I will be glad if the Minister would explain the meaning of paragraph (d) of the section. Does that paragraph mean that the Land Commission will only have to pay on a £20 valuation no matter what amount of land they hold?
Committee on Finance. - Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1934—Committee.
Section I agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Paragraph (d) is governed by paragraph (e), and the meaning of paragraph (d) becomes clear if the two paragraphs are read together.
It is not clear to me. The end of paragraph (e) reads: "the specified valuation of the agricultural land included in each such tenement shall be the valuation thereof under the Valuation Acts or twenty pounds, whichever is in each case the lesser." That seems to me to let the Land Commission off by paying on a £20 valuation no matter what amount of land they hold.
Mr. Boland
It does not.
Why should not the Land Commission pay the same as everybody else?
Mr. Boland
I can assure the Deputy that they will.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present. House counted and 20 Deputies being present,
Does not this mean that where there is only one tenement of the specified valuation and where it exceeds £20, the specified valuation is £20? That has the effect, where the Land Commission has one tenement, of excluding it from rates because it is allowed off that £20 valuation?
I take it that it is intended to mean that where the Land Commission has one holding of 1,000 acres, and where the valuation of the agricultural land exceeds £20, the Land Commission will get relief of rates in respect of that £20 valuation. Where the Land Commission has different farms all over the country, it cannot get relief from each one of those, as if they were separate holdings of an individual person. That is the intention, whether it is carried out or not.
Mr. Boland
That is what it means. That is the intention.
Sections 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
This section states that the Minister for Finance shall make a grant of £470,000, and that such grant shall be made by the said Minister by way of an increase. Is this £470,000 to be tacked on to the original grant under the '98 Act? Would the Minister explain what difference, if any, there is between this £470,000, which is now, according to this, going to be similar to the grant given under the '98 Act and the grants given in 1925 and in 1931? Is there going to be any difference in future in those grants?
Mr. Boland
This grant is made up of four portions. There was one given in 1898, roughly of £600,000. That was doubled in 1925, and then in 1931 there was an extra grant of £750,000. Now, in addition to that, there is a grant of £470,000. The net result is that there will be £220,000 more given than last year.
Am I to understand that this £470,000 is in addition to the agricultural grant specially made in 1925 and the special grant of 1931?
Mr. Boland
Yes, it is an addition.
I cannot equate these figures, because the grant in 1898 was roughly £600,000—a few pounds short of it. That was doubled in 1925— £1,200,000. A sum of £750,000 was added in 1931, making a total of £1,950,000. Now, if we are going to get another £470,000 the total will be £2,420,000. That is the total of the grant now.
I suggest that the Minister ought to make a full confession of the sins of the Government in this matter. It is no wonder that Deputy Belton is puzzled by the way in which the Government are trying to hide their sins. What has happened is that the Government came into office in the beginning of 1932, and they said: "Oh, the farmers were not getting a fair `do' at all." The farmers, who were in that year getting relief of rates on agricultural land to the amount of £1,948,022, were given another £250,000. Then, in the following year, the Government said: "Oh, we are going to take a lot of the money which we are spending on home assistance off your shoulders." They then took £448,000 back from the farmers without giving a halfpenny to relieve the burden of home assistance on the farmers. Then they came along in the beginning of this year and they said: "We are going to give you an additional £220,000 in relief of rates on agricultural land." They did and they are giving it now, but it is a reduction of £228,000 on what the farmers were getting in the year 1932-33.
They also dipped into the farmer's left pocket and they took out of the farmer's left pocket the moneys they were then giving them by way of bounty. They took 5/- per head off the cattle bounty and 6d. per head off the sheep bounty. So they pinched money out of the pocket into which they hoped, at any rate, the farmer was putting some of the bounty, and they put it into his other pocket by way of relief of rates on agricultural land. In the meantime, as a result of the whole transaction, the farmers are losing £228,000 in the sum for the relief of rates on agricultural land which they had three years ago. They are suffering as well a reduction of £220,000 in the amounts paid by way of bounties. I think the Minister ought to tell us what he thinks of the adequacy, or otherwise, of the £470,000 which is provided here. It points out that the Government has pursued a very vacillating policy in the whole matter of these grants.
