Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1947

Vol. 109 No. 5

Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1947—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. MacEntee)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The purpose of this Bill is to extend the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1946, for another year. The House will remember that the Act was originally intended to apply only to two years and would cease to have effect on the 31st March next unless, of course, it were continued by further legislation. The Act of 1946 was passed following on an announcement by the Minister for Finance that he intended to provide an additional £1,000,000 towards the relief of rates on agricultural land. In doing this, of course, he was merely continuing the general policy of this Government in relation to agriculture. I think that it can be said that one of the outstanding characteristics of the Fianna Fáil Administration has been the continuous sympathy and practical help which it has manifested and given to the farmer to enable him to meet his obligations to the local authorities. In the first Budget, which I had the responsibility of introducing when Minister for Finance, the grant towards the relief of agricultural land was substantially increased and was maintained at approximately that increased figure by successive enactments, so that it stood at the figure of £1,861,000 until the close of 1945-46.

In the Budget of the year 1946, as I have indicated, the grant in relief was increased by no less than £1,000,000 until it stood at £2,900,157. Not only was the grant so substantially increased but a new system of distributing it and of determining it was introduced. The system of distribution was not new in principle because in preceding years we had the grant divided into three parts, consisting of a primary allowance, a supplementary allowance and an employment allowance. These features, though substantially modified and improved, were retained by the Act of 1946 but perhaps the most farreaching innovation which was made under that Act was definitely to relate the amount of the grant to the total amount of the rates which, but for the grant, would be leviable on agricultural land. For the first time, we had introduced the principal of a proportionate contribution from the State. Under this scheme of proportionate contributions, the first allowance, called the primary allowance, was fixed and granted on land valuations not exceeding £20 and the first £20 of higher valuations, at a rate equivalent to three-fifths of the general rate. The second allowance, or supplementary allowance as it is called, was given on the land valuation of holdings above £20 and was equivalent to one-fifth of the general rate. To these two allowances there was added an employment allowance for each man at work, and this employment allowance was fixed at the rate of 10/- in the £ on the valuation above £20 and was limited to £6 10s. Od. for each man. It will be understood, therefore, that the grant, in so far as the first two allowances were concerned— that is, the primary and supplementary allowances — varied, as I have already indicated, with the amount of the rate.

In the year of its introduction—that is, the year which began on 1st April, 1946—the amount of the grant was £2,900,157. The primary allowances— that is, the allowances on the holdings up to £20 in valuation and the first £20 of the larger holdings — absorbed £1,830,000, the supplementary allowances took £470,000, and the employment allowances £600,000. It is not possible to give exact figures for the amount which will be required to meet the State's obligations under the Bill for the current year, but it has been estimated that over £3,175,000 will be required and this will be distributed in the following way: The primary allowances will take £2,036,000, the supplementary allowances will take £514,000, and the employment allowances, £615,000.

The purpose of the Bill before the House is to provide that no change will be made this year in the existing system of grants. That will be done under Section 2, which applies the Act of 1946 to the financial year ending on the 31st March, 1949. The effect is to preserve the three allowances on the same basis as before.

Section 3 advances the latest date for the receipt of applications for employment allowances to the 15th October, 1948, instead of the 1st January, 1949, which is the date prescribed in subsection (3) of Section 7 of the 1946 Act. This change is made for the purpose of expediting the submission of employment claims so as to facilitate earlier estimates of the cost to the State. The date fixed gives ample time to all claimants and, indeed, much longer than was allowed under the Act of 1939.

I think I may remind the House that the present provision for the relief of rates upon agricultural land is so generous that it is almost five times the grant originally made under the Local Government Act of 1898. I may further emphasise that, notwithstanding the very generous increase of £1,049,000 which was made in the grant by the Bill of 1946, farmers this year have enjoyed a further substantial increase in a grant of no less than over £250,000 for the current year. It is the main purpose of the Bill to ensure that this system which, no doubt, has been of great help to our agriculturists during the past two years, will be continued during the coming year.

I make no apology for recommending it to the House. It is merely an indication of the general solicitude which the Fianna Fáil Administration has always manifested for the position of the farmers and it is a practical expression of concern for their welfare which certainly did not emanate from our predecessors.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister has gone to a lot of trouble to stress the generosity of this gift that he is providing in a particular way for agriculturists. He completely overlooks this fact, that our farmers' raw material, land, is taxed heavily. Our neighbours in Great Britain and Northern Ireland years ago saw that it was improper and unwise to continue to tax agricultural land. The land in Great Britain and Northern Ireland has carried no tax for a number of years. The generosity the Minister is boasting about, tested on the basis of what is happening around us, is not so generous at all.

The Minister is continuing this from year to year. He knows it must be made a permanent feature so far as the relief of rates on land is concerned. If the Minister looks at what is happening in rural Ireland he will realise that production is falling and our young people are leaving the land. If the Minister is left in the position that he has to bear further responsibility, he must face the fact that agricultural land cannot bear the rate that is imposed upon it. He knows very well that next year there will be a substantial increase in the poor rate. Will that be thrown back on the raw material of our main industry?

If whatever benefits accrue to this country as a result of the London talks put us in the position that we have to sell our produce side by side with the farmers of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, then some attention must be paid to the conditions under which our people produce on the land. Those conditions will have to be improved if our people are to compete on terms at least as advantageous as those enjoyed by the people in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Minister as a northerner knows that the land in the north has not carried rates for years. There is no need for him to stress his generosity. He is rather reluctantly continuing this measure for the coming year. The Minister is now beginning to realise that it must continue, not merely this year, but for the future. The land in this country cannot bear, and the people working and utilising the land for the benefit of the community cannot afford, to carry the tax burden imposed upon it at the present time.

I am sure the Minister must know that production in Great Britain and Northern Ireland rose by 70 per cent. during the war. It was admitted in a Budget Statement by a colleague of his that ours fell by 10 per cent. That is what this generous Government did for the main industry, and by their generosity bestowed on the main industry, the Government persisted in putting this charge on agricultural land which is not carried in Great Britain or Northern Ireland.

I submit, Sir, that not merely should this relief be continued this year, but the position of the rates in the coming year should be anticipated and the rates for next year should be borne by the State. The Minister is not facing up to his responsibilities at all by allowing a very substantial increase in the rates to be thrown back on the primary industry, in conditions where production is stagnant or has actually fallen. There has been a sharp fall this year and more and more people are leaving the land. In circumstances of that sort it is ludicrous for the Minister to boast of his generosity, because it is not generosity. The time has come when this House must realise that it is bad policy to tax the most important raw material in this country. The Minister is still continuing to tax this raw material and I challenge him to point out raw material of any other industry which is taxed before it is used.

Our people have this disability in comparison with their neighbours in Great Britain and Northern Ireland: their raw material is taxed while their neighbours' is not taxed and I want to draw the Minister's attention to this important aspect of the problem and to make the observation that this provision is not enough in the circumstances under which we are living. If we are to raise production, then the raw material of our primary industry must be relieved of tax burdens of this sort.

Mr. Cogan

The Minister burst into a wild song of praise of the Fianna Fáil Party for its generosity towards the farmer. I am sure that the farmers if they hear of or read that song will be thrilled.

I remember in 1928 attending a conference of farmers convened by the late Deputy Belton at which attention was drawn to the fact that agricultural land in Great Britain and Northern Ireland had been derated and a demand was made that the then Government should apply a similar just measure to this country. Agitation was made by farmers for that demand, but before their agitation had got very far under way, the farmers' meek and gentle voices were drowned completely by the loud and strident voices of Fianna Fáil agitators who were demanding that rates on agricultural land should be completely abolished and promising that if only they got into power there would be no more rates on agricultural land and the rate collector would no longer be seen in rural Ireland. Now, after 15 years of office —15 years during which this demand for justice by farmers has been opposed, spurned and denied—the Minister comes into this House and talks of the generosity of the Fianna Fáil Party to the farmers.

If we want to consider this question impartially, we have to compare the farmers' position here with the position in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. In Northern Ireland the farmers are exempt from rates on their land and agricultural buildings also. In addition to that, the farmers receive a bonus upon land under cultivation, a substantial subsidy in respect of ploughed up lea, a substantial subsidy on every acre of wheat and a substantial subsidy on every acre of potatoes. In addition to that, the all-round average in prices in Northern Ireland is substantially higher than it is here. Then in face of all that the Minister comes in here to tell us how generous Fianna Fáil has been towards the farmers. I think that the Minister should come in here in sack-cloth and ashes to apologise to the farmers for the way he has robbed them during his period of office as a member of the Fianna Fáil Government.

I drew attention, on a number of occasions, to the inequity and the injustice of the present system of rating as between agriculture and other occupations in this country. We know that the national income has been estimated and calculated and at the present time the farmers, or the agricultural community, are reputed to earn 35 per cent. of the national income, but the rateable valuation of agriculture is nearer to 75 per cent. of the total rateable valuation of the country. Surely if the rateable valuation bore any relation to income, the rateable valuation of agriculture should be 35 per cent. of the total rateable valuation of the country. But in this matter there has been no sense of justice, no sense of fair play, no guiding principles at all based on justice, but simply a desire on the part of the Government to fleece the farmers. They desire at the same time, however, to come here annually with small grants, claiming that those grants which only partially offset the injustice of the rating system, are gifts and generous gifts to the farmers. This agricultural grant is not a gift to agriculture. It is an attempt, and an inadequate attempt, to remedy the grave injustice of our rating system to which I have referred. In the first place, the present system of valuation is unfair to agriculture, and in the second place, as Deputy Hughes pointed out, it is wrong to tax agriculture as an industry at all.

On a previous occasion the Minister brought in a Bill which was only alive for two years, and now he brings in a Bill to extend that Act for a further year. I would like to know does the Minister consider that type of legislation to be either legislatively or administratively efficient. Is it desirable, or does it make for efficiency in local services, that those who plan and manage local services should always be wondering what kind of grants they are going to get in the coming year? Is it desirable from the point of view of efficiency to have this state of continual uncertainty in regard to agricultural grants? Is it not time that this state of affairs were ended and ended once and for all? Is it not time an equitable system were introduced which would be fair to agriculture and to all other sections of the community? There is no justification for this type of muddling and amending from year to year. Let us decide once and for all on the policy of the Minister for Agriculture in regard to direct taxation and introduce a permanent system of legislation to that effect.

When this employment grant was first announced the Minister for Finance told us that its purpose was to offset a coming increase in agricultural wages. The employment grant amounts to £6 10s. Od. for each man employed on a farm. Since that amount was introduced agricultural wages have increased on an average about 10/- per week, that is, £26 per year. Thus the farmer, as a result of the paternal activities of our generous Government, receives a benefit of £6 10s. Od. per year but pays, in increased wages, £26. That does not seem to conform with the Minister's idea that the Government is solicitous for the farmer. It is merely a further proof of the uncertainty and the muddled-headedness of the Government in regard to local taxation.

A little more than two years ago this Party introduced a motion and submitted it to Dáil Eireann to the effect that a system of derating should be introduced. That would have had the effect of derating every agricultural holding on which there was a reasonable amount of employment or on which a reasonable number of members of the family were being maintained. The Minister at that time—I think it was the Minister for Finance who performed the operation of pole-axing that particular motion—said that the motion would cost £2,000,000 and that if he had £2,000,000, which he claimed he had not in the Exchequer at the time, he would not apply 1/- of it towards the relief of rates. Within three months of the making of that wild statement he was forced to come into Dáil Éireann with a Budget providing £1,000,000 for the reduction of agricultural rates. That shows how the mind of Fianna Fáil operates. They have no sense of justice or fair play. They have no sense of right or wrong. They have no guiding principles whatever. They are guided by expediency—by the reports which come to them from their watch-dogs in the various constituencies. They change their policy from day to day according as is necessary in order to capture votes. That is not the way to deal with agricultural industry in the first place and with local authorities in the second place and it does not make for increased efficiency. The sooner we have a Government with the courage to plan boldly on the lines of justice and fair play rather than on expediency the sooner we will have a more efficient local government and a more prosperous and productive agricultural industry.

Mr. Everett

I wish to draw the Minister's attention to an anomaly which I do not believe the framers of the Act intended. It affects a number of labouring men in my constituency. In the case of two, at least, it affects men who have been in the one employment for the past 20 years, one as a ploughman and the other as a general man. They purchased a cow to supply the family with milk. They purchased a paddock convenient to the residence. The paddock had a rateable valuation of £5. These men, after 20 years' constant employment, lost their jobs on the grounds that their employer would not be allowed the grant because they had now become rated occupiers. The employer had no alternative and the men were dismissed. The unfortunate part of the story is that they could not register for work on the roads as they had never before been unemployed. Their names were not on the unemployment register and, in addition, they were now rated occupiers with a valuation of £5. I feel sure it was never the spirit of the Act to penalise thrifty men. In this case the valuation of the field was only £5 and the men were thrifty. I am sure that the Minister, before he makes the Act permanent, will rectify this matter and give the county manager power to make an allowance in such cases, so that the employer will get the full allowance.

Mr. Corry

We hear so many peculiar statements on the eve of a general election that they are rather amusing. They remind me of the time when I was sitting where Deputy Hughes is now sitting. At that time the Cumann na nGaedheal Government afforded £500,000 per year for relief of agricultural rates. When I proposed £1,000,000 for that purpose all of Deputy Hughes' chums voted against it. At that time it was considered outrageous to look for £1,000,000 for the relief of agricultural rates. We hear a lot about the position of the Northern Ireland farmer. His annuities were always held in Northern Ireland but he paid the full annuity and not half of it. He paid every damn farthing. The English farmer affords no comparison, largely because he is only a serf. He has no ownership of his land. He could be kicked out of his farm after 12 months and another man put in his place. As soon as we held the annuities here, in spite of the efforts of Deputy Hughes and of his friends, we proceeded immediately to reduce the annuities of the whole lot by 50 per cent. as compared with your Northern Ireland farmer who is paying 100 per cent. at the present time. I admit that our rates are jumping up all the time and will go on jumping up for some time to come. The main reason for the increase is because of the introduction of numerous social services. Against the £500,000 provided by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government we are providing over £3,000,000. That is a pretty hefty jump.

Mr. Hughes

That is not correct.

Mr. Corry

It is.

Mr. Hughes

It is not correct.

Mr. Corry

Well, you know and I do not.

Mr. Hughes

I do know.

Mr. Corry

When Deputy Cogan talks about the Minister for Finance saying that this was to be offset against increased wages, I wonder does Deputy Cogan or any other Deputy really accept that? When Deputy Hughes and I went down to see General Costello in order to get an increase in the price of beet because of the increased wages paid to farm labourers and the increased costs of production generally, and when we got an increase of 10/- a ton last year and an increase of 8/- to 12/- this year to offset the increase in wages and the 20 per cent. increase in freightage by Córas Iompair Eireann, we never contended that the Minister for Finance was giving this £6 10s. Od. as an argument that we should not get such an increase. That argument was not advanced against us.

I know that one will get any amount of promises at the present time. It is not so very long ago since the Opposition made a whole lot of promises on the eve of a general election. It was said that while Fianna Fáil promised only half the annuities, Deputy Cosgrave and his Party would get the whole annuities. But the people judged on actions. It is all very well for people to make promises which they know they will never fulfil.

Mr. Hughes

Like Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Corry

We will be always here.

Mr. Corish

That is a very long time.

Mr. Everett

You may be back here again on this side of the House.

Mr. Corry

No fear of it.

Mr. Everett

Do not be too sure about that.

Mr. Corry

Judging by your argument I am sure you will be there all right.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy remember that he is not on a public platform now?

Mr. Corry

If the Deputies will stop interrupting we shall get along fine. The total letting valuation is £120. The supplementary is one-fifth of the total valuation and the grant amounts to £6 10s. Od. per man. The total cost comes to £3,455,000. That is a pretty hefty bill. Despite this relief rates are still going up, just as everything else is going up, by leaps and bounds. Social services have to be provided. Deputy Cogan introduced a number of side-lines and side issues in this matter. We heard nothing from him about the other agricultural reliefs or the other provisions that are being made for agriculture. We heard nothing from him about the rural improvements schemes. We heard nothing from him about the farm improvements schemes. I am wondering how many of those would apply in Great Britain. Recently in my constituency we had 300 or 400 acres of land flooded. We were able to relieve all the farmers on those lands under a rural improvements scheme. Out of a cost of £750 for the scheme 22 farmers paid only £115 between them. If the farmers in Deputy Cogan's and Deputy Hughes' constituencies are not getting the benefit of those reliefs then the Deputies are not doing their job. I am not responsible for that. I am not responsible for Deputy Hughes being too lazy to do his work in his own constituency. As a matter of fact, judging by the way Deputies talk, one could only conclude that they have no knowledge of these reliefs. I represent as many farmers as any Deputy in this House. In a couple of months' time we will get their votes again because the farmers will vote for solid work.

I think the Minister has met this matter very fairly. I am glad to see that he is continuing the employment grant, which to my mind is one of the most fundamental. Under that scheme, the farmer receives the grant not only for the men he hires but also for his sons over the age of 18 who are working on the land with him. If I had my way, instead of giving a first and second relief, I would give the whole lot in employment schemes. I think it would work out to greater advantage. I had no intention of speaking here to-day but when I heard the argument advanced by Deputy Hughes and Deputy Cogan I felt I had to intervene in the debate.

Mr. Corish

I must admit that I am at your mercy, Sir, and at the mercy of the Minister in regard to the particular plea which I propose to make. I shall try to relate that plea to this particular Bill and, of course, to the original Act itself. There are a certain number of farmers in a particular area down in County Wexford known as the Mackamore area and in another area known as the Bridgetown area. These farmers have been sorely tried during the past two years. They made representations to the Minister for Agriculture and the Department for some sort of State aid and up to the present they have not succeeded, inasmuch as the Minister found that within the powers of the Department they could not do anything to give the relief asked for. I am therefore trying on the Second Stage of this Bill to see if the Minister for Local Government could do anything to aid these farmers. For the last two years these areas have been subjected to severe flooding.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am afraid that is a question for the Minister for Lands.

Mr. Corish

I merely want to ask the Minister for Local Government in respect of this Bill if he would give some sort of State assistance to these farmers to help them to meet the severe losses they have incurred during the past two years. The main purpose of this Bill is to come to the relief of farmers.

An Ceann Comhairle

Relief of rates.

Mr. Corish

I am looking for relief of rates. I am trying to make a special case for these people. While I admit that this concerns the whole of the Twenty-Six Counties, I am asking the Minister to be a little more generous to these people in my constituency. He may think that unreasonable but, as they are my constituents, I am prepared to look for what I can get for them. These particular areas in Wexford have been subjected to very heavy flooding during the past two years. The soil has retained the water for a very long time and for two years the land has been incapable of producing anything from what was sown in it. These farmers suffered severe losses owing to the Compulsory Tillage Order. They were forced to till a certain amount of land and they did that in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Agriculture but found that they could not harvest what they had sown.

By no means the least of their difficulties is the high valuation of their land. These farmers would submit that there is no relation between the valuation and the productivity of the land there. I should like to make a plea to the Minister therefore to give consideration to the case of these farmers under this Bill and the original Act and try to give them a little more relief than is provided for in this Bill. It may seem an unreasonable request but if the particular cases were examined I think it would be found that the farmers in these areas have suffered very severe losses. In a large number of cases, the farmers found that they were not able to pay for the seeds which they purchased on credit in the spring. They find that they possibly will not be able to engage in sowing to any appreciable extent in the coming spring. If anything could be done for them by way of relief in their rates through a contribution from the State it would be very desirable. It would help them to get back on their feet and do something to make up for the losses they incurred in the last two or three seasons.

Mr. Sheldon

Listening to Deputy Corry, I could not help wondering if the Minister was praying to be spared the attention of his friends. I think Deputy Corry very successfully drew attention to every weakness in the Minister's policy as compared with the policy in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. He referred to the fact that Fianna Fáil had halved the annuities whereas farmers in Northern Ireland have to pay the whole of their annuities. He carefully left out the fact, however, that farmers in Northern Ireland have not to pay any rates on agricultural land or buildings. Therefore, I think it is not wise to draw too much attention to the position of farmers in Eire as compared with the position of farmers in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Allen

It is a wonder you remain in it.

General MacEoin

Every citizen is entitled to remain in this country.

Mr. Sheldon

Deputy Allen is free——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Sheldon should not take any notice of disorderly interruptions.

Mr. Sheldon

I am pointing out that it is a very weak argument to start talking about how well off we are here and in respect of that I could not help smiling when the Minister began by talking about an outstanding characteristic of this Administration being the care they had taken of the agricultural community, especially as shown by their actions in regard to rates. The necessity for this increased relief for rates on agricultural land is due to the way in which the present Administration, particularly the present Minister, have increased the burden on the ratepayers. Deputy Corry stated that it is due in some degree to social services. But, when the Government are bringing in social services, they are not bound to put the burden on the shoulders of the ratepayers.

The Minister stressed that in the first year the grant for the relief of rates came to so much and the next year it went up by £250,000. The only reason for the increase is the increase in the rates struck. It is not an extra contribution that the State is making willingly. It is not an increased rate of benefit that the Minister is making. Any increases in this grant under the 1946 Act and under this Bill are due entirely to the increases in the rates struck. These increases are very largely due to the tendency on the part of the Government to pass on to the shoulders of the ratepayers a burden which ought to be borne by the State. The Minister will come out with his usual argument about property owners. When you go into a district of small farmers and look at some of the property owners there, it is more than doubtful that they will be able to bear these added burdens.

When I got this Bill my feelings were rather mixed with regard to it. On the one hand, I was relieved to know that we were not going back to the provisions of the 1939 Act. On the other hand, I was considerably disappointed that some more considered policy had not been arrived at. I appreciate, of course, that the trend of political events has speeded up the Minister's programme considerably in the last couple of months. But the Minister has had two years in which to consider what is to be his outlook on the question of relieving rates on agricultural land. It is not a very fair argument to say that it is only in the last couple of months that he has had time to deal with the matter.

This Bill is now being rushed as a sort of patchwork measure on the 1946 Act. That is all the present Bill amounts to. The Minister is merely extending the provisions of the 1946 Act for another year because an election is on and there is not time to bring in a more considered measure. We appreciate the necessity for that, now that the time is so short, but the Minister should not have allowed himself to be placed at such a disadvantage. This is a matter to which he should have attended much earlier. It is not so long ago since a number of questions were asked in the House regarding the Minister's intention. I asked some of these questions myself and Deputy Cogan put some other questions. At that time the Minister had no information to give but suddenly at the last moment this Bill is rushed before the House. I would have hoped that the experience gained in the administration of the 1946 Act would have shown the Minister some directions in which he might have improved on the provisions of that Act.

Speaking broadly, when we consider that this is a type of relief which should be continued, I am in a fair amount of agreement with the method adopted so far as the allowance on valuations not exceeding £20, and on the first £20 of higher valuations is concerned and also as regards the supplementary allowance on valuations above £20. Unlike Deputy Corry, I do not like the employment grant at all. Deputy Cogan was perfectly correct when he said that the Minister for Finance in introducing the Budget which led to the 1946 Act, merely intended to give some relief in rates to offset the amounts which the farmers had to provide to meet the increased agricultural wages. Agricultural wages have since that date been further considerably increased. The Minister apparently does not intend to follow that trend, as he has left the allowance at the same rate as that fixed in 1946. I think he might very well have been a little more generous. Wages have gone up in the meantime and the Minister should have introduced an increased employment allowance. As I say, I do not like the employment allowance. It is either not operative in helping employment at all, or it operates in a rather harsh way on many farmers. Personally I do not think it operates to help employment at all. I do not see that any one will employ an extra man for any length of time in the year in order to get £6 10s. 0d. when wages are 50/- a week. The allowance is not equivalent to even three weeks' wages. If a man employs a labourer for about ten months in the year, he is certainly not going to give him employment for an extra two months for the sake of getting £6 10s. 0d. I would have preferred to have seen a more generous provision for the primary and secondary allowances. The secondary allowance, for instance, might have been increased from one fifth to two fifths.

