Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 31 May 1932

Vol. 42 No. 1

Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Bill, 1932—Report Stage.

In order to facilitate the discussion on some of the amendments, I will move:

That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole Dáil in respect of amendments of which notice has been given.

I do not move this with the object of facilitating the Bill being held up. I would like Deputies to understand that I will ask for the Report Stage immediately afterwards. I am moving the amendment merely to allow of freer discussion.

Motion agreed to.

I beg to move the following amendment:

In page 3 to add at the end of Section 1, line 23, a new sub-section as follows:—

"This Act shall continue in force until the 31st day of March, 1935, and shall then expire."

On the Committee Stage I undertook to bring in this amendment, which limits the operation of the Act to three years.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

I beg to move amendment 2:

In page 4, lines 16 and 17, Section 2 (2), to delete the words and figures "year 1933 and every succeeding year" and substitute the words and figures "years 1933 and 1934."

This amendment is consequential on the first amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Possibly it might save time if the House will permit me to move amendments 3, 4, 8, 10 and 19 together. They all relate to the same thing.

Leave granted.

I beg to move:

3. In page 4, lines 34 to 57 inclusive, to delete Section 5.

4. In page 5, lines 9 to 16 inclusive, to delete Section 7.

8. In page 5, line 57, Section 9 (1) to delete all words after the word "period" to the end of the sub-section, page 6, line 3, and substitute the words "a levy at the rate of two pence per pound."

10. In page 6, Section 9 (2) to delete all words after the word "month" line 8 to the end of line 23 and substitute the words "a levy at the general rate in force at the time of manufacture."

19. In page 19 to delete the schedule.

I move these amendments with the object of getting the schedule at the end of the Bill deleted. It was thought that this was the best form in which it could be done. There are several consequential amendments. In debating Amendments 3 and 4 we will decide all the amendments. There was a certain amount of debate on the question on the last day mainly as regards the amendments to include new creameries in the schedule. I believe that a fairly good case was made for the inclusion of some of those creameries. I did not take part in the debate. But as the amendment in my name proves I was opposed to the whole idea of the schedule itself.

I think the principle of giving undue preference to any body of traders, creamery proprietors or others, as against their brother-traders in the same business, is indefensible, and in this case of the creameries it is particularly indefensible. We are in this Bill considering the giving of a bounty of 4d. per lb. to certain creameries. This is to be given out of a fund contributed to by the creameries themselves by means of a levy of 2d. per lb. on the butter they manufacture in their creameries. The schedule provides that these creameries instead of paying a levy of 2d. contribute only ½d. per lb. thus giving them a preference of 1½d. per lb. over the ordinary competitor in other creameries in the various counties. The Minister advanced in defence of that attitude various reasons. One was that they were not competing; they were in areas not in competition for milk suppliers from other creameries; they were set up at recent dates; they have heavy overhead charges and other matters.

Speaking on the last day I said possibly as good a case and perhaps a better case could be made for some creameries that were asking to be included in the schedule and that I myself could have put forward as good a case for some creameries in Limerick which is the greatest dairying county in the country. There are in my county a very great number of creameries with overhead charges of £3,000 to £5,000 in the way of undischarged debts. There were a number of creameries acquired within the last four or five years under the recent Act for which the suppliers have to bear a burden of £3 per cow over eight years. In some of these creameries the amount of the debts would be from £3,000 to £5,000. These creameries have to bear that and to provide for it out of their milk supplies. Possibly some creameries in this schedule are in the same condition. There are possibly no creameries that have not these debts and possibly they are in debt for the cost of building. They are possibly in debt to the bank or to the Government under the Trade Loans Act and they are paying interest on these sums.

But these creameries have not certainly any greater burden of debt than many creameries I could name. They compete in the same market. If we give them an undue preference of 1½d. per lb. it is not unnatural to assume that they will use it to certain extent even in the home trade. It is not a very extreme statement to say that if there was a city merchant in Dublin, Limerick or Cork anxious to buy a large quantity of butter in tons over the year these creameries would use this advantage. These large merchants approach the creameries and get the best quotations they can. It is quite natural that the creamery with a preference of 1½d. over competing creameries could offer an inducement which would make it certain that they would secure the contract. The Minister said on the last occasion that that could not occur. Any business man knows it can occur.

I am not sure that the Minister is aware that some of these creameries, owing to their proximity to large towns, to Dublin and elsewhere, have a great advantage over other creameries. There are a great number of these creameries scheduled that supply milk at various times in the year to the milk distributors in Dublin and Cork and get prices better than other creameries can secure by manufacturing their milk into butter. Such creameries selling milk to a retailer in Dublin would make far better returns than those manufacturing it into butter. In fact a dairy sending milk to Dublin to a retailer can get a great advance over the creamery converting it into butter and selling it at 1/- per lb.

I do not think that a great case can be made for these scheduled creameries. Possibly they are in the position that they have to compete with the farmer manufacturing his own butter. Having regard to the quality of butter between the two makers, the farmers and the creameries, I do not think there is any grave danger of their trade in that respect. They will only be in the same position with regard to the makers of the farmers butter as a creamery in any other county will be. All creameries will have to compete with the farmers selling butter, and against the factories selling the farmers' butter. Scheduled creameries will not be in any worse position in that respect than the other creameries.

I do not think anything can be gained by making a very long speech on the subject, but to me the whole thing appears indefensible and no good case can be made for it. No case can be made for giving one body of traders an undue preference of this kind over another body of traders. This preference amounts to three-fourths of the whole bounty. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the schedule, and as far as the creamery proprietors in the large dairying counties are concerned I want to say they are in opposition to it.

On general principles the case put up by Deputy Bennett seems to me a convincing one and an impregnable one. Without at the same time wishing to commit myself as yet to actual opposition to the schedule being included, I would like to ask the Minister, if he has not already done it—possibly he has in my absence —to explain exactly what was the procedure by which these particular creameries were arrived at. Did the Department of Agriculture go through the list of creameries in the country? Were the creameries invited to state a case for their inclusion in that Schedule? Was every one given an opportunity of showing that they should be treated on a more favourable basis than the others? If that has not been yet explained, it appears to me that it would not be unreasonable to ask the Minister to do it.

