I move that Section 1 do now pass.
Public Business. - Land (Purchase Annuities Fund) Bill, 1933—Committee Stage.
On Section 1, I should like to ask why is it considered necessary to proceed beyond the simple repeal of certain phrases in sub-section (2) of Section 12 set out here? Would the Minister indicate why, in his view, it is necessary to go on to enact positively that:
"the moneys which are at the passing of this Act or shall from time to time thereafter be standing to the credit of the Purchase Annuities Fund shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer."
On that point, I am happy to be in a position to gratify the Deputy. If the Deputy remembers his own speeches as clearly as members of the Government do, he will recall that on the 1st March last he asked:
"Why are they taking this sum out of taxation? Why not break in on the nest egg? What about the four millions cash held out as a glittering price to the people? £48,000 is a small sum out of the £4,000,000 to be distributed."
I must say that the Deputy's arguments were very coercive and they were further reinforced by the fact that the organ, for which I understand the Deputy has a great deal of personal responsibility, has been clamouring that these moneys should be taken out of the Suspense Account and used for the purpose of reducing taxation or meeting expenditure.
They said that about October last.
I am sure the Deputy is pleased that, even at this late hour, we are able to gratify him and meet his wishes.
I am afraid the Minister has not understood my question.
That is the purpose for which it is proposed to make these funds available—for the general purposes of the Exchequer.
That is not my question. My question is why do you proceed beyond the simple repeal of a certain part of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act? Why not stop at the phrase "is hereby repealed"? Why go on to enact positively that these moneys shall be paid into and disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer? What is the reason for that?
So as to make our powers in that regard unquestionable.
Then we have this peculiar thing that we have come up against two or three times, that when the Government proceed to legislate on foot of certain old contentions that they have put before the country, they manage always to let the cat out of the bag. The Oath was not mandatory and yet when we came to the actual piece of legislation in regard to it, it bore on the face of it the recognition that there was a breach of the Treaty. They purported to remove the Commissioner of the Civic Guards recently and we found that they had done it under a repealed Act. Now, they come here on the old contention that these moneys were never payable to the British and on foot of a legal opinion to that effect, and the lawyers who gave that legal opinion were referred to here by the President on the last motion that was down with regard to this. Let me quote from these legal opinions as set out in a pamphlet published by the National Executive of Fianna Fáil. At a small cost of 3d, you can get all this lore. The lawyers were a little bit afraid of the courts intervening in this matter. They replied to the question as to why it should not be left to the courts to determine and this is what they said:
When it is said that the question of implied repeal should be tested in the courts we must point out that a court might fairly decline upon an implication to determine so grave a matter.
They continue, lower down:
....and so long as Section 12 (2) with its express direction to the Minister for Finance is left on the Statute Book, the court will assume that the deliberate intention of the Legislature is to continue the payments directed by Section 12 (2).
I am sure that the Minister for Finance will agree with that. So long as that section was left in its present form, the court would likely assume that the Legislature's intention was there expressed and, therefore, would decide contrary to the opinion of the whole Fianna Fáil Party and their legal advisers. They then continue in this strain:
....and that, if the Legislature intends the payments to stop, it will make its wish clear by the ready and simple expedient of the repeal of Section 12 (2).
Why not carry that out now when the people in office owe their positions simply to the fact that they founded themselves on the lawyers' opinion and bamboozled certain folk with it? Why not adopt it in its entirety? Why not adopt what was stated here so precisely—the ready and simple expedient of the repeal of Section 12 (2)? I should like to give the answer as it appears to me. You do not dare to do it because you know that it will leave the position very much as it was before and instead of there being an express direction from the Legislature in Section 12 (2) to pay these moneys over to the appropriate authority— and about that there might be argument—if you had simply repealed the section and left the whole situation to be governed by previous Acts, the lawyers' definite contention, by going into the implication of previous Acts and the old Land Purchase Acts, would be that the money would still continue to be appropriated for such purposes as the reduction of annuities and the payment of Sinking Fund on these advances. So that we have here the position that neither the lawyers nor the old propaganda of the Fianna Fáil Party is believed in and we are going to take special directions. This is not going to be left to any implication or to any lawyers' argument about what was the situation under the old Land Acts. Away with that now. We are going definitely to enact here and now:
That any moneys which are, at the passing of this Act or shall from time to time thereafter be standing to the credit of the Purchase Annuities Fund shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer.
