I think, as a member of a local authority, I ought at least to enter some protest against what might be described as the scant courtesy shown to local councils all over the country when the Government proposed to reduce the agricultural grants. As a matter of fact, we did have intimation previously that our grants would be the same as before, and the local councils, acting on that information, proceeded to frame their estimates. When they had framed their estimates, and made provision for the general expenditure, they were actually informed that the grant was to be reduced by a certain amount. Not alone was that a hardship upon the local authorities, and the farming community of the county who had already lost their markets, and were unable to pay their way, but it showed a great lack of courtesy to the local authorities that they were not informed in time of the situation that they had to meet.
I do not remember ever in the history of local government—at least during my connection with it—when local authorities were treated with the same lack of courtesy as they were treated during that period. The position of local authorities is not at all times, perhaps, a very happy one. They have to make provision for the general expenditure on the public services and, largely irrespective of the position of the people who have to carry on the public services, they have to strike rates and, sometimes, to take very drastic steps to see that the rates are paid. As I have said, the position is not always very happy, but to be shown such scant courtesy as we were shown on that occasion was something new. The local authorities were called upon to make their estimates and, having made them, they were told that the bases on which they framed the estimates were false. They were told, in effect, that the local authorities would be curtailed to the extent of £448,000 for the coming year. Not alone was that uncalled for, but I think it was discourtesy, particularly coming on top of the fact that the farmers had already lost their markets and that their resources were dwindling. I think it was a very bad step. As a member of a local authority, I certainly do not want to make any statement here, or in any other place, that might be construed as saying that the rates cannot or ought not to be paid; but certainly I do not look forward to the future collection of rates with very happy feelings. I hope that times will improve and that it will be possible to collect the rates, but I think that the cutting down of the agricultural grant by £448,000 at the present time is an act of which the Government ought to be ashamed and I am afraid that it will have disastrous effects on the country.
As I say, I do not want to create the feeling that the rates ought not to be paid. I want to stress that. I have never taken up that attitude. I know that the public services must be maintained through the collection of rates, but I am very doubtful as to the way in which the farmers at the present time will be able to pay them.
I was absent from the House yesterday in order to attend a local fair. I am sure that if the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Local Government and Public Health were present at that fair and happened to understand the prices offered, and which had to be taken at that fair, they would feel very pessimistic, as I do, about the future collection of rates in the country.