I move: "That the Bill be read a Second Time."
Public Business. - Central Fund Bill, 1933—Second Stage.
This is the Second Reading of the Central Fund Bill, which has been expressed already by the Minister for Finance to be the occasion upon which an opportunity is to be given to people who have not discussed already that portion of the Estimates which arises for consideration—in fact, the general financial policy which arises for consideration when the Vote on Account comes forward—I wish to avail of the opportunity.
We are actually asked here in Paragraph 2 of the Bill to allow the Minister to issue out of the Central Fund the sum of £7,985,460, and that sum has got to be related to the Estimates for Public Services for the year ending 31st March, 1934. I am going to avail myself of the opportunity to which the Minister referred, to speak of the general financial situation in so far as that is brought under our view by these Estimates.
On the back of this Volume of the Estimates, I find the total Estimates given as £22,039,951. On the back of the corresponding Volume, circulated about the same time last year, the total sum is given as £21,969,000. There is, therefore, a difference of something less than £100,000 as between the two; but in order to get the sums properly related we have got to take out the various items from both of these which do not appear under the same form in the other. I find that from the old Estimate of 1932-33 there have been deducted payments amounting to about £2,300,000. From Vote 16 there is a deduction of £1,231,000, the payment for the pensions of R.I.C. and other people. From Vote 8, Local Loans, there is subtracted the sum of £600,000—Local Loans payments heretofore paid out of the Exchequer of this country across the water. In Vote 55 there is a payment for Excess Stock amounting to £134,000. Those three payments amount to nearly £2,000,000. In addition, Vote 25 has been reduced by £448,022. Vote 25 is the Vote on the Agricultural Grant, the grant in relief of agricultural rates. So, there has been deducted from the old amounts which are not now inserted those four sums of £1,231,000 in respect of R.I.C. and other pensions, £600,000 local loans, £134,000 excess stock and £448,000 in relief of the agricultural rate. If we are to get an equation as between the two sets of Estimates for purposes of comparison, we have got to see what has been introduced into the new one, and the total of the new sums is very much the same as those to which I have referred. There is a sum of £1,000,000 of an increase in Vote 8; an extra sum of £230,000 in Vote 7; and an additional sum of £360,000 in Vote 41, sub-head T—Housing. There has been introduced into the Estimates—I suppose we will have it described here as being in the normal Budget—a sum of £100,000 for the purpose of providing milk. It is now under 41 subhead K (2). May I put these two sums in another relation? It means that £2,000,000 that used to be paid out in R.I.C. pensions, in Local Loans and in Excess Stock, plus the money that used to go in relief of the agricultural rate, are now being diverted from the old purposes to these purposes—old age pensions, extra provision for housing, £100,000 for milk and £1,600,000 undetermined in its distribution, but going to be paid out for local loans.
On that sum of £2,000,000 I want to make one other remark. The pensions, local loans, and excess bonus stock —that is the £2,000,000—they collected this year, are presumably somewhere in the Suspense Account. So, they will not be there any longer. That means that if there were anything in the way of bounties paid out of the Suspense Account, that Account will be down by £2,000,000 next year. And there will be £2,000,000 less. At any rate, so far as the Central Fund Services are concerned, we are still without the Minister's promise of a reduction of £2,000,000 and he has got a full year at it now. There was to have been a £2,000,000 reduction made without impairing the efficiency of the Service and without counting the money which was alleged not to be due under the Treaty. As far as these two booklets are concerned, there is no difference. The Estimates for the Public Services do not show the promised reduction of £2,000,000 even in any faked way. We are still where we were.
Last year, the Minister took for the purpose of the Budget calculation a Central Fund expenditure as shown by the Estimates for Public Services, and the first big addition that had to be made to that was the Central Fund moneys which are roughly about the same from year to year. Taking it on that basis—let us assume that they will be the same this year. Of course, if there is to be any borrowing they will be up still further—the Minister for Finance has made no economies in his estimates for the Public Services. I do not say that there are likely to be any economies in the Central Fund Services. The Minister had a tot last year of £26,750,000 on these two items. He will not have less than that this year. In addition to that issue there was a thing referred to as an Emergency Budget and various schemes for relief. £1,000,000 of it was money borrowed on the credit of the Road Fund. That fund is not capable of standing these borrowings always. No matter what is done in that way, it is only a forestalling of what would be done ordinarily. It only means that there is going to be a deprivation for a certain number of people in the years to come even if the fund can stand the charges. In addition there were certain sums that were to be paid; special provision for unemployment relief, grants for housing, free grants for local authorities for public health schemes and additional relief in respect of rates on agricultural land. There will be nothing this year for unemployment relief. There is a small sum of £150,000 which is set out towards the scheme which must be completed before the end of this month. There is no sum of money presented to us as likely to be voted at this moment for unemployment relief. The Minister is going to have to find the same sum of money as before for what he calls his normal Budget. The Agricultural Relief Grant is the mystery at the moment. It is a sum of £1,200,000. Vote 25 shows that the sum of £900,000 is the Central Fund provision for relief on agricultural rates. It used to be something short of £600,000, so there is about 1½ million pounds. We have been told that the county councils are promised a reduction of about £400,000 in the moneys they used to get. Is the Minister likely to come before us again for the amount of the 1¾ million pounds promised? In connection with this £600,000 and £900,000 voted, we are £250,000 short. Are the county councils to be told that they are to re-make their rates once more? I presume not. The grants to them are, in all, I think, £450,000 plus the £250,000. If this provision is right another £250,000 has to be voted in addition to the amount in the Estimates and in addition to the old sum which used to be carried in the Central Fund.
