen and rarely discussed by members of either House.

Under the State Guarantees Act, 1954, a number of public bodies— Fuel Importers (Éire) Limited, Grain Importers (Éire) Limited, Irish Steel Holdings Limited, the Great Northern Railway Board, which, I take it, is now defunct, and the Irish Potato Marketing Committee Limited—are entitled to have their loans guaranteed by the State and it is provided that the order amending the Schedule must be made by the Government. That is collective responsibility at its best. Despite the fact that the order is made by the Government, with all the authority and responsibility of governmental decision behind it, it does not take effect until a draft of it has been approved by both House. It seems to me to be eminently reasonable, sensible and practicable to suggest that in relation to an industry so important to the economy of the country as a whole, any new functions to be given to the Board should be the subject of a type of order such as I suggest in this amendment.

I find it disheartening, to say the least of it, to find Senators like Senator Ryan saying, as he did on Committee Stage, that this kind of legislation by regulation is inevitable. I should have thought that Senator Ryan would have been the first to understand the importance of maintaining the supremacy of Parliament as established under the Constitution. I can well understand that there are some people who may not have all the respect for parliamentary institutions one would wish. I would hope, however, that the younger people on the other side of this House would not tread the path their political forbears trod.

Mr. Donegan

I support this amendment. On Committee Stage, I moved the deletion of Section 6. It would be far better if Parliament were approached when additional functions are being sought for the Board. The Bill is extremely specific in the assignment of functions. I urged the rejection of certain specifications in Section 5. Under Section 6, the Minister appears to be seeking all sorts of powers to assign any functions he likes to the Board. In that situation, there is not only the possibility but the likelihood of the Board being used for all kinds of operations, operations which might be politically beneficial to the Minister but would not bring about the results sought to be achieved under this Bill.

The Minister seeks power to do things without reference to Parliament. That is something which should be repugnant to all right-thinking people. Why does he seek these all-enveloping powers when he has deliberately, under Section 32, forbidden himself to move one inch from the upper limit of subvention fixed for the export of creamery milk? Might not situations arise in which he would wish to go beyond the present provisions of Section 32? Why then does he seek these all-enveloping powers to embrace within his ambit and within the ambit of An Bord Bainne all sorts of functions, while simultaneously limiting the amount of subvention to the producers of creamery milk?

Seán Ó Donnabháin

In the past few days, we have heard the definition or attempted definition of "proposal,""order" and "regulation." We have even had a discussion on legislation by writing. The section, as it stands, calls for the making of an order. From considerable experience, I interpret an order to mean something made subsequently to and related to a section of an Act. My understanding of a regulation was that it was consequent on an order and that it amplified or implemented an order. I may be wrong in that, but I think I am right, so far as an order is concerned.

My understanding of a regulation is that it is made to clarify an order. It is made subsequent to an order and relates to that order. From our discussion here, my interpretation of an order and a regulation appears to me to be wrong. I believe that the amendment proposed by Senator O'Quigley will make confusion worse confounded. I cannot compliment him on the phraseology of the amendment either because it certainly will cause confusion. He starts off by saying in subsection (1):

Regulations may be made by the Minister...

Then in subsection (2), he says:

Regulations made under subsection (1) of this section may be revoked or amended by regulations.

But then he says in subsection (3):

Where regulations are proposed to be made for the purpose of this section, a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulations shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.

First, he says regulations "may be made"; but then he changes the terminology and refers to regulations "proposed to be made" and says they shall not be made until a resolution has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. That will only lead to more confusion. The regulations are either made at the start and subject to ratification or are not made until after a proposal comes before both Houses. To my mind, the amendment is certainly misleading. From its very wording, it is confusing. We often criticise the draftsman for his errors, but I think this amendment will only succeed in making confusion worse confounded.

