Vol. 113 No. 9
I received within the last half-hour notice of a motion by Deputy Corry as follows:—
To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute the following:—
The Second Reading of the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1948, will be deferred until the whole rates position is considered by a Special Committee to be appointed by Dáil Eireann.
That motion was handed in at 8.15 p.m., although the Bill was read a First Time nine days ago. Consequently, it is not being accepted by the Chair.
I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. I feel it is not necessary for me to make any lengthy explanation to the House of the nature and purpose of this Bill. It is a Bill which is the successor of measures with which Deputies have been familiar for a considerable number of years. The principle of a Bill of this kind has been settled long ago and, except for certain variations which took place from time to time the main principle is unaffected.
Section 1 of the Bill provides that the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1946, shall apply to the local financial year ending 31st March, 1950. The earlier Acts dealing with the payment of the agricultural grant and regulating the basis of its distribution go back to the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, under which the amount of the grant was originally fixed at £599,011. This amount remained unaltered until 1925. The basis of distribution of the grant and its amount have been altered on a number of occasions since 1925, but up to 1946 the amount of the grant was fixed on each occasion by the Act passed to regulate it. I shall indicate later on, if necessary, the actual variations in the amounts provided.
The 1946 Act, in addition to increasing the grant substantially, made the fundamental change that a grant of a fixed amount was no longer provided. Instead, it laid down that the grant would be the amount needed to give reliefs on the following basis:
(1) A primary allowance at the rate of 3/5ths of the general rate on land valuations not exceeding £20 and the first £20 of higher valuations.
(2) A supplementary allowance of 1/5th of the general rate on the whole of the land valuation above £20.
(3) An employment allowance calculated at the rate of 10/- in the £ on the land valuation above £20 subject to the limitation of £6 10s. for each man at work.
Thus the Act of 1946 provided a new basis whereby the grant varies as the county rate varies so far as the primary and supplementary allowances are concerned, and with the numbers of men employed so far as the employment allowance is concerned. This Act applied to the two financial years ended on 31st March, 1947 and 1948. The Act was applied to the present financial year 1948/49 by the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1947, which was passed this time last year.
It was, I understand, the intention of the previous Government to withdraw the provision for the employment allowance after the 31st March, 1948, but eventually the Bill introduced last year provided for its continuance to the 31st March, 1949.
The present Bill proposes to extend the 1946 Act for the financial year now ensuing—1949-50. As I have told the House, the grant was fixed at £599,011 under the 1898 Act. In 1925 it was doubled, bringing the amount to £1,198,022. In the year 1931 a further supplementary grant of £720,000 was added, bringing the total to £1,948,022. In 1932 an additional sum of £250,000 was provided to bring the total grant to £2,198,022. The first reduction in the amount of the grant was effected in 1933 when the grant was reduced by £448,022 to £1,750,000. In 1935, however, a sum of £220,000 was added, to make the total grant £1,970,000. In the year 1936 the amount of the grant was again reduced, on this occasion by £100,000 to £1,870,000 at which figure it remained until the provisions of the 1946 Act came into operation in the financial year 1946-47.
Deputies will be interested to get figures as to the division of the grant under the headings of the three allowances which I have mentioned and the payments to urban councils in the three years in which the provisions of the Act of 1946 have applied were as follows:—
|
1946/47 |
1947/48 |
1948/49(estimated) |
|
|
£ |
£ |
£ |
|
|
Primary |
1,827,152 |
2,035,199 |
2,383,041 |
|
Supplementary |
469,539 |
523,441 |
608,720 |
|
Employment |
603,466 |
606,004 |
610,773 |
|
Urban |
10,221 |
11,082 |
11,308 |
|
Total |
£2,910,378 |
£3,175,726 |
£3,613,842 |
With the annual increase in rates, which is at present a features of local expenditure, the grant under the Act of 1946 shows an annually increasing liability on the Exchequer. The amount of the grant as determined on the new basis provided for under the Act of 1946 amounted to £2,910,378 in 1946-47 and £3,175,726 in 1947-48. That means that the grant was increased by over £1,000,000 in the first year of operation of the new Act and in the second year it increased by a further £300,000. I am not yet in a position to give a final figure in regard to the amount which will come in course of payment from the grant for the current financial year, but it appears likely to exceed £3,600,000, or nearly £425,000 in excess of the grant last year.
I was glad to hear the Minister, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, give an indication to the House of the great increase in the agricultural grant that has taken place in the last few years. I should like to make a few observations on the relation of the grant to agricultural income in this State. During the period of the war, the value of farm production went up by a 100 per cent., while the rates on agricultural land increased by only 35 per cent. To put the matter in another way: in 1938 rates on agricultural land were roughly 5.6 of the agricultural income of that year. In 1947 they had been reduced. They were only 3.2 of the agricultural income before the year 1947. During the whole of that period there was constant criticism from the then Opposition that the measure of rating relief was not nearly sufficient. As the House well knows, it is always difficult to place the burden of taxation equitably on all sections of the community. The principal argument used at that time was that agricultural wages had increased so much that the rating relief afforded each year was more than compensated by the extra wages paid by the agricultural community, and that other charges and costs had increased.
