I move:—
That the Dáil is of opinion that owing to the increasing distress on the farming community arising out of the continuance of the economic war, the Executive Council should take steps to relieve agricultural land of rates during the financial year 1934-35.
In moving that motion, I wish, in the first place, to express a mild protest at the manner in which this particular motion has been side-tracked by a Government majority so that it comes up now at the tag-end of the financial year 1934-35, when, apparently, it has little meaning. That was a deliberate attempt, by the use of a Parliamentary majority behind the Government Party, to side-track a motion standing in the name of a private member—a motion which had direct, and very direct, application to a very grave state of affairs in the country, and to a particular financial year—in order that, when it would eventually come up in spite of majority forces, it might then be argued that it had lost its point because that financial year was drawing to a close. However, far from agreeing that because the financial year, 1934-35, is now drawing to a close and that on that account this particular motion has lost some of its point or some of its effect, I am inclined to the view that it is all for the best that the motion has been delayed deliberately for so long, because we are now in the unfortunate position of being able to see and experience, each one for himself, what was foreseen many months ago when this resolution was tabled: that a point would be reached owing to the economic war when an industry, hammered and battered and deprived of its profit, would be unable to continue to pay similar overhead charges to what it was called upon to pay when profits were coming out of the industry. That particular statement or that state of affairs is not met or remedied by anybody deliberately blinding their eyes to the existence of such a state of affairs, or by any glib-tongued Deputy or Minister getting up and trotting out the old played-out bogey that there is a political conspiracy at the back of this: that there is not any real indication of inability to pay, but that the public generally are so docile and so easily involved in anti-State conspiracies and dishonest moves to default in their commitments to the State: that the whole state of affairs is due to the work of political conspirators who are anxious for political gain or political purposes to see the State or the local finances of the State go into a bankrupt condition.
I would say on behalf of this Party —and we have given many assurances of the fact—that we are at least as anxious for the welfare, stability and prosperity of this State as the people sitting opposite. I say that the bankruptcy of local boards or the bankruptcy of this State would be at least as sad a day in the lives of members of this Party as in the lives of any of those who decorate the Government Front Bench at the present moment. I think that it is merely dodging a very difficult problem and closing our eyes to a very tragic state of affairs for any of that stuff to be trotted out from one side of the House or the other. The mere official returns published by the Department some few days ago indicate that the arrears of rates outstanding on the 31st December had reached the huge figure of £2,100,000. They indicate that that was an all-over figure; that there was a very serious state of affairs in what might be regarded as the best county from the point of view of ratepaying; and that the whole picture presented by the official returns was an appalling picture for anyone to view, namely, that the percentage of outstanding arrears had reached in many counties a figure of over 70 per cent.; that 70 per cent. of the rates had been uncollected in a great number of counties with nine months of the year gone; that two counties alone, Mayo and Monaghan, had arrears amounting to less than 50 per cent., and that other counties had arrears outstanding of over 80 per cent. of the total rate.
Now, the question that must be faced is this: Are over 80 per cent. of the people in those counties deliberately dishonest? Are they out deliberately to diddle the State? Are they out, with their eyes open, deliberately to bankrupt the local finances of their county, or is there any other explanation? Is it deliberate fraud on the part of the public, or is it inability, on the part of the ratepayers, to pay? If it is inability to pay, what change of circumstances has come about to account for that inability to pay? Looking at the rate collection returns —the figures published for the last four years—we find that on the 31st December, at that period of the year 1931-32, the amount outstanding in that year was 46 per cent. At the end of the following year, the amount uncollected had risen to 54.5 per cent. At the end of the next year it had gone up to 60.3 per cent. and at the end of the year closed that figure had jumped to 65.9 per cent. There you see no sudden conspiracy but a gradual disimprovement, acute in the last two years.
When we examine the circumstances of this particular country ratepayer over the same period, we find in the last two years there has been a very serious interference by Government politicians to the damage of agricultural industry. We find the squabble between a few politicians on this side of the water and a few politicians on the other side of the water has brought about a state of affairs that the entry to the market for goods produced by our farmers has been partially closed, and the entry fee has been raised from nothing per finished beast going into the other country to £6 for the finished beast. It is up to anyone, quite opposed to political parties and divisions, to argue that where an industry had an open market, and no tax upon its goods going into that market, that the overhead charges on the industry were too heavy. If when the market was open, and there was no tax upon the animals going into that market, it was sought to convince the people of the country that the overhead charges were too heavy, then when the market is curtailed and the tax is up to £6 on every beast sold, how can it be held that they are still able to pay the same overhead charge? When the members of the present Government were speaking of overhead charges upon the farming industry, and when there was no economic war or curtailment of the market, or any heavy tax on goods for sale, one after the other, they all stood up in a row and protested against the crushing taxation of the farmers and their inability to pay the overhead charges on their industry.