In the meantime, the position of county councils has been going from bad to worse in the burden of their normal warrants for the year, and in the burden of arrears carried over from the previous year. They are facing year after year a decline in their income. It was pointed out here before that whereas in the year 1932-33, when the agricultural community had the full benefit of a grant of £1,950,000 for the relief of rates on agricultural land, the assessment for the year was £2,323,546. Two years afterwards, this year, when they are getting £228,000 less by way of relief of rates on agricultural land, and £220,000 less in bounties on cattle and sheep, the total assessment is £2,963,982. In other words, the assessment for the year has gone up by £640,000. As the Minister is aware, at the beginning of this year they were facing a bill for £1,142,000 by way of arrears from last year, whereas two years ago they were only facing a bill for £435,000 in respect of arrears. In the meantime, as between these two years, the year before the present Government took over and the current year, the receipts of the farming community for their export of live stock and live stock products fell from £27,186,000 to £11,400,000.
I do not exactly see the trend of the Deputy's argument, but I am strongly of the opinion that he is making a Second Reading speech and is inviting the Minister to follow in the same line.
I regret if I am out of order, but I am inviting the Minister——
To make a Second Reading speech.
——to show how, in the face of these figures, and the circumstances of which he is aware, this section provides only for £470,000 to be added to the other sums passed in other Acts.
I would like to hear more about this section before I could be satisfied. As regards the man who pays nothing, it is easy to satisfy him.
He is a wise man.
As regards this grant of £470,000, we are told that "such grant shall be so made by the said Minister by way of an increase over and above the supplementary grant under the Act of 1925"—I take it that was £600,000—"... and the additional supplementary grant in the Act of 1931." I take it that was £750,000. I would be glad to be corrected if I am wrong. There is reference also to the agricultural grant under Section 48 of the Act of 1898. That was another £600,000, making a total of £1,950,000. This section is empowering the Minister for Finance to pay another £470,000. If that is the position that means £470,000 added to £1,950,000.
No.
I know that is what they are trying to show. How do you reconcile any other meaning with the words in this section? You have first the grant under the 1898 Act; you have then £600,000 under the 1925 Act.
Yes, as amended. The first £600,000 was paid in the ordinary way through an Act of Parliament. The second one, if my recollection is correct, was voted here in the ordinary course. Last year there was a deduction of £448,000 made on that. It is on that deduction you are basing the plus £470,000. I am quite sure Deputy Belton does not want to take undue advantage of the child in charge of the Bill, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. It is not his baby. He is just fathering it at the moment.
Mr. Boland
I think Deputy Cosgrave is trying to improve on Deputy Mulcahy, but it will take Deputy Cosgrave, Deputy Mulcahy and myself to try to improve on anything Deputy Belton might say. Child and all as I am, I would not like to take on that task.
As regards the agricultural grant, I would like to refer to its origin. I do not want to make a Second Reading speech.
The Deputy has a remedy.
Not to make one at all? The origin of the agricultural grant was to enable the Government to meet a liability, not a farmer's liability, but a liability that prior to that time was met by the landlords. It was never a grant to help the farmers. It was a grant made prior to the 1898 Act. Broadly speaking, in connection with land tenure in this country the landlords met half the local rate.
The poor rate.
They were indemnified against that by the 1898 Act when the Grand Juries Act was abolished and their power was removed. It was called an agricultural grant, but it was in no sense a present to the farmers. It was a present to the landlords, if you like. The British Government took it on, and succeeding Governments inherited it. Had that condition of affairs continued, instead of the Government taking on the half of the rates, the farmers would have got each succeeding year not half the rate standardised in 1898, but half the rate of each year just as the British farmers obtained. In this country we did not get it. In 1923 the British farmers got three-quarters of the actual rate on agricultural land and the Northern Ireland farmers got three-quarters of the actual rate on agricultural land remitted. I think what prompted our late Government to double the agricultural grant in 1925 was they found themselves with some loose change in the till.
Neither yourself nor the gentlemen opposite were in the Dáil at the time.
Unfortunately I was not here then. I hope the Deputy does not suggest that if we were there, there would be no loose change. They decided because of the increased tariffs that it was only equitable to double the agricultural grant as a set off against the burden imposed through the increased tariffs on the agricultural community. I think that prompted the double grant in 1925. In 1931 a grant of £750,000 was made.
I should like to hear the Deputy dealing with the grant in Section 4.
