Last night I complained of the policy of all Governments in bringing matters as serious as this in at the tail-end of an important session and at a period when the Dáil will not have an opportunity of considering the position thoroughly. I am exceedingly anxious on one point. I wonder could we get an assurance from the Minister as to whether the money given under transition grants for the past two years in relation to roads, namely, 90 per cent. on trunk roads and 75 per cent. on county roads, will be continued this year. Can the Minister ease our minds on that matter now?
Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1948—Second Stage (Resumed) and Subsequent Stages.
What relation does that bear to this?
It has a very important relation to the amount of rates the farmers will have to pay for the next 12 months. That is why I would like the Minister to give us that information now rather than at the end of the debate.
It does not arise on it.
All right. I dealt last night with the extremely worsened position of the rural community facing this rate. I would like to mention the extra burdens placed on the farmers by the present Government. For instance, there is the removal of the food voucher scheme, which threw an extra imposition on the present rate and which will throw an enormously increased imposition on the rate next year. In addition to that, you have the extra national health insurance and you have the fact that despite increased wages and increased costings generally, the farmer, where he would have an opportunity of getting an increased price for his produce, is up against a Government Order in relation to fixed prices. Where the open road is in respect to some commodities, the Government will make no attempt to stabilise the market here, if I except the type of stabilisation that was done last week for the purpose of catching votes in the Donegal election.
The farmer is in a worse position today—far worse—than he was this time 12 months. The farmer who produces oats as a cash crop and produces potatoes for the market finds himself in the position so glowingly put up by Deputy Davin last week—17/- to 20/- a barrel for oats and £5 a ton for potatoes. In that position he is asked to face the increased burden of labour costs and now he will have to face increased rates. I think that is grossly unfair. The consideration of this Bill at this period is unjust. It is brought in here now while motions which have been on the Order Paper for months awaiting consideration would have perhaps solved the problem and the House has not got an opportunity of considering them.
I allude to the private members' motion of Deputy Cogan looking for complete derating and the amendment by Deputy Lehane. These motions have been there for months on the Order Paper. They deal with this particular problem and the House has not got an opportunity of considering them but the House will, whether we like it or not, have to pass this Bill. It is presented to it with the pistol at our heads: "Take this or you will get nothing. This will have to be passed to-day." That is the position we are facing and I hold that it is an absolutely unfair position in which to place the representatives of the agricultural community.
I have a certain amount of sympathy for the position in which the farmers' representatives in this House find themselves. As I told them here last week in this posad saluch into which they have entered, they find that the other partners are not prepared to maintain the child of the marriage. I think they ought to apply for a divorce and get out of this inter-Party arrangement into which they entered, when they find that the other partners to the agreement are getting their share and that they get nothing but reduced prices, bigger costs and a daft Minister.
After listening to Deputy Corry's account of the terrible predicament of the farmers of Cork, for the first time in my life I feel happy that I am a Mayo man and that I come from a constituency of small farmers—"hen-roosters" he once described them—but nevertheless good, honest, industrious farmers.
Farmers?
They do not seem to have the terrible worries that the farmers of Deputy Corry's constituency have. I daresay the Deputy is prompted to come here and parade himself as a sort of god before his constituents, to tell the House and all those people who will read his speech in the pages of the Cork Examiner tomorrow, what a wonderful fight he is making, and that he alone in this House is making, for the farmers, that not alone is he the guardian of the farmers in Cork but the farmers of the whole country. Just offhand this morning I went down to the Library and picked up Volume 99 and I turned to column 380 and there I found a motion put down in the name of Deputy Cogan who was then a member of the Clann na Talmhan Party. The motion read:
"That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that in order to secure a more equitable distribution of the burden of local rates, and to promote increased employment on the land, legislation should be introduced to provide for complete derating of the first £20 of the poor law valuation of each farmer and the further total derating of each additional £15 of the poor law valuation in respect of each adult worker employed on the holding and that the deficit be made good from the Exchequer."
