Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Dec 1948

Vol. 36 No. 3

Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1948—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Murphy)

I do not think it is necessary for me to make a very long statement on this Bill. It may be necessary to trouble the House with certain figures so that there will be a full understanding of the position arising in connection with it. For instance, in the other House, certain doubts were expressed as to whether this measure was, in fact, continuing the provisions in previous Acts. We are advised that the operation of the 1946 Act is being definitely extended in this measure. The earlier Acts dealing with the payment of the agricultural grant, and regulating the basis of its distribution, go back to the Local Government Act of 1898. Senators familiar with the earlier history of this matter will know that at first there was a fixed amount. It was originally fixed at £599,011 and remained unaltered until 1925. From 1925 on, various Acts which were passed varied the amount of the grant. That was the position from 1925 until 1946. For example, in 1936 the amount of the grant was fixed at £1,870,000. This figure obtained until 1946. In that year the Act which was passed increased the grant substantially and made a fundamental change, the change being that a fixed amount was no longer provided. Provision was made for certain reliefs on a fixed basis.

The first of these was a primary allowance at the rate of 3/5th of the general rate on land valuations not exceeding £20 and the first £20 of higher valuations; secondly, a supplementary allowance of 1/5th of the general rate on the whole of the land valuation above £20; and thirdly, an employment allowance calculated at the rate of 10/-in the £ on the land valuation above £20 subject to the limitation of £6 10s. 0d. for each man at work. The position has since continued on that new basis. The 1946 Act applied to the two financial years—31st March, 1947 and 1948. The Act was also applied to the present financial year by the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1947, which was passed this time last year.

I understand that there was an intention during the lifetime of the previous Administration to make a change in the matter of the employment allowance after the 31st March, 1948. In fact, that was fairly clearly indicated in the Budget statement of the Minister for Finance in 1946. It was eventually decided to continue the allowance, and provision was made accordingly in the Bill which continues the operation of the scheme up to the 31st March, 1949. Roughly, the position therefore is that the fixed amount having disappeared, certain variable amounts have been substituted for it. That is related to the actual amount of rates struck by the local authority and varies accordingly.

I feel that a number of questions could be raised on this Bill affecting the whole position of local taxation. I have a recollection of such discussions in the other House, and I am aware that it opens up the prospect of a general discussion on the question of local taxation. In the other House, I pointed out that opportunities would be afforded for discussions of that kind on motions which appear on the Dáil Order Paper. I would like to ask, as far as I can, the indulgence of Senators on that particular matter. This is, of course, a temporary Bill. Neither do I feel confident or ready to discuss in any broad general way the whole question of the agricultural industry which, to some extent, is linked up with this matter of rates on agricultural land. I do not think that at this stage there is anything further I need say. If there are any points that I have not made clear or any information which members of the House think I can give them, I shall be happy to do so before the debate concludes.

Mr. Hawkins

As the Minister has very wisely pointed out, this is a Bill which could provide a very wide field for discussion if we were not inclined to confine ourselves to the provisions contained in it. The question of rates, and the relief of rates, is one which affects the vast majority of the people in urban and rural Ireland. At the present time—and I suppose we may expect the tendency to continue for some years to come—an increase in rates is to be observed in the case of every county and under every local authority. As the Minister has pointed out this Bill proposes to give certain reliefs in the matter of rates to the agricultural community. There is the primary allowance at the rate of 3/5ths of the general rate on land valuations not exceeding £20 and the first £20 of higher valuations. There is a supplementary allowance of 1/5th of the general rate on the whole of the land valuation above £20. Part III of the Bill is the part to which I desire to direct the Minister's particular attention, because I think it is the one that is most important. There is then the employment allowance calculated at the rate of 10/- in the £ on the land valuation above £20 subject to the limitation of £6 10s. 0d. for each man at work. What that allowance means is this that we are giving a rebate up to a maximum of £6 10s. 0d. on every agricultural holding for each man employed there. I have had complaints that while that is the general principle there are certain flaws which nullify the effect of the provision. In order to benefit under it a man must be employed on a holding for a complete year. For example, if for any reason an employer has to change his employee, or if the employee, for some good reason decides to change his employer during the year, then the employer will not get the £6 10s. 0d. relief in respect of that man.

A particular set of circumstances existed at the time the 1946 Act was passed. I am sure many Senators will agree with me that conditions have changed since then and not for the better. While the relief of rates on agricultural land might be regarded as generous at that time, it is not so now due to the changed conditions. We are aware that after the 1st of January, agricultural wages, for example, will be increased and that it will then be obligatory on a farmer to give his employee not only holidays with pay but a half holiday as well.

We have increased rates throughout the country, increased demands for public health services, and increased wages for local authorities' staffs. This general rise in rates eventually will bring about a rise in the cost of living; so what was generous in 1946 is not going to be of such great benefit to the farmers in 1949, for whom this Bill makes provision.

The Minister said in the Dáil, as he said here to-night, that when this relief of agricultural rates was first introduced it was for £599,000. It is proposed to spend in the region of £3,600,000 in the current year. While that may seem to be a considerable sum, we have a figure given by the Minister for Agriculture in the Dáil that the increase in agricultural wages is going to place a burden of some additional £6,000,000 on the farmers. While the giving of a grant of £3,000,000 might be generous in 1946, the Minister should consider making this Bill more generous. He has informed this House and the Dáil that this is a temporary measure and that the whole question of rates and its relation to social activities and the maintenance of our institutions is under active consideration.

We have had in the past many proposals for complete derating and a commission sat to examine this question and turned it down. In recent weeks and months we have a tendency, deplored many times, of adding on to the local authorities the carrying out of functions and services that should be carried out by payments from the Central Funds. We had first placed on them the responsibility of giving supplementary assistance, 75 per cent. of which was borne by the Central Fund previous to the Order made by the Minister for Social Welfare. We made provision last year that the extra cost of health services would be borne by the Central Fund until the Central Fund would be contributing 50 per cent. of the total cost. Quite recently, I have seen in the local Press throughout the country where applications for wages increases are being made and the Minister for Health and the Minister for Local Government himself have sanctioned them, on one condition —that the local authority be prepared to bear the additional cost on the rates. I have an idea that that is not strictly in accordance with the terms of the Public Health Acts.

However, that is a matter for local authorities themselves to take up later on. I would ask the Minister particularly to consider the grievances of employers where they are not given an opportunity of benefiting under this Bill because the employment is broken for any particular period. You must have an employee for the whole period of 12 months or you are not entitled to benefit and that is one of the grievances. The Minister should increase the employment allowance, as the sum it will take will be very small. If the present policy is continued much longer, the number employed by farmers will be so small that there will be very little use for this third section to the Bill at all.

