Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Nov 1954

Vol. 147 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Agricultural Grant—Motion.

Mr. Beirne

I move :—

That, in view of the steep increase in rates on agricultural land, the high cost of labour and the reduction in live stock prices, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that a substantial increase should be made by the Government in the present agricultural grant for the further relief of rates on agricultural land.

When I first put down this motion about a year ago conditions were entirely different from what they are to-day. Had I been able to prophesy at that time what conditions would be like to-day I would perhaps have felt inclined to give this motion much wider scope because I would have had to take into consideration conditions as they present themselves to us in the agricultural industry as it stands and refer to the immense destruction that has been caused to crops all over the country due to the inclemency of the weather. I do not intend to cover that ground now.

Every year at about this time the Dáil is asked to consider a Bill entitled Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill. I think about this time 12 months we discussed such a measure. It is the object of that measure to provide for the relief of rates on agricultural land. First of all, we have the primary allowance on agricultural land; at one time we got a supplementary allowance. Now we are getting an employment allowance.

Let me say at the outset that politics should be entirely divorced from the question of rates. All over this country vast sums of money are being spent every year. I do not impute malice to either local government officials or public representatives, but there is definitely an unfair levy of taxation in relation to agricultural land. Let us examine this question of the agricultural industry. Taking the broad view of it let us consider for a moment our national income. The total income derived from the land is about one-third of the national income; the amount of rates collected from the land represents 75 per cent. of the total amount of rates.

Obviously, the agricultural industry is being treated unfairly. We all remember last year, when this Bill was being re-enacted, the Minister for Local Government at that time proposed to make some alterations. He succeeded in dropping the supplementary allowance and substituting an employment allowance. First of all, in May, 1953, he circularised the county councils that a £13 allowance was to be made for every man employed on an agricultural holding. That did not meet with the approval of the country. A couple of by-elections took place subsequently and on the results of these by-elections the Minister changed his mind and increased the agricultural allowance to £17. At that time, 1953, when we were discussing this measure, the change was vigorously opposed by many members who now occupy ministerial positions in the present Government. I remember Deputy Dillon, on the First Stage of that Bill, in 1953, asking the Minister for Local Government was that the Bill that would deprive the farmers of £250,000. Later in the debate figures were produced by men who now occupy ministerial positions, showing the disastrous results that would accrue from any changes in that Bill, from the dropping of the supplementary grant and its replacement by the employment allowance. One Deputy who is now a Minister went to the trouble of giving a list of the losses that might be suffered by each county. I think he gave the whole Twenty-Six Counties and showed the loss each county would suffer by the substitution of the employment grant for the supplementary allowance. He estimated that the losses would cost the country something in the neighbourhood of £220,000 a year.

I know that any words I say to-night in support of this motion are not falling on deaf ears. I know that the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, when he spoke on this measure a year ago said that the farmers were being treated very badly and that he was here to defend the farmers and to get an increase of this agricultural grant. I also know that the present Minister for Finance, when he spoke on this Bill last year, said that a grave injustice was being done to the agricultural community by depriving them of £220,000, to which they should be entitled. Therefore I know my words are not falling on deaf ears.

It has been said in this House by a former Minister for Finance that taxation rests very lightly on the land. I do not agree with that. Very few Deputies on the Government side of the House will agree with that statement. That phrase was used against the Fianna Fail Party during the election, at every crossroad, at every church gate, to show that it was the intention—if it was not the expressed intention it was the implied intention of the Minister for Finance at that time to impose some form of taxation on the land when he said that taxation rests lightly on the land. The statement must have induced the former Minister for Local Government to interfere to such an extent in the grants for relief of rates on agricultural land that he made an attempt to deprive the farmers of this country in 1953 of something in the neighbourhood of £400,000 by the employment allowance.

The tendency in this country since we got native Government is to shift the burden of taxation from Central Government to local government. I happen to be a member of a local authority in Roscommon. I know that local authorities are responsible for quite a lot of expenditure which must be found from the rates but which should be financed by the Central Government. We are now responsible for supplementary housing grants, for supplementary blind pensions, to a certain extent for the financing of vocational education, for expenditure under the Diseases of Animals Act and the Milk and Dairies Act, for the erection of courthouses and for the impact which will come on the rates in the coming year for the implementation of the various provisions of the Health Act.

For that reason I think it is now time that the Government should step into the breach and increase these grants because, bad as we now are, the rates will become such an intolerable burden that the farmers will be unable to pay them.

In discussing the measure in 1953, various items were suggested which might to some extent relieve the rates on agricultural land. It was suggested that an allowance should be made for the employment of female labour on the land. That is quite reasonable, because quite a number of females are employed on the land and do very good work. They should be included in the category of workers in respect of whom there is relief of rates. Relief should also be given in respect of part-time workers on the land. The fact that an employee of a farmer may leave his employment after the first few months of the year and that the farmer has to employ another man militates harshly against the farmer, who has to forfeit the allowance. That is a hardship which should be rectified.

It is extraordinary that in a few short years rates have jumped abnormally. I did not realise that the rates had stepped up so quickly during my time in public life until I made inquiries in County Roscommon and discovered that in the year 1945-46 the rate in the £ was 14/8 and gradually increased every year until, in 1954-55, the rate is 34/4 in the £, an increase in eight years of something in the neighbourhood of 135 per cent. With the able assistance of Deputy McQuillan we may look forward to a reduction in rates in the coming year.

Mr. McQuillan

I believe in service.

Mr. Beirne

I hope you do.

Mr. McQuillan

Service is much better than to be complaining to the public about rates.

Mr. Beirne

Put your words into practice and you will have us all with you.

Mr. McQuillan

You have had a majority on the county council.

Mr. Beirne

We have not got a majority on the county council.

Mr. McQuillan

You had it.

Mr. Beirne

No.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. O'Donnell)

The Deputies might let us into this private argument.

Mr. Beirne

There are 36 county councillors and we have got eight seats. The employment allowances to which I have referred will not give the results anticipated by the former Minister for Local Government. To-day the number employed on the land is much less than it was many years ago. In 1953, there has been a drop of 17,000 people compared with 1952. As time goes on, with the drift from the land, it is quite obvious that the agricultural grant will be ineffective. No good results will accure to the agricultural community.

As I have said, I put down this motion believing that my words will not fall on deaf ears. I was present in the House when members of the Opposition who are now members of the Government very harshly criticised the 1953 Relief of Rates on Agricultural Land Bill and very openly said that the agricultural community was being deprived of certain concessions which they should get. I am afraid I cannot look forward with optimism to the position of agriculture in the coming spring or coming years. The farmers have got a setback this year from which they may not recover for five or ten years. Due to the flooding, not alone are there losses just now but I can see that in the springtime there will be a considerable drop in live stock. At the present time there is a drop in the prices of all classes of live stock. Certain classes of cattle cannot be sold but there are other classes which cannot be got for love or money. Pigs are recovering slightly from a bad slump some months ago. They are recovering now due to the scarcity. Many people went out of pig breeding and now there is a scarcity and prices have gone up. Sheep have declined; our poultry population has declined; so I cannot see any prospect for the agricultural population, due to the bad season.

