Motion No. 3, on List 8, in the names of Deputy Patrick Cogan and Deputy P. J. Halliden will be taken now.
Private Deputies' Business. - Agricultural Employment and Derating.
I did not expect that this motion would be taken this week, and regret that I have not some of my papers in connection with it here. Before moving it I should like to ask whether the rule hitherto in operation, namely, that the motion will be given three hours and that at least 20 minutes will be allowed to the proposer to reply, will be followed.
Three hours and 20 minutes to reply.
That rule was not adhered to in the case of the last motion before the House. I move my motion which reads:-
That Dáil Eireann is of opinion that in order to secure a more equitable distribution of the burden of local rates, and to promote increased employment on the land, legislation should be introduced providing for complete derating of the first £20 of the Poor Law Valuation of each farm and the further total derating of each additional £15 of the Poor Law Valuation in respect of each adult worker employed on the holding; and that the deficit be made good from the Exchequer.
This motion means, in effect, that agricultural holdings, which provide a fair proportion of employment shall enjoy complete derating. It is in effect complete derating, subject to certain conditions being complied with. Heretofore, the demand for complete derating has frequently been met with the answer that the large farmer, employing no labour whatever, would derive too great an advantage from this reform. In the scheme which we are outlining the benefits conferred will be in proportion to the number of people living and working on the land. We have heard it said frequently that the small farmer is entitled to derating, but that the large farmer is not. I do not agree with that view. I hold that the large farmer who gives employment to a number of workers, whether they be members of his own family or workers employed by him, is at least as much entitled to relief from rates as the smallholder. In our scheme we provide that the first £20 of the poor law valuation of each holding shall be exempt from rates, thereby ensuring that the landholder will get relief in respect of his own labour on the land. We further provide that, in respect of each adult worker, whether that worker be a member of the farmer's family or an employee, a further £15 shall be relieved from rates. Thus a farm with a valuation of £40, worked by a farmer and his wife, would be exempt from rates. A farm with a valuation of £60, on which you had a farmer, his wife and one adult working, would be exempt from rates, and for every other worker there would be a further £15 by way of complete derating. We also provide in the motion that, whatever money is required to meet the cost of this charge, shall be provided out of the Exchequer. That is to say, it shall not be passed on to the portion of the holding which is not derated or passed on to other rateable property in the county. It shall be complete relief both as far as the farmers is concerned and as far as the county is concerned.
Derating has now become a fairly ancient subject. It was, I think, in 1928 that the British Government introduced legislation for the complete derating of agricultural land and buildings as well as a substantial measure of derating for industrial property. The provisions of this legislation also applied to our own citizens, our own fellow-countrymen of the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. When we talk about national unity and the ending of Partition, we ought to bear in mind that a very large section of the population of Northern Ireland is composed of farmers, many of them small farmers. At the present time they enjoy complete immunity from rates, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect that they would be enthusiastic about coming into our State to put their legs under the heel of the rate collector again after enjoying exemption from the payment of rates for a period of 16 or 17 years. Viewing it from that angle, I think we must admit that there is, on national grounds, a strong case for taking up this question of derating seriously.
It may be asked why did the British Government decide to relieve agricultural land from rates. There is, of course, first of all the reason that the agricultural producer in Great Britain as in this country has to complete with the agricultural producers of the world. For that reason he ought to be placed in as advantageous a position as possible. Rates on agricultural land are a form of inverted protection, protection for the imported produce as against the home producer; rates on agricultural land are a tax on the home producer, which fact was recognised by the British Government and by the Northern Ireland Government as far back as 1928.
There is another consideration in regard to this matter, that the present system of rating is inequitable. If the Minister happened to be a man enjoying a big income from foreign investments or some other source and if he were sensible enough to live in a small private semi-detached or detached residence, with a small valuation, he would be called upon to pay only a very small contribution towards local services but, if he happened to be a farmer with a fairly extensive holding, perhaps of interior land, he would be subject to a much higher valuation than he would be if he had not rateable property. Why should we have this discrimination between these two sections of the community, between the man who enjoys a large income and who owns very little rateable property and the man who, perhaps, has no income at all, who is working his property at a loss but who owns a certain amount of land that is subject to a poor law valuation? That is an inequality and an injustice which, as far back as 1928, it was felt in Great Britain could not be tolerated. If citizens are to contribute to the upkeep of national and social services, as I think they should, and if a substantial portion of that contribution should be made by way of direct taxation, it is imperative that such direct taxation should be equitably distributed over all sections of the community.
It might be argued, of course, that the man with a large income derived from a source other than land is caught by the income-tax collector. That also applies to the farmer, although the farmer, as a rule, is not caught by the income-tax collector because he has no income. If he had land or property of such income-producing capacity as to give him an income, he would come under the heel of the income-tax collector, just like other sections of the community.
We find, therefore, two strong reasons why agricultural land should be derated—first, to give the home producer a chance to compete on equal terms with producers of North America, South America, and so on, where land is lowly taxed; and, second, to provide a more equitable distribution of the burden of direct taxation.
This question has been before the public for a long time. It was a big issue in the election of 1932. It was solemnly promised by the Fianna Fáil Party in Opposition that if they were returned to power in 1932 they would completely abolish rates. That promise, like many other promises, was never fulfilled. The question is more urgent now than it was in 1932. In 1932 the total rates paid in this State was £4,200,000. That was the total amount levied and collected from the ratepayers for the year ended March, 1933. For 1943, which is the last year for which I have figures available, the total amount of rates levied in the TwentySix Counties was £7,500,000. There you have an increase from £4,200,000 to £7,500,000.
That includes city rates?
There is something wrong there.
There is nothing wrong.
Is the Deputy dealing with agricultural land?
No, I am dealing with the total rates.
Including cities?
Yes. That is the total rate.
In each case? I think there is something wrong.
I have not the volume with me at the moment but I will refer the Deputy to the Statistical Abstract. He will find that the total amount of rates levied and collected for 1943 was £7,500,000, the total amount levied and collected for 1933 was £4,200,000. Of course, that is only a portion of the total expenditure of the local authorities—there are substantial grants also from the Central Exchequer at the moment—but that is the amount levied and collected by the local authorities. The total amount levied and collected from rural districts for the year 1933 was approximately £2,000,000. The total amount levied and collected from rural districts in 1943 was £4,132,000. As far as rural areas are concerned, there has been 100 per cent. increase in rates during the ten years 1933 to 1943.
