Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Nov 1935

Vol. 59 No. 5

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 25—Supplementary Agricultural Grants.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £370,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1936, chun an Deontais Talmhaíochta do mhéadú (Uimh. 35 de 1926, Uimh, 28 de 1931 agus Uimh. 30 de 1935).

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £370,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1936, to increase the Agricultural Grant (No. 35 of 1925, No. 28 of 1931, and No. 90 of 1935).

This Supplementary Estimate is required to enable payment to be made of an additional sum of £370,000 mentioned in the Estimate, in relief of rates on agricultural land for the financial year, which was also authorised by the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief No. 2) Act of this year. The additional sum now to be provided will bring the total amount of the agricultural grant up to £1,870,000 for the year.

Mr. Brennan

I should like to set some case made from the Government Benches for a reduction in the agricultural grant this year. As a matter of fact, the sum proposed is £100,000 less than was provided last year. I should like very much to hear from some responsible Minister what were the factors taken into consideration in the allocation of the grant this year. Did the Government feel that agriculture had suddenly become prosperous and that it did not require the same amount of aid as last year? Did the Government feel, from the figures they have given us from time to time in the House in reply to questions, that the local authorities were in such a prosperous condition that they could continue to function and maintain the public services with less aid than they got last year or the year before?

If we were to go back and consider the position since the present Government came into office it would certainly throw a lot of light upon the ideas which the Government had when they came in, and the ideas which, apparently, they have now got with regard to local authorities. When the Government first came into office the total agricultural grant was much greater than it is this year, and yet the present Government increased that grant by £250,000, bringing it to £1,200,000 odd. They have been consistently reducing the grant. They never gave that amount since. This year, apparently, they have, for some reason of their own which I should like to hear explained, cut down the grant by a further £100,000. Is that what we should have expected from the Government? Irrespective of the conditions prevailing in this country, is that what we should have expected? In face of the conditions prevailing at present and the hopeless condition in which the local authorities are at present, I maintain that it is not £100,000 short we ought to be, but that we should have had an increase of £500,000 upon last year's figure.

Let us examine the present state of the local authorities. According to the replies we have got from the Minister for Local Government to questions last week and to-day, I say that the position really discloses a very sad state of affairs so far as local authorities are concerned. When the Government came into office the total assessment for rates in all the counties was £2,403,948. There was carried forward that year £123,967 in arrears. The total warrant, therefore, in that year was £2,527,916. Let us compare that year with the current year, in which the Government feel that they can afford to cut down the grant by £100,000. Against a total assessment of £2,403,948 in 1931-32, the total assessment this year is £3,072,169, an increase of £668,221. To show the prosperity which we enjoy at present in comparison with 1931-32, last year there was carried forward as uncollectable a sum of £364,655. That was carried forward for collection this year as against £123,967 in 1931-32. The total warrant this year was £3,436,824, but the net increase which the ratepayers have to meet this year, as against the year when the Government came into office, is £469,924.

I have given the prosperity figures which show that last year they had to carry forward £364,655 as against £123,967. Even that does not disclose or nearly disclose the terrible condition in which local authorities find themselves to-day. There was withheld from local authorities last year, owing to unpaid annuities, a sum of £716,009. Of that amount which was withheld, the local authorities made provision only for £159,884, leaving a deficit of £556,125 unprovided for by any means whatever. There is no money to meet it. Certain grants, I understand, have been paid to county councils under other heads which were forthcoming under the 1923 Land Act, but as far as the sum of £716,000 withheld from local authorities is concerned for unpaid annuities, in addition to what they have carried forward as uncollected and what they have written off as uncollectable, they have a sum of £556,125 staring them in the face of a deficit of unpaid land annuities for last year, and no provision has been made to meet it.

