I should like the Minister to say how it was that they hit upon 100 years in fixing the age of furniture to be imported. I presume "furniture" in that respect means silver, or is it directed exclusively to household furniture?
Private Business. - Finance Bill, 1934—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."
The Deputy has misread the section. It means any article.
The Minister mentioned, in the course of the Bill, that it had reference to antique furniture.
Not merely to antique furniture.
So far as furniture is concerned, it is the main item. Why it was that they fixed at 100 years I do not understand. The principal artists had passed away about 1820, and the other principal artists were Chippendale, Adam, and Sheraton.
The Deputy is proceeding on a wrong assumption. As a matter of fact the necessity for this clause in the Bill arises out of a different article.
What was it?
A violin.
Is not that a musical instrument?
Yes.
Does it not refer to furniture?
No, I think the words of the section are clear. They may include furniture. I did not give the House to understand at any time that this section related principally to furniture.
If articles referred to are 100 years old, it will bring in the Victorian era. There was another amendment on this section down, but it was ruled out by the Ceann Comhairle. That would have brought it to the time of the Act of Union. Is the policy of the Government Victorian? I take it it is. I had hoped there would be a prolongation of the period.
As far as this particular section is concerned it could not be wider than it is. The Minister says "any article," and now it is framed to bring in violins. That is a musical instrument and it could have been cited as such. As far as the section stands we can, as Deputy Esmonde says, practically import Victorian furniture free of duty.
If anybody wants it.
The question really that the House is asked to decide is whether we shall allow in shoddy. I do not know whether the Minister intended that or not. There are very good manufactures and great furniture artists in this country. This may hamper and restrict their work. The various tariffs imposed have not materially assisted such persons, but this section may possibly injure their business. There is no indication as to what is meant by the section except the one example given of a violin. Surely it was not necessary to draft such a wide section as this to allow in a single violin? Even a violin is not an antique, I would say, if it were only 100 years old. If you were not likely to injure some furniture makers here, I would have no objection. If people are foolish enough to pay for Victorian furniture and import it here, that is their own affair. But that it should be allowed in to compete with furniture makers here when efforts are being made to stimulate production all around to meet our requirements is another matter altogether. In this case, as I said, there are persons engaged in this business who are real artists. Is there to be further competition allowed in respect of their work and all for the sake of having a particular violin imported? For whom is it? Have we to legislate now so that a single article can be brought into the country?
Yesterday the Deputy complained that most of the speeches of the Minister for Finance were after-dinner speeches. I think we have just listened to a "morning-after" speech because, except on a morning after, I never heard so much confusion of thought expressed in a few sentences as we have listened to from the Deputy. There was a period when the Deputy had very little regard for antique furniture. I think there is on the records of this House pronouncements to that effect.
Not in reference to this furniture.
At any rate, I think he regarded a certain assembly then as an early Victorian collection. We are told that there are great artists in this country who are going to be injured because we are allowing in shoddy early Victorian furniture. There are great artists in this country, and I am perfectly certain that every one of them will resent the imputation conveyed in Deputy Cosgrave's speech that, if people had their choice between purchasing their handiwork and what is regarded as early Victorian rubbish, according to the Deputy, they would, even to the extent of the duty, prefer furniture of the early Victorian period to the fine specimens of the cabinet-makers' art which they turn out. If I wished to be uncomplimentary to the cabinet-makers I would put them on the plane Deputy Cosgrave has put them.
I suppose we are now a lot wiser than we were before. I am, fortunately or unfortunately, in the position that I put money into that particular form of manufacture in this country. If the Minister had done the same thing he would probably concern himself more with what is here before us. But, unlike him, I act as well as talk. There was evidence in this Chamber of one particular artist's work long before the Minister ever gave up his nonsense and came in here to admire that work. The purpose of this section, as far as the House is concerned, is to allow a single violin to be imported here. That is all we are told about it. As it is drawn, it will allow in furniture which is 100 years and a day old. As I said, there were four and, perhaps, five notable manufacturers of furniture in Great Britain—Adam, Chippendale, Sheraton, Hepplewhite and possibly Shearer. The last of these died in 1820 and probably the work was done previous to 1800. There was a gap filled up by what is called the Nelson period, during which a ropework design was used.
We are now invited to allow in furniture manufactured from 1800 to 1834 free of duty. That is not antique furniture. I suppose the silver work during the time of the Regency would be very artistic work, but that would last only until about 1812. In this section we are going 32 years beyond that.
If this section has no other purpose than to allow of the importation of a violin, then a very poor case has been made for it. No matter what the Minister said in criticism or otherwise of the furniture manufacturers in this country to whom I have referred, no damage can be done to their work. The people who patronise them and purchase their work know the value of it, and no empty criticism of any kind will affect it, even if it were to come from a much more authoritative source than the Minister.
It did not come from me. The innuendo was conveyed in the speech of the Deputy.
Some people gave evidence of the faith that was in them by patronising it. An amendment was put down after consultation with a person who has more experience of this than the whole Front Bench or the whole Party opposite. He told me that there was absolute rubbish manufactured from the end of the 18th century up to the Victorian period. If we want that to come in, very good, this is the way to get it. If the excuse for this section is the letting in of a single violin, it is a very poor excuse.
Once more we are faced with the misrepresentation which Deputy Cosgrave makes his stock-in-trade. I made it quite clear in introducing the precedent resolution on this matter that it was intended to allow the importation into this country of antiques of all kinds. I did not specifically mention a violin, nor did I specifically mention furniture. Deputy Cosgrave, however, for some reason or other, assumed that the only article of virtu we had in mind was a piece of furniture.
That is what the Minister stated.
I told Deputy Cosgrave that the matter was originally brought to my attention in connection, not with a piece of furniture, but in connection with a violin. I certainly did not say that the sole purpose of this was to secure importation free of duty of a violin. If I were to come to the Dáil and put down a proposal of that sort to cover one specific article I would be lacking in my duty. That is not why the legislation is brought in—to cover one specific case. It is because one specific instance brought to our attention a condition of affairs that had existed here for a long time under the administration of the Deputy, who is so concerned about furniture of this kind. He never gets up to make a speech but he reminds me of Poo-Bah clinking his money bags or making a parade of the little knowledge he has. I merely repeat that I would not put on the same level as Deputy Cosgrave has put them the artistic cabinet-makers of Dublin. Deputy Cosgrave put them on a level with the manufacturers of early Victorian furniture. There may be quite good specimens of that furniture. The Deputy has referred to the Nelson period. It is not to be despised. It was carried on until 1834. The point is that, if an article is 100 years old, it is a fair presumption that it has an artistic value. If it has survived the vicissitudes of time for that period it must be because it was highly valued by somebody, and I am perfectly certain if it has not artistic merit no person is going to spend his money bringing it into this country.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us if the period of 100 years is based on the violin or on any general principle. The Minister has put us into a difficulty in that no reasonable amendment can be moved, because it may be ruled out of order on the ground that it imposes additional taxation on the people, as it were. I think some explanation of the 100 years is desirable, and the question arises as to whether there ought to be this kind of sliding period at all. Again, I will ask the Minister whether, in fixing the period of 100 years, he was influenced by the fact that he had made any reciprocal agreements with other countries. Yesterday the Minister told us that two Tan-Sad chairs had been imported for use in the Galway Telephone Exchange.
They are not 100 years old.
But, Sir, they will be some time or other.
When they are we may discuss them.
I am anxious to find out whether there is anything arising out of this section which would mean that these chairs were a capital investment and we could hope to export them as antiques in another 100 years. I would like to know if there is any reciprocal arrangement with any other country directing the insertion of 100 years as the period in the section.
Sections 14 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That Section 17 stand part of the Bill."
With regard to Section 17, the Minister, when dealing with the Financial Resolution on which this section is based, had something, but very little, to say with regard to the tobacco industry. In view of all the circumstances, I think it would be most desirable that the Minister should tell us something of the position of the tobacco industry and give us some idea as to why the continuance of a rebate of this kind is necessary. The Minister for Industry and Commerce was unable to tell us to-day the number of people who were employed in the tobacco industry on the 1st March of this year. It was possible from 1925 to tell the country every half year the number of persons employed in the tobacco industry until the Fianna Fáil Party came into power. Then the figures were smothered. We got them, with a certain amount of difficulty, in March, 1933, but they are again smothered to-day.
When the Free State came into being, employment in the tobacco industry, in terms of full time employment, was given to 500 people. By November, 1925, the industry gave employment to 1,600 people, showing an increase in full time employment of 1,100 persons. There was an increase in 1926 and also in 1927, in which year employment stood at the figure of 1,868. That meant 50 persons had been added during 1926 and 218 during 1927. Then there was a kind of flat period. There were 12 less employed in September, 1928, and 15 less in September, 1929. In September, 1930, the total employment was 2,081. There had been an increase in the preceding 12 months of 240 persons. In September, 1931, the total number of persons employed in the tobacco industry was 2,317, an increase during that year of 236 persons. Then we come to blind spots and the last figures given us by the present Ministry show that the total number employed was 2,245, or 72 persons less than were employed in the last period of the administration before Fianna Fáil came into power.
The Minister told us, when he was dealing with the Financial Resolutions, that a considerable increase in employment had taken place since he introduced his Finance Bill in 1932. There is no evidence good, bad or indifferent in regard to that. The Minister indicated that he has safeguarded, to a very large extent, Irish capital that was invested in industry here, but he has given us no information as to how much Irish capital is invested in the tobacco industry. He has given us no information as to what are the circumstances which make it possible for him to reduce the rebate from 7d. to 3½d., and no information as to why it is necessary to give a rebate of 3½d. now. The only information we have is that in that industry the total value of the production, according to the census of 1926, was £5,033,000. According to the 1929 census the figure was £5,215,000. According to the census of 1931 the amount was £5,746,000, out of a total value of industrial production amounting to about £60,000,000. Since Fianna Fáil came into power employment in connection with that industry has been reduced. The Minister should have something to tell the House about this industry. He had a lot of talk as regards what he is doing. The only evidence the House has had is that in this very important industry there is a falling off of employment.
The question is that Section 17 shall stand part.
I should like to ask the Minister, Sir, has he nothing to say?
This question was fully threshed out two years ago, and anything I had to say in relation to this section I already said in my Budget statement.
The Minister said the other day that there had been a considerable increase in employment in the tobacco industry. He said that he discussed in 1932 the position in the tobacco industry, but he did not deal with the position as indicated by a fall in employment in that industry after two years of his administration, nor did he make any further attempt to elaborate to the House the difficulties that he appeared to suggest that he had with the older Irish-controlled factories, to whom he was giving certain concessions. He more or less indicated to the House on the last day that he had some difficulty with these and that, as far as he was concerned, they could go and fish and die out like Gallahers.
Gallahers did not die out.
They were pushed out.
By the Deputy. The Deputy persuaded them to commit suicide.
They were pushed out.
Rightly so.
A Deputy from Galway says "Rightly so"—a Deputy who cannot point to a single development of industry in the Gaeltacht about which the Ministry are so full of talk. It is a Deputy from that district who says "rightly so."
There was never one in the ten years the Deputy was in office, and we have got one since.
Order!
The Deputy may have got one, but if so, it is a deep secret in his own heart and that of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, because this House has not been able to find out whether he has or not. Speaking on the 23rd May, 1934, the Minister for Finance, as reported in Column 1607, Volume 52, No. 4, said:
"There have been one or two concerns that lay on their oars, and refused to do anything. I do not know what their fate is to be in the future. There is only one thing I have to say and it is this: That this Government and people have no use for any manufacturer in receipt of special facilities and privileges from the people of the country who fails to take advantage of them. We do not care whether such a manufacturer closes his doors and folds his tent and departs like Gallahers."
