I submit that it is relevant in this way. The agricultural grant was doubled in 1924-25 by the previous Government. It was doubled because of the surplus from tariffs, a surplus which approximated very closely to the original agricultural grant. The previous Government doubled the agricultural grant at that time on the principle that industrial tariffs imposed a burden on agriculture, and they held that in doing that they were recouping agriculture in some way for the burden that was imposed on it by the Government's industrial policy. I am suggesting that the present Government should adopt a similar policy as regards the produce from customs. If the previous Government were right in the principle that they adopted it shows that there is now an increased burden being put on agriculture without any quid pro quo for agriculture. It is in that way that I want to bring in this question of the produce from customs. If the policy adopted by the previous Government were carried out by this Government there should be a large increase in the agricultural grant, and agriculture would have nothing to thank the Government for doing that, apart altogether from the depression in prices, the economic war and other things. I think it is substantially correct to say that the difference between the customs returns for 1931-32 and for last year—God only knows how many tariffs have been imposed since and how many we are likely to have to face this year— is about £1,500,000. Now, if agriculture were given that sum of money it is entitled to it in equity. It would have nothing to thank the Government for, because who contributed it? The man following the plough and the man milking the cows.
I want to make it clear that I am not arguing against the Government's industrial policy, but I am arguing on the equities of the case. There is the fact that the sum of £1,500,000 has been put up by agriculture. That is an imposition that was not on agriculture three years ago. It is fair, I submit, to make a comparison between the money grants given to agriculture in this year, 1934-35, and those that were given in 1931-32. Owing to tariffs, agriculture is this year paying £1,500,000 more than it was paying two or three years ago. That is the extra burden it is now bearing, and it would be only meeting the equities of the case if agriculture were recouped that sum, or, we will say, £1,000,000. The sum of money left for agricultural purposes by the previous Government to the present Minister for Finance was £2,200,000. If the Minister for Industry and Commerce questions my arithmetic let him disprove my statement. That was the sum that was left available every year in the till of the Minister for Finance for the relief of rates on agricultural land, and on top of that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has in the last two years increased the burden, so far as Customs are concerned, by £1,500,000. It would be making a liberal allowance if one were to say that £500,000 of that was contributed by people other than the agricultural population. It would not be meeting the whole case for agriculture if instead of the sum of £1,970,000 for the relief of rates on agricultural land, £3,200,000 was given, because the money provided by the previous Government was £2,200,000, to which should be added another £1,000,000 as a set-off against the increased burden on agriculture due to industrial tariffs. That gives a total of £3,200,000. If instead of that sum of £1,970,000 the sum I mentioned was given, it might go near fulfilling the promises that Fianna Fáil made before they became the Government. It would go near the cost of derating agricultural land, and with that even the Minister for Industry and Commerce might be induced to jump the fence of derating agricultural land.
So far as this Vote is concerned, there is nothing in it but this appointment for the agricultural community. No varnish brush that the Minister may use can put a good face on this question of the grants. The Minister for Finance endeavoured to-day to boast that he is giving £20,000 more than the previous Government. Play was made by Ministers and by Deputies opposite that the amount given in 1931-32 was subject to deductions for arrears of land annuities. That is still the position, because the amount of arrears of land annuities will be deducted from this grant. All the county councils have been advised to that effect by the Minister for Local Government. If the Government, and, particularly the Minister for Industry and Commerce, above all Ministers of the Government, not excepting the Minister for Agriculture, were to give this matter the consideration it should be given—the Minister for Industry and Commerce puts on a tariff to increase industrial production, and it is the easiest thing in the world to increase production, to make an article, but the whole trouble is to get a market for that article—and were to advance a policy that, out of the proceeds of these tariffs, the burden on agriculture would be lightened, he need not bother about the interests of agriculture for the moment, but about the industrial interests that will be served by improving, by lightening the overhead burden, the industrial market, which is the agricultural population of this country. I would not think that the Minister was doing any more than his duty if he came in here and, instead of refusing to give all the money the previous Government provided, or providing machinery to produce that money for him for the relief of rates on agricultural land, he obliterated all the rates on agricultural land. He would not, in my opinion, be giving any more to agriculture than the equities of the situation demand, on the basis of the increased burden of tariffs.
I do not want to go into the fall in the general level of prices; I do not want to go into the loss sustained by agriculture through the economic war; I do not want to go into the loss sustained by agriculture through the quota system and the limitation of the fat cattle market in England. I would, perhaps, test the patience of the Ceann Comhairle on these matters but for the fact that they will arise on other measures, and it is when they arise fully on such measures that they can best be dealt with, and more effectively than they can be dealt with by raising them on a subsidiary matter like this. I desire finally to emphasise that even if there were no economic war, if that market over there remained as it was, and if there was no quota system imposed by the British, and no fall in world prices, the Government would be only giving to agriculture what agriculture is entitled to if they derated agricultural land, because of the increased burden they have put on agriculture since they came into office by the imposition of industrial tariffs, namely, a sum approximating to £1,500,000. I wish to express dissatisfaction at the amount of this Agricultural Grant. The Government have nothing to congratulate themselves on, and, in fact, they have deliberately betrayed agricultural interest in the matter of these grants.
There are some details of these grants on which I should like to speak. Last year we were allowed, I think, 2/- in the £ on our valuations up to £20. That meant that we were allowed £1, and we had more annoyance sending in forms for that £1 than the £1 was worth. There is another newfangled proposal this year—the Minister for Agriculture is heartily welcome —that there shall be relief at a certain low rate on the first £20 of valuation and that in respect of each adult employed full-time there will be an allowance at the low rate of £12 10s. 0d. The working farmer who has a son or sons, of 17 years of age and over, employed full-time on the land, will be allowed to regard these as full-time employees and to get the allowance in his rate at the low rate of £12 10s. 0d. of his valuation for each adult workman employed. If it is right to adopt that principle, would it not, if I may use the phrase, be more right to give the allowance to working farmers who have six or seven children, none of whom is 17 years of age? Under this arrangement, a man with a big family, the members of which are under 17 years of age, gets no allowance for that family, but a man whose family are over 17 years of age and who are worth something to him will get the allowance. The man who is hardest hit, with a young family who are unable to work, gets no allowance, while the man with a family who are able to work will get the allowance.
If that principle is to be introduced at all, I would rather support a proposal that the man with the family under 17 years of age should get the allowance in his rates rather than the man with a family of 17 years or over it, because the older family is a help while the younger family is a burden. The most difficult time for parents, whether they are farmers or not, is when the oldest child is 14 or 16 years of age and the ages of the others range downwards. They are an expense and they have to be minded. They are going to school and are no source of help, but when they are over the age of 17 and become a help, the allowance will be given in respect of them. I do not think that is an equitable way of dealing with the matter. That is only a detail in the application of this, but I think the county councils would gladly welcome the brushing aside of all these little things and the giving of a grant for the relief of rates which would be applied all the way through. It will come to that yet because of the difficulties of administering the Act on these lines.
Those, however, are only the details. The main principle is standing out, and no camouflage can conceal it, that the present Government inherited a sum equivalent to £2,200,000 for the relief of rates, and they have added to the burden on agriculture, £1,500,000 since, while all they offer out of that pool for the relief of rates on agricultural land is £1,970,000. The Minister for Finance says that that is £20,000 more than their predecessors gave them, while the Minister for Industry and Commerce said it was a question of arithmetic. I should like to hear some arithmetical solution of his of this matter.