Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 27 Jun 1939

Vol. 76 No. 13

Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1939—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill provides for the continuance of the system of rate relief for occupiers of agricultural land that has been in force for the past five years. The Acts dealing with the Agricultural Grant which were passed in the years 1935 and 1936 were temporary Acts and are now spent. The present Bill is intended to be a permanent measure. It allocates the Agricultural Grant in the proportions that were originally fixed in the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) (No. 2) Act, 1935, and provides for its application in the same way as was laid down in that Act. Thus the occupiers of holdings of a land valuation of £20 or less will get relief from rates by way of an allowance called the primary allowance. The occupiers of holdings above £20 in land valuation get this allowance on the first £20 of valuation only. This allowance is given at the same rate as was allowed in each county in the year 1933/34 on the first £10 of valuation. The primary allowances absorb altogether £1,202,000 of the Grant.

For occupiers with land valuation above £20 there are employment allowances granted in respect of men at work on the holding. The allowance is calculated on a valuation of £12 10s. 0d. for each man continuously employed throughout the previous calendar year. There is no allowance in respect of temporary or casual employment. If the occupier has not so much additional valuation as £12 10s. 0d. for each man the allowance is calculated on the actual valuation in excess of £20. These employment allowances absorb £333,000 of the Grant.

A little over £9,000 goes to urban authorities in respect of relief on land that has been brought within urban boundaries since the year 1898. There is then a balance of £326,000 which goes by way of supplementary allowance in relief of rates on the part of the land valuation above £20 that does not rank for an employment allowance. The supplementary allowance is at a lower rate than the primary allowance. In most counties it approximates to one-half.

The total amount of the Agricultural Grant for the current year is £1,870,000, and Section 4 of the Bill shows how this will be distributed. The Bill makes provision for a reallocation if the amount of the grant is altered in a future year. Such a reallocation will be made by the Government and the Order will be placed before each House of the Oireachtas. Whilst the grant remains at £1,870,000, the allocation in the Bill will stand.

A new feature in this Bill is the provision in Section 9 which will permit a reasonable sum to be set aside to meet claims for additional allowances. These claims arise during the year owing to holdings being divided after the valuation lists have been made up.

Provision has also been made for the issue of credit notes for part of the rate relief. Last year only five counties availed of their powers to issue credit notes under a corresponding section in the Act in operation.

In view of the increase in local rates levied on the agricultural community, I do not think the amount allocated here is at all adequate. Much more would be needed to relieve those engaged in agriculture because of the burdens imposed upon them by ever-increasing demands. I have made a rough tot showing how the agricultural grant is being allocated amongst the different counties and, as far as I can make out, I do not think it amounts to £1,870,000. I should like the Minister to explain how the deficiency arises. I think there is something like £50,000 of a deficiency between what is indicated in the Schedules and the amount that has been indicated by the Minister—the amount that has been allocated for agricultural grants, totalling £1,870,000. I do not believe that that is sufficient at all.

We contend that the burdens imposed on agriculture at the moment are altogether unfair and unjust and for that reason we have advocated derating. For a considerable time we have been submitting that view. When we asked the Government to set up the Agricultural Commission, we suggested that, pending the findings of the commission and the implementing by the Government of those findings, derating should be granted. We are all aware—the Minister just the same as everybody else—that local taxation has increased enormously within recent years. We are aware that various social services have expanded enormously, and the increased demands for housing, water and sewage have forced local taxation to the point that it has become a very serious burden on agriculturists.

I submit that, in the existing circumstances, this grant is inadequate to meet the situation. Last year was a particularly bad year for agriculture and the present year, in view of the weather conditions, gives every indication that it is going to be a disastrous year for the country, absolutely disastrous. As a matter of fact, I think that, in a great many districts— generally, all over the country, but certainly in a great many counties and districts—weather conditions up to the present time have been so severe that hunger exists among live stock, and crops are perished from the severe drought that exists at the present time, and it will be practically impossible for local authorities, therefore, to collect rates for the coming financial year. There is no indication that this drought is not likely to continue, and I would urge the Government to reconsider this grant and increase it.

