Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 May 1923

Vol. 3 No. 18

ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. - MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE.

The PRESIDENT

I beg to move that a sum not exceeding £275,982 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment for the year ending 31st March, 1924, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture; and of certain services administered by that Ministry including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

£125,000 had been voted on account.

Provision is included in this estimate not only for services in connection with Agriculture but also for services in regard to Technical Education. Of the total estimate of £400,982 nearly half is in respect of the latter services.

The estimate shows an increase of approximately 3 per cent. over that of the past year, but the increase is more than accounted for by one item in respect of technical education, to which further reference will be made later on. The most noteworthy change is the disappearance of the Fishery staff. Those services have been transferred to a special vote. When comparing the vote with 1922-1923, the necessary adjustments in respect of this transfer have been made. The reduction of approximately £16,000 has been effected under the sub-heads covered by the expenses of the Headquarters staff. The most serious increase is £28,000 in respect of certain grants-in-aid and other grants, and the bonus of teachers in technical subjects, including Irish, whose subsistence allowances and salaries are paid out of Dáil funds, apart from monies affected by this Vote or obtained by local authorities from the product of certain special rates. As matters stand at present the payment of these bonuses from monies provided by the Dáil is unavoidable. Steps are being taken with a view to considering whether new arrangements cannot be introduced for the future whereby the State's contribution in this respect can be kept within some definite limit. In view of the increase it will be appreciated in order to keep the total estimate within the 50 per cent. increase over last year that it has been necessary to make reductions on all remaining items. An exception exists in the case of the sum available in the scheme for the improvement of dairy cattle. That is increased by £1,500, consequent on a rapidly increasing desire to enable dairy farmers to secure registration of their herds.

CATHAL O'SHANNON

In connection with this estimate I would like to again press upon the Ministry the consideration of the question of tobacco-growing. We discussed it here before Whitsuntide and on that occasion the Minister made certain statements. I would like to ask him to meet the people concerned in a rather better manner than has been promised. Undoubtedly the whole thing is an experiment, perhaps a costly experiment, but in spite of the Minister's statement I do not know that it has yet been proved that the experiment has not been worth while. From information I have received I understand the growers and workers of tobacco could be met in a reasonable spirit if the Ministry were willing to so meet them. Even if the Ministry were willing to consider the whole thing as yet in the experimental stage it would be sufficient.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle at this stage took the Chair.

CATHAL O'SHANNON

It is claimed that this Government is not prepared to do what other Governments even within the Commonwealth are prepared to do for tobacco-growing. Surely the Government should be able to meet the growers in a much better spirit than has existed up to the present. As I said on the last occasion, the Ministry wants to restrict the acreage to 60 acres. Up to the present there have been 200 acres given over to the experiment. As Deputy Johnson pointed out there were fairly definite promises made to these people by the Ministry, and a great deal of encouragement was given them before the 6th December last. On the strength of those promises certain of those people have gone to a great deal of trouble and a considerable amount of expense in equipping and installing machinery for the handling of tobacco. I am not an expert, even in tobacco, but it may be that there is some difficulty in handling this material from the manufacturer's point of view. It is claimed for the growers that the difficulty is largely due, not altogether to the quality of the home-grown tobacco, but to the conditions under which the growers have been labouring. If there is one thing that is, perhaps, defective in Irish agriculture, it is that where there could be more crops, there are not more crops grown. This particular crop does mark an advance in that respect towards a better system of agriculture. For that reason, if for nothing else, it should get some encouragement. I hope the Minister for Finance will be able to throw a little more light on the subject of the grant from the Development Commissioners for this experiment. It was considered as an experiment, and was encouraged by grants as such. It is claimed now that there is still about £40,000 from the Development Commissioners' grant under the control of the Saorstát, and that that should be devoted to the continuance of the experiment. I hope the Minister will say definitely what is the position with regard to that £40,000. It is claimed by the growers that they are being put unfairly into competition with growers elsewhere, and that they are not getting as good a chance as those other growers. They say, for instance, that Indian tobacco is grown and worked not only with very cheap coolie labour, but it is grown duty-free, and on account of that it has got considerable preference over certain American tobaccos. It is not grown duty-free in Ireland. The Minister says if it were the Revenue would lose. He has not yet told us how much, exactly, it would lose, but he says it would be a good deal. Now, if there were a considerable reduction in the duty, I think that the growers would be prepared to consider continuing their work. If they were met in that respect they could consider the position of the Government in the matter, but they say that the offer already made, which penalised in cash certain growers, is not and cannot be accepted. They say that it will mean that the whole experiment is likely to go by the board and that this particular crop is—so far as this generation is concerned—likely to be lost to Irish agriculture. That would be a very unfortunate thing, indeed—that any crop, even if only an experimental crop, should be lost to Irish agriculture. I should like to ask the Ministers whether they would not reconsider the question of the duty on tobacco. If there are not a great many, there are at least a considerable number of people engaged in this business. It is not right or fair that because it is not a crop that has been attempted by the farming or agricultural community generally to say that only a handful of people are engaged in it. They are a handful of people in comparison with the whole population, but they are a handful of people who have been trying to do something that has not been done for the furtherance of the national economy. For that reason they should not be brushed aside, because some of them may have peculiar temperaments and numerically, perhaps, they are only a thousand all told. I am sure that the Minister has seen a statement in the Press during the week. A case has been made by one of the persons interested in the industry, and I think it is up to the Ministry to answer that case. This gentleman says that if you take the average yield per acre at 1,000 lbs., the amount of tax remitted at 50 per cent., the amount paid in labour, directly and indirectly, on every acre of tobacco grown in the various processes from sowing to placing in bond at about £150 per annum, you will find that £145 is equivalent to the wages of one man and one woman for a year—a clear national gain of £145 per annum. The Irish Exchequer save unemployment pay for one man at 15s. and one woman at 10s. a week or £65 per annum. Tobacco growing would thus mean an annual gain to the nation of £210 per acre. The Exchequer would probably lose something between 4s. and 5s. on every pound grown, and taking the yield at 1,000 per acre it would lose probably £208 6s. 8d. per acre. It is claimed by this gentleman that when everything is gone into, there would be a gain to the nation of £1 13s. 4d. per annum per acre grown, plus increased wheat, grown without a subsidy, plus the establishment of the industry. If the Minister can meet the case I hope he will with full facts and figures. Incidentally, I may say that, if it is met in the sense in which I have indicated, the growers' claim—I do not know whether they will be justified or not—they will be in a position to dispose of part of the crop for the year 1921-22, which at present they are unable to dispose of. I hope the Ministry will give the whole matter consideration, and that they will meet, even in a generous way, the claim for a considerable reduction in the original duty.

