Yesterday I asked the following question:—
To ask the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he will state the amount of the present overdraft of the Leitrim County Council; also the amounts for the preceding four years; whether his Department has issued an order to the Leitrim County Council insisting on the collection of all arrears due, within a specified period; if he will state the period so specified, and if he has taken into consideration that undue pressure at this stage will result in extreme hardship on the greater number of the ratepayers affected, and in some cases of small farmers, in complete ruin.
The reply I received appeared to be so unsatisfactory that I had no alternative but to raise this matter on the adjournment. The first part of the reply was as follows:—
As overdrafts fluctuate daily with receipts and payments, I cannot answer the first part of the question. The present authorised overdraft limit in Leitrim is £25,000 and the authorised limits of overdrafts during the past four years have been as follows:—
|
From£ |
To£ |
||
|
1925-26 |
36,000 |
45,000 |
|
|
1926-27 |
35,000 |
||
|
1927-28 |
30,000 |
35,000 |
|
|
1928-29 |
25,000 |
30,000 |
I consider that is a very insidious reply on the part of the Minister. It puts the position of the Leitrim County Council in the worst possible light. The actual overdraft for the year 1926 was £29,680 16s. 0d.; for the year 1927, £22,688 4s. 5d.; for the year 1928, £9,895, and for this year, to the 30th April, £4,064 16s. 3d. I cannot understand why the Minister could not furnish the actual figures as asked for and as they should be submitted to the House unless it was for the purpose of making a case for the action he proposes to take later on. The reply goes on:—
The Deputy is aware that rates levied for the service of a particular financial year are collectable within that year. Leitrim has been the most backward county in the country in the collection of rates. Collectors have been slack and dilatory with the result that nearly 40 per cent. of last year's rates remain outstanding. The general matter has been under prolonged review and discussion with the County Council, and the County Council has now been directed to dismiss any collector who had not fully accounted for his warrant by the 30th June, 1929.
As regards that part of the answer, I presume the Minister is right in saying that Leitrim is in the worst financial position, and is not as well off as any other county. I also presume the Minister must be aware that Leitrim is one of the poorest counties. The Minister, apparently, does not understand the conditions relative to this whole problem or to the question of arrears of rates. Otherwise he would not consider his present action feasible. We will have to go back to the period 1919-20 and 1920-21. It is easy to visualise the conditions then existing. It is easy to remember that at that period the grants given towards the relief of rates were withheld. The rate then struck in consequence of the withholding of the grants represented an average rate of 14/- in Leitrim. The rather chaotic conditions that prevailed during those years resulted in no effort being made to collect the high rate. Prices were inflated, and farmers could then have met the demand without great inconvenience. The high rate was carried on to the period when deflation took place and when prices for stock had fallen. The rate then became a burden on the farmers, and they were scarcely able to bear it. That is the debt we are dealing with at the present moment. That debt has been carried forward.
The Minister's solution as contained in his reply will require explanation. We will go back to 31st March, 1923. The overdraft then was £46,664 10s. 10d.; the amount of rates outstanding was £70,069 9s. 6d. We will go from 1923 to 1926. During those three years the rates outstanding were reduced by approximately £8,000. The actual amounts were £70,000 odd and £62,909 17s. 8d. During those three years the then Minister for Local Government considered that the Leitrim County Council were not discharging their duties efficiently and, just as the present Minister directs that things should be done in a methodical fashion, the Minister then directed that business should be similarly carried out. By sealed order he dismissed the County Council and he sent a Commissioner down. After almost three years the Commissioner ended his great career there by reducing the outstanding rates from £70,000 to £62,000. The County Council came into office again and in the first year they reduced the outstanding rates by £10,000, the amounts being £62,000 and £52,000. It took the Commissioner three years to make a reduction of £8,000. In the following year the County Council reduced the outstanding rates from £52,000 to £39,000, a reduction of approximately £13,000. For the last year the County Council again succeeded in reducing the outstanding rates from £39,000 to £24,000, representing a reduction of £15,000.
In 1923 the overdraft was £46,664 10s. 10d., and on 30th April, 1929, the overdraft was £4,064 16s. 3d. The rates outstanding on 31st March, 1923, amounted to £70,069 9s. 6d., and on 30th April, 1929, the amount was £24,809 18s. 8d. If he is a business man, I am sure the Minister will agree that that is sound accounting. Will he say that there is not substantial headway being made during those years and, if it is a substantial amount, what is his idea in applying force after the experience we have had of the service of the Commissioner? The Minister's predecessor dismissed the County Council and the substitution of a Commissioner resulted in an infinitesimal reduction as compared with what has been accomplished by the County Council since control went back to them.
I will refer the Minister to the other portion of his reply where he mentioned that Leitrim was the most backward county with regard to the collection of rates. There is a very sinister motive behind that. He insinuates there that the whole arrears are due to negligence on the part of rate collectors. In face of the figures I have quoted I say that statement is unfounded. We have in Leitrim a staff of officials, both in the County Council offices and as rate collectors, who are quite competent to deal with the business. They are trained and have years of experience behind them. They have the confidence of the County Council. The rate collectors meet with a good deal of hardship. They are the officials who have their fingers on the pulse of the people, so to speak. Very often they take big risks in order to draw their mediocre allowances as collectors. They have every incentive to force them to close their accounts.
