Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 May 1935

Vol. 20 No. 1

Public Business. - Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation Bill), 1935—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

This Bill was necessitated by the lapse of the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Act, 1932, which operated for three years and terminated on 31st March last. The object of the 1932 Act was to provide a higher price for butter on the home market than the world price. The great object of this Bill is to effect the same purpose. We found defects in the administration of the 1932 Act and it is proposed by this Bill to remove these defects. For instance, in the 1932 Act creamery butter, factory butter and butter handled by non-manufacturing exporters, and others was leviable, whether sold in the home market or exported, and the result was that certain creameries which were not in very good financial circumstances were unable to finance that arrangement, because under that Act they had to pay a levy on production. They had to wait for some time, perhaps, before exporting and some time longer before the bounties were paid. In that way they required large capital to carry on business and were forced to sell butter on the home market in order to get ready cash. The result of that in turn was that there was more competition than was good on the home market, and prices were below what could have been got, without there being any great advantage to producers or consumers because what happened was that merchants were getting butter at one, two or three shillings per cwt. less than the indicated price and the benefit was not passed on. We propose to remedy that. It is provided in this Bill that levies will be collected only on butter sold at home when it is actually sent for sale. It is also provided that there will be a minimum price fixed for butter sold on the home market so that there will no longer be cutting of prices between creameries and others.

In the case of the 1932 Act there was a levy on non-creamery butter in certain cases. For instance, you could collect it from registered butter factories, and non-manufacturing exporters and from those distributors on whom notice was served. That was rather an unfair system, because in some towns we might have a better system of finding out who was dealing in butter than in other places, with the result that in one place notice might be served on every trader while in another town no notice might be served on anyone and they got off free. The arrangement under this Bill is that everybody is bound to pay a levy, whether notice is served upon them or not. There is an exemption clause for small producers delivering butter direct to consumers. Part I provides for the continuance of portions of the 1932 Act until this Bill becomes an Act. It only deals with those who are liable to pay a levy under the 1932 Act, and does not refer to those who may be brought in under this Bill, and who were not in under the other Act. Part II provides for the registration of producers and distributors. Every producer of non-creamery butter who sells to a consumer or anyone else must pay the levy unless he is selling to a registered person. Part III deals with levies. Perhaps it is as well to be as precise as possible about this. Provision is made for the collection of levies on butter and other milk products manufactured and sold in the Saorstát after March 31.

The levy on creamery butter will be at the rate of 39/- per cwt. and will be collected from the manufacturers on their home sales on or after the 1st April, 1935. The levy on non-creamery butter will be at the same rate and will be collected as follows:—From all persons who were liable for levy under the 1932 Act, on their home sales, on or after 1st April, 1935, until a date to be appointed, and from all persons registered under Part II of this Bill, on their home sales on or after the appointed date. There is a distinction made there as regards non-creamery butter between those who were liable under the 1932 Act and those who were not liable. They all become liable on the appointed day, but from the 1st April until the appointed day those who were not liable under the 1932 Act are not liable to pay any levy for the interim period. Regulations can be made increasing or removing the levy on butter, and different rates may be prescribed for different classes of butter. There will be no levy on milk products until the Bill is passed, after which levies can be imposed at such rates as may from time to time be prescribed. Milk products will thus be exempt until this Bill becomes law.

Special provision is made in Section 20 in respect of the Kerry cattle area in view of the very special circumstances obtaining in that area and the low price paid for butter produced therein during the warm weather.

Part IV gives power to prohibit the import of butter except under licence. It also gives power to prescribe the rate of levy on any butter that may be imported. Hitherto the position was that we had power to prohibit and also power to remove prohibition or to import under licence, but in either case if butter was imported it had to pay a levy. Now a levy is being prescribed here instead of the tariff. The tariff, of course, will be removed.

Part V is similar to Part IV except that it deals with milk products other than butter.

Part VI gives power to restrict the export of butter and milk products. That has been found necessary. For the last three years it has been the practice to restrict the export of butter late in the season in order to keep enough butter here to meet our requirements for the winter. Also during last winter and the winter before it was necessary to provide a certain amount for export to certain markets where we had entered into agreements to supply butter during the winter months.

Part VII deals with the power to pay bounties, and Part VIII deals with the power to fix maximum and minimum prices. I do not think that it will be necessary to fix a maximum price, but the minimum price of creamery butter must be fixed, as already explained. The price which has been in operation, more or less, for some months past has been 141/- per cwt. for wholesale lots and 145/- for retail lots. Creamery butter has been selling retail for 1/5 per lb. If this Bill becomes law that position is likely to remain; that is, the price of butter wholesale will remain the same and the price to the retailer will probably remain at 1/5 per lb.

Part IX deals with the financial provisions. A fund is to be created and into that fund all levies and registration fees must be paid; they cannot be devoted to any other purpose. And out of that fund we take bounties, salaries and expenses of inspectors, and any grants that may be given for approved marketing schemes, but we cannot take money for any other purpose. It is also provided that advances may be made by the Exchequer into that fund, from time to time, but such advances must be repaid on the 31st May following the end of the financial year in which they are made. That system has been carried on for the last three years, because during certain months in the summer there is a deficit in the fund which has amounted to about £100,000. That deficit is made up in the autumn months when levies are paid, but bounties are not paid to the same extent. It is necessary, of course, to keep the fund replenished during the summer months. This year it may amount to £150,000.

Part X is the usual part in all those Bills with regard to the keeping of records, etc. Under the Bill it is proposed to fix the home price f.o.r. at 139/- per cwt. and the creameries to pay therefrom a levy at the rate of 39/- per cwt. This levy will be calculated on 270,000 cwts. of butter, allowing for a reduction in the rate of levy on winter production. A bounty will be paid at the rate of 25/- per cwt. on exports of 480,000 cwts. The position will then be a home price of 139/-, with a levy of 39/-, leaving 100/- to the creameries on home sales and for exports. Taking the present price of butter on the British market, at 80/- or 81/- a cwt. and about 4/- a cwt. expenses, that would give the creamery a net 76/-. The subsidy which is paid out of the Export Bounties Fund at the present time is equal to the tariff which is paid, so the creamery gets 76/- plus 25/- bounty, the result being 100/- approximately. So whether the creamery sells butter on the home market or exports it under this arrangement it will get the same price, that is 100/- per cwt.

Go on further into this question of prices of creamery butter and farmer's butter which appears to be the question which is agitating the minds of most people with regard to this particular Bill. We are sometimes accused of trying to bolster up the creameries at the expense of the farmer's butter. I should like to explain as well as I can the position of both creamery and farmer's butter under this Bill. To get a clear picture of the effect of this Bill let us first of all assume that it is not passed and see what the position will be. I have already stated that creamery butter is to-day worth, say, 80/- on the British market and on that a tariff of 22/- will be payable. Against that tariff we pay out of the Export Bounty Fund 22/-, so we may leave the tariff out and take it that the creamery sending butter to the British market for 80/- per cwt. allowing for 4/- expenses, is getting 76/-. If this Bill were not in operation the creamery would receive 76/- per cwt. for butter exported and they would, of course, sell for the same price at home. That would enable the retail shops here to sell butter at 10½d. a lb. If that were the case we may take it that farmer's butter would follow the price of creamery butter as it always does. Taking it on the average for a few years and over all the country, it lags behind creamery butter in the retail price to the extent of 1½d. or 2d. a lb. We may assume, therefore, that farmer's butter would be selling at 9d. a lb. if creamery butter was selling at 10½d. a lb. to the consumer. But after this Bill becomes operative creamery butter will continue to sell at 1/5 per lb. and it is to be assumed that farmer's butter will sell at 1/3 or 1/4, if it is getting its true value. For the benefit that the creamery is getting—6½d. or 7d. a lb.— the creamery has to pay 4½d. a lb. levy and for that benefit that the farmer's butter is getting—also 6½d. or 7d. a lb. —it is proposed under this Bill that they also shall pay a 4½d. a lb. levy. In justice, nobody can deny that that is what should be done.

If one wanted to make a case for the creameries I think a good case could be made that they are being treated unjustly even on that arrangement because suppliers who bring their milk to the creamery and buy back their butter from the creamery are buying back butter which has paid a levy. A levy is payable on that butter which they consume themselves. The supplier to the creamery is paying a 4¼d. levy on butter he consumes in his own house while the farmer who makes farmers' butter is not paying that and will not be asked to pay it.

Another thing that we have to keep in mind is this: that farmers who make farmers' butter to a great extent have a very good market during the winter. Probably, they supply their butter direct to consumers or perhaps to grocers or traders in the town and they get a fairly good price during the winter. In the summer time there is a surplus of farmers' butter on the market, for our own consumers do not absorb it all. The result is that a lot of farmers' butter during the summer goes to the blenders for export and the price of that surplus is always inclined to regulate the market and to bring down the suppliers' price to that level or near that level during the summer months. The best way perhaps to illustrate any point is to give an instance of what occurred. When the 1932 Act was brought in first it was found impossible to collect the levy from anybody beyond the creameries, the factories and the non-manufacturing exporters who were a well-defined class, and were also on the registers that we had in the Department. Farmers' butter was not levied to any great extent. The butter brought by farmers to the grocer for sale to home consumers was exempt from levy. The result was, as I have already mentioned, that a great deal of the surplus which the farmers had in the summer was sold to blenders at a very poor price, 6d. or 6½d. per lb. perhaps. It was felt in my Department that things could be improved if a levy could be collected on farmers' butter or the bounty increased on that butter which is exported by the factors. At any rate, an effort was made to do that. On the 1st July of last year notices were served on 4,400 shopkeepers throughout the country to pay the levy. Now I take the Trade Journal for the price of butter during those months and I find that in June the price of farmers' butter is given as 78/11 per cwt.; in July, 80/9; in August, 87/3, and in September, 86/11. Now, it will be seen from that that the effect of collecting the levy from grocers throughout the country was to increase the price of farmers' butter by anything from 7/- to 10/- per cwt. Any Senator will see, if he considers the matter, that there was no doubt that that would be the result, because by collecting that levy from the grocers we were enabled to give back more bounty on the export of factory butter. Senators may think I am, perhaps, taking an unfair price. I may be told that the price perhaps went up for other reasons. That is not so. The price of butter on the British market, to which our factory butter was going was the same from June to December inclusive. There was no change. The change was in the internal price of farmers' butter supplying the factories which got the benefit of it.