Mr. ROONEY

I do not regard this as a question of considering the tobacco industry in its experimental stage, but rather as an attempt to revive an Irish industry. In Co. Wexford there were 1,000 acres of tobacco grown formerly. I suppose it was largely consumed in Ireland and outside of it. I think that one of the reasons that Irish tobacco is not popular now in Ireland is because the English Government when it was here succeeded in cultivating a taste for English tobacco. I think if the Irish Government allows Irish tobacco to go on the market a little bit cheaper than foreign grown tobacco it will be a very good remedy, and a number of people will cultivate a taste for it. Another point of view I would like to put before the Dáil is this. If a man with a small farm of 10 acres grows an acre of tobacco he will have a more handsome income out of it than he would get from any other crop. Taking all these matters into consideration, I hope the Minister will see his way to give a rebate of 5 per cent to Irish-grown tobacco.

Mr. DOYLE

As one who was engaged in tobacco-growing for some years, I can add a little to this discussion, and I say that I think that the Government would be entitled to allow at least 50 per cent. off the present duty imposed on the leaf. In the other Colonies they are allowed to grow tobacco duty-free, as we are allowed to grow barley and oats. If it were grown duty-free here it would prove a most profitable crop, so profitable that you would have every acre in Ireland planted under tobacco next year. I was sorry to see the castigation which the Minister for Finance gave the quality of Irish tobacco on the last occasion. I was not here then, but I may say that I have grown tobacco for 14 or 15 years, and I put it on the market and brought it to Belfast to Mr. Gallagher, and I heard him say that in this country we could grow plug tobacco fit to compare with any grown in the United States or South America.

I do not pretend that we can grow light tobacco, but as far as heavy pipe tobacco is concerned we have gone beyond the experimental stage, and in the acres of tobacco grown in my vicinity we produce more per acre than any in America. The average yield would be one thousand pounds per acre, but in some of the highly manured districts in Wexford they went so high that they produced two thousand pounds per acre. The experiment first was started under conditions like those which induced everyone to do his best. A rebate of one shilling per pound was given. The duty at that time was four shillings per pound, and labour did not cost over a third of what it does now. At that time, I have known acres to net one hundred pounds profit with that shilling rebate. The sale of the leaf paid the expenses of growing the crop, and the shilling per pound was put into the pocket of the grower. I am talking now of a time when wages were one-third of what they are. As far as promoting labour is concerned it is known that tobacco will require three times as much labour as any crop grown in Ireland, and it would be an incentive to relieve unemployment if grown on a large scale. I think the growers are not asking much when they ask for 50 per cent. rebate, as other growers are growing it duty free in other colonies. If you want to get the crop grown it will also be an incentive to breaking up land and tilling it. A crop could never be grown on its own in this country. There is no reason why there should not be some rebate taken off it, a rebate which would give an impetus to the grower to continue the growth of it. Something should be done to release all the tobacco that cannot be sold at the present time. If there were a rebate sufficient to induce people storing it to sell it, it would bring in a handsome sum to the Government at the present moment. I think the Ministry would be well advised to give some stimulus to the growth of tobacco.

Mr. WILSON

I am not going to thresh the tobacco question any further, but merely to say that tobacco was first introduced into Europe by Sir Walter Raleigh. It was in Ireland it was first grown by Sir Walter Raleigh, and it is very singular if it is going to be a failure in the country in which it was first introduced into Europe. My remarks are in connection with the estimates for Agriculture as they were last year. I pointed out last year that out of many thousand pounds, forty-six million pounds, less than half a million was used for developing the oldest industry in this country. We were then told that the Department of Agriculture was marking time for carrying on. I want to ask the Minister to say whether he is still marking time or carrying on. I believe money spent in the developing of the dairy industry is well spent. Money spent in any of the products in which we excel is well spent. But when you see four million pounds spent on primary education, and only half a million spent on this industry it seems to be a lob-sided arrangement and it seems that we, who are looking after the interests of agriculture, are not doing our duty. I am not objecting to anyone interrupting me but I do not think the head of the Government should interrupt a man doing his best.

The PRESIDENT

I did not interrupt the Deputy. I said a word to Mr. Blythe, Minister for Local Government, and I suppose I am entitled to say a word.

Mr. WILSON

Of course it is on agriculture. Anything is good enough for the farmers.

The PRESIDENT

It was not about agriculture.

Mr. WILSON

We were promised last year that the Department was going to be organised, and I want to ask the Minister, although he is engaged in the dangerous occupation of bringing in Land Bill, what steps has he taken to re-organise his department in order that we who live on the land may be enabled by expert advice to carry on; in order that this country may be a suitable place for our sons and daughters to live in, and in order that we need not be shipping them to America, our daughters to be the handmaids of Russian Jewesses who have got rich in New York. and our sons to be policemen. Without education, badly equipped, we have to send them abroad, and all the money that can be spent on our children is less than half a million. The Minister occupies an outside position in the Executive. I believe the Minister for Agriculture should be in the Executive. The question is too big in this country. The Minister in charge of our industry should be in the Executive, and if we farmers ever get into power we will be in the Executive.

Mr. O'BRIEN

Where will we be then?