Professor O'Brien

Arising out of Senator Hawkins' plea for additional grants in aid of agricultural rates, I was a member of the commission to which he referred, in 1931, the Derating Commission, when the whole subject matter was considered carefully in the light of the then recent English derating of agricultural land where the circumstances were entirely different from ours. That commission reported against the general derating of agricultural land on the grounds that the real relief granted to agriculture would not be as great as was popularly supposed. Before we can really measure accurately the effect of derating or agricultural grants, we need far more statistics regarding agricultural costings than we have at present. The Department of Agriculture has always been rather slow to engage on agricultural costings. That may not be exactly relevant to the present measure, but I throw out the suggestion that the correct and scientific investigation of rating problems is quite impossible in the absence of more agricultural statistics.

The 1931 Commission came to the conclusion that the rates actually formed a smaller percentage of total costs than appears to farmers' imagination. They further recommended against complete derating on the ground that the money which would be necessary for the additional agricultural grants would have to be found either by the non-agricultural population, which was already very heavily taxed, or by taxes which ultimately would fall on the shoulders of the farmers themselves. The difficulty here, unlike England, is that the greater part of the population is engaged in agriculture, directly or indirectly, and, therefore, the taxes necessary for the additional grants must fall ultimately on the farmers themselves and the apparent relief would really be illusory.

Since that date in 1931—not that I am in any way opposed to reducing taxation on agriculture, but I am opposed to reducing it at a time when other sections of the population have much stronger claims to relief, if relief can be given—the situation has changed in favour of agriculture in two respects. In the first place, as the Minister said this evening, and the detailed figures are given in the Dáil Report for Thursday, 9th December last—the actual amount of money available for the agricultural grant has been very substantially increased since 1931. To that extent, the recommendations of the commission have been disregarded. Secondly, the agricultural income of the country has greatly risen, owing to the rise in agricultural prices. Since 1939, agricultural prices have doubled. As Deputy Childers pointed out in the Dáil last week, as given in column 1282 of the 9th December, in 1938 the rates on agricultural land were roughly 5.6 per cent. of the agricultural income; in 1947 they were only 3.2 per cent; in other words, the rates had not risen as rapidly as the money income of the farmers.

I do not want to oppose any reduction of taxation on any section of the community. My reason for intervening is that the figures in the Derating Commission Report suggested that in 1931 farmers, far from being more heavily taxed than other members of the community, were less heavily taxed and that the urban members of the Irish community were paying a disproportionately large share of taxation. Those figures are to be found in the Report and Appendices. If that was true then, it is even more true to-day, because the whole course of events since then, especially since the beginning of the war, has been in favour of the agricultural population and against people with fixed incomes in towns. If the farmers were favourably situated, as the Derating Commission suggested in 1931, in relation to people in towns, the whole course of events since then has made them even more favourably situated to-day.

While I should like to see farmers getting additional relief from rates, I should like to see everybody who is suffering from taxation getting relief. Inside the narrow limits of the Bill I suggest that, before any relief is given to farmers by way of agricultural grants, the salaried classes in the towns have a very much more cogent claim for relief. They have suffered from a steep rise in income-tax, a form of taxation which, for the most part, farmers do not pay at all. They have also suffered from a very steep rise in the cost of living and, in very few cases, has that rise been matched by advances in income, while there has also been a steep rise in rates for which they get no assistance. I intervened in this debate to point out the difficulties of a section of the population which I regard as having a prior claim for consideration in any relief that the Government may give.

Mr. Baxter

As it does not matter on what side of the House one sits in a debate like this, one has to express one's views accordingly. I was impressed by Senator Hawkins's remarks and had a feeling that had such statements as he expressed been made when he was on this side of the House we, when on the opposite side, would have been in a much stronger position. That may seem a complicated comparison but it is a fact. The truth is that the inheritance of the present Minister for Local Government was built up by Senator Hawkins and members of his Party.

Mr. Hawkins

We helped to pull down rates.

Mr. Baxter

The fact is that any Senator from the provinces who casts his mind back over the last eight or nine years must admit that rates then were about 10/- in the £ less than they are to-day. Many extra charges were heaped on local authorities in these years. For instance, we had to contribute towards the purchase of boots for children of neighbours, some of whom were in a better position to purchase boots than those who had to contribute to that charge.

Senator Hawkins made a number of intelligent suggestions. The truth is that the present Minister will be confronted with demands for concessions from the agricultural community that they have never yet been able to wring from any Minister for Local Government or Minister for Finance towards the relief of rates. Rates and other demands on farmers are mounting. In my view farmers' incomes here and in every other country have reached their peak and, probably, have passed the peak. It does not matter what Party is in power. We have come to the point when there is a decline in farmers' incomes. A well known American economist has expressed the view that farming incomes in the United States may be cut by 20 per cent. A situation like that will have to be faced by the Minister and his colleagues. The present burden of rates is beyond the ability of farmers to carry on their incomes.

In reference to Senator O'Brien's remarks I find a difficulty in dealing with them. The Senator has a trained mind and has all his life been making a study of economics, not only as they affect agriculture but the nation's business as a whole. I was a member of the commission to which the Senator referred, that considered the derating problem. It is true that the commission as a whole was not prepared to recommend complete derating, but the Senator will admit that even on the commission there was a distinct break, and that there was different reports. The Government of the day did something in between, and made concessions approximating more closely to the view of the country members of the commission.

In 1938 the proportion of the agricultural income spent on rates amounted to 5.6 per cent. of the total income and in 1947 that percentage had fallen to 3.2 per cent. I have not come armed with statistics, and I cannot remember the figures, but I suggest that they require closer examination. Out of the total agricultural income in 1947 the proportion spent on rates was 3.2 per cent. but the proportion of income retained by farmers in that year was considerably less than the proportion they retained in 1938. If the question is examined it will be found that the amount spent on wages is now a very much larger proportion than it was previously and that, as a consequence farmers have much less money on hands.

Before making a comparison regarding relief for farmers and for the salaried classes, I would want to have statistics relating to our total national income. If I had these statistics, I think I could prove to the satisfaction of the House, and even of Senator O'Brien, that the salaried classes in town enjoy a much higher proportion of the national income than farmers, in proportion to what they produce. The vast bulk of the people in the towns and cities are non-producers. If they are to be entitled to the same measure of relief out of national taxation as essential producers lay claim to, I do not think, in equity, that that could be justified. As members of county councils having to deal with local administration know, the whole question of local taxation arises. There are more claims for mental hospitals, for roads, and even for the manning of local institutions since the introduction of the County Management Act. I wish that some member of a county council would examine the increase that has taken place in administration costs at the centre under the County Management Act, and make a comparison with the cost before the introduction of that Act.

Mr. Fitzsimons

The Senator cannot assert that the County Management Act was responsible.

Mr. Baxter

If any Senator, who is a member of a local authority, examines the cost of administration at the central offices of county councils, and makes a comparison with what the cost was before the introduction of that Act, he will find that there has been an immense increase.

