In Committee on Finance. - Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1932—Committee.
The Dáil went into Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment 1:—
In sub-section (1), page 3, to delete paragraphs (e) and (f).
The first amendment which is to delete paragraphs (e) and (f) must be taken in conjunction with the amendment to Section 5 which proposes to insert the words "other than the Irish Land Commission" after the word "person." The result of the amendments is, if they are carried, that the Irish Land Commission will not get the advantage of this Bill, and that they will have to pay full rate on their lands as heretofore. I mentioned yesterday afternoon that I would bring forward such amendments here. I listened last night to the Minister for Local Government. He said for two reasons an amendment of this nature should not be accepted. The first one he said was that the Land Commission should be treated as well as other persons would be. As a matter of fact they are not treated like other individuals in this Bill—they get preferential treatment —because whereas if an ordinary person has got several holdings of land, they are all taken together to form one general Poor Law unit and the Irish Land Commission if they have several units under the value of £10 each are entitled to have each one of these taken separately. The Minister for Local Government also said that any purchaser from the Land Commission would get that plus a remission on the rates. I must disagree with him on that point. He seems to think that the small portions or large portions of land in the hands of the Land Commission are lying there idle. They are not lying idle. The Land Commission is getting grazing rents for every one of them. There is no connection between the grazing rate or the poor rate or anything else, and the sum which the individual coming in is going to pay when he is given the land. The estates may be treated as units and the individuals are not. I have put my arguments as briefly as possible.
I cannot accept these amendments. As I said last night, I am surprised that the Deputy should be moving them in connection with this particular grant of a quarter of a million pounds when he and his Government last year, and on previous occasions, made much larger grants totalling one and three-quarter million pounds in aid of the agricultural community and he did not seek to impose this principle with regard to these specific grants. I do not know why he wants to do it now. The amount which is involved is not very material but it would have the effect in relation to the Bill we have before us of altering the whole principle of it; our Schedule would have to be altered, and our Bill could not be got through now.
A Deputy
That is so, and for that reason, and also for the reasons I gave last night, we cannot accept these amendments and must vote against them. It is correct, I maintain, that the advantage that is given to the Land Commission will go to the holder, whoever he may be, who may come into possession of the land now held by the Land Commission. The advantage will be gained by the holder of any of these lands who goes into occupation before the 31st March of this year.
The Minister is misinformed in that.
That is my information, and I am surprised that the Deputy in adopting that principle does not seek to bring in people who own small dwellings. They are given the same advantage as is given to the Land Commission in this Bill. They would possibly even get a greater measure of advantage than the Land Commission, and the Deputy has not sought to bring them in.
Why should I? They are not a Government Department.
Somebody has suggested to me that perhaps there is good reason for that—a reason which the Deputy is aware of. However, I will not go into that matter as it might lead us into an argument which would keep us here too long. I think it is not a principle that ought to be introduced on the small grant in view of the fact that first of all the principle was not introduced when much greater sums were in question, and secondly, for the purely practical matter that it would necessitate the altering of our whole Schedule as set out now, and we could not do that at this stage.
This is, of course, a very temporary Bill as far as I understand, to relieve agriculturists in the present stage of depression. But I do not see why the whole sum available should not go to the agriculturists. I do not see why some of it should go to the relief of the Land Commission. The Minister has said that he wants to relieve agriculture. If the Minister asks he will find out the position. As far as the other points with regard to the small dwellings that the Minister said did not come in, I want to say that I have not touched on the small dwellings; but small dwellings are not occupied by Government Departments. When there is £250,000 given in relief to agriculturists the whole should go in relief and some of it should not be kept back by the Government. If you are saying to the people. "We are giving you £250,000" then you should give it.
When the late Government last year gave £750,000 in relief why was not this thing done or this point made? Why did not the whole of that money go to the unfortunate agriculturists on the same lines that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney is now speaking about? The money did not go to them altogether.
The Deputy's memory is completely wrong. There was not the same need last year, because at that time Fianna Fáil had not broken down the Irish agricultural system. It took Fianna Fáil this year to break it down.
We pressed for one million last year and there was no question then when the Government gave £750,000 of not allowing any of it to the Land Commission. I am very glad to be able to establish that.
