As the amendment stands now, in the case of a landholder in County Dublin, no matter what acreage of land he possessed in the county, the fact that he stabled his horses in the city leaves him outside the scope of any assistance from the Department of Agriculture in connection with these schemes. I do not think that was the Minister's intention because to my own knowledge one of the largest agriculturists in the County Dublin stables quite a number of horses in the city. The city has been recently extended and quite a number of agriculturists may be in the same position as that man whom I know. Deputy Belton would perhaps be better qualified to address himself to this matter than I but it does appear that as drawn now, the amendment does mean more than the Minister had in mind when he turned his attention to the phrasing of the Bill as it stood.
The phrasing of the Bill as it stood meant that a man resident in the city, though he might get his principal occupation from the use of land outside the city, would be debarred from getting any of the advantages which are given to a person who contributes towards the rates. In either of the cases, that is either in the case of a person resident in the city or in the case of a person such as is mentioned here,
"in respect of any horses, cattle or any live stock or poultry or bees kept outside such functional area"
—that would mean kept within the confines of the metropolitan area in Dublin—the landholder although he would pay rates towards these schemes, would be debarred from getting any advantage because of the fact that these animals were housed in the metropolitan area. I think that the Minister ought to look into the amendment and on the Report Stage make provision for such a case as I have mentioned. The idea of the Minister and those who approached him on the matter is that persons resident in urban or suburban areas who are not contributing towards the cost of a scheme ought not be allowed to get the advantage of it. He might say that the time of agricultural inspectors would be taken up with these cases but I am sure it was not the intention to exclude from the benefits of any such scheme, a person having a stable inside the metropolitan area although a ratepayer in the agricultural area.