Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Nov 1935

Vol. 59 No. 6

Vote 25—Supplementary Agricultural Grants (Resumed).

Mr. McGovern

I feel that the Minister for Finance is not meeting the local bodies fairly in this matter. There is no justification for cutting down this grant, particularly this year. He must be aware of the difficulties the farmers are in at the present time. They are in a position in which they are unable to pay their ordinary liabilities, and it is not fair that they should be asked to pay more than they had to pay for the last couple of years. The figures in relation to this matter have been dealt with here by other speakers and I do not want to go into them now. There is no use in labouring the point, but the Minister should have met the local bodies more generously in this case. I protest against this cutting down of the agricultural grant on this occasion.

I believe there is another aspect of the question which is worth considering. It is that it is being made impossible for local bodies to carry on. Increased liabilities are being imposed on these bodies by reason of their having to carry out building schemes in order to relieve the unemployment situation in the country. Various liabilities are being imposed upon them which will necessitate further grants and, instead of cutting down their grants, they are entitled to get extra grants. At the same time, if it is made impossible for those bodies to function, as it is being made impossible, it will provide the Minister for Local Government with a pretext for abolishing them. A certain number of them have been abolished already and it seems to be the policy of the Government to make it impossible for these bodies to function so that they will all be abolished. I think this is a step in that direction, and that aspect of the question should be considered.

I wish on behalf of County Cavan to protest against this cutting down of the Agricultural Grant. I think County Cavan cannot be charged with trying to evade its liabilities. The farmers there have always paid their way. I do not think they deserve much credit for that, but they do deserve credit from the Government from their point of view, because they always try to meet their liabilities. The farmers of the whole country, as a rule, are remarkable for their honesty and for trying to pay their way, but when they try to do the impossible the Government, instead of going part of the way to meet them and removing some of the difficulties from their path, throw fresh obstacles before them. It is a question of spurring them on until there is a complete collapse. I am afraid local bodies will find it impossible to function if the Minister will not consider increasing this grant and giving them some assistance in their efforts to get out of their difficulties. If, later on, it is found that the Minister for Local Government removes some of the local bodies, it ought to be understood that it is not the fault of these bodies, because it seems to be the settled policy of the Government to make things impossible for them so that they may be abolished.

Mr. Corish

There is no doubt at all that the present policy of the Government in asking local ratepayers to pay for defaulting land annuitants is one that is leading to a great deal of chaos. The Minister may say, of course, that it is not absolutely their policy, but that it is contained in certain Acts of Parliament. We all know that, but we are living in times when the ratepayers find it difficult to pay either land annuities or local rates, and I suggest that the Minister and his Government ought to reconsider the whole situation, because the position is getting worse each year. County councils are carrying over a large amount of arrears from year to year, and not alone that, but in consequence of the inability of certain ratepayers to pay in certain areas, many of the county councils are not budgeting sufficiently to meet the demands upon them during the financial year. The result of that is that things are going to be worse year after year.

While I have a good deal of sympathy with the farmers in this connection, one very seldom hears any voice at all raised for the town ratepayer. There are a good many shopkeepers to-day in a struggling position because the farmers are not able to meet their demands. The shopkeepers have given a good deal of credit to farmers, and I do think that, in some way, some of this grant should be made available for town ratepayers. They are suffering in consequence of what people are pleased to call the economic war.

Mr. Belton

Does the Deputy propose to reduce it still further?

Mr. Corish

I do not propose to reduce it still further, but I think there should be an allocation which is fair to everybody, town and country. There is no relief, good, bad or indifferent, for the town ratepayers at the present time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would that require legislation?

Mr. Corish

I am not sure whether it would or not. I suppose, if it would, I am out of order, but at the same time it is no harm——

Mr. MacEntee

To try it on.

Mr. Corish

——to ventilate it at this stage. I would suggest to the Minister that there should be something done to enable him to advance this money in its entirety. It is not fair to ask local ratepayers to pay money in lieu of moneys not paid in the shape of land annuities. What happens is that the person who does not pay his annuity is also the person who does not pay his rates, and the man who pays both his annuities and his rates is called upon to pay for the man who defaults in both cases.