As I said before, we asked the Government to grant derating to agriculture pending the report of the Agricultural Commission because we believe that a number of people—a big percentage of the people—are not paying their fair contribution to local and social services. Many people, such as professional men and people in the commercial life of the country, who are earning big salaries and living in houses with small valuations, are not paying their fair share, we believe, and their contributions to local services and poor law services are out of all proportion to, or at least form a very small percentage of, their earnings, and bear no relation whatever to the contributions that are made by the agricultural community. On a rough estimate, the agricultural community has to contribute approximately from 80 to 85 per cent. of the cost of those local services, and that is beyond what should be a fair charge on them. I submit that the agricultural community recognise the fact that they must contribute to those services in a well-ordered, civilised State such as ours. We realise that we must maintain those services and we do not suggest that we should be relieved of our responsibility in the matter, but we do suggest that we should be saddled only with our fair contribution, and the demands that are made at the present time on the agricultural community for local services are beyond what is a fair charge, and it certainly is not an equitable charge as between the various sections of the community.

Again, in the Bill, with the object of encouraging employment on the land, an allowance is made of £12 10/- per man working on the farm. Now, that is on the valuation basis, and the amount actually allowed is relatively small. I suggest that the amount allocated is very poor encouragement towards employment. If it is the Minister's intention to encourage employment, the basis there is not a very attractive one. I think the Minister might look into that matter also and, if he desires to encourage employment, I believe that the amount allowed should be increased, and increased considerably. As I said before, I personally consider that, under present conditions, and taking into account the difficult times, through which agriculture is passing and the many complaints that Deputies hear all over the country as to the financial problems the farmer is up against as a result of weather conditions and everything else, this grant is altogether insufficient.

My grievance in this connection is somewhat different from that of Deputy Hughes. He states that this grant is altogether insufficient. I admit that it is, but I think that if Deputy Hughes had the grievance that the council of which I am a member have, he would condemn the grant wholesale, because, although it is passed here in the House, the public body does not receive the agricultural grant at all. It is withheld owing to the failure or inability of the farmers to pay their land annuities, with the result that the local people have to increase the rates in order to meet the deficiency. I think that there is £40,000 due to County Wicklow in the matter of the agricultural grant. I certainly hope that this will be the last agricultural grant of this kind that the Minister will bring in, and that no public body will be penalised owing to the failure of the Government to collect whatever land annuities may be due. That creates chaos in the administration of public bodies. They make their estimates, depending on receiving the money that is due to them under this Act, only to be notified afterwards by the Department that the Guarantee Fund has received the money that the public bodies estimated they themselves would receive. That means that overdrafts have to be secured by the public bodies, interest has to be met, and the people who pay both rent and rates have to meet an increase in their rates owing to this money going to the Guarantee Fund to meet the deficiency.

I ask the Minister to examine the position with regard to public bodies in certain counties, who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in that position. I think that some concession should be given to them, and even though Deputy Hughes says that this grant is insufficient, I may tell him that we would be glad if we could only get our full share of even this insufficient grant, if the Minister would allow it, for this year. There is a burden on State funds, but if either the Minister or the Deputy were a ratepayer in County Wicklow he would realise what a heavy burden is imposed on the people there in order to meet this deficiency of £40,000 that is the result of the agricultural grant being withheld. I know that the Minister is aware of the position and that he knows it is not the fault of the members of the public bodies and that it is due to circumstances over which they have no control. We are glad to see that there is an improvement, and we would ask the Minister, since there is no Guarantee Fund now and we are not paying the British people any of this money that is being collected, to see that the public bodies should at least receive the full amount of this agricultural grant. That would give great assistance to the members of the public body as well as being a great benefit to the ratepayers in the area who are paying their own rates as well as the rates of those who are not paying, which is a great burden on the man who is trying to act fairly towards the members of the public body.

