In Committee on Finance. - Vote 6—Office of the Revenue Commissioners. – Dáil Éireann (6th Dáil) – Thursday, 16 Jul 1931

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 6—Office of the Revenue Commissioners.

Mr. Blythe

I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £447,150 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig na gCoimisinéirí loncuim, maraon le Seirbhísí áirithe eile, atá fé riara na nOifige sin.

That a sum not exceeding £447,150 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, including certain other Services administered by that Office.

Mr. Little

I want to ask the Minister can he exercise any superior powers over the Revenue Commissioners in one particular case of the greatest possible hardship. It is a case I referred to at least twice in the House already. It is the case of a man in Waterford who had two businesses on which he was charged income-tax. There was a loss upon one business and a gain upon the other and he disputed the return made by the Revenue Commissioners to him. And while his accountant was working on the accounts he was taken away and employed on Government service. Another accountant was engaged but while he was being employed this man had a serious family bereavement which caused his own illness and he has been ill ever since. In consequence of that the time lapsed and although the Revenue Commissioners had power under their old Acts of a more or less vague nature, they did not exercise their influence in his favour by giving him a further period of time. He appealed in the matter, but it went against him.

Subsequently there was further legislation making the powers of the Revenue Commissioners clearer, and extending the time in cases where there was a reasonable cause for delay. I made an appeal to the Revenue Commissioners to try to have the matter re-opened and I was informed that it was not possible to re-open it. There was here a question of extreme hardship where illness, death and delay, caused indirectly— unconsciously no doubt—by the Government having taken away the first accounts. I think the Minister should exercise whatever power he has in order to alleviate that position. The sum in question amounted to £300. It was paid, and I think the Minister should consider the case and see if anything could be done in it. I can give the Minister the name of the person privately.

The other matter that I would like to refer to on this Estimate, and that I hope the Minister will look into, concerns the office of Customs and Excise. I do not know if the suggestion I am going to make has been brought to the notice of the Minister before, but very considerable savings could be made in this Department. It is an old Department carrying with it the evil effects of its earlier history. The Customs and Excise was formed originally and was developed along the lines of the British Government. At present reports pass sometimes through the hands of eight persons before a matter is decided. There are too many higher paid officials and too many surveyors in the Department. According to my information there could be a saving of from £20,000 to £50,000 in that Department.

Mr. J. Wolfe

When these Estimates were last being discussed I drew the attention of the Minister for Finance to a practice which was growing up, as I suggested, in the Estate Duty Office. I told the House that the Estate Duty officials in the case of a deceased trader were asking for duty, not merely on the cost price or the saleable price of goods of the deceased but, in addition, were asking that the net retail profit be added. They asked for duty on the net retail profit which had not been realised, and which the executor or the administrator, even if he had any power to carry on, could only get by breaking the terms of the will and by breaking the terms of the bond. The Minister gave me a very queer answer to that. He stated that "no such practice exists." He said unfortunately that it did occur in a case that had been considered but that it had been adjusted. I rather suggest that it occurred in a case in which my firm was unfortunately concerned. At all events, the Minister gave a clear and emphatic denial that such a practice existed. On another occasion since then the same firm unfortunately found the same practice existing despite the declaration of the Minister for Finance and a similar demand was made. The demand was insisted upon until a copy of the Official Debates containing a report of the Minister's undertaking was produced when, without comment, explanation or regret, it was withdrawn. Perhaps it was suggested that that was another slip, but I have in my possession at the moment a case which I am sending to the Minister where, in defiance of the Minister's undertaking in the House, they are still insisting on measuring the net retail profit at some ten per cent. which in this case a draper is expected to get after paying overhead expenses. I wonder is there any use getting an undertaking from the Minister when his officials openly defy it? It is clear to the meanest intelligence that the suggestion that estate duty should be paid on a profit not yet earned, and which can only be earned by carrying on the retail trade, is absurd and would not be tolerated in any other country or from any officials save officials who are at present occupying the Revenue Department of Saorstát Eireann.