I wish on principle to support the suggestion put forward by Deputy Bennett. We have certain creameries here scheduled for preferential treatment, and apart from this question of preferential treatment giving them an advantage in the matter of local contracts, there is another point, and to my mind it is the principal point and the one on which this giving of preferential treatment to the creameries in the Schedule should be rejected. We had a Deputy from Cork putting forward here the other evening, on the introduction of this Bill, a very strong case for the inclusion in the Schedule of a Bandon creamery. There was another very strong case put forward by Deputy Morrissey on behalf of a creamery in Tipperary. But the fact remains that because these dairies were in existence prior to 1928 they were not included and they were not in the position that they would come under the benefits that will be given to dairies in the Schedule. I hold that it is altogether wrong to give preferential treatment to any dairy on a time limit. I know dairies in the County Limerick that are as embarrassed financially as any dairy in the Schedule, but they are not included in it by the Minister simply because they were in existence prior to 1928. That, I believe, is the one great defect in this Bill. I want to make my position clear. I am not in opposition to the Minister bringing forward any scheme for the relief of dairies that are in danger, but I am opposed to him making demands on dairies simply because they have been in existence for a long time and giving the assistance so obtained to the dairies brought into existence since 1928, though the former are just as much financially embarrassed as the dairies that are getting the help.

I made an appeal to the Minister on the last occasion that we debated this Bill to approach the Minister for Finance in connection with this matter, particularly in view of the fact that the Finance Bill has not yet been passed. I repeat the suggestion now. I have no objection whatever to the dairy societies in the Schedule being relieved in what I consider to be a proper way. Anything done for the dairying industry in the past by this House has been done at the expense of the State. That has been done more than once, so that in what I am asking there is no precedent. Now for the first time it is proposed to give the assistance required at the expense of the other people engaged in the industry. It is being done with somebody else's money. The proposal is to put your hand in somebody else's pocket to do something you feel you are not prepared to do yourself.

Since we discussed the Bill in Committee I have made inquiries about the position of some societies in my county. I am sorry to say that at least six of them, there may be others that I am not acquainted with, are in a very peculiar financial position. The Minister, I think, is acquainted with the circumstances of most of them. Representations have been made to him about their position. Their prospects are anything but rosy. The idea of having these dairy societies contribute something out of what is coming to them under the scheme to subsidise other people engaged in the industry is one that should not be approved of. To meet this would be a small matter for the State. It is a big matter for the societies. I appeal to the Minister to approach this from another angle, and to do the right thing in the right way. This is not doing it in the right way. It would not serve any purpose if I were to mention the names of the societies, but the Minister is aware of the position of most of them.

When we got the first print of this Bill reference was made to these societies in the First and Second Schedules with particulars given by the Minister for their inclusion in the Schedule. I understood the reasons given were single and not cumulative. I understand now that the reasons for the inclusion of these societies in the First and Second Schedules are cumulative, and that unless you come within the cumulative effect of the Minister's prescription you cannot get into the Schedule. That being so, I think it will be admitted by the Minister that there are numerous societies in the country in as bad a position financially as those included in the Schedule, that the societies that have been included in the Schedule are included simply because they come under what may be described as the orphan societies of the creamery industry of this country. It does not necessarily follow at all that they are entitled to be there and to get that particular protection. There are other creameries in the country that will have to contribute to the benefits to be conferred on the scheduled creameries that are in a much worse financial position than the latter.

On the Second Reading of the Bill I referred to the balance sheet of a creamery whose costs of production were 67/- per cwt. I ventured to suggest that there was not, perhaps, another creamery in the Saorstát whose costs of production were 67/- per cwt. Last year it only produced 277 cwts. of butter. Yet, even though it is a creamery of considerable age, it does not come into the category of an orphan society, and because it does not come within the four walls of the cumulative effects of the tests the Minister applies it cannot be included in the Schedule.

The Minister should consider the representations that have been made to him by farmer-Deputies. He has done his part by trying to confer a benefit on those new societies who had money advanced to them by the Agricultural Credit Corporation, directly by the Government or by the banks. If they are now in financial distress like the others they should row in with the crowd. Let all row together. In view of the expressions of opinion that we have had in this House from farmer-Deputies who represent creamery constituencies I think the Minister should adopt their views and let these two Schedules go by the board.

I rise to oppose the amendment. I am connected with the newer creameries. I would be very pleased indeed to have heard the Deputies speak on this Bill in the same spirit as Deputies spoke on the Old Age Pensions Bill that we discussed a short time ago. As most of the creameries are run on co-operative lines it does not speak well for cooperation if the older creameries, who are in the majority and have an assured milk supply which the newer creameries have not, refuse to give the small percentage asked for. That small percentage will help to keep their brothers in the newer districts going. The milk supplies to the newer creameries are in a rather precarious condition. If the conditions that obtained in 1928 and 1929 when the new creameries were set up had continued, the latter would not have had to ask for any assistance from their neighbours. Unfortunately, the times changed.

I would remind Deputies who are in opposition to the scheduled creameries that if this Bill had not been introduced the creameries they are interested in would be getting no bounty. Speaking on behalf of the scheduled creameries I think I am justified, therefore, in suggesting to those Deputies that the least they might have done was to let the Bill go through. They must admit that this Bill has saved the dairying industry and incidentally, the newer creameries, because I consider that the new creameries have definitely got a new lease of life as a result of the introduction of the Bill and the encouragement to the farmer to come to the rescue again and to maintain supplies.

With regard to Deputy Bennett's point as to new creameries going into unfair competition with the old creameries, I assure him that we have no such intention, so far as the creamery I am associated with is concerned. As a matter of fact, I can produce for Deputy Bennett quotations from southern creameries, old established creameries, under-cutting us to the extent of 2d. a lb. in our next-door market, a couple of years ago. I assure him that that is not the spirit, or the way, in which we approach this matter, because overhead charges and loan repayments are sufficiently high to absorb anything we can get out of it.