That motion was debated in the House and Deputies on each Party spoke for and against it. I find that, according to column 552 of the same volume, Deputy Corry stood up and in his very opening statement said: "I will not take more than two minutes on this motion." He would not take more than two minutes then to support a motion which would definitely benefit the farmers of his constituency much more than it would benefit the farmers of the constituency I represent. Further on he states:
"As regards the position of the joker across the Border, let me remind the Deputy that a man on a holding with a £50 valuation has to pay his land annuities in full, even though John Bull does not charge him a penny in respect of them. His annuities, let us say, amount to £20. In the case of the farmer here whose annuities were £20, he is now paying only half that amount, namely £10. I find now that the farmer across the Border is paying 135 per cent. increase in his housing rate. If you take it that £12 would be a fair valuation for the farm buildings, it would mean that a man was paying something like £9 12s. 6d. a year. So that between what we are giving to our farmers here, plus the reduction of 50 per cent. in their annuities, our farmers are better off than the farmers across the Border.
That means that Deputy Corry in 1946 was quite content and well pleased that the farmers of this country had got sufficient benefits and were entitled to no more. Further we find at the bottom of columns 557 and 558 that the Dáil divided on the motion which was to bring relief to agricultural producers. The result is given as Tá, 25; Níl, 66. Big and black on the list of Deputies who voted Níl we find the name of Deputy M. J. Corry.
We had not a daft Minister at that time.
He walked into the Lobby to make sure that the farmers in 1946 would get no relief when we, the members of the Clann na Talmhan Party, who were alleged to have no interest in the farming community, tried to get that relief. Deputy Corry took only two minutes, as he told us, to discuss something on that occasion that was of first-class importance and he decided that relief must not go to the farmers.
We are all familiar with Deputy Corry's technique. As I said at the outset, the remarks he has made are meant, not so much to support the interests of the farmers but to catch the headlines of the local papers in his own constituency which he hopes the people there will read. The then Minister for Finance, now Deputy Aiken, said at that time, as reported in col. 546:
"I do not think it would be fair to ask the general taxpayer, in present circumstances, to bear any increased burden for the purpose of giving any further relief in rates to the farmers at this time. I think the farmers are ill served by the Deputies who make such a claim on their behalf at present."
That is rather a strange statement in view of the fact that a year afterwards the same Minister, who thought that those Deputies so ill served the farmers they represented, found that they were, to a certain extent, in his estimation correct. While he did not go on that occasion the full distance to meet what those Deputies wanted, he nevertheless went three-fifths of the way and gave a relief of three-fifths of the agricultural rates on the first £20 valuation of holdings. However, so much for that.
This Bill, which is only in reality a continuation of measures that have passed through this House, is something which candidly I would like to go further. However, I honestly think that at the same time if it is continued, it is a reasonable effort at this stage as finance and taxation have to be got one way or another. While I admit now that it is only a continuation of legislation which has been enacted here before, I still claim that I would like to see complete derating of at least the first £20 of the valuation on agricultural holdings. Nevertheless, we must be honest and say that if we are to provide money for the carrying out of social services and other things the money must come from somewhere. I am not at all in agreement with Deputy Corry when he says that the farming community are in such a state of poverty this year as compared with last year. At the same time, I do agree that the farming community have never, up to date, got the respect that they deserve or the payment for their produce that they have earned or are entitled to. They are not in the terrible predicament that Deputy Corry leads us to believe.
Have not the rates gone up very much?
The rates are definitely on the move upwards.
Very much.
More so than I, as a rural Deputy, would like to see. I can assure the Minister at this stage that as he knows the biggest demand on the rates of every county is the provision of money for the maintenance of roads, and the different health charges. We are of the opinion that the cost of those two schemes should be met entirely from the Central Fund and that the ratepayers of the different counties should be left to provide for the county roads and for the cul-de-sac roads which I hope to see under contract at least by this time next year.
The maintenance of roads and the health services are definitely the heaviest burden on the ratepayers, and money must be found. Even though the 90 per cent. and 75 per cent. grants from the Government on money spent in excess of a certain figure are very useful and must be continued, I should prefer to see those—in particular the main and trunk roads—made a national charge with the provision for the maintenance and upkeep entirely from the Central Fund.
The Deputy is travelling a bit wide of the Bill.
I intend to be very brief.
The Deputy knows what happens if one sheep gets out of a gap.
Yes. I say that the continuation of this relief in agricultural rates is something that will be beneficial up to a point. I hope that the Minister will give attention and lend his ear, as he understands, being a member of a local authority himself, that the burdens which the people may be asked to bear with regard to rates in the years to come will be something more than they can really afford. I should like him to bear this in mind and to consider the possibility in some way or other of finding money which will help to relieve the ratepayers and make their burdens lighter. I can assure him that if rates go much higher the people will definitely not be able to meet them.
