Vol. 79 No. 2
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 2, line 29, before the word "barley" to insert the words "wheat seeds".
This amendment is moved to meet an objection that was raised on Second Reading. It will be neccessary to make a similar amendment to the Long Title when we come to it.
Would the Minister say why it is neccessary to refer to "barley seeds", "wheat seeds", etc., thereby making the thing very obscure? Why not refer to these in the ordinary language of the country and say, "seed wheat", "seed barley", and so on?
If the Deputy makes inquiries he may find that there is a legal interpretation for these, and I do not want to change that.
On the section, I would like to have an explanation from the Minister with regard to the wording of sub-section (2). It says: "Whenever the council of a county has sold or shall sell under this Act any goods to any person" etc. These words would seem to suggest that a county council should carry on trading as it were. Does the Minister think it advisable for a county council to do that? I know it would not be trading in the ordinary way, but I imagine that it is something a county council would not care to undertake, especially as there has been no response to measures of this kind in the last few years. The demand for them is diminishing. Would it not be better for the county council to keep out of trade and adopt some kind of loan system? I would be glad to know if the Minister has any bias for this form of dealing, and if he prefers it to loans. One could read into the section that it would be permissible for a county council to meet these cases by a system of loans.
There is no intention of asking county councils or other public bodies to take on the position of dealers. This Bill is intended to enable small farmers, or big farmers either, who are not able to get credit, to procure seeds. Under it they will be enabled to get supplies, arrangements for that purpose being made between the local traders and the county councils. The county councils will afterwards collect the sums due for seeds supplied. If there was anything in this Bill, on the lines Deputy Belton seemed to suggest, that there was going to be a big scheme and that you were to throw money out all over the place, then I would say it is not the county councils who should deal with that at all.
Sub-section (2) speaks of the rate of interest that shall be paid by the person supplied with seeds. It says that the sum payable shall carry interest at such rate per cent. per annum as may be fixed in that behalf by the county council. Is there not a danger in the sub-section as it is worded? Would it not be better to say that the rate of interest shall not exceed a certain figure? The sub-section as worded might lead to an awkward situation in this way, that one county council would fix a lower rate of interest and that a neighbouring county council, due perhaps to its financial position, might have to fix a very much higher rate.
No difficulty of that kind has arisen in the past. The council will fix the rate of interest at the rate it was able to borrow the money itself.
The Minister's reply to the point raised by Deputy Belton amazes me. I would be glad to think that the Minister was right. I raised this point myself on the Second Reading of the Bill. The Minister, on Section 1, referred to the legal interpretations put on certain words. I wonder would he enlighten the House as to the legal interpretation that might be put on these words in Section 2: "Whenever the Council of a county has sold or shall sell." Surely these words suggest ordinary trading. Perhaps there may be some other interpretation of them but I cannot see it. So far county councils have not undertaken trading of that kind. I think they would be very foolish to do it. First of all they have not the experience, and their officers have not been trained to go out to buy and sell. If there is any interpretation that can be put on these words other than that put on them by Deputy Belton, then I would be very glad to hear it.
What I understood from Deputy Belton was that he thought the county councils were going to go out as rivals to the ordinary traders. That is not the intention.
I consider it would be very invidious if a county council had to take up the position of going into trade, if you like to put it that way, and that it would be equally invidious for the Minister, under this measure to give county councils power to do that. As a county councillor I do not think they should have that power. Would it not be better, instead of what is proposed in this Bill, if permission were given to those people who want seeds and manures to go to the local trader and make the best terms they can with him on a cash basis for their requirements, and following that that the county council should make a loan to them, taking steps first of all to safeguard the money so advanced? The money should be paid to the merchants and not to the applicants for seeds, but it should be treated as a loan to the applicant concerned. As Deputy Brennan and Deputy Linehan have pointed out, I think it is a dangerous expedient to adopt to give power to county councils to go into trade. I hope the Minister will give consideration to my suggestion.
I did not quite follow what Deputy Linehan said about the rate of interest. I agree with the Minister's views there, that the rate of interest chargeable by county councils will be dictated by the terms on which they can borrow money, and then charge a margin to safeguard the councils from being at any loss, either from bad debts or the expense of administration.
That is not what the Bill says.
It may not say that in the opinion of lawyers, but it should be made say it. A prudent county council will administer the Act on the lines I suggest. The Minister said he thought I conceived a big scheme under this Bill. I do, and I see nothing within the four corners of it to limit that big scheme, unless the Minister, under his statutory powers, decides not to give the terms for an overdraft of £X. The Minister will probably have requisitions for an overdraft, starting with £50,000 by Dublin County Council, to finance this Bill.
If the Minister will not permit accommodation to that extent to Dublin County Council, that is the end of it. I can tell him that he will get that request, and I do not see anything in the Bill to preclude the Dublin or other county councils advancing money in order to give accommodation required by farmers for seeds and manures. Under this sub-section the powers of councils are circumscribed. If they have extensive powers, then it is up to the Minister to see that these powers are not abused in such a way as to cause financial embarrassment if the members of some councils use them foolishly.
The Deputy can be assured that the Department will secure that.
Against what?
Against buying and selling in a big way.
The Minister should welcome business on the lines I suggest, that the county councils should buy well and give loans to people at a reasonable rate of interest.
I would like to see that proposal before committing myself to it.
It is a scheme to which you would give consideration.
Will applicants be free to purchase from any merchant or can county councils, if they like, prescribe that they must go to particular merchants?
They would not be asked to go to a particular one.
Under the section, county councils would have power to do that.
They would.
Would it not be well to guard against that?
Different county councils will adopt different schemes.
I maintain that all the sub-section here and in the next section deal with sales. There is no use in the Minister saying that the councils will not do so and that they will not enter into competition. That is in the sub-sections and also in the next section, which makes provision for the collection of debts for goods sold by councils. The Minister may think it good business for councils to go into trade.
I do not agree that that should be allowed. We have not had any experience of councils doing it. It amazes me to see such a provision in a Bill. If these sections dealt with loans there would be some sense in it. Sections 4 and 5 deal with guarantees. In my opinion that is the only useful provision in the Bill. I think councils will go into trade and I do not think they should be allowed to do so.
The Minister has admitted that county councils can prescribe certain merchants under the section but he does not think that that is likely to happen. He admits that there is a possibility of its happening.
Would the Minister consider limiting that power by an amendment at a later stage? Would it be possible to have a conference before the Final Stage is taken?
I do not mind having a conference.
That is very satisfactory.
I do not think there is anything in it. We have had experience of these schemes being put into operation in various counties.
If both sides were convinced that there is nothing in the point it would be more satisfactory, but something better might be evolved by a conference.
Very good.
I move amendment No. 2:—
Before Section 3 to insert a new section as follows:—
The amount to be paid or loaned by the council in respect of seeds and fertilisers supplied to an occupier of land, in pursuance of this Act, shall be a charge, and take priority as a charge on all the estate and interest in the said lands of the person to whom such amount shall be paid, before all other charges and incumbrances whatsoever.
I want to be understood that I am moving this amendment in violation of a big principle, and I would not do so if times were normal. As times are abnormal, we want to get all suitable land under production. There is a considerable number of farms encumbered, the owners of which are subject to mortgages and debts, and have no capital. They cannot let the land to others to work, because the creditors would seize any stock put on it to graze or any crops grown on it. As matters stand at present, these farms will remain idle. A country that wants to increase the production of food for man and beast cannot afford to allow good land to lie idle. I should like to see every bit of land put into production with the aid of this Bill. Take the position on a farm in County Dublin in my constituency. It cannot be worked for the reasons mentioned. The county council expects rates from that farm, but cannot get them. I suggest that under this Bill they should be empowered to lend money which would permit that land to be worked. Therefore, we should protect money put into land in times of emergency, so that it would be paid back and that no other claim would take priority over it. That will put the land into production. No other means will put it into production. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment.
Will you accept any modification of it?
I am afraid I cannot, because the council is fully protected as far as I can see. If they do not collect the debt, they can assess it in the rates and get in that way. The Deputy knows that there are a lot of mortgages from time to time on places, and it would be unfair to come in with this sort of thing and get priority over them. You have the Agricultural Credit Corporation, the banks, and a number of others with mortgages, and I think it would be unfair to take priority for this, because the county council have ample power to recover it. If they do not recover it in the ordinary way, they can assess it in the person's rates. I do not see that there is much danger in practice, as there have been practically no losses on these schemes in the last eight years. I agree that they were adopted in a rather small way, and that about £6,000 a year is usually spent on them. There were, I think, some small losses in Kerry, but when the thing is finally disposed of I do not think there will be any losses. I do not think the Deputy need be afraid to follow the lines adopted by councils in the past, as I do not think there is any danger of bad debts.
Does not the Minister appreciate that the lands will lie idle if these people do not get their money? Am I asking much more than the Minister is giving, except that he is giving it in a way that is repugnant to the people? Is not the Minister prepared under this Bill to allow this money to be collected by what is in effect an addition to the poor rate? If the banks, the Agricultural Credit Corporation, traders, or anybody else have a charge on these lands, are they not shouldered about once power is given to collect this loan by means of the poor rate? In principle, what I am asking is already in the Bill. All I am asking is that it should be given priority over these other charges. I do not know whether rates come before Land Commission annuities or not. Of course the Government is more quickly off its mark.
They do not.
Then I am right. I wanted to shoulder out the Land Commission. The only way in which the Land Commission can beat the county council is that it is more quickly off its mark and more unscrupulous and less human. In effect, we are giving a loan to a man, and we have power to collect that as a poor rate. We are given power under the Bill to get inside any bank debt, any Agricultural Credit Corporation debt, and any Land Commission debt—in fact, any debt. That is precisely what I am asking, only that it would not be stigmatised as a poor rate or as a dole for paupers. What am I asking in this amendment that is not granted in the Bill in a round-about way? If that is so, what principle am I violating that the Minister has not violated in the Bill?
I should like to support the amendment, although I do not agree with the Deputy on one point. Supposing the land were let to some person, I think the Land Commission and the county council for rates are the only two who could come in to take any person's property off the land. That is my definition of it. I do not know whether it is right or not. I understand that no one else can take another person's property off the land except the Land Commission or the local authority for the payment of rates.
It has been the usual practice in the past to require securities from people who want loans from the county councils. Nowadays, owing to the difficulty of getting people to pay, sureties are very backward in coming to sign a bill. If the people have to get sureties to guarantee the county council, I am afraid a lot of people will be left out, because you cannot get people now to secure one another in the way they did formerly.
Of course the Minister said that it would be unfair to allow charges of this description to have a priority over other charges. I agree with him to some extent in that, but the charges in this case will be very small; probably £5 will be the average one. A sum of £5 being in advance of some other charge will not signify very much. If the charge were in the region of £50 or £100, I could understand the Minister's argument.
But when it is only a matter of £5 or £7 at the most; I do not think that it would interfere very much with prior charges. On the other hand, as the Minister said, if the council cannot collect the money, they can recover it in the rates. I do not know that the people who are in the habit of paying their rates want to be burdened with other people's debts. We generally find it hard enough to pay our own rates without having additional rates piled on to us, as is done by the Land Commission for unpaid annuities. The amendment is a reasonable one and I ask the Minister to give it consideration.
I think that if the Minister does not agree to accept some form of protection like this it is going to paralyse to some extent the good effects of the Bill. I suggest to the Minister that this should be a first charge on the produce of the crop. There is this much to be said for it. If there are other mortgages, the people who made those mortgages made them for the purpose of gain or profit. The local authorities in this case have no financial interest in it beyond collecting the money. There is no question of gain for them.
It is more or less for a charitable purpose that local authorities are asked to extend financial aid to these people. It is quite possible that the very crop, the production of which the local authority has financed, will be scooped by someone with a mortgage on the very day that the man is threshing the crop. He may possibly leave no goods on which the local authority could collect the loan. The Minister ought to consider carefully that aspect of the case, and make it a first charge on the produce of the crop. That would not be unreasonable, and it would be very necessary in order to encourage the local authorities.
I think there has been a slight misunderstanding between the Minister and Deputy Belton. At least, my interpretation of Deputy Belton's amendment is that it is not an attempt to safeguard the local authorities so much as an attempt to get more production. As the Minister said, the local authority is well safeguarded as far as the local authority itself is concerned. It appears to me that what Deputy Belton wants is that a man will be induced to produce a crop, knowing that that produce will be safe for the person who lent the money.
I know that it is a very delicate matter to infringe on priority rights and charges, and there are difficulties there. But there is a great deal to be said from this point of view: that you may have a person who lent Mr. X £10 or £50 and he refuses to lend him any more, and Mr. Z comes along and says: "I will lend him £50 or £60 to produce something, provided I am secured and the other fellow does not get what my money produces." Is there any way we can get over that? I can see Deputy Belton's point that there are plenty of people in the country on whom the banks or other people have a bold. Apart from the county council security altogether they are afraid to go into production because they feel it would not be safe to go to the county council and take a guarantee from the county council, knowing full well that somebody is going to come down on them at the threshing. It seems that there is an obvious case made for Deputy Belton's amendment. Perhaps it cannot be done; but if it could be done I would say it would be beneficial and would assist in the matter.
I think the Minister is somewhat mistaken in his statement that there were no losses in the previous schemes. I am aware that in the County Wicklow there was in 1933-34 a loss of at least £800 on these schemes. As a result there is a reluctance on the part of county councils to enter on a new scheme. They consider it would be unjust to impose on the ratepayers such an additional liability. Therefore there is need for something in the nature of the amendment suggested by Deputy Belton. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment as it stands he should at least be prepared to allow those loans to have priority over the banks and Land Commission charges. The banks have big resources and they could afford to wait a short time.
The Bill gives priority over bank debts.
There is another matter also in connection with this amendment. In the Act of 1933 the Minister undertakes to recoup the county councils to the extent of 50 per cent. of their losses. I think there is no provision to that effect in this Bill. I suppose it would be impossible to include such a provision now, but the Minister might promise to introduce other legislation to make such a provision. Otherwise I am afraid the county councils will not be inclined to take the risk of putting a liability on the ratepayers without adequate protection.
There may be a way out on the lines Deputy Hughes has suggested. The whole purpose of the Bill is to put the councils in a position to give money to people who otherwise would not be creditworthy because of the encumbrances on their lands. I do not agree in full with Deputy Belton's amendment. Once you put this thing on the poor rate you are hitting at everything except the Land Commission annuities. If you made it a first charge on a man's land and postponed the other charges, you may find that you would have everything postponed, and matters may be worse. When the money was given, there would be the fear that the stock or produce would be seized by another creditor such as a bank. It might be possible for something on the lines of a chattel mortgage to be entered into by the borrower. I do not see why the Minister should object to some precaution of that sort in order to give people who are not creditworthy a chance of getting the advantage of this scheme. I would say that the county council would feel justified in refusing in the case of a man whom they know was stuck with the bank and with others. They would be afraid that there would be very little hope of recovering in the future even if the unpaid money was put on the poor rate, because the Land Commission might come down and get in ahead of them. We have been talking about people who are definitely not creditworthy. The necessity for this Bill would not arise if the whole of the agricultural community were creditworthy. You have three sections of people at present. You have first the section who still have some money left and are creditworthy; the second section are those people who are on the verge, just able to get credit from month to month; and there is the third section who are regarded by everybody as not creditworthy. These are the people I am sure county councils will not consider creditworthy. However, I do not like the amendment any more than I like the section.
The Minister should appreciate this fact: that it would be impossible to get the same level of administration by the various county councils throughout the country. There will be county councils who will have a very conservative outlook. It is up to the Minister to hold out encouragement and give to the county council the reduced risk involved in the amendment. This amendment is the only means of doing that that I can see.
I would wish to impress on the Minister the view we have taken on this. A request by the Minister was expressed in a circular sent to the county councils. I would like Deputy Linehan to listen to this. That circular was very specific on the point that this Bill was intended to provide the means for farmers, landowners or those working land who were not able to finance themselves with seeds and manures out of their own resources. This Bill is primarily intended for farmers who are not creditworthy and whose lands are encumbered. That is a difficult problem. The question to be considered is the proposed advance of money to them. When you want sureties, and a whole paraphernalia of guarantees, you will not get them and, if you do, they may be no good because the man who is guaranteeing the borrower may be as poor as the borrower himself. If Deputy Hughes were a pauper and I were a pauper, what would be the use of our guaranteeing each other? Let us get rid of that nonsense, come down to business and secure the money in the way I have suggested. The only difference between the Minister's proposal and my amendment is that he states the Land Commission annuity takes priority over the poor rate.
The poor rate takes its place; there is no priority. It is a case of "first in".
It comes before Agricultural Credit Corporation debts, bank debts, or private debts. We are asking nothing in this amendment that is not in the Bill. We want only to put it in more concise form, so that there will be no delay in lending the money. In the last analysis, we would have the poor rate machinery for collecting If necessary, I would have a very summary way of collecting this money. It should be automatic and no option should be left to the county councils with regard to time or anything else. Take it entirely out of their hands once they consent to give the loan. Adopt machinery similar to that which the Land Commission use for the collection of annuities. We are pledging the credit of the county to help people to get into production and, consequently, the credit of the county should not be permitted to suffer. You can include the chattel mortgage in the amendment, if you like, but that will involve cumbersome machinery. I ask the Minister to reconsider his position. At a later stage, if we have a conference, we might get more closely together in considering this matter than we can do now.
I cannot see how the county councils can enter into this question of mortgages. If the amendment be adopted, a mortgage will have to be registered against the land. As to priority, it will depend on the time of registration. That will mean that the county councils will have to sell out these farms if they cannot recover their debts otherwise. That is a long and tedious procedure. I think that Deputy Hughes and Deputy Linehan had in mind a chattel mortgage or a charge on produce.
How could you have rate collectors or officials going around to see whether a crop is growing on land or whether it has been disposed of? Is it not much better that you should have it in the rates, so that the rate collector can go in and distrain? That is a more speedy method than the method suggested. This is not a scheme to deal with the position in a big way. If it were, the Department of Agriculture would be responsible for it.
As a solicitor, the Minister has dealt with the transfer of farms. When this Bill becomes an Act, whether my amendment is embodied in it or not, a solicitor acting for me in the purchase of a farm would inquire, on the requisitions on title, whether the land was subject to a loan or charge under this Act.
Or any other Act.
If he did not do that, he would not be doing his duty by me as his client. You need not register the charge. The fact of this measure being passed has the effect of registering the charge automatically. Anybody transferring land would, therefore, put in a requisition as regards loans under this Act. I see the difficulty, the trouble and expense regarding a chattel mortgage. Under this amendment the money would be secured and no guarantors would be required. Speaking as a farmer and owner of land, I say we must, in times of emergency, whether we like it or not, put our land into production. In France the Government have taken up the land and said that it must be used as they say.
If the youth of the country are put into the trenches to defend it, the man on the land should produce food for those in the trenches. We shall be up against this problem in the coming year. We want to provide for ourselves and we want to be able to maintain our live stock and we should, therefore, put all our arable land into production. It would be a terrible thing if we allowed any land to lie fallow simply because of debts registered here and there. Our whole existence and our food supply depend on what we produce for ourselves. I asked the Minister to facilitate the councils in this matter. Surely the machinery of local government will be a sufficient check on any spendthrift council. If he cannot accept the amendment, I ask him not to reject the principle entirely until we have a talk about it. I am sure he is open to conviction and is as anxious to put land into production as anybody else. It is only a question of ways and means, and I ask him not to commit himself to complete rejection of this proposal before the final passage of the Bill.
What I wanted to provide against was the possibility of the produce of the farm being collected, on the day it was threshed, for a shop or bank debt. If you had this made a first charge on the produce of the farm, if the produce were collected for such a debt and a return of "no goods" were made to the county council decree, where would that body be? There is no hope whatever of collecting it. I think the Minister might consider this suggestion, think it over carefully, and make his decision at a later stage.
There is a grave danger that if some protection is not given to the county councils, such as is provided in this amendment, the Act will not be workable. The county council will be afraid to put it into force. The Minister should give some assurance that he will reconsider the position with the object of safeguarding the interests of the county councils; otherwise, there will be no loans, and the scheme will not be put into operation in a good many counties. The Minister should give an assurance that the county councils will be recouped to the same extent as under the last Act—50 per cent.
There were practically no losses.
If the county councils are not assured in some way of getting back their money, they are not going to give loans. The terms laid down by the Local Government Department are of no use to the ordinary farmer. He cannot get a loan from the bank on the security of his holding. The one thing the county councils want to be assured on is that they can continue to collect the loans they give in the same way as they collect the rates. I have no hesitation in saying that that should be so. It would benefit the whole community, and especially the small farmers, if they could get loans without security, and if the collections were made in the same way as the Land Commission annuities or the rates are collected. Those loans should be a first mortgage upon the people who get them.
That is what the amendment asks. Will the Minister accept the suggestion that has been made?
I do not think there is any use deferring it.
Does the Minister appreciate the difficulty of making loans? Does he suggest we should get securities and all that? I can assure him that if that is necessary the thing is as dead a letter as it was last year, when only £6,000 operated throughout the whole of Éire. No more will operate this year if that position prevails, and it is a pity that simple and safe machinery should not be set up, so that county councils could give the necessary loans.
I quite appreciate what the Minister said, that if this was intended to be a big scheme for financing agriculture, somebody else should do it—that it was the work of another Department. I have been written to, since this Bill got a Second Reading, by farmers all over the country, saying they were assured by the Minister for Agriculture that a loan scheme was coming. There is no loan scheme that I am aware of for any purpose, except about £3,000 for agricultural implements. To help agriculture to get on its feet, and to help production this year, there is no scheme, and it is too late for any scheme now.
This could be fashioned into a good scheme if the Minister would only meet us. If this is not the best way, perhaps we could get a better method that would enable councils who can get the money to do some helpful work. The council for which I can speak can get it and lend it at 5 per cent. That is good enough for anybody. They could extend perhaps to £100,000 and that would be ample to meet all the requirements of the county. We want that done without any question of guarantors. We want it done by simple and safe machinery. We do not want the credit of the county to suffer and we do not want bad debts. We want simple and safe machinery, and that can be obtained under this Bill if only the Minister will meet us.
Will the Minister consider an alternative suggestion? Would he consider sanctioning under this Bill a scheme by which the county council would advance money for seeds and fertilisers on the condition that the borrowers would enter into contracts with the county council to supply the produce of the crop to a merchant who would be approved by the county council and who would collect on their behalf.
It would be absolutely unworkable.
It has been working in the case of the sugar factory and it is very satisfactory.
If this amendment were withdrawn, we could discuss the matter at this conference.
We can discuss it, but I do not see any use in putting it off.
The Minister, before the Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair, agreed that he could have some conference on this Bill before the Final Stage is taken, so, in order to preserve the idea underlying the amendment, and so as not to let it suffer defeat in the House, I am prepared to withdraw it, and then the matter will be open for further discussion.
I move amendment No 3:—
In paragraph (a), page 3, line 55, to delete the word "to" where it first occurs, and substitute the words "which shall", and in line 57, after the word "rated" to insert the words "and may be collected and recovered by such council in the same manner and by the same means as poor rate may be collected and recovered by them".
It is a drafting amendment.
What is the effect of Section 4?
It covers the power of county councils to give guarantees. It is the only useful one in the whole Bill.
Question agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(1) The council of a county may borrow, with the sanction of the Minister, such moneys as may be necessary for the purpose of the provision under this Act of supplies of seeds and fertilisers or of seeds only or of fertilisers only.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (1), page 4, line 48, to add at the end of the sub-section the words: "in like manner as if the said purpose were mentioned in Article 22 of the Schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, and moneys so borrowed shall not be reckoned as part of the debt of such council for the purpose of that article".
This removes the borrowing limit. Somebody referred to the matter on an earlier stage.
On the section, I raised a point the last day, and perhaps it is my fault, but I still seem to be very much at sea about this matter. In sub-section 2, and also in sub-section 3, there is set out a certain approved way in which the borrowers shall pay to those from whom they borrow the money. That is, the councils shall pay to their treasurer the moneys they have borrowed for this purpose and they shall pay it back in a certain specified time. Suppose it goes over that period of time that is given for payment, are they liable—will they have to pay at all? I am going to raise the point that I raised before, and I think it requires some clarification. According to Section 4, provision is made for the incorporation of a debt in the rate. I take it the ordinary procedure will be that the county council guarantees a debt to X and they treat it as an ordinary debt for a year and he does not pay.
Then they treat it as a rate for the next year, and he does not pay. Suppose you meet several cases of that kind, what is going to happen? Your two years are up, and you come to the end of the 31st March in, say, 1942. You are supposed then to have paid back to the treasurer the money that you have borrowed, but in fact you have not yet collected it, and you have not yet reached the position in which you can put it on the ordinary ratepayer, because in the first year you treated it as a debt, and in the second year as rates on the individual. He has not yet paid and your estimate is going through for the coming year. You have not included in the estimate any charge for that to make up the deficit. In that situation, where is the county council going to find the money to pay back to the treasurer? It seems to me that the least you ought to do is to make the period three years, because at present two years are wasted. In the first year the money is treated as an ordinary debt, and in the second year as rates which had not been collected.
Two years seem rather short when considered in that way. In the case of small debts of this sort it is considered inadvisable to allow people to defer making repayment for longer than two years. If at the end of the two years the county council finds that there are defaulters the secretary will make provision for whatever deficit there is in his estimate. He will prepare his estimate on that basis. If the money comes in in the meantime, it will go to the credit of the funds of the county council.
I see that the Minister does realise the difficulty. If the period is made three years that will not offer any inducement to people who owe a debt to keep the money out. The Minister spoke about the secretary to the county council making provision for any deficit there is in his estimate. He cannot do that because he will not know what the deficit is until the 31st March. He will not know at the time he is preparing the yearly estimate of income and expenditure. Suppose the county council lends £30,000. If £10,000 are outstanding and if the county council must have that money paid back on the 1st March they cannot find out what their liabilities are until the 31st March. My suggestion is that this be changed to three years. It is not going to make any difference except to get the county council out of an awkward situation.
I wonder if that is done would the county council be able to borrow money on as favourable terms as for the shorter period.
The secretary of the county council is, as a rule, very well able to estimate how much he is likely to be out when coming to the month of March, before the rate is struck. In regard to this, as in other matters, he must take a round figure if it is likely that there is going to be a deficit. If, however, in the meantime money comes in it will go to the credit of the fund of the council. The objection to the proposal to extend the period is that it is thought that it would encourage people to put the payment of these small amounts on the long finger, so to speak.
The people who get the advances are not affected by this at all. This is a matter between the county council and the treasurer. As the Minister has said, the secretary of the county council is generally a good judge of the amount he is going to be short at the end of the year. This is a new matter, in which rates are coming in for the first time in this way. He does not know what his losses are going to be and the rate collectors cannot tell him, because they have not yet closed their collection. In the middle of February, when the estimate of rates is made the rate collectors are only half way through the second moiety of their collection. In reply to Deputy Belton, I do not think that what I have suggested would interfere with the rate of interest charged.
I move amendment No. 5:—
Before Section 6, page 5, to insert a new section as follows:—
The expenses incurred by the council of a county in the provision under this Act of supplies of seeds and fertilisers or of seeds only or of fertilisers only shall, in so far as they are not recovered from the several persons to whom such goods are sold, be raised by such council by means of the poor rate as a county-at-large charge.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 2, line 9, before the word "barley" to insert the words "wheat seeds".