I commented, when the Estimate was last before the House, on the fact that for three years running, I had to draw attention to the loss of human life. My constituency during three successive years was robbed of one of its largest ratepayers and one of its largest employers of labour as a result of these demands. In one or two instances they were people who were personally known to the Minister. I ask the House and the Government officials to stay their hands and not to continue methods which would send men to their graves. I am glad that for the first time for four years I am now in a position to say that I do not know of any fatal case following income tax demands. It is true that during the year I did give the Minister instances in which I had to serve notice that if these methods were continued they would, in my opinion, be fatal. Up to the present the people concerned are alive. I would again ask the Minister to pause and to consider the loss and injury that is being done to the State by charging men broadcast with fraud, by threatening them broadcast with penalties and with jail. Surely a little moderation might be used.

If the Minister would only consider the loss of revenue that has occurred to Saorstát Eireann by reason of the methods that are being used by officials of the Revenue Commissioners, apart altogether from the question of humanity, I think he would ask the Commissioners and the officials to stay their hands. As far as I know there have been no imprisonments in my constituency during the last year, but with the events coming on I see that they are getting ready again to imprison working men and the unemployed.

I drew attention last year to the case of a man whose salary, owing to the bad times has been reduced to something like £2 5s. or £2 10s. and who, after paying for his board and lodgings is left with 5/- or 10/- a week. I suggested that that was not a proper case in which the man should be sent to jail for the sum which had accrued. It was a debt due to the British Government of something like £200, and under happier circumstances this man incurred it. He is now utterly unable to pay it. That case occurred in the City of Cork. When it went before the judge it was adjourned from time to time, in order to give the Revenue Commissioners an opportunity of considering whether they were going to clap this man into jail. Some friends offered on his behalf £25 or £30, which is more than the authorities will be able to get if the man is sent to jail. The order went out that the law must take its course. The Revenue Commissioners appear to have no other decision in their vocabulary beyond this one "that the law must take its course." That man, I understand, is to be cast into jail as an example to all other men who owe income tax, but who have no money to pay it. Of course it is a form of blackmail, pure and simple. It is done with the object of shaming this man's relatives into paying money which he is unable to pay, and which the Revenue Commissioners think they will get the relatives to pay, rather than face the shame of seeing this unfortunate man cast into jail.

I had to draw attention on the last occasion to a case in which an unemployed man in the City of Cork, who had paid a very considerable sum in arrears of income tax, had been thrown out of employment. He was sent to jail, not because he had no money to pay, but because it was hoped—and in result the hope was achieved—that this man's brother-in-law would be blackmailed into paying the money. They did blackmail him and compelled him to pay the money. When I drew attention to it the Minister gave me a most crushing reply on the authority of the income tax officials, who, I am sorry to say— and I say it advisedly and as moderately as I can—are trained and expert liars. The Minister said that in the case referred to by me, the man had £500 in War Loan. That is untrue. I could not contradict it at the time, but I went and got the particulars and ascertained it was untrue, that the man had never a cent. in war loan in his life. It is understood the man was living on a very paltry income, the property of his wife, to whom he had not been married at the time the income tax debt was incurred. The Minister did not stop there, and on the instructions of his income tax officials, he said the man was the owner of the house in which he lived. I knew and was positive that that was untrue. There is not a word of truth in that. He also said the poor law valuation of the house in which the man lived was £42. That last is a statement that could only be made by a deliberate liar, coming from the income tax collector, because the income tax collector knows better than anybody else the valuation of the house in which the man lives, I tell you that was a deliberate lie.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is accusing officials who are not here to speak for themselves of deliberate lying. The Deputy would not be in order in accusing the Minister.

Mr. Wolfe

I am not suggesting that.