I must welcome the change in Deputy Commons' attitude towards the prosperity of the farmers. Very little change has been made in prices since the time when he used to complain that the farmers were overwhelmed with costs and got poor prices for their produce. One of the costs that he used to complain most bitterly that the farmers had to carry on their backs was that of Ministers' salaries and Deputies' allowances. He used to go round the County Mayo making complaints of those costs. We do not hear the Deputy now objecting to the high Ministerial salaries. When somebody put a question as to whether any of the Deputies who were objecting to the high Ministerial salaries had paid anything back to the Exchequer we discovered that Deputy Commons had paid nothing.
That has nothing to do with this measure.
The Deputy must look to the Department of Finance.
We got the answer from the Minister for Finance officially in the House. Deputy Commons need not try to throw doubt on that. We have had many Deputies for many years talking in this House on the question of how best to assist the farmers, whether by derating or by increasing farm prices. In the Budget, I think, of 1946 a very good compromise was come to in regard to rates. The State Exchequer by bearing two-thirds of the small farmers' rates has an interest in seeing that the rates are kept down and that any money collected for county council or local government purposes is properly spent. If we were completely to derate agricultural land and buildings there would be no brake on the local authorities in making demands for the expenditure of money when the ratepayers had not to pay. But the community would have to pay. If the ratepayers had not to pay it as rates they would have to pay it as taxpayers. I would very much prefer to see the Government taking care to see that farmers got proper prices for their produce than to see them increasing still further the relief on agricultural rates. The farmer by getting poor prices for his crop can drop very much more than his total rates in a year. Some of the farmers, for instance, who dropped from the 45/- a barrel they were led to expect if the Government promises of remunerative prices had been kept dropped very much more when they only got 21/- or 22/- than two or three years' rates.
I think it would pay the community better if the Government would take care to live up to their promises in relation to the prices of farm produce. The farmers of this country I think have never objected to paying rates, rents or land annuities provided they had the wherewithal to pay them. I would prefer, in this particular situation, to see the Government making some restitution to the farmers who sold their oats at 21/- or 22/- a barrel than increasing the agricultural grant. The farmers who sold their cats at 21/- or 22/- a barrel have been very badly hit. They had been accustomed for some years to get 42/- or 45/- a barrel for their oats, so that a drop to 28/- a barrel, at which the Minister appears to have fixed the price, is bad enough, but the 21/- or the 22/- is very much worse. I think that the Minister for Local Government should try and use his influence with the Minister for Agriculture to see that the farmers who only got the 21/- or 22/- a barrel are compensated, at least up to the 28/- a barrel level.
Mr. Murphy
What has all this to do with me?
The policy of the Minister for Agriculture has nothing whatever to do with this measures.
A number of Deputies advocated derating.
And were quite in order in so doing.
I was arguing in favour of a stable and remunerative agricultural price level as against derating. I do not want to go into the matter further than to illustrate my ideas on it. I trust that the Minister for Local Government will take them to heart and whisper them in the ear of the Minister for Agriculture, and that he will not tell him that "I have nothing further to add". The same question was put to the Minister in Donegal and, after a day or two there, he skipped for Dublin. He had skipped to America in the first instance to avoid dealing with it.
The policy of the Minister for Agriculture has nothing to do with this measure.
Very well.
Deputy Corry upbraided the Minister for Local Government for introducing this Bill so late in the year. That must have caused some embarrassment to the Minister's predecessor because we all recall that, after the 12th Dáil had been sentenced to death and was in the last days of its existence, on the 10th December a Bill similar to this was introduced in the Dáil last year. I think that Deputy Corry's censure of the present Minister for Local Government must cause the Minister's predecessor to blush furiously, if that is conceivable. Last year I deplored the fact that a measure of this kind was introduced in the last days of the year.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,
It may be necessary to comment on the fact that we have a House now. It is also necessary to comment on the fact that very few members of the Fianna Fáil Party were sufficiently interested——
It is necessary to point out that, when I called attention to the fact, no member of the Fine Gael Party or the Clann na Poblachta Party was present.
