HC Deb 24 April 1913 vol 52 cc517-9
35. Mr. NEWMAN

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he was present at a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Dairying held on 3rd October, 1912; whether at that meeting he gave the members present any assurance that the Irish Creameries and Dairy Produce Bill would be presented to this House in the precise shape in which it left the other House; and whether the Bill as now presented contains any alterations, additions, or omissions to the text of the measure as agreed to by the other House?

Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland)

During the progress last Session of the Irish Creameries and Dairy Produce Bill the House of Lords struck out a provision in Clause 1 which had been inserted at the request of the Board of Trade and the Board of Agriculture and without which they declined to allow the Bill to proceed. The only alteration of the slightest substance made in the Bill as now introduced is the insertion of a Sub-section to Clause 1 which makes the previous proviso clearer. The Department never gave any assurance that the Bill could proceed without the assent of the English Boards. The Board of Trade communicated with the Department before the introduction of the Bill this Session.


Was there a shorthand notetaker present at the meeting?


Yes, I have the notes in my hand. No such undertaking was ever given, and one of the sentences is that if the Board of Trade insisted on going on with this proviso as the price of the measure I should accept it.


Is it the intention to proceed with this Bill during the present Session?


That question was asked of the Prime Minister the other day, and the right hon. Gentleman gave the promise that he would consider the giving of facilities.


May I ask if the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society has given notice to oppose this Bill?


The Irish Agricultural Society is hostile to the views of the Board of Trade and the Board of Agriculture in this country, and it is to the proposal that they have made, and which was embodied in the proviso they object to. I have come to the conclusion, on full consideration of the whole case, that the Bill as it stands now, making the proviso clear, is a necessary part of the Bill, and that to leave out the proviso which the House of Lords considered would be unjust to the British trading interests.


Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Prime Minister that it is somewhat anomalous to subsidise an organisation in Ireland to oppose two Government Departments?


The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

36. Mr. NEWMAN

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that in trade circles the term creamery as applied to butter is universally understood to mean butter manufactured in an Irish creamery; whether Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Irish Creameries and Dairy Produce Bill, as at present drafted, would allow of inferior or non-creamery butter being purchased in Ireland and sold in this country as creamery butter to the detriment of the genuine article; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of such Amendment as will prevent this effect?


I cannot admit that in trade circles the term creamery as applied to butter is universally understood to mean butter manufactured in an Irish creamery. The term may be used with perfect propriety in connection with butter manufactured in an English, Scottish, or other creamery. Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill will not have the effect stated.


Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the term "creamery," is never applied to Danish butter in this country or English butter manufactured in this country?


That is exactly what I am not aware of. It is constantly so applied.