I take this question in another way. Let us start at the other end and find out what is likely to occur if this Bill was dropped, or, alternatively, if it comes into operation. I think I have made the case that in justice and equity the farmer making his own butter ought to pay a levy on that butter the same as farmers supplying the creameries. I might perhaps make a stronger case if I could show that it is in the interest of the farmer who makes farmers' butter, as well as being just, to pay a levy. Let us take factory butter at the present time. The price of factory butter may be taken to be 9s. or 10s. behind creamery butter. It is, on an average, 9s. or 10s. behind creamery butter, so that if creamery butter is to be got to-day at 80s. in Great Britain, we may take factory butter as being worth 70s. per cwt. Blended factory butter will require at least 10s. per cwt. for expenses — that leaves it 60s. per cwt. That is to say they give 60s. for the butter they buy from the farmer. If any Senator will calculate that he will find it comes to 6½d. per lb.; perhaps not that. If bought through an agent, it would probably only be 6¼d. But if it is sold to the blender after this Bill comes into operation, where if we had no bounty on farmers' butter as distinct from creamery it would be worth 6½d to the producer, with this system under this Bill it is provided that a bounty will be paid on all the butter bought by the blender for export of 25s. per cwt., which may be taken to represent another 2½d. per lb. So that if the factory before this Bill paid 6d. for butter to the producer, when this Bill comes into force they will pay 8½d. If the market remains as it is—it is improving a bit for the last couple of weeks, but it is hard to say whether it will remain as it is—but if it does that butter will be worth 8½d. to the producer.

We have a very big class of farmers who supply their butter to blenders and factories. We have, in fact, amongst them what I should take to be the poorest farmers—the small farmers I mean in the County Kerry and the County Clare. A great deal of this butter is made up by quantities bought from these small farmers living on the worst land that is to be found in this country. They are very small people living on very small holdings and very poor land.

Mr. Wilson

They get good air.

Mr. Healy

And they produce good butter.

Dr. Ryan

I shall leave that to Senator Dowdall to answer. I say that if we can improve the lot of these people by getting them 2½d. per lb. more for their butter we would be justified in bringing in this Bill, if for no other reason. Let me go further. Leave Kerry and Clare aside for the moment, and let us come to farmers in the country making butter for their customers and who have a surplus in the summer which must go to the factories. At this time last year, that butter was selling at 6d. per lb. to the blenders. Owing to the existence of this Bill it is 8d. per lb. and if the Bill goes through it will be better. Take the farmer last year who went with his butter to the fresh butter market and got 6d. per lb. during the summer. He may be asked by his customer to sell him more butter and, if so, he may get 2d. or 3d. per lb. over the open market price, which was down to 6d, and his price then went up to 8d. He would not be able to sell his surplus butter at more than 6d. unless he put it into 2-lb rolls and agreed to sell at 8d. per lb. What is he doing this year? He says to himself, I would get 8d. or 8½d. if I go into the fresh butter market. I will not give it to the customer unless I get 10d. In addition to that I have to pay 4d. levy so that I will have to get 1/2½ or 1/3 per lb. So that the farmer in that position by selling part of his butter in the fresh butter market and part to the consumer is not worse off but is much better off under this Bill. The consumer is going to pay more.

Now, let us take the grocer. Some grocers take the farmers' output all the year round. In the winter they can sell it easily to customers in their houses. When it comes to the summer they find it hard to get rid of it, and last year they said we will sell it to the blender for 6d. This year, they said our surplus can go to the blender for 8d. Therefore, I shall charge the customer 10d. plus 4½d. levy. At any rate the farmer is not going to be worse off, so far as I can see. In every other commodity, leaving butter aside for the moment, we deal with, we always find if there is a surplus, and if we can improve the surplus market price it has an effect upon the cost of the commodity right through. You cannot improve matters unless you go right down to the very bottom of the surplus market and improve things there. That is what we are doing in this Bill. We are taking the low surplus butter that the factories were taking for export. It was worth 6d. last year and 8d. now, and we are raising that, and I have no doubt that that will have an influence on farmers' butter all around. Creamery butter remains the same as in the past three years. It is possible the consumer will have to pay more under this Bill. In fact, it is the proposal that the consumer must pay this levy. We are not doing any injustice. A good many consumers take creamery butter at 1/5. Many of them take it because they cannot get farmers' butter. I know many people who would take farmers' butter if they could get it all the year round. Now, these people have to pay 1/5 for their creamery butter. Is it not only just if there are people who would take farmers' butter when it is available that they should pay 1/3 or 1/4 per lb. for this farmers' butter? I do not see that there is any injustice to the consumer who is affected under this Bill.

Farmers in some towns get 8d. or 9d. per lb. for their butter. Some people say that we are going to take 4d. off these people. That is not true at all; it could not be true. There are farmers now getting 8d. or 9d. for their butter who are asked to pay 4d. levy and who will say they will not. They may say they will sell their surplus butter like everybody else. A farmer may say I shall sell it in a lump and get 8½d. and then the consumer who wants to get farmers' butter will come back and say that butter is worth 1/3 or 1/4 to me. We are putting consumers more or less upon the same level. A particular class will have to pay more for farmers' butter because we want a certain levy collected from those farmers in order to pay a bounty on this factory butter, and thus raise the price of butter all around.

We have heard a lot of talk about the small farmer. Every public man, whether in the Seanad or in the Dáil, is always anxious to guard the interest of the small farmer. Let us examine the case of the small farmer. A big number of these small farmers are suppliers to creameries. They are going to get the same advantages as the big men. Probably not altogether so much but we cannot help that. It would be very difficult to improve the lot of the small man without improving the lot of the big man and unfortunately we cannot do that either. As I have mentioned, you have a very big lot of small farmers in Kerry and in Clare who supply a great amount of this butter which goes to the factories in the summer and we will improve the position for them by 2d. per lb. We provide for other small farmers who supply customers direct. If they supply less than 10 lbs. they are free of the levy.

One other class of small farmer: There are a number of districts in this country where the number of farmers were in a position seven or eight years ago that the local markets could not absorb their butter. They came together and started a creamery. The creamery was going on well until two years ago. That is until the Act of 1932 was brought in which was supposed to be for the benefit of the creameries, but, in fact, it ruined certain creameries. As there was no levy on farmers' butter an undue advantage was given to home producers to compete against the creamery in the local market. There were some small farmers who had a stake in the creameries while the co-operative spirit lived, but they soon left and the whole thing was burst. I would like to see this question approached in a helpful way. It is a very difficult problem trying to raise the price of butter in the internal market while the external price remains. In the normal way the export market would be surplus market and would regulate prices just as we try to create that position here. Our surplus market for farm butter is the factory. As we are not satisfied, however, with world prices at the present time, and as we are making an attempt to get better prices for our producers here than the world market would give us, I should like the question to be approached in a helpful way with a view to seeing how far we can get in that direction. I think we all admit that it is a very difficult problem. Perhaps we may admit also that it is a difficult question to understand. Some people, evidently, find a great difficulty in understanding the system at all. For instance, one question that troubled Deputies in the Dáil was connected with the question of how it would be determined whether the butter a factory was buying was intended for export or for sale at home. What troubled them was that there would be a levy on the butter sold at home and a bounty on the butter sold for export, and they were troubled to know how the differentiation would be made. Well, in the first place, to answer that question, which may, perhaps, trouble Senators as well as Deputies, the levy is only payable on butter sold at home and not on butter exported, whereas the bounty is payable on butter exported, but not on butter sold at home. The thing that has to be remembered is that the levy is paid by the last person who buys. For instance, a grocer might buy butter from a farmer, but he need not pay the levy if he passes that butter on to another grocer, and that other grocer does not need to pay the levy if he passes it on to a factory, and so on. The last person who sells the butter at home is the person who is liable for the levy. For example: suppose a grocer buys butter at the market price, he will either sell to a person to whom he can pass on the liability for levy or to a consumer and in the latter case the price he will charge will include the levy. Similarly, if a butter factory had butter on hands, and was considering whether to sell that butter at home or to export it, the factory owner would know that, including the bounty, he would get, say, 90/- a cwt. if he exported the butter; but if some manufacturer in the Free State, who required factory butter for his own purposes, asked that firm for a ton of butter, what price would they quote? I take it that they would say to themselves: "If we exported this butter, we might get about 90/- without levy a cwt., so we will sell it for 131/- a cwt. and pay levy, and if they do not take it at that price, it does not matter, because we will have the foreign market." I hold that prices will naturally settle down in that way.

I should also like to speak about marketing. It is provided in this Bill that special provision can be made by way of collecting, perhaps, a lesser levy, or giving a lesser bounty on butter sold under an approved market-scheme. I think that it is hardly necessary to go back over the history of the last few years in order to realise what has happened with regard to marketing. Marketing has been in a very chaotic condition. I think everyone will admit that the home market has become demoralised. What has happened is that, very often, a creamery had a customer from whom it was getting 1/- or 2/- more than from another customer. If another creamery heard of that, they would say to the customer: "We will give it to you for 1/- or so less. As a result of such competition, prices have been cut until we are selling butter at, at least, 2/-, 3/- or 4/- less than we need sell it at if marketing were organised in a proper way. For instance, you will have the case of a creamery which can sell at 80/-, agreeing to take 78/-, because they are hard up for cash at the moment. As a result of that kind of thing, buyers tend to lose confidence in creameries. They realise that if they are quoted a certain price, it is not a firm price: that it may be reduced, or, alternatively, that if they take the butter at that price, their next door neighbour may get it the very same afternoon for a few shillings less.