I am on Section 4, but I want to relate it to the finances that the Government got in 1931, and has been getting since, regardless of the change of Government, out of the taxes levied to produce money to relieve rates on agricultural land.
The Deputy was not afraid to speak of '98 in this connection. I thought he was back there.
I was there, but I will not go back again. We are at 1931 now, very near home. The Minister is aware that to raise £750,000 in 1931 there was a tax of 4d. a gallon put on petrol and a halfpenny a lb. on sugar. I would say that they raised for the Exchequer £1,100,000 or £1,200,000 to meet an expenditure of £750,000. In addition, the Customs revenue in 1930-31 was £7,778,388 6s. 6d., and in 1933-34, £10,407,447 12s. 2d. In face of those figures I submit that this sum of £470,000 should be at least trebled, if not quadrupled, and leaving the economic war out of it altogether, if things were normal, with that Customs revenue, entire derating of agricultural land would not place the agricultural population in as good a position as that in which they were in 1931. All that the Minister is offering, over the 1931 figure, is some £20,000 or £30,000, and not £470,000, and I would suggest to him that it is not at all adequate to meet the situation.
Section 4 agreed?
Not a word at all from Mayo.
We do not talk; we pay up.
Section 4 agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question put: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
I do not know whether it is on Section 6 or Section 8 the question arises as to the date of the introduction of this measure. This measure ought, in all reason, to have been introduced last January and passed into law before March. A series of steps has to be taken and, as I say, I do not know whether the question arises on Section 6 or Section 8. Section 6 says:
Every council of a county shall, in the current financial year, make in accordance with this Act to every person rated certain allowances.
This is a statute specifying the framing and the segregation of these allowances, and we have it in the month of December. Most people know that the estimates in respect of the rates are made up about February, and the rate ought to be made at as early a date as possible after the 1st April. The Minister knows that, in the case of certain counties, no rates at all were collected during the first six months. There are cases in which one can allege that the people have not shown any particular appetite for paying, but in respect of certain counties I have seen one of the rate dockets myself, circulated to the ratepayers on the third day of October informing the ratepayer that the first moiety is due, and payable, on, I think, the 1st June, and the second moiety was due, and payable, on the 1st October. In times such as these, to demand, as will be demanded, payment within six months, or within seven or eight months, of the whole of the rate, is unreasonable.
Apart from that, county councils were held up in the striking of the rate and in the making of these calculations, and, in addition to that, we have the anomaly of the circulation of credit notes in certain counties and not in other counties. However, what I have to say on this is that if and when such legislation as this is under consideration, it ought to be introduced into the House in time to give no excuse to county councils to make a complaint against the legislature of the country in producing legislation for them in time.
Mr. Boland
On that question of delay, I am sure the Deputy knows the reason for it. There was a new system introduced, and there was difficulty in ascertaining what would have to be allowed on account of unemployment. That was the cause of the delay. It is hoped that it will not occur in future, but it was unavoidable in view of the fact that these new statistics had to be compiled.
I know, but you should anticipate your progress and make arrangements to have these things done in time.
Can the Minister say what, approximately, will be the total amount of the primary allowances?
Mr. Boland
The total of the primary allowances will be £1,173,405, excluding urban areas, the figure for which will be £8,992 13s. 6d. I will give the Deputy the figure in respect of employment, if he wishes. It is £385,587.
Could the Minister say whether he has had any information as to how that employment compares with a year or two before? People were employing in certain places more men than they have employed recently. If, when a man has reduced the number of his employees, through stress of economic circumstances, you come along now and give him a smaller reduction in his rates, there is no great inducement to him to employ them. I am not quite sure, in the majority of cases of which I have heard, that, where people were disemployed, it was due to the actual necessities of the case, but I would put it that if we are anxious for employment, it is at a time when the maximum number are employed that people ought to be given the advantage.
I suppose the Minister is aware that it does not affect employment one iota?
Mr. Boland
I am not aware of any such thing.
That little bit of sugar-stick will not encourage a man to till or not to till.