To my mind that would have given just as much encouragement to farmers to employ labour and it would have obviated a great deal of the work which falls on the local authorities under the present system—a great deal of checking by Guards and by rate collectors to ascertain whether certain men were really in employment for 12 months. I have seen so many cases of hardship cropping up in connection with the employment allowance that I think it would have been much better if it had been abolished and the money saved in that way diverted towards giving increased relief under the secondary allowance. The Minister must be aware from the many appeals that have come before him of the hardships arising out of borderline cases. You have, for instance, the case of a man becoming ill and being away from his employment and, owing to local scarcity of labour, for a month or so no one could be put in his place. The employer in that case lost the allowance of £6 10s. 0d. That is the sort of thing that should be avoided because it discriminates against unfortunate individuals.

With regard to Section 3, I must say that I am in full agreement with the Minister in bringing in this amendment. The Minister may remember that he met me on this matter on the 1946 Bill and granted extra time within which application might be made, because of the lag in time from the date of the Budget to the date on which the Bill was actually introduced. Many men did not appreciate the necessity for getting in their applications in time and at the time I think I pointed out to the Minister that there was no necessity to continue that long period into the subsequent year. I am glad that he has now shortened it because it has had an unfortunate effect on the finances of local authorities as the Minister is aware. It delays the payment of the agricultural grant by the State to the local authorities. The result is that the local authorities' current overdraft is swollen and the unfortunate ratepayers have to contribute a bit more by way of interest on the overdraft.

As I have said I am prepared to welcome the Bill. It is certainly better than going back to the 1939 Act, but I think the Minister allowed rather too much time to slip before making provision for some improvement in the 1946 Act. I would have much preferred to see a more considered measure but having regard to the circumstances and the pressure of time, I do not see there was any alternative open to the Minister other than to introduce this Bill. If, however, there is not time to consider a more elaborate measure that might have removed certain small hardships, it is very much better that this Bill should be brought in to extend the operations of the 1946 Act rather than that we should have to go back to the 1939 Act.

Mr. O'Leary

I want to join with Deputy Corish in making an appeal on behalf of the farmers in my constituency to see that the valuation of land in certain areas should be looked into.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter of the valuation of land cannot be dealt with under this measure. There is nothing in this Bill dealing with the change in valuation.

Mr. O'Leary

Is it not proposed to provide certain advantages to those who pay rates on agricultural land? The farmers have been looking to the Deputies in the various constituencies to obtain some relief for them in the matter of rates because of the disastrous season through which they passed last year. What is the Minister going to do in these cases? The farmers are not able to pay rates on these high valuations, particularly in the two areas referred to by Deputy Corish, Bridgetown and Macamores. There was a meeting held no later than last Saturday in the cinema in Gorey, and the farmers of that area asked us to do something for them. I do not see anything in this Bill that will help them. I do not mind Deputy Corry's remarks in regard to the benefits which this Government is supposed to have given to the farmers. I remember the time when Deputy Corry's Party sat on this side of the House. I remember reading some of their propaganda at that time in which they represented the last Leader of the Opposition Party as stepping over the Irish Sea with a bag of annuities on his back. We were told at that time that the annuities would be remitted, but they were only halved. Deputy Corry spoke of the substantial grants that were to be given to farmers, but I know many farmers in my constituency who would not touch these grants because the conditions laid down were that they would have to put up so much money themselves. The help given in that way was damn little. To my mind, if some measure is not brought in to help all sections of the farmers, they will soon be in a deplorable plight. Deputy Sheldon referred to the £6 10s. 0d. allowance if a farmer keeps a man in his place for 12 months. What relief is that? None whatever. In the majority of places the farmers are not able to keep men. They have to dismiss them, and they certainly could not keep them for 12 months in order to get that great concession of £6 10s. 0d. that some Deputies speak about.

I had a question down last week about the land annuities. There was supposed to be some agreement clearing off all annuities. The answer I got was that this question is one that has been urged before now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not a matter for discussion on this Bill. This is a measure to bring relief of rates in the case of farmers.

Mr. O'Leary

I am referring to the annuities. Deputy Corry brought it into the debate before you came in and, when he was allowed to refer to it, other Deputies should also be allowed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He mentioned it in a passing way-he referred to some of the advantages conferred on farmers under certain conditions.

Mr. O'Leary

He got in what he wanted to say about the annuities. I am not a farmer but, being in this House since 1943, I have had as many calls from the farming community as I had from labourers or other people in my constituency. Deputy Allen is not here to defend the farmers or to say what he thinks of the people of whom I am speaking. He, as a farmer, would be in a better position to put his views before the Minister. If there is not some special grant to relieve the people in the Macamores and other centres, then these people will not be able to complete their tillage requirements. What with flood water and bad land, these people have enough to contend with.

The Minister should consider the high valuations on land that is not fit to grow crops. That is what they asked public representatives to do — to explain their position to the Minister. We hope to meet him in the very near future and we will give him some idea of the conditions under which those people have to exist. I suggest that now, when legislation is going through the House, something should be done for them. If there is nothing in the legislation on this subject, we will be told later on that it is not possible to find a remedy and that we cannot revoke an Act. I suggest that the Minister should in some special way do something for these people.

Mr. Heskin

Everybody, but particularly the farming community, will welcome any relief by way of reducing the ever-increasing burden that is placed on the shoulders of rural ratepayers. This Bill, because it brings a certain amount of relief, is welcome, but I suggest it is not going far enough. There should be other ways whereby we can help the unfortunate ratepayers. It is a well-known fact that legislation time and again has its repercussions on the ordinary ratepayers. It is the earnest wish of elected representatives in every county to exercise to the full the social services provided by the Government, but it must be remembered that, when we try to put our social service programme into operation, we are consistently increasing the burdens on our people.

Housing is one of the burdens that the ratepayer has to bear. Housing is a very essential thing for our rural population and house building is not going as rapidly as we would wish. I suggest that the revenue derived from the Hospitals Sweepstakes, instead of being applied to the erection of elaborate hospitals, should be placed at the disposal of the local authorities to enable them to provide adequate housing for our people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is wandering from the Bill.

Mr. Heskin

I am not wandering; I am suggesting some method of relieving the rates. I believe this would be a good way of removing the burdens on the local ratepayers. The Minister must bear in mind that our mental hospitals are also a crushing burden. For many years applications have been made to increase the maintenance grant of the patients, yet in spite of the fact that the cost of maintenance is all the time increasing the Minister has never come to the rescue. He should favourably consider that aspect.