Is it not a fact that you were under-cutting that particular creamery?

It is not to the Deputy's particular creamery I am referring.

When any particular section of the community gets a certain privilege, it opens the door to a very large number of the same class to ask for similar privileges, and I can appreciate the difficulty the Minister is under in making his discrimination against certain creameries that ask for inclusion in the Schedule. The last speaker seemed to be under the impression that all creameries are in similar circumstances, and, perhaps, the same abilities to get milk supplies, but a creamery that is set up in a district largely devoted to tillage is labouring under very serious difficulties, compared with the creameries in the Golden Vale of Co. Limerick. A great number of the creameries in the Gaeltacht are similarly circumstanced.

I made an appeal recently to the Minister to include on the Schedule a creamery in my area, called the Imokelly Creamery, which undoubtedly answers the description given by the Minister, if any of the creameries put forward answer it. It is labouring under certain disabilities. It is in the Gaeltacht; it is in a tillage district and it is new. On the other hand, it is well managed; its milk supplies are not large and it also has to pay off a very heavy loan. If any creamery is entitled to consideration on the lines laid down by the Minister, I think this is it, and I, therefore, repeat my appeal that it should be included, or else, having regard to that position of affairs, let the whole of the creameries go by the board. We are in this difficulty, so far as the country is concerned, that if there is any merit in the Bill at all, let these creameries get the benefit of it.

Reference has been made to the Co-operative movement, but it has not always been successful. These creameries that are suffering disabilities have to contribute to the funds which go to make a success of the other creameries, and when they are not in the same position as those in the more favoured districts, I think they are entitled to certain consideration, and I would ask the Minister to give them that consideration.

Deputy MacDermot asked me what was the procedure adopted by the Department in classifying these creameries on the schedule, and Deputy McMenamin said that the test that we applied was not one single test, but an accumulation of tests and that unless they could get clear from everyone of these tests, they would not get on to the Schedule. I explained this rather fully before, but I will refer to it briefly again for the benefit of Deputy McMenamin, and to clear up some of the points raised here to-day. First of all, we have not placed on the Schedule any creamery that was not recently established, and established in a non-creamery district, where we might call the new creamery a pioneer, and where it had to fight its way against whatever prejudices there were for other forms of farming and disposal of milk.

Does not the creamery I refer to answer to that description?

So far, it does, and there are many others that answer to that, so far. There was, of course, naturally, very heavy capital expenditure in the establishment of creameries from the year 1927 down to 1930. If things had gone on as they had been going on, and if the price of milk had remained at, say, over 6d. per gallon, none of these creameries would, I believe, have any difficulty in paying off debts, but owing to the rather sudden and very marked fall in prices at the end of the year 1929, these particular creameries found that they could not give as good a price for milk as would induce the suppliers to remain with them. The suppliers being accustomed to making use of their milk in other ways thought they could do better, and a number of them left these new creameries and went back to the making of farm butter, the rearing of calves, the feeding of pigs and so on, and the new creameries, having lost a number of their suppliers, found that they could not give an economic price to the farmer for his milk, and things went from bad to worse.

That meant that we only applied it to new creameries in non-creamery districts, creameries that had incurred big capital liabilities, which they were unable to clear off, and it meant, also, that we could not include a creamery that was in competition with other creameries, because, of course, that could not be classified as a non-creamery district. We laid down these conditions, with the other condition that, I think rules out perhaps, Deputy Brasier's case, that "they are in such a precarious condition that they cannot continue to exist without the proposed concession." The particular creamery mentioned by Deputy Brasier is quite capable of existing without this. Against that, of course, I have been accused of only including creameries that were badly managed, because the particular creamery mentioned by Deputy Brasier was evidently well managed and therefore, we did not include it in the Schedule, but we have, however, another clause which says that "their present position is not due to any fault of management." There are other creameries that could be on the Schedule were it not that we are quite satisfied that their condition is due to bad management, and therefore, we have kept them off. These were the general conditions that every creamery would have to fulfil before coming on to the Schedule. I was asked, again, by Deputy McMenamin if every creamery was invited to apply for inclusion in the Schedule. They were not.

I did not ask that question.

It was Deputy MacDermot.

Deputy MacDermot asked me if we invited creameries to apply for inclusion in the Schedule. We did not. We have, as Deputies are aware, full returns from each creamery in the Department of Agriculture, showing the financial position, the capital liability, the number of gallons received, and the price paid per gallon, and any other information we require, in relation to a creamery, and by going through these returns in the Department, we picked out those that we thought should be put on the Schedule, and left off those that we thought should be left off. Apart from that I can assure the Deputy that the creameries did not want to be invited. I think there are very few creameries that did not apply to be put on since this Bill was introduced. Various points were raised. Deputy Bennett says that there are several creameries in County Limerick with a capital debt of £4,000 or £5,000. I am sure that is true. He referred to creameries having to pay £3 per cow. Take £3 per cow as a test and how does that compare when the Schedule is examined? We boast that our cows are giving on an average 500 gallons per year, so that £3 per cow would mean that we would lay it down that about 166 gallons of milk is capable of carrying a debt of £1. That is for £1 of capital liability we should have at least a milk supply of 166 gallons. I was asked on the last occasion what were the capital liabilities of creameries on the scheduled list, and what were the milk supplies and other facts. I got a considerable amount of material. If I take the first one, I find it was established in September, 1927, that the supply of milk has diminished during the last two years from 575,000 gallons to 318,000 gallons. That is a very big drop in the supply of milk. The capital liability is £2,500 and the number of gallons of milk per £ of capital debt is 127. If I am asked about any particular creamery I am prepared to give the figures. I will give the number of gallons of milk to the £1 debt in each case, 127, 130, 92. 120, 135, 33, 63. I think it is obvious to Deputy Bennett, or to any other Deputy who comes from a creamery county, and who is in the habit of dealing with these figures, that it is absolutely impossible for any creamery to try to carry on and to give a fair average price for milk, and at the same time to try to do something in the way of meeting the debt, if the debt is £1 for every 30 gallons supplied. That is the lowest, but the figures range from 30 up to 130 gallons.

