I should like to support Deputy Brennan's proposal that the Vote be referred back. Many Deputies on this side of the House have gone even further than Deputy Brennan went to-day in regard to the general principle of de-rating. We have definitely pledged ourselves to the proposal of absolute de-rating. A good case could be made for it, perhaps even a better case now than in former years. A number of Deputies on this side of the House opposed the recent Bill providing for the appointment of managers for county councils. The main grounds of my opposition to it were that in the circumstances in which local expenditure has now to be undertaken, I did not see that there was going to be any economy under the new system. I think I did say on that measure that if that Bill were the precursor of a measure of derating I would support it. I think if you are completely centralising local services—and I think that most Deputies will discover that that will be practically the effect of the new Bill when it comes into operation—those who are connected with local government in the future will be more and more under the heel of the head authorities, the Local Government Department. As I say, I would not object to that if we could have advanced further on the same lines as our brethren in the North and the people across in England and have given absolute derating. There would then be a case for the County Management Bill. If the Government are prepared to make the costs of local services a general charge on the Exchequer, they certainly have the right to control the machinery of local government, but I do not see why they should have that complete control if the burden of local services is still to a great extent borne by the local ratepayers.
The burden of rates has increased tremendously in the last nine or ten years. Deputy Brennan gave some figures in that regard, but without confining myself to any figures, the fact remains that when you subtract the grant from the rate for the 1931-32 period and apply the same proportion to the rate and grant in the current year, you will find that the amount that actually falls on the ratepayer will be increased to a tremendous extent— to something over £1,000,000, I think. Now, that is a burden that the ratepayers of the country, generally, are not yet in a position to bear. Of course, I suppose we shall hear—we have heard a lot already—about the increased prosperity of the farmers during this period of general world strife: that prices have risen and that the farmer is now in a better position to pay his rates than he was previously. I think that that is a complete fallacy. Even if we assume that, in some branches of agriculture, some prices have risen, the overhead charges have risen to an altogether greater extent. At any rate, in one particular branch of the farming industry—that is, the dairying industry—prices have not risen at all and, in fact, if anything, prices are tending to diminish rather than to increase, and there is a danger, as the Minister for Agriculture pointed out to-day, that the position may become worse, so far as that branch of the farming industry is concerned, inasmuch as it may not be possible to continue some of the subsidies that have been already given to the dairying industry. Accordingly, the position of the dairy farmer, generally, is not a rosy one at all.
Now, if we come to look at the position of the dairy farmer, I think it will be generally found—taking conditions all over this country generally—that the man who is a dairy farmer is a man who pays more in rates than the average ratepayer on a farm. His farm, generally, is of a higher valuation than that of a farmer engaged in other kinds of agricultural industry, because, if his farm is big enough at all to engage in the dairying industry, it may be taken for granted that that farm must have a certain valuation. Therefore, I think it will be found that, taking the dairying farmers generally all over the country, the average valuation of their farms is higher than that of those farmers who are engaged in other forms of agriculture, and the rates, probably, will fall more heavily on those engaged in the dairying industry than on farmers engaged in other types of farming.