I notice that neither the gentleman who formerly held the office of Minister nor any of his colleagues were present. Perhaps they are not interested. Perhaps they do not think that they will ever again have responsibility for dealing with matters of this kind. This is an important matter. It is an exceptionally important one for the farming community. This Bill simply aims at continuing the inadequate relief that has been provided up to the present in respect of rates on agricultural land. The time has certainly come for a review of the entire position relating to the incidence of taxation on the various sections of the community. I think the time has certainly come for the taking of far-reaching and drastic steps to reduce the rates on agricultural land, and, in addition, to ensure that the rates on all property are not increased. There is nothing more alarming at the present time for the ordinary citizens of the country than the steadily mounting burden of rates. While the sums voted for the relief of rates on agricultural land may appear to some to be considerable they are more than swallowed up by the very enormous increase in rates which has taken place during the past couple of years. Some time a halt will have to be called. Otherwise, it will be impossible for the average ordinary citizen to carry on.
I am rather perturbed about the position as far as the farming community are concerned. I am perturbed as to whether it is the intention of the Government to take a further step to relieve rates on land. I am not one of those who, like Deputy Corry or the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, support derating when in opposition and oppose it when their own Party is in power. The Fianna Fáil Party came into power 15 or 16 years ago by advocating the derating of agricultural land, but for 16 years they sat down and refused to honour the pledges which they had given when seeking office. Now, when they are out of office I notice that some of them are coming around again to complete derating and probably before very long the majority of them will go full blast demanding that the farmer be completely relieved from rates.
I am not very much concerned with the antics of political Parties. I have been absolutely consistent on this matter in every Dáil that has been elected since I became a member. In the 10th, 11th and 12th, and now in the 13th Dáil, I have tabled a motion for the derating of agricultural land. In every Dáil up to the present of which I have been a member that motion was defeated by the mobilised strength of the Fianna Fáil Party. That motion will again come before the present Dáil in the course of a month or two and I am wondering what action the Fianna Fáil Party will take on the matter. Will they dress themselves in sackcloth and ashes and repent of their sins of the past 15 years and come in and support the motion? That is something which remains to be seen. In the meantime, I am rather perturbed about the attitude, not of the Government but of certain people who seem to be very influential in regard to Governmental policy. I have here an article which appears to have been inspired by the Department of Finance. It was published in the Irish Times of the 27th November, 1948. A section of that article is as follows:
"The Government, nevertheless, have hopes of being able to cut down outlay on certain schemes which will offset any inevitable increases.
There is still wide scope for economies in the various grants and subsidies provided to farmers.
The farmers have, for years, been the most pampered section of the community.
They should now, it is thought, be able to stand on their own feet and make the same contributions to State and local taxation as certain urban sections of the community who are less well-off and have suffered severe financial hardships as a result of the war.
The having of the land annuities, the doubling of the agricultural grant in relief of rates, the subsidies, the guaranteed markets and guaranteed prices, the exemption from income-tax of their actual profits, the immunity from the thousand-and-one charitable appeals with which the townspeople are always faced—all have contributed to make the farmers the most financially independent citizens of the State."
Surely the Deputy is not saddling the Government with responsibility for what appears in the Irish Times.
I am not, but what I am asking is who inspired that article? It has the appearance of having come from the Department of Finance, and I should like to have it emphatically repudiated by the Government to-day.
The Deputy ought to ask the newspaper that question, not the Government.
I should like to make it clear now that the farmers are not the most pampered section of the community. It is pertinent to point that out on a Bill such as this which provides for a grant for the relief of agricultural rates. The total agricultural income is £100,000,000 net. Divide that sum between the total number of people engaged full-time in agriculture and you get an average income in the agricultural industry of £153 per year, that is, less than £3 per week. That is the average income of the people engaged in agriculture—£3 per week. If anyone says that the people engaged in the most important industry in the country at an average income of less than £3 per week are a pampered section of the community I should like to know the condition of that section of the community which is not pampered. It is time to face this problem in a realistic way. Nothing contributes more to the depression of productive industry, to the killing of initiative and private enterprise, than the piling up of steadily-increasing burdens of taxation on productive property. The farmer is promised prices somewhat comparable to those which the British farmer can expect. He has, however, to compete with the British farmer and the Northern Ireland farmer who are exempt from rates. There is no use in saying that the annuities have been halved and that the having of the annuity offsets the benefit of complete derating. It might have been the case 15 or 16 years ago. However, with the enormous increase in rates at the present time the halving of the annuity is only a mere bagatelle. It is necessary to come vigorously to the relief of agriculture in this connection and to fix definitely a limit beyond which taxation on land and agricultural property will not be increased.
