Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Feb 1931

Vol. 37 No. 2

Private Deputies' Business. - Tobacco-Growing in the Saorstát—Motion.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
"That a Select Committee consisting of eleven Deputies, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, be set up to consider the present position and future prospects of the industry of tobacco growing in Saorstát Eireann; and to report whether any assistance should be given to it, and what should be the nature and extent of any such assistance;
"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records."
—Matthew O'Reilly.
—Tomás O Deirg.

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?

It was a sort of sigh. I was wondering if the Deputy smokes.

I am like the President. I have not that redeeming vice.

You ought to start on home-grown tobacco.

I think that the President ought to start on it. As I was saying, tobacco is a luxury article, and therefore a fair object to tax. Not only that, but it is consumed by a considerable number of our people. For that reason it is assumed that a tax upon tobacco does not bear heavily on any individual in the community. There is another commodity which is consumed not so much as tobacco by the poorer portion of the community, not consumed so much by the workers in the community, but a commodity which is also very much in the nature of a luxury, and which is imported on a very generous scale into this country, and that is petrol. As I have said, the deficiency which would have to be made up to the revenue per million pounds of tobacco grown, if we grant the privileges which the Committee recommended, would be £145,000. A tax of a penny a gallon on petrol which is used to a large extent to drive luxury vehicles in this country would make up that deficiency, and the revenue would not suffer any loss in consequence of the fact that the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann had made up their minds to do what the British had been doing before, namely, to foster and develop the tobacco industry in this country, an industry which at one time was a very important one here. Or, if the Minister for Finance will not be permitted to put this tax upon petrol, let me suggest, that instead of putting the tax on raw unmanufactured tobacco grown in this country, an increased tax be put on the finished article, on cigarettes and plug. In that way he could compensate the revenue for any temporary deficiency which may be caused by the fact that he refrained from collecting the tax on the raw tobacco in the field.

Another misstatement of the Minister for Finance to which I would like to draw attention is that he said: "The position seems to be that it would cost something like 1s. 6d. a lb. to grow tobacco which can be bought at sixpence." I have had the opportunity of looking up the report of the Imperial Economic Committee on Tobacco and I find that, so far as imports into Great Britain of tobacco grown within the British Empire is concerned, none of it in the years 1923, 1924 and 1925 was imported into that country at so low a price as sixpence per lb. The average price of Rhodesian tobacco in 1924-'25 was 1s. 4¾d. per lb., and in 1925-'26 it was 1s. 4¾d. per lb. The average price for Indian tobacco was 9d. per lb. In not one of these countries was tobacco sold at an average price of 6d. which the Minister for Finance put before this House as the figure with which the cost of Irish-grown tobacco would have to be compared.

Another misrepresentation from the Minister's speech is: "If it is going to cost the Exchequer £3 a week to grow a half acre of tobacco"—that is £156 a year for a half acre of tobacco. If we multiply that by two, we get £312 per year as the figure to which the Minister's imagination has now exalted this subsidy. In an earlier part of his speech he admitted that the figure would be something in the neighbourhood of £120 an acre, but that figure has now, under the influence of the Minister's fertile imagination and strong prejudice, swollen to £312 an acre.

Having delivered himself of that gem he said: "It is only a shade better than a proposal to grow oranges or tea." From the farmers' point of view, in the present year, it may be only a shade better than a proposal to grow sugar beet and hand over the whole subsidy not to the native farmers who produce the beet, but to foreign capitalists who are exploiting the farmers in the interests of the Ministry.

The Minister for Finance was followed by the comedian of the front bench, the Minister for Agriculture. There is one thing, at any rate, which the members of this House are spared from doing, and that is from taking the Minister for Agriculture seriously. Of course we have good authority for doing that. We remember the famous occasion on which his colleague, the Minister for Defence, admitted that nobody took him seriously, at least in relation to the Army. He also followed the Minister for Finance, and said that it was stated— stated by the Minister for Finance— that it takes about £300 an acre to grow tobacco.

