Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Dec 1926

Vol. 8 No. 1

THE FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT. - MOTION BY SENATOR MOORE.

Colonel MOORE

I move:—

"That in the opinion of the Seanad the Heads of the Ultimate Financial Settlement between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State, signed on the 19th March, 1926, and laid on the Table of this House on the 19th November, 1926, are prejudicial to the financial stability of the Irish Free State and will, if ratified, prove to be an excessive burden on Irish taxpayers."

In considering the White Paper, the first remarkable point is the secrecy in which these financial agreements are surrounded—secrets before and secrets after the events. This document was signed in March, and disclosed for the first time in November. I may interpolate that there were several statements made beforehand that seem to be wiped out by this one, but which were not communicated to either House. During the discussion in this House in July on the land purchase annuities the Minister carefully concealed the fact that he had signed an agreement four months earlier to hand them over to the British Treasury. Was that honest to this House? He was urged by several Senators to issue a White Paper on the subject, but he refused— why? If these agreements concerned small matters of detail or insignificant sums they might reasonably be a part of a Minister's duty, but when they deal with tens of millions of pounds and amount, as they seem to me, to about £120,000,000, and involve the whole future stability or instability of the Free State, Senators would certainly neglect their duty if they were not scrupulously inspected and publicly discussed. I wish some other person had taken up the duty of making an opening statement, but as no other appeared on the scene I do so, hoping that the discussion will be as extended as the matter is important.

We have frequently been told by Ministers and their supporters on the platform and in the Press, and also in the Oireachtas, that the Free State is in an extremely fortunate position in having a small, even a negligible, debt. That certainly was so in the beginning of its career. I remember Mr. Lloyd George appealing to British employers and workers to help him to suppress the Irish rebels, as he called them—patriots now in these days— because, if they succeeded, Ireland, with no national debt, would be in a position to compete, on favourable conditions, with British factories. Indeed, he went further, and anticipated wholesale migration of British industries to an Ireland with a 6d. income tax. How far we are removed from that happy position income tax payers know too well. Are we ever going to arrive at a position approximating to Lloyd George's Irish Elysium, a view which was shared by all Sinn Feiners, and, I presume, also, by the Minister for Finance? It was the most important item in our propaganda, and many an argument we had with Unionists about it. If the items of the present agreement between the Minister for Finance and Mr. Churchill are accepted by the Irish people, that time will never come, or anything like it. The Free State debt will be, in proportion to its wealth, far higher than that of Britain, and probably of any other nation, and the taxation of the people will remain as it is now, at least twice as high, in proportion, as that of Great Britain. Worse still, Mr. Baldwin stated in the British House of Commons, with the authority of the Treasury behind him, that the Free State exported a greater proportion of its income than Great Britain or, as far as he knew, any other country in Europe. He estimated the amount last December as 1/10th of the income. It will be much higher now. These are the financial problems which I wish Senators to consider carefully, and which I invited the Minister to explain, not by saying that I was talking nonsense, as he did on a former occasion, but by well-considered statement of figures and argument.

In order to give some material for discussion I will quote some rough figures which seem to me to approximate to the situation. I began my calculation by endeavouring to make a list of the capital sums, but the materials were not available, so I am, now, quoting the yearly payments and capitalising them as best I can. I do not profess to claim that these figures are absolutely accurate. I daresay the Minister may correct me, but so far as there is any difference it will not be found to amount to a serious figure. I am stating now what seems to me to be the public debt of the Free State. In the years 1922, 1923, and 1924, to cover various objects, there were sums, I think, of about £13,000,000 raised. Income tax on that at the rate of five per cent. would amount to £650,000. In December, 1925, on the question of the Boundary, it was arranged by the Ministry that a sum of £5,000,000 should be paid over to the British Government to cover a number of claims made by that Government against this country. At five per cent. that would amount to £250,000 a year. It might be extended for a longer time or a shorter time, but, anyway, that is what it would amount to, annually, at five per cent. Now we come to March, 1926. The particular head of which I am now speaking is land purchase annuities, £3,000,000. These annuities are said to be under that figure, but the difference is so small that for simplicity of calculation I have put it at three millions. I was told, just before I came into this House, that the capital sum was round about £120,000,000. I learned that on the authority of the Minister for Agriculture; whether it is absolutely correct or not I cannot say. Anyway, I am putting down the sum for the annuities at £3,000,000. The income tax refund, promised by the White Paper, would give us, at five per cent., a sum of £27,000. Bonus and land purchase annuities would give a sum of £134,000. Local loans are set out in the White Paper at £600,000 a year and damage to military property at £13,750 a year. Now if I capitalise these sums at 25 years' purchase we get £117,368,750. Whether this sum should be capitalised at 25 or 20 years' purchase is, perhaps, a matter that might be disputed. The land purchase annuities which date mostly from the year 1903 run for a period of 68 years. Some of that period has already gone by—twentytwo years or so—but even for those that began in the earliest period, those who first got in, and very few did in the early days, there will still be some 40 years to go. Therefore, in capitalising that sum at 25 years I do not overestimate in the matter, but on the other hand the local loans are put down to be paid only for twenty years. There fore, capitalising them for 25 years would be somewhat wrong, but I would be more than covered in the purchase annuities fund, which is a much larger fund.

Now coming to the other items that I am unable to estimate because I have not got the materials, I take "claims by private individuals." It is not stated in the White Paper or by the Minister in the Dáil how much they cost. Unemployment deficit is another sum the amount of which is not estimated in the White Paper nor anything said by the Minister, and, therefore, I have to leave it out. Seventy-five per cent. of the pensions for the R.I.C. are in the same position, and whether the sums are great or small they add considerably to the amount of the debt that I make in the other items. If these sums were capitalised at 25 years it is likely the total would amount to £120,000,000. The worst portion of the debts is that the money is sent out of the country and not returned. The interest paid on the £13,000,000 is a home fund, and the money comes back one way or another to the taxpayer, and therefore it is not so heavy a loss as the external debts.

And now I will state the external debt as separate from that. It is:— Boundary agreement, £250,000; land purchase annuities, £3,000,000; sent to the British Treasury, income tax refund, £27,000; bonus on land purchase annuities, £134,000; local loans, £600,000; damage to military property, £13,000, making a total of £4,024,000. I hope the Minister for Finance will be able to explain away these figures, and if so, no one will be better pleased than myself. How does this interest on our debt compare with the income of the Free State? Last year the Free State income, apart from the land purchase annuities, amounted to very nearly £27,000,000, and adding the land purchase and local loans, which are also collected from the people, the collected revenue amounts to over £31,000,000. The sums for the Boundary agreement and the new agreement are exported. They amount to £4,024,000 a year, or nearly one-eighth of the total income of the State. A certain proportion of the land annuities come back in the shape of interest to the bond holders— how much, of course, I am unable to say, but none of the other sums come back in any form. Therefore, when Mr. Baldwin estimated the exported income at one-tenth he was under the mark. It is much more—something between one-eighth and one-tenth, and he is right when he says it is a larger proportion than that of any other country in Europe. That is the worst possible form of expenditure. Now let us compare the taxation of the Free State, remembering that Britain is always represented as the heaviest taxed country in the world.

The Free State revenue is £31,000,000. That is money collected by the Government in one form or another including land purchase annuities and other moneys taken from the people. The revenue of Britain is £800,000,000. Let me recall a quotation I once gave from the Minister for Finance in agreement with the estimates of the British Treasury. These authorities agreed that a fair average proportion of the taxable capacity of the Free State and Britain was about 1.5 to 100. The exact proportion could not be discovered but they agreed on that figure. The Minister for Finance gave that statement in the Dáil on the debate on the boundary. He said it was very difficult to estimate the exact proportion but he said it might be 1.4 or 1.6 but he seemed to express approval of the rough estimate of the British Treasury of 1.5. Now in this proportion the Free State taxation, so as not to be higher than that of Great Britain, that is, having regard to their taxable capacity would be £12,000,000 not £31,000,000 under our present taxation. Therefore, if these figures are correct and they are given not on my authority but on the authority of the Minister for Finance, the Free State is taxed two and a half times higher in proportion to its taxable capacity to Great Britain. That is an important matter. I memtioned it before but the Minister did not attempt to explain it away. I hope he will do so this time and that he will make a better case than he did on the last occasion.

The British Treasury has taken very good care that Irish industries will never compete with those of Britain and that Ireland will merely be a land of flocks and herds to supply food for British industrialists. I compute the Irish debt at £117,000,000. Taking the same proportion of 1.5 to 100 the equivalent debt with Britain would be £7,800,000,000. I believe the present British debt is computed at about £7,000,000,000, but that will be greatly reduced by payments from other countries in the way of compensation, reparation and loans. How much will be recovered I cannot say but some will be recovered and eventually it will be so much less than the sum of £7,000,000,000. We, for some reason which I cannot grasp and cannot imagine, have made no claim whatever to any portion of these reparations or indeed to anything to balance our losses. But even without those reparations and allied debts a proportion of which we have wilfully abandoned, it is only £7,000,000,000 and when a proportion of these have been paid it will be much less by £1,000,000,000. In my opinion the Free State cannot bear this burden of taxation and debt and the actual facts of the situation bear out this view. Everyone in Ireland knows that from the rich man to the poor man from the merchant to the peasant, everyone is impoverished and is becoming poorer every day. Exports are decreasing and unemployment is increasing. People cannot pay their taxes and annuities and sheriffs' writs are following them into their cabins and driving them out just as the landlords drove them out fifty years ago. Everybody knows the people are going to America in shoals. A great deal more might be said and one might go into details in regard to this paper but I do not propose to do so at present at all events, because I want to rest my case, on the exact words of my motion. It is beyond the powers of the Free State to pay and flourish with such a heavy accompaniment of debt such as I have read out.

