Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Nov 1954

Vol. 147 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Agricultural Grant — Motion.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
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 Eireann 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.

I spoke on this motion last week and to-night I am anxious to bring my information up to date as far as I can. I have taken steps for that purpose and I have found a most extraordinary position, a position which to my mind offers an unanswerable case for this motion. The movers of the motion have, if anything, been too conservative in asking for a substantial increase from the Government in the present agricultural grant for the further relief of rates on agricultural land.

Now I base my claim, having dealt last week with the conditions under which the farmers and the agricultural community generally have this year to find the wherewithal to pay rates, mainly on roads which are the property of the local authority. In the utilisation of those roads the State has been enabled through the medium of taxation to collect certain revenue. I would like briefly to bring the House up to date by giving the House the benefit of the information that I received to-day. Petrol taxation in 1944-45 brought a revenue to the State of £782,907; in 1953-54 petrol taxation brought a revenue to the State of £6,820,000, an increase of over £6,000,000 on that item alone.

To-day I put down a question asking for the revenue derived from the import duties on mechanically propelled vehicles and parts thereof. I find that revenue was only £48,500 in 1944-45; this year it is £1,500,000, an increase of well over £1,000,000 of which a sum of £220,000 represents duty charged on home-made tyres and tubes. Motor taxation has gone up from £619,000 in 1944-45 to £4,402,000 in 1953-54. The total increase in these three items alone as between 1944-45 and 1953-54 is £11,243,285.

We will find now what is the effect of all that motor taxation, etc., on roads. We find that the total rates on agricultural land in 1944-45 was £4,878,000; it is now £10,380,449 so that the ratepayers paying rates on agricultural land find that their demand has gone up by £5,500,000. Remember, every gallon of petrol used, every mechanically propelled vehicle brought into the country and every single hour in which these vehicles move or work means a further deterioration of the roads at the expense of the ratepayers.

I come now to another little table. I find that in 1932-33 the contribution, the rates paid on agricultural land was only 36 per cent. of the total; the Central Fund paid 64 per cent. To-day the Central Fund only pays 47 per cent. In plain language, that increase of £11,000,000 in revenue has put a burden on the rates of over £5,000,000.

What year does the 36 per cent. represent?

I thought the Minister answered the question. It was 64 per cent. in 1932-33; it was 47 per cent. in 1953-54.

That is the year the Deputy finished up in office.

I am not worrying who is in office or who is not. Times change like the wind. The Deputy is over there to-night; he might be gone to-morrow.

Just like Deputy Corry.

We happen to be two Deputies who have had a long time here. I think Deputy Davin is a few years longer than I am in the House. Nevertheless, I have been here for 28 years and I expect to spend about 45 more, if that is any information to the Deputy.

The case I am making is that of the £11,000,000 increased revenue that the State has got from the user of the roads, it has given in the relief of rates out of that sum a total increase of £1,750,000. The State has paid back £1,750,000 increased grant against £5,500,000 paid by local authorities. The State in its present position has increased its net revenue, taking into consideration the grants given, by £9,500,000. In plain language, the Government could completely derate agricultural land out of the increased revenue the State has got, and still have a few millions left. That is the position. There is no burking it. The case I am arguing now is the case I argued when I was on the other side of the House. Governments do not matter with me. I am here as one representing those who have to pay the piper, representing the local authority who has to face this increased burden. Due to the "mechanisation age," we will call it, they have to bring the roads up to a certain standard. They do not get the increased money for that except out of the pockets of the ratepayers and the State is not contributing its share or anything like its share.

I have here a table for my own County Cork, which should bring it fairly well home to the Minister. I am sorry I have not got the figures for his county. In 1948-49, the general rates were 19/1 in the £. In 1954-55, they are 33/9. They have increased from £1,025,000 to £1,835,000 and the agricultural grant, covering the same period, in 1948-49 was £396,906, and in 1954-55, was £591,000 — a total increase of £194,000 out of an increased rate of £810,000. That is a fair comparison, and it is not anything like 46 per cent. of the increase in rates—it is not even 25 per cent. That is why I say that the Government and the Minister would be well advised to take these matters into consideration now and to give a fair increase. Who imagined that in nine years there would be an increased revenue of £6,000,000 a year from petrol alone? That is the increased revenue which has been drawn from petrol. Every gallon of petrol, from which the State draws revenue in the shape of taxes, goes to the deterioration of the roads and represents an increased liability on the local ratepayer. That is the position.