An Ceann Comhairle

But the difficulty is that it is the Minister who is responsible to the House and not the officials of the Minister. I suggest to the Deputy that if he gives the matter consideration he will find that to use language of that kind about officials would lead us into very undesirable paths. I think he should not use that language about officials who are not here to defend themselves. He should attack the Minister who is responsible in this particular instance. The Minister is the cock-shot, and not the officials.

Mr. Wolfe

I do not want to attack the Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy does not want to attack the Minister he will find great difficulty in being in order at all.

Mr. Wolfe

I do not want to attack him at all, not even at the suggestion of the Chair. What I do want to point out is that when these officials do tell what is directly contrary to the facts— that is the right way to put it—that should not be glossed over. I only put this before the House because I put the facts before the Minister, and he, in the exercise of his discretion, ignored my letter as he was quite entitled to do. I am daily waiting to hear that the official who supplied this incorrect information on which the incorrect reply of the Minister was based, has been promoted to high office. I have no doubt that he will get it. In that way I feel I am doing no harm in suggesting that when information which is without foundation is supplied to the Minister, such an official is picked out for sure and certain promotion in the Income Tax Department.

On a former occasion when I drew attention to the fact that I had seen cases where officials had been looking back over accounts for as lengthy a period as 42 years, and pointed out that that was entirely wrong, the Minister told us that that did not happen at all. I knew, of course, it did. I have seen requisitions to go back 42 years. When the man expostulated, and said that he could not go back for 42 years—incidentally his books had been burned during the trouble, and he rather objected to going back for 42 years to prepare a set of accounts which did not exist—he was told in reply that the officer saw no reason why he should not go back for 42 years. My recollection is that the Minister said that people are not asked to go back for lengthy periods now, but it is a fact that they are still going back for 20 years. I suppose we must regard it as somewhat of an improvement that they do not now require accounts for 42 years, but only ask them for 20 years. I suggest that the Minister might usefully still further reduce that period to one within the law.

I have protested here before against claims for compound interest being sent out against tax payers and against the estate of deceased persons. There is no statutory authority for it. The Minister has a nice little answer ready, in which he will say that interest was charged in lieu of penalties. He forgets that he told the House the other day that no penalties were incurred by executors, and that the question of penalties did not apply to them at all. I have the right to ask the Minister then under what authority executors are being charged and asked for compound interest? I wonder will one of his officials say that that is not so? Will the Minister be in a position to tell me that claims for compound interest against the estates of deceased persons are not being made by his officials down to the present time? I do not think they will venture to say that.

There is another practice growing up in the office to which I would like to draw attention. I have seen these instances myself and I only speak of cases which I have absolutely seen —cases which have been shown to me. I have no information except information secured in that way. I have seen a case in which an agent for two persons was corresponding with Dublin Castle at the same time. In one case a man had owed some small sum for interest on deposit receipts. He had not disclosed it but he had paid income-tax on everything else for a period of thirteen years. He did not disclose the interest on the deposit receipts and a sum amounting in all to £100 had accrued. He did not plead the Statute of Limitations. He did not say "I will pay you for six years." He said "I will pay you for the full thirteen years, whatever it is and the Commissioners reply "You will do nothing of the kind, you will pay something in lieu of interest in addition." The agent protested and later on he had to deal with the second case. The Revenue Commissioners then said to him "Because you have not agreed to our claim in A's case, we will now send B's case to the solicitor for the Revenue Commissioners in order to commence a prosecution against you."