Mr. LINEHAN

I beg to second the motion, but I reserve my right to speak until later.

Mr. O'FARRELL

There are a couple of points that I would like the Minister to explain when he comes to reply. Paragraph 2 of the White Paper reads:

"The Government of the Irish Free State agree to pay to the British Government prior to March 31st, 1926, the sum approximately of £550,000, being the amount hitherto withheld by them in respect of income tax on annuities payable under the above-mentioned Acts."

I take it that our Government, therefore, set out to pay the income tax on land annuities even for the period before the present agreement was entered into in respect to income tax due by citizens having investments in one State and living in another. I will take it that the arrangement which operated in regard to income tax in these circumstances before the agreement was made would operate up to the date of that agreement, and that the agreement would not be made retrospective so far as this particular amount was concerned, thereby giving over to the British Government a lump sum of £550,000, half of which our Government could claim as due to the Free State. Then it is provided that the whole of the land annuities shall be handed over, and so far as I can see no charge is made for cost of collection. Does that mean that the Saorstát authorities act as collectors of this three million per annum and hand it over and make no deduction in respect of the cost of collection? The British Government, when they were collectors themselves, incurred, naturally, a good deal of expense in collecting that money. Are they to be at no expense at all under this agreement? Paragraph 7 says:

"The Irish Free State Government agree to pay to the British Government the sum of £275,000 in full and final discharge of all claims made to the Compensation (Ireland) Commission in respect of damage done prior to July 11th, 1921, to property belonging to any British Government Department mentioned in the last preceding paragraph."

That paragraph reads "in full and final discharge," but another paragraph immediately after reads, "provided that this paragraph shall not be held to affect the liability of the Irish Free State Government to satisfy awards of the Compensation (Ireland) Commission made in respect of claims preferred by British Government Departments on behalf of private individuals or the Government of Northern Ireland."

I should like the Minister to say what further claims are anticipated by the British Government on behalf of individuals or of the Government of Northern Ireland. Are there still unheard or unsatisfied claims in respect of personal injuries or damage to property in respect of people living in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland? Then paragraph 8 says:

"The British Government waive all claims against the Government of the irish Free State for the refund of any portion of the sums paid by them under Section 1 of the Irish Railways (Settlement of Claims) Act, 1921."

One might say, in regard to that: "Thank you for nothing." The Irish railways were controlled by the State during the European war, and until the 15th August, 1921. The net revenue of the shareholders was guaranteed during that period. At the end of the control and before the Free State came into operation, the British Government passed an Act known as the Irish Railways (Settlement of Claims) Act, 1921, providing for the payment of £3,000,000 to the Irish railways in satisfaction of their claims against the Government during the period of control. That period was before the Treaty, and the control was undertaken at all because of the Great War. Section 1 of that Act provides that a sum of £3,000,000 shall be deposited in the Bank of Ireland, and that the money shall be paid out to the Irish Railway Companies in three instalments, the last of which was due on the 31st December, 1922. The liability was incurred purely and simply by the British Government for a period altogether before there was even talk of the Treaty, and the idea that it should be thought necessary to put in this paragraph 8, which says that the British Government do not want any of this money back seems to me absurd. It is mere eye-wash to say that they are not asking something back which obviously belongs to us. It is clearly a case of the British Government discharging a pre-Treaty debt to private institutions, and making a compliment of not asking the Free State Government to pay back the money. I do not think that that paragraph should have been allowed to go into this agreement at all, because people might make all sorts of absurd claims and then make a compliment of setting them off against something else as is done in this White Paper. I re-echo the surprise of Senator Colonel Moore that, although this agrement was entered into in March last, it is only within the last ten days or so that it has been brought to the notice of either House. I do not know whether there was any very grave reason of State as to why it should not be given to the world until now, but I think important agreements of this kind should be before the public and in the hands of members of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable after they have been entered into. I think there has been a good deal of unpleasant surprise on the part of the public and on the part of Deputies at the disclosures in this White Paper.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I was rather struck with one remark of Senator Colonel Moore. He said there was a great deal more that he might have said. In fact, I think what he might have said was not said at all. He did not examine any of these items from the point of view as to whether we owed them. There was no examination of these items from the point of view as to whether or not they were just debts. If they are just debts they should be paid, and not to pay them would be only aggravating the position. The Senator would have added more to the debate if he had examined the items critically, and from the point of view as to whether or not they were due. In regard to the main item, land annuities, I can see no defence for not paying them. I know there is a legal subtlety, and that from the Act of 1920 you can take what you like and ignore what you do not like. But surely this House is not going to examine the question in that light. Here is this money advanced to the tenant farmers of Ireland to buy their land. A certain charge in repayment of capital and interest was placed on the tenant farmers in respect of this advance. It is not like a national debt where the money might be spent on armaments, or something general of that kind. It is an individual debt. I think the Senator suggests that the individuals should continue to pay that debt, but that the nation should repudiate it. That is an astounding proposition. If this money is paid over it is not paid to the British Government. They are acting only as intermediaries, and it is paid over by the British Government to the holders of stocks. That is all the transaction involves. There is no justification for classifying land annuities as in any way a national debt.

With regard to the cost of collection, there is a point in that, but I do not agree with it, for I consider it is our duty to pay the cost of collection. We get the full benefit from the use of the money, and no one would suggest that the British Government has benefited out of the expenditure of this Land Purchase fund. That fund has gone to the benefit of the tenant farmers and the landholders of Ireland and the State should bear the cost of its collection. I would mention incidentally that Senator Colonel Moore seems to duplicate income tax items. He states that income tax is paid additional to the £3,000,000. I suggest that the total amount of interest to the Land Commission includes the income tax. The Minister will be better able to deal with that. I suggest that the Free State has lost no income tax ultimately, for they have got all the income tax due to the original bond-holders, and the income tax due from the holders of this stock has presumably found its way into the Free State Exchequer.

Colonel MOORE

This matter is not at all clearly explained either in the White Paper or by the Minister for Finance. I do not know what the exact position is in regard to that. As I understand it, the whole income tax which has been deducted during the past year is now being repaid in a lump sum to the British Government, that is, £550,000. Of course, the Minister takes care to envelop all these things in such a cloud that the matter is not very clear. I think the Minister might be able to explain the position.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I think the Minister will deal with that point, and that he will agree we have not lost one penny income tax to which we are entitled. The Senator is altogether in error when he lumps Land Commission annuities and the amounts repaid from local taxation into revenue. The Land Commission annuities differ but very little from any ordinary kind of debt. If you are going to include Land Commission annuities in revenue you might as well include debts of every kind.

Colonel MOORE

I did not say revenue. I said tax.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I submit they are not taxes. I used the word taxes in a loose sense. It is merely a transferred obligation. The point I wish to make is that we must be perfectly satisfied before we condemn this agreement that the money is not owing. If the money is justly owing it would be a most disastrous step to take up the line of suggesting in any way a repudiation of the debt, because its effect on our credit would be incalculable. I did not quite follow the point that Senator Colonel Moore made about flocks and herds, except he wishes to belittle our important agricultural industry. Surely, that should be our main source of wealth and production, and the line above all on which we should concentrate for the future revenue and the increase of our national wealth to enable us to meet our admittedly heavy obligations. I should like to say that it is somewhat unfortunate that this agreement has been withheld from the knowledge of the public for nine months. The public is naturally suspicious about these things. I think there is an increasing tendency to keep the people in the dark and rather to run away from the idea of the sovereign people. I might say that it is more evident in the policy of the Local Government Minister towards county councils and other bodies. We cannot get away in the long run from having to put these matters before the public, because you have adult suffrage enshrined in the Constitution. It is much better to keep the people fully informed. If you do not, the consequence is that they will ultimately resent being kept in the dark too much.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

I am one of those who take it for granted that there is a settlement or some agreement that land annuities would be sent across the water. I would like to ask the Minister to make it plain once and for all—because it is coming up here very often—as to whether there is any definite financial agreement between the two Governments that land annuities, under the Treaty, should be paid to England? Is there any definite printed agreement between the two States that he can put forward and show to us that such agreement or Treaty exists? If he would do so, it would end this endless reiteration that we have on this matter. There should be something to show that we are definitely committed to pay them.

Dr. GOGARTY

I have often wondered why finance was not the métier of the popular fictionist or novelist, because it apparently depends largely on the speaker what deduction there is to be made from any given set of figures. Therefore, I think that this imaginative realm should be explored by somebody interested in fiction, a realm that I do not propose to explore. Listening to the debate, I find there are two factors mingling together—one is the general taxation of the country. The other is the liability of this country to pay what Senator Keane described as its just debts, the land annuities. Now let us separate the land annuities from the general taxation of the country, and we will be able to say what our just debts are. One of the chief attractions put forward by the Sinn Fein movement was that countries like Denmark, Holland, and Belgium were run at eight or nine millions a year. Belgium has more millions than we have—about three times our population, and I am sure its national taxation is not £30,000,000 a year. If you take Italy you find it having a surplus in its Treasury of twenty million. One has to lament that this country has to pay £30,000,000 whether they are just debts or not. I can easily see that we cannot advance, that no advance can be made while we are so heavily taxed. We cannot, however, forget that of this taxation a large part of it was caused by some of our people insisting on being super-patriots. I do not know how many millions this would account for, but I should say that fully one-third of the taxation is caused by the wanton destruction by these super-patriots and by their political pyrotechnics.