That is the best and most effective turning down of the people who advised that these moneys should be retained here. We have so little belief in them that we are not going to adopt their advice that the Legislature should now enact that the moneys should be so disposed of by the simple and ready expedient of repealing Section 12 (2). No, we are going to make the section complete and secure by enacting that the moneys will be paid into and disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer.
With regard to sub-section (2) of Section 1, I would like to ask if the Minister can indicate how long local authorities are to be kept out of the money already owing to them, because of sums withheld from them up to 31st January 1932?
How long are they to be kept out of the money? As soon as the arrears come in they will be distributed in the ordinary way to the local authorities.
Are we to understand, then, that in paying out the moneys that are due to be paid in full to the stockholders under the 1923 and subsequent Acts, these moneys will be taken in full from the moneys that are coming in from the Land Purchase Annuities generally, or are they only going to be taken from the moneys coming in from purchasers under the 1923 and subsequent Acts? I submit that if the moneys coming in under the 1923 and subsequent Acts are going to be definitely ear-marked for the payment of the stockholders under these Acts, when you take into consideration the reduction in the amount of land annuities contemplated by the Minister the local authorities will never get one half-penny of the £793,000 outstanding to them at the present moment.
I think the Deputy is under a misapprehension. He assumes the Guarantee Fund arrangement is not going to be suitably adjusted in the new Land Bill to meet the situation which will be created by the permanent reduction in the land annuities. I think that is the surmise that underlies the Deputy's question. Of course that is not the position. The Guarantee Fund will merely be of that size which will be sufficient to cover any arrears that may arise in connection with the reduced annuities.
I think there is one point that has been overlooked. The largest sum outstanding for the whole period in respect of which the Land Purchase Annuities have been paid was on 31st January, 1932. It was the sum Deputy Mulcahy has indicated, £793,000. The previous year it amounted to £581,000. Assuming for a moment that £200,000 was in respect of the December annuity of 1931, in respect of which the Ministry offered on 22nd June last a moratorium, and undertook to fund any outstanding instalments due for the November and December annuities of 1931, what is the position of the Guarantee Fund in respect of that transaction? Are they going to get only the interest and sinking fund on the funded instalments, or will they get the full amount and let the Government or the Land Commission get the interest and sinking fund? It is a considerable sum of money for local authorities. It amounts to £200,000. That particular point, whether or not the Ministry have considered it, is one in which the local authorities are very seriously interested.
I think the Deputy must not have been in the House when I was dealing with this matter yesterday. I mentioned that this is the first year, since the agricultural grants were established, in which the local authorities are receiving the full amount, £2,198,000.
That is not the point.
That is not true.
I beg your pardon, it is.
Oh, no.
I am sorry, but——.
My point is that in respect of deductions from central moneys going into the local taxation account the local authorities are out £793,000. That sum of money is due to them. It is to be observed that the highest sum previously withheld was in 1923, after the pronunciamento by the present Minister for Justice. The amount was £642,000. It is right to say that while the annuities collectible then amounted approximately to £3,000,000, by reason of the passing of the Act of 1923, £1,000,000 was added. While the non-payments amounted to £526,000 under the pre-1923 Act, the 1923 Act was responsible for £139,000 of arrears on 10th January, 1931. There is the question also of insufficiency of income, but the main point is that local authorities suffered deductions amounting to £793,000 on 31st January, 1932.
