Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 25—Supplementary Agricultural Grants. – Dáil Éireann (10th Dáil) – Tuesday, 5 Jul 1938

Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 25—Supplementary Agricultural Grants.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim na raghaidh thar £820,989 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1939, chun méaduithe an Deontais d'Udaráis Aitiúla chun Faoiseamh do dhéanamh maidir le Rátaí a thalamh Thalmhaíochta (Uimh. 35 de 1925; Uimh. 28 de 1931, agus Uimh. 25 de 1936).

That a sum not exceeding £820,989 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, to increase the grant to local authorities in relief of rates on agricultural land (No. 35 of 1925; No. 28 of 1931, and No. 25 of 1936).

Mr. Brennan

I think the time has really arrived when the ratepayers are entitled to more consideration than they are getting. If the Minister considers the increased estimates of county councils and other local authorities, and the very much increased responsibility placed upon them, and, in conjunction with that, remembers that their incomes have not increased, the Government ought to come to the assistance of the ratepayers to a much larger extent than is at present the case. On this side of the House, instead of a supplementary agricultural grant or an agricultural grant, we believe there ought to be derating. It is not fair to people engaged in agriculture that they should have to compete in the same market with others who are derated. The Minister now admits that it is a valuable market and, I suppose, he will say that he always thought so.

Mr. MacEntee

I always said that.

Mr. Brennan

Having gone into that market now, we ought, at least, to be put on equal terms with others who gained a great deal while we lost a great deal. While the Minister and his colleagues were whipping John Bull we lost a great deal. If we want to get back, there is only one way to do it, and that is by producing a better article, and by beating competitors. We will not do that unless overhead charges are reduced in some shape or form. If we are to have increased production on our farms that increased production must have an outlet. If the outlet is the British market, we must be put into a position to compete and to oust those who, during the last six years, ousted us. I do not believe, and I am sure the Minister does not believe, that anyone in the British market is going to buy our produce in preference to any other produce unless it is a better article. How are we to produce a better article? We are certainly not going to produce it by continuing the very heavy overhead charges that our farmers have to meet. In the Vote for Agriculture we had no gesture from the Minister to the farming community, in the way of something being done, as was suggested on several occasions, giving them cheaper artificial manures or something to help them along. I remember when the present Government sat on this side of the House, that a very strong appeal was made for a hugely increased agricultural grant. As a matter of fact, when the Fianna Fáil Party came into power, as a gesture their first act was to increase the grant but it dropped it the next year and remains in that position still. The Minister may say, as he said recently in the House, that, as a matter of fact, the agricultural community had got more in grants last year than ever. If the agricultural community got something that was withheld during previous years, it was not any concession, as it was theirs by right, and should never have been withheld. As it was withheld in the past this is not any concession by the Government or by anybody else now, but is merely giving what was due. One would have expected that there would be a realisation of the importance of the British market in view of the recent settlement with that country, and the necessity of trying to get back there with a better article than we can at present produce, and that the burden agriculture has to bear would be lessened to such an extent that the farmers would have an opportunity of getting back into that market. The only way to get back there is, either by a reduction of overhead charges or by some kind of direct subsidy to artificial manures or feeding stuffs. Farmers are hampered at both ends of the scale. They are expected to increase production and to produce better articles, while absolutely nothing is done in the way of reducing overhead charges. Now that the Government has gone a certain length, and has seen the light, it should go further and help the farmers by giving a higher agricultural grant than the amount set out here.