Mr. Fitzsimons

You will find it in your own home. You will find it in my home.

Mr. Baxter

Oh yes, but that is to a very great extent due to the fact that the local people have lost control.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I do not agree at all.

Mr. Baxter

They had no responsibility to say who should be employed, how many should be employed, what they should be paid, or anything else. These developments over a long period of years have presented us with a situation to-day which is really very difficult and financially is getting almost beyond our control. I am very largely in agreement with Senator Hawkins in many of the points he makes. The fact is, of course, that he is a convert, because he has gone over to that side of the House. The facts remain and have to be faced by the Minister. I know people of the point of view of Senator Professor George O'Brien are reluctant to yield to the agricultural community the claim they make for relief in local taxation, but I would ask Senators to consider the increase in all these charges over the years and would suggest to Senator O'Brien that it would be a very interesting study to examine the maintenance of roads, the maintenance of our public institutions, and see the immense increase in the cost of upkeep compared with the time when we made that report, to consider the agricultural income and the national income; the proportion of national income that the farmers get; sub-divide it again between the farmers and the people who work for them, and see what resources they have to bear these burdens.

That is an aspect of our policy with regard to the relief of rates, in so far as it concerns the Minister for Local Government, which must be faced. It has to be faced scientifically, not, as heretofore, by rule of thumb method, determining a certain amount to-day and a different amount to-morrow, so that you do not know whether you are going to get it or not. We did not know at the beginning of this year before the elections whether there would be any relief or not and, whatever the Minister is going to do now, I suggest that he and his colleagues will have to face up to this situation, as will the whole country. My opinion about it is that the urban community and the people who are not in possession of land are not making the contribution to the maintenance of these institutions and local services that they ought, in equity, be compelled to make.

Mr. Duffy

The enactment of the Republic of Ireland Bill has had immediate results here. We find Senator Baxter and Senator Hawkins on one word in relation to the relief of rates on agriculture—the first time that it has happened during the long years that this House has been in existence. I am sure Senator Bigger feels more happy now than he did on the last occasion about the effects of the Republic of Ireland Bill.

Mr. Baxter

The guns are out of politics, so to speak.

Mr. Duffy

Never mind the guns. We will deal with the rates.

An Cathaoirleach

That is what the Chair would like.

Mr. Duffy

The question that has eluded me is the effect which this Bill has on the ordinary farmer. I have no idea, and I have never been able to find out, what the farmer gets out of this Bill. Judging by Senator Baxter, he is getting nothing out of it. Senator Hawkins takes much the same view, and the contribution of Senator O'Brien was not helpful from the point of view of telling me what we are giving the farmer. I have been calculating, however—I may be entirely wrong— that if the farmer is getting a remission equal to three-fifths of his rates, it means that out of £10 there is a remission of £6. In other words, the farmer is paying £4 where otherwise he would be paying £6, if it were not for this Bill or a Bill like it. I think there are other reliefs. I do not know whether the gentleman with the £10, for instance, would also get a supplementary allowance. He probably would, at any rate in certain circumstances, get relief in respect of employed labour, but the thing that I am at sea about is the total contribution which we are making out of public funds, the contribution which is being made by the taxpayer, including the farmer himself, of course, to the farming community, under this Bill. That ought to be cleared up, if it can be cleared up, but, from what has been said by different speakers, it is not at all easy to make that calculation. At one stage it was a simple thing, but nowadays, apparently, with the three headings under which calculations are made, I imagine each farmer is a unit and it would be very difficult to tell me what the Bill means in pounds, shillings and pence.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Murphy)

Is it the total figures the Senator requires? I can give the total figures.

Mr. Duffy

Yes.

Mr. Murphy

The total figure for the year 1948-9 is estimated to be £3,613,842 and it might be useful if I were to give the figures for the years 1946-47 and 1947-48 also. For 1946-47, the total was £2,910,378. For 1947-48, £3,175,726. I can give the figures in regard to the various reliefs, primary, supplementary, employment and urban, if the Senator wants them.

Mr. Duffy

No.

Mr. Baxter

What is the total of rates for these three years?

Mr. Murphy

The total rate on lands would be something over £7,000,000 were it not for these reliefs.

Mr. Duffy

I take it, therefore, that the figure which has been mentioned by the Minister for 1947-48 the last local government financial year, of £3,175,000 odd means somewhere in the neighbourhood of £9 per farm, that is to say £9 on an average for the small farmer and the big farmer. It means that the small farmer is getting very little, but that the big farmer is getting a very substantial sum. I suggest to Senator Baxter that that is one of the difficulties of this matter; farms are not all the one size; we have big farmers and small farmers; there are very wealthy people in the farming community, but there are also very poor people in the farming community. What I feel is that the whole principle of giving relief of rates on any system which has been adopted up to the present has the effect of giving to the farmer with 1,000 acres a very substantial relief indeed, and to the man on the bogs of Connacht with ten or 15 acres and a poor law valuation of a couple of shillings an acre, very little. That is one of the things we must keep in mind. I take it that some Senators will tell us what is wrong with my argument, and I suggest that it is something to argue about. The system enshrined in this Bill is a device by which a certain proportion of the local charges are transferred from the agricultural community to the general taxpayer. There can be no doubt about that. The £3,175,000 provided for the relief of rates on agricultural land last year came out of general taxation, and was used by the State via the local authorities to reduce the charges which local authorities were levying on the occupiers of agricultural land. The amount of relief calculated according to the principles set out in this Bill comes from the general taxpayer. I do not know whether Senator Baxter and Senator Hawkins see any virtue in transferring more and more of the local charges from the ratepayer to the taxpayer.

We had a discussion on this matter in this House about three years ago, and I remember making the point in relation to the Mental Treatment Bill. I may be wrong, but as far as my recollection serves me, I made the suggestion that it was unwise to keep pressing that more and more of the charges in respect of local administration be transferred from the ratepayer to the taxpayer. I qualified it by pointing out that the taxing system for local authority purposes was unfair and inequitable. But in the meantime I pointed out—and repeat now—if you are going to transfer charges, more and more of the cost of roads, more and more of the cost of hospitals, more and more of the cost of nurses, doctors, engineers and veterinary surgeons, or anything else from the ratepayer to the taxpayer, you will let the man who is comparatively well off get away with less and less rates, while you are imposing the cost of administration on the poor people who consume tea, sugar, clothing or any of the other things that are taxed. On that occasion Dr. Ward, who was then Parliamentary Secretary, entirely agreed with me and said that he had thought of it before I had.