Mr. WILSON

I do not want to make a joke of this question. I really would like to hear from the Minister what steps he would be able to take so that the veterinary department and all the other departments may be placed in a proper position so that they may give us efficient and proper instruction in the ways we ought to follow to meet the world's competition.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would suggest for the better ordering of this discussion that the Minister, or some member of the Government, should deal with the question that has been raised regarding the tobacco industry, and let us exhaust that, and that even if somebody has to follow him on the same subject he could deal with other matters, such as may be raised by Deputy Wilson and others. This is a very big Vote, a very important Vote, indeed, and it cannot be dealt with simply by skipping from one subject to another, and asking the Minister to reply en bloc.

MINISTER for AGRICULTURE (Mr. P. Hogan)

With regard to the points that have been made with reference to encouraging tobacco growing, we agree that the experiments which Sir Nugent Everard has conducted have proved that tobacco can be grown in this country, and that a certain kind of tobacco can be grown as well in this country as in any other country. There is no doubt that Sir Nugent Everard's experiments have proved that. There is no doubt either that Sir Nugent Everard and the other experimenters have acted in a very public-spirited manner in regard to this particular question. It is due to them to say that. It is one thing to prove that tobacco can be grown—I think Deputy Wilson pointed out that Sir Walter Raleigh proved that—it is one thing to prove that tobacco could be grown fifty years ago at a profit; it is a totally different thing to prove that tobacco is a profitable crop at the present date. That is the real question. I do not think that even the most ardent admirer of the experiments that have been made will go so far as to say that it has been proved that tobacco is a profitable crop from any point of view. I am not saying it is not, but I say that the experiments up to date are still experiments from the point of view of showing that tobacco can be grown as a profitable crop, and as compared with other crops in this country.

When the experiments started the idea was to show that tobacco could be grown here as well as it was grown in the British Colonies, and for that purpose a grant was given. The scheme intended that the grant would equalise the conditions here with the conditions in the English Colonies, where tobacco had been grown successfully. It is a totally different matter to ask us to encourage tobacco-growing by a rebate of duty. That raises totally different considerations. It is a question for the Government, for the Minister for Finance and the Dáil to consider very seriously whether this is the right time to change the character of the experiments. Sir Nugent Everard, the most important of the experimenters, has suggested that he should get a total rebate of Excise Duty, and claims that he could grow at least half of the tobacco that is being used in the country if he got that rebate. I have not the exact figures available at the moment, but they are so big that I can use fairly round figures. If he is right it would mean that we would lose in Excise Duty something over £400,000 per annum. It is a very important question at present, and it would be a very important question in the best of times, as to whether we could afford to lose that amount of revenue. There is the prior question as to whether he is right, whether you could get people in this country to smoke nothing but Irish tobacco. But, assuming his own figures are correct, that his own prophecies in the matter are correct, we would stand to lose something like £400,000 of Excise Duty. The question is—can you put that £400,000 to better use?

Mr. J. ROONEY

On a point of order, they are only asking for half.

Mr. HOGAN

We can adjust the figures. Let us say £200,000—a quarter of a million. Can you put that to better use? You can hardly expect the Government to decide that question at this time when we are Budgeting for a deficit of £24,000,000. Apart altogether from that this question of rebates is a question that affects not only tobacco but other industries, and in deciding a big fiscal question of that sort you cannot decide it with a view to tobacco-growing alone, or an experimental crop. You cannot change your fiscal policy, in order to help experiments. You certainly should not change your fiscal policy merely with a view exclusively to what everybody in the Dáil has admitted is even at the present stage an experiment. I think that would be generally agreed upon. On the other hand, we acknowledge obligations to the people who have made these experiments, and who are conducting these experiments, and we are trying to meet them. We are willing to carry on, and the Minister for Finance has consented to give them the same grant as they got in normal times, plus the extra grant that they got during the war for war purposes, for this year. I think I can say now without being accused of being a prophet that we are coming into happier times financially, and next year we certainly ought to be in a much better position to make up our minds as to what we will do in the way of giving a rebate. When we are making up our minds we must have in view not only tobacco, but fiscal policy generally. That is the position with regard to tobacco. Sir Nugent Everard has, as Deputy Rooney pointed out, asked for this 50 per cent. rebate. I think that would work out at £133 per acre. If you compare that with the £25 per acre which he received while the British Government was running this country you will see that he is not making a very modest claim. We suggest that he gets a grant of £25 per acre and his old grant of £8 per acre on the uncropped area. The total acreage is 114, and the uncropped area would be 74 acres. That is the grant that was provided for him to meet war conditions, and though we are entering into peaceful times we are willing to continue that grant for one year, and I think that the Dáil will admit that we are meeting him fairly so far.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Minister say what conditions apply?

Mr. HOGAN

At the moment they are not settled. We are still debating the question. Sir Nugent Everard knows very well what his rights are, and knows pretty well the business side of his proposition, and we have not quite settled the conditions as yet. With regard to Deputy Wilson's remarks, he wants to know am I still carrying on. I feel inclined to say I still am, in one sense. He has asked what are our plans for the Department of Agriculture.

A Ministries Bill will be introduced immediately which will have the benefit, from the point of view of the Department of Agriculture, of confining it strictly to agriculture. That will be so much gained. It will be a very big gain, as it will transfer Technical Education, Science and Art, and other services which have nothing to do with agriculture, to other Ministries. When that Bill is through, and I hope it will be through within the next few months, the Department of Agriculture will be organised for the first time as a Department of Agriculture, and not as a sort of Department to deal with Arts and other services of that sort with which it has nothing to do. He has asked what money we are spending on agriculture. Well, in spite of the fact that we are spending money on the Army, money for compensation, and money for other purposes on which in normal times you need not spend money, and on which money has not been spent during the last decade, we are still maintaining the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture at practically the old figure. We are still maintaining all the services, and, in view of the financial stringency, I think it is a very creditable, if not a very daring, programme. With regard to the general policy of the Department, there is an Agricultural Commission sitting at the moment, which has already sent in two or three interim reports dealing with very important matters—marketing, grading, etc. We cannot change the agricultural policy in these matters without considering these reports very carefully.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

It would be better if the Minister did not now give a general reply, as other Deputies may wish to speak.

Mr. HOGAN

I suggest that as this is the only other point raised, I should deal with it at the moment. If you wish, however, I will wait.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I think it would be better to wait.

