This is a grant that goes to the local authorities in connection with agricultural rates. I wonder whether the Government has asked itself whether the authorities are in a position to meet the situation—I speak of the local authorities—which it has created by the diminution of this supplementary agricultural grant? The Government has been accused of not keeping one of its promises. That was in respect of complete derating. There is, of course, a great deal of truth in that particular accusation. It was honoured in the same way in which most of their promises have been honoured but, at least, they did one thing. When they were in opposition, they did increase one portion of the agricultural grant by £250,000. They might say, therefore, that they honoured a portion of their bond, and as it is one of the very few instances in which they went even that distance to honour a portion of their bond, they should, possibly, get credit for it, but it is a very characteristic way of doing it that, having added on that £250,000, they now proceed to deduct £450,000, roughly speaking, from another portion of the grant. I have no doubt that the subtle minds we sometimes hear on the Government Benches would be able to prove, mathematically and logically, that they fully honoured their bond so far as the relief of agricultural rating is concerned, but the Government ought to consider the situation in which the ordinary local authorities and county councils will find themselves in the coming 12 months. They have to budget or, at least, to levy rates without getting practically £500,000 on which they had counted. This affects everybody in the country. It affects not merely the farmer, who has to pay increased rates but, ultimately, it is likely to affect everybody who, in one way or another, comes into touch with the local administration. It is a matter for the Deputies of every Party in this House to ask themselves whether the farmer is in a position to pay the increased rates that become necessary as a result of this particular withdrawal of £450,000 by the Government.
That is the essence of a great deal of the charge that has been made against the Government. At any time, such a sudden imposition on the farming community would be serious. It is, as Deputies of every Party will recognise, particularly serious at the present moment, apart altogether from the economic war. It would have been a difficult situation owing to the general fall in agricultural prices but, as has been pointed out again and again, that general fall has been made catastrophic for our farmers by the incidence of the economic war and that, unfortunately, is the time when new burdens are put on the local authorities. The answer of the Government, again and again, has been to point out that they have come to the assistance of the local authorities in other ways, and they are coming to the assistance of the farmers in other ways. So far as local authorities are concerned, let us be quite clear that, in respect of relief from rates, the Government has in no way come to their assistance. It has induced them in various ways to embark on further expenditure—even the grants for building are inducements to further expenditure—and, therefore, further to increase rates. Those who are acquainted with some of the county councils in this country know perfectly well that that is a taking-on of a new liability by the county councils and other local authorities.
That is not an excuse in any way; it is rather an aggravation of the situation. It is not an excuse for the withdrawal of this relief which, up to some months ago, the local authorities had every right to expect they would enjoy this year. It is not merely now a question of the farmers who have to pay the increased rates. The farmers are not the only people affected in the various counties. If, as has been strongly urged by various public bodies, by people in touch with the farming community, the farmers will not be in a position, owing to the decline of the value of their produce and owing to the loss of their markets, to pay the increased rates, that is bound to affect everybody in the country, not merely those who pay rates, but those who gain benefits from the rates. Therefore, this action of the Government is directed against every section of the community that has anything to do with county councils.
Deputy Cosgrave quoted a Minister speaking in the West where he boasted that they were not unaware of the conditions in the country. Personally, I have often felt convinced that the one excuse they have for the policy they are pursuing is that they are not aware of the conditions existing. How is the the farmer to meet the increased rates that he is called upon to pay? That is a question that ought to be put to himself by every Deputy. The farmer has lost his markets. Has he got any others in exchange? It was hinted by the present Minister for Finance that there were prospects of markets. We were told definitely by the Minister for Agriculture within the last month that they had got the markets and we had the Minister for External Affairs, the President, this evening stating that our relations with other countries from the commercial point of view are most unsatisfactory. We have representatives abroad in different portions of Europe, but in not one of the countries in which we have representatives is there anything, according to the President, except a very unsatisfactory state of affairs so far as trade with these countries is concerned. Therefore, although we have the Minister for Agriculture telling us he has markets, the President tells us he will have to take very serious steps indeed unless these countries with which we now do a certain trade mend their hand and do more business with us.
Where have the markets vanished to within a month? How is the farmer to meet the additional burden, that, in this above all years, the Government has chosen to put upon his shoulders? On the one hand, by their policy the Government, deliberately or not—it is impossible, as one Deputy pointed out, in matters of this kind to make up one's mind as to how far the Government is deliberate and how far it is merely incompetent—are driving the local authorities into bankruptcy and, on the other hand, they have certainly done a great deal to drive those on whom the local authorities must depend for their revenue to bankruptcy as well. I suggest there is absolutely no justification for the line that is being taken by the Government, for the policy that is revealed in the Estimates. The farmers always had a difficult position to fill. That applies to all countries, not alone to the Free State. It is not easy in that particular industry to get the balance on the right side. That would be difficult under normal circumstances, but in the present circumstances it has become impossible. At the moment, the difference between the value of what the farmer sells and what he gets is very considerable.
The Government is treating a very serious matter with a flippancy that, I am sorry to say, we are now rather accustomed to get from some members, at any rate, of the Government Front Bench. It is nothing less than flippancy not to realise existing conditions and to pretend that the economic war has no effect whatsoever on the capacity of the farmer to pay his rates. It undoubtedly has. You must compare the average price of cattle in this country and in Great Britain. It is useless to tell fairy tales about an individual who wandered into a fair in Enniskillen. An individual happening like that, even if truly reported, has nothing to do with the situation. Whatever benefits there may have been from other aspects of Government policy— and I do not believe there have been many—we in Kerry certainly have got very little benefit from their wheat and grain-growing policy, except increased costs as we have to buy feeding stuffs and sell our farm produce outside. In that particular county the farmers have to meet their share of the Agricultural Grant.
We are now familiar with the Government's reply—that there is no satisfying the farmer. As one Minister put it, the farmers do not know how well off they are and how well they are being treated by the Fianna Fáil Government. They do not know all the good things that the Fianna Fáil Government has done for them. They do not know how, again and again, that beneficent and patriarchal Government has come to their assistance. Of course, it may diminish the annuities by one-half but, in reality, and it is necessary to insist upon this, it is no good to reduce land annuities by one-half and at the same time reduce the value of the land to one-fifth or less. That is the situation. You come to the assistance of the farmer by reducing what he has to pay in land annuities— that is the answer I heard when objection was taken to this step before —but as against all that the farmer now has to bear burdens he had not to bear before and he has not the wherewithal to meet these burdens. At any time, a step of this kind could only be described as retrogressive. The policy of the previous Government, and for a while, apparently, the policy of this Government, was a policy of coming to the assistance of the agricultural community by increasing the Agricultural Grant. Now a step is taken in the opposite direction by diminishing the Grant at a time when the farmer is least able to bear the charge. I move to report progress.