We need not quarrel with that, however, but we do need to keep in mind that if we are going to take £3,000,000 off the local rates, we are imposing that sum as a charge somewhere else. Where are we going to get it? From the taxation we levy on cigarettes, shoes and so on. If that is the remedy, all right, but let us recognise it and not fool the small farmer or the big farmer that we are giving him something for nothing, a relief of the rates, a grant from the Government, and tell him that the Government have presumably got the money from heaven, so that they need not tax anybody. The people who are giving these allowances do not tell the farmer that, while he is getting relief as a ratepayer, he is paying more as a taxpayer in order to relieve himself. The small farmer pays more indirect taxation because the unfortunate man has to buy more consumable goods. He will use more consumable goods than the wealthy farmer because he has little choice except to use consumable goods that bear taxation.

When Senator Baxter and Senator Hawkins were talking, it occurred to me that certain charges were borne by the rates which should I think never have been charged on the rates at all, for example that substantial sum of £300,000 a year which is paid by the ratepayers to the Central Fund under the Unemployment Assistance Act. I thought that was a most foolish enactment in 1933 when it was first brought in and I thought it was worse when it was raised from £250,000 to £300,000. It is one way of kidding the public. The public are not told how much the unemployment assistance is because it is paid partly by the ratepayers. This relief of rates is only for one class, the occupiers of agricultural land, but there are something like 90,000 agricultural labourers paying rates in rural Ireland. They are getting nothing of this relief but are paying more taxation on cigarettes and tobacco and even on the despised pint—because farm labourers consume an occasional pint on a Saturday night. They have to pay for these grants in relief of the rates to farmers, but what about blacksmiths, shoemakers and various tradesmen in the country?

Captain Orpen

He has no land.

Mr. Duffy

Of course he has no land, but he must pay rates on his house and if there are small rates on his house it is a measure of his poverty. A shoemaker would live in a mansion if he could afford it, but he usually lives in a broken down shed because he cannot afford anything else. If people in this House would only look at the facts in this country without bias in favour of their own interests we would have a more easy appreciation of what is involved here. If we can have this matter discussed, as I hope we will, without any tinge of politics, now that the Republic of Ireland Bill has gone, we will probably find a new alignment by which people who are in favour of placing taxation where it can be borne will stand face to face with those who want to put taxation on the poor and weak in order to relieve those who are better off.

That at least will be a very satisfactory development when it takes place, as I hope it will. I do not want to be misinterpreted later on—whether it is germane to the Bill or not I do not know—but I want to say that I think the system of levying taxation for local authority purposes is an entirely wrong system. It seems to me that much as we dislike the system by which we collect income-tax it is a far better system than the system of levying rates on poor law valuation, in other words collecting from those who can afford to pay rather than imposing taxation on people who cannot afford to pay. I have seen people in the County of Dublin evicted from their homes because they could not pay the rates and then the Balrothery Board of Assistance, operating on moneys provided for them by the county council, maintains these families in the Dublin Union. It is a monstrous system, but so long as we keep, each of us, trying to get a slice for the fellow we are interested in and ignore the system, that will go on and these tragedies will occur.

An Cathaoirleach

That system is not before the House at the moment.

Mr. Duffy

I agree, but I do not think we can disentangle it from the claims of Senator Baxter and Senator Hawkins for greater relief under this Bill.

Captain Orpen

Are we not discussing the relief of rates on agricultural land, and not on house property?

Mr. Duffy

The Chair has already drawn my attention to the fact and I do not intend to trespass further, but I do think it is rather difficult to talk about relieving rates on agricultural land without inquiring where we are to get the wherewithal to grant relief.

Mr. Baxter

The Minister gave us the amount given in relief of rates for three years. I should like to ask if he could give us the total amount levied for these three years?

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister will probably give it in his reply.

Mr. Bennett

I did not think we could have had so many fallacies introduced as we have had in the short discussion that has taken place. Senator O'Brien, for whom I have very great respect, based his argument primarily on statistics, but, as Senator Baxter forcibly pointed out, these statistics might be very misleading. For instance, he compared the 1938 figure of 5.6 per cent. of the agricultural income with the percentage of 3.2 in 1947, but that does not at all mean that the farmer was better off in 1947 than in 1938. As has been said, you can prove anything by statistics, and Senator O'Brien's statistics in that respect would be very misleading. For instance, the 1947 statistics represented the inflated prices of the war period, while the 1938 statistics relate to the very small prices the farmer got pre-war. The House will readily understand it if I compare the man who purchased goods at £2 and sold at £3 with the man who, ten years after, purchases goods at £9 and sells at £11. The margin of profit of the first man might be much greater than that of the second.

Mr. Duffy

But the percentage does not alter.

Mr. Bennett

It does. The agricultural income is represented by very many Senators, and I think that Senator O'Brien fell into the trap himself, as the price which can be computed as the price which the agriculturist gets for his goods. That is generally what is assumed to be the agricultural income, but it is an altogether fallacious argument. I was more impressed by the other suggestion which Senator O'Brien made when he asked for a system of costings before we relate anything in regard to agriculture. In the other House, I pressed for that for the past 20 years and we have not got it yet.

Senator Duffy made a much more fallacious statement. Senator O'Brien was only fallacious because his was a misrepresentation in reality, although accurate in figures. Senator Duffy's statement was altogether misleading because he said that the small farmer got practically no relief while the large farmer got tremendous relief. As a matter of fact, what happens under the Act is the very opposite. The small farmer gets everything and the large farmer nothing, or a very small amount.

The Senator has not studied the Act at all and has not taken any particular care to find out what happens. What happens is that the primary relief of the small farmer is three-fifths of the first £20, and, to the ordinary small farmer, the first £20 means practically all and, in some cases, all his rate. The first £20 of the large farmer's rate might be anything. He might be a man with a 1,000, 500 or 200 acres and his proportion of relief is much less than the small farmer's. That is the danger of Senators stepping in and talking about something they do not understand.

The Minister asked for our indulgence in this matter and I was prepared to give him every indulgence because I think another occasion would be more appropriate for discussing this matter. Any Senator who desired to go properly into this matter would need to deal with it for threequarters of an hour or an hour and I do not intend to take up the time of the House to that extent. The history of rate relief—I am older than most Senators here, but there are some Senators who ought to remember it—is that the landlord ceased to exist and he, before 1898, was paying a certain portion of the county rates—what was called the county cess. He was relieved of that and the British Government stepped in by way of an agricultural grant and paid to the local rates what the landlord had hitherto paid. That was what instituted all this matter of agricultural rates relief. What was a fair proportion of the agricultural rate to give by way of agricultural grant in 1898, as every Senator, including Senator O'Brien and Senator Duffy, will agree, would not be at all a fair proportion in 1948, 50 years after. I merely want to draw the Senator's attention to where the argument could begin and end. Since the British first instituted the principle of giving back to the farmer what the landlord hitherto paid, one hundred and one changes have taken place.

There were one or two matters that I had intended to speak on before the scope of the discussion became enlarged. May I say that when I was a member of the other House I always made it a point to object, root and branch, to the manner in which this grant is administered. I have always held that its distribution is altogether inequitable. Senator Duffy said that the relief given to the small farmer is much less than that given to the large farmer. As a matter of fact, it was the other way round.