Mr. Boland
There may be a little more inducement later on. This is only a Bill for this year.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
7.—(1) In this section—
the expression "the qualifying period" means the period which began on the 1st day of April, 1933, and ended on the 31st day of December, 1933, and the expression "adult workman" means a male person who, on the 1st day of April, 1933, was not less than seventeen years of age nor more than seventy years of age and who was not and whose wife was not, at any time during the qualifying period, the rated occupier of agricultural land the valuation or the aggregate of the valuations of which during the qualifying period was equal to or greater than five pounds.
(3) Where two or more adult workmen were successively at work on any agricultural land during the qualifying period and the respective periods during which such adult workmen were severally so at work are such that at all times during the qualifying period at least one of such adult workmen was so at work during the whole of the qualifying period, then and in such case (whether any two or more of the said respective periods do or do not overlap) such two or more adult workmen shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to be one adult workman who was at work on such agricultural land during the whole of the qualifying period.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), line 49, after the words "five pounds" to add the following words:—"and which agricultural land was not worked during the qualifying period by the father, brother, or son of such male person or by another male person not less than 17 years of age nor more than 70 years of age employed by such first-mentioned male person."
The object of this amendment is to see, where bona fide workmen are employed, the person who employs them shall receive the full benefit to which he is entitled under the Act. It is quite possible that my amendment deals with a state of affairs which exists only in certain parts of the country, that is to say, the parts where the persons who work outside their own land for wages are very much the same class, and, in fact, are the same class, as the persons who work their own land. In other words, there are no agricultural labourers so-called at all. The sole persons who work as agricultural labourers are either small farmers or the sons of small farmers. It does happen, in a good number of instances, that a man who has got a special adaptability—he may be a very good man with cattle, or something of that kind—may be able to earn twice as much in wages as the ordinary rate for agricultural labour in the district would provide. Suppose a man, because he is specially skilled in looking after cattle, or horses, or sheep, can get £2 a week, and has a holding of land himself over £5 in valuation, it is very much better for him to receive the £2 a week himself and to employ a labourer at, let me say, £1 a week. If you change it about, and if the labourer, whom he is employing at £1 a week, were to work upon the other farm, he would not have the specialised knowledge and would be no use at all.
Then, again, it happens in other cases that a man is, let me say, a specially good ploughman. He is a rated occupier of land and he has a couple of brothers, or his father or someone like that, living with him at home and, in fact, working the land at home. It suits the family economy very much better that this particular man should work off the land and that the other members of the family, who are not actually rated, should work on the land. This is not entirely a theoretical question, because I may say that, to my own very certain knowledge, an employer in South Mayo has three workmen who have holdings of over £5 a year valuation. If this Bill goes through in its present form this particular employer will, although they are bona fide workmen, lose the advantage that he would get from the employment of those labourers. That seems to me to be very unfair. I am perfectly aware that the insertion of this amendment in the Bill at the present stage might lead to very practical difficulties for this current year, because certainly I know that in my own county the demand notes were sent out very early, and the returns were made before 1st October. In consequence, it would be very difficult to rectify the matter for this year. I take it that this Bill is really only applicable to this current year, but I should like from the Minister an assurance that for future years the state of affairs I mentioned will be taken into account, so that where there is a bona fide labourer, whether or not he has a holding of £5 or a higher valuation, the employer will receive the benefit. There can be no fraud in that connection, in view of the provisions further on in this sub-section (6). I assure the Minister that there is a very real grievance in connection with this matter.
Mr. Boland
I cannot accept this amendment for this present Bill. As the Deputy has said, the Bill is applicable only to this present year, and I promise to have the point he raised considered if there is any legislation of this kind for next year.
That will perfectly satisfy me.
In connection with this £5 valuation, would the Minister say if it relates to land only or to land and houses?
Mr. Boland
To land only.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Boland
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (3), page 6, line 25, to insert after the word "workmen" the following words:—"was at work on such agricultural land and no such adult workman."
This is merely a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, the Minister tells us that the amount of money which will be used up in this employment allowance is £385,000. The Minister cannot have failed to observe the fall which has taken place in agricultural wages throughout the country. They have fallen in Munster in the last two years by, I think, 3/-; by 2/6 in Connaught; by 3/3 in Ulster; and, I think, by 4/- in Leinster. At any rate the average fall has been 3/3 over the whole country, so it is evident that the persons who are giving employment on the land are finding it very difficult to pay their employees. The average amount provided for under this Bill is about 25/- per year relief in the case of one workman. I would ask the Minister if there is not a case for increasing the grant, based upon the necessity, at the present time at any rate, of assisting people who are giving employment so that they may pay better wages than they are paying at the moment.