What else is there for the relief of unemployment? There is £100,000 for milk which goes into the ordinary Budget. There is a sum of 1½ million pounds for local loans. Is that a revelation of the full intention of the Government with regard to relief this year or are other sums to be voted? If that is so, we know the normal Budget of last year required the taxation of last year and something in addition. But we have to meet an X £2,000,000 Vote, that is to be voted for the relief of X plus £250,000 because I think it is clear that that £250,000 has to be voted for the relief of agricultural rates. Even if it is voted the relief at that rate is down by £400,000. The Minister in the second year of his office, instead of showing a £2,000,000 reduction so often, and so vehemently, and so precisely promised, does not seem to be able to find anything for his new Budget in the nature of economy except it is economy on relief works. How do his prospects appear at this moment with regard to the old taxation yield and the amount of revenue estimated as likely to come from it? There are a variety of ways in which one could make an estimate. One might take the taxation imposed, and the revenue calculated to be derived from it in the preceding 12 months. Then see how much of it comes in in the 11 months and make a calculation of what the new taxation will bring in. Then see what the yield of the 11 months has been and then make a calculation as to whether the Minister is likely to get the full return. The prospects are no brighter. There is likelihood of a deficiency of not less than 1½ million pounds.
How does the Deputy work that out?
If the Minister will take the official "Gazette" of March 14th and then divide the two sums there each by 11 and the other sum by 12 and make the calculation he will see the different years.
There is a big corrective factor to be allowed for.
One would like to have that explained. There is also another side to it. If people estimate to get a certain revenue against a certain expenditure, if the expenditure is more there must be some deficiency. Again, there are two or three ways of approaching what is the expenditure of 11 months or of 11 months and a bit. There is the expenditure of the previous period; there is the average expenditure; what is the addition that will have to be made if there is additional expenditure. I understand the calculation was made last night, that £2,000,000 was going to be the deficit. Does the Minister feel satisfied that there will be only £2,000,000 upon the Estimates this year leaving out the other items? I do not know whether I am interpreting the Minister as to what the corrective factor is. If there is a deficit it may be met by handing over or impounding any cash if there is any free after borrowing, or agricultural grants in the Suspense Account. It may be met in that way but that does not say that next year if the same cash is not there that the Minister can with equanimity face up to his Budget. He cannot face up to a £2,000,000 deficit which he may meet this year, if he has the cash. He will not have the cash next year but he has got to think of a year ahead. Do we see any prospect of reduced taxation in any way unless there is decreased expenditure? Does this prospect give us any indication of reduced expenditure?
Would the Deputy suggest the headings under which expenditure might be reduced?
I asked the Minister to go back and look up the very carefully considered financial Fianna Fáil statement in connection with the Estimates of 1930-31 and in reference to which they said they could save £2,000,000 and let him produce that saving.
The Deputy wants to be helpful.
If I want to be helpful I could not do better than to ask the Party who promised the people that if they got into power they would effect a reduction of £2,000,000 on the Estimates to go back to the calculations they then made and to enforce the savings that they promised. They said that after very careful consideration they could make these savings without impairing the efficiency of the services and without calculating the payments that were made to Great Britain. They said a saving of £2,000,000 could be made under these conditions. Let us start with the £2,000,000. It will balance the deficiency in this year's accounts. If it is likely that there will be a deficit this year and that expenditure is not going to be reduced, and that the present taxation is not going to bring in what it is estimated to yield to the Exchequer, and that a deficit of somewhere between £2,000,000 and £2,500,000 cannot be reduced then they have to do either of two things. They must have fresh taxation or borrowing and we would like to see the Minister for Finance deriding his purest ideas of last year on the question of borrowing.
There is only one last calculation that has got to be made in this matter and that is the question of the Suspense Account. I think it was about July, 1932, the statement was made that the moneys which, heretofore, had been paid partly to the British Government to meet certain debts and partly to the bondholders—as far as the annuities were concerned it was paid entirely to the bondholders in order to recoup them for the moneys they had previously lent or that their predecessors in title had lent for the buying out of land—were to be put to a Suspense Account. That statement was made in July. There was no mention of the Suspense Account as far as the national accounts of the country were concerned until this year, and in a footnote in the "Gazette" of the 10th January of this year we get the statement that the amount of cash at bank to the separate credit of British claims was £4,204,000. Where was the money held before that? At what bank? There was some bank I am sure in which it was held, and it was cash. If it was cash at bank what was the interest on it? That is what we would like to know. How much of the sum of £4,204,000 represents interest? How did these payments accrue, at what rate were they lodged, in what bank and at what rate of interest? We are told that there was cash at hand to the separate credit of British claims in a Suspense Account to the amount of £4,677,000, on March 14, but we have also to look at other items in these accounts which show that the Exchequer had obligations at least to the amount of 4½ millions in Exchequer Bills. There have been repayments of 2 millions, but there was a previous carry over of a million debit. There were, therefore, 3½ millions outstanding in Exchequer Bills repayable at the end of this month. If so, where is the money to come from for their repayment? Is there any Suspense Account mortgaged against that? In other words, have we been pretending that we have had these moneys while in fact we have been borrowing in order to fill up the Suspense Account?
Take the 3½ millions due on Exchequer Bills. There is £4,677,000 cash stated to be held in the Suspense Account. Then what is the amount free for distribution from the Suspense Account? Some days ago we voted a sum of £1,616,000. Has that passed out of the accounts yet or where is the money to come from for it? When it appears, as it must appear under the heading of moneys paid out on expenditure on supply services this year, will we find that either the Suspense Account money has been lowered or that the Exchequer balance has been lowered? What is the position between these four items—Exchequer balance, Exchequer bill borrowing, cash in Suspense Account and the £1,616,000 voted? What is the net effect or what sum is there in suspense capable of being used to meet, say, the 2 million deficit in the Budget of this year? Again I would like if the Minister could relate the four of these things which are certainties and the result of these four, and of the fifth, which is at any rate possible if not probable, when he talks of cash, of an Exchequer balance favourable, when he talks of a Suspense Account which is said to be cash, in this formal account presented under the authority of the Government. There is cash in suspense of £4,677,000, and there is an Exchequer balance. Then let us think that one of these days, because the hurry about the Bill we have passed is to get freedom for the release of £1,616,000, let us think of that amount passing out of the account and let us think that there is some sum payable in Exchequer bills by the end of the month. What is the net result? Is the money that is said to be on hands enough to cover the deficiency which at this moment appears in the national accounts? Is it enough to cover the deficiency that is likely to accrue at the end of the financial year?