For that reason, I ask the Minister and the Government and every Deputy here to support me in seeking to give to the agricultural community some hope and encouragement in this, one of its darkest hóurs. I say that a substantial grant should be given this year. Failing that, we should revert to the position obtaining prior to 1953 and should rehash the Act and bring in the primary allowance, the secondary allowance and the employment allowance. I believe that I am pushing an open door. I would be terribly surprised if the Minister or any member of his Party opposed this motion. When the Bill was before the House in 1953, even the present Tánaiste objected to its provisions being changed. While he did not say the farmers should get cash grants, he said money might properly be spent for the relief of rates on agricultural land in another way, and he suggested grants for the purchase of artificial manures. At that time, all the leaders of the different Parties comprising the present Government were favourably disposed to an increase in this grant. I expect something wonderful from the Minister's lips when he stands to speak on this motion. For that reason, I am optimistic and hopeful that I or my Party may have achieved something by putting down this motion.

Later on, when the Relief of Rates on Agricultural Land Bill comes to the House, I believe the Minister might be considering some amendments to it which would be of benefit to the agricultural community. I am not in any way forestalling the Minister or attempting to do so. If those are his intentions I wish to be helpful and cooperative. I would be terribly surprised if I do not get the sympathy of all rural Deputies who represent the agricultural community, no matter to what Party they belong.

Mr. Finucane

I wish to second the motion.

Mr. Childers

Hearing Deputy Beirne on this motion of his, I was surprised that he really believes that what members of the Government say before an election is any clue to what they are likely to do after an election. I thought he had enough political experience to know that, particularly in the case of the present Government, there could be no clue or indication as to what was likely to happen.

Before I proceed to deal in detail with the proposition put forward by Deputy Beirne, it would be advisable to give a very brief history of the progress of legislation benefiting the agricultural community and to make it quite clear that the Fianna Fáil Party did a great deal during their term of office to relieve farmers from part of their rates. I do not want to go into great detail but to recite the brief historical facts. In 1925, the agricultural grant for the relief of rates was a sum of £1,200,000. In 1931, that sum was increased by £750,000 by the then Cumann na nGaedheal Government.

General MacEoin

Could the Deputy tell us what the full total of rates were then?

Mr. Childers

I have not got the rates. I am just giving an indication of the increase.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Deputy could not say what the proportion of the increase was?

Mr. Childers

I could not. I am indicating that a contribution was made consistently and continuously during the whole period of the Fianna Fáil Government. Of course, taxation increased also under this and every other Government. If the Minister for Local Government is going on the basis that is was wrong for taxation to increase at all in that period, we would have a different kind of debate.

Mr. O'Donnell

I did not give any indication of the lines I am going on.

Mr. Childers

If the Minister listens to me he will realise I am not trying to start a debate on the total burden of taxation but merely giving an indication of how much the farmers have benefited. In 1933, the agricultural relief was added to by the sum of £250,000 per year, but for the first time the principle was adopted that there should be some kind of special concession to holdings of under £10 valuation and on the first £10 valuation of larger holdings. By that means some aid was given to the smaller farmers and to those possessing uneconomic holdings. In 1933, the total contribution amounted to £2,200,000, which, of course, included the original statutory sum of, I think, £599,000, first applied by a British Act of Parliament some time in the 19th century—in 1898, I think.

In 1939, another Act was passed and the principle of the three allowances was inaugurated—a primary allowance on the first £20 valuation, a secondary allowance on the whole of the first £20 valuation, if any, over that; and then the principle of giving an employment allowance was also started for the first time. It was a rather cumbersome system and it was difficult for county councils to work out, but the results were that in that particular year the contribution in the form of primary allowance was £1,200,000; for the employment allowance £350,000 was provided; and for the remainder, that is to say, any part of the valuation for which there had been no relief in the first two allowances, there was the sum of nearly £300,000. Then, as time went on, it became evident that still more assistance should be given. In 1946 there was passed the Act upon which the Agricultural Grant had been given until 1953. In the 1946 Act, as the House well knows, there was an allowance of three-fifths on the first £20 valuation. On the valuations above £20 there was an allowance of one-fifth. Then employment allowance was increased and £6 10s. was given per workman per annum or, roughly, 10s. in the £ on valuations above £20. As a result of that Act, by the financial year 1948-49 the total contribution for the relief of rates to the agricultural community was £3,720,000. Then, in 1953, in order to encourage employment on the land and in order to make some gesture towards the solution of the problem of people leaving the land at a very rapid rate— which they have been doing ever since the war—the Act was amended. The supplementary allowance was eliminated and the allowance for employment was increased from £6 10s. to £17. The result of that could be seen in the Estimates for 1954-55 in which the total contribution will be £5,330,000—an increase of £310,000 over the previous year and a record figure.

I am well aware of the fact that, during the whole of that period, the rates rose but then taxation rose during the whole of the period also. If one considers the amount of the grant in relation to the value of agricultural production or the amount of agricultural production one can say quite definitely that some really serious contribution was made by the Fianna Fáil Government in order to assist farmers with the burden of the rates they had to pay. I am not arguing that the burden of rates is not heavy at the present time. I am well aware that taxation, both local and national, has quite obviously reached a very high level. Not only in this country but in all those countries of a modern type where there are extensive social services and extensive health services, people complain about the level of taxation. I am merely saying that a considerable amount was done by the Fianna Fáil Party to contribute to the relief of agricultural rates. The Fianna Fáil Party, above all, did their utmost to increase the proportion of the grant made available for the small farming community and the uneconomic landholders. I should add, in connection with any debate on the subject of the burden of taxation on the agricultural community, that a great many other contributions were made by the Fianna Fáil Government to aid the farming community in one form or another—by means of grants or schemes of various kinds. I could mention a number of schemes which must at least be considered in any debate in relation to the relief of agricultural rates. If the relief of agricultural rates is considered by itself, any debate on the subject is useless. One at least has to mention in the same context the other services made available to the farming community in the past 20 years. Farmers may complain that they are not sufficient—that more should have been done. I think that at least the honest farmer will recognise that a good deal has been accomplished and that, therefore, the contribution to the agricultural rates must be regarded in the context of the general schemes made available to farmers.