Deputy Bennett, speaking on the occasion of the introduction of the 1946 Act—the reference is Volume 103 of the Dáil Debates, column 763— said:—
"There is only one real method by which to apply a fair and equitable relief to all farmers: that is the system in Northern Ireland and in England: derating of all farmers, large and small. Give them all a fair crack of the whip and proceed, as we are rapidly proceeding in this House, to run local government from the Custom House."
That was the observation that Deputy Bennett, then a member of the House, had to make. Deputy Fagan went much further. Speaking at column 780 he said:—
"The Minister brags about the great relief he is giving, but everybody seems to forget that we were paying our agricultural labourers £2 per week, and were told that, when this relief was being given we would have to give an increase—an increase to which they are undoubtedly entitled—to our workers. Their wages were increased by 4/- per week, an increase which the Minister for Agriculture admitted last week amounts to something like £1,000,000 per year on the agricultural community. If a farmer employs ten men, it represents £2 per week, or more than £104 per year. The Minister for Agriculture admits that agriculture is getting only £600,000, whereas it is saddled with £1,000,000, with the result that the agricultural community are at the loss of £400,000.
Later, at column 782 he said:—
"This is no relief whatever. It is a loss to the farmers and the Minister need not be bragging that it is a relief. You are given so much, but you have to pay twice as much. You (he said to the Minister) are only trying to blind the public by saying that they are getting so much. Every Local Government Bill that is passed is just another baby passed on to the farmers. Deputy de Valera talked about the valuations. The valuations at present are unfair. Farmers have to pay for the upkeep of the roads for the townsman, who only pays a few pounds in rates, to drive over."
Senator Baxter made observations of a similar nature in the Seanad. The general criticism was that we were not doing enough. We then pointed out that other measures were being undertaken to ease the taxation burden of the farmers. We promised to institute farm building grants. There was a remission of rates on improvements to buildings for a number of years. We passed an Act whereby the Central Fund was saddled with the entire extra cost of all health services until they reached 50 per cent. At the same time we gave increased grants for county roads and we gave grants for the first time for the maintenance of county roads as distinct from main roads. Since then wages have twice increased and they are going up to £3 a week in January. It seems to me that if Deputies who are now in the Government are going to support it in passing this Bill they are going against their own words and criticisms of a former period. All the farmers' costs are again increased. If the farmer was losing in 1946 a sum of £400,000, having regard to the increase of wages he had to pay in that year, he must be at a still greater net loss in the current financial year. Agricultural prices taken as a whole have not risen proportionately to suggest that the rating relief is now adequate. Most of the agricultural prices which existed at the time the Bill was renewed last year have not changed measurably. At the same time, as I have said, wages are going to be increased in January. The Government desire a great increase in agricultural production. They wish to increase the production of the country, but it would seem to me that if they had any sincerity at all they should have offered an increased contribution to the relief of agricultural rates in view of all the facts I have mentioned.
I hope we shall hear some speeches similar to those made when the former Government was in office, belabouring the present Minister for Local Government for not having done enough; warning him that not half enough is being done for the farmers; suggesting that all land be completely derated, and pointing out that the farmer's taxation is far too heavy. I hope we shall get some idea whether the farmer Deputies are going to move meekly behind the Minister or whether they intend to adopt the same attitude they adopted towards us when we proposed the Bill in 1946 and renewed it each year.
Let me assure Deputy Childers that my attitude this evening in this connection is precisely the same as my attitude was in 1946. Deputy Childers is proposing to hold the Bill now. At this stage of the year I have seen very little necessity to go over what I said in 1946 and repeated in 1947 when these measures were before the House. I am convinced that the only equitable solution of the problem is the derating of agricultural land just as I was similarly convinced on the two former occasions on which I spoke. I am sure that Deputy Childers appreciates, in fact I am certain that he appreciates the absurdity of refusing half a cherry just because you cannot get the whole of it.
All I really want to ask the Minister is whether it is the 1946 Act, or the 1946 Act as amended by the 1947 Act, that he proposes to carry into force in this Bill. In reply to a question that I asked him on the day this Bill was introduced, the Minister said that he was bringing in legislation to continue the 1946 Act as amended by the 1947 Act. The only difference between the two Acts is the date up to which a farmer can put in the claim or the claims for employees. In the 1946 Act the then Minister, in deference to a request I made at the time, made the 1st February in the financial year the final date. That was because the Bill came subsequent to the Budget. Then in the 1947 Act, which really in effect merely continued the 1946 Act for another year, the Minister amended the date up to which claims could be made by bringing forward the date from the 1st February in the financial year to the 15th October before it. It might be considered that in arguing like this I am arguing against the farmer. In fact, I am not because any man who could not have a claim in by the 15th October in the financial year to which the Act applies does not deserve it. My concern is that if the 1st February, 1950, is to be the date—and that is what appears to me to be the date from the wording of the Bill—it means that local authorities will be in an awkward position. I understand that the Department is extremely reluctant to forward the grant to the local authorities until they get the final statement of accounts from the local authorities. Until the employment allowance is settled the local authority cannot put in its claim.
