Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jul 1934

Vol. 18 No. 28

Finance Bill, 1934—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of the Finance Bill is two-fold; first to make provision for the imposition, adjustment and remission of taxation as outlined in the Budget, and, secondly, to give effect to any changes in existing taxation legislation which have been found necessary or desirable. As there will be an opportunity of discussing the various sections in detail later, during the Committee Stage, it will be necessary at this stage to refer to the provisions of the Bill only in a general way. Clause 1 of the Bill prescribes the rates of income tax and sur-tax for the current financial year and provides for the continuance of previous enactments. In regard to Clause 2, income tax assessments under Schedule A on buildings in the Saorstát are based on the poor law valuation. As an allowance for repairs and maintenance is made in arriving at the valuation, there is no justification, in our view, for making a deduction from the income tax assessments in respect of these items. It is proposed under Section 2 of the Bill to discontinue this deduction accordingly. No alteration, I should point out, will be made in the existing practice relating to the assessments on lands, farmhouses and factories. The second sub-section of this section provides for relief in the case of cottage property. It will be remembered that the Finance Act of 1933 provided that persons to whom the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Act, 1933, applied, should be assessed to income tax during the financial year 1933-34 on the salaries which they would have received in the preceding year had the Temporary Economies Act been in operation during that year. Section 3 (1) of the Bill will have the effect when enacted of off-setting the concession made to people covered by that Act last year. In the case of national teachers, however, some concession is necessary in view of the reductions in their salary scales which have taken effect as from the 1st April last. Sub-section (3) of the section is directed to this end. Sub-section (2) of the same section will afford persons affected by the Local Services (Temporary Economies) Act of this year relief in regard to income tax on lines somewhat similar to those afforded last year to persons to whom the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Act, 1933, applies.

Section 4 deals with income arising from mining royalties and other income of a similar nature arising outside the Saorstát and is necessary for precautionary purposes in view of the danger which exists following a recent decision of the British High Court. The clause will not involve the payment by any taxpayer of more than he would have paid under the practice hitherto prevailing. In connection with Clause 5, I should point out that under the provisions of Part 2 of the First Schedule of the Finance Act of 1929, the tax in respect of income arising from possessions in any place out of Saorstát Eireann, falls to be computed on the full amount thereof arising in the year preceding the year of assessment, whether the income has been or will be received in Saorstát Eireann or not, if the taxpayer is domiciled and ordinarily resident here. It has been decided in the courts that income arising from an employment exercised wholly abroad is income from a foreign possession and it is found that in certain cases of Irishmen employed wholly abroad and technically resident in this country a hardship arises. This clause is designed to enable the Revenue Commissioners to grant such relief as may be just and equitable in such cases.

With regard to Section 7, Section 139 of the Income Tax Act of 1918 provides for the issue by the Special Commissioners of what is known as a precept, calling on a person who had given notice of appeal to furnish a schedule of particulars for the purposes of the appeal. As there are only two Appeal Commissioners, and the appeal may be heard by one commissioner, the signature of such precepts by both commissioners, as is now required, gives rise to administrative difficulties and is obviously unnecessary. In 1929 legislation was passed enabling one Special Commissioner to hear appeals. There are certain applications for relief, however, usually unimportant from the point of view of the Exchequer, but important from the point of view of the taxpayer, which are not technically appeals within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts and the 1929 legislation does not apply to these. The new clause will have the effect of remedying what we have regarded as a difficulty in the present procedure. Clause 7 is designed to simplify and to bring up to date the method of appointment of collectors of taxes and eliminate the necessity for the sealing by the Special Commissioners of the warrants appointing collectors. It eliminates also the necessity for the signatures of the Special Commissioners, to the collector's duplicates of assessments.

Clause 8 relates to the imposition of certain new Customs duties and the adjustment of certain other Customs duties as set out in the First Schedule. Clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12 are designed to codify the enactments relating to the Customs duties on boots and shoes, wearing apparel, and on certain woven tissues and motor vehicles. Certain minor modifications are made but the main purpose of the clause is to simplify administration by bringing together, within the four clauses, the existing legislation regarding the duties on these articles at present spread over several enactments. Clause 13 relates to the imposition of a Customs duty on steam cars, parts and accessories. Clause 14 makes provision from the reduction, as on the 1st July, of the duty on tea by 4d. per pound and is subject to certain conditions for refund, in regard to stocks in the hands of dealers on that date. Clause 15 grants exemption to antiques from Customs duty. Clause 16 provides for the alteration of duty on daily papers, bringing it up to two-thirds of a penny per copy. Clause 17 is a clause giving general power to the Revenue Commissioners to determine the rate of drawback payable in respect of tobaccos. Clause 18 provides for a reduction from 7d. to 3½d. in the amount of rebate allowable in the case of certain manufactures. Clause 19 provides for the revision of Excise duty on tobacco.

Effect is given in Clause 20 to the exemption from entertainments tax of all outdoor athletic sports, in accordance with the resolution adopted in the Dáil. Clauses 21 and 22 are complementary, mainly, to Clauses 9 to 12, to which I have referred. They are generally in the way of repeals and amendments to certain precedent Finance Acts. With regard to Clause 23, formerly road tax was payable in respect of all street taxis, at the rate of £20 per annum, but a rebate of £8 per annum was allowable at the end of the period, thus reducing the duty in certain circumstances to £12. Clause 23 has the effect of abolishing the rebate system and reducing the rate of tax to £10 per annum. Clause 24 is designed to secure that tractors on which trailers are superimposed will be regarded as lorries for road taxation purposes. I should like to point out that the clause does not refer to tractor and trailer units where the trailer is attached by a simple draw-bar arrangement. The three remaining clauses of Part II of the Bill relate to administration. The first provides that the penalty for a certain type of road tax offence may be recovered and enforced at the suit of a member of the Gárda Síochána and that the District Court shall have power to mitigate any such penalty. This section will bring the kind of offences to which I have referred into line with other road tax offences in the matter of court proceedings. The necessity for Section 26 arises from the fact that under existing legislation search warrants in certain types of cases can be enforced only in the daytime. The legislation embodied does not define the time the Revenue Commissioners are entitled to make search and they were advised that it covered a period from sunrise to sunset. This limitation has hitherto proved a very powerful safeguard for smugglers. The proposed amendment is put in in view of the fact that from the Excise laws that prevented searching by night emerged a very unsatisfactory condition of affairs in regard to smuggling.