In the face of the reduction in employment in the tobacco industry, and in face of the attitude the Minister takes up with regard to the leaving of this country by Gallahers' factory, I should like to ask him is this a gentle hint to people that they can expect to see a further reduction in the amount of employment in that industry, and that there are a couple of other firms that are going to close their doors and fold their tents? I think that, if the Minister has any difficulties in the matter, he ought to take the House into his confidence and say in the first place, why employment has so fallen off in the industry and, in the second place, what it is that he fears in the future that may bring about further unemployment in that industry?
Section 17.
Again, Sir, I should like to ask the Minister——
The Deputy has already asked his question.
I should like to put a simpler question, Sir. Why is it, in the case of an industry in which employment was increased from 500 persons—that is, the equivalent of fulltime employment—to 2,317 persons, or an increase of 1,800 persons, during the previous Administration, there has been a falling off in that industry during the Minister's administration?
That does not arise here.
It arises here in so far as this section deals with that industry.
It is a matter for the Department of industry and Commerce.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(1) In lieu of the excise duties on tobacco imposed by sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1933 (No. 15 of 1933), and the duties mentioned in sub-section (4) of the said Section 17, excise duty at the rates (save as is otherwise provided in this section) specified in Part I of the Sixth Schedule to this Act shall be charged, levied, and paid on all tobacco which is grown in Saorstát Eireann and is not shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to have been grown before the 1st day of January, 1934.
(2) Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners in respect of any tobacco (in this sub section referred to as the chargeable tobacco) chargeable with the excise duty imposed by this section that the chargeable tobacco was grown and manufactured under licence in Saorstát Eireann by a licensed manufacturer of tobacco who—
(a) In the year 1933, grew tobacco under licence in Saorstát Eireann and cured and manufactured such tobacco under licence in Saorstát Eireann, and
(b) in the year 1934 and every (if any) subsequent year up to and including the year in which the said duty is payable on the chargeable tobacco, has manufactured under licence in Saorstát Eireann tobacco grown by him under licence in Saorstát Eireann and no other tobacco,
the said duty imposed by this section shall be and be deemed always to have been chargeable at the rates specified in Part II of the Sixth Schedule to this Act in lieu of the rates specified in Part I of the said Schedule, and the appropriate refund of duty shall be made accordingly.
(3) Where—
(a) any unmanufactured tobacco grown in Saorstát Eireann and shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to have been grown after the 1st day of January, 1934, is exported, or
(b) any tobacco grown in Saorstát Eireann and deposited in a bonded warehouse if shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to have been grown after the 1st day of January, 1934, and to have been manufactured in such warehouse into cavendish or negro head which would, if delivered from such warehouse, be chargeable with the duty imposed by this section at a rate specified in the Sixth Schedule to this Act,
there shall, subject to the provisions of the next following sub-section of this section, be paid in respect of every pound of such tobacco an allowance of twopence to (as the case may be) the exporter or the manufacturer of such tobacco.
(4) No allowance shall be payable under the next preceding sub-section of this section—
(a) in respect of any tobacco which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, is not in a marketable condition or has not been fully cured, nor
(b) otherwise than upon production to the officer by whom such allowance is payable of a certificate from the proper officer of customs and excise that the tobacco has been exported or has been manufactured into cavendish or negrohead in a bonded warehouse, nor
(c) after the expiration of two years from the exportation of such tobacco or the deposit of such tobacco in the bonded warehouse, as the case may be.
(5) Where a person licensed to carry on the business of a licensed manufacturer of tobacco is entitled to the rebate mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1932 (No. 20 of 1932), such person shall be entitled to receive a like rebate (but at the rate of threepence and one half-penny per pound) in respect of every pound of unmanufactured tobacco, on which the excise duty imposed by this section has been paid, received by such person and on which such rebate has not previously been paid.
I move amendment No. 14, standing in my name and that of Deputy Dr. Davitt:—
To delete sub-sections (1) and (2) and substitute the following sub-sections:—
Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1932 (No. 20 of 1932), shall apply only to tobacco which is shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to have been grown before the first day of January, 1935.
The excise duties on tobacco imposed by sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1933 (No. 15 of 1933), and the duties mentioned in sub-section (4) of the said Section 17 shall be charged, levied and paid on all tobacco which is grown in Saorstát Eireann and is not shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to have been grown before the 1st day of January, 1935.
Amendment No. 15 is connected with this amendment, and amendment No. 21 is consequential. I hope that the Minister is in a more congenial and peaceful frame of mind than he was in a few minutes ago, because I hope that he will see his way to accept these amendments. The purpose of these amendments is, roughly speaking, to preserve for the coming financial year the privileges, such as they were, which had been gained by the Irish Tobacco Growers for the last financial year. The wording of the amendments may be rather obscure to some Deputies, but, in fact, they amount to putting us back to the position in which we were this time last year when the Minister made certain statements in this House which gave hope to the growers of Irish tobacco that their case would be favourably considered by the Government in the course of the last financial year. Unfortunately, statements which have been made since, and the rumours which have been met with, have rather discouraged those who expected to receive favourable consideration from the Minister as a result of his statement last year.
A year ago, when speaking on the 10th May, 1933, in this House, the Minister, in referring to the scale of charges which were to be imposed on tobacco in this country, said—I am quoting from volume 47, column 737, of the Official Debates:—
"I should like to emphasise that it is the desire of the Government to establish this industry on a firm basis. With that end in view an experimental period has been allowed during which any person who thought he could make a success of the crop might try his hand at it with the assurance that his venture would be a financial success."
Later on he said:
"It has been decided to impose an excise duty on all Irish tobacco grown after the 1st of January, 1934. This duty, however, is fixed at such rates that a very high measure of protection indeed will be given to the native product. The standard rate of the duty will be 6/8 per lb. as compared with 9/4½ per lb. on foreign grown tobacco. It will be charged on all Irish tobacco sold to manufacturers who use both the native and the foreign grown article. As an additional concession a preferential rate of 5/6 per lb. will be charged in the case of tobacco sold to manufacturers who use only Irish tobacco for their products. It is hoped that this special reduction will encourage some people to specialise entirely in the manufacture of home grown tobacco."
The Minister said that last year; and then there were rumours that legislation was to be introduced to control that and to regulate the growing of Irish tobacco. It was announced that a Bill would be introduced last January, but that announcement was not carried out. On the 6th of February last there was an announcement that a new restrictive policy was to be introduced by the Government to prohibit to a certain extent the growing of tobacco except by certain privileged persons. Since then we have had these further announcements by the Government that they would introduce a Bill, but so far no Bill has appeared.
The purpose of these amendments is to continue the present state of affairs until such time as the Government announce their policy. By embarrassing the growers of tobacco, they are putting them in a false position, and they are, in fact, breaking faith with them in view of the fact that they are not carrying out the undertaking to produce a permanent Government policy with regard to encouraging the growth of tobacco.
It has been suggested by supporters of the Government throughout the country that the failure of the Government to carry out its promises has been due not to the Ministers themselves but to permanent civil servants. The statement has been made throughout the country that the Ministers are innocent of any hostility to the tobacco growers, and that it is the permanent civil servants—the Revenue Commissioners and others—who have usurped the powers of the Minister and have imposed their will against the better judgment of the Ministers themselves. These statements have been made publicly in various parts of the country, and they have not been contradicted by any Minister. That naturally raises the question as to whether the Minister agrees with his supporters in the country that it is the permanent civil servants who have interfered in Government policy and have prevented a generous and adequate consideration of the claims of tobacco growers, or whether the Ministers themselves are prepared to stand over their own actions. It is not fair to them to hide behind the permanent civil servants and to suggest or to allow their supporters to suggest, that it is these civil servants who are preventing proper Government assistance being given. I wonder if the Minister would be willing on this occasion to state whether there is any ground whatever for the statements that have been made throughout the country by their supporters that he, in this case, has been overruled and impeded by permanent civil servants in respect of intentions which were publicly announced by various members of the Government to encourage the home-grown tobacco industry.
The three amendments roughly can be taken together. It has been pointed out by those interested in the tobacco growing industry that the price offered under the present Government régime is inadequate and certainly is not likely to encourage those who have been interested in the matter to continue their efforts to grow tobacco. The price offered is a price which would be remunerative only in a very few cases, with exceptional land, exceptional circumstances and exceptional technical skill on the part of the grower. For the average grower, the price available under the present arrangement is not a paying price. I see no reason why the Government should not continue the status quo until such time as they are prepared to bring before the House and before the country a reasoned and thought out policy for the encouragement of tobacco. They started off first with a gesture in remitting all duty. They then found that that was rather an unscientific way of approaching the situation and they put on certain duties. They are now increasing those duties. First, the tobacco growers were treated generously, or over-generously; then they were treated perhaps fairly reasonably; and now they are being treated definitely unreasonably and in the Fourth Finance Bill by this Government next year, we may look for regulation and taxation which will practically amount to prohibition and the closing down of these experiments in Irish tobacco growing. Every year has been worse than the year before. That has been the experience we have had during the three financial years of the present Government. The suggestion in these amendments is that they should at least maintain the situation as it was a year ago until such time as they come forward with their permanent proposals for the regulation of this industry.
Just before last Christmas, at the invitation of the Meath Tobacco Growers' Association, I went down to a place called Randalstown, near Navan, to attend the formal reopening of the tobacco rehandling station. This reopening was carried out by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. There was the usual ceremony, followed by a social function and it was all very pleasant and I left with the impression that a new era was in store for the Meath tobacco growers and that so far as the rehandling station at Randalstown was concerned, under the guidance and benevolence of the Minister for Finance, it need have nothing to fear for the future. All the speeches that day, including the speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, tended to give the tobacco growers of Meath that impression. Since then the actions of the Government have been such as to destroy any hopes that might have existed at that time amongst those who, at the instigation, one might say, of the present Government, had gone into the cultivation of tobacco on a large or small scale, as the case might be. So great was the indignation that resulted from the change in Government policy that one of my colleagues in County Meath, Deputy O'Reilly, who was here a few moments ago, but who has left, was driven—and, naturally enough, because he is a man who has always been intensely interested in the cultivation of tobacco in County Meath—to comment unfavourably on the changed policy of the Minister for Finance. I think, however, that if he was correctly reported, it was unfortunate that he attempted to save the Minister for Finance by putting the blame for that changed policy, as Deputy Esmonde said, upon the civil servants. I think the Minister for Finance made a slight effort to correct that impression, in reply to a question by Deputy McGilligan here, but I do think it should be made quite clear to the tobacco growers in Ireland that if the Government changes its policy with regard to tobacco, it is because the Minister for Finance directs that policy and not because he is ordered to do so by civil servants under his control. The fact, however, remains that the tobacco growing industry is in a very precarious position at the present moment. If we just look over the history of tobacco growing during the last few years we will see that, whereas when Fianna Fáil were in opposition, people like the present Minister for Finance were enthusiastic in their condemnation of the treatment by the last Administration of the tobacco growing industry, but notwithstanding their vehemence in opposition, they have, since they came into power, done more by their chopping and changing to destroy permanently the future of the tobacco growing industry in this country than one would have thought possible.
