Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 24 Jun 1925

Vol. 12 No. 13

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (COMBINED PURCHASING) BILL, 1925. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RATES ON AGRICULTURAL LAND) BILL, 1925—SECOND STAGE.

MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Blythe)

In my statement in connection with the Budget I said that our proposal for assistance to the agricultural industry was the doubling of the agricultural grant. This Bill is to enable the undertaking then given to be carried into effect. It provides for the increasing of the agricultural grant by such an amount as shall be provided by the Oireachtas, and it is proposed to double it in the current year by taking a supplementary grant for the sum equal to the full agricultural grant of £599,011. The Bill empowers the Minister for Finance, in any subsequent agricultural year, to increase the grant by taking a vote for any amount which may be considered desirable. Any supplementary grant provided by the Oireachtas in this way will form part of the original grant, particularly in its relation to the Guarantee Fund. The share of each council in the increased grant will be certified by the Minister for Local Government on the same basis as the allocation of the original grant. I do not say it will not be desirable to review the allocation of that grant in a more definite way at some early opportunity, but meanwhile the supplementary or additional agricultural grant will be allocated on the same basis as the original grant.

There are one or two clauses that bear more particularly on the function of the Minister for Local Government, and no doubt he will deal with them in detail on the Committee Stage of the Bill. Clause 4 of the Bill is necessitated by the fact that certain county councils have failed to make an adequate rate provision for their requirements in the current financial year. It is not proposed to allow them to use this additional agricultural grant for the purpose of decreasing the already insufficient rate, and the agricultural grant in those particular counties will be applied to wiping out the deficit which these counties have wrongfully budgeted for. Clause 6 is necessitated by the fact that one or two counties were not in a position to make a rate provision for the year 1925-26 by the 1st June owing to difficulties respecting arrears. The clause allows those councils up to the 31st August, so that the work in connection with the rates already done may not be lost. If this provision were not inserted these councils would have to re-arrange their rates on the basis of the Local Government Act of this year, unlike the other councils, who are allowed to strike rates on the old basis, subject to adjustments. It may be of some interest to members to indicate the present allocation of the £595,000 of the agricultural grant.

Carlow, £11,337; Cavan, £15,896; Clare, £30,195; Meath, £29,555; Cork, £75,144; Dublin, £20,743; Galway, £31,591; Kerry, £26,877; Kildare, £15,740; Kilkenny, £25,703; Leitrim, £10,291; Leix, £15,370; Limerick, £41,055; Longford, £9,811; Louth, £12,783; Mayo, £23,238; Monaghan, £13,387; Offaly, £14,973; Roscommon, £18,534; Sligo, £14,053; Tipperary (North Riding), £18,667; Tipperary (South Riding), £27,870; Tirconaill, £20,938; Waterford, £19,693; Westmeath, £17,552; Wexford, £24,045; Wicklow, £13,646; the County Borough of Dublin, £317.

I think a very good case can be made out for a revision of that particular allocation, but it is not a matter that could be tackled now, and it seemed to us that the only way we could deal with this question of increasing the agricultural grant was to divide the new sum along the lines of the old grant. If the whole question of the agricultural grant is gone into, naturally any additional sums will be redistributed. We do not feel at the moment, with the time at our disposal, if the benefit of the grant is to go to agriculture this year, that any reallocation could be made.

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

Mr. WILSON

I am not going to object to the provision of this grant. I hear, however, from more sources than one, that it is the intention of the Government to revive the payment of this grant in the future. I do not stand by this allocation because it means that those who had a high rate in the year 1897 are getting yearly that amount of the high rate taken off their rates. Still, we do not wish it to go out that the right policy of the Government to pursue is to say: "If you do not do a certain amount of tillage and so on, you are not going to get a grant." We stand all the time for as much tillage as our requirements need. We stand for tillage sufficient to feed our live stock in the winter particularly, but we do not see that tillage should take the form of crops to be sold off the land. I do not wish the Government to understand that the proper allocation of this £600,000 would be towards the development of tillage to be sold as raw material off the lands. I hope the Government will not be led away by that aspect of the case. Our idea is that tillage means better food for the cattle in the winter. Let the product of the farm be walked off instead of driven off. We appreciate the fact that a payment has been made by the taxpayer towards the relief of agriculture. We hold that this subvention is a long time due. We are getting now into the same position as that of the farmers in England and the North of Ireland.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

Better.

Mr. WILSON

The Minister for Agriculture may make the case if he can, that it is better. As a matter of fact, the farmers in England pay twenty-five per cent. of the rates, and seventy-five per cent. is paid by the State. Here we get something equivalent to forty per cent. of the rates this year and there is no guarantee that the Minister for Finance may not, next year, wipe the second £600,000 off the Finance Bill. There is nothing in the Bill to say that it is going to be in perpetuity.

Mr. BLYTHE

It might be more next year.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Or less.

Mr. WILSON

The Minister said it might be changed to more, but there is also the possibility that it might be made less. While we would not wish his ideas to run in that direction, we must put forward a case that in giving us this grant they are only placing us on a line with our competitors. It is a necessary subvention to the farmers who do not get the services that city dwellers get. Therefore, while we take it with thanks, we believe it is due.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

I, like my colleague, Deputy Wilson, am thankful for small mercies. While I am not opposing the grant, still I feel that I am justified in taking exception to the wording of several sections in this Bill. Section 2 states:—

"The Minister for Finance shall in the financial year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1925, and in every subsequent financial year increase the agricultural grant by such amount (in this Act referred to as the supplementary grant) as shall be provided for the purpose in such financial year by the Oireachtas."