Mr. Cogan

I consider this grant altogether inadequate. I hold that farmers are more entitled to the complete derating of agricultural land now than in 1932, when the Minister and his colleagues guaranteed them complete derating. The case for derating does not rest on the fact that the farming industry is at present in an impoverished condition. It rests mainly on the fact that the present system of financing local services is fundamentally unjust, because it is based not on the income of the ratepayers or the farmers but upon rateable valuation. Every fair-minded person will agree that the contribution which any citizen should give to the upkeep of the public services should be in proportion to income. Rates on agricultural land, which are the contribution farmers make to the upkeep of local services, bear no relation whatever to farmers' incomes. A farmer with £20 valuation is a poor man. He is a struggling uneconomic holder, a man with an income that is inadequate to support a family, yet he is taxed on that income. We heard a great deal to-day about the high salaries of civil servants. If a civil servant with £1,000 a year lives in a moderate sized house his valuation will not exceed £20. Therefore, he pays the same contribution towards the upkeep of social services as a struggling farmer. It is on that basis the case for derating rests. Christian teaching, and the laws of justice demand that the contribution which each citizen of the State should make towards the upkeep of the State should be in exact proportion to the citizens' means, yet, the civil servant with £1,000 a year pays the same contribution towards local services as farmers who have no income. The farmers are being hunted by rate-collectors, and by the Land Commission when they are unable to pay their way.

A system which allows such injustice and such inequality between one citizen and another, is a system which must be abolished, and the first step in that direction is the introduction of a just system, based upon income, and by derating agricultural land. It will be claimed that the derating of agricultural land will impose unjust burdens on other ratepayers. Everyone must realise that there is only one way to finance derating, and that is by making a grant from the Central Fund to local authorities to carry on local services. Everyone must realise that derating must be accompanied by such legislation as will fix a maximum limit to rates on such property as is not completely derated. Everyone acknowledges that it would be absolutely necessary, with the remission of rates on farmers, who are the largest section of the ratepayers, to introduce legislation to fix a maximum limit for such citizens as would still be liable to rates. That, of course, may be assumed and that disposes of all the arguments that are used against derating. In addition to what I would call the fundamental demand or claim for derating, the claim based on justice, we have the impoverished condition of the farming community at the present time. We have the fact that farmers for the past five or six years have been labouring under a condition of actual depression, have been carrying on their industry under conditions which no other section of the community would tolerate. You have the fact that farmers have been forced to sell their stuff for about one-sixth of what they were really worth. Would any section of the community agree to such a reduction in their income, to such a reduction in their earning power as farmers have been forced to submit to during the past five or six years and, having been forced to submit to such conditions, does not justice demand that they be recompensed immediately and recompensed by having their overhead charges reduced?

Again, you have another argument in support of derating in the fact that the farmers of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are exempt from rates on agricultural land. Those farmers are competing against the farmers of this country in the British market and if we are to compete with them in the British market we must be put on a basis of equality, that is to say, we must get the same rights and privileges which the farmers of Great Britain and Northern Ireland enjoy.

There are other aspects of this question which, I think, call for consideration. During the past few years the system of allocating the agricultural grant has been revised, has been altered, and it has been altered to the detriment to a great extent of the farmer of over £50 valuation. The farmer with £50 valuation or upwards is not in a position to derive much benefit from the agricultural grant at the present time, due to the fact that the grant has been manipulated to give the largest measure of relief to the largest number of electors. It has been used to a great extent for vote catching purposes.

Thus we have the fact that a farmer with a high valuation must employ one man to every £12 10s. of his valuation — that is, approximately, one man to every 12½ acres of his holding, which is, as you must realise, an absolute impossibility. It is absolutely impossible for a farmer to employ one man to every £12 10s. of his valuation, or to every 12½ acres of his holding, and pay that man at the rate of £70 a year. There is absolutely no means by which a farmer can derive such a profit out of 12½ acres of his holding as will enable him to pay the standard rate of wages at the present time to one employee.