Sub-section 7 provides that it shall be the poor rate collector who will say whether or not any particular ratepayer is giving the employment he claims, and it is upon the poor rate collector's report that the council makes a decision. I should like to ask the Minister whether he considers that a suitable machinery for deciding those matters. I admit it is not easy to provide a machinery for doing it, but I should like to ask him if he has had any representations or if he has seen any difficulties arising out of the fact that this additional duty is put upon the rate collectors.
Mr. Boland
We have had no representations, and it is assumed that if the system were unsatisfactory we would have had representations. In any case, the council can rectify any mistake which may be made. If a wrong report is given by the rate collector, the ratepayer is not going to lie under it; he will make representations and get the matter rectified. We have not had any complaints so far.
Would the Minister say whether any provision has been made for enterprising small farmers. There are many of them throughout the country. I met one on Sunday; he is now a big farmer. He had somewhere about 300 acres of land in conacre last year, which he tilled. He paid a rent for that.
How much per acre?
That is beside the point.
It is not.
Anyway he is a man who tills the land and employs labour. Is there any provision made for such a man to get relief in his rent because he employs labour? The land is tilled. I have a suspicion that the man who is receiving that rent and not tilling or paying any labour, might perhaps be able to get a reduction in his rates because his land is tilled, whereas it is another man who is doing the employing and taking all the risk.
That is a new phase of farming.
I am not concerned personally.
Mr. Boland
There is no provision for such people. We have had to take it on the general valuation. The Deputy knows it is not possible to legislate for every individual.
This is one of the sections which I referred to on the Second Reading. As Deputy Cosgrave has said, this comes somewhat late in the year for criticism. It is at least clear that there is no allowance for women employees, and, as I already stated in the House, in many counties —notably in the dairy counties—there are as many women employees as men, many of them doing work which it would be difficult for men to do. The Minister in his reply on the Second Reading said that the policy of the Government was to encourage male labour as against female labour. Another Department of the Government—if one can call the Revenue Commissioners a Department of the Government—gave the very opposite advice to farmers. They told them that they ought to employ women; I will not say at what wages. At any rate, the current rate of wages paid to women for work on dairy farms in the South is practically the same as that paid to men. Almost every individual dairy farmer who has a farm of any size or employs any labour at all has one or more female workers, for whose wages he gets no allowances in his rates. That is not an equitable way of treating the dairy farmers as compared with other farmers. I would ask the Minister, when proposing regulations for the coming year, to make some provision for dairy farmers, and to see that they get at least a fair crack of the whip with regard to the reduction of rates or to any allowances that are given to other farmers.
Mr. Boland
The Deputy will realise that it would be difficult to say when a woman is actually working on a farm or working about a house. Every suggestion that has been made will receive consideration. I do not think it is likely that there will be agreement to put women on the same basis as men. A woman may be working about the house for six months, and at harvest time or for milking purposes, she may be engaged on the land. There are difficulties about the question. I do not think it will be easy to say when a woman is actually engaged whole time at farm work. It is hoped that more employment will be given, as a result of these provisions, at whole time adult work.
Am I to take it from the Minister that there was difficulty in ascertaining whether women were engaged on farm work or not; or what was the obstacle?
Mr. Boland
No.
I dare say there were other reasons. There is no difficulty in ascertaining the numbers. The fact is that hundreds of women are engaged on farm work in County Dublin. As these women never work at anything else, with the exception of fruit growing, the tendency in County Dublin will be to employ women. Heretofore, the tendency was to employ fewer women, but now the tendency is to increase the number of female workers on the land, especially on fruit farms and on land that is going under glass. While I think there should be no distinction made, the allowance given for intensive farming of that kind will be absorbed by male workers. The question of women coming in does not amount to everything. I employ about 30 women and if I could get an allowance for them it would not amount to much, as I have sufficient men employed to cover all the allowance I get. This proposal will not affect the position very much in County Dublin, if at all.
Section 7, as amended, and Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister say how the fixed sum mentioned in this section has been ascertained as payable by the City of Dublin?
It is an annual sum and is going down.
So that there is no change.
Mr. Boland
That is what it was always.
Section 10 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill."
