Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 4 Jul 1939

Vol. 76 No. 14

Committee on Finance. - Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1939—Money Resolution.

I move:—

That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of such grants and expenses as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present Session further to increase the amount of the Agricultural Grant referred to in Section 48 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, and to provide for the application of the said grant as so increased and for other matters connected with relief from rates on agricultural land.

We are making provision in this motion for the financing of the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, and I must say that it does seem an extraordinary thing to me that the present time was chosen for making a permanent measure of that Bill which, previous to this, was an annual Bill, and which gave the members of the House annually an opportunity of reviewing the rates situation and of expressing their opinions as to the adequacy or otherwise of the provision that was being made for the relief of agricultural rates. Now, the Minister has chosen the present time, as I say, rather, I think, inadequately, to bring in this measure and make it permanent. We are going to make permanent now a measure which was introduced away back in 1931 or 1932 for the relief of agricultural rates, and I am sure the then Government, in making the provision, had in mind the same type of comparison between the provision they were making and the then rate. Well, whatever comparison could be made at that time or whatever relationship there was between the provision that was being made at the time to supplement the agricultural grant and the particular rates all over the country, that relationship has disappeared completely since then. In 1931-32 the rates all over the country amounted to £2,445,269, and, as against that, a certain allowance was made by the Government of the day to relieve those particular rates. To-day our rates have increased to £3,298,037; yet the Minister proposes to make permanent the relief which was granted in 1931-32. I do not think any case has been made for making it permanent at the figure established in 1931-32. I think that there should be at least the same relationship between the relief now granted and the present rates as there was between the relief granted in 1931-32 and the then rates. As far as I can see, no reference has been made to the relationship between the relief granted now and the present rates. The Minister has introduced, as a permanent measure, the 1931-32 Act in relation to a rate which has very materially changed since that time. The Minister may make certain statements with regard to the provision made to assist the agricultural community and the very generous way in which they have been treated, but I do not think the provision made in this Bill as a permanent measure bears out what the Minister has said.

There are other points in the measure to which I think the Minister might have adverted when he was introducing the Bill, but I find from the Official Report that he made no reference to them. Certain innovations in the original Bill were, in fact, experimental and were merely being tried out. The Minister ought to be aware of the complications which arose as a result of the introduction of these innovations. He should have told the House the result of the innovations and whether they had in fact achieved the object which he had in view. For instance, we had employment grants provided for and we had also a credit note system. I have drawn attention on other occasions to the very serious disadvantages which have accrued to some people, particularly people who have young, weak families, in connection with the employment allowance. We find that a man with sons over 17 or 18 years of age—I do not know whether the age is 17 or 18—is entitled to a certain allowance off his rates if he employs these boys on his land. So also is the farmer who employs outside labour. On the other hand, the unfortunate man who happens to have a long weak family, none of whom exceeds 17 years of age, or if any members of his family exceeding 17 years of age are daughters, does not get the allowance. I have one such case in mind, the case of a man who lives right beside me. That man has 11 children, none of whom has reached the qualifying age. One of them may have reached the age, but she is a daughter, and that man can get no relief in his rates. Right beside him is a police pensioner who employs two men but who is doing very little. He gets an allowance in respect of these men, while the man with the 11 children receives no allowance. If we apply the test as to whether this innovation has resulted in more employment on the land, the returns which have been made in regard to employment by the Department of Industry and Commerce are far from reassuring on that point. In fact they show that there has been a diminution in the number employed, that we have not to-day nearly the same number of people employed on the land as we had before the measure was introduced. Consequently, that particular innovation introduced in the Bill in 1932 has not had the desired effect. Notwithstanding that, we are going to continue that particular provision as a permanent measure.

We have also the credit note system. I admit that the credit note system is simply a permissive matter. Power is given to local authorities to use the credit note in a particular way. Again I say that the credit note system, wherever it was operated, inflicted a very great hardship on the very poorest people. In the county which I represent, we abolished the system after it had been in operation for one year because what we found was that a man who paid his rates in time and who was able to pay them in time, got the allowance while the man who was not able to pay had the full amount carried forward against him and the following year he was confronted with a bill for an amount which his more well-to-do neighbour had never to pay. As a result of that, we dropped the credit note system. Now, in this very inadequate measure, we are continuing all these innovations which in my opinion have not been a success at all.