Is it a fact that the Deputy's colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, enunciated a principle that his Government did not approve of relief grants finding their way back to the Treasury and he instanced a case of a relief grant administered by the Land Commission? He said that the Land Commission was unable to expend the whole of the money during the financial year and that some of the money remained on hand, whereupon the surplus was sent back to the Treasury. This £250,000 is a relief grant and the object of Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney's amendment is to secure that no part of it will pass through the conduit pipe of the Land Commission. Do I take it that Fianna Fáil approves of that principle? If the Minister says that he accepts the principle but that it would be impossible now to put it into operation in this Bill owing to the amount of work in the Schedule, then I am prepared to accept the section as it is, if the Minister says that in any future grant care will be taken to exclude the Land Commission from any benefits given to the small holders.
I wonder if Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has any idea of what would be involved if the Land Commission were not to be given these moneys, or if they were to pass back to the Exchequer. It would be a very small sum of money, perhaps not more than £200 or £300 at the most.
Does the Minister accept the principle?
I certainly agree that it is not the best thing that any of this money should go back to the Land Commission or the Treasury. I quite agree with that and if the principle had been enunciated when the previous agricultural grants were made by this House I certainly would have approved of it. It is not at all the proper thing that moneys that are intended for the relief of agriculturists should go back to the Treasury. At any rate, I am informed that the whole sum that might go back to the Land Commission or into the Treasury would not amount to more than £200 or £300.
I am glad that the Minister is so imitative. I notice he cannot do anything except what was done by Cumann na nGaedheal. I would point out to him that this relief has to be given entirely because of the bad administration and the bad politics of Fianna Fáil.
I am glad that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney agrees with us about money going back to the Land Commission.
I am glad that I am able to gladden Deputy Corry's heart.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
The specified proportion for the purposes of this Act of the specified valuation of any agricultural land shall be that amount of such specified valuation which bears to such specified valuation the same proportion as the grant payable under this Act to the council of the county or urban district in which such agricultural land is situate bears to the aggregate amount of all the specified valuations of agricultural land in such county or urban district.
I would like to ask whether there is a constant ratio between the amount of the grant to agriculturists and the specified valuation in each county?
I suggest to the Minister that there does not appear to be. Perhaps he would say what the figure is. If the Minister examines the position as between Leitrim and Sligo in this Bill it practically means that £1 is going to be given to every holder of land. There are 160,000 persons with holdings under ten acres; and the equivalent of persons under £10 valuation mark leaves you in the position that you have about 250,000 who are going to get money out of this grant and they are to get about £1 each. But if you look to the position in some counties you will find that the Sligo men are going to get 22/- whereas the Leitrim man is going to get £1. The Cavan man is going to get 22/- while the Monaghan man will only get £1; the Kilkenny man is getting only 16/- and the men here in Dublin will get only 12/-. I would ask the Minister to say whether that is so or not and what the ratio is between the grant and the total amount specified?
75 per cent. or three-fourths of the first £10 of the valuation.
Can the Minister say what the ratio is which is meant to hold constant as between the grant and the whole specified valuations?
The principle that was adopted was to get a formula that would so work out that it would cover 75 per cent. of the first £10 in the case of people who were over the £10 valuation or three-fourths of those who had £10 or under.
Do I understand from the Minister that the actual grant that a person may receive in one county will be different from the grant he may receive from another county but will be based on the size of the rate levy in the different counties?
It is based on the valuation, not on the rate.
I would suggest that the Minister should examine that very carefully before it is finally dealt with. He will see how the position in Leitrim, Sligo, Cavan, Monaghan and Kilkenny will be differently affected according to the number under the £10 valuation in each of these counties. As it is, the Minister's theory would not seem to work out equitably.
Section 3 put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendment 2:—
In sub-section (1), page 4, line 2, to insert after the word "person" the words "other than the Irish Land Commission."—(Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(1). Every credit note issued under this Act by the council of a county or an urban district to any person which is tendered by such person on or before the 31st day of March, 1933, in or towards payment of any rate made on such person by such council in respect of the service of the local financial year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1932, or any previous local financial year, shall be accepted and taken by such council as a payment of money to the amount of such credit note.
