Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Nov 1946

Vol. 103 No. 5

Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1946—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Hughes

On Friday last I was pointing out that notwithstanding what might appear to be a very favourable provision, so far as the relief of rates is concerned, in view of the very steep rise in the incidence of rates, the position is much worse than it was in 1932. As a matter of fact, in 1932 the rates on agricultural lands amounted to £1,260,000 and the agricultural grant then was £2,194,000. The rates on agricultural land in the meantime have increased to £3,207,000, while the grant has fallen from £2,194,000 to £1,168,000. The grant has continued at that level since 1935. Now the aggregate general assessment on agricultural land has gone up from £2,403,000 to £5,200,000, so that as far as the raw material for agriculture is concerned, that is, land— it is the only raw material in any industry that is taxed—it is carrying a very heavy burden. That has helped, with other conditions, to depress production from the land.

The Minister I am sure appreciates the necessity of having maximum production in the land and this provision is made with a view to helping to stimulate production. I pointed out that if we are concerned about raising our surplus production for the purposes of exchange, in selling in the British market against competitors who are placed in an advantageous position because of the derating of agricultural land that matter should not be overlooked. We ought to examine the evils that have resulted from the continued operation of a tax on land in this country. Take for instance the question of wages which we have discussed many times here and compare agricultural wages in this country with the agricultural wages in Great Britain. Wages paid in Great Britain average £4 per worker while the average here is £2 4s. 0d. Were it not for the fact that there is a travel ban in existence to prevent workers leaving rural Ireland we would soon be stripped of man-power in Ireland. The one thing that assists the farmer in Northern Ireland and Great Britain to pay higher wages is the fact that he has not to meet this demand for rates on his raw material that has to be met in this country. The present wage of £2 4s. 0d. has roughly a purchasing power of about 50 per cent of its pre-war value, so that the rural worker is in reality in receipt of only £1 2s. 0d. on pre-war standards. We can therefore appreciate why our man-power is leaving the land.

It has been denied by Ministers on occasion here that there has been any reduction of man-power on the land. Actually in reply to a Parliamentary question by General Mulcahy on Wednesday last it was stated that the employment allowance had fallen from £315,288 some years ago to approximately £35,000 for the latest year for which there have been returns, which indicates that there has been a substantial reduction in the claim for employment allowances for primary workers on the land. There again I want to draw the Minister's attention to that aspect of a very important question. The Minister may feel as I said before that he is going a long way towards giving assistance to the main industry but he is only restoring what was taken from the industry in 1933-34. The Government has made no attempt to put agriculture on the same basis as it occupies in countries which compete with us in the British market. I submit that if we are to hope to get some results from agriculture here—the Minister knows that we have not succeeded in stepping up production during the emergency to the extent that Britain has—we must keep in step so far as the conditions under which food is produced in this country are concerned. We must keep in step with the conditions that obtain in Britain and Northern Ireland if we hope to compete. If our policy is not to compete and to eliminate the surplus, that is of course an impossibility. Our capacity to produce is far beyond our requirements here at home and so we must have a surplus.

It may be argued that agriculture is better off than it has been in former years. I think that can be questioned but I shall refer to that question later. So far as the provision for the employment allowance has been increased under this Bill by approximately 100 per cent., I want to congratulate the Minister. I think the policy should be to encourage by methods of this sort, permanent employment on the land. I addressed a question to the Minister for Agriculture last week for the purpose of obtaining an estimate of the increased cost of production which resulted from the increase in wages in consequence of the last decision of the Agricultural Wages Board, and I asked how far it was offset by this provision here of £1,000,000 to relieve rates, taking into account the increase in rates. The answer briefly was that the increase in wages was approximately £1,000,000, not taking into account the increase that was allowed relative to sons and daughters of farmers who did not fall into the category of wageearners. The relief that was provided to offset that £1,000,000 was approximately £600,000, so that there has to be bridged still so far as the agricultural community is concerned, a difference of £400,000. The last decision of the Wages Board means, in effect, that there is an imposition on agriculture of £400,000 which has not been bridged by this proposal. The Minister for Finance, when discussing this matter in his Budget speech, tried to indicate that whatever increases in wages were envisaged at the time for the agricultural worker would be provided by this increased grant. I am pointing out that that is not so, that this grant falls short of the actual increase, according to the Minister for Agriculture, by £400,000, not taking into account increases provided by way of allowances to sons and daughters of farmers.

The paper on National Income and Expenditure published a few months ago showed how the national pool of production was contributed to by the various industries and a diagram in that paper showed that agriculture contributed by far the greatest share of the national wealth. A very big segment of the circle was attributable to wealth produced by agriculture. Turning to another page showing how the national pool was distributed, we saw that the agricultural industry got a much smaller share. The segment of the circle representing the agricultural share of that pool of wealth was very much smaller than that which represented the contribution of agriculture, so that there is not a fair or equitable distribution of the national wealth here as compared with the actual production in the country as a whole.

The Taoiseach, when Leader of the Opposition here, speaking on the Budget on April 24th, 1929, said at column 786 of volume 29 of the Official Reports:—

"The Minister has closed his ears to those who pointed out that a large sum which would far more than cover the cost of derating is unwarrantably exported every year. We believe that the sum paid to England is not due and that if the greater portion of it were retained here in the Exchequer, there would be no need to put an extra taxation to relieve the present burden on agriculture. We know, of course, that agriculture is our principal industry and that seven out of every nine engaged on productive industries are engaged on the land; also that two-thirds of the wealth of the country is produced from agriculture, and, moreover, that the greater part of the remaining one-third is produced from industries ancillary to farming, such as baconcuring, butter-making, brewing, distilling and so forth.

The pressure of rates is particularly severe on our farming community."

And the curve in that respect has been progressively upward; the burden is heavier than ever it was.

"If we take into account the fact that they have to compete with rivals in Great Britain itself and in Northern Ireland, who are relieved of that burden of rates, we realise what a severe handicap there exists and will remain on the farming community. As we say, we agree with the Minister that it is very difficult to say how that can be done by the imposing alternative forms of taxation, but we say that there is a way which was open to a determined Minister. If the present Ministry is not prepared to take it, then we say it is the duty of members of the House who see expenditure steadily fixed at the figure given in the Estimates, about £24,000,000— members who are interested in finding some relief where taxation is too burdensome and in providing means of employment for those who are unemployed—to get a Ministry who will see that that money is not exported."

The country took the advice of the Taoiseach at that time and changed the Government. He was then charged with the responsibility of Government. Whether the Taoiseach has forgotten it or has changed his mind about it, I do not know, but the fact remains that, at that time, he was stressing the very points I am stressing to-day—that if we believe in the value of the British market to this country, we can hope to compete in that market only if our people are producing under similar conditions, that a tax on the land is a burden and acts as a deterrent so far as production is concerned and that the maximum relief ought to be provided. He indicated at the time that there was a way of doing it, that we were paying annuities to Great Britain which were not due. He has dealt with that matter, but the relief has not come to the farmer. I wonder if the Minister for Finance, on behalf of the Taoiseach, would tell the House why the Government changed their mind.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should refer to Deputy de Valera, as he then was, with no responsibility.

Mr. Hughes

He is now Taoiseach.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, but he was not then Taoiseach.

Mr. Hughes

I am speaking now of the present. I want to ask why the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party have changed their minds about it. I am not arguing that derating is the ideal way of assisting agriculture—I do not suppose there is any ideal way —but I am arguing that the provision of temporary relief for two years of this sort is not enough. It is not an "artificial subvention of this kind", to use the Minister's own words, because this is a tax which should never have been imposed, a tax on the raw material of a primary industry. It is the imposition itself which is artificial, and not the relief. The impost ought to be raised.

I think the method the Minister is adopting is the ideal method, the method of employment allowances and supplementary allowances, because it is one which will induce farmers to give employment, and our aim should be to induce the farmers to maintain the maximum number of permanent workers on the land. Pursuing a policy of that sort will help to bring the maximum amount of land into profitable and sustained production, and I say, on behalf of this Party, that we welcome the provision made for this year and next year. I want to stress again, however, that, with the anticipated rise in taxation and the necessity for expanding agricultural production, it would be a wise policy not merely to continue but to increase this provision.

We can discuss the details of the Bill more properly on Committee Stage, but I think the Minister has acted wisely in accepting the suggestion from Deputy Sheldon, as he told us, allowing claims to be made up to 1st February next. I do not know what responsibility there is on secretaries of county councils to ensure that every farmer is provided with a form of application, but I have heard a number of farmers say that they have not received these forms. It may be that they have overlooked them or have lost them through carelessness, but a number of such farmers do create some trouble by saying that they have not received the forms, and secretaries of county councils cannot help them, because the statutory period within which claims must be made has expired. The Minister has extended the period, and I suggest that not merely should the forms be sent out but a notice should be inserted prominently in the local papers setting out the last date for receiving claims. It has been suggested to me that the Minister might consider providing relief for farmers who can show that they employed a number of people at the peak periods in the working year, and that if these amounted to a complete year they should be given relief. I think the intention of the Minister, however, is to encourage permanent employment. Personally, I cannot say that I disagree with the Minister on that. I do not see how the Minister, under the policy we are to operate under this measure, will control the actual amount provided. It will be a flexible sum, to some extent at all events.

Mr. MacEntee

The primary and supplementary allowances will represent a fixed proportion of the rate.

Mr. Hughes

In the past, we knew what we were getting for the primary and the employment allowances. The residue determined what the supplementary allowance would be. We are now getting a fixed supplementary allowance, so that the Minister must provide a flexible sum to some extent.

