asked the Minister for Finance whether, as alleged, it is a fact that inspectors of taxes are endeavouring to dictate to farmers as to the wages they should pay and, if so, what is the present position in the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Inspectors of Taxes and Wages.
Mr. Ryan
I am obliged to the Deputy for affording me an opportunity of dealing with this matter. I have invited Deputies Cosgrave and Bennett, who raised it in the House, to let me have the correspondence on which the charge is based, but they have declined to do so. Furthermore, I have not received from any taxpayer any complaint that any inspector of taxes has attempted to dictate to him in the manner represented by the Deputies and by certain newspapers, as to the wages he should pay to his work people; and the Revenue Commissioners are not at liberty to produce to me correspondence dealing with a particular taxpayer's private affairs, unless such taxpayer makes a complaint to me and asks me to go into his case. The difficulty in this instance is also intensified by the fact that the Deputies who first made the allegation have declined to supply to the Revenue Commissioners even the name and address of the taxpayer so as to enable them to identify the case or the particular inspector's district in which it arose, and to make the necessary investigations.
In view of this extraordinary attitude it must be presumed that these Deputies feel that the charges which they have levelled against the Revenue Officers will not bear examination——
Nonsense.
—and that they are now concerned to shirk an inquiry into the matter. Members will appreciate the extreme difficulty of dealing adequately with an allegation of this description in such circumstances. I may say, however, that the suggestion that officials of the Revenue Department are endeavouring to dictate to farmers as to how their farms should be run is palpably absurd. In computing the profit or loss on a farm an inspector of taxes must see that he does not allow to be charged against the farm revenue wages which in fact are not paid, wages paid for work which has nothing to do with the farm, or sums handed over to members of a wealthy farmer's family far in excess of the value of their work on the farm. Except to ascertain the correct profit or loss, he is not concerned.
It is still more absurd to suggest that it is the policy of Ministers to instigate action by the Revenue authorities to depress farm wages. The Revenue authorities exercise statutory powers and Ministers have no power whatever to interfere with them in their interpretation of the Income Tax Acts. As far as this Government is concerned there has never been the faintest attempt at such interference.
The Minister is aware from the answer he has read out to the question that (1) it is not denied that the document in question was issued— it is not denied either by the Minister or by the Revenue Commissioners—and (2) the suggestion made, to the effect——
Is this a supplementary question?
It is. The Minister does not deny——
What was the question the Deputy asked?
I say that it was obvious from the Minister's reply that he did not deny the document in question was issued. I am inviting him to give a denial in respect of two matters (1) that the letter was written and (2) that the statement made in the House was true. That statement was to the effect that in cases where 25/-, 26/- and 27/- a week were paid to men the suggestion was made that women should be employed at 5/-, 6/- or 7/- a week. Does the Minister deny that it is without his power to ask for particulars in such cases from the inspectors of taxes or from the Revenue Commissioners? Of course, it is to be understood that an inquiry in respect of particular cases is not allowed, but does the Minister seriously deny that he can ask the Revenue Commissioners for particulars of extracts of letters sent in connection with farm accounts to farmers as regards wages paid?
The Minister does not propose to accept the statement of any Deputy who is not willing to substantiate that statement by producing the letter on which he bases the statement. I may say further that Deputy Bennett has refused to produce, to the Revenue Commissioners, a letter which he alleges to exist. I have no knowledge of such a letter.
Does the Minister not accept the Deputy's word that he has such a letter?
The letter has been seen by several Deputies. Is the Minister not aware that the Revenue Commissioners could get the information from many such letters written to farmers in many counties?
Will the Minister apply to the Revenue Commissioners for copies of previous correspondence which they had before them when similar letters had to be withdrawn?