Clause 27 provides general penalties for breach of conditions by persons securing licences from the Revenue Commissioners for the importation of any goods or articles. Clause 28, under Part III of the Bill, provides that in the case of an annuity or other interest the extent of the beneficial interest in such annuity or other interest on the death of the deceased shall be ascertained without regard to any expectant interest which the person who so becomes entitled to any such beneficial interest on such death may have had in such annuity or other interest before the death of the testator. Sections 29 and 30 are necessary amendments of the provisions of the Finance Act relating to transfer and mostly intended to prevent evasion of death duties. Clause 31 is introduced because it is considered necessary to provide that bequests to foreign charities shall not be exempt from legacy or succession duties. Clause 32 provides for the granting of such exemption in the case of bequests to Irish charity. Clause 33 is designed to simplify the existing procedure relating to legacy and death duties. It is hoped that as a result of this clause these proceedings will be more expeditious and inexpensive than the cumbersome methods at present of proceeding by way of question and answer. On the other hand, the taxpayer will not be hampered or his difficulty unduly increased.

Clause 34 of Part IV of the Bill— Miscellaneous and General—provides for exemption of the stamp duty in the case of instruments whereby any property is reconveyed, retransferred or released to the Agricultural Corporation, Ltd. Section 35 is intended, as the marginal note indicates, to give "confirmation of powers of and acts done by the Revenue Commissioners." Clause 36 is the usual clause providing for the care and management of all taxes and duties provided by the Bill, and Clause 37 is the short title and construction and commencement.

The Minister for Finance, in his speech dealt, in detail, with a number of matters arising out of the Bill. But he did not deal in general terms with the financial position of the country, the soundness of his Estimates, or the question of his surplus. In his speech in the Dáil the Minister grew eloquent over the sound position of our national finances. I admit that judging the question by the buoyancy of the revenue he made a good case. But surely there is another side to the picture which, if one is to take a long view, must be borne in mind. In the long run the basic source of our revenue must be the prosperity of our agricultural industry.

It requires little imagination for anyone who knows the country to see the serious prospect there unless something is done and done speedily. Everyone will probably remember that only recently an enquiry was held into the ability of the farmers in the County Waterford to pay their rates. Evidence there went to show that rate collectors, while putting every pressure they could put on those in arrears to pay, were forced to the conclusion that the people had not the money or the resources from which to pay. It was just possible that the farmers by realising their stock-in-trade might be able to raise sufficient cash to meet their present necessity, but they had no other real remedy. Everyone knows that stock-in-trade is the earning power of the farmer and, that once that is sold, at a sacrifice, nothing but ruin remains staring him in the face. That is the position of a very large number of farmers in the country to-day. If anyone wants to balance the one against the other, the revenue returns last year versus the writing on the wall, they cannot but take a serious view of the outlook.

On several occasions, speaking on Finance Bills, I have remarked upon the inadequacy of the finance accounts and the way in which they have been laid in dummy before us. That is justified, no doubt, by the reason that that practice is also carried out at Westminster. Surely that should not be an adequate justification? We should try to imitate the good in Westminster and not the bad. I am not one of those who shout that the whole practice in Westminster is good. But we seem to delight in keeping to the bad and condemning the good. Our accounts should be prepared in three months and figures given which would enable us to see more in detail the effect of last year's finances. I would also ask the Minister, as I have done on several occasions, seriously to consider examination of the former accounts. It is almost impossible even for one who takes the closest interest in our finances to know where we are and what is the detailed position taken up to meet the land annuities. What is the position to-day? There are, presumably, balances over and above the amounts required to meet the debt charges—I mean taking the annuities now payable—post-Treaty, plus pre-Treaty and the 4½ per cent. land stock. What happened to the surplus? Does it go into general revenue? If it does, I suggest that is not just. Considering what the farmers have suffered, the surplus over and above the annuities not required for the purpose of debt should go to the relief of rates.

Has the Minister attempted to realise the tragic position of the farmers of this country? Has he ever paused to compare their position with that of the farmers in Great Britain? The farmer in Great Britain had practically no rates at all. He is rated at something on an average of about 10/- or 15/- an acre. He gets all his repairs done for him. During the present time he is getting, wholesale, for his milk, something like 10d. a gallon, as against 4d. which the farmers are getting in this country. It is only one who knows these things, by personal experience as I do, being concerned in the management of an estate in England, who can realise by contrast how hard is the position of the farmers in this country. Then as regards the annuity arrears that are now being funded, I am not clear whether all these arrears are free. Surely portion of these arrears are required ultimately to meet the service of the 4½ per cent. land bonds. Yet, as far as I can understand from the Budget statement of the Minister, that fund is in his charge and he is borrowing upon it. I come now to the question of the soundness, from the financial point of view, of the practice of borrowing. There we have departed definitely from what I do suggest is the best and soundest policy of the whole British budgetary system.

In Great Britain there is never an attempt on the principle of the division of the Budget into recurrent and non-recurrent charges. Where borrowing has to take place it is done in a totally separate enactment outside the Budget altogether. Any casual borrowing undertaken whether for recurrent or non-recurrent expenditure is set apart from the Budget. I suggest to the Minister that, in view of the dangerous temptation—this in-and-out temptation to borrow—he should impose some form of self-denying ordinance upon himself and his successors not to continue this practice which I hope to show, in a few minutes, has been followed this year.

I come now to the matter of surpluses. Last year on a close estimate which I attempted I found there was a surplus of revenue over expenditure. The surplus at the year's close has nothing to do in Budget finance with the surplus of the year that is coming on. In that connection, I should like to know from the Minister what has actually happened to the surplus of the year which has closed, because, I understand, that, under statutory enactment carried over under the Treaty, which statutory enactment is still in force, any surplus has to go to the Sinking Fund in reduction of debt. Would the Minister explain if that practice is in force; if so, whether it has been followed and, if not, why? An actual surplus, like the Minister's surplus here, is the forecast for the year to come. On this forecast, influenced by the transactions of the year before, the Minister makes a Budget and, if he thinks fit, shows a surplus. It is on that ground that the soundness of the Budget has to be examined.

I suggest that two items in this year's Budget are open to very grave suspicion. One item is over-estimation. Apart altogether from the doubtful practice of over-estimating every year —it does show rather a lack of control within the Department that it should be possible every year, after close scrutiny, habitually to over-estimate— the figures do not justify the tendency. Up to the year 1931-32, there appears to have been every year an actual over-estimate. The tide turned in 1932-33 and, on the figures of the finance accounts and on the particulars in the White Paper issued on the eve of the Budget, there was in 1932-33 an actual under-estimate of 1.9 million pounds. In 1933-34, there was an under-estimate of .9—practically £1,000,000. I notice that the Minister is looking curiously at me. I admit that I have not taken into account capital charges. I have not had regard to the figures of recurrent and non-recurrent expenditure. I have taken the figures as they appear on the papers I have mentioned. In each of these two years, there was an under-estimate and it looks as if the tendency is towards under-estimation. If that be so, to make allowance for over-estimation in this year's Budget does not seem to be justified.