There is another point in this connection to which I might refer and that is about the psychology of governments. The usual way a government proceeds to think is that what is an apparent platitude to every single individual is to them a great discovery. One individual meets another in the street and says "Why is not this done? This should be done." That percolates through the country and finally the village idiot increases his reputation for idiocy by reiterating it. At last a Minister with super-human ingenuity repeats what has now become the property of the village idiot and he is forthwith heralded as a great statesman. That is the usual method.

Colonel MOORE

Is it in order that the Minister should be called the "village idiot"?

Dr. GOGARTY

I am sorry that the Senator is so sensitive about idiocy. I did not say that the Minister was the village idiot. I said that Ministers, by adopting the platitude of the village idiot, come to be looked upon as super-statesmen. When the Government, without waiting to be told what is their obvious duty, makes certain agreements with England they are looked upon as anticipating us and keeping us in the dark. I do not expect that the Ministers should wait until the village idiot said that we should pay our just debts, before coming to an agreement to pay them. The taxation of the country is another matter. I was trying to help the debate by showing that generally government psychology works in such a way that the government does not anticipate the public wish. Where it is parallel with the public wish we are inclined wrongly to think that it is in advance of it.

MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Blythe)

The important new point in this agreement is Article 4—the clause which arranges for a settlement of the double Income Tax problem on the residence basis. Now, even when this agreement was signed, it was not absolutely certain that we would be able to adopt that residence basis, because while revenue authorities on both sides had almost reached agreement on the matter, they had not quite reached agreement. If we had failed finally to reach agreement on the double residence basis other items of agreement under these heads of settlements would have to be reconsidered. It was because we had not reached absolute finality with regard to the residence basis that the paper was not published when signed. The fact that it was not published when finality was reached was due simply to accident. It had been understood that on one day the paper would be laid before the Oireachtas here and the Parliament in England. We wrote to the British Treasury stating that we were agreeable to any day on which our Oireachtas would be meeting for the publication of the paper, and that they could fix any day on which the Oireachtas met. I think they were probably pre-occupied with the Coal Strike and the General Strike and other things at the time, and we received no suggestion as to the day until after the Oireachtas had risen for the Summer Recess. We objected to presenting the paper to the House of Commons while the Oireachtas was not meeting. The whole matter was, consequently, held over until the two Parliaments were in session, and the paper was presented on the first day on which the two Parliaments met.

Now, with regard to Clause 1, in our first estimates the money collected on account of land annuities was brought into the Exchequer and was actually voted out. Under the 1923 Act the money collected is paid over to the Land Purchase Account. That whole matter has been before the Oireachtas on many occasions and there is nothing new about it except in the final few words "without any deduction whatsoever whether on account of income tax or otherwise." Those are the only new words in that section. There had been a great deal of dispute about income tax on the interest portion of land annuities. We believed that we had an undoubted moral claim for the income tax.

Our legal claim in the present state of the law was considerably in doubt. But because of the strength of our moral claim we withheld, as a matter of fact, more than would meet our claim to income tax. We withheld that during the discussion in the hope that we would be able to reach a settlement with the British Government. We only reached a settlement on that point in connection with the discussion on double income tax generally. When the proposal of a residence basis was suggested it was seen that that would do away altogether with any difficulty for the future, because the income flowing out of the country would not be subject to tax here. Of course we would get the tax on the portion that came back to the stockholders resident here.

Dr. GOGARTY

In the case of a man having two residences it would not help.

Mr. BLYTHE

It would help, but it does not quite solve the difficulty. The tax is divided equally in that case. If a man lives at all in the Free State the tax is divided equally. Now we had then to deal with the question of the past. As I have said, we were not morally entitled to the whole of that £550,000. We were morally entitled to the greater part of it, though our legal claim to any of it was somewhat doubtful. At least in the present state of the law there was doubt about it. The double residence basis was very good for the Free State, assuming that our claim to income tax on the interest portion of the land annuities was just and would be upheld. The new arrangement leaves our Exchequer at least as well off as it was before. The new basis relieves the taxpayer of a great deal of annoyance and inconvenience, and moreover, it enables certain taxpayers who should not pay income tax to recover what they have paid—that is to say, people who should be exempt and who are shareholders in Guinness and the National Bank. These are enabled to get full repayment of the taxes deducted in England. That was what they could not get before. Under the old arrangement shareholders in Guinness or the National Bank could not get repayment of the tax that had been deducted from them. It was felt that that could not be allowed to continue, and that ultimately we would be obliged to make some arrangement outside the ordinary arrangements in existence for the recoupment to individuals in order to repay the taxes that had been deducted from these people. That would have cost us £30,000 or £40,000 a year. They are now getting that on the residence basis. Consequently, we felt justified in waiving our claim to the greater portion of this £550,000, and so arriving at a settlement of the whole matter. We actually lose nothing on that. We had gained very substantially in convenience and in administrative charges.

Colonel MOORE

Before the Minister passes from that I want to say it is still vague as to what this £550,000 is. Is this the whole of the income tax that was a charge by the Free State as income tax during the past years? Is that the whole of what was kept back to cover what the Free State ought to have been entitled to?

Mr. BLYTHE

The £550,000 was the total sum that we have retained in respect of our claim for income tax. Consequently it was held in a suspense account. Our revenue has received no income tax in respect of the interest portion of any land annuities paid before this.

Colonel MOORE

That is an extraordinary statement.

Mr. BLYTHE

With regard to Article 3 we have so far been paying £160,000. That has been voted year after year in our estimates in respect of the excess and bonus stock. That was the arrangement entered into at a very early stage with the British Government. It represents the charge which was on the Guarantee Fund in respect of the deficiencies in the Land Purchase Fund arising from bonus and excess stock. To a very large extent, by accepting that, the British Government did throw away whatever claim they may have to making us liable for any greater portion of the excess and bonus stock. They had always confended, theoretically at any rate, that the liability for the excess and bonus stock was an Irish liability, and that we were bound to accept the whole Free State portion of that liability. That was the argument. Of course that would have been a charge that we could not have borne, and by accepting at an earlier stage this proportion of £160,000 the British had undoubtedly, to a very large extent, thrown away their argument. We in this Ultimate Financial Settlement had the sum reduced to £134,500, representing the Free State portion of what was an all-Ireland charge on the Guarantee Fund. Somebody spoke about the cost of collection. If we had dealt with the Land Purchase Fund in the way in which other funds were dealt with, we would have divided the assets and liabilities. Various other funds, some of which were Irish funds, were divided in that way. For instance, the Church Temporalities were divided between Northern Ireland and the Free State and various other funds have been to divide. The ordinary procedure, if it had been practicable, would have been to divide the Land Purchase Fund. We would have accepted the responsibility for our proportion of the liabilities and we would have got our share of the assets. Our share of the assets in this case would have been the annuities. Our share of the liabilities would have been the corresponding portion of the stock.

It is not practicable to divide land stock. It is not practicable if you have two stockholders to say that one man must look to the British Government for his interest and that another man must look to the Free State Government. The only practicable thing was to let the British Government be responsible in the first instance for the necessary interest and Sinking Fund and that we should pay the annuities to them. The same thing holds good in regard to the Local Loans Fund. The ordinary procedure would be that the funds should have been divided, that we should have assumed liability for the payments to stockholders, and that we should receive such portion of the repayment as was due to us. But, again, it would not have been practicable to divide the Local Loans Fund. We could not say to certain holders of Local Loans Stock: "You look to the British Government for your interest," and say to some other persons: "You look to the Free State Government for your interest." It is not possible to divide stock in that way; consequently, we had to look for some fair agreements in regard to the annuities payable.

Hitherto, we had been paying over the whole of these annuities to the British Government. In the present year the figure in the estimate is £686,000. They have amounted to somewhat higher sums than that in previous years. They will continue for ten or twelve years to be something in excess of £600,000. Thereafter, for the remaining portion of the twenty years, they will be something less than that figure, but the annuities will continue to be paid in very substantial amounts for another ten years. They will continue to be payable in decreasing amounts up to the end of the century. Our claim to pay less than the annuities that had been collected was based on the fact that the money was borrowed at 3 and 3½ per cent., and that it is now substantially more valuable to the British Government. If all the money were repaid to the British Government now, it would enable them to get a substantial profit. It has paid 3½ per cent. to the holders of Local Loans Stock, and, of course, it would reap a big profit if all the money were repaid. As to the best calculation by which one could arrive at some correct sum, the whole thing depends on the course which rates of interest may take in the future, and that is a matter of speculation. But it did seem to us that this repayment of £600,000 for twenty years was a very fair settlement and that it would bring into our Exchequer ultimately a very substantial sum. The amount outstanding at the present time is £10,352,000 odd, and the annuity at 5 per cent. for twenty years represents 7¼ millions. Of course, as I pointed out in the Dáil, we do not gain £3,000,000, because the present value of the sum is much less than £3,000,000. The final payments will not fall into the Exchequer for a long period.