To insinuate that they are dilatory is most unfair, bearing in mind the services which these men have given and the confidence which the County Council have reposed in them. If there are delays and difficulties in collecting arrears, it is because of economic conditions which existed when the first half of the arrears was due. I assume that the Minister has had no experience of the conditions of living in County Leitrim, but, if he has, he made a statement in reply to my question yesterday that is not in accordance with the experience of people who are accustomed to state the truth. He said: "Full consideration has been given to the matter raised in the last part of the Deputy's question. Rates represent but a relatively small proportion of a farmer's necessary outgoings." The Minister is either culpably negligent in regard to this matter or else he stated an untruth. If the Minister has not had experience of living in County Leitrim or of examining the conditions of living there, all he need have done was to apply to the Department of Agriculture and they could have given him the relative value of rates to farmers in that county. The Department of Agriculture, through their inspectors, have carried out investigations to establish what is the ordinary value of a farmer's income on various sized farms. The average sized farm in County Leitrim has a valuation of from £8 to £10. The Department would have given the Minister figures which were prepared by their own inspectors showing that the small farmer there is a man whose income is between £30 and £40 a year, and upon which a whole family have to live. The Minister said that rates represent but a relatively small proportion of a farmer's outgoings. That would be a small part of the outgoings of a farmer whose income, inclusive of everything, is nearer to £30 than £40 a year?
Take the average farmer with a valuation of £8 and with the rate last year 4/6 in the pound; we can realise that his rates represent about £1 16s. That, on an income of £30, represents a substantial proportion. Again, the Minister said that he was satisfied that where rates were not duly collected hardship was caused to many hard-working persons who having paid their rates at the proper time were, in addition, burdened with the cost of interest on avoidable overdrafts due by the defaulters. If the threat of the Minister is carried out it will mean the dismissal of every rate collector in the county with the exception of three. In extenuation of that, the Minister says that hardship is inflicted on farmers who have paid their rates up to date, but the Minister ignores the fact that the whole system on which Local Government administration is based is a system of co-operation. Every scheme carried through this House is to a great extent dependent on co-operation. To-day we discussed, for instance, a Game Bill, and it was admitted on all sides that it would prove ineffective unless the farmers co-operated in working it. The big scheme in connection with the creameries would have proved useless unless the farmers co-operated in that respect. It is conceivable that somebody would suggest that because a farmer does not supply milk to a creamery that the creamery is the loser and that the farmer should be called on to supply whether he can or cannot? It is just as illogical for the Minister to come along and say that men who are not able to pay the rates should pay them so that those who have paid them should not be at a loss. What are the figures? Up to 30th April the actual overdraft of the Leitrim County Council was £2,000. The amount on which interest is paid is £2,000. If we take that for a year, it represents an increase on the rates generally of less than ¼d. in the pound. In order to relieve the loss on the rates represented by ¼d. in the pound the Minister says that the rates must be paid in order to equalise the whole scheme of things so that no undue burden is placed on any section of the people.
If the Minister were anxious to relieve the rates he would have found some means of dealing with the home help problem which became very acute in County Leitrim in the last four or five years. He made no effort to help those who had suffered owing to the wet seasons, whose farms were lying derelict, and for whose assistance home help had to be given at an abnormal cost. He is now very anxious that the rates should be collected, and when they are collected, assuming that he can collect the full amount of outstanding arrears, what would be the result? The county council would stand with a credit balance of £18,000. That would be a splendid position. The Minister could then point out that this country was in a sound financial condition, that one of the poorest counties in Ireland had a credit balance of £18,000. That would help the Government to secure a loan on good terms, and they could say: "We are not an impoverished country; we have succeeded in rounding the corner. There is a balance of £18,000 to the credit of the Leitrim County Council."
The Minister, however, would not have taken into account that in doing that he would have created many derelict farms in County Leitrim. If he investigates the matter he will find that I am not over-stating the case. He would have a lot of derelict farms this year, because in County Leitrim, in many cases, farmers who have no stock of their own allow cattle in on their land for six months, but they do not get paid for the grazing until close to the expiration of six months. If the Minister insists on the collection of rates it will mean that the cattle on these farms will have to be seized, so that the land will be of no value to the owners this year, and they in turn will have to seek home help. If the Minister succeeds in carrying out his orders he will only succeed in making Leitrim a much poorer county than it is, and then he can claim that the county council has a credit balance of £18,000. I suggest that the whole matter should be left in the hands of the county council, who have showed great ability in dealing with the question of the overdraft since it was left in their hands. Any interference with them at this stage will prove disastrous. The Minister should take into consideration the full circumstances of the case. He should consult with the members of the county council, send an inspector to examine the conditions and to see whether an honest effort is not being made by all parties to face the problem. He should leave well-enough alone, for if he persists in his present attitude he will create such conditions that will not be to the best interests of the ratepayers or the general advancement of the community.
