Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 22 Feb 1940

Vol. 78 No. 13

Supplementary Estimates, 1939-40. - Vote 8.—Compensation Bounties.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £2,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1940, chun Deolchairí ar shiúicre do rinneadh de bhiatas dúthchais agus ar a n-íoctar aistarrac, ar thobac do rinneadh de dhuille dhúthchais agus ar a n-íoctar aistarrac, ar thobac do fásadh in Eirinn tar éis an ladh Eanar, 1934, agus do díthíodh ar dhéantóir agus do díthíodh ina dhiaidh sin mar thobac a bhí neamh-oiriúnach le haghaidh déantóireachta, agus ar thobac nea-dhéanta do fásadh in Eirinn agus do heasportáladh.

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £2,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1940, for Bounties on sugar made from home-grown beet on which drawback is paid, tobacco manufactured from home-grown leaf on which drawback is paid, tobacco grown in Éire after 1st January, 1934, allocated to a manufacturer and subsequently destroyed as unfit for manufacture and unmanufactured tobacco grown in Éire and exported.

The main purpose of this Supplementary Estimate is to provide for bounties payable on unmanufactured tobacco grown in Éire and exported— sub-head B. The total amount required for the purpose is £5,000, of which £3,000 will be met by savings on sub-head A. When the original Estimate for 1939-40 was prepared in December, 1938, it was estimated that of a total quantity of 394,000 lbs. weight, approximately, of unmanufactured tobacco grown in Éire in the years 1934, 1935 and 1936, permitted to be exported, about 180,000 lbs. weight would be exported before 31st March, 1939, and, consequently, would rank for payment of compensation bounty in the financial year 1938-39. Actually, only 59,000 lbs. weight of the tobacco in question was exported up to March, 1939, so that payment of compensation bounty on the balance of 121,000 lbs. weight became due in this financial year instead of last year, and the money provided in the previous year was carried over.

Where do they export the tobacco?

It is sold across the water, I understand, to England and Scotland, but what it is used for there, I do not know exactly. It is made up of waste tobacco, stalks and other tobacco which is unusable here.

Are we giving a bounty of 10d. a lb. on waste tobacco shipped by the Imperial Tobacco Company?

It is really a drawback on duty paid.

Well, now, is it?

I understand so.

I am not in the habit of pressing the Minister—I take his word very readily—but am I to understand that this is the equivalent of drawback?

It makes up the difference in the short price of tobacco here, as between the home-grown tobacco and the imported tobacco.

They have to pay more for the home-grown tobacco here, and when they export the refuse they only get back——

They get back a refund. They have to pay duty.

I think the Minister is making a mistake. There is drawback. If I pay duty on tobacco manufactured and then proceed to export the refuse, I am entitled to have refunded to me by the Revenue Commissioners the amount of duty I paid on the refuse.

In proportion to what you export.

This appears to be an additional sum of 10d. per lb. which is paid to those who export this refuse, and I want to know why they are getting a bounty on the export of tobacco refuse. Do I gather from the Minister that the tobacco manufacturers in Ireland have to pay more for Irish leaf than they would pay for imported leaf, and, being compelled to buy the Irish leaf, the Government makes up the difference to them for so much of it as they have to export?

That is the position.

So that it is another kind of bounty in order to persuade them to buy Irish tobacco?

That was a grand scheme, was it not?

Well, a number of people found it profitable to grow it some years ago. They do not find it so profitable now.

"Some years ago" is good.

There was a year or two when the weather conditions here were particularly advantageous and they did make profits. It has not been so in the last two or three years.

What is it costing the State?

Oh, it costs something all right.

Is it not a nice scheme? Nobody is getting a profit out of it, the taxpayer has to pay for it, and the Minister's throat and mine have to be rasped with the tobacco.

Many farmers reaped a good deal of benefit out of it.

Now that the reaping is over, I think we might drop it.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn