I have been reading over the speeches made by the Minister for Finance and by the Minister for Agriculture on the last occasion on which this motion was before the House. I congratulate the Ministers, not upon the accuracy of their facts, but upon the fertility of their imaginations. If it were not that the rules of debate and the rules of the House preclude the Ministers in the Chamber from publicly worshipping "my lady nicotine," I would have formed the opinion that their pleasant mental fictions had been evolved while they were blowing smoke rings upon the Government Bench, because there never was in any speech made, even by a Minister in this House, such a taradiddle of misrepresentation as was indulged in by the Minister for Finance in endeavouring to justify the attitude of the Government in refusing to set up this Select Committee to consider the present position and future prospects of the industry of tobacco-growing in Saorstát Eireann.
The Minister, as is usual with the Government, when they are in a tight place, invokes the memory of Arthur Griffith, and proclaims with what devotion and zeal they had served the ideals of that dead leader. The Minister said that against his better judgment—it would appear that in patriotic causes the Minister is always acting against his better judgment. We have heard him state on a public platform that in 1919, 1920, 1921, against his better judgment, he advocated the establishment of an Irish Republic in this country. Now we hear that in the year 1923, against his better judgment, he was prepared, as a devoted follower of Arthur Griffith, to advocate a preference for Irish-grown tobacco. Here are his exact words:
"The question of tobacco growing," he said, "was discussed a good deal in the papers edited by the late President Griffith and most of us had the idea that a flourishing tobacco industry ought to exist here and that it was merely foreign misrule and foreign misregulation that prevented its growth. A closer examination convinced us that there was really no prospect of growing tobacco here on a considerable scale on anything like an economic basis. Nevertheless," and here is where the misrepresentation comes in, the misrepresentation which can never be absent from the speech of any member of the Government when they are endeavouring to justify a refusal to do their duty to their countrymen. "Nevertheless," he said, "a very considerable preference was given to tobacco—as much as it was thought could in any way be justified. In my own view the preference given was perhaps more than could be strictly justified unless it were to be of a temporary character." (Column 1193, Vol. 36, Official Debates).
"A considerable preference was given to tobacco growing," in his own view, "perhaps more than could be strictly justified." Just let us examine, as an example of the manner in which the members of the Government have approached this question, that statement of the Minister to see what truth there is in it. The duty on tobacco in the years 1923, 1924 and 1925 was 8s. 2d. per lb. on the unmanufactured article. By an Imperial preference that duty was reduced in Great Britain in the first instance, in 1924, to 6s. 8d. per lb. Subsequently, however, in the year 1925, the Imperial preference in Great Britain was increased by 2s. 0?., leaving the consequent duty on tobacco grown within the British Empire at 6s. 2d. The figures 8s. 2d. and 2s. 0?d. or 25 per cent. off the original customs duty on tobacco, represent, in the opinion of the British Government, what would be a fair and adequate preference to give to tobacco grown within the British Empire. Most of this tobacco, remember, was not grown under conditions such as prevail in this country. A good deal of it was grown by very cheap labour. All the tobacco grown here in 1921, 1922 and 1923 was grown by labour which, as compared with the rates which prevailed before that date and have come into operation since, was comparatively highly paid. I do not want to be taken as stating that it was too highly paid. At any rate the rate of wages paid to the tobacco workers in this country was very much higher than that which was paid to workers in other parts of the British Empire. Yet, notwithstanding that fact the British Government did not consider that a preference of 25 per cent. was unjustified, and was not too much to give to tobacco grown within the Empire. That was the attitude of the British Government. What was the attitude of this devoted follower of Arthur Griffith, the Minister for Finance? The actual preference given to tobacco growers in this country under the Government of that day, under Mr. Cosgrave's Government of 1923-1924, was a preference of 1s. 6d. in the lb., which was in fact, 25 per cent. less than the preference which the British Government gave to the tobacco growers here, and also to the tobacco growers of British India, British Rhodesia, British Nyassaland, and all the other tropical or sub-tropical countries with which our farmers were competing in the British market. I ask you to test the truth of the Minister for Finance's statement, to use it as a touchstone to form your own opinions as to the sincerity with which and the open-mindedness with which the Government approached this question, by contrasting the preference of 1s. 6d. given to tobacco-growers in Saorstát Eireann, by what proclaims itself and calls itself a native Government, and the preference given in Great Britain by the members of the British Government to the tobacco growers in their dependencies and in their dominions. And yet the Minister for Finance with his protection or preference, which the figures clearly prove was altogether inadequate, comes here and says that a very considerable preference was given to tobacco, in his own view, perhaps, more than could be strictly justified.