Another item which comes to the Minister's aid in producing his surplus is the borrowing of two-thirds of the export bounties. I suggest that that is not sound finance. The Minister has received, owing to the unfortunate dispute over the annuities, a very considerable windfall. Not only has he received a windfall of the annuities themselves but he has received a windfall of £2,000,000 or more on account of pensions or other claims which have not been met. Having no longer to pay these charges, he should not have to borrow for the export bounties. He should find these out of revenue by the savings he has effected owing to nonpayment of these claims. In the past, these pensions and other charges were met out of revenue. When they are no longer payable and when bounties are substituted, then these bounties should be paid out of revenue and should not be borrowed. Therefore, I submit, for what the submission is worth, that the Budget is not balanced if examined in the light of sound finance. The taxpayer is, of course, very pleased to have a surplus, whether legitimate or not. When we all get something from it, including even the hard-pressed income tax payer, the citizen is much more inclined to be thankful for what he gets than to examine into the question as to whether the surplus shown is justified or not. I think, however, that there is a duty on us to examine the matter critically and closely in the light of cold, and rather cold-blooded, finance.

In connection with the form of account, I ask the Minister to consider whether the time has not come when he should link up appropriate items of receipt with their expenditure. Take the case of unemployment assistance. In the accounts, unemployment assistance is shown in gross. One has to dive about to find the contribution in aid that comes from the rates. If only for the purpose of convenience and clarity, cognate items, when they come into credit, should be set out against the items of expenditure to which they relate. In that way, anybody examining the account would see the net figures and would not have to wander about from place to place to find the true position. With regard to local loans, I should like to know when the Minister proposes to take local loans completely out of the Budget and put them on a satisfactory basis. The temporary system, set up shortly after the Treaty as a stop-gap, has been allowed to continue. There is no clear connection shown between the local loans and the interest paid upon them. I suggest to the Minister that, in this connection, the British practice is sound and should be followed. Local loans should be taken entirely out of the Budget and the interest payable on them should be shown and related to the particular loan—not merely merged in a sort of revolving fund from which it is impossible to ascertain whether the appropriate interest has been paid at all or not. I ask the Minister also whether the time has not come when the income tax laws might be codified again. The old codification of the income tax dates from the year 1918. That was before the Treaty and a large amount of amendment has been made to the law since, while new provisions have been introduced. It would be a great facility to lawyers, taxpayers and everybody interested if income tax law was codified.

With regard to Savings Certificates, the Minister said last year that it was not the practice to show as an asset the funds set aside for the payment of interest. I have thought about that matter and I fail to understand why that should not be done. They are an asset. Whether they are an asset held to meet interest or capital, does not arise. An asset is an asset irrespective of the purpose for which it is held. The accounts should, I suggest, show what amount is set aside for interest and in what form it is held.

On the general question of the tendency of our financing, the Minister and his Government are optimistic and believe that all will be well. The figures show a very alarming increase in borrowing and a large increase in the revenue figures all round. In 1932/'33, the estimate for borrowing amounted to £6,000,000. Actual borrowing amounted to 6.4 million pounds. In 1933/'34, the estimate for borrowing was £8,000,000. Actual borrowing amounted only to 2.6 million pounds, because the money was taken out of the Suspense Account as a windfall and that bridged the gulf. For 1934/'35, the figure for borrowings is 9.2 million pounds. Irrespective of whether the money is to be reproductive or not, these figures are very serious if we take the long view of our finances. We have 6.4 million pounds, 8 million pounds and 9.2 million pounds in respect of borrowings. These are figures of estimated borrowings for the three successive years. I suggest that the estimate represents considered policy and that whether the money is borrowed or not is a secondary matter. Whether the borrowings take place in the particular year does not arise, because there may be cash over from the year before and that may obviate borrowing in a particular year. But the borrowing will come sooner or later. I ask the House to bear in mind the limitations on our borrowing powers. There has been a lot of talk regarding the non-success of our last loan. I do not propose to probe into that but it is common knowledge that money did not come in as quickly or as readily as one would like. There was a certain sluggishness on the part of the small investor. Does the Minister not see a portent there—a serious limitation on our borrowing power? We differ from countries like Australia or New Zealand because, in practice, we can borrow only at home. The London and foreign money markets seem to be closed to us. At one time, we did borrow in America but that was not wholly successful in the long run. We are limited to the home market and, with the state in which agriculture is, borrowing at home will get more and more difficult. I do not welcome this rather optimistic finance. I should rather see our position paralleled to that of the individual who strives to live within his means and save a little. I know that that is not a popular doctrine and that, politically, it may mean disaster, but finance and politics should be, to a large extent, kept apart. I hope the Minister will, as far as possible, put a stay on this heavy growth of expenditure, which is largely reflected in increased borrowing.

I shall refer very briefly to another matter which will come up again on Committee Stage—the income tax allowance for repairs. Whatever justification there might be for doing away with the allowance in the case of property owner-occupied, there is no justification whatever for setting up a system under which a person can be taxed on income which he does not receive. In spite of the concession the Minister is giving in the case of cottage property, it is still possible for a taxpayer to be asked to pay tax on income which he does not receive. That does not seem to be fair and I doubt if the principle has ever been applied before. It should be possible to pay either on the valuation or the net receipts, whichever is the lower. It is, of course, urged that if property is not of the requisite value, it should be revalued. I should rather leave that for discussion on the Committee Stage, except to say that it does seem to be an utterly impracticable remedy. In the case of property for which no rent was being paid, there would be no valuation if this principle were applied. Is it suggested that because a person occupies a property of no valuation he should pay no contribution to the rates? That shows the absurdity of taking the valuation as the measure of the income tax responsibility because it is inconceivable that a person in that position should escape the payment of rates althogether. That would be the logical result of the Government's proposal.