Were you not looking for more lorries last week to do more harm to the roads?

I was looking for what I need for my constituents, and I have no apology to make to anyone for looking for it and I pay for it. That is the condition of affairs. That does not excuse the Parliamentary Secretary from facing up to his responsibility in this matter, as the man on whom the local authorities are depending to make their case in the Cabinet for an increase in grant. The Parliamentary Secretary knows — we all know — that there is not a day that local authorities have not a deputation in regard to the condition of the ordinary county roads, to the effect that they are impassable, that they are unable to bear the traffic that is put on them, that they are starved for want of money. The reason they are starved for want of money is that we cannot come to those who are not responsible, who have not drawn revenue out of them, for the money. It is the State who is getting the increased revenue.

The State cannot increase its revenue by £11,000,000 odd on roads that are the property of the local authorities and say, "This is all loot. We will use it in some other way; the man who pays the rates must find the money to keep up the roads all the time." That is why I am anxious that the Parliamentary Secretary, if he is intervening in this debate, will tell us definitely whether they will give this increase in the agricultural grant or not. The unfortunate ratepayers — I dealt with this aspect of affairs last week — find themselves in the position that they cannot pay. County surveyors and deputy surveyors are putting in their demands now to keep the roads even in ordinary condition. The money is not there to meet the demands because the ratepayers cannot afford it. What can you expect to get from a man whose harvest is gone down the Shannon? Where will he find the rates this year unless he takes advantage of the loan that the Minister for Agriculture has promised him, while he is giving hard cash to the civil servants? It is a grant to them and a loan to the old farmers. Let us face these things straightforwardly.

I do not want to delay the House. I had not intended to intervene this evening but I was anxious to put the House in full possession of the fresh information that I have got. I know the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary is anxious to intervene in the debate. It is their duty to tell us how much of the extra £11,000,000 that the State is drawing in revenue will be given. I want them to justify, if they can, the withholding of that £11,000,000 from the agricultural community and the ratepayers. Let them come out and do it. At the last meeting of the local authority we had to appeal to the county rate collectors to give the agricultural community time to pay, time to find the money — money which, unfortunately, a large number of them cannot find in the circumstances. That is the position, and I would like either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to let us know definitely here how much of that £11,000,000 they will give to the relief of the ratepayer this year. I would suggest that it is high time to raise the whole proposition of a new deal in so far as the roads are concerned. It would be very much better for the ratepayer if we had the old toll-gate system on the roads rather than the present position where the State takes all and gives nothing.

I would like to intervene in this debate principally on account of the attitude of both Deputy Childers and Deputy Corry. I think the matter has gone beyond the realm of a joke.

I do not intend it as a joke. I never did and never will.

The Deputy should allow the Minister to speak.

Deputy Corry was not interrupted. I will not speak for very long. I do not think it right that a person who was a member of the Government of this country for 19 years should seek to make a joke about the question of rates or the burden on the ratepayers. I will give my reasons briefly.

At the time when Deputy Childers was a member of the Government, with Deputy Corry supporting him, a motion similar to this came up and was met with the vilest abuse from the Fianna Fáil party. I can go back to 1932 many years before I became a member of this House to quote Deputy Corry's attitude towards a motion to relieve rates. It might not be similar to the present motion so far as the wording is concerned. Deputy Childers had the brazen effrontery to admit that if they were the Government again they would oppose such a motion but for some sinister reason of his own and his Party they would support the present motion which was put down in good faith. If Deputies Childers and Corry had no better contribution to make than that it would have been much more decent for them to have remained silent. Not 12 months ago Deputy Corry, when he was sitting on this side of the House behind the then Government showed he was no cripple when he walked into the Lobby to vote every time against the farmers' interests.

On a point of order. An accusation has been made and I am asking for the quotation. We are not at the crossroads now.

Without usurping the position of the Chair, I do not think that is a point of order. If Deputy Corry wants the quotation he can go to the Library or to the Dáil Debates and there see it. He will have another opportunity of proving that what I said just now is not true. The rates in the rural districts have become a first-class problem and there is no gainsaying that. We want to saddle the right horse with the blame and that I am going to do. Long before I became a member of the Government in 1948; while I was a member of the inter-Party Government before and while in opposition during the past three years, I spoke against the policy of Fianna Fáil passing legislation imposing fresh burdens on the ratepayers.

