I move this motion. The presentation of this Supplementary Estimate to the Dáil is a matter rather of form than of substance. By the Land Act the Congested Districts Board was abolished, or merged in the Land Commission. The Ireland Development Grant was also abolished. The work that was done out of the money voted for the Development Grant and for the Congested Districts Board has been done by the Land Commission, but since the passing of the Land Act no money has been issued out of those Votes. What is being done now is simply a re-voting to the Land Commission of money which was formerly voted to the Congested Districts Board, and under the heading of the Ireland Development Grant, for work which is passed on to the Land Commission. There remained unissued out of the Exchequer of money voted to the Congested Districts Board a sum of £179,750. Of this, it is estimated that £146,750 would be attributable to the work done by the Land Commission, work that has passed to the Land Commission. In addition there was in the Ireland Development Grant a sum of £81,167, which went to meet the charges in respect of Excess Stock under the Land Acts. Consequently there has been, as you may see, a saving of £146,750 under the heading of the Congested Districts Board, and this other saving of £81,167 under the heading of the Ireland Development Grant. As a matter of fact, this Estimate represents in reality a reduction of something over £30,000 on the money already voted, taking together the Land Commission, the Congested Districts Board, and the Ireland Development Grant. The only new charge really is the increase in Item F: "Legal Department — incidental expenses," where there is an additional sum of £3,500 required. That is made necessary by the heavy bills of costs that have been incurred by local solicitors in taking proceedings against an increased number of defaulters for arrears of purchase annuities. Apart from that there is really a re-voting of money which has already been voted by the Dáil under another head, which has not been issued out of the Exchequer under that particular head. No increased expenditure is involved under this Supplementary Estimate.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE.
There are a number of questions I want to ask the Minister about this. The first is, is this a matter of special urgency?
Yes. Unless we can get it not only through Committee to-day, but also have it reported to the Dáil, the salaries that are due to be paid by the Land Commission at the end of the month cannot be paid.
Because if there was no special urgency I should enter a protest against taking any Supplementary Estimate in the absence of the Minister responsible for the Department with which it is concerned. We know, owing to reasons of health, that the Minister for Agriculture is not able to be present, and if this is urgent I am not going to stress that point; but as a general principle I think the Dáil will agree that we are entitled to ask a number of questions about any Supplementary Estimates, and the Minister for Finance cannot possibly answer them. I am not going to press that, but there are two or three questions I want to ask. The first point is that in the last Dáil, £169,750 was voted to the Congested Districts Board, and I gather from the Supplementary Estimate that it is not going to be spent. That was voted "Grants in aid of the Expenditure of the Board in carrying out Land Purchase operations and in the development of sea fishing, and all suitable industries in the Congested Districts." That is on page 154 of the Estimates. There was no word said when that £169,000 was voted, and there was no indication in these estimates of what we now learn from this Estimate, that £54,000 of that £169,000 was to be spent in salaries; that for every £2 spent in the Congested Districts, the Congested Districts Board spent £1 on salaries. I cannot help thinking that is somewhat excessive. This is probably a dying act of contrition on the part of the Congested Districts Board, and I hope that in future we shall have a clear idea of what the salaries are, and what it costs the Ministry. There is a certain inconsistency between what I understand the Minister for Finance to say, and the figures given in the Supplementary Estimate. As far as I understand, the Minister for Finance said there was a saving of £81,000 on the Development Grant.
It was not issued under that head.
It was not issued under that head, but in the Supplementary Estimate on page 2 the following sum remained unissued from the Exchequer:—Ireland Development Grant, £10,000—
That was to the Congested Districts Board.
And the remaining £71,000 is a sort of floating balance that the Minister has gathered anywhere and everywhere, and is applying to the Congested Districts Board. Is that the case?
No, but the other £81,000 was for excess charges direct on that Board. The Ireland Development Grant was abolished by the Land Act of 1923. That is independent of the £10,000.
Was that remaining £71,000 in any case to be applied by the Minister for Agriculture?
Yes.