Mr. Burke

Under this Bill, as indeed under any Act, the number of orders made should be kept to the absolute minimum. The fewer regulations necessary to be made by the Department, the better the work that can be done. Many regulations are laid on the Table of this and the other House, passed and accepted, and it is well known that, if they all were enforced, many of the lines of production they affect would be arrested or impeded. It is a peculiar thing that we, as a House of the Legislature, should give effect to orders which, if enforced, would impede production. However, what is happening in practice is that some of the imaginative officers in the Minister's and other Departments have worshipped at the shrine of Horatio Nelson and have turned a blind eye to some of these regulations. Cromwell said that no one went as far as the person who did not know where he was going. I often feel that today people take out a text-book written by the best modern authorities, write in a whole lot of regulations and try to give them practical application. My worry is that that will impose difficulty on industry and production. I can see that regulations will be laid down as to how cream should be pasteurised and milk dried, but in a month's time, somebody may invent a new method of dealing with these matters and the whole procedure may have to be changed. By these regulations, we are attempting to freeze something that may be outmoded the next day.

The thought and ideas that stimulate people in industry and production do not emanate from the rooms of the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture should give effect only to the pressures exerted by economic and other forces outside. The suggestion in Senator O'Quigley's amendment that the Minister and his officials should put these matters before the House in a more formal way than heretofore is a worth-while development. Why should we be afraid of having these things out in the open for everybody to see them? No mistake can be made by having a scrutiny and by doing these things in public. That is why I support the amendment as strongly as I can.

I know from practical experience in the past that all regulations made by Departments are not sacrosanct and neither have they all practical application. What Senator O'Quigley is suggesting is no new departure. It has been done by this Government before. If the Government would like to further this development, then we shall give them all the credit to which they are entitled. If the Minister accepts this amendment, I believe he will be doing a lot to give us a modus operandi in relation to the question of regulations which will be both a benefit to the Department and a help in the development of procedures for dealing with legislation.

Mr. Colley

I think the objection to this section has been greatly exaggerated. I do not see anything in it that an ordinary, wise draftsman would not provide in a Bill of this kind. No one could claim to be absolutely sure of providing for everything that might be necessary to be done by a Board such as this. After all, the Minister is responsible for the working of the Board, and if it were found that there had been some omission that would interfere, perhaps extensively, with the proper working of the Board, surely he should have some power to amend that situation, without the delay of perhaps 12 months involved in going through the process suggested by the other side of the House and in having something that was done or was not done by the Board discussed in both Houses of the Oireachtas. That might cause infinite damage because of the fact that the Board was in its infancy.

There is nothing in this section that any ordinary wise man would not provide. If a man were entering into a contract, he would make provision for contingencies, even though he might be in a far better position if there were no delay. I believe there is no reason for delaying further on this amendment.

Mr. L'Estrange

I intend to be very brief but I do not agree with the last speaker who stated that there has been gross exaggeration. We are legislating for the future and I believe the members of this House should be jealous of, and guard, the rights we have. In my opinion, we delegate far too many powers. We find that when the elected representatives in the Dáil or Seanad ask certain questions in Parliament, they are told they will not be answered, and we are not allowed to inquire into the rights and duties of boards with regard to their day to day work. I entirely agree with Senator Burke that drafts of regulations and orders should be laid on the Table and passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Crowe

As an old farmer I should like to say that I am in entire agreement with Senator O'Quigley, Senator Burke and Senator L'Estrange. During the past 40 years, I have had fairly good experience of different boards and I know the position of the producers to-day is not as bright and beautiful as we are led to believe it is. The Minister says that he is an honest man, and while I should like to hear other people say the same thing, undoubtedly he is reasonably honest.

Mr. Smith

That would be more convincing, would it not?

Mr. Crowe

I appeal to the Minister with all the earnestness I can command to give better representation to the producers of Irish creamery milk.

An Cathaoirleach

That matter does not arise on the amendment.

Mr. Crowe

There are 32 selling stations across the water in England——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator may refer to that matter on the next Stage.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

I am almost afraid to say to the Seanad that I was being slightly jocose when I claimed to be an honest man because I agree with Senator Burke that such a matter can be determined only by the opinion of one's neighbours. When I suggested that I was one of those people, I was quite conscious of the fact that my judgement in that regard was subject to that decision.

Section 6, to which this amendment was moved, is exactly the same as a section, which appears in the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) (Amendment) Act, 1958, which I was responsible for taking through both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Donegan

That is a very hot Act.