I am sure the House is glad that it had an opportunity of hearing the speech delivered by Senator Sir John Keane. On the whole, I think that the Minister may regard that speech as highly complimentary to himself. The Minister has practically disarmed criticism by the Budget which he has brought forward. Senator Sir John Keane referred to two matters which I should like to elaborate. The Senator comes forward here as a defender of the agricultural interests. I make no objection to that, but when he goes on to speak about the way in which the bounties are financed —that is, as to two-thirds by borrowing —I think that he is not quite accurate because, owing to the peculiar circumstances under which these bounties became necessary, it may fairly be assumed that as to portion at least the charge should be regarded as a capital charge. What I say as to the bounties is this: that the bounties should not be merely on exports, but there should be bounties on sales. The special taxes imposed in Great Britain have had the effect of reducing artificially the price of cattle in this country, not merely the cattle which are exported but the cattle which are sold at home, and if there is to be any advantage given, or any recompense made, to the farmer in respect of cattle it ought to be general in its application. I do suggest that it is a matter for consideration by the Minister. The farmer suffers not merely on the cattle exported but on the cattle consumed at home, and the townsman gets the corresponding advantage. That ought to be remedied as much as possible. It is not a political question.

I have noticed, in the course of the last elections, that the farmers who were alleged to have suffered most in the last 12 months or two years, the farmers in the northern part of the County Clare, have unanimously supported the present Government at these elections. It may be said that that is due to causes other than financial causes. It may be said that these men come from the highlands: the rocks which are the guardians of our liberty; but the fact remains that, notwithstanding the circumstance that they have suffered more by the economic war than the people in any other part of Ireland, they have unanimously supported the present Government at the last elections.

There is another matter which was brought under notice by Senator Sir John Keane in which I agree with him, namely, that the income tax laws ought to be codified. They are at the present time somewhat archaic. In all times they were difficult to understand, and if there is to be codification I would suggest one matter which ought to be specially considered. I think it could be considered on the Committee Stage of this Bill. I refer to the system of assessing income tax on the profits derived from thoroughbred sires. Now, as Senators have occasion to know, there are a number of schedules under which income tax is assessed, but there are two to which I want to refer specially. Schedule D relates to the profits of a profession or calling. Schedule B relates to the profits from the use and occupation of land. If a man has a thoroughbred mare which throws a foal worth £10,000 he is assessed under Schedule B, but if he has a thoroughbred sire on the land whose reproductive powers result in a profit of £10,000 he is assessed under Schedule D.

It is a very different matter.

Senator Sir John Keane says that the reproductive powers of the female are in a different category to the reproductive powers of the male. Let the Senator reconcile that with any logic he chooses, but I submit that both ought to be assessed at the same rate, under the same Schedule and under the same conditions. If that method were introduced it would have a very beneficial effect on the horse-breeding industry of this country. I submit it is logically sound, and I now propose to submit that it would be of great advantage to this country. The advantage would be this: that it would result in the best sires being kept in this country for the purposes of horse breeding. I understand that the law in England is this: that the reproductive power of the male is assessed on the same basis as the reproductive power of the female, and on a true construction of the Income Tax Acts it ought to be the law in Ireland. But the income tax officials here are now acting under an old decision of the Scottish courts, the Court of Session, and an old decision of the Irish courts which, in my judgment, were wrong. The decision of the Court of Session in Scotland has been reversed by the House of Lords, so that in England up to 1930 the Case Law was the same as the Case Law here. After 1930 the Case Law was altered, and the assessment in England now, on the income from sires, is based on the same principle as the income from brood mares—that is, profits on the working of land— Schedule B. The Irish taxing authorities do not follow the decision of the House of Lords. They are not bound to follow that decision. They have continued the practice, the wrong practice, in my opinion, which existed in Ireland for a number of years, and which existed in Great Britain up to the year 1930. I think they are logically wrong and, in my opinion, they are legally wrong upon a true construction of the Acts of Parliament.

Now I leave that. Referring to the beneficial results which would flow from an alteration of the law, I submit for the consideration of this House and of the Minister that the system of assessment here has been the efficient cause, perhaps not the sole cause, but it has been the main cause, why some sires have left this country and are kept in England to the great loss of this country, and to the great prejudice of the quality of Irish bloodstock. There is a very peculiar matter in connection with the breeding of bloodstock. It appears that our country is one of two or three very limited areas throughout the world where horses reach their highest perfection. I am told, and I believe it to be true, that the second flight of animals bred in this country will, in two or three generations, equal the first flight of animals bred and reared in Great Britain. It is a very curious circumstance, and I am sure that Senator Colonel Moore, who understands these matters, has experience of that fact also. It is a remarkable fact, and it shows that our country is admirably suited for the breeding of high-class horses. Where we have that advantage I think that it ought to be availed of as much as possible. A Senator who is unable to be here to-day asked my opinion on the matter and, finding that I was in agreement with him, asked me to mention that circumstance, which I very gladly do. Of course we in this Seanad have really no authority in matters of finance. Anything that we can do is done by way of suggestion to the Minister who is responsible, through the Dáil, for the finances of the country.

As Senator Comyn has suggested, discussion of the Budget is rather ineffective to any great extent in the Seanad. In any case, the Second Stage of the Bill is hardly the one to deal with matters of detail. I would like to say, however, that I do not agree with Senator Sir John Keane that there is any sound or real objection to the drawing of a distinction between recurrent and nonrecurrent charges. It has not led to money being borrowed which ought to have been raised by taxation. In fact, taking the finances of the State over the whole period since it was set up, I think it may safely be said that there has been a fairly considerable amount of money raised by taxation which ought, in fact, to have been borrowed.

Hear, hear!

During the first years of the State, after the end of the Civil War, taxation was kept high, as may now be seen—for longer than it ought to have been. For two or three years considerable sums were extracted from the taxpayers that ought to have been borrowed. But the present Government did not profit by the mistake of the first Government. During its first two years in office it has overtaxed the people beyond the requirements of even its own spending policy. When the present Minister for Finance introduced his first Budget I pointed out in the Dáil, that he was imposing taxation far beyond anything that seemed to be necessary. The experience of two years has shown that. It is quite clear that much more money has been raised by the present Government than its spending policy required, so that, as a matter of fact, the danger of an error during the first two years was not along the lines that Senator Sir John Keane seemed to foretell.

I do not know if we are not now coming to another stage. I rather think we are. While there is not any great falling off yet in the yield of revenue, the buoyancy of the new taxes seems to have subsided somewhat, but the spending policy of the Government, on the other hand, is such that requirements seem to be likely to be greater and greater. I would be inclined to think that the figure allowed by the Minister for over-estimation in his Budget is on the large side. Seeing that the policy of the Government is what it is, objection might be taken to the bearing of the cost of two-thirds of the exports bounties. The great weakness of the Budget lies in quite a different direction, and that is, that it does not take into account less revenue on one side, and on the other side expenditure that the Government is certainly going to be faced with during the year. The Budget assumes that £2,000,000 will be collected in land annuities during the year, and that the local authorities will be able to finance themselves out of the rates, without calling further on the Government. I think neither of these assumptions is correct. There is no chance whatever of collecting £2,000,000 of land annuities, or any considerable proportion of that sum, during the year, and there is no chance at all that local authorities will be able to finance themselves, to the extent that they have been doing up to the present, out of the rates. It seems to me the Budget will break down in this respect, that the land annuities upon which it depends will not come in, and that further assistance on a very considerable scale will have to be given to local authorities.