That would be bad enough if we could just consider that at the present time the land annuities were being paid and that that represented the full amount which was to be withheld from the county councils. I do not know what the condition of the Guarantee Fund is at the moment. I do not know how land annuities are being paid, but I do know that, previous to some-Recess, a question was asked here and an answer given which showed, and figures in Iris Oifigiúil also showed, that the land annuities were not being paid nearly as well this year as last year. If that is so, or if they are even being paid this year at the same rate as last year, how are county councils and local authorities to function and maintain public services with a condition of affairs like that confronting them—£556,000 not provided for by anybody? In addition to that, we have, I am sorry to say, a reflex of the example of a type of spendthrift government in local authorities to day. I am a member of a local authority myself and I have been Chairman of a county council for a number of years, and I do know that very heavy expenditure to-day gets much less discussion and much less consideration by local authorities than it did formerly. I wonder why is that? Notwithstanding the fact that county councils have to write off irrecoverable rates and that they carry forward an amount of the rates uncollected every year, how is it they are giving less consideration to grave and serious expenditure than they gave in the past? I should like the Government to consider that.

I do not know whether the Minister for Finance is really conversant with Local Government figures or not, but I should be very anxious that some responsible minister from the Government side—I would much prefer the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to take his own responsibility in a matter like this—would consider, and seriously consider, what is happening in the country to-day with regard to local authorities. If, after a perusal of those figures which he has supplied to this House, he still feels justified in cutting down the Agricultural Grant by £100,000, I should like him to tell the House how he has arrived at that and what factors he has taken into consideration. Local authorities have been increasing their indebtedness by loans for various purposes—all very necessary and worthy purposes—and they have been further increasing their indebtedness by overdrafts, and against all that we have this alarming situation: that no provision has been made by the majority of county councils to meet the withheld moneys on the foot of land annuities—no provision whatever. Certain county councils did make provision or partial provision. I think the number was 12, but only 12 made any provision whatever for those unpaid annuities, and they have staring them in the face a further repetition of that situation for the coming year. Surely, with all the lip-service that has been paid to the agricultural community of this country when the present Government were seeking office, this should be a matter for serious consideration by the present Government. When the present Government were seeking office we had the Minister for Agriculture speaking down in Gorey and telling us that the farmers and agricultural labourers had to carry the country on their backs—of course he was not Minister for Agriculture than —that they had to carry the country on their backs and had to maintain an expensive and extravagant Government which cost something like £30,000,000 a year. That was from the Minister for Agriculture in 1931. Let the Minister for Agriculture, or the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, or the Minister for Finance, compare the situation that existed with regard to local authorities then and now, and compare the situation with regard to the Government finances then and now. My colleague, Mr. Boland, the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, was down in Roscommon on November the 14th, 1931, at a meeting in Kilteevan. He said on that occasion that Fianna Fáil held that derating could be financed by economies and, apart altogether from their case for the retention of the annuities, they held that there was room for economies more than sufficient to provide for derating. Now, however, they are actually cutting down the agricultural Grant by £100,000. I would much prefer commending the Government for something they had done, but certainly any person who would go through those figures and see the situation that exists and what confronts the farming community to-day, and find that the Government expect that they are able to pay the increased rate—increased by £668,000 since they came into office —not to speak of the unpaid annuities, could hardly commend the Government. The requirements for the social services have been increased by £668,000.

Last year we had figures given here by the Minister in reply to questions, which show that on the 31st of March, 1935, the total amount of arears uncollected was £1,034,551. Of that amount, there was carried forward £364,000. There was written off as uncollectable and irrecovorable £47,000. There was £54,256 uncollected on the 30th September, which showed that, in addition to the new rate which was made this year and which is an increase of £500,000 odd, there was collected between the 1st of April last year and the 30th September last year the sum of £68,158. That is the way the rates are at the moment, which the local authorities did not collect and which they felt they could collect and which they did not carry forward. Does the Minister for Finance think that that discloses a healthy state of affairs in this country?

