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.