I want to stress the point about the Suspense Account for this reason, that I do not think people have yet got it into their heads that this year we have had the full benefit, not merely of the retention of the land annuities, but of the pension moneys and the other sums withheld. I wonder is anybody going to be very happy, after we have looted all we can from those two accounts this year, if not even half as much will be available for distribution next year? If the Budget is to be balanced, if these Exchequer Bills have got to be repaid by the end of the year, and if a sum of £1,616,000 has to go out in the supply funds this year after we have got away with the whole thing there is nothing to be distributed. We have in fact distributed to the people of the country all that has been taken from the British.
I want to see how that will work out next year. There is said to be £4,667,000 to our credit in the Suspense Account. Supposing all the annuities had been paid and that there were no defalcations, no arrears in the annuities which should be paid, and all the moneys had gone into the Suspense Account, there would be a sum of about £3,000,000 available from that source. The sums for the R.I.C. pensions, for local loans, for the excess stock, amount actually, as this year's Estimates show, to £1,966,000, let us say £2,000,000. There should be therefore £5,000,000 in that account. Two millions of that will not go into a Suspense Account next year because they are not provided for in the Estimates. They are in the Estimates for other purposes or at least sums of money equivalent to them are in the Estimates for other purposes. The Estimates have been reduced by these amounts and instead there is the equivalent for local loans, old age pensions, housing and milk. That is equated by the pensions, local loans, excess stock and the £440,000 taken from the moneys that used to go in relief of the agricultural rates. But the £2,000,000 will not go into the Suspense Account next year. How much of the purchase money will go into the Suspense Account if we still carry it forward in a notional way? The full sum that used to be collected and that used to be paid out to the bondholders, in relation to land purchase transactions, was £4,000,000—£3,000,000 under the Acts prior to the 1923 Act and roughly £1,000,000 under the 1923 Act. Next year, we are not going to collect any part of the first gale. That means that £2,000,000 is gone and we are going to collect half of the next gale, £1,000,000. What has got to be paid out? The payments to the bondholders under the 1923 Act are not in dispute. They have got to receive their moneys and their moneys amount to nearly £1,000,000, so that there is no Suspense Account next year. The Minister this morning referred to March hares. Does he remember when Alice and the Mad Hatter sat down together and the Hatter said to Alice: "Have some wine" and her reply was: "I do not see any" and his retort was: "There is not any"? The Minister is going to say this year to the people who are looking for money in relief of agricultural rates: "Have some of the new £250,000 and the old £190,000 for relief of agricultural rates." The farmers will say: "We do not see it," and the Minister replies: "It is not there." Deputy Norton will be asking one of these days: "What about the £350,000 for relief works and this Supplementary Emergency Budget of three million odd pounds. Let us have some relief" and the Minister says: "Have relief," but it is not there, either.
Where is the money to be got? If I am right in my contention that the Suspense Account money has already been, in fact, distributed and that really what we have got against that money in the Suspense Account is mainly a debt, the Exchequer bill borrowings, the fund from which bounties were paid is not going to be there next year, and the fund from which all these payments were made which were supposed to help those in the front line in the economic war are not going to be there. I think my calculation is correct on that point. The £2,000,000, the pensions, the excess stock, the local loans moneys are diverted to other purposes. Three millions that ought to be collected— what would have been in the Suspense Account or, notionally is in the Suspense Account this year—but there is only going to be 50 per cent. of the second gale collected—£1,000,000 out of £4,000,000 and, no matter what trouble there may be over the bondholders under the Acts prior to the 1923 Act, there is no trouble about the bondholders under the 1923 Act. They have got to get £1,000,000 and that is the only sum that is going to be taken from the annuity payments this year. There is no Suspense Account next year. There is no money from which to pay bounties and the Labour Party that was so vocal here the other day because of the Government's 24/- a week on relief works this year, I think, finds itself regretting that it ever criticised that 24/-. It will not be there to be given next year unless it is going to be raised by extra taxation. That is the point that most people are going to pause at.
The economies are not shown. The revenue as estimated for this year as against expenditure as estimated for this year does not bring any hope that there is going to be a balance. If there is no reduction and last year's taxation does not meet the expenditure on last year, which is the same as this year, then we are going to have a deficiency and there is going to be extra taxation to meet it. If we are going to have relief works and if we are not going to deprive the farmers of this £250,000 which is required to make up the difference between the promise made by the Minister for Local Government to them and the sums that we know are likely to be voted, there is another £250,000 to be found. Is there anything else in the way of relief to be given, and, if not, do we then enter on this second year of this war in this way, that the farmer has got certain remission, so far as his annuity payment is concerned, he has got his agricultural rates increased, and he has no fund from which there can be paid anything in the way of bounties or helps to him because he is bearing the whole brunt of the struggle? At any rate, that would seem to be the prospect as foreshadowed by the Estimates put before us and in respect of which we are taking this particular Vote on Account.
There is just one last point. What is the reaction to all this on the local authorities going to be? There is a definite attempt being made now—it can clearly be seen—to shift the burden of meeting the trouble which the Government has caused on to the shoulders of the local authorities. The amount that used to be paid for agricultural relief has been reduced. They have got to remake their rate. They were promised full derating, of course, but that was like the £2,000,000 economies. A sum of £1,600,000 is put in the new Estimates for local loans. Is that going to be a grant or is it a loan? If it is a loan, then, what are we doing? This central authority is acting as a bank to local authorities; it is going to lend money to them at a rate which will remunerate the central authority for the money it pays out, and then there will be an attempt made to cast odium on the local authorities for charges it will have to make for any works which these local authorities do under the £1,600,000 Vote here in the Local Loans Estimate.
