Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Jan 1931

Vol. 37 No. 1

Customs Duty on Butter. - In Committee on Finance.

Mr. Blythe

I now move:—

1. That a customs duty at the rate of fourpence the pound shall be charged, levied, and paid on all butter imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 23rd day of January, 1931.

2. That whenever the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that any butter which but for this clause would be chargeable with the duty mentioned in this Resolution is imported for use by the importer in the manufacture by him in Saorstát Eireann of articles of food mainly for exportation, the Revenue Commissioners may, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, permit such butter to be imported without payment of the duty mentioned in this Resolution.

3. That whenever the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that any butter which but for this clause would be chargeable with the duty mentioned in this Resolution complies with all the following conditions, that is to say—

(a) it is imported from Northern Ireland by a farmer resident in Northern Ireland, and

(b) it was made by the importer from the milk of his own cows, and

(c) the quantity imported by any one importer on any one day does not exceed fifty-six pounds, and

(d) it is imported for sale by the importer in a market town and is imported on a day which is a market day in that town,

the Revenue Commissioners may, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, permit such butter to be imported without payment of the duty mentioned in this Resolution.

4. That in relation to butter chargeable with the duty mentioned in this Resolution, Section 6 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879, shall have effect subject to the modification that the period of one month from the time of exportation shall be substituted for the period of five years from the time of exportation mentioned in that section.

5. That it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

The main clause there is a clause imposing a duty of 4d. per lb. The exceptions include some which were in the Resolution which has been discharged by the Dáil. One is to enable butter to be imported free of duty by any manufacturer of food to be included in the manufacture of articles of food mainly for exportation. No. 3 deals with the difficulty of the Northern Border towns. It deals with the cases of people coming from Northern Ireland and bringing their butter into the markets for sale in these Border towns. It was felt that injury and hardship would be imposed if those farmers could not bring the butter which they had manufactured themselves into the markets for sale. No. 4 deals with the provision in the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1879 which provides that any goods of Saorstát Eireann manufacture or production which has been exported from Saorstát Eireann may, within a period of five years, be re-imported free of duty. The Tariff Commission recommended in respect of butter that the period should be limited to one month; that butter could only be re-imported free of duty within a period of one month after its exportation. The object of that was to prevent the market being disturbed by movements of butter from Great Britain, although that butter was of Saorstát manufacture.

The application, as Deputies are aware, was for a duty of 4d. in the lb. on butter. That application stood, as it were, on two legs. The applicants asked for the tariff in order, firstly, that they might be enabled to retain certain quantities of the summer production in cold storage for sale in the winter: and, secondly, that there might be a means of stimulating the winter production of butter. I will read an extract from the report of the Tariff Commission. I might say that it had been usual not to let the report of the Tariff Commission out of the hands of the Executive Council until the appropriate Resolution had been introduced in the Dáil. In the case of butter, as there wás already what might be regarded as a prohibition in force, it was felt that the same precautions were not necessary. The report was sent to the printers and I understand that supplies will be available for distribution this evening. In the ordinary course of events the copies of the report would not be available for several days. In the course of their report the members of the Tariff Commission state:

If the applicants believe, and they appeared to us to be sincere in their belief, that in the long run it would be a sound commercial proposition to hold back some of the summer production for the purpose of diminishing the summer marketing difficulties and gaining the admitted benefits of an extension of the period during which a definite supply could be sent to the export market, it displays a considerable lack of enterprise on the part of producers that they are not prepared to adopt the practice, but instead look to the home market and expect the home consumer to bear the burden of insuring them to the extent of 4d. per lb. in respect of the quantity of butter held back. If the international winter price in future is to be very little different from the summer price—and this would seem to be indicated by such study of the matter as we have been able to make—the applicants might, with some show of reason, claim to be safeguarded to the extent of 1½d. per lb. to cover cost of cold storage, interest on capital, and insurance, but it is difficult to see why the consumer should be taxed to the extent of the further 2½d. per lb. To make an arguable case for 4d. some such state of affairs as the following would have to exist: Suppose the international price of butter in the summer of 1931 were 120/- per cwt., and that the price in the following winter fell to 96/8, then if there were a tariff of 4d. per lb., or 37/4 per cwt., the home winter price would be 134/- per cwt. The difference between 120/-and 134/- equals 1½d. per lb., which means that the producer would just cover the expense (cold storage, interest on capital, and insurance) involved in holding back from summer to winter. It is difficult to conceive such a disparity in future between summer and winter prices. Heretofore, it was almost an axiom that winter prices were higher than summer prices, sometimes substantially so. It would be rash to assume that because in the late autumn of 1930 there was a general slump in prices which brought the autumn prices under the prices ruling last summer the old axiom would have to be completely reversed. Whilst we conceive that the disparity between summer and winter prices is tending to disappear, owing to the quantities of Southern Hemisphere butter coming into Great Britain and the increasing degree to which orderly marketing is being achieved, we can see no reason why the change should lead to anything except more or less uniform monthly price levels throughout the year, and we are disposed to think that the application for 4d. per pound as a permanent tariff has been made in the shadow of the recent slump. Our conclusion on this aspect of the applicants' case is that it is at least doubtful whether a tariff can be justified as an instrument to cover, in the marketing end of the industry, a risk which may, on commercial grounds, be regarded as a reasonable one to take for the eventual benefit of the producers, and that in any event the applicants have failed to sustain a case for the imposition of a tariff amounting to as much as 4d. per pound for such a purpose.

The Tariff Commission found that the application for a tariff of 4d. could not be sustained for the purpose of enabling summer produced butter to be held over for winter consumption. They proceeded to examine in detail the question of the possibility of extending winter dairying. Detailed arguments, which would be too long for me to read out to the Dáil, were entered into and they came to the conclusion that if a tariff of 4d. per lb. were put on butter it would lead to an increased price for milk during the winter. They say, finally, that on the ground that an increased winter price for milk is necessary in order to stimulate winter production, and on the ground that the adoption of winter dairying will result in a net gain to the national wealth, they have come to the conclusion that the tariff might be granted and they therefore recommend a tariff of 4d. per lb.

They also indicate in another part of the Report that if, after a trial of, presumably, a reasonable period of years, it is not found that the tariff of 4d. has led to any increase in winter dairying, then the whole matter should be reconsidered afresh. The tariff, therefore, is recommended by the Tariff Commission and it is proposed by the Government on the grounds that the increase of 4d. or less per pound for butter during the winter will probably lead to an increase—whether a great or a very small increase will only be seen later— of winter dairying and that that in its turn will lead to a certain increase of tillage and will be generally beneficial.

There are certain other recommendations in the Report and one is that the Minister for Agriculture should take steps to have full information made available by his Department and published in regard to the quantity of butter in cold storage at any particular time. The Commission points out that if there were no uniform regulations as to the quantity of butter in cold storage excessive quantities might be kept back from the summer sales, with the consequence that there would not only be no increase in the winter price, but that there would possibly be a decrease in the winter price, with, of course, the opposite results to those which the Commission expects may be derived from the imposition of a tariff on butter imports.

