Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Jul 1927

Vol. 20 No. 6

ORDUITHE AN LAE. ORDERS OF THE DAY. - VOTE 25—SUPPLEMENTARY AGRICULTURAL GRANT.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £299,011 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith inííoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1928, chun an Deontas Talmhaíochta do mhéadú (Acht Rialtais Aitiúla (Rátaí ar Thalamh Thalmhaíochta), 1925).

That a sum not exceeding £299,011 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the increase of the Agricultural Grant (Local Government (Rates on Agricultural Land) Act, 1925).

As Deputies are aware, by this provision the Agricultural Grant is doubled. This supplementary grant is divided amongst the various counties in the Saorstát on the same basis as that on which the original agricultural grant was allocated.

I was wondering whether we were likely to have any communication from Farmer Deputies in regard to the need for economy and as to the inability of the State to bear this expense. I am referring to the contributions which we had from Farmer Deputies a couple of days ago when we were discussing the condition of unemployment insurance. All the pleas there were that the country could not afford a contribution to unemployment insurance. I am hoping to hear some explanation from the Farmer Deputies as to how we can afford this £598,000.

It would require an amendment of the law to enable Deputies on the Farmers' Benches to economise in this direction; so that it would be out of order to advocate economy on this.

I am sure that the Farmers regret it.

I ask the Minister whether, in the case of this year, the whole of this grant will go to reduction of rates. The Minister may have in mind what I have in mind in regard to the year 1925-26?

I recognise that in this debate Deputy Johnson is referring to the matter of the agricultural grant going towards the relief of rates on agricultural land. Why is it going towards the relief of rates on agricultural land? Because the rates on agricultural land have increased by leaps and bounds since the first grant was made in 1898. The expense of the Poor Law system and Home Help is at least three times as great now as it was then. The maintenance of our roads, lighting, water schemes and so on for the benefit of the people represented, to some extent, by Deputy Johnson and his Party in this House have increased in cost and are to-day, in some cases, four times as high as when the first relief was given. Something like 1/2 in the £ relief was given to rates in 1898, and the agricultural land was paying another 1/2 then. How do these figures compare all through the years? The 1/2 went up to 2/4, to 4/8 and to 9/6, but still on the other side the other 1/2 remained. The cost of these services, which are public utility services that benefit men in the labourers' cottages and benefit the urban workers, are paid for by the ratepayers of the counties. I might even go farther and say that other services are also paid for by the ratepayers of the different counties, to a very great extent services which are, in fact, not local but are really national services. Deputy Johnson and his Party comment on the benefit that has been given to the farmers through means of the Supplementary Agricultural Grant. This supplementary grant was long overdue. For very many years indeed the farmers, out of their limited resources, were maintaining services at a standard far above their means. I think Deputy Johnson knows that, and every Deputy here knows that as well as the Deputies on the benches where I sit. Every Deputy who has had to do with local administration knows that if this supplementary grant had not been forthcoming the maintenance of local services throughout the country would have to be reconsidered from the taxpayers' point of view and from the point of view of the ability of the local taxpayer to maintain them at all. The ability of the taxpayer to do so was very questionable. We have reached that state in local administration. Every service that Deputy Johnson's Party would like to have maintained could not be maintained if we were to depend on the people who pay the local rates. The charges for these services have gone up far beyond what the people could pay. The one section that has benefited by these services is the section represented in this House by Deputy Johnson, and if the Deputy is as fair in this as he is in other matters I think he will admit the truth of what I say. I am glad I got the opportunity of saying this.

I am in the position that I am not opposing this grant and therein lies the difference between my attitude and the attitude of Deputy Baxter. I say that the farmers are entitled, to this relief, and Deputy Baxter might have admitted that the unemployed workmen were entitled to an increase in the unemployment benefit which they were going to pay back; and that is the essential difference between the two cases. Deputy Baxter has talked about an increase in Poor Law charges, but he is going to have a greater increase in Poor Law charges by reason of the fact that he voted against the increase in unemployment benefit.

During the recent election, members of Deputy Johnson's Party claimed that they represented the farmers. Well, I think the farmers may well answer: "save us from our friends." Statements were made from the Labour benches that farm produce was up 200 per cent. That statement is absolutely unproved. The official records show that farm produce is on an average up 30 or 40 per cent. Those who go to fairs, as I do very frequently, know well that a great many of the more important articles of produce are scarcely above pre-war rate. It is not necessary for me to go over the ground covered by Deputy Baxter, but in one word I will show what this increase in rates is. When I first became a member of the Cork County Council, the total rate levied by the Council was considerably less than £200,000. This year it is £450,000. As Deputy Baxter has stated, a great many public services have been forced on the farmers. Farmers have to pay for them. I need not tell this House, nor need I tell Deputy Johnson, that if you follow it to its ultimate you will find that 90 per cent. of the money in Ireland is created or brought into the country by the farmers.

That is perfectly true. Follow it up and you will find it is perfectly true. Deputy Johnson, I am glad to say, seems to have changed his views. What he put forward in his first speech he corrected in his second.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share