Some people, including the ex-Minister for Finance, suggested in connection with derating that if agricultural land were completely derated there would be no local check on local taxation. He forgot that derating of agricultural land would not relieve the farmer of his contribution to rates. He would still have to pay rates on his dwelling, just like the townspeople. He would still be interested in the level of local rates and in public expenditure by the local authorities. It is wrongand I think it is time to realise that it is wrong—that we should have this matter of rates on agricultural land coming up here as a short-term policy, as a stop-gap policy from year to year. It is time this matter was put on a permanent footing. I would ask the Minister now, immediately this Bill becomes law, to consider the incidence of taxation as between one section of the community and another and to find an equitable basis and to put it into operation at the earliest possible date.
It has been stated that the grant for the relief of rates on agricultural land is a gift or a concession to the farming community. It is nothing of the kind. I will again, as I did last year, emphasise that the grant for the relief of rates on agricultural land is not a gift to the farmer but rather a crude and inequitable means of attempting to rectify an injustice to the farming community. If you adopt a principle that the farming community should contribute to the local expenditure in proportion to their income you will find that the present system of levying rates is altogether inequitable.
The farmers' income for the average pre-war years was one-fourth of the national income; during the emergency period it was one-third of the national income. However, the rateable valuation of agricultural land and buildings is 80 per cent. of the total rateable valuation of the State. Thus, it will be seen that the whole basis of agricultural rating is wrong; it is inequitable to the farming community and these agricultural grants go only part of the road towards remedying that situation. It is necessary to consider that point because strong pressure may be brought to bear on the Minister to resist appeals for a more equitable system of rating in regard to agriculture. He may even be pressed to reduce, as has been suggested in that article, the benefits which are being conferred in this Bill and similar measures. Therefore, I would ask the Minister, the moment this measure becomes inactive, to give careful consideration to the matter and see that justice and equity is meted out to all sections of the community.
This measure is one which must come into operation at the earliest possible date. I quite realise that. I realise also that it is more or less a stop-gap measure. The real problem facing the Government so far as agriculture is concerned is the revision of land valuation. Inevitably that will have to take place. I ask the Minister to take cognisance of the fact that in County Kerry the problem of the upkeep of the roads is interrelated with the problem of rates on land. The local authority there finds it very difficult to segregate responsibility as between the amount obtained from rates on agricultural land and the amount required for the upkeep of the roads. I would like to make one suggestion to the Minister, though it is probably not relevant on this particular measure. I would suggest to the Minister that some remission should be made in regard to the main roads and that the State should take responsibility for them.
The Deputy introduced these remarks by stating that he did not think they were relevant. I quite agree with him.
I appreciate my difficulty, but I would suggest to the Minister that some relief should be given from the point of view of making main roads a State responsibility.
The Deputy is still out of order.
The farmers could then meet their commitments so far as rates on land are concerned. That would give them a break.
What would, Deputy?
The revision of the system of rating and a proper valuation. That would give the farmers in Kerry and the local authorities time to adjust their budget. It would give the local authorities an opportunity of asking the farmers to pay a fixed figure for rates on land. The last Government went a long way to derate land. They gave certain concessions. I know that the Minister will continue along those lines by giving any relief that can be given to the farmers. But that will not go as far as we would like. As Deputy Cogan said, we would like to see a full review of the present position coupled with a revaluation of land in order to adjust valuations on an equitable basis. We are facing the position in Kerry where it will be impossible for the people to meet the rates. Whether that will be next year or in three years' time I do not know, but we are facing that position. I realise the Minister has no option at the moment but to proceed with this measure. I urge upon him the necessity for a review at the earliest possible moment in the light of the statements I have made.