The large farmer gets practically no relief on the amount of rates he pays. Senator Duffy also made the point that income-tax would probably be a fairer way of getting money out of a person than through the payment of rates. I would ask the Senator to remember that the large farmer does pay income-tax, if he has an income. I happen to be one of those who is in that unfortunate category. The Senator can relieve himself of the thought that the large farmer does not pay income-tax. I can assure him that he has that additional burden to bear. Senator Duffy seems to think that nobody but himself has any interest in the small farmer.

Mr. Duffy

I said nothing which would create that impression.

Mr. Bennett

One would think, listening to the Senator, that we had no consideration for anybody except the large farmer. I have a good deal more sympathy for the small farmer than I have for the large farmer, and I hope that some day in this House we shall have an opportunity of discussing this question fully, and that it will be possible for us to make our case in a more general way than it is now.

There are two points which I would ask the Minister to take a note of: in the first place, I object to the manner in which the distribution of the grant is made because, in my opinion, it is not on an equitable basis. It is altogether erroneous, so far as this country is concerned, to have the distribution on a valuation basis. We all know that Griffith's valuation was made over 100 years ago. The valuations in the County Limerick are very high, while in the County Mayo and other counties they are very low. The same is true of certain counties. In one part of a county you may find a farmer with 20 acres having a very high valuation, while in another part of it a man with 20 acres may have no valuation at all. I could give many instances of that, even in my own county, without making any comparison at all between it and a county like Meath. The principle of allocating this relief on a valuation basis is wrong.

My other point is with regard to the employment allowance. In the dairying district, comprising my own county, with the County Tipperary and parts of the County Cork, the milkers employed are, to a large extent, women. For 20 years in the other House I spoke strongly in favour of having this employment relief extended to include women workers. I see no reason in equity why that should not be done. The Revenue Commissioners at one time tried to ram it down my throat—they afterwards had to retract the suggestion—that there was a differentiation in the wages paid to women workers and men. There is not. The women in my county who are employed milking cows get the same wages as the men, and in some cases they get more. No case whatever can be made for this differentiation. It is very unfair to the farmers in the dairying area that I speak of who are endeavouring to carry on that important branch of the agricultural industry, a branch that, at the moment, is probably paying less than any other in the industry. I hope that we shall have an opportunity of discussing this whole matter at some early date.

Captain Orpen

There are one or two points that I would like to deal with on the very big subject which this Bill opens up for discussion. I should like to point out to Senators who may not have devoted much attention to this subject that what bears heaviest on most farmers, so far as rates on land are concerned, is that the rate is a first charge on gross income. It has to be paid, whether any profits are made or not. If we could have arrived at an alternative method whereby the necessary funds were collected out of profits, it would be much more satisfactory.

I am quite in agreement with Senator Hawkins in regard to the anomaly that arises in respect of reliefs for male employment. If a male worker does not appear on the return for the whole year, there is no allowance paid. Very often it happens that it is not the employer who has got rid of the employee. It is that the employee has gone off and sought work elsewhere. The result is that there is no abatement by way of relief of rates in respect of that employment. I would like to say to Senator O'Brien that I do not think the derating commission really understood the chief objection on the part of farmers to the burden of paying rates. It is not so much a question of the amount as the fact that they have to find this money, whether it is earned or not. That is the real kernel of the farmer's difficulty. Some years he is able to do so; in other years he is not. There is one point that I would like to get clear from the Minister's statement. If there were no allowances under this Bill the total rates would amount to approximately £7,000,000. The allowances come to about £3,000,000.

Mr. Murphy

£3,600,000.

Captain Orpen

Therefore, presumably the land is paying £3,500,000 roughly as a contribution.

Mr. Duffy

Can you say what the £7,000,000 is related to?

Captain Orpen

That is the hypothetical figure that would be collected from farmers to-day in respect of rates on agricultural land had there been no reliefs.

Mr. Duffy

50 per cent. relief.

Captain Orpen

I do not think that to say 50 per cent. relief is the correct way of looking at it at all. The rate paid is a certain complicated fraction of the poor law valuation of the land. We will not go into details. It is a complicated method which reduces the proportion the small man pays and leaves the larger man less affected.

It does not mean that the farming community should have paid £7,000,000 rates. These abatements have been existing—going back to 1926, I think— when the first one came in, because it was felt that the method of collecting rates in this manner was not altogether equitable; and so a system has grown up of relief. That is the way I look at it. Regarding the £7,000,000 that it would have been to-day had there been no relief, the corresponding figure to this £7,000,000 was never collected. The total amount was never collected. There has been a varying system of relief. The question remains whether, with the great increase of the rate, some further relief may become necessary. That is a matter that could be debated at some other time. We have this anomaly of broken employment, and if the Minister could devise a system by which rates could be collected rather from profits than from gross receipts, it would be an enormous step in the right direction.

Mr. O'Dwyer

I agree with the two previous speakers. On the question of relief for employment, I would like to point out that the dairying counties have a particular grievance. It has been the custom always that men were employed for a period of 11 months and they remained idle during the other month and drew unemployment assistance, but the farmer is not allowed for that system now because under the regulations he would have to have them employed for 12 months to get relief. It would be very desirable if a change could be made. The dairying industry is a very important one at the present time and it is hard to keep it going. Also, women employees should be included in the allowance. It would be much better if the relief were given on the total amount of wages paid, instead of on the period of employment. It would be worth considering, in any case.

Regarding increasing the rates, whether the general cost of poor law should be borne by the urban or rural population, I would say the Minister is in a position to judge that. I understand he has been around to several county council districts and will have seen the general condition of the country—the tumble-down houses, the derelict sites and the general air of poverty. Coming back to Dublin, he will be faced with a sea of unparalleled luxury and extravagance. The wealth of the country seems to be in the cities. The salaried classes may not be well off, but some class is, in some way, able to provide motor cars and picture houses.

Mr. Duffy

There are a lot of people without shoes, too.

Mr. O'Dwyer

There may be, but whatever wealth is distributed is in the cities, and the country is not able to carry the burden. The past year has been the best for the past ten years, but we know that in agriculture, more than in any other industry, the price of the produce has always been very low. The income from farming has been low in this and every other country. We know from experience that the wartime boom does not last very long and may not be expected to last, but the expenses and charges, causing increases in the rates, will probably remain in great part. I ask the Minister to take seriously that there is a point beyond which the rates cannot rise in proportion to the income of the country. He should be careful not to exceed that point, as, if so, the country could not carry it and it will mean a break. If the present rates had been in existence three years ago it would have been impossible to meet them. The good year has, to some extent, enabled them to meet the higher rate. The tendency seems to be, now and for some time back, to throw a lot of additional charges on the county rates. The general cost of living will increase it also. That cannot go beyond a certain point and the Minister must bear in mind that the country cannot bear a great increase in rates. This House and the other House should realise that before great harm is done.