There was a reference to Clause 7 of this agreement, whereby we undertook to pay the British Government a sum of £275,000,000 in full and final discharge of payments made. There are actually awards against us in favour of the British Government to the extent of £490,000, but £130,000 of that is subject to reinstatement conditions, and the British Government would not undertake reinstatement, so that £130,000 may be deducted from the £490,000. We then get £360,000. Of that £360,000, for which the British Government has received awards, some portion represents money on which we might have a claim, and we might be able to claim that some of the property which was destroyed, and in respect of which an award was made, was properly transferable to us, but certainly only a small portion would have been so transferable. A very great portion of this sum was in respect of an award made for military cars and for material destroyed in the burning of the Shell Factory. I do not think we could claim that any of that was transferable. It is property that on the signing of the Treaty would have been taken to England, and we would not have got it. The British Government would have got it.

Colonel MOORE

May I ask the Minister on what plea does he suppose that the British Government is entitled to the whole of the war munitions in this country and all over the world, and why is Ireland not entitled to some of these effects? Why does he assume that the War Office and the Navy Department of the British Government are entitled to all the assets that were built up, and why the Irish people are not entitled to some portion of them at least?

Mr. BLYTHE

These things were not transferable.

Colonel MOORE

Will the Minister explain why?

Mr. BLYTHE

I cannot go into all these matters; life is too short. I could only answer some of the points the Senator raised. We might have succeeded in establishing that certain of the property was transferable to us, and that the full £360,000 was not payable, but I am satisfied that no examination of the individual awards and no series of negotiations over the individual claims, would have reduced our liability as low as £275,000 which we fixed as a lump sum. That proviso has nothing to do with future claims; it simply covers awards already made, because of course the Compensation (Ireland) Commission has finished its awards.

Senator O'Farrell said that in respect of Clause 8 we might say to the British Government: "Thank you for nothing." Of course, that is a very easy statement to make, but the real position is that when that money was paid it was only paid by the British Government on condition that it would be taken into account in the ultimate financial settlement. The contention of the British, after the Treaty, was that we were liable for this payment.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Would the Minister point out whether there was any such proviso in the Railway Settlement of Claims Act?

Mr. BLYTHE

The Treaty came in, and the arrangement between the two Governments was a clean cut in respect of certain matters. That operated very satisfactorily for us in many respects. We gained £1,000,000 in regard to the beer duties. We got the duty on beer that before the setting up of the Free State Government had been exported to England and had been consumed. For these outstanding liabilities the British Government did not assume responsibility; they disputed their responsibility in this respect. There was a certain amount of correspondence between the Governments about it. We at that particular time about the end of 1922, said that we could not pay, for one thing. We also alleged of course that the British were liable to pay. We used the arguments that Senator O'Farrell has used and other arguments. In any case, the railway received the money and the final issue of the matter was that the British Government on the 15th January, 1923, paid the money on condition that the matter would be raised in the ultimate financial settlement. It was raised and waived. This is simply the close of a transaction and a dispute that arose about the end of 1922 and the beginning of 1923. With regard to the Unemployment Fund, the amount due on 31st March, 1923, was £272,000. There is the accrued interest since that time. Of course this matter remained in dispute for a certain length of time, and we argued that we were not liable. I think we had a very ingenious sort of argument, but I was not at any time convinced of its soundness or of the equity of the arrangement.

As I have said, the general arrangement in regard to funds was to divide the assets, if there were assets. In respect to the Unemployment Fund, there were no assets, but liabilities, consequently the liabilities should be divided. We agreed so far that because the liabilities should be divided there was a certain debt on the Free State Unemployment Fund. We agreed however, on the basis of various other arrangements that if the Free State Fund owed a debt it owed it to our Exchequer, and consequently if there were assets in the fund, our Exchequer would get them, but as the fund was in debt it should pay also the liability. I do not say that was sound. The actual money paid out to the unemployed in the Free State was found by the National Debt Commissioners, and had to be paid to them, and if we succeeded in getting out of this debt it would mean that the workers in England, through the Unemployment Fund, would have to repay to the National Debt Commissioners the dole that was paid out here. I found no difficulty in a final settlement in waiving the claim. With regard to No. 11 the funds necessary to pay seventy-five per cent. of the pensions and allowances have appeared on the Estimates year by year. A provisional agreement was entered into on the setting-up of the Free State. We should pay seventy-five per cent. Various other methods of division were suggested from time to time, but seventy-five per cent. represented here the average proportion of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed in the Free State for a period of twenty years before the Treaty. That seemed to us as fair an arrangement as could be come to in regard to it. Other methods were the proportion of indictable crime in the area now the Free State, and now Northern Ireland, and valuation of property in the two areas; finally, it was agreed that the arrangement should depend on the distribution of the force. No change was made in the arrangement when it was reviewed as had been provided in the provisional arrangement at the ultimate financial settlement. The only clause in the agreement, the full force of which does not appear on its face, is the final clause.

There were various matters which were to be the subject of consideration at the ultimate financial settlement. Two of them were claims in respect of munitions and warlike stores supplied by the British in the very early days of the Free State. In the later part of the civil war any munitions got were paid for in cash, but at the beginning various stores were supplied to be thrown into the ultimate financial settlement. Originally one of those claims was for £497,000 odd and another claim was for £6,926. I think it was not finally disputed by the British that a good deal of the material supplied was not of a serviceable quality, and consequently they had to reduce their claim. They had ultimately to reduce it in respect of these two sums to the sum of £250,000. We still held £250,000 was too much, but my own estimate is that we might ultimately perhaps, as a result of arbitration, have found ourselves obliged to pay £200,000. If we had come to a settlement separately and not got a general clearance of all those outstanding questions, we would have agreed to such a sum.

Another matter covered by this was in respect of £180,000 advanced by the British Government during or at the end of the war to the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company. The British Government laid claim to that and alleged that repayment should be made to them. The matter was one that was in dispute and no progress had been made towards settlement or agreement on it. However, their claim was disposed of by Clause 12 of the Agreement. As Senators will have seen practically all this agreement is either some slight modification to some existing arrangement or confirmation of arrangements in existence for a considerable period. The settlement of December last year in regard to Articles of the Treaty was made on the basis that existing agreements stood. Some people pretend to think that they believe the agreement of December last year wiped out all those arrangements about land annuities. Some of them who alleged that are late in the day, because five or six months after the agreement of December of last year sums were voted in our Estimates in regard to some of those items.

Mrs. WYSE-POWER

Has the Minister forgotten my question or is the answer to it contained in the end of his speech, because it seems to me it is not? In the financial agreement between the two States, where is it shown that the land annuities should, under the Treaty, be paid to England?

Mr. BLYTHE

I have nothing to say in answer to Senator Mrs. Wyse-Power. We never disputed this liability. We do not dispute it now. We think it absolutely a just claim. As a matter of fact, I dare say I could prepare a legal argument, but we believe it to be a just debt, have never disputed it, nor have we heard it seriously disputed by responsible people. There is no specific reference to it in the Treaty. It is one of those matters that had to be worked out in detail.

Mrs. WYSE-POWER

That is why I asked. All the time I took it from the Minister that there was some specific agreement, and I always voted with those who believed in paying the annuities. We now learn for the first time that there was no specific agreement, but that there was an assumption by the Executive that it was a just debt.

Colonel MOORE

The Minister has not replied to my motion, and I merely ask him to make some reply to it.

CATHAOIRLEACH

You must leave that to himself. If he has not it is all the worse for him. He was attempting to reply, at any rate.

Mr. LINEHAN

Senator Sir John Keane made a remark that I think all will agree with. It was that if we are satisfied any of these items are just we are bound to pay them. We all agree with that, but I think his contention that Irish Land Stock guaranteed by the Imperial Government—not by the British Government—is not a public debt of the United Kingdom, is one that it would be very hard to satisfy this House is a fact. When this matter was before this House last July the Government was asked to prepare a statement showing how it really stood, and what is the legal obligation of this country for the payment of land purchase annuities. Up to the present no effort has been made to comply with that request. At that time the Agreement of March 19th was in the possession of the Government. It was suppressed from this House. It has now been discovered that there was an Agreement of the 12th February, 1923, which has never seen the light in this country, although some members of the House of Lords evidently have knowledge of it. This can be seen from the discussion that took place in that House on last Monday night. Some members of the House of Lords complained that they were not informed of this secret agreement. I think they had a very just complaint. It is a complaint that we may justly make in this country. I do not see that anything can be gained by secret diplomacy of that kind. It is much better that the people should be taken into the confidence of the responsible authorities. If that was done I am quite satisfied that misunderstandings which have occurred on this question of a financial settlement might have been avoided.

The point is, to find out what is the justification or where is the legal authority for the payment of annuities. I find that the Minister stated in the Dáil that the whole question of the payment of these annuities in general has been settled and decided by the Oireachtas and that the matter is provided for in the Land Act of 1923. That is the justification and the authority the Minister gives for paying over the land annuities. What was the authority before that? Is there anything about it in the Treaty or in any other document? Remember that the Land Act of 1923 is our own Act. It was not an Act passed in pursuance of any agreement with any other Government. It is an Act in which any objectionable section could be repealed. If there is no other authority for the payment and handing over of the annuities than a section of the Land Act of 1923, then I say we should not pay them. It is very remarkable that the other secret Agreement of the 12th February, 1923, came out a short time before the Land Act was introduced. I think it would be no harm to ask the Minister to submit that Agreement to the House and to the country. After the debate in the House of Lords it has been practically made public. There should not be any binding secrecy about it. When the Government made no effort to supply us with information as to their reasons for paying over the annuities, as a layman I went to the trouble of extracting some sections from the different Acts which I think bear on the subject. It is quite possible that I may have omitted some important sections that would alter that view. If that is so, I will be pleased to make any correction.