Again, there are other aspects of this question of the distribution of the agricultural grant which expose it to the ridicule of all fair-minded people. A farmer who has a grown-up family is granted relief in respect of all the male members of the family. He is not granted any relief in respect of the female members. It is assumed, apparently, that the ladies who work on the farm can live on air. Again, the farmer who employs female labour is allowed no abatement in respect of that employment. Again also, the farmer with a young, helpless family under 17 years of age is allowed no abatement whatever in respect of those dependents. Anyone, I think, who has any knowledge of agricultural conditions must realise that it is the farmer with the young family, the farmer who is trying to keep that family clothed and educated and fed, who is the most entitled to relief — to the maximum relief — under the agricultural grant, and not the farmer who has got grown-up sons who are able to help him on the farm. Yet you find the peculiar system under which the agricultural grant is allocated is designed to inflict the greatest hardship upon the poorest section of the farming community, the farmer with the young, helpless family, with female employees and dependents, and to give the maximum relief to the farmer with a grown-up family. Such a system must be condemned. It could only have originated, I think, in the mind of someone with a bias against women and children. That is apparently the only explanation that can be given in connection with the present allocation of the agricultural grant. Surely, even at this hour, the Government will realise the necessity of coming to the relief of the agricultural industry, and of carrying out the promise which they gave during the years 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932 — the promise of the complete derating of agricultural land.

Mr. Corry

Since this question of the agricultural grant has been raised on the Vote, I would just like to deal with it briefly. Deputy Brennan demands that we put them in as good a position as our competitors. I claim that we are in a better position. Farmers in Northern Ireland paid their full annuity, though the Northern Ireland Government has enjoyed the holding of the annuities there ever since 1922, or since 1920, since the Government of Ireland Act was introduced. When this question of derating or halving of the annuities came up, I put forward the claim that the annuities should be cut in half on behalf of the farmers, and I consider I did a good day's work for them. The farmers have got 50 per cent. reduction in their annuities as compared with the farmers in Northern Ireland, who are our competitors according to Deputy Brennan.

Mr. Brennan

He got 100 per cent. in his rates.

Mr. Corry

They paid their full annuities but got some relief in rates.

Mr. Brennan

Got 100 per cent.

Mr. Corry

And they are paying an increased rate on their farm buildings as a consequence.

Mr. Brennan

Nonsense.

Mr. MacEntee

It is quite true.

Mr. Corry

That point has gone before the Prices Commission. I hope it will be dealt with there.

Mr. Brennan

For the purpose of giving a subsidy?

Mr. Corry

For the purpose of dealing with property. Deputy Cogan puts up rather an extraordinary argument. He first appeals for the poorer section of the community, farmers under £20 valuation, and then he goes on to say that the relief in rates has been manipulated in order to catch votes by giving relief to the man under £20 valuation at the expense of the man with £50 valuation and over. I think the manner in which that relief has been given is undoubtedly a better system for the division of the agricultural grant than any system previously in force. For instance, you have the position of the rancher who previously got the same relief in rates from the agricultural grant as the farmer who worked his land and employed labour. You had the man with the £300 or £400 valuation getting as much, although he employed perhaps only a man and his dog on his huge holding. He got relief for every £1 of his valuation as against the small farmer with £20 or £40 valuation who had a couple of men employed.

Deputy Cogan says that that was a vote-catching scheme by which the rancher was put in a different position to the ordinary working farmer who works his holding, who is entitled to relief in rates for every man he employs and for every son of 18 years and upwards who works on the holding and who gets relief besides up to the small valuation mark. I think there can be no complaint whatsoever with that system. I think it was the best system ever devised for giving the agricultural grant to those best entitled to it, the ordinary working farmers who work their holdings and employ labour. As for the other man, the proper system for him is the division of his holding, giving the land to those who will work it. Personally — and I think I speak for every farmer in my constituency — I would prefer to see whatever money can be spent in the furtherance of agriculture given in better prices for agricultural produce to the working farmers. I refer now to subsidies towards milk and assistance in regard to beet. I think that works out far better than by clapping it on in the shape of derating, because 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of the de-rating scheme will go to the benefit of landlords and large ranchers. Any money that we can devote to the assistance of the agricultural community should go in that manner.

There are certainly burdens on the agricultural community which should not be there. You have, for instance, the main and trunk roads, which should be a national charge. Main and trunk roads are gone completely away from the uses which they formerly served. They were built and maintained by the ratepayers and used by the agricultural community generally. At the present time they are turned into racing tracks for motorists — I cannot describe them as anything else. They should be maintained from the receipts of motor taxation or from revenue in the shape of a petrol tax. They should not be a burden on the farming community, who built them in the first instance, brought them to their present state of perfection, and are now absolutely unable to use them.

