Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Feb 1926

Vol. 14 No. 7

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - NATIVE GROWN TOBACCO AND EXCISE DUTY.

I move:—

Go gceaptar Coiste Speisialta, a bheidh có-dhéanta d'ochtar Teachtaí a hainmneofar ag an gCoiste Roghnathóireachta agus 'nar leor ceathrar díobh mar quorum, chun féachaint ar mhaith an rud aon luíodú eile i nDiúité Máil do dheona do lucht tobac do shaothrú sa tSaorstát ach, i dteanta nithe eile, aire a thabhairt do thácht an cheárdais sin i gcomórtas le ceárdaisí eile, do mhéid agus do nádúir na fostaíochta a ghabhann leis, d'aon fhás is dóichí a raghaidh don éileamh ar thobac a saothruítear agus a hoibrítear sa tSaorstát, agus do conus oibreoidh sé ar an Ioncum aon atharú do dhéanamh ar an Diúité atá anois ann;

Go mbeidh comhacht ag an gCoiste chun fios do chur ar dhaoine, ar pháipéirí agus ar bhreacacháin;

Go dtuairisceoidh an Coiste don Dáil ar dháta nách déanaí ná 23adh Márta so chugainn.

That a Special Committee consisting of eight Deputies, who shall be nominated by the Committee of Selection, and of whom four shall form a quorum, be appointed to consider whether it is desirable to grant any further remission of Excise Duty to growers of tobacco in the Saorstát, having regard, among other things, to the relative importance of the industry, the amount and nature of employment given by it, any probable development in the demand for tobacco grown and manufactured in the Saorstát, and the effect upon the Revenue of any alteration of the existing Duty;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records;

That the Committee report back to the Dáil not later than the 23rd March next.

When the Finance Bill was under discussion last June, an amendment was put down by Deputy Mulvany, I think, asking for some increase in the preference to home grown tobacco. On the information before me I believed that no increase could be justified. I believed, in fact, that there was no future before the industry, if it could be called an industry, of the growing of tobacco in this country. On the other hand, there is no doubt that a great deal of interest has been taken in this particular topic for some twenty or twenty-five years past. In the early days of Sinn Féin a great deal of attention was paid to the matter, and it was believed that there was a great future before it. The people, as I said last June, who have carried on the growth of tobacco are perhaps even more expert in propaganda than in growing tobacco. The result is that while officially it is not believed that there is any future before the industry, a great number of people outside official circles believe that there is. I suggested then that a Select Committee of the Dáil should be set up, that various accounts and reports that are available should be produced for that Committee, that witnesses representative of the tobacco growers and of people who have had to do with the supervision of the claims should be heard, and that a report be presented that would enable the Dáil to make up its mind with greater certitude than if it were simply to rely on the arguments put forward by a Minister, and put forward against a Minister by people who might have been briefed by tobacco growers.

I would like to ask the Minister if he proposes to indicate to the Committee what remission of duty he can afford, because from the evidence that was given to the Agricultural Commission on this matter it seemed to me that everything depended upon the effect on the Excise, and if the Minister can assure the Committee or the House that the Exchequer can afford a given sum, I am sure that that would assist the Committee of Inquiry very materially. If the Minister is going to say that nothing can be charged to the Exchequer, in the way of remission, more than what has hitherto been charged, then the answer of this Committee will be very easily obtained.

Any sum that the Dáil might like to spend on the luxury could, I presume, be afforded: it could be raised in some other way. What I would like the Committee to consider is, whether in view of the prospects, it is worth spending as much as we are spending at present on tobacco growing. I do not think it is. I want them to report whether they think it is worth spending more for every pound of tobacco that is grown and to go into that. In view of the fact that a preference already exists, that there is a certain charge to the Exchequer and a certain charge on the general taxpayer and that there is a certain loss of revenue which has to be made up otherwise, I would like the Committee to consider whether it is worth losing as much as we are losing for the employment that is given at present by this industry, and whether it would be worth losing more for the sake of any additional employment that might be given. It is not a question merely of fixing the sum that the Exchequer could afford because if we want to do a particular thing, and if we feel that we are going to get benefit for it, and that we are going to get results in the end, we could afford a great deal. The sugar beet experiment, for instance, will cost a great deal, but we believe there that we are going to get results from it. This particular experiment of tobacco growing has been going on for well over 20 years, and we are still at the point where the manufacturer, getting the leaf for nothing, which is the effect of the present remission of the duty, will not take it.

Would the Minister consider extending the scope of the Committee to other things besides tobacco growing?

If there is any reluctance to set up the committee, I may say that I will not urge the Dáil very strongly to do it. I promised Deputy Mulvany, when he undertook to withdraw his amendment last June, that I would move to set up a committee to examine the matter.

I think it is only fair that the Minister for Finance should do as he promised me last June when I brought forward my particular amendment. I think I know fairly well, if I had challenged a division on that amendment, how the division would have ended. I was asked by members on the Government and Independent benches to withdraw my amendment on the strength of the promise the Minister had made. I did so, and I hope the Minister will now stick to the promise he made on that occasion. I wish to remind the Minister of a statement he made on that particular evening in reply to me. He said that if tobacco was more extensively grown in the country that the people of the country might acquire a taste for smoking the native article with a consequent loss to the revenue. I ask, are we going to grow nothing in this country if the revenue is going to suffer?

Would the Minister say if the committee will have power to go into the question of the high duty charged by the Government on tobacco. If that high duty were reduced it would help, I think, to bring down the cost of living. At present the cost of tobacco is about 250 per cent. above the pre-war price. I think the duty ought to be reduced so that the worker may be able to get tobacco for himself.

The committee will only deal with home-grown tobacco.

Will the committee have any power to prevent the manufacturers from making the huge profits they are making at the present time?

That is a separate question.

Motion put and agreed to.
Top
Share