Mr. de Valera

When the proposition was before the Dáil last November for what amounted to a prohibitive tariff, although that motion was introduced under circumstances admitting, at any rate, of not a little suspicion as to the motives of the Minister for Agriculture in supporting it, nevertheless we welcomed it. We took it that it was the first evidence of a step in the direction which we think the Executive ought to go in the general interests of the community. We welcome this step as further evidence, and we are going to support this motion. But it seems rather strange to me, seeing that the whole purpose, from the Minister's point of view, of the Tariff Commission was to give us the facts on which we could form a sound judgment, that the Minister did not see to it that the members of the Dáil who will be asked to give their judgment on this motion to-day were not supplied with these facts as revealed in the report of the Tariff Commission. There is no excuse at all for withholding that information from the members of the Dáil. The Minister for Finance has admitted that there were no dangers attending the publication of the finding of the Tariff Commission or the intentions of the Ministry to impose this tariff. None of the dangers that might ordinarily arise was present in this case. Why is it then that we have not been given the information which the Ministers themselves think is so necessary for them to have in order to make up their minds? Why is not that information available for the other members of the House? There was in this case no danger of forestalling.

We had reason to find fault with the Minister for Agriculture for injudicious statements previous to the imposition of the prohibition on butter in November last. I remember at that time he questioned whether his speech had, in fact, in any way affected the situation. On examining the statistics of imports we see that after his statement three or four times the usual amount of butter came into the country. We could understand the withholding of this report if there was a danger of forestalling. We see no such danger in the present instance. There are other items of information we would like to have, and which I think the Minister, in proposing this motion, could and should have given us. Why is it that we are asked here not to agree to the Resolution from the Committee on Finance maintaining the prohibition? The prohibitive tariff has been taken off. I think the Minister should have given us information as to the present condition of stocks; whether the removal of the prohibition is due to the fact that existing stocks are so depleted that extra supplies have to be allowed in from outside. We are supporting this motion because of the fact that we think the Ministry is moving in the direction in which it is wise for the Executive in charge of the country's affairs at the moment to move. We are glad that no unnecessary time has been lost by the Tariff Commission in reporting. We only wish that other matters which have been referred to the Tariff Commission were dealt with as rapidly. Some of us, when coming here to-day, hoped to find that there would be a resolution dealing with the coachbuilding industry, where a tariff has also been asked for. We are supporting the motion, and we are very glad that it has been brought forward.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

I am sure every Deputy will agree with me that it is extremely difficult to have anything like an intelligent discussion on this motion in the absence of the report of the Tariff Commission. We cannot be expected to form a conclusion from the statements that were read out by the Minister. I was rather surprised that he did not tell the House something of the effects of the previous motion putting a tariff of 11d. per lb. on butter, and how things had developed as a result of that tariff. Certainly I expected some details so far as that matter is concerned. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: What is the main object in putting this extra duty of 4d. per lb. on butter? We must remember what that means to the consumer of butter. In the ordinary working-class family, especially where there are young children, and where the consumption would possibly be three pounds of butter, this tariff means raising the cost of living by one shilling weekly. That is a very serious proposition, one to which Deputies on these benches would have to give special attention. We are told that the main object of a tariff on butter was to help the producers of milk. I would like to be more satisfied than I am at present that the benefit will go back to the producers of milk before I could be wholeheartedly in favour of this particular tariff. I would be anxious to hear, possibly from the Minister for Agriculture, the extent to which farmers have benefited during the last two months as a result of the increased price charged to consumers of butter. Those who store butter, the wholesalers, have made something out of it, and, no doubt, the retailers also had their share, but I have not met any farmer or any milk producer who has stated that the tariff has put more money into his pocket or that it has increased the price of the milk he is supplying. If it is not clear to us that it has had that effect, then we should be very slow about calling on the consumer to pay extra money for butter. The Minister has said nothing as to whether there would be any necessity to control prices, or whether any step would be taken by him or by the Department of Agriculture, as promised, for instance, in the case of the margarine tariff. There has been no statement to that effect, except a rather vague kind of reference about which I would like to hear more. As far as I could gather, the Minister stated that on the ground of enabling the summer production to be disposed of profitably in the winter time, the recommendation was turned down.

Mr. Blythe

Yes. What the Report really suggested was there might have been a case for 1½d. for that purpose, but that certainly there was no case for 4d.

Mr. O'Connell

The real object was to encourage winter dairying. That is a laudable object but I suppose we must wait to see the report of the Tariff Commission before we can say on what grounds their hopes are based, that there will be any such increase in milk production in the winter time. I am not clear either as to whether the process will not go on of storing butter during the summer months when there is increased production for the purpose of getting a better price in the winter. It is stated that the Minister for Agriculture has to keep an eye on that particular end of the business, and from what the Minister read I understand there was some recommendation to that effect in the report. It is not at all clear what the Minister for Agriculture can do. For instance, it is not clear that he could say at any particular time during the summer: "You are not to put this amount of butter into cold storage; you are to allow it to go on the market." All these matters raise very important issues, especially from the point of view of the working class people who have to buy butter. While we do not propose to oppose the motion before the House, we cannot give it any more than qualified support until we have a good deal more knowledge of the facts.

There is one thing especially that we shall be keen on and that is, to see that steps will be taken to ensure that there is no such thing as profiteering as a result of this tariff. Perhaps it is not appropriate to refer at this stage to the failure of the Government to bring in legislation or to do anything in regard to the recommendations of the Food Prices Commission, but it is on an occasion like this that one is reminded of the Government's failure in that direction. If we are prepared to support this motion we do so conditionally, and with considerable reserve, more especially as we are not satisfied from any evidence before us at present, or from anything we can find out that the people who are producing the milk are benefiting to the full extent as a result of this tariff, and that it is not someone else who comes between the producer and the consumer who is getting the greatest advantage out of it. We would have no support for a proposal that would bring about such a state of affairs. We have sympathy for the producer and for the consumer but not for those who come between them and make most of the profit.

The Minister for Finance

rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude.

Mr. Flinn

Can the Minister give the House some of the information that has been asked for which would enable us intelligently to debate the matter?

Mr. Good

Might I point out, before the Minister replies, that it is exceedingly difficult for a Deputy to form a considered opinion on a proposal of this character in the present circumstances. One is anxious to do the best one can for the country, but we have before us at the moment no evidence at all on which to come to a decision, one way or another. Like other Deputies, I am in a considerable difficulty on the question. I should like to know what advantages are going to accrue to the farmer from this proposal. The farmer has the sympathy of all Deputies in this House, but, before this tax is put on the consumer, I should like to have evidence that the farmer is going to benefit by it. Up to the present we have had no evidence at all. The report of the Commission, for obvious reasons, is denied us. Before I would vote for this proposal there would have to be a very definite and clear statement from a Minister. We should like to hear the Minister for Agriculture on the subject. He has spoken on it before. If the Minister for Agriculture is not disposed to intervene in the debate and to give us the information we require, I take it that that information will be supplied by some other Minister. I should like to have more definite information than we have had from the Minister for Finance up to the present, particularly as regards the benefit which will accrue to the farmer, before voting for this proposal.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan)

I think that this debate is being carried on under a misapprehension. The usual procedure, when a tariff is being imposed, is to move such a resolution as has been moved here to-day. In the nature of the case, the resolution must be before the House at a time when it can have no information on the merits of the proposal.