Otherwise there would not be a saving, because in a footnote it says it is estimated that out of this total sum of £179,750, £33,000 will probably be spent by the Ministry of Fisheries. I do not know whether the Minister for Fisheries is making himself responsible for rural industries or not, so that the balance is much less satisfactory than it seems, leaving this £61,000 out of account. Instead of this being merely a paper transaction, it was, in fact, voting something like £50,000. If the Minister can give further information about the £81,000, and why it did not appear on the Estimates it would help us. We are rather at a loss in dealing with the Supplementary Estimate, in which the odd £71,000 is introduced in a way which one does not quite know, and I should be very grateful for information on the matter.
Before proceeding, I should like to ask for your ruling on this: is it necessary before these officers can be paid their month's salary that the whole of this sum shall be voted? Would not the same object be achieved without having to close down discussion on this Vote under penalty of the loss of salary? Is it not possible to vote some amount which would cover these salaries?
That is the sum of £54,000, I take it?
For the salaries for the month.
I think as it is really a formal Estimate, and there is no voting of new money, the only item that really has increased is this item in connection with the Legal Department. I think that it would be an unnecessary complication of the matter to have a vote on account.
The Minister rather misses the point, that this is an opportunity of criticising the conduct of the Department, and it is not right to prevent it by saying if you do not vote it the staff will lose their salaries. I say the two objects can be achieved, the staff can get their salaries, and the Dáil can criticise the Department if a vote on account is taken.
I desire to support the suggestion of Deputy Johnson, and for this reason, that when I first looked at this Estimate I came to the conclusion it would be a suitable opportunity for the Minister for Agriculture to make a statement in connection with the operation of the Land Act up to the present time. I think we are entitled to demand a statement. The suggestion by Deputy Johnson would provide a way out of the difficulty for the moment.
I am at a loss to see how, if we do not vote any new money, people cannot get their salaries. How have they been getting their salaries up to the present? Has it been done without authority from the Dáil, and is it a belated repentance?
They have been paid out of the original Land Commission Vote which is now exhausted. The Congested Districts Board services have been transferred to the Land Commission, but the Congested Districts Board Vote was not transferred to the Land Commission.
We are voting new money.
No.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I would like to support the suggestion by Deputy Johnson. There are many questions I would like to ask with regard to the work of the late Congested Districts Board in the West of Ireland, and it would be essential, I think, that an opportunity should be afforded to the Minister for Agriculture to give a full statement. I think the situation can be met by Deputy Johnson's suggestion.
There will be ample opportunity very shortly for members to deal with this whole business.
This might be the opportunity we want. The Minister is not giving anything away by reducing the amount named in his Motion, but he is securing that the salaries shall be paid, and we are securing our rights of criticism.
If we say £150,000 on account ——
But the whole annual salary is only £54,000.
There are other expenses.
Is it necessary the other expenses shall be paid before the end of the month?
I think there will be ample opportunity of discussing this whole matter very soon on the annual Estimates. I am simply accepting the suggestion of the Vote on Account, in order that it may not be said we are preventing the Deputies having adequate opportunity for discussing this Vote, and consequently I think if I leave any substantial sum over it meets the point.
The position as I understand it, is this, that this Vote is now before us. There is required a sum of £194,370 to carry on till the end of this Financial Year, which is only four or five weeks distant. The Dáil desires to discuss this Estimate before granting this sum. The Minister says that unless this is passed to-day the staff will not be able to get their salaries. I am sure that the Dáil does not desire to take any action which will deprive the staff of their salaries. The Dáil will readily vote the amount necessary to pay the salaries, and allow the main question to be discussed when the Minister for Agriculture is present. That seems to me to be a reasonable proposition.
There appeared to be two things which the Deputies in Committee desire. One is the presence of the Minister for Agriculture during the discussion, and the other is to have a full discussion on anything that may be involved in the whole Estimate.
We feel that we cannot authorise the payment of the whole sum unless certain questions are answered satisfactorily.
By the Minister for Agriculture preferably?
Yes.
I should say that he will probably be able to be present next week. I would like to point out that this particular vote was previously before the Dáil under another heading, and that the Land Act being passed, certain adjustments have to be made. The Dáil is really adjusting monies already voted, and an opportunity will be afforded in a month or two in the next Estimate for a discussion such as this. I think it will be necessary to get a considerable sum voted on account now if we are to agree to that course. I do not think that a lesser sum than £150,000 should be voted. There could, of course, be a discussion on the administration since the Land Act was passed, but only to that extent.