Mr. DOYLE

I think the Minister said the offer was £25 plus £8 on the uncropped area. What about the cropped area?

Mr. HOGAN

£25.

Mr. DOYLE

There is no use offering that sum, as tobacco could not be grown with it at the present price of labour. We had £25 an acre on the last growing, when labour was not so high as it is now, and we had to give up growing it. It could not pay under any conditions whatsoever except the Government are prepared to give a substantial rebate of nearly half the duty at all events. I do not see why the Government should not give a rebate in this country similar to that given in the other colonies, where all tobacco consumed is all grown duty free. If we could grow it duty free you would have in Ireland one of the most profitable crops in the world.

Mr. JOHNSON

I feel that this question of tobacco-growing ought to be considered from the point of view of agriculture, and not from the point of view of fiscal returns. The trouble, I think, is— and it is just as well that the grower should face it—that it is a nuisance to the Revenue Department to have tobacco growing in Ireland, and that the Department would very much rather it were not grown in Ireland. That is frankly and honestly the real trouble that the farmers in Navan district and in Wexford district are faced with—the fact that the Revenue people consider tobacco-growing in Ireland a great nuisance. Their interest in agriculture is only in so far as it is a system of spending money. They do not want revenue from tobacco grown in Ireland. They would rather get revenue from tobacco smoked in Ireland, and therefore they are going to put all kinds of obstacles, as they have done, against the encouragement of the growth of tobacco in this country. I think it is as well we should understand that, and ask ourselves if it is worth while spending money on tobacco-growing when the chief Department—the Treasury—is definitely against such encouragement. They put all kinds of obstacles in the way of the grower, and they make it very difficult for the crop to be grown profitably. Consequently some kind of subsidy on the growing side has been found necessary. I am rather concerned with the position up to date. The State has given encouragement to small farmers to grow tobacco. It has also given encouragement to the manufacturing and the preparing end to invest money for the purpose. Now that they have got into a state when they are blocked up with stocks which they cannot realise without great loss of money, they are met with a new situation from the fiscal side. Imperial preference was given to India, which has encouraged the unloading of stocks of tobacco in England and Ireland, produced at a very low price, and these stocks have brought down the price of Irish tobacco to almost nothing. One Department of the State has encouraged and continued to encourage tobacco-growers, and the other Department of the State comes along and makes the effort of the Agricultural Department null and void, and penalises to a very great extent the men who followed the advice and almost direction of the Agricultural Department. Now, if the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Finance have made up their minds that tobacco-growing—having gone through the experiments and proved itself quite satisfactory from the agricultural point of view—is bad for the revenue, and therefore bad for the country, let them say definitely to the farmers of the country, "We are not going to encourage you any longer to grow tobacco, but, in view of what you have done in response to our advice, we are going to see you through the present tangle and the present losses." It seems to me that is the only position the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance can take up on this matter consistent with the arguments they have used.

The growing of tobacco has, undoubtedly, proved very valuable from many points of view, speaking as a national economist. It is good for the country. It is a good crop and employs a great deal of labour and is demanded by the people, that is to say, it has met a want, and it can be improved in quality. But from the Revenue point of view, undoubtedly it has disadvantages. It is very much better for the Revenue that they should get tobacco from America, Turkey, or anywhere else, as it has to come through certain ports and come through in bond. A man wanting to grow tobacco, say, in Kerry, Galway, or Cork has to apply for a licence to do so, and I suppose a Revenue Officer has to be kept lying under a ditch or hedge to be sure that nothing goes wrong with the tobacco, so that the Revenue Department may not suffer from tobacco growing. There is no doubt whatever that a Department of the State has encouraged the people who were working at tobacco growing, and the people who have spent money for the curing, preparing and re-handling of the tobacco, and it is only fair to those people—those small farmers— who have assisted in this, and spent a lot of money, and bound themselves to certain commitments, that they should be assisted out of the money of the Development Grant voted for this purpose.

Deputy O'Shannon raised a question, and indicated that there is a great deal of doubt as to the facts in regard to this grant of £70,000. It is alleged that the £70,000 was earmarked out of the Development Grant for the purpose of encouraging tobacco growing in Ireland, and that £30,000, or thereabouts, has been spent. I take it that the sum of £3,000, odd, referred to in this estimate, is portion of that £70,000, which may have been the capital sum—I do not know how it is arrived at—but I suggest, if Ministers have made up their minds that it is not a good proposition to encourage tobacco growing, and if this is a balance of this fund that has been earmarked for the tobacco growers, then the losses that have been sustained, or would have been sustained, by putting the present stocks upon the market at the moment, ought to be met, to a considerable extent, out of the balance of this fund that is available. If it has been decided that there should be no more peddling with tobacco growing, and that is the indication given us from the Ministry, then there should be some recompense to those men who have at their direction persisted in this experiment. I realise the force of the argument of the Minister in regard to 50 per cent. of the duty, if 50 per cent. of the duty could be foregone. Fifty per cent. of the duty at present rate could be expended upon the encouragement of some industry, and probably could be spent to better advantage than on tobacco growing. I admit that frankly, and I do not think that there is very much to be got out of the claim that so large a proportion of the duty should be remitted unless there is going to be a very narrow limitation in the acreage grown; and that, I think, would be an impossible condition. If you are going to remit the duty to the extent of 50 per cent. you cannot limit the acreage, and one could easily multiply the present tobacco production 20 or 30 times if you are going to remit 50 per cent. of the duty. I do not think that there is very much advantage, considering the present state of the revenue, to be obtained by a claim for the remission of the duty for the purpose of continuing the growth of tobacco; but I contend that there is something due to those people who have invested money and time at the direction, and more or less for the convenience, of the State, and that they, at least, should be met in regard to their losses in the matter.

There are one or two other small matters on this vote that I want to get out of the way in case the Farmers' Party desire to raise bigger questions. I think Deputies on the Government benches, at least, will probably be glad to have some fuller information about item H.H. and as to the work of the National Stud. I have no doubt it would be very interesting to the Dáil and the country to know what has been the result of these activities in regard to horse-breeding at the National Stud. You may find that it is going to be a new Department, and perhaps Deputy Doctor White might have something to say in regard to the manning of that Department.