I put it to the members of the Government that this particular motion should be accepted as a matter of necessity. It will do neither the Government nor the political Opposition nor the ratepayers nor those dependent upon local rates any good if this particular state of affairs is prolonged so that the last beast on the farm has to be sold in order to get this year's rates and nothing is left for next year's rates. We have an appalling state of affairs where the farming community cannot pay annuities, British taxes and local rates, and meet the ferocity and intensity behind the annuities campaign which has brought about this slump in rate-paying, because both payments cannot be met. We have in connection with the annuities and their non-payment hundreds of pounds worth of goods seized for a debt of £50 or £60 and sold for £50 or £60. That may appear to some to be a good day's work. But the farmer has been robbed. His goods have been sold at knock-down prices. Some "John Brown" has made easy money. The annuities have been paid, but then the rate collector comes along. What is his position and what is the position of the occupant of the farm? What is the position of the man despoiled of £300 worth of goods which have been knocked down for £50 or £60 plus costs? He is unable to pay his rates, so that we have the dismal picture of 50 or 60 per cent. of the rates outstanding for nine months of the year. We have threats and suspensions, councils dissolved and commissioners replacing them; we have rate collectors dismissed and replaced by others. Whether it is a county administered by a county council or a Government commissioner we are up against the same problem, where neither Government commissioner nor new rate collector can draw blood from a turnip, particularly if the land annuity sheriff has been there before him.
I have so far stressed the point that the appalling condition that exists is due to inability to pay. I have not made any reference to the point that the present Government is bound in honour, if they are prepared to honour the pledged word of their leader, to accept this particular motion. time and again, and in practically every county of the Irish Free State, Mr. de Valera, as he then was, addressed huge meetings. At each of these he solemnly pledged his word and that of his Party that if they were elected as the Government in this country, they would de-rate the agricultural land in the Irish Free State. That pledge was made when there was no economic war and no curtailment of the market and no tax on produce. According to him conditions even then were such that when the time came the first act of statesmanship should be that agricultural land should be de-rated. Inside and outside of the Dáil, in the most specific language, President de Valera made that promise from many platforms. The nearer the general election approached, the more specific were his terms and the more clear and precise his language. I shall quote for the information of the House some of the promises made by Mr. de Valera on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party. Speaking at Kells, County Meath, 14th June, 1931, as reported in the Leinster Leader of June 20th, Mr. de Valera used the following words:—
"The farmers' burden requires to be lightened and it could be effectively done if they retained at home the three millions of land annuities which were now needlessly being sent over to England every year. Two millions of the three would give complete de-rating to all agricultural holdings, big and small, and to the farm buildings as well."
That speech was delivered in the County Meath in which there are many large farmers, and everyone of those large farmers had a vote. In County Meath it was necessary to stress the fact that there would be no discrimination. When he spoke of de-rating, he spoke of de-rating for big farmers as well as small, and he spoke of de-rating for buildings as well as land. We have heard a lot of talk from the Government Benches in the last year or two when a quick thing was being done that at all events the people had approved of it; that the Government had a mandate; that it had been submitted to the people; that the people had voted, and whether it was right or wrong, that mandate would be respected and that no choice was left to the Government.
Does not that mandate apply to this particular motion? Is that speech made in Kells to be explained away by some Deputy Dowdall on the ground that it was not a promise but that it was only a statement? Is that to be turned away as the reckless statement of an irresponsible or untrustworthy politician? Is it the light word of a man who did not know what he was talking about? Was it a promise made merely to gull the farmers of Meath or was it a carefully thought out statement of policy by the alternative President of this country? Are the Fianna Fáil Party, by their votes on this motion, going to imply that it was only so much chaff thrown out to catch the sparrows; that the leader of their Party at that time was not a man whom they were prepared to back; that his word was not one that deserved to be honoured; and that the argument as to a mandate only applied to the Government when they were acting against the interests of the people and that it was an argument which did not carry weight if it was to be used in the interest of a class of the people?
That was the Meath statement and in the Meath speech, the point specially made by President de Valera was that he proposed de-rating for all farmers, big and small and for farm buildings as well as land. Let us pass away from Meath. Speaking at Newcastle West the President is quoted in the Irish Independent of 4th January, 1932, in the following terms:
"What about the five millions they were sending out of the country? That would give them complete de-rating and they would have about one million left to adjust unfair land annuities where extravagant prices were given or encourage schemes of cultivation."
He made a speech again on January 18th, 1932. We were at this time up against a general election. The language had got to be a lot clearer; the promise had got to be made pat, so that the last farmer anxious for de-rating would be caught in the net and the man to make the promise had got to be the man on top, the man who was likely to be President a month hence, the man who would be head of the legislative machine of this country, and so we had any ambiguity or any looseness of expression removed. Here is the statement that was made then:
"We have definitely stated that we will retain three millions in the Irish Exchequer and that two millions out of the three will de-rate agricultural land."
