I rather agree with the last two speakers, though not on the book-keeping point. They referred to those sums not being included in relation to the maximum borrowings allowed to a local body. I read it as meaning that the restriction on borrowing by local authorities is being removed. Now, in a general way, I object to local bodies having power to borrow at all, but the ordinary case made for borrowing is that it is for capital expenditure. Although, as I say, I disapprove of their borrowing in any case, if a local body were going to borrow money to build a port which would last for generations, and which would give good service to the people over a long period, then you could say that it would be absurd out of one year's revenue to put up this large sum of money for something which is going to be of service for many years to come. It might be said: "Let the payment be made during the period in which the service will be received."
Here there are two points on which I disagree. First of all, as I have often said here, I have always felt that local government should have its own definition of power and responsibility. The thing is so complicated now you cannot say where is the responsibility and where it is not. The Minister gets up and says that generally the Government will give 80 per cent. of the amount to be spent. That does not interest me much. I know that when a local body has a chance of having £100 spent immediately in their district, irrespective of the utility of that £100, at a mere cost of £20 to the district, they are all for it. But what I query is the £20 that is going to be raised. The local body is empowered to get into a condition of indebtedness in excess of what they are legally allowed to do now. They are borrowing at present under their powers for what is called capital expenditure, for the production of something which is locally necessary and good and which will be available to the people over a long period of years, not merely during the period of the production of that necessity. Here, the purpose of these works is not a thing that is going to be made. There are too many roads in this country (and this adverts mostly to the making of roads). We have too many roads because, for many generations before any of us was born, people were making roads in this country, not because roads were necessary, but in order to qualify for the receipt of certain payments out of relief funds. That has been the purpose of it. Now the local bodies are not only invited, but are going to be forced to get into a further state of indebtedness, not to create something of capital value, but merely to be paying out money weekly to be consumed by the recipients of that money during the week. In principle the whole thing is completely wrong. Neither the Government nor the local bodies should borrow in any circumstances except when it is for the creation of an asset either local or national which will remain an asset to the people over a long period of years. Normally, when the Government borrow for such a purpose, they begin paying back the moment they start borrowing, as they estimate in taxation for the payment of sinking fund, and the thing is paid for while it is still available to the people. In this case, it is merely a dole which is going to be given out. It is merely a form of charity which is going to be dispensed during the time these people are working. The asset that is going to remain afterwards will be a negligible asset— a bit of a road here and there when, as I say, this country is already more road-beridden than almost any country in Europe. We have more roads than much more highly developed countries, and these roads are there merely as a result of relief works.
The Government is interfering with and imposing upon the local bodies. It is insisting that the local body shall raise money and get into debt, not on its own decision that such a thing will serve a useful purpose, but on the decision of the Government. It seems to me to interfere with the autonomy— if you can call it autonomy—that is possessed by the local bodies. It is extending the indebtedness of the local bodies, which is already a problem facing this country; it is demanding that future generations will pay for the wages earned by certain people during this week and the asset that the future generations will receive might be written off as nothing—an unnecessary road. Therefore, this whole thing seems to me to be following on a course that we have been pursuing, ever since this State came into existence, if you like, but eminently during the last eight years. The national indebtedness has increased enormously and the local indebtedness has increased enormously, which means that during that time we have not only been consuming what we have produced but we have been anticipating what is going to be produced by the people who come after us and spending in anticipation of what they are going to produce. That seems to me to be one of the causes of the economic condition of the world generally. It is just putting off an evil day and making that day more evil than it otherwise would be. There is going to be no economic health in this country until the people are told that they have got to live upon what they produce in any 12 months.
One hears talk about an emergency. If you go all over this country you will see things that were done in 1840, in 1850, 1922, 1926, right through. We never got out of an emergency and now we say: "As there is an endemic emergency here, we will be borrowing money and attributing it to the emergency." You have got to get to the position when you recognise that what you call emergency is just mere normality in this country and being normal you have got to pay to meet the situation out of normal expenditure, that is to say, in any 12 months the people cannot spend more than they produce during that 12 months.
The content of this clause here is just another example of an evil course, which has been pursued not merely by this Government but by its predecessor, if you like, to a certain extent, but not to so great an extent, and which is going to face the people of this country later on with a situation in which they will have to recognise that while they will have to pay more taxation they will have to get less for that taxation, and while they will have to work harder they will have to expect a lower standard of living. That is the normal conclusion of the course which is indicated in this clause. In this case, if the local authority, by any miracle, should in its wisdom and its sense of responsibility say that it does not want to incur this additional debt the Minister can come along and say: "Whether you want to incur this additional debt or not, I decide that you have got to do it and if you do not I shall abolish you and your people will incur the responsibility of that debt in any case." I do not know what happens here but in England in connection with certain resorts where they are trying to get people to live, there, particularly in sea-side places, you will see advertisements telling you of the low rating in that district. They do that in order to assist in the development of the district by getting new people to come and build houses and live there. Under those circumstances the local authority is, as you might say, trying to sell its goods to get more people to come and build houses in that desirable locality.
In this country the constant increase in rates is, to my mind, a definite social evil. There are many houses in this city on which the ordinary rates which are to be paid, viewed rightly, would be an excessive rent for the house irrespective of the rights of the owner of the land and of the fabric of that house. That is the situation in this city, which means that you have got to have higher wages, and which has a social effect with enormous ramifications. Take the case I speak of. I do not know whether there are such places here where the local authority feels that there is an opportunity for developing by getting people to come and live in those places. In England you will constantly see advertisements telling you of the low rateage in such places. The Minister, sitting in his office in Dublin, is presumably going to force local bodies to impose an additional rate for ten or 20 years hence, because that is what is being done when you assent to the addition of debt. You are condemning the people in ten or 20 years' time to pay additional rates for a service that they are not getting, a service which has been enjoyed, which has been expended and exhausted during our times. It seems to me that you implement a thoroughly pernicious principle. I do not think what I am going to say is going to make the Government cease doing it, but I am not going to miss an opportunity of repeating what I have said so often.