There is one point upon which I should like to be clear with regard to this Bill. I do not think it is in the Bill, and I thought that the Minister would mention it during his statement. I refer to agricultural holdings within urban areas. If no provision is made for these agricultural holdings in urban areas, I think it would be only fair that something should be done because, in the urban areas with which I am acquainted, I know that the people living there have been very hard hit, particularly in recent years, since social services have been so largely extended. These people have to pay for all the amenities in the urban areas, although they get no benefit from any waterworks scheme, sewerage scheme, or anything like that. I know that in the urban area around Galway City at the present time the rate on certain farmers there is 27/- in the £, while their neighbours across the fence, so to speak, have the same benefits to get as they have. The same is true of Ballinasloe and every other urban area there. If no provision is contained in the Bill to deal with that matter, I should like very much that something should be done because I believe these people, above all other sections of the agricultural community, have a very great grievance.

I think that the first question one would be inclined to ask in this connection is: Why has it been decided to make the existing system of allocating the agricultural grant permanent, in view of the fact that at the very moment all matters in connection with rates on agricultural land and in connection with agriculture generally are, as I might say, in the melting pot or at least being considered by a commission? It seems a strange thing that the Minister should introduce a Bill now to make this system permanent when it may happen that, in the course of a few months, the Agricultural Commission may recommend the complete de-rating of agricultural land, which, I suppose, would entail the complete repeal of this measure. I think it is generally agreed by farmers that the existing system of allocating the agricultural grant contains many inequalities and many absurdities. It is all very well to say that the agricultural grant is being distributed in such a manner as will encourage increased employment on the land, but the grant in respect of each employee is so small and so insignificant—I do not think it amounts, on the whole, to more than £2—that it would not cover the insurance of one man against accident, not to mention health insurance or other insurance. There is absolutely no encouragement whatever to increase employment on the land.

The other most remarkable feature of this scheme is that there is no abatement or allowance provided in respect of female employees on the land. One would imagine that agriculture is essentially one of the industries which require a certain amount of female employment. Work such as poultry keeping, pig rearing, dairying and so forth are all occupations in which female labour could be properly employed, to better advantage perhaps than male labour. There seems to be absolutely no justification for the exclusion of female labour from this allowance. Again we have another surprising absurdity in that a farmer who has sons over 17 years of age is entitled to the full allowance, while the farmer with grown-up daughters is not entitled to any allowance. I cannot understand how the Minister has discriminated between boys and girls in this particular scheme. Surely, the Minister does not think that it is cheaper to feed and support girls on a farm than boys?

The most surprising feature of all is that there is no abatement at all for children under 17 years of age. Surely, the Minister must admit that there is no farmer in such a difficult position at the present time as the farmer with a young helpless family who is trying to support and educate them? If there was to be any abatement or allowance in regard to rates, the farmer with a young family should get first consideration. Yet, we find that those people are completely excluded from this scheme or at least they never get the supplementary allowance. The result is that a farmer with a valuation of, say, £50 or £60 who has a young family, unable to help in any way, contribute to their support or assist on the farm, is compelled to pay a higher rate than a farmer with a grown-up family. That seems to be an absurdity which I do not think the Minister can possibly defend. It may be that this scheme has been foisted upon him by some official with an anti-feminine bias or some woman-hater in his Department may have succeeded in persuading him to deprive women and children of the benefits of the agricultural grant as far as possible. That seems to be a scheme for which no Government could stand or defend.

I agree with what has been said in regard to the agricultural grant being inadequate. Everybody will acknowledge that the agricultural grant, although it is frequently described as a grant for the relief of agriculture, is not a gift to the farmer in any sense of the word. It is simply an inadequate attempt to remove what constitutes a criminal injustice on the agricultural industry because, under the present system of rating, agriculture is called upon to bear an altogether unfair share of the burden of rates. The whole system of financing local administration is unjust. If the Agricultural Commission which has been set up is of any use at all, if the people who constitute that commission have any sense of justice, they will demand or recommend that the present system of financing local administration be completely abolished and with it this pet scheme of the Minister for Local Government.

