Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 May 1923

Vol. 3 No. 19

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE—ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. - DEVELOPMENT FUND.—(GRANT IN AID).

The PRESIDENT

I move: "That a sum not exceeding £21,000 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 a Grant in Aid of the Development Fund." (£20,000 had been voted on Account.)

Grants are made from the Development Fund in respect of expenditure upon the following matters:

Technical and Advisory work in Agriculture.

Experiments in Tobacco production.

Improvement of Dairy Cattle.

Cattle Breeding.

Veterinary Research Laboratory.

Fishery Development and Miscellaneous Development Schemes, as well as grants to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. The current year's Vote is a repetition of last year's Estimate, namely, £41,000. Grants were made in pursuance of the powers granted by Section 1, Sub-section 1, of the Development and Road Improvement Fund Act of 1909.

Mr. THOS. JOHNSON

May I ask if the President will enlighten the Dáil, and those interested in the subject we discussed yesterday, as to the real position in regard to the £40,000 that is alleged to be still available for experiments in tobacco growing? I hoped yesterday that we would have some explanation for the purpose of clearing the air; it has not yet been given, and I think it would be well if the Minister would make an explanation of the position with regard to that sum of money, which was voted out of the Development Fund and earmarked for experiments in Ireland in tobacco growing. The sum was £70,000; £30,000 is alleged to have been spent, and the balance, £40,000, is earmarked for the purposes of the experiment. It is believed that that sum is available for that purpose, and it should be utilised for that purpose. Perhaps the Minister will explain exactly the position with regard to that portion of the Grant.

The PRESIDENT

My information on the subject is that a sum of up to £70,000 was promised, but no fund was made available in respect of the promise. However, following the undertakings or promises that were made, something like £40,000 has been already expended. As far as the balance is concerned, we are prepared to carry out our part of the undertaking.

Mr. JOHNSON

A letter from the Development Commission to a gentleman in the country contains this clause:—"Certainly the ten years arranged for this experiment have been very troubled ones, and it is impossible to draw much conclusion from the work which has been so upset by abnormal causes. The passing of the Free State Agreement Act puts an end to the connection between Ireland and the Development Fund, except that I suppose our existing commitments, which will no doubt include a considerable sum outstanding in respect of tobacco, will have to be adjudicated and paid over."

The information that has been supplied by those who ought to know the position in regard to this sum was that it was actually allocated and sanctioned by the Treasury, and of the sum of £70,000 over £40,000 was still unexpended.

The PRESIDENT

That is not my information. My information is that there was no such fund of £70,000, but that there was an undertaking to raise money each year in order to meet some amount of £70,000 and of that sum something like £40,000 was voted.

Mr. MICHAEL DOYLE

Yesterday the Minister for Finance asked us whether we could supply figures or facts with regard to the growth of tobacco because the grant should be based upon those figures. I am in a position to supply the figures for the cost of growing an acre pre-war, of heavy pipe tobacco. The cost in that case was £22 19s. 11d. per acre. The receipts from that acre of grown leaf were about £15. This estimate was made in pre-war days, when wages for the men working reached 2½d. per hour. To-day that figure would be three times as much. Therefore, taking the extra cost of labour at the present moment, and other costs, they would bring the cost of production nearer to £40 per acre, or close upon it; that is the cost of production alone. The receipts would be only somewhere about £15. The bonus that the Minister offers—he put it down, I think, at about £40—and it will be easy to see that the growers could not possibly grow an acre at that rate.

The PRESIDENT

I do not know whether this discussion is in order. What I wanted yesterday was some proof, whether this would be an economic proposition so far as the cost to the State goes, and these proofs were not given. If people hold that a subsidy should be given from the State, and that there should be a reduction of duty on homegrown tobacco, it lies upon those people to prove that, taking into account the cost of production, the sums of money secured by sale of the leaf, and the employment it supports, entitles the State to spend the sum demanded upon that particular service, and that, viewed in the light of a business proposition, it would prove economical. We have not got that information.

Mr. DOYLE

I believe the Department's expert, who is still in the country, and still I think in the Department, could supply all these details. His figures are here, and if you want the cost of labour and materials, and all the rest, it is here also in this sheet that I hold in my hand. I am only giving the total cost, but we have all the details here as supplied by the Department's expert.

The PRESIDENT

I said yesterday I was not satisfied, from the figures submitted to me, that it was an economic proposition. I am still waiting to be convinced, and there is no disposition, so far as I can see, to convince me.

Mr. DOYLE

There is no question at all about that. It is not an economic proposition without relief from duty; that is very easy for anyone to see. If it was an economic proposition nobody would be going to the Department, the Treasury, or any other body looking for a bonus in connection with this crop. It can easily be seen that without a reduction or a rebate of the duty it is not an economic proposition, and anyone who thinks it is an economic proposition without a reduction or rebate had better put the notion out of his head.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY

I have here a copy of some correspondence that passed in the matter between the Government and the people interested in tobacco growing in Meath. I do not know whether I should be in order now in raising that question upon this Vote, but certainly this correspondence requires some explanation.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is it possible to devote any of this £41,000 to the support of tobacco growing? Perhaps the Minister for Finance would tell us.

The PRESIDENT

Well, in the absence of detailed technical advice upon the subject, I would say that whatever sum would be available for that purpose out of the £21,000 would be a very small sum. If this matter had to be raised at all, it should have been raised yesterday.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Would any of this sum be available as a subsidy for tobacco growing?

The PRESIDENT

I cannot say.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Very good. Then everything is in order.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY

On the 6th May a telegram was sent to Colonel Sir Nugent Everard: "Finance Ministry prepared to increase existing grant of twenty-five pounds to forty pounds per acre actually cropped in 1923, or, alternatively, will sanction, in lieu of existing grant, payment of one shilling per pound of marketable tobacco actually produced in 1923, and sold, subject to acreage being limited to sixty acres. These offers are conditional on your waiving any claim you may have to a special grant or compensation in respect of uncropped areas in 1921 or later. The conditions of your existing agreement, dated 23rd January, 1914, except clause two, will apply."

That telegram was before a meeting of the tobacco-growers of the County Meath, with representatives of Labour present, on the following day, and they passed the following resolution:—"That this meeting of the tobacco-growers of Meath, with representatives of Labour, having had under consideration the offer of the Ministry of Agriculture of a grant of forty pounds per acre, or 1s. per lb. of marketable tobacco grown in 1923 and sold, beg to point out that the proposed grant, which is thirty per cent. less than the preference given to Indian tobacco over American in our markets, is altogether inadequate, and is, moreover, hedged in by impossible conditions, such as the waiving by Colonel Sir N.T. Everard, the rehandler, of his claim for payment of moneys due to him from the Department. The offer amounts to this, that the growers will get an additional grant of £15 per acre, limited to 60 acres, provided the rehandler forfeits the equivalent of £17 9s. per acre for 60 acres, or £26 4s. if only 40 acres are grown, money actually due to him."

I have only just had these particulars put into my hand, and have had no opportunity of going into them, out it seems that an explanation is required of the rather curious attempt to compromise, so that a gentleman to whom the State owes money should have the condition imposed upon him that he should waive his claim and take something less than his claim or he will get nothing. Does the Minister agree that he has no answer to that?

The PRESIDENT

Oh, no. There is an excellent answer.

Question put and agreed to.