I know that the Government has taken up the line that, in so far as there has been failure to pay land annuities and rates, that is due to a conspiracy, that it is something which can be killed by vigorous use of the forces of the law, and the remedies at the disposal of the Government, in the courts. Fundamentally that is necessary. It is quite true that there are people who could pay their rates, and who could pay their annuities, but it is perfectly true that some who could pay have refrained from paying but not in all cases have they refrained from motives that one could entirely attack. Quite a number have refused, not with the idea of breaking the law, of holding on to the money, or embarrassing the Government, but out of a sense of solidarity towards neighbours arising from the history of this country. There was always an idea during the Land Leage period when farmers were in difficulty of standing together. Although I do not justify that idea at all at present, it exists and operates, in so far as people who could pay are disposed to refrain from doing so. The fact is that the big majority of the farmers are either unable to pay or are only able to pay at a sacrifice that they could hardly be expected to make. The Government should face up to the position. If it insists on carrying on the economic war, then it should face the consequences. If a Government carries on a war it faces the consequences, by helping the wounded, paying separation allowances to the families of the men at the front, and all that sort of thing. There is no use if the Government insists in carrying on the economic war, in refusing to face the consequences, or in refusing to face the particular consequences that lower the prices farmers get for their produce, coupled with a tariff policy which does not lower the cost of living, but tends to keep it up.

There is no doubt that a tariff policy, aiming at industrial development, if it does not actually raise prices, keeps them up. No one can question the fact that a great many of the necessities of life that farmers have to buy are higher than they were. They are certainly very much higher than they would be if the Government's tariff policy were, shall I say, a more moderate one. You have that on the one hand and lower prices on the other hand. Beyond doubt, these two things between them are depriving ordinary farmers of cash resources. Probably the stories one hears are exaggerated, and that there is truth in the old theory that farmers will always grumble. All of us have experience of that. But allowing for the fact that there is some exaggeration in the stories of general distress one hears from the financial point of view among farmers, I am satisfied that in numerous instances a position has been reached where a very high proportion of farmers cannot get cash, or can only get cash by sacrifices which I do not think they should be asked to make. For example, I do not think a farmer ought to attempt to pay who could only pay his rates or land annuities by denuding his land of stock, or by making his farm unproductive, or by putting himself in the position in which he could not clothe his children or provide them with the ordinary necessaries of life, such as tea and bread made out of flour that he has to buy. If the position is such —and I believe it is such—that there are very large numbers of farmers in that condition, then the Government should face up to the position, and should abandon for the duration of the economic war, all further attempts to collect land annuities. At the same time, they should go the length of relieving the people—whether the whole length or not—in the front trenches in this dispute, by relieving them of liability in respect of rates.

If the economic war was ended there would be a new position. While it lasts cash demands ought not to be made on farmers who, overwhelmingly, have reached the position, I should say, of being unable to meet them, or are unable to meet them, without producing results that will be worse in the end, because nothing could be worse than to have the great majority of the farmers rendered unproductive by being brought to the position of being greatly understocked, if not denuded of stock. Perhaps there is not much use making an appeal to the Government. They have not listened to appeals that were made to them up to this. On a Finance Bill it is right to mention this matter because, if the circumstances are what I believe them to be, all the pressure the Government can bring to bear will be ineffective. You can easily crush a conspiracy. The conspirators will break from one another if pressure is applied, and one will be quicker to take cover than another. Where it is not a question of conspiracy, and the idea is not to impede the Government, or to get out of obligations, but where there is necessity in a great majority of the cases, no pressure the Government can bring to bear will accomplish their particular aims. In fact, the more pressure they bring to bear the more demoralisation it will cause in various respects. That is the real weakness of the Budget, that it does not face up to one of the great difficulties of the situation. It assumes on revenue coming from certain directions, when certainly by no means will the greater part of it be got. It also assumes that local authorities will be able to carry on. Even at this late stage—although it will not affect the present Finance Bill, and will have to be dealt with afterwards—the Government should recognise the position. They should not close their eyes and assume that there is a disorderly attitude where it does not exist, but should recognise the real difficulties that their policy has caused, as everyone saw it was bound to do. The details of the Budget will arise at another stage, when I shall deal with them.

Two small points arose on the discussion that I think might be touched upon now because, having got a start off, it may be more difficult to overtake them later on. Senator Blythe spoke of the effects of recent Government policy on prices of manufactured goods and foodstuffs—in effect, the cost of commodities consumed by ordinary consumers. The Senator was referring to farmers. If he will refer to the figures in the most recent issue of the Trade Journal dealing with the cost-of-living index figure, and compare the figures in the Free State with Great Britain, he will find that, taking the May figures and comparing with a relative month in 1929, the decline in the cost-of-living index in the Free State has been identical with the decline in Great Britain. It may be inferred that the retail price level has not been raised here disproportionately to the retail price level in Great Britain, but that the decline has been an identical percentage. In the course of his statement Senator Sir John Keane used an illustration. It was incidental. I think he will admit that it was hardly fair as a comparison. He spoke of farmers in Great Britain getting 10d. a gallon for milk. I happened to be listening to a Cheshire farmer, who is a cheesemaker, broadcasting last night and he complained loudly of the fact that he was only getting 3½d. per gallon for milk. I have here the Department's report on agricultural conditions in the Free State, where it refers to the price of milk delivered to creameries at about 4d. One must compare like with like. There is no use trying to compare 4d. received for milk at creameries in this country with 10d. for whole milk in Great Britain, more especially if we do not take into account the cost of production of milk in the Free State compared with the cost of production of milk for the whole milk trade in England. I am sure Senator Sir John Keane did not mean to compare them.

Would the Senator develop that point? I am sure he realises that there is a pooling scheme for milk in Great Britain and that the price of milk for cheese is artificially raised. I very much question if any farmers only get a fraction over 3d. per gallon.

Prices may be artificially raised.

The point is what the farmers get.

I am referring to a farmer and the complaint he made was that he only received 3½d. a gallon in Cheshire. I am putting that against 10d. a gallon that Senator Sir John Keane spoke of a farmer receiving, the fact being that if a farmer receives 10d. per gallon for milk he is receiving it for milk that cost a great deal to produce for sale in a certain market. The 3½d. is more comparable with the 4d. for butter-makers' milk in this country.