There was an additional £200,000 lost for the year 1932. That arose, we may assume, out of the non-payment of the November and December annuities of 1931. The Minister announced on 22nd June last, or about that time, that they proposed to fund that particular instalment. If they are going to fund it, presumably they look upon it as a good debt. If they are going to fund it, and it is going to be repayable over the next 50 years, it means the local authorities, if they are only going to get interest and sinking fund, will be 50 years getting it. That is not fair to the local authorities. If it is a good debt they ought to get it. If it is not a good debt, some of the responsibility in respect to it rests upon the Ministry. At any rate, it was never contemplated by any of these Acts that in the event of an instalment not being paid or some difficulty arising about instalments, the sum in question would be funded and that the local authorities would get the interest and sinking fund over a period of 50 years.
I should like to direct attention to the fact that the sum of £700,000 odd is exceeded by the June and December gales of this year. This money will not be going into current revenue in this year, next year, or any other year, owing to the condition of the collection of land annuities generally. The sum stated by the Minister yesterday—the amount in arrear—was, I think, in excess of £1,000,000. That is also supposed to be funded. We may take it that approximately £2,000,000 will have to be funded. In the meantime it is looked upon as a good debt. I want to press home the total amount of that. If the Minister states that we will have an opportunity of dealing with this when the new Land Bill is under consideration, the matter can be passed over now; but it cannot be passed over if the Minister does not give an undertaking that it will be dealt with in connection with the new Land Bill. The Local authorities cannot stand this loss arising out of conditions imposed upon them by factors operating outside their administration.
I think the position is as the Deputy has already indicated that in the case of the gales for November and December, 1931, there was a deficiency of over £700,000 in the land annuities collection.
£793,000.
Including arrears arising out of that gale. I think that was the position on the 31st March last—that is, that £793,000 was due. Some of those arrears have come in since and have been disbursed to the local authorities. A considerable balance is still to be collected and a large amount of them might never be collected. Our proposal is to fund those arrears over a period. The position, according to a considerable body of opinion in this House, was that the farmers were unable to pay these land annuities even before March, 1932, and that a considerable portion of them would have to be written off. They would have to be written off at the expense of the local authorities. The position of the local authorities has been, therefore, improved to this extent that, in funding those arrears, we are reducing the present commitments of the tenant purchasers by 50 per cent., thereby putting them in a better position to pay off those arrears.
That is not the point.
At any rate, we are creating a condition of putting up a good asset for the local authorities. The fact is that we are allowing the people time to pay by funding those annuities. Consequently, the utmost the local authorities could expect is that they should be credited with these annuities as they come into the Guarantee Fund or, simply, as they accrue to the Guarantee Fund. Whether, in all the circumstances, that is equitable or not is a matter that can be discussed on the new Land Bill. At any rate that is my present intention.
The Minister loses sight of a fundamental principle of municipal finance. That is that the ratepayer has a life of twelve months only. His life begins on the 1st April and that life ends on the 31st March following. During that period the ratepayer is responsible for and he should only bear the cost consequent upon the public services of the local authority for that period. This particular transaction that the Government initiated on its own, deprives the local authorities of the £200,000 in question and spreads it over the lives of ratepayers some of whom are not yet born. That is not municipal finance. It disturbs the whole system. The ratepayers are entitled to get that money back, according to law, as it comes in. We have arrested its coming in. We say we do not want it for 50 years and in consequence local finance is upset. Instead of getting a lump sum of money on a particular day the money is funded over a period. The Ministry is only committing itself to give only the interest and sinking fund so far as this £200,000 is concerned for 50 years. That is unjust on the whole basis of municipal accountancy. The ratepayer was entitled to whatever benefits he was in receipt of hitherto by these payments. This is a new departure from public body initiated by the Government.
How does the Minister reconcile his statement that there will be no reduction from the grants this year with the proposal in this Bill to spread over the arrears of last year for 50 years and to ask the local authorities to wait for a repayment over that period?
I am concerned only with the simple fact that we are putting up £2,198,000 which we are proposing to pay.
I thought it was 1¾ millions.
I said for this year, that is what we are proposing to pay for this year.