I wonder will the Minister stand over treatment of that sort. Will he allow an individual taxpayer to be threatened with proceedings and penalties simply and solely because that taxpayer's agent did not agree with the Commissioners' officials in another case and contended that a man who pays thirteen years' arrears—a forgotten item—is not doing at all badly? However that may be, what I want to know is why a man should be victimised by reason of the fact that his agent did not agree with the Commissioners' officials in another case. There is no doubt about the case, and if the Minister wants to see particulars he can. In any service or in any department but the Department of the Revenue Commissioners an official guilty of conduct like that would be severely dealt with. The man who does that is absolutely unfit for his job. He does not realise the duty that he owes to the State or the duty he owes to the taxpayer. I submit that that should not be done. With the new powers that the Revenue Commissioners have, and seeing that they now have got, apparently, the right to retrospective legislation, I look with a great deal of misgiving to the future. I am familiar with the cases of men who have gone to them. They have complained to me. I was not present, because I would not go to an office where business was conducted on those lines. I know that they still have been threatening the public that they will get this legislation. The Revenue Commissioners need not care one rap what the decision of any court is, because this Dáil has approved their action. They care nothing about the law. They are above and beyond the law. The Minister has yielded to them in that, and they look on the Minister as one whom they have beneath their feet, and for whom they have as much contempt as they have for me. I suggest that that is an improper practice and that these officials ought to be told that the sooner their methods are changed the better it will be for them and for everybody else.

Another practice is going on still in the Revenue Office which is a scandal and which ought to be stopped. I called attention to it before. Those people who are threatened with a does of income-tax treatment are told that the first thing they have to do is to employ a firm of accountants, whose name is to be submitted by the officials in Dublin Castle, so that they may be suitably instructed as to what they are to do. Would that be tolerated in any other Department? The officials in Dublin Castle call the tune. The taxpayer has got to pay the piper. The dice is loaded against him, because if the accountant selected and approved of by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue does not do what he is asked —if he does not prepare the accounts up to the taxable views of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue—he will walk the plank. He will be blacklisted, and future taxpayers will be told: "We will take no accounts prepared by this accountant. You must get an accountant who is ready to bend the knee to us." That is going on at present. It has cost taxpayers a lot of money. There is no doubt that these accountants are making a considerable sum out of income-tax practice. It has become a substantial source of revenue, and these accountants are absolutely under the thumb of the Revenue Commissioners. They cannot prepare honest accounts or be impartial. The penalty to which they are subject is as great as, if not greater than, the penalty meted out to the taxpayer. It would not be going too far to abandon once and for all this practice of suggesting the names of special auditors. If a man has to employ an accountant, he ought to be allowed to employ his own accountant. If the accounts are found incorrect, then let the income-tax officials deal with them as dishonest accounts. But under the present system, I have seen taxpayer after taxpayer in fear and trembling of these accountants, about whom, as a rule, they know nothing. They are sent down to the limits of West Cork at enormous cost from the City of Dublin to people who never heard of them.

I know one case in which a man has done everything possible to prepare accounts for six or seven years. He is only at the commencement of his torture. He has got a further order to go back in accordance with the new statute and we may expect that the Commissioners will receive statutory power to go back twenty years which they are doing at present without statutory power at all. They might add that to Section 2.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot advocate legislation on those lines on an Estimate.

Mr. Wolfe

I suggest that illegal methods should be done away with by somebody. Even retrospective legislation is preferable to what is being done at present in an utterly illegal manner. Who does approve of the present system of income-tax collection? No Party in this House. I do not believe that there are five Deputies on the Government Benches who approve of it. It is true that there is one Party who believe in putting the out-of-work taxpayers into jail. That is the Labour Party. The Revenue Commissioners were nobly defended by Deputy O'Connell. He could not understand me when I raised a protest against unemployed men being cast into jail. The Labour Party—I understand Deputy O'Connell spoke for them—are the only Party in this House who approve of the methods of the Revenue Commissioners. I think Deputy O'Connell was one time associated with the teachers. The teachers of my constituency do not approve of the present income-tax methods. No section of the community approves of the present method of income-tax collection. The result is disastrous to the revenue itself. Year after year, men come to me and say they were driven, if you like, into dishonest practices by the events which culminated in 1921: They are now anxious to get back on the straight path. Men have come to me over and over again and asked me a question like this: "Would I be safe in showing an increased capital of a couple of thousand pounds?" What answer could I give to that question? "The moment you do you will have let loose on you all the dogs of the income-tax kennels." No man can make a true discovery who has got anything in the past hidden. If he does, he will pay heavily for it. He is not allowed to do it, with the result that he takes his capital into another country and there, by means of settlements evades income-tax here. It is all humbug to say that it cannot be done. It can be done and done in defiance of all statutes, ad hoc, retrospective and otherwise.