There is a very important matter of general application to which Senator Sir John Keane referred. He deplored the heavy growth of expenditure. Just for the sake of a change, and to encourage the Minister in his righteous course, I hope that he will continue the policy of increasing expenditure so long as that expenditure takes the form of raising the standards of life for the poor people in this country. I would ask Senator Sir John Keane, and perhaps anybody who sympathises with his point of view, to indicate precisely, when we come to the Appropriation Bill, the points at which he would like a reduction of expenditure. There is being advocated at the present time in certain international circles, touching the question of parliamentary procedure, that there should be an obligation imposed upon any Deputy or member of Parliament, who proposes increased expenditure, to indicate in making his proposal how money can be raised to meet that expenditure. Perhaps, as an alternative to that, anybody who deplores the course of expenditure should indicate precisely where he wants the items cut. I would certainly invite any Senators who might be disposed to agree with Senator Sir John Keane's attitude on this matter, to state definitely what are the items of expenditure that they desire to have cut, because I have noticed, notwithstanding their opposition to the Government's broad statement of policy, that when it comes to dealing with Bills which involve heavy expenditure, the Opposition do not oppose those Bills. I presume they desire to get whatever credit there is for allowing such Bills to pass, because they know in their hearts that they are just and necessary. If they are going to deplore the growth of expenditure they are bound, in my opinion, to indicate very much more precisely than they are inclined to do, exactly what they want to have cut out of the Budget on the expenditure side. If they add up all these things that they desire to cut out on the expenditure side, the total sum, I believe, would be very small indeed. I think the growth of expenditure in so far as it has meant distributing the purchasing power, which is involved in the national economy, distributing it in a way which means more life and health to the people, is a very desirable method of utilising the national resources.

Without going into the whole of the matter, it would be very difficult to answer Senator Johnson's invitation, that is, to show him where money might be saved. There are, however, a few things which occur to me at the moment. During the period since the present Government came into office numerous commissions have been set up, some of them wholly unnecessary, the members of which receive very big salaries. Two Appeal Commissioners were added to the Land Commission staff. They were wholly unnecessary and each of them enjoys a salary of £30 a week. Favoured followers of Fianna Fáil have been picked up all over the country and special highly-paid jobs have been created for them. If I had the book of Estimates here —I am sorry I have not, and in any case I could not get time to go into them—I could quite easily make a list of these appointments and I shall do so at a future date. That will be done and it will reveal a great many cases where expenditure could be lowered.

Tot them up and give them to us.

I cannot give the total at the moment but I shall before very long.

When the Appropriation Bill comes before us perhaps Senator Miss Browne will do that.

Very good. I shall get the total and I venture to say the amount involved will be very much larger indeed than the amount of money spent on relief of the poor in distressed areas. I have not the slightest doubt about that. I would not have intervened in this debate at all were it not that Senator Comyn made an extraordinary statement with regard to farming which is perfectly absurd—that is, that the comparatively poor farmers in North Clare have been the greatest sufferers by the economic war. That is pure nonsense. The farmer who has been the greatest sufferer is the man who has tilled most land, who has produced the most, who has paid the greatest amount in labour, who has fattened his stock on his farm. That is the man who is paying for the economic war. My county affords the strongest exemplification of that.

I do not quite agree with Senator Blythe in his statement that the state of the farming community has been exaggerated. It would be impossible to exaggerate the position of many farmers, small as well as large, who were in comfortable circumstances a couple of years ago. Their condition is not known. These people have a very strong sense of self-respect and proper pride and they do not like to show—this is a feeling that one invariably finds amongst people of that description—how poor they have become or how insecure is their position. They would be the last people themselves to admit it although we are constantly told that there are no-rate conspiracies and a no-rate campaign. That is all humbug. It is all propaganda. It is the vile and malicious propaganda of Fianna Fáil. The people who supported the Government in the late elections were what I might call the slum population of the country in the towns, villages, and in the poorer districts. It is very hard to blame these people. Every vote they gave was purchased and paid for. People such as they are absolutely impervious to reason; it is no use arguing with them; it is no use telling them that they will be poorer than ever they were before in a few years' time. Their philosophy is "Let tomorrow take care of itself." They are the people who gave the big vote to Fianna Fáil in the recent election but they will awaken some day. I hope the population will not have become demoralised beyond redemption before that time comes.

Senator Johnson has tried to prove that the tariff policy and the self-sufficiency policy, the economic nationalism of Fianna Fáil, is not raising the cost of living of the country. What about the case of sugar? I believe the proportion is about £11 to £20. It costs £20 now to buy the quantity of sugar formerly bought for £11. Then we have a 5/- tariff on flour and there has been an addition to that recently. These are two of the most important necessaries of life. With regard to the feeding stuffs which farmers have to purchase, not only has the quality gone down, not only has the stuff declined in food value, but the price is actually higher. You pay more for less value. The Minister for Agriculture on another occasion tried to twist, as he always does, certain statements of mine in regard to this matter. I am sorry he is not here now. He is incapable of giving a straight answer to a straight question. He tried to twist what I said, that people could not purchase pure maize as it was too expensive for them. He tried to twist that and represented me as advocating the use of pure maize as feeding stuff. I said no such thing. What I said was that you could get better value at a smaller cost by mixing your own feeding stuffs than by getting the Fianna Fáil mixture. That is undoubtedly true, and I can prove it up to the hilt. I am giving it the name by which it is called throughout the country—the Fianna Fáil mixture. That is its popular name.

Senator Johnson produced the monthly report of the Department of Agriculture. That same report is a standing joke amongst the farmers of the country. When it is handed round it causes a good many laughs. We are no worse for a laugh now and again although in this case we are the sufferers ourselves. This faked-up report from the Department of Agriculture is never taken seriously. Of course Senator Johnson does not know how the farmer looks on these matters. I did not intend to speak at all in this debate, but these remarks have been drawn out of me by some of the statements made by Senator Comyn. I promise Senator Johnson that I shall give a number of instances in which much expenditure could be avoided when the Appropriation Bill comes up.

I agree with the statement made by Senator Comyn in regard to horses. As far as I know anything about the matter, this seems a very suicidal policy and I think the Minister ought to look into it. In regard to the other matters in the Bill, some years ago I wrote a letter complaining that this country was taxed twice as highly as Great Britain. Since then the Government have received large sums of money, but in spite of the sums of money that have been poured into the Exchequer from these sources, they continue piling up taxation and borrowing money when they have not got anything else. I have a very strong objection to borrowing money. It is merely adding to the burdens of the people who will come after us and it is money which we have no right to expend. That system leads to destruction in every country where it is adopted. Borrowing has always been the beginning of the downfall of nations, and I have a strong objection to it. Of course I know it has always been carried out under some pleasing name or some attractive arrangement, just as in the case of the last Government, but it is very easy to see where it is going to lead. I have nothing more to say on this Bill.