Mr. Smith

That can be discussed on another occasion. The fact is that that section was not even referred to in either the Dáil or the Seanad, although the two are the same, word for word. I am not saying that the fact that it was not referred to is proof that everything is right. The fact that it was overlooked does not necessarily mean that it was desirable.

Mr. L'Estrange

The milk producers are not represented.

Mr. Smith

We are not discussing the milk producers now.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister has power to deal with them under the section.

Mr. Smith

We are discussing an amendment to Section 6. As I say, Section 6 of this Bill is exactly the same as Section 7 of the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) (Amendment) Act, 1958. I agree with Senators who say that in Section 5 every effort it was possible to make was made to cover every conceivable function of the Board. If I were asked could I think of anything that was not covered by Section 5, I would have to admit that I could not and if any of my officials were asked the same question they would have to give the same reply. Naturally, if we were sure that we could think of everything, or if we were sure that we could provide for everything, there would be no reason to have a section like this section in the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) (Amendment) Act, 1958, or in this Bill, but we know to the contrary, and Governments in the past knew to the contrary. They knew it was not possible to think of everything and to provide for everything. Therefore, in Bills that passed through the Oireachtas, there were sections such as the one being dealt with here.

Senator O'Quigley mentioned that any order or regulation would have to be made with the approval of the Minister for Agriculture and of the Minister for Finance. The reason is that, in so far as the supports being given to the sale of surplus milk products are concerned, the Bill provides that the supports are based on a two-to-one basis—and, of course, there are financial considerations here. Naturally, the Minister for Finance will come in, in relation to any orders made by me under Section 6, if such orders are ever necessary.

Senator O'Quigley compared Section 6 with the provisions of the State (Guarantees) Act. There is no comparison whatever between the two situations that are being provided for. Section 6 is included so that if, at any time, it is shown that Section 5 does not cover the whole field, or some new development takes place, the Minister will be enabled to transfer to the Board some further function in that regard.

The State (Guarantees) Act, 1954, lists in a Schedule the names of certain semi-State bodies and the maximum amount of borrowings the repayment of which can be guaranteed by the State. It provides that, should any further such bodies be added to this Schedule, should the total amount of the State guarantee be increased, before any additions can be made to that Schedule and before the total amount can be increased, the order giving effect to the Government decision shall be placed on the Table of the House for discussion and ratification.

Here we are dealing with State concerns; here we are dealing with bodies requiring millions of pounds of money; here we are dealing with a situation in which, if the law was as it will be in relation to this Bill when it becomes an Act, if the Government were to give increased provision to these bodies and if the order enabling the Government to make such increased provision could be annulled by Parliament, the position would be extremely difficult. To compare the State (Guarantees) Act with a simple section in a Bill relating to the marketing of milk products does not make sense.

Let us take the other Act cited, the Social Welfare Act, 1952. It provides for adding to the types of employment covered by the Act. That is tremendously important. That matter should receive the widest ventilation and need not be accomplished in a short period. It does not have to be dealt with quickly. It is a policy matter. Then it provides for changing the rates of social welfare contributions. That, too, is a subject on which the widest discussion could take place. It is one in respect of which you would never have a question of urgency. The next provision modifies the contribution conditions. The same remarks apply in that case. It is in the light of these three matters which are covered by that Act that the Government make the order and, having made the order and before effect is given to it, it is placed on the Table of the House; thus enabling all sections and Parties to comment on it and to give it the widest publicity.

Surely it is unrealistic to compare these two Acts with a simple section enabling me to take certain action if by any chance we overlook something in Section 5? We have tried to cover the field as completely as possible in the way of determining the functions to be handled by this Board. Then, in Section 6 we say: "Now, we have been as careful as we could be. We believe we have covered the whole field. We believe we have provided for and against everything but, in case we have not, here is a section which will give us the necessary power."

Some Senator suggested we are doing this in the dark. Even if the order is made, it can be discussed, within the period provided for, if any member of the Dáil or Seanad wishes to have it discussed. Surely that is not doing something in the dark?

After all, when a Bill of this nature is introduced, most Deputies and most Senators agree with the general purpose of it. Maybe some were not so enthusiastic as to the benefits it would confer on the country and on the industry, but, even where there was that sort of element of doubt, they said it was still worth giving this a chance. If we are approaching this matter in that frame of mind, why then should we, in relation to a section like this, a simple section, try to hamstring those who have been responsible for adding to, if they see fit—and that act can only be performed in consultation with and with the approval of another Minister?

