asked the Minister for Finance if he will state (a) the value of the phosphatic manures imported during (i) the financial year 1954-55, upon which the duty of £4 was collected, and (ii) the financial year 1955-56, upon which the duty of £27,544 was collected and repaid; and (b) the amount of duty paid on phosphatic manures imported in this financial year and whether it will be repaid.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Imported Phosphatic Manures.
The duty of £4 referred to at (a) (i) in the question was not received in respect of phosphatic manures. It was collected on an importation of compound manures, the value of which was £21.
The value of the phosphatic manures referred to at (a) (ii) on which duty amounting to £27,544 was collected in the financial year 1955-56 was £270,930.
The amount of duty collected on phosphatic manures in the current financial year up to 30th October, the latest date to which statistics are readily available, was £315 approximately. In the case of single superphosphates on which duty has been collected, if applications are received from the importers concerned together with evidence in conformity with the requirements of the 1938 Trade Agreement with Britain that such goods were not obtainable from British or Six Counties sources at the time the purchases were effected, the duty paid will probably be refunded.
If the duty collected over the past years in respect of superphosphate was repaid, I take it that the farmer got the phosphates at what is known as world price. If they had world price for the past ten years, why on earth do the Government try to cod the farmers by leading them to believe that they will get phosphates at the lower figure?
That is an entirely separate question.
Does the Minister not agree with me that it was foolish at the present time, when we want to increase production and get a more favourable balance of payments, to be codding the farmers in this way?
I am grateful to the Deputy for responding to my smile across the House and asking a supplementary question, because I was afraid he would not. The Deputy was Minister for Finance for some years and during that time I do not think he ever received customs duties on something that was not imported and this was not imported because the duty was there.
There was no duty to collect.
The Deputy knows perfectly well that the purpose of the duty was to deter the farmers from importing.
It was codding the farmer—more of your deception and falsehood.
The Deputy knows perfectly well it was a deterrent duty. He must have known it.
Nobody knows where he is with the Government.
We know where you are.