Thus we have the position that when the Fianna Fáil Party solemnly promised to abolish rates on agricultural land the rates were only half what they are to-day. Instead of derating agricultural land, the Fianna Fáil Party, during their tenure of office, have doubled the rates on agricultural land. That is not all. We have the position at present that additional burdens are being placed on the local authorities. Big rural development schemes are contemplated, new public health services are being provided by legislation, new housing schemes are being initiated, all of which impose additional burdens on the local rates. There is a growing feeling amongst the rural population that they can look forward to nothing except an ever-increasing burden of taxation. Therefore, I think it is right and proper that the question ought to be examined.
The small property owner in this country is the backbone of the State. It is upon his industry, his initiative, and his enterprise that we can build our hopes of progress. But the position at the present time is that that man is being discouraged and is disheartened by reason of the fact that each year the demand made upon him by the rate collector steadily increases. By his industry and his enterprise he may increase the value of his output from the land. By industry and hard work he may increase his income, but, invariably, he finds that every year the rate collector comes to him for a bigger rate-off in the way of rates and, therefore, he finds that, to a great extent, his labour and his enterprise are in vain.
In 1929 a derating commission was set up to examine this question of the incidence of rates on agricultural land and to recommend whether or not it should be completely derated. The commission was composed almost entirely of officials and professional people and, needless to say, the majority decided against the derating of agricultural land. But it is worth while to consider some of the reasons which they advanced at that time against the derating of agricultural land. One of the reasons they gave was that it would be impracticable to attach conditions to the granting of relief from rates. Now, in our scheme, we do propose to attach conditions, and I can see nothing impracticable about it. It is very easy to ascertain how many people are employed on each holding and how many adult members of the farmer's family are working on the holding. As a matter of fact, it has been ascertained under the present rating system. There is nothing impracticable in that proposition. The passage of time has proved that it is a practicable proposition.
Again they say:—
"The remission of agricultural and industrial rates would have far-reaching effects on the structure of local government in the counties and would involve the virtual termination of local responsibility for and control of local services."
Here, again, the passage of time has completely demolished that argument against derating. By a series of Local Government Acts and by the County Management Act the local representatives have been deprived of most of their rights of control over local affairs. To a very large extent, the State has entered into complete control of the management of our local services. Thus we have the position that the commission advised against derating on the ground that it would be necessary to deprive the local representatives of their rights and they used this argument against derating; that it would mean a further encroachment by the State on the affairs of the local authorities. But that encroachment has taken place, it has been achieved under a series of Acts. Not only have we not got derating of agricultural land, but we have a doubling of the rates on agricultural land as compared with 1931 when this commission reported.
Again the commission state:—
"Any reconstruction of the system of local government should take precedence of, and not be undertaken merely as a necessary consequence of, the granting of relief from rates on agricultural and industrial hereditaments."
That condition has also been complied with. There has been a reconstruction of the system of local government, and a very drastic and far-reaching reconstruction of the system, and it has taken precedence over the derating of agricultural land. Now that we have reconstructed our system of local government and given the central Government more far-reaching power and authority over the administration of local services, surely the time has come when we ought to call upon the central Exchequer to make the necessary contribution to the relief of rates by the derating of agricultural land, as we advocate.
The commission also say:-
"No increase in production or employment could be hoped for as a result of a revision of the existing basis of distribution of Exchequer grants to local authorities."
In that connection, no proposition of a similar nature to the one we are submitting to the House was put before the Derating Commission. They were no asked to consider a proposition by which derating would be conditional upon employment being given. If they had been, I do not think they would have made that statement. They would have been forced to admit that an increase in production could be brought about by giving an incentive and encouragement to increased employment on the land. They also say:-
"The transfer to the central authority of services administered by local authorities for the purpose of securing a remission of rates on productive hereditaments cannot be recommended."
I contend that that has taken place to a very large extent.
Therefore, the considered recommendations which were made by the Derating Commission in 1931 are completely out-of-date. Circumstances have changed. The whole system of local government has changed. The entire contribution demanded from the local ratepayers has increased out of all proportion to what it was at that time. The services which the local authorities are called upon to perform have completely altered and, therefore, there is adequate reason why we should reconsider this whole question.
The Derating Commission, sitting in 1931 and considering this question, said —and I think it was a very foolish observation for wise men to make:—
"The case for the relief of agricultural rates cannot be substantiated on the grounds of the remission of agricultural rates in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Derating in the latter areas has not had any noticeable beneficial effect on agricultural production in those areas, or any adverse effect on the position of agriculture in Saorstát Éireann.".
as it was at that time. That commission was sitting a little more than a year after derating had been introduced in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and it would be impossible to notice any change in that time. But looking at the question now, I think we can notice very considerable changes. We can notice that there has been a very marked increase in the volume of agricultural output, and there has been no improvement whatever as far as this State is concerned. As a matter of fact—and here I defy the Minister to contradict me—there has been a reduction in the volume of agricultural output here during the last six or seven years.
When discussing this matter, we should take into consideration not only statistics and figures, which are cold and abstract things; we ought to consider too the ordinary human aspects of the case. We ought to consider the small man on the small holding, and we ought to consider the position of the farmer, large or small, who is struggling to make a living out of agricultural land. Agricultural land differs very considerably from other property. It differs from industrial property and it differs from commercial property. There is only a very narrow margin of profit even for the best farmer. Even during the best years, the margin of profit is very narrow. The direct contribution which the landowner, large or small, is called upon to make annually or half-yearly to the rate collector is a severe burden upon him. It has a disheartening effect, and it is something which it should be possible for the smallholder and the large holder, who gives employment, to avoid, provided he complies with certain conditions.
The conditions which are set out in this motion are conditions in regard to which it might be said at the first glance that it would be very easy for the large farmer to comply with them. I do not agree with that. I hold that the large farmer who employes a man— whether a member of his own family or an employee—for every £15 of his poor law valuation is working his land very intensively. He must be working it very intensively in order to be able to afford that amount of employment. Take the farm of £100 or £200 valuation, and consider one employee for every £15 valuation; you will find that that is a very large staff on that farm, and that the farm must be very well managed and worked in order to give that amount of employment. We are not giving anything generous to the large landholder in this motion. As far as the small landowner is concerned, the man under £20 valuation, we all know that his struggle for existence is a very keen and a very hard one, particularly if he has a young family to support. As far as he is concerned, I think the concession for which we are asking in this motion cannot be considered extremely generous.