Results are what we must go by. What have been the results? As far as the employment allowance is concerned, we have a fewer number of people employed than when the allowance was first introduced. As far as agricultural production is concerned, we have less agricultural production. Consequently, the innovations which are being continued in this permanent measure have not had the desired effect. I think that in view of the fact that a very strong demand could be made, and is being made, in this country for a system of derating, at least the agricultural community were entitled to more consideration to-day when their rates are in the neighbourhood of £3,500,000 than they were in 1931-32, when their rates were only about £2,500,000. The relationship which existed between the then rates and the then grant does not exist to-day; yet we are proposing to make that measure of 1931-32 a permanent measure. I do not think that due consideration has been given to the needs of the agricultural community in this matter. I think that this is a very inopportune time to put this measure of 1931-32 on the Statute Book as a permanent measure. I do not think it serves any useful purpose nor do I think any case has been made for limiting the relief of agricultural rates to the very inadequate amount provided at the present time.

In dealing with this matter on last Tuesday, the Minister made perhaps the most extraordinary speech we have ever listened to. I had not the privilege personally of hearing him.

I am sorry you were not here.

It was rather late in the day. I do not know where the Minister got his ideas. He certainly spoke a good deal in the past tense. He began by saying, as reported in column 1627 of the Official Debates, that "the agriculturists... have all lived moderately well". There is a great deal of truth in the statement that they have lived moderately well, but that does not mean that they are living moderately well now after the Minister's economic war.

Are not they living much better? Is not that true?

Are not they living much better?

The Minister professes to be a great Churchman, the high light of religion in this country.

We cannot meet on a holyday because of the Minister's attitude in this matter, but he wants to take advantage of this House to give the lie to everybody in the country who states the position as they know it in the country. One would be inclined to say hard things of the Minister because of the things he says and where he says them.

"They have lived better than most of the people comparable with them who are living in the cities and towns."

What does he mean by that? Who are the people comparable with them? I would like to know what he means and whom he means?

"They have reared their families and educated them. There are more children going to secondary schools and more young people going to universities out of the farms of the country to-day than there were ten, 20, 30 or 40 years ago."

What authority has the Minister for saying that? Has the Minister spoken to any school or college authority in the country, and, if he has, what information could he get? Or did he want to cloak the actual facts of the case as they exist to-day? The position in every county college and secondary school in the country is that there is not a president of a college who has not been struck by the fact that for the last five or six years, and more particularly at the present moment, the class of student is not going to their schools to-day who went five or ten or 20 years ago. The students of the colleges are mostly the sons of schoolmasters, of doctors and of professional people, to such an extent that the college authorities are taking alarm at the position. Does the Minister know that? I do not wish to refer to a certain case that was heard in the courts here a few weeks ago in which four students were involved, but none of them is the son of a farmer. The fact is that the farmers are not sending their sons to college. How many of the farmers' sons who have been going to college are going in on a burse? How many of them are going on a scholarship? How many of them are going to universities on scholarships? And how many are going there who are paid for by their parents out of their own pockets? The Minister raises that up as the hallmark of prosperity in the country. That is the one argument he uses—that they are sending their children to school and giving them a higher education. Have not they as much right, if they can afford it, as anybody else, even if they go hungry, as many of them do, in order to send their children to school? The Minister has been more honest in that direction than a good many other people. He has let the city mentality out of the bag. I suspected that for a long time, and the Minister is more honest than the rest of them, and has given expression to it. There is a feeling in this city that they do not want country students coming in; that there are not enough jobs for the sons of the professional people and all the others to be found around the City of Dublin.

This is not a Second Stage and, technically, the Second Stage debate should not be resumed on the Money Resolution. The question before the House is whether or not this Money Resolution should pass. On the Second Stage the Minister concludes the debate. It is legitimate to refer to statements made by the Minister, but not to spend the time which, if the Deputy cares to intervene, should be devoted to the Money Resolution, in referring to what the Minister said on a previous stage when he was concluding.

I am referring to the reasons on which the Minister has stated and based his case.

In other words, the Deputy is replying to the Minister's concluding statement, and the emphasis is on the word "concluding."

This is another stage.

The Minister concluded the Second Stage. This is not a Second Stage, and while a reference to it may be legitimate, a lengthy refutation of, or reply to the Minister, is not in order.

One finds great difficulty then in dealing with the question at all. I am trying to reply to the Minister's arguments and referring to the things that the Minister adduced to prove his case and to justify his attitude. I am certainly in a most extraordinary position—an impossible position. The Minister spoke about betting—that they would not have such long faces if they kept away from betting.