Under the British régime there were various subsidies given to tobacco growers. I think no name is better known in connection with the efforts to establish tobacco growing in this country than is the name of Sir Nugent Everard. He was a pioneer in that line. His old rehandling station at Randalstown was formally reopened last Christmas, and there is there a modern readaptation of the old rehandling station which he started himself. Subsidies were given by the British under the old régime of about 1/- per lb. or a limit of £50 per acre, and later of £25 per acre. In those days there was no settled policy with regard to tobacco growing, and the tobacco industry suffered accordingly. Now we have changed again. First of all, we took off the excise duty altogether in 1932. The Finance Bill of 1933 put on a duty of 6/8 per lb. on the manufacture of foreign tobacco or 5/6 per lb. duty on Irish tobacco to be used by manufacturers. That is a duty of 5/6 on firms manufacturing Irish tobacco and 6/8 per lb. on firms using both foreign and the native leaf.
This time last year I moved some amendments in order to see if we could persuade the Minister for Finance to reduce those impositions from 6/8 and 5/6 to 3/4 and 2/8 respectively. He refused to accept those amendments, saying that it would cost the Exchequer a sum of about £500,000. It is a peculiar thing that when the question of tobacco comes up the Minister for Finance falls back upon that argument which he regards as a final declaration. But if such an argument is used against any imposition of taxes on any other industry, the people using it would be called traitors to the country, and people opposed to the development of industry. That kind of remark comes very often from the mouths of the leaders of the Front Bench opposite. We should, consequently, be entitled to regard the Minister for Finance as an enemy of the country because he says he will not give more protection to the tobacco industry because it would be a loss to the Exchequer. It is strange that that kind of argument should be brought in by a Fianna Fáil Minister. This year we have taxed the Irish grown tobacco to practically the same extent as the imported leaf.
The position, therefore, is that in the space of three years there has been a change from the time when there was no tax at all on Irish grown tobacco to a tax of 8/6. Whatever may be the position as regards the economics of providing the whole Irish market with Irish grown tobacco—and I believe that matter has not been fully inquired into —the fact remains that this change from year to year is bound to have a very detrimental influence upon the tobacco industry in Ireland. According to the Fianna Fáil spokesmen during the 1932 election, previous legislation allowed Irish tobacco growing to drift into utter neglect. If that is so their present attitude is going to kill it. Taking off the tax was a great stimulus to the farmers to enter into tobacco growing, thereby making up for the losses they had incurred in their main industry. The present change of attitude is a more severe blow to the farmers when they had been promised such an era of prosperity, but that cup of prosperity is now to be dashed from their lips. Such action is bound to do more harm than if no steps at all had been taken in 1932. Even the most enthusiastic supporters of the Government who have gone into tobacco growing will be disgusted with the whole thing. Before the experiment has been properly tried out those who were persuaded to go into tobacco growing will probably be fed up with the whole procedure. We had a statement by the Minister for Agriculture some months ago about tobacco growing. That statement was to the effect that the Government aimed at the production of 10,000 acres of tobacco in the Free State. Whether he stated that that would be an advantage this year or not, the fact remains that the impression given to the people in the country was that the Government wished to attain to that stage as soon as possible In other words, 10,000 acres of Irish grown tobacco would supply all the tobacco consumers in the Free State. The people in the country naturally believed that it was the policy of the Government to reach to this stage of production as soon as possible, and that that policy would not be interfered with by any such trifling thing as the loss of money to the Exchequer. Undoubtedly that provided an outlook for those farmers who have been so badly hit by the economic policy of the Government. At any rate we thought that was one single gesture towards the farmers, one rift in the cloud, the only one thing that the Government were doing for the farmers. We got the impression that they were going to develop the production of tobacco in the country.
Then their next announcement is that there is going to be a limitation of the growers of tobacco to a figure of 750 or 1,000, and a limitation from 10,000 acres to 1,500 acres. I presume that is roughly correct. I wonder what the exact number of farmers in the Free State is, and what proportion would 750 or 1,000 bear to the total number engaged in farming? If the policy of the Government, as regards tobacco, is only going to benefit that many farmers, I should like to know how the Government can expect such a policy to be of any real benefit to the country as a whole? I do not wish to say that those farmers who are getting the privilege of growing these 1,500 acres would disapprove of it. They have taken their chance of growing it and I am glad for their sake. But we must remember that the policy is only benefiting the few and that it is not much good for the country as a whole.
That announcement of the limitation of the acreage under tobacco was considered by the people of the country as a deliberate betrayal of the promise given to the farmers in 1932 and 1933 as to tobacco growing in this country. I leave the matter to the intelligence of the Deputies here to say whether it is or not. I do not think that anybody can deny the fact that the Minister for Finance has changed his policy with regard to tobacco growing in this country. It is a great pity, however, that this change of mind should be accompanied by such distress to the tobacco growers, and that it should result, as it will undoubtedly result, unless he changes it back again, in killing the enthusiasm which existed up to last year, and to a certain extent exists up to the present time, for the revival of the tobacco industry in this country. What happened really, of course, is that, in their anxiety to achieve power in 1932, the Fianna Fáil Party flung out promises wholesale, amongst which was this promise about tobacco. They fulfilled their promise for one year.
Will the Deputy quote the promise we made about tobacco?
I cannot quote it at the moment. On the other hand, I am quite sure that if I read some of the speeches made by Deputy O'Reilly in County Meath I would find the promise that great consideration would be given to tobacco growers. I could not remember even all the speeches made by the Minister in 1932.
Why manufacture one then?
He is better at manufacturing statements than I am.
Does the Minister deny that these promises were made?
Of course. these statements were made. The fact that I cannot quote a speech made by a Fianna Fáil Deputy in 1932 does not prove that they were not made. In any case, I was going to congratulate the Minister on carrying out the promise during the first year. He remitted the tax for one year. Then, when he had more experience, he found that he had to save the revenue to a certain extent, and he is now again bringing it back to the position where there is practically no protection given to tobacco growing. That hurried legislation is typical of a lot of the policy of Fianna Fáil in other respects. It would be a pity, however, if hurried legislation of that kind resulted in breeding a feeling of disgust amongst those who, no matter what Party may be in power, are genuinely interested in the promotion of such an industry as tobacco growing.
It is on that account, therefore, that I wish to support Deputy Esmonde in these amendments. If it was right to give that protection of the difference between 5/6 or 6/8 and the 9/4½, which was on the imported leaf last year, surely it should be the proper thing to keep it at that rate for this year, especially until we have a pronouncement made by the Minister for Agriculture, after due consultation with the Minister for Finance, as to the considered opinion of the Government with regard to tobacco growing here. A commission was set up before, over which the last speaker, I think, presided. That commission was limited to a certain extent. I think it had no power to consider the marketing of tobacco. Would it be unwise to suggest that, before changing the duty on tobacco back to 8/6, the Government should institute another commission of that kind to inquire into the whole system of growing tobacco, the selection of proper seeds, the cultivation of types of leaf which would succeed in attracting smokers in this country, and the marketing possibility of native-grown tobacco? If an effort of that kind were made, it would have the effect of giving a fillip to the growing of tobacco here and of persuading growers already in the industry that the Government mean to benefit the industry and not merely to get out of a promise made some years ago for the purpose of catching votes.
There are various kinds of tobacco growers in this country: the farmers who grow tobacco, the experimental tobacco growers, and the academic tobacco growers, such as the proposer and seconder of this amendment who know very little about tobacco—in fact, I think they know nothing.
Has the Deputy grown any tobacco?
Yes, in a window box.
The Deputy may be surprised to know that I was one of the original experimental growers in this country and grew tobacco every year until last year.
You started the country.
If Deputy Mulcahy had been interested in tobacco growing in the ten years prior to 1932 he might have grown tobacco to satisfy himself that the President of his Party at that time was wrong when he said that if any man told him tobacco could be grown in this country it was time to call a cab and take him to a lunatic asylum. That statement is on the records of this House. To that statement every member of that Party subscribed. For the ten years they were in office, their cry was: "It is nonsense to talk about growing tobacco; it could not possibly be grown here." They saw to it that no tobacco was grown. Now we have the academic tobacco growers attacking the Minister on his tobacco policy. They know nothing about the history of it at all. Deputy Esmonde, of course, had some academic experience of tobacco growing when he presided over that commission. He also represents an area in which a great deal of tobacco continued to be grown when it was discontinued elsewhere, and in his constituency at present, and for a number of years past, a great deal of employment has been given, not only in tobacco growing, but in the manufacture of cheroots and tobacco from pure Irish-grown leaf.
I think I am right in saying that there is a certain amount of tobacco grown in Meath—a little more, I think, than is grown in the Deputy's constituency of South Dublin.
The Deputy cannot make any definite statement. He read out from his notes suggestions from A to Z that he was going to make. What is the position? When the Government came in they decided that they would try one year of tobacco growing. They had to face the opposition of the Party opposite, who advised the people not to grow tobacco and told them it could not be grown. The Government allowed the people to grow tobacco without any restriction, and in that year a certain acreage was grown. Every person who grew tobacco during that year made a great deal more money than he ever expected to make out of the growing of any crop. That cannot be denied.
Some of them.
Every person who grew tobacco which was marketable or useable. I make this statement, which cannot be contradicted, that anybody who, in the first year of the Fianna Fáil Administration, grew tobacco which was useable for the purpose of making something to smoke, made a very great profit on what he grew. In some cases, as much as £200 an acre was made. What happened? The first year's experiment proved to the country that tobacco could be grown as a useable commodity, a marketable commodity, a profitable commodity, and the danger was that the Cumann na nGaedheal farmers who listened to the gentlemen opposite might in the following year go into the growing of tobacco as they had gone into the raising of cattle—they might have ranches of tobacco—and then we would have a country of tobacco and nothing else. The Government wisely said that they would have to restrict the growing of tobacco, not for the purpose of the revenue as the Deputy suggests but for the purpose of getting tobacco grown here on a firm basis; first of all, to decide on what classes of tobacco were to be grown; secondly, to make sure that the farmer will get a price that will pay him; and, thirdly, to see that the tobacco grown would be used in this country and thus lead on towards the aim and object of this Party, namely, that eventually a certain acreage of tobacco would be grown here and that we would go as far as possible in supplying our home requirements of tobacco. The Government then said this year, the year that is causing so much comment, that they would allow only those people who had grown tobacco in the free year to grow tobacco in the succeeding years. They limited them not only to acreage but to those who had taken a licence out in the previous year and had grown tobacco. Anybody who cannot get a licence now to grow tobacco has no grievance, because he never grew tobacco. The point is that the man in former years who thought the people who were growing tobacco were only lunatics now discovers that he was really the lunatic for not growing it. He now has a grievance. The other fellow took the risk, and the claim is now made by Deputies opposite that he should be shoved out in order to be replaced by the fellow who never grew tobacco before and who is now endeavouring to take advantage of the fine opportunity that is being offered by the Government.
Can the industry not expand without crushing out those already engaged in it?
Only a limited acreage of tobacco can be grown here to provide for the requirements of the people.
We will not reach that acreage very quickly.
The complaint of the Deputy's colleagues is that we are not allowed to reach it now. Deputy Curran says we will never reach it.
I never said any such thing.
Then what did you say?
I said it would be some years before you would reach it.
Yes, by the design of the Government. When we advance with the acreage we will be advancing with the tobacco we can use in this country. First of all, we must satisfy the manufacturers so as not to impose on them a tobacco of a different class to what they have been using. We must get the people's tastes accustomed to the home-grown tobacco and, by a gradual process, we will reach the position where our tobacco will be grown to the full limit and used here to the full limit. Deputy Mulcahy laughs. I do not think the Deputy even smokes.
No, he merely fumes.
As long as I know him I cannot say that I have seen him smoking.
There is quite a lot about this country that you do not know.
It surely will be a great loss to the people to know that Deputy Mulcahy does not smoke.