Deputy Corish has pleaded here, every time this matter comes up, that if there is going to be any money lent it should be lent at very low rates of interest. We should have some expression as to the policy of the Government in relation to this £1,600,000. Is it going to be a grant or a loan? If it is a loan, at what rate is it to be given and is it to be at a full rate which will remunerate the Government? The local authorities probably see themselves in this position at a time when pretty nearly every member of the Labour Party who spoke in this House on the 1st March said that the life of a public man was becoming impossible, and the four of them who spoke related that phrase to the life of a public man in relation to the local authority system. Deputy Davin hoped that we were not far away from the day when the Government would put its declared policy into operation and relieve the ratepayer of the responsibility for providing home assistance. He said further that he hoped
"that the policy would carry with it an acceptance of a national responsibility for the maintenance of the able-bodied unemployed and the determination not to allow the financial responsibility to be borne."
And Deputy Davin added this:
"as it is being borne to an increasing degree by the ratepayers."
That was before Deputy Davin had any knowledge of what was ahead of him next year. Deputy Everett said it was a scandal to get a man into work because, owing to starvation and unemployment in the area, he was forced to accept rates that he otherwise would not take. He it was who used the picturesque phrase, later on, of "the present wave of unemployment." Deputy Everett then continued and gave his experiences of local authorities:
"The boards of health are overburdened at present. We have deputations and marches from the unemployed demanding maintenance because they have got letters from the Local Government Department pointing out that it is their duty to go to the board of health."
Deputy Murphy said:
"The provision that has to be made up to the present would be some way useful in normal circumstances, but the present situation is not normal. It is altogether abnormal."
Deputy Corish said at the same time:
"... Owing to the abnormal situation prevailing in the country at the moment, I am very sorry to say that, in my opinion, the amounts allocated are absolutely inadequate";
and then he added this:
"with the result that the life of a public man at the moment is not to be envied. We have demonstrations and marches by the unemployed and they are not to be blamed because they are faced with the situation where their wives and their families and themselves are faced with starvation."
He wound up by saying:
"I should like to stress the position with which local authorities are faced as a result of the abnormal demand which is being made for home help at the moment."
That was the situation on the 1st March, before they had any idea of what was ahead of them. When they get these Estimates they will know how much worse the new situation is going to be than the old. They have already got the shock of the reduction in the agricultural relief grant and they will find, when they come to look at this whole business, no provision made for unemployment as before, but, instead, the clear intention that there is going to be thrown on to the shoulders of the local authorities the responsibility of making provision for unemployment while the Government simply contents itself with acting as the banker and supplying the money and that, so far as we know at the moment, from the refusals made by the Minister for Finance to agree to Deputy Corish's suggestions, interest is going to be charged at a rate that will sufficiently remunerate any money the Government lends.
In all these circumstances the farmer has to face the certainty of the continuance of the present situation with the outlet, the only outlet, as has been proved, for his surplus agricultural produce, blocked, with the relief given to him cut down, with the rates likely to rise higher still because of the necessity for home assistance, a necessity that has been increased by reason of the policy of the Government. When all that is considered the farmer has to think still further. The great volume of relief given to him last year by means of bounties and other things, will be considerably curtailed. The fund out of which this relief used to be paid is now depleted. There is no money there to be paid into it. The farmer has to face the future with rates higher, with the demand for home assistance growing day by day, with the fund, out of which provision was made, by way of bounties, to help him to get over barriers raised against his produce, depleted, and with no question of getting bounties in the future.
These are the items that I think properly fall for consideration on this Vote, based upon the Estimates of this year, Estimates which fail to show the promised £2,000,000 reduction. There is no indication that in any other respect expenditure is going to be cut down, excepting the possibility that there will be a reduction in the expenditure on relief as compared with last year. There is an item of £100,000 for milk and then there are the extra moneys for housing. Excepting these two items, the only thing that there is a possibility of there being a saving on is the provision by way of relief and that is the first thing that has been cut down this year. In so far as this booklet shows anything, it indicates that £440,000 has been taken out of the Estimates. There is no provision made for schemes for unemployment relief and there is a reduction in the grant in relief of the agricultural rates. Those are the only things in which any attempt at saving has been made and probably it is along these lines we are going to pursue economies.
That was not the promise made to the unfortunate fools who were led to support economic war by people who say at one moment: "Of course our produce is going to be bought," and at another moment: "It is a blessing in disguise, and we will have to stop the present system of production and get to some other method that will be more economic." Let us hope we will get some clear indication of what the new policy is, what the new system of production is going to be, what the profits accruing to the people are likely to be in comparison with what they had in the past. We should also have some idea when the change is going to be regarded as completed. We must not forget that in the transition period there will undoubtedly be needed vast sums of money for the relief of farmers and people in the towns, both of whom are suffering. This Estimate holds out no hope to either.
There are none of the promised economies, and we have no statement from the Minister as to his Budget prospects. We have had no explanation as to what the situation next year is likely to be in relation to the moneys in the Suspense Account. All these things might have been spoken about by the Minister if he had not been so much interested and in such a hurry to get through this and the other measure. I am still of the opinion that the only explanation about the rush with regard to this morning's business is that money is urgently required for the purpose of balancing the Budget. We have only three weeks to wait for the Budget, only three weeks and then we will be in a position to see whether my prophecy is fulfilled.
I have no desire to follow other Deputies by introducing election propaganda. I have listened to this debate and I am frankly disappointed. Coming fresh from the country, I am aware that the people there are looking eagerly to this House for a solution of their difficulties. There are some who have argued that the situation in the country is not nearly so bad as is represented. I have no concern with either of the big political parties; I represent the plain country people. I am a member of the farming community, a community that has to bear many burdens at the present time. Scoring petty points in debate here affords little comfort to the average farmer. What we want those in authority to do is to grapple with the serious situation in which we find ourselves. We would like to hear of some remedy for existing difficulties.
