I did not want to cut across the general discussion but I want to make some small reference to the point which the Minister for Finance raised on the last occasion touching this phrase in the Bill, that "the Bank of Ireland may advance." The Minister drew attention to the fact that this had a long history and that he was not satisfied that it was a necessary phrase at all. If that is so, I think that in future Bills it ought not to appear. We have had avowals from the Bank of Ireland that they do not want any distinction drawn between them and the ordinary joint stock banks, and if this is not necessary, it should not appear. The Minister having raised this point, following a question raised on another Bill at an earlier stage, I want to draw his attention, and, through him, that of the President and the Minister for External Affairs, to the fact that a similar phrase still appears in the British Appropriation Acts and Finance Acts covering the Bank of Ireland. That is to say, by enactment, year by year, the British Parliament is giving powers to a Free State institution to do certain things. It raises a constitutional point and I think that, in view of the developments of recent years, the intention of the Minister concerned ought to be drawn to the fact. It is certainly an undesirable practice that the British Parliament should continue to legislate in respect to the powers of a Free State financial organisation. I simply draw attention to the fact and assume that it will be taken up in due course.
Public Business. - Appropriation Bill, 1935.—Committee and Final Stages.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I do not feel called on to say anything relating to that at the present time.
I do not know whether the Minister is going to deal with this aspect of the matter. He told us he had been trying to find out why this was provided with regard to the borrowing of the whole amount of the £17,000,000 dealt with in the Bill. There is, of course, an absolute necessity for the Government to take borrowing powers in this Bill and the practice of giving leave to borrow from the Government bank the whole amount is an ancient practice about which, like the Minister, I know nothing. I should think, however, that Senator Johnson is probably right when he says this requires consideration, and, probably, the consideration he is thinking about is that a figure should be put down in respect of borrowing which would be much nearer the amount required. The insertion of this clause in the drafting of the Bill saves the Minister a great deal of trouble, but I doubt very much if it would be possible for the Minister, in drawing up this Bill, to say how much money he wanted, and, unless the Minister could put in figures which he could stand by and debate, I believe there is nothing very wrong with the practice. If he were to come to the bank and suddenly ask us for £17,000,000, I think he will recognise himself that there would be some talk about the matter. The word "persons" is also used, but I cannot see any person coming along to advance these large sums. The Bank of Ireland is the Government bank. It collects all the taxes and the money of the Government is lying there and the loans, such as are described in this Bill, are made there. It seems to me that the entire clause is ordinary common sense, and I do not know how we could ask the Minister to alter the practice. Somebody long ago had a good deal of sense when he drew that up and gave the Minister for Finance an opportunity of doing what is required without a great deal of debate. I cannot see anything very much wrong with it.
I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything to what I have said.
Schedule B enables me to return just for a moment to a matter I raised on the Second Reading, and raised, I thought, in an uncontroversial way—the question of the land annuities and the Guarantee Fund. I am prompted to rise for a moment to-day by reason of a certain misconstruction put on what I said by Senator MacEllin, according to the Official Reports of last week. He said:
"Senator Toal's colleague, Senator Milroy, developed an argument as to whether a man has a moral right to pay the annuities or not."
Of course, I never said anything of the kind. If the Senator will look back to my speech, he will see that I said:
"Very clearly and very definitely I have no sympathy whatever with the idea of non-payment of the annuities."
I did raise a certain question and I did expect that the Minister would have dealt with it. The question I raised was rather expanded in its conception by, I think, Senator Blythe and I am certainly disappointed in the reply I got. The Minister ignored the issue I raised and justified, or attempted to justify, the collection of 50 per cent. of the old annuities by the present Government on the same ground that the torturer would justify the use of the rack—it was successful in extracting certain sums from the victim. I raised the question and the Minister very definitely and carefully evaded it. I would prefer that he should evade it if his mind is not clear on the merits of the point I raised, because I would not like the Government to be committed to a decision without full and careful thought.
If their basic idea of retaining the annuities has been baffled or unfulfilled and if the persons who were originally responsible for paying these annuities are having the full amount of those annuities extracted from them by some process of British taxes on their produce, is it fair, is it equitable, for the State here to exact another 50 per cent. of those annuities? There is no question of the morality of non-payment of annuities; it is a question of paying more than once and I do not think anyone is going to attempt seriously to justify it. I am fully conscious of the difficulty of the situation. It involves something more than a mere "yes" or "no." It involves other big reactions and implications which Senator Blythe, I think, dealt with and which it is not necessary for me to refer to, but I do hope that we have not heard the last word on this matter from the Government point of view. I wanted to avail of this opportunity to correct the entirely inaccurate construction which Senator MacEllin put upon some remarks I made last week.
I want to say a few words with reference to the remarks which Senator Milroy has made. I should like to say that there is something more than what he has said about the collection, of the annuities. He says that the farmers are paying them more than once or twice. I believe they have paid more than once or twice and many more times, but, in addition to that, this Government or the British Government—whichever of them initiated the economic war—I do not know which of them claims to have initiated it, but I will not go into it now—has actually taken away the power of the farmer to make these annuities on his farm. Whether the farmer has to pay them across the water or here at home, he has been prevented in a great measure from making these annuities, so that, besides the moral aspect, there is an absolutely material and basic right. I believe that farmers should pay their annuities, rates and so on, but I do not believe they should pay unjust rates or annuities and I believe that the Government are destroying or imparing his power to make these annuities in respect of valuations which, as our Chairman could teach us, were made many years ago. These annuities were based on the farmer's power to make them and to pay them to those who advanced the money. These valuations were scientifically made, but this Government or the British Government have smashed that up. Consequently, I think there is more to be considered in this matter than Senator Milroy said. There is both a moral and a material right.