I could mention the subsidies for the production of butter which were commenced by the Fianna Fáil Government when the butter industry was collapsing in 1932 and which have been in operation in one form or another since that date. It was a source of immense help to the small farmers in the creamery areas. I could mention the institution of unemployment allowances in the winter months for the sons of small farmers which bring in a regular cash contribution and which Deputy Beirne should compare with the relief of rates to small farmers. He would find that in many households on ten or 15 acres the amount available either for minor relief scheme work or unemployment allowances—the actual amount coming into the house—would make a good figure in comparison with the relief of rates afforded a farmer on his holding and that to mention one without mentioning the other is useless in the circumstances. The farming community have benefited from housing schemes and Gaeltacht schemes. There have been grants for land reclamation, for farm buildings and for rural improvement schemes which have been adopted to a limited extent by a number of farmers throughout the country for the improvement of their roads. There have also been a number of other schemes specially devoted to the Gaeltacht area for the encouragement of local industries, and so forth. Then, Deputy Beirne could hardly consider the question of the contribution to the rates here without at least adverting in some degree to the whole of the land division which has taken place since the Fianna Fáil Land Acts enabled land to be divided on a far more extensive basis. Again, if one compares the relief of rates for agricultural land with the benefit conferred on those who have been fortunate enough to secure land under the Fianna Fáil Land Acts, in many cases the increase in the holding would very greatly outweigh in value any contribution to the rates. The whole of these benefits must be considered together. The employment afforded on Bord na Móna bogs adjacent to smallholdings has, again, been of benefit to small farmers. For the larger farmers there have been other Fianna Fáil schemes—a guaranteed price for wheat, arrangements whereby Grain Importers have taken barley in recent years off the farmers' hands at some reasonable price, the extension of the Sugar Company's work by the inauguration of new factories.

Mr. O'Donnell

They were considered white elephants at one time.

Mr. Childers

All these things have helped to contribute something towards the farmers' expenses.

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

: Do not forget the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

Mr. Childers

The Local Authorities (Works) Act—some of the money was well spent, and some of it was grossly misspent. The difficulty is to see how far that Act can be made to work economically.

Mr. Davin

I knew you would say that.

Mr. Childers

Since Deputy Davin has drawn me on this subject, I may say I have seen drains repaired in the middle of the winter. I have seen men standing up to their waists in water——

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot discuss the administration of that Act now.

Mr. Childers

I was drawn by Deputy Davin's challenge——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should have experience——

Mr. Childers

There was a Supplementary Estimate in respect of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. In spite of all the benefits that have been conferred, I agree with Deputy Beirne, and I am sure all members of the Fianna Fáil Party agree that we would like to do something more for the agricultural community. We are aware that agricultural production has not yet increased as much as we would like and although the record figure of a 5.9 per cent. increase above the agricultural production of 1938 was reached in the last year of Fianna Fáil administration, unlike Deputy Dillon we do not like to boast about it. We do not wish to suggest that all is well for the farming community because of that increase. Deputy Dillon based his statistics on two of the worst weather years in our history—1946 and 1947— and boasted when agricultural production went up in 1948 as though the increase were a miracle of his own devising. When agricultural production reached the 1945 level he boasted still more. I trust that in this and other debates we in Fianna Fáil will not play ducks and drakes with statistics. We will not blame Deputy Dillon next year for the results of the present year's bad weather—playing, in reverse, the same game he played upon Fianna Fáil when he boasted of the increase in production that took place one year after two years, as I have said, of extremely bad weather.

As I said, while there was a very helpful and a very pleasant increase in production in 1953, there is still stagnation. There is now a greater necessity for farmers to co-operate in their production in future years now that competition is beginning on an ever-increasing scale. It is obvious that farmers, even with smaller farms, must, somehow or other, invest in machinery, and that it would be costly for them to do so. It is also obvious that far more working capital will have to be employed in agriculture if we are to compete with other countries on the markets available to us abroad.

As Deputy Beirne mentioned, the number of persons working in agriculture is constantly decreasing. He gave a figure which referred to the last year of the Fianna Fáil Government, but I suppose Deputy Beirne is aware of the fact that the number of men on the land decreased steadily during the whole of the inter-Party Government's term of office, and that all the sentimental and fulsome fulminations in his Party about keeping people on the land apparently had not the slightest effect in practice when members of his Party formed part of the Coalition Government from 1948 to 1951. If I remember rightly something like 50,000 males left the land during that period of the inter-Party Government's term of office, and they went on leaving it in our period of government afterwards. It is a symptom which is apparent all over the world; there is nothing peculiar about it. In Great Britain, where the production in agriculture has gone up enormously, the number of agricultural workers has gone back to the 1939 figure although production has increased there by something like 40 per cent. over 1939. Of course, when Deputy Beirne was on the hustings he was accusing us of being responsible for the people leaving the land, and when he got into office and they continued to leave the land he and his Party were very quite when it came to their action of forming part of the Government. I merely mention that because we all get very tired of people who blow hot and cold, blow hot when they are down the country, and remain silent and mouselike when they come up and have to be responsible for acts of the Government of which they form part.

Some of us wonder what the purpose is behind this discussion. At one time Deputy Blowick, in 1948, made the most solemn promise that he would never join any Coalition. We heard rumours that there was some difficulty in persuading Deputy Blowick to join the present Coalition and some of us may speculate as to whether there is some sinister purpose in moving this resolution and of the purpose it serves and whether or not they are trying to crack the which in some way in order to provide greater influence within the ranks of the Coalition Government. We do not know whether this is the firing of the first shot or whether it is simply chancing an arm in the hope that something might turn up at the end of it all.

We in Fianna Fáil must decide whether or not we will vote with Deputy Beirne and his Party on this Resolution. From one point of view we regard the Resolution as typical of the irresponsible statements made by members of Fine Gael who promised to provide increased services without saying where they are going to get the money from. They promised to reduce taxation and increase benefits, promised to reduce prices and at the same time not to impose taxation for subsidies. From one point of view we might wonder; we might say: "We will have none of this motion." It is the typical sort of thing we had to face during the whole of the election, people going down into country districts and promising farmers relief from their rates, promising farmers higher prices and going into the towns and promising the people lower prices for their produce, higher subsidies for their produce and in the fond belief that the urban sections of the community and the rural section would remain completely isolated from each other and that it was quite possible to promise one thing to one section and another thing to another section and to get away with it. I must admit the members of the present Government seem to have been for the moment rather successful in that they managed to defeat Fianna Fáil at the election. But when we get a motion of this kind we are doubtful how to treat it, whether to vote against it simply on the ground that we must establish some kind of honourable principle in debating statistical and economic matters in this House, that if people are going to propose increased reliefs from taxation on the one hand they must say now and succinctly where they are going to get the money.

We might take that attitude, but having debated this amongst ouselves we decided that we will support Deputy Beirne in this motion, and we will support him because we may induce a sense of responsibility in the present Government in regard to their whole attitude to financial matters. We will try to make them live up to their statements that taxation was grossly unnecessary, that the taxes were merely not imposed to pay for current supply services, that they were imposed in a deliberate attempt to try to make the people pay more in order that they could enjoy their life rather less than they would under a Coalition Government, that there were hidden surpluses of every description from which they might get relief, from which the whole community could be relieved.