I submit that the Minister for Finance is raising all kinds of hares in order to get away from a simple point, and the simple point is this: that the local authorities, so far as we know, may have to wait until Tibb's Eve so far as getting back any portion of that £793,000 is concerned. The Minister for Finance talks about the way in which the grants have been withheld in the past. Is the Minister aware that so far as the collection of land annuities is concerned the collection was such on the 31st January, 1924, that the local authorities in that one year got £110,000 more than they would have got if the additional land annuities had not been paid? Is the Minister aware that in the following year, up to the 31st of January, 1925, in respect of the situation brought about by the payment of land annuities, the local authorities got £90,000 more than they otherwise would have got if deficiencies created in previous years had not been made good. In respect of the land annuities collected in January, 1927, is he aware that the collection was such that the local authorities got £100,000 more than they would have got if the deficiency had not been made good? More than that, when the Minister comes to the matter of the inability of the farmers to pay their land annuities, the fact is that when you come down to more recent years, as far as the payment of land annuities proper is concerned as distinct from the effect on the Guarantee Fund of insufficiency of income, which does not arise from farmers' non-payment, the collection in January, 1929, was such that £20,000 was released to the local authorities, and in the following year a sum of £21,000 was released in addition to their full yearly grants. But it is only when we come down to 1931 and 1932 that the local authorities were deprived of moneys—in 1931, £46,000, and in the second year £66,000. Now there is a sum of £793,000 outstanding from the local authorities. A sum of £260,000 in respect of non-payments in the year ended July, 1932, has been withheld from them as a result of the campaign by the Minister's Party about the non-payment of land annuities leading up to the general election of 1932. In respect, therefore, of more than one-third of what is outstanding it can be said that it is the effect of the definite campaign of the Minister's own Party. The local authorities in their present condition of finance must remain out of that money now and no attempt will be made to pay them for 40, 50 or 60 years.
The Deputy, I am sure, is very innocent. He has the figures in front of him, and he knows that in July, 1930, the total amount withheld from the local authorities in respect of local taxation grants had amounted to, in the aggregate, £514,000. That amount increased to £546,000 on the 31st January, 1931, and in July, 1932, the figures stood at £808,000, arrears which had accumulated in very much better times. Certainly it would be inequitable to collect this money in respect to which the local authorities would never receive one penny piece grant in 1932 or 1933.
How does the Minister argue that?
Because the facts are there that the total arrears had been increasing continuously.
Because the facts are over there now and they were over here in 1931.
After all, the Deputy was here in 1930 and 1931. Possibly that is an explanation of the fact that between 31st July, 1930, and 31st January, 1932, the total arrears in respect of the several gales had risen from £514,000 to £808,000. The tenant purchasers failed by that additional amount to meet their obligations. If the Deputy looks back on the haleyon days of 1931, which he probably never expects will come again, he will see that there is no unfairness, that we are not acting inequitably in saying that in so far as, by the reduction of the land annuities, we have made these arrears collectable, the local authorities should only get them as they come into the Guarantee Fund. They would never have been collectable if it had not been for the permanent reduction.
Why make a statement of that kind? Is not this a capital charge on the land? It remains a good debt and a statement of that kind is ridiculous.
That is a very strange statement for the Minister to make considering that the farmer had to pay the annuities in full last year to the British Government and that he has made a fair attempt to pay them to the Land Commission as well. He has now held out the carrot before the farmer's nose—that half the Land Commission annuities will be remitted in the future. Why saddle the local authorities with the entire arrears of annuities? Why not halve the arrears? This £790,000 is only juggling with figures. It is to be taken from the farmer on one account and is to go back to him on another account. Why not be honest with the local taxpayers? You are going to get a windfall, if everything goes according to order, of half the annuities into the Exchequer.
A windfall?