Compared to the new creameries, where we put on £3 a cow, every one of these creameries is much worse off. I may say that there is a very big agitation in the country that £3 a cow is too much. Many people believe that that is more than farmers can afford to pay. We have letters about the matter every day and very often deputations. It is being made known in other ways that these people consider £3 a cow too much and more than they can continue to pay. As I have already stated £3 a cow means a capital debt of £1 for every 166 gallons, so that these creameries are much worse off. Deputy Bennett said that if we continued with this Schedule and gave the concession, certain creameries may undersell those in competition with them. It is quite true that they may. I am prepared to admit that there has been too much underselling by creameries. I do not say that this particular concession is going to make them do it, any more than if we did not give it. After all, if a creamery is very badly off and has to meet a debt it is compelled to sell what butter it has on hands, and, perhaps, to sell butter not on hands, in order to meet the debt. I am sure that selling in that way is more responsible for falling prices than anything else. If we had our creameries in a little better condition financially there would not be so much underselling.

Would not the aggregate production of these creameries be too small to make any difference?

I will refer to that. It is very small. We do not favour underselling for creameries engaging in a contest with one another. We would take it as an offence, as far as we are concerned, if it was reported, or if underselling was serious we would regard it as sufficient cause for removal from the Schedule, as we have power to do. One point I would like to stress more than anything else and that is, that the new creameries are in a different position. They were encouraged through Government policy to start in 1927-28.

Through Government policy. That is the key of my argument.

Through Government policy they were encouraged to start, and I think the Deputy should give me credit for being magnanimous in trying to compensate farmers who put money into creameries on the advice of the last Government. He should regard it as magnanimous on my part to prevent them turning in their indignation on the last Government. That is what I am doing. I am trying to save the last Government from what should rightly come to them.

Mr. Lynch

Getting other creameries to do it.

By giving them a little more help in order to gloss over the mistakes made by the last Government, and not make it so apparent to them that they are going to be fleeced by the banks or by anybody else who lent them money. For the last couple of months I have had letters from at least four or five different districts asking the Department to help them, to start creameries. As far as I could I have discouraged those people. We have no power to prevent them if they want to start. We cannot stop them legally but, as far as I am concerned, I try to discourage them by telling them that it was not advisable to start creameries at the present time. Deputy O'Shaughnessy mentioned creameries not on the list because they were established before 1928. Any creamery established before 1927 does not fulfil the conditions laid down. Deputy Gorey said we should approach the Minister for Finance. He says that as the State has already contributed a good deal to the creameries it should be prepared to contribute something further. I do not think that would be fair. The Deputy says that we are being generous with other people's money. There are six creameries in County Kilkenny that require assistance. I am prepared to accept that. As Deputy Gorey has mentioned it, I know of at least two or three creameries which are not on the right side in the bank and owe a certain amount of money. We are not really being generous with other people's money. We are going to ask the consumers in this country during the next three years to contribute almost £2,000,000. We were accused of asking more than that. Some Deputies accused us of asking £800,000 or £900,000 yearly. The amount is going to come to £2,000,000 over three years and out of that pool there is £18,000 for creameries that are down and out. That is less than 1 per cent. for the lot. If the consumers have to give the creameries £100 owing to legislation passed here, is it too much to ask the creameries to hand back £1 in order to save the weaker ones amongst them? It does not amount to very much.

The principle may be wrong of asking any body of traders to help the weaker ones amongst them. In practice, however, the amount of assistance is not very much. I do admit also that we are going to take this one per cent., or less than one per cent., from the very weak creameries, as Deputy McMenamin has mentioned, and, perhaps, give it to creameries on the scheduled list which are not in as bad a position as the creamery Deputy McMenamin had in mind. That may be so but it is very difficult—almost impossible—to be just when making a law. I admit that there are creameries on the scheduled list which differ very little from the creameries which are not on it. It would be impossible to make out two lists, one of them being for the Schedule, and to draw a line between those lists so that no Deputy could raise objection to the selection made. There must be a certain amount of difference of opinion on those matters. The Department had no wish to put on one creamery more than another. In going through the list of creameries in the beginning, the officers of the Department picked out every creamery which they could possibly put into the Schedule and which were able to stand the test. They left off those which did not stand the test. I must insist on the Schedule being left in the Bill.

The Minister admits that the principle is bad. I would like him to say definitely whether there are not a considerable number of creameries in a worse position financially than are the creameries in this Schedule. If that is so, how can he defend these two Schedules?

The Minister has given a very fair explanation. I admit that there was difficulty in approaching the matter. I am quite sure that the Minister and his advisers made every effort to be just but it is to the principle that I am opposed. The Minister will admit, if he has not already admitted, that as good a case could be made for some of the creameries that are not included in the Schedule as for some of them that are. I am prepared to prove, if necessary, that as good a case could be made for at least fifty or sixty creameries as could be made for the majority of the scheduled creameries. If I were to put in an amendment to include all the creameries that need relief in my constituency and if every other Deputy were to do the same in relation to his constituency, we would render the Bill inoperative and useless. None of us wanted to do that.

The Minister gave us figures as to the overhead costs of the creameries affected in relation to the £3 per cow test. He gave us the figure of £1 for every 166 gallons of milk. He quoted figures then which went down to 30 gallons. A creamery with an overhead charge of £1 for 30 gallons of milk is clearly one that cannot be carried on. No measure of relief will enable that creamery to be carried on. In relation to other creameries, he gave the figures of 120 gallons and 130 gallons of milk to the £. I am quite sure that many of our creameries in Limerick, valued at £3 per cow, are in that position. The assessment was made at the peak point of the milk supply. The supply was much greater then than it is now. The Minister referred to the falling supplies of these creameries. Their supplies, he said, were very much less than previously. We can quote the same case, point for point, as regards the Limerick and Tipperary creameries. The supplies have gone down very much. Last year, the decline was caused, to a great extent, by the season. In addition, the people are going out of dairying and engaging in other forms of farming. Dairying did not pay. For various causes, the milk supply has gone down but no case can be made that it has gone down in any of these creameries which are well managed to a greater extent than it has gone down in creameries in old-established creamery districts.