I merely wish to ask the Minister a few questions. I should like to know what has happened to the money that has been paid in as annuities? Is that included in the non-tax revenue? I should also like to know how the Local Loans Fund is being expended? I think there should be some indication in the accounts as to the amount of money that is being spent on the building of houses, for instance, and on the making of roads —on things, some of which are reproductive perhaps, and others which are not reproductive but which are necessary. Furthermore, I cannot see what security at all you can put up, or what asset you can show for the provision that is made for the £1,500,000 for bounties. That looks like money gone forever. We, apparently, are borrowing against it and we have nothing to show in the shape of an asset. I think it is rather difficult to show that where we are paying out that money we can take credit for anything to put in place of it. I do not think the sum of £4,200,000 going to the local bodies should be mentioned as a sum, and not set out specifically, as to what the moneys were intended to be paid out.

Senator Sir John Keane, in his speech, referred to the finance accounts and complained of the delay which has taken place in issuing them. I think, so far as the finance accounts are concerned, they are not any more overdue than usual. It is not possible to get out that very detailed statement in less than three or four months. I do not think it was ever done. But, in any event, except for one who wants to study the finances of the State very closely, and particularly to study the loans accounts, the greater part of the information that is to be found in the finance accounts appears in the Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure. In that Estimate we have the yield of taxation under most heads for the preceding year. We have set out there the expenditure under the several Votes in the volume of Estimates. The actual net expenditure is set out to the close of the financial year, 31st March.

The Senator said that he was very strongly of opinion that we should segregate altogether from our Budget statement the items that we proposed to borrow during the year. I do not think that would be possible because our financial statement differs from the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain. Inasmuch as it is a comprehensive one and endeavours to foreshadow all the expenditure that will take place, whether it be for what is normally described as capital purposes, or whether it be such recurrent expenditure as is required to maintain the normal Government services. In Great Britain that is not the case. Everyone knows that very seldom have they an expenditure of capital which would be commensurate with the expenditure of the size and description that the State has had to undertake here since 1922. After all, in Great Britain they have inherited a large establishment and a fully developed estate, if I may put it that way, whereas we have inherited an establishment which was not, in the first place, quite adequate to the needs of the people, and an estate in many matters comparatively undeveloped. A good deal of the expenditure we have had to undertake, on a large scale, in a few years, had been made in Great Britain in comparatively small instalments on a larger scale, of course, but spread over a considerable number of years. I assume that the deficits which even in Great Britain occurred from time to time, and were met by borrowing, represent items that we have segregated on one side, and which we feel we are justified in borrowing to meet here. I think a good deal too much is made also of the fetish of dividing the Budget into two parts; one containing what might be represented as an ordinary working expenditure, and the expenditure which might be regarded as of a capital nature. There enter into all Government expenditure items of a character, some of them so indeterminate that it would be difficult to say whether they should be put in one category or another. And the difficulty is if you have two sections in your Budget, to keep out of the borrowing section items that ought properly to be defrayed out of revenue. Where it has been the practice, as it has been in Germany, to have two Budgets of this nature, the effect has been, I think, very detrimental to the financial stability of the State, and has had the effect of allocating as capital expenditure, expenditure which, as I said before, should have been defrayed out of taxation and normal revenue; and the practice has been to pass on to posterity the burden that should be borne in the present.

With regard to the question of what happened to the surplus of last year, it has not been the practice here, and there is no statutory obligation, to apply definitely to the reduction of debt a surplus that may accrue in any one year. I think the Senator had probably in mind in that regard a British enactment, which, I think, was passed in the year in which Mr. Winston Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which made it obligatory to set aside a certain amount for sinking fund purposes each year. So far as I am aware there is no enactment of a similar nature in force in this country. In any event, the terms upon which our loans have been raised would obviate the necessity for such enactment. All the issues have hitherto provided for an annual payment to the Sinking Fund. Moreover, our own floating debt is very slight. Indeed it was not considerable. It was only where there is a large floating debt that it would be feasible to apply the surplus to the reduction of debt simpliciter. We have been enabled by an inverted process to reduce debt, by avoiding its creation when we applied our surplus to meeting expenditure which is undoubtedly of a capital nature.

But to get back to the question of the form of our accounts. The Senator later dealing with that matter in his speech said it was very difficult for a person to appreciate exactly how much of the expenditure upon unemployed insurance and unemployed assistance was primarily met out of taxation, and how much was met by contributions through Departments and others. Turning to the Estimates, Vote No. 61, it will be found that the expenditure on unemployment insurance assistance was £1,950,790 and that there appears in Part II of the Estimate, as the total expenditure in connection with this service, £2,033,696. Offset against that there were Appropriations-in-Aid amounting to £554,570. The Appropriations-in-Aid appear under sub-head J of the Estimate, and these Appropriations-in-Aid are set out showing clearly the amount received from the county boroughs and the urban councils in unemployment assistance, and the contribution from the Unemployment Fund under the Act. So it is quite easy for any person interested in that particular service to determine for himself exactly how much of the cost of unemployment assistance is defrayed directly out of taxation and how much is the contribution from the ratepayers in the various local areas.

On the question of the Local Loans Fund there is at present in the course of preparation a Bill which I hope to be able to introduce before the next financial year and which will put the Local Loans Fund upon a proper statutory basis. The legislation has been difficult to prepare because the Local Loans Funds Acts have gone back as far as 1833 and there have been various modifications since. The preparation of the Bill will take time. On occasions it has had to be set aside to allow of more pressing business to be dealt with. I have a good deal of sympathy with the point raised by the Senator as to the serious limitations upon our borrowing powers, but I think he rather overrates the difficulty. For myself I am not pessimistic as to our chance if we were to go to the money market in some more settled and peaceful days than now exist. I do not think that the last loan represented, by any means, the best that could be done. I say that quite seriously. I feel that with the success of some of the recent issues of the Industrial Credit Corporation, with the general tendency of our own people, of all classes, and particularly the moneyed classes in this country, to use their resources and to take their own proper place in the industrial development of this country, that this Government and succeeding Governments will find it easier than our predecessors did in the peculiar circumstances from 1922-1933 to raise money here. I realise, of course, as we are a small State there must be limitation upon our borrowing and that in regard to issues that we or any other Government, might make, in the future, we must make it clear that they are for reproductive and constructive purposes. I do not think that any Government which wanted to raise money for wild-cat schemes would find it easy to do so. I do feel that a Government desiring to raise money for the purpose of housing the people or developing the resources of the country, if it has any constructive achievements behind it, will be sympathetically received by the investing public in this country. I do not think that we need hesitate—should the necessity arise not in the immediate future but within a reasonable period —to ask the Irish public to subscribe on terms as favourable to the Government at least as the last loan represented.

