Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Nov 1949

Vol. 118 No. 5

Private Deputies' Business - Derating of Agricultural Land—Motion.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That in order to secure a more equitable system of financing local administration and to promote increased employment and production, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that agricultural land should be completely derated and, furthermore, that rates on houses and other property should be stabilised at a moderate and reasonable level. —(Deputies Cogan and P. O'Reilly).

Mr. Cogan

When speaking last week, I indicated that, in my opinion, the motion before the House comes at an opportune time. From every portion of the land at the moment, we hear strong complaints about the increasing burden of rates. I do not think that at any time for a long period have people generally been more alarmed about the position than they are at present. I asked the Minister to-day if he could state in respect of the past ten years the average rate in the £ in all county council areas, in all county boroughs and in all urban districts and he gave me a complete list of figures which shows that, in the county council areas, since 1941, rates have risen from 13/- in the £ to 23/-; in the urban districts, from 19/1 to 29/11; and in the county boroughs, from 22/5 to 30/4. If we average these three figures, we find that the average rate for this State to-day is 27/9 in the £, as compared with 8/4 in 1932.

While some Deputies may say that there have been many changes in the world since 1932 and perhaps in the extent of local services generally, it is significant to compare the average rate of 27/9 in the £ for the Twenty-Six Counties of the Irish Republic, with the average rate in the six excluded counties, which is 12/- in the £. I have made inquiries with a view to finding out if there has been any substantial increase in the valuation of the Six County area and I have found that there has been only a very slight increase in the total valuation of the Six County area.

It is true that there has been a substantial increase in the valuation of property other than land in the Six Counties, but the total poor law valuation of the Six County area has only slightly increased as compared with 1935. As we know, agricultural land has been completely struck off the list of rateable valuations in that area, and thus we find that the figure of 12/- in the £ in the Six County area is a figure comparable with the figure of 27/9 in the Republic of Ireland. I made investigations to find out what rates were payable in some centres on the other side of the water and I find that in Edinburgh, which is a very well run city, the rate is 8/6 in the £, while the rateable valuation has not very substantially increased as compared with the pre-war years. We find, therefore, a rather extraordinary position arising here, a position which ought to be remedied.

I want to make it clear, as there seems to be some misunderstanding, that this motion is not only a motion to secure the derating of agricultural land but a motion to secure that a ceiling be fixed to rates on other rateable property. I believe that the time has come when such a ceiling should be fixed, and, even if the House does not agree to the complete derating of agricultural land, it should at least agree to the fixing of a statutory limit beyond which rates may not be increased. There are people who say that local authorities cannot keep down the rates. They can, by the exercise of rigid economy, bring about various reductions. We have to face the fact that all the efforts of local authorities to reduce the rate burden may be completely frustrated by measures taken by the Government to increase the liabilities of the local authorities and thereby force them to increase their rates.

I want to establish, first, the important fact that rates have increased enormously and are still showing a tendency to increase. I want to establish the fact that rates in this State are higher than in adjoining States and to establish the fact that the rate burden is an excessive and crushing one. I will give a figure submitted to me by a farmer in this State, and in this connection I may mention that I have received hundreds of letters from ratepayers in urban and rural areas. This farmer says that the rate he paid on his farm in 1914 was £27 and that the rate he is paying now in 1949 is £120 That is a typical instance of the manner in which rates have increased.

There is also the very important consideration that the whole basis on which rates are assessed is entirely antiquated and inequitable. As we know, the Griffith valuation was taken in 1852 and was based, so far as agricultural valuations were concerned, upon the value of the crops grown in that area. A holding on which wheat was grown extensively in that year was valued at a very high figure, because in that year wheat commanded a high price. The result is that there is great inequality as between valuations in one area and another. In portions of my constituency, the valuations of some low-lying portions of land adjoining the sea coast are excessively high, probably because wheat was grown in these areas when the valuations were taken. I have a letter from a woman in County Limerick, and——

Mr. McQuillan

Is she a widow?

Mr. Cogan

The Deputy is quite right when he suggests she is a widow, because the letter is written on mourning notepaper. In this letter, she says:

"I have 28 Irish acres of wet land..."

It may be in the Golden Vale, but it is apparently wet.

"...and the valuation is £125 on the land. There must be some mistake. I have appealed again and again, but I could not change the Griffith valuation."

That is true—the Griffith valuation is fixed and unalterable and cannot be changed, so far as land is concerned.

When we consider all those anomalies and injustices, surely we ought to realise that the time has come to face up to this problem in a bold and resolute way. Since I came in to this House in 1938, I have in every Dáil of which I was a member, introduced a motion for the purpose of securing relief in the rates on agricultural land. In every Dáil that motion has been defeated. It has been defeated mainly by the votes of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Allen

It will be defeated to-night by your own Party.

