This Stage will now give Seanator Sir John Keane the opportunity of making the statement he wishes.
Finance Bill, 1934—Final Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Cathaoirleach
The Minister has stated that the balancing of his Budget depends on the collection of the land annuities. I rise to make an appeal to the Minister that, no matter how important it may be to balance the Budget, he should not make too liberal a use of the sheriff and bailiff to collect the land annuities. Recently some farmers approached me with a view to doing something for them to prevent the seizure of their stock and chattels. These people are in a hopeless position. They cannot pay. The sheriffs and the bailiffs have been with them. They got a week to sell their stock and to pay up their annuities. I would ask the Minister to cause an inquiry to be made and, where he finds that people are absolutely unable to pay, that he would not force the sheriff to distrain. I do not want the Minister to stop the collection of the annuities in any case in which the people are in a position to pay but I ask him, in cases where people are not in a position to pay, that the stock should not be taken off their land leaving them in a position from which, perhaps, they will never be able to recover.
The Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair.
There are many small farmers in the country who have got big families and very little stock. In some of these cases they may have a cow or two to provide milk for the family. If the sheriff comes along and seizes those cattle, they will have no means of supplying their family with milk. They will be in a very much worse position and the country will be in a worse position, because possibly these people may have to fall back on home assistance or relief of some description. They will have no means to buy anything, no means to work their land. Their only means of carrying on will be destroyed by the distraint of the sheriff. I hope the Minister will give some consideration to this matter. I am asking nothing unreasonable in the request which I am making to him.
I wish to support Senator Counihan in this matter. The Minister and his Party have told us that the farmers are better off in the matter of butter, beet, wheat and a lot of other products. I contend that they are not. I am a beet grower and I can say that beet at the present price will be of no benefit to the farmer whatever. No farmer would grow beet at the present price if he had anything else to fall back upon. The position of the farmer is that his products, other than cattle, were side-issues, so to speak. The tillage which he undertook went to feed and fatten his cattle. The cattle paid the man's rent and rates and his big bills. Other items, perhaps, brought in a few shillings in the week to meet current expenses but, without the cattle, he is deprived of the means to pay his big bills. That is why the farmers are in the desperate plight in which they find themselves at the present time. I do not believe that the levy of 2d. per lb. on farmers' butter means that the farmer is going to be any better off than heretofore. The levy was in operation this week and my own experience in regard to it was this: when I sold salted butter to a local grocer last Saturday I got 10d. per lb. The grocer told me that that butter would be sold by him for 1/2 per lb. The grocer does not pay the 2d., it comes from the producer. That is the fact as I have experienced it. If I brought that butter to the open market——
On a point of order, I do not want to interfere, but I can see this debate going on a very long time. I wonder if it is in order to discuss these matters on the Finance Bill?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
No; it is not going to be allowed.
The matter was introduced by Senator Counihan.
I was about to raise the question also whether Senator Counihan was in order.
This is a very important matter for the farmer. Senator Johnson and other people, who make their living on the labours of other people, care very little about it. He does not have to work on a farm and he cares very little whether the land annuities are paid or not. Criticism from him comes very badly.
Is this Senator to be allowed to vilify, like a fish hawker, another member of this House?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
No.
Will she withdraw her words?
No, I shall not withdraw.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I do not think the remarks are of such a character that they require to be withdrawn.
Some restraint should be put upon her.
You might allow me to mention the matter with regard to the levy on butter.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think you discussed it quite sufficiently, Senator. I allowed you a great amount of latitude.
I only just wanted to finish what I was saying. I think neither the Minister nor anyone else quite understands the question and it might be well to try and clear it up.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator cannot clear it up any further now.
I only want to say that I think the subject might be discussed more properly on the motion on the Paper in the name of Senator Sir John Keane.
Question put and agreed to.