It is unfortunate that that is being done. We have to-day thousands and thousands of pounds going out of the country which is paying income tax at the rate of 4/6 because people are afraid to make a disclosure with regard to the tax they owe to this country where the rate is 3/- in the pound. That represents a substantial loss to the revenue. If the Minister for Finance could only realise the loss to the revenue caused by the present-day methods of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue he would be the first to put an end to it if for no other reason than that the duty which people are anxious to pay to this country should be paid. If the Minister were to take steps in that direction it would result in a substantial increase to the revenue of this State. My submission is that it is foolish and wrong absolutely to turn our backs on funds that are there waiting to be collected.

There is another matter that I wish to refer to. It is a practice in connection with the Probate Court. Probate now, in most cases, has to be taken out in England and in the Saorstát. If taken out in one country a copy of the probate and of the will has to be extracted. Certain fees have to be paid for doing this. The probate officials now insist upon the grant being first taken out in England, or at least if it is not taken out first in England it means that they will not grant the usual facilities. When a man knows his job he takes it out in the place where it is most economically done. A will and probate is now taken out in the first instance in England. The amount of revenue involved is not very large, but still it is fairly substantial and it is a foolish thing to turn it away. It is a matter that easily could be put right. There is no reason why a premium should be put on the taking out of a probate firstly in England. A premium does exist. I suggest that the matter could very easily be rectified and ought to be rectified.

Mr. Derrig

There is a matter on which I should like to have some information from the Minister for Finance. It is in connection with the repayment of claims. In the case that has come under my notice it appears to be the practice of the Revenue Commissioners to hold up amounts of money which are due for repayment early in the year. For example, amounts due for repayment in March are held up and put against income tax which is not due until July. I would like to know from the Minister what exactly is the position? In the particular case that has been brought to my notice it appears that in 1929 the inspector acquainted the taxpayer of the fact that he proposed to apply the repayment which was due in the early portion of the year towards the payment of income tax due in July. The taxpayer wrote back pointing out that he did not cousent to this procedure. In 1930 the same inspector wrote to this taxpayer stating that he was going to adopt the same procedure in that year. The taxpayer then wrote to the Inland Revenue Commissioners. They did not reply to the question asked as to whether they were, in fact, empowered to do this. A reply came from the Claims branch simply enclosing the statement of accounts, but not denying the circumstances I have stated. There was no explanation given. I want to know from the Minister if the Revenue Commissioners are empowered to withhold repayments due in March until July; not to repay it, but to hold it for income tax that falls due in July.

Mr. Corry

It appears to me that this Department is one of the worst offenders we have. Deputy Wolfe described the sending of men down from Dublin to West Cork. That, perhaps, accounts for the enormous amount spent in travelling expenses. The figure for that item in the Estimate is £20,000. I would like to have an explanation from the Minister with regard to that. Speaking for the farming community, there is another matter in connection with this Department that I want to refer to. This Department appears to be paved with officials enjoying salaries of over £1,000 a year. I find there are 46 of them. I would like to have some explanation as to why it is necessary to have 46 men in this one Department with salaries of £1,000 a year. In addition, the so called cost of living bonus paid to these men amounts to £187,000, which is two-thirds of the total amount collected under the sugar tax.