Mr. Lemass

Why?

Mr. Hogan

As a rule, you cannot publish the report of the Tariff Commission—particularly if you are going to carry out the recommendations of the Commission—until you have taken the first step.

Mr. Flinn

In this case you can, because there is prohibition.

Mr. Hogan

The procedure I have outlined is the usual procedure. There are always two steps, and it is realised that, as a rule, a tariff must be imposed in this way: firstly a resolution is moved; the report of the Tariff Commission is not then before the House. That resolution is reported after about three weeks. The report of the Commission is then before the House and the whole question is debated with full knowledge by everybody. As far as I am concerned, I am very anxious that this question should get the fullest publicity and should be debated by every party with the fullest possible information. I think that this is an extremely important tariff and raises very acute issues. I want to see that the House and the country have the fullest information on the subject before the tariff is imposed. But I suggest that it would be a waste of time for me to make a long and considered statement on this question, at this stage, in view of the fact that the report is not before Deputies and in view of the fact that they cannot have the information contained in it which would enable the question to be discussed intelligently. I suggest that the business-like way to deal with the question is to follow the usual procedure. The resolution is now before the House. It will be reported when the Dáil meets again. This very long report of the Tariff Commission will be in the hands of Deputies for a fortnight or three weeks before the Dáil meets. If Deputies think, then, that this tariff should not be imposed, they can, with full knowledge, after weighing the pros and cons with the benefit of all the information contained in the report before them, turn down this resolution.

We are asked why the report is not in the hands of Deputies. There is quite a simple answer to that question. This report came out less than a week ago. It took up to last night to print it. It could have been circulated at mid-day to-day to Deputies but that would have been of no benefit to them.

Mr. Lemass

The Dáil could meet to-morrow.

Mr. Hogan

If the Dáil met tomorrow, and if that report were placed before them, Deputies would ask how we expected them to go into the details of that report in one night. That is exactly what they would ask. We are trying to deal with the matter in a business-like way. The usual procedure is to report the resolution after adequate time for its consideration has been given. We are prepared to give time for adequate consideration in this case, as we have done in the case of every other tariff. As far as I am concerned, I do not want to see this tariff completed until the report is out, until the Dáil has all the facts and we are in a position to debate the question in all its aspects and let the country know exactly what it is being let in for. I think that answers Deputy Good's and Deputy O'Connell's point.

Mr. Flinn

Are we to understand that we are not to get any of that information?

Mr. Hogan

What information?

Mr. Flinn

Information as to what has been going on in the interval.

Mr. Hogan

Certainly.

Mr. Flinn

I happen to be entirely in favour of this tariff because, over a period, I am satisfied that whatever tariff is imposed will get back to the primary producer. But what has been occurring in the interval most certainly should be within our knowledge. It is within the knowledge of the Minister for Agriculture, if he knows anything about his job. The House ought to have been told what the amount of the stocks were, to what extent they have been depleted, to what extent renewed, who has got rid of them and who has not got rid of them. I have here returns showing that the dealers are being called on by the co-operative creameries to sell to them the stocks which they have on hands. Surely, information of that kind ought not to have to come from a private Deputy. The Minister ought to be able to tell us, and ought to tell us, what the stocks are, who had them, where they have gone and what the position now is. Will the Minister tell us what the amount of stock now is as compared with what it was when the tariff was imposed? Will he tell us whether, in the immediate future, we ought to anticipate the necessary import of butter or not, or is he simply going to leave us in the dark? The carefully-selected, thought-out reticence which distinguishes the gentlemen opposite does not make for sound discussion of or sound decision upon economic questions. Reticence of this kind is perfectly improper. I am entirely in favour of the tariff, taken over a period, because, as far as I can see, whether the tariff is big or whether it is small, it will get back to the primary producer, who wants it. The man in this country who at present is the lowest paid is the small farmer and the small farmer's labourer. All the other people, who are very largely living on him, are receiving rates of remuneration which are altogether higher than his. One is very sympathetic to a tariff of this kind even if it were only from the point of view of redistributing the wealth in the country. If only from that point of view, this tariff over a period of time can be defended and can be defended by people as critical of tariffs as I am.

Certainly we are being treated with very ill-judged reticence by the Ministers when they fail to put their cards on the table and tell us what has been happening in the interval. They have had full opportunity if they chose to give us the information. We have been told in the ordinary case that you cannot give the information before you introduce the legislation, because you give the game away. In this case you were not giving the game away, because you had already complete prohibition which prevented any of the ordinary evil effects of premature disclosure. In this case they have not disclosed the particulars, and they have treated the Dáil with very grave disrespect. They have treated with very grave disrespect those whom they are asking to come to a decision. Every one of us is now coming to a decision on this matter purely and simply on the basis of our own preconceive opinions and ideas on the subject. We are coming to a decision without any help whatever, or any of the help we ought to have had from the investigations and the facts put before the Tariff Commission. If we are taking that decision in that way, the fault rests with the Ministry, who have failed to give us this information or have deliberately chosen to keep it back.

Mr. Cassidy

The Minister for Agriculture stated that he was under the impression that this debate was going on altogether under a misapprehension. I submit to the Executive Council that any misapprehension that might exist is due to laxity on the part of the Government in giving insufficient information. It will be remembered that in November last the House decided that it was necessary to put a tariff on imported butter. The tariff put on on that occasion was approximately 10½d. per lb. One would naturally have expected that the Minister for Finance, in submitting the Financial Resolution, or the Minister for Agriculture in the course of his statement, would have given some reason why it was necessary to alter the tariff from 10½d. to 4d. per lb. That has not been done. Consequently, as far as the debate is concerned, there is a misapprehension in the mind of Deputies. There is an old saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and there is no doubt that the little knowledge which exists on this matter as far as the House is concerned, there is a misapprehension neither the report of the Tariff Commission nor the verbatim report of the evidence given before the Commission has been made available for Deputies.

I desire to register an emphatic protest against the procedure adopted here to-day. When the creameries made an application to the Commission for a tariff of 4d., and when the Tariff Commission reported, I submit that Deputies should have been put in possession not alone of the report of the Commission, but of the verbatim report of the evidence given before the Commission. It may be pointed out that it was not desirable for that procedure to be adopted, but, in view of the fact that a tariff of 10½d. or 11d. per pound already existed, I submit that the Minister should have been able to give that information to the House. It has not been given. The House has been called together, and I suppose approximately £250 has been expended in bringing the House together. If that amount of money has been expended, surely Deputies should be placed in full possession of all the information in the hands of the Government in order that they might form a proper opinion in regard to this question. That has not been done and Deputies, if I may use the expression, are more or less groping in the dark owing to the fact that they have not sufficient evidence at their disposal.

