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.