Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Feb 1951

Vol. 124 No. 1

Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) (No. 2) Bill, 1950 — Second Stage.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Corish)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill provides that the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1946, shall apply to the local financial year, ending on 31st March, 1952. No new principle is involved; this Bill merely proposes to continue the agricultural grant on its present basis for a further year. The 1946 Act applied to the two financial years 1946-47 and 1947-48. Continuing Acts on the lines of the present Bill have continued it in operation until the 31st March, 1951.

I am sure that deputies are familiar with the history of the agricultural grant. However, I will run briefly through that history again. Legislation dealing with the grant dates back to the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898. This Act fixed the grant at the sum of £599,011. For 27 years the grant remained at the same figure until the year 1925, when it was doubled. Between 1925 and 1946 the basis of distribution of the grant and its amount have been altered on a number of occasions. Originally a flat rate of relief was given on all agricultural land but two new principles had been introduced prior to the enactment of the 1946 Act. A higher rate of relief was given on valuations not exceeding £20 and on the first £20 of higher valuations, and extra relief was granted to farmers in respect of men at work on the holdings. The amount of the grant was fixed at £1,870,000 in respect of the year 1935-36 and it remained at that figure for 11 years.

Prior to 1946 the amount of the grant was always a fixed sum specified in each successive Act. The 1946 Act made the fundamental change that a grant of a fixed amount was no longer provided. Instead it provided that the grant would be the sum needed to give relief on the following basis:

(1) A primary allowance at the rate of three-fifths of the general rate on land valuations not exceeding £20, and the first £20 of higher valuations.

(2) A supplementary allowance at the rate of one-fifth 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 that the allowance does not exceed £6 10s. in respect of each man at work.

The effect of the new method of calculation was that the grant which had been fixed at £1,870,000 for the previous 11 years increased by over £1,000,000 to £2,910,378 for the year 1946-47 and increased further to £3,175,726 for 1947-48, to £3,624,035 in 1948-49 and to £3,971,722 for 1949-50. Figures for the current year are not yet available, but as the average general rate struck by county councils for this year is much the same as for last year, there should be no appreciable change in the amount of the grant. The grant for the year 1949-50 shows an increase of 112 per cent. Over the figure for 1945-46, the last year before the coming into operation of the 1946 Act.

The fact that the grant varies with changes in the general rate has helped to shield farmers in recent years from the full consequences of the general, but unavoidable, increases in rates which have taken place. Thus in the year 1949-50, while the average gross rate in county health districts was 22/7¾d., the average net rate assessed on agricultural land was 11/3½d. The grant, in other words, afforded the farmer relief to the extent of 50 per cent. of the general rate in respect of any agricultural land in his possession.

The total sum of £3,971,722 paid in 1949-50 was divided as follows:—

Primary allowances, £2,667,760; supplementary allowances, £708,842; employment allowances, £583,565; amount paid to urban councils, £11,555.

As I have already stated no change in the method of distribution of the agricultural grant is contemplated by this measure. It is merely a continuing Bill. The principle that the incidence of rating should fall less heavily on agricultural land than on other hereditaments has been accepted for a long time, and I feel there is no need for me to go more deeply into the matter at this stage. Deputies may ask why it is necessary to bring in annually a Bill which continues the grant on its present basis. The answer is that changes in economic conditions might necessitate amendments in the present legislation, so it is thought advisable that the period covered by each continuing Bill should be short, so that an examination of the amount and form of the grant can be made at frequent intervals in the light of prevailing conditions.

The principles on which this measure is based have been accepted by the House on many previous occassions. Accordingly, I feel that I can confidently ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. MacEntee

This is a very normal example of how far the promises made by the Parties who now constitute the Government of this country are unfilled in their realisation. When the general election of 1948 was fought, we were told that there was going to be a general relief of the burdens which were imposed upon agriculture and that the position of the worker on the land was going to be improved. The Coalition Government has been in office for three years; how long it is going to remain in office is of course a matter of doubtful conjecture. But it has been in office for three years and, during that period, it has not done anything, so far as the burden of local administration upon the farmers is concerned, to improve the position.