I would like to support the President in his idea regarding this vote. What we really want is to have an opportunity of discussing what has happened since the passing of the Land Act.
Could not the Committee agree to give the Minister a substantial sum on account, on the understanding that next week, when the Minister for Agriculture is present, the Estimate for the remaining sum could be presented, and on the discussion of this sum anything which would come within the terms on the Paper could be raised?
I understand that that was necessarily involved in voting a sum on account. Sometimes more than half of an estimate has been voted on account. Every item on the estimate is gone into when the total has been voted.
Of course the Minister forgets that he explained as a reason why this vote should be given this afternoon that unless it is voted the salaries of the staff of this particular department could not be paid. The salaries will not amount to £150,000, and I take it that the expenditure for a week on this particular work will not amount to that sum. If that is not the case then we should have had this estimate long ago. The administration of the department naturally and rightly is subject to review by the Dáil when any question of expenditure of money is raised or when power to spend money is sought. It is not right, I submit, for the Minister to say that this vote must be got this afternoon, because if we do not give it the staffs will not be paid their salaries. I shall be satisfied if a vote is taken for a sum of money requisite to carry over a reasonable time, and that the estimate shall come forward for discussion at the first opportunity when there will be no closure and no threat that the salaries will be withheld. The Minister, in replying to Deputy Cooper yesterday, spoke about blackmail, and I think it is very near blackmail when the Minister for Finance comes before the Dáil and says that unless we vote this sum to-day we will not be able to pay the staff.
I should like to return good for evil, and say that the Minister for Finance is not the first Minister whom I have heard making that plea as I heard it before in another House. I suggest that £150,000 is out of proportion, as it is rather more than three-quarters of the estimate. I would be willing to agree to £100,000, as that would meet all conceivable contingencies. As to the President's point, this sum was voted when certain members were not here to criticise it, and when the stringency of the financial situation was not as clear as it is now. There was no talk then of a cut of 10 per cent. in the teachers' salaries, or the old age pensions. We are, therefore, entitled to examine this estimate de novo with a view to the financial situation as it now presents itself.
I have no objection to a sum of £100,000, but I would point out that you must not base the needs of the moment on the needs of the salaries, because this is not for the Congested Districts Board, but for the Land Commission generally. The Congested Districts Board has been merged in the Land Commission, but the Land Commission Vote has been used up to pay not only for Land Commission work, but also for the work of the Congested Districts Board.
I can quite understand the reasonableness of the Minister's statement, but I would like him to give us a little more light on this saving of £81,000.
I did not say that. There was a sum of £81,000 voted under another heading, which is now being voted under this heading. It was a saving under another heading, but it is being voted under this one.
Is not this excess stock provided for by the Sinking Fund in the Land Act, 1903? In the year 1922 you said you invested a sum towards provision of the excess stock.
Could we not decide this question first?
A big amount is in question.
The question is whether we are going to take this motion in the terms on the paper, or take a vote on account for a smaller sum. I take it we are trying to arrange for a vote on account. The question is, what will the amount be? The Minister is coming down to £100,000. If there is any chance of arranging the matter we will do it; otherwise we would take the original motion.
I had intended to raise two questions, one which I expected the Minister for Agriculture would answer and the other which the Minister for Finance would answer. I do not want to be shut out from raising the matter for which the Minister for Finance is responsible. Therefore I shall reserve for myself the lines I will adopt in the debate.
It has been made abundantly clear that there is no restriction on the debate so far as it occurs on this Vote. Whatever sum will be taken in the vote on account, the discussion on the proposal in the paper remains over.
We can only debate this amount?
No. If we take a vote on account now, when we are taking the final sum the question of all the items will be in order. I would not shut out discussion now.
That was my suggestion, that when the matter comes up again for discussion all the items will be open again.
I am prepared to accept £100,000.
Is it agreed to have a motion for £100,000, have a discussion on this motion and a further discussion afterwards?
No.
Certainly it is. That is the point.