The Minister has, I think, admitted that all our grievances with regard to creameries are due to falling prices. He said he was saving us from the disasters of the last Government. I think the Minister is fair enough to acknowledge that our legislation was brought about at a time when milk was 6d. a gallon. We are not to be blamed for the dire consequences of world depression. No set of fallible men could have got out of the position created by world conditions. At various times, we have told the farmers that their difficulties were brought about, in the main, not by the legislation of the last Government but by world causes and the fall in prices not alone in the farming industry but in every other industry. The Minister has admitted that if it were not for that the creamery industry would be in a very sound position. I have endeavoured to emphasise that aspect also. I admit that the creameries agitating for the remission of the £3 per cow debt have the same grievance as everybody else. They had to suffer owing to the depression of the times. There is a charge of £1 to 166 gallons of milk. That 166 gallons would work down much lower in the case of many creameries. The Minister did not make any allusion to the fact that some of the creameries with which he was dealing are supplying milk to Dublin. Some of those scheduled creameries were in the habit of supplying a portion of their milk to Dublin at very lucrative prices. When they were not able to get out of the rut when doing that, how will they do so when they are confined solely to trading in the ordinary creamery way—turning their milk into butter possibly at a price of 4½d. a gallon? I think that more than half of those scheduled creameries were in the habit of sending milk to milk distributors in Dublin at prices altogether above what they would be able to obtain by turning that milk into butter. Deputy Gorry said that we agreed to many of the new creameries. We did not. We went on the principle that undue preference should not be given to one set of creameries over another or to one set of traders of any description over another set of traders in the same business. Deputy Gorry said that he could prove that a certain established creamery undercut them. I quite admit that that is possible. If anything it proves my argument, that undercutting is possible.

When the weapon is put into their own hands, being human they will use it. It would be very hard to prove it. The Minister said he might cut them off the Schedule. These things can be done in a very small way, if carefully managed, sufficient to obtain a contract which an established creamery would be looking for. They could easily do it without asking the whole of the 1½d. preference. They will certainly be in a position, if they wish, to compete in an unfair way with creameries in other districts. It would be very hard to prove that they did. That in itself will have the effect of bringing prices down and defeating in a way the prime object of the Bill, which is to keep up the prices to an extent that will recoup the farmer in some way for his losses, because it will not recoup him altogether. On the whole, the Bill will not give the farmer his cost of production, but I give the Minister the credit of making an honest attempt to try to do that. I believe it will not absolutely achieve that. At present, owing to world depression and other causes, it would be impossible to devise a scheme which would give the farmer the cost of production, but it is an honest attempt to do it. I think we ought not to leave in the Bill anything which will tend to injure that prospect, and I believe there is danger with this Schedule of that happening. Again it is unfair, not alone to the general principle of the Bill, but to those creameries for which a very good case was made the last day to be included in the Schedule, just as Deputy Brasier made a good case for a creamery to-day and other creameries, for which no amendment was put down and for which a good case could also be made. It is unfair to these creameries who are suffering from as great a disadvantage as the scheduled creameries that a certain number should be picked out and included. I am afraid I shall have to insist on asking the Minister, even at this late hour, to withdraw the Schedule.

I think the Deputy has supplied one argument against his own amendment when he talks about creameries in the Schedule supplying milk to Dublin. Surely that is lessening the burden which is caused by putting the Schedule in the Bill. In so far as they are sending milk to Dublin, they are not making butter and, consequently, the burden is all the less. I thought it a rather strange argument for Deputy Bennett. I think Deputy Bennett has fought shy of the point that there is a moral responsibility on the Government with regard to these particular creameries.

Hear, hear, on the Government.

There is no doubt that when the leader of agriculture in this country, from the high pinnacle of his position as Minister, told the farmers that there was a wonderful market for butter, that there was a wonderful future for farming if they gave up the foolish practice of growing grain for profit and concentrated on the production of milk and butter——

Mr. Gorey made a remark which was not heard.

I do not understand these interruptions. I think the gentleman might at least keep silent while a Deputy, who does not often trouble the House, is endeavouring to make a few remarks appropriate to the Bill. I know he is pretty ignorant, and I can find an excuse for him, but I think he should be told to conduct himself. When that is the case, and the Minister for Agriculture, in his position as leader of agriculture in the country, told the farmer to go in for the building of creameries, for keeping cows, and to give up grain growing, with the result that a certain number of creameries were established in the country, then I think that when these creameries walked into the storm, so to speak, and found themselves confronted by an unexpected and unprecedented slump, the Government have a moral responsibility in connection with them, and I hope the Minister will not give way to Deputy Bennett's amendment.

The Minister I think has given away his case when he candidly admitted that the erection of these creameries on the Scheduled list was encouraged by the Government. His Party is now the Government and they are the successors of the other Government, and the responsibility, if there is any responsibility, is the responsibility of the Government. Deputy Moore has admitted the same thing. He said the moral responsibility is on the Government, but the facts are, according to the terms of the Bill, that the moral responsibility is on other people engaged with the trade. These other people engaged in the trade it is that are going to pay the bounty, out of a levy that the scheduled societies do not pay. That is where we differ. With what Deputy Moore says as to the responsibility of the Government I agree. It should be met by the Government and by State funds, and not by the other people engaged in the trade who are in, if not a worse position, certainly as bad a position as the creameries on the scheduled list. I am prepared to admit that apart from this question of the method of meeting it, and apart altogether from the principle involved, the Minister has met the matter quite fairly. I am prepared to admit that creameries on the scheduled list are not in a sound financial position and some of them are in a hopeless position. I agree the Minister is right in saying that they deserve assistance, but it is equally true that a considerable number of other creameries—there are six in my county; I do not know what the position is in other counties—are equally in a bad position. And there is this difference that the creameries put up newly in new districts have a possibility of expansion and of getting auxiliaries; they have wide territory for working. I have seen a creamery in the south-east with fifteen or twenty miles of country in one direction to work. The same would apply to the creamery that Deputy Gorry is connected with. It has a wide territory to develop, but in the case of some of those creameries that I have mentioned they are locked up in a small pocket of country. There is no future for them in these days of getting rid of the overhead charges. These creameries have to be brought in as auxiliaries and no other creamery will take over auxiliaries except they are in a fairly sound financial position. Where there are huge overhead charges no one will take them except forced by legislation. They are in a much worse position than some of the new creameries. If it is the responsibility of anybody at all it is the responsibility of the State and not of the other creameries. Deputies on the other side seem to suffer from lockjaw in reference to this question of principle. Deputy Gorry said that the true principle of co-operation was that creameries in a worse position should come to his aid and subsidise others not as badly off.