The figures which the Parliamentary Secretary has given to the House are worth pondering on. Deputies will remember, of course, that it was the plea of the predecessors of Fine Gael—the Cumann na nGaedheal Party—when they were in office, that they represented the interest of the thrifty, hardworking, industrious people, particularly exemplified by those who were engaged in agricultural pursuits. We have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary, without undue emphasis upon the period of time, that the grant in relief of rates upon agricultural land was originally £599,000, that it was increased to £1,198,000 in 1925, and that it remained virtually unchanged until some unspecified date, when it was brought to £1,700,000 in the year 1935. The relevant point here is that the increase was made, not by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, not by any Fine Gael Administration which professed to be the friend of the farmers, but by the Fianna Fáil Administration which, at least so far as the Opposition could stigmatise it, was regarded by the then Opposition as not being unduly friendly to the agricultural interests. Of course, that was like many of the Opposition statements then, without foundation.

However, what do we find following that? In the year 1946 new principles, completely new principles, were applied to this problem of rates upon agricultural land. Already we had introduced, in previous legislation, the principle of adjusting the relief to be given to agricultural land to the amount of employment which the landholder would give to agricultural labourers. We did introduce that in, perhaps, a restricted form, because we imposed a global figure which fixed the aggregate amount of relief which would be given to agriculturists as a whole, yet providing at the same time that the landowner who gave a greater amount of employment would receive a proportionately greater amount of relief in the rates on his agricultural land. In the year 1946, this restriction upon the total amount of relief which might be given was removed and, instead of that, we introduced a new principle whereby the amount of relief given as a whole would depend, first of all, on the number of holdings which did not exceed £20 in valuation, and then upon a proportion of those holdings which exceeded £20 in valuation.

It is not so easy to express this. I should say that, first of all, we adopted the principle that the maximum amount of relief would be given to holdings which did not exceed £20 in valuation and that simultaneously a similar amount of relief would be given in respect of the first £20 of valuation of all agricultural holdings. Then we introduced the employment allowance, related to the number of individuals employed upon a farm for a wage, and we fixed it that that would amount to £6 10s. per person employed upon the farm. Over and above that we gave a supplementary relief based on what had been the preceding rate. In consequence of that—and this is the point I wish to bring home—whereas up to 1945 the aggregate amount of relief in respect of the rates on agricultural land amounted to £1,700,000, in the year past this amount has been increased to £3,900,000.

Mr. Sweetman

In spite of Deputy Aiken.

Mr. MacEntee

In spite of Deputy Sweetman and those who support him. This Bill is a Fianna Fáil Bill; this Bill is based on Fianna Fáil principles and there has not been any attempt to enlarge or improve on its principles. Fianna Fáil policy has been adopted by the Fine Gael Party and the mixum gatherum who constitute the Coalition behind them.

Mr. McQuillan

Does that worry you?

Mr. MacEntee

No, but it ought to worry you, because here is an admission that whatever we could do you cannot do better.

Mr. Sweetman

Certainly we can.

Mr. MacEntee

That is precisely the point—that whatever we could do you cannot do better or, putting it the other way round, whatever you can do, we could do better. That is precisely the position. You came in to reform and remodel agriculture, to remodel the whole system of local finance, but at the end of three years you have not been able to do any better for the landowner or the worker on the land than Fianna Fáil did in 1946.

Mr. McQuillan

And his land is being drained as well.

Mr. MacEntee

The land is being drained of people. That is the point. You have had statistics furnished by your own Government, by the Government which you support—I do not know whether Dr. Browne supports it any longer, but Noel Hartnett does not— and the Government which you support has had to admit, on its own statistics, that instead of people coming back to the country as they were in 1947, they have been leaving steadily since 1948. The position is, whether we have been endeavouring to drain land or to remove rocks as Nylon Jimmy promised——

Mr. Sweetman

Is this in order?

An Ceann Comhairle

A Minister must be referred to as Minister.