From that point of view, therefore, we will try again to see if we can find in the coffers of Finance all these undisclosed surpluses and all these economies that were going to be made. We will have great pleasure in supporting Deputy Beirne in this motion if he presses it to a division. We will be very interested to see whether Deputy Beirne, knowing that he will have the Fianna Fáil Party behind him, will now press his motion to a division. We shall then see and verify what is the sincerity of all that he has said, whether he is really sincere or whether he is trying to please the fractionalised and dismal Clann na Talmhan clubs that still exist down the country in his Party, which has now shrunk to very small dimensions. We intend to do this because we have some reason for supporting Deputy Beirne. In expressing the hope that something will be found for these agricultural reliefs we might perhaps quote some of the statements of recent date made in regard to money available for all these various purposes. Perhaps we might first quote one of the members of Deputy Beirne's Party, Deputy Donnellan, who, speaking in Ballina and reported in the Irish Press of the 9th June, 1952, made this astonishing statement:

"...If there is a change of Government we will put in a Minister for Finance who will remit £1,000,000 for each minute of a ten-minute talk in the Dáil."

Surely we can remit all the rates if that statement is true.

I would like to ask Deputy Beirne what he thinks of Deputy Donnellan's statement in regard to remitting £1,000,000 for each minute of a ten-minute talk in the Dáil. It would take some computation—no doubt the authorities who would administer the proceedings in the Dáil could make the calculation—but I think it would mean a complete remittance of taxation central and local, which is a thing which we would all welcome.

Then we had a Fine Gael advertisement which was published in the Evening Mail of the 14th May, 1954, in which it was stated:

"Here are the prices in each of the two years. How much extra do these cost you every week. Every one of these increases is due to deliberate Government action."

Of course, the cost of living went up here and in a great many other countries from 25 per cent. to 28 per cent. from 1950 to 1953. If the increases were due to Government action here, they must have been due to some expenditure by the Government which had the effect of increasing these prices. We are still waiting to have the price of everything reduced to the 1951 level. It should be possible to make more money available for Deputy Beirne's scheme for the relief of agricultural rates.

Then we had Deputy Corish, the present Minister for Social Welfare, who was reported in the Irish Independent on the 30th April, 1954, as saying:

"The first point in the election programme of the Labour Party was the reduction of food prices and the use of subsidies on essential articles of food to achieve this object. Labour was very definitely committed to this."

Perhaps, Deputy Beirne could convince the Minister for Social Welfare that instead of spending these sums which we are waiting to have spent on increased subsidies, they might be transferred, perhaps, towards the relief of agricultural rates, and that these sums we are waiting to see spent on subsidies to reduce prices to the 1951 level might, perhaps, by means of the forceful action of the Clann na Talmhan section of the Government be diverted towards the purpose of relieving farmers in regard to their rates. Deputy Beirne, no doubt, has the ability to do that. Perhaps, he could convey immediately, through the Minister for Lands, to the other members of the Government that we are all waiting to see those subsidies enacted in the Dáil, and it might be well that if instead the Government remitted the rates for the farmers.

We had Deputy McGilligan in his broadcast reported in the Irish Press of the 8th May, 1954—and this should make things easy for Deputy Beirne— saying:

"A distinct change of policy was required, however, and a new outlook on the part of Ministers was demanded if the reduction of £20,000,000 and upwards, desirable in everybody's interest was to be achieved."

He was referring to the national expenditure. It may be that before Deputy McGilligan succeeds in getting a reduction of £20,000,000 Deputy Beirne might save something from the wreck and achieve a further contribution to agricultural rates because if they are going to reduce expenditure by £20,000,000 Deputy Beirne may find himself in a difficult position in regard to the implementation of this resolution.

I could go on quoting ad lib but I think it would be rather boring for the House as so many statements were made.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

Go ahead.

Mr. Cunningham

Are you offended that you were not quoted?

Mr. Blowick

I am amused at what a one-time Minister could put up.

Mr. Cunningham

I am sure you opened your mouth.

Mr. Blowick

I closed yours one time in Donegal. I hope your memory goes back that far.

Mr. Childers

I now come to the masterpiece of all these statements made at the time of the election—that made by my colleague in Westmeath-Longford, Deputy MacEoin. I beg Deputy Beirne to listen most intently to this, because herein lies the source of his ultimate hopes. Deputy MacEoin the present Minister for Defence, as reported in the Sligo Champion—he never contradicted the statement—on the 20th March, 1954, said:—

"Fine Gael, if returned to office, would take steps to see to it that the Central Fund would undertake responsibility for all future expenditure and for some of the existing expenditure which was at present being met by the local rates."

Mr. Beirne

Give them a bit of time.

Mr. Childers

We will give Deputy MacEoin all the time he wants to start implementing contributions to the local rates from the Central Fund for all new local government expenditure. I am not a betting man. I do not often bet but I am willing to make a bet that if there are any other further services to be inaugurated which form part of the local authorities administration at least some of the expenditure would be shared by the local authority. Deputy MacEoin's promise was completely unusual and made without any scruple or any serious intention whatever.

I have not the quotation here, but Deputy McGilligan has not contradicted the statement I made recently in which I reminded him of the speech he made during the general election in which he said that he thought that a great part of the central Government services in the Department of Local Government could be diverted to the local authorities and that the local authorities by doing part of the work of the central Government would save the central Government administrative expenditure.

We have before us at the moment and about to come into committee a Local Government Bill which in every line of it maintains and ensures a continuance to the present Minister for Local Government complete and absolute control of all the operations of the local authorities.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. O'Donnell)

Let us discuss that under the Local Government Bill.

Mr. Childers

With all due respect to the Minister the purport of that Bill is simply putting up——

Mr. O'Donnell

I will discuss that with you when the Bill is under consideration.

Mr. Childers

——amending legislation which is designed to preserve in the Custom House the whole of the complexus of laws designed to control the activities of the local authorities.

Mr. O'Donnell

I do not see very many amendments from you on it.

Mr. Childers

I spoke frankly on the occasion of that Bill. I did not say that I believed in Deputy McGilligan's theory. I said that if the Department of Local Government has to contribute to 99 per cent. of the expenditure of local authorities in one form or another, the standards of performance must be preserved and the Minister must have control. The Minister cannot deny I admitted that. I said that Fianna Fáil had no views in regard to this subject.

Mr. O'Donnell

How does that contradict Deputy McGilligan's statement?