There is an item of £457 for Statistics and Intelligence Branch. The Minister for Finance told us a few days ago that in future the Statistical Branch of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce will compile statistics relating to agriculture also. There are no provisions made in the Industry and Commerce Vote for the statistics of agriculture, and one would expect that the whole of this Vote would come under one head. Whether that is a matter for adjustment after the Ministries Bill has been passed I do not know, but it at least seems there would be need for a good deal of revision of the Department's work in regard to statistics if it is to be brought under the Ministry of Industry and Commerce and under one chief statistician. Then all these charges should be brought under that head, including the Vote for £457 for the Inspector of Statistics.

I notice also an item, "Officer in charge of Agricultural Labour Disputes,, which was not a charge in last year's account. I take it that that is an officer who has been transferred from the Ministry of Industry and Commerce to the Ministry of Agriculture. While one can understand the advantage, perhaps, of having such an officer under the Ministry of Agriculture, it does not seem to fit in with the general work of such an officer with regard to disputes. I am inclined to think that unless there is very close collaboration between the two Departments in regard to this kind of work, there will eventually be a lot of overlapping. You cannot detach an officer and use him for this work alone without relating it to work of a similar kind on other Departments, and it seems to me that his value will be greatly minimised by detaching him from the general work of such a Department. I would like also to hear from the Minister some explanation regarding the reduction in the amount for allotments, and as to whether there has been any great decrease in the demand for allotments, and, generally, to ask that he should make a statement as to this question of allotments, and explain why a reduction has been found necessary. There is another matter, too, that I would like to ask the Minister to enlarge upon. There were two reports submitted to the Minister's Department from the Commission of Enquiry relating to the encouragement of cow-testing through the country and the establishment of special stud farms. So far as one can gather, the money and time spent on that enquiry have been wasted. No results are apparent, except the publication of reports, and inasmuch as these reports were sent in as definitely practical propositions—that is to say, were generally proved as practicable, economical and urgent—it is required, I think, of the Minister to explain whether anything is being done in regard to the putting into operation of these recommendations, or as to what decision has been come to in regard to them: whether they have been turned down as impracticable or as being too costly, and why nothing has been done in that respect. I note there is an increase in the Vote for the improvement of dairy cattle. Perhaps we shall have some information as to what that is intended to cover, and as to what the proposal is. Is it to increase the premiums, or to develop any special side of the industry? I think the country, the agricultural community, and the Dáil is entitled to a very much fuller statement of policy, past, present, and future, from a Ministry when presenting a Vote asking for money of this kind, and it is not too late, even if we have to adjourn this discussion, for the Minister to make a full statement in regard to Ministerial policy on agricultural questions.

Mr. HOGAN

I agree with the Deputy that the Dáil is entitled to full information in regard to the Estimates, and I think I have heard that before. The Dáil is always given full information in regard to the Estimates, and if there are any points that any Deputy wishes to get any light or leading on I will be personally, and every other member of the Government will be, willing to give it.

Mr. JOHNSON

Excuse me a moment. My suggestion about further information is rather this, that the presentation of Estimates of this kind is an occasion when the Minister might well make his statement of policy, examine the work of his Department, and the proposals he has in mind for the future of the Department. We might agree with every item in these Estimates, and unless we are fault-finding we have nothing to say except to try to extract information. We might make charges for the purpose of extracting information, but it seems to me that it would meet the desire of the Dáil and the country if, in presenting Estimates asking for money for the coming year's work, the Minister would generally review the work of his Department and give some indication as to what the intentions are in regard to that Department's work.

Mr. HOGAN

I daresay there will always be differences of opinion. I do not agree with the Deputy as to what would be the correct way to view, either the past work of the Department of Agriculture, or the intentions of the Ministry for the future. Nothing would suit me better than to come in here and to deliver a long general statement as regards agriculture. It is quite simple and quite easily done, but I do not think it is business. Agriculture is a very big question, and the future of agriculture in this country is a very big question. "The future policy in regard to agriculture" is such a vague expression that I do not know what it means. Land purchase is a very important item of agricultural policy, grading of products is a very important item of agricultural policy——

Mr. DOYLE

Transit.

Mr. HOGAN

Transit. Deputies can suggest things. I could go on for a long time, and I could mention various important items that go to make up general agricultural policy. But I suggest to the Dáil that it is much better, and much more like business, to attend to these separately, and when you have anything worth saying on each of them, to say it. When I am dealing with the question of grading, I hope to tell the Dáil very fully what our policy is, and to give our reasons, our plans, to show what has been done in the past and what will be done in the future. But I wish to say, with all deference, that I do not agree with the Deputy's suggestion that in introducing Estimates of this sort you should make a general statement on agricultural policy. I do not think it would get us anywhere. I think it would take about two days to make a statement of that kind, and I do not think anybody would be very clear as to what our policy was at the end of it.

In regard to tobacco, there is one thing perfectly clear, that we have not made up our minds—neither the Minister for Finance nor I have made up our minds. But Deputy Johnson has made up his mind, and has stated frankly that there is no future for tobacco in this country, and that it would not be worth while spending a couple of hundred thousand pounds on it. That is very frank. I have been wavering a very long time in my own mind, and I have often almost come to that conclusion, but I am not quite of that mind, and I do not think the Minister for Finance is quite of that mind. We certainly will not dogmatise by saying that there is no future for tobacco in the country. We will say, that if it is necessary to forego something like £600,000 in revenue, that it could be better spent than to spend it on tobacco, but we are not clear that there is a necessity for the foregoing of that. If we examined the whole experiment which has been going on for many years, and it is extremely difficult to get information with regard to it, I am not clear that we might not find that tobacco-growing was not such an impossible proposition as the figures would lead one to believe. We are quite frank when we say that we have not made up our minds that tobacco-growing is impossible. What we have made up our minds about is, that we cannot afford to spend, at this stage, anything between £200,000 and £600,000 on it. I think that is a fairly evident proposition, and I need not labour it. We are blamed because Deputy Doyle stated it is out of the question to ask Sir Nugent Everard to carry on for another year with the subsidy we are giving him. Well, we are giving him £25 per acre, and he carried on for a great many years on that. We are also giving him £8 an acre on the uncropped area. That brings the total up to something like £40 per acre on the cropped area. If you transfer the poundage on the uncropped area to the cropped area, and if you add the poundage you are giving him on the cropped area, you get something like £40 an acre. He carried on for £25 an acre for many years, and it is not too much to expect, in view of the circumstances and the financial stringency of the country, that he would carry on for £40 for another year.