If he does not smoke he caused plenty of smoke in the country in his time.
Some other people did with petrol tins.
The Deputy used a good many petrol tins himself, if I know anything.
It is about time we stopped talking about petrol tins. Cut it out.
Since we came over to those benches it has been cut out.
Just as long as it suited you. Will there be a change when you leave?
Order!
A change for what—for the worst again? Surely Deputy Mulcahy should be better informed in regard to tobacco. For the whole ten years when the Deputy was on this side of the House the people were not allowed to grow tobacco. Apparently there is now a threat that if the Party opposite come over here again tobacco will be prohibited.
When we were on the benches opposite the Minister for Agriculture or some other responsible person who knew something about it would deal with tobacco, whatever he had to say about it.
And when we were on the opposite benches we had some one who knew something about tobacco sitting on the Front Bench.
But where is he now?
I do not know who is your Front Bench agriculturist at the moment, whether it is Deputy Hogan of Galway, Deputy Belton or Deputy Curran. Including Deputy Brennan, there were at least three of the Deputies opposite placed in the Front Bench to deal with agriculture, but there is none of them here now to discuss agriculture or anything else.
Wait until you get the local elections results.
Deputy Mulcahy will himself be surprised. I hope he will not be putting forward the excuse submitted by Deputy O'Higgins, that all their voters had died and that was why they did not win. I have great sympathy with Deputy Esmonde in putting down this amendment. The reason I sympathise with him is because the leader of his Party at one time described any person who suggested the advisability of growing tobacco as a lunatic, a dangerous lunatic, and he would almost go to the extent of calling a cab immediately to have that person brought to Grangegorman. That is why I am sympathetic with the Deputy. So far as Deputy Davitt is concerned, he does not know the first thing about tobacco growing in a practical way. On the subject of tobacco, I think, if possible, greater profits should be given to the growers in Ireland, but it should be all done with a certain amount of care. Care is advisable in order that you will not have the whole country growing tobacco. We have heard Deputy Mulcahy's suggestion about the people of Dublin growing it in window boxes. Tobacco can be grown anywhere in this country, in front or back windows or in gardens.
It is a weed.
Exactly, but it is a weed that we proved could be profitably grown where Deputy Mulcahy's Party said it could not be grown. What class of weed is going to give the best results to the growers, manufacturers and users? Until we get to the most satisfactory quality of weed I think the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture are quite wise in moving slowly. Nobody is losing anything. This year I was precluded from getting a licence because I did not grow tobacco last year. I wish I could get a licence to grow an acre of tobacco.
The Deputy is too busy grazing.
I am grazing a few cattle, too, because I do not believe, as the Deputy and his colleagues do, that there is no future for some of the cattle of this country. I believe this country is going to be all right.
Mr. Lynch
So the British market is not killed?
Is Deputy Briscoe becoming a rancher?
If you graze a few cattle it does not say you are a rancher. The Deputy apparently is one of those who is very sore and sorry that I have been successful in grazing a few cattle in order to sell them to a foreign country, not England. The Deputy is one of those who felt there was no other market but England for our cattle, and there was no other place for tobacco but Virginia in America or South Africa for the Empire tobacco. Now he is grumbling because this Government has proved that good tobacco can be grown here, and that we need not depend on England.
Mr. Lynch
So well you can graze cattle when you can buy them at the very low prices now ruling, and of course, you can then sell them at a profit.
Deputy Lynch is talking about buying cattle at any price. When he was Minister for Fisheries——
Tobacco.
I am keeping to tobacco.
Two or three Deputies are persisting in interrupting. I shall not warn them again.
It is no harm if they bring all my private affairs to the Table of this House.
The Deputy should stick to tobacco and not provoke interruptions.
Am I provoking them?
Tobacco.
I agree entirely with all that is being done by the Minister for Finance in connection with tobacco growing. Regulations will have to be made. Deputies opposite must not forget that they built up a system whereby the country receives some £1,750,000 to £2,000,000 per year by way of duties on tobacco. We are not anxious to destroy that means of indirect taxation. We are gradually building up the collection of that taxation without any disturbance of home-grown tobacco. The Deputy said that people will not grow tobacco. I throw out this challenge. If the Minister for Finance were to increase the acreage, with the present restrictions, to the extent of another 1,000 acres I will guarantee that that extra 1,000 acres would be planted immediately.
Did the Deputy say that I declared the people would not grow tobacco?
Yes. The Deputy said they would be disgusted, and the tobacco industry would be thrown back to where it was under the British.
I pointed out that if there was not a definite, a settled policy in relation to tobacco, the whole industry would be ruined. As far as I can calculate there is a clear profit of approximately £75 per acre on tobacco grown under present circumstances.
How does the Deputy arrive at that calculation?
If Deputy Curran wants to know, I can produce the figures for him. I will bet him an even £5 that if he will come outside the House with me I will prove to him inside half an hour that I have given him a very modest estimate.
I do not bet.
No. The Deputy says he does not bet, but he was betting what would happen to this Government when he was down shouting about the cattle. He will not bet now on this matter, because he knows he may lose the bet. I ask him to come outside the House and I will give him the figures. If I am wrong, I will give him permission to come back inside the House and say that I am wrong. Does the Deputy accept that?
I want to hear the figures.
I will give the figures to the Deputy.
Why keep the figures between yourself and Deputy Curran? Why not give them to the House?
Does any one of those tobacco growers over there know the amount of tobacco they would get per plant from tobacco?
That does not arise here. The Deputy should confine himself to the matter before the House.
I only want to give information to the House on this matter.
The Deputy can supply the information at the proper time.
Can the Deputy say how many pounds per acre can be got?
I am not allowed to do that.
Tell us how many pounds per acre.
There was a Bill dealing with this matter, and Deputies had their opportunity then of discussing every aspect of it.
The Deputy has been speaking of the amount of tobacco per plant. I want to know how many pounds per acre. It should be easy to make it up both ways.
I cannot understand the Deputy.
How many pounds——Interruptions.
Order!
If the Deputy wants to know how to grow tobacco I will teach him.
I have grown it for the last two years.
Did you grow it last year?
Yes.
And this year?
Yes.
How much are you going to make per acre?
The Deputy must address the Chair.
I put a question to the Deputy that he cannot answer.
The Deputy must control himself.
I asked a fair question and he cannot answer it.
Order.
I only asked him a question.
The Deputy is not entitled to ask a question by way of interruption.
I asked the Deputy what was the number of pounds per acre. It should be very easy to answer that question. He should not need a pencil to answer it.
Deputy Davitt can be satisfied, first of all, that the policy of the Government, in spite of these repeated changes, will not send the tobacco growing industry back again to nothing. Tobacco growing will continue. The Deputy's colleague over here cannot grow enough. He is growing it this year, and he will make a profit this year. As I said, if the Minister would increase the acreage you would have double the amount grown under the present circumstances, which is sufficient proof that there is nothing wrong with regard to the future of Irish tobacco. Some people, of course, will want to get the same profit as they got in the first year, when the tobacco was free of tax. That could not be allowed. What happened was that they were prepared to sell it for 3/- a lb. the first year, but when the tax was put on, the gentlemen who had held on want to get the 5/8, which would have been 8/8. I am not doubting Deputy Davitt's seriousness in putting his point, but I believe that he has been misinformed and does not understand tobacco growing from the practical side of it. When he said that the Minister for Agriculture had stated that 10,000 acres would be grown he is right, but only in so far as the Minister used the word "ultimately." The Deputy took good care to leave that word out.
I never said that the Minister stated it would be grown in one year.
The Minister said that our policy was to grow 10,000 acres of tobacco ultimately.
That is exactly what I said.
Well, then, there is no dispute between us. The Government is going to carry out that promise and to increase the acreage every year until we get the 10,000 acres which it is assumed will cover our total requirements without interfering in any way with the efficiency of the present tobacco manufacturers or discommoding or inconveniencing tobacco smokers. As far as I can see, neither Deputy Esmonde nor Deputy Davitt need worry at all. The Minister is not doing anything at all that is going to kill tobacco growing in this country. In fact, he is doing the one right thing, and that is to see that tobacco growing in this country is going to be on a fundamentally sound basis, and that from that fundamentally sound basis they are going to see that it is put on the basis of a permanent crop and not merely something that is going to come this year and go away next year. Eventually I hope to see the Minister definitely fixing the price and the quality of the tobacco that is to be grown, and to see that each year a proportion of Irish tobacco will be mixed with non-native tobacco until eventually we get a tobacco that will satisfy the needs and the requirements of the industry and the taste of the consumer, and that will cover our requirements from every point of view. If the Deputy would take my advice he would withdraw his amendment.
I am very glad to have had the opportunity of getting a lecture on this question of tobacco from such an authority as Deputy Briscoe. I do not know how many acres in Dublin City he has under tobacco. I know he is a man who has a lot of interests. He started his speech by telling me that I knew nothing whatever of what I was talking about, so I think I am entitled to get a little of my own back. Deputy Briscoe, of course, is an expert on gold-mining in Wicklow and motor car racing in Bray, but I did not know that he was such an expert on the growing of tobacco in the City of Dublin.
I was not speaking of the city but of the county.
Deputy Briscoe questioned my figures. All I can say is that my figures were quoted mostly from the Official Reports. Certainly, the Deputy was extremely vague himself. He offered to have a side bet with Deputy Curran that he would go out with Deputy Curran outside the House and give him the figures—under the portico, I suppose—and that Deputy Curran could come back here and tell us the figures if Deputy Briscoe was wrong. Surely the House is entitled to have the benefit of Deputy Briscoe's wisdom.
The rules of the House do not allow it.
The fact of the matter is that Deputy Briscoe does not know his facts, but there is no reason why that should give him authority to criticise me, because I, in association with Deputy Esmonde, have down some amendments to the Finance Bill. I am as much entitled to do so as Deputy Briscoe is. I learned nothing from his kindly criticism except where he said that if they did not limit the number of growers in Saorstát Eireann some Fine Gael supporters might grow tobacco in such a way as to become graziers of tobacco. I think that is the word he used.
Tobacco ranchers.
Well, ranchers. Apparently, what follows from that is that the 750 growers of last year are all Fianna Fáil supporters and the policy of the Government therefore, as Deputy Briscoe said, is to keep the tobacco growers limited to that number so that no Fine Gael supporters may come in.
What about the Deputy on your own benches who is growing tobacco? He is one of your supporters and I am not.
I should like to say a brief word or two as to Government policy with regard to tobacco, since it has been raised on this amendment. It will be remembered that, in 1932, following a decade during which the cultivation of tobacco had been continuously and strongly discouraged in this country, we came into power, and in our first Budget we granted complete relief of duty in respect to Irish-grown tobacco. That was continued in last year's Budget. We felt that it was necessary to take some exceptional step—such an exceptional step as this was—in order to overcome the effect of the preceding ten years and to arouse interest once again in the cultivation of Irish tobacco. The results far surpassed our expectations, so much so that the area which was going to be brought under tobacco this year would have been so large that there would have been a great deal of difficulty in disposing of the crop, in the first instance; and secondly, the effects upon the revenue would have been serious, but more serious still, the effect of putting on the market and compelling the Irish consumer to smoke what would have been, in the circumstances in which it was produced, a very inferior product, for it might have aroused among the consumers of tobacco a complete antagonism to and distaste for the Irish article.