Mr. Curran

I should like in connection with this Vote to join with other Deputies in protesting against the reduction of the Agricultural Grant on this occasion. I think the Government ought to look at the matter from a reasonable point of view. As Deputy Corish sat down, he mentioned a matter to which I made reference on a recent occasion — the injustice of expecting farmers to pay their rates in the shape of annuities for those who do not pay them — and the answer I got from the Government Benches was that it would require legislation to effect the necessary change. The position of land tenure and of the Agricultural Grant down along the ages needs remedying, and if any other class of the community but the farmers was suffering so much, the Government would be called on to remedy the position.

The Government say that there is a "No Rates" campaign on foot and that people are holding up the rates. In my own county, in 1931-32, the amount demanded from the rate-paying community, of which the farmers are the largest section, was £78,000. This year the sum of £135,000 is demanded from the ratepayers, less, of course, the £12,000 for credit notes. That is an increase of £45,376. Is it not plain to everyone that one of the greatest defaulters in connection with the rates is the Government itself, in the reductions which it has made from time to time in the Agricultural Grant for one reason or another? If it is the law that the Government must deduct the amount of unpaid annuities from the Agricultural Grant, well then I think the law should be remedied, and it is time that it was. Some Government will come into power that will remedy it.

I do not want to trace the whole history of the Agricultural Grant. I know it goes back for long ages, and that justice demanded that it should be given. When the members of the present Government were in Opposition they were loud in denouncing the injustice that was being done to the farmers in connection with rates and everything else. What is the position of the ratepayer to-day or of the county councils? I have before me a return showing the percentage of rates paid to the various county councils. Let me take some examples at random. The percentage of rates paid in the County Clare is only 3.8 per cent. That is the position in the President's constituency. It is one of the lowest percentages in the country. There is no such thing as a no-rate campaign there, but there is an absolute inability on the part of the farmers and of other sections of the community to meet the demands that are made on them. Deputy Corish has referred to the position of the townspeople. I am interested in the rates paid in the local towns. Not long ago I met the chairman of an urban council who differs from me in politics. He told me that the people in that town were not able to meet their demands. He said that his rates some years ago were 10/- in the £, and that now they were 20/- in the £. The townspeople are not able to meet the demands made on them. The towns are suffering through loss of trade. Deputy Corish said, and I was glad to hear him refer to it, that the townspeople are unable to collect their debts. It would be well if the Government and Deputy Corry would ask themselves the reason why.

Mr. Corry

The bad advice they are getting to pay no one.

Mr. Curran

It is time that cry was left out of consideration. The rate collection was never as low as it is at the present time. In my own county, only 8 per cent. of the rates have been collected, and this is the time the Government select to reduce the agricultural grant. I repeat what I said earlier, that the Government themselves are the greatest defaulters in connection with the payment of the local rates. That may be a hard statement to make, but I stand over it. There is no use in thinking that things can go on as they are. The arrears of rates are mounting up every day. The local authorities are unable to collect them. I suppose that in some cases they are reluctant to go to such extremes as the Government have gone to. This is the time that the Government seek to reduce the agricultural grant. I would like to remind them of the views they expressed in the past when they talked about derating for the farming community. I remember that when Deputy Corry sat on these benches he made a statement to this effect: "Did anybody think that the farmers of the North were going to come into the Free State to have the privilege of paying rates?" I wonder what is his view on that question now? Is he prepared to go down the country and repeat the statement he made here last night, that everything is grand? Does he remember the time when he used to denounce the big salaries that were being paid? We did not hear him talk much last evening on the Courts of Justice Bill when provisions were passed enabling new appointments to be made at a cost of thousands of pounds to the taxpayers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not in order now.