Mr. MacEntee

I did not refer to any Minister. If Deputy Sweetman likes to push that cap on the head of the Minister for Agriculture, I surely am not responsible.

An Ceann Comhairle

Am I to take the Deputy's word, that he did not refer to any Minister?

Mr. MacEntee

You cannot put me in that position. You cannot cross-examine me. I made a statement which some people thought very appropriate to a particular member of the administration, but I am not responsible for their thoughts. We have not got to the stage which I understand they have reached in some totalitarian countries, and which perhaps exists beyond the iron curtain, a system under which I might be held responsible for Deputy Sweetman's thoughts.

Mr. Sweetman

Thanks be to God, I am not responsible for what you think.

Mr. MacEntee

You are attempting to make me responsible for what you say. However, there is no use in getting into this sort of badinage. Clearly it is not palatable to those who support the Government, despite all the promises they made in 1948, to be told that they are not able to do any better for farmers and agricultural workers than Fianna Fáil was able to do. They are not able to introduce any new principles. They are not able to vote any additional money. We from this side of the House welcome this Bill with acclamation because it is one of the beneficial components of the Fianna Fáil policy which they have not been able to undo. We know that they have scrapped the transatlantic air service, that they have shut down on the development of mineral resources, and on the development of a short wave station, that they have tried to collar the bus station——

An Ceann Comhairle

These matters are not relevant to this Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

I am merely pointing out——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is trying to take advantage of this Bill to make a general statement.

Mr. MacEntee

I am merely pointing out that one of the reasons we welcome this Bill is that it is one of the aspects of Fianna Fáil policy which the Government has not been able to sabotage and undo. For that reason we welcome it.

Mr. Sweetman

I must confess that I was rather sorry that Deputy MacEntee, while he was speaking, did not occasionally look round to see Deputy Aiken because if he did he would realise the uncomfortable position Deputy Aiken occupies remembering a speech which he delivered in 1946. Deputy MacEntee who is always so keen on the question of the collective responsibility of the Government is now leaving the House because he does not wish to hear a statement in reference to this matter that was made by Fianna Fáil when Deputy Aiken introduced his Budget in 1946. I want to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government on not taking the line in regard to relief of rates on agricultural land, that Deputy Aiken promised was going to be taken when he spoke in this House on the 8th May, 1946, as reported in column 2357 of Volume 100. Deputy Aiken on that occasion was dealing with this principle of giving relief from rates on agricultural land in respect to the employment given, the grant not to exceed £6 10s. od. for each man employed. I confess freely that that was a good scheme, but Deputy Aiken nevertheless made it absolutely crystal clear and positive that that scheme was introduced for two years only and that it was to come to an end on the 5th April, 1948. As reported in the column to which I have referred Deputy Aiken said:—

"I want to make it clear that the wage-subsidy part of the new scheme is intended to last only for this year and next year."

That meant that it was to last only for two years. I want to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and this Government on having paid last year something over £500,000 in relief of rates on agricultural land, because of the employment given on such land, although Deputy Aiken forewarned us that it was not going to be paid after the 5th April, 1948.

Mr. Harris

Would Deputy Sweetman give us a little more of that quotation? Did the Minister not give reasons why it would not be paid?

Mr. Sweetman

I shall give you the whole volume and you can read it if you like.

