Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Jan 1935

Vol. 19 No. 11

Public Business. - Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1934—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Acting Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. Boland)

This is a temporary measure providing for the relief of rates on agricultural land in the present financial year. This financial year the amount of the grant has been raised to £1,970,000, that is an increase of £220,000, as compared with 1933/34. Originally the Saorstát portion of the agricultural grant was almost £600,000 and it remained at that figure from the year 1898 to 1925, when it was doubled. In 1931 it was increased by £750,000 and the total was then £1,948,022. When the present Administration took office in 1932 the grant was increased by £250,000, but this last-mentioned increase was devoted particularly to the relief of holdings of £10 valuation and under and the first £10 of larger holdings. The grant was then £2,198,022. In the following year, 1933/34, the amount of the grant was again reviewed and fixed at £1,750,000, which, as compared with the previous year, was a reduction of £448,022. I may say that the sum of £470,000 mentioned in Section 4 of the Bill is made up of a grant of £250,000, which has been voted since 1932 and the new money, amounting to £220,000, voted this year.

Whilst increasing the grant above last year's figure, the Bill provides for its application in a new way. Every occupier of land not exceeding £20 in valuation gets this year the same rate of relief as he got last year on the first £10. The rate of relief last year on the first £10 is the primary allowance rate this year and this rate of relief is extended up to the £20 valuation limit. This costs an additional sum of £116,000. Allowances given to occupiers, whose holdings do not exceed £20 in valuation and to the first £20 of larger holdings, are called primary allowances and it is estimated that these primary allowances will absorb £1,182,000 of the grant, and will cover land valuations amounting to £3,700,000. Included in the primary allowances is a comparatively small sum which is transferable to certain urban districts that were formerly included in the rural areas.

The part of the land valuation above £20 can get relief either by means of an employment allowance or a supplementary allowance or both. Where an occupier of land of over £20 valuation had one or more men, whether relatives or employees, at work continuously on his holding in the nine months preceding the 31st December, 1933, he was asked to make a claim to the employment allowance. For each man an abatement at the primary allowance rate was made on the part of the valuation above £20, provided that this was not calculated on more than £12 10s. valuation for each man. The county councils received claims in respect of about 130,000 men, less than half of them being relatives of the occupiers. These employment allowances amount, it is estimated, to £386,000. The balance of the new money after the additional cost of the primary allowance is met goes to meet in part the employment allowances. When the cost of the employment allowance is added to the cost of the primary allowance, £1,570,000 of the grant will be absorbed, and there will then be left £400,000.

This balance of £400,000 has been applied as a supplementary allowance at an equal rate in each county over the remaining valuation, that is, over the valuations that received no relief out of the primary or employment allowances. The supplementary allowance is in every county less than the primary allowance; in most counties the difference is over 2/- in the £. This new scheme has already been put into operation. It has involved a good deal of labour on the staffs of the local authorities in examining and certifying claims and making the allowances, but much of this is incidental to the first year of the new scheme and we anticipate that in future years, if the scheme is continued, it will call for less effort.

Perhaps I should say a few words with regard to the reasons for making a change in the method of applying the grant. The system which had been in force since 1898 of giving relief to every occupier, whether large or small, at exactly the same rate is no longer regarded as satisfactory. Whilst in each county a flat rate has been given to all holders up to £20, the Bill differentiates between larger holders who give employment and those that do not. It is recognised that this year the differentiation is not very great, but it was considered that in the initial year, at any rate, it was not expedient to curtail too drastically the amount of relief to which large holders, who gave no employment, had got in recent years. I may say, however, that it is not the intention to maintain supplementary allowances at a relatively high rate.

Employment allowances, it should be noted, are confined to those who give permanent employment. The Bill does not admit allowances in respect of casual workers or in respect of women workers. The share of each council in the grant is determined by the Bill and is set out in the Second Schedule. Each county was first allotted a sum equal to last year's share of the grant and the amount (if any) payable to urban districts within the county. The whole of the additional sum required for the primary allowance was then allotted and the balance was divided in proportion to the amount of the employment allowances. With regard to the urban districts that participate in the grant, they get the same share from the county council as last year with whatever sum is necessary to bring the rate of relief on the first £20 in the urban district up to the county rate.