I think that farmers accept the principle that every citizen of this country should contribute a fair share towards the upkeep of local services, but when farmers see the salaried official, the person in receipt of an income from invested money or a large income from any source, making practically no contribution to the upkeep of local services, because such a person does not hold rateable property to any extent, farmers must feel that they are suffering under a very grave injustice. A farmer with a valuation of £100 is not a very big farmer. Yet he has a farm which, at the present time in most counties, would be called upon to bear a rate of £30 or £40 a year. Is there any other section of the community that could possibly hope from a farm valued at £100 to pay a contribution of £30 or £40 a year to the upkeep of local services? There is absolutely no justification for the present system of financing local government. It may be said that other sections of the community, people with large incomes from various sources, are subject to income-tax, but that is no answer because the farmer is also subject to income-tax where, by any stretch of the imagination of the income-tax authorities, it can be asserted that he has an income. The farmer does not pay rates as a substitute for income-tax; he pays rates in addition to income-tax. Therefore, there is only one remedy for the present system of local government and that is to abolish the rates on agricultural land. The sooner the Minister makes up his mind that he must provide a sufficient grant to enable the rates on agricultural land to be completely wiped out, the better it will be for the Government and for the agricultural industry. As I have said, farmers accept the principle that they should contribute their fair share towards the upkeep of the local services.

There is one point that it might be possible for the Minister to include in this Bill and that is to allow members of the local authorities, members of the county councils, the same privileges which members of this House enjoy. As members of this House, which has power to levy and impose income-tax, are exempt from income-tax, I think, if that principle is fair, members of the local authorities, members of the county councils, should be exempt from rates altogether. It seems to be absolutely logical and I do not think the Minister can deny it.

Every member of this House who is a member of a county council must feel that there is a very grave injustice being inflicted upon the local authorities and a very grave disorganisation being caused in the local services through the system of withholding the agricultural grant in respect of unpaid annuities. There is absolutely no justification under any moral law for the withholding of that agricultural grant. In every civilised State it is acknowledged that each citizen must be held responsible for his own actions, inactions or offences but here, under this system of withholding the agricultural grant in respect of unpaid annuities, a fine or a levy is imposed on a certain county in respect of the defaults of certain individuals. That principle cannot be justified. If such a county were occupied by a foreign Government and if it were being held by a military force it might be excusable for that Government to inflict a fine or levy upon a county or district, but there is no justification whatever for a lawfully established Government of this civilised country, in peaceful times, imposing a levy or a fine upon a county. That is where the main injustice lies in connection with the withholding of the agricultural grant. What is the effect of the withholding of the agricultural grant? It means that the local authorities can never know exactly what their finances will be for the year or how much of the agricultural grant they are going to secure and they never prepare their estimates properly. The sufferers in connection with the withholding of the agricultural grant are, of course, in the first place, the people dependent upon the local services, and, in the second place, the entire body of ratepayers in the county. Why should the Government decide to strike first of all at the weakest section of the community—the people depending on the local rates? If there is a shortage or default in connection with the collection of income-tax, there is no question of imposing a levy or a fine upon the county where that default occurs. Why should there be a fine or levy of this kind imposed on a county in which a default occurs in respect of annuities? Income-tax and annuities are in exactly the same position inasmuch as they are both State revenue collected and used for ordinary State purposes. There is absolutely no justification whatever for victimising first of all a county and then the people who are dependent upon the local services—the poor in the county homes, the sick in the hospitals—and, last of all, victimising the general body of ratepayers in the county. That is a principle which must be abolished. It should be the first duty of the Minister to see that whatever amount is allocated in respect of the Agricultural Grant should be paid in full to the local authorities.