I have listened very attentively to speeches made by responsible Government Deputies and I have not yet learned the Government's policy in regard to agriculture. Last year, when the land annuities question was under review and when it was decided to withhold the annuities, we were told the Government had an alternative market for us, but later this alternative market did not materialise, and since July of last year the farming community have been faced with a serious situation from the point of view of the sale of their produce. If the Executive Council have any definite plan in regard to the future of agriculture, we would be very glad to hear of it. When approached on the question quite recently, the President said that the country had given a definite answer at the last election; the country had put the Fianna Fáil Party into a responsible position. Fianna Fáil is in power with a majority of one over all other Parties in the House. It is their duty to carry out the promises they made to the people.
I maintain that the people who are suffering had not the voice in the election they should have had. The people who are mainly responsible for the present position are people who had votes but no responsibility. We are faced with a reduction in the agricultural grant to the extent of almost half a million pounds. We were promised, but have not been granted, full derating such as the people on the other side of the Border have. This is a keen disappointment. I was at an agricultural meeting on Monday at which this matter was under review. The position, as we find it, is that the basic rate in our county will be higher and the grant towards the relief of rates will be lower. It is the old story. Our income is fast diminishing and our expenditure is rising every day.
We are told that we ought to be satisfied with the remission of half of the annuities. I have been up and down the country as much as any other person, and the annuities question was not a burning question, because it was felt by those paying the annuities that they in the future possibly not themselves but at least their successors would live to see the time when the annuities would cease because they would be fully paid up. The land annuities are not the big thing in agriculture at the present time. Overhead expenses, rates, insurances, and other demands quite overshadow the annuities. We are glad of any remission of the annuities just as a drowning man will catch at a straw or anything that will keep him afloat longer. That is the only reason that the people of the country are accepting what is being offered to them at the present time. But we are not getting back to bedrock. The question is where are we to get the money for our industries and how are we to carry them on? It is all right to have half the annuities remitted, but how are we to meet the rest of our liabilities? Take the case of a man paying an annuity of £20 a year on, say, a £20 valuation. I come from a county where considerably more than half of the occupiers of the land in the county are under £15 valuation. What great prospect has the remission of half of that annuity for such a man? Say the annuity is £10, then the remission would be £5. That is all the relief they are being offered.
Another matter which has caused a great deal of alarm is the manner in which the agricultural grant is to be allocated. We are told, according to the circular issued to the local authorities, that farmers in order to get relief must employ one male worker for every £10 of their valuation, otherwise they will not get the maximum relief. Are we going to be turned into a country of market gardeners? I cannot conceive of any farmer being able to employ one man for each £10 valuation, if he is to produce on anything like an economic basis. We heard a good deal yesterday about the despised 24/- a week. Even taking the wage on that basis that would mean £62 8/- a year for the farmer to pay to each labourer. I suppose I may take it that on an average thirteen acres of arable land would be valued at £10. I ask how could the farmer get £62 8/- out of every thirteen acres he farms? The thing is absurd.
Coming now to the big question which was discussed yesterday with regard to the bounties I have to say that the Minister for Finance made a valiant effort to prove that the bounties on cattle are passed on to the farmers. I am quite aware that some bounties did go to the farmers. Owing to their peculiar nature the bounties on turkeys were passed on to the farmers. The bounty on butter goes to the farmer. But I must say and I am in a position to know, that the bounties on cattle have not been passed on to the farmers. If the Minister has time I would like if he would accompany me to a fair to-morrow and he will see for himself that no bounty on cattle is being passed on.
When we begin to make comparisons I think we should always compare nearly identical situations. Owing to where I live I attend as many markets and fairs north of the Border as on this side of the Border and I am in a position to know what is happening. The nature of the work of the farmers on both sides of the Border is identical. We are tillage farmers, raising cattle and getting them as far as we can on for the grazier. What is the position? On this side of the Border a man buys a £10 beast at the fair. Before he exports it across that beast will carry a £4 duty. That is what the farmer should get for it at the other side of the Border in order to make his own. I want to say that there is no competition for cattle at our fairs at this side of the Border other than by those buyers who try— and some of them do succeed—to avoid the duty. That is the only competition there is in Free State fairs for our cattle.
If we take the question of pork I am sure the bounty is being paid but yet one can take it that on the average we get 10/- a cwt. less for our pork than is paid for it across the Border. Then take the question of eggs. These have been the mainstay of the cottage farmer and, indeed, of all farmers who have been meeting their grocer's bill out of them. What is happening in the case of eggs? In Ardee yesterday, as I was on my way in, I saw that eggs were being sold at 5d. per dozen. Across the Border last week second grade eggs were worth 1/- a dozen. The bounties cannot be passed on in these cases.
The situation is critical and the farmers are now facing the problem of putting in another crop and what is likely to be the result? We have still a great deal of last year's crops on hands and we have last year's cattle on hands. What are we to do with them? Our demands are just as much now as they were when the prices for our produce were considerably higher. What is the prospect in front of the farmer? The Minister yesterday and to-day said that certain expenditure was not met in better times than the present. Admittedly the times are not good. They are very critical times and the farmer finds it hard to meet his outgoings. My plea is that we should face the situation as men; we ought to think of ourselves first and in this matter we should be all Sinn Feiners and get out of this economic situation in which we are placed.
Let us hate the British people as much as we like but, for Heaven's sake, let us not cut off the one avenue in which to sell our produce. There has been a good deal of talk that we here in the Free State are far better off than the people in a similar situation across the Border. The leader of the Farmers' Party here used words from which I rather inferred that was his view. Now I am in a position to speak on that. I have been watching the Border situation since the inception of these tariffs and in no case that has come to my knowledge have we succeeded in inducing an individual farmer in Northern Ireland to come over and buy a farm in the Saorstát —not even have we succeeded in inducing a Nationalist farmer to do it. The situation is critical for the farmers. We have tried our best with our farms in order to make the most out of them. We have followed and adopted the schemes proposed by the Department of Agriculture; we have at present, in operation, schemes for the improvement of our cattle, pigs and the produce of our poultry, and we are not in any sense big grazier people. We are people who till the land, people who are not afraid to work, but we want to see some prospect before us when we do till the land. We would like if the responsible members of the Government would tell us what prospect there is for next year's crops and next year's cattle which we are to raise.