The Bill allows an abatement of rates to be given either by a reduction of the amount demanded as set out on the demand note or by way of a credit note given separately from the demand note. Some counties have demanded the net rate and some have given the supplementary allowance by means of credit notes, and some have, in addition, given part of the primary allowance by means of credit notes. These credit notes, which expire on the 31st March next, have been found an incentive to ratepayers to pay their rates within the financial year. It has been left to county councils to decide as to the manner in which the abatement will be given, but except in the case of multiple holdings, that is, where an occupier has more than one holding, the Minister has not sanctioned all the allowances being given by way of credit notes.

The presentation of this Bill has been somewhat delayed owing to the difficulty of making a satisfactory allocation of the money voted until the cost of the primary and employment allowances was known. It is, however, only a temporary measure and it is hoped, with the fuller information now available, that it will be possible to bring forward the proposals for next financial year in good time. It is desirable that the Bill become law at the earliest date possible. Any suggestions made with regard to the scheme will be carefully examined, but members will understand that owing to the date we have now reached, I am not in a position to accept any radical amendment.

Mr. Wilson

This Bill legalises the method of distributing the agricultural grant for this year. One wonders how the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, who derives his powers from the Minister and Secretaries Act, could have instructed the county councils under his jurisdiction to administer this grant in a manner which was not in accord with the law existing at the time. However, this Bill will legalise his action. The procedure in this case shows the power possessed by a Minister when he can change the law, although holding office by virtue of the law and appointed to carry out the law. A Minister can change the law and, afterwards, come to the Oireachtas and have his action legalised.

It is a pity that a change of this sort in the distribution of the agricultural grant should have been made without proper investigation. While many people would be in favour of giving the employer of labour an advantage over the man who does not employ labour, the only advantage he obtains under this Bill is represented by the sum of 26/- per year per employed man. That is no inducement whatever to a man to employ labour. If the idea underlying the Minister's action was to get farmers to employ labour, he has given them very little inducement to do so. It was hardly worth while framing a Bill and bringing in legislation to effect a change which will not be of any value in bringing about the state of affairs which the Minister hoped to bring about.

I desire to make a few general remarks on the question of the rates. The time is rapidly approaching when expenditure by local authorities will have to be curbed. There will have to be some upper limit to this expenditure. As everybody knows, notwithstanding the reliefs given—and they are very heavy—the burden of rates on the agricultural community is out of all reason in the economic circumstances in which they find themselves. It is very strange that the rates should be getting heavier year by year while the income of those who have to pay the rates is getting less. In 1897 the rating of the whole Free State area amounted to £1,200,000. This Bill brings in relief to the extent of £2,000,000. In addition to that £2,000,000 the farmers will have to contribute close on £3,000,000, showing the enormous increase that has taken place in local expenditure. I think that the Minister should consider the fixing of an upper limit to expenditure on local utilities. We know that many local utilities are not a liability. A housing scheme which pays its way does not affect the position of the ratepayers, but many of the schemes for the purpose of assisting the unemployed are, in the incidence of their cost, pressing heavily upon people who cannot afford to bear the burden and whose income is not as good as we should like it to be. We all know that when income is decreasing it is not fair to raise rates. The original agricultural grant amounted to close on £2,600,000. In 1925 the then Government, following a motion, moved by me as a member of the small Farmers' Party in the Dáil, drawing attention to the incidence of rating, undertook to consider the matter when framing the next Budget. They honoured their promise and, in the following year, they doubled the agricultural grant, for which we were very thankful at the time. Since then the grant was increased to £750,000 and that was, more or less, looked upon as a stable amount. The new Ministry came along and reduced that £750,000 by £448,000. We had the sums of £2,600,000, £600,000 and £750,000. This year we are really getting £22,000 more.

With regard to the allowances made for employment, I do not think that the scheme is a fair one. Seasonal occupation accounts for a great deal. In the raising of potatoes, for instance, there would be quite a number of people working for weeks. In County Dublin a considerable amount of labour will be given this year in that way. I think that the Minister ought to consider the granting of relief based on the number of days' work given to men employed in this way. Even if he only went so far as to tot up the number of days' work given and the result was equivalent to the permanent employment of one man, he should give relief in respect of that man.

Perhaps the Minister could bring in some legislative change in that direction. It is certainly necessary. Most of the tillage farmers, I think, have considerable numbers of people engaged in planting potatoes, raising potatoes, hay-making, threshing, in which a tremendous amount of employment is given; but no credit is given to them for that. The Minister could make an advance by totalling up the wages paid and by making allowances upon the wages paid. I hope this matter will be very seriously, and very carefully, considered, because the question as to how land should be worked, in these times, is a very difficult question. No Minister for Local Government ought, off his own bat, to decide how the land is to be worked or not to be worked. The owner of the land is the best judge of how it should be worked, and warning ought to be given not to enter lightly into disturbances of this sort until the matter has been very carefully and very thoroughly investigated by people who know what they are doing.

Mr. Counihan

As farmers we are thankful for the relief given under this Bill. I do not want to find fault with the method of allocation; so long as the farmers get relief I do not find fault with the way in which it is distributed. But I regret the Minister has not made some provision for the farmer who holds his land in fee simple, and who is given no relief while the farmer paying annuities got these annuities reduced by half. I think the Minister should consider the justice of placing all farmers on the same level. Farmers paying annuities had these annuities reduced by half. They got that reduction to meet the depression in the farming community and the loss in trade. Rates and rents were for a number of years about equal but now one class of farmers have got a reduction by half and I think it would be only reasonable that the Minister should equalise the position of the other farmers by having the rates on the man who holds his land in fee simple reduced so as to put him on the same level with the annuitant. A good many farmers own their land in fee simple and are paying very much more in the way of interest to the banks on the money they borrowed in order to buy that land. In many other cases the savings of the farmers went to redeem their annuities in advance. There are thousands of cases of farmers who, when they found themselves in possession of a few pounds used them to clear off their annuities. These men are in a worse position to-day than ever; all their savings are gone. Others who borrowed money from the bank are paying high interest on the money which they borrowed to purchase the fee simple of their land. I think it is up to the Minister to give some relief to these classes of farmers and I intend, on the Committee Stage, to move an amendment to that effect.

Miss Browne

I stress the matter referred to by Senator Wilson, that is as to the unfair allocation of the relief of rates in regard to agricultural labourers. In the county in which I live farmers who employ six labourers for six months could get no relief at all with regard to the employment relief of rates. That is unfair. Several instances of this kind came under my notice. Take the sugar beet industry. Roughly speaking, extra men are employed for six months in this industry. The labour bill is a very heavy one indeed where the farmers now are getting only a very small return. The present year in the sugar beet industry is a most unfortunate one. These conditions will press very hard, indeed, on the beet growers who have to employ casual labour if they are not going to get any relief. I think if relief were given in reduced rates it would be an encouragement, at any rate, to people to continue in this industry which they may find it very difficult to do in the future. Although the amount of relief is small still every little helps. I think it would be fair if the Minister would consider six months for the casual labourer. I think that would be better than the suggestion that Senator Wilson made of totalling up the amount of wages paid. The wages vary in different districts. I think if the work of the casual labourer employed for six months is considered that would satisfy a great many people so far as they can be satisfied. Paying only for permanent employees is not fair. It is not fair to the tillage farmer who employs most labour.

Mr. Comyn

The method adopted in the Bill is at least fair to the labouring man. It is very undesirable that agricultural labour should be casual, and anything that tends to encourage farmers to employ their workers throughout the year is a desirable thing. For that reason I think the Seanad ought to be in favour of the proposals contained in the Bill, so far as they go, because they certainly tend to encourage people to keep their workmen all the year round. As regards what Senator Wilson suggested—that an account should be kept of the number of days' wages paid—the only exception I see to that is that it would be impossible to check the accounts. Senator Wilson, and all of us, are, I think, opposed to the multiplication of public servants for checking accounts. I think that objection is sufficient to dispose of this matter. Senator Miss Browne, I think, contended that the period ought to be reduced to six months. Well, what about the other six months? If you employ a man for six months, why not employ him for the twelve months? Take the question of pulling the beet in the harvest time. If you have men pulling the beet in the harvest time, you ought to have men sowing the beet in the spring time. So, I do not think there is so very much in that.