Mr. R.M. Burke

Many very useful suggestions, I believe, have been put forward this evening but there is one point which seems to have been overlooked by a good many speakers. It is that when we speak of reducing the rates payable by the rural or agricultural community, many people seem to assume that that must necessarily impose a heavier burden of rates on the whole urban community. In other words, people are inclined to refer to the whole urban community as one unit as if they were all the same type of people. It is extremely important that we should distinguish between the wealthier sections of the urban community and the poorer sections. As Senator Duffy pointed out, there are very poor people who have not agricultural land and who pay a large amount of rates in proportion to their small incomes. Take a family with £3 or £3 10s. 0d. a week in a rural area or a small town. At the present day, that family have to pay very often more than £5 a year or 2/- a week in rates, which is a lot for a family with a small income. Then there are very wealthy people in the urban area who should pay more, and in that way money could be made available to relieve both the poorer farmers and the poorer urban householders.

I entirely agree with Senator Duffy's suggestion that it would be desirable if a scheme could be worked whereby local taxation could be paid according to a person's income. There are at present some people with big incomes who get away with paying very little rates. There is the case of a wealthy man who may not have any agricultural land, who may not have any big business premises or shop. He may be a professional man, and only have a small private house. There is also the case of a wealthy man living in a hotel. He may own no land or business premises, and his wealth may consist of investments in the form of stocks and shares. He may be a retired man with no business. These people with big incomes may pay very little in rates. They should pay more, and thus money could be found to help the poorer farmers and urban dwellers with small incomes. When we consider gross agricultural income, as Senator Professor O'Brien did, the total sounds large, but some people forget there are many small and medium-sized farmers who still, in spite of the increased prices of recent years, have very small net incomes.

The recent publication by the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland on that subject is very helpful. I believe that more costings of this nature should be made. In this paper, by Mr. R. O'Connor, read before the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, in October, 1948, with regard to the costings on a number of farms in Roscommon, it was pointed out that in nine out of 20 farms, the total family income, per family unit, was less than that of the agricultural labourer with the Agricultural Wages Board's standard wage, which, I think, everyone will agree is very low. I am glad it is to be increased soon. In spite of that, there were nine out of 20 farms where the farmer had less than the agricultural labourer in income. These farmers certainly deserve a reduction in rates.

In the same paper it was shown that the proportion of expenditure on a group of small farms on rent and rates was 21.6 per cent. of their total expenditure. That shows that rates are an important item for many small farmers. Very careful consideration should be given to all these points in future, because the present rating system is undoubtedly very unfair. It will take the Minister a considerable time to have this done, but I believe it will be well worth while, because at present many people with very small incomes pay a comparatively large amount in rates, while others with very large incomes pay very little. The sooner that system is rectified the better for the country.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I am glad to know that it is the intention of the Minister to continue the good work of his predecessor. In the years 1946-7, 1947-8 and 1948-9 there has been a considerable increase in the grant for the relief of rates on agricultural land, and I believe that the grant should be even bigger next year because the charges in the case of any farmer will be much higher next year because the working man is getting what he is rightly entitled to, a higher wage, and his overheads increase more and more rapidly every day. In addition to that, practically all local authorities will be confronted this year with the problem of increased rates. For that reason the Minister will be faced with the problem of providing a much larger grant for 1949-50 than for 1948-49. Therefore, I would like to compliment the Minister on continuing the good work of his predecessor and would advise him to keep an eye on the future because the people will expect the grant to continue increasing so long as overheads increase.

Furthermore, the Minister should get the Department or the Government to notify local authorities earlier in the year as to what the grant will be. The notification is rather late at times, and work of most local authorities is held up. That applies, not only to the grant for relief of rates on agricultural land but also to the grant from the Road Fund. Very often, local authorities have to adjourn the striking of a rate because of the failure of the Government or the Department to let local authorities know the amount they will receive. These difficulties could be eliminated so that the local authority would be able to strike the rate, and so obviate the necessity for rushed estimates, and estimates not getting the consideration they should get. Very often, the fault may lie with the Department, not with the officials of the Department, who are very helpful and excellent gentlemen in their jobs. They must take directions from the Government. The Government should let the officials know their intentions and the Government must make up its mind as to what the amount will be. It is most unfair to local authorities that they should not know the amount of the grant

The time has come when urban authorities should get some relief also by way of relief on agricultural land within urban areas. They have got no relief, as far as I am aware, although there is a sum of £10,000 or £11,000 in the way of relief in this Bill which I never heard of before. I think very few urban authorities get it. There are many urban districts in which there is a fair amount of land in respect of which the people have to pay 30/- in the £, which is very heavy, whereas in rural areas the people may not be paying 10/-. If I am right, the Cork County Council passed a resolution requesting the State to provide relief for agricultural land in the urban areas and I personally make a plea that the Minister should make representations to the Minister for Finance in the matter of the urban community, whose lot is not a very pleasant one, because of the higher rates in most urban areas. They need some relief. I am certain that the farmer expects the things I have mentioned because, to a certain extent, there is a wave of unrest not alone amongst farmers but amongst workers. There is a certain fear of instability because they cannot get prices for certain things they have to offer. They cannot get a price except at the whim of the purchaser for certain things that I do not want to mention. They are supposed to be able to get a certain price, but the world knows they cannot get it. For that reason, the farmer's lot is not a very rosy one.

Senator Baxter reminded us here that the previous Government put this and that on to the local authority. That happens with all Governments. Even the present Government has continued that system, putting the sum of £150,000 in respect of food vouchers on the local authorities and probably another £150,000 to try to provide employment because of the cessation of turf production. It is quite obvious that all Governments will continue to put what they can on the local authorities. It is not that the previous Government have done the things that Senator Baxter mentioned but the present Government have done them. I do not wish to say any more except again to advise the Minister to continue the good work of his predecessor. I think he can make up his mind, however, that the allowances for the relief of rates on agricultural land will be a lot greater in 1949-50 than they were in 1948-49.

Mr. D. Burke

I am going to keep as far as possible immediately within the scope the Minister has envisaged in bringing in this Bill, and the first thing is unemployment allowances. I believe that Senator Hawkins has mentioned this earlier in the debate, and I would like to ask the Minister to bring in an amendment to deal with this matter. What often happens in this country is that a man leaves agricultural employment, and the farmer must employ a man immediately if he is to receive any of that grant. It often happens in the winter time that if a farmer cannot get a man immediately he will not employ any man for two or three months. I think if it were possible for the Minister to cover that point farmers would keep men continuously in employment. If a period of, say, four weeks were allowed between the cessation of one man's employment and the employment of another man it would be to the advantage of the employment position, and the State should consider his position in a matter over which he has no control himself.