I cannot for the life of me see why it should by any stretch of imagination, be the responsibility and duty of a Parliamentary representative in a case of this kind where everybody is agreed as to the desirability of this action, that he should, because he is in Opposition or feels it is his duty in Opposition, to place on the Order Paper an amendment to tie the Minister and his Department in a knot in regard to some simple question that might arise and that might have to be dealt with quickly. If it could not be dealt with quickly, it might mean a loss, or Parliament might have to convene during a period of recess.

All my life I have heard much talk about retaining Parliamentary control, the undesirability of legislation by order, and so on. I suppose there is a good deal in that but we have to be practicable. In this matter, I say that there is no precedent that I can find for taking exception to this section because I believe that not only would a similar section be found in the Act to which I have referred, but, although I did not make any further search, in dozens of Acts that have passed through both Houses.

Mr. O'Quigley

Senator Ó Donnabháin provides a very useful opportunity for anybody who wants to show he knows what he is talking about. He displays such remarkable ignorance and in such a remarkable way that all you have to do is to get up and speak after him and you appear extremely intelligent and it is manifest to everybody that you know what you are talking about. Obviously, Senator Ó Donnabháin does not like sitting in this House for protracted periods talking about amendments because his first broadside was to tilt at the other amendments, which relate to the derelict sites, from this side of the House which occupied quite a period last week. His second broadside was to criticise the draftsmanship. When I came into the House first, I used to spend hours on end trying to draft the amendments I was putting down until some more experienced people said: "All you have to do is to put down amendments in the broadest possible terms and, when the amendments are accepted, the Parliamentary Draftsman will polish them off and give effect to what the Legislature wants to be done." Since that good day, I have not wasted time on doing a job that other people are more skilled to do than I am.

As it happens, on this occasion I am entirely correct. Senator Ó Donnabháin began talking about orders and regulations being consequential on orders and how regulations can implement orders and his understanding of the orders. All the time he was displaying his ignorance of a simple amendment, the effect of which is to delete Section 6, as passed on Committee, and substitute therefor what I have put down in the amendment. Proceeding from there, he ventures to express the view that in any event the amendment was badly drafted. Of course, if Senator Seán Ó Donnabháin takes the trouble of looking up the Statutes for 1952 and the Social Welfare Act, 1952, at page 245 —he can do that this evening some time—and looks at Section 4, subsections (4), (5) and (6), he will find that the form I have adopted in my amendment exactly follows that contained in all the different sections of this kind of procedure in the Social Welfare Act of 1952. I trust that, when Senator Ó Donnabháin next wants to make a contribution to a discussion in this House, he will keep far away from any criticism of my drafting of amendments and try to understand what they are about, if he is able to do that.

Senator Colley ventured to talk on this amendment and I entirely agree with the view he expressed—a view expressed by the Minister. We all recognise—it is common case—that it is not possible to foresee every contingency, every type of function that a board might necessarily be called upon to discharge. We all agree on that; there is no doubt at all about it, but what we do disagree upon is the method by which these functions have been vested in the Board. The Minister says it shall be done merely by regulation; this amendment says by order or by regulation which has first been approved of by each House of the Oireachtas.