Miss Browne

May I explain——

Mr. Comyn

Oh, we know what Senator Miss Browne will explain very well. Of course, I agree that it is not much. I quite accept what Senator Wilson says—that it is only about £1 8s. 0d. in the year. It is not very much, but it is a beginning, and I think it is a very good idea to make an allowance in the rates in respect of employment given; because one of the greatest evils in this country at the present time is the fact that the agricultural labourer is not fully employed and is only a casual man instead of being, as he ought to be, a permanent man. And he would be a permanent man if farmers would arrange their industry in such a way as to see that employment is given all the year round.

There is another matter that I would like to mention, and that is that I would like to question the suggestion made by Senator Wilson to the effect that the farmer is the best judge of how the land of this country ought to be worked. Certainly, to a great extent, he is a very good judge; but I have seen farms worked in such a way that they gave the maximum profit to the man who rented them and the minimum employment to the people of the parish. That is a state of affairs that, I think, cannot be allowed to exist in its entirety. The population of this country, happily, is increasing, and we see now, as a result of the last four or five years, that the more employment that is given the more money goes round and the better it is for everybody concerned.

Colonel Moore

One of the principal points in this Bill is the encouragement of labour: that people who employ labour should be encouraged to do so as much as possible and as much as their farms will allow. Unfortunately, however, what suits one part of the country will not suit another part. For instance, in Munster, farms are run with a great deal of day-to-day labour, as far as I know, whereas in Connacht there is practically no such thing as a labourer who is not also a holder of land himself. The small farmer in the West works his own land and cannot, therefore, employ labour, because he is doing the work himself. It is very difficult to know how that is going to be managed. The systems are different in different parts of the country and what suits in one part of the country will not suit in another part. I dare say that a way out of the difficulty will be found, but we should look at it from that point of view and consider it.

Another matter which I should like to mention to the Minister is the question of the distribution that is being made this year, and perhaps next year, of the different quotas. There is a case, for instance, of which I am aware, in which the rates are £72 in the year. That is about the same as last year, taken as a whole, but the way it is divided is rather involved, in my opinion. It is divided in this way: the first quota is £36—that is, half of the total; the second quota is only £7, and the rest is made up by donations from the Government. The donation works out at £29 in that case. The effect of that is that almost the whole of the rates are paid in the first half-year and only a small proportion—£7 out of £72—paid in the second half-year. You may say that it is all the same in the end, but a man may not be able to pay £36 in one half-year very easily and only £7 in the other. It may not be convenient for him, and it seems to me that it should be distributed somewhat differently. No doubt, as I say, these matters will be worked out, but I am afraid that the question of labour will lead to a great many difficulties. Unless my information from the West is wrong, there will be a great many people who will pretend to employ labour and it will be very difficult for the authorities to keep an exact record of how much labour any particular farmer is using. How can it be done? The farmers, if they are human at all, will pretend to employ as much labour as possible while, in actual fact, using as little as they can. That, of course, will have to be worked out locally, and I have no doubt that it will be worked out, but it is a point that is worth considering.

Mr. Blythe

Senator Colonel Moore has raised an important point, and that is, the question of the administration of this new scheme. The Minister referred to the delay in bringing in the Bill, and he also referred to the difficulties experienced in working it out. He did not give us any details of the difficulties that had been met with, but it seems to me that they would be pretty considerable and that a considerable amount of office work is going to be entailed by this new system if it is to be worked in such a way as to make it reasonably satisfactory and not to lead to well-founded complaints of mishandling of one sort or another. From that point of view, it is questionable whether it is worth having this new system at all, because, while somebody has said that it gives encouragement to the employment of labour, I do not think that that is so. In the case of a man who employs labour as compared with the man who gets a supplementary grant, it will not lead to increased employment of labour. In fact, at the present rate it is like giving a medal to a man who employs labour, but it will not lead to a change in his economy. It will not lead to his growing one crop instead of another or keeping live stock or anything of that nature. It is purely a gesture on the present basis, and whether it is worth making that gesture at the cost of the difficulties and the extra administrative expense that is going to be involved is exceedingly doubtful. Even if you had no supplementary grant and if the whole amount, after the primary grant on the present basis, were given by way of employment grant, it is doubtful whether it would lead to any extra employment or to any additional rewards in the way of wages to the agricultural labourer or that it would be doing anything more than the mere making of a gesture.