There is one other point which I would like to emphasise in connection with the Vote for the Land Commission. It has been the practice in regard to the resumption of land that when it comes to fixing the price there is an appeal to the land court. After the land court has fixed what is a right price for the land which they purport to acquire, it is not right for the Land Commission to reduce the price any further. I have a case in mind in my own county in which an agitation was kept up for the division of a certain farm. The agitation was so far persisted in that the owner said: "take the land." He had another farm alongside. After the Land Commission had agreed to take the land and had fixed the price, he sold his other farm because he was not in a position to carry on. He also sold his stock and implements. The Land Commission sent him word, after he had done all that, that they did not require his land and that he could do what he liked with it. That is not fair play. If a court of the land decide, without appeal, that a certain thing is right, after hearing the two sides, it should be binding on one side as well as on the other. It is a poor thing to make a fool of a man after all the agitation there was about the land and after he had put his cards on the table and destroyed the market for his land. I do not want to make the lot of the people responsible for carrying on Government in this country any harder but, as one who is in contact with the land, I know how lettings are going. Farms belonging to widows and orphans and people who are no longer able to work them are being let and the owners cannot get their rates, rent and taxes for the land, not to speak of interest on the capital. That is not as it should be but it serves as a barometer of the times. I make these few remarks in the hope that the Minister will let us know where he is leading us in agriculture in the economic situation in which we find ourselves.
Have you any remedy to suggest yourself?
I have.
This Central Fund Bill, which includes the items discussed last evening on the Vote on Account, is an eloquent indication of the mentality of the Government as affecting agriculture. Like Deputy Haslett, I come from the land. What struck me very forcibly with regard to this discussion was that a lot of people on every side of the House have been straining at the gnat after swallowing the camel. The three outstanding things in this Vote on Account are: the reduction in the Agricultural Grant, the reduction in the Vote for Agriculture, and the reduction in the Vote for the Land Commission. Those three Votes are more intimately connected with the farming community than any of the others. After the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party had destroyed the farmer's markets, after that Party had taken away whatever chance he had of maintaining himself in any decency, they have gone further and cut down every Vote that would afford relief to the farmers. Take the Vote on Agriculture itself. I have been obliged by being supplied with a copy of the Estimates for the coming year. The Vote on Agriculture, I find, is suffering to the extent of about £90,000. The reductions are made up mainly of such items as: improvement of milk, improvement of live stock, loans for agricultural purposes, improvement of cow-testing associations, provision of dairy bulls and provision of stock pigs. Was it not quite sufficient for the Government to have taken the market from the farmers without taking away from them the assistance afforded by the late Government in the provision of services which are absolutely necessary to the farming community? In the Agricultural Grant we have a reduction of over £449,000. If we add to that the reduction in the Land Commission Estimate and the reduction in the Estimate for Agriculture, we get practically three-quarter of a million pounds. However, I understand that part of the reduction in the Land Commission Estimate is due to some new arrangement with regard to excess land stock. Even allowing for that, there would be a reduction of £50,000 or £60,000 in the Land Commission Estimate.
Do you know to what that is due?
No, but I am told that after provision has been made for excess land stock, there still remains £50,000 or £60,000 of a reduction in the Land Commission Estimate. I do not know what that £50,000 or £60,000 represents.
It represents a reduction on account of advances in lieu of interest. That is due to the fact that vesting is now taking place much more expeditiously than heretofore. The land is being divided more quickly——.
That is news to me.
It is being vested more quickly.
I happen to come from a county where the people are clamouring for the division of land and yet no division is going on. It has been at a complete standstill there. Perhaps Fianna Fáil is going to make provision in the coming year for that; certainly it is not going on in our place at present.
What is going to be the effect of all this on the State? This reduction of the agricultural grant may appear to the Ministry to be quite a small matter. I was amazed yesterday evening at the speech of the Minister for Education. I never thought that the farming community were so well off as they are until I heard the Minister for Education. He told us of all the things the Government had done for agriculture—the grants that had been given and the relief that had been given. The change over of Fianna Fáil from this side of the House to the other side has made a profound change in the minds of the Fianna Fáil Deputies. Have they learned any lesson from the fact that they have been obliged to bring in a Bill to halve the annuities? Have they learned any lesson from the fact that their own Minister for Local Government has had to circularise and re-circularise the county councils and the local authorities to try to get in the rates? Has that taught the Ministry no lesson? If the agricultural community are as content and as well off as the Minister for Education would have us believe, what is the necessity for halving the annuities? What is the necessity for trying to get in rates, 50 per cent. of which are still uncollected? What is the compensatory advantage to be offered to the local authorities for this cutting down of the agricultural grant?
We are to have increased loan facilities. What is the meaning of that? Deputy McGilligan, referring to this matter, said that it meant nothing more than that the Government were becoming the bankers for the local authorities, and that they were lending money at a rate of interest which would repay the Government. I think, with all respect to Deputy McGilligan, that he has not any experience of local government or he would go much further than that. I have never known a loan taken up by a local authority for any purpose, particularly for building purposes, that has not made a charge upon the local authority later on in some shape or form. In reply to a question asked here the other day with regard to 14 cottages under construction in County Leix, the Minister for Local Government gave certain figures. He said the estimated cost was £5,300; the contractor's price was £5,020; the actual cost to date, £8,333; and to complete the work it would take £8,505. How is the local authority to come out of that? That would be very interesting for Deputy Norton.
It is a Cumann na nGaedheal County Council?
That does not affect the figures.
With a Labour chairman?
The Deputy is wrong as usual.
Deputy Norton yesterday on the Vote on Account asked the Government to take steps to see that local authorities would take advantage of these loans and build houses. I happen to be connected with a local authority for a number of years and I am quite as anxious to see houses built as Deputy Norton or any other Deputy. But while a situation like this is confronting the country: that the Government is forced to reduce the annuities by half and to circularise local authorities to make some attempt to get in rates; while the farming community is in the position it is at present, not able to pay lawful debts, I certainly am not prepared to increase further the liability on the ratepayers and embarrass them further by taking advantage of a loan which will increase the liabilities and increase the rates.
