To-day I asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if his attention had been directed to the report of the Commissioner for Tipperary in connection with the rate question. The answer of the Minister was that he had seen the published statement of the Commissioner. I want to remind the Minister of that statement. The Commissioner said that, in his opinion, the time had come to separate the question of the annuities from the question of rate collection. It is a very important question. The sum of £33,900 odd has been deducted, I understand, from the Agricultural Grant in South Tipperary for the year ending March, 1934. The sum of £10,000 had to be taken off the Estimate for road expenditure. That in itself is creating a certain amount of hardship in the way of unemployment amongst road workers. Whatever the position was in the past as regards the deduction of grants in respect of the non-payment of land annuities, I would like to know from the Minister whether or not he is taking any steps to implement the matter raised by the Commissioner. I would like also to put before the Minister the question of the rates in South Tipperary. In the year 1914-15 they amounted to £54,000 odd, while for 1932-33 the figure was £89,000.
Adjournment—Rate Collection and Land Annuities.
Is this in order?
There is no mention of rates in the Deputy's question.
I was only going to make a very brief reference to them to point out that the increase in rates in South Tipperary for the year ending March, 1934, is practically equivalent to the whole rate paid in the year 1914-15. The Minister must realise from that that the position is becoming an impossible one. There is no use in the Minister thinking that the farming community and the ratepayers generally will be able to provide all the money that is required for social services. If we are to have grand steam-rolled roads and are to go on building county hospitals and doing other works of that kind, then some means other than putting the charge on the agricultural community must be found for carrying out these social services. I would like to hear what observations the Minister has to make on the particular statement of the Commissioner to which I have referred: that the question of the annuities should be separated from the question of the rate collection. I hope that in raising this matter I have not delayed the House too long.
I told the Deputy to-day that I had seen the statement by the Commissioner. I have every reason to believe that the Commissioner, a man of experience, a man who takes a very lively interest in matters of this kind, possibly in his capacity as acting for the lately abolished elected body, gave expression to the opinion that would probably—I do not know, but he might, perhaps, have some information from the late members of the county council—be their opinion.
I thought it was the Minister's view a year ago.
Why mine? I do not know what opinion the Commissioner has beyond what he expressed in the newspapers, and he is fully entitled to do that. At least, speaking as the Minister, I would not like to attempt to restrict in any way an official, acting in that capacity, with regard to whatever opinions he might care to express with regard to his experiences in the new duties that he performs. But as to being an official expression that would in no way reflect the opinion of the Minister. He has no authority or no right and I am sure he would not attempt in any way to say that any expression of opinion that he might give in his capacity as Commissioner acting in charge of a local authority binds anyone but himself, even if it binds himself. It does not bind the Minister or the Government and I do not know if it binds anybody. The matter raised here about the separation of the question of the annuities and the rate collection is a very big issue. I think it has often been mentioned here before since this Parliament came into existence. It is a matter that has been often raised during that period by Deputies from all sides of the House: the desirability of finding some way of meeting the responsibilities that arise when agriculturists do not pay their annuities other than by deductions from the grants. As the law stands, there is no other way of doing it.
Could we not change the law?
We do change it here every day, but I see no prospect of changing that law.
That is very discouraging.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.35 until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 14th June, 1934.