Let us take into consideration the cost of maintaining public highways. It has been suggested for years that that cost should be borne by State funds. It is well known that the traffic using our roads to-day is much too heavy. When they were constructed, those roads were never intended to carry such heavy transport. I submit that those roads should now be maintained out of State funds. There is an employment allowance of £6 10s. 0d. provided in this Bill. Take our womenfolk——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This Bill has a limited purpose.

Mr. Heskin

I am merely making a suggestion and I am dealing with the employment allowance specified in the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy's remarks are quite sensible, but they do not come within the ambit of the Bill.

Mr. Heskin

I quite agree that the relief brought about is welcome, but I suggest that the relief should be greater, and that under the employment headings, where an allowance is made for a man, an allowance should also be made for a woman, for the farmer's wife, the farmer's daughter and the farmer's girl. We all know very well the part which they play in increasing production in the country and they should have first consideration under this particular heading. I hope that the Minister will take particular notice of that. The farmer's wife, the farmer's daughter play a more important part in increasing production in this country than any other individual, while little is thought of them in town or country. They are up at 4 o'clock in the morning and they are the people who tend to increase production by 100 per cent. They are the mainstay of the whole economy of the State and should have first consideration under this Bill. It is about time that they were mentioned in this House and that somebody made a plea that they should come within the scope of these Bills.

I have not got much more to say except that I welcome the Bill, but I would like to tell the Minister how further relief could be brought about. People in the cities seem to think that farmers are spoon fed all the time but that is not true. In England and across the Border they are getting relief and subsidies that go to reduce the cost of production. Something must be done in the near future to reduce the ever-increasing burden on the farmer and I consider that anything above a rate of 7/6 in the £ should be paid out of State funds, because the burden on the agricultural community is unbearable.

General MacEoin

As has been said, the continuation of this Bill for another year is a considerable help to the agricultural community. When we consider that increased agricultural production is essential for the economic welfare of the country, the Government, even at this late stage, should have taken steps to increase that production and to induce, help and assist the farmers to achieve that objective.

The burden of local rates on the agricultural community has assumed alarming proportions and, if my information is correct, the rates will be up next year in every county from 4/- to 6/- in the £. This Bill, while it gives a good deal of assistance, will be very little use when that burden is imposed.

Mr. MacEntee

I can assure the Deputy that his information is very incorrect.

General MacEoin

My information is very reliable and it is the result of the examination of some of the estimates likely to accrue in certain counties in this country. I would be glad if the Minister would check up again before saying that my statement is incorrect. I would advise him to inquire back to his Department after listening to what I have to say. I assert, notwithstanding what the Minister said, that in many counties the rates will be increased from 4/- to 6/- in the £.

Mr. MacEntee

That is not what the Deputy said. If he wants to correct himself he may.

General MacEoin

The month of March when the rates are struck will tell us, and meanwhile I assert that this is not sufficient to meet the increased burden. However, whether it is or not the Government has made an agreement with Britain by which it is expected that production will be increased in this country. We are expected to be as good as, if not better than, the farmers in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, but they — as has been pointed out — are free from rates on agricultural lands and agricultural buildings. Although we have the land annuities no longer, it is a fact that owing to the increase in the rates, and notwithstanding this relief, the burden of the rates is now higher than when we had the full land annuities plus the rates of that time.

In view of the fact that you have C.I.E. running buses on the roads, that you have commercial lorries, hackney cars and private cars, the road tax paid by these vehicle owners is sufficient to relieve the local bodies of all responsibility for the maintenance of roads and that money should be put to the relief of the rates.

I know that the Bill is the matter before the House, but these are just a few points on it. In regard to the grant for the relief of the rates, other Deputies referred to hardships and Deputy Heskin pointed out that women employees should be taken into account. I think that they should and I would urge that to the Minister.

But there is another type of what might be called border case, where a farmer has two farms, each in a different county. He is resident in this county and does all his tillage here but because there are no permanent employees in the adjoining county he gets no relief from the rates except the primary allowance. If he divides his employees and has, say, two in this county and two in that, rather than four or five or six in this county and none in that, he gets no relief except the primary relief, although all the tillage for both farms is in this county. That farmer is suffering from a disability, because in accordance with the tillage requirements he does all the tillage for both farms in one county and he is allowed to do that.

Where land was flooded over the past two or three years the Minister should exempt that land from rates for that is one method by which relief can be given. It is a hardship on a farmer to see his lands flooded for two-thirds of the year and to pay rates on it though it is of no value to him. I do not know whether it would be necessary to put down an amendment to the Bill to cover that or not, or whether the Minister could do it by statutory Order as I am not fully au fait with that particular matter. If it is essential the Bill should be amended in order to exempt that sort of land, I think it should be done in order to help that particular type of farmer. Even the £6 10s. 0d. grant for the worker is a help. I do not accept the view expressed here that it is not an encouragement to employment. I say that it is. I would like to see more of it, thereby making it a greater encouragement to employment. A greater allowance should be made where men are engaged over the winter period and where more men could be taken on to do drainage and sewerage work and so forth. It should not be necessary to have the employment for the whole year. If the Minister cannot do that by regulation, and if it is necessary to amend the Statute, that amendment should be put down. I would be glad if the Minister would say whether he can do so by Order under the existing law.

The Minister boasted about the policy of the Government in assisting agriculture. Surely he does not expect us to take that statement seriously. Agriculture in this country has suffered more from this administration than it ever suffered from any Government in the world. It is a well-known fact that the agricultural community, even under the recent agreement, are still suffering the £5 a head penal tariff, as it were, of the economic war. The fertilisers were stopped from coming in, or a tariff was put on them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How does the Deputy relate his remarks to the Bill?

General MacEoin

The Minister asserted that the Fianna Fáil administration had done more agriculture and that they had built up agriculture. I want to contest that point of view.

Mr. MacEntee

May I say that while I know how much Fianna Fáil has done for agriculture I did not make the precise statement which Deputy MacEoin has attributed to me?

General MacEoin

Unfortunately I am unable to quote the Minister verbatim. If what I assert is not the substance of what he said — if he says that is not so, that he does not claim that Fianna Fáil did a lot for agriculture——

Mr. MacEntee

I did not say that. I said this Bill was an indication of the Government's concern and solicitude for agriculture.