Mr. Cogan

I think that Deputy MacEntee is rather disingenuous. He rather twitted the Government on not having done anything to improve the position so far as the relief of rates on agricultural land is concerned. He more or less suggested that the Government had failed to do better in this respect for the farmer than Fianna Fáil when they were in power. I think the Deputy completely forgot that when a private member's motion was introduced last year which provided for a very substantial improvement in the relief of rates on agricultural land and which provided for limiting rates on agricultural land to a maximum of 7/6 in the £, on a division the entire Fianna Fáil Party voted with the Government against the motion. I have a distinct recollection of what happened on that occasion and I think I saw Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Norton walking into the same division lobby to vote against that proposal which would have substantially improved the amount of relief given to farmers. I am not at all satisfied with the position as it is. Deputy MacEntee may claim a lot of credit for having improved the position in 1946. I think he will admit that that concession was made rather grudgingly. The references to that concession made by the Minister for Finance on that occasion would tend to show that he laboured under the impression that the farmers in this country were getting rather too much. The actual fact is that the burden of rates, notwithstanding the concession given in the Agricultural Relief of Rates Bill in 1946, has increased considerably. Notwithstanding that relief, the farmers have to pay very much more in actual cash in rates than they were paying in 1946. They are worried because the net rate which they have got to pay is much higher than it was three or four years ago. If the Parliamentary Secretary would consult any farmer on that point and look at his rates receipts for the past three or four years, he will find that the rates have been mounting steadily year by year. I should not like anybody to get away with the suggestion that the general taxpayer, through this Bill, is making some generous provision for the farmers in the matter of rates. I think the burden of rates is altogether too high and that general policy should be directed towards reducing agricultural costs so as to bring down the cost of food and the cost of living generally.

Mr. Aiken

The facts which the Parliamentary Secretary has put before the House are worthy of serious notice not only by the Dáil but by the country. The relief of agricultural land is related to the total rate struck on agricultural land throughout the country. Three-fifths of the rates on agricultural land, up to valuations of £20, are borne by the Government under the 1946 Act and one-fifth above the £20 valuation. Therefore, if the burden on the State has gone up by £1,000,000 or more, it has gone up very much more on the farmers. I have not the figures with me, but the Parliamentary Secretary might tell the House what is the amount of the increase which the farmers are paying now as against what they were paying in 1946 and 1947, which was the last year for which Fianna Fáil had responsibility. That would be an interesting figure, because the Government have been steadfast in their endeavour to throw every burden they can on the ratepayers as against the Central Exchequer. For example, if the Minister for Agriculture wants some money for agricultural education, he tries to get it on to the backs of the farmers and ratepayers. We have the same story in regard to a thousand and one schemes which the Minister for Agriculture and other Ministers have introduced in recent years. Every effort is made to throw back on the farmers costs which, if the people opposite were on these benches, they would be advocating should be borne by the Central Government.

It is true that, on the introduction of this particular measure in 1946—when I was announcing it in the Budget—a limitation of two years was put on that portion of the scheme relating to employment on farms above a £20 valuation. That, as I say, was limited for two years; but many schemes announced by Fianna Fáil with a limitation of commitment forward were carried on when the commitment had become exhausted. In a thousand cases Fianna Fáil was better than its word: it was better than its promise, which is a little bit different from the present Government, since, in many cases, it has failed to live up to its promises.

Let us take one aspect of rates which is bearing very hardly on the farming community and on the rural population and which is an increased burden on them. I refer to grants towards the roads. When we started in 1946 to give increased grants to the Road Fund so as to put the roads into a proper state after the damage that had been done to them during the war, we did not promise that, for any number of years ahead, we would give increased road grants, but in fact we did. When the Fine Gael Coalition came along one of their first acts was to cut, from £4,000,000 to about £2,000,000, the amount of money that was being spent on putting the roads into a proper state of repair. That cut of from £4,000,000 to £2,000,000 put a greatly increased burden on the farming community and on all the ratepayers. The gentlemen opposite, who were going to give everything free—free artificial manures to farmers—are supporting a Government which is putting increased burdens on the farmers. Even the subsidy that was in the Fianna Fáil Estimates for 1948-49 for artificial manures was cut out by the present Government, and, although they speak about free artificial manures in this year, the farmers this year cannot even cash certain credits for artificial manures which were given during the Fianna Fáil régime.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is now travelling very wide of this Bill.

Mr. Aiken

Not any wider than Deputy Sweetman did, but I do not propose to follow him out to the end. I want to say this, that I am glad the Fine Gael Government and Coalition were committed to bearing at least three-fifths of the burden of rates up to £20 valuation, and of one-fifth over it. If they had not been committed to that, I doubt whether they would be accepting even that much of the burden so far as it concerns the ratepayers of the country.