Does that mean that this grant must be voted expressly by the Dáil and appear on the Estimates each year? If that is the case, I take exception to that view point. I think it is undesirable that this agricultural grant should appear in the Estimates each year. The proper method to adopt would be to pay it out of the Central Fund. The Minister has stated that the grant may and can vary. In such an event as that, it is possible that an effort would be made to reduce it. The minimum of our demand is, that the grant should be doubled. That is the very least we could hope for. I dislike the idea that this grant must be brought forward each year and be subjected to the Vote and the criticism of the House. Suppose, for instance, there was a party in the House hostile to the agrarian interests which could command a majority, there is every likelihood that the grant would be reduced. It is stated in sub-section (2) of Section 2 that "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the supplementary grant shall for the purposes of any enactment be deemed to form part of the agricultural grant and in particular shall be subject to the provisions of Section 40 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, in relation to the agricultural grants." In other words, it is proposed that this grant should form part of the Guarantee Fund. If tenant purchasers in the country cease to pay their annuities, the State is making this further provision to recoup itself. The way it appears to me is, that the Government is giving this grant with the one hand and is retaining it in the other. That is really what the position amounts to. When Deputy Michael Doyle referred to this on the Budget debate, the Minister for Finance, if my memory serves me rightly, gave an assurance that this grant would not form part of the Guarantee Fund.

Mr. BLYTHE

No. I said it would all reach the farmer. It would not all go out this year, but the Guarantee Fund is sufficiently well provided for this year.

Mr. C. HOGAN

I understood that the Minister did say that the Guarantee Fund was sufficiently well provided for.

Mr. BLYTHE

This year.

Mr. C. HOGAN

I understood it was well provided for in perpetuity. The evident desire of the Ministry is to exclude this grant from Section 40 of the Irish Land Act. On the Committee Stage I intend to put down an amendment with a view to securing, if possible, that this grant shall not be mortgaged to the Land Purchase Fund. In dealing with Section 4 of this Bill the Minister for Finance referred to county councils and their failure to strike adequate rates. His words were that, "instead of further reducing the rates by this grant, they would rather utilise them to make good any deficit in the rates." I am not enamoured of that proposition. The meaning that I put on these words is this, that the grant is to be devoted to purposes for which it was not primarily intended. If what the Minister states be the intention, then it would seem that urban dwellers are to receive some advantage from this grant. I hold that that is a departure from the principle underlying this Bill, and I think Deputies on these Benches would be well justified in resisting such a proposal, namely, the throwing of this grant into a common fund. This grant is to be specifically devoted to the relief of rates on land, and it should be devoted solely to that end. While I would give no countenance to county councils which strike inadequate rates, still I am not prepared to sacrifice our rights and to dish out our bread all round.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am very pleased to hear from Deputy Wilson that it is the intention of the Government to consider, if not in connection with this year's allocation, at any rate in future years, the relative values to the State, and therefore the need for a variation in the allocation in regard to the amount of land suitable for tillage which is being tilled. I think it is well to hear that commended by Deputy Wilson, or at least to hear it announced by Deputy Wilson if not commended by him. My only regret is that some such provision has to be delayed for another year. It would have been available this year if that could have been embodied in this particular Bill.

Mr. WILSON

I am afraid that Deputy Johnson has unwittingly misrepresented my statement. I simply reiterated a statement made by a Minister of the Government, and only adverted to the fact that such a thing might be in the mind of the Government. At the same time, I have not asked the Government to carry that particular point of view into effect.

Mr. JOHNSON

I did not expect that Deputy Wilson was asking the Government to carry that into effect, but he was announcing it for the benefit of the House, and while it might have been preferable if the announcement had been made frankly by the Minister, still it is well that it should come second-hand through Deputy Wilson. My chief purpose in rising was to ask a ruling on a point of order regarding Section 6. It might be more fitting if this were to be done on the Committee Stage, but for purposes of notice, it may be desirable to call attention to it now. The point I ask your ruling on, A Chinn Comhairle, is this:—Sub-section (1) of Section 84 of the Local Government Act of 1920, was inserted in that Act on a motion passed by the Dáil. Standing Order 38 says:—

A motion to rescind or amend a resolution can only be made on notice, that shall specify the resolution to be rescinded or amended, and furnish the terms of the motion to be made; but no motion shall be allowed to appear on the Order Paper to rescind any resolution of the Dáil within six months of the date of its adoption, except with the written assent of not less than twenty-five members of the Dáil.

Standing Order 39 states that "No Teachta shall re-open a discussion on a question already decided, during the same session."

It may be necessary to amend that Standing Order or to suspend it for this purpose. I do not know, but the question of the alteration and the amendment of Bills and Acts passed within the same session is rather an important matter, and I think we ought not to allow a proposal to amend Acts passed within a session without some kind of query on the matter. Complaint has been made on a good many occasions that too many Bills have been brought forward, and that probably adequate consideration has not been given to the drafting of them. As a consequence, amendments have had to be brought forward as well as amending Acts, and this appears to be quite contrary to the intention of the Standing Orders. I do not know whether you will rule that this is a motion or resolution which cannot be amended during this session or not, but I suggest that it is a matter that we should consider before we either disobey the Standing Order or pass a Bill in contradiction of the Standing Order.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

If the Deputy would raise the point of order when the motion is made, in Committee, that Section 6 stand part of the Bill, it would be the most suitable time.

Mr. JOHNSON

Very well.

Question—"That the Bill be read a second time"—put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 1st July.