We frequently hear statements from the Minister that he has no money for many purposes that are discussed in this House. He has no money for the old age pensioners or for widows and orphans, but he is able to provide a huge sum in the form of cost of living bonus for the officials in one Department. Apparently, the work of the Department cannot be done with less than 46 men at £1,000 a year. Surely it is time that kind of thing were ended. Neither the Minister nor any member of the Executive Council can contradict the statement made in this House within the last week that the farming community, comparing the prices they received last year with the prices obtaining this year, stand to lose this year the huge sum of £5,000,000. While that is so, we have this Department costing this vast sum of money. Everything that the farmer is producing has to be sold at pre-war rates. Money for the relief of agricultural rates could not be found except by putting an extra tax of ½d. in the lb. on sugar, and two-thirds of the money so raised goes to meet the cost of living bonus paid to the officials in this one Department. I would like to have an explanation from the Minister as to why it is necessary to have 46 men in this Department at salaries of £1,000 a year each.

I would like to have another statement from the Minister as to how this enormous cost for travelling expenses reaches £20,000 in this one particular Department. I would like to hear some honest explanation as to the causes for that and how it comes to be that £187,000 is paid in cost of living bonus in that Department. On behalf of the farmers of this country who cannot pay their way I would like to be told that.

Mr. Blythe

With reference to the point raised by Deputy Little I have only to say that the matter is not really a matter for the Revenue Commissioners, but for the Special Commissioners and was, I presume, determined by the Special Commissioners at the hearing before them in court. If Deputy Little supplies me with the facts of the case I will have an inquiry made and let him know what they are. I know that the Special Commissioners even before the existing legislation was passed took a fairly lenient view of appeals which were not made in time, where illness was alleged. Even where illness was hardly serious enough to explain the failure of making appeals in proper time, the tendency was to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt.

Deputy J.T. Wolfe dealt at great length with the administration of the Revenue Officers. I think that for him his treatment was lenient. At any rate, having in previous years accused the revenue officers of causing serious loss of human life by their methods, the Deputy gave a testimonial when he said that this year there have been no fatalities. He referred to one mistake and accused the officials of wilfully supplying me with false information. There was an error in what I said in reply to Deputy Wolfe in that case, and it serves as an illustration of the difficulty of dealing with alleged cases of hardship which are introduced here in debate for the first time. What happened was that a year or so ago the Deputy mentioned a case one evening here. I was replying on the next morning and such information as could be obtained about the case was sought for in the Castle in the meantime. It was not possible to refer to the officers in Cork with a view to having that information checked. The result of the haste with which the information was obtained was that certain property which belonged to the man's wife was ascribed to the man himself, and also certain house property which his wife owned was thought to be the property of the men and to be the house in which he lived. The information, however, which was obtained from insufficient documents was incorrect in that I said that the man owned property which in fact his wife owned. Nevertheless, my statement that it was not a case of the sort of hardship that Deputy Wolfe had described was quite correct. The man in that particular case, though not employed, was not at all by way of being an unemployed working man. He was a man who had had a good salary. He was a man who, if not directly employed, was, at any rate, engaged in business, and if he was not able to pay, his wife was able to pay, because immediately on his arrest the amount was forthcoming.

Deputy Wolfe suggests that the revenue officers should be severely dealt with for all sorts of faults that he finds with them. Of course, if we were to take Deputy Wolfe's advice on these matters, it would be impossible for any revenue to be obtained. The whole machine would stand still. I think that Deputy Wolfe probably should be satisfied with his own efforts in the constant war which he wages with the officials in the revenue without appealing to me to take any special steps in the matter.

I would like to say, of course, that the suggestion he has made that accountants whose names are approved by the revenue officers for the examination of various cases where disputes arise or where the facts have to be ascertained, are under the thumb of revenue officers, is not only without foundation, but, as I think, an absurd and unfair suggestion. The suggestion is that these accountants are under the thumb of the revenue officers, and cannot prepare an honest account. Men of the highest reputation in the accountancy profession are employed on these things, and they are not in any way under the thumb of the Revenue Commissioners. Nobody in the Revenue wants them to do anything more than to ascertain the facts.

Deputy Wolfe ascribes a sort of diabolical zeal to the revenue officers. That zeal does not exist and there is no advantage to the revenue officers in obtaining anything for the revenue that is not due. A revenue officer has a certain scale of salary. He gets no advantage from getting additional revenue. He is liable if he only conducts his work with ordinary zeal to have a good deal of abuse levied at him and to get very little thanks for his efforts.