Mr. Childers

Deputy McGilligan clearly indicated that a whole mass of central Government administration could be taken over by the local authority; that the local authority staffs could remain the same; that the administrative staffs could remain the same and that the number of official staff officers and clerical officers could remain the same and that by some mysterious process they could all do 50 per cent more work with the same staffs, while there would be a big reduction in central Government expenditure because of the diminution of the work performed by them. I hope the Minister will let us see how it can be done. I do not think it makes sense.

Mr. O'Donnell

It is one of the things that will be done.

Mr. Childers

Is the Minister saying that he will deprive himself of many of his functions?

Mr. O'Donnell

Certainly.

Mr. Childers

And that the staff of the Custom House will be cut in half?

Mr. O'Donnell

I will discuss that with the Deputy when the Bill comes before the House.

Mr. Childers

Does the Minister propose to cut the staff?

Mr. O'Donnell

We are not discussing the Bill we are discussing the motion.

Mr. Childers

I shall take due account of the report of this discussion. The Minister has given an indication that the staff at the Custom House will be cut to make possible a noticeable reduction in taxation.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy said that.

Mr. Childers

I am merely giving the import of what Deputy McGilligan said.

Mr. Blowick

You are trying to put words into the Minister's mouth.

Mr. O'Donnell

He is not going to do it.

Mr. Blowick

That cock will not fight.

Mr. Childers

The members of the Government are getting frightened.

Mr. Blowick

It takes more than that to frighten them. God help the man who would be frightened by you.

Mr. Childers

They are going to hear from us about every promise they made.

Mr. O'Donnell

We keep them.

Mr. Childers

Deputy McGilligan implied in his speech that a sufficient reduction could be made in the cost of local government to make a noticeable and visible decrease in taxation—not £300,000, not £500,000 but something that would make a difference that work could be transferred to the local authorities and without any increase in staff they would continue to perform that work and the rates would remain the same. We are waiting to see that happening. I am merely mentioning it in the context of this Resolution and in explaining why we are going to support Deputy Beirne if he presses it to a division. We would like to see where these economies that were spoken of are coming from. If the money is available—and it has been said to be available—it should be available for the relief of taxation. Whereas the lower and middle income groups deserve reliefs and whereas people in the urban districts deserve relief, if all the money which, according to statements by members of the Government during the election, would be available is forthcoming, there should be some contribution towards increased production, towards the difficulties of the present year resulting in decreased farm production, in order to enable the farming community to have some working capital next year so that they may recommence their operations with some hope and optimism. We are going to vote for this motion because we would like to see if the Government can now produce the finance that will be required in order to continue the work of Fianna Fáil in enlarging the scope of relief of rates for the agricultural community.

I hope I have made my position absolutely clear—that in the ordinary way, we in this Party, would prefer Resolutions which make it quite clear that the person proposing the Resolution has some conception of where the money is to come from, but we would like to go into the Division Lobbies with Deputy Beirne just in order to try the Government, in order to see where they may find their finances.

Mr. McQuillan

I just want to inquire is it a fact that the House is not sitting to-morrow? The Independent Deputies in this House had no indication from the Whips or anybody of what the business is.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should have put that question earlier when the Order of Business was being discussed and when the Taoiseach was present.

Mr. McQuillan

I understood from the Order of Business that the House would sit for two days.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot allow a discussion on the matter now.

Mr. McQuillan

Are we not entitled to that information even at this stage?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should have put the question at the usual time when the Order of Business was being discussed. I am putting the question to the Government now, but I cannot allow a discussion on it.

Mr. McQuillan

Through you, A Cheann Comhairle, may I ask the Minister who is here if it is a fact that the House is not sitting to-morrow?

Mr. O'Donnell

The Government orders business, and if Deputies will not come in and discuss business and if the business is passed by the House we cannot prolong the debate. I understand that the business ordered for this week will finish this evening when this motion is completed.

Mr. McQuillan

As far as I can see the Government is depending on Deputies like myself to put down motions to keep the House going.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot allow a discussion.

Mr. O'Donnell

Does it not speak very well for this Government that their legislation is accepted by the House?

Mr. Childers

Ninety per cent. of it was on the stocks in the last Government's time.

Mr. O'Donnell

Well, it is accepted. Why do you not debate it?

Mr. McQuillan

This is too bad.

Mr. Cunningham

I think the present time is a very appropriate one for this motion and I am sorry the proposer of the motion, Deputy Beirne, did not elaborate on the hardship the country is suffering due to the very severe weather.

Mr. O'Donnell

Thank God it is not due to the inter-Party Government. I thought you were going to blame us for it.

Mr. Cunningham

You can wait until you are blamed. When my Party blames you for anything you will be to blame for it.

Mr. O'Donnell

I am glad you are not blaming us for the floods, anyway.

Mr. Cunningham

If the Minister for Local Government has finished I will proceed. There are many farmers who, due to this year's severe weather, are in a very serious plight. They have seen the results of their labours done away with in very many cases and it would be up to any Government in the present year to come to the assistance of these badly-hit farmers. There was one thing that did strike me when Deputy Beirne was speaking and that was his confidence that the motion would be accepted by the Minister. I do not know why it is that he felt so confident. We agree that a reduction of rates for farmers is something that would be beneficial to the farming community. I agree thoroughly with Deputy Beirne when he says that the prices of cattle have fallen very much over the last few months. I agree also with him when he states that the drop in pig prices has caused serious losses to the small farmers. I agree, therefore, that he has made a case for a reduction or a relief of rates for farmers; that agrees with my own experience this year of the heavy losses incurred due to factors which are outside the farmers' control and I must say—agreeing with the Minister—out-side the Government's control. But there are factors operating this year which are within the Government's control. What have they done about the prices of pigs? What have they done in regard to the increase in the prices of animal feeding stuffs? This year the Government is going to save at the expenses of the farmers on the wheat subsidy, because they are allowing the prices of mill offals, bran and pollard, to skyrocket, and the purpose of allowing that is to reduce the subsidies that the Government in the coming year will have to pay for wheat. Of course, the people who will pay for the increase in the prices of these animal feeding stuffs are the farmers. That is something the Government has control over.

To get back to some of Deputy Beirne's statements—he seemed to be very confident and I wonder why? Was it that he got some inkling from the Minister that proposals in line with the terms of his motion were under consideration by the Government? He may have got the green light in that respect but even if he did not he would be justified in his bright outlook and in concluding that the present Government which includes a Minister from his own Party would look favourably on this motion because I have here some extracts from speeches made by Deputies who now form the Government. These extracts are taken from speeches by those Deputies—some of them are Ministers now—and on these alone he would be justified in expecting that the terms of his motion would be operated by the present Government.

First of all we have the Taoiseach, who was then Deputy Costello. I do not know where he spoke but he was reported by the Sligo Champion on 1st May, 1954 and his words were:

"With certain safeguards the raw materials of the agricultural industry should be freed from taxation."