Mr. Curran

I realise that and I apologise. Deputy Corry is in the House, and it is no harm to remind him of the statements he used to make when he sat on these benches. He is now going to support this reduction of £100,000 in the agricultural grant that was intended for the relief of the farming community. I protest against this reduction. It is an injustice and is going to impose severe hardships on the rate-paying section of the community. The Minister for Finance has his own special care, his own special baby, so to speak, the finances of the State. Probably he does not care where the money comes from. I have noticed for a long time that the effect of legislation introduced by the Government is to increase more and more the burden on the ratepayers. They are increasing the local services and the social services, but while they do that they put the burden of maintaining these services principally on the farming community. In my opinion, if local services have to be increased the Government should seek for some source out of which to finance them other than the `farmers' pockets. Deputies may talk about the grand roads that we have, but it is immaterial to 90 per cent. of the farmers whether a man with a motor car can do 90 miles an hour or nine miles an hour on our roads. These grand roads are of little advantage to the farmer. His main concern is with the amount of rates he has to pay. In conclusion, I protest against this reduction in the agricultural grant.

Mr. McGilligan

Last night we discussed for a period the setting up of a Select Committee to investigate the incidence of certain duties. We can get some reflection of the incidence of those duties in the figures that relate to this problem. In connection with this grant, there is a reduction of £100,000 in the amount we are discussing as between this year and last year. The Government consider, looking at the country through their rosy-coloured spectacles, that it is so much better off that they can reduce the amount given by way of relief of rates by £100,000. Yet, the situation as it is cannot be denied. The figures are there to show it. In regard to the withheld annuities, there is the sum of £750,000 that had to be met, and the county councils, faced with that, have made provision for less than £160,000. Therefore, there is staring them in the face, unprovided for, the sum of £560,000. That is only the arrears. There will be further the unpaid land annuities that fall due this year to be met by the county councils. That sum of £750,000 was not to any great extent an accumulation. It was a new default in the payment of land annuities. Some portion of it, probably the whole of it, will recur again this year. At any rate, there is the sum of £560,000 to be got somewhere and it will be got out of the ratepayer. There is the possibility that the greater part, if not all, of the £750,000 that occurred last year will recur this year.

There is another figure. There was always a certain amount of money carried forward from one year to another as rates not collected in the year in which they should have been collected and sent forward for collection the next year. I suppose the average would be £100,000. Certainly the average of £100,000 would be putting it too high in, say, the year 1931. We find that the sum of £330,000 is carried forward this year, and that is not land annuities. That is ordinary rates, so that you have the ratepayer faced with this: that of last year's unpaid annuities of £750,000 there is provision made for about £159,000; there is £560,000 yet to be provided somewhere, probably out of the ratepayers, and there is going to be added to that whatever default there is in the payment of land annuities this year. In addition, there has been carried forward £330,000 in rates not regarded as uncollectable but to be collected this year. We get then: £560,000, plus £750,000, which I admit is an estimate, plus £330,000.

I remember that in this year the warrants struck for rates are nearly £500,000 in excess of 1931. I am speaking now of the ordinary rates, leaving out the arrears, etc. The rates struck in this year are nearly £500,000 in excess of what they were in 1931. With the rates up by nearly £500,000, with a carry-forward of £330,000— nearly £250,000 more than what was the average — and with the possibility of a recurrence of the £750,000 unpaid annuities, and with £560,000 definitely unpaid annuities not provided for, the Government think that this is the time to reduce this grant by £100,000. Leaving out the taxes that have been imposed on tea, bread, sugar and other things, we get from those figures a picture of the devastation that has been caused throughout the countryside. The ratepayer has to provide £500,000 more this year than in any year before through the new duties and the new obligations in relation to the so-called benefits. There is the £750,000 in connection with the land annuities, and the possibility of that recurring this year, the £560,000 not provided for, and the £330,000 of a carry-forward of unpaid rates from last year. That is the position at a time when Deputy Corish talks about the urban dweller, and it is at this time the Government are making a reduction of £100,000 in the agricultural grant. That is the position in which the rural ratepayer and the town dweller find themselves to-day as compared with, say, 1931, when the amount paid by way of home assistance ran from£11,000 in May to about £12,500 in December. Take what is being paid now by way of home assistance and unemployment assistance. If you take the average weekly payments for the last week in one month you find that the comparative figures are: £10,000 has moved up to £19,000 in May, 1934, and to £44,000 in 1935. From June, 1931, the £10,000 goes up to £21,000 in 1934, and in June, 1935, it moves up to £45,000, until in the end it reaches a steady total of £34,000 a week. That gives a reflex of the situation in the towns. The situation in the country is as I have already pointed out, and it is in these circumstances that this grant is being reduced by £100,000.

General MacEoin

I want to protest against this reduction. I do not propose to enter into the matter very far except to draw the attention of the House to the condition in which the farmers in my constituency find themselves. The reduction of the agricultural grant in these two counties will have very serious reactions. The County Longford is composed mostly of small farmers. These men are very hard workers. They are principally engaged in tillage. They find themselves absolutely unable to meet the demands made on them either for rates or land annuities. They are making every effort to pay their rates. Hardships are being imposed on them which they should not be called upon to bear. In Westmeath, the situation is even worse although the increase in the rates in Longford is pretty extensive. It is more extensive than in Westmeath. Later on I propose to deal with the figures. I remember well the lavish promises that were made in these two counties in 1930 and 1931. It is very hard to reconcile the promises that were then made with the manner in which effect has been given to them. Glowing promises were made to the people at that time. I have here a pamphlet that was issued by the Fianna Fáil Party in Longford-Westmeath during the by-election campaign at which Deputy Geoghegan was the Fianna Fáil candidate.

Mr. MacEntee

As Deputy Curran said, I think this is certainly going down through the ages.

General MacEoin

There is no doubt that it is, because I think this is one of the documents that will stand as a monument for all ages. These promises were made and broken by Fianna Fáil in the constituency. Here is the sort of thing that went on: They pointed out the amount Longford paid in rates and they pointed out the amount Westmeath paid in rates. Then they told the people of Longford-Westmeath that if the Government elected by the people would only stand by the rights of the people, the farmers, householders and shopkeepers of Longford-Westmeath need not pay one penny in rates; the land annuities would do the whole thing and leave £30,000 over for the aid of agriculture. They said, "£1,400,000 was taken out of the pockets of Longford-Westmeath farmers. End this robbery and vote No. 1 Geoghegan." There is no question that that statement was cleverly worded, inasmuch as the President, or the Minister for Finance, can say that they did not promise derating exactly.

Mr. MacEntee

There would be no use in saying that to Deputy Belton.

General MacEoin

Here is what they have at the top of the circular — I admit it is not in the body of it—"Longford-Westmeath can derate itself. Vote No. 1 Geoghegan." I should like to know what exactly that means if it is not a promise that if the people of Longford-Westmeath did a certain thing, the Government would do the rest for them. What has happened in Westmeath? At that time the total assessment in Westmeath was £76,000 and the total warrant £77,600. There were arrears of £1,800 carried forward. At the end of the period, the total amount outstanding was only £6,000. In 1933-34, there was an increase in the warrant of nearly £10,000. In the present year, 1935-36, the total warrant is £116,693. If you subtract £77,000—the total warrant for 1931-32 — you get an increase of over £39,000 in rates in that county. And this is the time that the Government decide to reduce the agricultural grant—a reduction which will hit a county like Westmeath very seriously.

It will certainly hit counties like Westmeath very seriously. Worse than that, the demand does not represent the total liabilities of the county council and local authorities by any stretch of imagination. The land annuities outstanding have increased to such an extent that we find for 1935-36 the total deficiency was £47,000, and of that the local authorities only budgeted for £23,000, leaving £24,000 to be carried forward. When everything is taken into consideration the County of Westmeath will find, even though they get the full amount of the warrant, itself with £29,000 on the wrong side. Yet at such a time the agricultural grant is decreased. That is the position in counties like Longford and Westmeath, to which these promises were made by Eamonn Donnelly and published by James Geoghegan. I think these promises should be encased in something and sent to the Museum as a monument of national importance to be preserved for all time.