Does the Minister think that this is the time in which he can stand up in the House and say that he is moving for a certain grant which means a reduction of £100,000 in the agricultural grant? Whenever the Government decided on reducing a grant of that type they must have taken into consideration something like lack of finance, or that the conditions have so improved in the country that they could afford to make the reduction. Has unemployment improved? Have the prices of live stock increased? Have the conditions of farming and agriculture generally improved? What is the improvement? We had here the other day a discussion on another matter in which it was mentioned by one of the Fianna Fáil deputies that land must be very valuable to-day because so many people are looking for it. That was the statement made by Deputy Kennedy of Westmeath. The Deputy said there were not so many questions asked in the House in connection with land distribution for a long time as there was just before the Recess. He said he did not previously see so many people looking for land. The conclusion he came to from that was that land must be very valuable and that it must be paying its way. If it is paying its way, surely it is extraordinary according to the figures published here in reply to a question a week ago that in Deputy Kennedy's own county the local authority had to write off last year as irrecoverable, £4,000 in rates, and carry forward as uncollectable £8,000. I do not think that Deputy Kennedy or anybody in fact would care to say that the Irish people have become dishonest overnight. I would not like to hear anybody say that and I do not think it is true. I believe the people would pay if they were able to pay.

Some time ago there was introduced a new system of credit notes and on these on a few occasions I commented adversely. Some Deputies on the Government Benches said that this was the whip with which they beat some Blueshirt farmers throughout the country into paying their rates. In reply to a question which I had down to-day I got information from the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. I asked for a table setting forth in each county the amount of credit notes not realised—not cashed by the people to whom they were given. In other words, the people were not able to pay before the required day and they lost the value of these credit notes. Who were those people who could not pay? In the year 1932-'33, there was a sum of £26,000 for which the people were not able to get any value. In 1933-'34, the sum was £16,000 and last year it was £21,121. Who lost that money? The very poorest of the people. That is the new system that has been brought in and I always maintain that it is a bad system. I hold that the people are honest enough to pay any rates they owe without any inducement to make them do so. This is the first time on which we have had these figures presented to us. These moneys are not lost in the county councils but they are lost to the individual farmers because they are not able to pay their rates in time to get the benefit of the credit notes. In the circumstances, I do not think there is any justification whatever for the Government in cutting down the agricultural grant. In fact, in view of the situation that exists, in which the county councils and the local authorities generally find themselves with increased deficits—with additional deficits to provide for rates that have been uncollected and written off as uncollectable or irrecoverable—I think the Government should seriously consider increasing the agricultural grant instead of reducing it. I submit that the Government is deserving of condemnation for the manner in which they have dealt with this matter.

Mr. Finlay

We have heard a good deal of information from Deputy Brennan with regard to the agricultural grant. I must say it is very hard upon the farmers of the country to have this grant reduced by £100,000. That means that Laoighis and Offaly, which I represent, have lost between them roughly, 7d. in the £ in the rates. Instead of reducing the grant the Minister should have considered very seriously increasing it. Deputies are aware of the position in which the farming community finds itself to-day. Live stock is still the main industry of the country, and it was at least so until the coming of the Fianna Fáil Party to power. But now, as President de Valera said in this House, our cattle trade "is gone and gone for ever," and he thanked God for it. I hope the President did not mean these words when using them. The live-stock trade of the country is still the principal industry, and its destruction is placing the farmers in a bad position. This was the industry which the farmers of the country understood well how to manage. They knew all about the rearing, the treatment and care of cattle. I am not a big farmer. My holding is less than 100 acres. I produce 20 cattle in the year and these 20 cattle under the present conditions mean a loss to me of £5 each or £100 entirely. Still, with that loss, as a matter of fact, I have to pay land annuities. The part of my land on which these 20 cattle are fed is about 30 acres. It is not the very richest land like Meath or Kildare. I am supposed to get the annuity paid on my land reduced by 50 per cent., but in comparison with the amount lost on those cattle the reduction in the annuity is very little. I maintain that I have paid the annuities four or five times over each year since we started on this economic war. In the matter of fat pigs, which I rear and breed, there are very large losses at present. Previous to the coming into force of the Pigs and Bacon Act I was getting a paying price for the pigs I reared. To-day I am advised to take 32/6 a cwt. As a matter of fact, the Pigs and Bacon Act did not make any improvement in the prices of bacon and pigs. The one thing it is doing is putting pig production below the average. This is going to be a Bill that will control the birth of pigs. We were supposed to have a Slaughter Bill for bonhams, but it was not introduced. The reason why this Bill is going to control the birth of pigs——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We must not discuss everything agricultural on this grant.