I have examined this question more closely than any Deputy here. There was no more ardent supporter of de-rating than I from 1927 onwards. I examined the question very carefully and I saw where the benefits went out of the £750,000 that we succeeded in getting for Cork out of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government when they were here in 1931. We brought in a motion for £1,000,000 for the relief of rates and we succeeded in getting the council of the day to give relief to the extent of £750,000. I saw the manner in which that money went. I saw ranchers in my constituency getting as much relief as a whole parish of farmers. They were ranchers who employed very few people. I decided then that the proper relief to give would be in the shape of a 50 per cent. reduction in annuities, the giving of subsidies and granting assistance for agricultural produce.

Mr. Cogan

The big farmers benefited by the halving of the annuities just the same as they would by derating.

Mr. Corry

The ranchers I speak about had no annuities at all to pay. In 99 cases out of 100 they were estate owners.

Mr. Bennett

Is the Deputy serious?

Mr. Brasier

They had no annuities? Where are they?

Mr. Corry

Look around you. I am dividing some of them at present, very much against your will.

Mr. Brasier

There are none of them in existence to-day.

Mr. Corry

I may tell you a lot more of your friends will not be there much longer. That is the way in which I view this question. There is one burden of which the agricultural community should be relieved, and that is the burden of the main and trunk roads. There is no justification for keeping them on as a charge on the ratepayers. It is time they went and that the motorists who want speed tracks should maintain the roads. I hope whatever money is to be placed at the disposal of the agricultural community will go towards helping the prices for agricultural produce, helping the prices of bacon, milk, beet, etc., so that the working farmers who employ labour will get a decent remuneration. That is far better than coming here to look for the derating of the ranchers, because I cannot call it anything else. As Deputy Cogan said, the small holder under £20 valuation gets fairly good relief. Farmers working their holdings and employing labour get relief according to the men they employ. That is the best system for the division of whatever agricultural grants are given. I have no room for any other sections of the farming community. I think all this cant about derating that was used so extensively for the past five or six weeks was knocked on the head by the electors. It is dead now, and it might be better to leave it so.

Mr. Bennett

I am in hopes still that a repetition of the discussion that we are having now on this Vote, may, in the near future, be unnecessary. I am glad to see that Deputy Corry who admits he was an ardent supporter of the principle of full de-rating and who departed from his original belief has come back to it. From what he has said now it is clear he is coming into line with those of us who advocated relief for the farmers through de-rating. He tells us he would like to see the burden of the upkeep of the roads, especially the trunk roads, taken off the rated occupiers. I would like him go one step further. If he accepts the principle that trunk roads and other roads are national services, then it does not require a great stretch of imagination to argue for relief from the burdens imposed for the upkeep of the poor and destitute. One is as much a national service as the other. Why should agriculturists alone be compelled to provide the necessaries of life for the destitute poor, for the unemployed and other such services? The same argument applies in the one case as in the other.

Mr. Corry

How long is it since Deputy Bennett was converted to this?

Mr. Bennett

A very long time ago.

Mr. Corry

I invited Deputy Bennett to take up that policy many years ago but he voted here in this House against £1,000,000 relief to the farmers. He said they had too much already:

Mr. Bennett

I think Deputy Corry misunderstands the situation. I have never gone back on the principle of de-rating since I first advocated it. Deputy Corry has gone back on it. I do not believe that the amount set out in this Vote is sufficient relief to meet the burden on agriculturists. I am an ardent supporter of full de-rating. However, I will not argue that question now. I just want to draw attention to the fact that Deputy Corry goes so far as to suggest that we should relieve agriculturists from road maintenance. That being so he should not argue against full de-rating; if the farmers are not entitled to relief under the one head they are not entitled under the other. Both are national services and they should be paid for by the Government. It would be useless on my part to go into this whole question this evening for I know that the principle of de-rating will not be accepted just now. But this Government will in time be compelled by the force of circumstances to grant full de-rating just as they have been compelled in other matters to completely change their outlook. I do not agree that the present system is the best way in which to administer the Agricultural Grant.