I think this section deals with the figures that the Minister was asked for some time ago. There was a sum of about £600,000, and in 1925 another sum of £600,000 which was looked upon very much in the nature of a grant, as far as the agricultural community is concerned, no matter what way farms were managed. There was then a grant of £750,000, practically on the same basis. An examination of the two grants of £600,000 shows that they practically absorbed what is called the primary amount. The sum at the disposal of the Minister now, as relief for ratepayers who give employment, amounts to approximately £3 per person employed. There are about 130,000 persons affected, and there will be £10,000 short of the £380,000 required. It is a small sum, if the intention is to increase the number of persons engaged in agriculture. I understand the policy of the Bill is to segregate what is granted rather than to give an additional sum which would stimulate the giving of employment. I do not wish to make a Second Reading speech, but it is advisable to refer to the statements of many Ministers, and some of their supporters outside, about the condition of agriculture. If ever there was a time when some assistance should be given to those who give employment, now is the time. If there is any money available for the relief of ratepayers, it ought to be given now so as to offer them every possible inducement. The sum involved amounts to about £3 per person. That was the amount formerly given as a bonus by employers, and was known as "harvest money" in County Dublin.
We give it still.
That was altogether apart from wages. The sum is really negligible if the intention is to stimulate employment. The Minister might make a note of it and impress upon the Executive Council the desirability, if they mean business, of providing the money in order to give a greater stimulant to those inclined to give employment.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."
Sub-section (3) says:—
The council of a county may, with the sanction of the Minister, decide to make the whole or a particular proportion of the allowances required by this Act to be made by such council by issuing to every person entitled under this Act to any such allowance a credit note...
I should like the Minister to tell the House whether he has issued any instructions, or is making any Departmental regulations which impose it on councils as a matter of necessity to pay these moneys by means of credit notes, or whether it is entirely within the option of the councils to pay by means of credit notes.
Mr. Boland
It is optional. Some councils were very anxious that they should be allowed to give the whole allowance on credit notes. It is optional with the councils which way they pay. It is owing to the request of the councils to be allowed to issue credit notes, with the Minister's permission, that this sub-section appears.
Can the Minister say if there were councils that last year did not issue credit notes under the Act of 1932, or that did not issue credit notes this year, but actually gave relief by means of direct deductions on the warrants?
Mr. Boland
There are such councils. I cannot give the actual names at present.
Dublin is one. I am not speaking ex cathedra now, but I am under the impression that you may break the demand notes under Sections 13 and 14, even if they were passed into law. The principle in respect of municipal finance is that a ratepayer has a life of 12 months; he is taxed for the 12 months. He is only supposed to bear liabilities for that 12 months. Let us assume that a ratepayer is unable to discharge his liability before 1st April next year, and there is a credit note outstanding. He will not get the credit of that and the discharge of his liabilities in connection with the rates will mean that he will pay more than that for which he was originally served with notice. That is bad. I think that this whole credit note arrangement is a wrong one.
Take another side of the question. A man, through misfortune or any reason you like—perhaps he cannot sell his cattle or he has other liabilities to meet, or something of that sort—is unable to meet the rates by the 31st March. He incurs a liability of £1 or £2, as the case may be, over and above that for which he was legally liable before. That is wrong. The Minister will admit that it is the hard-pressed individual who will be hardest hit in this case. Assuredly, it was never the intention to make it severe on those persons. It is quite true that, in certain cases, in order to get the advantage of the credit note, people will pay in time, but one must have the means in order to do that. Everybody will admit that for the last couple of years a rather unusual effort had to be made by agriculturists to meet their liabilities in this way. The point I want to make arises rather on Section 14 than on Section 13. I think all this credit note business should be wiped out and that these unfortunate people should have an opportunity to cash their credit notes sometime at any rate after the period.
There is another point in connection with this. Every single one of these restrictions and regulations puts extra work on the staff of the local authorities. If there is one person more than another who had to earn his money during the last couple of years it was the rate collector. A docket is issued. If it is not credited in connection with the payment, if there is an extension of time, the unfortunate ratepayer must make a pilgrimage to the rates office, if the Minister out of his bounty will extend the time, and hand in his docket and get the cash. All that means waste of time. In these strenuous days there ought not to be any waste of time or energy, and I put it to the Minister that he should reconsider the whole question of credit notes. Personally I am against them.