There is where the difference is. It concerns the method. We are all agreed upon the difficulties of the situation. It is not true to say, as Senator Colley said, that what is done or is not done by the Board would come up for discussion in the Oireachtas. It is for the reason that these things do not come up, and will not be allowed to come up, for discussion that the amendment is moved. The Minister can talk about the Act of 1958 and about other similar pieces of legislation which contain this power. The thing that has brought all this, I believe, to a head and which has wakened up people is the realisation of the utter futility of trying to challenge anything a State body does in pursuance of the functions vested in it. You have the activities of C.I.E.; you have the activities of the E.S.B. in cutting off electricity without notice. These are the things which have brought home to the people that you cannot allow these semi-State bodies to go all the time unchallenged by anybody, unanswerable to Parliament or anybody else. Consequently, when we are establishing these creatures of statute, these statutory bodies, the mood now is that we vest in them specific powers. We know what we are giving them and we shall not permit any further powers to be given to them in a surreptitious fashion by regulation laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The amendment is designed to make sure that, when any function is being added to An Bord Bainne, it will be done in broad daylight and not by a sheet of paper laid in the Library of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann. The Minister tries to distinguish between this Bill, the State Guarantees Act and the Social Welfare Act. I am not going to follow the Minister down that kind of by-way or laneway. The Minister knows perfectly well that the matters contained in the Schedule to the State Guarantees Act are not nearly as important as the matters which affect the whole dairying industry in the country. Perhaps, a couple of million might go astray to Fuel Importers Ltd. or some of these bodies. That might happen but it is unlikely. Here we are dealing with the whole dairying industry—one of the most important branches of agriculture. That is why we ought to be concerned to see that, if something is not to be done by an amending Act, the minimum we ought to do is to adopt the procedure followed in relation to such things as varying the rate of contribution for voluntary contributors under the Social Welfare Act.

Does the House know how many contributors there are? There are fewer than 2,000. We shall not increase their contribution by one half-penny or reduce it by one half-penny except by an order laid before each House of the Oireachtas. If in relation to 2,000 people you require an order to be approved by each House of the Oireachtas, then I think, when you are dealing with the functions of a semi-State body to be established under this Bill which deals with the marketing of milk and milk products, it well behoves us, instead of sneering at drafting and jibing at amendments, to give more serious consideration to matters of this kind. For that reason, I suggest this is the kind of amendment we want. We shall not have it on this occasion as it appears that we cannot make any inroads on the Minister but at any rate we might awaken some notions in the Minister's mind that, perhaps, there are other equally desirable ways of achieving the objects which all of us want to achieve in relation to business and industries such as are being dealt with under this Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No.2 not moved.

Bill received for final consideration.

Agreed to take Fifth Stage today.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Donegan

This Bill, widening the membership of the Butter Marketing Committee, was welcomed by the Party of which I am a member in the other House and welcomed here also, but it was welcomed in both cases in a very measured way. It is the child of non-politicians inasmuch as before the new mood in relation to agricultural marketing became obvious a few years ago there were various advisory committees set up. As a result of the report of the Advisory Committee on the Marketing of Agricultural Produce and the report of the Committee on Dairy Produce, which was printed about 26th March, 1959, we soon shall have Bord Bainne constituted.

The members of Bord Bainne will be non-politicians elected from the various branches of the dairying industry. I wish to draw attention to the fact that although the handling of the dairying industry has obviously—and I purposely use the word in its right meaning—been handed over to these people many limiting factors have been retained. The first limiting factor retained is that the Bill when it becomes an Act will perpetuate, unless altered on return to Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann, the one-third levy on the losses of creamery milk.

There is no section in the Bill giving the Minister power to make more than a two-thirds contribution and one must therefore deduce that the perpetuation of the levy on the losses for dairy milk of one-third still stands. Therefore, that part of the Bill is one which we on this side of the House must deplore. It is quite necessary that there should be cover in the Bill for various eventualities which are not foreseen but there are hordes of eventualities which are not foreseen whereby it would be just and right for the Minister for Agriculture to give a greater subvention than two-thirds of the losses on the marketing of creamery milk. If such a situation were to obtain in other facets of the ordinary life in Ireland to-day, there would be a public outcry. If for instance 200 or 300 workers in an industry were about to be disemployed because of a situation which was not foreseen under an Act whereby in the first instance they had been set at work, the public outcry would be such that there would be changes. One can give instances where such changes were made, and made quickly and quietly, so that employment and profit could be perpetuated but there is no provision in this Bill whereby, except by a return to the Houses of the Oireachtas, there can be a greater subvention than two-thirds.

One must regard this Bill as one whereby the personnel of the Board, and the Committee which looked after the marketing of dairy produce, has been changed for the better and its membership widened to include a greater sector of people with the desire to do good for the industry and having the experience that will allow them to do it. At the same time it is true to say that they are going to their work with their hands tied to the status quo. It is also true to say that this familiar practice of washing the hands of the difficulties of prices of agricultural produce at present is being paralleled once more. The Act mentioned by the Minister, the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) (Amendment) Act, 1958, is an exact, parallel piece of legislation. Automatically, the non-political people to whom the marketing of the farmers' wheat has been handed must, under that piece of legislation, impose whatever levy is necessary so that the present situation in relation to wheat and its price will be preserved.