I have here an official publication issued by order of this House giving the report of the Special Committee on Home-Grown Tobacco, with minutes and certain appendices. I turn to the appendices and find that the average cost of growing an acre of Irish tobacco in 1924, for a small grower, was £35 16s. 11¾d., which is one-ninth of the figure mentioned by the Minister for Agriculture, and also by the Minister for Finance. For a large grower the figure was slightly higher because, of course, he has to pay a considerable amount in labour. In the case of the large grower the figure was £39 10s. 10d. That was the only argument that the Minister for Agriculture contributed to the debate. The rest of it was full of cheap sneers about Deputy Derrig's energy and about the Fianna Fáil Party—"if they want to let off steam, try to find some other way of doing it." The Minister had no argument to answer the case made by Deputy O'Reilly in support of the motion, and contented himself by saying: "We, as a Government, are satisfied that there is no case for tobacco growing in this country. We may be wrong, but there is one thing which a Government ought to do, and that is to come to a decision, and having come to a decision, whether right or wrong, stick to it." That is what they are doing in the case of land annuities. They made a blunder, and though it costs the people of the country three and a quarter millions a year, they are sticking to it. "Though we may be wrong, there is one thing the Government ought to do, and that is to come to a decision." That is what we feel in regard to this whole question of tobacco. The Minister for Agriculture says that they are satisfied that there is no case for it. I would like the House to listen to what is the considered opinion of those who are engaged in experimental work in connection with tobacco growing. This book which I have in my hand was not written by a Fianna Fáil Deputy, or by any follower of Arthur Griffith, such as the Minister for Finance. It is a book produced by the late solicitor for his Majesty's Customs and Excise, and it deals with the question of tobacco growing in Ireland. It says: "Experiments in the cultivation of tobacco in Ireland have been conducted under the supervision of the Department since its institution in 1900. The experiments made in the years 1900 and 1902, and carried out on a number of small plots widely distributed, establish the fact that good tobacco could be produced."

The contention of those who were connected with this industry for a considerable period of years, for I think almost twenty-five or thirty years, is that Irish tobacco could be grown here on a commercial scale and with profit to the community. There is an ample market for native tobacco provided it can be fostered and developed. In 1930 we imported into this country 12,563,000 lbs. of unmanufactured tobacco the value of which was £770,000—over three-quarters of a million. At one time Irish tobacco was very highly esteemed in Great Britain but tastes changed and there were other developments. At any rate, it has been established that the soil of Ireland is particularly suited to the growing of tobacco and with a suitable soil and with a potential market, amounting to something over three-quarters of a million pounds, we are told by the Minister for Agriculture, who, I say, believes in beef and butter for the British and potatoes and Indian meal for the Irish people, that "we as a Government are satisfied that there is no case for the growing of tobacco in Ireland." In my opinion an overwhelming case was made before the Committee for the fostering of this industry. We are not asking the Dáil now to accept the report of that Committee but to set up a new Committee which will approach the matter with an unbiassed mind and which, in the new circumstances that now prevail, will investigate the whole question.

I do not wish to keep the House any longer but before a division is taken on the question I would like the House to consider the advantages that were claimed for this industry by those engaged in it. First of all, the amount of labour required for the cultivation of tobacco is far greater proportionately than that required for any other crop commonly grown in this country. As a comparative standard, it is stated that the number of hours of manual labour required per acre of tobacco is estimated at 748½ as against 309 in the case of potatoes, 270 in the case of beet and 87 in the case of wheat. One of the problems, to which any Government really concerned about the welfare of the people would devote its closest attention at present, is what we are going to do with our agricultural population who at present are prevented from seeking, if you like, the relief which emigration to America and elsewhere has heretofore afforded them.

Here is a way in which a considerable amount of these young people who are now idle and hungry at home could be employed and help to maintain themselves. The labour involved in the cultivation of an acre of tobacco is, as I have said, 2½ times that required for the cultivation of an acre of potatoes, almost three times as much as that required for the cultivation of an acre of beet, and almost eight times as much as that required for the cultivation of an acre of wheat.