To what extent?
I would like Deputy Norton to work that out. I do not know whether Deputy Norton is connected with a local authority or not, but I happen to be connected with one for a considerable number of years. Perhaps I have not absorbed this question as well as Deputy Norton but this is my experience of it. In former years the old district councils built labourers' cottages and in our county the initial cost was supposed to be covered by a rent of 2/- a week. It was covered on paper if you like, but with depreciation, repairs, etc., a certain liability fell on the ratepayers. At the present time in Roscommon, according to the estimate of our engineer, we cannot let cottages at less than 3/- per week. We think that we will be very lucky if we get out by letting them at 3/- but the people say they cannot pay 3/-. If we let them at 2/- we put a burden of 1/-, per week per cottage on the ratepayers, plus the charge for depreciation.
I will send the Deputy a good scheme.
We rely on our engineers for our schemes.
This is prepared by engineers.
We have as good engineers as Deputy Norton has. I am sure he will agree with me that if we do borrow for housing we will have to make some contribution out of the rates. How are we going to do that at present, when the Fianna Fáil policy has deprived the agricultural community of their markets? Not alone have the agricultural community been deprived of their markets, but the Government have now cut down the services from which they would get any benefit. They have cut down all the services which were essential to the progress and well-being of the agricultural community. I am not a pessimist by any means, but I am afraid that this Central Fund Bill is an indication of the writing on the wall. Where the money is to come from I do not know. We know the position of the agricultural community. We have the Department of Agriculture complaining that the agricultural community are not purchasing any manures this year. Why is that? Why is it that the agricultural community have not paid rates and annuities this year? Because they have not the money. Now they are to be further deprived of what they considered was their right. The local authorities have been treated with the utmost contempt in this matter. They met to consider their estimates. The Local Government Department never budged about what they were going to do. The local authorities met again and confirmed the estimates. When all that was done the Minister for Local Government sent for the secretaries of the county councils and told them that the agricultural grant was to be reduced considerably. That was treating the local authorities with contempt. They waited until the local authorities had made what they thought was full provision for the public services, which was the right and proper thing to do. The Roscommon County Council, in considering the road estimate, were very careful not to cut it down, because they wanted to make provision where possible for employment. They felt that they were taking on an obligation which should not be the obligation of a local authority, viz., the provision of employment apart from the ordinary necessities of road work. The county council passed the estimate in full feeling that they were at least getting the same agricultural grant that they got last year. When we had done all that, and when we could not re-open the matter, the Minister for Local Government invited the secretary up to Dublin to tell him that the grants were going to be reduced by something like £14,000 in the County Roscommon, and the rates there will in consequence be increased by something like 1/2 in the £. We cannot get in last year's rates. The merchants cannot get in their shop debts. The farmers are not able to pay for their manures. We have it on the authority of the Department of Agriculture that no manures are being bought. To my mind, that is one of the most serious things that ever happened in an agricultural country like this.
It is a most serious thing that the farmers have not put out artificial manure because they are not able to pay for it. That is the situation; I know it; I am living amongst them; I am at their fairs; I am at their markets; I am one of them. I know that that is the situation at the present time. The people are not able to pay their just debts. They are not able to pay for artificial manures. They have not paid a very large amount of their rates yet; they have not paid their annuities. I am sure, as I said a while ago, that it is the writing on the wall, but some people on the Front Benches on the opposite side will refuse to see that writing. I say that before we are absolutely down and out some consideration should be given to the agricultural community. The Government may think that because of certain concessions which they have made towards the agricultural community they have done their part. I should like them to ask their back benchers up from the country to say honestly what is the situation in the country. If they do, and if there is any honesty left in the Front Bench they certainly will take some steps to end the economic war which is the cause of that situation in the country.
What are we being offered by way of compensation for our live stock trade? We are being asked to grow wheat. I remember in 1928 the present President of the Executive Council asked in this House that an Economic Committee be set up to consider the growing of wheat in this country. I remember at that time that the figure put up by President de Valera, the present Minister for Agriculture and the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, as the lowest figure which could be offered to the farmers who grew wheat, was 30/- or 31/- per barrel. That was in 1928. The farmers of this country could well afford at that time, considering the prices they were getting for their agriculture produce and live stock, to grow wheat for nothing in comparison to now. Yet we are asked now to substitute wheat at 23/6 per barrel for our live stock trade.
I think it would be really superfluous for me to comment further unless the Government wakes up, unless the Government realises and after realising takes action. There is no use in realising. The Minister for Agriculture realised quite recently that if we had increased tillage in this country it would also mean an increase of live stock. Those are the words of the Minister for Agriculture, and they are perfectly true. If that is so, how are we going to exist without a live-stock market? If this Government cannot do something to relieve the situation, if they cannot do something to win the economic war, then they should, for goodness sake, get out and let somebody in who will.
There are just one or two matters which I wish to hear something about. As to the National Housing Board, I would like to know what the activities of this particular Board are. They have been in existence some three or four months. When they were appointed I put down a question, but the information I got did not help a lot. Those three gentlemen are costing the country in or about £2,000 per annum, but, so far, I have heard nothing of what they have done. Would it be possible, seeing they have so much time, that they might advise different boards of health throughout the country as to the best means of carrying on under the Housing Act of 1932? I think they could give very useful help in that respect. They might also make inquiries as to the number of houses that are needed in each county. I am sorry that Deputy Norton has left, because in the course of his remarks last night he said that the holding up of the building operations under the 1932 Act was in no small way due to the members of the local authorities who are members of this Party and also members of the Centre Party. I think that for the holding up of the building operations Deputy Norton and his Party are as much responsible as Fianna Fáil, because they brought us to the position in the country that the local authorities are not able to build, and all blame should not be put on the local authorities. The Galway Board of Health, which is three-quarters Fianna Fáil, and the Galway County Council, the majority of whose members are Fianna Fáil, have recommended that in Galway County a hundred cottages should be built. Fancy a hundred cottages in a county like Galway—ten for each union! I have here a resolution of the Athenry Housing Organisation——
Is the Deputy in order at the moment? He is discussing the Estimates in detail on the Central Fund Bill.