One of the main raw materials of the agricultural industry is the land of Ireland, and when he said that the raw materials of the agricultural industry would be free from taxation, I took it that he meant the land of Ireland would be free from taxation.

Mr. O'Donnell

A beautiful interpretation.

Mr. Cunningham

I leave it to anybody else to put his own interpretation on it.

Mr. Coogan

A very raw one—like the raw material.

Mr. Cunningham

My next attempt may be better. It is that from the then Deputy MacEoin, the present Minister for Defence, that if Fine Gael were returned to office they would take steps to see to it that the Central Fund would undertake responsibility for all future expenditure, and for some of the existing expenditure which was at present being met by the rates. If the content of that statement were put into operation, it would help to relieve the ratepayers.

Minister for Defence (General MacEoin)

When and where?

Mr. Cunningham

The statement was reported—I do not know where it was made—in the Sligo Champion of 20/3/54. A further statement by Deputy Dillon, who, of course, is interested in the land of Ireland, and in the farmers, was: the removal of all taxes and restrictions on the raw material of agriculture. Again I take it that we are all agreed that the land of Ireland is one of the raw materials of the farming industry.

Deputy Cosgrave at Dún Laoghaire, as reported in the Irish Independent of 7/5/54, said:—

"We ask for support that taxation may be reduced, and some easement granted in the burdens which weigh so heavily on the people."

I agree that taxation weighs on city people as well as on country people, but amongst country people the main cry is the rates. I take it that Deputy Cosgrave was not catering for the palates of the city people, and that he meant and had in mind the interests of the community as a whole, and that when he referred to reduction in taxation, he was going to apply these reductions to the farmers, as well as to the city people.

Deputy Costello is reported in the Sligo Independent of 1-5-54 as saying:—

"There was no reason why taxes should not be got down while at the same time improved services were provided."

That is where I would advise Deputy Beirne to get in as quickly as he can, and to get as much as he can, because if expenditure is going to be reduced, as promised by the present Taoiseach, the first man in will be the first served, because the chances of getting rates reduced, if a wholesale slashing of expenditure is to take place, will be very slight indeed.

Another statement by the Taoiseach in his broadcast was:—

"We shall honour every commitment to the farmer and provide him with a guaranteed price for wheat during not less than five years."

With regard to the first part of that statement: "We shall honour every commitment to the farmer." I wonder if he had before him a list of the commitments which were being made in his name by Deputies up and down the country during that election campaign. They were many and varied, but they all had the same tone —"taxes can and must and will come down. We will see to that." As Deputy Childers pointed out, a statement by Deputy Donnellan, the Parliamentary Secretary, was that they would put in a Minister for Finance who would see to it that taxation would come down.

Mr. O'Donnell

And within six weeks he brought down the price of butter.

Mr. Cunningham

He did, yes.

Mr. O'Donnell

And we are still working on your Budget.

Mr. Cunningham

We will give you all the time you wish.

Mr. Childers

The cost of living index has gone up by two points.

Mr. O'Donnell

And do you blame the Government for that?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion before the House has to do with the relief of rates on agricultural land. Discussion of the cost of living is not in order.

Mr. Cunningham

I agree 100 per cent. with the Minister who says the price of butter has come down.

Mr. O'Donnell

Will you give us a little credit for it?

Mr. Cunningham

I give you full marks for that.

Mr. O'Donnell

It is very good to get that from a teacher.

Mr. Cunningham

We are awaiting patiently, because there is a whole litany of "butters" yet on the slate.

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

Does the Deputy eat any bacon?

Mr. O'Donnell

Let four months not make you impatient.

Mr. Cunningham

These are just some of the things that have influenced the proposer of this motion to adopt such an optimistic attitude. If the Minister gets up, and says that there is nothing doing, Deputy Beirne will be a very disappointed and disillusioned person to-night, and I wonder what he will have to say at his Party meeting to-morrow.

Mr. O'Hara

We will hardly have one to-morrow.

Mr. Cunningham

I am sure you do have Party meetings, and I am sure he will have a few sarcastic remarks to offer to his Minister, Deputy Blowick. I wonder what excuse the Minister for Lands will give——

Mr. Blowick

Come up and you will hear it.

Mr. Cunningham

——for not supporting this very useful relief to farmers—this very much promised relief.

Mr. Corry

You know he will vote for his Party.

Mr. Cunningham

In order to help Deputy Beirne, and in order to see to it that he will not be disillusioned, or at least that his disillusionment will, to some extent be eased, we will help him on this vote.

Mr. McQuillan

I believe that the mover of this motion, the seconder, and also the other Deputy whose name is signed on the motion itself, are serious and genuine in their efforts to improve conditions for the farming community, and as far as they are concerned, they look upon the suggestion in this motion as being the best way to accomplish that aim. So far as they are concerned, there is no specific figure asked for in this motion. The words used are that a substantial increase should be made by the Government in the present agricultural grant for the relief of rates. The word "substantial" could mean anything; each Deputy is entitled to his own interpretation of "substantial". There is no doubt that the wording of the motion leaves the Government a loophole to escape from a very embarrassing situation. It is quite easy for the Government to deny the demand made in this motion as it stands.

I am rather sorry that in the course of the discussion so much play was made of the promises from both sides in the course of the election. I feel that this discussion was not devoted to the relief of rates at all but that Deputies were relieving their own feelings over certain remarks they made in the last election campaign. I suppose it is inevitable that the different Parties should try to get as much political kudos as possible out of the efforts of their own Parties to improve conditions generally throughout the country. I was rather disappointed at the contribution of Deputy Childers when he referred to the tremendous work done by the previous Government in the field of land division, to the fact that substantial relief had been given to the small farmers and that several people had received new holdings of land from the Land Commission during the Fianna Fáil régime. Of course the situation is that the number of new economic holdings created between 1931 and 1949 was 12,000. If we compare that figure with the number of holdings established during the British régime between the years 1912 and 1919, we find that they established 50,000 holdings in that short period, so that we have nothing to crow about in connection with the relief given to the farming community in so far as holdings of land are concerned.

The motion as it stands is to my mind rather unsatisfactory. It embraces equally the really large holder in this country and puts him on the same terms and gives him the same advantages, as the small, even the uneconomic, holder. If we relate this motion to the over-all picture in this country, we shall see it would be very unjust to give the same terms and the same relief to all the different sections of the farming community. We have 380,000 agricultural holdings and of these, 280,000 are under £20 valuation. If we break that down a little further, we find that the 280,000 holdings have an average valuation of a little over £7. On the other hand, we have 11,600 holdings with an average valuation of almost £200. If we take the poor law valuation of the two groups this comparison emerges. We have 220,000 holdings of land in Ireland with a total over-all valuation of £1,900,000 and we have 11,600 holdings with an over-all valuation of £2,250,000. We have now the position that the 11,600 holdings are more valuable to the extent of half a million pounds than the land in the possession of the 220,000 other holders. Under this motion, there will be no difference whatever in connection with the two groups.