I should like to ask the Minister, arising out of one of his remarks, whether he has information that the slowness in collecting rates up to the present this year—whether the failure to get in any substantial proportion of the rates up to the present or quite recently—was due to the introduction of this new system, or whether this new system was only partly responsible, and whether or not the delay was due to the fact that there was a heavy overhang from last year, and to increasing difficulties in getting payment. The Minister says that it is a temporary Bill. Does he anticipate that the relief that is given under this Bill will prove sufficient to make the system work next year and the year after if the handicaps under which the farmers are labouring have not been removed? The information I have is that it is quite right to have this Bill a temporary Bill because, if the whole system of finance is not to break down, there will have to be very much more substantial grants given than are given under this Bill, at any rate as long as the present conditions continue.

Mr. Toal

I would like to know from the Minister if it is expected that this Bill will continue next year. I may say that it is very confusing to county councils; they do not know where they stand. Last year, owing to the confusion, the rate books were not got out at an advanced period of the year. There was a great deal of confusion, with the result that additional hands had to be employed. It would be very desirable to let the county councils know if this Bill is likely to continue next year. Perhaps if the Minister considered this matter from another angle he might be able to attain his object in a much better way. A number of county councils have considered for a long time the advisability of making an extra allowance in the rates in respect of the amount of tillage done by each farmer. I think that would be one way of getting increased tillage and increased employment. It would be a much fairer way than the method proposed in this Bill.

I am sure it is very well known to the officials of the Department that there is a great deal of fraud and misrepresentation attempted on the county councils and the Local Government Department. Farmers who may not be in a position to employ a labourer the whole year round are in a difficulty. Anyone connected with the farming industry knows that there are periods of the year when additional hands have to be employed. That would apply both in the springtime, and the harvest-time particularly. No allowance is made for that and it is very hard on the farmers. I think that this Bill requires very serious consideration. I hold that if a subsidy were given to each farmer in respect of the amount of tillage he carries out, the Government will achieve their object more rapidly; they will have increased tillage and it will be much fairer to the agricultural labourer.

Mr. Dillon

The presentation of such a Bill as this seems to imply that this sort of procedure will become a permanent feature of our national life. We have nothing to maintain the agricultural industry except the system of grants and bounties and so on. These are all very well and are very acceptable to farmers in their present condition, but it is rather disturbing to have to subsidise so many foodstuffs so as to keep the farmer in production. For instance, we have sugar subsidised at an enormous sum; we are going to have flour subsidised by the consumer, and so on. I think we may accept it that these grants, subsidies and doles have become a permanent feature of our national life.

The Government are the cause of all this and I think their policy is altogether wrong, and is leading us to a very dangerous position. The policy of the Government with regard to protection, industrial revival and so on, and their policy with regard to the annuities have brought agricultural values, whether in respect of agricultural produce or live stock, down to the very lowest plane. Indeed, agricultural values are so low that it is doubtful if the farmers can much longer continue in production. I think it is time that the Government set about putting their house in order. Instead of increasing taxation at the rate of £3,000,000 a year they should endeavour to reduce it by £3,000,000 a year.

No matter what may be said about necessary public services, I think the time has come when we must cut our cloth according to our measure. The time has come when those engaged in services outside of agriculture will have to reconsider their position with regard to standards of income and standards of living. We have reached the stage when there are the lowest prices for everything the farmer has to sell and increased prices for everything he has to buy. There are many people in the country who will have to reconsider their position and I feel sure that they must arrive at the conclusion that the farmers cannot carry on under present conditions, and the whole national economy will have to be reviewed and put on a different plane. If such a step is not taken we will simply have all these grants and doles continued and nobody knows where that will lead to.