On that ground alone, on the ground that it would provide increased employment for the agricultural population, this question at present merits the closest investigation. As well as that it is also claimed that the crop is one which is eminently suitable for the small farmer, seeing that much of the labour required is of a nature that could be supplied by members of his own family, particularly in the slack season. One of the great advantages of the crop is that the work of curing is undertaken mainly during the winter. For that reason it would provide much needed and much wished-for occupation among the rural population during those months when work on the land is slack. It is also stated that the cultivation of tobacco necessitates the breaking up of a considerable area for other crops in order to provide for rotation, and is consequently a stimulus to tillage. The President claimed that for sugar beet. He thought it justified him in introducing the cultivation of sugar beet into this country. I do not wish to be taken as objecting to that. I like the Government to do anything constructive, but I would like when they undertake schemes of this nature that they would, at least, have the prodence and the foresight to ensure that it is their own people who will benefit and not the foreigner. Unfortunately, that prudence and foresight were grievously lacking among those who drafted the programme for the sugar beet factory.

It is also stated that this being a crop requiring intensive cultivation, tobacco growing improves the land and in consequence better yields of subsequent crops result. At the same time its growth improves the agricultural methods of the producer. These are four strong reasons given by the Committee for the growing of tobacco, and the fifth I suggest is that there is a wide field for its development. Twelve and a half million lbs. of unmanufactured tobacco is imported annually to the value of over £750,000. We have that market. We have these four advantages indicated by the Committee, and we suggest that, in view of these facts, and in view of the present economic circumstances of the country, the Committee called for in the motion should be set up. I hope that when the matter is pressed to a division the Deputies from those constituencies most closely affected by this question, constituencies like Meath and Wexford, and Deputies like Deputy Esmonde will vote on the motion.

The faces of these Deputies are so seldom seen in the House when a matter concerning the welfare of the constituency is under discussion that one is liable to forget that they exist. At any rate we have Deputy Gorey, Deputy Cole, and Deputy Esmonde, none of whom is here at the moment, in 1926 presenting a report to the Dáil recommending that something should be done to save the industry from extinction. They admitted that that report was rather a perfunctory one to this extent that their recommendations were provisional in view of the fact that their inquiries had been limited by their terms of reference, but they made it in order to save the industry from extinction. I am afraid that that industry is now like the red deer, almost more or less extinct in this country, but it is an industry which I think can be revived, and it is an industry the possibilities or revenue from which any native Government should investigate. For that reason we are pressing this motion and we hope that the Deputies who want to do anything for the agricultural community will support us in the division.

Mr. Byrne

I listened with very great attention to the speeches made with respect to the advantages of growing tobacco in this country, but to anyone who has given this subject any consideration whatever, it must be perfectly obvious that the growth of tobacco in this country can only be carried on at the expense of the taxpayer. It is not an industry that has been tried in this country for a period of almost twenty-two years. It is an industry which has been helped and fostered by subsidies from the State, and it is an industry which has been proved conclusively cannot be run either for the benefit of the State as a whole, or the benefit of the individuals engaged in the growth of tobacco itself. If tobacco is to be grown in this country the twenty-two years' experience we have had of its culture, has demonstrated what I may roughly place under three heads—(1) that the growing of tobacco in this country can only be carried on at a heavy financial loss; (2) that the crop of tobacco which grows in this country is almost impossible to dispose of, and (3) that it will never be a revenue-producing industry for this State.