General MacEoin

That is a bit different from having done a lot for it. Taking the Government's solicitude for agriculture——

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order, I am afraid I shall have to remind the Chair that there is a very heavy programme of work to be got through and that the House will certainly have to sit next week if we are going to have the sort of general discussion which has taken place on this Bill. We want to dispose of the rest of the legislative programme.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister need not remind the Chair. I think we need not go too far now into the controversy as to which Party did the most for agriculture. We will probably hear a great deal about that later on, Deputy MacEoin.

General MacEoin

May I submit respectfully to the Chair that when the Minister, in introducing a Bill, makes a certain assertion or by implication asserts something, surely we are entitled to make reference to it? In deference to the Chair, and being anxious to meet the Minister in his desire to get through the public business and to let him go to the country as quickly as possible, I will facilitate him and trust that on the Appropriation Bill and on the motion for the adjournment we will be able to discuss the merits of the Government's policy on agriculture.

Mr. Allen

I suppose most Deputies feel that this is a nice warm atmosphere for a few pre-election speeches and that, compared with the raw air outside, the environment here is much healthier. Having said so much, I want to refer to a point raised by Deputy Everett, namely, the case of a person who owns land over £5 in valuation working for a farmer. It is an important point. If a farmer is not entitled to the grant when he employs a small landholder the position should be altered in the Bill. In Leinster, many agricultural workers own farms.

General MacEoin

£5 10s. 0d.

Mr. Allen

Up to £5 and £10. They have their holdings, but they work fulltime with adjoining farmers. I suppose that is not so much the case in the West of Ireland. If a farmer is not entitled to an employment allowance in respect of such men, I think an alteration or amendment to the Bill is desirable.

Mr. Redmond

I would like to ask the Minister if it would be practicable to help farmers who are now suffering as a result of floods. I have seen many in the last few months, particularly in the last month, in County Waterford. These farmers are forced to pay large rents and, as a result of flooding, they cannot go on with the sowing of crops or meet their commitments as far as rates and so forth are concerned. Realising as I do that the Minister feels that he and his Government have done a lot to help the farmers in the past, I would urge upon him that there are many farmers now who cannot meet their liabilities. We may disagree or agree with the Minister as we think fit, but we all agree that at the present time farmers are struggling. Owing to the high cost of living, they cannot meet their ordinary liabilities at the end of the quarter or of the year. The farmers in County Waterford, in particular, are most anxious to come under some heading for exceptional treatment so far as rates and annuities are concerned.

Much has been said about the women and the other people who work with them. I would stress that point also.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I want to remind the Minister of the hardy annual. I want to remind him of the unfortunate agricultural holders within borough boundaries who get no assistance by way of agricultural grant. It is a great injustice to them having regard to the fact that, owing to the development of the internal combustion engine, farmers 40 and 50 miles from the borough boundary are placed in exactly the same favourable position as the farmers within the borough boundaries. I have in mind a dozen such cases. They have to face a full urban rate of 22/6 in the £ and they get no assistance whatever. I wonder what the farmers in the agricultural districts would say if they had to face a rate of 22/6 in the £ without getting any assistance whatever from the agricultural grant. That is an anomaly which I appeal to the Minister to consider. I know he cannot deal with it on this occasion, but he should make provision for it next year, at all events.

Mr. MacEntee

I am amazed at the ingenuity of Deputies in raising matters upon this very narrow Bill— matters relating to the fundamental principles of the Act. I submit that the House had to consider whether or not we were going to prolong the Act for another year.

That is a very narrow issue and I must say that, ingenious and all as I might have been if I were in opposition, I would not have had the effrontery, the audacity or the hardihood to range over the wide field which some of the Deputies have traversed in this House to-day. Deputy MacEoin, Deputy Heskin, Deputy Sheldon and every Deputy in this House knows that there is no possibility of amending this Bill in the fundamental way they propose. It is a case of either "take the Bill or leave it." If we do not get it to-day we may not get it at all because the Parliamentary programme is, as I have said, overladen. The Deputies are champing at the bit anxious to get a start in the electoral race — even those who have very little chance of finishing it — and for that reason I think it is about time they were getting their feet in the saddle and donning their colours for the start off. We are all anxious to dispose of this business. We can make some allowance for the electioneering attitude adopted by some Deputies, but we must get down to hard facts. Deputy Hughes quite occasionally advances ludicrous arguments in this House; I never heard a more ludicrous argument against a Bill than the argument he advanced to-day. He alleged that the Government was taxing raw material. He called land raw material. There is no tax on land as such in this country. There is a rate levied upon the occupier of land in relation to the property he owns or occupies because that property is taken as a rough measure of his income and his ability to contribute to the cost of local services. Rates are, if you like, assessed by reference to the land a man occupies and the rates are levied upon him in the same way as income-tax is levied and assessed in reference to the income which an individual enjoys. It is quite misleading to say that the Government is taxing land. It is still more misleading to say that the Government is taxing the raw material of the farmer. It is dishonest to describe land as raw material in an attempt to bolster up a specious argument.

General MacEoin

In comparison with Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Mr. MacEntee

Land is not raw material. If Deputy MacEoin wants everything the British have in their tax system he can have it. Does he want the farmer in this country to have everything the British have in their tax system?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing only with the rates on land now, Minister.

Mr. MacEntee

I know, Sir, but the suggestion seems to be that we should have everything the British have and everything the British have not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot deal with that under this Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

Should we, for instance, have a reversion to the British system of tenure? Should our farm buildings be valued at the same high level as British farm buildings? The valuation on these buildings is very much higher than it is here.

General MacEoin

If the Six Counties were to come in would you put them in the same position as the people here? Would it be to their advantage to come in or to stay out?

Mr. MacEntee

Is that what the Deputy is pleading for?

General MacEoin

Oh, no.