Mr. Rooney

I should like to point out to Deputy Aiken that the terms of the 1946 Act were mainly brought in as a result of the pressure from Fine Gael and farmers concerning these abatements. The figures show that 1946 was taken as the basis for the agitation carried on by Fine Gael and by the farmers of that time for this abatement. Reference was made by Deputy MacEntee—I thought he would refrain from doing so—to the early 30's. He referred to 1935, and tried to make a comparison as between the conditions which existed then with conditions in 1946 or at the present time. We all know the level of poverty which existed amongst the farmers in 1935, and the need there was at that time to give them reliefs and rebates as far as possible. Deputy MacEntee appears to labour under the mistaken belief that farmers would prefer charity and rebates to a reasonable measure of prosperity. I want to tell him that they would much prefer a policy which would give them a measure of prosperity rather than be in the position of having to ask anybody for either reliefs or rebates.

Mr. Aiken

2/- a dozen for eggs?

Mr. Rooney

5/6.

Mr. Aiken

And 1/- a gallon for milk.

Mr. Rooney

If Deputy Aiken can sell eggs at 2/- a dozen there are many people who will be prepared to pay it.

Mr. Aiken

That is all the British are giving you.

Mr. Rooney

We can all remember when farmers were getting a smaller rebate than they are at the present time—when they were selling cows at 50/- each and could not sell calves, and when, in fact, farmers were being paid to slaughter calves. I believe that, as long as we can give the farmers a decent measure of prosperity, they will not agitate for greater reliefs. They will not ask any other section of the community to bear heavier burdens than they should be called upon to bear. The year 1946 seems to be taken, more or less, as the basis for argument here this evening, but may I point out that, in the last few years, agricultural export levels have increased to a very considerable extent? It is not just a question of a couple of million pounds that have gone into the farmers' pockets in the last few years. I believe that the agricultural exports from this country to Great Britain in the last three years have increased by something like £40,000,000. That is an indication of the prosperity enjoyed by them now. That is what the majority of the farmers want and not a policy of rebatement or any kind of charity from anybody. Similarly the price of wheat, beet, sheep, pigs, cattle, etc.——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is a Bill to continue the grant in aid of agricultural rates and the general agricultural policy of the Government does not arise.

Mr. Rooney

I was just replying to some impressions created as a result of Deputy MacEntee's speech. I am sorry if I have gone out of order, but I feel that this rebatement should be continued for the present because I believe that, with the improved productive capacity of the land in future years, the farmers may not be asking us to bear this burden of £4,000,000 as they did formerly.

Mr. Corish

My function this evening is a very small one but, owing to some of the speeches delivered, I rather imagine that the Minister for Agriculture might have been a better person to put the Bill through the House. Many interesting points have been raised. With all due respect to him, I do not think that Deputy MacEntee made any real contribution at all to the debate. His speech was merely a rehash of the 1945-46 Bill. He did twit the Government Benches with the fact that it was the Fianna Fáil Government who introduced this. I am not concerned with what Government introduced it. If there is any credit to be given to Fianna Fáil for the introduction of this, I would be the first to give it. I do not believe there was any opposition when the Bill was introduced in the House in 1945 or 1946. The fact that Fianna Fáil introduced it does not make it any better or worse. We are still operating Acts of Parliament passed in the time of Queen Victoria. Fianna Fáil worked under Acts passed by a Cumann na nGaedheal Government. I do not think that is an issue which should be debated at length in this House. The main thing about this Bill is that, even though the principle was introduced in 1946, it is being continued and the Government are prepared to foot the bill, no matter what it is, in respect of rates on agricultural land. It has increased considerably since 1946. I do not believe either that there is much use in twitting Deputy Aiken with a speech made by him in 1946 when he proposed to discontinue it after two years because, as he rightly said himself, that probably was the position at that particular time which was to be reviewed in two years.