Under this legislation the new Board will be charged with the same painful duty. They must exact the one-third levy on losses. It is true that while the Government are providing the two-thirds subvention, the present price of creamery milk is such as to cause grave concern and make us wonder whether or not the ordinary dairy farmer who is in a small way can, if he is supplying creamery milk, still exist on a fair profit. I feel the handing over of the liability, this painful duty, to non-politicians, without recourse to politicians or Dáil Éireann, is unfair and improper. There should be provision in the Bill such as I have outlined. Notwithstanding the many amendments put down I feel that the desire has been to bulldoze this through without amendments and without heeding the words of the Opposition.

Finally, I would say it has only one good feature about it and that is why it has been approved in a measured way by the Opposition in both Houses. It widens the experience and the ability of the people who will run the dairying industry. My regret is that they go to their work with their hands tied. In fact, when they seek to spend money abroad on advertising to sell the produce, they must levy one-third of the cost on the unfortunate producers of dairy milk who at present are already getting a bad price. I feel there is no justice in this for one reason only, that is that the production of butter and dairy produce is one in which private enterprise did not take its part. Over the years the agency which looked after the marketing of these things was the politicians and Dáil Éireann. If in 1961 the politicians are convinced that they did not do a good job and that the Danes and the New Zealanders have stolen our market, it is up to the politicians, if not to give the entire subvention, at least to see that the cost of marketing abroad, the advertising that will be necessary, and the highly expensive organisation that will be necessary, will be provided primarily from the common fund. If the price of dairy milk were such that the dairy farmer was getting a decent living, there would be no foundation for my argument but, since he is not, there is every foundation for it. While there is good in the Bill, at the same time it is a measure by which the politicians are pushing aside their responsibilities and leaving it to the non-politicians to face up to the future with their hands tied.

Mr. Smith

The words which have just been spoken are a real pleasure to me because I did not think that the conversion of Fine Gael to the proposition of a decent price for the milk producer was as complete as it is, if I am to take Senator Donegan as the interpreter of their policy.

Mr. O'Quigley

It shows how ignorant the Minister can be.

Mr. Smith

I knew I would get them.

Mr. L'Estrange

We do not even cut their throats, as you did at one time.

Mr. Smith

I knew I would get them. Fine Gael are worried now, through Senator Donegan. He is worried now because this Bill provides for a contribution on the basis of two to one to meet any losses on exports.

Mr. Donegan

A levy—put it the other way.

Mr. Smith

We set up a committee of representative people loaded heavily in favour of the producer. That committee did not find itself at all in the generous mood of the Fine Gael members of the Seanad who only a few years ago were offering to the farmers a "bob" a gallon for milk.

Mr. L'Estrange

That is a lie and you know it.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator must withdraw the word "lie."

Mr. L'Estrange

What was stated was a minimum of one shilling.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will withdraw the accusation against the Minister of telling a lie. The Senator will withdraw "a lie."

Mr. L'Estrange

Yes, Sir, but he was stating an untruth.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is withdrawing the word "lie"?

Mr. L'Estrange

Yes, Sir, but he was stating an untruth.

Mr. Smith

One thing I can claim for myself, my Party and the Government is that we are in this measure providing for a contribution from the taxpayer towards covering losses that may be sustained by the Board on the very basis recommended by a committee that was loaded heavily in favour of the producer and yet that is not good enough for the Fine Gael Senators who would give only a "bob" a gallon four or five or six years ago.

Mr. Donegan

What committee— the Advisory Committee?

Mr. Smith

The Advisory Committee.

Mr. Donegan

No. It said that in November of every year the amount of an annual grant should be determined.

Mr. Smith

The Advisory Committee recommended this arrangement and the Advisory Committee was composed of people who were reasonable and sensible. Of course, they knew that there would be no purpose whatever in establishing a board for the purpose of marketing efficiently——

Mr. Donegan

The Minister is mistaken.