Mr. Sheldon

This measure, I think, will receive a fairly general welcome. It is an improvement on its predecessors. First of all, it is much easier to understand than the 1939 Act. The whole procedure is simplified. In any measure which applies to the farming community it is just as well to keep the terms as simple as possible, so that no one will be done out of his just rights through inability to understand the niceties of legal expression. There is a marked improvement from that point of view. There is also the improvement that Deputy Hughes referred to in the way in which various allowances were given. I think it is a very good departure from the established practice to give the primary and supplementary allowance in such a way that the employment allowance has no relation to them, except that the employment allowance can be given only where the valuation exceeds £20. As the Minister said in his opening statement, under the old system the employment allowance was not a real incentive to employment. The incentive actually was the difference between the employment allowance and the supplementary allowance. But, under this, the employment allowance is quite a separate sum given irrespective of the other two. I think that is a very marked improvement.

I should like to thank the Minister for the concession he makes in Section 7 (3), giving anyone who overlooked claiming an abatement for the employment allowance until 18th February next. At first sight, it might appear that if a farmer neglected to look for his employment allowance the loss should be his. But this year the employment allowance is very much more substantial than it was previously. As Deputy Hughes said, the difficulty about this employment allowance is that it is fatally easy to fail to send in the form even after filling it in. I have had personal experience of that. Having filled up my own form a couple of years ago, I put it in my pocket in order to get it witnessed by some reputable member of the community, such as a bank manager. My mind being relieved by having filled up the details, the whole thing passed out of my recollection. On the last possible day for sending it in, I accidentally found it in my pocket, and got it in just on time. That sort of thing can happen very easily.

I want to make one or two criticisms. First of all, I think it is a pity that we still do not seem to be able to give any long-term expression to what our intentions are with regard to agriculture. This measure relates only to the present financial year and the next one. On the other hand, I cannot criticise that, because I do not agree with the basic principle of this Bill, and, therefore, its short life gives me hope that perhaps its successor will be very much better.

Another point of criticism is the matter of the employment allowance. I had hoped that the Minister could have devised some means of amending the method of determining the number of adult workmen who qualified. It is laid down in Section 8 (3) of the 1939 Act. I can quite appreciate, as Deputy Hughes mentioned, the difficulty: that what the Government is seeking to do is to increase whole-time employment. But, so to speak, by accident, hardships creep in. The position at present is that a farmer may employ six men for 51 weeks and, for some unforeseen and, probably, unavoidable reason, employ only one man for 52 weeks. That farmer can only claim an allowance in respect of one man. Cases like that have been brought to my notice. For instance, in one case a man had three workmen employed for 11 months of the year. In the month of October, through no fault of his own, two men left him, and for three or four weeks he was unable to replace them. The result was that when he came to make his claim he was only allowed for one man. I admit that the case I am trying to make is considerably weakened by the fact that I cannot suggest a remedy which would be fair all round. I think, however, that some attempt should be made to get over these difficulties where very great hardship occurs. That man lost a rebate of £13 in his rates owing to something over which he had no control. It happened that there was a shortage of available men in that particular month and he was left short of men.

It has been suggested to me that the proper method would be to arrive at the number of men-weeks worked, so to speak, divide that by 52, and give an allowance based on the result. I can see grave administrative difficulties there, as it would be almost impossible to check up whether a man had or had not 15 men engaged in the month of September for harvest work. But, before this Bill ceases to have effect, I think the Department should see if some more favourable method of determining the number of adult workmen engaged could not be found.

Personally, my welcome for the Bill is limited by the fact that I think the whole matter has been approached from a wrong angle. About a year ago I put down an amendment to the Local Government Bill which was debated in the spring, but it got no support from any quarter of the House. I sought to approach this matter from a different point of view. To my mind, the system in the previous Acts, and the system now being tried in this Bill, of giving relief by means of some subvention of the rates is bad. I think we ought to approach the basic problem more directly. The basic problem is that the relationship between the valuation on agricultural land and the valuation of other property has got completely out of joint, and there is no longer any proper relationship. In some counties, I doubt if it ever had a proper relationship. I was reliably informed that the way the valuation survey was carried out in my own county left a very great deal to be desired. Some of it, I believe, was carried out in the seat of a jaunting car, as the ground was too wet to walk over. In some cases a small landlord might be seeking to get qualified for the grand jury. I think everyone will agree that at the present time it is impossible to see the relationship between the valuation of agricultural land and the valuation of, say, business premises in a country town or village.

There are only two ways out of this that I can see, one is revaluation. Revaluation, of course, is a lengthy and expensive process. It is also, I gather, a two-edge sword and a great many people are reluctant to advocate it. The other method that I suggest is arbitrary revaluation of agricultural land, the scaling down of the valuation in an arbitrary fashion. What I suggested on the amendment, which failed, to the Local Government Bill was that a specified valuation, taking the term as applied in this Bill, should be reduced by three-fifths, that is, its valuation under the Valuation Act should be reduced to two-fifths and the remainder should be reduced by two-fifths. I do not know whether it is a coincidence or not that the figure of three-fifths in regard to the specified valuation crops up in this Bill but I think this would be a fairer method of approaching it. It would avoid a great many difficulties and a great deal of administrative difficulty in local authority offices. The amount of work to be done each spring in county council offices in determining the reliefs is very great and, although it will not be quite so bad under this Bill as it was under the previous Act, it would still be considerable. A further advantage that would derive is that every farmer could see on the face of it what his position was and would not be wondering whether his agricultural relief was properly calculated or not.

I know there would be difficulties in drafting. You would have to provide for the transfer of small properties from someone whose valuation exceeded a specified valuation to someone whose valuation did not exceed it but that should not present any insuperable difficulty. The advantages would far outweigh any preliminary difficulties. A particular advantage about it is that the initial work to be done in the council offices in finding a new measure of valuation would be all the work that would be necessary. After that it would be merely a matter of applying the rate to the new valuations. To make up to the local authority for the loss in revenue, all the agricultural grant would accrue, as heretofore. That could be easily done by payment to the county funds of the agricultural grant. Any difficulties that may have been experienced previously in that respect have disappeared under the Local Government Act, 1946.

There is a further difficulty in this Bill, in respect to which I freely admit I am not perfectly certain of the ground on which I stand. I am not a lawyer and if I am about to step into a morass instead of on to firm ground, I have only myself to blame. I want the House to appreciate that this is a layman's point of view of something that seems rather technical. I refer now to sub-section (2) of Section 3, the clause by which the money to finance this is to be found. It states:—

"The Minister for Finance shall make, in respect of each financial year to which this Act applies, an additional grant to the council of each county, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, of an amount equal to the sum by which the allocation to the council under Section 4 of the Act of 1939 (or under that section as modified by Section 5 of the said Act or any other enactment) falls short of the total deficiency in the revenue of the council which, but for the grant, would result from the operation of this Act."

Referring to this, in his introductory statement, the Minister said—column 658 Parliamentary Debates, 8th November, 1946:—

"The amount of the grant will be what is needed to give the increased reliefs under these heads whatever that sum may be."

The part I want to draw attention to is the final phrase, "whatever that sum may be." At column 662, in reference to the fact that this Bill was carrying out the promises given by the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement, the Minister said:—

"... the Government would be as interested as the farmers in keeping local rates within reasonable bounds, seeing that it will have to provide by general taxation each year for three-fifths of the rates on the first £20 valuation of agricultural land and one-fifth of the rates on land valuations above £20."

Again, "the Government will have to". I want to suggest that this is a departure from established practice. The House is asked to hand over to the various county councils unlimited control of the public purse, a right which, I believe, this House has always very jealously retained.

I want to make a very clear distinction in this. I know that in every Act which requires money there is a provision that the sum or sums necessary to cover the expenses of the Act shall be provided out of moneys voted by the Oireachtas, subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance. At first glance we do not appear to be doing anything very different but there is the point that this is not permissive in any way; it is mandatory. It is mandatory on the Minister for Finance to pay to the county councils whatever money they may require to make good this deficiency. It does not affect the present financial year because, happily, the rates are struck but, so far as next year is concerned, we appear to be heading for the position wherein if the local authority suddenly decides that this is a good thing, that they are going to get a whack out of public funds if they watch themselves, we may be called upon to meet an extraordinary subvention. Whether that happens or not, the remarkable position is that no one knows just what we will be called upon to vote and what is more remarkable still, whatever we are called on to vote, I fail to see how we will have a word to say in it. We will have entered into a contract under this measure to meet whatever sums may be arrived at.

Mr. MacEntee

It is not a contract.

Mr. Sheldon

Well, it is a solemn promise.

Mr. MacEntee

It is an act of grace.

Mr. Sheldon

This House is being asked to say that it will meet a deficiency that arises in county council funds and the odd position is that we are going to hand out a blank cheque. The Minister will probably say the county councils are not going to run mad and spend public money, that they have the ratepayers to consider. Would not the very same argument be put up by a Minister coming to this House with a Supplementary Estimate of £ x millions?

Suppose, for example, the Minister for Defence were to come into this House and say: "I want to do something with the Army; I do not know how much this is going to cost but I want you to vote me an unspecified sum; I cannot tell you what the exact amount will be but I can assure you that I am not going to spend the money foolishly", I do not believe for a moment that the House would listen to the Minister in such an eventuality. I suggest that this is precisely what we are being asked to do here. This is quite different from the usual procedure. All moneys voted by this House are for specified sums definitely laid down, either for a Department or for some outside body. An outside body is not, I admit, immediately answerable to this House but, in the case of such a body, money is voted by way of a Grant-in-Aid for a definite fixed sum. Can the Minister quote any parallel case where the House has voted a completely unspecified amount? I would be very glad to hear of any such case. I am not trying to make difficulties. I merely want to point out a difficulty which I see and which I hope may be avoided. As it stands at present the difficulty is there. We cannot get out of the difficulty merely by saying that it does not exist. The usual procedure, when this House agrees to the expenditure of money, is that the House writes a cheque for a specified amount or it crosses the cheque and states that it is not to exceed so many thousands or so many millions. In this case we are being asked to sign a blank cheque where no upper limit is fixed. The position would be bad enough if we were asked to give this money to the Minister. In that case the Minister would be answerable to the House and his accounts would be subject to the control of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The bodies who will receive this money are not directly answerable to this House; neither will their accounts be subject to the Comptroller and Auditor-General or to the Public Accounts Committee. I do not for a moment suggest that anything very serious could happen to public funds but I am suggesting that we are now creating a serious precedent. I am, however, open to conviction if I am making a mistake in this respect and if I can be persuaded that it does not bear this interpretation. The only answer that I can see likely to be made to me is that, first of all, my fears are groundless since the local authorities will not spend money ad libitum; that, of course, does not cover the case at all. Secondly, I may be told that it is the usual practice in a slightly different form. I maintain that it is not the usual practice. Most Bills contain an enabling section which makes it possible for the Oireachtas to vote the money.