Mr. DOYLE

And produce a crop that cannot be sold, with that subsidy.

Mr. HOGAN

I will go no further than to state that he carried on his crops and produced them for a great many years with a subsidy of £25 an acre, and he got no greater subsidy, notwithstanding that he was dealing with a Government that could balance its Budget. We are offering him £40 an acre. I do not claim that we are infallible. We have not made up our minds definitely, like Deputy Johnson, that there is no future for tobacco. We will give ourselves another year. The Department of Agriculture are engaged at present in trying to get— and it is extremely difficult to get the information from Sir Nugent Everard—all the data that would enable us to come to a definite conclusion on the subject.

Mr. JOHNSON

When he says the Minister has not made up his mind, does he mean to say the President has not made up his mind?

Mr. HOGAN

Certainly, if the President had made up his mind that there was no future for tobacco-growing he would not give a subsidy of £40 an acre.

Mr. JOHNSON

I was rather taking the evidence of his last statement.

Mr. HOGAN

I read his last statement.

Mr. JOHNSON

I heard it.

Mr. HOGAN

We cannot usefully argue about that. The President is able to speak for himself. We are giving £40 an acre anyway, and we do not claim to be infallible. By this time next year we hope to get sufficient information from Sir Nugent Everard. It is extremely difficult to get information that would enable us to come to a conclusion. I may say we are in exactly the same position as the Agricultural Commission found themselves. They heard all the witnesses and experts—the Department of Agriculture, Goodbodys, growers, etc. —and yet they have not been able to make a recommendation.

Mr. JOHNSON

We do not know what your fiscal policy will be.

Mr. HOGAN

That is the difficulty. We have not yet decided what our fiscal policy is to be. I do not know that there is any secret about that. We have not decided yet as between Tariff Reform and Free Trade, and we never pretended that we had. We would be extremely foolish to initiate our fiscal policy by dealing with a purely experimental crop like tobacco. That is all I intend to say with regard to tobacco. With regard to statistics, that sum will be dealt with as a result of the Ministries Bill. With reference to the National Stud, I hope the Dáil is not under the impression that the National Stud is not an extremely useful institution. It is. I think the best recommendation it could get is to say that the only money we need provide for it out of Votes amounts to £5. I do not know whether the Deputies know its history. It was a stud presented, I think the words are "to the nation," some years ago by Lord Wavertree. There is one farm in England and one in Ireland, and there are thoroughbred horses in each farm. We have not yet settled our claim, which is that we are entitled to all the horses and assets in Ireland, and the English may have the horses and the rest of it in England. There is some valuable blookstock down there, and Captain Greer is the man in charge. It would be extremely difficult to get a more competent man, and the National Stud is run on most efficient lines. I do not know what information Deputies require regarding the Stud. All I want to impress on the Dáil is that the National Stud is a most useful and valuable acquisition, and we do not propose to allow it to be interfered with or its usefulness impaired in any way.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Deputy Magennis makes the point that from the size of the Estimate it would suggest that it was rather like a collar stud.

Mr. HOGAN

I am surprised that a financial expert like Deputy Figgis never heard of such a thing as a total Estimate. I do not think I will waste the time of the Dáil in explaining the meaning of that technical term. Now, with regard to the provision for dealing with wages made in the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture, I am surprised that Deputy Johnson disagrees with the principle, because I think the principle is sound. Surely the Department that should deal with agriculture should deal with agricultural wages. I had taken it for granted that I would not find any opposition from the Labour benches to the principle that a Labour Department as such—a purely Labour Department—is essentially fundamentally unsound; that we should not have a Department merely for settling strikes, and that wages should be dealt with as part of its particular industry. I thought we had received the approval of the Labour Party to that principle when this question arose before in connection with the Ministry of Industry and Commerce.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is quite true, and I raised this matter as a grievance. The Minister is now proving my contention as to the desirability of not having to extract information in the form of a grievance. It is not a grievance. It is a point I wished to draw the Minister's attention to, the desirability of such an officer being in very close touch with the officer who has similar work in the Industrial Department generally. I just raised the question with a view to finding out if such an officer is kept in that close touch, inasmuch as he would have to have some assistance. Is that assistance provided out of this Department, or is it provided out of the other Department? I urge there should be at least very close contact between the two Departments that have to deal with questions in dispute between employers and employees, not necessarily wages questions.

Mr. HOGAN

I think I am giving information to the Deputy that he knows better than myself. There must, of course, in the nature of the case, be very close contact between the two departments, especially on questions which affect the wages side. The Deputy mentioned the Interim Reports which the Agricultural Commission sent in, and he wanted to know what would happen and what we were doing about them, and more or less suggested that after the work of this Commission we had put the Reports in the waste paper basket. I must say I consider that unfair. I would not like to say that we have not got them a month, but we have not got the Reports for more than two months.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister is under a misapprehension. I was speaking of the Commission of Enquiry into the Industrial Resources of Ireland, and not to the present Commission. I meant the old Dáil Commission, the Figgis Commission.

Mr. HOGAN

The Deputy has put me in a quandary, for I never heard of that Commission.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is exactly the grievance here. The Dáil spent several thousands of pounds on this, and a dozen men spent a great deal of time on it. A considerable sum of money was spent in printing the Reports, which were approved by the country if the country spoke the truth and expressed its true opinions, by the Dáil if they expressed their true opinions, and by the Ministers if they expressed their true opinions, and yet the Minister for Agriculture knows nothing about it.