Mr. Smith

I did not interrupt anybody in this House and I am entitled to make my speech. I am not afraid of interruption but at the same time, it is absolutely intolerable that when you come into this House and rise to make a contribution, every Senator begins howling at you.

Mr. L'Estrange

You are not allowed to misrepresent people.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister must be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. Smith

The fact is that this two to one contribution was a recommendation of the Advisory Committee.

Mr. Donegan

It was not.

Mr. Smith

I would not take their work seriously if they were to suggest, as Senator Donegan has suggested, that with the intention and the prospect of expansion, you should set up a board that would have no responsibility at all, other than to sell and be completely recouped for any losses from the Exchequer. Did anybody ever hear such a proposition from a businessman? Senator Donegan parades himself here as a businessman and it is the most objectionable way of presenting oneself.

Mr. Donegan

On a point of order—

Mr. Smith

I am not giving way.

Mr. Donegan

Could the Minister give us the quotation from the Advisory Committee's recommendation?

Mr. Smith

The Senator prefaces some of his weighty remarks by saying that he is speaking as a businessman and then, on the Final Stage of this Bill, he suggests that the Bill should contain a provision whereby the taxpayer would carry the entire losses. Of course, in that case, the Board would bask in the sunshine when the sun was shining, doing nothing.

Mr. Donegan

On a point of order, may I have the quotation? I must have the quotation.

Mr. Smith

I am really glad to discern, as a result of the discussion in this House, that Fine Gael have a new policy in relation to milk and to the problems of the milk producer. That is a good thing.

Mr. O'Quigley

Do not be so cross about it.

Mr. Smith

That is a very excellent thing. When I see Senator L'Estrange, for example, taking an interest in this matter, I think of 1946 and 1947, when the farmers of Westmeath were not producing enough milk for the needs of the people there and milk had to be hauled on trains from all over the country when there was no fuel other than sticks and turf, in order to ensure that the people of Westmeath would not have to take their tea black. Now you have changed.

Mr. L'Estrange

Were your Government not in power at the time? Your Party were in power.

Mr. Smith

I am not prepared to try to shout down the members of the Opposition here.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will have to allow the Minister to continue his speech without interruption.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

They whinge when they get the same medicine back.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am not responsible for what the Westmeath farmers did in 1946 when his Government were in power. If you paid the farmers to produce milk, they would have produced it.

Mr. Smith

I was delighted with the atmosphere I found here. I am not the kind of person who expects that on all occasions, and in every respect, one will find the smoothness that makes things pleasant for Ministers, but I detect a tremendous deterioration in the standards that are being followed here. I am not the Cathaoirleach and even the Cathaoirleach would not be required to name those who, I suspect from my few experiences here, are largely responsible for that. I do not think it is a good sign. There are the county councils and the various local bodies where one can talk about wheat and the Government's wheat policy and Ministers and all the rest of it. Remember—speaking to Senator Donegan—my policy and my handling of the wheat problems of 1958 and 1960.

Mr. Donegan

An Bord Gráin?

Mr. Smith

The Senator, in his political style, could visualise himself sitting down in some porterhouse in Louth talking at a county committee of agriculture and doing a little propaganda stuff. It does not count, you will never get anywhere with it.

Mr. Donegan

We do not have meetings in porterhouses.

Mr. O'Quigley

On a point of order——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The chief interrupter now stands.

Mr. Carter

This is the expert on milk products.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister is addressing himself to Senator Donegan. I understand that the Standing Orders of the House are that the Minister should address the Chair.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Are you not awfully particular suddenly? What happened?

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister is contributing to disorder now.

Mr. Smith

Listening to Senator Donegan, I could picture the Senator at one of the meetings to which I have referred. The term "politician" has been used here by the Senator. If you want to be a good politician, a politician who will be accepted, the less you have politics on your plate in doing your work, the better. There is a time and place for everything and I appeal to some of the Senators on the Fine Gael side not to wed themselves to such a thing as that. In the first place it will do them harm. It will harm their Party interests and, goodness knows, they cannot stand much more. These Senators must think not only for themselves but for their Party and its standards. The standard of behaviour I see from time to time and the extent to which some public men indulge in misrepresentation will react adversely upon them.