The Deputy is in order.
Mr. Brodrick
I suppose the point does not suit.
I assume that the Deputy is just taking one or two instances to illustrate his thesis?
Mr. Brodrick
Yes. The county council have recommended the building of a hundred cottages. I have here a copy of a resolution passed by the Athenry Housing Organisation in which they have applied for sixty houses in that one town. I can tell the Minister that nineteen of those applicants are married men who are living in rooms and paying from 6/- to 10/- per week. Under the scheme of the Galway Board of Health we will probably get two houses in that area. Fourteen of the houses which are at present occupied by applicants are condemned by the Medical Officer of Health. I do not place all the blame on the Galway Board of Health or on the Galway County Council. A good deal of the blame should be placed on Fianna Fáil and Deputy Norton's Party, because by the reduction of the agricultural grant County Galway loses 1s. 3d. in the £.
I suggest that this is a Bill to provide certain moneys out of the Central Fund. Yesterday we had a discussion on the Vote on Account, in which the advisability of providing these moneys for certain special services could properly have been discussed. I think that on the Central Fund Bill discussion should confine itself to ways and means of raising the money.
On the point raised by the Minister, it is not desirable to have a duplication of yesterday's debate; in fact it is neither usual nor desirable to have a long discussion on the Central Fund Bill at all. Owing to an arrangement come to yesterday the Vote was taken at a certain hour. There were certain Deputies anxious to speak. On the one or two occasions on which a debate has taken place on the Central Fund Bill it was largely a continuation to the debate on the Vote on Account. The Deputies called on to-day were Deputies who had not an opportunity of speaking yesterday.
Mr. Brodrick
I thought that was the understanding yesterday, that those who had not an opportunity to speak would get a chance——.
Those Deputies who had not an opportunity of speaking yesterday have been called on to-day.
I do not wish to deprive any Deputy of his right to speak. The only point is that I think in order that the business of the House might be expeditiously dealt with Deputies might confine their speeches to those topics which can be discussed either on the Vote on Account or the Central Fund Bill.
Would the Minister inform the House what topic cannot be discussed on the Central Fund Bill?
Mr. Brodrick
I want to illustrate the point as to why the local authorities cannot build. More unemployment has been caused for the past twelve months and the ratepayers are asked to pay 8d. in the £ towards its relief and this is being caused by the Fianna Fáil Government. When the Minister for Industry and Commerce came into office in February, 1932, he said he wanted about eight months in which to relieve unemployment. What has he done in twelve months towards relieving unemployment? We had the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance a few days ago telling us the people of the country were so prosperous and that the farmers were so prosperous and what the Government was doing for them. The prosperous farmer is getting £1 a ton for his potatoes; 8d. a score for eggs; and the £2, which he formerly received for his sheep, is down to £1 —these are the people who are prosperous at the present time. We had a suggestion the other day from the Minister for Local Government and Public Health that the ratepayers should look out and that the Government should not be responsible any longer for the able-bodied unemployed and that they have got to go back on the rates. If that is so there is going to be a big change in the rates next year. I say that is one of the possible reasons why local authorities are not taking advantage of the Housing Bill of 1932. It is not because they are supporters of Cumann na nGaedheal that they have tried to hold up the building of houses. They are just as anxious as Fianna Fáil are that houses should be built but when they want to have houses they want to see their way to pay for them first.
Some of the members are rather at a disadvantage in discussing these Estimates. Of course, there are advance copies but the ordinary members are without them. I do not wish, therefore, to discuss the Estimates in detail. I merely wish to refer to one particular Vote. It has been mentioned here that some of the Deputies are covering more ground under this than they are supposed to, but I would like to point out to the House that on the arrangements we were told that we would have the Estimates in front of us yesterday. We are still discussing them to-day without having them. Some of us, by arrangement, did not get an opportunity of speaking. I think also the Minister after the arrangement come to that the debate was to be curtailed, curtailed his explanation of the Estimates so that I might say we are at a double disadvantage. It may be thought trivial that I am only referring to Vote No. 6—the Office of the Revenue Commissioners—after the survey which has been made of the main financial position. At the same time, I would like to point out that very important points arise from the decision of the Commissioners. The Minister for Industry and Commerce speaking yesterday on these Estimates, said the present policy of the Government was that of putting duties on any articles that can be manufactured in this country economically. That initiation will, no doubt, find general acceptance. At the same time when that comes to be translated into facts a number of points arise which leaves the general community in a very grave position of doubt and uncertainty. I might say, without in any way finding fault with any of the duties that have been imposed by the Government, there is a very big line as to the interpretations placed upon those laws which are brought in by the Government, and there is a great difficulty on the part of the mercantile community in finding out what is the actual situation. Now, I would like to point out to the Government the fact that reference has been made on the larger issue to the position which has been brought about by employment in this country. Under these tariffs there are a number of questions that are not capable of getting a ready solution and that is holding up employment to a degree which I do not believe the present Government are aware of. When people think that a debt is not leviable under the present law and they cannot get a decision on those matters what do they do? They do nothing. They wait until the solution can be obtained and in consequence employment is suffering. I will only mention a few things which are really more or less symptomatic of the classes of difficulties which the commercial community are under. I brought under the Minister's notice some time ago the question of gold size. He mentioned to me very kindly that he would take up that question, but in my opinion the Revenue Commissioners will have to decide what is gold size. In other words, when they have imposed tariffs they will have to make up their minds as to what they will allow in free and what they will impose a duty on. When the Minister was questioned he said some of the gold size contained more varnish than others and he tried to make a point that gold size was varnish. I would like to assure him that they are two entirely different substances. That really only brings me to the point that at the present time they have no definition for what gold size is.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until Wednesday, 22nd March, 1933, at 3 p.m.