I have taken some advice in relation to this. I was given the rather peculiar advice that it does not matter; that the money is not passing out of the control of the Oireachtas because it states "out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas." That raises the rather odd position that in this Bill we are giving a definite promise to pay whatever sum the county councils may need. Later on the Minister concerned will come to the House and present an estimate for a certain figure. The House may then take fright and say: "My goodness, we had no idea it was going to be as much as this. We could not possibly pay this." It is somewhat similar to the position in which the Pied Piper of Hamelin found himself—"A thousand guilders—come, take fifty." The House would then be in the position that it would either have to pay willy-nilly or go back on what it has said. Neither solution is a very good one.

I suggest that this difficulty could be avoided. Instead of messing about with the amount of rates to be paid we should amend the valuations on which the rates are paid. The agricultural grant could then, as formerly, be for a specified amount. This is the first occasion on which no specified amount has been laid down. If necessary, we could increase the amount of the agricultural grant. I think, as a matter of fact, that that is both necessary and desirable. Further, I suggest that the brief outline I have given of the more proper approach to this matter would avoid any difficulty in the future. It would at the same time avoid a great deal of administrative work in the county council offices; it would avoid confusion in the minds of the unfortunate farmers; it would save them having to fill up a lot of forms. It would, in fact, be a much more desirable approach from every point of view.

I bring it to the notice of the House and to the notice of the Minister in the hope that as this Bill, when it becomes law, will have a very short life the Minister will, when he comes to amend it, follow more closely the lines I have suggested than he has done hitherto. I raise this matter and I am very anxious to hear not only the Minister but any member of the legal profession in this House as to whether we are now being asked to create a precedent and, if so, whether that precedent is a wise one or not.

Mr. Cogan

Last February this Party tabled a motion asking to have a scheme introduced for the complete derating of the first £20 in the valuation of every holding and a further complete derating of £15 in respect of each adult worker on each holding. The Minister for Finance replied that the scheme would cost approximately £2,000,000. He said:—

"I do not think it would be fair to ask the taxpayer to bear this additional burden."

He further said:—

"If I had £2,000,000 and I wanted to use it for the benefit of agriculture I would not give it for the relief of rates and I certainly would not give it for the relief of rates on land."

That statement was made on the 6th February, 1946, in column 549, volume 99. Two months later the Minister for Finance came into this House to make his Budget speech. In the course of that speech he said:—

"I propose to use £1,000,000 to enable farmers over £20 valuation to give increased wages, and to give a complementary relief to holders under £20."

There was a complete somersault on the part of the Government in regard to the policy of relieving rates on agricultural land. Never in the history of this House has a Government or a Minister so completely devoured his own words as the Minister for Finance did on that particular occasion. I detest this loathsome policy of the Government trimming its sails to meet every wind in an effort to catch every available vote. I detest the way in which their policy changes from day to day and I think the most undesirable feature of this policy is its reaction upon local government and its reaction upon agriculture generally. I have been told that when the Minister decided to give way in this matter of the relief of rates on agricultural land he was preparing the ground for a general election during the summer. He was going to go out and say to farmers: "Now, we have made a substantial relief in rates." He could say to the labourers: "We have given you a substantial increase in wages and financed that by this Bill." That would be an attractive programme— or the Minister might have thought that it would be—but the atmosphere was later contaminated by the foul odour of stale bacon and the general election was postponed.

Farmers and the public should know that this type of legislation has bedevilled the country for the past 25 years. We have no guiding principle governing the financing of local administration, and no guiding principle governing agricultural policy. We have agricultural policy, wages, and the upkeep of local services all bundled together, in a kind of hotch-potch, to be served up to the electorate from time to time. That is not the way local affairs should be run. It is not the way they should be financed. People in charge of local government should be able to plan on a long-term basis; they should know what grants were forthcoming from the Central Exchequer over a period of years, and what principle governed the provision of such grants. Apparently, as long as the Fianna Fáil Party remain a Government there will be no guiding principle whatever, and opportunism will be the main factor all along the line.

In his Budget statement the Minister for Finance stated that this grant was intended to last for two years only and at the end of that period he hoped agricultural conditions would prove it to be unnecessary. He did not use these exact words but rather hoped that prices of agricultural requirements, such as fertilisers, farm implements and so on, would be so reduced that farmers would not require this relief in respect to employment. A few considerations arise out of that statement. In the first place, it is quite likely that prices of agricultural requirements, such as fertilisers, machinery and so on, will be reduced over the next few years. Is it not equally possible, unless something is done, that agricultural prices will fall considerably, and, in that event, how can the suggestion of the Minister for Finance be implemented?

Another consideration is this, that in the event of the wage subsidy proposals in this Bill being withdrawn after two years, there will then be a very lopsided system of relief of rates on agricultural land. You will have three-fifths of the rates wiped out on the first £20 valuation on each agricultural holding and one-fifth on the remainder, so that in the case of a large farmer, who has given considerable employment, there will be considerable deterioration in his position compared to what it is at present.

A farmer, whose valuation is over £20, and gives a substantial amount of employment at present obtains approximately the same measure of relief as the farmer whose valuation is under £20. Under the new scheme a farmer whose valuation is over £20, and who gives considerable employment will get only one-third of the relief which a small farmer would obtain. I fail to see why there should be a difference in that proposal. Take the position of a farmer whose valuation is £100, and employs four men in addition to his own help. Is not that man as great an asset to the community, and supporting as big a proportion of the population as the man whose valuation is under £20, who employs nobody but members of his own family? Why should a farmer whose valuation is over £20 be condemned to obtain relief only to the extent of one-fifth of his valuation, regardless of the amount of employment he gives, while the small farmer is rightly given relief on his valuation? That seems to be a question which the Minister should weigh carefully.

In our proposal we sought to be fair and just to the large and to the small farmer. We provided for the complete derating of land under £20 valuation, and we provided similar relief in respect to each man employed. That was meeting the case fairly. It was an attempt to put our farmers on an equal footing with those in Great Britain and Northern Ireland with whom they have to compete. The Minister has, however, followed the usual course of introducing a complicated hotch-potch, and given it a short lease of life, so that we must have the question of justice under consideration again in a short time. That line of procedure ought to be abandoned. We should realise that local services are very important to the community, and cannot be dealt with by doling out various types of grants, fluctuating according to the fortunes of the Party in power, and according to the district which it is needed to bolster up. That is the usual line of approach.

Another aspect of this Bill is that it has been represented as one that provides tremendous relief for farmers. As a matter of fact I was astonished to find that practically all county managers and county secretaries vied with each other in sending out propaganda in the early part of the year pointing out what an immense relief it would be to farmers; that it almost amounted to complete derating, which it does not. I was just wondering whether these officials were inspired to do that from the Custom House or were acting spontaneously. It seems rather strange that, in bolstering up this piece of legislation, they failed to make any comment upon other aspects of the question, namely, that farmers on account of the relief they were getting, were also called upon to pay very substantial increases in wages.

As a matter of fact, the increase in wages far more than counterbalances the amount of relief given. The maximum relief which a farmer can obtain under this Bill, for the two years in which it operates, is £6 10s. 0d. in respect of each man employed. The minimum increase which farmers are called upon to pay under the recent increases in wages is over £10 per man per year. As Deputy Hughes pointed out, in the figures given to him in reply to a question asked last week, it was admitted that the total increase in wages for all farmers in this country amounts to over £1,000,000 while the amount of relief which wage-paying farmers—that is, farmers who are employing men, farmers over £20 valuation for the most part—would receive would be considerably less than £1,000,000. In addition to that, it must be remembered that this relief is also counterbalanced by a very substantial increase in rates. If I remember rightly, the Minister stated last week that the increase in rates amounted to £600,000. Thus you find that the farmer employing labour on the land is getting very slight relief under this Bill. As a matter of fact, the weather conditions and other difficulties which he experienced last year, have completely wiped out that relief. Farmers are really worse off than they were before this provision was made, so let us not have our paid officials under local authorities throwing their hats into the air and applauding the generosity of the Government to the farmers.

I suggest that there is only one way to meet this problem and that is by getting down to what is fair and equitable. There would be no need for any relief of rates on agricultural land if our system of valuations in this country was fair or, rather, I should say, if the system under which local authorities are financed was fair, because I doubt if you can ever establish a fair system of financing local government based on property valuation. There will always be a very considerable number of people in this country who own little or no property but who, nevertheless, are people of means enjoying substantial incomes. They escape under the present system the duty of assisting in financing local government. Because that system was found to be unfair, we have had the agricultural grant for a number of years. It was an attempt to meet the equity of the case, an attempt which did not go far enough by any means to meet the demands of justice, and it has been, in Government documents over a long period, persistently represented as a gift by the general taxpayers to the farmer. Whenever the farmer puts up a demand for justice in any field, whether in regard to prices or anything else, he is met with the answer that so many millions of pounds are devoted to the relief of rates, that so many million pounds are each year given as relief to the farmers, that assertion being based on the falsehood that the valuations under which local authorities are financed are fair and just.

I am sorry that I was not present when the Minister was introducing this Bill, because the Minister's eloquence loses something of its force by being translated into cold print and I am sure his statement would have been more impressive if I had the pleasure of hearing it. He stated that there were many anomalies in the past system which would be wiped out under this Bill. I would put it to him that there are a great many anomalies in the present Bill. One anomaly is that while relief is provided for two years in respect of each adult male worker, no relief is provided in respect of the female worker on the land. Surely the Minister must admit that the woman who works on the land contributes her fair share towards production in agriculture. Surely it will be acknowledged that female labour on the land is necessary and even desirable. There are many branches of agricultural work in which women are more expert and better qualified to carry out than men. I can say without fear of contradiction that, if it were not for the unpaid labour of so many women on the land for the past 25 years, agriculture would not have survived the many blizzards through which it has passed. There is no provision in this Bill in regard to female labour on the land. The whole Bill is a kind of stop-gap arrangement, a hurriedly concocted scheme between the month of February last and the date on which the Minister for Finance introduced his Budget. It may present legal difficulties as Deputy Sheldon pointed out. It may bring the Minister into conflict with the Constitution. I am not sufficiently legal-minded to go into those questions.

There is one other anomaly which occurs to me and which I think should be met. That is the fact that no provision has yet been made—either in this Bill or in any of the other legislation in regard to rates on agricultural land—in respect to agricultural buildings. We know that in derating agricultural land in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, it was decided to derate not only land but also farm buildings, that is buildings used for the housing of live stock and in connection with farm work—all buildings other than dwellinghouses. That anomaly is continued in this Bill as far as I can understand and I think it is time to end it. Our Party have a motion before the House to seek to end that condition of affairs. I do not think that anybody can justify in any circumstances the taxing of buildings which the farmer so urgently needs for the purpose of carrying on his farming operations. It would be as just and equitable to tax a binder, a plough, a mowing-machine or any other farm implement as it is to levy a yearly rate on a hay-barn, a cow-shed or a piggery. As my leader, Deputy Blowick, pointed out, it would be just as equitable to levy a rate on the hay and corn in the haggard. If the Minister continues to follow the line he has followed to a certain extent, in regard to this Bill, that is, to be guided to some extent at any rate, by the advice of this Party, not only in connection with the relief of rates on land but in connection with the relief of rates on buildings——

Mr. MacEntee

Be serious.

Mr. Cogan

——he will eventually become a more efficient Minister and this House will leave behind it better and more permanent legislation.

Mr. Bennett

Listening to this debate and the different opinions expressed, it struck me that there is one way out of the whole difficulty, a way which would ease the pressure on the Department, on the Minister for Finance and on Deputies: bring in a measure of complete derating. It would be the most equitable way of dealing with the matter. Deputy Cogan spoke of the anomalies in this Bill and I think the Minister himself referred to some of them. I intend to refer to a good many of them because it teems with anomalies. I have always held, in speaking of rating here, that the methods adopted by the present Government in apportioning the relief which this House gives to agriculture are inequitable, unjust and unfair. In the first place, it is unfair to discriminate between farmer and farmer. If the House thinks it right to vote sums of money for the relief of farmers, these moneys ought to be equitably distributed as between farmer and farmer, and, above all, they should be equitably distributed as between county and county.

That is the point I want particularly to make, because there are certain sections of farmers who, when one urges that money ought to be equitably distributed as between farmer and farmer, immediately regard one as making a case for the big farmer as against the small farmer. That is not so. We are all glad that the small farmer should get relief, but we equally expect that the large farmer will get similar relief, and that is not the principle adopted in relation to the distribution of relief by this Government. The system of basing relief on a specified valuation of £20 is unfair in principle and in practice. It is unfair as between farmer and farmer, but it is equally unfair as between the farmer in one county and the farmer in another county.

As between farmer and farmer, I quite believe that the man of £20 valuation is deserving of relief. He is generally a very small farmer who finds it hard to live just as other farmers find it hard to live, and very difficult to pay the annually mounting rates. The House felt it desirable, and feels now that it is desirable, to come to his relief, and relief was granted to him. The old principle, before this Government came in, was to apportion whatever relief was given equally between all farmers, and I believe it was the most equitable system. Probably faults could be found in it. It could be argued that the man of £100 valuation was better able to stand taxation than the man with £20 valuation, but that argument could be met, because the man under £20 valuation in some places was a very insignificant farmer, so small that he was enjoying much of the reliefs provided by the rates. It was quite common in various counties under the local government system that a man with a very small valuation partook of benefits which the rates provided, of which the man of greater valuation than £20 provided the greater portion. That is a system which prevails to a certain extent still, and it is very unfair.

With regard to the apportioning of reliefs as between county and county, the man of £20 valuation in Mayo is a fairly comfortable farmer—comfortable from the point of view of the size of his farm—but the man of £20 valuation in Limerick or Tipperary would be styled an uneconomic holder in respect of the size of his farm. The man of £70 valuation in Mayo would be one of those farmers for the division of whose lands we hear so many people calling. He would be a farmer for the division of whose lands we would have men like Deputy Cafferky, Deputy Commons and Deputy Donnellan appealing. The man of £70 valuation in Limerick and Tipperary would be a very average size farmer, with a farm of 30 or 40 acres of land. In the district I come from, the man of £70 valuation would have about 30 acres. I do not know how much land such a farmer in Mayo would have, but Deputy Cafferky and other Clann na Talmhan Deputies would be appealing for the distribution of his land amongst uneconomic holders. Can it be argued that a system which provides for the £20 valuation man in Mayo and the £20 valuation man in Limerick getting the same treatment is fair? It is completely inequitable.

There is another argument which can be applied with regard to the man of moderate valuation and another. The Minister on one occasion said to me, when I was speaking about moderate-sized farmers paying income-tax, that there were no farmers paying income-tax. He was Minister for Finance at that period, and he modified his statement somewhat and said that there were practically no farmers paying income-tax, that their valuations would have to be inconceivably high before they paid income-tax. I assured the Minister then, and I assure him now, that farmers with moderate-sized farms in County Limerick, and, I think, in Tipperary, are paying income-tax.

Mr. Corry

If they are, they are damned fools.

Mr. Bennett

Deputy Corry might be able to pursue methods of defying the income-tax collector which some of us in Limerick are unable to pursue, but the fact remains that the man with 60 acres of land in County Limerick is subject to income-tax. I do not suppose that any Minister would have the temerity to ask the man with 60 acres in Mayo to pay income-tax. These are some of the anomalies in the Bill, some of the anomalies to which the Minister referred generally but not specifically.

There is only one real method by which to apply a fair and equitable relief to all farmers, that is, the system in Northern Ireland and in England: derating of all farmers, large and small. Give them all a fair crack of the whip and proceed, as we are rapidly proceeding in this House, to run local government from the Custom House. We are doing it anyhow. The trend of legislation for the past five or six years has brought about a position in which local bodies have no say in local government. It is anomalous to say that there is such a thing as local government, because there is not. There is no such thing as local government, as I told the Minister when discussing another Bill. There is only central government, and if it is an anomaly to speak of local government, why not do away with the farce of having local rates? Let it all be central taxation to provide whatever is needed. It will be the fairest method, and it will provide for the man who is inequitably valued and for the man who is equitably valued. It will provide equal justice for the small and for the large farmer, and it is the only method you can devise by which to ensure an absolutely equitable distribution of whatever moneys are voted for the relief of agriculture.

I have said that the trend of legislation here was to pass on to local government gradually each year more and more services, services which should really be provided out of central taxation.

Every single Act passed in the way of social legislation for the last eight or ten years has made provision for a contribution from the local rates. Local rates have jumped up year after year. I think the Minister said they had jumped up this year by something like £600,000. Next year, or the year after, when some of the Bills going through this House have been passed, one does not know what the rates will be, but they will be very high. Speaking on a certain Bill which has yet to be passed, one Minister said that he could not give the House any idea of what certain services provided for in that Bill would cost, but that the cost would be very considerable. All these costs will have to be provided for in the years to come, and these costs relate to measures which are really national rather than local ones.

Within the next few months, we will be discussing the Public Health Bill, and I expect the present Minister will be in charge of it. He will have to make the best case he can for a great expenditure of money. I hope he will admit that it should be really national expenditure rather than local expenditure. But, when we come to consider the measure, we will find that a great deal of expenditure will fall on the local rates, even though, in theory, it is a national Bill for the good of the people in general. Long ago they dealt with that matter in Great Britain and introduced derating of agricultural land and that was extended to Northern Ireland. We are behind the times here. Every day we hear arguments advanced against Partition. The question of Partition is not in order in this debate. But, if I were a farmer in Northern Ireland with my land derated, and somebody came up there talking about Partition and asked, "Will you come down to the Twenty-Six Counties?" I would say: "Not until you derate agricultural land".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of total derating does not arise on this Bill. This is a limited relief.

Mr. Bennett

I think the Minister would be insulted if you called it limited relief. He said it was a very substantial relief, and some Deputies agreed with him. I will go so far as to say that it is a substantial amount.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is limited to two years.

Mr. Bennett

Not all of it, I hope. We do not know that. There is a fear that a certain portion of it may be extinguished in two years. As to the major portion of it, I hope it will be continued for a longer period than two years. Before the two years are up, I hope the Minister will consider that the best way out of the whole business is to adopt the principle of total derating. Until we come to that, we have only to meet things as best we can.

The fixation of the specified valuation at £20 is unfair, and it ought to be at least doubled for some reasons which I have given and other reasons which I could give if I did not want to delay the House. As to the employment relief, I was glad to see that at long last, after constant preaching, the Clann na Talmhan Party have listened to some of the things which were said by other Parties. Before this Government came in and since they came in I have been advocating every year the principles I have mentioned. In particular, I have been advocating the inclusion of women workers in connection with this employment relief. I cannot see why women were excluded from this and previous Bills. No Minister has been able to give me a reason why they should be. The former Minister for Finance, who at one time was Minister for Local Government and who fills a more exalted position now, did attempt on one occasion to argue with me why women should not be included. He failed to impress me and, I think, to impress the House. I think the present Minister is more sympathetically inclined; that he will be more inclined to see reason. If the Minister can make a fair case why women, working under the same conditions as men and receiving the same pay and privileges, should not be treated as workers for the purposes of this employment relief, I shall never again mention the subject.

Mr. MacEntee

I am afraid your resolution would fail in that regard.

Mr. Bennett

In the county which I represent there are thousands of women employed for whom farmers get no employment allowance. These women are getting the same wages as men and work under the same conditions. If one farmer employs two women and another farmer employs two men, the latter gets £13 employment allowance, while the other man gets nothing. Is that fair or just? it took ten years to get into the heads of the chief Farmers' Party that that was unfair. It will probably take me longer to get it into the heads of the Government Party. But I will get it into their heads some day, somehow, if I live long enough and have the privilege of being a member of this House. However, it may not be necessary, because I believe the present Minister will consider the matter, and when we come to the next stage of this Bill we will probably find that he has included women.

Mr. Allen

Did you consult your colleagues about that?

Mr. Bennett

I cannot move an amendment to that effect because it would not be accepted by the Chair. I can only ask the Minister to bring in an amendment to include women workers. I do not believe that the burden of rates can be relieved to any great extent except by derating. The Minister said that it would be in the interests of the Minister, whoever he may be, to keep rates down. As he is contributing so much to the rates, it would be necessary to see that rates are kept down. One does not see any trend in that direction in the legislation which is being introduced. In fact his predecessor in the two offices of Minister for Finance and Minister for Local Government on one occasion in Limerick said that the rates were not high enough and that, if he had his way, they would be much higher. He had his way. He saw that they were increased, and they have been increased annually ever since and are still increasing. So far as we can look into the future, as a result of coming legislation they will be immeasurably higher in the future. One Minister said in his Budget statement that he feared they were going to such a height that the ordinary agriculturist would be unable to bear them. I believe that is going to happen. I believe the continuation of relief of some form will be necessary and also that it must be increased annually in this House. The fairest method of applying relief generally to farmers is that adopted in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, complete derating, and let whatever is the expenditure be borne out of central funds.

Mr. Corry

This Bill is a rather welcome relief to the agricultural community. I do not take the same interest in it now as I did a week ago. I am now in the happy position that I do not care how high the rates go. I remember being a young fellow in this House many years ago and having the neck to stand up, where my friend Deputy Fagan is now, to propose a motion for £1,000,000 relief of rates on agricultural land. I have a distinct recollection of Deputy Bennett's abhorrence of it and his trotting into the Lobby to vote against it. Farmers wanted no relief then. That is one of my earliest recollections of Deputy Bennett. Derating at that time was all a cod with Deputy Bennett. It is rather amusing now to hear the claims he makes.

Mr. Bennett

Were not the benches reversed on that account?

Mr. Corry

The motion was brought in and Deputy Bennett voted against it.

Mr. Bennett

Deputy Bennett was not on this side of the House then.

Mr. Corry

I see. It is rather amusing.

Mr. Bennett

And the motion was to reduce the sum.

Mr. Corry

It is rather amusing to hear the new swallows, those who come in the summer and go in the winter. I think this is the sixth Farmers' Party, of different moods and tenses, that I have seen since I came to this House, and I suppose I will see five or six more before I go. It is rather amusing to hear their claims. When we first came in here as a Government we decided that whatever relief would be given in rates would be in a specified form, namely, that the first £20 valuation would be the first relief, then, that the man who tilled his land and employed labour in the tilling of it and kept his family working on the land would get relief for each individual working on the land. These were the cardinal principles on which we worked and on these cardinal principles I hope we will continue to work so far as annual relief and derating are concerned.

I say that this Bill is a relief. I was rather amused to hear Deputy Sheldon's argument a while ago. What is being done in this Bill is not a precedent. It was done by the Minister for Local Government two or three years ago when a further social service was introduced, namely the granting of an extra 2/6 to old age pensioners. When the Minister put portion of that burden on the ratepayer he gave a guarantee that the Central Fund would bear a larger proportion of the taxation. When the matter cropped up in Cork I discovered that old age pensioners who were entitled to the 2/6 were not getting it because the Minister for Local Government and Public Health took upon himself an interpretation of the Act that was not intended, namely, that they would pay so much and no more. I put forward the case that Deputy Sheldon is making here, that it is the local authorities who had the determination of how many old and blind persons were entitled to the 2/6 and that it was the Minister's job to pay up. I think I proved that to the satisfaction of this House and the Minister paid up. Therefore, this move is not a precedent, at any rate in connection with local government.

I am not so much interested in relief of rates now. We were informed by the Minister for Agriculture in this House last week that within the next few months a Bill will be introduced which will be the Magna Carta of the Irish farmers and I am glad the new Farmers' Party helped me in getting it. It cost me something like four years of hard work here and I made converts of the Farmers' Party about six months ago and they came along to my assistance. For any assistance they gave, I am duly grateful. That is why I say I have very little interest in this Bill and very little interest in any other relief that is brought along for the farmers because when this House has passed the Tribunal of Prices Bill and has moulded that Bill as it should be moulded, we do not care how high they put the rates, we will pass them along to someone else, just as they passed them on to us.

Mr. Bennett

Hear, hear. I hope so.

Mr. Corry

Yes. That is our job, to pass them along. The industrialists passed the baby to us for the past 20 years. Everyone passed the baby to us. We hear complaints here periodically from Deputy Bennett about increases in rates. That is where I lock horns with Deputy Sheldon. Deputy Sheldon complained that local authorities might pass on the baby to us. He passed the very same baby to the local authorities, under the Vocational Education Bill, putting another couple of pence in the £ on the ratepayers' back on the very day that this Relief of Rates Bill was introduced, last Friday. However, there is no doubt that social services were neglected when Cumann na nGaedheal or Fine Gael, or whatever they called themselves, were in office. They were sadly neglected. Proof as to the necessity for these social services is rendered here when every Party in this House welcomes every Bill for the improvement of social services. Nobody says anything against it. The only complaint we hear is that we are not going far enough. I agree with Deputy Bennett that the decision as to whether the burdens created by social services are to be borne by the agricultural community and by nobody else—as they have been—or whether they are to be borne by the general taxpayer is a very important matter. But the baby was passed on to the local authority and every time they passed on the "blooming baby" they tacked on a couple of pounds more. So the burden is passed on to the local authority and through the local authority to the agricultural community who have at their disposal neither any remedy nor anybody upon whom to pass on the burden. That is the position of affairs.

Every burden cast upon any other section of the community can be passed on. When the industrial employees were given holidays, through the medium of legislation under the auspices of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, every industrialist in this country immediately approached the Department of Industry and Commerce claiming authority to pass on the baby in the shape of increased prices for the loaf of bread and for every other commodity that they either produced or manufactured. They got their authority and passed the burden on. The cost of social services is cast upon a section of the community which has no means at its disposal of passing on the burden. They have to bear every additional burden placed upon them. An outcry is made here about his £6 10s. 0d. which is being given now for agricultural labour. Last week the Minister for Agriculture, in answer to a question in this House, said that extra wages this year would amount to £1,000,000. Now, the Minister for Local Government, if he makes a contract with a contractor, and an increase in wages takes place, the contractor is immediately allowed the difference. The agricultural community signed their contracts in relation to the production of wheat, beet and everything else. If they claim the difference of this extra burden put upon them through this extra £1,000,000, they will be told that they will not get it. That is that. That is why I say that I have very little interest in this Bill. I do not care how high they drive the rate. I do not care if the rate is £2 in the £; we will pass it along the same as it has been passed along for 20 years or more.

Mr. Coogan

In so far as this Bill seeks to keep men in employment on the land, I think it is a good measure. But I am not at all satisfied that the relief given in this measure is calculated to keep our workers on the land. It is quite clear from our population figures that the tendency is for the number of actual workers on the land to decrease annually. I have no doubt that if agricultural workers were free to emigrate at the moment and free to take advantage of the high scale of wages prevailing on the other side of the water there would be a still further decrease in our agricultural workers' population. Not only that, but it is clear from the figures of the employment fund set up under the parent measure and continued to date that there has been a definite decrease in the demands made upon that fund. Viewed in either light, therefore— either on the basis of the allowances demanded by the farmers in respect of workers or on the basis of our population figures—it is clear that the remedies at present being tried have not succeeded and are unlikely to succeed in keeping our people on the land.

It is most refreshing, and I am sure it will be most refreshing to the farmers of Cork and Ireland, to hear Deputy Corry say that he does not care how high the rates soar—he does not care if the sky is the limit. Nevertheless, we do know that since this Government came into office there has been an increase in the agricultural rate of £2,000,000, and at the present time this Bill proposes to hand back £1,000,000 of that to the relief of agriculturists. There is a definite limit of time, however, put to this relief—two years. It is not at all clear what the Government's intention is at the end of this two-year period.

I want to emphasise that it is very undersirable to give a relief of this kind if the intention is to remove it in two years' time. It is likely to have a very serious effect on agriculture. The case made here by the Minister is that agriculture is likely to be in such a prosperous condition at the end of the two-year period that it will not need this continued relief. That I consider, in the light of present-day development, as pure speculation. The great defect of this measure at the moment is the defect adverted to by Deputy Bennett—the lack of uniformity in our valuation system, the inequality of relief as between farmer and farmer and as between county and county. Whilst this Bill seeks to a certain extent to bring about uniformity, in that it aims at making a uniform rate of relief all round, by reason of the fact that you have not a uniform basis of valuation you will not achieve an equal relief as between farmer and farmer and county and county. I can produce instances to the House—I do not want to go into details—where, say, in the case of a father dividing a farm between sons two portions of the land in the same area have been valued differently. You may have one valued at £50 and the other valued at £65 or £80. This measure will not bring any equality of relief in cases of that kind. Neither will it give equality of relief as between county and county. For that reason I think there is a case for reviewing our whole valuation system and bringing into operation some new system whereby that inequality will not be continued. To my mind, this measure smacks somewhat of the cheap sales policy adopted by certain business establishments; you pile on the profits over a given period of trading and, having soaked your customers through good fat prices, you then proceed to have a cheap sale and give them the impression that they are going to get something for nothing. The housewives rush to the sale and buy ravenously. Here you have a case where taxation has been piled on to the tune of £2,000,000 since 1932. We now proceed to hand a little back after the manner of the good salesman.

I would support Deputy Cogan in making an appeal that the relief should be extended to farm buildings excluding, if you like, the dwelling-house. It should be passed on to the buildings which are part of the farmer's working capital or, in other words, the productive part of his business enterprise. Again, may I say on this point that I disagree entirely with the system of relief to agriculture? I look upon all these reliefs as having a negative effect. In the ultimate they contribute nothing positively to promoting the productive prosperity of agriculture.

If it is intended by measures of this kind to increase the productivity of the farmer, you have only to look at your figures of production, and compare them with production over a number of years, to find in actual fact that we are not producing from the land very much more than we produced 50 or 100 years ago.

Therefore, I say that relief of this kind is largely negative, and does not in any sense make up for a positive policy to promote the prosperity of farmers. The farmer needs a long-term policy; he needs guaranteed markets and guaranteed prices. He needs all these over a long period. He needs security of market, and continued security of that market, whether a home market or a foreign market.

The only way to solve our problems is to sit down and to balance our economic budget as it were, as otherwise we are going to get nowhere, either in industry or agriculture. Sooner or later, with the present trend of things, both here and throughout the world, we will have to face up to this situation, whereby the demands of agriculture will have to be balanced as against the demands of industry, and both balanced against the demands of consumer at home and abroad. In other words, we will have to make out something like a national economic budget, by which the agriculturist demands can be put on one side as against his expenses on the other side. We will have to do the same with industry and check its demands with consumers' demands on the other side. Some council or some Ministry will have to reconcile all these conflicting demands, so that we can evolve a new national economic system. Until we do that I feel that we are merely tinkering with our economic problems.

I should like to have seen this measure of relief going a little further and taking within its range farmers who are suffering to-day by reason of flooding. There are many areas where farmers are put to the pin of their collar to carry on because of inundations. In the Dunmore area of my constituency and in other areas a shocking state of affairs prevails. In some places farmers are faced with this problem: whether to go out of business or whether it is worth while carrying on. Many of these men suffered extraordinary losses during the floods of this year. Many of them are suffering annually by reason of continual inundations. I should like to see the Minister try to extend some measure of relief to people so circumstanced.

I am sure that what obtains in my constituency is nothing to the conditions that prevail elsewhere. I was down in my constituency recently and saw the extraordinary conditions under which these people are trying to comply with compulsory tillage Orders and to carry on ordinary farming. It is a terrible hardship on them. Many of them have lost a big percentage of their crops, floods having taken them away and destroying hay and corn. We are faced with this position, that under the Arterial Drainage Act it is unlikely that in my constituency any survey will be made for five years. It is also unlikely having regard to the priority which arterial drainage will be given in certain areas that my constituency will be reached within the next 50 years. Are our farmers to continue to suffer these continual inundations and, at the same time, be compelled to comply with tillage regulations? I hold that there is a severe case of hardship existing in the case of these men, and that some relief under a measure of this kind should be extended to them.

On the general problem of relief, I should like to put this picture before the Minister. On the one hand he is attempting to give relief in rates to farmers and, on the other hand, his Department has very grandiose schemes for new roads, new arterial highways, new public health services and new social services of all kinds. Most of the charges for these services are going to be thrown on the local rates. As far as I know the charges for public services will have to be largely met from local rates. Forty to sixty per cent., if not more, of the charges for new roads and for their maintenance will have to be met from local rates. Charges for increased vocational education will also have to be met from local rates. Already certain increased charges in respect of old age pensions have to be met. There are also charges for public assistance which, to my mind, should be a national charge. In addition, there is what is certainly to any unbiased mind a State charge, that for unemployment assistance. In other words, the State is relieving national taxation, if you like, at the expense of the ratepayers.

Statutory demands now made on local authorities are reaching a very high proportion of their expenditure.

If, at a glance, we see a measure of relief introduced, on the other side it will be found that the agricultural community are going to face increasing statutory demands under all headings. From that angle I cannot see any relief whatever to agriculturists. I suggest to the Minister that certain classes of roads—national roads, class I—should come under the heading of relief, and that some relief should be given local ratepayers. If I am asked where the relief should come from, and where the money is to be found, I have not gone into that aspect, but I am sure the Road Fund and the petrol tax could be worked in such a way as to provide the necessary relief. I stress again that nothing by way of palliative or temporary relief is going to make up for a positive agricultural policy such as I have indicated.

I should not like to subscribe to Deputy Bennett's views of a single tax system. A gentleman known as Henry George became known in economic history as Single Tax George. I do not think our friend Deputy George Bennett has fully studied the implications of Henry George. The Minister did envisage the developments not long ago in a speech at the Mansion House, that the whole system of rating would have to be reviewed, and that it was on the cards that we would have to formulate some regional system to make up for the inequalities of the present rating system between county and county. Undoubtedly there is a case for that. There is a case for certain charges which are local charges being imposed on a larger area. This country is so small that I personally do not subscribe to the principle of a regional system of rating. If you are going to advance on those lines, I would prefer to see the Minister making a whole hog advance, an advance to the position where many of the charges would be met from national taxation.

Again I would ask the Minister to consider the question—because I think it is a crying necessity at the moment —of giving some measure of relief to those people who are carrying on under the conditions of flooding which I have mentioned. Many other Deputies have similar problems and we are in the position that neither under the Arterial Drainage Act nor, as far as I can see, under the recent Local Government Bill can any substantial measure of relief be given to those who have suffered. This may not be the appropriate place to raise the matter but I would ask the Minister to bear it in mind when any further measures in regard to rates are under consideration by the Dáil.

Major de Valera

I suppose there is no Deputy who will say that this Bill should not be passed. In so far as it is a measure which provides relief for a certain important part of the community, it is a very welcome measure. It is an equitable one also, as it provides that relief will be uniformly given in respect of the various types of agricultural land. It provides that the farmer with the lowest valuation will get a certain credit and then it projects the remainder of the relief right up to the highest valuation. That is all very desirable and laudable, but I am sorry that I find it incumbent to draw attention to another side of the story—that by pursuing a policy of this nature some of us are apt to see perhaps the benefit accruing to the class which we want to benefit, while we do not see so readily the concurrent disadvantage to somebody else. I suggest that this is one of the Bills which have a concomitant disadvantage to this extent— that the relief which is being afforded under the Bill has to be met by contributions from the general fund, the Central Fund. The last speaker seems to think that that is a very proper thing, that these rateable charges should be paid from the Central Fund. The question is: who is going to defray these charges if they are to be met out of the Central Fund? The Central Fund is not an inexhaustible theoretical fund which can be drawn upon ad lib. as some people seem to imagine. The money drawn from that fund comes in the main as much from the citizen who is paying towards the maintenance of the State as it comes from the citizen who is a ratepayer. In other words, somebody has to pay and it is not very much help to anybody to change over the charge which he has to meet from account A, as a general taxpayer, to account B, as a ratepayer. He pays and it is immaterial to him really under what heading you charge it. I cannot understand the arguments, therefore, that all these charges should be met out of general taxation. It is the same people who have to pay and it is immaterial whether they pay under one heading or another.

The more serious objection I see, whether it is the ratepayer or whether it is the general taxpayer that is involved, is that it is now becoming largely a question of charging one group or one set of individuals for the benefit of others. If you derate the farmer, you can only make up for that either by charging him under another name or else charging another section of the community for his benefit. Then, of course, the question arises whether we are maintaining a fair balance between the various parts that go to make up the community. This is perhaps not the proper time to go at length into that subject. We have warnings, though, of the additional burdens to come in our expanding social services, in our Public Health Bill, for instance. I confine myself on this occasion to raising the question of whether we have not now reached the stage with all this type of legislation when we should consider what is the most equitable way of distributing the burden of these increased services for the community. At the present moment our whole tendency is to try to relieve the farmer as much as possible. This measure is to benefit the farmer, but what benefit is it to the poorer people of Dublin or the lower middle classes in Dublin? As far as I can see, they are not getting any quid pro quo in the line of cheaper foodstuffs or anything like that. Under every social service certain classes benefit but here there is no concomitant benefit to the people who are paying the rates and taxes to maintain these services. Again, it is too far outside the scope of this Bill to go into this matter, but it does raise the question of whether, at some stage, some contributory scheme or some scheme equally balanced over the whole community, will not have to be thought out and applied.

In regard to the question of derating, you are now proposing to derate agricultural land and I should like to point out that in all probability there is one class of person who will have to bear perhaps an unfair burden for this relief—that is certain classes in towns and cities. We all know what is happening in the City of Dublin and I think we should advert to it. We have imporved our services to the very poor. In Dublin also services available for the country are maintained. Dublin supports a large number of services which really benefit the country at large. I need not detail the long list of improved social services that have been put into operation in Dublin, but who is paying for them? The tenant of practically every house in Dublin is paying in the rates which are passed on to him. Whether an unfair or an undue burden is being cast upon him, as far as I can see, the lower-scale white-collared worker is now becoming the victim. He will have to pay income-tax and, whether he owns his house or not, he will have to pay rates, in effect. He will be paying a large amount for services which benefit other members of the community and what advantage is he getting in return? This may seem somewhat remote from the question of agricultural derating but in giving relief to the farmer in this way—which is a very proper relief and a very fine relief—I should like to see relief given in such a way that it will not tend towards increasing the burden on the classes of persons in the city whom I have mentioned. I should like further to see that if reliefs are given to one class, the interests of such a deserving class as I have mentioned, what I would call the lower white-collared worker, will not be forgotten.

We have in the city large numbers of junior civil servants, workers in city firms and in offices, people on salaries under £400 per year, who are paying both income-tax and increasing rates. There is no relief for them, and if the principle contained, I am afraid, too often, in some of the Bills coming here, that is, if you are relieving the rate, relieve it from the Central Fund, is to be followed, that principle will only operate against the class I have mentioned. Taking that in conjunction with the fact that provisions are envisaged which will tend to put up the rates in towns particularly—for instance, the new public health schemes under which Dublin will be maintaining hospitals and such institutions which are really for the benefit of the country but which will be maintained largely on the local rate—and the fact that Dublin is maintaining part of the population which should be maintained by the country, as a result of the big drift into Dublin, and the increase and expansion of Dublin which is a further burden on the city, I think we have reached the limit of applying relief legislation in this particular way and will ultimately have to face up to the problem of considering all classes of the community and of seeing in what way the burden of all these services, which everybody desires and which everybody is glad to have, can be evenly distributed over the paying members of the community.

That brings me to another point which, I think, has been mentioned already—the discrepancies in individual valuations and the lack of uniformity in valuations throughout the country. A complete revaluation would be a very big job, but, based on existing valuations, there are bound to be discrepancies which will favour some people unduly and impose hardship on others. If we are going to face up to this question of valuations, I should like to mention these towns and cities in that regard, because it is almost inevitable, as we are tending to think in this House at the moment, that if there was an attempted revaluation scheme—I believe that one is, or was, in contemplation—the owner of agricultural land will fare very well, but the unfortunate town and city dweller is likely to come off rather badly. Admittedly, the agricultural community is the basis of this country, and, admittedly, the agricultural community is a very important part of the country; but I think we tend to forget the importance of the populations in our towns, and particularly the importance of the population in Dublin and all too easily pass burdens on to them.

These are the only observations I can make on the Bill. They are more observations of warning and general comment than a reasoned address to the subject of the Bill. Everybody agrees with the Bill and everybody is satisfied that this relief should be given, but the Bill, in itself, is a warning that the time has come for us to consider, broadly and largely, how the expenses of these social services and all these charges are best borne by the community.

Mr. Fagan

Deputy de Valera seems to forget that this Bill does not give relief to the agricultural community. The Minister brags about the great relief he is giving, but everybody seems to forget that we were paying our agricultural labourers £2 per week, and were told that, when this relief was being given, we would have to give an increase—an increase to which they are undoubtedly entitled—to our workers. Their wages were increased by 4/- per week, an increase which the Minister for Agriculture admitted last week amounts to something like £1,000,000 per year on the agricultural community. If a farmer employs ten men, it represents £2 per week, or more than £104 per year. The Minister for Agriculture admits that agriculture is getting only £6,000,000, whereas it is saddled with £1,000,000, with the result that the agricultural community are at the loss of £400,000.

Deputy de Valera seems to think that all that is put on the dwellers in the towns and cities, but if the farmers were to be recompensed for this loss, the price of the produce they produced should have been increased, but it has not been increased. The people in the towns and cities get this relief at the expense of the farmers. Deputy Corry has admitted that everything is being passed on to the local bodies, such as unemployment assistance, the supplementary old age pension and so on. The farmers' relief this year from this supposedly great benefit amounts to nothing at all. It is, in fact, a loss. My rates are not much less this year than they were last year, but I am at a loss in that I have to pay so much extra to my men.

Mr. MacEntee

Look at how much extra you are getting for your cattle.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Government is not responsible for that.

Mr. MacEntee

No, but why should the Deputy always make a poor mouth?

Mr. Fagan

That does not balance our economy. Deputy Corry also admitted that everything the farmer produces for the country as a whole is sold under cost price. It has been stated several times that the farmers are getting subsidies for flour, bacon, butter and everything else.

Mr. MacEntee

All going into the farmer's pocket.

Mr. Fagan

It is not all going into the farmer's pocket. Could butter be produced at 2/4 per lb.? Is the subsidy not designed to keep the price of butter down? The subsidies are going into the pockets of those in the towns and cities, and not to the farmers. It is natural for the Government to give them, so that the general public can get these commodities at the cheap price, but it makes me sick to hear all these statements about farmers getting millions in respect of this subsidy and that subsidy. They are not getting the subsidies. They are given in order to reduce the price of the commodities the farmer produces so that the ordinary citizen can buy them. If these subsidies were not given, could a farmer buy butter at 2/4 per lb.? If these subsidies were not given to him, could he buy his flour at so much per stone? The people in the towns and cities would have to pay so much more, and what the farmer is getting for what he produces is not nearly the cost of production, even with the subsidies. To say that we are getting great relief is entirely inaccurate.

As I have said, to a farmer with ten men, the 4/- increase in wages represents over £104 per year and the reduction in my rates this year was £40. I had to pay over £100 to my ten men and I get relief of £40. Where is the great relief there, seeing that I got the same for my produce as I got last year? The whole thing is a blind. Deputy Corry enlightened me very much when he spoke of some great thing which is coming to the farmers. It must be something great when it cooled Deputy Corry, in view of the spirit he was in. He admitted that the farmers were losing £400,000.

This is no relief whatever. It is a loss to the farmers and the Minister need not be bragging that it is a relief. You are given so much, but you have to pay twice as much. You are only trying to blind the public by saying that they are getting so much. Every Local Government Bill that is passed is just another baby passed on to the farmers. Deputy de Valera talked about the valuations. The valuations at present are unfair. Farmers have to pay for the upkeep of the roads for the townsman, who only pays a few pounds in rates, to drive over. A big business man in any local town may be making thousands of pounds a year, but his rates only amount to £10 or £15, his valuation being from £12 to £14.

Mr. L. Walsh

Why not demand a revaluation Bill?

Mr. Fagan

Our land is valued at £2 an acre and I think, if it were revalued, the valuation would be lower. There should be an increase in the valuations in the towns where there are shops making thousands of pounds a year, out of which only £15 is being paid in rates. That is not fair. A farmer has not got free medical attention. He has to pay for everything. He cannot drive his horse and cart on the roads owing to the dangerous surface. He has to make a ten-mile round, otherwise his horse and cart would be broken up. He contributes to the whole upkeep of the county and he is not given any services. He cannot drive to Mass on Sunday because his pony would be injured and his trap broken up on the roads. We on the county council tried to find a remedy for that but the law would not allow us. The whole thing is unfair. We are paying the rates and we are not getting any services. A doctor living in the city may not be paying £10 in rates, but he can drive his motor-car wherever he likes. He is paying nothing towards the upkeep of the roads. The whole system is wrong.

There is some hope in what Deputy Corry says, that something new is coming. I hope it will come. Everything is being put on the rates. Last year we were told that we would get a certain grant if we increased the estimate for the roads. But, because we are in a turf-producing area, we are not able to spend the money estimated for the roads. From 1st March to the 1st of September the roadmen were not available for work on the roads. From 1st September they were engaged in harvesting operations. The result is that turf-producing counties, so far as I can see, have no chance of spending the estimated amount on the roads. The non-turf producing counties can improve the roads with this grant they are getting, whereas the people who are producing the turf for the City of Dublin have no chance of doing that, because the roadmen were taken up with other things. The Fianna Fáil Party brag about their social services. At present an old age pensioner has to live on 10/- a week.

Mr. L. Walsh

That is not so.

Mr. Fagan

That is supposed to be a social service. It grieves people to see some persons well off under the Fianna Fáil Government, while other people who are trying to live on 10/- a week are practically starving. Some farmers in my district lost all their crops in the floods, yet the Government would not come to their help. They came to the help of the people in France and other countries, while some people in this country have not a potato to eat. It is a shame and a disgrace to the Government that they did not come to the relief of those people who lost all they had in the floods.

Mr. MacEntee

There was one general fallacy running through most of the speeches I heard, and that was that this Bill will provide for the derating, in some measure, of agricultural land. That is what the Bill does not do. Every acre of agricultural land will be fully rated. But the Government, or as Deputy de Valera in his forcible speech pointed out, the general taxpayer is going to pay the rates. Therefore, this Bill is not a concession to the point of view advocated in this House by Deputy Cogan and the members of the Clann na Talmhan Party. It represents the considered policy of the Government that all property which is in the useful occupation of an owner should bear its fair proportion of the local charges. It does happen that, by reason of circumstances, the Government feels that it must step in on behalf of the agricultural community and ask the general taxpayer to bear some part of these charges. But the charges themselves are imposed and levied on the property, whether that property be land or buildings.

That brings me to the suggestion which was made by Deputy Sheldon, who considered that, instead of approaching the problem in that straightforward way and upon the uniform basis that all property should bear its fair charge, we should have an arbitrary reduction in the valuation of agricultural land; whether that was land undervalued or overvalued, that we should have an arbitrary reduction in its value. What would be the consequence of that? Unless we had other ameliorative measures introduced, it would not mean that the present position would obtain whereby farmers get a definite and fixed relief. But the immediate effect of Deputy Sheldon's suggestion would be merely to shift the rates from the land to the farmers' dwelling-houses, or, if not to the farmers' dwelling-houses solely, then to the dwelling-houses of everybody in the particular rating area——

Mr. Sheldon

Not if the agricultural grant made up the difference.

Mr. MacEntee

——and also to all those buildings in the useful occupation of any person. That is one of the great objections to derating agricultural land or derating property of any sort, that, when you derate it, you shift the burden to another type of property which it might be of a much greater social value to rate lightly rather than to rate more heavily. The first consequence of giving effect to the proposals of the Clann na Talmhan Party and of the Fine Gael Party, despite their past record in this matter, completely to derate agricultural land, or partially to derate it, as Deputy Sheldon has suggested, would be to discourage the provision by the farmers and those who could afford them of better houses for themselves and their families, and better buildings, even where the provision of these would be necessary and ancillary to their industry.

Mr. Sheldon

The Minister knows that is a fallacy.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know it. At least, I am not aware that what I am saying is fallacious. I believe it to be true. Not only do I believe it to be true, but the Committee on Derating, which was set up by our predecessors when they were in office, came to the same conclusion. I think their conclusions were sound and therefore, so far as we are concerned, in this measure, there is no concession whatever given to this mistaken demand for derating or partial derating of property of any sort in this country.