Mr. Cogan

I want to make it clear that on the last occasion, when a motion similar to this was before the House, it was supported by members of the present Government. I am in the rather difficult position that I do not know, unlike Deputy Allen who appears to be well-informed, what is the attitude of the Government to this motion. For all I know, they may be accepting it as it is, or they may be accepting one of the amendments tabled to this motion. An amendment has been tabled by the Clann na Talmhan Party which goes a considerable distance towards meeting the demands made in this motion and, so far as I know, it may be the decision of the Government to accept that amendment. However, we have again got to wait and see. All I can do now is to state the case in favour of the motion and to leave it to the wisdom of Deputies of all Parties to decide the question.

As we know, this whole matter of valuations has been a vexed question in this country for a long time. So far as the agricultural community is concerned it has been a particularly grave issue since agricultural land was first derated in Great Britain and in the Six Counties in 1928. As we know, at that time a Derating Commission was set up by the then Government here, a commission composed mainly of professional men who, apparently, had their minds made up before they ever met that they were not going to hear the case put up for the derating of agricultural land. Reading through the report of the commission, one is amazed, not so much at their stupidity as at their assumption that the people of this country were absolutely stupid.

They stated that the fact that agricultural land was derated in Great Britain did not establish a case for derating here because the standard of wages in agriculture in Great Britain was much higher than here. Was not that in itself an admission that the whole standard of living in agriculture here was lower than in Great Britain and, therefore, was not the case even more urgent for some relief to be given here?

There are people, of course, who say that agriculture is now prosperous. There has been a lot of bellowing and blowing about the prosperity of agriculture but the hard fact remains that if you take the total net agricultural income, which is a little over £100,000,000 and divide it between the number of people engaged in agriculture, you find that the average income per person working in the industry is little more than £3 per week. That does not indicate that there is such an enormous surplus wealth amongst the agricultural community and in order to show how unfair the present valuation system is towards the agricultural community you have got to make certain comparisons. Take for example a small holding with a £20 valuation. It is just barely able to support a family and during periods of depression I would say it is unable to do so. Take a business house with the same poor law valuation, and you will find that it is capable of producing a substantial income. That is one comparision that should be of interest to the House.

If you think that that is only an isolated case, take the total valuation of all agricultural property in this State and compare it with the total poor law valuation of all property in this State. What do you find? You find that the total rateable valuation of agricultural land and buildings is about 65 per cent. of the total valuation of all property in this State while the income of the agricultural section of the community is only one-third of the total income of all people in the State. Therefore, if valuations had any relation at all to income, the valuation of agricultural property should be not more than one-third of the total valuation of the country. These are facts which cannot be questioned or disputed. They are facts which should be considered seriously by this House. This is not a House dominated by one Party, having a machined majority for all purposes. It is a free assembly in which every Deputy can use his own judgment and intelligence to decide questions of this kind on their merits.

I want now to dispel an illusion which seems to hover in the minds of some people in regard to the agricultural grant. There are people who say that the agricultural grant is a subsidy to agriculture, that it is a gift given by the general taxpayer towards agricultural ratepayers as against all other ratepayers.

Even in the last couple of weeks the Minister for Agriculture went down to my constituency, of all places in the world, and told the farmers that they were paying only two-fifths of their proper rate. He overlooked the fact, of course, that the three-fifths rebate is extended only to the first £20 of valuation. He overlooked the fact that agricultural valuations are in many cases out of all proportion to what they should be. He overlooked the fact that the agricultural grant was never instituted as a relief for agriculture but in order to meet the deficit caused by the wiping out of the landlords who formerly paid a substantial portion of the rates in rural Ireland. I think that Deputies who are reasonable and fair will admit that there is a case for the relief of rates on agricultural land. There is a case for fixing a ceiling beyond which the rates may not be increased on property and there is definitely need for a general review of the whole system on which rates are levied and assessed.

Deputy Hickey has asked a question as to where the money is to come from in order to finance this relief of rates on agricultural and other property. My answer to that question is to quote what happened back in 1928. In 1928, when a demand for the relief of rates on agricultural land was made, the then Minister for Finance pointed out that it would cost £2,000,000 to wipe out the rates on agricultural land here as in the Six Counties and Great Britain and he asked:

"Where is that £2,000,000 to come from? General taxation has already reached the point of £25,000,000 a year. We cannot increase that amount. We cannot find the additional £2,000,000 to relieve the rates without crushing the general taxpayer completely out of existence."

But the fact remains and cannot be questioned that since 1928 the burden of general taxation has increased, not by £2,000,000, but by £50,000,000 and the agricultural community are still waiting for the small measure of relief which they begged for in 1928.

We have the fact that every Party that was in opposition since 1928 has always pledged themselves, while in opposition, to derate agricultural land. Even the Minister for Agriculture at one time strongly advocated that agricultural land should be derated. It is asked: where is the money to come from? Is it not clear that £77,000,000 is an excessive expenditure for the whole country? If we had £10,000,000 for rates levied, I suppose there is something in the region of £85,000,000 or £86,000,000 expended by the central Government and the local authorities. Surely there is need for some economy in that expenditure. We have heard of efforts being made in other countries to introduce some measure of efficiency in Government Departments so as to cut down expenditure. Even the British Government have been making some attempt in that direction. In other countries also various types of machinery have been set up to eliminate waste as far as possible and to cut down expenditure.