Can Deputy Corry — he can correct me if what I was saying is wrong — point to a single Act passed by those of us on this side of the House while in Government that imposed one penny extra on the rates?

God save us! Your first job was to reduce the money for the roads by £2,000,000!

I want the Deputy to point out one single measure which we passed during our three and a half years in office which increased the rates of any county by one penny?

I will if you give me a chance.

Do not spend the night on your feet.

It will only take me a minute. Your first job was to reduce the money for the roads by £2,000,000. That was during your first year of office.

Deputy Corry seems to be concerned about the rates and the ratepayers. Incidentally, I will not dwell on the fact that Deputy Corry appointed two county managers in his own county and I am sure that will not help to keep down the rates. Deputy Corry and his Party have passed Act after Act, including the famous Health Act which is now law and which, I prophesy, will mean a burden next year of at least 3/- in the £ on the rates in most counties. If Deputy Corry and the Fianna Fáil Party were so concerned about the health of the people, why did they not pass a Health Act the cost of which would be borne out of the Central Fund? That would have been the proof of their sincerity. It is very easy to give away pounds at the other fellow's expense.

I felt I could not allow this occasion to pass without exposing the hypocrisy of at least two members on the other side of the House. I am very sorry this motion has gathered such disreputable company in its passage through this House.

Is the Deputy going to vote with or against his Party?

I realise and appreciate the motives which inspired this motion. I realise that the sponsors of this motion had the interests of the farmers of Ireland at heart when they put it down. The other day, when speaking to the motion Deputy Beirne said it was put down some considerable time ago. The motion states:—

"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."

Deputy Childers, opening for the Opposition, said he supported the motion and he gave reasons for it. He said that in their very first year of office Fianna Fáil had increased the agricultural grant. He did not tell the House that in the following year they decreased it or that a similar motion to that of the present one was put down by the then Deputy Belton and that he, Deputy Corry, opposed that motion and gave his reasons for it. It was suggested to him by Deputy Belton that at one time he was in favour of derating. Deputy Corry said that they were in favour of complete derating, but they had profited by experience. He cries out to-day for complete derating. He cries out to-day for something to be done for the farmers of this country. I think my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, gave him a very good answer. We are prepared to do something for the farmers of this country and no later than to-day we told this House what we are prepared to do. Replying to a question put down by the Deputy from Westmeath, Deputy Dillon said:—

"The Government has decided to make available interest-free loans, repayable over five years, to purchase stock, fodder or fuel, where losses in any such category have been experienced as a result of these floods.

The Irish Land Commission will, forthwith, examine the possibility of migrating such landholders in these flooded areas as may seek alternative holdings.

The Commissioners of Public Works will examine the possibility of removing obstructions in the river bed, and, in consultation with the E.S.B., will review the administration of sluice-gates on the Shannon.

Consultation with Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann is proceeding with a view to making available pressed beet pulp, for ensiling or direct feeding, at specially reduced rates.

In the meantime, the Irish Red Cross Society, at the instance of local representations, is examining the need for emergency relief measures, if and where such exist."

These are some of the things which the Government of to-day are doing for the distressed Irish farmer. I think the sponsors of this motion may take pride in the fact that they are supporting a Government which is doing these things for the unfortunate Irish farmers. Who will forget what the last inter-Party Government did for the farmers? Who will forget the land reclamation scheme and the subsidised ground limestone scheme? Who will forget the 1948 Trade Agreement whereby we guaranteed to the farmers of this country fixed prices for their cattle related to the prices across the water? You gentlemen who sponsor this motion should take pride in the fact that you supported the then Government and the Government of to-day in procuring these reliefs for the Irish farmers.

I wish to be brief. I know that other Deputies wish to speak. As the sponsors of this motion know the present Government are working on a budget, a Finance Act, which was introduced by our predecessors. Our financial resources are limited. We are endeavouring to meet the liabilities which the former Government imposed upon us. We are not shirking the payment of the debts which they left us. However, so far as the financial resources of the Government are concerned, we will endeavour to do all we possibly can for the farmers of this country. I give the sponsors of this motion the assurance that we will reexamine this position when we are in a financial position to do so and any relief we can give the farmers will be gladly given.

In the course of the debate on this very important motion we witnessed its being made the plaything of certain politicians on the Fianna Fáil side of this House.

Do not apologise.