I was glad to hear Deputy O'Connell express the hope that the Government would do something to control prices, because although it is the intention of Deputies on these benches to support the tariff at the same time we believe that the consumer should be protected and that profiteering should not be allowed to go on as it has been going on in the past, and that any benefit that will accrue from this tariff should not accrue to the middleman but to the small farmer, because we submit that any profits which have accrued from the increased prices have not accrued to the farmers or to the producers but rather to the middlemen. We hope that the Minister for Agriculture will make some statement with regard to the policy on this matter, so that Deputies will know when the tariff is put on that profiteering will not be allowed to go on.

Mr. Gorry

I should like to ask Deputies as a whole not to be too critical about the imposition of this tariff of fourpence because at present on all sides various plans are being devised for helping the farmers, and I think that the imposition of this tariff is going to do something to help the dairying farmers. I speak as a farmer and one who represents three creameries. We had a meeting on this subject quite recently and we were associated in regard to this application to the Tariff Commission to which the Government have now acceded. This is a good thing and should be welcomed by every fair-minded person. There are people who are inclined to stress the situation on behalf of the consumer a little too much. I think that if consumers and people who are well-off and who have not to struggle through life like the farmers against adverse circumstances would consider that it takes at least 2¼ gallons of milk to make a pound of butter and base their calculation on that, they will find they are not a bit too generous, if they want to give a living wage to the farmer for milking the cows, tending them and producing crops to feed them and pay rent and taxes and the employees of the creameries, etc., in paying 1/4 or 1/6 per lb., for butter. No thanks are due to an Irishman to prefer to buy a pound of Irish butter and in that way help out the farmers of the country rather than be interested in bringing in butter from the ends of the earth at a lower price simply because it will save him a few shillings in the year. If we had a better give-and-take policy between the cities and towns and the country districts, both sections of the people helping out each other, the farmers and the agricultural workers anxious to see more industries and thereby a better market for their produce in the cities and towns and vice versa, we would get much further. This small tariff, as I classify it, is very timely. The existing tariff has removed the chaos which existed in the dairying industry because many farmers in the dairying districts had made up their minds to sell their cows and either to go wholesale or gradually out of production. That would be very serious for the farmers and for the dairying industry, because we must remember that the dairying wing of our agriculture is something worth saving as it represents at least two or three millions per year. I hold that if we can do anything which will encourage the dairying farmers, particularly in the mixed tillage districts, to go in for winter production, we will be doing what we really want.

At a later stage we will be discussing improvements in the marketing of Irish butter. One serious matter is that the Irish creamery industry goes out of production and goes off our foreign markets in the winter and in the spring time we have to come in again and try to recapture those markets. If we can help by a tariff to encourage the winter production of butter it will help us to fill up our own supply, instead of bringing in a supply from abroad, and at the same time help to hold the markets for the creameries of the country when they come back into production in March.

There are several grounds on which the Dáil should be unanimous in regard to this proposal. During the period that the prohibitive tariff has been in force I am glad to say—and I think every fair-minded farmer who knows anything about the dairying industry will agree—it has done much to stimulate and promote the dairying industry in Ireland. It definitely increased the price, and it steadied things up a great deal. It has given a new outlook and hope to the farmers, and I do not think the increased price to the consumers is too big a sacrifice to be made on behalf of the industry. The retention of good cows by the farmer instead of having them sold across Channel, and of the breeding heifers at home, means a great deal. Anything that helps agriculture should be catered for and assisted. I say definitely the farmers of the new creamery districts desire to be assisted. I am in contact with the district that made this application for a tariff, and we are perfectly satisfied that the imposition of the tariff already has done very great service to the dairying industry. We hope that there will be no dissentient voice in regard to the imposition of this tariff. I, for one, hope that no matter whether we represent town or country we will be unanimous in favour of this motion.

I should like to point out that the creameries are not anxious to mulct the consumers. As a matter of fact, if you examine the advance in prices since the imposition of the Tariff prohibition you will find that most creameries have not taken full advantage of the advance in the prices that prevail. That is all to their credit. A lot of the alarm some people try to raise as regards the consumer is not founded on fact. There is another thing to be remembered: the price of 1/5 or 1/6 now prevailing, even in Dublin, is not as high as last year. I put it that the people in the cities and towns with fixed salaries and regular employment are not paying too much for their butter at 1/5 or 1/6 per lb. They are not in any worse condition than last year, but the farmers are very materially in a worse position than last year. They had to suffer from March on owing to the decrease in prices. The returns for the season show a loss of £3 or £4 per cow, and to a farmer with ten or twelve cows that is a very serious matter. I put it no further than that. I hope when the full facts are before Deputies they will consider them impartially, and that the Dáil will be unanimously in favour of this 4d. tariff as necessary for the protection and stimulation of the dairying industry, and for the help of the agricultural industry generally in the country.

Mr. Coburn

On the last occasion when an import duty of nearly 11d. in the lb. was put upon butter I was opposed to it, and I think that my opposition on that occasion has gained many supporters since. I find that Deputies are a little more careful on this occasion with regard to the imposition of a tariff on butter than they were on the previous occasion.

Mr. Hogan

Exactly.

Mr. Coburn

Like most Deputies in this House, I have sympathy with the farmers.

Mr. Gorey

Lip sympathy.

Mr. Coburn

I recognise that the farming industry is the chief industry in this country, but I want to be convinced that this duty of 4d. in the lb. will be an advantage to the dairy farmers, as Deputy Gorey designated them. Will the men who produce the milk receive an increased price as a result of this imposition? We have no statistics with regard to prices to show that this additional 4d. will be of any advantage whatever to the dairy farmer, and until it is proved to my satisfaction that the position of the dairy farmer will be bettered, to a large extent, as a result of this import duty, I intend to vote against it. Some Deputies said they would only give a qualified support to this duty in the absence of the information they require. In the absence of such information the wisest course to adopt is to vote against the resolution altogether until the necessary information is before the House.

Deputy Gorry referred to people with fixed incomes and salaries, and said they were not paying too dear when asked to give 1/6 per lb. for their butter. But what about the poor man with a large family whose earnings do not exceed 20/-, 25/-, or 28/- a week? What about the farm labourer who, perhaps, is not employed for the whole of the year; and what about the thousands of labourers in cities and towns whose employment is very precarious indeed? It would be all very well if you were able to divide the people into sections, and told the people with fixed incomes that they would have to pay 1/6 per lb. for their butter, and were able to give it cheaper to the poorer people. That is impossible at the moment. I hold that what is wanted is cheap food and a reduction of overhead charges. That is what the farmer wants. I gave expression to these opinions on the last occasion, and I am doing the same now. That is what the farmer wants. Let us recognise that we are living in a poor country and stop trying to imitate richer countries, and in a short time the farming industry will be in better position than it is at present. I am convinced that this tariff on but ter will be of no absolute advantage to the farmer. It is only going to benefit the creameries and enable them to put butter into cold storage in order that they may have it for export to Great Britain during the winter season. There is no evidence to show that winter dairying is going to be increased. I have made inquiries amongst persons whose knowledge is as good as Deputy Gorey's, and one man told me that winter dairying would bankrupt the farmers in this country, and that it is impossible to make winter dairying pay in this country.