I anticipate that if a reasonable effort is made to secure economies in all Government Departments and services it will be possible to effect a saving of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 or perhaps £4,000,000 and that would be sufficient to provide the relief asked for in this motion. Therefore it will not be a question of passing the burden on to some other section of the community. It will be simply a matter of applying the benefit of economies to the relief of direct taxation upon the ratepaying community. It must be remembered that rates are an objectionable tax, particularly when they are excessive.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon)

What is the average rate on agricultural land?

Mr. Cogan

I have not got the figures. I have already given the average rate for the entire State, namely, 27/9. I am sure the Minister will have no difficulty in finding out what is the average rate on agricultural land.

Mr. Dillon

It is 11/5.

Mr. Cogan

I expect it might be something like that. I do not know what point the Minister wants to make.

Mr. Dillon

There is a difference between 11/5 and 27/9.

Mr. Cogan

An amendment has been put down to this motion which seeks to fix a maximum of 7/6 in the £ for rates on agricultural land. I think that is a reasonable approach to the problem and I welcome that amendment. As I was saying, there is an urgent need for a reduction of this burden. Some Deputies said agricultural workers and workers generally pay rates. Of course they do pay rates and already they are beginning to feel that the burden is becoming excessive. I was at a county council meeting yesterday when attention was drawn to that particular problem. Therefore, I think, having regard to all the circumstances, to the fact that there is no question of passing the burden on to some other section of the community, to the fact that this demand has been before the country for a long time and that the relief has been promised by every political Party when in opposition, with the exception I think of the Labour Party, it is time that these pledges should be honoured.

I do not know what the attitude of the Government will be towards this motion, but I trust that they will take all the relevant facts into consideration and meet this demand in a just and equitable manner. I have already indicated that, while people may say that the position of agriculture is much better than it was ten or 15 years ago when conditions were at their worst, there is no ground for assuming that the agricultural community generally are enjoying an excessive income. Therefore I think that on that ground there will be no opposition to this motion.

Before I conclude, I should like to stress the fact that I do not pretend that this motion, or even the acceptance of one or other of the amendments will settle this question. There is need for a general review of the whole position under which rates are levied. It is a source of astonishment to me that, while this particular woman in County Limerick is paying £128 a year on 28 acres of land, we have people owning ground rents on buildings in the centre of this city who are not called upon to pay any rates although they extract very high ground rents from these premises. Therefore, I say there is need for a general review and an inquiry into this question. There is also need to bear in mind that, as I said a few minutes ago, rates press very heavily upon the community generally. They are a direct tax upon the homes and the lands of our people. They are not an optional tax, a tax which can be evaded in any way, except a person is prepared to live on the side of the road like a travelling tinker. Everybody who owns a home, whether large or small, is called upon to pay rates. Therefore, it is urgently necessary that the rates should be fair and just. It is the duty of a Government in any country, and particularly in a country which claims to be a highly civilised and truly Christian country, to encourage as many people as possible to own their own homes in which to rear their families and to seek to improve their homes in every possible way.

The position at the present time is that any person who carries out an improvement to his home, his premises, his out-offices or whatever it may be, is subject to an increase in his valuation and to an increased rate. That is a continuation of the old landlord system under which the land agent drove through the country and, wherever he saw that a homestead had been improved, he immediately set down the name of the owner and in due course increased the rent. We have the same situation perpetuated to-day where every improvement carried out by a citizen to his home makes him liable to an increase in his valuation and a consequent increase in the rates that he has to pay. Therefore, I say that, from every point of view, there is need for the House to meet this motion in a fair and reasonable way, and I am hopeful that it will be accepted without a division.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

I second the motion. I do not propose to go into details but just to make a few points on the broad principles underlying the proposal. In order to do so, I must resort to comparisions. Very often, when that is done, there is resentment. Nevertheless, I submit it is the only way by which we can arrive at comparative values. Agriculture bears this charge on its industry at the source, a charge that must be paid regardless of whether agriculture yields a profit to the agricultural producer or not. The farming community is encouraged to produce chiefly cattle, pigs and poultry and their products for export. I cannot say they are compelled to do it, but, nevertheless, they are encouraged to do it. It is taken that they will increase production to that point where there will be a surplus for export in order to make up the balance required to meet the payments for necessary imports. But in exporting their farm produce they very often, not alone have to meet the competition of the foreigner but, in the case of exports to Great Britain, they are faced with the competition of farmers who have derating both in Britain and across the Border. Therefore, farmers here are at a great disadvantage. Industrial workers and those who run industrial concerns are protected up to the hilt against all competition. This is done with a view to securing, first of all, profits for industry and, secondly, a good income and living conditions for the workers engaged in industry. Why is it necessary to protect industry from reasonable competition and at the same time expose agriculture to unreasonable competition? That is the comparison I make for the purpose of assessing comparative values.

There is another point that can be said in favour of the manufacturer, the tradesman, artisan or even business man, that when you put any charge on him he can put it down as part of his costs of production and pass it on to the last man. The last man, unfortunately, is the farmer who must produce for export. He has no one else to shove it on to. The foreigner will not pay it. For instance, if any charges are increased on the blacksmith, he has only to put it on to the farmer in the charge he makes for a set of shoes for the farmer's horses or to the cost of repairing a plough. Who will the farmer put it on to? No one will pay for him. Is that fair?

