I beg to move amendment 1:—
In line 20 to delete the figures "84" and substitute the figures "48."
This amendment is merely to correct a typographical error in the Bill.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RATES ON AGRICULTURAL LAND) BILL, 1925—THIRD STAGE.
In this Act—
the expression "agricultural grant" means the agricultural grant referred to in Section 84 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, as adapted by or in pursuance of any subsequent enactment;
the expression "county council" does not include a county borough council;
other expressions have the same meaning as in the Local Government (Ireland) Acts, 1898 to 1919.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
That amendment will also apply to the title?
No. The title is a different thing.
SECTION 2, SUB-SECTION (2).
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, the supplementary grant shall for the purposes of any enactment be deemed to form part of the agricultural grant, and in particular shall be subject to the provisions of Section 40 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, in relation to the agricultural grant."
I beg to move amendment 2:—
In sub-section (2), line 34, to delete all after the word "grant" to the end of the sub-section.
I could understand the position of the Minister with regard to the other grant, seeing that it came from the Central Fund, but when this has to come forward as an Estimate it seems to me to make the position more involved. My main objection to the retention of these words is, that the benefits intended to be conferred on ratepayers under the Bill may be deferred owing to the fact that certain persons may not pay up their land purchase annuities. Of course I admit that is a difficult problem to deal with. While it may have to be admitted that the State must indemnify itself by some means or other in respect of the payment of interest on stock that has been issued, still I think this principle of what I might call collective punishment for the sins of the few is a vicious one. The Minister, when introducing his Budget, gave an indication of his intentions on this matter. He said that they had already sufficient money in the Guarantee Fund. This is the period when you have the greatest number of defaulters, and therefore I think the Minister could, without any great danger to the Guarantee Fund, consent to the deletion of these words.
These words are really put in for the purpose of clarity and lucidity. They are not necessary, and their deletion would not really weaken the section, but at the same time I propose to retain them. It would be quite sufficient to say that for the purposes of any enactment it shall be deemed to form part of the agricultural grant. That would mean that it was subject to the provisions of Section 40, but we just want to make it quite clear that it is subject to those deductions. It ought to be quite clear that if in any county there are defaulters in the matter of the payment of land purchase annuities, we could not take up the position of paying money out of the Exchequer for the purpose of giving relief to rates on agricultural land. A situation might arise in which it would be valuable that we should have the greatest possible power of deduction as against any defaults that might exist. There is no great danger or difficulty in dealing with individual defaulters, but you might sometimes have some type of a mass movement, and it would be better that there should be some means of dealing with that other than by troops and bayonets. I believe the power of deducting from the payments in respect of agricultural lands, when there is a default in the matter of land purchase annuities, is a valuable provision. It is one which is necessary, and one which, in certain circumstances, might be really invaluable to the State. It would provide a certain means of preventing an improper or an unnecessary burden being thrown on the Exchequer without at the same time making extremely harsh action or extremely drastic action on the part of the Executive necessary.
I more or less agree with the Minister on this. There is a common idea abroad that the State is something apart from the citizen, and that refusal to pay the State money is not a matter to be considered very much. I think that the retention of this provision is necessary. It will bring home to the general body of the citizens throughout the country that in reality the refusal of people to pay up their land purchase annuities amounts to taking money out of the pockets of the average citizen. It will make people realise too that defaulters are really people who are putting their hands into the pockets of other people. I think that the operation of this provision will have a very wholesome effect and I am certainly in favour of its retention.
In view of what has been stated I am willing to withdraw the amendment. Deputy Gorey said that it must be brought home to the average citizen that the State is more or less personal. I never suggested anything to the contrary. Statements of the kind have been made down the country, but I do not accept responsibility for statements made in other places. I still hold that the principle of collective responsibility is a bad one. It may have had its advantages in less civilised times, but I think we have come to a stage of development at which its retention is undesirable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Before the section is put, I desire to ask the Minister whether this money will be applied in the same manner as the money that used to be voted under the Act of 1898. I want to know if the respective unions in the country will get their share of the grant in the same ratio as they did under the Act of 1898.
It will be dealt with precisely as the original agricultural grant was dealt with, except as regards certain provisions in regard to this year, which are dealt with in a later section.
Will it include what were known as union charges?
They are dealt with precisely in the same way.
Question—"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 were agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I would like an explanation as to what this section really means: "A county council shall apply any surplus which may be available of the portion of the Supplementary Grant which is applicable to county-at-large, county board of health, union or district charges as the case may be." Could the Minister tell us what that means?
The old agricultural grant was allocated under three heads, namely: County-at-large charges, union charges, and district charges. The unions have been abolished, and consequently the second heading becomes board of health charges, and as the share of the original agricultural grant, applicable to union charges in some counties, amounts to more than half of the estimated cost of the board of health charge, the allocation of the total grant to that head would leave a surplus. This clause allows the application of the surplus to the relief of the other heads, that is, under the head of county-at-large charges or district charges.
The Minister's remarks leave me more or less still in the dark. Suppose in the case of a certain union in the country that received in 1898 a relief of, say, 2s. in the £ on agricultural land, will not the same union under this Bill, that is presupposing that the grant under the 1898 Act is doubled, receive another 2s., and will not that be devoted while we have an amalgamation of unions to public health services, and is it not quite possible that there may be a surplus in the case of some of those unions? I want to know is it the intention of the Ministry, in the first instance, to devote this money in the same manner as was done under the 1898 Act?
Yes, but only where there is a surplus.
Section 5 agreed to and added to the Bill.
Sections 6, 7 and 8 agreed to and added to the Bill.
Ordered that the Bill, as amended, be reported to the Dáil.