I would like to know, also, what are the reasons why the butter manufacturers in the Free State last year could not find a market in Great Britain. Why was it they had to put butter into cold storage in view of the fact that the Minister for Agriculture said that we were out to capture the British market? In place of that we find large quantities of butter unsold, and Irish consumers are now supposed to give this big price, this extra 4d. for the benefit of a section of Irish farmers and not for the whole. When Deputy Gorry speaks of the dairy farmers I would like to point out to him the case of the Cooley farmers who were selling potatoes at £5 per ton last year and less.

Mr. Gorry

We sympathise with them.

Mr. Coburn

But nothing has been done for those farmers.

Mr. Gorry

There has been.

Mr. Coburn

Absolutely nothing has been done for the farmers of Louth who had to sell their oats at 9/- or 10/- per barrel and their barley at 14/- or 15/-. These prices are not economic, still we do not find the Minister for Agriculture getting up here and putting on a tariff on oats or barley or doing anything to help the Cooley farmer.

Mr. Gorey

Prohibit potatoes from going to Cooley.

Mr. Coburn

They are shillings a ton. If Deputy Gorey desires to speak he can get up afterwards and speak for three hours if he wishes, but it is seldom that I interrupt and I intend to express my views here. The only redeeming feature about this financial resolution is contained in paragraph three in which the Minister has seen the justice of the claims put forward by merchants and other business men in the towns along the Border. He is going to allow butter from the Northern towns along the Border to come in free. I must thank the Minister very much for that because, really, the duty imposed in November last had a very injurious effect on those towns. Dundalk, as Deputies know, owing to its geographical position, is the market town for a large number of people who live on the northern side of the Border. As a result of that tariff the traders, especially those at the northern end of the town, suffered very severely on market days. I think that the Minister has done a good day's work in making provision for the free entry into Border towns in the Free State of butter, manufactured by farmers in Northern Ireland. I repeat, that in the absence of information which would convince me that a tariff of fourpence per pound would be of advantage to the dairy farmers, or people of the Saorstát, I intend to take up the same attitude as I took up on the previous occasion and vote against the motion.

Mr. Gorey

I thought that there was not going to be a debate on the merits of this question until we had the full report of the Tariff Commission before us. In view, however, of the expressions of opinion which we have heard from certain Deputies, some of us feel that we must take part in the debate and explain the farmers' point of view. The question of tariffs is no new one here. We do not regard this tariff of fourpence as a compliment to the farmers because it is only a small percentage of what is due to them. We produce for eight months of the year a surplus of butter for export and for four and a half months we do not produce quite enough to meet the home demand. We produce more than half the butter required at home for about four months, so that it is only a question of dealing with the supply for four, or four and a half months, because during the remaining months we have a surplus of butter going out of the country. What would that mean in cwts? Let us say, it would be 13,000 or 14,000 cwts., per month.

Mr. Hogan

37,000 cwts. per month.

Mr. Gorey

If we are producing half of that and if the consumer has to pay 4d. a lb.—that is problematical, and cannot say whether he will have to pay or not—it means 4d. a lb. on 14,000 cwts. for four months. That is the whole question. How much are we giving for wearing apparel? How much have the farmers to pay for boots owing to tariffs? When such tariffs were proposed we had not all this grumbling from industrial representatives. If we ask for a limited tariff for four months to meet the requirements of the country all we get is a certain amount of lip sympathy, but if such sympathy cost anything we would not get it. Lip sympathy is cheap, and it is all that the farmers of the country ever get from the politicians. If the farmers were not a big force in the country they would not get even lip sympathy. We hear a lot of talk from professional and business men in opposition to this tariff, but I would ask, have professional fees been reduced from the standard to which they were raised during the war? Some of us know what it is to go to a legal or medical specialist. Have official salaries come down? Have labour costings been reduced? Has output been increased? Has the standard of business profits come down since the war?

Mr. Good

Yes.

Mr. Gorey

Not one.

Mr. Good

All of them.

Mr. Coburn

Have the fees of directors of factories come down?

Mr. Gorey

If the Deputy is referring to me, I can tell him that my fee is half-a-crown a day and third-class railway fare. My fee has not come down.

Mr. Hogan

Are your working days shorter?

Mr. Gorey

When I go to Waterford I get half-a-crown for lunch—a good lunch—and third-class train fare.

An Ceann Comhairle

About the tariff on butter.

Mr. Gorey

About the tariff on butter, as I have said, I did not think that we were going into the merits of the question without having the report of the Tariff Commission before us. I did not think that that was the intention. As Deputy Gorry has said, you have given a certain amount of confidence to dairy farmers by this tariff. It may not mean more to them in money, but you have given them what is as valuable as money, namely, greater confidence in that industry. I speak as a dairy farmer and as one who lives in a dairying district. You may not have a large increase in winter dairying as a result of this tariff, but you will have cows calving earlier. Instead of having them calving in April and May, they will calve in January and February. If you want to have good cow records you will not get them except from early, or reasonably early, calving. I believe that this tariff will do an immense amount of good in that direction. As I have said, it may not mean more money to the dairy farmers, but it will give them increased confidence in the industry in which they are engaged.

Mr. O'Hanlon

In the absence of the full report of the Tariff Commission, I do not think that it is wise for us to enter into the details of this question. To my mind this tariff of fourpence per lb. on butter does not, except in one particular instance, alter the conditions that prevailed when the eleven-penny tariff was put on. I do not believe that these conditions will be changed in any way except in the case touched on by the third clause in the Resolution. I think that that is the only justification which the Government has for calling us together at a special meeting of this Dáil to consider this question. It could easily have been kept over until February 18th, because the whole question of the marketing of butter will be in the same position then as on the 23rd January, when this tariff comes into operation.

The difference between a tariff of 11d. and one of 4d. will not affect present conditions except in the case of the remission given to allow small quantities of butter to come into the Border towns in the Free State, as was the case hitherto before the 11d. tariff was imposed. That remission will assist the Border towns, as there will not be excluded from the markets in those towns the people who used them in the past, especially for the sale of butter.

When we come to debate the merits of this question I hope that the report of the Tariff Commission will disclose in the evidence some reason why this condition of affairs in the Irish butter trade has come to a crisis this winter. That is really more important than the imposition of this tariff, which is really only a kind of expediency measure. That is my opinion, an uneducated opinion, if you like. This whole position has come about through the blundering of those who marketed Irish butter in the last few years. I would be glad to have it proved that I am wrong in that opinion, but in my view, if the Tariff Commissioners have not been too hasty in their examination of the subject, the facts disclosed in the evidence before that Commission will justify the statement that Irish butter has not been properly marketed for the last few years. As I said at the opening of my remarks, it is perfectly futile to attempt to debate this question in all its aspects without having the report of the Tariff Commission before us. Although I am a firm believer in having as much free trade as possible, and am generally opposed to tariffs, I am prepared to hold my hand in regard to this matter until I see the report of the Tariff Commission.