Mr. Boland
The Deputy will notice that in Section 17 there is a provision for extending the time.
Section 14.
Mr. Boland
This system of credit notes was unavoidable in the beginning last year. A census had to be made and it was not known in the beginning how much would be allowed for each holding. That is one of the reasons for the credit notes.
Did the Minister ever handle one of these?
Mr. Boland
I have seen them.
I should like to associate myself with Deputy Cosgrave in asking for the withdrawal of these credit notes altogether. This is not our first experience of credit notes, as in some counties there were credit notes for a limited amount last year. It was a notorious fact that very many farmers were at a loss through the credit notes expiring on 31st March. In fact, I know a couple of cases in which there were genuine mistakes and farmers who had paid previous to 31st March never got the money back which they ought to have got. The same thing may occur again. I have spoken of the difficulties of the dairy farmers and the injustice to them of not getting relief for women employees. There is an added injustice in this case. Dairy farmers get their income principally from the sale of milk. The particular period when the credit notes will be expiring is the time when dairy farmers will have no resources whatever. They will get their first cheque for milk about the end of May. In fact, the first cheque that will be of any account will not arrive until July and, therefore, they will have nothing to meet the rates. If this system of credit notes is adhered to stringently, it will mean that the bulk of the ratepayers in the dairying counties will find themselves unable to pay the rates in time and will, therefore, lose any benefit which they would get from the credit note.
What I have to say on this would be more applicable to Section 14, but as the subject has been raised now perhaps I might speak on it. The circumstances under which the Dáil met on Friday and to-day prevented me from putting down an amendment for the Committee Stage to delete certain words in Section 14 restricting the use of the credit note, and I should like to bring in on Report an amendment to delete these words. I think if the credit notes are used they ought not to be used in such a way as will discriminate against people in a certain county and put them under a disability that people in another county are not under; nor, in view of the Minister's experience in regard to the working of these credit notes and the collection of rates last year, is it reasonable that on some, and those, to a large extent the hard-pressed portion of the community, the disability of these credit notes should fail.
I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands in the House. I do not know whether he was a member of the Clare County Council last year. At any rate, he is close enough to the Clare County Council to realise the position in which they found themselves as a result of the year drawing to a close without all the rates being collected. If we take the County Clare we find that the unfortunate people who were not able to pay their rates by the 31st March were deprived of the benefit of these credit notes and that unfortunate rate collectors who, in an endeavour to save their own position, paid up the full amount of the rate for certain ratepayers, hoping to get the rates from these ratepayers, did not get the advantage of the credit notes. Again —I do not know whether it happened in Clare—we have the position that a man who goes security for a rate collector and is called upon to make up the rate for any particular year will only be called upon to do so after the close of the financial year, and, if it happened in Clare in respect of the year 1933-'34, that unfortunate person would have lost the amount of money that the credit note represented.
Last year the total amount that might have been covered by the issue of credit notes was £250,000. This year it runs to £1,558,000. If the issue of credit notes is general this year, then there is going to be a very serious situation for many people. The total amount of the credit notes which it was possible to issue last year was about 1/12th of the total warrant; but, in view of the fact that some counties did not issue credit notes, that is probably too big a percentage. Credit notes were issued in Clare, however, and the total amount of rates outstanding at the end of the year was £51,000. I submit that 1/10th of that was covered by credit notes and that, therefore, £5,000 went waste on some unfortunate ratepayers and rate collectors and was used for the advantage of the whole county during the current year. For that reason I think, with the present position of the rate collection and the difficulties arising in connection with credit notes, that we should carefully consider this question. Credit notes have been issued this year, and I submit that these credit notes should be realisable whenever the rates are paid. We ought not to have collectors, their sureties or the ratepayers in the position in which some of them found themselves last year.
Mr. Boland
If the county councils ask the Minister to extend the period of these credit notes he will do so. I have got a copy of amendment No. 3 to sub-section (14) which Deputy Mulcahy proposes to move. I will ask him, however, not to insist on it, but I can say this, that where the county councils ask the Minister to extend this period that extension will be made.
We are discussing Section 14 now, but Section 13 has not yet been passed.