Do we take it that we are going to discuss the question and at some time in the future go over the ground again?
There are fifty items on this sheet. There might be fifty motions taken on this Vote and the Minister says he wants it this afternoon. We say he is rushing things too much. So that he will be able to meet his immediate obligations, we will be prepared to take a vote on a certain sum to-day on account, but this is not to prevent us discussing whether any sum is required. We do not know that yet until the case has been made.
Is the Minister altering the motion?
I move for a Vote of £100,000 on account.
The question is that a supplementary sum of £100,000 on account be granted.
I desire under the terms of this motion to draw the attention of the Minister for Finance to the treatment that has been meted out to the old C.D.B. officials, who are now merged under the Land Commission. When the Land Law Commission Bill was passing through the Dáil the Minister for Agriculture made a definite promise that the future position of those officials would receive his very serious consideration, and as far as he possibly could that generous treatment would be meted out to those men, who, as was admitted at the time, were deprived of the conditions of service which they were supposed to have when they first entered the service of the old C.D.B. I understand that the Minister for Finance is primarily responsible for the delay in connection with giving effect to that promise.
I want as briefly as I can to put the position so that he may, before this Vote is passed, give us some satisfactory explanation as to why the promise made at that time was not carried out, and further why the circular issued in November from his own department has not yet been put into operation. I understand the position as a result of the amalgamation of the C.D.B. with the Land Commission is that many clerks doing higher grade work in the old C.D.B. have now come in with their status lowered, and have to accept instructions from men who were lower than they were when they were previously employed in the old Congested Districts Board. Further, there are two or three cases at least where the old C.D.B. officials are doing higher grade work and are not getting paid the rate which attaches to that position. I am only instancing these cases to show the position in which these men are as a result of the failure of the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance to carry out promises that have been made as far back as June last. A scheme that has been outlined under the terms of the circular issued by the Minister for Finance in November last gives certain promises and certain new conditions as a result of the amalgamation of the two departments. The net result as far as one can judge is that the maximum amount of increase is £20. I do not know whether the Minister for Finance will contend that this is the limit which was in the mind of the Minister for Agriculture when he promised them serious consideration and generous treatment. Although the Minister for Finance is really responsible for holding up the operation of the circular I have referred to, it is very peculiar that his own department is also responsible for imposing what might be looked upon as a very unfair burden upon men who have been working under conditions and at rates below those which they were entitled to as servants of the old C.D.B. A great many of the old C.D.B. clerks joined up in the European War, and those who were left were obliged to work overtime. As payment for the increased work their salary was increased, but their liability to income tax was also increased. As a result of the failure of the Revenue Commissioners to collect the income tax during the Anglo-Irish war considerable arrears were due by about thirty-five officials. I understand the amount due was £1,700 by these officials. The Minister for Finance is responsible for the issuing of the order, the result of which is that men drawing salaries of £20 to £25 per month are obliged to pay up arrears to the extent of an amount ranging from £3 to £7 10s. per month. Many men are compelled, as a result of this order, to pay out of their salaries income tax arrears to the extent of thirty-five per cent. of their salaries. I think this is very unfair. The Minister for Finance is responsible, especially for holding up the terms of the circular, which was issued last November, and which indicated an improvement in the position of these men.
I ask the Minister to explain why the terms of the circular have not been carried out up to the present, and to say if this vote on account or the full vote includes the amount necessary to pay what is due under the terms of the Minister's promise and the circular which I have referred to.
I would like to extract from the Ministry their ideas as to the compounded arrears of rent which will be the subject of writs very shortly all over the country. Although the Land Act specified that only a half-year of the three years' arrears which were due was to be added to the purchase money, we feel that if the other one-and-a-half years' arrears is sought to be extracted from the tenants they will not be able to pay and that the Temporary Bill of the Ministry of Home Affairs will be in operation very shortly. One would like to hear if there was anything in the mind of the Ministry as to adding that one-and-a-half years' arrears on to the annuities so as to enable the tenants to meet a very difficult situation. Otherwise owing to the circumstances of the industry it will be impossible for the tenants to pay. If we had the Minister for Agriculture here we would probably be able to have a considered opinion on the matter, which is a very pressing one. However much we may regret the opposition of farmers to the Land Act passed last year, the necessities of the case are very urgent as the Land Commission will never be able to recover the one-and-a-half years' arrears which will become due and payable before the Appointed Day. Will the Minister also give some explanation in regard to this excess stock? As I understand it the Sinking Fund under the 1903 Act, according to a reply that I got to a question, has been invested as follows:—£700,000 went towards actual fresh advances and £114,000 was applied for the purchase of excess stock during the year ending 1922. Am I to understand that the excess stock which is paid for by the tenants is, in addition to this £106,667, in the revised estimate?