Mr. Cole

I merely rise to say that I do not think there is a demand for this tariff. I have been discussing this question with a good many farmers and with a number of creamery managers, and I find that generally we do not want this tariff, and that we could get on much better without it. When we come to ask ourselves what is the reason for cheap butter, what is the reason for cheap beef, or the reason for the cheapness of anything, we find one answer—unemployment. Until we get rid of unemployment we will have these low prices. I would like to ascertain from those who supported this tariff, even those farmers who supported it, who is going to pay it. I also ask them if they have read the report in this morning's paper of the meeting of the Cattle Traders' Association at which it was stated that the reason we are not getting prices for our cattle is that railway freights are far too high. If that is so, what is the reason for it? Is it not because of the high cost of living? If we further increase the cost of living, do we not also increase the cost of railway freights, because the board of directors will say: "We cannot reduce the salaries or the wages of the men," and the men will say: "We cannot take less wages, because the cost of living is much greater than what it was." For these reasons, until I get a further demand from the creameries in my constituency, I must oppose this tariff.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan)

There were a few questions asked which are relevant to the debate, and I think they should be answered. Deputy Coburn asked both of them, and other Deputies asked them also. They have been answered often, and I wonder the answers are not known. We are asked whether the benefits of this tariff, if any, will go to farmers or to dealers. That is a reasonable question, but I am surprised that it should be asked at this hour of the day. I thought everybody knew, even members of the House who are not farmers, that practically all the creamery butter produced in the country is produced by the farmers' creameries. There are about 650 creameries in the country at present. Of these, 600 are owned by farmers and 50 owned by individual proprietors. Deputies can take it that the proprietary creameries are not on the whole nearly as large as the co-operative creameries, and it is right to say that 92 or 93 per cent. of the output of creamery butter is controlled at the present moment by farmers, and the benefits, if there are any, conferred by this particular tariff will go back straight into the farmers' pocket.

Mr. MacEntee

Has the Minister any doubt about it?

Mr. Hogan

No.

Mr. MacEntee

About the benefits?

Mr. Hogan

Oh, yes, I have considerable doubt. In fact, I am myself much in the same position as a lot of Deputies who find that their enthusiasm for tariffs has been very much modified by the operation of the butter tariff. I suspect that even Deputies opposite find themselves in a cleft stick, but they have to go on with it. Generally I find a note of pessimism in the House which I never noticed before. For the first time I find that after we have had an experience for about three months of a good swinging tariff, the merits of which could be exactly measured, unlike the tariff on boots and clothes, at last some doubts are entering the minds of Deputies as to the efficacy of tariffs to solve all our ills. I have considerable doubts as to what the ultimate effect of this will be, and I repeat that I want the House and the country to have every opportunity of examining every relevant consideration connected with this tariff before it is finally passed. I do not mind having two debates. I do not mind debating this question for a week if we can get anywhere. I do not mind debating this Resolution proposed to-day for a week if we can get anywhere, but I do not see that there is much to be gained by debating a matter of this sort without getting the information contained in the report. I do want the House and the country to have a full opportunity to get all the merits and all the facts in connection with this particular tariff.

From that point of view I would like to answer another question put by Deputy Coburn. He asked why has there been so much butter cold-stored this year. The answer is that there has not been so much extra butter cold-stored. The amount of cold-stored butter this year is practically the same as in any other year. There was a little extra, but that was not due to me. I am sorry to say that I am not so powerful in the butter world as Deputy de Valera seems to think. Business people do not pay as much attention to politicians as the Deputy thinks The cold storing is due to this, that butter prices collapsed suddenly about the month of August in the British markets, and, naturally, that induced businessmen to hold back to see what their fortune would be later on. Their fortune was worse later on, but do not criticise the co-operative societies or the I.A.C. for that.

Remember, it was held back by individual proprietors, proportionately, as well as by the I.A.C. and the creameries. In fact, they did not hold back a big extra proportion. The creameries always hold back a considerable proportion. So do the proprietors. For what? For their winter trade at home. The rule is that you have half the winter requirements cold-stored. There was not so much extra cold-stored on this occasion. Supposing this particular tariff is imposed to-day, it cannot be final unless it is reported, but what is going to happen between this and, say, when the Dáil meets next? We have imposed a tariff of 4d. The price of butter without the tariff would be 142/- to 145/- per cwt. This tariff will put it up to 155/- or 150/-. That will be the effect of it. That price, I should say, will remain at something like the same level until round about 1st April, and from 1st April on it is difficult to say what will happen.

One thing is clear, anyway. The price will collapse then and will remain practically at the world price for a considerable time because of the surplus of butter here, but Deputies should beware of this, that the imposition of this tariff now will put up the butter until the opening of the butter season by about 1d. per lb., and it will be sold round about 1/6 here.

Mr. de Valera

Why will it be put up?

Mr. Hogan

Because if it is not it will go up automatically.

Mr. de Valera

Have you not prohibition at the moment?

Mr. Hogan

With regard to prohibition, it is necessary to take off prohibition now or at least before the middle of next month, and we believe in doing things in time. We imposed a prohibition some months ago. At that time there were ample butter stocks in the country to last until the middle of February. We took a census of the butter stocks of the country then, and we have taken them monthly since, and we have found that the figures we obtained at the beginning were approximately correct. We were about a week wrong. We had thought that there were sufficient butter stocks in the country to do until the end of the first week in February; now we find that there are only sufficient butter stocks in the country at the moment to do until about the end of this month. Therefore it is necessary to deal with this situation now. When this tariff is put on butter prices will rise. Because we were able to influence certain people one way or another, we were able to keep prices down. Creameries which the Department of Agriculture operate had certain cold storage butter, and we were able to keep the prices as reasonable limits within the last few months. The prices were 135/- or 140/-, and last summer 160/- to 170/-, and the prices here for the last few months only justified 4d. a gallon for milk. We were able to ensure that, because one way or another creameries in the country held considerable stocks of cold storage butter, and they kept prices down, but we are reaching the time when these stocks are almost exhausted and when some other arrangement must be made.

The Tariff Commision have recommended a tariff of 4d. That has been substituted for the prohibition. Deputies may take it that by the end of this month butter will go up another 1d. and remain up until the beginning of the season. What will happen then? We can discuss that when this particular resolution is being reported, and, as I say, I welcome the most exhaustive discussion on the question. I want to assure Deputy Coburn, because he said that his vote depended on it, that any benefits accruing from this tariff must go straight to the farmers, because they own practically the whole industry, from the production of the milk to the marketing of the butter. It is the only branch of agriculture that can be said for. They do not own the whole of the egg bacon industry or the whole of the egg industry. As to the present stocks of butter, as a matter of fact there is no secret about it, they are roughly about 18,000 cwts. Of those stocks, the creameries hold 13,000 cwts., and the merchants hold about 5,000. The merchants have not been selling their butter as freely as the creameries. They have been trying to make all they can out of it. At the beginning, out of 30,000 or 40,000 cwts., the merchants held about 10,000.

So far as there have been any benefits, at least 75 per cent. of them have gone into the creameries, and in future at least 80 per cent. of the benefits between this and the 1st April will go to the creameries, because the position is that at the moment there are held by creameries 13,000 cwts. There will be produced by the creameries between this and the 1st April, on the basis on last year's milk supplies, 26,000 cwts. That is a total of 39,000 cwts., and there are held by the merchants 5,000 cwts., so there will need to be imported 24,000 cwts. That is to say, 68,000 cwts. in all will be required by the beginning of the season. Of that the creameries will produce about 40,000. Therefore, whatever benefits—and there will be benefits—in the way of increased prices will go almost entirely to the farmers. Of course certain benefits have gone to the farmers.

Mr. Good

How will the profits on the imported butter go to the farmer?

Mr. Hogan

They will go to the Treasury.

Mr. Good

It is out of the pocket of the consumer.

Mr. Hogan

I quite agree, but so far as the citizens of the country are concerned—I am speaking of the benefits between now and the 1st April—anything that is made will be made by the farmers. The Treasury will gain and that goes in relief of taxation. But here is my point. I listened to a lot of nonsense, some of it interested, on the question of prohibition. Undoubtedly the farmers of the country gained by the prohibition. You need not consider now whether it is sound or not. The prohibition put up the prices at once because there was a shortage of stocks in the country and the increased prices went, as these figures show, into the farmers' pockets.

Mr. Coburn

The dairy farmers.

Mr. Hogan

The dairy farmers. Who are the dairy farmers? They are not only the farmers who produce creamery butter, but the farmers who produce and sell any other kind of butter. In that connection half the butter produced in this country is produced in the farmers' dairies at home, and as Deputy Corish knows, the price of dairy butter went up as much as creamery butter.

Mr. Corish

It went up more.

Mr. Hogan

It went up more. From that point of view this tariff is sound. Practically every farmer in the country produces home butter. A lot of farmers who do not send it to the creameries sell home butter. So in addition to those who send it to the creameries all those who produce and sell it at home benefit and they will not benefit by a fraction of what the consumer has to pay but by the whole of what the consumer has to pay. That is taking it from the point of view of the farmer.

There is a bigger question and that is whether this is going to be a benefit from the point of view of the country as a whole and from the point of view of the permanent interest of the farmers. There is no doubt that prohibition had the effect of taking a certain amount of money out of the pockets of the consumers and giving it to the farmers. Whether this tariff will take money out of the pockets of the consumers during the summer is another question which we can debate when this is being reported. My own view is that it is extremely doubtful. I want to make this point. If money has been taken from the consumer and given to the dairy farmer during the last month it is being done anyway at the right time.

The one branch of agriculture where prices collapsed was dairying. It is vital to our farmers; it is at the root of our farming and always will be. Prices collapsed there more than the price of beef, the price of eggs, or even the price of bacon, and we gave, if I may put it this way, a much-needed stimulant to the industry by imposing this tariff.

We heard talk about fixing prices. Deputy O'Connell wanted to know are we going to regulate prices. I have a lot of sympathy with Deputy Gorey's point of view. I did not hear a word about regulating prices when we put a tariff on woollens, when we put a tariff on wearing apparel and a tariff on boots. There are no factors in these particular cases which can in any way keep down prices. There is one big factor in connection with butter which will always regulate the price and that is for eight months of the year there will be a surplus of butter in this country which must be sold abroad. That will always regulate the price, at least during these eight months. Take the other tariffs that have been imposed. There is no surplus of boots. The total requirements in this country are about £2,000,000 worth, and the total production of the home industry that is safeguarded and developed by a considerable tariff of 15 per cent. for the last three or four years is only £300,000 worth. In that case there is a permanent shortage. There is no export surplus; there is no factor present to keep down prices. The full amount of the tariff is charged by the business men concerned. We all know the price of creamery butter. It is a fixed price. You can hide the increase in the other articles that have already been tariffed. There was no factor which would keep down prices. The farmers of the country know that they have been paying for these tariffs during all these years. Personally, I am in the same position as Deputy Gorey. I make no excuses for getting some of that back on their behalf by this tariff if possible.

As to whether this will encourage winter dairying or not this is obviously not the time to discuss it. We have not the report before us and we have no figures. I will give them on another occasion.

Mr. Coburn

Are we to understand that the figures of stocks given refer to the English market as well as to the Free State market?

Mr. Hogan

To the stocks held here.

Mr. Coburn

Are the creameries exporting any butter?

Mr. Hogan

No.

Mr. Coburn

Then I may take it that the Irish butter is off the English market?

Mr. Hogan

It was always off the market in winter.

Mr. Coburn

The position will be worse now.

Mr. Hogan

The position last year was: in the month of July the exports of Irish butter amounted to 106,000 cwts.; in January last year the exports were something like 3,000 cwts. They are negligible on the English market.

Mr. Coburn

Now they have no contact whatever.

Mr. Hogan

None, and I agree that that is not by any means an improvement.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

On the Minister's own statement, this is definitely imposing a tax of nearly £45,000 on the consumer which will go to the Treasury.

Mr. Hogan

Yes.

Mr. O'Connell

That will not help the farmers directly in any case. Has the question of admitting that amount of butter free been considered by the Government?

Mr. Hogan

That would be quite impossible. I complain of applying one thing to agricultural tariffs and different treatment to others. Why should we not make arrangements that the 1¾ million pounds worth of boots should come in free?

Mr. O'Connell

Why not consider it? You might have me with you in that.

Mr. Hogan

I would like it myself if it could be done.

Mr. Tadhg Crowley

There is one matter that I would like to get information on. The Minister to-day gave us figures in connection with the stocks of butter in the country. Last April I asked the Minister whether he could state the quantity of Irish creamery butter for sale in cold storage on the 31st December, 1929, the 28th February, 1930, and the 30th April, 1930. The Minister replied that the Department have not the information at their disposal which would enable the figures asked for to be supplied. On that occasion I raised the question on the Adjournment. The Minister then stated: "In any event, I have no power to go to any business man in this country and ask him what butter or what stocks he has in his creamery stores. If I went to a lot of the creameries they would tell me, quite rightly, to mind my own business." I would like to know how the Minister has been able to get the figures this time.

Mr. Hogan

They gave them voluntarily.

Mr. MacEntee

Would they not have given them then?

Mr. Hogan

Certainly not.

Mr. Crowley

They could have been asked that same question then.

Mr. Hogan

When there is a big step like the imposition of a prohibition on butter you have good reason for making the inquiry. It is a different matter if because some Deputy is curious you casually ask a business man what stocks he has.

Mr. MacEntee

It was not mere curiosity.

Mr. Crowley

On that particular occasion anyway I demanded a tariff on butter. I am pleased that the Ministry have changed their mind about the matter. So far as the dairy farmers of Limerick are concerned they are satisfied with the step that has been taken, though prohibition came a little bit too late. If it had been earlier it would have had a much better effect. Certainly it has, to a tremendous extent, saved the dairying industry in Limerick. If it had not occurred I know that a large number of dairy cattle would have been sold.