Accordingly, looking at all the facts as we saw them, we felt it was necessary to recast our policy, or, rather, not so much to recast our policy but to adopt a new means of attaining the end which had been enunciated for us by the Minister for Agriculture of ultimately putting about 10,000 acres under Irish tobacco. The new method by which we proposed to attain that end consists, firstly, of taking control of the growing, curing, importation and manufacture of tobacco and, should such eventuality arise, its exportation also; secondly, of making it compulsory—and this is an important element in the scheme, and it is a novel element, an element never introduced into the tobacco-growing policy in this country before—on manufacturers to purchase all marketable tobacco. It is quite true that quite a large amount of tobacco was grown last year and the year before, but one of the difficulties which we were faced with was the disposal of the crop in some instances. An important element in the new scheme is that all the crop which is marketable will be purchased by tobacco manufacturers. No man who grows a consumable article will be left with that article on his hands. Thirdly, the average price at which tobacco must be taken by the manufacturers will be fixed; and fourthly, the imported and the homegrown leaf will be put on the same footing with regard to duty, due regard being had to the costs of production. That, in short, is the scheme and a Bill is at present being drafted and will, I hope, be introduced soon, to give effect to all its provisions.
I have no doubt whatever that the scheme is acceptable to the great majority of tobacco growers—all the skilled tobacco growers at any rate, and all those who are concerned to go in for the crop on a permanent basis and not those who merely want to go into tobacco growing as a catchpenny venture to get what quick profits they can and then to get out, leaving the industry to fend for itself after they have taken their pound of flesh out of it. I say that I have every reason to believe that the new policy is going to be acceptable to the tobacco growing industry as a whole for the following reasons. It was first announced in February of this year before the seed-beds had gone in and before the plants were ready. Deputy Esmonde, I think, said that because of the change of policy on the part of the Government, communications had been received by him pointing out that the price offered was inadequate and not likely to encourage the cultivation of tobacco. The price for Irish-grown tobacco was originally fixed in February at ? per lb.—this Bill will enable the average price to be raised to ? per lb. but the original announcement was that the average price would be ?. Did the people who had been growing tobacco in the preceding years think that was an inadequate price and was the effect of the announcement to discourage the cultivation of tobacco? On the contrary, between that announcement and the end of March applications were received from over 7,000 prospective growers for licences to grow tobacco. They would have wanted to grow the 10,000 acres but, as I said, one of our problems is to secure the production of a consumable crop and accordingly, when we came to the allocation of the licences, the licences were only allocated to people who had grown tobacco in the years 1932 and 1933 as it is quite reasonable that they should.
One of the facts to which the Government, as I said, had to give consideration was the undesirability of allowing an unsuitable crop to be grown and, accordingly, we very wisely decided that only people who had previous experience would be allowed to grow it this year. We did not know what the political affiliations of those people were. We never asked what they were, and Deputy Finlay has already testified here that he is one of the people who is growing tobacco. He received a licence along with a considerable number of others, including, in County Cork, at any rate, a certain number of prominent members of the Blueshirt organisation, some of whom made as much as £200 out of tobacco last year. I merely rose to put before the House the scheme which the Government had in mind and to indicate that, before the end of the present year, a Bill which will give effect to our comprehensive proposals will be brought before the Dáil.
Nothing the Minister has said has altered my original contention that this amendment should be put before the House. The Minister, in his concluding remarks, stated that a Bill may be introduced before the end of this year.
Will be.
We were promised this Bill in January, in February and in March. The Minister has announced that before the Budget was introduced he received thousands of applications for licences, but I do not think he has received many since the Budget was introduced. In any case, the object of these amendments is that the status quo should be preserved until such time as the Minister produces his Bill. This is his third financial year and one might have thought that he and the Minister for Agriculture could have made up their minds as to the relative claims of the revenue and of the tobacco growing industry and could have struck a medium.
The Minister has not in his remarks contradicted the statement made by his associates throughout the country with reference to the improper control of Government policy by civil servants. It is a matter which he should approach. I am not only referring to what has been said in Meath, but to public statements made in the County Wexford and to which there has been given wide publicity—that the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, however willing they might be, are overridden by the action of the permanent civil servants. This is a matter which really deserves an answer from the Minister. He is responsible for Government policy. According to his supporters in the country his policy is decided by permanent officials. That is a matter that should be cleared up, because it is not right.
On a point of order, I submit the proper place to raise matters of this sort is on my Vote. Anybody who has experience of the House should know that that is the proper place to raise it.
That statement was made by certain Deputies, and Deputy Esmonde's statement is in reference to what has been said by them. I am willing to allow him to repeat it.
Owing to the publicity that these statements have received throughout the country I raise this matter now. The Minister is apparently unwilling to contradict the statement of his associates and supporters. Therefore we are assuming that his silence means consent. Probably he is not responsible for the policy, but that he is dominated by his civil servants.
The Minister is always responsible for his Department.
But he disclaims responsibility.
I wish to say that that is a lie. I have not disclaimed responsibility.
That is a term that may not be used by any Deputy or Minister.
I did not disclaim responsibility.
That is quite a different thing.
Do I understand that the Minister for Finance has withdrawn the charge that Deputy Esmonde has uttered a lie?
The Minister, I assume, has disclaimed the statement of Deputy Esmonde's that he was not responsible.
Whether it was untrue or not, the Minister has not assumed the responsibility and he does not disclaim the statements of his associates and supporters. I will just leave it at that because I do not think that one could do much in the way of comment on such a situation which is quite unsatisfactory from the point of view of the responsibilities of the Minister. The Minister has announced to-day the provisions of the Bill which is to come in some time before the end of 1934. Probably it will be postponed to 1935 or 1936. The provisions of this Bill include the fixing of prices and the compulsory purchase of the crop by the manufacturers in this country. It is not right for us at this stage to discuss its proposals. We can only wait for the Bill when, if ever, it arrives. The whole object of those amendments is to preserve the status quo until such time as that Bill is introduced. If we do preserve the status quo we should certainly manage to give certain concessions to tobacco growers at some slight expense to the revenue; that might hasten up the process of persuading the Executive Council to put forward their permanent proposals.
The statement made by Deputy Briscoe here would lead one to believe that the restrictions on tobacco growers were brought about because of political reasons and that there was to be a Fianna Fáil political monopoly in tobacco growing. The Minister has disclaimed that. I do not think that was the ultimate intention of the Government, but certain statements made by Deputy Briscoe were to the effect that the prohibition against extending the number of tobacco growers was in order to prevent supporters of the Opposition from becoming tobacco growers and restricting the monopoly to members of the Government Party.
That is not right.
The Deputy gave that impression. The Minister has certainly corrected him. I would not like it to go out that that is the real Government policy and that the reason why the restrictions had been brought in was in order to close the doors and to preserve the monopoly for supporters of the Government policy. During the last ten years I have on many occasions brought forward motions in this House in favour of tobacco growing. I have insisted on divisions against my own Government and I will certainly insist on a division against the present Government. I upheld the claims of the tobacco growers when the Government Party were sulking outside and not attending to the duties they undertook on behalf of their constituents. I certainly think that the Government should preserve the status quo until such time as they release their permanent scheme for the cultivation of tobacco.
I am not going to permit Deputies Esmonde or Davitt to misconstrue any statement of mine. What I said was that the Party opposite advised their followers not to follow our policy and not to grow tobacco. They did not, consequently, avail of the offer of the Government in the matter of tobacco growing and they got no licences in previous years. If licences are now to be given to those who grew tobacco, the majority of them will be given to Fianna Fáil supporters because they availed of our policy last year and the year before and grew tobacco. I say good luck to them. I am glad and happy about it that our supporters have got something for once.
Question—"That the sub-sections proposed to be deleted stand"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Níl
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Amendment 15 not moved.
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
As on and from the 10th day of May, 1934, entertainments duty within the meaning of Section 1 of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, as amended by subsequent enactments, shall not be charged or levied on payments for admission to any entertainment as respects which it is proved to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that the entertainment consists solely of an exhibition of any game or sport which is played or contested out of doors by two or more persons or by two or more groups of persons and does not involve the use or participation of horses, dogs, or other animals or the use of mechanically propelled vehicles.
Mr. Lynch
I move amendment No. 16, in the name of Deputy Morrissey and myself:—
In line 21 to delete all words after the word "persons" and substitute the words "or that the entertainment consists solely of a race or a number of races between greyhounds released from a box-trap in pursuit of a mechanical hare.
The effect of the amendment would be to relieve greyhound racing from the entertainments tax. Greyhound racing is to-day the only outdoor sport in the Saorstát subject to this tax. Section 19 after the word "persons" states "and does not involve the use or participation of horses, dogs or other animals or the use of mechanically propelled vehicles." In fact, horse racing is to-day relieved of the entertainments tax and, as far as mechanically propelled vehicles are concerned, I understand that if there are any such contests in the Saorstát now, onlookers have not to pay for witnessing them. So that it is true to say that greyhound racing is now the only outdoor sport in this country that is subject to the entertainments tax. It has been removed from horse-racing on certain extremely good grounds. But horse-racing is, after all, the sport rather of the more well-to-do part of the community. Greyhound racing is the sport of the plain common people to whom Deputy Rice referred last night. It is the sport of the poor people, the small farmers and labourers in the country districts. A concession was made in the case of horse-racing in order to give a fillip to horse-breeding, which is an important industry. Greyhound-racing is just as important to the greyhound industry as is horse-racing to the horse-breeding industry. The greyhound breeding industry is nothing to be sneered at. In 1931 our export of greyhounds had reached, in the very few years of its existence, the extraordinary figure of nearly £500,000.
Not at all.
Mr. Lynch
In 1931 our export in greyhounds reached in value almost half a million, and it would be fair to say if it had gone on unrestricted by the tariffs imposed across Channel it would have reached very nearly the million standard to-day. The economic war has undoubtedly been the big factor that has killed that export. But apart from England, other countries are taking to this sport. Continental countries have taken it up. I see the latest recruit is Spain, and that is a particularly friendly place in the hearts of the Front Bench opposite, especially if we are to take cognisance of the very tactful Mr. Hugh MacLean who spoke on a platform at Letterkenny last Sunday. He told us there that presumably the President's ancestors were some of those Spaniards who had helped Ireland in the past. Probably they produced the Spanish ale that brought such hope to dark Rosaleen. Anyhow, Spain has now become one of the countries that has taken to greyhound racing, and we can hope to export dogs there if the tracks throughout this country are allowed to carry on.
I think the Minister said, in the course of the Budget debate, that some 70 per cent. of the greyhound racing tracks in the country were exempt. I do not know whether the Minister had consulted anybody before he made that statement, but the fact is that every licensed track has had to pay tax. The exemption put forward on the Report Stage of the Finance Bill had no effect so far as last year was concerned. It came into operation on the 1st November when the racing season was over, so that every track in existence here got no exemption for the year 1933-34.
Who said it had? I did not say it.
Mr. Lynch
The Minister flourished something last year as if it were a concession. Some of those tracks have paid comparatively small amounts by way of tax, but whether the amount is small or large it is injurious to greyhound breeding. The persons who breed greyhounds are mostly very small farmers and labourers. Around a certain belt in North Kerry you will hardly find a labourer's cottage without some greyhounds about, and almost every small farmer throughout County Kerry goes in for greyhound breeding. The track at Tralee is, to all intents and purposes, their shop window. It is the only place where they can show their dogs. Running a dog carries with it a considerable amount of expense. The dog has to be trained, certain fees have to be paid for entry, and so on. Every penny taken from the tracks by way of entertainment tax means so much taken away from the prize money. They depend on winning a prize with their dogs in order to be in a position to carry on. If you reduce the prize money below some figure that would make it attractive to them, you will eventually succeed in killing greyhound breeding.