I think that everybody will admit that our butter is superior to other butters on the British market and that it is worth more. Nevertheless, we are not getting what we should get for it. A few months ago, I called together representatives of the creameries and exporters and suppliers of butter, and this matter was discussed. As a result of that meeting, a provisional committee was appointed to examine this question of marketing, and I think that this Committee will be able to do some good work. As a matter of fact, I think that there is now a desire amongst all the creameries in the country to have this matter taken up definitely and to have the whole thing organised on a proper basis. If we go back six or seven years, it will be found that there was then a very strong feeling, amongst certain sections, against any sort of organised marketing. I think, however, that that has disappeared very largely, and I think that nobody would object now to some system of organised marketing. I may say that I have great hopes that something will come out of this Committee and, even if nothing does come out of it, there is power, under this Bill, to give special facilities to all the creameries, that are prepared to organise, to market in an approved way.

In conclusion, I should like to make one appeal to the House, and that is that the Bill is urgent. I make this appeal because I presume that when this stage is passed, we will be discussing the Bill in Committee. It is true that there are what might be called retrospective conditions, technically; but really it is only continuing the 1932 Act until this Act is passed. That means that we cannot collect levies from the people who are liable to pay levies, nor can we pay bounties to the people to whom bounties are due, until this Act is passed. If there is a delay in the passing of this Bill, it is going to be hard on these people to have to remain out of their money too long and, possibly, it is also going to be hard on us to collect the levies. I am sure that everybody realises that no business man, or creamery, likes to part with a very big cheque, even though it is due. They do not object to paying small amounts. From that point of view, the Bill is rather urgent and I should like to urge that point on the House. These are the only points that occur to me at this stage of the Bill.

Mr. Counihan

The Minister, when introducing the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Bill, 1932, stated that its principal object, I think, was to preserve the cattle trade of this country. I agreed with that contention, and, for that reason, I supported the Bill. I still agree that the dairying industry is the most important branch of agriculture. I believe that it is the foundation of the cattle trade and that it is most important and, in fact, essential, for the production of pigs and bacon and other agricultural products. However, Sir, since 1932 there has been a big change. We had, at that time, a market for all the cattle we could produce. That market has now gone and the markets which are left are hardly worth catering for—at least in the production of live stock—and the question is whether this Bill is worth having in view of the present circumstances of the country.

My principal objection to the Bill— and it is the only point I intend to deal with—is the tax on farmers' butter. I consider—and I think that the majority of farmers in the country consider—that 39/- per cwt. on butter is a monstrous and iniquitous tax, and that it should be opposed so far as it lies in the power of the Seanad to oppose it. For that reason, I think that, if the Minister does not agree to wipe out that clause, the Seanad should reject the Bill. That tax is going to deprive many industrious farmers in the country of their means of livelihood. No matter how plausible a picture the Minister may paint, if that tax is to be imposed, I believe that it will drive the industrious farmers of the country to desperation. It seems to me that nothing can happen in this Bill except the reduction of the 4¼d. on the home produced butter. Take, for example, the market price for butter at the moment. The price yesterday was from 144/- to 147/ for creamery butter, while factory butter was practically unsaleable, and farmers' butter was making from 109/- to 112/-. For years factory butter has been selling at from 1/5 to 1/6 a lb. retail price, whereas the retail price for farmers' butter was from 8d. to 10d. and sometimes 1/-. Unless the price of creamery butter is going to be raised above 1/6 per lb. then, so far as I can see, the retail price of farmers' butter is not going to be worth more than 8d., 10d. or 1/- when this Bill becomes an Act, for the reason that there is a tax of 4d. per lb on it. There is a tax at present on creamery butter, and the price of it is 1/6 per lb. The creameries can always keep up their price because they have a monopoly of the market the home produced butter has not and never will have. If farmers' butter is still selling at 1/5 a lb., then I calculate that home produced butter will be selling at 10d. and 1/- per lb., and out of that a tax of 4¼d. a lb. will have to be paid, so that the home producer will be getting only 6d. or 8d. for his butter. Does the Minister think it fair or equitable that butter making 8d. or 10d. per lb. should pay a levy of 39/- per cwt.? I think it is hardly fair that a person producing butter, who has to sell it at 8d. per lb., should have to pay as big a levy on his butter as those whose butter is making 1/6 per lb. retail.

The Minister is taking power in this Bill to exempt what is known as the Kerry cattle area. I think the Minister is right in doing so, but I would point out to him that there are several other districts in the country which are just as much entitled to be exempt from the provisions of the Bill as the Kerry cattle area. You have, for instance, parts of Connemara, Mayo and Clare, as well as parts of the country outside the creamery areas, which are entitled to the same consideration as the Kerry cattle area. If these people are going to be compelled to pay a tax of 4¼d a lb. on the butter they produce, the result in my opinion will be that they will be put out of production. When that provision comes to be operated it will, I believe, have the effect of doing away, to a great extent, with winter dairying, because if farmers cannot sell their butter at a remunerative price in the summer they are not going to continue to produce in the winter.

Why should the creameries have all the consideration? The Minister, of course, will say that they have not, and that they are badly treated. I do not mind how well the Minister treats the creameries, but the rest of the farming community in numbers at least represent three-quarters of the butter producers of the country. In numbers they outnumber, so to speak, the creamery suppliers, but I agree that from the point of view of production the latter predominate. The people who are being penalised under this Bill are to my mind the better type of farmer. The farmer who supplies the creamery starts operations in the month of April when his cows calve. He produces milk for the creamery at very little expense for seven or eight months in the year, and then closes down. The non-creamery farmer is producing butter during the 12 months of the year, and if he cannot get his present price for it then he is going to go out of production. That is going to mean a serious loss to the country. I think that man is entitled to as much consideration as the farmer who sends his milk to the creamery. Therefore, I think that the Minister should eliminate from the Bill the provision which taxes the non-creamery farmer. If he does that, I think I can assure him on behalf of the Seanad that his Bill will have a quick passage through this House.

Miss Browne

I agree with Senator Counihan that one of the most objectionable provisions in this Bill is that which taxes the farmers who make butter in their own homes. The Minister for Agriculture, more than any other Minister, has had to resort to all kinds of expedients in order that he might get himself out of the morass in which he finds himself owing, principally, to the absence of a market for the farmers' produce. This Bill is the result of what is known as the economic war just as all the other legislation introduced by the Minister is. If the Minister wishes to help the creameries out of the difficult position they are in, one is prompted to ask why he has resorted to this method of doing so? Why has he not relieved them out of the Central Fund instead of making one section of the unfortunate farmers pay for, and come to the help of, another section? Despite the figures and the laboured efforts of the Minister to show that the farmers are not going to lose over all this, it is merely so much theory: so much wind.

It was very difficult to follow the Minister. I agree with him that this Bill is an exceedingly complicated one. The Bill seems to me to favour the idea that is now a prominent feature of Government policy—in fact it is becoming a definite thing with them— to get money by indirect taxation so that the people may not realise the extent to which they are being fleeced. That, in my opinion, is the idea behind this tax on farmers' butter. If the money required to help the creameries were voted out of the Central Fund it would be debated in the Dáil at great length and shouted from the housetops throughout the country. The same thing applies in connection with the bounty on wheat, but I am not going to go into that in this Bill. The position, at any rate, is that people are going to have to pay more for their flour because the bounty to the wheat growers is to come no longer out of the Central Fund. Does the Minister really think that the people are asleep or dreaming: that they are mere worms and will not turn sometime? The cost of living is going to become enormous as a result of the policy that is being pursued by the Government.

In plain language, what this Bill means is this: that the home butter-makers in the country are going to be called upon to pay the sum of £300,000 to the creameries. I have every sympathy with the people in the creamery districts. I know, of course, that in a good many of what are called creamery counties the land is very rich, and that the people have not to work as hard as the people living in other parts of the country. The people in the creamery districts were getting a good price for their creamery butter over a long time-period while farmers in other parts of the country were getting poor prices. During that period, as Senator Counihan has pointed out, the people in the creamery districts were not taxed to help the farmers in other parts of the country. They were not taxed to help the farmers in the Minister's own county, for instance.

I may say that a good deal of the legislation which the Minister has introduced would seem to be directed more against the farmers of his own county than any other. I think it is correct to say that we have a larger number of home butter-makers in the County Wexford than in any other county in Ireland. Take the case of a farmer who keeps ten cows. I have made a rough estimate of the loss that such a farmer will sustain through the operation of this Bill. I may say that a number of my neighbours keep about that number of cows. We have not any large herds in the County Wexford, but if we take the average man in that county who keeps about ten cows, I calculate that his loss on the butter he produces will be about £2 a week. That money is going to come out of his pocket, and no amount of juggling is going to get over that fact. It would take a far cleverer man than the Minister to make me believe that the farmer who keeps these ten cows is not going to pay that £2 a week out of his own pocket.

This whole Bill is ridiculous. Farmers were getting a fairly good price for their butter during the winter. In fact, in the case of many of them it was almost their last resort. Calves are now worth practically nothing. That being so, the number of cows in the country will be reduced. One man who used to keep ten cows told me that he was going to do away with five of them immediately. He was a man who was making from £90 to £100 a week in the summer out of his butter. Consider the loss that the operation of this Bill is going to inflict on him, and not only on him but on others, because he will not be able to employ as many now as formerly. You will have one or two men losing their employment with him. All this is simply a method of camouflaging the policy of the Government in the matter of indirect taxation.

We do not know the number of inspectors that will be required to administer this Bill when it becomes an Act. The Minister will not tell us. He would have to tell in the Dáil if the money had to be voted directly there. He would have to account for every penny voted. The Minister talked a lot about justice and equity. If he comes down to Wexford and talks to any body of farmers there about justice and equity he will get his answer. I do not propose to say much more on the Bill. I think it is the worst Bill that the Minister for Agriculture has so far produced, and that is saying a good deal. It is the most complicated and absurd measure that could possibly be thought of. The Government should have gone the straight and honest way in doing what is aimed at in the Bill instead of trying to camouflage the people by this method of indirect taxation.

The poor people of the country will be fleeced by having to pay increased prices for butter. It is all very well to talk about keeping up the price of butter, but who is keeping it up? Every man, woman and child in the country. They will have to pay their share in keeping up the price. One would think from the Minister's speech that this Bill was going to confer a great benefit on the country and to cost the people nothing. Of course, that is not the position at all. Quite the contrary is the position. In conclusion, I desire to say that I oppose this Bill very strongly.