A close examination of the whole problem should be made before the Government embarks, in a blind way, on trying to help the agricultural community as a whole. If we take these holdings that I described as under £20 valuation, we find the average valuation is in the region of 6/6 per acre, whereas the average valuation in the other group of 11,600 holdings is in the region of 16/- per acre, so that each acre in the group of the higher valuations, is worth two and a half acres of the holdings that come under the £20 valuation.

On that basis, I think that it is ridiculous for Deputy Childers and other speakers to suggest that what is described as the flight from the land is a natural procedure. He suggested that what was happening here in Ireland with regard to boys and girls leaving the land was something that was happening all over the world. He pointed out that in Britain fewer people were living on the land, that more work was now being done by machinery. It is completely unrealistic to suggest that the two situations can be compared at all. In the majority of holdings, especially in western areas, which have very small valuations and very poor land, it is a matter of hard necessity. The sons and daughters of these small-holders must emigrate, and it is ridiculous to suggest——

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

Mr. McQuillan

I was saying that it is ridiculous that a Deputy, and especially a Deputy with the experience of Deputy Childers, should suggest that this driving-out of the rural population and the depriving them of the land is a natural trend, just as it is a natural trend in England and other European countries. Deputies must agree that where there are small uneconomic holdings and congestion to the extent that exists to-day it is ridiculous to talk about giving reliefs to the farming community unless we are prepared to get at the root of the trouble. The root of the trouble is mainly that of uneconomic holdings. If a practical motion was moved here which might have the effect of impelling the present Minister for Lands to get after his Department in relation to this problem of uneconomic holdings, it would have more useful consequences for the rural community than will the terms of this motion.

Apart from certain sections of the community which would benefit by this motion, we have a situation to-day wherein, if this motion is accepted, a large number of undesirable aliens who have come into this country in the last 15 years will also benefit. If money is devoted to the purposes suggested in this motion that money will be raised from taxation on the Irish people in order to help consolidate the position of the non-nationals. It should be brought home forcibly to Deputies that since 1945 we have allowed over 120,000 acres of the finest land to be sold mostly to undesirable non-nationals.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not seem to have any bearing on the motion; the motion deals with the relief of rates on agricultural land.

Mr. McQuillan

These people have purchased the agricultural land.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not discussing the people who bought these holdings. We are discussing holdings from the point of view of the relief of rates.

Mr. McQuillan

I thought it would be in order to suggest to the mover and seconder of this motion that they should ensure that any benefits which might come as a result of this motion will be reserved solely for those who are Irish nationals. They might at this stage, if it is possible, try to amend the motion to increase the rates on these undesirables instead of reducing them. That is what I want to achieve and I think I am entitled in that connection to point out that these people will benefit under this motion. It is an extraordinary situation that in the year 1947 alone the amount of money spent by non-nationals on the purchase of real estate and agricultural land——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the motion. The Deputy might attempt to discuss the motion before the House.

Mr. McQuillan

If the Chair will allow me to finish the sentence and point out——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is discussing the purchase of land by aliens, and that does not arise on this motion. I have already pointed that out to the Deputy.

Mr. McQuillan

Deputy Childers was allowed to deal at length with the subject of land division. I did not intend to speak at all on this motion until Deputy Childers intervened at such length, and if I am not to be allowed to speak——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Childers was dealing with an entirely different point.

Mr. McQuillan

I bow to the Chair's ruling. If the mover of this motion coud even at this stage suggest to the Minister that a different approach be made in relation to the way in which the relief should operate in order to ensure that the desired relief to be afforded to the agricultural community will be given mainly to the smaller farmer and to those who are working their holdings to full capacity, I would have no quarrel with the purpose of this motion. Some Deputies may suggest that a better way of helping the farming community at the present time, other than the adoption of this motion, would be to increase the moneys allocated under the Local Authorities (Works) Act and to speed up the work under the land project scheme.

I am sure that when the Minister for Local Government intervenes in this debate he will give us his views generally. If he finds that this motion in its present form does not exactly meet with his approval, then perhaps he will be able to tell us the means by which he and the Government propose to improve conditions generally for the agricultural community. As far as I am concerned, I believe that the three Deputies who tabled this motion believe sincerely that it will be of advantage to the agricultural community, which they represent, and since there is no better proposal being submitted by either the Government or the Opposition, I intend to support the motion as it stands, even though I think it could be greatly improved. At any rate this is an attempt by the three Deputies concerned, whom I shall describe as the ginger group in Clann na Talmhan, to improve the present situation. I hope their efforts will meet with success. I hope that this is only one of many attempts which will be made to ginger up the Government in relation to the importance of the agricultural community.

Mr. Corry

I support the motion because we have had even in better times than now, when the Deputies opposite were over here, complaints about the burden cast on the ratepayers. We must remember that all Governments have a little habit of slipping over on the ratepayers every new burden. Anyone who studies the Health Acts will see what has happened. Anybody who studies the rates will see what has happened. For some years past the Government has received an enormously increased revenue out of the rates. Everyone knows that a new problem has been created to-day, namely, the problem of parking the car. In Cork City the city manager has nightmares trying to find room for cars to park.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What has that to do with the relief of rates on agricultural land?

Mr. Corry

The connection is the income that the State has got out of the extra money the farmer has to find to keep the roads in proper condition for the motorist. You heard him in this House previously arguing that a thing called a petrol tax——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I hope the Deputy will not argue a petrol tax on this motion.

Mr. Corry

I am putting up the argument that this greatly increased burden of rates on the farmers during the past few years is caused by the complete change in traffic, the changeover from the horse and butt to the lorry, the necessity for bringing ordinary country roads up to a standard that will bear these loads. The State derives enormously increased revenue, amounting to some millions each year, out of petrol taxation while on the other hand the ratepayer has to find more money to maintain these roads for the motorist. Every gallon of petrol from which the State derives revenue means further deterioration of the roads. My argument is that here is a way in which that money can be put to the relief of the farmer. I hope within the next few weeks, before the debate on this motion has concluded, to have replies from the Department of Finance as to the increased income from petrol and other matters of that description, which will show why our rates are increasing year by year.

I am not dealing with this matter as a political matter. When I was on the opposite benches I argued the same thing, when we had our own Government in office. The burden of rates has become intolerable to the rural community. There is very little use in Deputy McQuillan endeavouring to divide the team. Let us get first the reduction and then let us see what we will do. We know that this year farmers have had a very trying time. Questions were asked here by Deputies on the opposite benches as to the steps the Minister for Agriculture would take to relieve the farmers who had suffered very heavy losses. Those of us who travel to Dublin by rail or road and see the harvest rotting in the fields cannot help but wonder where the rates are to come from. The burden will have to be met.