Mr. Broderick

I so frequently intervene and burden the House with my views on this particular question that I would not do so this evening were it not that the purpose of this Bill is to make the rate relief a permanent one and, in its permanency to continue what I consider the limitations of previous legislation. I always objected and still object to calling this an Agricultural Grant as if the rates were in receipt of something which was a generous gift. As we all know, it is really what they are entitled to as a right, not as a gift, but this is neither the time nor the place to go over the whole history of it. What I really object to is that the Minister is making permanent the mortgage of this relief of rates to the relief of the other taxation of this State. I realise that the Minister has inherited a provision in the original Land Acts for the repayment of annuities, but when that annuity repayment passed out, the provisions made for the guaranteeing of them also automatically passed out. I referred to the system of deducting the unpaid annuities from the Agricultural Grant as legalised robbery. That was possibly too harsh a phrase but it is certainly extremely unjust to deduct the unpaid annuities from the annuities which have now been halved. The Minister is now commencing to feel the reactions of that. Local authorities are being deprived of their normal revenue and the burden is falling over on the people who are entitled to most consideration, that is, the people who meet their liabilities both in rates and annuities. They have again to make up the balance. I think that that is a position that can only be met by this relief of rates being entirely free from obligations to the State. The Minister might take into consideration at the moment that the local authorities on the maintenance of the roads are paying practically the full amount, and that they are losing enormous revenue to the Ministry—the revenue from motor taxation and some from licences. That upkeep of the roads is provided by the local authorities by their own efforts.

On these counts I agree that holding rates relief grants to local authorities liable for the unpaid taxation is entirely unjust and, if persisted in— as is permanently undertaken in this Bill—will eventually lead to grave disquietude. Again, the relief of rates, as has been pointed out by a member of the Government, is not evenly distributed. You have the extraordinary position that there are urban areas that are entitled to relief, urban areas that are not entitled to relief, urban areas where portion is entitled to relief and portion is not. Of course the explanation is that what was not entitled under the Act of 1898 is still not entitled under the extensions and under the new creations that do benefit by it. Surely a national authority ought to be able to equalise that. I hope, on the Committee Stage of this Bill, to go more into detail and give concrete examples of where a man on one side of the fence has to pay the full liability of 27/- or 28/- in the £ without any relief, while a man on the other side of the fence gets off with a small amount of 6/- or 7/-, that being the county rate. A position of that kind is bound to cause grave disquietude and a feeling and conviction of unfair discrimination between citizens of this State. On the Committee Stage of this Bill I will submit an amendment that the relief of rates will apply to all urban areas irrespective of whether created before or subsequent to or extended under the 1898 Act.

As to the questions that were raised on derating and other matters, I do not intend to deal very much with them. However, as was pointed out by Deputy Hughes, the relief this year will require to be of a very extensive nature. I do not like to paint too black a picture, but, following on a bad year, the prospects of this year are certainly very, very bad. Having an intimate association, both with the rating authority and with the people of the country, and having a fair knowledge of the prospects of the crops, I would say that, unless Providence is very kind to us in the next month, this country will face one of the most disastrous harvests of this generation.

In these circumstances, Sir, I would suggest very earnestly either relief of the present liabilities or an extension of the relief of rates. I have already foreshadowed here a few times the havoc of this Bill. We ought to be relieved of the cost of maintenance of main roads, we ought to be given full capitation grants and, above all, every man in this State ought to be left alone responsible for his own liabilities and not have to share in the liabilities of his neighbour. These are points that we will continually put before the House until they are redressed. Grievances have a tendency to increase—and it appears that they are now about to increase—and I would suggest in all earnestness that there is but one way to get over these yearly irritations, this constant feeling in the country of partiality, this feeling of some people that they have to carry the burden of somebody else who is not making the same effort to meet liabilities or get the same out of the land. That one clear, open, straight way which will relieve the Ministry of a lot of complaints is, first and foremost, to ensure that once charges are real State charges they ought to be State charges and not transferred to local authorities either in part or as a whole; and, secondly, that the mortgaging of the relief of rates ought to be withdrawn, as taxation is a matter between the central authority and the individual, in which no other individual of the community ought to be held up to ransom. By meeting these points, and by having legislation on a basis of equity of that kind, the other points will be got over and this House will be relieved of those complaints.

I would like to ask the Minister am I to understand that the passage of this Bill this year will obviate the necessity of future appeals to the House? I was taking it for granted that this was the passing of an annual Bill. Particularly in view of the fact that the Government have now come to the conclusion that a Bill on these particular lines should be left permanently on the Statute Book I do feel that there are a few points that the Minister might have addressed himself to, or that I would like the Minister to address himself to in dealing with this measure.