The last speaker said that there was a need for relief of rates on agricultural land within the urban districts and the percentage of the rates levied on agricultural land in urban districts is not fair. I have heard of cases where people pay rates on agricultural land in urban areas which are far greater than the old rack rents charged by the landlords. I know of cases where the rates were as much as £3 per statute acre and, in my opinion, that is an exorbitant charge to make on any citizen of this State. Many Senators have made the case of the towns against the country, but one thing we should bear in mind is that a farmer may have his land flooded. I have seen land which, as a result of floods, was so covered with stones and shingle that it may be years before it can produce any crops, grass or otherwise, and there is no system whereby a farmer can get any relief. If a man's house in town is put out of occupation, either a business premises or a residence, he will not have to pay rates for the period he was not in occupation. I think that should be borne in mind in considering the farmer's position. Further, farming is a very hazardous occupation and anything that this Government or any Government we will ever have in this country can do to encourage people to go back on the land is all to the good. When too many people are working on the land and living on the land it will be time enough to consider what we will have to do to get the people to go back into the towns.

Mr. McGee

It is very pleasant to listen to the debate in this House but unfortunately I happened to read the Herald and see that an increase has been given in university scholarships and unfortunately it is by my own council. Everything in the garden is lovely and Senator Professor O'Brien is quite correct in his statistics, but we have no statistics as to what is the tendency in Irish life. You can see it and everyone feels it, this prejudice against life in rural Ireland, this tendency to leave it. If we are sincere, we must look at things nationally and looking at things nationally, regarding all this talk about Northern Ireland I say that the strength of the Government of Northern Ireland is the fact that the farmers have no rates to pay. The authority behind Basil Brooke is the strength of the farmers of Northern Ireland and before we talk about getting rid of the Border we should have a levelling up ourselves and then our people of the North will come in enthusiastically. The tendency here is peculiar and it is very loose. We can get grants from Dublin. In fact it is almost a case of asking for a grant and you will get it and then it is a case of putting up the rates. It is worse since the County Management Act came in because the finances of the council are not placed before us every fortnight or every month and the further from the rating period we are the less we worry about it. As long as it is June, July, September or October, we will vote for any popular measure and say that it can be paid for out of the rates next year but when we see the rates have gone up by leaps and bounds we become super-economists.

What does the implementation of the collection of these various sums amount to? In my council the wages are £50 but what would it cost to put the Minister's scheme into operation and pay all the clerks that are required? What is the benefit to me of this £6 10s. 0d.? My wages are pretty tough and I had a clerk in examining it a year ago. He looked into it and said it would be 2/-a week but then another clerk came and looked into it and said it would be 3/3 a week. It is an unhealthy sign when every Department that wishes to look for extra money such as this thing comes down to the rates, but there is no Minister to see that the rates are limited, to protect the farmers or to protect agriculture. Deputy Dillon, Deputy Ryan and Deputy Smith had as much to do to protect the farmers in their schemes and their implementation in the Department as I have in the council. The statesman I most greatly admire after Arthur Griffith, Kevin O'Higgins, said in 1926 that we would have to try to keep a decent rate and that there was not sufficient money among the farmers to leave them a prey to every service. That statement is backed up by Irishmen like Senator O'Brien and by the statisticians. Salve your own consciences and see how Ireland is going.

The Fine Gael Government and the Fianna Fáil Government divided up estates but are those estates giving more employment and are the people on them happy? Perhaps they are happy on some of them but I know some that are giving less employment now and the tendency is to reduce employment where you can. If a person feels that he is not equal to the rates he will dismiss a man. Surely there could be some system of Government where 50, 60 or 100 acres of Irish land should be competent to rear a family without relief of rates. It is the finest position in the world to have 50 or 100 acres of Irish land and surely there could be a system that would make its owner an independent man who could hold up his head with all the millionaires in Grafton Street. Everybody else makes money as far as I can see, but the farmer at home dies as rich as his father and he is damned lucky if he does. I have no prejudice in this matter one way or another but looked at broadly this is a big question, a question which affects the foundation of our whole system of Government. You are not going to increase employment by having a successful Custom House which escaped being blown up in the days when it might have been. I want to ask Senator Fitzsimons, as chairman of his county council, if he has the slightest idea what the increase in the staff of that institution is since the county manager came in, or if there is any increase.

Mr. Fitzsimons

There is, but I would say the increased staff would be there, if he had never come in.

Mr. McGee

Has he ever been told, when he sought to talk to his county surveyor, that he was busy filling up forms to send to Dublin? There are more forms being filled in and sent to Dublin than the rats will get through in 25 years, and what the Minister is doing with all the forms he gets, I cannot understand.

Mr. Fitzsimons

The officials say that this is the place which is responsible for the forms.

Mr. McGee

I grant they do. However, the Minister is implementing a measure to repeal some recent legislation, and again I say that you have not got the correct economists on your public boards. The Minister has a difficult task, but we are experiencing healthier times. I am a great believer in inter-Party government, and you have five or six different viewpoints in this Government, and one man will have to bend the knee eventually, provided the economists exert themselves. The rates are going up this year at a frightening rate. Rapid progress is being made, and where the Minister for Finance comes in, I do not know.

Mr. Murphy

When I rather mildly expressed the hope, at the opening of this debate, that it would not range over a very wide and very vexed variety of topics, I felt that the hope of success was faint, and unfortunately the hope was not realised, even in the slightest degree. I do not complain of that. I think it inevitable that that should happen because this whole question of local taxation is, as I said in the other House, a highly controversial and vexed question, and perhaps, in all the circumstances, I am fortunate that the debate did not take even a wider scope.

What I would like to emphasise is the temporary nature of this measure, the fact that it extends an Act passed some time ago and that because it is purely an extending Act, it is not possible to amend it, and neither is it possible to review whatever defects, if any, exist in the matter of the employment allowances to which Senator Hawkins and other Senators referred. Because it is always a live issue, and the agriculturists and even the urban dwellers will never be short of champions to put forward their claims and their interests in this very vital matter of local taxation, there will, unquestionably, be many opportunities for having, on a wider field, a review of this question. I must not be tempted, therefore, to-night, to express any views that I have on the question, or to pronounce, except in a very limited way, on the views expressed to-night.

This, of course, is not the last rating Bill and neither could it, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered to be the last occasion on which this subject can be discussed, any more than it is the last generation of Irishmen. I feel that during the year a further examination of this matter in a wider way will be afforded on motions on the Dáil Order Paper at present, and I am sure that opportunities will arise in this House for fuller consideration of the whole matter. I can, therefore, only reply briefly and not in any very full way to some of the points raised. Obviously, I could not even for a moment contemplate discussing the question of derating. It is a very much bigger question than that which I am asking the House to deal with and it is a question in which other Ministers would have a very definite interest and one on which I could not possibly commit myself, whatever personal views I have on it.