This measure is a continuation of what we have previously had. I have heard Deputy Cogan state that Fianna Fáil stood for derating prior to their taking office. To some extent that may be true, but there were a number of us who did not support that view. Some of us believed that if there were full and complete derating, it would be impossible to equitably adjust the position. It would not meet the case. I hold that the halving of the annuities met the position of the agricultural community much more equitably than would complete derating. I do not approve of derating. I think it is bad. It would give advantages to people who do not work their land far in excess of those it would give to the people who work their land in a proper way. Fianna Fáil went a long way, as has been mentioned by Deputy Flynn, to find a solution of the problem. The crux of the matter is that the amount given in respect of employment on holdings is not at all high enough. I think that is the best direction from which to approach this question of derating. There should be an increase in the rebate given in respect of hired labour and in respect of the adult members of a family who work on the land. I know what complete derating would mean. I know the man with 200 or 300 acres would sit down happily and let his land while reaping the full benefit of derating. That could not be tolerated.
Deputy Flynn adverted to the necessity for a revision of the present valuations. That is a pretty big task. A revision of valuation might work out very unfairly. There are a large number of people in this country who were driven forcibly on to the bad lands in this country and for 100 years they put sweat and labour into that land and brought it up to a high state of fertility. Under a revision of valuation they would be compelled to pay for all the useful work they did. On the other hand, there were people who were on good land. Since then they have let that land deteriorate through their own fault. They would reap the benefit of a revision of valuation. But the people who worked their land would be penalised. I would advise the Government and the Minister—and, indeed, any Government—to proceed very, very cautiously in that direction.
The rates are soaring at the present time. They are soaring mainly because of increases in social services. There is an increase in hospitalisation. There is an increase in the wages and salaries paid to the staffs, and so on. If these increases continue, something more will have to be done undoubtedly. I do not say that it will have to be done by the Minister for Local Government; but something will have to be done by his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture. Properly guaranteed prices will have to be given to the farmers in order to enable them to pay that rate. They were quite capable of paying the rate, such as it was, for a number of years particularly for the last seven or eight years, when they were assured of good prices for live stock and guaranteed prices for a number of the crops they produced.
There is a depression now coming in prices all round. That can be clearly said, and I say publicly that the Minister for Agriculture is aiming at that, too, in this bogey to bring down the cost of living. The cost of living means as much to the farmer as to any other section of the community and unless the farmers are given reasonable, guaranteed prices that will cover the cost of production and leave them a reasonable profit, they certainly will not be able to continue paying increased rates.
In conclusion, I would like to impress on the Minister that after this Bill goes through he should examine the position and bring in legislation whereby employment and production will be taken into account in any further relief that is given; that the amount that is being paid in respect of employees will be increased at least 100 per cent., and also what is given in respect of the adult members of the farmer's family. If that is done I believe that will be the proper system of derating.
I am totally opposed to complete derating, just as I was against the form of derating we had during the Cumann na nGaedheal régime, when there was half-a-crown to the £ given and the Treasury was recouped by putting a certain amount on the lb. of sugar. The result was that the man with £1,000 valuation got 1,000 half-crowns. He probably had a much smaller family than the person with the £15 valuation. He got 1,000 half-crowns, whereas the poor man got only 15 half-crowns, and yet the poor man had to pay his share of the farthing in the pound, and that was far out of proportion to what the other man had to pay.
I would oppose any measure of that kind, but I am in favour of an increase in the rate in respect of the employees, whether they be hired labour from out side or members of the family. I would regard that as a proper form of remission of rates.
Mr. Murphy
I do not think I can complain about the reception which this measure has received or about the criticisms that have been offered. I feel that, on the whole, they have been helpful and constructive. This measure is restricted in its form. It is, as Deputies have pointed out, a temporary measure and, while it affords an occasion for raising various matters, it does not provide, in its subsequent passage through the House, any means by which certain views can be given effect to. I know there are a certain number of proposals on the Order Paper dealing with various aspects of rating and local taxation and I feel that when they are reached they will give an opportunity of raising many questions on this very complicated, very controversial and very long-standing issue of local taxation that will enable the various points of view that are held to be fully discussed.
May I offer one mild criticism on some of the arguments that were advanced? It is that there does seem to be what amounts to—I am sure quite unwittingly—an inclination not to advert to the fact that this Bill is elastic in its scope and it aims at providing grants towards the relief of rates on an increased figure as increases in local rates go on. I think that, in itself, is an indication of policy and a concession to the ratepayers that should be emphasised. I think that statement disposes of the main argument that Deputy Childers advanced in his contribution to the debate. I want to assure Deputy Sheldon, who had some doubts as to how far certain provisions in the Bill covered certain matters, that we have been advised by the competent advisers of the Department that the point he made is fully met in this Bill. I do not think he need have any further worries on that score.