A remission of this tax will not mean such a great loss to the revenue. As the Minister admitted, it would be almost negligible. I think the Minister said the amount was about £6,000. Last year the figure was actually £8,720, most of which was paid by the two Dublin tracks. There was a sum of £6,124 paid by Shelbourne Park and Harold's Cross. Other tracks paying smaller amounts included Clonmel, Cork, Dundalk, Mullingar, Limerick, Tralee and Enniscorthy. If Tralee is liable for only £106 in the next year, presumably the £100 will be refunded, but only that amount. In the case of Shelbourne Park, Harold's Cross and Clonmel, they will be liable for the payment of substantial sums. I think the provision is that a sum not exceeding £100 will be refunded. That will still leave Clonmel, if its figure remains the same—in 1933-34 it paid £543—paying £443. That would be taken from the money available for prizes.
Dividends.
Mr. Lynch
Or from dividends if you like. You may take it the dividends will probably be secured, and it is the prize money that will suffer, and every penny taken from it will make the racing less interesting to the persons who indulge in that sport, and it will consequently be detrimental to breeding. I cannot understand what is the mentality behind retaining this tax on greyhound-racing when it is gone in the case of horse-racing. There is no justification for it. Exactly the same arguments that were used for relieving horse-racing can be made in the case of greyhound-racing. Greyhound-breeding is an industry that was never subsidised. It never got any State help. Contrast it with the horse-breeding industry. The greyhound industry is a non-subsidised industry. It is merely looking for fair-play, and if it is put on an equal footing with other outdoor sports it bids fair to become an extremely important industry.
I would like to support this amendment. I think it was in the Budget debate we asked for that concession from the Minister. I understood from him that, with very few exceptions, the amount of revenue collected from greyhound-racing tracks was very small.
From the smaller greyhound-racing tracks.
I learn now that the track in my constituency, in Clonmel, which I may say I have never attended yet, has paid over £500 by way of tax. I was simply astounded to realise that it was possible for what I consider an important industry to be taxed to the extent of £500.
It was rightly said by Deputy Fionan Lynch that greyhound-racing is an industry in this country, and that the amount realised from the sale of greyhounds was very considerable; that it was a business that was likely to expand very much, but that like a good many more things, the economic war has given it a very serious setback. I notice that the Minister is smiling, but he knows that that is true. I want to tell him that in the town of Clonmel, in my constituency, it is the one industry that has been started there of recent years. It is self-supporting and employs up to 50 people. If there were another industry put up there and supported by or under the régime of the Government, what a flourish of trumpets there would be if it had given employment to the same extent! That is the one live industry that has been established there, and it is only reasonable to expect that it should get a fair deal from any Government. The least that could be expected in connection with this greyhound-racing is that it should be put on the same basis as horse-racing. The tax was withdrawn from horse-racing owing to the fact that it was found very difficult to carry on on account of the tax. I know that the present situation in connection with greyhound-racing is just the same. They are finding it very difficult to carry on, and I think that on this occasion the Minister ought to accede to our request in this amendment, and put greyhound-racing on the same basis as horse-racing and other sports.
I am not directly concerned with greyhounds, but with another branch of dog—gun dogs. We generally find, on the whole, that the dog-breeding industry, in both branches of greyhounds and gun dogs, is carried on by very small men on the average—very good men who pursue it purely and simply out of the native love of dogs. I am sure that that applies to greyhounds, and I know that it certainly applies to gun dogs. In connection with the training of gun dogs, a man may win an occasional stake in field trials and so on, but the winning of such stakes would never recompense him even if he trained the dogs himself, and if he did not train them himself it would simply rob the ordinary man to enter dogs for these trials. Deputy Fionan Lynch said that greyhounds are honoured by sporting men and by the poorer classes such as labouring men and small farmers. As a matter of fact, these are the classes who have put money into this, and they have done that out of pure love of dogs. If in a small place like Clonmel— small as compared with towns in England—they pay £450 annually, surely that is a very considerable sum which is taken from the poorer class of the community in order to try and maintain an industry. It may be said that there is nothing in this thing. I am of opinion that there is a whole lot in it. I saw in the newspapers where a man from the city here was fined, I think, £250 in London the other day for the smuggling of a dog, and the man who had bought the dog from him had to pay a very large sum in duty. Hence the value of the dog in that case was very considerable. Apparently the dog was smuggled across the Border and then shipped to London. Take the case of the famous dog, "Mick the Miller," and all those other famous dogs. The tariffs were not on when that dog was exported, but we can take it that we will be able to breed as good dogs in the future. If the value of such a dog can be £1,000, that is a very considerable sum of money, and it is a sum that might easily go into the pockets of a very poor man. £400 is deducted in tariffs. Does that not represent a fortune to a poor man? I think that when there is a general remission of this tax it is only right to see that it should be remitted in the case of dogs also. The dogs with which I have been connected are gun dogs. Nearly the entire export of Irish red setters was done through England, at least indirectly. That is, the people who had these huge kennels in England went to the various shows and saw Irish dogs on exhibit there and bought them from Irishmen or else put some foreign agents in contact with the Irish owner of the dog. That industry is killed now. There is not a solitary kennel worth twopence.
This amendment deals with greyhounds.
Yes, Sir, but I hope I am justified in relating the two classes of dogs in order to impress on the Minister the importance of this thing even in a small way. The most famous kennel for Irish red setters is wiped out. I suppose that there are not six dogs in it, and not one dog that could be exported. I think that this amendment is a genuine one and that it should be met by the Minister.
I only propose to deal with one or two extraordinary statements made by Deputy Lynch. He said that the value of dogs exported in 1931 was £500,000. I should like to know where he got his figures.
I got them from a source that, I am sure, is better informed than the Minister—from the Secretary of the Irish Coursing Club and the keeper of the Greyhound Stud Book.
I am not prepared to take that gentleman's statements as authentic.
Has the Minister any other statement to the contrary?
I am perfectly certain that the Deputy is not in a position to get a statement which would be authentic on the matter. At any rate, the total value in 1931 could not have exceeded £200,000, if it was that much. Then the Deputy proceeded to say that exports had been killed by the economic war.
Yes.
What stopped the export of greyhounds was the fact that the English Government had decided to prohibit the Totalisator on the English greyhound racing tracks. Since the prohibition was partially lifted in regard to some tracks the price has gone up, so that one person alone succeeded in disposing of a number of dogs—I would not call them first-rate dogs—in the last three weeks at a good price, and the economic war is still going on.
But he would have got that sum plus the tariffs were it not for the economic war.
The fact of the matter is that the moment the British proposed to permit the Totalisator to operate on the tracks, the export trade has revived, and very substantial sums have been got for greyhounds. These greyhounds were not fed by small farmers or labourers.
That does not matter.
I am merely shattering one of the arguments advanced here. Like King Charles' head, the economic war is dragged into all this, when it has nothing to do with it. What stopped the price of greyhounds going up was the British decision to prohibit totalisators on their tracks. When speaking on the Resolution, I said, in effect, that virtually all the small tracks in this country—I did not say all tracks—are free from the greater portion of the duty. I still stand to that.
Mr. Lynch
You suggested all the licensed tracks, of which there are ten.
I said that virtually all the smaller ones, the ones outside the large cities, have been virtually released of this duty. It is quite clear that some of them in the end will not have to pay any duty this year. They have to pay duty in the first instance, but they claim exemption, and get a rebate up to £100, if they fulfil the terms. An attempt has been made to draw an analogy between our treatment of greyhound racing and the treatment of horse racing. The fact is this, that greyhound racing is an entertainment, just the same as horse racing. The difference between them is that when we came into office we found horse racing in so perilous a state that virtually all the race meetings were losing money. That does not apply to greyhound meetings. Most of the tracks have made substantial profits, and as they are entertainments, making substantial profits, why should we forego the Entertainment Tax? The plea was made that the smaller tracks met the needs of small farmers and labourers, because they were living close to these meetings, and that these were tracks upon which the puppies could get preliminary trials, before the owners decided to send them to Dublin, or before they attracted sufficient attention to induce other people to pay the tax and to bring them to run in Dublin or Cork. In order to meet that objection, we granted a concession last year, and substantially relieved the smaller tracks of the Entertainments Tax. For the others, there are no such reasons. They have been making substantial profits. If dogs are any good they will be sent there to run. As Deputies know very well, the attraction is not the prize money but the amount which might be secured by betting, and by the price subsequently got for the dogs. In any event, we have not any guarantee that if the Entertainments Tax was taken off the prizes would be increased. We never had any guarantee to that effect, nor have we had proof that the prizes have been reduced owing to the incidence of the Entertainments Tax. The sport is as popular as ever. The same numbers go to see it. The majority of the people who go to these tracks do not own dogs, and do not go because they are interested in dogs. They are interested in getting good bets and in picking winners. It is they would be relieved, and not greyhound breeders. The people who go there for entertainment would be relieved. And, since greyhound racing is an entertainment, it is a proper subject for this tax. As the attendance at the meetings is substantial, and as many tracks are making substantial profits, there is no reason why we should forego the amount of tax we are getting out of it.
Mr. Lynch
The Minister has made some extraordinary statements. He challenged my figure of £500,000, although he has nothing whatever to put forward in the way of a figure. I quoted the man who keeps the Greyhound Stud Book, who is secretary of the Irish Coursing Club, and who is an authority on Irish greyhound racing. He should be in a position to know what he is talking about. He says that in 1931 our export figure for greyhounds was in the neighbourhood of £500,000, and he estimates that were it not for other matters, which have arisen since, presumably the decision as to the totalisator, to which the Minister referred, and including the economic war, the figure for exports would be £1,000,000. The Minister says that the economic war has nothing whatever to do with this matter, that it was like King Charles' head brought into everything. Is the Minister suggesting that seriously? The Minister mentioned a person who had sold dogs in the last few weeks at a good figure. Does he seriously contend that that man got the same price that he would have got if there was no economic war? Does he seriously suggest that the person who bought the dogs did not deduct from the purchase price the amount that had to be paid in tax? It is rubbish to suggest that he did.
I can assure the Deputy, from the knowledge I have of this transaction, that if that person had asked twice as much as he did ask he would have got it without difficulty. I happen to know that.
Mr. Lynch
I met very few fools dealing in dogs. The Minister says that virtually all the small tracks have been relieved of all duty. I will give some figures.
We are talking about this year. I said they have been relieved.
Mr. Lynch
The Minister said that these tracks will get a rebate to the extent of £100.
Some have got very substantial rebates in the present year.
Mr. Lynch
In the year 1934-35 the rebate they can get is not to exceed £100.
That is so.
Mr. Lynch
We will assume that Clonmel will be as well patronised as it was last year, when £543 was paid in entertainments tax. Supposing there is the maximum rebate of £100, Clonmel would still have to pay £443.
Clonmel is not one of the small tracks.
Mr. Lynch
Next in order is Cork which paid £526 last year. I suppose it will have to pay £426 this year. Dundalk paid £406 last year. Supposing it keeps at the same figure it will pay £306, allowing for £100 as a rebate. Mullingar paid £370 and will now pay £270; Limerick with £392, will pay £292. Enniscorthy paid £121 last year. That is one track which will benefit by having to pay only £21. Galway paid £190 but will only pay £90, and Tralee, which paid £106, will only pay £6 if they keep at the same figure. There are three tracks, Enniscorthy, Galway and Tralee, out of the ten tracks which will be largely relieved of the entertainments tax. The remaining seven licensed tracks will continue to pay very big sums.
I said smaller tracks.
Mr. Lynch
There are eight small tracks, outside of Shelbourne Park and Harold's Cross. As a matter of fact, Clonmel is bigger than Cork from the point of view of entertainments tax. Five of these will not be relieved to any great extent. If Galway keeps to the same figures it will be relieved to the extent of 50 per cent. of what it paid last year. I do not consider this rebate as of great relief to the industry as a whole. The Minister said the position in regard to horse-racing was different, and he adumbrated an extraordinary principle. He said that they found that horse-racing was being carried on at a loss at various race meetings. No industry is to be given a fillip, or a leg up in the way of putting it on an equal footing with other sports, as this one undoubtedly is, unless it is dying. If an industry has been able to stand on its own feet and to develop without a subsidy on the capital invested and without any Government help, then it is to be kicked as much as possible. But a subsidised industry, which may also be a sport, if it is sufficiently moribund may get relief. I think we ought to see that an industry such as greyhound breeding should get every encouragement. I would be more inclined to encourage it than even horse-racing, because of the fact that, unlike horse-racing, it has never required a subsidy and it is never likely to require one. All that it requires is that it should get a fair chance just as other forms of sport.
I do not at all agree with the Minister that the attraction of greyhound racing is not the prize money but the bet which a man is going to have. I know a big number of persons who run dogs on the Tralee track, labourers, and I can tell the Minister perfectly plainly that they breed very good dogs and get very good prices for them. If the Minister said that the attraction in racing was to show how their dogs could run, I might agree with him. The attraction of the greyhound racing track is that it is the shopwindow, as I said before, for their products. It is the place where they can display their dogs and where agents from abroad are present to see how the dogs shape on the tracks. That is the main attraction but a very large part of the attraction is the prize money because these men could not afford to run their dogs-afford the entrance fee, etc.—if there was not some hope of winning a prize or if there was not a fair likelihood of winning a prize or two during the season. The betting end, as far as most of the breeders are concerned, is negligible because most of them could not afford to have a five shilling bet on their greyhounds. I have been on a greyhound track only three or four times in my life but I understand that the odds one gets on dogs are very small. You rarely get three to one on any dog, unless he has no earthly chance. Betting is not the attraction. The prize money is the attraction. No matter what the Minister says there is no question of doubt that the entertainment tax has interfered with the amount of prize money. Naturally, these are commercial concerns and I wish them well of it, if they are able to pay dividends. They certainly have a right to see that they get dividends on the money they have invested. Nobody can find any fault with them for that. Of course they will continue to see that their dividends are paid. The dividends will be the last things presumably to suffer. The prize money will certainly suffer before the dividends suffer and when the prize money suffers greyhound breeding will also suffer.
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put.
Mr. Lynch
Will the Minister allow a free vote?
No.
The Committee divided: Tá, 40; Níl, 24
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eámon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moore, Séamus.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Níl
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reidy, James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Tray nor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Sections 19 to 31 agreed to.
SECTION 33.
I move amendment No. 17:—
Before Section 33 to insert as a new Part of the Bill a new section as follows:—
PART IV.
Corporation Profits Tax.
Section 52 (which relates to charge of corporation profits tax) of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by subsequent enactments is hereby repealed and it is hereby enacted that no corporation profits tax shall be chargeable, leviable or paid in respect of any accounting period ending after the passing of this Act.
In moving this amendment I would point out to the Minister that the corporation profit tax is really an anachronism. It was introduced during the war period and was really an additional income tax. At the time it was called a corporation profit tax and put on industry, when industry was making good profits, in order that the Government might be able to say that the income tax was no more than 5/- in the £. Now times have changed and in other places the corporation profit tax has been abolished. The position here is that, with the 4/6 income tax and 6d. corporation profit tax, there is really a 5/- income tax on industry at a time when industry is not doing very well. It hits manufacturing firms in this country exceedingly hard, because it has to be paid out of the residue of their profits, and, really, comes out of a fund which is very largely used to finance extension, repairs to plant, etc. I would like to appeal to the Minister to take this into account. Some Irish manufacturing firms go even further than this and consider that Irish manufacturers should be granted more extended privileges than they enjoy at present, and that they should receive favourable consideration in income tax and various other matters. While I agree with them, at the same time this is a tax that I might describe as a flagrant injustice at the present. I would like to urge the Minister to consider how far he is really hitting industry in this country by continuing this tax. Many firms have to go to considerable cost to prove that they are exempt from corporation profit tax, and, although the procedure is very largely along the lines of the income tax procedure, still it is not the same. Considerable sums have to be expended, even where firms are not liable. I would like to urge upon the Minister, taking all these circumstances into account, that the time has arrived when the corporation profit tax should be abolished.
A good deal might be said to justify the retention of this tax upon its merits and, consequently, to justify the rejection of the amendment. But I think the really practical argument is that if we were to accept this amendment it would mean that we should have to sacrifice over £400,000 of revenue. I think that renders the proposition an impracticable one from my point of view.
I think it is high time that this tax was justified upon its merits, if it has any merits. The fact that the tax produces £400,000 in revenue is not sufficient excuse for it. It appears to me to be an unjust tax and an inexpedient tax in a country which is trying to organise an industrial revival. If there is anything to be said for the tax on its merits, the Minister ought to say it.
It has 400,000 good points.
By that remark the Minister has confessed that, to all intents and purposes, there is nothing to be said for it except that it produces £400,000.
A good deal more could be said for it, but I do not think that it is necessary to waste the time of the House saying it.
The time of the House is valuable, but it is not so valuable as all that. There is nobody engaged in industry who does not regard this corporation profits tax as an outrage. It appears to me to be a penalty on people who wish to use their money in a specially productive way. It taxes the same profits twice over. It seems to me to be an immoral and unjustifiable tax, and, if the Minister has anything to say for it on its merits, it is time he said it.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 41.
Tá
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reidy, James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Carty, Frank.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moore, Séamus.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Little and Traynor.
Question declared lost.
Sections 33 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 18:—
In the second column opposite reference No. 4 after the word "character" to add the words "but excluding boilers forming an integral part of a range or grate at the time of importation."
I would like to know if these reference numbers are going to be taken separately. May I speak now only to reference No. 4?
We will take No. 4 for the present.
The Minister is here putting a duty on boilers and cylinders. When those are made in the country I shall not have a word to say against protection being afforded to them, but I want to put this to the Minister: that a number of ranges and grates which are not manufactured here are being imported. At the moment there does not seem to be any prospect of their being manufactured here. I would like to point out to the Minister that the boiler dealt with here could not be manufactured in this country. It would mean that special tools and appliances would have to be made for a very small number of special boilers if a decision to manufacture were come to. In opposing the amendment the Government are really only adding to the cost of a building without in any way promoting industry. There is no use, I would point out, in giving Irish industry a bad name by putting up the cost of items coming here and which cannot be made here at the moment. In saying that, I am not suggesting to the Minister that if certain types of ranges and grates are about to be manufactured here he should not extend his preference to them if the boilers are also going to be made in the country.
It was not intended that the duty in reference No. 4 should apply to boilers which were an integral part of a range or grate, and I understand that the reference was so interpreted by the Revenue Commissioners. On examination, however, it does appear that there is a doubt as to what is the proper interpretation of the reference, and in order to remove that doubt I am prepared to accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I desire to make some observations on reference Nos. 5 and 6. Reference No. 5 deals with "articles of any of the following descriptions made wholly or mainly of galvanised wrought iron or galvanised steel," and then follow a number of items. Reference No. 6 deals with "cast-iron articles," and then follow a number of items. I would like to point out to the Minister that, apparently, galvanised cast-iron is not provided for at all, and would, therefore, appear to be duty free. In reference No. 6 there is mention of "smoke pipes, ventilation pipes and other similar pipes." That is cast-iron. Apparently, wrought iron smoke pipes would be free. I would like the Minister to consider these two points. I take it also that the articles under reference No. 5 are subject to a 30 per cent. duty, and those under reference No. 6 to a duty of 25 per cent. I take it that the emergency duty on steel is gone, and that there is no question of an after duty. I should like the Minister to deal with that point. I take it that these are the only duties these items are subject to.
In so far as the Deputy's remarks relate to reference No. 5, it is correct that the duty does not apply to galvanised cast-iron goods. It applies only where wrought iron or steel galvanised is used in the construction work. With reference to his remarks on reference No. 6, it is correct that the emergency duty no longer applies to these goods. In so far as the general emergency duties on manufactures of steel are concerned, they apply only to machinery. It does not apply to any of the items enumerated in that reference.
What about wrought iron smoke pipes? These would not be covered?
No. They are free.
Might I point out that the wording leaves that doubtful. If a thing is cast-iron, it remains cast-iron, whether it is galvanised or ungalvanised.
There are two references. The items from (a) to (g) at reference No. 5 are dutiable when they are galvanised wrought iron or galvanised steel, and at reference No. 6, cast-iron articles of the type set out.
The ordinary interpretation of cast-iron would be anything that is cast-iron whether it is galvanised or ungalvanised. I suggest that the Minister should look into the point, because it is open to question on the present wording. Provided that the article is cast-iron, it remains cast-iron, and, under the strict wording of that Schedule, is liable to duty, whether galvanised or ungalvanised. It is cast-iron still, whether galvanised or not.
I take it, following Deputy Thrift's remarks, that that would be so if they were not in two separate sections, but the Minister obviously treats galvanised articles as one section—and I think I know the reason for that—and cast-iron articles as another section.
I am not challenging the Minister's interpretation. I have no doubt that what is intended is that it should be galvanised wrought iron and ungalvanised cast-iron, but I suggest that the meaning of the English word "cast-iron" is that so long as it is cast-iron, it remains so, whether you galvanise it or not, and as cast-iron galvanised, in the strict interpretation of the words, it becomes liable to duty. I think that a change in the wording to show the Minister's intention is necessary.
References 5 to 12 inclusive, agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In the second column opposite reference No. 13 to insert the words "or educational" before the word "nature".
I do not want to take very long over this, particularly because I think the principle underlying the words I propose for insertion is already admitted. That is made perfectly clear in various places in our Finance Acts, but I think the words, as they appear in reference No. 13, "technical or scientific" would be improved by the addition of the words "or educational". The word "educational" only brings in films which are of the same character as the technical or scientific ones, but I think that the word is necessary to make it explicit. Of course, I should like to go a great deal further and press on the Minister that this particular tariff is one of the most irritating and vexatious of tariffs, while being productive of very little useful result. These films are very frequently used in ordinary parochial work. They are used sometimes for mere entertainments and very frequently for entertainments of a semi-educational nature and often for entertainments of a truly educational nature, and it is extremely vexatious to find, when you want to get up some small semi-educational entertainment, that your costs are raised because you must import from abroad slides of that particular kind. They are not made here at all, and they are frequently used for such lectures as I am referring to. The position, however, would be improved if the Minister would agree to the insertion of the words I suggest.
I think the introduction of the words, instead of having the effect of making the definition explicit, as the Deputy suggests, would have quite the contrary effect. The term "educational" is obviously a very wide term, and could be used to cover a multitude of things. We are excluding from the scope of the duty slides or films of a technical or scientific nature, and that, I think, is as far as we could go, leaving it to the Revenue Commissioners to determine what is a slide or film of a technical or scientific nature. Apart altogether from the administrative difficulties that would arise from the use of a general term, such as the Deputy suggests, there is the fact that Saorstát firms engaged in the production of these goods, for whose benefit this duty has been imposed, claim to be in a position to supply whatever educational slides and films may be required.
They are not doing it.
We have not had any reason to doubt their claim in that regard as yet. The main objection, however, to the Deputy's amendment is the administrative difficulties that would arise from the insertion of such a very general term as the Deputy suggests. I think he can rely on the fact that the Revenue Commissioners will give a liberal interpretation to the words that are, in fact, used.