I want to say, however, that, personally, I am not in favour of the viewpoint which has been expressed occasionally in the past, with increasing strength now and then, in favour of what is termed the nationalisation of services which are now in the hands of the local authority. I intend to make only a passing reference to this matter. I feel that a result of that kind would not be good for the local authority. I want to feel and to hope—perhaps it is a peculiar reason—that the local authorities will, in the future as in the past, provide the training ground for public representatives to take their part and their place in the discussion of matters which appertain to higher national politics, and the more you take away from local authorities the more restricted are the opportunities of that kind. That is the only view I propose to express on the matter this evening.

Senator Baxter asked me, in the course of the discussion, if I could give the figures of the assessment on agricultural land before the deduction of the agricultural grant. They are: in 1946-47, £5.3 millions; in 1947-48, £5.9 millions; and in 1948-49, £7 millions. There is at least one important recommendation in favour of this measure which I may claim. It is that, while it is true that there has been a progressive increase in local rates, this Bill does provide that to some extent in any case, that increase will be offset by a progressive increase in the amounts of the reliefs given, and I point, therefore, to what I am sure is already within the knowledge of Senators, the elasticity of this measure and the fact that, in that particular matter at least, it can be recommended.

I am sure that Senator Bennett will understand that it is not possible to discuss this matter of the employment allowances for female worker to-night, or to offer, within the scope of this measure, any prospect of relief in that respect. It is a fact that the £599,000 originally voted towards the relief of rates was intended to give relief up to the extent of 50 per cent., and it is a rather remarkable fact that at the present time that proportion seems to be maintained, because the relief which will be afforded in the coming year will be £3,600,000 out of a total rate estimate on agricultural land of about £7,000,000. I must, therefore, ask for the consideration of Senators for a dispensation in the matter of a discussion on the future basis of local taxation. I realise that it is a very important matter, and is one that must in the ordinary way come up for review very frequently in the future.

I should like to refer finally to the point which Senator Fitzsimons made of informing local authorities as to the amount of the agricultural grant. In fact, the position is that local authorities should, under this Bill, be able to calculate themselves what they will get from the grant. On the Senator's second point it is a fact that in 1948 a larger proportion of the grant was paid in the first part of the year than formerly, and it is hoped to continue that practice. I am glad to be able to give that much information to the Senator. As regards most of the other matters that were raised on behalf of urban dwellers and on the whole question of rates, I must say that I am not free or fully competent or even authorised in any way to discuss them this evening. I must therefore ask to be excused from participating in such a discussion at this stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. M. Hayes

Perhaps the House would agree to give the remaining stages to-day? The Bill is a simple one.

Agreed.

Bill passed through Committee without amendment.

Bill reported without amendment.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Hawkins

On that question, I want again to direct the Minister's attention to the question of employees leaving their employment in a particular period of year. I do not think the Minister dealt with it in his reply. It is quite true, of course, that on a Bill of this kind one can travel over a very wide field. It gives an opportunity for making various suggestions. Senator McGee had a very serious complaint to make this evening. He said that during his absence attending to his Parliamentary duties the Louth County Council had committed the terrible crime of increasing the value of their university scholarships. I want to point out that that is a matter for the county council and not for the manager. The manager cannot be blamed for it. I understand that there is a proposal under consideration to amend the County Management Act. I would advise the Minister to go very slow in that direction. The members of a county council are the people who control the county purse, and if the rates have gone up that, surely, is not the fault of the manager.

I would ask the Minister to bear this in mind—it is a tendency that we have noticed in every Government we have had here, but it has been more pronounced in the last ten months than during any previous period—that the cost of quite a number of services is now being transferred to the local authorities, thereby placing on them the obligation of meeting very heavy charges indeed. Senator Fitzsimons referred to some of them. There was first the food voucher scheme. Later, the obligation was placed on local authorities of providing employment for those people who lost their employment through the cessation of the turf schemes. The Minister for Finance, in his Budget this year, placed another unnecessary burden on the local authorities. In that connection, may I say that I was surprised to hear Senator Duffy this evening, on the repeal of the External Relations Act, seriously object to the powers which, he said, the Bank of England exercises over this country?

Mr. M. Hayes

Although it has none.

Mr. Hawkins

Why the Senator did not object to the Minister for Finance putting a very serious burden on the ratepayers, as he did when he increased the rate of interest on loans to local authorities to carry out the works assigned to them, I could not understand. If we are going to increase the social services by passing on to the ratepayers the obligation of providing the greater part of the money required to finance them, then, no matter what Government is in power, it surely cannot claim the credit for whatever benefit may be derived from the operation of those social services.

The Minister himself is not entirely free from guilt in this matter. He has already passed on some charges to the local authorities. We will have another Bill before us to-morrow, the implementation of which will place additional burdens on the local people. I do not want to anticipate the discussion on that Bill now. I can say, however, that the tendency I speak of is to be noticed in practically every Bill that has come before us in recent months— the tendency to compel the local authority to bear, if not all the cost of the expenditure involved, at least a great part of it.

The local rates in Galway are the highest in the whole country, 35/- or 36/- in the £. I have been accused of speaking here in the interests of the farmers, but I speak, too, in the interests of urban dwellers and workers in Galway City. What is the position of local authorities going to be if additional burdens are placed on them? I have already pointed out that they are now obliged to pay increased interest rates on the loans they require to carry out essential services. I say that should not be done. The Government should take into consideration the very serious burden which these increased rates represent not only on farmers, big or small, but on the workers and people generally throughout the country.

Mr. Murphy

I am sorry if I did not make it perfectly clear to the Senator and his colleagues that I am definitely precluded within the scope of this measure from examining into the question of the employment allowance. The 1946 Act says that "where an adult workman, or each of two or more adult workmen, was during the whole of the qualifying period for a financial year to which the Act applies, at work on agricultural land in the rated area of the council of a county," then the reliefs enumerated come into effect. This Bill merely extends the 1946 Act so that the matter referred to by the Senator will have to wait whatever examination may be given to it during the year. I express no opinion on the matter now, but I promise that it will be looked into.

Having regard to the consideration I have got from the Seanad, I do not think I should engage in any general discussion on the other matters Senator Hawkins has raised. I entirely dispute the conclusions he has come to and I think his statements are to some extent devoid of foundation. He has suggested that all the burdens in respect of social services have been heavily accentuated during the year. Apparently, he is entirely unaware, or prefers to omit, one important concession that local ratepayers will get in a very short time, that is, total relief from the allowances that they have to pay up to now to old age pensioners. The operation of the Health Act will provide certain other reliefs. If this is a bad practice, it is one of very long standing. Most of the calls for the social services on local authorities have been of some years' standing. I do not want to say anything on that question. It is inevitable, in the trend in recent years, that that should have happened. I feel I can very strongly and safely resist the general conclusions he has come to and I entirely dissent from them.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil.

The Seanad adjourned at 9.50 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 16th December, 1948.