There is another comparison that I want to make as regards the unfair conditions that the agricultural producer labours under. The levying of rates on land in rural Ireland in recent years tends to have no relation to the area from which the rates are collected. So far as the contributions of rates towards the building and construction of roads are concerned they have very little relation to the area from which the rates are collected. We have long-distance travelling by cars, lorries and buses, but no one can say that the rates in any particular county are properly related to and are being expended on the roads, particularly when the roads are being used by people from all over the country and also by foreigners. In that case alone the rates are not being used for local purposes.

Take, for instance, the third-class roads of the country. I say without fear of contradiction that they are a disgrace. The condition in which those roads are kept is a disgrace so far as the farmers living in backward areas of the country are concerned. They have not a good road to their farms or to their homes. Therefore, while the farmer has to pay rates to provide good roads for people in very much better circumstances than himself, he cannot have a good road to his own farm or home, and there is no prospect of any great improvement in that respect in the future.

I do not propose to go any further except to make these few remarks and to commend this motion to the House. I would not regard its acceptance as a concession. I regard it as a right. It will not be a big advantage to the farmer or to the farming community generally. We all know that money can be found for any and every scheme unless one that will make any attempt to increases the income of or reduce the charges on the agricultural industry. We have often heard it said that the people in the North cannot be expected to come in with us unless the social services which they enjoy are equalled here, and that the income of workers here should at last be so good as to encourage Irish workers to come back from Great Britain. Why on earth cannot the same conditions be given to those working in agriculture as everyone is quite happy to provide for those in industry?

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon)

rose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There are two amendments to the motion.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

I move the amendment to the motion standing in my name:

To delete all words after the word "That" in the first line and substitute the words:—

"having regard to the progressive increase in the rate demand and its adverse effect on agricultural production, Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that the rates on agricultural land should be a fixed annual charge of not more than 7/6 in the £ on the valuation."

In doing so I want to say that I cannot support the motion proposed by Deputy Cogan because I believe that complete derating might have an adverse effect on some of the agricultural community who are the principal producers of the natural wealth, and who would have to pay taxes in some other way. I also feel that there is no use in asking for complete derating in this House, having regard to the fact that Fianna Fáil, when they were in Government, proved that they could not and would not support a policy of derating. I think that a number of Deputies on this side of the House are not in favour of derating either.

I think the amendment, which seeks to stabilise the rates at not more than 7/6 in the £, is a reasonable proposition to put before the House. I think it is a proposition that should be supported by all Parties. It is very important, at this stage, when local taxation has reached such a height, that some effort should be made to curb expenditure in that particular direction. We know that local authorities have been compelled by Ministers' edicts or mandatory orders to increase the rates. They have been compelled to do that, partly by legislation introduced by the last Administration and partly by instructions sent down within more recent times. I believe that as long as Ministers can send down instructions to local authorities to increase rates and get the local people to find the money, they can afford to be very decent, whereas if they had to put up a case to their Minister for Finance, they probably would not be as generous as they are with the ratepayers' money.

There is another reason why some ceiling should be put on the rates, and that is because Fianna Fáil, for political expediency, decided to give additional votes at the local elections and allow people who were not ratepayers to elect the county councils. The position now is that on the register for the election of county councils the majority of those who have votes are non-ratepayers and it is possible at the moment to have a county council elected by non-ratepayers to spend the ratepayers' money.

Mr. Allen

They gave that in the interests of democracy and not through political expediency.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

Having done that for political expediency, they decided they had to put a curb on the authorities elected and they appointed managers with dictatorial powers.

Mr. Allen

Not a word of truth in that.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

There is another reason why the rural community must feel worried and that is that in the near future everybody who employs two or three men will be compelled to pay an additional 7/- or 10/6 a week to provide for other services. That will be an additional charge and it is something that the industry, to my mind, cannot afford.

A good deal has been said about agriculture being prosperous. Agriculture is reasonably prosperous at the moment, but we know what happened during the first post-war period. Rates and taxes and all the other expenses that the agricultural community have to bear increased and, following that, everything the agricultural producer was producing went down in price. We have indications of that already. We know that the price of pigs is less to-day than it was last June. We know there are other commodities falling in price. We know the aim of every Government in the world is to cut down the cost of living, and cutting down the cost of living means giving the farmers less for the essential commodities they are producing and letting the producers of luxury goods get away with whatever they like.

I know that Deputy Corry has another amendment. He must have been at an auction at one time. I had my amendment on the paper for some weeks and Deputy Corry, being a very sound politician, decided to bid and he put in an amendment asking that the rates be 6/- in the £. My proposal is a serious one and a reasonable one and a sensible one. It will not bear unduly on any section of the community and it will make those at the head of affairs act more cautiously in the spending of the ratepayers' money.

Mr. Halliden

I wish to second the amendment and I reserve the right to speak later.