The people in these counties are hard workers. They made efforts to meet the Government's wishes by increasing tillage but, notwithstanding that, they find themselves in a worse position than ever. I am quite candid when I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter, and not to impose this hardship upon people who deserve better treatment. The people now find that the pig trade, into which they entered, has burst and that at the last two or three fairs at Longford and Edgeworthstown prices were reduced to such an extent that they were heartbroken. Yet this is the time that the Government decides to reduce the agricultural grant. I notice that my colleague from Longford is in the House, and if he says what he believes to be true he will endorse every word of mine, as far as Longford and Westmeath — Longford in particular — are concerned. The Minister should reconsider the matter and if he does not honour the bond which was given, he should at least restore the agricultural grant to the original figure.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I think this debate has gone on for a considerable time under some misapprehension as to the purpose of the Estimate and the ability of the House to alter it or to complain about the amount that we now propose to vote for the completion of the scheme for the relief of rates on agricultural land, as was set out in the Act which was passed to regulate that matter in the last session, the Agricultural Land (Relief of Rates) Act, 1935. The House heard the merits of that measure discussed at great length, and ultimately in its wisdom decided that it should be adopted and enacted as a statute. The only thing we are empowered to do at this stage is to discuss whether or not the amount proposed in the Estimate is sufficient to meet the requirements of the Bill. However, the word "agriculture" seems to exercise a baneful influence on some sections of the House. Its mere appearance on the Order Paper creates a brain storm there so that in a whirlwind of fantasy, everything irrelevant to the matter under discussion can be dragged in and debated. Deputy MacEoin, who has left the House, excelled in that respect. He even managed to discuss the price of pigs.

One thing is, I think, clear from the discussion, that most of the Deputies who spoke in this debate did not trouble to make up their case. Deputy Brennan, who opened the attack for the Opposition, stated that things were worse this year than last year. He implied that the rates were being collected less efficiently, that they were coming in more slowly, and yet, the very figures which he had before him, and from which he quoted, were a clear refutation of that statement, because those figures show even though the rate collection is not as satisfactory as it might be, it is better than last year. The amount of rates outstanding on September 30th of last year was 96.3 of the total warrant. On the corresponding date this year the amount was only 90.7. I am not going to say that that is a fully satisfactory position, but there may be an explanation for it. If we look at the counties we see that a couple of counties stand out in a very favourable light indeed, and they are not by any means the richest counties in this State.

If we look at Cavan we find that the percentage of the total warrant outstanding on September 30th, 1935, is 70.8. It does not seem to be very good, but it is better than the average for the whole country at September 30th, 1931. In Mayo, which is not by any means a wealthy county, the amount outstanding was 75 per cent. of the total warrant. That is extraordinary in two counties that have been favoured less by nature than other counties, and that are not at all as rich in soil or natural resources as Cork, Limerick or Tipperary.

Mr. O'Leary

And Clare.

Mr. MacEntee

And parts of Clare. These two counties have done signally well. There must be, I think, something other than an economic explanation of the fact that in some counties, and particularly in wealthy counties, the rate collection is not so satisfactory as it ought otherwise to be. We were told by Deputy Brennan that things were worse this year than last year. So far as the rates are concerned, while the collection is not as satisfactory as we would like it to be, nevertheless it is better than last year.

Again, take the case of the annuities. The collection of the land annuities has enormously improved. The normal collection has enormously improved and not only are the annuities coming in very much better than last year, but over £1,065,000 of the accumulated arrears have been collected as well. Certainly, I cannot see how any person with these figures before him could contend, as far as the land annuities go, that things are worse this year than last year.

Then, again, Deputy Brennan said that the overdrafts to local authorities were increasing. Deputy Brennan had a question down to the Minister for Local Government on 30th October as to the total indebtedness of local authorities on 30th September last. I think the Deputy must have forgotten the figures supplied to him on that occasion, because they indicated that the indebtedness of the local authorities on 30th September of this year was £28,000 less than on 30th September of last year. Again I say that under the three main heads — the collection of rates, the collection of annuities, and the total indebtedness of the local authorities, things are better than last year.

On the question of the amount of the reduction of the grant, while the amount which is devoted to the relief of agriculturists in this particular form has been slightly reduced, nevertheless the local authorities have been relieved of a very great burden indeed in respect to outdoor relief and social services.

General Mulcahy

And yet they are paying a much larger sum in home assistance than they were in the year 1931-1932.

Mr. O'Leary

That is too far back.

Mr. MacEntee

The fact remains that this year in respect of unemployment assistance we are paying out about £1,500,000.

General Mulcahy

In spite of that, every month during the summer the home assistance authorities paid out more money than they did in the year 1931-32.