Mr. HOGAN

What I did say is that I never heard of the Figgis Commission, and the Deputy is doing me an injustice. I read the Reports, but I did not know them by that name.

I read the reports Deputy Johnson refers to. I did not know them by that name. The Deputy wants to know what we are doing about those reports. The Agricultural Commission now sitting is engaged on practically the same work, and personally I would prefer to take the evidence of the present Commission on the various questions raised. I am quite serious when I say that I would not change policy in regard to any matter which the present Agricultural Commission may be dealing with without first receiving their report. I have two or three of their reports already, and if there is time we propose to introduce legislation along the lines suggested there. The reports we have got from the Commission are at present with the Department of Agriculture, and certain points are being made up in connection with them that I require further light on. I hope to deal with the most important of those reports if there is time during the session within the next few months.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the reports be printed?

Mr. HOGAN

They will be printed immediately. With regard to dairying, we all know that that is specially for the South, the hope of agriculture in the South. We have increased the Estimates to some extent and tried to provide efficient and fairly well paid officers for the various Cow-Testing Associations. That is the addition that the Deputy refers to in the Votes.

The PRESIDENT

As regards the question of tobacco-growing, I understand there are something like 800 lbs. of tobacco grown to the acre. After half duty being allowed on that, it would amount to £130 an acre. In examining a question of this character, Deputies interested in it ought at least to give us figures, and be in a position to explain how many people are employed and what proportion of wages or money spent in wages would have to be contributed out of Government funds in order to make the proposition an economic one. I am sure the Deputies who so warmly supported this line would not do so were they not satisfied it was a business proposition. If we spent £200,000 or £100,000, or indeed any sum of money, on a particular service such as that, Deputies will, I think, admit there ought to be a reasonable return for it, and the person engaged in that sphere of activity should have a fair recompense, and there should be an equally fair recompense for those he would employ. That is an aspect Deputies have not dealt with. I may not have exhausted the subject when I was examining it. Speaking from recollection, I am satisfied that we would have to pay twenty to thirty per cent. of the wages. I do not think that is a reasonable request to put before the Executive Council. Even if our balance was on the right side, the business of the Government would be to see whatever money is spent, or raised by revenue to be spent, is spent on a sound economic basis. It is very painful to people like myself to have to speak plainly on matters like this. For something like twenty years I have been advocating Irish manufactures. I never bought anything except what was raised in the country if it could be got at any price. In the old days it was quite a proper thing to suggest that the British Government should forego a tax on homegrown tobacco. It did not matter from what source support came for Irish industries at the time. It is a matter of very serious import now, and we are not entitled to fling away money regardless of results. If the results of tobacco-growing in Ireland can stand the test of examination, and if it is a reasonable proposition; we are prepared to support it. Facts and figures should be produced here. It is not our business to produce them. The gentlemen in that particular line ought to give us information, and up to this we have not got it. In the circumstances we are not prepared to go further. We did not make a bargain with Sir Nugent Everard. We have carried out any undertakings that were the subject of arrangement between Sir Nugent Everard and the British Government. In fact, we have gone further. We are not satisfied that it is reasonable to ask us to go any further than we have gone.

Mr. DOYLE

Things must be done very differently now in the tobacco-growing business when the Minister is not in a position to have facts and figures at his disposal. When we were connected with the experiment we had to supply a weekly report embodying all details in regard to wages and other things, and that was sent to the Department. I believe the Minister for Agriculture could supply the particulars the President requires. I actually read them at the Commission the other day, and they are all set out. It is not exactly the fault of the growers that the returns are not to be had, except matters have altered in the last few years. They should continue the system of weekly reports as long as the experiment goes on. If things were carried out as in the old days, the Minister would have all facts and figures at his finger ends. I believe the Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture could bear me out in that.

The PRESIDENT

If there were such returns so favourable to this industry——

Mr. DOYLE

I did not say anything about favourable returns. I told you they were set out in the weekly report.

The PRESIDENT

Well, it is not my business to produce them. Deputies interested in this experiment ought to be in a position to say, "Here is an economic proposition; it is the duty of the Government to support that."

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Minister suggest he does not collaborate with the Minister for Agriculture on this matter?

The PRESIDENT

I do not suggest that.

Mr. JOHNSON

Has he been able to supply you with the figures?

The PRESIDENT

He has, and it is on those figures I have based the information I have given.

Mr. JOHNSON

Then why do you ask the Dáil for them?

The PRESIDENT

I am satisfied at any rate that it is not a good proposition, and I give the invitation to somebody to prove that it is.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister for Agriculture said you have not made up your mind.

Mr. HOGAN

When?

Mr. DAVIN

Before you put this Vote there is an item here in these Estimates on which I would like to ask information. It is with regard to Transit Inspectors. I would like to know the nature of the duties performed by people under the head of Transit Inspectors here. I have been reading through the official export list so far as non-dutiable goods are concerned, and I see that the railway companies are asked to supply information which originally, as far as I know, used be supplied by the Transit Inspectors. I would like to know if the Vote now asked for is one that will not be provided for in any future Estimate. In connection with the export of cattle the railway companies are asked to supply information which the exporters should supply as to the class of cattle—information which will show whether the cattle shipped are either bulls, milch cows, breeding cattle, store cattle, fat heifers, and so on. This is the first time this information has been asked for from them, as it was previously supplied by the people who are termed in this Estimate "Transit Inspectors." I would like to know what is the position with regard to these in the future, seeing now that this information is to be supplied by the railway companies. I understand that within the Department there is a section for dealing with the question of traders' grievances, particularly in regard to the export of agricultural produce. That was usually a grievance-hearing department in the past. I would like to know whether that Department still exists, what are the powers, and if it is possible to extend the powers of that Department?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

A very important question of policy has been enunciated here by the Minister for Finance. A certain policy is adopted by the Ministry with regard to a certain industry—the tobacco industry. The only persons who have the entire statistics on that matter are the Executive Council or the members of the Executive Council, or the Minister for Agriculture on behalf of the Ministry at large. It is decided by one Minister to discontinue a certain policy. Surely the onus of proof lies on him in whose possession the entire statistics lie and not upon other people in whose possession those statistics are not to be had. If the whole case were put up here clearly by the Minister for Finance, and the figures were put before us, and it was decided then by the Ministry that this help to the industry by the making of a certain grant is an uneconomic proposition for the State, then that statement being made, and the case being put, the Minister stands on firm ground. But when he says we have come to the decision from an examination of the figures which are not in the possession of the Dáil, and says that the onus of proof lies upon other people who have not got the figures, he is taking up a position that is in the last degree unjust and unfair. This is a matter that has aroused certain attention outside.