The principal object of a Bill of this particular kind, when it was introduced originally, was to increase, in so far as manipulation of the allocation of the relief grant for rates would do it, the amount of employment on the land. That was one point, and the other was the question that has been raised here: that the amount of relief that is contemplated this year and that is referred to in the Schedule to this Bill is—in view of the circumstances that the agricultural community find themselves in to-day— not sufficient. I do not want to go into that last point, but so much has been said about it here that I do think that we ought to be clear as to what the position is from the rating point of view at the present time.

The effect is that rates that are falling on the county councils or that fell on them during the year ended March last were more than a third greater than the amount of the rates they actually had to pay in the year 1931-32. I am speaking of the moneys that actually were paid out of the farmers' pockets throughout the various counties. The ratepayers of the county health districts in the year 1938-39 were billed with a bill of £852,768 more than they were billed for in the year 1931-32. It was greater by a third. The figures are: In the year 1931-32 the actual amount raised in rates in the counties was £2,445,269; in the year 1937-38, that is, the year before last, the amount actually raised in rates was £3,057,588, that is, £612,319 more than was taken out of the ratepayers' pockets throughout the country in the year 1937-38. The amount increased by more than a quarter when they got the bill for last year. I do not know the present year's bill. When they got the bill for last year's rates it was not merely an increase of one-quarter over 1931-32; it was an increase of one-third; and the bill that was presented to them for March, 1939, asked for £852,768 more than they were asked for seven years before.

Now, I think it is at least a thing that we ought to remind ourselves of in this House when we are passing a Bill of this particular kind, and, in view of what has been said of the position of agriculture last year and the position that is implied with regard to the possible harvest of the present year, at the beginning of the year at any rate, we cannot afford completely to ignore it. If what has been said here is correct, the House will be up against the question later on as to whether an increased rate bill, probably increased this year over last year, can be paid in the present circumstances; and it will have to be paid in circumstances in which the Minister for Finance has put an appalling Bill before the country, too.

I say that, when a Bill of this particular kind was first introduced, the idea was to provide a certain amount of money for the relief of rates on agricultural land, and it was going to be so handled that it would tend to increase the total amount of male employment on the land. From that point of view, the Bill got into its swing in 1934, but when we examine the years 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938, with a view to seeing to what extent this measure, or any other measure, has assisted to increase agricultural employment, we come up against certain facts which are of such a nature that the Minister ought to face the question and take us into his confidence as to what he is able to see in the country, from the point of view of the Department, and whether this Bill is, in fact, doing anything to assist what it was intended to assist. In 1935, there were 5,878 fewer males employed on agricultural work than in the year before. In 1936, an additional 13,160 males had disappeared off the list of those engaged in agriculture; that is, between 1935 and 1936, there was an additional fall of 13,160 in the total number of male workers in agriculture. Between 1936 and 1937, there was an additional fall of 4,066 and last year we find the biggest fall of all, because when the number of male workers in agriculture was enumerated in 1938, it was found that there were 19,083 fewer males working in agriculture than the year before, so that, from the first year after the coming into operation of this Bill, we have had a regular and steady fall, one year after another, in the number of males engaged in agriculture. Totalling all these falls, we find that, from 1934 to 1938, 42,187 fewer male workers worked on the fields, whose numbers a Bill of this kind, introduced in 1933 or 1934, was intended to increase.

When the Minister is introducing a Bill of which this, I might say, is the principal point, some advertence ought to be had to the fact that, in spite of the intention to increase employment on the land, employment has been decreasing every year since, and in no year was there such a decrease recorded as last year, when 19,083 fewer male persons were employed in agriculture than the year before. It is impossible to have any discussion of this measure without asking the House to bear these things in mind and without asking the Minister whether he has anything to say on these subjects, firstly, that the rates paid by the county ratepayers have gone up by more than one-third in the last seven years and that, in the last four years, during which a Bill similar to this has been in operation, 42,187 fewer males were employed on the land.