The Minister dealt with the recommendations of the Special Committee which was set up by the Dáil—the Special Committee—the composition of which, in view of the possible division upon this matter will, perhaps, interest the House—consisted of, among others, Deputies Mulvaney, Gorey, Cole, Sears, Beamish, P.J. Egan, Esmonde and E. Doyle. The recommendation in view of the figures which I have quoted as to the preference given in Great Britain on Empire-grown tobacco was, to my mind, a very moderate one. The Committee recommended that the duty on Irish tobacco should be reduced from 6s. 8d., or 5/6ths of the full excise duty to 5s., or 5/8ths of the full excise duty as compared with 8/2 per lb.
Think of the circumstances under which our growers were to compete in the British market and even in our own, particularly I will say in the British market. Here we were paying by contrast with the wages paid in tropical and sub-tropical countries a very high standard of wages. I wish particularly to guard myself against misrepresentation in this. I wish to emphasise that I do not think that the wages paid were too high, but they were very much higher than those paid elsewhere. In order to meet the competition of tobacco produced by poorly paid labour; in order to help our growers first of all to maintain the home market for themselves, to develop and extend it, and to develop the industry so that our growers could in the future be able to compete in the markets of the world, the recommendation of the Special Committee would have meant that in our own markets our own growers would have secured a preference of 3s. 2d. in the lb. as compared with a preference of 2s. in the lb. which Imperial growers secured in Great Britain. In round figures it meant that we were going to increase our preference by fifty per cent. for our own growers, and I say that that was not, taking every relevant factor into consideration, an excessive preference to give and that the recommendation of the Committee was an eminently reasonable one.
But think of how the Minister distorted this recommendation. Think of the gloss which he put upon it. I admit that he was assisted to some extent by an unfortunate observation in the Committee's Report. The Minister referring to this recommendation described it as one which would have given a subsidy of £120 an acre for every acre of tobacco grown. As I have said the Committee unfortunately by a misstatement in the Report gave him an opportunity to make that misstatement, because they said that the proposal in that regard would entail a loss in revenue of £116 per acre. It would entail no loss to the Revenue. Let nobody be under any misapprehension on that score. If this tax is not collected on home grown tobacco do not think that the Government are going to have to tighten their belts and carry through some of the economies for which the country is clamorous and which would be so very helpful to the farmers at present, but which they refuse to make. If this sum of £116,000, amounting to about £145,000 per million lbs. of tobacco grown here, were not to be taken off tobacco it would be taken off something else. There are many things which we import which are as much in the nature of luxuries as tobacco which could equally well bear this tax, and would equally well distribute the incidence of the tax over the whole community. One of the reasons why tobacco is so useful a commodity from the point of view of the Minister for Finance is that, notwithstanding the dictum of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that tobacco is no longer a luxury but has now become a necessity, notwithstanding that, many people are still old-fashioned enough, and I am one of them and I presume the Minister for Finance is another, to regard it as a luxury, and, therefore, a proper commodity to tax. No man or child I think is going to go hungry for tobacco no matter what cravings he may have, and if he does, it is not going to stultify his physical development. Did I understand the President to make an observation?