I think it would be to the advantage of the ratepayers, certainly to the advantage of the officials of the local authority, and to the advantage of the Department that the 15th October, 1949, should be the date rather than the 1st February, 1950. I should like the Minister to clear up that point. Is he satisfied that Section 1 of the Bill does not mean that we are going back to the 1946 Act and leaving the 1947 Act out of it altogether? On that point of the date, I would emphasise that the date fixed in the 1946 Act was a peculiar date because of the peculiar circumstances of that year. In a normal year the 15th October is a much more sensible date. This point would be really more appropriate on the Committee Stage, but I thought I would raise it now in order that the Minister might have it clear before we reach that stage. Then, if the matter has to be discussed, we shall know on what grounds the discussion should be based.
In the first place I should like to protest, in regard to this Bill, against legislation of this description being brought in at this time of the year, at a period like this, in a rushed job, a gallop job, a job where you have not an opportunity of stepping in to get matters rectified.
That happened last year, too.
I do not care when it was done—which is more than some of the boys over there would say. They have to dance to the tune of those who now hold office.
You will have to do it for a long time.
It is all very well to come along here with this Bill but there is a lot of information that we would like to get in connection with this matter. We would like to know what exactly will be the position of the farmer in the coming year? We would like to know if 99 per cent. off the main roads and 75 per cent. off the county roads will be continued in the coming year? That is one of the most important things in connection with this whole matter. It is a point upon which I want the Minister's assurance. Whatever might be the hesitation in firing out other things, I would myself have no hesitation in firing it out. The position of the farmer is that he is being compelled to accept threequarters of a loaf merely because it is three weeks to Christmas. That is the inducement held out in this Bill. I would say that is the Minister's reason in bringing in this Bill.
With regard to the allowance for agricultural labourers, there is a serious defect in the present scheme. I do not know how it operates in other counties but in County Cork if a man leaves for any reason during the year and a day or two elapses before you can get another man to replace him, you lose the allowance for that man for the 12 months. I think that calls for rectification. I do not know whether the position is due to the manner in which the Act is interpreted by different county managers. It is a matter upon which I would like to have some assurance from the Minister.
I have been here a fairly long time now. I remember some of the increases in the past and the way in which they had to be obtained. I suffered the disgrace of seeing farmers' Parties in this House vote in the wrong Lobby in the past. Take, for instance, the occasion of the £700,000 odd to which the Minister alluded. That was got in a rush. At the time of the £1,000,000 relief of rates on agricultural land, the farmer representatives in this House trotted into the Lobby and voted against it. That was their method of assisting the farmers at that time. We have somewhat the same position to-day unfortunately. I remember when the Fianna Fáil Government first took office, it took until then to get the other £250,000 that we were short at that time. Time passed and changes were made. Changes for the better were made. One of the greatest assets in this scheme is the giving of so much per man for each man employed on a holding. It is all very well for Deputy Childers to speak about grants and the position of the farmers to-day. The position of the farmers to-day is far worse than it was 12 months ago. Twelve months ago the farmers got £26 a ton for oats. To-day they are getting 17/- to 20/- per barrel The farmer to-day is in a very different position from what he was this time 12 months. He is a worse position from the point of view of meeting these increases. The farmers are faced this year with an increase in labour costs of £6,000,000. That is the difference between the wages paid to agricultural labourers last year and the wages that will come into operation in January. These are matters the Government should have taken into consideration when fixing the amount of the agricultural grant. The part of the Deputies in this House directly representing the farmers in the inter-Party Government is to see that the farmers get a fair crack of the whip. Instead of doing that we have this rushed Bill a fortnight before Christmas, coupled with the complete disappearance of the Farmers' Party—that is, the Clann na Talmhan Party.
That is the position with which we find ourselves faced. Potatoes were fetching £16 a ton last year. According to Deputy Davin they have already been sold this year at £5 a ton. The farmer's income has diminished to an alarming extent while, at the same time, he is faced with the burden of an added £6,000,000 for labour alone, together with an increase in rates. I am chairman of the board of assistance in Cork and chairman of the board of health. At every single meeting I have attended during the past 12 months we have had to consider increases in wages. That was the price demanded by the Labour Party for their support of this inter-Party Government. My knowledge of the Minister goes back to 1924. Since that time we have been colleagues in the Cork County Council. The Minister should know what the position is. Not quite 12 months ago I myself heard the Minister say that he viewed with alarm the increasing burden of rates falling on people who, in his opinion, were badly able to carry it. That burden is now being increased to his own knowledge. He knows that if there was an increase of 4/- in the £ last year, there will be no less than 6/- in the £ this year.