Under the Act of 1920, Section 26, sub-section (1) states:—

Purchase annuities payable in respect of land situate in Southern and Northern Ireland respectively, including any arrears thereof due or accruing due on the appointed day, shall be collected by the Governments of Southern and Northern Ireland, and the amounts so collected shall be paid into their respective Exchequers, but nothing in this Act shall confer on either Government any powers with respect to the redemption of purchase annuities.

Article 73 of the Constitution provides:—

Subject to the Constitution and to the extent to which they are not inconsistent therewith, the laws in force in the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) at the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution shall continue to be of full force and effect until the same or any of them shall have been repealed or amended by enactment of the Oireachtas.

Article 17 of the Treaty says:—

"By way of provisional arrangement for the administration of Southern Ireland during the interval which must elapse between the date hereof and the constitution of a Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State in accordance therewith, steps shall be taken forthwith for summoning a meeting of members of Parliament elected for constituencies in Southern Ireland since the passing of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and for constituting a provisional Government, and the British Government shall take the steps necessary to transfer to such provisional Government the powers and machinery requisite for the discharge of its duties provided that every member of such provisional Government shall have signified in writing his or her acceptance of this instrument. But this arrangement shall not continue in force beyond the expiration of twelve months from the date hereof."

I call attention to the words at the beginning and end of the Article indicating that it is of a transient character. There was also the Irish Free State Agreement Act of 1922. It is as follows:—

Section 1 (2) "For the purpose of giving effect to Article 17 of the said Agreement, Orders in Council may be made transferring to the Provisional Government established under that Article the power and machinery therein referred to and as soon as may be, and not later than four months after the passing of this Act, the Parliament of Southern Ireland shall be dissolved and such steps shall be taken as may be necessary for holding in accordance with the law now in force with respect to the franchise, number of members, and method of election, and holding of elections, to that Parliament, an election of members for the constituencies which would have been entitled to elect members to that Parliament and the members so elected shall constitute the House of the Parliament to which the Provisional Government shall be responsible and that Parliament shall as respects matters within the jurisdiction of the Provisional Government have power to make laws in like manner as the Parliament of the Irish Free State when constituted. Any Order in Council under this section may contain such incidental, consequential or supplemental provisions as may appear to be necessary or proper for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provisions of this section."

In accordance with the Irish Free State Agreement Act and also in compliance with Article 17, an Order in Council was made called the Provisional Government (Transfer of Functions) Order, 1922. If the Government here would rely upon that as authority to pay the annuities there might be some force in it. It states that the section which gave them power to make that Order confined it to a period of twelve months. It appears to me to be very doubtful whether that is sufficient to justify them in paying over the annuities. The Land Act of 1923 is one that we can repeal any time we wish.

The Treaty mentions our liabilities, Article 5 stating:—

"The Irish Free State shall assume liability for the service of the public debt of the United Kingdom as existing at the date hereof and towards the payment of war pensions as existing at that date in such proportion as may be fair and equitable, having regard to any just claims on the part of Ireland by way of set-off or counter-claim, the amount of such sums being determined in default of agreement by the arbitration of one or more independent persons being citizens of the British Empire."

Article 2 of the amended Treaty of December, 1925, says:—

"The Irish Free State is hereby released from the obligation under Article 5, of the said Articles of Agreement to assume the liability therein mentioned."

I contend that the annuities on Land Stock were part of the public debt of the United Kingdom before the Free State was established. Under the original Treaty we made ourselves liable for our portion of that debt but we were relieved of that liability under the amended Treaty of December 12th in consequence of paying the sum mentioned in it.

Mr. BENNETT

As an amendment to the motion I move:—

"To delete the words ‘in the opinion of the Seanad,' and also to delete all after the figures 1926 where they secondly occur and to substitute after such figures the words ‘be referred to a committee consisting of Senators Sir John Keane, Jameson, Kenny, Dowdall, Mrs. Wyse-Power, O'Farrell, Colonel Moore, and Bennett, to consider and report whether such settlement is prejudicial to the financial stability of the Irish Free State, and will, if carried out, be an excessive burden on Irish taxpayers, four members to form a quorum."

I am moved to adopt this course, largely, by the suggestion thrown out by Senator Sir John Keane, who is one of our foremost financiers, so that the liabilities should be examined. In making a case for the White Paper the Minister for Finance admitted that there was a grave difference of opinion as to the method of arriving at a settlement, and that a difference of opinion did exist.

Mr. BLYTHE

I did not.

Mr. BENNETT

The ordinary layman looking at the Memorandum and at the Articles of Agreement would be reminded of nothing more than the game of "put and take" that was in vogue a few years ago. It appears to be all "put" but no "take," from my reading of the Article. Every clause in it seems to involve a liability on the Saorstát. Clauses which make some concession have been discredited by some Senators as being practically worthless. I refer specifically to Clause 8 dealing with the Irish railways settlement, to which Senator O'Farrell also referred. For these reasons I think it is eminently desirable that this House should know the position of affairs, seeing that it will be precluded from ever again exercising decisive views on this matter. The Minister in the other House referred to the Agreement supplementing the Article of the Treaty of 1922. It was specifically laid down there that the Irish Free State was released from certain obligations.

Senator Linehan has urged that the land annuities were a public debt. I think this House might with advantage discuss whether a debt incurred after the burden of many years of Parliamentary labour in England, beginning in 1870 and coming down to 1903, was a national debt? If the debt is not considered to be a national debt, under these conditions it is very difficult to conceive any debt which would be a public debt. It seems to me that these matters would require elucidation. I am quite sure these might be elucidated as I cannot believe that the Government ever made an arrangement which they did not believe to be a good one. They have made good arrangements. A doubt exists whether this particular pact, if I might call it a pact, of 1925, completely blotted out the debt. We were led to believe that that was the case. Now we have a new agreement called the final agreement for the time being. Of course we know that we will have final agreements concerning the navy and other things. Where will we be if final agreements are to be allowed from day to day?

I suggest to the House that in order to satisfy the people outside that everything done was done for the best, and will prove to be so, that we should do our duty as a revising authority. That is more advantageous than passing a vote of censure. We have no other way of dealing with the matter and ascertaining whether it is right or wrong, than by having it considered by the expert opinion of this House. For that reason I venture to suggest a certain number of names that will, I hope, commend themselves to the House. They are all men capable of dealing with the question, giving it adequate consideration, and thus strengthen the hands of the Government on a settlement which they believed was an advantageous one.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I am not quite sure if your amendment would be in order. The only provision we have for appointing committees other than committees of the whole House, is to resort to Standing Order 93.

It says special committees are to be appointed by motion appearing on the Orders of the Day. Such motion shall, save as is otherwise provided for in these Standing Orders, specifically state the terms of reference to such committee, etc. There would be nothing whatever to prevent you, Senator, giving notice to-day of a motion of this kind for the next meeting. I am not at all satisfied you can do it by way of amendment, having regard to the Standing Order. But there is nothing to prevent you putting down a motion to the same identical effect for our next sitting.

Mr. BENNETT

I venture to suggest that this amendment should become a substantive motion.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Unfortunately, it does not appear on the Orders of the Day. The Standing Order says: "The Seanad may appoint special committees by motion appearing on the Orders of the Day." That means it never contemplated it could be set up without notice by way of an amendment.

Colonel MOORE

It has constantly been done in this House.

CATHAOIRLEACH

No, I cannot recollect a single case of it. There have been cases where one sort of committee was suggested, and an amendment was moved that another sort ought to be accepted, but I cannot recollect any case in which a motion of a different character was made referring to a committee. It is not really very material because the Senator can introduce his amendment by giving notice of it for the next sitting.

Mr. LINEHAN

I suggest that the motion should be withdrawn, and that instead of it the motion now moved by Senator Bennett should be put down.

Dr. GOGARTY

Can the Seanad discuss a matter of finance under the Constitution?

CATHAOIRLEACH

It can discuss this matter. It is not exactly a matter of finance. It is an arrangement or a suggested arrangement between two countries, and to say that the Seanad could not discuss such a matter as that would be curtailing our rights beyond anything that the Constitution ever contemplated.

Dr. GOGARTY

Our rights are pretty well curtailed already. I thought there was a constitutional limit.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Not in regard to these matters. It is only in regard to Money Bills. If there was a Money Bill required giving effect to these provisions, then our powers are limited to making recommendations, but there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents our discussing a matter of this kind on a motion.

Mr. FORAN

Could we not suspend the Standing Orders to discuss the amendment?

CATHAOIRLEACH

We can.

Mr. FORAN

Then I move the suspension of the Standing Orders to allow the amendment to be discussed.