Yes. The £81,000 to which I referred is part of the amount that you will see on page 53 of the Estimates in the Ireland Development Grant, where there was a sum of £134,500 provided. Of that £81,167 had not been used when this particular Development Grant disappeared with the passing of the Land Act.
It is merely a book entry?
It is a re-issue of part of the Vote of £134,500.
The amount of excess Stock which has to be met every year would be the sum of £134,500, plus £114,000 derived from the Sinking Fund of the Land Act of 1903?
Yes. There has to be this provision. The amount charged on the tenants does not cover the whole charge. There has to be this contribution from the State year by year to meet the excess Stock charges.
Doles to farmers, I suppose.
It is a legacy from our past legislators. It is not our business. Will this £700,000 which you are taking from the Sinking Fund in fresh cash advances ever stop? Last year you have taken £700,000 off this Sinking Fund for fresh cash advances under the 1903 Act. Does not that stop now with the introduction of the new Land Act?
There are certain cases outstanding which have not been completed. I take it that is for the purpose of agreement and nothing more. I do not know at what date you can say we will have done with the 1903 Act.
Will the whole sum for the excess Stock come from the money provided by the 1903 Act? That is what I want to get at.
I am afraid I could not answer that at the moment.
If I correctly understand the question it is: when we come to a period when there are no more advances to be made what then becomes of the Sinking Fund? The Sinking Fund will be used for extinguishing the Stock.
Yes, but the Sinking Fund under the provisions of the 1903 Act is supposed to be invested at 2¾ per cent. Now you can get 5 per cent. for the money. We contend that if you can invest at 5 per cent. the Stock should be extinguished long before 68 years and you should either extend the period or reduce the annuities under the 1903 Act.
The Deputy is getting into deep water there. The fact that you invest in stock at 2¾ per cent. does not postulate that you put £100 into it at 2¾ per cent. It simply means that you put it into a security which has a nominal value of 2¾ per cent., but the actual value of it is much nearer 5 or 5¼ or 5½ per cent. Then perhaps the security that you would invest in will not give you a cast-iron guarantee that it will be at 5 per cent. when you have floated it on the market in order to take up all the outstanding Stock. Let us say that in 40 or 50 years' time one has £50,000,000 of security the value of which at present is at par, 5 per cent. We do not know what value that will have in 50 years' time. It might be only worth 75 per cent. of that, if money gets dearer. In any case it would be unwise to have a very considerable sum of money in a security other than the one that you want to extinguish. It is much better business to extinguish the particular one itself because it is appreciating in value or it will appreciate in value when coming towards its end. If you purchase now at £60 or £65 you are buying in what people paid £80 or £90 or £100 for.
Will the result of that Stock Exchange transaction mean that the tenants will get rid of their liabilities at an earlier date? That is the point we have in mind.
I should say not. It comes to this — I do not know whether the Deputy will subscribe to it or not — that the tenants' liability at present is covered by something like £2,000,000 per annum, but the actual liability which has to be borne in respect of that service is nearer £3,000,000 per annum. Excess Stock, bonus Stock, and other impedimenta of that sort have to come in, and no matter how good the bargain is, I fail to see, if I have any knowledge of finance, a likelihood of extinguishing the Stock that is due for settlement at an earlier date than the 68½ years, or whatever time it is. I am not exactly what one would call an absolutely uninterested party in this matter.
I do not want to be troublesome. The financial clauses of that particular Act were based on the sinking fund being invested at 2¾ per cent.
At a time when money was cheaper than now.
