I think that that is not quite correct. Practically nobody on the side of the Government in the Dáil, and nobody in this House who is normally expected to support the Government on such matters, has given any expression of real confidence in this proposal. Those who might be expected, in all circumstances, to be enthusiastic in favour of a proposal of this kind have been either opposed to it or have been diffident in their support of it. I speak now of dairy farmers. I was sufficiently interested to make a few extracts from speeches delivered in the Dáil, and I propose to give a few quotations.
Deputy Haslett, who is head of a creamery and keenly interested in the dairying business, said:
Of all the tariffs that have been introduced and of all the excuses put forward for introducing them, no case has ever been made so shallow as the case put forward for the butter tariff.
Deputy Nolan, who is also interested in the dairying industry, said:
They (all parties) are accepting this in the belief that it is going to raise the dairying industry from a slump to something very prosperous. I assure the Minister that the tariff is not going to do any such thing. The tariff on butter is not going to increase the price by one iota.
Deputy Bennett, who is also connected with the dairying industry, gave the proposal some support but said:
If this tariff is going to be a success—and I hope rather than expect it to be—to be honest.
Deputy Gorey said:
Except the tendency of the last three years is altered, it is only a joke to talk of winter dairying in this country. My advice to milk producers is not to attempt to enter into winter production of milk with the object of producing butter.
Deputy Heffernan, while giving general support to the proposal, was very doubtful of its value. He said:
The future effect (of the tariff) depends on certain contingencies which we cannot foresee at present. The tariff may or may not be helpful. If, next summer, the tariff being on, people decide to put into cold storage a quantity of butter which, added to the butter produced during the coming winter, will exceed the requirements of the country, then the tariff will be ineffective and the price of butter here will be the same as that of butter coming from outside because we will have an exportable surplus.
The Minister for Agriculture said:
No tariff is any good that does not increase production. There is absolutely no use whatever in producing the same amount of butter, holding it over and selling it in the winter. If a tariff is to be of any use it must increase production. The only way is by winter dairying. Will this tariff bring about winter dairying? I do not know. That is the question. It is doubtful, to say the least of it. A tariff of less than 4d. would not have any result other than to encourage cold-storage. Whether 4d. will encourage winter dairying can only be said definitely after the event. In my own opinion it is somewhat doubtful.
It is, perhaps, satisfactory, in a way, that even the Minister responsible for the development and progress of agriculture, in so far as a Minister can be responsible in that respect, should not express himself too confidently, but one would imagine that, speaking on behalf of a Government which is proposing to put a duty on imported butter, he would, at least, adduce some argument in support of the proposal. What arguments have been used? As was explained here before, the applicants for the tariff originally based their case mainly upon the importance of being able to cold-store a large proportion of the summer surplus for sale during the winter. Incidentally—quite incidentally—they expressed a hope that the tariff would increase the amount of winter dairying. The Tariff Commission utterly rejected the proposal on the first ground, but conceded the claim on the second ground. They, too, were doubtful of the effectiveness of the tariff as a means of bringing about a great increase in winter dairying. None of the supporters of the tariff amongst those engaged in the farming industry, who usually support the Government either in the other House or in this House, has any confidence that the 4d. per lb. on butter will lead to any great increase in the practice of winter dairying. I think it is fair to say that the general conclusion even of those people who are advocates of the tariff is that it will add to the earnings of the dairying industry because of the opportunity it will give to cold-store in summer and get a higher price in the winter than would otherwise be the case. That depends upon the amount that will be cold stored. The Minister fears, and Deputy Heffernan fears, that there may be too much butter cold stored in summer— more than will suffice to supply all the needs of this country in the winter. If that is the result, there will be no improvement in price and the farmers will not get any benefit out of this duty. The only way to prevent that result would be by introducing some kind of control. The Minister suggested—I do not know whether he has yet the power to act—the making of inquiry and the publication of the result periodically, showing the amount of butter cold-stored in the country, so that those who are interested will know how much they and their rivals have put into cold storage. Possibly that will have some effect, but I think it is not likely to have very great effect until or unless the industry is in a much better organised state than appears to be likely at the present time.