I regret that that should be so in the case of such an important matter as this motion deals with. The sponsors of this motion are very sincere in their efforts to help our farming community in the matter of relief in rates and in any other way they can. We realise and appreciate that our farming community form the backbone of our country. We are only too conscious of the fact that our farmers are very badly hit — and it is to say the least of it, disgusting to think that any group of Deputies would indulge in the sort of tactics that were indulged in by certain Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party in regard to this motion. Some of these very Deputies represent farming constituencies. If any of their constituents had been in the public gallery and had witnessed the display that went on here, and heard those Fianna Fáil Deputies speak in the hypocritical fashion in which they spoke, I am sure they would be disgusted.

The first speaker on behalf of Fianna Fáil was Deputy Childers. He is one of the gentlemen who recently rushed down to Shannon Valley, where flooding has occurred. He pretended to be sympathetic towards the plight of the farmers there. It would be interesting to know what Deputy Childers did during his term of office in the interests of these people. He pretended to display great sympathy on his recent visit to the Shannon area and, naturally, he got quite a lot of publicity from the newspaper which backs his particular Party. However, I am sure the farmers of his area — it is pretty obvious that they are intelligent people because at no time did they give Deputy Childers a very good vote: he always got in by the skin of his teeth——

That does not arise on this motion.

Deputy Childers was elected the same as you were elected. Do not apologise.

I submit, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that I should be allowed to speak.

Then behave yourself.

Deputy Childers spoke at length on this motion and he referred to the strength of our Party in the House. I am referring to the number of votes which he was given——

Deputy Childers made no personal attack.

I do not see how that comes within the scope of this motion.

At any rate, I want to challenge Deputy Childers — a former Cabinet Minister — on what he did to relieve the situation with regard to flooding in the Shannon area when he had the power to do it. If he had done anything about it, I am sure the farmers of the Shannon area would not now find themselves in the plight they are in. We have only to read the newspapers to realise how grave the situation is. Certainly they have my sympathy — as has every farmer throughout the length and breadth of the country.

Deputy Childers came into this House and took advantage of this motion to try, as he thought, to create embarrassment and trouble among the Parties that form the inter-Party Government. If that is what he is aiming at, I can assure him that he is mistaken. I am proud to say that we in the Clann na Talmhan Party have the greatest confidence in the present Minister for Local Government — as we have confidence in the present Minister for Agriculture and in the other Ministers in the Cabinet. We considered it was advisable to table this motion to afford the House an opportunity of discussing the matter in a sensible and sincere way, to afford the Minister an opportunity of giving his views and to afford the farmers of Ireland in general an opportunity of reading in the daily papers what the various Ministers — and, on this occasion, it is the Minister for Local Government — have to say regarding their plight.

The Minister has given this House an assurance to-night that this whole matter is very much to the forefront in his mind. That, coming from a Minister of the standing of Deputy O'Donnell, the present Minister for Local Government, is something that the people will have confidence in— unlike some of his predecessors who were prepared to make every type of promise for the sake of holding power and office. Personally, I have the greatest confidence in the sincerity of the Minister and in his statement here to-night that, at the earliest possible moment, he will review this whole question and see what can be done.

I have sympathy with the Minister, too, when he states that he has taken over from another Minister and that he is operating his finances and trying to work things out as best he can. We all know that it would be impossible for the present Minister to wave a wand and remove all the headaches of the farming community in the short space of five or six months. However, when we get an assurance from a responsible Minister who, we know, is sincere and honest, that he will review the whole situation in the light of the conditions that prevail at the present time among the farming community, the Clann na Talmhan Party feels it has succeeded in focusing the attention of the present Minister and of the Government generally on a really important problem and we are satisfied that the Minister will, at the earliest possible date, as he has stated, review the whole situation and then give certain reliefs to the agricultural community.

There is another important matter that I should just like to refer to in passing. Other speakers, including Deputy Beirne who opened this debate, referred to it as well. They stated that it was the practice in recent times to shift taxation from central to local authorities. Unfortunately, that is all too true. It is true of successive Governments but certainly no Government ever achieved what Fianna Fáil achieved in that regard. I refer to the piling-up of taxation on the farming community, in particular, and to the shifting of certain taxes from the central authority to the local authority.

I do not intend to go into all the figures that Deputy Childers quoted when he was speaking. He quoted a lot of figures and, as the Minister for Local Government pointed out a while ago, he quoted certain figures that suited his own purpose; certain other figures he did not quote. It is all too true that the shifting of taxation from the Central Fund to the local councils is a regrettable trend and I would like to impress on the Minister that anything he can do while he is a Minister of this Government — I hope he will be there for quite a long time and I believe he will — to lighten the load of local taxation will be appreciated by the farming community and by any other people who may benefit.