Mr. Corry

I move the amendment standing in my name:

To delete all words after the word "That" in the first line and substitute the words:—

"having regard to the enormous increase in the rate demand and to the low prices of farm produce, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the rates on agricultural land should be stabilised at not more than 6/- in the £ on the valuation."

I am sure that in this matter we are only pushing the open door. In the Parliamentary Debates of February 6th, 1946, there was a motion moved by Deputy Cogan—I must admire his courage and perseverance—and that motion was to this effect:—

"That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that in order to secure a more equitable distribution of the burden of local rates, and to promote increased employment on the land, legislation should be introduced providing for complete derating of the first £20 of the poor law valuation of each farm and the further total derating of each additional £15 of the poor law valuation in respect of each adult worker employed on the holding; and that the deficit be made good from the Exchequer."

That motion was proposed by Deputy Cogan and supported by Deputy Halliden. When I turn over a few pages I come to the division list and I find—and this is what makes me say I am only pushing the open door—the name of the present Taoiseach, Mr. J. A. Costello, and also the name of the Minister for Lands, Mr. Blowick. I am sure that they will realise that if there was a necessity for derating when the rates were at that time, on a poor law valuation under £20, roughly 4/3 in the £, and they are now 11/-, there is far more necessity for derating to-day.

Then Deputy Lehane comes along and complains. It is rather amusing to hear him complain about the Managerial Acts and the bad Acts of Fianna Fáil. I will read some of the reasons why I consider that those who call the tune should pay the piper. I am very glad the Minister for Health is here. The first document I am going to read is a letter from the Minister for Health to the South Cork Board of Public Assistance on 24/8/48. When you hear of dictatorships it is as well to know the manner in which officials of local authorities are no longer the officials of those local authorities but are apparently the officials of the Department here. Here is the first letter:

"I am directed by the Minister for Health to state that he has had under consideration proposals from local authorities for the payment of a bonus to meet the increased cost of living to officers and employees engaged on duties under the health services administered by such authorities.

The Minister approves of the payment to officers and servants, other than agricultural workers in respect of whom he is the appropriate Minister, and whose remuneration (including emoluments) does not exceed £350 a year of a temporary bonus at the rates set out hereunder, where the local authority have indicated their willingness to provide the necessary funds."

Then there is a long list which I will not inflict on the House because I do not think it would be fair to do so. That letter cost us £4,992 4s.

Captain Cowan

It was money very well spent.

Dr. Browne

Does the Deputy think they should not have got the bonus?

Mr. Corry

I merely say that officials of local authorities are no longer officials of local authorities when you have the local authorities getting orders of that type from headquarters.

Dr. Browne

What action did you take to give it to them?

Mr. Keane

Old times have changed.

Mr. Corry

The next letter from the Minister for Health is dated 27/11/48, another order in connection with female officers and servants. That cost £2,970. This is on a small area, one-third of the Cork County Council area.

I come then to the Minister who is in charge of the Department of Local Government. The Minister for that Department gave us a nice little lesson on the 18th December, 1948, when he sent us a letter stating:—

"I am directed by the Minister for Local Government that, following the decision to grant increases in the remuneration of civil servants, it is considered desirable to notify local authorities of the limits within which increases can be granted in the remuneration of their officers. This notification, it should be understood, applies only to officers whose remuneration is subject to the sanction of the Minister for Local Government."

We have three Ministers now in the board of assistance. The Minister for Local Government's excursion cost us £247. The next round played by the Minister for Local Government was on the 30th April, 1949:—

"I am directed by the Minister for Local Government to refer to this Department's circular letter in regard to temporary increases in remuneration to certain classes of officers and to say that the sanction of the Minister may be presumed where the Manager, after consultation with the council, decides to grant temporary increases."

That cost us £563.

Then, the Minister for Health decided that the Minister for Local Government was getting away with something and he went on the warpath again on the 3rd August, 1949. He sent down a letter on the question of the amount of bonus he had under consideration to be paid as from 1st November, 1948, to officers and servants of local authorities. That was the third letter in regard to bonuses in a period of 12 months. That letter cost us £2,712. Not to be outdone, the Minister for Social Welfare then entered upon the scene. On the 1st June, 1948, he sent us a letter in reference to previous correspondence in regard to the salaries of home assistance officers; this letter evidently was not the first shot in the locker. That little excursion of his cost us £3,444.

When the Minister for Local Government saw the Minister for Social Welfare getting away with that, he went on the warpath once more and at the end of August, 1949, he wrote about the superannuation allowances of certain officials and he said that all those who retired before 1st July, 1943, should have their allowances increased as from the current date. He made a rather amazing statement. He presumed legislation in this House because he went on to say that on the 13th ultimo —that would be in the previous July— the Dáil gave a First Reading to the Increases in Superannuation Bill, under which power was sought to enable increases to be given to pensioners of the State and pensioners of local authorities. The letter further states: "Although the Bill cannot be enacted before the Autumn, it has been decided that, in order to relieve hardship, increases in pensions can be granted in advance." That only costs us £747 because this was the 8th August and the Bill had not been passed. Briefly, that is a short summary of the history of one local authority. The total amount of the advances that had to be made was £15,635. That is something more than 1/- in the £ on the valuation in South Cork. At the time when the Taoiseach considered that farmers should be derated on the first £20 of their valuation and on every £15 thereafter for every man they employed, the net expenditure in that area was £175,606. It is now £260,143. Surely, there is more need now to relieve the burdens on the farmers than there was in 1946. Surely, there is more need now for some kind of stabilisation so that the farmer may know what his commitments are likely to be. I do not intend travelling over all the ground here, but I would like to point out that there has been no increase in the prices of agricultural produce since that £85,000 odd was clapped on to the backs of the ratepayers in South Cork. Deputy Lehane was very vocal up to 1947 on the uneconomic price of milk.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

I was not here.