Mr. MacEntee

This is not the first time the Deputy has used this argument here. He said we are taxing the farmer's raw material. Land is not raw material. Land, like buildings and other fixed assets, is a means of production. These fixed assets are rated. Railways are rated and canals are rated. On Deputy Hughes' conception as to what constitutes raw material these could as aptly be called raw material as land. They are not raw material any more than land is. Raw material is something which is taken in a raw unfinished state, worked upon, fashioned and finished and then sold to the consumer who eats it, or wears it, or uses it as a tool or instrument of production, or even as a luxury or as an amenity. That is not the case with land. Deputy Hughes plants his wheat and his beet every year but when he harvests his crop and sells it does he sell his farm with it? Of course he does not. His crop goes but his land remains in his possession, not as raw material — as Deputy Hughes would like the ignorant to believe — but as an instrument of production. I hope that we shall hear no more of this suggestion that we are taxing the farmer's raw material. One might as well say that when a motor car is taxed one is taxing the hackney driver's raw material. When Córas Iompair Éireann pay a road tax, assessed by reference to their buses and rolling stock, one might as well say that we are taxing their raw material. We are not. Even Deputy Hughes ought to know that. He does know it, of course. It is the Deputy's particular technique to try to mislead those who are more ignorant than he is and we, therefore, get this type of dishonest argument trotted out by the Deputy here and, no doubt, repeated down the country.

Having dealt with that point now, I want to deal with one or two others. Deputy Sheldon suggested that he does not like the employment allowance. That may be Deputy Sheldon's particular view but the employment allowance, on the other hand, seems to be very popular with the great majority of the Deputies in the House and with the great majority of the farmers throughout the country. It is not meant to indemnify the farmer for the cost of employing people unnecessarily. It is meant as a gesture and as an inducement which will turn the scale between keeping a man in employment and doing without him. It is assumed, of course, that when a man is kept in employment the farmer will find something profitable and useful for him to do and to that extent the employment allowance will contribute to increased production and more efficient production.

Deputy Sheldon also suggested that there was a tendency for the Government to transfer to the ratepayers an increase in proportion to the cost of the public services. In so far as these services are primarily for local benefit and for the advantage of the local community, surely the local community should shoulder the first responsibility for them. If we are going to have sanitary services, if we are going to have good roads, if we are going to have good houses, if we are going to provide proper hospitals for a locality, surely the first obligation to meet the cost of these things must necessarily repose upon the local community. You cannot expect that people in other parts of the country who will not derive immediate benefit from these things should bear the cost of them. Let each man in his own place bear his fair share of the cost of these services from which he derives the first benefit. That is the whole principle upon which the cost of community services can be apportioned as between the local community and the people as a whole.

Mr. Sheldon

The same argument could be used about the Guards. The local Guards look after the local property.

Mr. Cogan

And the local teacher teaches the local children.

Mr. MacEntee

Precisely. The Deputy has now indicated a way in which perhaps the farmer here is better off than his northern neighbour, because the northern neighbour has to pay a very large proportion of the cost of primary and secondary education in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Cogan

And they are derated.

Mr. MacEntee

The more we come to consider the position, the more we will arrive at the conclusion that, taking one thing with another, the working farmer in this part of Ireland is very much better off than the working farmer in the Six Counties.

General MacEoin

I think we can argue it now all right.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are running into an indefinite discussion.

Mr. MacEntee

I agree.

General MacEoin

The ingenuity of the Minister is working.

Mr. MacEntee

I was dealing with the point made by Deputy Sheldon and, to some extent, by Deputy Heskin. Deputy Heskin wanted us to divert the proceeds of the sweepstakes from their proper course to that of relieving the local authority of the obligation of providing some part of the cost of housing their people. Of course if we did that we would have only two choices before us: either to do without hospitals or to compel the local authority to build hospitals unaided.

General MacEoin

Or to get them to run a sweepstake themselves.

Mr. MacEntee

That would be very like taking in one another's washing. Deputy Heskin wanted not merely to divert the proceeds of the hospital sweepstakes from the purpose for which these sweepstakes were initiated to that of relieving the local authority of the modest obligation which at present exists upon them to provide proper housing for the local community, but also to transfer the burden of maintaining the roads from the local authority to the State. Deputy MacEoin followed on the same lines. As a matter of fact, the road users, through the Road Fund and through the Exchequer, are already bearing a very considerable proportion of the cost of maintaining the roads of this country. At present the Road Fund is being utilised to the fullest extent of its revenues to assist the local authorities in maintaining the roads.

Deputy Heskin also stated that the whole burden of maintaining mental hospitals should be transferred to the central authority. I think the first obligation of looking after its own sick and infirm must rest on the local community. That is the fundamental principle upon which the whole of the local social services have been built up— that it is the duty of a person to look after, first of all, the members of his own family and then to assist, to the extent to which his resources will permit, in looking after those of his neighbours who are in need of social assistance. It is only when the capacity of the local community to do those things is exceeded that the people as a whole, through the State, can properly be brought in.

What would be the position of Deputy Heskin and the other Deputies who have been urging that these obligations should be transferred from the local authority to the State if in fact this thing were done? Surely they would not expect that they would be permitted to run these concerns; that they would be permitted any longer to have any say in the management or administration of housing or hospitals or of the maintenance of the roads. Inevitably, the first consequence would be the wiping out of the local authorities. I do not think that would be a good thing. But those who have made these suggestions must be prepared to accept the consequences of them. That would be one of the first consequences. There would be no need to have local authorities here, because they would not take any part in providing the cost of these services and, therefore, they would have no right to be represented in their administration.

The next thing is that there would be a considerable increase in the rates of taxation which would be necessary in order to maintain these services. In present circumstances, that increase could only be met from one source. Inevitably, it would have to be met by increasing indirect taxation, by transferring the present burdens from property and land on to the back of the general body of the community in the form, as I have said, of indirect taxation, which tends to be regressive taxation, with the consequence that the poor under that dispensation would pay a greater proportion of the costs of the public services and particularly of the local services than they do at the present time. That is in fact what the representatives of the land owners in this assembly have been advocating when they say to us — as Deputy Heskin, Deputy MacEoin and Deputy Cogan did —"Transfer the cost of roads, hospitals and mental hospitals to the State". They must know that in present circumstances these costs could not be met out of the proceeds of direct taxation, that the increase would have to be provided for by means of taxes on food, taxes again upon beverages, taxes upon what is now described by the Opposition as a luxury, tobacco, and taxes upon amusements.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think we cannot have another debate on the Budget at this stage.

Mr. MacEntee

I am grateful for your indulgence, Sir. I have made it clear that those who would transfer the burden of local services from the local taxpayers to the central authority are in fact demanding relief for property owners at the expense of the poorer classes of the community. Having said that I do not think it necessary to say any more.

Question put and agreed to.