I wonder why Deputy MacEntee, in the course of his speech, did not inform this House that already the taxpayers in this country are out of pocket to the tune of over £100,000 which has already been wasted in the twenty-two years that we have been engaged in the culture of tobacco. Any sane business man knows when he has lost £100,000 in the setting up of an industry that only one thing remains, and that is to get out of it as fast as possible. After the twenty-two years' experience we have had in the culture of tobacco in this country, we found, as time progressed, that, instead of being able to produce tobacco at a low cost, the cost of production was steadily increasing. I will quote from the Report: "The yield per statute acre of tobacco was decreasing and the selling price obtained from tobacco when grown was steadily diminishing." Is there any sane man standing for industrial development in this country who would support the resurrection of an industry of that kind? I read very carefully the speech Deputy Derrig delivered in support of this motion. The Fianna Fáil Party have turned to almost every possible phase of this subject in order to put up a case in this House, and up to the present they have not succeeded.

Deputy Derrig asked the House what were the reasons why the Government would not embark again on the growing of tobacco in this country and I went so far as to say that from this side of the House no reasons were adduced as to why tobacco should not be grown in this country. In the Committee set up in 1926 to deal with the question of tobacco growing, in paragraph (3) of the report they pointed out that every acre of tobacco cultivated in this country involved the State in a loss of £116 per acre. Do you want to involve this country in its present economic condition in a loss of £116 per acre by rescuing this defunct industry of tobacco growing?

First when the project was started a bonus of 1s. per lb. was given to every grower in the country, not 1s. per 20s. as Deputy MacEntee wrongly informed the House but 1s. per lb. grown in the country. That was increased to £50 per acre until we paid away in subsidy a sum amounting to £100,000. After that twenty-two years' experience what was the condition of tobacco grown in Ireland? The result may be briefly stated. The acreage of tobacco fell from 217 acres in 1914 to 15¾ acres in 1926 and when we take the subsidy how are you going to find employment for your unemployed in an industry such as that? We have been told by Deputy MacEntee in the course of his speech that this was an admirable country as far as climatic conditions were concerned for the growth of tobacco. Deputy MacEntee simply made that bald statement in the House without adducing a single fact or figure to prove it. It would be well if Fianna Fáil attempts to preach such a doctrine as tobacco growing in this country that they should profit by the experience we have already undergone.

I would refer Deputy O'Reilly to the crop of tobacco grown in 1912 and I will ask him what happened if this is an ideal climate for the growth of tobacco. In 1912 we produced 40,000 lbs. of tobacco and a frost damaged that 40,000 lbs. to such an extent that 8,500 lbs. had to be sold at 2d. a lb. In other words, one-fifth of the crop was almost useless. It might be well to remark in dealing with tobacco grown in this country and the experience gained after twenty-two years that in seven different centres when we had this subsidy of £50 per statute acre the cost of production was 10.2 pence per lb., and the selling price of tobacco was 4.3 pence, so in every lb. of tobacco we produced in this State the State lost 5¾d. per lb. and this is one of the industries that Deputy MacEntee tells us is going to find employment for the unemployed in this country. I cannot imagine for one moment why the Fianna Fáil Deputies have not availed themselves of the information that is on the records of this House. I stated in my opening remarks that there were three factors concerning the production of tobacco in this country. One was that the cost of production after twenty years' experience rose and the average yield steadily fell and the price received for every lb. of tobacco produced resulted in a loss of 5¾d.

Reference has been made to the various centres at which tobacco was grown. I would like to deal with two of the most important centres, Louth and Wexford. In 1911 Louth produced 949 lbs. per statute acre but in 1912 the amount was only 588 lbs. per statute acre. The price in 1911 was 5d. per lb., and in 1912 2.7d. Take Wexford. The average there per acre was 1,111 lbs. in 1911, and 707 lbs. in 1912. In 1911 it was sold at 5d. per lb., and in 1912 at 2.7d. In 1911 the loss in the growing of tobacco in Louth amounted to £19 7s. 6d. per statute acre, and in 1912 that increased to £20 10s. The loss in Wexford in 1911, was £16 6s. That amount increased in 1912 to £19 8s. per statute acre. Yet this is the wonderful industry that is to provide employment! Was there ever such tomfoolery talked?