Mr. FARREN

I beg to second the motion.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I hope the Seanad will not agree to the suspension of the Standing Orders without even one minute's notice. If there is any case for a Standing Order it should be carried out in the manner provided. I am surprised to find a member of the Labour Party proposing, without notice, that the Standing Orders should be suspended. It is altogether different in the case of a Bill such as we had to-day where there is unanimous consent and everybody willing that it should be passed.

Mr. FORAN

If Senator Douglas thought it would suit his convenience at any time he would do exactly as I have done.

Question put. On a show of hands the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders was declared carried.

Mr. BENNETT

When the discussion arose about this matter being in order I was about to outline a Committee which I believe would deal with this matter adequately. I do it now, as the Oireachtas would have no other opportunity of dealing with the matter in the manner in which it should be dealt with.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Would you give us the terms of reference?

Mr. BENNETT

I will read my amendment as terms of reference.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The Standing Order says that the motion must contain the terms of reference.

Mr. BENNETT

The terms of reference are already referred to in the article. What my amendment would propose, and as a substitution to the existing motion, will be perfectly in order. My amendment is:—To delete the words "in the opinion of the Seanad" and also to delete all after the figures 1926 where they secondly occur and to substitute after such figures the words "be referred to a Committee consisting of Senators Sir John Keane, Jameson, Kenny, Dowdall, Mrs. Wyse-Power, O'Farrell, Colonel Moore, and Bennett to consider and report whether such settlement is prejudicial to the financial stability of the Irish Free State, and will if carried out be an excessive burden on Irish taxpayers, four members to form a quorum."

Dr. GOGARTY

Is it not rather beneath the dignity of this House to deal with a fait accompli? Supposing that the Committee does find that it is an excessive burden, are not the arrangements already made?

Mr. KENNY

I rise to second the amendment, and I do so in a sense perfectly friendly with the Government. This matter is now so ventilated throughout the country, particularly in view of the fact that certain statements are being broadcast through the country, and given insertion in the newspapers. When misleading statements are made as to the whole financial position, and opprobrious epithets are applied to Ministers, I think the position requires to be clarified. It cannot be allowed to stand as it is. Attacks of this kind upon the credit of the State and upon the prestige of Ministers and the Government should be checked, and the Government should take this matter seriously in hand, and take the Oireachtas and the public generally into its confidence, and give them as much of the details upon which these ultimate figures rest as were produced in their conference with the British Ministers in coming to the agreement set out in the White Paper. Every citizen in the Free State is entitled to helpful information in regard to the policy of the Government. Except it is withheld for very good reasons there ought to be no matters of this sort, committing the country to considerable payments for a number of years, arranged in secret. We see now the baneful results of withholding this information from the public at large. The Government has left itself open to a vast amount of misrepresentation, and resulting harm will be done when the Government comes forward for a renewal of confidence, as they will be doing in a few months. They will find themselves met with these misrepresentations unless they are in the meantime repudiated. I give the Minister for Finance every credit for sincerity, and I give every credit to the Ministers associated with this arrangement in the White Paper—that they upheld the Irish point of view according to their lights in their dealing with the Finance Ministers on the other side. Whether wool has been pulled over their eyes, to use an Americanism, we do not know. We have not the necessary detail to form an opinion; we are merely asking for details. It does not prejudice the case of Ministers to allow this matter to be referred to a special Committee, which would be quite competent to deal with it. As to the personnel, the Government might suggest other names that might be useful on this Committee. The Government are entitled to representation on that Committee.

As to the land annuities question I do not know whether anybody understands the arrangement that has been come to as set out in the final paragraph or whether the Minister or Ministers who arrived at this arrangement had plenary powers to enter into such arrangement with the British Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer which did not need ratification by the Oireachtas or which would not be open to revision. If that is the position we are simply beating the air. If what is done has been finally done and has been done beyond recall then I think we shall do more harm than good by showing what some members of the House consider to be the weakness of the position. The more we investigate the matter and disclose weakness on the part of our Ministers in coming to these arrangements the more harm we are doing to our country and the more we undermine our own credit. I ask the Minister this and his answer will have an effect upon my remarks. If that is the position and I take it from what has been said that the paper will be laid before the Oireachtas and the House at a certain time and there were reasons advanced by the Minister as to why that is not done. I ask what is the object of laying this paper at all? Was it for the purpose of ratification by the Oireachtas?

Mr. BLYTHE

No, for information.

Mr. KENNY

Just for information. Then I take it what is done is beyond recall. I ask a further question. Under what authority did the Minister or Ministers go to England and enter upon negotiations with the British Treasury and come to a final arrangement as to outstanding financial matters raised between this country and Great Britain without consulting the people if the people are sovereign? I ask under what authority specific or otherwise did the Minister act in this way?

CATHAOIRLEACH

The constitutional position as I understand it—it is not for me to decide it and I am only throwing it out as my own personal opinion—is that so far as financial arrangements between the two countries themselves involve no obligation on the Oireachtas for the granting of money the Ministers were acting within their power in making them. The adjustment of the double income tax is an illustration of that. If any of these arrangements arrived at involved the appropriation of public money, that could be done only by the votes of the House, and it would be open for discussion. So far as the settlement of cross claims or questions of debts are concerned I do not think that is a matter of legislation, and I think it is within the province of Ministers to adjust them. That is my own personal view.

Colonel MOORE

An answer was given by the Minister in the Dáil, and he has repeated it here, which I think Senator Kenny has misunderstood. The Minister was asked by Deputy C. Hogan with reference to the White Paper dealing with the Ultimate Financial Settlement: "Are we to understand that each head will be worked out in detail, and that the Government will seek ratification from the Oireachtas, for this White Paper has no clause for ratification?" The Minister replied, "Under the various Votes items depending on these heads will appear." I presume that it is just for the information of Deputies and Senators beforehand, and that all those heads will be brought up on separate votes. This would help to form the opinion of Senators and Deputies to a certain extent to enable them to decide when they come to vote.

Mr. KENNY

I think the Senator's interpretation is correct. The idea developed in this country that the time would come when we would have to get down to bedrock with regard to our financial relations. Going back to the Financial Relations Commission, according to the findings of that body England was in debt to this country to the extent of £300,000,000. The findings of the Commission, by the way, were never accepted by the House of Commons, because the Government of the time sought to use every means in their power to get the findings of that Commission revised. They called for the appointment of a second Commission to revise the findings, on the plea that the terms of the Commission were not wide enough, and that certain factors had been left out in the terms of reference which, if included, would have materially altered the findings. The answer given by men who were approached on the subject was that they were not competent to revise any findings which had the signature of Mr. Childers, who was supposed to be head and shoulders above any financier in the United Kingdom.

The Government could not get one man to act on a revising commission. The result was that the findings of the commission were pigeon-holed, and they remained so. Later the question arose as to our liability for war debt. The Irish Party in the House of Commons accepted on behalf of the Irish people their share of liability for the war debt. We know the result, that Mr. Redmond's acceptance of that liability was repudiated, and the Irish Party were put out of Parliamentary life.

But they did accept that liability at the time, and we were always confronted with this, that in the final settlement a claim in respect of Ireland's liability for its share in the war debt would be put forward strongly by the British Treasury and British Ministers. It was felt that if that claim were pressed and allowed Ireland's position in the ultimate financial settlement would be a very unhappy one. But what happened in the negotiations between the two countries which resulted in this settlement set out in the White Paper? It was discovered that Ireland had so far relatively to England fallen away that her taxable capacity to-day, compared with that of England, was only 1.5, that is to say, that for every £100 England could afford to pay in taxes Ireland could afford to pay only £1 10s. There is your basis for calculating the war debt. England's war debt amounted to £800,000,000, and one per cent. of that sum would give you our ultimate liability at £80,000,000, or from that £100,000,000. That is the greatest claim England could make on Ireland for its share of the war debt. On the other side of that account we would, under the Articles of the Treaty, as we were entitled to do, put forward what we considered to be our just claim according to the findings of the Financial Relations Commission.

Our claim in the year 1896 was £300,000,000. If that was the debt England owed Ireland in that year for over-taxation, and if you add interest on that for the 25 years that had elapsed up to the time of the Treaty, or 30 years up-to-date, and take the rate of interest at four per cent., compound interest, in 15 years, that is by the year 1911, your £300,000,000 would be brought up to £600,000,000. In another 15 years, that would bring us to 1926, the £600,000,000, if it had been invested at 5 per cent., would have brought England's debt to Ireland to £1,200,000,000. I challenge any financier here to repudiate that. That afforded a very wide margin in favour of this country as against any claim that might be made by England. We always had in mind that colossal figure when considering any claim that England might make for our share in the war debt. Our claim in respect of over-taxation would off-set by many times any claim which England might make. If you set one claim against the other, we would come out clear of national debt, better financially than any country in Europe and those headings in this White Paper and the various figures that are worked out under each heading would have been easily submerged.

I ask the Minister if any of those dominating factors in the situation were even mentioned in the negotiations leading up to this White Paper? I do not see a word about war debt or over-taxation mentioned in the White Paper. There may be an explanation of it, and it certainly requires explanation. Whatever Government or party undertook the payment of interest to stockholders, the establishment of a sinking fund and the ultimate reduction of the stock, I consider it only equitable that it is to that Government or party the annuities should be paid.