The President

Why did they not apply for a tariff?

Mr. Crowley

Did they not apply?

The President

No, the Midlands, Tullamore and Co. Waterford creameries applied.

Mr. Crowley

Was not Mr. Martin O'Dwyer, of Herberstown, amongst those who demanded a tariff?

Mr. Hogan

He was not. He was a witness.

The President

There is a difference between a witness and an applicant.

Mr. Crowley

They now have what they were looking for.

Mr. Lemass

I suggest that the reason they did not apply was because they had before them the example of the coachbuilders.

The President

The Deputy is excellent at excusing himself.

Mr. Nolan

It was fortunate for the farmers of Limerick that the tariff was not put on one and a half years ago. If a tariff of 4d. on the lb. had been put on the 1st June, 1929, butter would have to be put in cold storage in August and September to supply the winter demand. The price of butter in August and September was 180/- per cwt.

Mr. Hogan

About 170/- per cwt.

Mr. Nolan

The Minister says 170/-per cwt. I have evidence that it was more. In any event, it would have to be put in cold storage at 170/- per cwt. plus the cost of the loan from the banks to pay the suppliers and the cost of the cold storage. It would have come out at the price at which butter was twelve months ago, about 120/- per cwt. That would have meant a loss of 50/- per cwt. nett. That would be a difference of approximately 60/- per cwt. Therefore, the creameries would have lost the difference between 37/- per cwt., the amount of the tariff, and 60/-per cwt. Had this been done last year a some what similar situation would have arisen because then butter was not quite as dear. It went to 140/- per cwt., and it dropped more than 37/- per cwt. New Zealand butter sold at 94/-, 94/- plus 37/- and plus the interest to the banks and the cost of cold storage would mean a loss. We were fortunate that the tariff was not on last year. I do not see that there is any use in discussing this now as we have not got the report. I do not see that there is any use in it because so far as it goes it is simply feeding us with 80 per cent. of our own tail.

Mr. Lemass

Might I ask the Deputy how a tariff would have compelled the creameries to put butter into cold storage?

Mr. Nolan

There was no compulsion whatever, but the inducement was there. Naturally when people meet with a bad market they are not prepared to throw their stuff on it. The same holds there as in the case of the Stock Exchange and other matters.

Mr. MacEntee

The speech of the Minister for Agriculture this evening reminded me of the manner of a man mixing cocktails in that he was quite obviously mixing his feelings in regard to this tariff. In the earlier part of his speech he simply indicated that he wanted to show that while there might be many ways of killing a dog one of them was to choke the tariff party with butter. In the latter part of his speech, however, he became a tariff enthusiast and proclaimed that the prohibition and all the benefits that emerged from it had been transmitted to the farmer. Now some of us have a suspicion—possibly it is unfair to the Minister for Agriculture and possibly it is altogether unfounded—that the sudden conversion of the Minister in favour of a butter tariff was on account of the difficulties which the creamery marketing organisation found itself in.

Mr. Hogan

An organisation which I set up?

Mr. MacEntee

We are not going to discuss the manner in which that organisation came into being.

Mr. Hogan

It is my own child and why should I not look after it?

Mr. MacEntee

At any rate, the Minister was not, shall we say, so unsympathetic to that organisation as he is to the principle of tariffs in general. Rather, shall we say, he has more paternal feelings towards it.

Mr. Hogan

It is a positive fact that I have the most paternal and sympathetic feelings towards it.

Mr. MacEntee

Naturally. If we examine the position in which this particular marketing organisation finds itself it may help us to see whether, in fact, all the benefits of prohibition were passed on to the farmer. I do not know exactly the financial arrangements which this undertaking entered into with the banks of this country, but I understand they were considerable. I understand that the creamery marketing organisation found itself in very serious financial difficulties about ten or twelve weeks ago. It was holding large stocks of butter which had been mainly financed by the banks and in respect of which the marketing organisation was not fully guaranteed by the member-creameries. If this organisation had gone smash——

Mr. Hogan

Who would have to pay up?

Mr. MacEntee

Admittedly some part of the loss was going to be borne by the creameries and the greater part of it by the banks.

Mr. Hogan

No. Your information is not correct.

Mr. MacEntee

My information may be correct or it may be incorrect, but I am putting the situation as it has been put to me. When the prohibition was imposed the people who benefited, the people who were holding stocks in this country or who had some lien on the stocks in this country, were not the farmers who had already sold their butter to the creamery marketing organisation and who had received the major portion of their price for it, but the banks, and they would have suffered if the I.A.C., Ltd., had gone smash.

Therefore, the Minister is not correct. While we are prepared to admit that those who make what is known as farmers' butter possibly benefit to some extent, and the creameries in winter production benefit to some extent, by this prohibition the people who benefit mainly are the people who had financed the Irish Associated Creameries, Limited, and they were not the co-operative creameries.

Mr. Hogan

That is not so.

Mr. MacEntee

When I say that do not let me be taken as in opposition to the prohibition.

Mr. Hogan

What the Deputy has said is entirely contrary to the fact. Any debts incurred by the I.A.C. Co-operative Society had to be paid by the members of the creameries—every penny of it—and if it had not been why should not the banks be saved?

Mr. MacEntee

Do not take me as being in opposition to the prohibition. I am glad that the Minister even at the eleventh hour took such steps as would secure the dairy herds against depletion. I am glad that the farmer is getting a little back through the tariff now being imposed. I think it is necessary. I think it will give the dairying industry that security in the home market which it requires. What I want to be assured about is as to when the doubts which the Minister in the opening portion of his speech expressed as to the merits of the tariff will be clarified. We have heard in the House this afternoon that if this tariff is going on there is not going to be any immediate increase in butter production in the country, that the stocks we already hold will be exhausted towards the end of this month, and that until the dairying industry gets into full swing again about the 17th March we will not be able to supply the internal requirements of the country. Butter will be coming in and paying duty, and that duty will go into the Treasury.

Will the Minister's doubts be clarified about the time the tariff ceases to be effective as a revenue-raising agent, and at the time when the Minister for Finance ceases to reap any benefit from it, and when the farmer might? That is what we are uneasy about. The speech the Minister made here to-day shows clearly he is hedging on this question just as he was when the prohibitive tariff was imposed, and it is because I am not quite satisfied that this is being put on as a protective tariff, and not as a revenue tariff, that I feel very uneasy at the whole attitude the Ministry has adopted in the House. The speech the Minister for Finance made in proposing the tariff was not a justification of the tariff at all. Every argument the Minister used for the tariff was an argument that might have been used against it. In his speech there was no serious examination of the position of the dairying industry at all. What I feel the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance have in mind is that through this butter tariff they are going to make the country sick of the whole policy of protection in the hope that the position they have maintained during the last four or five years, and which has stultified all industrial development in this country, may be justified.

Motion put.

Division called for.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How many Deputies support the call for a division?

Deputy Thrift and Deputy Cole rose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputies' names will be recorded.

Motion declared carried.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Resolution reported.

Report Stage ordered for 18th February.

The Dáil adjourned at 4.50 until Wednesday, 18th February.