So much for this question of rates, but there is also the question of the distribution of the grants that are provided. It is our contention that, so far as the dairy farmer is concerned, the share of the grants given to him is not nearly enough in comparison with what is given to farmers engaged in other forms of agriculture. That brings to me an old sore of mine, in connection with which I have launched attacks annually at the Minister for Agriculture, and that is in connection with the distribution of the Agricultural Grant and the injustice of what I might call, having regard to the unemployment relief scheme, making a differentiation between male and female workers. I shall refer to this matter again, and I am afraid I shall have to refer to it so long as the Agricultural Grant is being distributed in the way in which it is now being distributed. My point is that the number of women workers engaged in the dairying industry must be as great as the number of men engaged in that industry, and probably more. They do the same kind of work and they get the same amount of wages. There is no question of price-cutting or differentiation in that industry, and any women who are engaged in that industry get the same wages and work under the same conditions as the men engaged in it. Now, my argument is that, if one particular farmer is to be allowed to get a certain amount of the grant because he engages two men, there should be nothing to prevent the farmer who engages two women, under the same conditions and at the same wage, from getting the same relief. I hold that that man is entitled to the same relief as the other type of farmer, but that has been consistently refused, and it is my belief that that is putting a burden on farmers which is unfair—that is, if you are to relate their conditions to those of their neighbours. I regret that I am compelled to draw the attention of the House to this matter again, and I only hope that other Deputies, who have the interests of the dairying farmers at heart, will support me in any effort that can be made in order to have this injustice remedied. I certainly regard it as an injustice. On every conceivable occasion I drew the attention of this House to that injustice, and shall continue to do so, because I believe it is a real injustice. I know that there are other injustices in connection with the distribution of that grant, but I think that the most flagrant injustice is that there should be the same differentiation between male and female workers, who are paid at the same rate as the men and who work under the same conditions, as is made in other cases where the rate of wages is different and the conditions of work are also different.
An argument could also be raised on the difference in the amount of relief given to the larger farmer as compared with the smaller farmer. For some reason, there has always been a tendency in this country to put the small farmer in opposition to the large farmer. I do not know why that is so. The conditions are the same, but the overhead charges are not the same. You will always find that the overhead charges of the large farm are greater than those of the small farm, and yet it is the man with the larger farm who is penalised in every possible way. He pays about 70 per cent. of the rates, and he pays for much of the reliefs— and there are many great reliefs—to which the small farmer is entitled. The small farmer, with a much smaller rating, is entitled to participate in certain reliefs provided out of the public rates, but the large farmer, who provides a good deal of these rates, is not entitled to such reliefs. There are hundreds of ways in which the smaller farmer benefits as a result of the payments made by the larger farmer, and I say that any relief that may be voted in this House ought to be regarded as a general relief.
Deputy Brennan referred to the argument that the small farmer did not refuse the having of the annuities. He did not, certainly, and he would be a fool if he did so, but surely nobody would argue that that should be confined to only one class of farmers. I hope that nobody ever will argue along those lines. Why should we take the view that rates or anything else should be confined to only one class of farmer? You might as well argue that, in the case of every benefit that this House provides for various classes of people in this country, there ought to be a differentiation with regard to the distribution of these benefits, whether for the relief of the poor, the sick, the old or infirm, or any other kind of social services, and that we should proceed with its distribution on the lines that one section of the community should get more than another. I think that that would be a very unfair method of distributing any funds that are at the disposal of the House. I think that we ought to come to the conclusion—and I hope we are advancing to the day when we shall be able to agree upon it—that this House will agree that the ultimate cure for the whole problem is the adoption of the principle of complete derating. I think that we will have to come to that sooner than most people realise. A lot of people say that we are getting more united in certain ways every day, and I hope we are. I hope that the Government Party are learning to come around to our point of view, and that, having shown a very conciliatory spirit towards us—latterly, anyhow—they will go further, and that we will all come sooner or later—and soon, I hope—to consider the idea of full derating as a sound policy, particularly considering that a certain portion of this country, which we hope will be united with the rest of the country eventually, is already enjoying the benefits of derating. Let us hope that we, in this part of the country, will also be enabled to enjoy the benefits of derating.
I am looking forward, in the very near future, to a general demand being made by Deputies and their supporters in the country for the acceptance of that principle. I have no doubt it is coming. We are all, as I have said, anxious that the acrimonious debates which we had in the past should cease, and that we should all get a bit better. I think we are approaching that position. I am afraid, however, that this question of derating will always be a bone of contention. In my opinion it would be better for the House, for the country and for everybody concerned that the principle of derating was adopted. If we do not reach agreement on it during the lifetime of the present Government, I would ask them to consider the present position with regard to rating in the country. In a period of ten years the rates have gone up by something like £1,300,000. Bearing that figure in mind, there is surely a good case for increasing the agricultural grant. In conclusion, I desire to say that I heartily support Deputy Brennan's motion.