It certainly was not a very rosy picture of the condition of agriculture which Deputy Hughes, who is not here now, and Deputy Broderick painted for us, but the unfortunate part of it is that every time Deputy Hughes speaks—and I think the same applies to Deputy Cogan, who is also a comparatively new man—their speeches grow more and more gloomy and dull and depressing about agriculture. What is going to be the type of language they will use about the prospects of agriculture, if they are here for another ten years? On the basis of the speeches they make now, I say God help those listening to them. The funny part of it is that the agriculturists whom I have personally known—and I know a fair number in different parts of the country—have all lived moderately well. They have not grown to be millionaires, but they have lived better than most of the people comparable with them who are living in the cities and towns. They have reared their families and educated them. There are more children going to secondary schools, and more young people going to universities, out of the farms of the country to-day than there were ten, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. I cannot give the exact figures, but every secondary school in the country is practically full. They cannot find room for them, and they are all extending. The major part of the population is engaged in agriculture and it is out of the farmsteads these young people mainly come. Where does the money come from? If they are all bankrupt, they cannot afford to pay for these schools, which are pretty costly, but they all pay, I believe. It does not cost Deputy Broderick a lot——

Mr. Broderick

Possibly as much as the Minister.

A little less perhaps. I am not complaining about the state of agriculture. I am not saying that the farmers have not got money to pay for their children. They have, and Deputy Broderick knows it. Look at the schools in county Cork. Look at the number of children who go to the University from the homesteads of the South of Ireland. Look at University College, Cork; University College, Dublin, and University College, Galway. Where are the students coming from? I think it is ridiculous to be putting up this howl about the condition of agriculture. It is not true.

Mr. Broderick

My only comment——

I am not giving way. I am pointing out to the Deputy that he is painting an untrue picture, and so is every other Deputy who talks in such a dreary, gloomy and depressing fashion about the position of agriculture this year, last year and in the year to come. It is not so gloomy. I never heard a farmer in this House paint a rosy picture of his own agricultural condition and that is not giving a true picture to the country because the farmers, although I admit they are not rolling in wealth—you do not make a lot of money out of agriculture—are all able to live and, generally speaking, to pay their way.

And 42,000 of them have gone off the land.

The Deputy was not interrupted by me. He had his chance to get out what he wanted to say and I hope he said it all. Nobody can deny that the farmers, generally speaking, are able to pay their way, and, if the farming community were not, it would be a bad state for this country. A few years ago, they were relieved of 50 per cent. of their land annuities. That was an enormous gift to these people in agriculture. I am not saying they were not entitled to it. They had paid the heavy amount to buy out their farms, but there is nothing comparable being done for the people of the cities and towns. I am not saying the farmers are not entitled to all they are getting, and more, from the national Exchequer, but compare their condition with that of the people in the cities and towns who have to pay rates and taxes. There are no relief grants for any class of those people. There is no 50 per cent. reduction of rents and they have not got anything like the gifts, because that is what they are, from the national Exchequer, the revenue of this country, which are properly and duly given to agriculture.

How many of the population in Dublin City—in my constituency— would give all they possess to be able to own a farm of 30, 40, or 50 acres, with the gifts given to these farmers by the State? These gifts are anything from £1,000 to £2,000 and they are given to them to establish them on the land. Is not that happening every day since the Land Commission started? They are getting this out of the national Exchequer. They get farms stocked for them, agricultural implements provided and houses built for them. What do they pay for these? That is the other side of it. We are all paying for these things they are getting and more luck to those of them who can get them to have them.

I never looked for land. I would not know what to do with it if I got it, but I can see around me what is happening to those in agriculture. It is a happy life. It is an independent life. They are their own masters. If they want a day off they have not to ask anyone's leave. They can go off for the day. They are monarchs of all they survey within the limits of their own farms. They can do what they like. I know they work hard at their business. They are good, industrious people. They are generous people who rear large families who are a credit to this country. Without them this country could not last long. They are the people on whom the prosperity of the whole nation rests. I say to them more luck to them to get all they can get. They are getting the benefits which are denied and, perhaps, rightly denied to other sections of the community.