The Minister himself comes from a rural constituency very much like mine. It is rugged and mountainous. The people who sent him here are mainly small farmers; many of them, I think, are fishermen, and the present Minister knows the conditions that exist in the country just as well as I do. He did not come from the plains of Kildare, Meath or any other county; he came from a county that is to a great extent Gaelic speaking and he is a native speaker himself, I am glad to say. He understands the problems of the ordinary small man, so I feel, having brought these matters to his notice, that when he is reviewing the whole situation at a later date he will take some steps to relieve the present plight of the people.

In listening to the Minister for Agriculture to-day and to the Minister for Local Government now on the question of certain reliefs for the Shannon area, I personally was disappointed, not disappointed because the people of the Shannon area should benefit in any way from anything the Government or the present Minister might do to relieve their situation. I am not in any way parochial-minded. Speaking in the National Parliament on a matter of this kind I realise it is our duty to cater as best we can for all sections of the community. My disappointment arose from the fact that the Minister did not seem to be specific enough. I am very much interested in a serious problem that exists in my constituency. I refer to the flooding of the River Moy which concerns a number of constituencies as well as mine. It has wreaked havoc on the farmers around the banks of the Moy. I have spoken about it before in this House, and I repeat that I was disappointed that neither the Minister for Agriculture nor the Minister for Local Government referred to the plight of the farmers in Mayo and parts of Sligo who are seriously hit by the flood damage caused by the River Moy.

I have received scores and scores of letters from farmers who complain that they have lost all their potatoes; others complain that they have lost their oats and their wheat. We are not a wheat-growing county, but the little we have we must use to the best possible advantage. It is very serious for people in areas where you have a great many uneconomic holders when they lose their crops in the way they have lost them this year. While the people I speak for are very sympathetic towards the people in the Shannon area, I feel that any benefits that may be afforded in respect of the Shannon Valley should also be afforded in areas, constituencies or counties such as I represent.

I should be obliged if the Minister could tell us briefly when I have concluded if it is proposed to do something for the people along the River Moy and, for that matter, along other rivers. I do not wish to be unfair; I do not grudge the people along the Shannon Valley anything they can get. They have been hard hit and they have my greatest sympathy. Nevertheless, I feel obliged to speak in the strongest possible terms to focus the attention of the Government on the plight of the people in my own constituency. They have suffered for years and years. On this occasion they have lost everything; many of them have lost their entire crops and they are faced with a situation where they must, in many cases, replace turf which they used as fuel. This is a county which, during the emergency produced quite a lot of turf for the national pool. Now they have lost practically all their turf. It has been carried away by the flood waters of the River Moy, and the same thing applies to their crops.

The Minister for Lands pointed out when he was speaking of the expense of implementing the health services and that the added cost to the rate-payers would be very serious. I have been addressing a number of meetings in my own constituency in recent times. When you inquire from your constituents what is their main grievance, they will ask you to try to pull down rates. They are very much alarmed at the present time because they appreciate that the introduction of certain sections of the Health Act will further increase the rates. I would ask the Minister in the light of this knowledge—I know he takes a deep interest in it—to focus his attention on the effect that this will have on poor counties like Mayo. Rates have reached such an alarming figure that in many instances you have people emigrating by the thousand. It is a common sight in my part of the county to see bus load after bus load fleeing from the Barony of Erris and even from the town of Ballina. Houses are closed up and people have gone over to England to seek employment. People are alarmed on this question of the additional cost of running the health services and I would ask the Minister to take steps at the earliest possible moment to relieve the situation.

Again I must refer to the gentlemen on the far side of the House, the Fianna Fáil Deputies who have spoken. They showed their marked sympathy to-night for the farming community. They shed tears, mar dheadh. The same thing applied when this was being debated last week. They did not shed tears when the calves were being slaughtered. I am not going into the merits of the economic war——

Surely it does not arise.

I remember the time when turkeys were sold at 4½d. a lb.

The Deputy is widening the scope of the motion.

In view of the irrelevancy that went on on the far side of the House, I thought I might be allowed to engage in a little irrelevancy myself. I think this may be relevant. They did not worry when a former Minister of State said he would take his bulldozers and tractors into the farmers' fields, that he would break down their fences.

That has nothing to do with the motion.