Mr. Finlay

I rather imagine, with all due respect, that pigs would come under the heading of agriculture. I believe they are the mainstay, the livelihood, of the small farmer. I do not think I would be going out of my way if I were to speak on the Pig Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Not now—some other time.

Mr. Finlay

The labouring man had as one of his means of livelihood the rearing of pigs. That man has my sympathy at the present time. His means are being taken from him and, in future, he need not bother much about buying bonhams at the fair. I want now to refer to the coal-cattle pact. I am not going to go too far, but I will say that the Government have done an unjust thing to the labouring classes. The labouring man has to pay more for his coal than he had to pay before the pact came into existence. Instead of being allowed to look after the cattle trade, we are told we should sow more beet and wheat and if we do so the farmer can live. I may tell the House and the Minister that without cattle you cannot grow either beet or wheat. You must have farmyard manure as distinct from artificial manure before you can successfully grow more beet or wheat.

The Minister would be well advised to endeavour to teach the position when he could use some such words as these: "Thanks be to God, we settled the economic war inside a week." The sooner the Government does settle the economic war and allow the people to make some effort towards bringing back prosperity, the better. You have the labouring people at the present time reduced to such circumstances that they can scarcely live. I grow beet and I pay £1 a week to a labouring man. That is all they are getting in the country; in many cases they are paid less. That type of man has to do laborious work. The managers of the factorics—the Sugar Company—can afford to pay their labourers 50/- a week. Is not the man on the farm more entitled to a better week's wages than the man in the sugar factory? Deputy Flinn said that both the farmer and the labourer are carrying this State on their backs. I earnestly hope that the Government will make a determined effort soon to settle the economic war and give the farmers and the labourers a chance of living.

Mr. Bennett

I am rather disappointed, and I think the House generally is disappointed, that the two Ministers who ought to be primarily interested in this Vote, the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Agriculture, are absent. There are many matters that could more readily be discussed and answered by either of those Ministers than by the Minister for Finance, able as he is in other matters. This Vote means a reduction in the agricultural grant of about £100,000 at a time when, as the previous speaker said, the money is probably more needed than ever before in the history of the Dáil. The county councils are nearly all in the position that they cannot meet their liabilities. Much of the work they should do is left undone. Labourers are in many cases three, four, and even eight weeks unpaid because there is no provision to meet the payment of their wages. Within recent years over £700,000 has been withheld from the county councils because of the unpaid annuities, and there will be probably further additions to that amount in the coming February. One does not know exactly what will be the position of the county councils this day 12 months if things go on as they have been going on for the last few months.

It looks as if most of the useful work of the county councils will have to be suspended. In my own county affairs are so bad that many of the labourers are two months unpaid. They are men with families, and they have been working for two months without any wages. It is an intolerable position. Most of the farmers of the county are unable to pay their rates punctually. I am sorry to say the position in my county is probably worse than in other counties, because the amount of unpaid rates is very big and there does not seem to be any possibility of getting the money in in a hurry. In the coming year the ratepayers will be faced with the necessity of meeting a higher rate than this year if the grant is not increased. I do not want to get out of order by referring to the many topics one would like to discuss on this Vote and which, perhaps, have some relation to it.

I cannot lay too much emphasis on the pitiable position of the ratepayers, who are mostly farmers, because of the economic war. I will not enlarge on that subject, because it has been very fully discussed in this House on many occasions, and, I expect, will again be discussed. Perhaps the oftener it is discussed the better, because it may have an effect on the Government and possibly induce them to settle the dispute. The whole policy of the Government, particularly in relation to this grant, is such that they seem to be working in a circle. They have no defined policy on matters pertaining to agriculture. Sometimes when we venture to allude to the distressed circumstances of various farmers we are met by the Minister for Agriculture in a not very good spirit; he is more aggressive than otherwise. He is one of the Ministers who are working in a circle, and he reminds me forcibly of the bull that went so fast in a circle that it overtook itself. The Minister is generally in that position. He makes a rush in an endeavour to solve particular agricultural troubles, and the next thing is that we have a complete reversal of policy.

