Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 5 go together.
Seeds and Fertilisers Supply Bill—Committee and Subsequent Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
The several provisions of the Principal Act shall extend and apply to the provision by the council of a county on or after the 1st day of January, 1941, and before the 31st day of July, 1941, of a supply of seeds and fertilisers or of seeds only or of fertilisers only. ...
I move amendment 1.
In line 31, page 2, to delete the word "July" and substitute the word "December".
I am prepared to agree to the principle which Deputy Belton has in mind, but I am informed that if I embody his suggestion in the Bill, it would lead to some confusion and some difficulty in regard to recoveries. I will give the Deputy an undertaking that when this Bill is passed, a further Bill will be brought in, bringing the period to 31st July next year and, in the meantime, the Dublin County Council, or any other county council that wants to have a scheme for the sale of winter wheat seed can go ahead. I accept the principle of the amendment and will make the necessary provision to enable what the Deputy has in mind to be carried out.
And the Minister will see to it that there will be machinery available for county councils to offer loans, if they feel so disposed, during the period from 31st July to 1st January, or a little longer?
I shall embody it in a Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I should like the Minister to explain what is meant by sub-section 3 in somewhat briefer manner than is set out in the sub-section. Where a county council initiates a scheme, they will estimate the cost of carrying out that scheme and will be entitled to apportion it amongst the people to whom the money was lent in such proportions as they think fit. That apportionment will be added to the original debt and will be legally recoverable by the county council. Assuming that a county council decides to initiate a large scheme, the administrative and clerical side of which entails considerable expenditure, and that only three or four persons avail of the scheme, will the county council be entitled to impose upon these people the entire cost of administration? The sub-section seems to give the county council what I may call an illegal power. If the cost of administration ran into a large amount and the number of people who availed of the scheme was very small, the county council would be entitled to apportion the cost amongst that small number. Could the county council apportion the cost and expenses unequally? Once they have ascertained their costs and expenses, there would seem to be no restriction on them as regards apportionment. Assuming that the cost was £100, could the county council charge £90 to one person and the remainder to the others who had borrowed the same amount? They are entitled under the Bill to create a debt which was not in existence when the borrower originally obtained the money and which he did not contemplate paying. If the Minister can assure us that the expenses will be a small matter and that the county council will have to observe a certain degree of proportion as regards the apportionments, there will be less objection to it.
The section gives the county council a discretion as regards the apportionment. The Deputy need not be worried about the expense. The expense is very small, as members of county councils with experience of these schemes know. The work is carried out by the officials of the county councils, under the supervision of the secretary, and I do not think much extra remuneration is paid. The cost has been almost infinitesimal having regard to the number of people involved. The apportionment of expenses may be based on what the person receives. It is much better to have the provision worded in this loose way because it gives the county council discretion in the matter.
The discretion may be useful to the county council because they could apportion the cost amongst the people likely to pay. Assuming the issue of £10 each to 100 people, they might discover that 50 of them would pay readily and that 50 others were doubtful. It would be good business for a county council to impose the cost on the 50 who were good payers. It is, I think, a bad principle to impose upon a person a liability which he is not aware of when borrowing. Even if only a penny were added in that way to the loan, I think it is a bad principle both in law and equity.
We must leave some discretion to the county councils or the scheme would not work.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister will not agree to the State accepting any part of the liability?
There is no necessity for doing so.
Despite the praise given to the Bill on the last occasion —Deputy Belton told us how valuable it was—those who praised it must have received a shock when the Minister read out the figures showing what the county councils had given out.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendment 3 not moved.
Section agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendment 4, by Deputy Broderick, has been ruled out of order as imposing a charge.
As the amendment is not in order, would the Chair permit me, in withdrawing it, to give reasons for it?
The amendment is not moved and, therefore, cannot be spoken to. The Deputy may, however, speak on the section.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Broderick
Formerly, we had a clause in our legislation which made the State liable for 50 per cent. of any loss incurred in the administration of the scheme. That was withdrawn last year. There may be sufficient reasons for that course. Up to last year, this scheme could be regarded as a local advantage. The local council was facilitating its ratepayers in paying their rates and bringing their land into adoption. In the circumstances of to-day, that line of reasoning does not hold. To-day, we are asked for an intensive campaign of food production in the interests of the State. The county councils have co-operated in that campaign to an intensive degree. What was denied when this scheme was merely of local application, cannot be justified when the State is demanding co-operation to an extraordinarily intensive degree. To show how intensive that co-operation is, take the case of Cork which, last year, produced one-fifth of the wheat of the entire State. We gave out £1,400 to, approximately, 189 persons to buy seeds. This year, the number will be over 1,100, so that the liability of the county council will be very heavy. That liability is not incurred on behalf of that local area but in the interests of the entire State, and the State ought to bear responsibility for portion of it.
We held the view that, in the circumstances of to-day, the greatest liability we could have would be land suitable for the production of food supplies lying idle. Holding that view, we took risks on behalf of the State, and so did every other council, that in normal times would not be justified. Even our labourers, so far as they could, have co-operated and we have provided a great number of them with seeds. In rural areas the difficulties of those on Unemployment Assistance will be increased owing to the operation of the Employment Period Order, and any liability they may incur for these seeds can be recovered by an increase of their rates. There are, therefore, three points to be taken into consideration: (1) the danger of liabilities which we have incurred, not on behalf of the local areas, but on behalf of the State; (2) that the greatest liability to this State is land capable of producing food supplies being left idle for want of seed and that we have taken the risk of supplying that seed; (3) in the particular position in which the labourers find themselves, it is hard to expect them to face the liability of repaying that money which can be collected from them by an increase in their rates. Taking these three points into consideration, I hope I have convinced the Minister that the risks taken are risks on behalf of the State and that the State ought to accept at least 50 per cent. of the liability.
Section put and agreed to.
Title put and agreed to.
Agreed: "That the remaining stages be taken now."
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Will the Minister consider making representations to the Minister for Finance on the lines I have suggested in order to assist the local authorities in case of a liability?
So far we have not been notified that there were any losses last year. We have no idea how far local authorities will avail of the scheme this year, but we may know in a few weeks' time. Let us, therefore, see how the scheme will work out and perhaps at some other time the Deputy can put forward some proposal of that kind.
Mr. Broderick
I am satisfied with that. Speaking for one or two of the councils I know, I can say that they have increased their liabilities this year to ten times what they were last year. In doing that they have run certain risks which were justified in the present circumstances. As long as the Minister undertakes to give serious consideration to any serious default which may arise, I am satisfied.
Deputy Broderick has stated that in the case of two councils the number of applications has been out of all proportion to those received last year. That is due to the scarcity of seeds this year. When the Bill was last before the House, I inquired if the Minister would ask the Minister for Agriculture to look into the question of the availability of seeds. As there may not be a further opportunity of doing so, I now ask the Minister, in the interest of having the Bill properly operated, if he will tell the Minister for Agriculture that seed firms in England have notified their customers here that they have certain types of seed available, that the British Government have withdrawn the licences to export, and that neither the British Government nor the Éire Government appear to be doing anything about the matter. The only people who are attempting to do anything about it are the English seed merchants, who are very anxious to send seeds here.
Question put and agreed to.