Mr. Corry

He is very silent now. Time after time Deputy Lehane accompanied me on deputations to both Deputy Smith and Deputy Dr. Ryan when they occupied the post of Minister for Agriculture. Time after time Deputy Lehane was very vocal about the position of the Cork ratepayers. Now, everything is lovely in the garden though the farmers' rates in County Cork have gone up since 1946 between 7/- and 8/- in the £.

Captain Cowan

What have the city rates gone up to?

Mr. Corry

The city representatives on the South Cork Board of Assistance have a good deal to answer for in relation to that additional £84,000. So long as they get 8d. for 4d. they are happy. The rural districts are paying two-thirds of the rates for them.

Mr. Hickey

I thought you were a public representative.

Mr. Corry

That is one of the principal reasons why I put down this amendment standing in my name. We have, undoubtedly, in the three Departments of State that are dealing with local authorities a definite drive, a dictatorship worse than any dictatorship that ever existed to my knowledge. For almost two years now, I have not attended a meeting of any local authority at which we had not one of these letters down from some one of the thee Ministers. In fact, the Minister for Health excelled himself on one occasion. He sent down a demand for one bonus and, before the meeting was over, we had another.

Minister for Health (Dr. Browne)

The Deputy is forgetting the health grant.

Mr. Corry

I am glad the Minister reminded me of it because only for Deputy Dr. James Ryan stepping in with his Health Act the rates in Cork County would be up by at least another 2/- in the £.

Mr. C. Lehane

And they would not have got the £2,500,000.

Mr. Corry

Only for the operation of the Health Act. I will give the Minister the figures; I took very good care that I got them from him.

Mr. S. Collins

Because you wanted something to talk about.

Mr. Corry

To meet that sum of £15,635 4s. 0d. that I have mentioned, the grant under the Health Act for 1948-49 is £10,729 13s. 5d.

Dr. Browne

You are getting that money from central funds.

Mr. Corry

Until the Minister succeeds in bringing in another Bill to undo the good work which was done by Deputy Dr. James Ryan we will continue to get it. I do not grudge any Deputy in this House the opportunity of getting up after me and giving his version of the affair and of speaking for other counties if they wish to. I am giving the position of affairs as I see it at the moment.

A Deputy

In Kerry?

Mr. Corry

I am certain that Kerry got that does as well as we did, whether they are going to lie down under it or not. However, I for one, as a member of a local authority, am not going to accept dictation as to hours of working as regards officials of that body from any Minister——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should keep to the amendment.

Mr. Hickey

There is no word about the cost of the rates.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Hickey has gone back on finance. If Deputy Hickey will wait for another while——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should keep to the amendment.

Mr. Corry

I cannot help it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This debate is not confined to Cork Deputies.

Mr. Flanagan

While the Cork Deputies are at each other's scalps there is no danger to ours.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry, on his amendment.

Mr. Corry

That amendment was put down over a year ago when the rate was roughly 5/6 in the £. The year it was put down rates had increased by a couple of shillings and I hit the medium between the two. That was the sole reason I did it. I considered that a farmer would be far better off if he knew exactly what his commitments were—if he knew definitely that, no matter which year it was, he would have so much in annuity to pay and so much in rates to pay instead of this jumping up of the rates year after year. If a farmer succeeded in getting a grant amounting to £40 some years ago for the reconstruction of his house he now has a visit from two nice gentlemen and, in one case that I know of, the valuation on that house was increased from £3 a year to £9 15/- a year. When you make that up at the present Cork rate of 25/- in the £, or thereabout, you know where you are. The owner of that house has to pay roughly £11 4/- a year in sæcula sæculorum now for the £40 grant that he got in 1938 or 1939. As Deputy Cogan has said, it is bringing back exactly the position that tenants were in under the landlords— when you made an improvement in your holding your rent was increased. Apparently, if the farmer makes any improvement in his dwelling-house or out-offices the valuation is going to go up and he is going to pay through the nose for it. It would not take long to collect, at the rate of £11 a year, the £40 grant he got from the terrible Fianna Fáil Government. Whether or not it is an idea to prevent farmers from looking for farm reconstruction grants, or a grant for the improvement of out-offices, I do not know, but every Deputy is aware of the number of complaints we have got in Cork County already. The Government steps in now and sends down a new valuer. That valuer comes along and says: “You got a grant of £40 for reconstructing your house from the Fianna Fáil spendthrifts some years ago and you did so and so to the house.” They go in with tapes and measures and measure the house. They then come along and treble the valuation on that house. Whether that is considered to be a fair position or not, I am drawing the attention of the responsible Minister to it now because I think it should stop. I think it is unfair.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon)

There is no truth in the story at all.