Senator Blythe has referred to before our Budgets were framed on a very conservative basis and he said that, possibly, we took more out of the people in the way of taxation than we required. It is our object to avoid borrowing so far as we possibly can. But we, in this generation, have got to undertake the work of building up and developing the resources of this nation and I think that we shall have to shoulder the greater part of that burden ourselves and allow posterity a better opportunity of enjoying the good things of life than we, of this generation, have had. We have been born in sacrificial times. We have come into an era of struggle and I think that we shall have to bear the brunt of that struggle to the end.

Senator Comyn referred to the bounties and said that there should be not merely bounties on exports, but bounties on sales. What Senator Comyn is asking is, I think, that we should fix a minimum price for certain products. A minimum price may be very difficult to enforce in actual operation, but possibly some of the proposals contained in the Cattle Bill, which will be before the Dáil in a short time, will go far to meet the Senator's wishes in that respect. On the question of the assessment of profits for income tax purposes derived from the keeping of stallions, I think I must differ very radically from the Senator. It may be quite true to say that there is something illogical in exempting the profits derived from reproductive faculties of the female and assessing them on the male. The right way to reconcile that illogical position would be to tax both. It seems to me that one of the consequences of a too great insistence on this matter and on the demand for codification of the income tax laws might be that Schedule B would disappear out of the main income tax code altogether. It came into the code at a period when the accountancy accomplishments of farmers were very crude and very much below the average. It was thought that farmers had neither the intelligence nor the education which enabled a businessman to keep accounts. I do not think that that applies generally now. It seems to me that, if this matter were pressed in an extreme way, we should, at some stage, have to consider the amending of the income tax law so as to compel farmers who had holdings in excess of a certain valuation, and whose income would clearly justify the keeping of accounts in a proper manner, to present accounts to the Income Tax Commissioners for the purpose of having their income tax liability assessed.

I was glad to see that Senator Blythe took my view as against that of Senator Sir John Keane in regard to the segregation of the items of the Budget. His speech was very reasonable and very helpful. He pointed out that the soundness of the Budget depends very largely on the collection of the annuities. It may be quite true that the farmers are suffering. I do not deny that farmers are suffering here as they are suffering elsewhere. At the same time, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that, in counties like Mayo, farmers have paid 99 per cent. of their annuities and— according to the last figures I saw—92 per cent. of their rates. The same is true of a number of other counties.

Did they pay them out of profits?

They paid them and the fact that they paid them shows that they could pay them. I think that it is an indication also that other people could pay. That is the position in a certain number of areas. In one of the areas where the collection is worst, both in regard to non-payment of annuities and non-payment of rates, I happen to have personal knowledge of the circumstances attaching to one farm of £50 valuation. I have been at pains to satisfy myself as to the position of these people. They tell me—I believe they are telling me the truth— that, in the year 1932-33, they were better off than they were in the year 1931.

They were pulling your leg.

They were doing nothing of the sort. I asked them to tell me nothing but the exact truth, and I have reason to know they would not tell me a lie.

Were they farming on any extensive scale?

They have a holding of over £50 valuation in South Tipperary. They told me they were better off in 1933 than they were in 1931 and that their neighbours were as well off as they were in 1931.

The figures will tell a different tale.

That is one thing I know of my own knowledge. It may be that farmers are hit in other places but, when one takes into consideration what has been done in Mayo and other counties; the position cannot be at all so bad as it has been represented. I do know in that county of one case where a person has not paid his annuities or rates and is quite well able to pay. I am not going to say how I know that, but I do know it. He may be one of those people who, out of the sense of solidarity to which Senator Blythe referred, wish to stand in with their neighbours, but the people who are not paying their rates or annuities out of a sense of solidarity are not giving practical expression to that principle because the great majority of the farmers of the country have paid their rates and annuities.

Out of cattle?

I do not believe they have paid them out of cattle.

Where is the conspiracy if the majority have paid their rates and annuities?

In certain small areas they have not paid. I do not wish to make this a contentious speech at all. I merely desire to put the facts before the House as they appear to me. I am not alleging at the moment that there is any conspiracy. I am merely dealing with the point raised by Senator Blythe, that the weakness of the Budget is that we have to rely on the collection of the land annuities to secure the balance. We have to do that. The facts I have had before me indicate that in relying upon the land annuities to balance the Budget we are not misplacing our confidence. That the annuities will be paid by the great majority of the farmers I am certain, and that they will be paid eventually by all the farmers I have no doubt. That is one thing we are going to insist upon —that no person in the enjoyment of the land of this country to the exclusion of so many landless men will remain in possession of that land unlesss he meets the obligations that go with it. I have no doubt that, when the farmers have time to think over the position, they will meet these obligations and accept the responsibilities which ownership of land in this country carries with it.

Senator Crosbie asked me how the moneys of the Local Loans Fund were spent. Possibly a fuller statement in that regard might be made on the Appropriation Bill. I may say, however, that the moneys in the Local Loans Fund are mainly lent to local authorities for the execution of housing schemes, sewerage schemes, drainage works and public works of that nature.

Is interest charged?

Yes. The interest will be 4¾ per cent. as from 1st October. It is 5¾ per cent. at the moment. The whole of the money is spent on reproductive works. It is fully secured upon the real property created in the way of working class houses, sewerage works and other works of utility. It is also fully charged and secured on the revenue of the local authorities and on the rents of such properties where rents are collectible.

The Minister is evidently very anxious to find out the true position of the farmers. Would he ask his Revenue officials to give him the number of farmer repayment claims this year and last year? They would be a very good indication of the position of the farmers.

May I tell the Minister that, if he inquires into the agitation in Ireland from 1885 to 1890, he will find that, where the tenants were accused of striking against rates, they were not by any means the Mayo tenants or the small tenants of Kerry. The tenants in County Cork were pretty substantial people. The tenants on the Ponsonby estate and on other holdings there were very substantial. If the Minister goes back on this he will generally find that though it was alleged against those people that they struck against paying rent, not because they could not pay but because they did not like to pay, he will find that exactly the same thing was said against them by the landlord party of that time as is being said against them to-day.

Question put and declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 11th July.
Top
Share