Mr. Bagwell

This is a Bill on which I have not as much special knowledge as some other members of the House, but on the other hand I have not any special interest in it either. I want to say that I have not been in conference with anybody who has either special knowledge of, or a special interest in, this Bill. I am sure the House will understand me when I say that the difficulty which confronts some of us in speaking on Bills of this character is in trying to find out what they are about, and in trying to make good the deficiencies in our own knowledge of them. As regards this particular class of Bill, if one consults a person who knows all about it, that person will naturally give you the case for or against it from a certain point of view. He will simply give you the point of view of one particular interest. Every man in this country of high protection who is interested in some particular thing will be quite content, of course, if his own special commodity is highly protected and will not really mind what happens to other people. Viewing this Bill in that way, Senators will realise how difficult it is for an individual member of the House to form himself, so to speak, into a sort of commission to go around seeking for information with a view to getting an all-round knowledge of the subject. The Minister is in the position that he ought to have an allround knowledge of everything contained in this Bill. But then, on the other hand, he is an interested person. He is more interested in it than I am. The necessity for it is due, largely, to the policy of the Government of which he is a member.

This Bill, obviously, is a most important one. I have read it very carefully, and if I make any mistakes in the observations that I have to make on it these, I suggest, will do no harm. They will give the Minister an opportunity of correcting them when replying, and in that way may be the means of securing valuable information for the House. The Minister has admitted that the Bill is a complicated one. Several of its provisions deal with figures. Some of them, I suggest, are imaginary figures—mere conjecture. The case for the Bill, I submit, is largely built up on conjecture. The portion of it to which I desire specially to refer is that which deals with the farmer-producer selling butter in the home market and with the Irish consumer of butter buying from such farmer-producers. In that regard, I find the Bill very unacceptable. I do not know whether the Minister knows what the value of the farmer-producer of butter is in our national economics. I do not suppose that he could have accurate knowledge of that. The Bill will, of course, eventually reveal that information. I think that the value of the farmer-producer of butter must be very material. It seems to me that that branch of the industry is largely threatened by this Bill. Ostensibly, the Bill is not designed to menace any section of the trade but rather to help the industry, but we are all acquainted with the practice of "robbing Peter to pay Paul." Under this Bill, money will be taken out of one Irishman's pocket and put into another Irishman's pocket and, so far as I can see, Ireland as a whole will not be any better off. A bounty will be paid to exporters but the levy on the farmer-producer will go towards paying it. Whether he is going to get that levy back or whether he is going to get any advantage out of the scheme appears to me to be extremely problematical. The farmer-producer will lose the liberty he enjoys of making as much butter as he can and selling it where he can unrestrictedly. Many people like that butter. At the price at which it is sold, there is a demand for it. Some of it is good and some of it is not so good but it suits some people.

The levy is not going to be the only expense on the farmer-producer as a result of this Bill. He will have to be registered and he will have to pay for registration. Then, there will be the inspection of his premises. What that will involve, apart from the administrative expense which will fall on the country as a whole, I do not know, but I am sure it will involve an appreciable sum. Neither do I know what the effect on the farmer of this inspection will be, because that will depend on the standard required. As to that, people differ very widely. If the standard required be at all comparable with that which is demanded —and probably rightly demanded—in butter factories and creameries, the farmer-producer will be put out of business. An aspect of this question has always puzzled me. I have been in the habit of going to one of the greatest dairying countries in Europe —that is, the Alps country, which covers a portion of France, Switzerland and Italy. That is a dairy country and not a beef country. I see there cheese, butter, and cream produced on the cow farms out on the mountains, where things are very primitive and where, I am perfectly certain, the premises would not pass any inspector. The result, however, is most excellent butter and cheese which everybody, including myself, likes. No harm appears to be done to anybody and the inhabitants are a very healthy population. Inspection under this Bill might be a very burdensome thing.

Then, there is the rendering of returns and accounts. A farmer doing a big business and sending out a lot of stuff could afford a certain amount by way of overhead charges. He could probably afford to employ an educated person to render accounts properly. The small man cannot, however, do that, for a variety of reasons. He himself, may not have sufficient education to keep these accounts. He may find the driving of a pen for half an hour harder work than any amount of physical labour. Yet, he may be a very intelligent man and a good farmer. This paper business might be a source of great trouble to a man who could produce very good butter. Then the farmer cannot sell any substantial portion of his butter to a middleman. He has got to sell direct to the consumer if he is to come under the exemption. That is going to handicap the farmer in a large number of cases. Many farmers cannot sell their butter off their farms very satisfactorily because their farms are inaccessible and people will not go to them. Neither can they afford to deliver the butter direct to the consumers. At present, they dispose of their supplies very conveniently to those who distribute the butter for them. Now, people will not go to their farms for butter and they cannot afford the cost of lorries or other means of bringing the butter supplies direct to the consumer. Whether the farmer will recover from the consumer the amount of the levy which he has to pay appears to me to be a matter of conjecture. Whether he does or not, somebody is going to lose 4d. per lb. Either the farmer or the consumer is going to lose the 4d. and no fresh money is brought into the country as a result of the operations of the Bill.

Looking at the Bill, as a whole, I ask myself whether it is introduced for the purpose of driving farmer producers of the type I have been speaking about out of business. I think it is legitimate to ask whether that is the object of the Bill because it seems extremely likely to have that effect in a great many cases. If that be the object, what good purpose is served? The creameries will benefit? Perhaps to a certain extent, but at what cost to the farmers, and at what cost to the nation as a whole? Mass production is good in many ways. It is good for the consumer, because he gets an article more cheaply. But that argument does not apply in this case. To have the maximum amount of labour on farms is a desirable thing. It tends to a more equal distribution of the population. It is generally agreed that the drift to the towns is bad and that concentration of population is likewise bad. If you put these farmer-producers out of business, they will not be able to employ as many people as they employed before. Some of the people they employ will either have to go on the dole or find work elsewhere. If everything is to be put into the hands of the creameries, there will not be so many people working on the farms. These people may lose their habits of industry, and it is a good thing to have a class of farming which leads to the formation of habits of industry. That is desirable in the national interest. The Minister will, of course, say that I am wrong in my submissions, but I should like him to show how I am wrong.

This Bill seems to be opposed to the policy of putting more people on the land. The form of farming affected is one of the best forms of farming and it is very effective in keeping people on the land. How the Bill could be amended, I do not know, because the whole principle of the Bill is bad. It is one more instance of unlimited powers taken by a Minister to control a very big business. That is always an extremely complicated task and it is very doubtful whether any one man, or set of men, can do it satisfactorily. So much power is given under the Bill to the Minister to change, alter and withhold that there will be no finality and no security and I do not see how people can continue in the dairying business under the circumstances. This Bill arises out of the economic war. I arrived at that conclusion entirely apart from any previous speaker. It seems to me to be a question of juggling to get away from the main fact. The main fact is that all this represents money taken out of one Irishman's pocket and put into another Irishman's pocket. The nation as a whole is no better off and we have all this suffering as a consequence of this tariff war, which arose out of a quarrel with our neighbour. We are reaping the results of that. We are going round and round in this way, pretending that this and that Bill is going to make everything right, instead of dealing with the main cause.

Mr. Baxter

The Minister, in his very long and careful speech, wound up by saying that he would like to see this question approached in a helpful way. Whatever criticism I have to offer, I shall offer in what I think is a helpful way. The Bill contains provisions that are highly contentious. However careful we be in discussing this question, it is inevitable that we should react to the peculiar circumstances and difficulties of our own counties and the areas which we know best. My own opinion is that this Bill, contentious and all as it is, is essential. I am not going to adopt the line that all that the Minister says is wrong or that all that the Minister says is right. If we are to be helpful, I think the only way we can indicate that is by recognising that there is some merit in the case of the other fellow. What has been said with regard to Part II of the Bill, in so far as it imposes extra taxation upon some section of the people, is true. What the Minister suggests the results may be is as yet, to a certain extent, problematical. The Bill may have the results the Minister indicates. Until these results are obvious, the people in the non-creamery counties will feel very sore indeed. I admit that I am rather surprised at the Minister's action, considering the political complications. I believe that no more unpopular sections could be put into any Bill than those contained in Part II of this measure. I am not going to dwell any further on this point because other speakers have already addressed themselves to that part of the measure.

I am not prepared to accept what Senator Bagwell says—that the introduction of this measure is solely due to the economic war. However, I think the Minister himself will not deny that the effects and consequences of the economic war have put upon him the responsibility of finding more money both by way of levy and increased cost to the consumer in order to give the farmer-producer 3½d. or 4d. a gallon for his milk than would have been necessary if there was no economic war. The fact that we have an economic war and that the farmer has to pay the penalty is very unfortunate. It is a fact which had to be taken into account in the framing of the Bill, but it is not the sole cause or reason for the Bill. The price of butter in England is, as the Minister says, from 82/- to 84/- per cwt. That could not be regarded as a paying price to any farmer in this country. If farmers were not to have any greater price, I do not believe that they could, under present circumstances, keep in production. My regret is that the Bill does not go far enough and provide that the price of butter to the creameries and producers would be higher than it is. If there is a weakness at all in the Bill, it is in that respect. It is the conviction of the dairying farmers that milk at 3½d. or 4d. a gallon at the creamery is not high enough to encourage dairying.

When discussing this matter we are entitled to look at the position of dairying as a whole, and to look to the future, to see what the aim is with regard to our dairying policy. Obviously, our exports to the British market are of vital importance in dairying as well as in every other agricultural commodity that farmers produce. The total production was about £1,150,000 last year while the total imports to Britain were valued at £33,000,000. That is an aspect of dairying to which Senators and the Minister in particular, should address themselves. The time would be well spent if more consideration was given to that side of our dairying problem. In my view we should make an effort to increase our exports to foreign markets, and to get a better hold than we have, in order to bring back more money for products that we are so competent to produce and for which we are so favourably circumstanced. Undoubtedly there are difficulties. I admit that the low world price of butter gives no encouragement for production. It may be truly said that the low world price is so discouraging that there is great danger, but for the passage of this measure, and the taxation it imposes, that many of our people would go out of dairying. The State cannot afford such an unfortunate development and whatever steps are necessary to prevent it must be taken in the interests of the nation. In addition to the provision made by this measure to secure money to raise the price of butter to a figure beyond the present one, which I believe the Minister will admit does not cover the cost of production, I feel that the Central Fund should have been called upon. It has not been done, and I do not know that any voice has been raised in protest. The truth is that 4d. per gallon will not cover the cost of production of milk. At the same time they are expected to maintain a decent standard of living, and to carry responsibilities financial, moral and social under conditions which apparently they are prepared to accept as being good enough for dairy farmers. These things should be known so that those engaged in other occupations could appreciate the difficulties of dairy farmers, and what little compensation they get for their labour.