The Deputy surely understood me. The Deputy clearly understands why I should not enter into the merits of the case, but Deputies here appreciate the fact that a jocose remark of that nature should not be answered now. Deputies here appreciate the spirit in which the Minister spoke.

There is no doubt that the Minister was trying to make a case, trying to blacken the agricultural community. Every argument that he used here was a lie, a misstatement of the actual position, and not one line of the whole speech he made has done him credit or justified his case. I think it is a disgraceful speech and a disgraceful attitude to adopt on this measure. Time will justify the claim that we made. There is no question about it. The Minister may be there to see proper justice done to the agricultural community. If he is not there somebody else will be, and that in the very near future.

I do not wish to repeat anything that was said on the Second Reading debate. I think that the peculiar position in regard to this Bill is that while very effective criticisms were put forward in regard to certain provisions in the Bill, the Minister in his concluding statement did not reply to any of those criticisms but confined himself to a lecture upon farmers, upon their general outlook, and advising them to adopt a more cheerful attitude in regard to their present position. If the Minister knew anything at all about farming, or if he had any contact at all with the agricultural industry, I think he would realise that whatever gloom exists in regard to the agricultural industry is not assumed by those who are speaking on behalf of the industry but is caused by the facts as they are at the present time. The facts in regard to agriculture are gloomy facts, and the Minister cannot deny it. It has been said that the present grant is absolutely inadequate. In order to show how inadequate the grant is I shall quote the figures for the County of Wicklow—the present rate estimate for Wicklow, as compared with 1932. In 1932 the total rate estimate for County Wicklow was £57,921. In 1938 the total estimate was £120,940. These figures indicate that the total expenditure for the county has been doubled.

Again, as this Bill relates mainly to rates on agricultural land, it may be worth while to consider the rates in 1932 as compared with the rates at the present time or the rates last year. In 1932 the rates on agricultural land in the County Wicklow were 3/4½ in the £. In 1938 they were 6/2¾ on the £20 valuation, 6/3 on that part of the land affected by the employment allowance, and 9/2½ in the £ on the remainder of the land. As every farmer Deputy knows, if the grant for relief of agricultural rates in 1932 was inadequate, surely when the rates on agricultural land have now been more than doubled, the allowance is absolutely ridiculous. Surely the Minister should make up his mind to study agricultural conditions more closely, to study the facts regarding agriculture—not in the colleges of this city or of another city. There is no doubt—and it is generally admitted— that farmers have always endeavoured to educate their children, even at great sacrifice to themselves. Everybody who knows anything about educational institutions knows that the number of farmers' children at present being educated at such institutions does not compare with what it was five or six years ago.

I think that the Minister ought to have put forward some sound argument in support of this Bill, which makes permanent a system of distributing the agricultural grant which is condemned by everybody who knows anything about agricultural conditions. He should try to justify that system, particularly in view of the fact that the Agricultural Commission is inquiring into the whole question of rating. Yet here to-day we have an attempt being made to make the present system of allocating the agricultural grant permanent for all time.

What is the objection to the system?

My objection to the system of distributing the whole agricultural grant is that it makes no allowance for children under 17 years of age, no allowance for female employees or dependents on the land, and is altogether inadequate for people employed on the land. It is altogether an unjustifiable system of distributing the agricultural grant. The whole grant is absolutely inadequate, as the Minister must know and as Deputy Corry must know. Having regard to the fact that rates have been doubled since 1932, surely the agricultural grant should have been at least doubled.

I would be inclined to treat with contempt what the Minister said in reply on the Second Reading Stage, but for the fact that he is a responsible Minister of State and I assume that he expressed the views of the Government in the matter. If that represents the real view of the present Government, I must say the situation is utterly hopeless from the agricultural point of view. If the Minister says, and persists in saying, that agriculture generally here and the people living by agriculture are fairly well off, and that they are fairly prosperous, the Minister fails and the Government fail completely to realise the position of agriculture in this country. If the whole agricultural position is approached by the Government in that frame of mind I think the situation is utterly hopeless.

There is no getting away from the fact that the vast majority of people appreciate that agriculture is in a very difficult position. Our attitude on this Bill is that the help afforded under it is altogether inadequate to meet the present conditions when one considers that rates—as has been pointed out by Deputy Brennan—have gone up by over a million pounds since 1932. In 1931-32, the rates were, approximately, something under two and a half million pounds and last year's rate was something over three and a half millions, so that it has gone up by over a million pounds; and this year's rate is higher again. As well as that, the agricultural grant has gone down during that time. When Fianna Fáil came into office they increased the grant by a quarter of a million pounds the first year. Afterwards, they reduced it by half a million, so that the agricultural grant to-day is actually less than it was in 1932, by a quarter of a million pounds.