I am not arguing that the small farmer is not entitled to the full benefit of relief. On the other hand, I am not prepared to argue that the larger ratepayer is not entitled to somewhat similar reliefs. I submit there should be no differentiation between the large farmer and the small farmer. Deputy Corry talks about the ranches. The term "rancher", as we have conceived it in the past, has ceased to have any meaning. He spoke of the fee-simple holders, the men who pay no annuities. As far as I know, there are very few of these men. Of the tenants, and ranchers, if you like, 99 per cent. are annuity payers or at least they are supposed to pay their annuities. I do not see how any decent honest representative of the people can argue that each farmer is not entitled, no matter how big or small his holding is, to pro rata relief. The man with the very small valuation of £2, £3, or £4 is fully relieved of the rates. In addition to that he is entitled to share in the very large reliefs that the ratepayers provide in the way of work on the roads. The small man is benefiting by this employment on the roads. But look at the case of the man with 60 to 100 acres of land. He pays a bigger portion of the rates and he is not entitled to any work on the road, the work which the smaller ratepayer gets. I say that the arguments advanced by Deputy Corry are groundless.

What I wanted specially to mention is the question of the relief given in the rates to those who employ workers. Deputy Corry says that everybody who provides labour should be relieved. There is not an equitable distribution of relief at present. There is no allowance given to the farmer who employs women workers, and in some counties women labour is employed to a large extent.

Mr. MacEntee

This is provided for by Statute. The Deputy cannot criticise the Statute or advocate legislation on this Vote. He will have an opportunity later.

Mr. Bennett

Well, perhaps I am a little out of order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is very much out of order, but I am afraid he was set the example.

Mr. Bennett

Yes, I was following on the lines taken by other Deputies. I tried to keep in order. The Minister did not call anybody else to order, and that was because other Deputies did not touch on his sore point. I possibly trod on some sore point. The Minister for Finance can find a way to de-rate agricultural land if the will is there, but I do rot believe it is there. The Minister should provide equal relief for the man who employs women workers just as for the man who employs male workers.

Mr. Corry

What is the relief given to the farmer who employs male workers?

Mr. Bennett

No matter what it is, the same relief should be given to the man who employs female workers. The whole method of the administration of this grant requires to be completely changed. As long as it is given at all it should be given impartially amongst all sections of the ratepayers. Something can be said for the very small ratepayers, but they are getting extra provision inasmuch as they share in the employment given on the roads. I know myself that numbers of small ratepayers are sharing in the distribution of this money, while the larger farmer is prohibited. Why that should be the case I do not know. I am firmly convinced that the time is rapidly coming when the force of circumstances and the force of public opinion will compel this Government, probably before they go out of office, to come back to the original opinion they held that all agricultural land should be derated.

Mr. Brasier

If there is any doubt whatsoever in the minds of the Party opposite as to the desire of the farmers of this country for derating, let them follow the suggestion that I made, namely, to set up a commission to inquire into the hardships and severities under which the farmers laboured in the past six years, and ask what form of relief they most require. I was not such an enthusiastic supporter of derating when the agitation for derating agricultural land in this country was at its highest. When the report of the Derating Commission was published in 1930, class 1 exports from this country to England exceeded £20,000,000 annually. Therefore, other circumstances being somewhat different from what they are to-day, expenses in various directions were very much lower, rates were very much lower, and so were the various overhead expenses. In 1930 the Government of the day gave relief to the tune of £750,000, followed by a Government that gave relief to the tune of £1,000,000 — a very welcome relief at that time; but how much more is the huge increase in rates to-day, followed by a still larger increase in the arrears which farmers, and particularly large farmers, are unable to pay? Is that not a strong case for relief for those men who have to bear a burden that is certainly overwhelming and which is beyond their capacity to bear? I think that this method of financing local services through the poor rate, and so on, is an obsolete method, and I think that, unless relief is given to the farmers, the arrears of rates will increase still further despite anything which local authorities can do to collect the rates.