I do not, however, agree with some of the statements made by Deputy MacEntee with regard to what he described as the Government's determined policy to try to shove the greater burden on to the ratepayers. I should like to quote for the Deputy some figures to show that, since this Government came into office, the reverse has been the case. From 1939 to 1948, when Fianna Fáil went out of office, State grants were far less than the amount of money collected by way of rates. In 1939-40, the total amount collected in rates was £6,500,000 and State grants amounted to £4,700,000. In 1947-48, the total amount collected in rates was a little over £9,000,000 and the State grants were a little over £8,000,000. In 1948-49, the rates collected amounted to £9,500,000 and the State grants amounted to £10,749,000. In 1949-50, the total rates collected were £11,000,000 and the State grants amounted to £13,000,000. On these figures, I do not think that anybody can say that the policy of this Government is to try to increase the burden on the ratepayers.

A lot has been said about the plight of the farmer. I do not pretend to have any detailed knowledge about agriculture, but I do know this, and I think everybody in the country will subscribe to it, that in the last three years the farmer has enjoyed a degree of prosperity which he did not visualise some years ago. If rates are a burden on the farmer, I submit that they are a far greater burden on other sections of the community. I do not think the farmer has had anything to grumble about for the last three years. He may not be satisfied with the price of this or that particular commodity, but he has received prices and State assistance in the last three years that he never thought he would get.

Mr. Aiken

2/- a dozen for eggs instead of 3/-.

Mr. Corish

I am surprised at the Deputy picking out one item. If Deputy Aiken goes down to Louth or Drogheda, he will say that it is a grand thing that poor people are able to get eggs for 2/- a dozen. Let him be consistent.

Mr. Aiken

We were to drown the British in eggs; now we are to kill the hens.

Mr. Corish

Deputy Aiken was to bring the emigrants back.

Mr. Aiken

And we did.

Mr. Childers

You ought to pay a tribute to Señor Peron for the high price of cattle.

Mr. Corish

I think it was Deputy Aiken who alleged that the burden on the farmer as far as rates are concerned has increased substantially and that the State aid had not increased to the same extent. He asked for some figures. The net rates assessed on agricultural land increased by £900,000 between 1946 and 1950, but the agricultural grant increased by over £2,000,000. Perhaps that will answer that portion of Deputy Aiken's question. I should also like to quote these figures for the information of the Deputy and the Opposition generally. The amount of rates the farmers paid on agricultural land in 1938-39 was 5.6 of the agricultural income. That had decreased in 1949-50 to 3.8 per cent. It is significant that on this occasion nobody has advocated that there should be absolute derating. As a matter of fact, as far as any increase in assistance, apart from what is given in this Bill, is concerned, I do not think anybody advocated that to-day. It has been tested very well in the last two years, because we all remember a motion put down by a Deputy from the independent farmers group in November, 1949, asking for total derating. That was rejected in this House by 79 votes to eight. That expressed the view of the House that there is not much point in advocating it and I do not think there will be much point in advocating it. There was also an amendment that the rate in the £ on land should not exceed 7/6, which was also rejected. I submit, therefore, that this measure is the most equitable and the fairest type of support that can be given to the agricultural community, because it merely means that when the rates increase the State assistance increases also as far as relief is concerned.

I was also interested to hear Deputy Aiken talk about road grants and saying how generous the Fianna Fáil Government were in 1945-46. He knows in his heart and soul that it was not a question of generosity because there again the Minister for Local Government in the Fianna Fáil régime at that time merely gave to the local authorities the amount of the moneys accumulated in the road fund less £1,000,000. Those were the moneys which had accumulated during the war years. Deputy Aiken and his colleagues also appear to overlook the fact that at the present time substantial financial assistance is being given to farmers by way of drainage. In the present year there is a sum of £1,750,000 being spent by local authorities on drainage and on the cleaning of streams under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. These are reliefs which the local authorities and the farmers well appreciate. In any case I would not consider that the matters raised were absolutely relevant, but perhaps it is just as well that some members of the Opposition should get them off their chests. The important point is that this Bill merely asks that the principle of granting this type of relief to farmers be accepted.

Question put and agreed to.