Yes, a windfall. Of course, that will not be the whole story. A lot of water will flow under the bridges before that is as easily accomplished as it was when the doctrine was preached that it was illegal and immoral to pay land annuities to Britain. Now we are engaged in legalising the non-payment of them to Britain. The farmer was told that he would not have to pay his annuities at all. During the progressive stages of that campaign of non-payment of annuities, arrears naturally accumulated. Simply because the Minister was not on the bench on which he now is, he blamed those who were on the bench and who were suffering from the effects of the campaign the Minister and his colleagues put over on the country. Now he has to face up to realities. He was hardly landed in his seat to-day when he betrayed the new malady he is suffering from—"farmerities." He was hardly seated when he expressed his sympathy with the farmers. Now, let him express his sympathy with the farmers in hard cash—that is the only sympathy the farmers want and it is the only sympathy that counts. We do not want any more empty formulas if we are going to till our land.
The farmer is going to be deprived of this £750,000. He is not going to get the benefit, as Deputy Cosgrave pointed out, of the agricultural grant to which that is due, even if times become normal. A big slice of that would be paid in if times improved, but now, whether they improve or remain stagnant or become worse, they cannot be paid in in full for 50 years. During that time, the local taxpayer has to remain out of the benefits of those arrears. The Minister might consider the charging of that amount to the new windfall he is getting from half the annuities. Let the half of the annuities that he is going to collect pay the arrears of the past and give credit to the local taxpayer for the arrears that are due to him.
It is quite obvious that the Ministry has not considered this question because, in the defence made for leaving things as they are and allowing money to flow into the Guarantee Fund in relief of this enormous sum, the Minister emphasised the advantages that are being given by remission of half the annuities. It so happens that landholders are not all paying land annuities. Land is held in some cases in fee-simple. In other cases, it is subject to fee-farm grants. In some other cases, the people who are responsible for land annuities have either bought them out or bought portion of them out. I need not go into the various types of leases or other instruments under which people hold land. These people are getting no benefit. While they represent an inconsiderable number, it is unfair to impose upon them a liability in respect of the Government's policy which was not contemplated and which is not enshrined in either the Local Government Act or the Land Purchase code. The matter has not been considered and, in respect of whatever instalments have been funded, the sum in question should be given to the local authorities in these very difficult times when their liabilities are increasing in practically every case and the collections are very considerably down in percentage.
The Minister has pointed out that this amount— £792,000—is irrecoverable. How can he say that? Is not the property of the people who owe this money responsible for the debt? Is not the farm charged with the arrears? If these people were selling their farms to-morrow, would not the arrears be there as a liability on the incoming tenant?
Does the Minister suggest that the farmers' property in this State is worth nothing?
He does not. Debates in this House would be much more useful if only the Opposition would speak with one voice instead of two voices. Last night, they were telling us that the land was worth nothing and that the farmers could not pay their annuities. Now, they tell us that it is perfectly good security for any charge placed upon it. It is, Accordingly, as soon as the arrears are paid off by the farmers, who are perfectly good marks for these arrears according to Deputy Bennett and Deputy O'Leary, and as soon as they are paid into the Guarantee Fund, they will be given out to the local authorities—no sooner. We are not changing——
Are the taxpayers for the next 50 years going to be the same people as the taxpayers of to-day?
Deputy O'Leary does not expect me to guarantee that.
You are robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I am accepting the Minister's standard and I hope the new Land Bill will be considered on that basis.
I wonder has the Minister considered in connection with this section if an adjustment of this dispute between us and the British Government takes place to whom will the money that the British Government by their tariffs have confiscated off the price of agricultural produce at their ports, belong? Who will get that moneys when the adjustment takes place, if ever?
I do not propose to answer a hypothetical question like that.
The Minister ought to know that that has been confiscated off the price of the agricultural produce and was taken directly out of the farmer's pocket. He has to pay the Minister too—he is paying twice. This is the benefit the farmer is going to get and the local taxpayer is going to get. I think the Minister wants time to consider the matter, because he obviously has not considered it at all yet.
The important point to be considered in connection with this matter is how the grants in relief of rates on agricultural land are being cut down this year. It has come as a great bombshell to the local authorities when making up their estimates for the coming year to find that the grants are to be cut down from £2,198,000 to £1,750,000.
I do not know whether next year's grant properly arises under this Bill.
Look at Vote 25.