Deputy Corry asked something about the number of officials who are on the higher ranges of the salary scale. It is necessary to have men of great ability and great experience in this particular work. They have to fight revenue cases before the Special Commissioners and before the Circuit Courts. They have to fight against accountants and against lawyers and barristers on the other side. They have to discuss these cases, a task which I think exceeds in difficulty the task of any other type of public officials, and moreover the revenue officers or a great many of them are isolated. They have to act on their own initiative and on their own responsibility. They cannot receive advice or assistance that an official operating at headquarters knows is available for him. Moreover they have the class of task which must necessarily displease many people. They have to withstand attacks and pressure which other officials have not to withstand.

Moreover we have frequently had revenue officers taken away from us by banks and other institutions and given salaries very greatly in excess of what we were able to pay. There was a period during which we were short of qualified inspectors and in that period three of our inspectors were taken away by the banks, in one case the salary given was double the salary we were paying and in the other cases there was a substantial increase over what we were paying. It would not be possible for us to retain the right type of officer or to get work done which is difficult and unpopular work and to get it done efficiently if reasonable scales of salaries were not paid. As regards travelling expenses first a good deal of inspection is necessary. Then certain officers have wide districts over which they must travel. I do not think there is the slightest foundation for the suggestion of Deputy Little that there is too much inspection and too much supervision. I know that these establishments just like other establishments were carefully reviewed after the establishment of the Saorstát and in addition they are reviewed from time to time. Every effort is made to keep the establishment expenses down to the minimum that will secure the work being done efficiently.

A debate such as we have heard this year or, for that matter, in past years in connection with the Revenue Commissioners' Estimate, should convince Deputies that it is very necessary to have a strong supervising staff in order that all the problems that may arise may properly be dealt with.

Mr. Corry

I wish to ask a question. The Minister states that those men have to fight cases before the Circuit Courts. There is a special solicitor's office for that work, costing £3,900. I think that ought to do away with that portion of the argument. Surely the Minister cannot argue that it will take forty-six men at £1,000 each a year——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot argue it.

Mr. Corry

I wonder is the Department run on the same lines as the Department of Agriculture, which took over two Englishmen and a Dane? There is a sort of turn about in the job.

Mr. Briscoe rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think Deputy Corry has exhausted all the questions that could be put.

Mr. Briscoe

I would like to know from the Minister whether the prohibition which he has put upon me with regard to appealing to the Revenue Commissioners in cases of hardship on the part of constituents of mine applies to all Deputies in the House.

Mr. Derrig

The Minister has not answered my question on the matter of repayment.

Mr. Blythe

With regard to repayments, if the Deputy will supply me with particulars of cases, I will make inquiries. I know it is not the practice. I had only one other complaint of such a thing happening, and, when the facts were examined, it was found that the tax which the repayment was held against was due months before. Possibly that is so in the case to which Deputy Derrig refers. It certainly is not the practice to hold over repayment of money against tax that is not then due. With regard to Deputy Briscoe's case, I could not tell the Deputy at the moment. I know, however, that he made himself a nuisance.

Whether any other Deputies have made themselves a nuisance in the same way I am not sure. I certainly do not approve much of Deputies undertaking this work, or of the Revenue Commissioners dealing with Deputies in these cases. People who are fined and who want to plead something can do so by way of their solicitors, if they have solicitors; if they have not solicitors, they can plead by way of some of their friends and acquaintances. I do not think there is any need for bringing any sort of political influence into the matter. I would not ordinarily object to Deputies who do not abuse their privileges, and who do not, more or less, haunt the offices and make themselves a nuisance. Broadly speaking, while I do not object to the thing happening a little, I certainly would not encourage any sort of wholesale activity on the part of Deputies who, so to speak, would be really taking the bread out of the mouths of solicitors.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 16 Jul 1931