I should like to make the point that it appears to be both fair and equitable that the producer of milk should get the same reward whether he is making farmers' butter or supplying milk to a creamery, and the object of this motion is to see that roughly the same return is given. Up to two years ago, when this Government took office, the position was that the maker of farmers' butter was provided with a subsidy which gave him roughly the same return for his milk as the farmer supplying milk to a creamery. The position has been changed within the last two years. The subsidy has ceased on farmers' butter and, as has been mentioned by previous speakers, the price realised for fresh butter made by the farmer in his own home during the greater part of the year was about 1/6 or 1/7 per lb. That means, in fact, that the farmer who is making butter in his home is getting the equivalent to about 6d. or 7d. per gallon for his milk while the farmer who brings his milk to a creamery is getting 1/2—twice as much. I do not want to give the House the impression that the creamery producer is getting too much. As a matter of fact, on a previous occasion here, I did argue that the producer of milk for the creamery, who had his price fixed in May, 1947, was entitled to an increase in the price he is getting because his costs have increased very substantially since May, 1947. But even taking the price the producer of milk for the creamery is getting, the maker of farmers' butter is not treated by any means equally favourably.
I presume that Deputies are aware that there is a subsidy paid to the creameries which enables them to pay this price for milk. Otherwise, at the present price charged to the consumer of butter, they could not pay 1/2 a gallon. The amount paid out in subsidy is fairly substantial—over £2,000,000 a year. As we know, it takes a fair amount of collecting to raise £2,000,000 a year in this country and it is quite a substantial burden on the taxpayer, whatever particular tax may be earmarked. Generally speaking, taxes in this country are fairly equally distributed. Every consumer, particularly if he consumes tobacco or alcohol, is a substantial taxpayer and the farmer who is making farmers' butter has to pay taxation like everybody else. It is certainly very unfair that such a farmer should be taxed to pay a subsidy to the creamery supplier when he gets no subsidy himself. I do not know how anybody, the Minister for Agriculture or those who support him, can defend a policy under which this differentiation is made between the two types of butter. For that reason, Deputy Allen and Deputy Beegan have put down this motion in order to give Deputies an opportunity of saying to the Minister by their votes that they believe this system is unfair. I would appeal to Deputies to vote for the motion.
As I said, to the beginning of 1948, when the change of Government took place, a subsidy was paid on farmers' butter as well as on creamery butter so that the two types of farmers, the farmer who made butter in his own home and the farmer who sent his milk to the creamery, were treated on an equal basis. By means of that subsidy the merchants who bought farmers' butter in the fresh butter market were in a position to pay 2/10 per lb. for farmers' butter. The price of 1/6 or 1/7 a lb. that was paid for the greater part of this year, shows a very big change from that. In May, 1948, an announcement was made by the Government that the subsidy on farmers' butter was being dropped. Practically every Minister in the new Government at that time had to show some economy in his Department. Some of them scrapped short-wave stations, some of them scrapped mineral exploration and so on, and the Minister for Agriculture, evidently, agreed in this economy drive to drop the subsidy on farmers' butter. I think it was very unfair that he should have done so.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,