The only point I am making in that regard is that if there is going to be a discussion of next year's grant it will more properly arise on the Central Fund Bill.
We have an Estimate before us showing a reduction of £480,000 in the Agricultural Grant.
That Estimate is not before the House.
Part of it is—the Vote on Account.
Does this Bill refer to next year and the subsequent years, or last year?
1933-34.
I am dealing with the state of affairs that has arisen in connection with local authorities when making the rates for the present year owing to the unsatisfactory treatment of them by the central authority. The main thing is that a sum of nearly half a millon pounds in relief of agricultural rates has been withheld. To give a concrete case, the Cork County Council should be making their estimate to-day, but I do not think they will be able to do so, because the reduction of the grants in the case of Cork County Council will mean withholding a sum of £56,000. There is also a demand for an extra £73,000 on the local services, so that they have to meet an increased liability of £129,000. That is an amount that the Cork County Council find it very difficult to put on the farmers, having regard to their ability to pay, to the fact that in this last month of the financial year only 50 per cent. of the rates have been collected, and that they are faced with the possibility of an increase of 50 per cent. in the rates for the new year. I think that condition of things is not confined to the County Cork, but applies to many other counties, particularly purely agricultural counties, and by that I mean counties where there are mixed tillage farms. We must also consider the ability of the farmer to pay. In a county such as Cork it has been reduced to about half. If he is not able to pay a rate of 8/- in the £ at present, how is he, with his decreased profits, going to meet a rate of 12/6 in the £ for the coming year? That is the practical fact that emerges out of the discussion, and the dishonest policy with regard to the land annuities, because it is coming back on the farmer again in a double and mischievous manner. I am afraid the Minister does not realise the seriousness of the position into which the local services are being rushed. It is evident that unless some extraordinary relief is forthcoming the rates will not be able to be collected, at all events in the way they were collected for the last year. There will be a serious and imminent breakdown in the local services administered by boards of public health, road services, etc., unless some serious step is taken by the Minister to come to the aid of the local authorities.
Before we pass from the section I should like to refer to something the Minister said last night. I should not like this section to pass without some reference to the amendment of Deputy Cosgrave. The Minister said last night that those who voted for that amendment voted in fact to prevent any grants being made to local bodies; in other words, that if we did not pass this Bill we would be upsetting all the machinery for making grants to local bodies. I wonder how were the grants made to local bodies under the old conditions. Does the Minister assume that if the campaign about the land annuities had not begun or had not continued the agricultural grant would have ceased to be payable and that all grants in lieu of rates would cease to be payable? I have another objection to this measure. Deputy Cosgrave's amendment, even though the Minister assumed that it was directed towards the stoppage of grants, was directed altogether differently. It was to end the conditions under which we are labouring at present owing to the unfortunate economic war. Two Ministers last night said that they had done more for the farmers than they should have done.
The Deputy must bring his argument into relation with Section 1 of the Bill—"Disposal of moneys in the Purchase Annuities Fund."
Section 1 proposes anyway to use the Land Purchase Annuities Fund for the general purposes of taxation.
The Minister stated he wanted the money for local authorities.
The Minister proposes to use the land purchase money for the general purpose of taxation and says that unless he gets that money he will not be able to make any grants to local authorities. That is the argument of the Minister himself.
That is the basis of the case.
That is the basis of the case the Minister made. He said last night that they have done more for the farmers, meaning the local ratepayers as well, than they ought to have done. I want to know in what sense the Minister used that term. Does he mean it in a sarcastic sense—that by the stoppage of the British markets they have done more for the farmers than they ought to have done; that by mulcting us to the extent of £1,000,000 a month in our exports they have done more for us than they ought to have done?
The Deputy is not in order in discussing the economic conditions or the loss of home or foreign markets on this section.