I would like to draw Deputy O'Reilly's attention to the fact that in 1912 39 out of the 50 small tobacco growers had heavy deficits, and only in 11 cases out of the 50 was there any sales to meet the charges. Will Deputy O'Reilly tell the House how; when every pound of tobacco grown in this country is sold at a loss of 5¾d. we are going to find work and wages for the unemployed? One would imagine that such experience would be sufficient to prevent any sensible man advocating a campaign of tobacco-growing again in this country. If, having paid a bonus of 1/- in the lb. and increased the subsidy to £50 an acre, after 22 years' experience there has been a loss of from £16 to £20 an acre, in the name of Providence how does Deputy O'Reilly imagine there is going to be a profit for the Free State farmer in the growing of tobacco? It is well known in business that the first thing a man with capital invested in an industry will do when he finds that he is losing, after giving it every possible chance is to cut his losses and to get out. That is what the Government Party has done and no sane man can deny that their action has not been for the benefit of the country.

They have not got out yet.

Mr. Byrne

They have not got out, and they will not get out at the next election.

We will kick them out.

Mr. Byrne

If talk would do it you would.

Get back to tobacco.

Mr. Byrne

We are asked to produce a crop in this country, and when we have it we have no market in which to sell it. Will Deputy O'Reilly inform the House why £140,000 worth of tobacco, produced between 1914 and 1926, remained in the bonded stores and were not sold? Will he tell us why the Irish manufacturers refused to take it, when we are told that Irish tobacco has a special flavour? How is it that our Irish manufacturers refused to take it, except at a price at which it could not be profitably sold? I cannot understand why this motion has been moved by the Fianna Fáil Party after the ruthless criticism and analysis it has suffered at the hands of Deputies on these Benches. The Committee that was set up, and which inquired very fully into the matter, stated that the decline of Irish tobacco-growing was due to one very important fact, the refusal of the Irish tobacco manufacturers to buy Irish leaf. How is Deputy O'Reilly going to overcome that difficulty? Let us get down to hard facts. To put it briefly, we are asked to produce a commodity which cannot be sold except at a loss of 5¾d. per lb. We are asked to produce a commodity which our Irish manufacturers refuse to buy. We are asked to produce a commodity which facts and figures show has been produced at a loss of from £16 to £20 an acre. Is that the panacea the Fianna Fáil Party advocates for the reconstruction of industry in this country? If it is, all I can say is that the people of this country will have more sense than to return them at the coming election.

Although I heard Deputy Byrne's speech before on two or three occasions I do not quite follow it yet. The Deputy told us that there were huge losses per acre, that the tobacco could not be sold, and that the revenue lost over £100,000. I do not understand where the revenue lost.

Mr. Byrne

I never mentioned the word "revenue."

Mr. O'Reilly

The Deputy said the revenue lost as the tobacco could not be sold.

Mr. Byrne

I said that £100,000 was paid by way of subsidy, and that that was a State loss.

Mr. O'Reilly

No revenue has been displaced.

Mr. Byrne

You are flogging a dead horse.

Mr. O'Reilly

I am not. Not having displaced any revenue there can be no loss there. The Deputy referred to the crop grown in 1912, and graciously told us that the season happened to be a particularly frosty one. The frost came early and destroyed the tobacco. It was lamentable that a crop should be destroyed by the early frosts. Canada, the greatest wheat-producing country in the world to-day, when it started to produce wheat, was unfortunate in that respect during the first two or three years, as they had early frosts and lost their crops. Evidently the Canadians were not like ourselves. They did not lose heart; they continued to grow wheat. As far as weather conditions are concerned, I think, from the farmer's point of view, there was considerable loss last year, too, in the one thing we are permitted to say we can produce—hay. I do not think to-day that a farmer in Ireland is allowed to say he can produce anything else. Wheat has been definitely turned down; barley has only the faintest hopes; oats will be a past memory soon; while butter, of course, is in agony, and had to get a special stimulant in the shape of a subsidy.