I may be asked what is to be done to mend the situation? The Minister indicated that powers are being taken in Section 49 to regulate the marketing of butter. If we are to increase our exports to Great Britain and to increase production in the dairying industry we must at least try to cover the cost of production. As far as possible, all waste should be eliminated and, if needs be, the State must come in with aid to keep the industry alive. It is struggling along to-day under difficulties and is accepting the poverty-stricken conditions that are common practically to every branch of agriculture. That is the position with one or two exceptions which can only be undertaken by a small percentage of our people. I believe the Minister should have gone much further than this Bill by establishing a marketing organisation. No progress can be made in the marketing of butter, certainly outside the country, in the conditions that exist. The Minister was cognisant of them even before he came into office. I think it is true to say that when in opposition the Minister was strongly sympathetic to the idea of a combined marketing organisation. He realised then as well as he does to-day that with the attitude of many creamery managers, and the difficulties that confront them, it was not possible to compete in Great Britain against the more highly organised and better disciplined people from Denmark, New Zealand and Australia. There were days here when the marketing organisation formed by the pioneers in the co-operative movement succeeded during the period of three years of its existence in raising the price of butter on the foreign market. Instead of the price of Irish butter being 1/- under Australian, it went to 1/- above the New Zealand price during the last year of that organisation's existence.

The position in the British market is that the Danes hold premier place as far as price is concerned. They do that because of their peculiar position. They have become masters of production and of marketing. They are in the market every day of the year. They make contracts that they are able to keep. They are not in the market for a few months and then out of it as many of our Irish creameries and farmers are. The first essential is to establish and to hold a place in the British market, so that we will be able to make dairying pay in winter as well as in summer—when it is paying at all. If that is done, and if we are to reach the stage when we can demand 100/- per cwt. for butter as well as the Danes, we can only do it by having a good market all the year round. We cannot do it unless a position is created for dairy farmers that will enable them during the winter to produce milk at a price that at least covers the cost of production. The Department of Agriculture has for years neglected that aspect of dairying. The question is, do we want to do it? Until we develop winter dairying we cannot establish ourselves in the British market as the Danes have done. We have also got to learn how to market our butter as it should be marketed.

Apparently, there is a difference of opinion between people who manage the creameries. I got a communication from the Irish Creamery Managers' Association, which indicates very clearly that there has been undercutting by a number of creamery managers, particularly in the home market. The circular does not deal with the external problem at all but it states: "We think we do not overestimate when we say that, on an average, and throughout the year, at least 3/6 is lost on each cwt. of bulk butter sold in the Free State." If 3/6 is lost on each cwt. of butter sold in the Free State, seeing that we sold about 270,000 cwts., that would represent a loss of £47,000 on home sales. According to Mr. Semple's calculation, the exports come to £84,000, or a total loss of £131,000 due to faulty methods of marketing butter. The Minister is looking for helpful suggestions. I believe he is as convinced as I am that there is not going to be established in this country a dairying industry on a sound basis unless there is combined marketing to prevent undercutting on the part of creamery managers, at home and abroad. Some of these men may not be good business men while others, because suppliers want cash, have to sell. Because of that and the reasons stated by the Minister, when some of them discover that others have found good customers across the Channel they are jealous and they take away what the other fellow has won by trying to secure these good customers for themselves, thereby reducing the price that Irish farmers can get for their produce. The secretary of the Irish Creamery Managers' Association places the figure of the loss at £131,000 on productivity in the marketing of Irish butter. In the present circumstances of the country, when money is badly wanted, the Minister realises that loss caused by faulty methods should not be permitted.

The Minister is more optimistic than I am when he says that he thinks he sees a change of spirit on the part of people who have come together to discuss new methods of marketing. They speak with different voices. I saw from a report a week ago that the chairman of a meeting, a creamery manager, who attends most of the meetings at which the Minister speaks, indicated that in his view very little more could be done for marketing than was being done. That is the spirit that broke the previous marketing organisation and it is going to affect any new marketing organisation. Apart from national effort, there is the loss from the point of view of the reputation of Irish butter abroad. The Minister knows that four or five years ago people in England knew they could be supplied by this marketing organisation but who have not bought a pound of Irish butter since that organisation went out of existence. They will not deal with us because of the methods that some of our people employ. What concerns me most is our prestige and reputation in England amongst businessmen, that while a good article is available it cannot be supplied on the sound business lines that have made the marketing of the dairying products of other countries so successful.

I urge, as strongly as I can, that the Minister ought to take steps at once. I am convinced that a number of thoughtful people in the dairying industry will back him very strongly if he is prepared to take action to put dairy products on a sound basis, on which they do not stand to-day. I am convinced, too, that winter dairying needs encouragement, which it has never got here, and that winter dairying is absolutely an essential part of our dairying industry.

In Section 39 the Minister makes an attempt to prevent underselling on the part of the creameries in the home market. Sub-section (1) reads:—

It shall not be lawful for any person to sell any creamery butter for delivery to the purchaser thereof in Saorstát Eireann at a price which is less than the price which is, on the date of the delivery of such butter to the purchaser, the minimum price under this section in respect of such butter.

I suggest that the Minister will not be able to make that section operative and, unless he is convinced that he can do so, I would urge him strongly to delete the section entirely from the measure. It has been suggested that there would not be any difficulty in enforcing this, but I am convinced that it will be very difficult, if not impossible. The Minister is aware of what happened in the case of the Fresh Meat Act and of how difficult it was to get 25/- or 22/- per cwt. for meat. He knows just as well as anyone the competition there will be here eternally for the good home trade, the competition there will be to supply the man who can pay cash on the nail, or if he is given credit for 14 days, will honour his cheque at that time. Creameries will be anxious to get this trade and to hold it. I suggest to the Minister that, no matter what he puts in the Act, if he has not control of butter through a selling agency there will be undercutting. Perhaps other methods will be used to get hold of those customers and to keep them and to knock the other fellow out. Frankly, I am convinced that this is an effort at combined selling that will fail, that it will leave a number of honest men disgusted, men who would not be prepared to adopt the methods that would be necessary to secure trade because of this section. Perhaps it will be an encouragement or an incitement to dishonest tactics on the part of quite a number of people here who will be forced, because of the passage of this legislation and particularly the insertion of this clause, to adopt means which they would not be tempted to employ if this section were not in the Bill. It was inevitable that, with the introduction of Part II, you would have the conflict of opinion that is evident throughout the country between those who are in the creamery districts and those in the non-creamery districts. No section of our people is prepared lightheartedly or gladly to bear the new taxation which is being put upon them and which they have been able to evade in the past. Undoubtedly, there are very strong feelings in many of our counties and in particular districts in some counties over the insertion of this section. What I feel about it particularly is the difficulty the Minister will experience in trying to administer this part of the Bill at all. I think we will have all sorts of evasions.

I would be interested to hear from the Minister how he proposes to administer this part of the Bill. Is it to be done through the Gárda Síochána or through the new dairying inspectors? By what means does he propose to have those registers compiled and to see that all the people whose names ought to be in them are there and that the fees are collected? If the Minister has looked into all that, including the cost of it, and is satisfied that it is possible, then he knows where he stands. The powers which he takes are fairly strong, but it ought to be known that already under the Dairy Produce Act producers who have been sending milk to the creameries have been subjected to all sorts of regulations. A farmer may not only be sent home with his milk if it is not clean, but he may be brought into court and prosecuted. His premises may be subjected to all sorts of inspections. The additional powers which the Minister seeks here are not new. I believe that under this part of the Bill you will have all sorts of evasions, and I think there is nothing more harmful than passing legislation that may be evaded. I would be anxious to hear what the Minister's viewpoint is; whether he has the power and the capacity to make this part of the Bill fully operative or not. It is something that the Minister ought to consider, because, undoubtedly, if people find loopholes or ways of evading their responsibilities or of adopting methods by which the law can be side-stepped, it will produce contempt for all law. The Minister has gone far in increasing the amount of butter which these producers can sell without paying a tax at all. I do not know what his calculation is as to the total amount he expects to receive on the amount of butter that will be marketed under this part of the Bill. These are considerations which ought to weigh with the Minister, whether or not, as regards this contentious part of the Bill, the game is worth the candle.

Mr. Johnson

I have not been able to give a close study to this Bill and its operations, but, so far as I was able to read the discussions in the Dáil with a view to trying to elucidate the problems that the Bill tries to meet, I frankly confess that I was more bewildered than ever by the discussions I read, and I had to give them up. It so happened that I was in possession of a copy of a certain report of the new Zealand Parliament, where they were discussing a butter Bill. I could not but think of the debates on that subject when Senator Bagwell was speaking. I have been accustomed for the last few years to hearing heartrending cries as to the state of the Irish farmer and more particularly the dairy farmer, and from Senator Counihan about his cattle, but nothing that we have heard here compares in poignancy to the complaints of the dairy farmers of new Zealand as to the condition they are in in regard to the price of their butter.

