I feel that this question of tobacco-growing ought to be considered from the point of view of agriculture, and not from the point of view of fiscal returns. The trouble, I think, is— and it is just as well that the grower should face it—that it is a nuisance to the Revenue Department to have tobacco growing in Ireland, and that the Department would very much rather it were not grown in Ireland. That is frankly and honestly the real trouble that the farmers in Navan district and in Wexford district are faced with—the fact that the Revenue people consider tobacco-growing in Ireland a great nuisance. Their interest in agriculture is only in so far as it is a system of spending money. They do not want revenue from tobacco grown in Ireland. They would rather get revenue from tobacco smoked in Ireland, and therefore they are going to put all kinds of obstacles, as they have done, against the encouragement of the growth of tobacco in this country. I think it is as well we should understand that, and ask ourselves if it is worth while spending money on tobacco-growing when the chief Department—the Treasury—is definitely against such encouragement. They put all kinds of obstacles in the way of the grower, and they make it very difficult for the crop to be grown profitably. Consequently some kind of subsidy on the growing side has been found necessary. I am rather concerned with the position up to date. The State has given encouragement to small farmers to grow tobacco. It has also given encouragement to the manufacturing and the preparing end to invest money for the purpose. Now that they have got into a state when they are blocked up with stocks which they cannot realise without great loss of money, they are met with a new situation from the fiscal side. Imperial preference was given to India, which has encouraged the unloading of stocks of tobacco in England and Ireland, produced at a very low price, and these stocks have brought down the price of Irish tobacco to almost nothing. One Department of the State has encouraged and continued to encourage tobacco-growers, and the other Department of the State comes along and makes the effort of the Agricultural Department null and void, and penalises to a very great extent the men who followed the advice and almost direction of the Agricultural Department. Now, if the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Finance have made up their minds that tobacco-growing—having gone through the experiments and proved itself quite satisfactory from the agricultural point of view—is bad for the revenue, and therefore bad for the country, let them say definitely to the farmers of the country, "We are not going to encourage you any longer to grow tobacco, but, in view of what you have done in response to our advice, we are going to see you through the present tangle and the present losses." It seems to me that is the only position the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance can take up on this matter consistent with the arguments they have used.
The growing of tobacco has, undoubtedly, proved very valuable from many points of view, speaking as a national economist. It is good for the country. It is a good crop and employs a great deal of labour and is demanded by the people, that is to say, it has met a want, and it can be improved in quality. But from the Revenue point of view, undoubtedly it has disadvantages. It is very much better for the Revenue that they should get tobacco from America, Turkey, or anywhere else, as it has to come through certain ports and come through in bond. A man wanting to grow tobacco, say, in Kerry, Galway, or Cork has to apply for a licence to do so, and I suppose a Revenue Officer has to be kept lying under a ditch or hedge to be sure that nothing goes wrong with the tobacco, so that the Revenue Department may not suffer from tobacco growing. There is no doubt whatever that a Department of the State has encouraged the people who were working at tobacco growing, and the people who have spent money for the curing, preparing and re-handling of the tobacco, and it is only fair to those people—those small farmers— who have assisted in this, and spent a lot of money, and bound themselves to certain commitments, that they should be assisted out of the money of the Development Grant voted for this purpose.