If the amount cold-stored is not excessive, if by means of regulations it is possible to obtain a higher price for cold-stored butter from home consumers in the winter, what is the net effect of this tariff proposition? I am going to assume what has been indicated in the Tariff Commission Report, and, I think, in the Minister's speeches, that the full 4d. per lb. would not be charged to the consumer. I will assume that there would be a certain amount of internal competition and a certain amount of competition from importers who might be prepared to cut prices for the sake of a new market, and that the full benefit of 4d. per lb. will not be received by the producer, but something less than 4d., say 3d. The price would therefore rise on the consumer by 3d. both for imported and home-stored butter in the winter. On the assumption of the Minister for Agriculture, on the assumption of Deputy Heffernan and most of those interested in the trade, the bulk of the butter that is to be sold in this country in the winter will be summer-produced butter kept in cold store. The Agricultural Commission told us that the average cost of storage, insurance, overdraft and so on would amount to 1½d. per lb. of butter. The net result of the duty on imported butter, even in the best of prospects, is that the farmers will get 1½d. and the insurance companies, the bankers and storage proprietors will get 1½d. The community is going to pay 3d.; the farmers will get 1½d. and the moneylenders will get 1½d. That seems to be the real result that is likely to come out of the 4d. per lb. duty.
I am not opposing this duty on the ground that it may raise the price of butter upon the consumer. For my part, I believe that in this country, in the circumstances of production and distribution to-day, it is right and proper that the consumers should be called upon to pay something more than the international price for this and other commodities if one could be assured that what the consumer is paying extra is really going to the benefit of the industries which are sought to be protected. In this case there is no assurance at all that there is going to be any real protective value to the dairying industry.
It is either going to be a help, to the extent of 50 per cent. of the charge, to the moneylending classes, or it is going to help the revenue. It remains for the Minister to prove to us before we pass this Bill without protest, that what is going to be charged upon the community is going really to benefit the dairying industry.
One also has to take into account that it is not only creameries which are owned by the farmers that are going to be interested in the cold storage of butter. If one looks at the returns of the first three months of this year, or of any recent year, one will find that in those few months the proportion of factory butter exported was much higher than the proportion of creamery butter. The facts seem to show that the factory butter is retained in storage for a longer period as a rule than the creamery butter. One would expect, therefore, that the merchants who are buyers of farmers' butter would be induced to purchase more farmers' butter at the very low prices ruling to-day and perhaps in the next couple of months for storage and sale during the winter. They will be interested in summer butter, not only for winter export but for winter home consumption. How are they going to be regulated? They possibly may be able to regulate the amount of storage at least as well as the creamery proprietors. It would seem to me a very likely thing that it would be not only the factory-produced butter but imported butter which would be cold stored. I see quotations, for instance, in regard to Polish, Latvian and Esthonian butter on the English market, and some of it is considerably below the price of Irish, New Zealand or Danish butter. I can see a likelihood of such butter, even though not up to the mark of Irish quality, being stored in the summer time and unloaded in the winter time, and they would be getting a very considerable share of whatever higher price is available for home-produced creamery butter.
The competition of the imported summer butter in the winter markets would have the effect of bringing down the price of home-produced and, altogether, there seems to be a very strong case against this proposal and a very weak case for it. I have left aside in this discussion the suggestion that the duty would lead to a very great increase in winter dairying, because most of the farmers speaking in favour of this proposal have left that aspect aside.
There seem to be very meagre grounds indeed for hoping that an increase of 2d. over summer prices for milk would lead to a great increase in winter dairying. If that is the desire, and if the object of this duty is to lead to the encouragement and development of winter dairying, I suggest, and it was suggested before, that this is not the way to assist the farmers to that end. It is a costly way. It is costly upon the consuming community. It is much more costly than is really necessary. I submit that the same results can be attained, and very much better results can be attained, by a direct bounty or subsidy on exported home winter products, and by means of direct assistance you may possibly get the result that is assumed to be in mind in submitting this Bill.
So far as any case has been made there is very little justification indeed for hoping or expecting that the duty of 4d. per lb. on imported butter will have the effect of increasing winter dairying. On the other hand, if that aspect of it is left aside and if it is thought it will aid in the levelling up of the price of summer-produced butter which is held over for winter sale, then on that account nothing of this kind ought to be done until the industry has put itself into a position to manage and organise itself and generally conduct its business in a less anarchic fashion than is the case to-day. It is of extreme importance that the dairying industry shall be encouraged and put on a basis which would be at least reasonably prosperous. It is on that assumption this proposal has been presented. The onus of defending the proposition lies on those who are making it, and they have not done that. I submit it cannot be done by this means and the House ought to oppose the proposition that 4d. per lb. should be imposed on imported butter on the ground that it is not likely to have the effect aimed at; that in the search for that effect it will impose too great a cost on the community. The results can be attained at a cheaper cost to the community and with very much greater certainty of success.