The general burdens on the agricultural community have gone up in the same proportion, and, side by side with that situation, our agricultural output has sunk and is sinking to an alarming extent. The output then was £62,000,000 and that has fallen to £47,000,000. In face of that situation, in face of a reduction in income—and a serious reduction in income, to my mind, is reflected in the cost of production being relatively greater than it was in 1932—the agricultural community are faced with this charge.

The present relief afforded by this Bill, we are told by the Minister, is a generous allowance and taking, he tells us, the halving of the annuities into account, more has been done for the agricultural community than for any other section of the people.

There is one thing I would like to point out to the Minister and to the Government. It is the absolute necessity of preserving the agricultural community intact and preserving them as producers. If anything happens our main industry, the whole fabric of the State is going to crack up and collapse, and I think we are far nearer to that than the Minister appreciates. The Minister commented on the fact that every time that he hears certain Deputies—like Deputy Broderick and myself—we are getting more and more gloomy about the agricultural position. Evidently we have not penetrated the Minister's mind in the matter. Evidently he is living quite happily in a fool's paradise. It is his serious responsibility to realise that the one important industry in this country is definitely in a very dangerous position at the present time.

I am not attempting—and it is of no benefit to me—to paint a gloomy picture. I am sorry we are in such a position, but I treat it as my responsibility in coming into this House to put the position of that industry before the responsible people. The Deputies named by the Minister have completely failed to impress him. The Minister went on to tell us of his experience, but is he aware that that is not the position? I would be very much inclined to treat the Minister with contempt and scorn but for the fact that he is a responsible Minister living in the City of Dublin, in the environment of the city and without any contact with the country. I do not know where he got his information: I was told that he got it from friends—he has a number of friends down the country; but it is an extraordinary situation if the Minister is getting reports from his friends showing that agriculture is in a good position at the present time, and does not require help. I am afraid he is being misinformed: I know that he is being misinformed if that is the case.

Our attitude definitely is that this relief to agriculture is not nearly sufficient in present conditions, and it is doubtful whether this Bill should be made a permanent measure, in view of the fact that a commission has been set up to examine the whole agricultural position. This question of rates on agricultural land is a point raised by a big bulk of the agricultural community, as to the justice of such a charge at all, and when outside competitor countries in the market in which we sell our surplus produce are free of such rates, we must realise that if we are going to continue to hold that market, in competition with the keenest producers in the world, we must be put on the same basis. If we are handicapped in any way, we are going to fall back, and that is what is happening at present. It is not that our people are lazy, indifferent as regards their work, or do not know their job. We fail at present because the cost of production and overhead charges are relatively greater than those of the people against whom we have to compete. I appeal to the Minister not to make this Bill a permanent measure, and, in view of the fact that there is an enormous increase in local taxation and in the burden thrown back on our agricultural people, with, at the same time, a reduction in the grant of £250,000, I say that this relief is altogether inadequate.

We would all wish to see more provision made for rates in this grant. I did not intend to intervene at all but for the views expressed by some Deputies. Deputies opposite evidently want to get back to the old system of rating, under which the rich man paid on the same scale as the poor man, and the small holder paid just as much on his valuation as the big holder. We changed that, and we stand over it, as we stand over also the amount allowed for employees on a holding. We stand over the whole lot, and we have every right to do so. Deputy Brennan can lump it, if he does not like it.

Mr. Brennan

And the results are there.

Yes, the results are there. Let us get back to the time when this increase in the agricultural grant was started and to the way it was started, and let us see what happened. I remember being on the opposite benches——

Mr. Brennan

Demanding derating.

——when the Taoiseach proposed a £1,000,000 increase in the grant and when Deputy Brennan and Deputy Gorey walked into the lobby and declared that the farmer should not get it.

Mr. Brennan

What were the rates at that time?

I did not interrupt Deputy Brennan. Some two or three months afterwards, acting on the result of that action, when Deputy Brennan, Deputy Gorey and the rest of them went back to their constituents and saw what their attitude had cost them and what their neglect of the farming community had cost them, they came in here and passed an increase of £750,000 in the agricultural grant. We increased that to the full £1,000,000 when we came in. We have taken a little off since. And why? Because in the meantime we brought in the 1933 Land Act and relieved the farmers of £2,250,000 a year in land annuities. We hear statements made by Deputies opposite in complete ignorance—I cannot describe it otherwise—of the position of the ordinary small holder, the holder under £20 valuation. He is getting relief now and the ordinary man who works his farm and gives employment gets relief in his rates for every man he employs.