When the 1932 Act was being passed, it was explained that such a Bill was necessary in order to keep in existence the dairying industry, that if something of the kind was not done, the farmers would go out of milk production, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to revive the dairying industry when it was desired to do so. The plea was made at that time that consumers of creamery butter would be willing to pay up to 1/5 per lb. The Minister indicated that that would be about the price that would be the maximum for a consumer of creamery butter. It was recognised that it meant a rise of 2d. or 3d. per lb. for the average user of creamery butter but that that price was only about the level of the prices that had prevailed for such class of butter a couple of years previously. For my part, I realise that it was not an unfair proposition to ask the town consumers of creamery butter to pay that price for the purpose that was sought to be achieved. There was one other consideration, that those people who were not in a position to pay 1/5 per lb. for creamery butter had the option of buying farmers' butter at a lower price. In fact, if they desired creamery butter against the farmers' butter it was up to them to pay an extra price for a special fancy of their own. This Bill appears to me to affect the relative position of those who were in the habit of using farmers' butter and those who were in the habit of using creamery butter, and I would like, before the motion is put, that the Minister should explain the position of consumers as they will be affected by this Bill if it is passed in its present form. I am quite able to understand, for instance, the contention of those who were speaking for the farmers who were producing butter for direct sale, as voiced by Senator Miss Browne, that the farmer who is producing is going to bear the burden. I am not able to reconcile that with the contention, that seems to me to be more like the fact, that the consumers of farmers' butter are going to pay the price. It was the Minister who said that the position of the creamery in regard to creamery butter would not be affected. Consequently, whatever change is taking place is between the consumer of farmers' butter, the producer of farmers' butter and the State. The Minister told us that the State is not affected inasmuch as the whole of the sum collected by way of levy is being put into a fund and will be used for nothing else but for bounties and so on. If that is the position, then it is a matter for reconciling the cost of the farmer producing butter for direct sale and the consumer of that butter. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I made a shot at an estimate to the effect that 25 per cent. of the butter produced in this country is sold as farmers' butter direct to the consumers. I think it is probably true to say that in the larger towns more creamery butter is sold, and that so far as the working classes in the larger towns are concerned they are able to pay the better price of 1/5 for creamery butter. But in the smaller towns and rural areas, where most of the farmers' butter is consumed, the ability of the working people to pay is lower than those in the larger towns. I have asked myself what is to be the effect on the consumer with lower wages in regard to his butter consumption. If, as I think the Minister indicated, the average price of farmers' butter in the retail market might be 1/3 to 1/4 per lb., I want to know what was the average price in the last year of that particular kind of butter? Was it 10d. taking the whole year round or was it 9d.? If either of these figures is a fair shot at the average it means a rise in the price of butter to the consumer of 5d. or 6d. or 7d. in the lb. If that is to be the effect of these clauses upon that large portion of the working class population of the country which is now in the habit of using farmers' butter, and that sometimes less well-paid section of the population, I think the Minister ought to pause.

It is all very well for him as the Minister for Agriculture to think in terms of the producer, but in any collective action with the rest of his colleagues which he is taking, he ought to have some regard to the position that this Bill will create in respect to the consumer. I do not think that consumers, taken as a whole, or any section of them, ought to be entirely unaffected by a Bill for conserving the dairying industry in this country. But if I am right in suggesting that the meaning of this Bill is that it will raise the price of this butter, to the lower-paid portion of the population, by 5d. or 6d. in the lb., I think we are asking them to bear too great a share of the burden. I may be quite wrong in these estimates. The Minister may show that I am entirely astray in my rough calculation, but I hope he will be able so to show. If he cannot, then I think any proposal to amend that portion of this Bill ought to be supported.

The Bill, as a whole, must be supported on Second Reading if it is desired that the dairying industry as a whole is to be maintained. We are exactly in the position we were in in relation to the Bill of 1932. That Bill was deemed to be necessary in order to enable the farmer producers of creamery butter to get such a price for their milk that would save them from absolute ruin, immediate and irrecoverable. Therefore, the Bill must be supported on Second Reading so far as it goes. But I ask the Minister to make much clearer than he has done what is to be the effect of clauses relating to farmers' butter upon that portion of the poorly paid section of the population which might have to pay 5d. or 6d. per lb. more for their butter than they have been paying.

Mr. Toal

I do not wish this Bill to pass without my protest against the section that applies to farmers' butter. One speaker said that this was the worst Bill introduced by the Minister. I do not agree, but I say it is one of the most unpopular Bills that was ever introduced in the eyes of a very large section of the Irish people—the small farmers. The industry of farmer butter-making is as old as the hills. It is an industry that the Minister and the Government should think well over before trying to destroy. It is an industry amongst our poor people. It was a source of education and a means of supporting families for generations. It was a means of introducing the family into the social life of the country. To my mind, this Bill is going to kill this industry and, I may say, I do not see how the Minister is going to enforce it.

Unfortunately, at the present time we have in this country many evasions of Acts that have been passed. In the part of the country that I know best we have a regular industry which is very demoralising to the manhood of our country and to our boys, and that is smuggling and trying to evade the law. I am afraid this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will have a very demoralising effect upon the women and young girls in the country. I am convinced a whole army would not be sufficient to enforce this Act if it passes. Take my own district! How is it to be enforced there? Why, you would want an inspector under every bed if you are to succeed in getting the returns that are needed. I think it is very hard that poor people should be liable to be taxed if they have one cow. They are exempt up to 10 lbs. of butter, but one good much cow would produce 10 lbs. of butter. Therefore, they must register and pay the tax. The making of farmers' butter and that industry generally have a great bearing upon the social life of the country and upon the life of young girls, and are very good for their education. Many and many a happy family have been kept together through this small industry. If you kill that industry you will do a great injury in the country. I hope the Minister is going to make the best effort he can to improve the dairying industry generally, but I am afraid he is going the wrong way about it.

I can assure the Minister that there is a terrible feeling in the country about this matter. This industry has been carried on for generations. It was not only a means of support but it contributed to preserving the health of families. I have long experience of creameries. I find that where the milk is taken away to the creameries nothing is left in the home for the nourishment of the family and the children. I am also convinced that the facts that Senator Johnson has brought forward will have a very serious effect if not remedied. This will lessen the consumption of butter in the country. Many people sooner than pay a price of 1/5 a lb. will cease to use butter altogether. We know what that means. They will try to buy the cheap meat. If they can get meat for 3d. or 4d. a lb. they will not pay 1/3 and 1/4 a lb. for butter. All this will have a terrible effect upon poor people who now can go to their neighbour and get a lb. of butter at a reasonable price. I hope the Minister will reconsider this portion of the Bill. The continuance of this farmers' butter-making industry will have a very good effect both socially as well as from the health point of view upon the people. If the Minister persists, I am convinced the returns will be very disappointing. I do not see how they are going to be calculated. Our people have become demoralised enough without putting a temptation of this kind in their way and I earnestly hope the Minister will reconsider this portion of the Bill.

Mr. Dowdall

The Minister said, and said very properly, in introducing this Bill, that it was an urgent and complicated measure and very difficult even for those engaged in the industry to understand. I can say as a fact that some people in the trade find it difficult to understand it. The measure which has just expired was framed long before what was known as the economic war. It was framed because butter prices had fallen so low that this country, in common with New Zealand and Australia, set out to devise a means by which they could secure for the producer such a price on the home market as would enable him to continue in dairying. It is admitted by everybody that as far as creameries are concerned this worked satisfactorily. The object was to secure a price approximate to 100/- per cwt. net from creamery to creamery. Senator Miss Browne talked of defeating this Bill. I tell the Senator that if this Bill be defeated there will be such an outcry that the Dáil will have to be called back, and I will guarantee that not one member of the Fine Gael Party will vote against it a second time. We got a good indication of that when Deputy Bennett voted with the Government on this measure and against his Party. In the former Bill the levy and bounty system applied only to creamery butter. This measure and against his Party. In the former Bill the levy and bounty system butter produced in the farmer's own dairy. Everybody knows, and knows better than the Minister and his advisers, with whom I do not always agree, that in the administration of that part of the Act there will be difficulty and there will be evasion, but I feel, as time goes on, the evasion will be less and less. The Minister is giving a concession to certain small dairy producers and I think it is well he should do so at present at all events. The measure will have, and I may say has had, the effect already of securing—and I wish Senator Toal would understand this—a better price for the farmer's butter than he would secure were it not that this measure has certain retrospective clauses. These prices, as a result of these retrospective clauses, are being paid already.

Senator Counihan spoke about selling butter at 8d. a lb. I may tell the Senator, for his information, that I sold butter last week, here in Dublin, in ton lots, at £120 a ton. That, of course, includes delivery. It is as well, however, to bear in mind that the levy is pooled and goes back to the producer. There will, of course, be some expense in administration, and I regret that the Department is not bearing that part of the expense. I think that the Department should pay that part of the expense, but the part of the money raised by means of the levy goes back to the producer. Senator Baxter knows that 100 per cent. of the levy went back to the creameries, and I hold that practically all of the levy here will go back to the producer in the home dairies. When Senators here spoke of a tax of 4¼d. being an unthinkable and unbelievable tax, it seemed to be amazing that other Senators did not characterise that as being ridiculous. I appeal to members of the Seanad to do the wise thing now, for once, and let this measure go through. I realise, of course, that this measure, in the same way as similar measures, may reveal difficulties later on which one cannot anticipate. On the whole, however, I think that this is a fairly well thought-out measure. After all, it must be remembered that the Department has had considerable experience of dealing with such matters, and I ask the House to give the Minister the opportunity, for which he has asked, of administering the Bill. If it needs amendment or revision next season, that can easily be done.

Mr. Jameson

Some of the remarks made by Senator Dowdall rather astonished me. He said, amongst other things, that the levy goes back to the producer. I had rather thought that the main part of it went into the pocket of the British Government.

Mr. Dowdall

If you thought that, Senator, you do not understand the Bill.

Mr. Jameson

Well, I was looking at what the Minister said himself. The Minister spoke about the present price of butter and said that the Government subsidy is 7/-. If that 7/- goes back to the producer, does not the other portion go to the British Government?

Dr. Ryan

That is not right, Senator. That is the subsidy out of the Export Bounty Fund.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

There is an Export Bounty Fund, Senator.

Mr. Jameson

But is this fund here not taking the place of the Export Bounty Fund?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

No, Senator.

Dr. Ryan

No; it is in addition.

Mr. Jameson

Well, what is this for then? I must confess that I have been in such a fog over the Bill that I may be wrong and that I am open to correction. I am in a fog.

Mr. Dowdall

I agree.

Mr. Jameson

I thought that section established a fund. What is that fund going to do? I understood that it was going to pay a bounty on the export of butter and that that was one of the things the exporter would have to pay to the British Government when he sent his produce into Great Britain. Am I entirely wrong in that conclusion?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Jameson

Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to show me in what way I am wrong and to point out that this fund has nothing to do with the payment of the bounty to the British Government?

The Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair.

Dr. Ryan

It has nothing at all to do with it.

Mr. Jameson

Is our Government going to pay to the exporter of Free State butter the full amount which he has to pay as an import duty on his butter when it goes into Great Britain, or is it to be met out of the produce of these levies with which this Bill is connected? If the Minister says that none of the levies under this Bill is to be applied in the payment of the British taxation on butter sent to Great Britain, then I, for one, have certainly a completely wrong view of the Act; because, as I read Section 9, it says that all fees payable under this section shall be collected and taken in such manner as the Minister for Finance shall from time to time direct. Are the bounties which are payable to the British Government not included in this Act? If they are not included, I feel that one has completely misread this Bill. Furthermore, if they are not required for the purpose of paying to the exporter the bounty which he has to pay in order to have his butter allowed into Britain, I cannot understand for what purpose we want this £800,000. According to the Minister, as I understand, he wants to raise a sum of about £800,000 by way of levy. He says that some £500,000 or so will be got from the creameries and that he will get out of the ordinary farmers' butter what will probably make the sum up to something like £800,000. Apparently, the Minister himself admits that he does not really know what he will get out of farmers' butter, but he hopes that he will be able to get that amount. If this money were going to be spent on any scheme for really assisting our butter producers, one would think that there would be quite a good deal to say for it. But I have read through the Bill, and I have read the debates in the Dáil, and I cannot find any proof whatever that any real benefit is going to come out of this Bill to anybody connected with the trade. In spite of all the remarks that have been made in this House and in the Dáil I cannot see how anybody connected with the trade is going to be a penny the better as a result of this Bill. It seems to me to be ridiculous that a further sum is going to be raised by levy than has been raised already out of the people engaged in the industry. There is now going to be a levy of 4d. a lb. on farmers' butter. I feel, as other Senators have said, that if the farmer has to pay that 4d. a lb. on his butter, the industry will largely disappear. Even if we are to assume that the consumer will take up part of the burden and that the farmer does not have to pay the whole of the 4d., it will then have the effect that the price to the public will rise. I am referring here to the Irish consumer. Notwithstanding what may have been said by Senators, I feel that; in that case, it would be inevitable that the poorer people would have to pay a higher price for their butter.

After reading the Bill carefully, I cannot find any necessity for raising this amount of money out of the industry itself. I can find nothing in the Bill to show that it is absolutely necessary that this money should be raised. If we knew where this taxation was going, if we had a clear statement from the Minister showing that this money was going to help the industry, it would be a different matter; but there is not a line in the Bill to show that, nor has the Minister himself told us. It is quite easy to see, from the speeches made here to-day, that there are very great risks of a grave injury being done to one part of the butter industry in this country. If this Bill means the raising of the price of butter in this country, as it seems to me to be quite likely to do unless the butter-producing farmers are going to be very seriously injured, the public will have to bear some of the cost and, if so, we will have some of the reactions which Senator Johnson fears. I cannot make out why the Minister is doing this. It seems to me to be a most terribly complicated measure. Senator Bagwell spoke on the question of providing better marketing facilities. I am sure that we would all be unanimous on that, but this is a totally different thing. The real gist of this whole Bill, it seems to me, is the raising of £300,000 or £400,000 a year out of a certain set of people who have not been taxed hitherto; but what the necessity there is for that, or where the money is going to, I do not know. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us to whom this money is going, and to explain why he is taking it from one set of people in order to hand it to another section. I have had many difficult problems to face in my life, as all of us have had. I remember having to face the problem in school many years ago of the integral calculus, and of sitting there trying to find out what it meant. I remember that I was in an absolute fog about it, but I must confess that I am in just as big a fog over the meaning of this Bill as I was over the meaning of the integral calculus. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the money is wanted for and who is getting the benefit of it.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I should like to call the Minister's attention to Section 20, which has to do with special provisions for the Kerry cattle area. I come from that part of the country and, naturally, I am interested in that section. Although this section may be calculated to benefit that area. I think that, in actual fact, it is not really a just section at all. If you take Kerry itself, the cattle area there is only a smallish portion of the county, and there are other parts adjacent to that area on both sides where circumstances are quite similar. Personally, I should suggest to the Minister that, unpopular as it is in my own area, the whole section should be re-drafted so as to permit of the levy being adjusted or restricted, if the Minister wishes to do so, according to the individual circumstances prevailing in any district. I suggest that the Minister could define districts in exactly the same way as in the case of the Gaeltacht. I believe, however, that, as the section stands, the Minister will not be able to meet the case he wants to meet, and that it will only lead to injustice. I think that any other points I wished to mention have been dealt with by other speakers already.

Cathaoirleach

The Minister to conclude.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

Most of the discussion on this Bill centred round the levy on farmers' butter, and perhaps if I can make that matter somewhat clear I will have dealt with most of the arguments that have been raised on this Bill. I want to make it clear to Senator Jameson and others that a subsidy out of Government funds, which is covered by an Estimate put before the Dáil under "export bounties," is paid on butter. It covers the tariffs. As a matter of fact, up to a little while ago, we were giving 5/- more than the tariff on butter going into Great Britain. Now the price of butter has gone up, and the position to-day is that the subsidy given out of Government funds is exactly equal to the tariff, and we are legislating here as if there was no economic war. You can put the Government subsidy against the tariff. We are getting a price for butter from Great Britain as if we were paying no tariff. Of course, I cannot answer Senator Jameson's question as to whether the Government will continue to pay the amount of the tariff or not.

Mr. Jameson

Is it included in the Finance Bill that is to come before us later? I take it that it is one of the things which we will have an opportunity of debating on the Finance Bill?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. I cannot really say whether the Exchequer will continue to make up the full amount of the tariff. That will depend, to a great extent, on what the world price for butter is. If butter goes up on the British market to 120/- or 140/- per cwt., or some figure like that, it is possible that the Exchequer might drop out and say "that is quite sufficient." However, it is not very probable that the price will be raised to that figure. Senator Jameson appeared to find it difficult to understand how this Bill could benefit the industry, seeing, as he said, that we are taking the money from one person and giving it to another person in the industry. Perhaps it would be well if I were to give the House an example of how this operates. Suppose our exports were equal to our imports—an example of this kind will, I think, make it easier for Senators to understand the position—and, suppose, this Bill were not operating, if a person had 2 cwt. of butter to sell he would sell 1 cwt. of it in England for 80/- and the other cwt. at home for 80/-. He would sell at home at the export price, and would therefore be getting £8 for his 2 cwt. of butter. Suppose that we were to give a bounty of 20/- under the scheme proposed in this Bill, it would mean that he would be getting 80/- for the cwt. of butter he exported, and 20/- by way of bounty. That would give him 100/- for his cwt. of butter, and, naturally, he will not sell the second cwt. at home unless he gets 100/- for it. Failing to get that he will export it for 100/-. In that way, he gets £10 for his 2 cwt. of butter; he will pay £1 levy on it, and he receives the net sum of £9 instead of the £8 that he got under the first example I gave. I hope I have made that clear to the Senators.

This Bill, as I have said, is not the result of the economic war. I know, of course, that if I were to bring in a Bill here to rename the Clydesdale horse—to call it by some other name —there are certain Senators who would say that a measure like that had been introduced as a result of the economic war. In fact, I do not think that I have ever brought a Bill to the Seanad that was not described by some Senators as being a result of the economic war, and I suppose I shall never bring a Bill here that will not be so described by some Senators. That is how all these measures appear to Senator Counihan, Senator Miss Browne and a few other Senators.

Miss Browne

What about the calves?

Dr. Ryan

What about them? That was not a result of the economic war. There is another thing that I want to make clear. This is not a Bill to help the creameries as against farmers' butter. After all, if we are collecting the same levy on butter, whether it is creamery or farmers' butter, and if we are giving the same bounty on all that butter, how can it be said that this Bill is brought in to help the creameries at the expense of the farmers? What we are doing under the Bill is this: we are collecting the same levy from the creameries and from the farmers and we are giving the same bounty, so that both are in the same relative position. They are in the same position as if this Bill were not introduced at all. I said here earlier to-day that the price of New Zealand butter is so much. Let us say that it is 81/-, and that Irish Free State butter is 80/-. Putting the subsidy against the tariff, and with the bounty that we will be paying here, the creamery will get 100/- net. On the average, the creamery pays 20/- per cwt. for the cost of manufacture, so that after meeting all expenses the creamery is left with 80/- to pay to its suppliers. A factory making butter in this country at the present time will, after it has paid the tariff and having received the subsidy and the bounty out of this fund, get 93/-. It will get back about 91/- or 90/-. Its expenses will amount to about 10/-, so that it also will be left with about 80/- per cwt. to pay out to producers. In both cases you get the same average amount.

Senator Bagwell said that this Bill was a plan to encourage people to come together and put up creameries. I do not see that it offers any inducement to farmers at the present time to organise a creamery in their districts. If they churn their own milk and bring in their butter once a week to the local market they are entitled to get under this Bill 80/- per cwt. for it. If they bring it to the creamery they will also get 80/- per cwt., but if they take their milk to the creamery they will be put to the expense of delivering it there once a day. If any Senator doubts what I say on that, I am prepared to give him the names of three or four places with which I have been in communication in the last two or three weeks. In my letters to people in those districts I have advised them not to organise creameries. I have told them that in my honest opinion it would be better for them to go in for the production of farmers' butter under this Bill. I think that gives the House a good idea of what the Bill aims at.

Mr. Counihan

The Minister is guaranteeing a price to the creameries and to the factories, but there is no guarantee under the Bill for the farmer who sells his butter to the public.

Dr. Ryan

The Senator seems to think that the Government should control everything. Apparently he wants Government control all over. We want to allow the ordinary economic forces to work as much as possible. Senator Counihan may be one of those people who would like to see the methods of Soviet Russia in operation here, with Government control over everything. My desire is to go as little as possible in that direction. I was asked why we were proposing to take the levies from the farmers and not from the Exchequer. If any Senator has a suggestion to make to the Minister for Finance when he comes here with his Finance Bill that we should get the money from the Exchequer instead of having this levy, pointing out to him some other source from which he can raise the money, I can assure that Senator that he will have my strong support. I would be very glad to hear some Senator put a concrete suggestion on that before the Minister for Finance: that he should raise the money in some other way. Will some Senator be courageous enough to suggest to the Minister that he should put an extra tax on tea, sugar, bread, corporation profits tax or some other of the unpopular taxes that have been put on lately? If some Senator has the courage to do that, I for one will support him.