We had a year ago a declaration— perhaps on this very Vote—that the position would be better in a short time. Satisfactory arrangements, we were told, were to be made to give guaranteed prices to farmers for their fat cattle. That hope was not well founded, and indeed before people had very much time to consider it the Minister ran away from his own proposal. Much the same thing occurred in other directions. The lot of the farmers is made very much worse by the policy of chopping and changing adopted by the Minister for Agriculture. I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to debate this matter at any great length. Every Deputy opposite, as well as those on these benches, knows full well that the grant is insufficient at the present time. They know it would need very much more to put the majority of the county councils in a working position. At any rate, this is not the time for reduction. We on this side of the House would appeal to the Minister, if appeals are any use, on this matter. The Minister for Finance, I am sure, would be willing to help, but I suppose the exigencies of his office would compel him to deny us the relief we are looking for. I hope some Deputy on the Government side will get up and either attack or defend this particular Vote. All contributions to this debate should not be left to Opposition Deputies. There are as many Deputies on the Government Benches interested in this subject as there are on this side. For their own sakes, and for the sake of their constituencies, I think it ought to be their duty either to attack or defend this Vote. It would make the debate much more interesting if they did so. I do not want to say any more except that this Vote is entirely insufficient and that the circumstances of the time call for a very much increased Vote.

Mr. Belton

I agree that no good purpose can be served by going deeply into the causes that make this Vote inadequate.

The Minister took up office under normal conditions. He came into office on the promise of complete derating. He did not carry it out. Some of us were not surprised at that. But he had revenue producing machinery installed by his predecessors a few years before to produce over £1,000,000 to relieve agricultural land of rates in addition to the relief agricultural land already had prior to 1931-32. Relief of agricultural land was got prior to 1931-32, and agriculturists were entitled to it to the extent of £500,000 by the tenure under which they held their land embodied in the Statute of 1898. In 1924 or 1925 they got relief equivalent to double that original relief; and that second relief they got was considered equitable. Because of the question of the burden of industrial tariffs there was a good case in equity for it. In 1931-32 a case was made for full derating. So convinced were the Fianna Fáil Party of the soundness of that case, that every member of the Fianna Fáil Party holding a portfolio to-day, assured the country, from various platforms, that on their return to power there would be full derating. I suppose that had an effect upon the Party then in power, and they proposed in 1931-32 to give £750,000 extra relief. The present Minister for Finance was eloquent in opposition to that £750,000 as entirely inadequate in 1931-32, when there was a clear flow of trade between this country and Great Britain, and when the industrial tariffs were about £2,000,000 less than they are to-day, which, of course, has put up the cost of non-agricultural buying in this country. That £750,000 was to be provided by a fourpenny tax per gallon on petrol, and a halfpenny a pound on sugar, bringing in about £1,100,000 in the full working year. Increased burdens have been placed upon agriculture owing to the economic war. I am not going into the why and the wherefore of the economic war. This Government has benefited over and above what their predecessors benefited to the extent of withholding payments to Great Britain less than half the annuities. What are they doing with that extra money? I do not want to follow Deputy Bennett in his wail that the local authorities of this country are bankrupt. I know the position of the local authorities as well as any representative man outside the Minister and his Department, whose duty it is to know how they stand. I think the Minister for Finance knows or ought to make it his business to know, what that position is. I do not want to mention it here. It would not serve any useful purpose to mention it. Neither will it serve any useful purpose to mention the writs sent to local authorities to get judgment mortgages upon farmers. Is it not a terrible condition of affairs when such an expedient has to be adopted, and when it is recognised that rates cannot be collected on big farms? As chairman of a county council I gave instructions within the last month to list such farms for a finance meeting. When they came up at the finance meeting there was not a member of that Council but stood aghast at the names which appeared on that list—the names of men to whose premises we had sent the sheriff, a return of "No goods" being made. We are face to face with taking those people to court, piling on costs, and registering judgment mortgages against their holdings. Of course the reason that we have to do it is that they can sell their holdings at any time, and when the farms are transferred to the purchaser only two years' rates can be recovered from the new owner, and we lose all the rest. I am speaking now of cases that I know. I am speaking of constituents of the Minister. We have this policy of reducing the agricultural grant, of reducing the market prices of agricultural produce, and even going further—spending our money in Continental countries for the last three years in trying to get markets where there are no markets. Last week we had the market in Italy shut down to us. It is true that the best market for foodstuffs is in Italy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will realise that a lot of things which are true cannot be discussed on this Vote.

