I quite appreciate that there is not a definite bargain. It is true the Minister can bring in an equivalent sum. There is nothing, at the same time, in the Rules of the House to prevent a serious reduction in that Vote and it has run the gauntlet of the House. It is possible, owing to pressure that may be put on the Minister, that the money may not be given according to the Act of 1898, and it may be clogged with conditions. You may, perhaps, have an unholy alliance of the business men and the Labour Deputies to restrain the good efforts of the Minister or to wreck his benevolent intentions. I think the proper thing would be to make this payment out of the Central Fund. I am sure that the Minister must have his eye, more or less, on the fact that, while the trend of things will be to reduce expenditure, he may be afraid to stereotype the sum. That may be the case but I am not in a position to judge. Let us realise what the grant was. Let us go into its history. The agricultural grant, in essence, according to the precedent of 1898, means a contribution by the State equivalent to half the rates then levied on agricultural land. It is true that as the years went by the grant ceased to bear the ratio of fifty-fifty. That was, perhaps, due to the decline in the purchasing power of money and, in addition, to the fact that stringency was not observed by local bodies over moneys raised locally. I think it is undesirable that part of this money should come from the Central Fund and another part be voted annually. I think it would be better that there should be something in the nature of uniformity in the disposal of this grant. Will the Minister explain why it should come on the Estimates instead of on the Central Fund, as I see nothing to cause this differentiation? I ask the Government and the House to take the view that it is undesirable that this sum should appear on the Estimates, and that there is no justification, even if the occasion warrants such a remark, for it being submitted to a vote of the House. It is a payment in positive justice and, owing to the high expenditure in local administration, it falls far short of the sum required. Even if the Minister doubled the grant it would not bear the same ratio as that of 1898. The Minister may, perhaps, say that it is possible to increase it. It is possible but it is merely a theoretical right. The probabilities are that it will be a dwindling sum each year, and, in any case, other conditions will be put into operation and it will fall far short of the objective, namely, giving relief to the agrarian community.