I want to say a word about Section 6. This is an innovation in finance. It is unfortunate that it should occur so late as it is at this time of the year. The Minister deserves no credit for bringing it in by the end of December at a time when the rates have been struck and when many of them have already been fully paid. A credit note now will arise under this Bill and——
Before the Deputy makes a greater fool of himself than he is making, may I say this: That this Government came into operation on 9th March last, that this agricultural grant was met with immediately, and that instructions were given for these credit notes to be given and they were issued in April or May.
I am dealing with that. That was not statutory. I know a number of cases in which rates have been paid in full and a credit note comes back. It means a double entry of accounts. That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The Ministry came into office in March, they produce their Budget in May. They have had from May down to this date to do it. They had sufficient time to do it. If more attention had been given to this and less to politics, it would be better.
With regard to people who are in the position of not having paid rates, people such as Deputy Cosgrave has spoken about, I would like to know from the Minister whether the amount of the credit note would be put to the credit of their rates where they have not paid their rates before 31st March next?
Section 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
I beg to move amendment 3:—
In page 6 opposite the word "Waterford" in the first column to delete the figures "£4,612" and substitute the figures "£4,572", and before the word "Westmeath" but in the second and third columns to insert the word and figures "Dungarvan £40."
The reason I move this amendment is because in County Waterford there is one urban district which, in my opinion, should have been included. I fail to see why this district was omitted when towns of less importance have been included. The amount of relief to be given is not very much. I had not much time to make out the exact figures, but I estimated it roughly at £40. That is not a very big sum, but in these rather difficult times it will afford a certain amount of relief to the urban holders.
This subject was dealt with last evening when we were discussing the Second Reading. I do feel that the agricultural holders in urban areas ought all to get the same relief as agriculturists outside in the rural areas. It was not found possible, however, to introduce that principle with regard to this allocation. I will repeat what I said last night. As regards this question of agricultural land, all the grants that were made in previous years by previous Governments and also this grant, the whole subject will, at an early date, have to be re-examined. These grants were made at different times, on different bases and on different principles. I think the whole subject will have to be re-examined.
If it could be done, I would like to see it done before another year is finished. I would like to see the grants consolidated where they are given on one definite principle and I would also like to have included the holders of agricultural land in all urban areas. Some of them have the advantage of getting the different grants now, but until such time as that re-examination is made and the whole subject investigated as to the method of division of these grants and the principles on which they are to be made, I think the question of towns like Dungarvan and other similar towns where there is agricultural land within the urban area, will have to stand over.
I raised this matter by way of question with the Minister to-day and I did not feel quite satisfied with his answer. I think the Minister's statement now shows that he is not quite satisfied with regard to this matter. Deputy Goulding and myself are agreed that towns like Dungarvan, Kinsale and Bandon, urban areas in country districts, should be put on the same basis as regards agricultural grants as the general agricultural land in the rural districts. In those cases there is agricultural land within the urban boundary and I do not see what difficulty or trouble can arise about scheduling this type of agricultural land so as to give it the benefit of the derating schemes. I do not see what examination the Minister needs, because it is a fairly simple thing to define agricultural land within the urban boundary in places like Dungarvan, Bandon, Kinsale, Fermoy and Macroom. They all stand in the same relation to each other.
I find it difficult to understand why any examination has to be made. I do not know if the Minister himself understands what examination is necessary. It is an important point for the people within the urban boundaries who want relief. I cannot see why there should be any difficulty in extending it to them. Will the Minister explain what difficulties there are? Agricultural land is agricultural land whether it is on a mountain, in an area remote from a town, or whether it is within the boundary of a country town. I can quite understand difficulties in a city where so-called agricultural land within a city boundary may have potential value as accommodation land or as building land, but I cannot understand why, in respect of a country town, an examination has to be made to find out the difference between agricultural land within an urban boundary and agricultural land outside that boundary. One piece of land may be a half mile from the centre of the town and another piece over one and a half miles away. This is a very important matter for the individuals concerned.
My reason for submitting the amendment was to bring the matter into the light. We have been endeavouring for some time past to get this anomaly rectified. It has been referred to adequately by Deputy O'Neill. If we have an assurance from the Minister that it is going to receive attention, I am quite willing to withdraw the amendment.
Will the Minister give us an assurance on this particular point?
I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
Obviously the Minister does not understand the question.
The Minister does not understand the position.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Ordered—That the Fourth and Fifth Stages be taken to-day.
Question—"That the Bill be received for Final Consideration"— agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—agreed to.
Message to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.