It is not the fault of the ratepayers or of their representatives on local bodies that these burdens are so heavy. They are the result of a system that has crept in where you have government by officials for officials and a complete ignoring of the elected representatives on local authorities. Yesterday I was present at a meeting on health services in Cork. I discovered that a conference had been called there of officials from the Department of Health, the county medical officers, some medical gentlemen from the voluntary hospitals and the two county managers to decide how much further the ratepayers should be bled by way of contributing to the medical profession.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Has the Minister for Local Government any responsibility in this matter?

Mr. Corry

No, Sir, he has not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should deal with the motion.

Mr. Corry

I am giving it as an instance of the way in which rates have been piled up on the community to the complete ignoring of the elected representatives that a Department of State can call a conference and ignore the local representatives. They would not even ask the chairman of the county council to attend. They would not even ask the Lord Mayor of Cork City to attend.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion before the House has nothing to do with the questions now being raised by the Deputy.

Mr. Corry

My point is that that conference was deciding an increased burden on the ratepayers of the county and city.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion before the House deals with the relief of rates on agricultural land.

Mr. Corry

Yes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see how the Health Act can be discussed on this motion.

Mr. Corry

The rates that were being increased by that conference will have to be paid by me and every other farmer.

Mr. Blowick

Did you not vote for the Health Bill? Why are you grumbling about it now?

Mr. Corry

I did not vote for the conference.

Mr. Blowick

You had corns with all the trotting you had in and out there.

Mr. Corry

I certainly did not vote for Deputy Blowick deserting his poor, unfortunate comrades.

Mr. Blowick

Keep to the Health Bill if the Chair allows it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputy Corry come to the motion before the House?

Mr. Corry

You cannot help that poor child over there. Every time I look at him I get sad.

Mr. Coogan

We will make you sorrier still.

Mr. Blowick

You got sense since the 2nd of June last.

Mr. Corry

I hope to coax Deputy Blowick back to his allegiance to the farmer.

Mr. Blowick

Tell us why you voted for the Health Bill to increase the rates.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not discussing Deputy Blowick. We are discussing the motion.

Mr. Corry

I am endeavouring to make a convert. One convert will be a good deal in this work. I want to emphasise the absolute necessity for an increased agricultural grant this year. The first condition we find is that the harvest is gone. That has been admitted on all sides of the House. Very severe losses have been suffered in the grain harvest. Farmers who grow feeding barley have had to bear a reduction in price this year which would amount to more than any grant that the State can give them to pay their rates. Farmers who were guaranteed a price of 80/- per barrel for wheat are at present getting 30/-per barrel for it, and are glad to get even 30/- for it. That is a reduction of 50/- per barrel in wheat alone, or £20 an acre of a loss to the farmer, even taking him at a ton per acre. I do not expect city Deputies to realise this and that is why I called for a quorum some time ago, in the hope that some of them would come in and we could educate them a little, but I am afraid they have all gone again.

Mr. Finucane

Would you like me to go out and bring them back?

Mr. Corry

I suggest you do. I do not want to have to ring the bell again. That is the position we find ourselves in. We have then, on top of that, a reduction in the price of cattle, and beet which last year was giving up to 18 or 19 per cent. sugar is now giving 14 or 14½ per cent.

Mr. Coogan

Blame the Government.

Mr. Corry

It is the curse of the Minister you gave us. One could expect nothing else. Take these things item by item and see the loss they mean to the farmer.

Mr. Davin

What about rabbits?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry should be allowed to make his speech without these interruptions.

Mr. Corry

I will give you every bit of it before I am finished, if I have time and if you do not interrupt me. We have these losses, loss after loss, piled on the farmer this year. Surely it is a situation in which the State should intervene and afford some relief.

Now I come to a larger project. We hear a lot of shouting about Partition and appeals made about Partition all over the country. The man across the Border pays no rates on agricultural land.

Mr. O'Donnell

It is a great pity you did not tell the former Minister that.

Mr. Corry

My tongue is almost worn away from telling every Minister of it.

Mr. O'Donnell

And they did not pay much attention to you.

Mr. Corry

My special reason for telling the Minister for Local Government about it is the fine grámhar appearance he presents over there——

Mr. O'Donnell

I am afraid I am not as soft as I look.

Mr. Corry

——and the fact that he is a Minister who, one would think, should not have to be told it as he lives on the Border and knows the difference. We are expected to produce in competition with the farmers of Northern Ireland and of Britain. The farmer in Britain pays no rates on agricultural land either.

Mr. O'Donnell

I guarantee that you will get a banner headline in the Unionist Press to-morrow for that.

Mr. Corry

I do not care if I do or not. I have one cure for those bucks. I stated it once before in the House and I was nearly killed for it. I do not want to say it again——

Mr. O'Donnell

You are getting a bit old for it now.

Mr. Corry

——but I have not changed my opinion. We see suggestions now about exporting butter and other products to the British market. How can we expect to compete with the British farmer who has no rates to pay? Are we not entitled to relief in that respect? Are we not entitled to have that burden lightened? That is all we are looking for.

I suggest that a reasonable request is being made here at a period and in a year when, no matter what side of the House we sit on, we know that farmers will find extreme difficulty in getting the money for the rates. It was only at the last meeting of our county council that we had councillors of all Parties appealing to the rate collectors to go easy in their collection of rates on account of the conditions in which the farmer finds himself. This is something which should not be looked at from any political angle at all, and, in view of the fact that the motion has been moved by Deputies on the benches opposite, I suggest that all Parties in the House should come together on this issue and show the farmer that they appreciate the effort he has made to increase production this year, and that they appreciate also the unfortunate position in which he now finds himself, due to that effort to increase production.

The Minister is a Minister to whom I give credit for having a lot of common sense, who travels the country and sees how things are, who knows that the farmers suffered a loss on their barley. Even the amount of it that was all right and cut well had to be sold at from £4 to £6 a ton less than the price they got last year. He knows that as well as I do, and he knows also that there is scarcely one farmer who can say that this year he got top price for his wheat. There is not one farmer who has not paid, on the moisture content of his wheat, what is known in my country as "Dillon's pence". That is their posi-tion—they have paid heavily and very heavily. I know one farmer not four miles from my house and the top price he got for his wheat this year was £17 per ton for the best of it. That farmer had over 27 acres of wheat and he was depending on it to pay his rates and his merchant's bill. He might succeed in paying his merchant's bill out of it, but I cannot see how he is going to succeed in paying his rates as well.

These are the difficulties in which these farmers find themselves this year and that is why I suggest that this motion should be treated, not as a motion by any particular Party, but as a motion which should be considered by all Parties, supported and acceded to, because I want to tell the Minister that, unless some steps are taken, and taken immediately, to relieve the burden on the agricultural community, farmers will not have enough next year to purchase even the seeds.

Debate adjourned.