Would the Minister consider adding the word "artistic"?
That is a still more general term.
I hope the phrase will be interpreted very liberally. I have a letter here drawing attention to a real grievance that arises in this matter. It is a letter which says:—
"I use these slides for popular lectures on animals and birds for children's entertainments. They are now liable to a duty of 33? per cent. A large number of the slides are used by people I know, and many of them are simply not to be got over here."
Is the Deputy withdrawing the amendment?
I wonder would the Minister consider making it clearer?
I can vouch for the liberality of the Revenue Commissioners.
I will take that.
Reference No. 13 agreed to.
References Nos. 14 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In the second column opposite reference No. 22 after the word "towelling" but within the bracket to insert the words "and webbing cloths used in the manufacture of collars and fancy piqué used in the manufacture of dress shirts."
Yesterday we dealt with some of the general aspects of the effect of the Minister's general proposal on the shirt manufacturing industry and, to some extent, I dealt with the class of industry that is carried on in the City of Dublin. This amendment proposes that there shall be excluded from the tax "webbing cloths used in the manufacture of collars and fancy piqué used in the manufacture of dress shirts." The Minister declares that licences will be issued to persons until such time as they are able to get the material that is tariffed here in the ordinary way. Whatever may be said about the fabrics that were mentioned yesterday, it is stated very explicitly by people in the shirt industry, and who have been in touch with manufacturers, that the fabrics mentioned in this amendment have no chance of being produced here, the market for them is so small and the cost of production would be so great and that the fact that, to a large extent, that part of the shirt industry which is using these, particularly here, is dependent for its well-being on a certain amount of export trade means that the tariff remaining on those particular classes of goods is going to do them a very considerable amount of harm. The people who were particularly affected and who I understand are affected in the whole of their trade very much are the Donegal shirt manufacturers who make the better class of tunic and shirt collars. They have already approached the Minister and laid their case before him. They want exemption from duty in respect of linen for dress shirts and webbing cloths for collars and marcella fabric for dress shirts. The immediate difficulty that some of these manufacturers suffer under is enormous. I told the Minister yesterday that there are firms here in which the workers are standing idle because they cannot get the material for which they are waiting and which is not a large part of the material used. The Minister was very emphatic yesterday in saying that if persons did not get licences and get them rapidly it was their own fault. I have here a long statement from a Donegal firm, in which they say that they applied for a licence on the 4th June for five pieces of webbing for the making of collars and at the time of writing—12 days afterwards—they had not got an acknowledgment of their application. That manufacturer told me this morning that on the 16th June, 12 days after, he had written to the Minister for Finance without having received an acknowledgment he wrote again. He has had no acknowledgment of the second letter since. Here is a man who is dealing with the export trade in which he gets ten days for delivery of the goods and he is waiting now since the 4th June for a licence to get some of his material coming to him to carry on his business and he has no acknowledgement from the Minister for Finance. The Minister has had represented to him by people engaged in the trade that those goods set out in this amendment are not made here and are not likely to be made here in view of the amount of stuff likely to be used. The part of the industry that is particularly hit is that part of the industry depending upon exports. In imposing a tariff like this and doing it in this particular way and giving this industry the kind of shock that it is getting now, the Minister ought to bear in mind the type of industry with which he is dealing and the history of it.
The position with regard to the shirt making industry is that in 1924, before the original tariff was put on, there were 410 persons employed in shirt-making. That is, the employment given in the shirt-making industry was equivalent to 410 whole-time employees. At that time there were imports of shirt material to the extent of £345,000. The previous Administration put on a tariff and the number of persons employed in the industry rose very rapidly so that in September, 1926, instead of 410 persons there were 1,572 persons employed. The imports of shirts had fallen in that year to £105,000. There was a general kind of fluctuation and a gradual rise until in September, 1930, the total number employed was 1,844 persons. The imports for the year 1930 were £59,000; so that you had an increase in the shirt-making industry from 410 to 1,844 persons between 1924 and 1930. Then there was a slight fluctuation downwards and there were 82 persons less employed in September, 1931. The position with regard to the industry in the country in 1931 was that we imported that year £64,000 and we exported £75,000 worth of shirts.
The Minister I think will generally agree that as far as the market here was concerned, beyond a certain amount of imports that might be cut off, nevertheless, we balanced all the imports to a greater extent so that the situation here was saturated as far as the industry was concerned and there was not much room for expansion. During the last few years there has been a certain amount of expansion. According to the Minister's latest returns the total number of persons employed in September last was 2,066 or an increase over the 1931 figures of 280 persons. But it is an industry saturated like that, dependent on an export market and situated in a district which the Minister will admit cannot very easily be provided for by any other type of industry, that is being hit.
The position with regard to our exports has been that the exports for shirts for 1929 was £67,000; 1930, £83,000; 1931, £75,000; 1932, £38,000 and 1933, £13,000; so that during the last two years the exports have fallen from £75,000 to £13,000. We have one particular branch of the industry and an important branch situated in Donegal and this portion of the industry is to a large extent depending on its export market to enable it to carry on; yet it is being prejudiced at this time of the year and terribly upset by the imposition of tariffs. In the matter of an essential part of their material, however small, they are going to be tied up looking for licences quite unnecessarily or they are to be forced to accept a class of material which is not the class that they are expected to use and which will be dearer than that which they are accustomed to use. They are being forced into this position when they are competing in the outside market for the better class tunics.
If the Minister will turn to the issue of the Trade Journal for January, which is not the latest issue, he will see that there are 17 shirt factories in Dublin, 9 in Cork and 14 in Donegal. No doubt the same complaint will be made by the collar makers in the City of Dublin as is made by the Donegal manufacturers at the present time. The Donegal manufacturers have a terrible grievance. If the Minister is going to take reasonable precautions to attract their export trade there is no other way out of it but to remove this type of fabric from his Schedule. I cannot say how much the total value of the imports of that material would amount to. But compared with the Harvard shirt, the Oxford shirt and the Drill shirt the import of this particular stuff will be negligible as far as the cost is concerned. As far as these other items run the whole cost of the imports as shown by the 1929 Census returns runs to about £60,000. They are the main shirtings used, particularly in the City of Dublin where the heavier shirts are turned out. The others are only the webbing and stiffening for particular classes of shirts and collars. The effect on the manufacturing trade here of the new cotton goods can be nothing, but the amount of upset which can be done to an industry which, I suggest, is in a somewhat perilous position or can be easily put in a somewhat perilous position, is very great.
I rise to a point of order. This is certainly a record. I see the Minister for Industry and Commerce sitting there with empty benches behind him and no member of the Labour Party present.
It shows the absolute confidence they have in the Minister.
Is the Minister accepting the amendment?
The Deputy's case is based on the information supplied to him that the licensing section of the Department of Industry and Commerce is not functioning as efficiently as it should. These cloths are not made here, but a licence can be got for their importation and any firm engaged in the manufacture of shirts and collars requiring this importation can get a licence for that purpose without difficulty. It would be impossible to accept the amendment in so far as it affects webbing cloths, because the definition is one which those responsible for the administration of the duties would not be prepared to accept, as they could not identify the cloth contemplated. It is to meet definition difficulties of that kind that the licensing provision is there, as well as to provide for the temporary importation of the other classes of cloth until home production has been increased to the point at which it can supply the home demand. The position might be different in respect of piqué cloth, but I hardly think it is worth while to provide for the specific exemption of that cloth from duty, in so far as the licensing provision has been operating to permit of free importation. That is a matter which can be examined further.
The principal item to which the Deputy has referred is the webbing cloth and it is not possible to get for the cloth which is used by collar manufacturers a precise definition which would permit of its identification from all other cloths to which that definition might apply. The Deputy can be assured that if there has been any temporary delay, due to absence or illness of staff, in the licensing section—and I am not aware of any—it will be very speedily remedied and firms dealing with that section of the Department will have their representations very expeditiously attended to.
The particular case to which the Deputy referred of a firm in Donegal, who wrote to the Department and received no reply for ten days, is one which I should like to investigate, and if the Deputy will give me the name of the firm I will be very glad to look into the matter and find out what is the cause of the delay in that particular case. On the whole, I must say that very few complaints of the kind are received in the Department, which is a noteworthy fact, having regard to the position which arises immediately after the imposition of new classes of duties in each Finance Act, when a number of people, who never before had experience of dealing with the Department in these matters, came for the first time seeking facilities, and occasionally caused delay by not knowing the precise procedure to adopt. The procedure, however is rapidly regularised, and so far as I know the staff of that Department is quite adequate to deal with the work coming to it at present.
The Minister seems to admit the position. Here we have in County Donegal a most important industry being strangled because of the limitations of an alien language. The Minister cannot, within the framework of the English language, provide a description for a certain type of cloth that must be very well known to the manufacturers and could easily be very well known to the revenue officials. I think we might leave the question of licences aside for the moment. If there is a case for exempting this class of cloth from the tariff list, because the amount imported is very small, because the likelihood of its being made here is very slight, because if there was a likelihood of its being made here the profit to the manufacturers would be very small compared with the rest of their trade, then there certainly is a case for making a clean sweep of that fabric from the tariff list when the Minister takes into consideration the interests involved in it. There is no doubt, from all I can hear, that the interests of the Donegal manufacturers as a whole are very seriously jeopardised by the difficulties they are going to be placed in with regard to these cloths. In the first place, if there is an attempt to manufacture them here, they will have to be bought at the prices and in the qualities made here. I do not think that the matter has been sufficiently considered.
I will undertake to consider it further and see if we can get a definition which will exempt them. I think that can be done for the piqué cloth all right, but I am not very hopeful about the webbing cloth. We can administer the licensing system with a certain amount of elasticity, but once you put a definition in the Act it becomes much more difficult to administer it if there is any looseness in the definition. In so far as we put anything in the Schedule, it must be a precise definition about which there must be no uncertainty. That is why we prefer to operate the licensing provision rather than have a definition. If the Deputy will leave the matter over I will consider it.
I shall leave the matter over to give the Minister an opportunity of having a further consultation with the manufacturers concerned in the matter.
With regard to reference No. 22, I want to mention that we propose on the Report Stage to insert in the fourth column of the Schedule certain words which will exempt bookbinding cloth from the scope of the duty.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
With regard to reference No. 39—whiting—I should like to point out to the Minister that he has put a duty of £1 per ton on this article. No doubt that is with the object of encouraging the native product, but there seems to be some doubt as to whether the native product will be suitable for putty in all instances. I suggest to the Minister that he ought to look into that and see how far he can stand over the native product for all the uses for which whiting is intended. I am not in any sense asking him to come to a decision at the moment, but I am asking him to look into the question.
We delayed imposing this duty on whiting for some time, while certain experiments were being carried out with the Clare product. The stage has now been reached when we can say that the whiting is suitable for most purposes, but there is some doubt still as to whether it is altogether satisfactory for use in connection with the manufacture of putty, although there is reason to think it is when mixed with certain proportions of imported whiting. At present we permit under licence the importation of whatever quantities of whiting are required in the manufacture of putty, and we will continue to do so until it is clear that the Clare whiting can be used without difficulty.
With regard to reference No. 40, I take it that the articles that are not going to be manufactured in this country are going to be imported free under licence?
Yes.
I refer to aluminium.
Yes. At present all requirements are being allowed in under licence in normal quantities because production has not yet commenced.
Schedules 1 to 8, inclusive, and the Title agreed to. Fourth Stage fixed for Tuesday, 26th June.