This motion is a little bit vague as far as poor law valuation is concerned. We did not state exactly whether we were including the dwelling-house under this heading of poor law valuation. That is a question on which I should like to hear the views of other Deputies. Certainly, I think no case can be made for exempting farm buildings from derating. Farm buildings are a portion of the farmer's working capital. They are in just the same position as farm equipment, ploughs, harrows, mowers and so on. They certainly should not be taxed. As a matter of fact, I think all our efforts should be directed towards encouraging the farmer to increase the amount of capital which he puts into buildings of all kinds for his stock and implements and for the storage of his grain. The system at the present time, under which the farmer who adds to his buildings is immediately presented with an increased demand for rates, is a bad one, and ought to be brought to an end. The farmer who wishes to increase his buildings for the housing of his stock and implements should not be discouraged. That is part of the equipment which is desirable in intensifying farming in this country. We know that the amount of capital which the Danish farmers have invested in farm buildings and equipment is immeasurably higher than the amount so invested here. Our farms are completely under-equipped. There is no more reason to increase the valuation of a farmer who erects a new byre, or a new piggery, than there is to increase it if he buys a new reaper and binder. They are all part of his equipment, and as such should be exempt from rates. I recommend this motion to the serious consideration of the House. I think it is one which will make for what we all desire, more intensive farming, more employment on the land, and increased production in agriculture.
I wish formally to second the motion.
Deputy Cogan has stated that in some respects the motion is vague. To my mind, it is not half as vague as the speech he has made in explanation of it. To my mind he has mixed up his figures most appallingly, and he has not given any explanation whatever as to how the social services are going to be promoted if this state of rating is approved. I think furthermore that he has not given to this Government the credit that is due to it for implementing or seeking to implement what he calls the promises that were made many years ago. If the Deputy is aware of the facts he should know that up to the present there is a primary rating of land up to £20; that there is a special concession of £12 10s. for every member of the family over 17 years of age working on the land, £12 10s. for every working employee on the land, and that those concessions were brought in by the present Government. Of course he made no reference at all to the fact that in the meantime the annuities have been reduced to half. He has stated that the rates have mounted from £4,000,000 to £7,000,000. Unfortunately, he has brought into that amount of £7,000,000 the urban district levies, the poor rate levy, and the levy by the town commissioners of £89,000, as well as the municipal and other rates, amounting to £2,500,000, in order to make up that £7,000,000. He has not made any reference to the fact that, as a result of the various housing schemes, whether municipal or otherwise, which have been adopted, the rates have gone up in consequence. He has not given us a clear picture as to how the rates have affected the land, of which he has spoken so much.
Let us take the case of many of the non-municipal houses in the cities where the area of land available did not permit of new buildings, and where they had to go out into the county areas to acquire land for building purposes. The consequence was that the people in the cities have to pay rates to the county councils on these properties. If these rates have seemed static during the years from 1933 to 1943, then, in a great measure, many of the houses built by the present Government, and on which these rates are charged, are included in the Deputy's figures. Accordingly, I think that, before the House agrees to this, there should be something very much more definite before us. There should be something more definite as to how the £1,500,000 for roads will be provided, as to how the money for the provision of hospitals will be provided, and as to how the cost of extra social services will be provided. Surely, the poorer classes of our population, who already have a hard enough struggle in order to live on a weekly wage or, perhaps, on unemployment assistance or relief, are not going to have these charges thrown upon them? We all admit that agriculture or the land of this country is the most important asset that we have here, and if reasonable assistance is given by the Government to agriculture, that should be acknowledged. However, it seems to me to be clear that all these implications that are concerned here should be put before the House in a clear and concise manner, so that the ordinary members of the community would be able to know how they stand. We all know that farmers are doing fairly well at the moment, and that is only right. Deputy Cogan says that there is no income from the land. Well, observe for a moment the prices that are being paid for farms that go into the market. Now, nobody—and especially the farmers—will be so foolish as to buy property from which there is no income, and yet we see the prices that are being offered for farms at the moment. For that reason, I suggest that this whole matter has not been properly explained or has received serious consideration from this House at all.
This is a matter which concerns the constituency which I represent—a constituency which happens to be one of the poorest in this country, from the point of view of agricultural land. I have no doubt that people who are nimble in the handling of statistics can make a very specious case for this motion. I have not studied statistics very deeply in connection with this matter, but I should like the Minister, and all concerned with the matter, to bear one or two fundamental principles in mind in relation to it. The main one is that those who are fortunate enough to have property ought to take on some obligations in regard to that property. Over the greater part of the West Galway constituency, we have people who are not able to produce butter and milk in sufficient quantities for their own needs. Now, we know that both butter and sugar are two items which are very heavily subsidised by the taxpayers. The people in the constituency I represent, I suppose, would consume as much of these commodities as families in other parts of the country, but they do not gain anything as a result of the subsidies which are given to these industries. Now, I suggest that if agricultural land were to be any further derated—and I do not think that anybody can claim that it has not been derated fairly substantially as a result of the various reliefs that have been granted, as the mover of the motion pointed out himself—it would mean a diminution of local representation. I think that in present circumstances the reliefs that have been given have divided the burden fairly equitably as between the landholders in the country and other ratepayers. Now, even in the good portions of my constituency, east of the Corrib, I have never heard any demand at all for the derating of land. It is not a problem of any size there, and the farmers there have never, at any time, questioned the justice of being called upon to pay a contribution in respect of the value of the property they hold for the provision of local services which are maintained.
We have heard, in recent times, a great deal of talk about bureaucracy in this country. Well, I believe that if one step could be taken really to establish bureaucracy here in this country very definitely, it would be by means of the complete derating of agricultural land or other kinds of property. I believe that the report of the committee was accurate, when it pointed out that derating, if adopted, would leave no case for the retention of local representation. I believe that a necessary consequence of complete derating would be that local representation would have to disappear. Now, I am not one of those who are enthusiastic about the Managerial Act. As I see it, so far as my own constituency is concerned—and that is the only place of which I have had experience —I would not like to see any further development of that experiment, but I can visualise the complete abolition of local administration following the implementation of a proposal of this kind. So far as my own area is concerned, which, as I have said, is a very poor one, the people do not regard the rates generally as a very heavy burden.