Deputy Broderick says they are treated very unfairly. If we were to get a commission, if that were humanly possible; that would fairly represent agriculture, industry and commerce, labourers, working men of all classes in cities and towns as well as agricultural labourers and set that commission to make a fair division, I do not know if the cities and towns would not come in for a share, too, under that division. But they do not get it; nobody suggests that the cities and towns should get it. That is the queer part of it. But the agriculturists get it and they are getting as much as we can afford under present conditions. They are asking constantly for more and that is one of the things I admire about them. They are always consistent in that. They never say they have enough. Farmer Deputies come in here with faces as long as to-day and to-morrow and they always have the poor mouth; they keep on saying how hard their lives are, like Deputy Broderick has been saying to-day. But look at him and see how prosperous he is. The farmers look not only prosperous but like Deputy Broderick they look happy. I think the Deputy is a farmer. He has land anyway and he speaks for the farmers. Take any one of them and they can put a bit on a horse any day as well as any man in the Dáil.

The Minister was very lucky if he kept away from it. If he takes my advice he will keep away from it altogether.

Is that Deputy Hughes's experience? Well, if they kept away from it maybe they would not have such long faces. I would like to see the farmers get more if we had more to give them. But we have not. Generally speaking they are rather more generously treated within our resources than any other class in the community. They get more than their share of every grant that is given from the Exchequer. They have the advantage of being a very important class in the community. They have the voting power and the political power. They are the most important element in our population. If they could be given more I would not object if the country could afford it, but I will do what I can to see that every other class in the community will be justly treated too. They do not want more than that. There are a number of details in which the present conditions with regard to the allotting of this grant may be changed. The present law might be changed and it might make matters more easy. We could not deal with the Guarantee Fund on this Bill. We would not be entitled to deal with it. We inherited that, as the Deputy said, but perhaps like many other inheritances it would be better if we did not have that one; but it is there and as far as I can see it is going to continue. No county is comparison with another county is being unjustly treated. Deputies Everett and Cogan mentioned Wicklow. If the landholders in Wicklow pay up their arrears of annuities, and they are doing so now and within the last year or two, all that money will go back to the County Council of Wicklow as it has gone back to the other counties. There are a number of other counties where £30,000 or £40,000 of arrears of unpaid annuities were paid up and to-day these counties are gaining over the annuities that were not paid up in years gone by. These arrears of annuities are now coming back. The ratepayers are getting back at present what they paid in other years. If this coming year is going to be such an awful year, as some of the Deputies have suggested, perhaps, it is better that the ratepayers did pay up arrears in years gone by. They will get the benefit of these in the coming year's rates.

We are continuing to pay it for other people—is not that so?

We are all doing that every day in the year; we are paying up for other people.

Let the Minister put his sympathy for the farmers into practical effect now.

We are always doing that in a variety of ways. The people of the towns pay for the people of the country and the people of the country pay, in a variety of ways, for the people of the town. People are always paying for somebody else who ought to be able to pay but is not. That is what is happening always. The point referred to by Deputies Beegan and Broderick, about agricultural holdings in urban areas is a matter into which I have repeatedly gone with deputations from these urban areas. That is a very intricate and involved question. Unless there is a whole recasting of the whole system of the agricultural grant I do not see how we can in the present circumstances alter the situation that now exists. I think that is all I have to say on this Bill.

I would like to put this question to the Minister—if, in deciding to make this a permanent measure and with a view to helping employment on the land, any attention has been given to the fact that in the last four years there has been a reduction of 42,187 in the number of males employed on the land? The figures for 1938 show a reduction of 42,187 men employed on the land, as compared with four years previously. Has any consideration been given to that fact in considering making this a permanent measure?

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage fixed for Tuesday, the 4th of July.

There will not be any amendment to this.

Mr. Broderick

I would like to know what are the difficulties of extending the relief of rates to the urban areas? To find out that information I shall certainly put down an amendment.

Top
Share