That is all wrong. I said I had no objection to those creameries getting assistance because I admit they deserve it, but I object to the other creameries who are in as bad a position having to come to their assistance. If there is a responsibility in this matter let it be the responsibility of the State and let them do the right thing in the right way, and do not let us put that blemish on what would otherwise be a well conceived measure. I know some of the creameries have been supplying milk to Dublin. I do not think that that is a case that can be put up against them because they have done that. It is said they have incurred capital liabilities and of course they have; so have other creameries incurred capital liability that they have no prospect of discharging. One of the conditions that the Minister puts creameries off the scheduled list for is they have not efficient management. The Minister knows as well as I do or he will know in the course of some time that many of the creameries that were victims of bad management found it almost impossible to help themselves. It was no fault of the Committee. The responsibility and loss were the Committee's. The manager in many cases had gone. It is no excuse to tell them that they had a bad manager. Whether the management was good or bad it was all a question of luck.

Local Committees did not know enough about business to supervise the manager. I again appeal to the Minister who is fighting for this matter that it should be done by the State. Let the State do it. It is their responsibility and as Deputy Moore said the Minister and the State should shoulder that responsibility.

The amendments before the House are 3, 4, 8, 10 and 19. I am putting the question for decision on amendment No. 3 and the question that I put is:—"That the lines proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill."

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 42.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Gormley, Francis.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sexton, Martin
  • Sheehy, Timothy
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway)
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James Patrick
  • Keyes, Raphael Patrick
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacEntee, Seán
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas J.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Brasier, Brooke.
  • Broderick, William Jos.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorey, Denis John.
  • Hassett John J.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Keating, John.
  • Kiersey, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • McDonogh, Fred.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • O'Connor, Batt.
  • O'Hanlon, John F.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Shaughnessy, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Vaughan, Daniel.
Tellers:— Tá, Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl, Deputies P. S. Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.

That disposes also of amendments 4, 8, 10 and 19.

Question—"That Section 5 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

I move amendment 5:

In page 5, Section 7 (1) to add at the end of the sub-section the following words "nor, in respect of the period commencing on the date of the passing of this Act and ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, be less than twenty-five per cent. of the general rate, nor, in respect of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, be less than fifty per cent. of the general rate, nor in respect of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, be less than seventy-five per cent. of the general rate."

It deals with the creameries in the Schedule. I undertook in the Committee Stage, in reply to Deputy Blythe, that we would introduce some scale whereby the levy that would be collected from the schedule of societies would come nearer the levy collected from the other creameries each year. Now it reads: "That for the present year it must not" be less than twenty-five per cent. "of the general rate" and for the next year, "not less than fifty per cent." and for the third year, not less than seventy-five per cent. of the general rate. So that if the general levy remains 2d., we can make it ½d. this year but not less than 1d. next year and 1½d. the following year. It means really that the benefits that the creameries on the Schedule were to get at first would be considerably cut down. As I explained here a few minutes ago, the total which would be paid to the scheduled creameries for three years would not exceed £18,000. Under the arrangement as it stood in the beginning with the five years' schedule, it would have amounted to somewhere about £45,000, and now it is £18,000 which would be the total benefit received by the scheduled creameries in three years.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 7 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 8.
The following amendments were on the Order Paper:
6. In page 5, lines 41 to 45 inclusive, to delete Section 8 (6) and substitute the following new sub-section:—
Every such certificate shall be served on the person or persons to whom it relates, and such person or persons may within 14 days after service thereof appeal in the prescribed manner to the District Court from the amount of the levy so certified as payable by such person or persons and the District Court shall have jurisdiction to ascertain and fix the proper amount of such levy; and make such order as to costs as to the Court shall seem fit."
—Daniel McMenamin.
7. In page 5, Section 8 (6), to delete all words from the word "certified" line 41, to the word "certificate" line 43, and substitute the following "payable to the Minister by any person under this section shall on the expiration of seven days after the service on such person of a copy of the certificate made under this section in relation to such sum."—Aire Talmhaíochta.

I would like to know if Deputy McMenamin is satisfied with amendment No. 7.

No, I still have the same objection to it substantially. My objection was in the case of a manager or secretary of a creamery company neglecting to discharge his duties. The general rule or practice is that a Creamery Committee only meets once a month, that is to say, when they are paying their accounts. This negligence might occur between two meetings of the Committee, and the Committee which would have to pay would be salted and the period of seven days here is too short and does not solve my difficulty at all.

Now with regard to the Minister not accepting this amendment of mine I can see no point, because there, is no point in not making this return except through the negligence of the secretary or the manager and it would be unfair if a Committee that meets only once a month to pay accounts and sign cheques find on the agenda an assessment by the Minister of a certain amount which they would have to pay. I think it would be very unfair not to leave an opening to the Committee, who are really the responsible people, and not to give them ample opportunity to meet the case. This return should be made and there is no point in not making it unless it is a question of negligence on the part of the manager or secretary. For that reason, I think the Committee should have ample time in the fourteen days which I have given them.

We all know that these things may happen—the manager or secretary might be ill and that might be the reason of the negligence. It is merely a business amendment so far as I am concerned to protect the Committee as distinct from their employees, and we know that these things do occur regularly in business. The Committee, I am sure, would do it because there is no point in not doing it if it is a thing that should be done. Through the negligence of the manager or secretary the Committee might have to pay a sum of money that otherwise they would not have to pay.