With all due respect, I am trying to argue that the disposal of the land purchase money in the manner in which this Bill proposes to dispose of it for the purpose of general taxation, as I hope to prove if the Ceann Comhairle allows me, puts the agriculturists and the ratepayers in a worse position than they were in before the introduction of this Bill, or if you like, before the introduction of the causes which led up to it. The Minister last night on this very Bill challenged us that in voting for an amendment on this Bill we were voting for a cessation of grants-in-aid of local authorities. If I am not allowed, speaking on the Bill the Minister referred to, to take up that challenge it is difficult to know how we are to meet any of the interjections of the Minister in ordinary debates. He said, and his fellow-Minister, the Minister for Agriculture, said, that they had done more for us than they ought to have done. I suppose again in this Bill they assume that they are doing more for us than they ought to do by using the money that the farmers in general pay in land purchase annuities for the general purposes of taxation, and, if you like, with the intention of using some of it to give him back in the way of a grant out of his own annuities the money which was hitherto provided in another manner. In relation to that I think I am entitled to argue as to the respect in which the farmer or ratepayer is bettered by this Bill. We have, as I said, during the last seven months been mulcted to the extent of a million a month by the cessation of our exports, and, because again of the cessation of our exports and the consequent dropping in price of a 40 per cent. tariff on home products, the home consumed produce of the agriculturists has dropped by the same proportion; in other words, what is being consumed at home has dropped to the same extent as our export products, and we have lost not only seven millions but fourteen millions in seven months.
The Deputy is not in order in making a Second Reading speech on the Committee Stage. He had his opportunity on the Second Stage for replying to anything the Minister said. On the Committee Stage, as the Deputy knows, he must confine himself to the section under consideration. Questions of exports, tariffs and home produce have no relation whatever to the disposal of the land annuities.
Is it really assumed now that there is no relation between the land annuity question and the economic war?
The Chair has ruled that a question of home produce is not in order in discussing Section I on the Committee Stage of this Bill.
I bow to the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle. I desired to take the earliest opportunity of correcting the Minister, and I thought that on this section I was in order in doing so. However, I will defer any statement I have to make on this matter to another stage of this Bill. That will suffice for the moment.
I would like to repeat a question to the Minister. The Minister stated that the £792,000 was irrecoverable. I ask him again is he going to stand over that? Should not the property of those people be responsible for that £792,000? I know only a couple of cases in the parish of people who did not pay their annuities. One paid it to the Land Commission, and one of the tenants paid it over a certain number of years. The other did not pay the annuity. He laughed at his neighbours when they were paying the annuities but when the Guards put him in Cork County Jail he found the money. Are you going to encourage the non-payment of debt in this country?
Would the Minister make it clear whether agricultural grants in the future will be in any way contingent on the full payment of the annuities—I mean half the annuity, which will become the whole annuity in the future? If arrears in the land annuities arise will an equivalent sum be deducted from the agricultural grant?
I have already answered that question.
I did not hear it.
It will bear repetition, I am sure.
If the answer is any good to the Minister he should be glad of the opportunity for repeating it.
I should like to ask the Minister is he prepared to answer Deputy O'Leary's question? It must be borne in mind that the Government of the present day are really the Party who told the people not to pay. They cannot get away from it. Day after day since 1922 their Deputies, who were outside this House at that time, told the people not to pay their rent. Is it the case that the people who paid regularly have now got to pay for the people who never paid at all? Are the people of the different counties, are the ratepayers of County Galway, who paid their rates and annuities regularly, going to suffer now for the gentlemen who were told by the Minister for Finance's Party time and again during the last ten years not to pay? I would like to get that answer. That answer is necessary for the ratepayers and honest people of this country. I would say it is most unfair if that is to be so. If the Minister states that that £792,000 is irrecoverable, certainly his Government should not be the Government of this country.
