This particular motion has been moved at various times over many years and has each time been defeated by whatever Government was in power. The motion is unquestionably inspired by the idea of bringing relief to farmers and land owners, an object which undoubtedly has the support of everybody in the House. Deputies on all sides are desirous of helping the farmer and making him prosperous, but the best method of approaching the question would not appear to be a motion such as this, having regard to its fate each time it came before the House. I suggest that all through that time it was desired to help the farmer because in helping the farmer naturally every Party was helping itself as the farmer controls the basic industry of the country and it is in the interest of the country as well as the farmer that he should be made as prosperous as possible.
In moving this motion, Deputy Cogan seems to have raised doubts as to the efficacy of the particular method, because he suggested that, even if it were passed, it was not going to solve the problem nor even bring a great measure of relief to farmers, but he thought it would probably lead to a general revision of the system of rating. Possibly, such a revision is necessary. But the system of rating is pretty old now. It has oftentimes been grumbled against. The paying of rates is by no means a pleasurable duty at any time, nor is the paying of taxes, particularly if a person feels that he to pay or capable of paying in com-is charged in excess of what he is liable parison with his fellows. Sometimes, I suppose, farmers may feel a genuine grievance that their rating is too heavy for them, that they are not able to meet it, and that some other section of the community is getting away with it, but I think that, while figures are rather cold things, they will be fairly illuminating in this debate when I come to indicate the position that farmers occupy in comparison with other citizens. I am sure farmers are not anxious to be put in a privileged position, to be constituted a sort of ascendancy. They only want a reasonable and fair crack of the whip in order to get an opportunity to develop their land and to pull their weight as citizens in common with everyone else.
The cost of this motion, if it were to be passed, would be something in the region of £7,000,000. At the moment the agricultural grant has piled up to £3,962,000. That grant has had a varied career. It has been at different figures right through the years and it would be interesting to read them in order to show what it has reached now and to see how it has kept pace with the expenses and costings of the agricultural industry. The grant was fixed at £599,011 under the 1898 Act. In 1925 it was doubled, bringing the amount to £1,198,022. In 1931 a further supplementary grant of £750,000 was added, bringing the total to £1,948,022. In 1932, an additional sum of £250,000 was provided, to bring the total grant to £2,189,022. The first reduction in the amount of the grant was effected in 1933 when the grant was reduced by £448,022 to £1,750,000. In 1935, however, a sum of £220,000 was added to make a total grant of £1,970,000. In the year 1936 the amount of the grant was again reduced, on this occasion by £100,000, to £1,870,000, at which figure it remained until the provisions of the 1946 Act came into operation in the financial year 1946-47. The 1946 Act, in addition to increasing the grant substantially, made the fundamental change that a grant of a fixed amount was no longer provided. Instead, it laid down that the grant would be the amount needed to give reliefs on the following basis: (1) A primary allowance at the rate of 3/5th of the general rate on land valuations not exceeding £20 and the first £20 of higher valuations; (2) a supplementary allowance of 1/5th of the general rate on the whole of the land valuation above £20; (3) an employment allowance calculated at the rate of 10/- in the £ on the land valuation above £20, subject to the limitation of £6 10s. 0d. for each man at work.
With the inevitable increase in rates which is a feature of local expenditure, the grant under the Act of 1946 shows an annually increasing liability on the Exchequer. The amount of the grant, as determined on the new basis provided for under the Act of 1946, amounted to £2,910,378 in 1946-47, £3,175,726 in 1947-48, and £3,624,035 in 1948-49. That is to say, it increased by over £1,000,000 in the first year of operation of the new Act; in the second year it increased by a further £300,000, and it increased by a further £450,000 in the third year. It is not yet possible to give a final figure in regard to the amount which will come in course of payment from the grant for the current financial year, but it appears likely to exceed £3,900,000.
I suggest that at no time has there been neglect of the farmers' interests, and I consider that the continuance of this grant on an increasing and varying scale is a more equitable and fairer method of compensating the farmer than the proposed method of derating. On the basis upon which it is working now, it has had the effect of reducing the rating commitment of the farmer from an average rate of 22/7 to an average rate of 11/3¼ and the percentage that he contributes in rates as against his agricultural income is now 2.6. The income of the agricultural community is returned at £119,000,000 and the rating contribution is 2.6 per cent.
It was stated during the debate, rather glibly perhaps by Deputy Corry, that the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Health were, in the main, responsible for the heavy rate operating in recent times owing to circulars sent out from their Departments instructing, in a mandatory fashion, local authorities to pay increased rates of wages which had to be piled on the backs of the agricultural community. I do not mind very much Deputy Corry making that statement. He was followed by Deputy Allen, but both Deputy Corry and Deputy Allen are, of course, perfectly aware that what they said is not so. No mandatory circular went out from my Department, and neither I am sure did such a circular go out from the other Departments. A letter did go out, a paragraph from which I propose to quote in order to show the character of it:
"Should any local authority wish to grant a special allowance by way of pension increase to any local pensioner of that authority who retired on an inclusive pension before the 1st of July, 1943, in accordance with the limits set out in this circular letter the Minister will raise no objection to the adoption of that course."
That circular suggests to the local authorities a ceiling figure beyond which they would not go. There was nothing mandatory about it. It was left to the discretion of the local authorities to grant the increase or not if they wished. That was not by any means a new procedure. A similar procedure had been adopted by the previous Administration, with this difference, that instead of sending a circular they sent an instruction to county managers in connection with salaries. It put the county managers into a position which they felt was a rather awkward one, and they had to say that they were acting on the authority of the Government. At no time did a circular of a mandatory character issue from my Department. We have too much respect for the local authorities to do that. The representatives on the local authorities are the people to give or to refuse increases.