I wonder what is going to become of farming? It is quite evident that Deputy Byrne is not a farmer. I could not name any particular crop that is produced by the farmer to-day that pays. Still, he has to stick it out. The beet business has been mentioned. It is a very highly subsidised industry, and unfortunately—as far as I know— the farmers do not get much of the subsidy. It goes to someone else. The question of tobacco growing presents a peculiar feature in a country that has adopted tariffs. We hear a lot about tariff procedure, that it is wrong and highly improper to put a tax on an article that is not produced here.

A tax on tobacco is a tariff, and we get no opportunity of producing that commodity in this country. One of the reasons I ask that this Committee be set up is that they will have a chance of exploring every avenue and they will be in a position to see if it is possible to take a more sensible standpoint than there has been taken hitherto in the matter of tobacco-growing. I think it is more or less a pity that a lot of money should have been thrown away on an industry that was greatly mishandled, and it is regrettable that the little experience gained during the course of the experiments in tobacco-growing should also have been lost. I and a great many other people in this country are convinced that there is a field for the greatest possible development in the tobacco industry. My belief that there is a great future in tobacco prompts me to ask for the setting up of this Committee. The Committee will not cost anything. Deputies, I am sure, will volunteer to serve upon it. I take it that the Minister is afraid to set up such a Committee. If he is not afraid, why does he not allow it to be set up? The only conclusion anybody can come to is that he is afraid that any Committee will investigate the possibilities of this industry. Reference has been made to a sum of £100,000 being lost to the taxpayer. What about the dole that is paid in respect of unemployment?

There is no dole.

Mr. O'Reilly

Is not the money that is paid in respect of unemployment a loss? I am sure that there is considerably more than £100,000 paid in that respect. Why could not the people to whom that money is paid be employed in this industry? There is no reason whatsoever why they should not be so employed, and the Minister cannot give any explanation in that respect.

Mr. Byrne

What rate of wages would you pay them?

Mr. O'Reilly

Whatever rate is usual.

Mr. O'Byrne

The niggers get twopence a day.

Mr. O'Reilly

That would not apply with a tariff on tobacco of 8s. 2d. a pound; you have any amount of liberty there. As long as the principle is followed here of declaring, without any examination of the case whatsoever, that an industry such as tobacco cannot be started, I fear that we will have to continue for a long time with an ill-developed agricultural industry, and, indeed, without any other forms of industry. I spoke already on the subject of restrictions, and I read out just a few of them for the House. The reason I did so was to show that only certain classes of people were selected to make a trial of tobacco-growing. I read them out also in order to show that the Government of the time that put those rules and regulations into force—it was the British Government— must have been very definitely convinced that there was the greatest amount of danger to the revenue in tobacco-growing; in other words, they were absolutely convinced that tobacco-growing in this country could be made a wonderful success, and they took every possible precaution not to allow it to be grown. It is on record that for years after the British Government destroyed the industry in this country the farmers in the County Wexford, which is the county that was most famous for tobacco-growing, continued to grow the plant amongst the potato stalks in order to satisfy the taste they had cultivated for the home-produced tobacco. The people of this country are in a very unfortunate position. They pay the highest price for probably the rottenest flour in the world, and they pay the highest possible price for probably the rottenest tobacco in the world. I do not know of any part of the world where people smoke the type of tobacco that we smoke here.

Mr. Byrne

What about France?

Mr. O'Reilly

If you go across to France you will find that the people there smoke their own home-grown tobacco. In Germany the people smoke their own tobacco; but in this country we smoke what is known as Virginian tobacco and I may say that it is only here that that class of tobacco is smoked. A similar condition applies in the case of the flour we use here. In France you will not see that class of flour; Frenchmen would not use the type of white flour that is used here. I have seen it stated that in Dublin those controlling the baking industry will not reduce the price of bread because the people are so critical and have such a highly-cultivated taste that they refuse to take anything else but a special type of flour. Similarly we in this country are inclined to refuse everything else but a special type of tobacco. This whole question of the tobacco industry will have to be examined before very long. I do not know anything about the Minister's revenue, but I am quite confident that at this moment his revenue from tobacco is showing a very considerable loss, and the reason for that is that the people are no longer able to buy it. The conditions now applying to tobacco will have the same effect as the Intoxicating Liquor Bill has had upon the licensed trade. Perhaps that might be a good thing, too, but at any rate I believe that the Minister is afraid he might lose some revenue if this Committee that is suggested were set up. What is the position in regard to tobacco at the moment? What is the position of the ordinary labourer, the man who is hardest hit? The agricultural labourer to-day is not getting anything like a living wage. That man is compelled to pay practically £9 each year in taxes if he smokes round or about the average amount of tobacco. I noticed in going through the country that most of the poor men have had to give up smoking, one of the little luxuries they had, because they could not possibly afford it.