In that connection, I am sorry to see that some of the migrants from my part of the country to the County Meath wanted to have derating there, and I was very hurt and grieved to read some of the remarks published about some of the people from my constituency who went there, but that would be only in the case of a few people, and I am grateful to my colleague, Deputy O'Reilly, for defending these people. The remarks of Deputy Giles were entirely unjustified. Whatever happened there, in my opinion, was occasioned by a small element, and, of course, you will always have an element like that everywhere. However, Sir, I admit that that is not relevant, and I shall leave it at that, but I do not think that there should be any attempt to throw cold water on the migratory scheme because such things may happen now and again. I believe, also, that one of the results of the passing of this motion, in addition to the abolition of local representation, would be an attack on fixity of tenure. A great many people have been castigating the Government from time to time for what they consider to be a tendency towards bureaucracy. I believe that derating would tend more strongly in that direction than anything done by this Parliament in recent years. I believe that property has its obligations. Those who have property, no matter in what form, should regard themselves as being very fortunate, and should realise their obligation to pay quite cheerfully and willingly the charges which arise from such responsibility. I think this motion should not be accepted.
I expected that a motion of this kind, coming from Deputy Cogan, would be one in favour of small farmers, but on reading it I notice that it refers to the derating of the first £20 of the poor law valuation of each farm, and the further total derating of each additional £15 of the poor law valuation. Obviously the intention is to help the large farmers. Farmers with valuations over £35 would always be regarded as large farmers.
Who would regard them as large farmers?
They are generally regarded as large farmers.
With £35 valuations?
Yes. I understood that the Party Deputy Cogan represents was out to help the small struggling farmer, and I was wondering what was behind this motion, or what it was designed for. My mind goes back a few years when the Government had to make an arrangement for the payment of minimum rates to agricultural workers. It is a well-known fact that Irish farmers pay their workers such a miserable wage that the Government had to fix the rates. The object of this motion seems to be that, as farmers realise they must pay minimum rates of wages, they want the rest of the community to pay by relieving them from payment of such rates.
This proposal has no bearing on the position of small farmers who work their own holdings. It is designed primarily to help farmers who can employ other people to work for them, and they expect that the rest of the community should share the burden of having to pay minimum rates. City workers have minimum rates and they are very small, but apparently farmers do not take that view. The large farmers are to benefit if this motion passes, but they want to get help from the rates to enable them to pay the miserable wage which they are forced by law to give to agricultural workers. Deputy Cogan stated that farmers did not pay income-tax and he very innocently gave the reason why they do not. I agree that farmers do not pay income-tax, and I suggest the reason is that the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners have never been able to tackle that problem properly. They have never been able to devise a system under which they would get proper accounts from farmers on which to make proper assessments for income-tax purposes.
It is not because farmers do not make the income, but because the income-tax officials cannot get at them when they do not keep books. In that respect they are very fortunate. The majority of them do not pay anything like the amount of income-tax that they should pay. Compare the position of the average farmer with city dwellers. Take the case of a man with an income of £500 who lives in a house, the valuation of which is £30. That would be quite a modest building of seven or eight rooms. The occupier of that house would pay in rates £31 and as income-tax £14, or a total of £45 yearly. Even if he were fortunate enough to own the house, he would have to pay for rates and income-tax £45 a year. Subject to an allowance for children that person might have to pay income-tax at the rate of 7/6 in the £. A city dweller or an official with a fixed salary very often has to pay away half his income between income-tax and rates. Deputy Cogan was careful enough not to give any figures to work on. He did not give an estimate of the income of a farmer with, say, 200 acres. That is the class of farmer this motion is intended to help. The Deputy did not give any idea of the profit that such a man would make in a year. I am sure the Deputy knows the figure, but he was careful not to mention it. Perhaps he was afraid that might attract more attention from the income-tax authorities towards larger farmers. I give Deputy Cogan credit that, in this motion, compared with similar motions, he did not ask to have the charges for rates reduced and those for the social services increased. That is the attitude commonly adopted, to reduce rates but to increase the social services, in other words, to reduce the amount collected from the people but all the time to spend more. Deputy Cogan did not do that and I give him credit for it. He did not say how he would make up the deficiency caused by derating. He did not say what social services would suffer, or what social services were to be reduced. The position in regard to rates in the City of Dublin is rather bad. The rates are at present 21/- in the £ and within a very few years I anticipate that the figure must go to 30/- if the social services contemplated by the Government are to be maintained. It is well known that Dublin City maintains hospitals and educational services which are available to the entire country. I think that efforts might he made to collect some contributions from different parts of the country to relieve the burden of rates in the city. Deputy Cogan went the other way. He wishes relief of rates to be given to farmers who have not to pay anything like the rates levied on city and town dwellings.
This motion would place a much greater burden on the people in the villages, towns and cities who have to pay rates on the dwellings in which they live. It would be very little consolation to such people to tell them that, if farmers' rates are reduced, they will employ more workers at the minimum wages fixed by the Government. The people of the city have to pay fixed prices for butter, turf and other commodities that come from the agricultural districts. These prices have been fixed by the Government. Long before the war, when regulations were brought in to fix the price of milk, it was made a criminal offence for a man in the city to buy milk from a producer at less than the fixed price. The price was fixed by the Government at the request of the producers but many producers were willing to sell at less than the fixed price. At the same time, I read complaints from other producers that the fixed price was not sufficiently high. I am afraid that we shall reach a position in which the large farmer will be exempted from all rates and taxes and land annuities and the Government will pay the men to work their farms for them. It is well known that our banks are bursting with deposits. There is more money on deposit than there ever was. The great bulk of that money represents deposits by farmers, so that, at the present time, a motion of this type is wholly out of place. Too great a burden would be placed on the small farmers, the small traders and workers if further relief were given to the large farmers whom this motion is intended to benefit.
I am surprised at Deputy O'Connor. I ask him to read the report of the committee set up by his own Government to formulate agricultural policy for post-emergency conditions. That committee consisted almost entirely of economists. There was only one farmer on it. Since the Deputy is interested in statistics, he should refer to the figures given by the committee as to the national income and the contribution made by agriculture to that income. Those who make the greatest contribution to that income receive least. The greater portion goes to the parasites in Dublin. They get their rake-off owing to the sweated conditions in the agricultural areas. I resent the Deputy's remarks. They are a poor return for what was done by the agriculturists during the emergency. The Deputy said that farmers paid their workers a miserable wage and that, in order to compel them to pay a fair wage, the Government had to set up a wages board. A great many disabilities attach to our main industry. The Deputy should realise that, on the capacity of the primary industry, depends the maintenance of the population. In the last resort, the existence of this nation depends on our primary industry. I bitterly resent the attitude of a Dublin Deputy who gets up here and speaks as Deputy O'Connor has done. I always thought, that the Deputy was a very decent man and, when he reads over what he said, I am sure he will regret it. There was no justification for it. The report of the Post-Emergency Agricultural Committee was signed by Messrs. Smiddy, Barton, Boyle, Drew, and Johnston. There was only one farmer on the committee and he was, perhaps, more of an economist. I should like to quote a couple of paragraphs from the report, as follows:—
"The underlying causes of the relative prosperity at present experienced by the agricultural industry are artificial and may shortly cease to be effective. Efforts should, therefore, be made to avoid any financial commitments that are of non-productive character imposing additional taxation on farmers.
Unlike industrialists, farmers cannot compensate themselves for extra cost by increasing prices, because in normal times the prices they obtain for produce are in most cases determined by export prices and these cannot be controlled. Hence, farmers cannot shift on to others even a part of any extra costs imposed on them.
The burden of rates on farmers has substantially increased since 1935. The poor rates collected in county health districts have increased from £2,728,988 in 1935 to £4,132,106 in 1943. Of this increase, approximately £1,000,000 was collected from farmers; the tendency is towards a still further increase in the burden. During the war period farmers have been able to carry this added burden because the values of agricultural products have increased, but they will find it intolerable should prices fall substantially, even if the volume of their output were to increase with a consequent reduction in cost per unit produced."
Let us be clear on this matter. Our agriculturists are quite willing to subscribe their fair share to the social services. They do not want to shirk their responsibilities. But they do not want to have to bear a disability which has been removed in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I suppose the Deputy has read what the Minister for Agriculture said at a food production meeting yesterday and what he has been saying in different areas in recent weeks. He is anxious as to the future prosperity of the country and as to how agricultural production is to be maintained and expanded. Emphasis is laid in the report from which I have quoted on the extraordinary stagnation which is characteristic of agricultural production here. At the same time, reference is made to the "potential" there is for substantial production and it is pointed out that something must be done to bring about expansion.
The Deputy spoke of rates on houses in the city. We, of this Party, are not opposed to rates on hereditaments. We are opposed to taxes on raw material. The soil is the most important raw material we have and we are putting taxation on that raw material. I challenge any Deputy to point out any raw material, except the soil, which is taxed. We are prepared to tax the most important fundamental raw material we have, namely, the soil. In any other industry, we do not do that, but sometimes give a subsidy to help it. That is what is wrong, that is what is at issue here, and which should not be at issue at all. We should take a broad outlook on the problems that have to be faced and for which solutions are essential, so that we may launch out on an expansionist policy. There is no use in giving lip-service here to better social conditions, higher incomes for all and better amenities. We can do that only by expanding production and increasing the national income. That must be done before we can hope for better conditions all round. If that expansion occurs, the improvements resulting from that will flow to the community generally.
The Deputy talked about low wages. Are we not helping to depress agricultural wages, through overhead charges and overhead burdens pressing on the agricultural community? It is unfortunate that we are discussing this motion at the present time, as conditions are good. I wish to be honest about that, but that conditions are good is not due to Fianna Fáil policy, but due to the times in which we live, with the fact that we are a food-producing country in a war period.
They are not good for the worker.
The wages of agricultural workers in Great Britain have gone up substantially, while our agricultural wages have made no attempt at any pro rata increase. The farmer in Great Britain is completely derated on his raw material, while we have to carry heavy burdens still on that raw material. I believe the Minister, as a farmer, has a good deal of sympathy with what has been said. I appreciate the difficulties the Government have to face and the huge financial commitments they have at present, with the demand from many other sources for financial assistance of one sort or another. I know that the revenue must be made up to meet those demands. However, it is a shortsighted policy to allow a heavy disability to bear on our primary industry, by a tax on its raw materials, merely on the excuse of the difficulty of making up the difference. The difference is not so much.
I think the motion is asking for very little, as it asks for complete derating on the first £20. It is not the first time we heard of that. We talked a lot a few years ago about complete derating for the first £20. That notion originally came from this Party. There is a primary abatement already allowed on the first £20, approximating to 50 per cent. of the rate on that £20 valuation. In my own county, in Carlow, for the year ending 31st March, 1945, the rate was 12/8 and the primary abatement allowed on the first £20 was 5/9½d. That left the net rate on the first £20 valuation at 6/10½d. Then there was the employment rate, which was 5/9½d. and the supplementary rate, which was 3/1¼d. We have to understand that that has to be paid out of the agricultural grant which, I think, was £1,870,000 for last year for the whole country. That is apportioned in the following way: there is a primary abatement first of nearly 50 per cent. of the rate, then an employment abatement of £12 10s. 0d. on every male relative and every man employed on the holding. The motion asks that that £12 10s. 0d. be raised to £15. I think it does not go far enough. I believe in complete derating of the raw materials of agriculture. Put it on the hereditament, if you like. Why should you tax the raw materials of the most important industry we have, the industry which is carrying the whole community? The final abatement, which amounts to something over 3/- generally, in all the counties, is the residue of the agricultural grant, spread over the remainder of the land over and above £20 valuation. Deputy O'Connor said that this motion was aimed at helping the big farmer. It is not. Surely it is aimed at helping the small farmer, when £20 is going to be completely derated?
That is not the way I read the motion. It is only the man with over £20 valuation who will be helped.
Maybe the Deputy read it upside down.
The motion says:—
"That Dáil Eireann is of opinion that, in order to secure a more equitable distribution of the burden of local rates, and to promote increased employment on the land, legislation should be introduced providing for complete derating of the first £20 of the poor law valuation of each farm and the further total derating of each additional £15 of the poor law valuation in respect of each adult worker employed on the holding; and that the deficit be made good from the Exchequer."
There must be a second £20, if there is a first.
It means that any man with a valuation of under £20 is completely derated, any man with a valuation of £20 is completely derated and any man with a valuation of over £20 is completely derated for the first £20. After that, I think the motion aims at encouraging employment on the land by allowing an abatement of £15 for every man employed. There is £12 10s. 0d. there already, so the increase is very small, only £2 10s. 0d. of an abatement for every man.
On a point of explanation, we are asking for complete derating of £15 in respect of each person employed. At the present time, there is not complete derating for the £12 10s. 0d. It is only partial, so the difference is fairly substantial.
There is only an abatement at the moment. The motion is asking for complete derating.
Well, I think it is very badly worded.