From the statements that are made here in the Dáil I would be inclined to say that any industry that requires so large a backing, so large an en dowment, before it can find its economic subsistence in the State, was ipso facto an industry that it was not for the benefit of the country to continue. But we have no figures. The figures are not in our possession. They are in the possession of the Minister, and before a question of policy of this kind is decided on and confirmed by the Legislature the whole information—that is, the information of the country—should be put before the Legislature, in order that it may be able to know where it stands in regard to this matter. Deputy Johnson touched upon the question of Cow-testing Associations. One of our largest industries in Ireland at the present moment, and certainly one of the basic industries, is the dairy industry, because it underlies the cattle industry. Here we have the remarkable fact that Deputy Doyle referred to the Irish tobacco growers as being able to supply all the tobacco consumed in Ireland if half the tax were remitted, which practically means that if the tobacco-growers had a protective tariff in their favour they would be able to supply the tobacco consumers of Ireland. I never heard of anybody advocating such a protective tariff in respect of butter, but we might hear that next.

Mr. ROONEY

It is not a question of subsidy. It is a question of the taxation of Irish-grown tobacco. Irish-grown tobacco is not able to bear the taxation because imported tobacco is produced by Coolie labour at 3d. a day. It is not so in Ireland.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I realise that; but the effect is exactly the same. If you put on a duty at a certain figure, and halve it to the Irish producer, it is exactly the same as if you put on the duty against goods coming into Ireland. The fact remains that foreign butter is being bought in Ireland to-day more cheaply than Irish butter, although sent from a considerable distance. That is a state of affairs that I think should require a great deal more attention than the continuance of an industry which, so far as one hears, is economically doubtful. In regard to all this, we do desire, in respect of agriculture, as an independent Department of its own, the collection and constant publication and circulation amongst the members of statistics dealing with every branch of this the greatest industry in the country. That leads me to the one final point which I am anxious to put before the Ministry, and that is with regard to the compilation of statistics. Statistics are made available by the Statistical Branch of the Department, and are sent to the Press, while the same is true of the Ministry of Commerce, but Deputies are required to purchase them at very exorbitant charges. I urge the Ministry to consider this matter of the publication of these particular statistics. They say that the figures with regard to the tobacco industry are in possession of the Ministry, and I urge that they should be circulated, showing the exact state of the industry and the causes that led the Minister for Finance to say, from his examination of the figures, that he came to a certain conviction, and that this industry was not worth continuing and not worth endowing as it was endowed in the past.

The PRESIDENT

I do not remember making any such statement. The figures that are here will probably bear out that. The sum put down this year for tobacco-growing is £3,313. Deputies will see that on page 140. Last year the amount was £3,030. I expect that the Deputy will probably learn to know after a while that the particular business of the Minister for Finance is to justify an increase. I do not think that I have justified it to any great extent, but I will make the Deputy a present of the fact if I have not. If I have not justified any more, I do not think it is my business. If the Deputy thinks it is, I must dispute it with him. This is not our policy, but the policy we got from those that were here. We are carrying out an undertaking which the people before us made with the tobacco-growers. We made an increase, and I can be criticised for giving more than I was satisfied should have been given. But it is there, and if you are not satisfied with it, you can shout out "Níl.”

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I was not dealing with those figures. The Minister for Finance challenged Deputies here who had brought forward a case for tobacco growing to bring forward certain costing figures. He spoke about the cost of labour and the number of hands employed, and Deputy Doyle replied that those figures had been sent in to the Minister for Agriculture, and were available for the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance replied at once that he had seen those figures, and had come to his conclusions. I say, let us have the figures with the conclusions presumed to be based upon them, and which we have not had.

Mr. HOGAN

The Deputy has had the figures on a few occasions, and I am not going to give them again. I have stated our position with regard to tobacco; I have given the figures, and stated the conclusions with regard to those figures. With regard to Deputy Davin's point, the officers he refers to are the officers who look after the watering, feeding of cattle, the disinfection of waggons, and other duties like that. They are really inspectors of the railway companies in the sense that they see how the cattle and live stock are being carried. I do not know what section of the Department he refers to that deals with complaints from traders. The Deputy may refer to the fact that traders used to send in complaints with regard to rates on carriage. It is still open to traders to send in those complaints, and they are brought before the Railway and Canal Commission.

Mr. DAVIN

Which does not exist.

Mr. HOGAN

Yes, at the moment; the Deputy has caught me out there.

Question put: "That a sum not exceeding £275,982 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for expenditure in respect of the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture, and of certain Services administered by that Ministry, including sundry Grants in Aid."

Agreed.

At this stage the Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

The PRESIDENT

I regret to say that the Minister for Education is ill, and the Minister for Defence has asked me to get his Estimates postponed. I propose to take up from 19 to 29, inclusive to-morrow, as well as 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43 and 54.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I understand that, owing to the unfortunate illness of the Minister for Education, Estimates 51 and 52 will be postponed. When will the Army Estimate, 58, be taken?

The PRESIDENT

The Minister for Defence told me he had to go away, and that he did not expect it would be taken for a couple of days. I will make an announcement with respect to it to-morrow. I will see if it can be taken to-morrow evening late.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Can the Minister say whether Education will be taken on Thursday?

The PRESIDENT

Yes, sir.

The PRESIDENT

I move to report progress and to ask leave to sit again.

Question put and agreed to.