I would like to know on what the Deputy is going to base the certificate that he is to issue in cases where no return has been made. The Bill prescribes that returns shall be made. If any person fails to make a return certain penalties are imposed, but it does not provide any method of getting a return from that offending creamery. The Minister, whether the return is made or not, has to issue a certificate. On what does he propose to base his certificate if no return is made?

I cannot follow Deputy McMenamin's reasoning very closely. If the objection is only to the number of days I think we can meet that objection all right, but otherwise I think his amendment is more severe on the Committee than our own, because as far as I can see—of course, I have not got the legal mind—if the Committee, under Deputy McMenamin's amendment, did not appeal to the District Court within the fourteen days they could not appeal at all, but under ours they can appeal at any time.

There is no machinery.

They can appeal to the District Court.

Not at all.

When the amendment is put in the sub-section, will read: "Every sum payable to the Minister by any person under this section shall on the expiration of seven days after the service on such person of a copy of the certificate made under this section in relation to such sum be a debt due and payable by such person to the Minister and may be recovered as a simple contract debt in any Court of competent jurisdiction."

I am advised that that makes it a debt just like a debt due to a shopkeeper by a customer. If the customer likes to refuse payment he goes into the District Court. He may prove that it is not a proper account, just as our creamery man here, if we bring him into Court to recover the amount of the debt, may prove to the satisfaction of the District Justice that the amount was not correct. If it is only a question of the number of days I think that difficulty can be got over.

That is all I am asking. It is only a question of protecting the Committee.

Every notice of that sort that would be sent out to the secretary would also be sent to the chairman, so that I think it would be covered in that way.

I think you should include the manager as well as the secretary and chairman.

The secretary or manager. If it is necessary we could do that.

I am prepared to accept that.

Deputy Moore also raised a question on this section. We get returns under another Act, the Dairy Produce Act, with regard to stocks and so on. We would have a fair idea of what the returns should be under this Bill, so that we could assess, if we got no returns, fairly accurately the amount the person should have in stock. Of course, we might not choose to go too accurately into it, the same as income tax collectors when they do not get returns are not too particular about giving the exact amount of a man's income.

I take it that the Minister would make an Order in the Department that this certificate will be served on the chairman as well as the secretary.

That is definite.

It is not in the amendment.

Amendment 6, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 7 put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Would the Minister not think it necessary to take power to issue a certificate based on such other information as he has at his disposal? There is no power given to him in the Bill to base the certificate on other information which he may have. I suggest to him that it is worth consideration whether he should not take power in this Bill to utilise any other information he may have available.

Question put and agreed to.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
9. In page 6, Section 9 (2) (a), lines 10 and 11, to delete the words "within five years from the passing of this Act."—(Aire Talmhaíochta).
11. In page 6, Section 9 (2) (b), lines 16 and 17, to delete the words "within five years from the passing of this Act."—(Aire Talmhaíochta).
The following amendments were on the Order Paper.
12. In page 7, before Section 12 (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Any person (in this Act referred to as a butter factor) who carries on the business of selling on commission butter manufactured by other persons and who in the course of such business sells, or arranges for the sale or disposal of any farm butter manufactured by other persons shall be deemed for the purpose of this section and of the provisions of this Act relating to returns to be made by persons liable to pay levy to have manufactured such farm butter for sale, and for the purposes of this section such farm butter shall be deemed to have been manufactured in the month during which it was sold or disposed of.—(Aire Talmhaíochta.)
13. In page 7, before Section 12 (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
Any person who, on behalf of other persons carries on, whether alone or in conjunction with any other business of selling or arranging for the sale or disposal on commission of farm butter manufactured by other persons shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to have manufactured such butter for sale.—(Daniel McMenamin.)

In the Committee Stage, Deputy McMenamin asked for a clearer amendment on this particular section. It is with regard to selling on commission. We have made it a good deal clearer in this particular amendment to Section 12, before sub-section (3), what we mean by that particular sub-section that was under discussion during the Committee Stage. I think what Deputy McMenamin had in mind was that a retailer who took butter in exchange for goods or for cash, and was only operating in a small way might be brought under the amendment as we had drafted it in the Committee Stage and that we really did not mean to bring such a man under the provisions of the Bill. I think the Deputy will be satisfied that we are not dealing with that particular class of trader.

I would be quite satisfied except for the fact that the butter factor is not included in the definition. There is no such person. He is left here an undefined unit in the Bill. The Minister's amendment reads "any person in this Act referred to as a butter factor." Apparently he is overlooked in the Bill; this gentleman has not been defined in the definition section. That was my difficulty too in drafting a suitable amendment to this section, the fact that there was no definition in the definition section of a butter factor.

The definition is of course included in "any person who carries on the business of selling on commission butter manufactured by other persons" and so on.

It is governed by this amendment "any person in this Act referred to as a butter factor". Then you put a definition section to find out what a butter factor is.

Perhaps the Minister would undertake to bring in a definition afterwards.

In the Bill there is no definition of a butter factor. I was handicapped in regard to drafting a suitable amendment. I put in "on commission to distinguish him from an ordinary retail grocer.

If the Minister would delete the words "in this Act referred to as a butter factor" it would not take from his amendment.

The only difficulty about that is that in a consequential amendment, amendment No. 14, a butter factor is referred to.

It would be impossible to convict anybody then under the section because at the moment if an inspector prosecutes under this section he has got to define what a butter factor is. There is no definition of "butter factor" and it would be impossible to get a conviction in the end.

I must say that I cannot see what the Deputy means now. The Deputy will remember that on the Committee Stage we explained that a butter merchant who had been in the habit of buying butter might now in order to avoid paying the levy say that he is not buying butter but selling on commission. It is for that purpose, in order that we might have powers to make a levy in such cases where possibly a merchant might evade payment of the levy, that the amendment is suggested.

If the Minister is prepared to take it I am satisfied. It depends on him.

Amendment No. 12 put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 by leave withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 8, before Section 15 (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Where a butter factor who has paid in respect of any farm butter a levy under Section 12 (which relates to levy on other manufactured non-creamery butter) of this Act proves to the satisfaction of the Minister that a levy has already been paid in respect of the manufacture of such butter, the Minister shall refund to such butter factor a sum equal to the levy paid by him in respect of such butter under the said section.