Deputy Corry is responsible for producing humour of a rather peculiar form sometimes; but he does introduce humour into discussions of all kinds. He was certainly in a rather humorous role to-day in rating me because of the time of the year that this Bill was introduced, having regard to the fact that the introduction of the measure was exactly one day earlier than the introduction of a similar measure last year and also having regard to the fact that in the course of the discussion last year the Minister was fairly adamant, and, in his own words, the Dáil was asked to take the Bill or leave it.
I do not regard this Bill as a final contribution towards rating questions in this country. It is an indication of the policy of the Government. It is evidence of the desire to go as far as possible to meet the position of agriculturists in so far as they are contributing to local taxation. Further opportunities will be afforded during the year for a discussion of the whole question on a wider basis. I may say, not in any offensive way, that it does seem to me that if the policy of the then Minister for Finance, announced in his 1946 Budget statement, was given effect to, as presumably it would if the change of Government had not taken place, the provisions under this measure would be very different, because the Minister for Finance, in his 1946 Budget statement said:
"I want to make it clear that the rate subsidy part of the new scheme is intended to last only for this year and next year."
I think it is important to emphasise that the reduction in the amount of the grants that were then contemplated by the Minister for Finance have not been made; that, in fact, the principle has been maintained of progressive grants of an increasing amount in accordance with the increasing amount of local rates.
The Chair has happily relieved me of the responsibility of discussing main roads to-day—the nationalisation of main roads—and various other matters. I do not think, either, that it is a suitable opportunity to go into the whole question of derating, or of any modified form of derating. I shall leave that to another occasion just as I leave any discussion on the whole question of agricultural policy of this country to the Minister who is charged with responsibility for that policy.
There are certain other matters to which I should like to refer briefly. I want to take a few points mentioned by Deputy Corry who complained about the inability of the landholder to qualify for the allowances in regard to agricultural labourers in certain circumstances. The fact is that the allowance is only payable if the agricultural labourer is in continuous employment from the period in question. I think the House will realise that if that position were changed the possibility of very serious abuse, and in the end very serious loss to the country as a whole, would arise. I cannot, therefore, offer any hope that any accommodation will be given on that matter. I do not see, looking on the matter in a sensible way, how any accommodation of that kind could be given.
The whole question of examining the rating system of this country as has been advocated from various quarters. is also a big question and will have to take a very considerable time. I do not intend to anticipate what may be done in that connection. It is clear that there is evidence of an increase in rates throughout the country and the increase is being kept under very close observation by the local government authorities. It is clear also that money values in the matter of rates have altered, as they have altered in every other connection in this country. It is clear too that the increased services— and there have been substantial developments in that connection throughout the year, health services and other services of that kind—make demands on local ratepayers that have got to be refused or met. Nobody contemplates at the present time a refusal of these demands. My task, therefore, and the task of the local authorities, is to see that the impact of the increase is made as light as possible having regard to the position as a whole.
I do not know if there are any other points that have to be referred to because the points made by Deputy Flynn, having regard to the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle, cannot be replied to by me. I think, in fact, the reply I have given covers substantially most of the points that were raised in the course of the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. Murphy
I would be grateful if the House would facilitate me by giving me all the stages of the Bill now. I am encouraged in making that request having regard to precedents that have been established because in past years that has been done. It would be of some value to local authorities if we could inform them as quickly as possible as to the position for the coming year. I do not, however, press the matter if there is any objection.
I have not any firsthand information as to our attitude on the matter but I understand it will be all right to agree to the Minister's suggestion.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.
Question proposed: That Section 1 stand part of the Bill.
The Minister has kindly stated that my fears were not justified but I am afraid that does not quite clear the point for me. Can the Minister state definitely whether the 15th October, 1949, or the 1st February, 1950 will be the final date on which the farmer can put in the names of his employees?
Mr. Murphy
The 15th October.
The Minister is satisfied on that?
Mr. Murphy
We are legally advised that that is fully covered.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 and the Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.