The mover of the motion admitted that.
However, I am not very concerned about the details, but most people concerned about the future of agriculture are anxious about the charges to be imposed on agricultural land. Deputy Cogan dealt with the houses and so on, but I believe that does not matter; it is the land, the raw material of the industry, which should not be taxed and I hope the Minister will consider that favourably.
One of the newest entrants to the House, Deputy O'Connor, has made a great impression on everybody. He is a man we all like. I was struck by his remarks about the banks bursting with money. Where did the money come from but through the sweat and blood, night and day, of the farmers, their sons, their wives and daughters? There is an eight-hour day in the city and it is practically a crime to work longer, but farmers and their households have to work 12 to 14 hours a day—and unless they did that some people would be in the soup. Asking farmers to pay rates is really not honest and amounts to "taking the breeches off a Highlander". Yet when we ask for any release from those conditions, Fianna Fáil Deputies sit complacently and do not even smile, but walk into the lobbies against us. I have a very unique experience, in that I paid rates in this city on a house valued £95 in a principal business street and am paying rates on a farm valued about £130; so I have a leg on both sides of the fence. I paid rates here for a dozen years. I am possibly one of the very few persons in the House who has that to say. I lived here for 25 years. I came as an apprentice boy and wound up as a shopkeeper. I returned to the old place again, leaving the city with some regret. Perhaps my regret may not be so deep now.
Looking at this matter from both sides of the picture, as it were, if you pay a wage to your sons and daughters there will not be one bob left in the bank. I would like the Deputy to understand that. I do not know if he is country reared.
It might be in a better place if it were not in the banks; it might be used to develop the place.
Perhaps the Deputy is right. I should like to point out that, when the members of my Party made attempts on a few occasions to help in that direction—improving farms and helping the agricultural community generally—almost all the members of the Dáil walked into the lobby and voted against our proposals. Yesterday, we had the Minister for Agriculture talking about beet. It would be no harm if the sugar supply could be improved. In the hotels we get a spoonful of sugar to sweeten two cups of tea. It would look as if ours was a land flowing with milk and honey, and with sugar as well, but the fact is that the milk and sugar are scarce. If we make any attempt to improve returns, Deputies will go into the lobby, as they did on one occasion when the voting was 88 to 12. All the Parties walked into the lobby against us when we tried to improve agricultural conditions.
It reminds me of the two cities of infamous notoriety. If there were only ten or 12 just men to be found in them, the cities would be saved. That is where Lot's wife looked back and became a pillar of salt. On the occasion of the division to which I have referred, I was one of the ten or 12 just men. Any attempts that we have made to relieve the situation in the country have been opposed by other Parties here, We are taunted that our banks are bursting with money. Why are our sons on the land? They remain there because they have no sense. They remain until they are 25 or 26 years of age, and then they look out for themselves.
I should like to tell the Deputy what a responsible farmer told me quite recently—and he was not a supporter of this Party. He said he hoped that the land would not be completely derated, and that his sons, when they came of age, would not think that they had no financial responsibility to the nation or its social services and that they would not take an easy view of their responsibilities, and not work the land in a reasonable way.
It is no wonder we are called hewers of wood and drawers of water. In some places the people have no water to draw, unless they travel two or three miles for it. It is no wonder that there is a flight from the land. What are you doing to stop it? Milk is short and sugar is short.
We are sending out our sugar and butter.
That is often hinted at. Of course, it is going out in a special way, helping nations that helped us in our periods of trouble. We do not object to what we give in that way. That accounts for the half-spoon of sugar that I get to sweeten my tea.
With these introductory remarks, perhaps the Deputy will now come to derating?
The farmers in this country work 12 and 14 hours a day. Contrast that with the large numbers of people who work only eight hours a day. Our farmers have many responsibilities. In the country there are organised bodies working only eight hours a day, and it is practically illegal for them to work more than eight hours. The farmers are asked from the pulpit and platform, and through the Press, to get on with the work. They are told they are great fellows and they have saved the nation in a critical period. We are asking you now to give them some consideration for what they have done and what they are doing. It is a shame that the men who kept the nation going in a time of great crisis should not get some return for their labour, the same as other people in the country.
The proposers of this motion do not seem to be very anxious to support it. Their numbers in the House are very small. In fact, this motion has not created very much interest in the House at all, and I wonder at that.
Deputy Hughes made a statement which proves to a large extent that these questions of derating and passing on charges are not so successful, and they seldom or ever achieve the object they are intended to achieve. Deputy Hughes admitted that the agricultural industry puts up the wealth for the whole community. I have been always under the impression, and I think it is quite correct, that the cities and towns, which give services and a certain amount of goods to the agricultural community, are in the happy position, no matter what charge is imposed upon them, of being able to pass on either the whole or a great portion of that charge to the producing community, that is, the agricultural community.
It might not be that way in England, because of the fact that the cities there are larger, and the population is much greater, and perhaps there is a good deal more competition in that country. Consequently, there they may have had some success with derating; there may have been partial relief for the agricultural community. I doubt very much whether in this country, situated as we are, it would be a success or would bring benefits to the agricultural community. I believe that those who give us services, and sell us goods, would be able to pass on almost all those charges and, therefore, there would not seem to be very much to be done in that way.
I think relief of agriculture must come, as Deputy Hughes said, and as was mentioned on many occasions, from increased production. I think many of these things that we have been proposing and discussing will give agriculture very little relief. Some relief has been given, such as the £12 10s. 0d. in respect of those employed on the land, and partial derating, but it does not seem to have had very much effect. We are now in a position in which things are, perhaps, a little brighter, but that is unquestionably due to war conditions. It does not seem to be due to any of the things which have been attempted or done. If Clann na Talmhan took a fresher, a never, view and proposed a motion which would increase production, which would help the farmers to increase their production by providing, better transport and perhaps better sale facilities, it would be something which would be a help and an encouragement to the farmers.
I am convinced that if farmers here were totally derated, as in England, almost all the charge would be passed back again on to them in goods and services. It would not make any difference whatever. If we had a better method of transport, a better method of selling and if we could more or less equalise the balance between the goods we give to the cities and the services they give us, we would be doing far better. For instance, many of us who examine the price that farmers are paid for potatoes and the price which the workers in the City of Dublin pay for these potatoes, must admit that there is room for vast improvement, both from the point of view of the worker and of the producer. The worker in the City of Dublin produces dear goods because his wages must be high, because, if they are not high, he could not meet the cost of these commodities. The cost of these commodities is due to the fact that distribution here has got too strong a grip. It is too highly developed, or, if that is not the case, it must be highly inefficient. In the margin between what the producer gets and what the consumer pays, there is quite a lot of money which could be distributed amongst both, and if Clann na Talmhan worked along some such lines as those they would bring very definite advantage to the agricultural community.