Deputy O'Shannon raised a question, and indicated that there is a great deal of doubt as to the facts in regard to this grant of £70,000. It is alleged that the £70,000 was earmarked out of the Development Grant for the purpose of encouraging tobacco growing in Ireland, and that £30,000, or thereabouts, has been spent. I take it that the sum of £3,000, odd, referred to in this estimate, is portion of that £70,000, which may have been the capital sum—I do not know how it is arrived at—but I suggest, if Ministers have made up their minds that it is not a good proposition to encourage tobacco growing, and if this is a balance of this fund that has been earmarked for the tobacco growers, then the losses that have been sustained, or would have been sustained, by putting the present stocks upon the market at the moment, ought to be met, to a considerable extent, out of the balance of this fund that is available. If it has been decided that there should be no more peddling with tobacco growing, and that is the indication given us from the Ministry, then there should be some recompense to those men who have at their direction persisted in this experiment. I realise the force of the argument of the Minister in regard to 50 per cent. of the duty, if 50 per cent. of the duty could be foregone. Fifty per cent. of the duty at present rate could be expended upon the encouragement of some industry, and probably could be spent to better advantage than on tobacco growing. I admit that frankly, and I do not think that there is very much to be got out of the claim that so large a proportion of the duty should be remitted unless there is going to be a very narrow limitation in the acreage grown; and that, I think, would be an impossible condition. If you are going to remit the duty to the extent of 50 per cent. you cannot limit the acreage, and one could easily multiply the present tobacco production 20 or 30 times if you are going to remit 50 per cent. of the duty. I do not think that there is very much advantage, considering the present state of the revenue, to be obtained by a claim for the remission of the duty for the purpose of continuing the growth of tobacco; but I contend that there is something due to those people who have invested money and time at the direction, and more or less for the convenience, of the State, and that they, at least, should be met in regard to their losses in the matter.
There are one or two other small matters on this vote that I want to get out of the way in case the Farmers' Party desire to raise bigger questions. I think Deputies on the Government benches, at least, will probably be glad to have some fuller information about item H.H. and as to the work of the National Stud. I have no doubt it would be very interesting to the Dáil and the country to know what has been the result of these activities in regard to horse-breeding at the National Stud. You may find that it is going to be a new Department, and perhaps Deputy Doctor White might have something to say in regard to the manning of that Department.
There is an item of £457 for Statistics and Intelligence Branch. The Minister for Finance told us a few days ago that in future the Statistical Branch of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce will compile statistics relating to agriculture also. There are no provisions made in the Industry and Commerce Vote for the statistics of agriculture, and one would expect that the whole of this Vote would come under one head. Whether that is a matter for adjustment after the Ministries Bill has been passed I do not know, but it at least seems there would be need for a good deal of revision of the Department's work in regard to statistics if it is to be brought under the Ministry of Industry and Commerce and under one chief statistician. Then all these charges should be brought under that head, including the Vote for £457 for the Inspector of Statistics.
I notice also an item, "Officer in charge of Agricultural Labour Disputes,, which was not a charge in last year's account. I take it that that is an officer who has been transferred from the Ministry of Industry and Commerce to the Ministry of Agriculture. While one can understand the advantage, perhaps, of having such an officer under the Ministry of Agriculture, it does not seem to fit in with the general work of such an officer with regard to disputes. I am inclined to think that unless there is very close collaboration between the two Departments in regard to this kind of work, there will eventually be a lot of overlapping. You cannot detach an officer and use him for this work alone without relating it to work of a similar kind on other Departments, and it seems to me that his value will be greatly minimised by detaching him from the general work of such a Department. I would like also to hear from the Minister some explanation regarding the reduction in the amount for allotments, and as to whether there has been any great decrease in the demand for allotments, and, generally, to ask that he should make a statement as to this question of allotments, and explain why a reduction has been found necessary. There is another matter, too, that I would like to ask the Minister to enlarge upon. There were two reports submitted to the Minister's Department from the Commission of Enquiry relating to the encouragement of cow-testing through the country and the establishment of special stud farms. So far as one can gather, the money and time spent on that enquiry have been wasted. No results are apparent, except the publication of reports, and inasmuch as these reports were sent in as definitely practical propositions—that is to say, were generally proved as practicable, economical and urgent—it is required, I think, of the Minister to explain whether anything is being done in regard to the putting into operation of these recommendations, or as to what decision has been come to in regard to them: whether they have been turned down as impracticable or as being too costly, and why nothing has been done in that respect. I note there is an increase in the Vote for the improvement of dairy cattle. Perhaps we shall have some information as to what that is intended to cover, and as to what the proposal is. Is it to increase the premiums, or to develop any special side of the industry? I think the country, the agricultural community, and the Dáil is entitled to a very much fuller statement of policy, past, present, and future, from a Ministry when presenting a Vote asking for money of this kind, and it is not too late, even if we have to adjourn this discussion, for the Minister to make a full statement in regard to Ministerial policy on agricultural questions.