Mr. Corry

It is unfair that that revaluation should go on.

Minister for Justice (General MacEoin)

If it were true.

Mr. Corry

There are two Deputies sitting right behind the Minister who are supporters of the present Government and Deputy Halliden and other Deputies here were present in the county council when one of their own members brought the matter up. In fact, the next time the Minister pays a visit to West Cork, I hope he will call on his representative there, Councillor Dan Kingston, in Clonakilty. He will give all the information about it because he is the man who made the complaint and, better still, it happened in his own case. His valuation was trebled. Do not be saying: "If it were true". If it is not true I would not be giving facts of that description here. I am giving the Minister the name so that he can track it out and find out the reason why it was done.

Mr. S. Collins

That was not an agricultural holding; it was a public house.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Collins will have 500 letters from West Cork victims to-morrow. We have a position where a whole number of Departments are in competition with one another.

An Ceann Comhairle

What relation does that bear to the amendment?

Mr. Corry

I am moving an amendment for the stabilisation of rural rates. I consider that when the Ministers who are responsible for the driving up of the rates have to shoulder the burden of the central authority they will be far more careful. I, like Deputy Lehane, am not in favour of complete derating. I think that the farmer should pay his share, but the burden that has been placed on the agricultural community—and I am not confining it to the present—is far too high. The figures in regard to the South Cork Board of Public Assistance expenditure were £149,000 in 1942; £175,000 in 1945-46; and for the last two years £260,000. Those are the figures I would like the Minister to consider. To my mind the people of this country have to face up to the fact that in all human probability rates on agricultural land are going to go up again by 5/- to 10/- in the £ in the coming year. There is no doubt about it and it is no good burking the fact. The increases in salaries alone for the Cork Mental Hospital Committee will be between £32,000 and £37,000 a year. The position, I admit, will be covered by the provisions of Deputy Dr. Ryan's Health Act which is the only protection we have got at the present day against this gambling that has been going on, that is, competition between three Minister——

Mr. Dillon

That is the third time the Deputy has said that.

Mr. Corry

——as to which of them is going to collect the kudos and say: "I am the man that gave 10/- to you boys"; or "I am the man who gave the 40-hour week to the other boys." There is competition between the three while the representatives of the people who have to pay the rates are completely ignored by a Government that talks about a Management Act. In this House on 6th February, 1946, the Minister for Lands said:

"I was saying on the last occasion on which this motion was debated that the question of some kind of derating must be taken seriously into consideration in the very near future. In most counties at present the estimates have been prepared and will be submitted to the various county councils. In every single case they show an increase in the rates."

If it was necessary in 1946 it is doubly necessary now. On 1st February, 1946, the Minister for Lands stated in this House:

"No matter what Government speakers may say, the day is coming and coming soon, when something will have to be done in regard to the question of derating."

I do not know whether the Minister had a vision that he would be in a position to enforce his demands for the farmers for whom he was speaking. I suggest to him that he is in that position now. I am seriously suggesting to the Minister that the time has arrived now for him to redeem the pledges he gave to the agricultural community in that statement. I suggest that the time has arrived now for the Minister for Lands to go to the Taoiseach, who was of the same mind as himself on that happy occasion when they marched up arm in arm into the Lobby to vote for derating, and say to him: "You come along with me now and give us that measure of derating we voted for in 1946; that the farmers are looking for and that I pledged myself to give." The Minister for Lands would be in the happy position of redeeming one pledge and I would be in the happy position of having a very high opinion of him. I have not a very bad opinion of him at present but if he does that it is another step.

Mr. Halliden

How did you vote that time?

Mr. Corry

If the Deputy who seconded that motion or who put down his name as seconding it and didn't have any interest at all in what he pledged himself to then—and mind you, Deputy Halliden seconded that motion on paper—surely Deputy Halliden would have gone to the trouble of going to the Library as I did and finding out how I voted.

Mr. Halliden

I know well how you voted.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Halliden will have an opportunity before this is finished and Deputy Halliden can deal with how everybody voted on that occasion. I suggest that this talk about prosperity among farmers—and we hear a lot of talk about it—is all moonshine. A lot of capital has been made here at times, particularly by people who are non-agriculturalists: "Look at all the money the farmers have in the bank." That is a very common practice among people here in the Dáil and elsewhere. It has been thrown at us on previous derating motions. Those people completely lose sight of the fact that any money a farmer has in the bank is not his own money at all. It is the property of the sons and the daughters of the farmer who have been. working on that farm as unpaid labourers from the time they are 13 years of age generally until they are 40 or 45. Whatever money was collected out of their unpaid labour is certainly their right and the farmer himself, to my mind, has no call whatever to it and no claim to it. I am hoping that this motion will be seriously considered by the Cabinet and by the Ministers who, in their wholly irresponsible times, pledged themselves to this idea and voted for a bigger scheme of liberation than is contained in the motion or any of the amendments. Undoubtedly the complete derating of land up to the £20 valuation mark and the complete derating of each £15 afterwards for every able-bodied man working on the holding, is a far bigger measure of relief than the amendment proposed by Deputy Lehane or the amendment proposed by myself.