We have been told by Senator Miss Browne that the farmers will pay £300,000 in levies under this Bill. If they do, we will be able to pay a bounty of £6 per cwt. to the farmers. If Senator Miss Browne's figures are correct, then, under this Bill, farmer's butter will be worth 1/9 per lb., but the point is I do not believe her figures are correct. Senator Miss Browne quoted some other figures. She said that a farmer with ten cows will be paying £2 a week in levies. Well, that man must have wonderfully good cows. Each of them must be giving four gallons of milk per day, or more, in addition to what they give to meet the requirements of the man's own family in milk and butter, and allowing also for great efficiency in the churning. It is considered, I think, that 1 lb. of butter from 2½ gallons of milk represents very efficient churning in the home.

This Bill is not going to cost a lot for inspection. In addition to the inspectors already employed throughout the country eight additional inspectors will be required for areas not covered at the present time. Their employment will cost between £3,000 and £4,000 a year. I think it is only right that the cost of this inspection should come out of the butter fund, especially as the registration fees are going into it. In the case of most Bills of this kind, the registration fees go into the Exchequer, but in this particular case the registration fees are going into the butter fund, and the inspectors are to be paid out of it.

This is a Bill that really ought to have been drawn up by the butter industry itself, if it were properly organised, and not by the Government. That is what is done in other countries. Bills of this kind should be drawn up by the butter industry itself, and if that were done, naturally the industry would provide the cost of administering it.

Mr. Baxter

Will the present creamery inspectors do any inspection work?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, in the districts they are in. But these eight additional inspectors will be for the purpose of looking after districts in which creamery inspectors are not placed. They will not, of course, inspect for quality. It is not their job to inspect the quality of the butter, but rather to look after other matters : to see that the returns are properly kept, and so on. I do not quite understand the force of the argument that Senator Bagwell advanced against the Bill. He said it was a means of taking money out of one Irishman's pocket and putting it into another Irishman's pocket. I fear that is the result of a great deal of our legislation. Senator Bagwell, I believe, understands something about railways. Suppose a railway company wanted to increase fares, would it be a wrong argument to use that they were simply taking money out of an Irishman's pocket and putting it into the pockets of an Irish Railway Company? The object of most of our legislation is to try and do justice as between one Irishman and another, and why we should try to take money out of the pocket of anybody, except an Irishman, I do not know.

I do not agree with Senator Baxter that we should make a great drive at the present time to increase our exports because there is no doubt, taking the country as a whole, that we are exporting at a loss. It is quite evident that we could not export at 80/- per cwt. and give the producer a fair return. The result is that we have to bring in a Bill like this to give him some help on every cwt. of butter that he sends out. The home consumer has to pay a certain amount extra on the butter that he consumes at home in order to help. I do not think that it is a type of export that we ought to encourage. At the same time, I do not want to be taken as saying that we ought to discourage it, and one reason is that the number of cows in the country has been increasing rather rapidly in the last couple of years.

I agree with everything that Senator Baxter said about marketing. The Senator's speech on that was really helpful. There are, of course, certain difficulties in connection with it. To be quite frank, what I feel about it is this: that if I were to come down too strongly on the side of central marketing it might do harm because, as Senator Baxter has said, there is a certain amount of feeling against it still. I think that feeling against central marketing is disappearing and that it is much more likely to disappear altogether if those who are its advocates have not a Minister to deal with who is going too far in that direction. I feel that the Minister ought to try to take a middle line until we get things going, and whether I believe strongly in it or not, I think it would be wrong to take a very strong line on that question at the moment. I am very much inclined to leave the matter to this Provisional Committee which has been formed. I think that the Provisional Committee is doing well on the whole. The members have met with a good reception at the meetings which they have held and I think it is quite likely that we shall, in time, evolve a system of some sort of ordered or central marketing. With regard to winter dairying——

Mr. Baxter

Would the Minister deal with the point I raised with regard to Section 39?

Dr. Ryan

That is as to the minimum price. Senator Baxter holds that the minimum price will be very difficult to operate. I do not think it will because, after all, when we are dealing with creameries, we are dealing with very different people from private individuals such as were referred to under another Act. These creameries are co-operative. There will be, at least, a desire to co-operate in a scheme like this and the great majority of them will, I think, co-operate to get this minimum price enforced. Again, they have to keep their accounts and do their business in a very open way. If they were to evade a responsibility like this, they could not eventually conceal the fact. They would be found out. I doubt that any large number of creameries would try to conceal such a thing. The big majority would, I think, fall in with this proposal.

We have given very big encouragement to winter dairying during the last three years because, under the last Act, the levy was not collected from 1st December to 31st March. Last winter, that meant that butter was worth 39/- a cwt. more than for the other months. That is as big a difference as any Senator could expect in the way of encouragement for winter dairying. I do not know whether we can continue that very substantial difference. It all depends on how our bounty fund goes. If that is solvent on 1st December, we shall certainly exempt the producers completely from the levy during these four months. If it is necessary to make up any deficit in the fund on the 1st December, it may be necessary to continue the levy at some small rate—say 25 per cent. or 15 per cent. of what it was during the remainder of the year. Last year, we were in the happy position of having no deficit, so that we could take off the levy entirely.

I was told by several Senators that the provisions in this Bill for the collection of a levy on farmers' butter were most unpopular. I think they are. I got quite a number of communications from private individuals and public institutions protesting against this levy on farmers' butter. So far as I could see, these protests were practically all based on a misunderstanding of the measure. I am afraid it is rather hopeless to try to convince anybody that this measure is going to work out as anticipated. All I could do in the Dáil was to advise Deputies to wait and see how it would work. I think that Senator Dowdall is quite right on that point. The only thing which will prove whether the Senators who spoke against this measure are right or whether my Department and I are right is the manner in which the Act works when it is four or six weeks in operation. Senator Johnson has, I think, placed the burden of this levy better than anybody else. I think that it is going to come mostly, but not entirely, from the consumers. Senator Johnson asked me if I could give him the effects on the relevant positions of creamery and farmers' butter. What the Senator says is, I think, true—that farmers' butter is consumed more in the smaller towns than in the cities. It would, I think, be also true to say that, in the creamery counties, farmers' butter is not so much consumed as it is in the other counties. In any event, so far as this levy is concerned, in the four months from 1st December to 31st March, it will not make any difference, because there will probably be no levy during that time. Farmers' butter was, on the average, about 1/2 or 1/3 per lb. during those four months of last winter. I suppose it is likely to be the same price next winter and there will not be any difference whatsoever so far as those four months are concerned. Take the position in the other eight months. It has been claimed by certain Senators that farmers are getting 8d. or 9d. per lb. for their butter now. There is no doubt that, in those cases, the consumer will pay the full levy. No farmer is going to pay the levy and sell his butter at less than 1/- or so to any consumer, because it would pay him better to make it into a lump and sell it on the fresh butter market. No consumer, when this Bill is passed, will get butter at less than 1/1. Those who are buying butter at 8d. or 9d. per lb. now will probably have to pay 1/1 in future. Where 1/1 or 1/2 is being paid at the present time, the levy will, in all probability, be divided between the farmer and the consumer. How it will work out in the total, I find it difficult to say. It will not be a big amount when spread over the whole. The amount we expect to collect on farmers' butter under this Bill is £150,000.

Mr. Johnson

Five pence per pound of a difference is a large amount to a family consuming 2 lbs. or 3 lbs. of butter per week.

Dr. Ryan

That will only be in the case where the consumer is, at the present time, by a great stroke of luck, getting his butter at 8d. or 9d., while everybody else is paying from 1/2 to 1/5. We are expecting to collect about £150,000 altogether on farmers' butter. Last year, we collected about half that amount, so that this Bill is not going to take a great deal off the farmers' butter. The amount will be considerably less than £100,000—probably not more than £50,000 or £60,000. That is the difference which this Bill will make. I might have told Senator Johnson, when replying to his point, that a great deal of farmers' butter was levied last year. Whether the consumer or the producer paid that levy, there is going to be no change this year, so that the consumer will pay the same for butter in that case. The change which this Bill is making in the Act of 1932 refers only to a very small amount. The amount collected in levy on non-creamery butter last year was £58,000. We expect to collect about £150,000 this year. The difference, therefore, would be about £90,000.

I find it very difficult to reply to Senator Toal. He said that farmers' butter was going to be absolutely wiped out. Then he said that the people who are buying farmers' butter were, on account of having to pay the levy, going to be destroyed. If the farmers have to pay the levy, then the consumer will not have to pay it. If the consumer has to pay it, the farmer is all right. The Senator wound up by saying that the Government would never collect the levy, so that it would make no difference. If he had said that at first, it would not have been necessary to say any more. It is possible that the Seanad may be inclined to allow the Second Reading of this Bill through, with a division or without a division, with the intention of raising the question of the levy on farmers' butter later. It is absolutely impossible to work this scheme any further unless all butter is levied. If such an amendment were carried, it would be really a question of dropping the Bill entirely. I am stating that as a plain fact and not as a threat.

Mr. Jameson

There is provision in the Bill for an "appointed day." The "appointed day" is, I think, 1st April.

Dr. Ryan

After the Bill is passed.

Mr. Jameson

Certain classes have had an "appointed day" given them. They have made arrangements to meet the levy. Other classes of producers, particularly amongst the farmers, have had no notice served on them. Will the "appointed day" be the day after the passing of the Act so far as they are concerned? The levy will not go back to the month of April or May so far as they are concerned?

Dr. Ryan

It goes back to the 1st April only in the case of those who are paying the levy under the last Act. It will not go back in the case of those who are not paying the levy under that Act.

Mr. Jameson

That is not very clear in the Bill.

Question put and declared carried. Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 5th June.

Cathaoirleach

The House will remember the desire of the Minister to expedite the passing of the Bill, I am sure the House will do what it can to put through the Bill as quickly as possible.