Mr. Belton

I know that, but agricultural rates will be paid out of the sale of agricultural products, and if the best market available for our produce is shut down to us, we will be in a worse position to pay our agricultural rates. And I am not shouting "Up the Republic." Were it not for the general financial position of local authorities—I myself am a member of couple of important local authorities—I would go more fully into this. There is just a danger that while a criticism of the position here would be good from the point of view of airing the matter in this House, taking the wider and more national view it might not be productive of as much as if less were said. However, I take the decision of the electorate, and while I see in broad indelible letters that the Government have deceived the electorate, and that the Minister for Finance has a lot to answer for between his promises in County Dublin and his actions subsequently, yet I daresay the Minister will be able to brazen that out some day when the time comes again. But the people who are suffering most voted for this thing, and there is nothing like giving a fellow a good dose of his own medicine. Now they have to pay for it, and when the Minister for Finance comes back again to County Dublin to appeal to the electorate, I say "good luck to him" if he is able to get returned again by the people who returned him last time.

Mr. Dillon

I want to again direct the attention of the Minister to astonishing figures, and I do so because as a member of the Roscommon County Council I was struck by the fact that when we were called upon to make provision for the moneys which were withheld in respect of unpaid land annuities, the Council— although it consists of a majority of the Minister's own supporters—refused to do so, and in fact struck a rate that only partially covered the deficiency which had arisen as a result of the Minister's withholding a considerable portion of the agricultural grant in order to build up the land bond fund. Now, under the Minister's present proposal, not only are we going to have a more substantial reduction from the agricultural grant in respect of the unpaid annuities, but we are going to have another £100,000 taken off it. Surely the Minister must realise that he will drive every local authority in this country into bankruptcy, and as Deputy Belton has said—there is no use in blinking our eyes to the verdict of the electorate—a considerable number of the local authorities consist of Fianna Fáil supporters. Every one of them is going to go into bankruptcy. Has the Minister taken the Minister for Local Government and Public Health into consultation on this matter, or has he simply arbitrarily decided that he cannot give more than the sum now proposed to be given, and that they will have to get their £100,000 wherever they can?

The rates, quite apart from the deductions from the agricultural grant, have increased by £469,000 since Fianna Fáil came into office. That is the rate warrant for the country. Last year more than half a million in money was due by the local authorities, for which no provision was made at all, and that problem will have to be faced at the end of this financial year. We have no reason to believe that as large a sum of money will not become due on top of that at the end of this financial year, so that you will have half a million due from last year; you will have half a million accruing due during this year; and you will have £100,000 deducted from the agricultural grant; so that the local authorities of this country will be £1,100,000 down. If the Fianna Fáil local authorities adopt the same attitude this year as they did last year we will end up this financial year and start into a new one with £1,100,000 due by the local authorities, and no provision of any kind made to meet it. I appreciate Deputy Belton's reluctance to use any alarmist language lest essential credit should be made more difficult, but at the same time it is folly to close our eyes to inevitable developments, particularly when, by taking measures now, we might avert the evils that will otherwise accrue. This much is certain, that if £1,100,000 is due by the local authorities at the end of this year, and no provision is made for it, bankruptcy awaits every one of them. It is in the power of the Minister for Finance to co-operate with the local authorities in order to avoid that situation; one method is by restoring the agricultural grant to what it was before he started cheeseparing on it, and the other method is to open discussions with the Minister for Local Government and Public Health with a view to funding those arrears, and finding ways and means of preventing their arising in the future. I appeal most strongly to the Minister to take this action, and start negotiations of that kind before March is upon us, because if he does not, a very grave situation indeed will arise. I understand, Sir, that you wish progress to be reported at 7 o'clock. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.