Section 13 put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Boland
I just want to repeat what I have said that sub-section (1) was brought in to meet the difficulty referred to by Deputy Mulcahy; so that if people were not able to pay their rates at the end of the financial year, and if the county council asked the Minister to extend the time, the power will be in the Minister to extend it and he will do so.
Do I take it that that will apply to credit notes that have been already issued and that are available to 31st December?
To the 31st March.
Do I take it that these would be extended for this year?
Mr. Boland
The county councils may not be satisfied that the parties want to pay their rates at all. If the county councils ask the Minister to have them extended to within a reasonable time that will be done. Naturally, we are not going to give carte blanche to people to pay whenever they like. There is the danger that this would be interpreted by some ratepayers as meaning that they need not pay their rates for years. I have to say, however, that in the meantime if the county councils ask for permission to extend the period, the Minister will agree.
As a matter of fact, I have been appointed on a deputation to the Minister for the purpose of interviewing him to ask for an extension of time in connection with these notes.
Mr. Boland
That has been provided for now.
There are a number of difficulties in connection with this; first, that the people have got the credit notes into their hands and, in some cases, they are stamped for 31st December next, and there may be cases where they are stamped for 30th September. The people have in their hands documents which show on their face that these are entirely valueless after a certain date. A certain amount of publicity should be given to the fact that these documents may, in certain circumstances, be available after a particular date. The next point arises when the Minister says he will agree to the request of the county councils to extend the period.
Mr. Boland
Reasonably extend it.
Yes, to a reasonable period. I do not want to tie down the Minister in this matter, but the meaning is that he will agree to the councils generally extending the period?
Mr. Boland
Yes.
Will the Minister eliminate the possibility of the county council extending the date, but only in respect to certain classes of persons and to certain classes of holdings? I think the Minister when dealing with the county councils should see that if there is an extension of the date, such extension should be general.
Mr. Boland
That is so.
The next point that arises is with respect to the commissioner counties. Some very hard statements have been made by some of the commissioners who have been appointed to administer certain county council areas during the last 12 months. I would like the Minister to admit that in the county council areas he himself has the personal responsibility for seeing in these cases that in the matter of the credit notes no injustice will be done through the commissioners taking up a rather harsh attitude in the matter. I agree that the Minister can divest himself of responsibility where the area is administered by a county council, but I want to bring to his notice that a certain amount of responsibility will remain to him where the areas are administered by the commissioners.
Mr. Boland
I will not promise that the Minister will talk to the commissioners——
But the Minister is responsible in those areas.
Mr. Boland
The Minister has got to get information as to who the ratepayers in arrears are, and whether there is a campaign in the district not to pay rates. Apart from that, he will see that the same facilities are extended to the commissioner counties as to the others, and I expect that Deputy Mulcahy cannot hope for more.
That has not been the position in the past with regard to the commissioner counties.
Mr. Boland
That is what Deputy Mulcahy wants. He wants the same consideration given to counties under the control of a commissioner as to counties in which the county councils are functioning. I will undertake that that is done.
I do not know whether the Minister can remedy the other point I want to bring up. Certain people suffered a real injustice in the last year as a result of the operation of the credit note system in certain counties. Is it possible to make restitution in any way to people who suffered in that respect?
Mr. Boland
I am afraid that it is impossible to change these things. I do not think that can be done. From the Deputy's own experience he must know how difficult it would be. As Deputy Cosgrave stated, the ratepayer only lives one year. That is the difficulty.
We are talking of men, not ratepayers, now. In numbers of cases men suffered hardships because of the operation of the machinery of these credit notes. I refer to cases where ratepayers lost money last year and there should be some redress.
Mr. Boland
I do not think it is possible to have that remedied. It will be examined, and, if there is any way found of remedying it we will do so. I think Deputy Mulcahy knows that.
Have it in mind for Christmas consideration.
Is Deputy Mulcahy withdrawing his amendment?
It is not before the House. I have not moved it. I did think of putting up that amendment on the Report Stage, but in view of what the Minister has said now I do not intend to remove it on Report Stage.
Section 14 agreed to.
Sections 15 to 20 and the First Schedule agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule stand part of the Bill."
Would the Minister tell us officially what is the total of the Second Schedule?
Mr. Boland
I hope the Deputy is not asking me to do the tot now. The amount is £1,970,000, less the Dublin item.
Second Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Bill ordered to be sent to the Seanad.