That sinking fund, if now invested at 5 per cent., to my mind ought to postulate the paying off of the debt in a quicker time than if it had been, as originally intended, invested all the time at 2¾ per cent.
I will put it in another way. Housing schemes by local authorities reach their payment at a certain period, but that does not mean that the tenants have met all their liabilities during the period. In other words, the rates have been called on to contribute to such housing schemes a very considerable sum. In this year's estimate I think you will find in one place a sum of £200,000 down as a provisional agreement in respect of excess and bonus Stock, pending the ultimate financial adjustment. I am sure it will not be contended that the £200,000 we subscribe now should go in, in addition, to enable these people to take up their liabilities at an earlier date. They can at this moment extinguish their liabilities at sometihng like 5 per cent, purchase if they are so desirous.
I think Deputy Wilson's point is a fair one all the same. He postulates favourable conditions for the Sinking Fund when the time comes to extinguish the Stock. We all know that on all sinking funds what he refers to operates right through. In many cases, in the past, there have been times when, owing to the fall in the value of Stock represented by the sinking fund, companies and others had to get an extension of time. I instance particularly the Dublin Steam Packet Company. They had to go to Parliament and get some years added on to the life of the sinking fund on account of the loss in the value of Stock when it comes to be sold. One would assume, in this particular case, that towards the end of the time there may be a profit or a loss. In other words, the sums invested may produce the value of the money as represented by stock sooner than was anticipated, or, on the other hand, it may extend over a longer period. To answer Deputy Wilson's point one would have to prophesy over a period which is very far ahead yet, and sum up the situation as it will be at a particular date many years hence. I think Deputy Wilson ought not to ask for a prophecy in this matter at the moment. Possibly the sinking fund is operating favourably now, but ten years hence it may have the opposite effect. It covers so many years that I do not think he could get a very satisfactory answer to his question now.
Would the Minister be prepared to say something now about compounded arrears?
I think it would be better to leave that over for the Minister for Agriculture. We could take it next week.
Has the Minister anything to say with regard to the point raised by Deputy Davin?
I am not sure at the moment how the reorganisation of the staff stands. I know that it was gone into very carefully with a view to seeing what could be done for the staff, and what grades they were fitted for. It was felt in present circumstances it would not be possible to give the big jump which a number of the staff ex pected on re-organisation. At any rate a great number of them in the various grades had been at their maximum and had no prospect of going further. I do not know if the thing is gone through yet, but while they might only get a comparatively small increase they were placed on a scale where they had a prospect that they would never have if the C.D.B. had continued. I think the staff have been reasonably dealt with. In other circumstances they might have got some increases they have not got, but certainly they have been equitably dealt with in the matter of grading. Those who were able to do work of the Executive grade were put in that grade, and the others were put in the clerical grade, regard of course being paid to the total numbers of the staff being transferred from the Congested Districts Board to the Land Commission. Regard was had to the total number of men being dealt with when selections were being made, according to the work they had been doing and the ability they showed for Executive grade. At the moment I do not know the cause of the delay in carrying through the re-organisation of the staff. As far as I know, there will be no further delay on the part of the Finance Department. It is now, I think, merely a matter of actually dealing with the personnel by the Land Commission.
Can the Minister say anything about the order that has been made by him in connection with the collection of arrears of income tax? Is there any hope of a modification of that order so that the money could be paid over an extended period? I think the Minister will agree that it is a hardship that 35 per cent. of a man's salary should be deducted to make up arrears of income tax.
I think the individual circumstances will have to be considered. Thirty-five per cent. may be very much easier on a single man than 10 per cent. on men with family responsibilities.
They are nearly all married men.
There may be other circumstances to be taken into account. I know that when a hard case crops up in connection with any pressure for the recovery of income tax a genuine case will always receive consideration as to time. I could not give any general promise, but I will have enquiry made into the matter and see if some modification of the kind should be given.
I just want to say that representations were made by some individuals, but no answer was given. In view of the Minister's promise to reconsider any hard cases I think we might leave it at that.
When will the rest of the Vote be taken?
We will leave that over. There is no use taking it until we have the Minister for Agriculture here. I think it might be put on the Order Paper for the first day the Dáil meets next week. It can be postponed if the Minister is not present.
Agreed.