There are no "ifs" or "buts" and no doubts and no reservations about that —the clear promise of the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, the clear definite statement of the man who is to-day President of the Irish Free State. This motion is tabled in the hope that these particular promises will be honoured, that these words uttered in public with the full responsibility of a leader of a great Party will be honoured by the colleagues who sit behind him, and that the national life of this country will not be lowered or demeaned by a responsible public man, occupying, as he then did, the second biggest position in the public life of this country, going out on public platforms to commit himself to promises which he never meant to carry out in order to secure votes.
The sanctity of mandates! Mandates appear to be sacred if they are to be used against the interests of the country, but mandates do not seem to apply when there is an urgent pressing case in the interests of the people of the country. Is there any Deputy from rural Ireland on the opposite benches who is going to stand up in the course of this debate and say that the farmers are as well able to pay rates as they were three years ago, that the farming industry is so profitable at the moment that it can afford to pay the crushing taxes imposed by the British Government, half the land annuities and the present rates and, at the same time, rear a family, educate children, pay wages and maintain the farm as a factory or little industry? Is there any Deputy representing rural Ireland who is prepared to argue that, and who is prepared to go back to his constituency and stand over that argument? There are men over there who know just as well as I do that, when they, from these benches, made the case three years ago that the overhead charges could not be borne—and then there was no economic war—it is unthinkable to suggest that these overhead charges can still be borne in the presence of the crushing taxation arising from the economic war.
In discussing this particular motion, I want to confine myself to the ability of the farmers to pay, and to the fact that that promise was made in the most solemn way by the Leader of Fianna Fáil who is now President, and I want to avoid either provoking or invoking a debate about the causes or effects of, or responsibility for, the economic war, except in so far as the effects take from the capacity of the farmer to pay them. I would rather that this debate would take place around the capacity or incapacity of the farmers to pay. I should like, if it could be argued someone on those benches to demonstrate to me that the farming industry has increased so much in its profit that it is able to pay from £4 to £6 per head on every beast produced; that it is able to pay the taxes on the poultry and on the eggs; and that it is able to pay still the same overhead charges as three years ago. If that particular case cannot be made, then surely there is a case for remission, and surely there is a case for reduction. Assuming that the President spoke in all honesty and with a sense of responsibility, when three years ago he informed the public that the overhead charges were crushing; that the industry could not continue to exist if those charges remained, and that he considered as head of the Fianna Fáil Party and alternative President of this State, that agricultural land and buildings, big farms and little farms should be de-rated, and that it was the proposal and the promise of the Fianna Fáil Party to do that.
I want to know if that promise is to be trampled in the dust, if that particular pledge is to be dishonoured, if that particular word is to be withdrawn when the votes are in the ballot box? What is the justification for the changed attitude? What has happened since except that the votes have gone into the box? Has not everything that has happened since worsened the lot of the farmers? The action of the British Government was deliberately designed to crush out of existence the Irish farmer. Is the Irish Government going to lend a hand in the crushing process? Is it not sufficiently tragic to have the sheriff busy from homestead to homestead collecting land annuities without having a return visit from some officer to the same homesteads to collect the rates? It is not too late yet. The money has not been paid in. Of the total rates there are 66 per cent. outstanding. I imagine if the 34 per cent. that was paid in were examined on a geographical basis it would be found that that 34 per cent. has been paid in by the people in the towns and villages and that the 66 per cent. outstanding is made up entirely of the rates on agricultural land. Even if some of the rates on agricultural land have been paid in, the cost of refunding is not an immense task.
I submit that if the Government has one mandate clearer than any other mandate it is a mandate to derate the farmers in this country. I would suggest further that if there is any class in the community that has been deliberately picked out by the Government in fighting their economic war, one class that is getting hammered and knocked by one tariff after another, it is certainly the farmer. I submit that if there is to be any reality about the whole absurd situation that the first thing a warrior should do when he sends his troops into battle is at least to provide first aid for the injured. The most obvious, the simplest and the most effective type of first aid that can be rendered to the casualties in the present deplorable war is the derating, as the President promised, of agricultural holdings of land and buildings, big and small.
I do not want this resolution to be met by the parrot-like reply of the Minister for Finance, the cry that we heard made on so many occasions when we made any proposals. I do not want the parrot-like reply: "Where is the money to come from?" and then to hear the litany of so much on tea and so much on sugar and so much on petrol and what it would take to bring in this sum. Those taxes have a very variable complexion in the eyes of the Minister for Finance. The thing that is a hard tax when it is removed becomes a soft tax when he is reimposing it. The thing that is a necessity when he is removing it becomes a luxury when he is imposing it.
This principle of complete de-rating as outlined by the President and the promises he made would cost, approximately £2,000,000. I do not presume to have examined the Estimates with minute care. I do not presume to have formulated this proposal as the result of a plan, but I do suggest that those who do claim to have examined the Estimates with minute care and to have formulated a plan for reducing the taxation of this country by £2,000,000 without interfering with social services or interfering with the efficiency of the machine, could well devote that £2,000,000 to the purpose outlined in this resolution.