That is only equity, but as to the legal aspect of the matter I do not know. I am with Senator Sir John Keane as to its being a matter of equity. If any arrangement has been come to with the Northern Government regarding the payment of annuities, we ought to know that. I am credibly informed that, so far as the Northern Government are concerned, these annuities are not forwarded to the British Treasury. We have been informed by the Minister that it would have been impossible to apportion liability as between the Free State and Northern Government on the matter of redemption of stock. Whether or not an allocation of liability has been made, the Northern Government is given the privilege of retaining the annuities. We are told that some of the stockholders should look to the Free State Government for the redemption of their stock, and others to the Northern Government. I may have been misinformed, but many people tell me that the Northern Government does retain these annuities.

I would further remark as to the income tax derivable from these annuities that an annuity collected in this country, whether it is sent out of the country or not, is certainly subject to income tax. I think the British Government in the matter of income tax stands in relation to this country in no more favourable a position than a private individual. There are many stockholders in this country who are getting certain incomes from these investments. There are family charges, that entail the sending out a large portion of that money to America, France, and other countries. Where these charges fall on a resident here for the time being, so far as the Treasury is concerned, he is a foreign individual in this matter. We are collecting annuities in this country, and it does not matter about the disposition of them—they are subject to income tax. I scarcely think it is fair to say that they should be exempt from income tax because these collections are sent out of the country. In the case of many private individuals, much of their revenue, particularly where settlements are concerned, is sent out of the country, but it does not follow that they get any exemption. They have to pay income tax. I may be wrong in that line of argument.

Mr. BLYTHE

You are wrong in every line.

Mr. KENNY

Am I wrong in this line, that the question of the over-taxation of Ireland was never suggested by the Minister or any responsible Minister in the negotiations with the British Treasury leading up to this White Paper?

Mr. BLYTHE

I will answer you at the end.

Mr. KENNY

There is a clause in an Article of the Agreement, and that was rather a weakness in our position, that when it came to a financial settlement with the Free State we were open to submit what they termed any just claim by way of an offset. That implied that no agreement could be come to between the two parties, and that the matter should be subject to arbitration. But who were to be the arbitrators—citizens of the Free State or citizens of Great Britain? We have had some experience of arbitration where the personnel has been largely dictated to and influenced by the British Government. We had it in the fiasco in the boundary question. I submit that there was a weakness in the wording of that Article. If it came to arbitration as to what was a just or admissible claim, for instance, the claim for over-taxation, evidently the British Government would not consent if it came to the appointment of one arbitrator that that arbitrator should be an Irishman, and if it came to the appointment of three arbitrators the British Government would not consent that two out of the three should be Irishmen. I submit that when it came to the appointment of arbitrators England would have a particular bias given to the Commission in her favour. I do not see how we could resist that. If a deadlock was reached the matter could not be left so, and some side or the other should make a move. That is the position in which we were left, and with which no doubt the Ministers felt themselves confronted in dealing with the British Treasury. Possibly, that might have been the reason why those other factors which I consider the dominant factors, the claim for war debt and the claim for over-taxation, had not been stressed by the Ministers on our side in the adjustment of the accounts.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

I am very glad that Senator Bennett has moved the motion now before the House, but it seems to me lamentable that this House should be asked to give a direct vote on the result. What does it mean? If you read it closely and putting it in plain English, it means that the Government have sold the country. I know that has been already taken up as a slogan by one of the new parties. It may appeal to the man in the street and to those who know nothing about finance.

We know what the cry "Nous sommes trahis!” in France meant. Before we come to vote on such an important motion as this we ought to be absolutely satisfied in our own minds on the question with which it deals. We have not seen sufficient of the figures, and we have not had time to study such figures as have been given. I think it would be most unjust that these figures should be put as a deliberate issue before the House. Personally I agree with many of the observations made by Senator Kenny. Those of us who recollect 30 years ago when the report of the Financial Relations Commission was published know the effect on the country. Every county and every borough formed its committee and denounced the treatment Ireland received from the British Government in the matter of over-taxation. I am not going into the reasons why that movement did not last. That was the separation of the Exchequers. Then we might have got reparation for the past. But the effect of the report of that Commission was that considerable difference was made in the rate of our taxation. When I say in the rate of our taxation I mean in the quid pro quo we got. I presume many here will recollect that under the Local Government Act, in several ways we were compensated for this over-taxation. But this very compensation admitted the fact that we were overtaxed in the past and the whole country demanded reparation. That could be made in only one way and that was by a separation of the two Exchequers. I do not think that at that time the distinguished gentlemen who headed the movement in every county were quite prepared for the type of Home Rule very much as we have now. I do not think that entered into the picture at all. But that was the only way I maintain by which we could have those reparations for over-taxation in the past. Now, I am not going to condemn the Government without first hearing them. I think it would be most unjust for the Seanad as a body to do so. I have no doubt that they did their very best to get a good equivalent for the debt owed Ireland as a reparation for past over-taxation. We have had considerable experience of the capabilities of the Government. I must say it surprised the world to find that men without the training or the experience that most statesmen in other countries have before taking office, have done so well as our Government has done. I do not believe that they were likely to have given the country away in such a manner as is suggested by this resolution. I therefore strongly support Senator Bennett's amendment.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I should like to deal briefly with the amendment. It seems to me that Senator Colonel Moore in bringing this matter forward acted wisely and rightly and I say that whether one agrees with his resolution or not. Where the Ministry has made an agreement which is binding as far as they are concerned and not binding as far as the Dáil and this House are concerned without a Finance Bill it would be perfectly proper to discuss that in the open, but it seems to me an absurdity to send that to a private Committee of a few members. What information can that Committee get that we in this House cannot get? Can they bring Mr. Churchill over to give evidence? Will the Minister for Finance tell them anything that he is not prepared to tell the Seanad? If he will not it is not right to appoint such a Committee. They will not have any power under the Order to send for documents. They will not be shown anything that we cannot see now. I ask the House to reject this amendment. Quite apart altogether from what the Seanad thinks of Senator Moore's motion, the House cannot with dignity pass this amendment. I am not dealing now, with the general matter, because I take it we are dealing with the amendment and with nothing else.

Dr. GOGARTY

I agree with what Senator Douglas has said. It would be only beating the air to set up a committee to deal with a fact that has already been accomplished. Furthermore, that would be a committee, if set up by the Seanad, that would have to repudiate the settlement arrived at by the Minister and the action taken by the Government, and put upon the Senators composing the Committee the windy mantle of De Valera. It is not the privilege of any committee to pass a vote of censure on the Government followed up by a repudiation of the Government's act on behalf of the whole country. The Minister has been elected under our Constitution, and the President appointed him, and he and the Executive Council are responsible in this matter, and a vote of censure on the Minister would be a vote of censure on the Government. That is the logical result under the Constitution. But supposing the Minister had not acted, then it would be said that we were not fit to send representatives over to deal, with the financial experts at the other side. But in our Government the ordinary division of labour makes it necessary to have a man who would speak for finance at certain moments. It is not a matter of whether the Minister was hoodwinked by the figures held up by the other side. We know that we cannot repudiate the Land Annuities. We cannot repudiate our debts. To attempt to repudiate the debts and to repudiate the Ministry is, as I say, a very stupid proceeding. Such an action would only go to prove that we as a people are, in the words of Mr. Churchill, fissiparous.

If the Committee had any punch in it, if it had been set up to deal with a matter which was not yet accomplished, it would be different, but setting up a committee to deal with a fact that has been accomplished and that has been fully explained by the Minister, is making a farce of the House. Sometimes a committee could in the privacy of debate with those experts, deal with certain questions, but in a broad issue like the present, where the competent Minister, speaking and acting for the whole country, has come to a settlement that is now proposed to be repudiated it would be a slur on the action of the Government, and it would be only showing our own incompetence and wasting the country's strength. I certainly object to any committee being set up under the circumstances which it is proposed to set up this committee. We do not want to reduce ourselves to the level of a county council. Surely the time has passed when we would agree to set up a committee like this which would have no powers beyond moving a resolution. I have listened this evening to a great deal of closely-argued, nonsensical logic about this matter. It is open to the man in the street and to the village idiot to see that a committee that can only deal with an already accomplished act can have nothing but a very deleterious effect on this House.

Mr. BLYTHE

Senator Douglas has, I think, put that matter in a nut-shell. Nothing could be disclosed to that committee that cannot be disclosed to the House. As a matter of fact, I would not attend at the committee if it had been appointed, especially with the terms of reference which are attached to the setting up of the committee, and which aim at repudiation. No papers would be submitted by the Government and no information would be given to the committee. When it became a substantive motion I would deal with it in that way. It would be a most harmful thing to the country if Senator Linehan's proposed repudiation were carried. It would mean that we did not want to pay our just debts; that we were striving to find some legal technicality—some way out like a defaulting trader. It would be better frankly to pass a resolution repudiating our debts than to set up a committee like this and try, by going on in a shilly-shally way, to repudiate them.

Colonel MOORE

If the Minister accepts the amendment I will withdraw my motion.

Mr. BLYTHE

I believe the amendment is more objectionable than the motion. If such a Committee were appointed I would not appear before it. I would give no facilities. If there was not behind it this whole question of the repudiation of just debts my attitude would be different. Being as it is, I want to dissociate myself from it.

Mr. BENNETT

As the mover of this amendment I certainly stand over it. Senator Douglas said that the amendment was discourteous and that it could not possibly do any good. That seems to have great weight with the Senators.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I did not say a word about courtesy or discourtesy. I said the amendment would not do the Seanad any good.