I should like the Minister to answer my question with regard to the provisions of the new Land Bill. Take, for example, the County Donegal, where there are small farmers—small in the sense of their valuation—who have redeemed the land purchase annuities and are freeholders. They have discharged their debts to the State to the last penny. They paid their debts regularly and are now free of debt. There is another class, the tenants under the Land Church Act. In connection with lands that were church property new provisions were made under the Irish Church Act that the tenants were to pay annuities, or rather rents, at 3? per cent. interest. Now they are paying those exorbitant rents. There is no hope for them at all—and those are people who have paid regularly— because there is no funding operation for them, and they are under enormous rents. We have an estate in Donegal which comes under the Irish Church Act. It was known originally as the Wicklow Estate and now it has passed from under that name. There is another class of people who purchased under the Board of Works loan. There is also another class—where a man had a large tract of land which came within the Land Acts and he redeemed it and divided and resold it to tenants, and they are under this new tenancy. I am not sure whether or not these tenants can be brought within the Land Acts. I am afraid they cannot. Those people will have to pay their new annuities, which are of course not annuities at all but rack rents. They would have to be paid because that landlord would have the full force of the law. Before we had the law, he could extract his rent annually and what happened here was very extraordinary and a rather unfortunate thing. These men bought these redeemed lands, they first paid a price and then were put under rents—they were land hungry in certain districts. They paid a price first, then a rent to the new landlord. It is a new form of landlordism which is arising in this country. People foresaw this and it has arisen. Men bought out redeemed holdings, or perhaps redeemed them, and then re-let them to tenants. There is a new form of landlordism arising. There is no hope for these men. Under this new form of landlordism there are three classes who have no protection. They must pay their rents and rates——
What have rents got to do with the moneys in the Purchase Annuities Fund?
I respectfully submit they have.
If they have nothing to do with the disposal of money in the Purchase Annuities Fund it is not in order.
Why not? Is not this Purchase Annuity Fund going to the relief of these men? It is either going to them or not going to them.
The relief of certain tenants has nothing to do with this if they do not come under the particular section under discussion.
Are these rents paid into the Purchase Annuities Fund?
Not at all.
Does that dispose of the question?
It is not in order to discuss the matter.
A Deputy
It is in order.
I have definitely ruled it is not.
I think it is quite in order. After all, these people have paid——
It has been definitely ruled that a discussion on this matter is not in order.
I want an answer from the Minister as to whether we will have an opportunity of dealing with this matter on the new Land Bill.
Certainly, the Deputy will have an opportunity.
Are we to assume from the Minister's statement here to-day that the Guarantee Fund will still operate as in the past—that the grants to local authorities will still be paid out of that Fund, and that in the last analysis the rates will still be liable for any arrears of unpaid land annuities, even when the new funding arrangement is in operation?
This leaves the Guarantee Fund position undisturbed. The only thing that it does is to make good the deficiency on the Guarantee Fund. We merely take the money out of the Purchase Fund and put it back to the Guarantee Fund.
I understood the Minister to say in this debate that he proposed to adjust the fund later on. I was curious to know in what respect he proposes to adjust it, or in what respect the new funding arrangement will alter the conditions applying to the Guarantee Fund.
I am not in a position to disclose information in regard to that matter to the House, but at any rate as I have said, the position of the Guarantee Fund will be adjusted to take into consideration the facts that a redemption of 50 per cent. has been given on the land annuities.
I suppose, then, we may take it from sub-section (2) that the annuities in respect of May and June are being voted and the annuities in respect of November and December next will be collected to the extent of 50 per cent. of the present outgoings and that they presumably will bring in £1,000,000.
Yes.
If there is any shortage in respect of the collection of that £1,000,000 will that shortage be made good by the Guarantee Fund on 31st January next?
Yes, certainly.
The House understands that.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Title stand part of the Bill."
I would like to ask my question again on the Title. The Title has reference to the clause which I previously drew attention to. Why content ourselves with that as advised by the lawyers?
Because we know the Deputy's ability for procreating March hares and this is designed to kill them at the moment of conception.
This March hare, I agree with the description, was started by the lawyers whose eminent names are given in the front page of this pamphlet. "If the Legislature intends the payments to stop, it will make its wish clear by the ready and simple expedient of repealing Section 12 (2)." We are doing something more than that. I am very glad to have the Title here because it marks the Government's repudiation of its own lawyers.
Question put and agreed to.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported without amendment.