This amendment is consequential on the last.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 15:

15. In page 8, Section 16, to delete lines 21 and 22 and substitute the following words:—

Where any butter manufactured during a levy month by the registered proprietor of creamery premises or of premises registered in the register of butter factories or any farm butter acquired during a levy month by the registered proprietor of any registered premises is.

If Deputies would look at Section 16 they will see that if the words "manufactured or" were left out—I believe legally it might be argued that they could be left out—the section would read in this way: "Where any butter acquired by the registered proprietor during a levy month is placed in cold storage in Saorstát Eireann" and so on. If read in that way it might be interpreted to mean that the creamery that had sold butter to another person for cold storage would not be liable to the levy until the butter was taken out of cold storage in the following February or March. That would be unfair to the pool because naturally if a creamery were to sell butter to any person inside the country during the present month or at any time up to next September that creamery would be in receipt of the internal price, the price that is there because of the bounty on exports and therefore the creamery should properly pay the levy. As I say, we are advised that the section could be interpreted in such a way that the creamery could get over the responsibilities of paying the levy. This amendment is drafted in order to prevent that being done. If we delete the first two lines, we read the section then:

Where any butter manufactured during a levy month by the registered proprietor of creamery premises or of premises registered in the register of butter factories or any farm butter acquired during a levy month by the registered proprietor of any registered premises is placed in cold store in Saorstát Eireann; etc.

I am again advised by my legal advisers that as amended in that way there is no loophole left to the creameries as might be there under the section as it stands at present.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 16:

16. In pages 11 and 12, to delete Section 29 (1), and substitute the following three new sub-sections:—

(1) The Minister may, subject to the provisions of this section, make regulations prescribing the general rate of bounty on creamery butter, but the general rate so prescribed by any such regulations shall not exceed the rate of the butter duty.

In this section the expression "the general rate" means the rate for the time being in force by virtue of regulations under this sub-section, or, if no such rate is for the time being in force, four pence per pound.

(2) The Minister may, subject to the provisions of this section, make regulations prescribing the special rate of bounty on creamery butter, but the special rate so prescribed by such regulations shall not exceed the rate of the butter duty nor be less than the general rate.

In this section the expression "the special rate" means the rate (if any) for the time being in force by virtue of regulations under this sub-section.

(3) In this Part of this Act the expression "the appropriate rate" means—

(a) in relation to creamery butter which is exported by a central marketing organisation operating under rules approved by the Minister, the special rate at the time of the export of such butter or, if no special rate is then in force, the general rate at such time;

(b) in relation to any other creamery butter, the general rate at the time of the export of such butter.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendments 17 and 18:—

In page 15, lines 44 and 45, Section 42, to delete the words "in such manner as the Minister thinks fit" and to substitute the words "in accordance with regulations made by the Minister under this section."— (Aire Talmhaíochta.)

In page 15, to add at the end of Section 42 two sub-sections as follows:—

(2) Every regulation made under this section shall be laid before Dáil Eireann as soon as may be after it is made and no such regulation shall come into force unless and until it has been approved by resolution of Dáil Eireann.

(3) The provisions of this Act relating to laying of orders and regulations before the Houses of the Oireachtas shall not apply to any regulation made under this section.

These amendments are also put in, in response to Deputy Blythe. As the Bill stands the Minister has entire discretion over the funds that may be available at the end of the financial year in the miscellaneous account. Deputy Blythe thought that it was not proper that the Minister should have this discretionary control over any funds of this sort and I, on the Committee Stage, agreed with Deputy Blythe in that matter. I undertook to try to have it amended in such a way that before disposing of this fund the Dáil would have an opportunity of voting on it. It will be disposed of now in this way: that the Minister will propose at the end of the financial year to dispose of the fund in some certain way and a proposal will be put before the Dáil for approval. Deputies will see that under amendment 18 it is not being laid on the Table like other regulations. Other regulations under the Bill will be laid on the Table of the House and will pass automatically unless disapproved of by the Dáil. This, however, will have to be passed positively by the Dáil before the Minister can do anything.

Amendments put and agreed to.
Amendments 19 and 20 by leave withdrawn.
Bill reported with amendments.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for Final Consideration."

There is just one question to which I would like the Minister to refer. We had a lot of amendments dealing with the manufacture of butter. We have a definition in the paragraph which seems now to be with drawn and it seems to be useless, that is the one referring to blending. It seems to be safeguarded sufficiently, that blending will not get out of the levy. It seems to me now that sub-section (3) is unnecessary.

Does the Deputy refer to sub-section (3) of Section 2?

Yes. It is rather confusing if it remains in the Bill. I think, considering all the Minister's amendments that we have had, that it is unnecessary. I do not see how they are going to get out of it.

There are sections following which refer to that. I think we could not take it out.

If we leave it in we will have all sorts of interpretations given to it. We have the word "manufacture" used in every section. They may take advantage of that definition to mean that factory butter is manufactured.

That means butter not manufactured in a factory but of course every butter is manufactured. Even farm butter is manufactured.

That is so. But I am afraid that factories might take advantage of this sub-section and say that they blended it and did not manufacture it.

They do that.

It is no advantage to the factory to do that because they are levied on the butter they acquire.

I know that, and that is why I suggest that the sub-section is rather unnecessary.

There are sections which refer back to that.

May I ask the Minister has he not a suggestion from Deputy Blythe to be considered at this stage that this Bill should be functioned by a marketers' association?

That amendment has been accepted—that is No. 16.

I should like to suggest to the Minister that we are after having in operation in this country a Marketing Tribunal, which had very disastrous results for those who were engaged in the dairying industry. Of course we all approve of the principle of combined marketing, but there is one thing that the farmers will certainly resent, especially in consequence of the disastrous results of the last experiment, and that is that compulsory powers should be put in operation in connection with any tribunal that would be set up.

Question put and agreed to.
Fifth Stage ordered for Thursday, 2nd June.
Barr
Roinn