The weakness of the agricultural community is that most of these charges of which they are relieved—naturally somebody else must pay them—can always be passed back again on to the producer in a very short time, and he is left in just the same position. The agricultural worker cannot get better wages and the difficulties under which the farmer works now are, I think, due entirely to this question of distribution and transport. If Fine Gael or any other Party—the Government, I know, has been considering the point —could solve those difficulties, they would bring great relief to all sides. It is undoubtedly a fact that until the agricultural community are in a position to increase production, the finances of the State, and eventually the prosperity of the State, must remain static. If the agricultural industry is not reasonably prosperous, the prosperity of the other industries in the cities and towns must be limited also, and it is up to everybody to assist in encouraging agriculture. So far as the Government Party are concerned, they have done everything possible to stimulate production amongst the agricultural community. If the Dáil succeeds in solving this question of distribution, I believe infinite good will be done for the agricultural community.
Most of us know very well how distribution is conducted in this old City of Dublin. Many of the distributors have a very tight grip on the community. That grip was secured over a great number of years. They have been here for a very long time and they have organised themselves. I appreciate their activities, but the time has now come when something should be done to break that very powerful grip which they have, and to allow the farmer to get a little more for his produce and enable the workers to pay a little less for what they require. If we worked along those lines, we would solve the difficulty in which the farmer at present finds himself with greater case and perhaps in a better way than by this method of derating. It has been tried and tested here on quite a number of occasions. The British are different entirely from us in that they have very large cities and towns and very big populations. Derating might to a degree be successful in Britain, but I do not at all see that it would be successful here, because the competition is not keen enough and our towns and cities are so situated that they would be able to pass all these charges back again to the agricultural community.
I am in thorough agreement with the motion if it will have the effect of benefiting the small farmer. It has been stated by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael members that the farmers are very well off and we have had statements about the amount of money in the banks. Some years ago, the newspapers had big headlines about the farmers being in the front-line trenches. During the emergency, it was the ploughman and the agricultural labourer who were in the front-line trenches, as they are to-day, suffering under a high cost of living with a wage of £2 per week, that is, a wage of 25/-, plus a bonus of 15/- per week. The agricultural worker's wages to-day are 25/- per week—the remaining 15/- is the bonus which all workers have received.
I come from County Wexford, where we have small farmers as well as very large farmers, and I am of the opinion that the small farmer is struggling. He has no money in the bank, and is unable to pay a man for a full week. He may take on a man for a day, or for two days at most, and I do not see why any of the big ranchers, the big gentlemen farmers, who can follow the hunt and who go to Baldoyle and to the greyhound tracks, should be in any way relieved by the rates. They have money to burn, and I believe that this motion does not apply to these people but to the man on the small holding. There was a case brought to my notice of two old people, a father and a mother, with an only son, living on a holding of 29 acres. The father and mother would not get the old age pension because of the valuation of their holding, although they had not one penny to enable them to carry on. Take the position of the farm labourer to-day. A pair of boots, which it is impossible to get, will cost him £2 so that he has to work a whole week before he can afford to buy a pair. My friend Deputy O'Donnell spoke about sugar. I wonder do farmer-Deputies feel ashamed when they come into the Restaurant in Leinster House and get only two spoons of sugar in an egg cup, and when we cannot see the butter on the bread. That happens in a Restaurant which is subsidised by the State.
I do not think it is subsidised under this motion. There is no money for it in the motion.
I would like to tell the country that it is.
Yes, on a suitable occasion. This is not the suitable occasion.
Butter has been referred to. Deputies in this Dáil cannot see the butter on the bread. It must be put on with a machine.
I think the Deputy is back on the Restaurant again.
I want to say to the Minister that if there is any money available to give the help sought through this motion, something should be done for the farm labourer as well as for the small farmer, because if we are to keep men on the land we must pay them. I say that £2 a week to-day is not a living wage for any man. When the Agricultural Wages Board was set up there was one thing it should have done, and that was to classify workers on the land as skilled and unskilled. The man who can plough and reap and do all classes of genuine agricultural work is to-day only getting £2 a week. He is surely a skilled man. In all grades of industry you have skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers. If what I suggest had been done by the board, you would have men to-day learning how to plough, how to work a binder and other classes of agricultural machinery. I know farmers in my constituency who are finding it as hard to carry on and to keep their families as the ordinary individual. If anything can be done for them it should be done. I am certainly in thorough agreement with this motion in so far as it sets out to help the small farmers.
There seems to be a good deal of hesitancy on the part of members of the Party sponsoring this motion to take part in the debate to-day.
And also on the part of the Minister.
Mr. Brady
During the first three-quarters of an hour of the debate that Party was represented here by two members. That shows the interest and the belief that the members of that Party have in this motion. The Deputies may have good reasons for not being here, but the Deputy whose name is appended to it with Deputy Cogan's is not in the House to support it. I am not surprised that there should be mixed feelings, to say the least of it, amongst the members of the Clann na Talmhan Party on this particular motion, because of the fact that the Deputies of that Party represent constituencies of varying interest. The interests of Deputy Cogan and Deputy Halliden are not, in my opinion, the interests of Deputy Blowick or Deputy Commons in this particular respect.
I am opposed to this motion because I come from a constituency and a county where 75 per cent. of the agricultural holdings are under £5 valuation. Naturally, we in Donegal ask ourselves: what have we to gain by derating on the basis proposed in the motion, or by complete derating? We realise that the money at present provided by the payment of rates must, if there is partial, or whole, derating, be found by some other means. Consequently, the small holder, the man with the £5 valuation, would have to contribute, either through direct or indirect taxation on the same basis as the larger, more prosperous and more wealthy farmers in the Midlands and rancher counties. Speaking of Donegal in that respect, I do not see that there is very much difference between the constituency and County of Donegal and that, for instance, of South Mayo. There are no very large farmers there. Their holdings are somewhat on a par with ours, and, therefore, I cannot for the life of me see what could induce Deputies from a constituency like Mayo to support a motion of this nature and defend it in their constituencies. If, as I have said, we grant this partial derating, then the sum so provided for that purpose must be found by some other means, and there is no other means of providing the money, that I am aware of, except through direct or indirect taxation.