The Deputies opposite want to abolish that. That must be abolished because there are on the benches opposite not representatives of farmers but representatives of ranchers. That is the sole reason. Let us look at this matter straight and let us not have to listen to the kind of nonsense we have heard from the opposite benches for the past five years. Ever since we attempted to hold the annuities their cry was: "Give us back our markets and we shall be all right." They have the markets back now and, in addition to that, practically every bit of produce from the land is subsidised out of the public purse.

Beet and wheat.

Yes, beet and wheat. Of course, Deputy Gorey does not like them, but there are many farmers living on them. Deputy Gorey made a statement here, and Deputy Brennan supported him, that not 10 per cent. of the farmers were hurt by the economic war because they had wheat and beet to fall back on.

Mr. Brennan

Oh!

Yes, and I can produce the Official Report.

The Deputy is a liar, if the Ceann Comhairle will allow me to say so.

Emphatically no. The remark must be withdrawn.

If that is so, I withdraw. A filthy liar.

The Deputy must withdraw that remark unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally.

Deputy Corry may not review agricultural conditions. We are discussing the Money Resolution for this Bill.

I regret if I have transgressed a little. If Deputy Gorey, or Deputy Brennan, denies the statement I have made, I withdraw it, but I intend to produce the statement here and to read it during some agricultural debate to prove my words, because I know what I am saying. I could prove it for Deputy Gorey in ten minutes, if he would come down to the library with me.

If the Deputy cannot come down to the matter before the House, he will have to desist from speaking.

We had a statement during this debate as to a reduction of income. I know that rates have gone up, and that they are very high, and we should be entitled to an increase in the agricultural grant, but why had the rates to go up? They had to go up because when Deputies opposite were the Government they absolutely neglected social services. Rates have gone up because we have had to build cottages for the labourers whom they left without houses when they had the countryside as a slumland and a disgrace of such a character that one wondered how any human beings could live under the conditions under which they were living. We had to put in water and sewage schemes for them. These things are driving up the rates, and are an undue burden on the community. But you had a Government which neglected these social services for ten years, and when a Government comes in which has to make up, in a short time, for the period during which these matters were neglected, rates are bound to go up. The community certainly have to suffer under increased burdens in consequence. I am as anxious as any Deputy here to see the rates reduced and to see increased grants given, but I am not going to stand here and listen to complaints from Deputies who were here during the period when those social services were neglected, and who in those times did not make their voices felt in their Party circles when they saw the condition of the unfortunate agricultural labourers down the country.

The Deputy cannot review the actions of the past Government on this Money Resolution.

Unfortunately we had these Deputies——

What I have ruled is a fact, whether fortunately or unfortunately for the Deputy.

I was only going to say——

Now, the Deputy cannot make such a review, and it is disorderly to repeat it.

Mr. Brennan

Deputy Corry loves being disorderly.

Deputy Brennan does not like what I am saying. I am certainly anxious that we would get increased allowances on rates, but when we are faced with the position in which we have definite arguments and definite opposition to the little relief that the ordinary small farmer and smallholder is getting at present, and a definite objection to the manner in which this grant is being administered and distributed we must address ourselves to the position. Here there is a very decided and a very definite objection to the man who employs three, four or five men on his holding getting a larger relief in rates than the rancher who employs no man at all. When we have that definite objection voiced here by Deputies who represent constituencies where there are no ranchers——

Mr. Brennan

How does the Deputy know?

Well, then, I am afraid that Deputy Brennan represents ranchers. But when these arguments are put up here it is time that Deputies who represent the ordinary worker and the ordinary farmer should get up and make their voices felt. I would not stand for any change in the law or in the administration of this grant. I would not stand for any change which would take from the man who works his holding and gives good employment on it the extra relief he is getting, and put him on the same plane as the man who is not working his farm and who is not giving employment.

Mr. Brennan

Or the man with a family who has no son over 17 years of age.

He is allowed for the son who is over 17 years of age.

Mr. Brennan

If it happens to be a girl, what about it?

If he happens to be 17 years of age, he gets that relief, but Deputy Brennan objects to that relief going to the man who is giving employment. He wants it to go to the man who has no employees.

Mr. Brennan

No. I want it to go to the man and his family.

That is my principal reason for standing up here and objecting to the arguments used in this debate.

Money Resolution put and agreed to.

Resolution reported and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn