Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Nov 1946

Vol. 103 No. 11

Private Deputies' Business. - Derating of Agricultural Out-Offices—Motion.

Mr. Cogan

I move:—

That, in order to encourage the provision of better housing for live stock and better storage for farm produce and equipment, Dáil Eireann is of opinion that all out-offices on agricultural holdings should be completely exempt from rates.

This motion has been reached rather unexpectedly to-day and I regret that the chief sponsor of the motion, the leader of this Party, is unavoidably absent. I did not anticipate that the motion would come before the House to-day and there are some facts which I should have liked to produce in support of it which are not available to me at the moment. I feel, however, that the case for the motion is so strong that it does not require very great eloquence on my part or the production of a great volume of statistics or other material to convince the House that it ought to be passed. It may be contended that in putting forward this demand, we, on behalf of the farmers, are making an undue demand on the rest of the rate-paying and taxpaying community. It may even be suggested that we are endeavouring to shift the just burdens which the farmers should bear on to his neighbours. Those who had the misfortune to read the article in the last issue of the Sunday Independent by Mr. P.S. O'Hegarty, would no doubt be in a frame of mind to resist a demand of this kind. I have always admired this particular writer on economic and national questions.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy admires him, there may be others who do not, and it might be wiser not to mention him here.

Mr. Cogan

My admiration has to a very great extent been dissipated by reading this article which he produced so recently. There is no question whatever of farmers seeking to pass any portion of their just burdens on to any other section of the community. I think simple justice will demand and insist that, so far as direct taxation is concerned, each section of the community and each individual member of the community should contribute according to his means, and if we take the White Paper on National Income and Expenditure recently produced by the Minister for Finance, we find that the total national income of the State for 1944 was £252,000,000. Agricultural income for the same year was £88,000,000, so that the agricultural income was 35 per cent. of the total national income. One would assume from these figures that the rateable valuation of agriculture would, therefore, be approximately 35 per cent. of the total rateable valuation of the State, but if one were to base any calculations on that assumption, one would be gravely mistaken.

The total valuation of all lands and other property in this State for the last year for which figures are available was £12,393,000. The valuation of land in county health districts is approximately £7,000,000 and the value of buildings, £1,600,000. I have been unable to unearth figures showing the valuation of agricultural buildings, but I think I should be quite safe in assuming that the valuation of agricultural buildings would be approximately £1,000,000. The total valuation of agricultural land and buildings therefore is £8,000,000, or 66 per cent. of the total valuation of the State.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee)

Can the Deputy give his authority for the figure he mentions?

Mr. Cogan

The valuation of buildings?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Cogan

The valuation of buildings in county health districts is £1,600,000. I took that figure from the report of the Department of Local Government for last year.

Mr. MacEntee

Has the Deputy read the Report of the Commission on Derating?

Mr. Cogan

I read the Report of the Commission on Derating so many years ago that I am afraid I have forgotten most of it, but I think the figures I have given are substantially correct; but even if they were not, even if there was a slight margin of error, the fact still remains——

Mr. MacEntee

I should like the Deputy to make as good a case as he can for the motion and I should like to point out that so far from putting the figure of £1,600,000 as the valuation of out-offices, the Commission on Derating estimated that the total value of out-offices attached to farm buildings was £300,000.

Mr. Cogan

The Minister is dealing with an entirely different matter. The figure I have given is not the figure for farm out-buildings. It is the total valuation of farm buildings, including dwelling-houses, and I think the Minister will find if he has any sources of information available to him, that the total valuation of agricultural dwelling-houses and out-offices is close on £1,000,000.

The point which I am making is that the valuation of land is £7,000,000, and that the valuation of agricultural buildings is approximately £1,000,000. Therefore, the total valuation of farm houses and out-offices and farms is in the region of £8,000,000 which is approximately two-thirds of the total valuation of all the property in the State. Now, you have the position that the farmer, with an income which is little more than one-third of the total national income, bears a valuation which is two-thirds of the total valuation. Thus you see that the whole basis on which the rates and the finances of the local authorities are founded is false and unfair to the agricultural community. In so far as the central Government have recognised the injustice of the basis on which taxation is levied, they have sought to amend it to a certain extent by agricultural grants of various sorts. What I resent, and what the farmers bitterly resent, are the frequent attempts which are being made to represent the agricultural grant as a gift or benefit conferred on the farmer by other sections of the community. The real fact is that rateable valuations are fundamentally unfair to agriculture, and the State makes an inadequate attempt to remedy that injustice by means of grants. That is my answer to any case which the Minister may make on the ground that such a proposal as this would be too generous to the farmer, and it is my answer to the case which is made by Mr. P.S. O'Hegarty.

The Minister himself, in one of his lectures on local administration, expressed this view which is reported, I think, in the Independent of January 23rd, 1946:—

"We have in this State a superstructure of local administration as progressive and democratic as any in the world, the foundations of which are greatly overburdened for they belong to a past age. Unless these foundations are drastically overhauled and modernised, the day will come when local authorities, under the stress of post-war conditions, will find great difficulty in discharging even their present liabilities under the law".

So that the Minister is not satisfied with the foundations upon which local administration rests. He is not satisfied, I presume, with the system of valuations which places upon the agricultural industry a valuation which is two-thirds of the national valuation, notwithstanding the fact that the income of the agricultural industry is less than one-third of the national income. Therefore, I hope that there will be no suggestion in the course of the debate on this motion that the farmer is looking for anything excessive or anything unfair from the rest of the community —from the other taxpayers or other ratepayers of the community. He is asking for nothing more and nothing less than simple justice.

Now, in addition to rectifying and equalising the burden on agriculture, as compared with other sections of the community, there are very strong and pressing reasons why farm buildings should be exempt from rates. Farm buildings are part of the equipment which the farmer uses in production on his farm. They are as essential to production as is the plough, the mower, the reaper, the harrow and other machinery which the farmer employs in carrying on production, and since nobody would seriously suggest that there should be an annual tax levied upon ploughs, harrows, spades, reapers and machinery of that kind, I fail to see how anyone can seriously contend that these other items of equipment should be taxed. In the Third Minority Report of the Committee of Inquiry into post-emergency Agricultural Policy, Dr. Henry Kennedy, referring to housing on the farm, says:—

"Housing for farm animals is, as a general rule, neither adequate in scope nor suitable in design. Any programme for more economical production, which can be effected only by increased production, will call for more and better housing and yard accommodation for farm animals. The new views on grass husbandry, which insist on the importance of ‘sparing' the pastures in late autumn and early spring, imply greater accommodation for house or yard feeding of cattle during the winter. Control of disease and more hygienic conditions for milk production, which in the future are inevitable, will make it necessary to provide new byres with appropriate water supplies on most farms. Storage for grain, feed, potatoes, etc., will be essential. Modern practice in pig and poultry husbandry has rendered obsolete most of the farm buildings used for these purposes.

Over and above mere material considerations, well-designed and adequate housing will have a profound psychological effect on farmers and farm workers. It will render life on the land more attractive, as it will render labour more productive.

The provision of adequate and suitable farm buildings will mean a vast capital expenditure. For this reason, it is essential that all steps should be taken to ensure that the buildings may be designed with a view to the maximum degree of labour saving in the farmyard, and the minimum of cost of construction. Investigation is needed on the design, layout and construction of farm buildings, and an advisory service to farmers is needed. In view of the magnitude of the problem, such a service would save an enormous amount of wasted effort and wasted capital."

In those paragraphs, Dr. Henry Kennedy stresses the urgent need for enlarging and extending farm buildings of every kind. That need, I think, will be appreciated by everyone. I had intended to produce in this debate, if I was aware that it would be taken this week, figures showing the extent of farm buildings in Denmark as compared with this country. Speaking from recollection, I believe that the amount of capital invested in farm buildings in Denmark is more than three times the amount invested in farm buildings here.

That shows what an enormous field there is for expansion in this direction. It shows how necessary it is for farmers and those who plan for farmers to think along the line of extending, improving and modernising farm buildings. Surely, if it is in the national interest that the farmer ought to increase his capital outlay on farm buildings on every kind, we ought not to discourage him, to dishearten him by piling heavy taxation upon those buildings.

There are various grants given to assist the farmer to improve his out-buildings. There are various schemes, semi-State schemes, for the provision of loans to enable the farmer to enlarge his farm buildings. But all those grants and loans are offset by the fact that when the farmer has erected a new byre, a new haybarn or some piece of modern agricultural architecture which is so necessary to his industry, he finds that in the course of a few years the valuation inspector will increase his valuation and he will have to pay a heavy annual sum. We must remember in this connection there is no agricultural grant in respect of the valuation of an agricultural out-building. The farmers must bear the full rate imposed upon them by the local authorities. That is a very strong discouragement and, because of it, the farmers go slowly in regard to extensions and improvements of their buildings, even if they had the capital to carry out the work.

The Minister said that when the Agricultural Derating Commission made its report the valuation of farm out-buildings was somewhere in the region of £300,000. The fact that that sum is, in the Minister's opinion, low in relation to other buildings, indicates that we have not half enough farm out-buildings in this State. I think there is no productive effort into which money could be poured with an assurance that it would repay in the long run better than the improvement of farm buildings. Dr. Henry Kennedy mentioned that better farm buildings make for better and more efficient agriculture. That is, of course, quite apparent to anyone who has even the haziest knowledge of agriculture.

We know that live stock of every kind, if not properly housed, cannot thrive. We know that farm buildings which are too enclosed do not provide adequate ventilation. If they are draughty or cold or wet it means an annual loss to the farmer in the matter of production. It is not necessary to refer to the great loss suffered annually throughout the length and breadth of the country in our haggards—the loss of grain, hay and other feeding-stuffs owing to the fact that there are not sufficient covered buildings to protect our produce from the weather.

In the poultry industry there is a vast field for improvement. As Dr. Henry Kennedy pointed out, an improvement of farm buildings will not only make for greater efficiency in the industry and a higher output, but it will also have a psychological effect upon those engaged in agriculture. Visualise the difference it would make to the farmer's wife if she can walk out to a piggery constructed in modern fashion and feed the pigs there without having to go into the building where they are and, perhaps, risk being knocked down by these animals. Visualise the comfort which would be provided by covered buildings for the various foodstuffs which the farmer and his wife require on the farm and contrast that with the conditions under which they have to keep those foodstuffs at the moment. Think of the advantage it would be to them to have these foodstuffs properly protected from the weather.

I am sure the Minister, on some occasions, has observed a farmer's wife or daughter going to a potato-pit in cold, wintry weather to obtain sufficient potatoes to feed the live stock or for family use. There is drudgery associated with that work now whereas, with ample housing accommodation, a supply of potatoes and other vegetables could be kept under cover. That is one of the aspects of agricultural life that ought to receive careful consideration. If a girl has to choose between marrying a farmer and facing all this drudgery which is associated with unsatisfactory out-buildings, and marrying a business man, a professional man or a craftsman and living in the sheltered conditions of the town, she will inevitably leave the poor farmer there.

Mr. MacEntee

That is a very mercenary view.

Mr. Cogan

All this makes for discouragement in the agricultural industry. The Minister, if he has any heart at all, will be sympathetic to this motion. It aims at encouraging an improvement in farm buildings.

That is its chief objective. It seeks to give the farmer the necessary inducement to go ahead and improve his homestead. In addition to that, it will have the effect of removing a longstanding injustice, namely, that the farming industry bears an excessive share of the rates owing to the antiquated system of valuation under which we labour.

I believe that, if Deputy Corry were in the House, he would follow the same line which he took in regard to the Bill for the relief of rates and would say that it does not matter what burden the farmer has to pay so long as he is permitted to pass it on to other sections of the community. There are two answers to that contention. The first is that the farmer is not permitted to pass his burden on to other sections of the community. At present the farmer has to bear whatever direct charges are imposed upon his industry. He cannot add the cost of production on the price of the produce and thus pass it on to other sections of the community, as the manufacturer and the businessman can do to a great extent. The farmer must bear whatever direct tax is imposed upon him. Even if the farmer were in a position to pass this heavy burden of rates on to the rest of the community, it would mean passing it on to the poorest section, to the food consumers. It would mean adding to the cost of food.

One of the first duties of a Government should be to see that the cost of food is reduced to the lowest minimum. It was because the British Government realised so far back as 1928 that the cost of producing food in the home country should be reduced to the lowest possible minimum that they decided completely to derate both agricultural land and buildings. The Minister, when he talks about the antiquated system of valuation, the antiquated system of local administration and the antiquated foundation on which it is built, should take a lesson from a country which is not by any means very progressive, but which is at least 16 years in front of this country in the matter of rates on agricultural land and buildings.

Mr. Beirne

I second the motion.

Mr. O'Connor

Deputy Cogan told us a lot about the benefits that would accrue from providing better out-houses for farmers, mainly the houses where live stock are kept. He did not tell us why farmers wanted better housing for live stock. He did not say whether it was from love and affection towards these animals or whether it was because the farmers might make more money out of them if they had better houses in which to put them. Farming is a business. I cannot say whether or not it is a good business, because I never had anything to do with farming. But there are facts which can be learned from the outside which would suggest that farming must be a profitable business. I have never heard of a farmer asking someone to take over his farm from him or putting in an advertisement saying that he could not make a profit out of his farm, and asking some kind friend to come and take it from him so that he would not be burdened with it any more. On the contrary, we have the undoubted fact that the price of farms is almost doubled. If you wanted to buy a farm now you would have to pay twice as much for it as you would have paid before the war. That is altogether inconsistent with the story that there is too much taxation levied on farmers.

Deputy Cogan did not say who was to bear the burden of these rates. Would he put it on the workmen in the towns and villages or would he ask it to be taken from general taxation? Only this year the Government has provided the huge sum of £1,000,000 for the relief of agricultural land. During the year there has been an increase of 3/- in the £ in the rates in the City of Dublin. The Government displayed great anxiety to make these financial concessions to the farmer. The people of the city are beginning to think that the Government have gone too far in that direction. There is an ever-growing anxiety in the minds of the people of Dublin at the continued high cost of living, and it is noted with concern that the inflated prices apply to the same degree to our home-produced food as to the food we import from abroad. One could understand an increase in the price of commodities, such as tea, which have to be brought from abroad; but people cannot understand why there has been such a great increase in the price of meat, milk, vegetables, turf, and other products which are produced by our own farmers, and that at a time when the expenses which the farmers have to bear have not increased to the same extent.

The people of the city are complaining that the Government are going too far in their efforts to placate the farmers and that the time has come when the plight of the city workers should be considered; that the plight of a man who is trying to rear a family in the City of Dublin, to give them decent food and to keep a decent home over their heads, is very bad, and that there does not seem to be any sign of improvement.

Deputy Cogan made one statement with which I am in agreement, namely, that the Government should see that the cost of producing food is reduced to the lowest minimum. Instead of that, the Government, in order to satisfy the farmers, have been fixing prices for their produce and that has inflated the prices which the people have to pay for food. Visitors from England during the last year have remarked to me how surprised they were at the price of food here, particularly meat, milk and butter. The Government have maintained these prices so as to allow the farmers to make a decent income. Instead of appreciating that, the smaller section of farmers represented by Deputies proposing this motion are asking for relief from taxation. As soon as one concession is gained, they come and ask for another.

I would say to the Minister that he has gone quite far enough in that direction and that it is time the people of the city got a little more consideration. It is time that an effort should be made to bring about a considerable reduction in the price of essential foods. It is time that some effort was made to stabilise the rates in the cities. Reference has been made to rates on agricultural land being a tax on raw material. The rates which a city dweller pays are a tax on his home. Whatever kind of a structure it may be, whether a cellar, a garret, or a luxury flat, it is part of a building which he uses to protect himself and his family from the weather.

Surely the tax on a home should be reduced to the lowest possible minimum, but the Deputies proposing this motion are more concerned with the taxes and rates on the homes of the live stock than they are with the taxes on the homes of our people.

Deputy Cogan stated that 35 per cent. of the total income comes from agriculture. He did not deal with the portion of the total taxation which is borne by agriculture. He did not mention the subject of income-tax. Many people who have to pay the heavy income-tax consider that a better effort should be made by the Government to collect income-tax from farmers, that they should be induced to keep proper accounts and that proper assessments should be made upon them. It is a well-known fact that farmers do not pay income-tax. Even on their deposits in the bank they seem to get away with it. People in cities cannot do that.

There is nobody has so much respect for the farmers as I have. I believe that they are manly, decent, forthright men, the backbone of the nation, but I prefer to think of them as men who are willing to meet their obligations and who would not support the miserable whining and wailing we hear here on their behalf and these efforts to free them from the rates and taxes of which they should bear their just share.

Mr. Heskin

I think Deputy Cogan has made a good case for the motion. I support the motion. I am surprised at the references that have been made by Deputy O'Connor in regard to the demands made by the farming community. Deputy O'Connor said that he never heard of any farmer asking his neighbour or anybody else to take over. That may be so. Every man who has been reared in a particular walk of life will cling to it. Very few business people, shopkeepers or others have called on their next-door neighbours to take over their business.

Deputy O'Connor said that the price of land has increased considerably. I say that the price of business houses has gone up considerably, in the country as well as in the City of Dublin. The costs of running the farmers' business have also increased very considerably. The cost of labour has increased. It has not increased to the extent to put the labourer in a position to meet the cost of living but it has gone beyond the capacity of the farmer to pay. If the Government accept this motion and thereby help to reduce the overheads on the farmer's home, they will help to increase production.

It is my opinion that in a very short time we will reach the position when there will be very little farm produce for consumption by our people. I wonder does Deputy O'Connor, or any other city Deputy or even the Minister for Agriculture know the problem that confronts the farmer and the people in connection with the production of milk? Some time ago I stated, and I maintain that, instead of having butter available for the people, in a couple of years' time there will not be milk for the people to use in their tea because of the fact that milk is supplied at a price much below the cost of production. Deputies from all sides of the House are asking for a commission to inquire into the costs of production for the farmer and to see that he gets a profit. The farmers seem to be the victim in all cases. Even during the summer, his costs increased 100 per cent. because of the fact that many of his employees had to be paid during the wet period in order to ensure that their labour would be available when the weather was fine. The farmers realised that everything possible should be done to save the grain for the nation.

If this motion is accepted, it will give the farmers encouragement to re-build and to improve their holdings. At present, when buildings are erected, after a very short period they are subject to further costs. That makes the farmer very chary about carrying out any improvement in his buildings. For the last ten years there has been from all parts of the country a flight from the land. That is because the conditions on the farm and in the farmyard are such that the young people do not want to stay there. There would not be such a flight from the land if the farms and farmyards were well laid out with proper protection for stock and for the workers. Every effort should be made to provide the reliefs asked for by this motion. I hope the Minister in his judgment will see fit to carry this motion into effect and to ensure that the costs on buildings on agricultural holdings are reduced to the very minimum and thus help to increase and to improve production.

Major de Valera

I think a motion like this is best approached with a business-like attitude of mind. It is a serious question, relating to the economic life of the community, and it is not a subject that should be used for any purpose other than to try to find the best solution from the economic viewpoint. What I mean by that is that it should be approached as part of the problem which concerns us vitally in this House of the general economy of the country: how this country is going to live from day to day, in the same way as how a man is going to live from day to day given certain circumstances of living, income, and so forth. I think the best way of approaching a motion like this in the way I have indicated is to look at it from the point of view that a Government who will be responsible for taking action in regard to any such matter would approach it. Just how would you expect a responsible government to face up to a matter like this? As I conceive it, this is not the only way it would come before them but let us suppose that there have been certain suggestions thrown out by people that the question of rates on agricultural out-offices should be considered, that representations are made to some Minister who is interested in the matter. The first thing he will do is to have the problem examined in order to find out what will be involved. Ultimately it will have to be considered by the Cabinet and the reason why the Cabinet will have to consider it is because it is a question of balancing. When it reaches that point then it becomes a question for the Minister for Finance and his Department. It is a very good thing, therefore, at the very outset to look at this from the point of view from which a financial expert would look at it. He will look at it from the point of view that there are certain services which must be maintained and which must be catered for in this State. Money must be found for these. Some of them are vitally essential and the money involved in them cannot be varied. Other items may be susceptible to a certain amount of variation. The first step, then, is to tabulate these things in order to find out where you are. The next is to find out what your income is and the source from which you can obtain this money, and strike a balance between the two. After that, you will take your particular problem and see if you can fit it in. You will find, however, that your income is limited because certain essential services take priority and must be accounted for. You can only supply money, therefore, for the proposed new service at the expense of either increasing your revenue by taxation or decreasing some other service.

In the case of a motion like this the practical problem is that if you derate land and out-offices you are going to take away a certain amount of money hitherto available for financing other schemes in the State and that sum must be made good somewhere else. The net result is that if you derate agricultural land and out-offices you sacrifice a certain sum. In doing so, a certain amount of money is lost or, if you like to put it in a more positive way, you make a present of a certain amount of money to those farmers who own out-offices. In relieving the farmers of a burden, all the other circumstances remaining unchanged, you are giving them a present of so many hundreds of thousands of pounds. I am not quite clear what the actual figure is.

The question immediately arises then from where is that present to come. That is the question which the Minister for Finance must ask himself and that is the question to which he must find an answer. That sum of money must be taken from some other section of the community, otherwise the farmer himself will have to pay it and the farmer Deputies should remember that when they support this motion. You are going to make a present to a certain section of the community. One of two things will happen. Some other section of the community will have to pay for that or the recipients themselves will have to pay for it. If other sections of the community have to pay for it, then we must consider the fairness of it. If the farmer has to pay for it then we must consider the futility of it. I do not see any benefit to the farmer if his out-offices are derated and that sum has then to be made good either through rates on the remainder of his holding or by direct or indirect taxation. There can be no benefit whatever to the farmer in that. In effect, there is a disadvantage, because if special schemes or special provisions are introduced for the derating of out-offices, then administrative machinery will have to be set up and more administrative expense will be involved. The additional administrative expenses will have to be borne by the farmer, together with other sections of the community.

On the assumption that you are not going to pass the burden on to another section of the community, the farmer must pay for it himself and the additional administrative expense involved will leave him worse off than he is at present. We should be very clear on that point. It is an easy and tempting thing to adopt a slogan without considering its full implications. Some farmer may make a specialised case to his local T.D. in regard to his rates but he forgets that there are other demands made upon him for the support of the State. The particular person who takes up that case forgets it too and forgets that an equitable solution may involve that farmer not in any relief but in the payment of something more than he is paying already.

My view is that, as long as we have rates, the simplest and most straightforward scheme one can adopt is the best one because such a scheme will not involve extra administration, will cause less confusion and will probably work out more equitably. I see no particular benefit to the farmer in this motion unless you are going to pay for this relief either through the Central Fund or in some other fashion. What does that alternative mean? It means, in effect, that the farmer and the rest of the community will have to pay for this new relief. It is questionable whether that is a fair burden to place upon the rest of the community. It is more questionable still if you endeavour to ensure that the relief is a clear relief to the farmer. That is to say, if you take steps to ensure that the farmer gets that relief and, at the same time, does not have to pay for it in some other way. That is the most unfair position of all because the net result is that the cost of that relief will have to be borne by some other section of the community. I think these arguments are unanswerable. Is it fair in present circumstances to pass other burdens on to any other portion of the community? What do we mean by "other portions of the community"? Broadly speaking, it would mean people in the towns and cities. It would mean industry, and up to the present moment, up to this year's Budget, I think that no one can say that industry has not been sufficiently taxed. Let anybody look at the balance sheet of any company in this city and see the sums paid into the Exchequer as taxation, and I think he will allow that industry has carried its fair share of taxation.

Coming to the people in the towns whom Deputy O'Connor mentioned, are they in such a favourable position that they can afford to carry any further burden for the benefit of any other portion of the community? If any of the farmer Deputies here are interested in the matter, as a Dublin Deputy I should like them to come and just see what the conditions in the city are in that regard. I should like them in particular to consider and to visit people living in the city who have jobs in the city, particularly, say, the skilled tradesman, the clerk in an office, the journalist, the civil servant and all those relatively lowly-paid workers in our cities and towns and just see can they afford to bear a heavier proportion of the general burden of the community. I, for one, having seen the conditions am perfectly satisfied that they can not. They, as Deputy O'Connor has pointed out, pay their full quota in income-tax. The very accounting systems to which they are subjected make sure that there is no evasion and very little relief for them. The payment of rates weighs just as heavily on them as it does on the farmer.

To say the least of it, the rates in Dublin do not compare unduly favourably with the rates in any other part of the country, particularly the agricultural part of the country. Under the Rent Act passed in this House within the past year, every tenant of a house in Dublin, every such worker, is paying a rent for his house—very often it is not a house; very often it is just a flat—and is paying rates which are calculated in his rent, in addition to taxes. So on the question of actual payments in rates and taxation the city man and the town dweller are in no more favourable conditions than the farmer. If any case is to be made for relief I do not think that the farmer has any greater claim than those workers, tradesmen and other people, particularly white collar workers on the lower scale in the cities. If there is any relief going I repeat that they have at least an equal claim with the farmer.

In addition to that let us remember this—getting back to one fundamental point which perhaps our country Deputies cannot quite appreciate—in the country, no matter what the price of food is, in the main the farmer and other members of the agricultural community will always manage to get a sufficiency of the foodstuffs necessary for life.

I am not suggesting that they get luxuries or anything of that kind; I am not even suggesting that they have a prolific meat supply, but they will be able to get potatoes, milk and eggs and at least they will be able to maintain a healthy bodily state without undue cost. In the city, on the other hand, the workers to whom I have referred and the poor, in spite of the State aid which they have been given, have to bear the full increase in price of foodstuffs. I think I am putting it mildly when I say it is not so easy to maintain a standard of nourishment for these city dwellers as it is for country dwellers.

We approached this motion on all sides—at least those Parties present in the House—in, I take it, a contemplative fashion, to quote a certain opera. I am not making these statements just to uphold one end or to belabour the farmers because I happen to represent a city constituency. I am trying to look at it from the point of view of a Deputy in this House who has, after all, a responsibility to the community as a whole—to look at it from the point of view of the community as a whole. The reason I make this point is that I think there is no further case for specific relief for the farming community as long as conditions in the towns and cities remain as they are. In other words, in opposing this motion I do so on the grounds, firstly, that it means more money, that that money has to be found, and that I do not think it can be found. At any rate, it cannot be found without either taking it from the farmer in another form or penalising somebody else. I am opposing it on the grounds that even if we could afford such further relief at the moment, I would be against relieving the farmers now in priority to any relief that we could give to the ordinary hard-working, wage-earning tradesmen, the clerk, the journalist, the lower paid civil servant, the teacher or any of these classes I have mentioned in the cities and towns. After all they are entitled to consideration and they are not just there to be drained financially for the benefit of anybody else. These are the reasons why I cannot support this motion at the moment.

The question of course arises, and it was more or less suggested by the mover of the motion, whether there would be any quid pro quo for this relief to the farmer. Deputy Cogan, in moving the motion, made the insinuation, rather than the actual statement I think, that if rates went down and living were made easier for the farmer, the price of food would go down.

I look at the matter from two points of view. From the point of view of the townsman, I should say: "Very well, if the price of food is to go down more than I shall pay for this relief then, by all means, give the farmers the relief," but I should want to be assured that the price of food would go down. But, on the other hand, I put this to the farmer Deputies: how would the farmers like if they were told that their out-houses would be derated but that their prices would be cut? They cannot have it both ways. I ask the mover of the motion, following the insinuation that he made—if it was not made, I shall completely accept his word—are the farmers willing to cut their prices and to give their grain at a lower price, so that the price of bread will go down in the cities? If I were a farmer, I wonder what answer I should give to that question. From the point of view of the unfortunate town dweller, it would be a godsend if prices were to go down.

Mr. Cogan

The farmer does not fix his prices.

Major de Valera

He may not actually fix his prices, but what I am saying has nothing to do with that. I am simply asking, if this money is given to the farmer, will he be willing that it should be taken from him by way of a reduction of his prices. Addressing myself strictly to the motion, if that is the position, I do not see the purpose of the motion.

Mr. Cogan

Does the Deputy want an answer?

Major de Valera

If the Deputy desires to give one.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Cogan will have an opportunity of replying at the conclusion of the debate.

Major de Valera

I give way to the Deputy.

Mr. Cogan

The farmer does not fix his prices. His prices are fixed by the international balance of trade.

Mr. MacEntee

The State guarantees certain prices.

Mr. Cogan

For certain articles. If prices were fixed by the State within this country and if those prices were based on costs of production, then I should be quite satisfied that a reduction in rates should be passed on to the consumer.

Major de Valera

The Deputy is bringing us very far outside his motion and there are a large number of "ifs" in his statement. The position is that prices are guaranteed in relation to certain commodities. As regards other commodities, there is what I call a customary price which the city worker has to pay. If we give £300,000—that is the figure which was mentioned by somebody and I use it subject to correction —in respect of derating of out-buildings, is the farmer willing to have the State step in and reduce his guaranteed prices or legislate in respect of the uncontrolled prices so as to effect a reduction of £300,000? If I were a farmer, I wonder if I should agree to that.

Mr. Heskin

Fix the prices on the cost of production.

Mr. MacEntee

They are well above the cost of production now.

Major de Valera

I simply pose that question. If you do that, what use is the relief to the farmer? A motion like this is utterly futile unless you can arrive at a solution by which you give a clear present to the farmer of that £300,000. If you do not do that, it means nothing.

Mr. Heskin

Withdraw the motion if you are satisfied to set up a commission to fix the cost of production.

Major de Valera

I did not move the motion; neither am I the Minister in charge. Therefore, it is not competent for me either to withdraw the motion or to do anything else in relation to it. If the benefit is not clearly given to the farmer, what use is the motion? If the benefit is given to the farmer, who is going to pay for it? I am suggesting that, if it is given to him, the unfortunate classes I have mentioned will pay for it. My constituency happens to be mostly populated by that type but I am trying to look at the matter from the national point of view and from the point of view of the general benefit of the community and I think that it would be wrong to adopt the motion.

I think that it would also be wrong from the farmers' point of view because, when you go beyond a certain stage with one section, you will reduce their purchasing power and the farmer will eventually pay for their poverty. I should not like to suggest that this is a type of motion that appeals to an opposition party—something that will afford benefit to some classes without the movers having the responsibility for putting its provisions into effect. I do not want to make any suggestions like that but I suggest that, when such motions are brought before the House, the movers should do something more than urge that relief be given. It is up to them to give an indication of a feasible line which could be adopted. I should like, for instance, to hear the mover of this motion, or a member of the Party responsible for it, make a suggestion as to how the result aimed at could be achieved and how the matter could be financed without involving the other sections of the community in expense. If they could do that, I think that the suggestion would be welcomed and the motion would be accepted. As I see the matter, the difficulty of the Government in the case of such a motion would be in implementing it or giving it proper effect at all.

Before I conclude, perhaps it would be well to look at what has been done in regard to financial allotments this year. The Deputy will remember that, in the Budget of this year, the Minister for Finance found himself able to give certain substantial reliefs. Amongst the outstanding reliefs he gave was a reduction in the price of turf to city dwellers. On the other hand, he gave a relief in rates on agricultural land to the farmers. It is of interest to look at the sums involved. In apportioning his reliefs, he gave £250,000 towards reduction of the price of turf in urban areas and he gave £1,000,000—four times as much—to the farmer by way of relief in rates.

In view of all the care and regard shown by this House for the farming community, it is clear that if there is one thing on which we are on all fours, it is an appreciation of the importance of the farmer to the communal life of the country. If there is one subject on which this House is united, it is the conviction that agriculture is the basis of our economic life. We are all agreed on that.

General Mulcahy

Since when?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Always.

Major de Valera

I am afraid I cannot remember the time when we were not. I am a very young member of the House and I cannot go back farther than last year.

General Mulcahy

The farmers can.

Mr. MacEntee

There are two apparitions on the Front Opposition Bench now.

Major de Valera

The Deputy is bringing me into a very dangerous line of country for himself, but I think we will stick to the motion.

General Mulcahy

I was often in danger.

Major de Valera

The point is that the fact has been realised by everybody. It has been borne out by the emphasis laid by all Parties in the House since its inception on agricultural matters. I have pointed out the latest provision whereby four times the sum of money was allotted for the relief of the farmer as was allotted for the relief of town dwellers. I have not dealt with taxation and rates borne equally by the farmer and town dweller because they are borne equally, and there is no reason why these things should not be borne equally because, as I have said, the stage has long ago been reached in which the town dweller has been reduced to a position in which he is no more advantageously placed than the member of the farming community. Therefore, I feel that, as a matter of reason and practical approach to such a problem as this, the motion should not be accepted. If, on the other hand, a practical plan could be shown by which that money could be secured without the drawbacks I have mentioned, it would be another story, but no such plan has been put forward.

Finally, I should like to go a little further and to point out that there is a certain danger in approaching subjects like these in this way. Suppose, next week, a group of people living in certain types of houses in towns want relief and you grant such relief as this. There would then be no case for not granting relief to other groups. Other groups will then apply, and, before we know where we are, we will find ourselves up against the problem of financing the State from the air, because the money on which the State runs comes from the people. It is the people who have to pay for the ordinary running expenses of the State for the year. We may borrow for capital purposes and arrange for repayments—that is very proper—but for the ordinary year to year running of the State, with the incidental expenses and expenditures involved, including our much expanded social services, subsidies and so forth, an effort must be made to live within the national income. The money you spend in these ways will have to be collected from the people in another way and the only way that money can be collected is through rates and taxes, whether a direct tax like income-tax or an indirect tax like the tax on spirits, or something of the kind. I reiterate that the time has come for us to be very careful about preserving the balance in fairness to all sections of the community and whereas this motion aims only at benefiting the agricultural community—and I have no objection to that, as I should like to see the farmers benefiting—when it comes to payment, it will be collected from other sections if it is not collected from the farmer himself.

General Mulcahy

With reference to the business of the House, I understand that there is little Government business for to-morrow and I should like to ask whether the motion with regard to the Tillage Order will be taken to-morrow.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Kissane)

Yes. We shall provide time for it to-morrow.

General Mulcahy

At what hour?

Mr. Kissane

From 6 to 10.30 p.m.

Mr. Maguire

To my mind, this motion is rather difficult to follow and it is difficult to see how it is to be put into practice. It is rather interesting to note the anxiety of all the different sections in the House in relation to the proposal contained in it—a proposal for the derating of a section of the properties held by the farming community and the reaction of the city Deputies to it. I have said that it is rather difficult to follow the implications of this motion and how it is to be put into practice, and why, for instance, the mover of the motion confines his proposal of rates exemption to out-buildings. I can see as much justification for including all buildings, dwelling-houses and all other buildings, on an agricultural holding. I can quite appreciate the point of view of those Deputies who officially represent the farming industry, but why should there be a preference in favour of out-buildings for the housing of cattle and so on as against buildings for the housing of individuals, such as farm labourers, small farmers and so on? I consider that the dwelling-houses of those engaged in agriculture should exert as strong a claim on the community for relief of rates as those buildings for the housing of cattle and the storage of agricultural products.

I am quite prepared to accept the argument used in recommending this motion—that it would make for better production and would ultimately mean a probable reduction in the price of goods produced on the farm. There is no doubt about that. I believe that a very substantial effort should be made by the people, and subsidised by the Government, to improve housing conditions on farms in respect of the storage of grain and the feeding of cattle and other live stock, but, again, I think this argument could be extended to include not merely buildings on agricultural holdings but all buildings utilised for the production of farm products of any description, whether glasshouses, piggeries or poultry-houses, in the vicinity of cities, in the towns and elsewhere.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 28th November, 1946.