Mr. MacEntee

During the summer?

General Mulcahy

For every month.

Mr. MacEntee

That may be quite a different matter. Wait until we see how it works out for the whole year. The Deputy surely is not going to take the little slice of the year that is most favourable to his argument.

General Mulcahy

I should like to assure the Minister that there is no such thing in my mind. I had an opportunity of examining the returns from May down to the present time, and that is a fact. If the Minister examines them he will find the same thing too.

Mr. MacEntee

If what the Deputy says is true, it does not shake the validity of my arguments in the least.

Mr. O'Leary

It will not shake the Minister.

Mr. MacEntee

I hope not. The argument is this: We have reduced the Agricultural Grant by £100,000 as compared with last year, the grant for which was higher than any grant ever given under the previous Administration, but as an offset to that we have brought in the Unemployment Assistance Act, under which, after making allowances for contributions by the local authorities and everything else, there is a net payment to the order of £1,500,000.

General Mulcahy

And yet we had the conditions under which local authorities had to pay increased home assistance.

Mr. MacEntee

If the Deputy will permit me, I shall develop my argument.

General Mulcahy

I am trying to supply a little necessary information.

Mr. MacEntee

I say that in unemployment assistance we are paying out £1,500,000, and in respect of widows' and orphans' pensions we shall probably pay out in this year something like £200,000.

Mr. Belton

You got £250,000 for that purpose last year, and you paid out nothing.

Mr. MacEntee

As the Deputy is aware, the Act is now in operation and the money will have to be paid out this year. The widows and orphans will have to get the pensions in any event. We shall pay out under that heading approximately £200,000. That makes a total of £1,700,000. Whether the local authorities are paying more in outdoor relief or not, the fact remains that the Exchequer is putting into possession of very poor people up and down the country £1,700,000. As they have to pay rents and rates like everybody else——

Mr. O'Leary

They have to pay extra for their tea and sugar too.

Mr. MacEntee

Of course, they have. They have to pay the shopkeeper, and we are putting them in a position to pay their rents and rates and pay the shopkeeper. In so far as that money is being distributed through the country; in so far as the local authorities have been relieved— greatly relieved in some cases — and rates have been greatly reduced by the introduction of the Unemployment Assistance Act, we have very much more than offset that reduction of £100,000 in the agricultural grant.

General Mulcahy

I should like to issue a challenge to the Minister.

Mr. MacEntee

I have been very patient.

General Mulcahy

I should like to challenge the Minister to say where is the county in which a smaller rate has been struck than in 1931-32.

Mr. Corry

They are paying home assistance now. They were paying nothing in your time.

Mr. Smith

Everybody knows that the boards of health have budgeted for less this year than in previous years.

General Mulcahy

Why then are they paying more in home assistance?

Mr. Smith

Everybody knows that in many counties as a result of the Unemployment Assistance Act the boards of health have budgeted for less expenditure than in previous years.

General Mulcahy

For less expenditure perhaps than in 1933-34, but I am saying they have budgeted for more than in 1931-32.

Mr. MacEntee

That may be possible but there was a rate of relief in 1931-32 under which people with large families were getting only 5/- per week.

General Mulcahy

Why?

Mr. MacEntee

Because the local authorities could not give them any more.

General Mulcahy

They are in a better position now!

Mr. MacEntee

At any rate, with the relief which we have afforded to local authorities by taking over the major portion of the burden from them, they are now in a position to increase, very greatly increase, the scales of relief which they are giving to people who are in receipt of home assistance.

Mr. O'Leary

I should like to ask one question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Minister gives way but not otherwise.

Mr. O'Leary

The Minister has made a statement that they have paid out £1,700,000. I should like to ask him, just for the sake of getting information, where does that £1,700,000 come from? Out of whose pockets is it taken?

Mr. MacEntee

Out of the pockets of the taxpayers.

Mr. O'Leary

I should like to ask the Minister if he agrees with the statement made by Dr. Ryan in 1928 that the farmers produce 80 per cent. of the wealth of this country and that they paid 80 per cent. of the taxation?

Mr. Corry

Some farmers.