He said that he would fill the fields with inspectors, to compel the farmers to do certain things. I submit that has a certain bearing on this. However, if I am out of order — I thought I was fairly relevant. They also referred to election promises. Everyone knows that no group of individuals that ever went out in any country in the world was more lavish in promises about reducing rates and doing other things, than the Fianna Fáil Party in their time. I remember as a young fellow listening to them outside church gates when they denounced Fine Gael — or Cumann na nGaedheal, as the Party then was — for high taxation; but when they got control themselves they piled it on as no other Party before or since has done. Where promises are concerned, those opposite should be slow to refer to election promises. They were lavish in my own constituency and at a by-election I remember they promised a biscuit factory.

The Deputy should now come to the motion. He is wandering far from it.

The gentlemen opposite do not like to hear about the biscuit factory.

It does not arise on the motion. Might I point out to the Deputy that the proposer of the motion is entitled to 15 minutes in which to reply?

I am replying, Sir. Does that mean that I have some minutes more?

Unless you give the Minister for Local Government an opportunity to answer your questions.

It is some of the ex-Ministers who should be answering them. We have to pay for their sins.

I remember another Minister said on another occasion here, when I was listening to him, that taxation rested lightly on the land, an indication to me at the time that he had in mind some plan whereby he could impose further taxation on the farming community. It occurred to me that he had that plan but I did not hear any Fianna Fáil Deputy denouncing him then. It seems that because they had the reins of Government they were prepared to put up with any sort of treatment the Minister might wish to administer. At one time some member of that Government went so far as to suggest a cattle tax, to impose a certain levy on each beast.

£2 per head.

That is not true.

It is true. The Minister for Finance proposed it to the Government.

The very same gentlemen who now pretend they have sympathy with the farmer, who are pushed down from Dublin to Athlone pretending they have sympathy for the farmers, did not pretend it then. I say to each and every Deputy who is sincere and honest, that these people are only playing politics. It is disgusting that men elected to this Parliament should behave in such a way. They seem to forget the sacrifice made down the years by good Irishmen in order that this Parliament might be established for the betterment of the country as a whole. I suggest to them that they should take their duties and responsibilities more seriously.

The question of Government is a serious one and a good Opposition can be most helpful. An honest and sincere Opposition can offer constructive criticism to a Government and is one of the most helpful things one can have. Even the present Government does not want to tell the Irish people that all the brains are on its side. I am prepared to concede that there is a lot of intelligent and brainy men on the Fianna Fáil side, men who made sacrifices in the past and that sort of thing, but it must be humiliating to the decent men in Fianna Fáil that a handful of the calibre we had here in recent times should make cheap jibes and take advantage of the plight of the farmer to exploit that situation here for their own personal gain and also, I suppose, for Party gain. That is a disgusting state of affairs. I am sure every Minister in the present Government will at any time appreciate constructive and honest criticism. Even though the suggestions may come from a Fianna Fáil Deputy, if they are practicable and workable the present Ministers would be very glad to adopt them in the best interests of the nation.

In conclusion, I wish to thank the Minister for the kindly way he received the motion. We appreciate that, as he is a man of his word, he will at the earliest possible date get down to work on this whole question of rates as it applies to the agricultural community. We feel confident, with the assurance that he has given to-night, that he will at a later date put it into effect and we have no fear whatsoever when the Minister gives his word here — unlike some other Ministers we have had experience of in the past. We know he will do everything humanly possible to relieve these rates on the agricultural community.

I sympathise with him to this extent. I fully appreciate that he has taken over office from the Fianna Fáil Party, with all the bungling and tomfoolery that went on during the period of Fianna Fáil administration.

The Deputy is wandering again from the motion. He should keep to the motion, which deals with agricultural grants.

I was just expressing thanks for the way in which the Minister received this motion.

The Deputy can do so and still be in order.

I feel I am doing that and I feel I am dealing with this motion in a very gentlemanly way. We are quite prepared to accept the Minister's word for it, and on behalf of the movers I withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

We would like to have an answer to the question Deputy O'Hara has addressed to the Minister for Local Government as to whether the statement of the Minister for Agriculture to-day applies generally or whether the measures he outlined are merely for——

The Deputy knows exactly how he may obtain that information—by asking a question in the House.

Can you not answer it?

I do not answer for the Minister for Agriculture; I only answer for myself.

You were asked the question.

I am not the Minister for Agriculture.

Motions Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.
Top
Share