Mr. BENNETT

I am sorry I misquoted the Senator. Senator Douglas invariably tries to put the Seanad in its proper position. The Seanad is in its proper position. I believe this inquiry will do good. In the first instance it would upset the impression abroad that things had been done inadvisedly and without much business acumen.

Dr. GOGARTY

Who said that?

Mr. BENNETT

We all know that when English administrators make treaties they are careful to load the dice in favour of themselves. There is not a shadow of doubt about that. They may or may not have done it in this case, but I stand for the argument that the Oireachtas as a whole has some right to know what the actual conditions are. The Minister for Finance would not apparently disclose to the Committee anything, but the Committee themselves could consider whether the conditions were equitable. They could go into the conditions of the various clauses and see whether they thought that they could submit to the Seanad that Clause 5 of the Treaty, which was abrogated by the Agreement, did not give us some financial redress for which we have not got credit in the settlement of 1926. I do not want to press the point, but I moved the amendment honestly believing that it was the minor of two evils. The Government, to my mind, as stated by Senator Everard, has done great things, and it will still do greater things, but I do not think that by blinking at facts or making the public think that they are blinking at them, they are doing the country any good.

Mr. KENNY

I desire to dissociate myself from the interpretation which the Minister has placed on the action of those who supported this amendment. He appears to think that it was conceived in an atmosphere of hostility to the Ministry and to those who brought about this financial agreement.

I want to dissociate myself from any interpretation such as that. I do believe that the position has been reached in the country when ventilation is necessary. Many inquiries are made from men like myself, and finding myself, as I have, since this matter got currency, in the position of not being able to answer and having no details at my fingers-end, I am looked upon as a man who is simply not looking after his business. I find myself in the position that I have not a word to answer, but inasmuch as nobody has approached me——

CATHAOIRLEACH

You are making a personal explanation?

Mr. KENNY

I just desire to say——

CATHAOIRLEACH

I cannot allow you to make a second speech.

Mr. KENNY

I am showing the reasons why I wished to dissociate myself from the interpretation——

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think you have made yourself quite clear already.

Mr. KENNY

Possibly to you, sir, but to others possibly not.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I find that I am on this Committee. I do not believe that it will serve any useful purpose, and my consent has not been given to act upon it. If it would serve any useful purpose I would willingly act. In face of the statement of the Minister, I cannot see any purpose it would serve, and I do not wish to be nominated on it.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I was going to ask Senator Bennett if he had got the consent of those members whose names he had put forward. He cannot put them forward without their consent.

Mr. BENNETT

I have not.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I am afraid, then, I cannot take your amendment.

Mr. BENNETT

I have got the consent of a number of them, but there are some others whom I did not ask.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I am very sensitive about the position and the dignity of this House, and I would suggest to the Senate, not touching on the merits of this particular controversy at all, that they should think very long before they proceed to set up a Committee under the conditions mentioned here to-day, a Committee that will have no powers, a Committee which the Government will refuse to recognise, and which will, therefore, not be in a position to extract the information they want. They will simply report this to us, and leave the position where it is to-day. I am suggesting to the Senator that he should not put the House in this very undignified position. If this were a Committee that had powers of its own and that could investigate these particular matters, I, for one, would not have intervened at all. They can only act on information which they can only obtain through Government channels, and these channels have been closed by the declaration made by the Minister. I put it to the House whether they are consulting their own dignity in appointing a Special Committee. Might I ask the Senator to give me the names of those Senators whose consent he has obtained to act on this Committee?

Mr. BENNETT

I have got the names of Senator Kenny, Senator Colonel Moore, Senator Mrs. Wyse Power, Senator O'Farrell, Senator Linehan and Senator Bennett.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Senator Linehan's name was not on your original list.

Mr. BENNETT

He may be put on now. There is a great difference of opinion as to the method of putting these amendments. I was asking you to uphold a certain method in this House.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The members then would be:—Senators Linehan, Kenny, Mrs. Wyse Power, Colonel Moore, Bennett and O'Farrell.

Mr. BENNETT

I would like if Senator Sir Nugent Everard would act on the Committee.

Sir NUGENT EVERARD

After the statement of the Minister I do not think it would be much use.

Dr. GOGARTY

Will there be a name for the Committee?

CATHAOIRLEACH

Will I read the names again?

Dr. GOGARTY

I was going to suggest that the Committee should be called The Curious Committee or something like that.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 14 14; Níl, 14.

Tá

• T.H. Bennett.
• Micheal Duffy.
• Sir Nugent E. Everard.
• Michael Fanning.
• Thomas Farren.
• Thomas Foran.
• Cornelius Kennedy.
• P.W. Kenny.
• T. Linehan.
• J. MacKean.
• Colonel M. Moore.
• Joseph O'Connor.
• J.T. O'Farrell.
• Mrs. Jane Wyse Power.

Níl

• Sir Edward Bellingham, Bart.
• Sir Ed. Coey Biggar.
• S.L. Brown.
• J.C. Counihan.
• James Douglas.
• Sir T.H.G. Esmonde, Bart.
• Oliver St. J. Gogarty.
• Sir J.P. Griffith.
• Sir J. Keane, Bart.
• Earl of Kerry.
• Francis MacGuinness.
• J. MacLoughlin.
• Bernard O'Rourke.
• W.B. Yeats.

Amendment declared defeated.

CATHAOIRLEACH

As the voting has been equal, I give my casting vote against the amendment.

Colonel MOORE

The mentality of the person who drew up the ultimate agreement is quite clearly that of an Englishman who regarded England as the owner of the British Empire, including Ireland. He does not seem to have heard of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It does not seem to have occurred to him that Ireland was an independent country before the Union, and entered into that Union, not as a conquered country, but as an equal in status; or that Ireland during its union with Britain acquired a part share in all the assets of the United Kingdom, though Irish brains, Irish blood and Irish labour built up the Empire and all its assets and belongings.

I am not astonished at this view because the chief advisers of the Minister for Finance since he came into office have been men in the employment of the British Government, and lent for the purpose of influencing him in the direction of British interests. For instance, take Article 7 of the Agreement; as I understand it, the agreement is for the Free State to pay to the British Government for damage done by Irish troops before 11th July, 1921 (pre-truce) to the amount of £275,000. This article can only be understood from a statement of Lord Clarendon in the House of Lords. The Minister for Finance, as usual, was reserved in his statement in the Dáil and so reluctant to explain clearly that we are obliged to look elsewhere. This property was situated in the Free State and was the property of the Government of Great Britain and Ireland, as were all the British military stores and buildings in every part of the world, outside the Dominions. Does the Minister deny that? He does not answer. Ireland, therefore, had a part share in all these stores and buildings. Britain not only seized the military property in Britain and all over the world, ships and material, but also claimed to own that portion, which happened to be located in the Free State. Ireland has not got one iota of the property of the United Kingdom except its debts.

We were told our share of the debts had been wiped out with Article 5; we were to get out with a contribution of £5,000,000. Through the cleverness of the British and the policy of secrecy, it has developed into £130,000,000. The Minister for Finance has bowed to this claim, and thinks himself happy in paying only £275,000. Ireland was allowed only the civil property and a certain allowance of police barracks to be decided by the British Government. The military stores belonged to Britain, as if Ireland had not paid her share of them. "We claimed that in respect of some of the property"—it is no use quoting; you have already read it—"we had a claim to transfer." Apparently everything belonged to England in the Minister's mind. I am not of that opinion. Ireland had a right to her share. For instance, the Suez Canal shares, worth some £17,000, and the munitions sold after the war, should have been brought into the pool. I will give an example of what occurred very early after the Free State was established. The British Government claimed payment for the machinery and stores in Haulbowline Island.

Dr. GOGARTY

May I remark that there is no quorum?

Mr. FARREN

May I remark that the Senator went out, encouraged others to go out too, and then comes back and say there is no quorum?

CATHAOIRLEACH

Twelve is the quorum, and I cannot see twelve.

Mr. FARREN

There are eleven here and you, yourself, will make twelve.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I see eleven. I cannot make myself into more than one person. My attention has been called to the fact that there is no quorum and I must take notice.

Colonel MOORE

I would like to call the other Senators in.

CATHAOIRLEACH

You cannot do that.

Mr. KENNY

I think there is a provision for this in the Standing Orders.

CATHAOIRLEACH

My duty is obvious: I have either to adjourn the Seanad to a later hour or to the next sitting.

Mr. FARREN

I move that we adjourn until seven o'clock.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I cannot accept that.

Mr. FARREN

I insist that you do.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I cannot accept it. It is wholly out of order. The Standing Orders have left it to me to determine whether I shall adjourn to a further hour or to the next sitting. I have to adjourn.

Colonel MOORE

Can it not be adjourned until to-morrow?

CATHAOIRLEACH

I am adjourning the House until to-morrow.

Mr. FARREN

I must protest against conduct that is bringing the House to a very low level.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I cannot hear you.

Mr. FARREN

I must insist. It is not right for a member of the House to go out, induce others to go out with him, to stay outside, and when he finds no quorum to come in.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That does not arise.

Mr. FARREN

It does arise.

CATHAOIRLEACH

You must leave me to be the judge of order. When you are here, you must do as I am doing.

Mr. FARREN

If I ever were in that position I would be strictly fair.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is a remark I take no notice of. The House stands adjourned until three o'clock to-morrow afternoon.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.30 p.m.