I think I am not wrong in stating that the Minister at this moment is considering his income from tobacco. The revenue is bound to diminish. It is altogether misleading to say that an industry for the growing of tobacco could not be started. There is in existence at present such an industry. It is concerned altogether with the manufacture of cheroots. These cheroots, while imperfect in manufacture, yet have given very good results. The excise rules and regulations are so severe that they impede that particular industry. The policy adopted in this country heretofore was to grow a very dark strong leaf, principally for pipe tobacco. That was the policy of the Department and was preached by its instructors. The people permitted to grow tobacco followed out that policy. But people's tastes change in the course of a hundred years, with the result that such a strong tobacco is now found not to be at all suitable and not in demand. But no effort was made to develop the cheroot end of the industry, the reason being that the authorities knew perfectly well that if it were developed it would mean the cultivation of a taste for Irish home-grown tobacco. In that way the industry would get into such a position that they could not prevent its further development, and the authorities did not want that.

The industry that is in existence at the moment has been working for the last twenty years, more or less. Quite a satisfactory cheroot can be turned out by hands that have had special training. The cheroot can be manufactured in the factory erected on the farm where the leaf is grown. I believe I am not wrong in stating that this industry is a profitable one, and that more is made out of the growing of the tobacco leaf than from anything else the farmer produces. I have it stated as a fact that nine people are employed in that industry at a living wage. There is no use in the Minister trying to persuade the House that there is nothing in the industry.

I say there is everything in it. The manufacture of cheroots alone would, if encouraged, give a great deal of employment to farmers' sons and daughters. In years to come the manufacture of pipe tobacco could be undertaken. The attitude of the Minister is that he is convinced that no good can come from the development of the industry. Yet he is afraid to set up a Committee that, after hearing the evidence could form an opinion itself. The Minister knows that any Committee that might be selected in this House could not, after hearing evidence and getting the necessary proofs turn down the case for helping this industry. The Minister knows that and what he is afraid of is that if the Committee reported in favour of the industry he would lose revenue. I sympathise with the Minister because I know he is hard pushed and that as the years pass he will get less revenue from tobacco. I believe that in the end he will be compelled to establish more industries.

Two industries that are peculiar to every country that has succeeded in holding its own are tobacco and wheat growing. France grows more tobacco than any other crop with the exception of wheat. There are some people, of course, who may scoff at those ideas. That, however, will not deter those of us who happen to know something about these matters from speaking on them. In England at the present time, I suppose half the population scoff at Mr. Baldwin because he talks about wheat growing. That is due to the unfortunate ignorance that prevails amongst the people. I do not intend to delay the House longer on this matter. Personally, I sincerely regret that the Minister could not see his way to agree to set up the Committee asked for. That Committee could either turn down the question submitted to it or admit that something might be done to help the industry by relieving it, not perhaps from the duty, but from the restrictions that interfere so much with its progress at the present time.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 66.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Broderick, Henry.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cassidy, Archie J.
  • Clancy, Patrick.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, John F.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doyle, Edward.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Tubridy, John.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Aird, William P.
  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Cole, John James.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Crowley, James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • De Loughrey, Peter.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Finlay, Thomas.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Kelly, Patrick Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • MacEóin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, George.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Motion declared lost.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
Top
Share