The small farmers of Donegal, in fact, I might say the farmers as a whole in Donegal, see that they are already contributing to the agricultural community in other parts of the country. Donegal, for instance, has not been able to take very much advantage of the wheat scheme. The farmers there have to pay portion of the subsidy in connection with that scheme. Donegal is not in close proximity to any of the beet factories, so that the farmers in that county have to contribute their share under the State subsidy to the beet industry. We could not hope to gain very much, even by a total remission of rates, on our £5 valuations. Therefore, if that suggestion were adopted we would be again subsidising the non-payment of rates by farmers with valuations ranging from £25 to £35 whom we do not regard as small farmers. Apparently, some Deputies regard them as small farmers, but we do not. I can assure the House that a farmer in Donegal with a £35 valuation would be considered very well off indeed. Consequently, I feel that the House should reject the motion.
In seconding the motion, I want to say that I think it is one that should appeal to every reasonable Deputy. The motion has done one thing anyway, and it is this that the farmers of the country definitely know where they stand as far as Fianna Fáil is concerned, and the way that Fianna Fáil regards them. Deputy O'Connor made several remarks. Some of them I will not bother to reply to because they were inaccurate, and clearly they were made by a man who did not know what he was speaking about. Deputy O'Connor and his Party were some of the crowd, some of the people, who at the beginning of the emergency went through the country asking one class of the people to save our neutrality. There was one class of our people in whose power it was to save our people during the emergency, and that class was composed of the food and fuel producers. Now, when the emergency is over the Deputy who is a city dweller rises up and tries to incite people who may not be conversant with farming conditions to perpeturate class distinction and class warfare between the city or town dweller and the rural dweller. I think that from a man holding the position in life that he does, it was the most despicable attempt to create class distinction in the country that I have ever heard in the House, and I hope it will be a long time before I hear anything like it again.
The Deputy referred to the deposits in the banks. If my memory serves me correctly, the large deposits in the banks were made by people who, owing to the shortage of the materials during the emergency, had to cash in on their pre-emergency stocks. During the emergency they were not able to replace stocks. My experience during the war has been that many farmers were not able to have much money, over and above what they could save during normal times. Farmers have not very much money. Any that they have is the result of cashing in on the fertility of their soil, which means changing the money from one pocket to another. That is no indication of prosperity. We know quite well that the whole question of derating is a huge one. We know on fairly good authority that the poor law valuation carried out under Griffith in 1852 was grossly inaccurate. According to the evidence of Sir Richard Griffith and many valuers serving under him in many cases, instead of valuing the land on the land, according to instructions laid down by an Act of the British Government, they actually valued the land in County Clare and Donegal from the steps of a sidecar from the main road, merely by looking at it That is their own account at a sworn inquiry held by the Devon Commission.
A revaluation of the land of this country would probably involve a sum of £2,000,000 and would result in an increase of the valuation of the country by £1,000,000. I think that is fairly accurate. We do not propose to go into that, but we do know that the rates are increasing year by year and that even to the small farmer the rates are becoming something to be reckoned with. Up to the last few years the rates were not a very serious item, at least, they were not an item that the farmer was afraid of in his annual outlay. Now that the rates are increasing year by year, while there is no hope whatever that the ceiling has been reached, he is beginning to be seriously alarmed. The smaller the farmer the more anxious he is to meet his commitments and to be able to go out and meet his friends and neighbours and say he has paid his way. In many cases it is only God that knows how he has paid his way or by what sacrifices he has paid his way.
Deputy Brady mentioned the fact that there was a lot in common between the farmers of South Mayo and the farmers in his constituency in Donegal. I believe there is a good deal in common. He mentioned that the farmer of £5 valuation would not be very much interested in derating. I should like to take this opportunity to say that if this Government and the previous Government had done their duty, or if the Land Commission were allowed a free hand and had done their duty as they should have done it, there should not be any farmers of £5 valuation. I do not lay the blame more heavily on one Government than the other. It is terrible to think that a farmer would be asked to live on a farm of £5 valuation, as we know them, and to bring up a family on that farm, perhaps miles from a town or any place where there might be employment for the members of his family as they grew up, and where there would be little or no employment for himself. If the rates on a £5 valuation farm are small, they are just as large an item for the farmer concerned as the rates on a £200 valuation farm are for the farmer concerned.
No matter what Government speakers may say, the day is coming, and coming soon, when something will have to be done in regard to the question of derating. It may not take the lines suggested in the motion before the House, although, as far as we can see, the suggestions in the motion would give initial relief to a large number of farmers and to the particular type of farmer who is feeling the pinch most. We all know that the big farmer is not so much in need of relief as the small farmer, because he has more scope in his land, but the day has definitely come when something will have to be done to derate, and something along the lines of the motion. That is why I recommend it to the Minister, even if only for an experimental period.
Deputy Cogan quoted from a committee of 1931. Conditions have changed completely since then because rates have been climbing year after year. I wonder what the rate bill will be like, say, in 1956. Are we going to wait for a crash to occur before we start to take steps to see that no ill effects will follow from the present system? We know that social services must be maintained. We know also that if this motion is adopted by the House the Minister for Finance will be asked for a sum of money, not a very alarming sum considering the vast number that would benefit by it and the urgency of the matter. We know that sum will have to be met. Government speakers and members of the Government are too inclined at present to pooh-pooh any idea such as this or any motion such as this that is for the benefit of the vast masses of the people. If there is any saving to be carried out, they want to save at the expense of the poor, the small landholders and so on. That cannot go on because such a policy will definitely end in disaster, sooner or later.
The latter portion of the motion is designed to give a fillip to employment of agricultural workers and to try to stem at least some of the tide of emigration. The rates are very unequally distributed. In my county I know that some land is valued out of all proportion to its real value. The reason for that is that in days gone by small landowners and others deliberately interfered with the valuers of the land and influenced them to increase the valuation so that they would qualify for membership of the grand jury and other benefits. We do not propose to go into that. The revaluation of the land is a vast question, involving a sum of, I believe, £2,000,000. Many smallholders cannot meet their rates liabilities now and it is certain that the rates will go up from year to year because, naturally, there will be increases of various kinds, in wages, social services and county services. One thing that is making it most difficult to meet the rates is that while these costs are increasing, the profit from the land is not increasing proportionately. Deputies mentioned deposits in banks. I move the adjournment.
Debate adjourned.