Deputy Corry has enumerated some of the things he would like to see derated, and I am in hearty agreement with him so far as the derating of the items he mentioned is concerned, but I would be in still more agreement with him on the items that he has not mentioned and which, in his heart of hearts, he knows should be included. Deputy Corry is a large ratepayer himself, and I know that that burden presses heavily on him, but, of course, he has the honour to belong to a Party who did not put derating in the forefront of their policy, and, therefore, the Deputy will be a "Yes" man so far as that matter is concerned, and I do not blame him; but there is this to be said. What is going to be done to help to arrest the growing increase in the arrears of rates which are due? In the Cork County Council we know that in many cases as much as £400 and even £500 are due and cannot be collected, and that we may have to have judgment of mortgages on the land. If that situation grows, what will you do to relieve it? We have many cases. The large farmer is the man who has to bear that burden to the greatest degree, and he is also the biggest employer of labour. He is paying labour, and he paid labour before there was any question of derating, and always paid at a very much higher rate. I do not think the labourer in any part of this country would like to see the large farmer abolished. He might like to see his land divided up, of course, but if it were to come to a question of a choice between the large farmer and the small farmer, in relation to the amount and kind of employment given. I suggest that the labourer, possibly, might choose the large farmer. Labour in that case is more specialised and probably paid at a very much higher rate. I say that a time has come when the Government will have to consider seriously either derating or greatly increasing the various reliefs. These various subsidies and bounties are a great tax on the country, but it must be remembered also that these subsidies and bounties do not always reach the farmer, but may be in the hands of men who are dealing between the farmer and the consumer. It is very often the case that they do not reach the farmer, and, as I say, the time has come to consider seriously this whole matter.

Then, take the case of asylums and so on, where the capitation grant is the same as it was 20 years ago, although the cost of maintaining such institutions is very much higher. Public assistance, owing to the increased cost of living, requires a very much higher standard and, although the number of those in receipt of public assistance may have decreased, the total volume that has to be paid is very much higher. I do not want...

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the Deputy is extending the discussion even farther than the other Deputies.

Mr. Brasier

I am afraid so, Sir, but I only wanted to stress very strongly the necessity for doing something for the relief of agriculture, and if the Minister and his Party will consider the advisability of setting up a commission such as I have suggested, they will see whether or not the demand for derating is there.

Mr. Hughes

Anyone with experience of local administration in this country realises that the tendency with regard to social services, poor law services, and so on, has been to increase considerably during the past few years, and that tendency is likely to continue in the future. This grant of £750,000 is not sufficient at all to help the farmer or to relieve him, to a just extent, of the burden he has to carry at the present time. Deputy Corry is against derating.

Mr. Brasier

He is not.

Mr. Hughes

He has told us so anyhow.

Mr. Corry

I think it is the greatest nonsense that you are talking about derating.

Mr. Hughes

Does Deputy Corry contend that the one section of the community he claims to represent — the farmers — are the only people who should be burdened with the responsibility of paying for poor law services and social services in this country? The one strong reason, as a farmer, that I claim derating for the farmer, is that this one particular section of our people are asked to pay for all the social and poor law services, the upkeep of roads, and to some extent the upkeep of our mental hospitals. It must be remembered that there are people in this country whose earning capacity is infinitely greater than that of the very best of our farmers. I refer to people in sheltered positions — men earning big salaries, such as professional men, men in Government positions and men in industrial work — all men with big salaries, and living in houses with a very small valuation. The contribution of these men towards social services, I contend, is out of all proportion to their earning capacity. I do not think that they should be excluded from bearing their fair share of the burden, and I think the people realise the justice of that contention. I think those people would not grouse if they were asked to bear their fair share in contributing to these services. Why should the farmer be saddled with a charge on his valuation? More often than not, as a matter of fact, his valuation bears no relation to his earning capacity whatever.