Mr. MacEntee

I was afraid that the Deputy was going to ask me if I agreed with what Gladstone said in 1882, because both questions would be equally relevant. Deputy Brennan said that local authorities, by reason of the uncollected arrears of land annuities, had been mulcted in the sum of £716,000. That is quite true, but the Deputy might have been able to make a stronger case if he had been candid and had pointed out that the Exchequer had advanced to the Guarantee Fund a sum of £550,000, which almost completely offset the amount which had been withheld in the Supplementary Agricultural Grant from the local authorities. That, certainly, was not of inconsiderable assistance to them.

Mr. Brennan

May I ask the Minister if that was not due to the local authorities in 1933?

Mr. MacEntee

It was not due. It was an advance in respect of arrears yet to be collected. That is what the Deputy forgets. These are arrears yet to be collected.

Mr. Brennan

What does that mean?

Mr. MacEntee

There were two sums, one of £300,000 at the close of the financial year 1933-34 and the other £250,000 at the close of the financial year 1934-35.

Mr. Brennan

Arrears yet to be collected?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, as an offset to the £716,000 impounded by the Guarantee Fund, this advance of £550,000 was given in respect of funded arrears yet to be collected, arrears the collection of which will be spread over 40 years.

Mr. Brennan

There is no relation between the two.

Mr. MacEntee

There is. Do you think we would have made the advance if it had not been for the fact that the operation of the Guarantee Fund impounded, as I say, this £716,000 of the Agricultural Grant? Do you think any Government would have made it? They would have waited until the moneys came in, and when they came in paid them out to the county councils.

Mr. Brennan

When the Act was passing through the House a promise was made by the Government that that money would be given to the local authorities irrespective of the land annuities deficiency which arose last year. They were two separate matters.

Mr. MacEntee

Do not overstate it.

Mr. Brennan

I am not overstating it.

Mr. MacEntee

It was agreed that as these arrears were collected they would go into the Guarantee Fund in the ordinary way and release from the Fund an equivalent amount of agricultural grants that had been stopped by our predecessors. But it was not agreed, and no person ever gave an undertaking, that the £716,000 would be paid out immediately. That undertaking was never given. In fact, so far as I have any responsibility for the administration of the Guarantee Fund, it was not my intention to make any advance whatsoever in respect of those arrears. The policy that I had mapped out was that, as the arrears came in, then the county councils, in whose areas they had been collected, would get credit for them. But, as I say, in view of the amount of current arrears that had accumulated rapidly, we have reversed that policy and made a very substantial advance in respect of those funded and uncollected arrears to offset the £716,000.

Mr. Brennan

I was not finding fault with the Minister or with the Government on that point. What I was endeavouring to show was that £716,000 was withheld from the local authorities, that there was £550,000 of that unprovided for in the estimates of the local authorities and, as a result, the county councils were faced with a terrible situation, irrespective of what you gave last year or any other year, by way of moneys out of the Guarantee Fund, which does not affect that situation. Am I right in stating that there is yet £550,000 unprovided for by the local authorities under this heading?

Mr. MacEntee

I am not in a position to say whether there is or not. I am showing that the £716,000 was offset to the extent of £550,000 by the advance which we made.

Mr. Brennan

That does not take from the situation of the local authorities.

Mr. MacEntee

I think it does. I think it has helped them very materially. There is just one other point that I ought to deal with before I conclude, and that is, that there seems to be some apprehension, as a result of the reduction in the Supplementary Agricultural Grant which we have made this year and of the provisions of the Act under which the money has been voted, that the small farmer would suffer. The fact of the matter is that the farmer of £20 valuation and under cannot possibly be in any worse position than he was last year. Furthermore, I think that so far as the farmers who are entitled to what is known as the employment allowance are concerned they will not suffer either; it is only the people, in fact, who do not give employment commensurate with the area of land which they hold who will be hurt. Therefore I think that the prophecies which have been made here as to the devastating effect which the reduction in the amount of the grant is going to have on agriculture generally are not well-founded. I am perfectly certain it will be found that the provision which we are now making will be ample and will be sufficient to enable all farmers who are genuinely attempting to work their land to meet their obligations to the local authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution reported and agreed to.