I consider that, under those circumstances and in view of the largely increased burden that has fallen on the farmer since, when the Minister for Local Government gets up here to announce Government policy on this, he should tell us frankly that the Government has decided for either of the two amendments or for the motion itself. If they baulk at giving us the motion itself, then either of the two amendments would do, as half a loaf is better than no bread. Perhaps the knowledge that, when the rates are stabilised, any extra burden that they cause on the rates by circulars of this description will have to be paid for by themselves, may have a deterring effect on their activities in that line. I am anxious, as a farmer, to see some check on the placing of burdens of that kind, as undoubtedly it is going to become an unbearable burden on the farming community. It is already almost an unbearable burden.

Captain Cowan

On a point of order, I understand that three hours have been allotted for this motion. I think it would be fair if Deputies were given an opportunity to speak on the motion. It is clear that the speaker in possession is wasting time.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have no power to limit the speeches.

Captain Cowan

There ought to be some regard for the House by Deputies themselves.

Mr. Allen

There is only one Ceann Comhairle.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon)

Deputy Corry was put up to talk this out, but it is a free country and he has a right to do so, thanks be to God.

Mr. Corry

If we had the pleasure of the Minister for Agriculture getting in here when he jumped up after Deputy O'Reilly sat down, I would have been perfectly satisfied to hear the Minister. If the facts are succeeding in making Deputies over there shoulder their responsibility on this and in getting them to do their work, I am ready all the time to till the soil, to get this thing done. I, Sir, am more than anxious to hear the views of, not the Minister for Agriculture, but the Minister for Local Government, who has responsibility on this matter. I am more than anxious to hear his views and to hear from him the reasons why he put his portion of a burden of £15,000 down on one-third of Cork County this year. I want to know why he went to the trouble of sending down to the local authorities in Cork, presuming legislation by this House, a Bill which had only passed the First Reading here. Immediately the First Reading was passed, he presumed that the Bill was going through and sent down an order which would place roughly £7,500 a year extra on the rates of Cork County. These are serious matters, which we want dealt with by the responsible Minister. We want to hear the Minister for Local Government on this, to know his views on it and the reasons for this increase.

I have no intention of delaying the House. I am sorry I delayed so long on it, but I had so many important matters to cover here. I would like that we should get now, from the Minister or perhaps from the Minister for Lands or from the Taoiseach during the week, a statement on it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the amendment being seconded?

No Deputy rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

The amendment has lapsed.

A Deputy

He has no support—not even from his own Party.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Corry, like the White Queen in Through the Looking Glass, believes in “jam to-morrow and jam yesterday, but never jam to-day”. Deputy Corry says—as reported in Vol. 99, col. 552, of the Official Debates— that 18 years ago he advocated derating, but on that particular day in 1946 he resolved to vote against it—yet now he is in favour of derating again! The case is made that the rates are 22/7. The rates on agricultural land are 11/3¾d., taking the average struck on the land of the country as a whole. I think the rates are too high. I think they ought to be brought down and I am quite convinced that the people of this country are going to bring them down, in just the same way as they brought the taxes down—that is, they will put out the apostles of extravagance and then, having replaced present local administration by good administration with good county councillors, they will do as this Government did in taking the equivalent of £7,000,000 per annum off the taxes, while extending the scope of all public services.

Many believed that to be something beyond the capacity of the Government and I heard the Ministers who were sitting in this place two years ago declare that it was quite impossible to avoid the additional taxation that they then proposed, that it was quite impossible to extend the services further than they were already, and that all the additional taxes then proposed were necessary to service the existing services. This Government, when it came into office, swept away £7,000,000 of that taxation and the services are still there. It is the firm intention, when the local elections are held next year, to sweep out those who have run local taxation in many areas to extravagant heights and put in their places councillors who are prepared to do their duty, that is, to see that the rates levied are prudently paid out.

There is in contemplation by the Minister for Local Government legislation to deal with local administration, which will be introduced into this House very shortly. I believe that that legislation, combined with the kind of county councillors we are going to get, now that the rotten, corrupt political machine of Fianna Fáil has been destroyed in the country, will effectively reduce the rates in the right way. If these remedies should fail, the resources of civilisation are not exhausted.

Let us remember this, that I advocated derating again and again in this House when agriculture was not prosperous and when the farmers were well-nigh bankrupted by the rotten Government they had—but I do not think that the time is ripe for advocating it to-day. We are in the position that the agricultural exports of this country in the year 1947 for nine months were £20,240,000 and in 1949, for the same nine months, they were £31,790,000—and they are still rising. I can recall that in 1947 we had 579,000 acres of our land producing 1,463,000 barrels of wheat, while in 1949, 357,000 acres produced 2,400,000 barrels of wheat. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned until to-morrow.