As a farmer I am quite satisfied to pay for poor law and social services if I am charged on my income, but I think it is unfair and unjust to ask me or any other farmer to contribute on my valuation when that valuation very often bears no relation whatever to one's income. Every man in the State ought to contribute fairly and in an equitable way to those services. That is the real point, and our strongest point on which we stand for derating.

This is a Christian country, and we do not want to see anyone die of hunger. The destitute people must be relieved and the sick must be looked after. Hospital services are increasing. The tendency to-day is for people when they get sick to go immediately into an institution. That was not the position 20 years ago. It was then difficult to get people to go into a hospital. Poor people at that time would prefer to remain at home and die at home rather than go into an institution. Hence, the amount of money that is being spent on social services is increasing. Then you have water and sewerage schemes all over the country. A certain amount of the charges in respect of them is thrown back on the agricultural community.

There is a system that obtains under the Department of Local Government whereby you have a contribution made by the county to one of these schemes for a local town. You have an area of charge within an area of charge. First of all, you have the area that immediately benefits from the scheme. That may be a town or an urban district. Then you have the dispensary area, and very often you have the county making a contribution. It sometimes happens that you have this peculiar anomaly, that a farmer living five or six miles away from a town is making a bigger contribution to one of these water or sewerage schemes than the people living there who derive immediate benefit from it. The man in the town is a grouser all the time, but if the farmer grouses against this unfair charge there is a lot of talk. If a farmer looks for a water scheme he has very little use in going to seek State aid or in going to the local authority. He has either to foot the bill himself or do without the scheme.

Deputy Corry referred to the ranchers. I think they are gone for ever. In connection with derating, if a small farmer gets relief to the extent of £5 or £10, and a bigger farmer relief to the extent of £60, £70 or £100 that is relatively the same, because the £5 or the £10 is worth as much to the small farmer as the £70 or the £100 to the bigger farmer, the reason being that the expenditure of the small farmer is relatively lower. There may be a few exceptions to that, but taking the generality of farmers over the country they give employment more or less in proportion to their valuations. Why should the farming community in general be penalised because there are a dozen or half a dozen exceptions?

Mr. Gorey

Because the Government allows them to be there.

Mr. Hughes

In my opinion good legislation ought to be for the benefit of the majority. If you have derating the benefits that will flow from it will be distributed fairly and justly. This supplementary agricultural grant is not sufficient. In fact, the grant should never have been there because, in my opinion, it is unjust that one section of the community should be called upon to bear those burdens, while people in the enjoyment of big salaries and in sheltered positions are able to get away without making any contribution to the poor law services or to the social services. The members of the agricultural community have no objection whatever to making a fair and just contribution, but they expect that other people should do the same. The plea that we are making for derating should meet with the support of every fair-minded man in the country. I believe that those in sheltered positions, when they see the justice of our case, will be prepared to make their fair contribution.

Mr. Linehan

I have just a few words to say on this Vote. Without going into the merits or demerits of derating as envisaged by Deputy Corry or anybody else, I want to call attention to one very significant feature in the Book of Estimates for this year. Deputy Corry admitted that the agricultural community are entitled to some relief from the burdens under which they are suffering. The significant fact that I want to refer to is this: that every other section of the community dealt with in this Book of Estimates has been relieved of its sufferings except the agricultural community. Deputies will see that all the other Estimates have been increased, but that the supplementary agricultural grant is the same as it was last year.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is aware that it is fixed by Statute.

Mr. Linehan

We are asking that it should be increased so as to make provision for derating. The Government say that they cannot give it. That is their policy, but all other sections in the community such, for instance, as the civil servants are getting relief in this year's Estimates. The Minister for Finance himself admitted a short time ago, when dealing with the Vote for the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, that most of the increase in that Vote was accounted for by the fact that it was necessary to provide a sum of between £20,000 and £30,000 to meet the extra cost of living bonus.

Mr. MacEntee

Will the Deputy tell the House who instituted that system?

Mr. Linehan

I will tell the House that, despite the Minister's air of prosperity and of better times for everybody, it has been found necessary, due, as he says, to this increase in the cost of living bonus, to increase the Estimate for the Office of the Revenue Commissioners by £20,000 or £30,000 in order to relieve a burden from which a certain section of this community is said to be suffering. Deputy Corry with his usual adroitness, with one eye on the gallery, the other eye on the Press, and, if he had it, a third eye on the people at home——

Mr. Corry

That is stale.

Mr. Linehan

——suggested that the agricultural community should not have to bear the cost of main roads or of other public services. He attempted very cleverly to make a good point for himself by saying that motorists want speed and racing tracks, and added that they should pay for them. What is the actual position with regard to motorists? That while they are paying heavy taxation to the State for the use of the roads they are not getting the benefit of that taxation in the roads. The taxation that they are paying is not going back into the roads. The Government have time and again raided the Road Fund.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is quite wrong.

Mr. Linehan

I maintain that every penny that is collected from motorists should be spent on the main roads of the country, and if that were done the local authorities would not have to make the heavy demands that they are obliged to make at present on the ratepayers for the maintenance of these roads. That would help the farmer.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair would be glad to have some guidance from the Deputy as to whether we are discussing the supplementary Agricultural Grant or main roads.

Mr. Linehan

I should be delighted to guide the Chair in discussing Deputy Corry's contribution on the Vote for the supplementary Agricultural Grant.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy assuming that Deputy Corry's speech was quite relevant?

Mr. Linehan

I am assuming that it was. A case has been made on this question by Deputy Corry. They are against derating and must keep it up. Once upon a time, apparently everybody was for derating. Very few people were against it. Lest you should think well to call me to order, A Chinn Comhairle, may I say that the question of derating was dealt with by practically everybody who spoke on this Vote.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's statement would not, of course, prevent me from calling him to order.

Mr. Linehan

I did not like to appear to be unfair. The case is made that the big man would benefit by derating to a disproportionate extent as compared with the small man. The same people will argue that, by having the annuities, they have given a great benefit to all the farmers, and that they have not given a disproportionate benefit to the large farmer. Fianna Fáil attacks the big farmer and calls him a rancher. They tell us what they have done for all the farmers — the big farmers as well as the small farmers— by halving the annuities, and they tell us that the farmer should not pay for social services for which nobody else has to pay, while he is paying for them and not getting the benefit of what he is paying for.

Seán O Monghaile

Ní raibh dúil agam labhairt ar an gceist seo anocht ach bhí mé ag éisteach leis na Teachtaí ar an taoibh eile den Tigh agus ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá. Níl sé i bhfad o bhí na Teachtaí uilig os cóir na tíre agus an chúis atá á plé anois bhí sí os cóir na ndaoine.

Tá a fhios ag gach duine nach mbeadh de-rating oiriúnach do na feilméirí beaga. Is iad na feilméirí beaga agus an lucht oibre do chuir an Rialtas ar ais in oifig chun saoirse na tíre do bhaint amach agus déanfaidh na fir seo a gcion féin, mar a rinneadar cheana, san chúis sin.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know whether or not this debate has been strictly in order. So far as I am concerned, the major question — derating — has been referred to the highest authority in the land and has been decided against Deputies Cogan, Brasier, Linehan, Hughes, Brennan and Bennett. I am not going to ask the people to reverse their verdict, which was given with full advertence to the facts. I do not think Deputies attached very much weight to some of the arguments advanced here. I cannot think that the arguments to which I refer were uttered with full advertence to the facts. Deputy Brennan referred to the position of the ratepayers, and said that the cost of local services was becoming heavier. That is so. We have got to remember that the ratepayers are also beneficiaries of the social services. What they pay for they get, and what they get they have to pay for.

Mr. Brennan

Not a bad way out.

Vote put and agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I understand that agreement has been reached whereby the Order of the House to take the Finance Bill on Friday will be changed so as to permit of its being taken on Thursday.

Mr. Brennan

I understand that that is agreed.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 5 Jul 1938