Deputy Sheldon also made the suggestion that perhaps we could give some consideration to the position of the farmer who gives greater employment at one period of the year than he does at another. I can say at once that that would be quite contrary to the purpose of the Bill or quite contrary to the purpose of the employment allowance. The employment allowance is designed, so far as it can, to assist the farmer to give constant employment, where possible. If the exigencies of his industry require him, as they require persons engaged in other industries, to give a certain amount of seasonal employment, there is no cure for that and I am afraid that it would not be possible for me to concede anything to Deputy Sheldon's point of view in this matter.

Deputy Hughes was mild in his criticism of the Bill. Beyond reiterating the demand for derating of agricultural land, the only quarrel he seemed to have about the Bill was that under it we could not provide that Irish turkeys would be regarded as British turkeys when they went to Great Britain. In fact, he seemed rather to have a grievance that the Almighty had not decked out our birds in plumage of red, white and blue. But, beyond that rather irrelevant criticism, he did not seem to have very much to say about the Bill.

Then we had Deputy Cogan. He seemed to be disappointed with the Bill because he had failed to persuade the Minister for Finance to accept the policy of the Farmers' Party in regard to the derating of agricultural land. He did try to confuse the issue by saying that this Bill was a concession to that point of view. I have already pointed out how fallacious that argument is, that, as I have said, under this Bill the land will carry its full rates but the payment of these rates will be allocated as between the general taxpayer on the one hand and the occupier of the land on the other. But, even if Deputy Cogan's suggestion were correct, why should he blame me because he failed to be sufficiently persuasive when he was putting his case to the Minister?

In Deputy Cogan's speech there was a very interesting and I think somewhat amusing revelation of the two faces which Clann na Talmhan wears. In criticising this Bill Deputy Cogan was rather ungenerous to the small farmer. He decried the fact that under the Bill greater relief would be given to the man who had a small holding than would be given to the man who had a larger holding. But while he is envious about the lot of the small farmer in this regard, he ought to remember that two of his colleagues, Deputy Cafferky and Deputy Commons, elsewhere have tried to make themselves out as the champions of the small farmer. Surely, in equity, there is a case for giving greater relief to the small man. It is a principle which is generally accepted by economists that the burden of taxation, whether national or local, should be proportioned to the taxpayer's capacity to bear it. Surely it is undeniable that a farmer who has a holding of £20 valuation or under is in general less able to bear a cash impost, whether it is in the form of rates or taxes, than a man who has a more substantial property. We all know that taxation in general tends to become regressive, that is to say, the burden tends to become proportionally heavier the less the capacity of the taxpayer is to bear it. In most tax systems care is taken to ensure that those taxes which are definitely regressive, as most of the indirect taxes upon articles of food and clothing are, shall not constitute and shall not be made to produce an undue proportion of the revenue, whether it be the revenue of the State or of the local authority. Furthermore, where the taxation is of that nature that it is imposed directly upon an individual, as say, the income-tax is, particular care is taken to exempt altogether from it those whose incomes are low and who, therefore, when the tax had been collected would not have sufficient left to provide for themselves or their families. That is the principle to which we are giving effect, to a limited extent I grant you, here in this Bill, when we give an increased relief to the man whose land holding is of low valuation, and that is the principle to which Deputy Cogan objects.

Clann na Talmhan has now taken up the stand that the poor man is to be taxed as heavily as the rich man, that the smallholder must pay as heavily in proportion as the large holder, and yet those are the people who down in Mayo—Deputies Cafferky, Commons and Blowick—are posing as the champions of the small landholder and the small farmer.

Deputy Cogan, in his speech, also proceeded to say that in his view the tax upon property is an unsatisfactory method of providing for local revenues. I do not propose to go into that question at length, because this evening there are other very important measures to come before the House, in this debate. We may have an opportunity on another occasion of dealing with that proposition. But the general statements is so shallow that I cannot refrain from making one or two comments in regard to it. We are told that a tax upon property is an unsatisfactory method of raising revenue because many rich people own little property and are not, therefore, called upon to bear heavy rates. Income-tax is paid by comparatively few people.

It undoubtedly has many disadvantages, but I think it is generally agreed that it is one of the best ways in which revenue can be raised, provided, of course, that the taxation is fairly and equitably imposed and that by its magnitude it does not constitute an undue burden upon enterprise, does not tend to curb enterprise and to kill initiative. Similarly, not everybody smokes; but I have not heard any person yet criticise a tax upon tobacco as a revenue-raising expedient merely on the ground that there are many rich people, and many recipients of large incomes, and owners of large fortunes, who do not smoke. Neither have I heard it suggested that an entertainments tax—a tax on the cinema, for instance—is a bad tax merely because many people do not go to the cinema; nor have I heard it said that a tax upon beer and spirits is a bad tax because many people happen to be tee-totallers and, therefore, do not have to pay it. The position in regard to rates is completely analogous to the position in regard to taxation generally. It is quite true that there are many people who do not pay high rates——

Mr. Hughes

It is a tax upon raw material. The Minister is ignoring that.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not want to be led away on that side-track, but just imagine any man describing land as raw material!

Mr. Hughes

Of course it is.

Mr. MacEntee

Or a house as raw material, or a building as raw material. It is a complete misuse of the expression to try to apply it to a house or buildings, as Deputy Hughes did in his speech.

Mr. Hughes

Without the constituents in the soil you could scarcely produce.

Mr. MacEntee

You might as well describe as raw material the constituents of your own flesh and blood— without them you could produce nothing from the land or in any other way.

Mr. Hughes

That is really brilliant.

Mr. MacEntee

I was saying that there is almost a complete analogy between the argument that rates are an unfair method of raising local revenue and the argument that income-tax should be dropped because not everybody pays income-tax; or that the tax on beer and spirits should be dropped because not everybody drinks, or that the tax on tobacco should be dropped because not everybody smokes.

There was one point made by Deputy Coogan that this Bill gave no real relief to the farmer and that what the farmer really wants is a guaranteed price and a secure market. The industrialist can equally say that he, too, wants a guaranteed price and a secure market. It may be that a person, who is neither the owner of land nor the proprietor of an industry, will come along and say that what he wants is a guaranteed wage and a secure job. Everybody wants a guarantee in this world at the moment and everybody wants security. What we are all railing against is that the Almighty, in His wisdom, did not see fit to provide us with any of these things, that He puts us here in a world where we are surrounded by vicissitudes and where we have to take the rough with the smooth and to depend upon our own judgment and initiative and our own hard work to give us that security which we are all demanding at the expense of somebody else.

It is only playing upon the gullibility of people to make a speech such as Deputy Coogan made here to-day. This Bill does represent a general relief to the farming community. As Deputy de Valera has pointed out, it is a relief which has to be provided in large measure by other members of the community. He did point out that the money which we are providing will be provided by the general taxpayer— that is to say, by the urban taxpayer as well as by the rural taxpayer. I am not going to say to what extent the urban taxpayer will be able to shift part of his burden back again to the farmer, just as I am not going to say to what extent the farmer, as a producer, may be able to shift part of his burden as a general taxpayer back to the consumer in the shape of the prices which the consumer must pay for his wheat, beet, butter, bacon and those other commodities which the farmer produces. But it does appear to me, at any rate, that the land holder or land occupier will get a substantial relief which will be provided in the greater measure—I am putting it no further than that—by the urban population; and it would be much better for all of us as members of the community as a whole—even those that profess to speak for the agricultural community—to face up to that fact.

I am not saying that the agriculturists are not entitled to get that relief. We have done a great deal to develop industry here and to stimulate industrial enterprise. As Deputy Corry pointed out, the farmer has paid for that in exactly the same way as we are asking those who have enjoyed in some measure the advantages of that protective industrial policy to give some relief now to the agriculturists. It is a very moot question, and one which I think it would be difficult to determine, as to who pays for it in the end. I take it that was the purpose of Deputy de Valera's speech. In fact there are many people who believe it would be better for all of us if we could abolish this whole system of reliefs and subventions——

Mr. Cogan

And taxation.

Mr. MacEntee

There are some people who believe we could live in a state of nature. I am not one of them. In any event, there are a number who do believe that if we could abolish this system of reliefs and subventions and all the paraphernalia of administrative machinery and personnel, which inevitably goes with them, and try to simplify the whole structure, it would be much better. Unfortunately that is not the trend of public opinion at the moment. It may require a great deal of education before the wheel comes full circle and we get back to the stage at which it will be realised that the less governmental regulation we have, the less taxation and the less distribution from central resources, the better it will be for all of us.

Mr. Dillon

And in the meantime, like the Duke of Plazotoro, you will lead the people from behind.

Mr. Sheldon

Would the Minister advert to the suggestion I made in regard to Section 3, sub-section (2)?

Mr. MacEntee

Really I do not think that there is anything in it. The principle which is given effect to there and which is embodied in sub-section (2) of Section 3 is one which has appeared many times in measures passed by this House. We contract in regard to services for the prevention and cure of tuberculosis, and pay half the cost incurred by local authorities on both services.

Mr. Dillon

The same as in the case of free milk?

Mr. MacEntee

Not exactly the same, but for milk for necessitous people. In the case of mother and child we pay a proportion of the cost. There is also the case of subsidies for housing. There are dozens of other things where the State contracts to pay a definite proportion of the cost to the local authorities.

Mr. Dillon

I think the Minister's attention has been directed on more than one occasion to the position of people in possession of agricultural land which has been brought within an urban area by an extension of boundaries. Has the Minister in contemplation any idea of giving such people the benefit of rate relief?

Mr. MacEntee

It is completely outside the scope of this Bill, but we have provided in an Act which has gone through the House—the Local Government Act, 1946—for the valuation of such land on a definite basis.

Mr. Dillon

Then they will get a rebate?

Mr. MacEntee

An abatement of two-fifths. In towns and cities it does not matter much, because the valuation of property is much higher.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 20th November, 1946.

Mr. MacEntee

There will be one or two amendments to this Bill, and I will also give consideration to some of the points which I have not dealt with in my reply.