Mr. Donegan

On a point of order, lest it should be forgotten I should like the Minister to give us the quotation in which he mentioned that the Advisory Committee on Marketing Agricultural Produce had recommended a one-third two-thirds contribution towards the losses.

Mr. Smith

I do not intend to delve into quotations at this stage for the benefit of the Senator.

Mr. Donegan

I would refer him to Recommendation (**) which shows he is completely incorrect.

Mr. Smith

In the last two periods for which there are figures, 1957/58 and 1958/59, the taxpayer of this part of the country over which we have control has contributed roughly £5 million towards the disposal of surplus dairy produce. When some Senators talk about the lack of generosity towards the milk producer I would remind them that the Government take the responsibility of fixing the price of butter wholesale and retail, thereby determining from time to time the price at which milk will be paid for by the creameries. In this measure the Government have provided that the Board that will be set up will buy butter from all the creameries at that price. In addition to all that, if there are quantities of butter or if there are other milk products, the Government are prepared to say to this Board: "We shall give you £2 out of every £3 that is lost on your attempt to export as efficiently as possible."

That surely is a generous gesture on the part of the Government. Let me say further that this Government and this Minister have led the way in tilting the scales in favour of the milk producers. I realise and always did how important milk is, how important the cow is, and how hard the work of dairying is by comparison with other agricultural activities. There is no other Party in this State that can go out before those who are affected by what we are doing here and who will, as freely as we have, accept the challenge to meet the producers and stand over this provision of two to one.

Let us try to understand the provision and, having supplied the ways and means of increasing and expanding production, give every encouragement to all concerned. Apart from that, we as the Government, or any Government, will have the overall responsibility of determining the price at which milk will be paid for. That is no activity of the Board at all. They are there merely to sell efficiently the surplus agricultural products. The overall responsibility for the level of milk prices rests on the Government. We accept that as a duty and the responsibility to do everything we can to induce our milk producers, those who depend largely upon the cow and its products, to increase production through the subsidisation of phosphates, manures, lime and all the rest of it, and to say to them: "If you have supplied all that is required at home, in respect of everything in excess of that the taxpayer will pay £2 for every £3 lost in the sale of these products."

I think that is a generous gesture. That is the basis of the recommendations of this committee and, whether it is or not, it is something I am prepared to stand over as completely fair. I shall have no trouble defending it before people who are fairminded. There are no people more unreasonable than the most recent converts. There is no man so extreme as the man who changes his religion. I know I need not attempt to convince Senator Donegan of the justice of that gesture on the part of the Government, but I am prepared to meet fairminded men, who are really concerned with this business, who depend upon it for their living and for providing for their families. I shall meet them and they will meet me and they will deal with you.

An Cathaoirleach

I am putting the question: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. O'Quigley

Arising out of your ruling in relation to the reference to a lie by Senator Donegan, might I direct the attention of the Chair to Column 818 of the Seanad Debates of the 5th January, 1961, where the Minister attributed the same thing, a lie, through the medium of Irish, to Senator Dr. O'Donovan. I want to know is it parliamentary through the medium of Irish?

Mr. Smith

I did not.

Dr. O'Donovan

I will stand for a lot but I will not stand for that kind of a lie in the House.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator should not get excited. There is a place for excited people.

Mr. O'Quigley

On a point of order——

Mr. Donegan

The Minister told a deliberate untruth.

An Cathaoirleach

The word is unparliamentary in either language.

Mr. L'Estrange

I had to withdraw it and the Minister had not to withdraw it.

Mr. O'Quigley

Is the Minister for Agriculture to be asked to withdraw an unparliamentary remark attributed to the Leas-Chathaoirleach?

An Cathaoirleach

No. 2.

Mr. O'Quigley

On a point of order, am I entitled to a ruling?

An Cathaoirleach

I have indicated the word is unparliamentary in either language.

Mr. O'Quigley

Arising out of that reply, might I inquire if the person using that unparliamentary remark in relation to the Leas-Chathaoirleach is to be asked to withdraw it?

Mr. L'Estrange

If he were Fine Gael, he would be asked to withdraw it and very quickly.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

This sudden concern for order and decorum is nauseating.

Mr. Burke

We have been converted and we are going to convert you now.

Question put and agreed to.