There is one point in regard to this proposal that is rather deceitful, to say the least of it. It was mentioned some time ago by the Minister, or someone on his behalf, that in order to make up the grants given to the farmers now the bounties would be either reduced or withdrawn. In the case of younger cattle the bounties have been withdrawn and in regard to older cattle they have been reduced. The fact is that in this respect the Government are offering no relief at all. They are merely taking money from one pocket and putting it into the other. That is not playing fair with the agricultural producer. The wealth of the State is dependent on the agricultural producer. When the Government took office they offered an increase in the grant, but in the following year they reduced the grant in spite of the very acute conditions for which they were responsible. They reduced the grant by £448,000. Now they are offering £220,000 by way of relief. They are playing fast and loose with the farmers.

In connection with this particular grant the Minister in the other House threatened the larger farmers, differentiated against them. That is not justified because I think the larger farmers are an absolutely necessary link in agricultural production. They are necessary to the smaller farmers and are necessary to the State on account of their output. It comes very badly from the Minister or anyone else to hold out this type of differentiation against the larger farmers, who are a necessary link in the national economy and in the national production. The larger farmers have no share in the Government grants. They receive no local benefits for improvements in live stock; they receive no bounties and they receive nothing towards the education of their families. I suggest that the Government should put their house in order. They should decide that those outside agricultural life must come down to the standard on which the farmers have to live, otherwise we will very soon arrive at the day, if we have not already arrived at it, when the farmers will be little better than bond slaves to the other half of the nation.

Mr. Boland

The last Senator said he believed that these grants will become a feature of the national life. Surely, he knows that for the last 40 years this agricultural grant has been given. Half the rates were actually relieved in 1898, and at the same time about 60 per cent——

Mr. Dillon

The 1898 grant was meant to pay off the landlord's portion of the county rate. It was not meant in any sense as a relief to farmers.

Mr. Boland

The Senator can put it that way if he likes, but at any rate since the Free State was established the money given in this way has gone to the relief of rates. I might also remind the Senator that a rather large burden was taken off the ratepayers by the Unemployment Assistance Act which the Government introduced and passed last year. Under that Act, the Government certainly gave considerable relief to the rates, though the Senator seems to have forgotten all about that. Senator Toal asked if this Bill would be continued next year. It is hoped that it will. It is hoped, too, to introduce it at an earlier stage and that the difficulties in the way of doing that will not be as great as they were in the case of this measure. The Senator thought that the amount of relief given to a farmer under this Bill should be measured by the amount of tillage he did rather than by the amount of employment he gave. To carry out the Senator's suggestion would involve administrative difficulties of a very grave kind. In fact, I do not think it would be possible to get over them. It would be almost impossible to check the amount of tillage done on each farm. It is far easier and more satisfactory, I think, to check the amount of employment given.

Mr. Toal

Does not the Government get a return each year of the amount of tillage done, and is not that information compiled by the members of the Gárda Síochána?

Mr. Boland

That is so, but nevertheless we feel that the method outlined in the Bill is the better one. We think that it will give more satisfactory results. It would be almost impossible to carry out this if the relief were to be afforded on a tillage basis. The number of people permanently employed on the farm is, I think, the more satisfactory basis to go on. Senator Blythe spoke of the administrative difficulties and asked whether the system was worth while. He said this was only a gesture on the part of the Government. As a matter of fact, the Minister for Local Government said that himself on the Second Reading of the Bill in the Dáil, and expressed the opinion that in future years he hoped to make it something more than a gesture: something that would be progressively attractive to farmers to encourage them to keep people in permanent employment. It is the opinion of the Government that, as time goes on, this measure will prove an inducement to farmers to do that. The Senator also asked if the failure to get in the rates was due to the introduction of this system. It is largely due to that in some counties while in others it had not that effect at all. Some difficulty arose in the way of getting farmers to put in their claims promptly. We have not succeeded in getting them to do that as quickly as we would like.

Senator Colonel Moore raised a question as regards the amount of employment given in Connacht and in Munster. As the Senator is aware, the majority of the farmers in Connacht are small farmers. They would come under the £20 valuation and would get the primary allowance. It is only those whose valuations are over £20 who can get the employment grant.

There was another point made about the demand for rates. That is a matter for the local councils. In Mayo they did not make any allowance for the relief of the agricultural grant in the first moiety, but gave it all in the second moiety. That is really a local matter, and I am sure could be easily adjusted. The Minister, I think, intends to ask the various counties to make the allowances in the two moieties. Senator Miss Browne and Senator Wilson referred to the question of casual employment. They seemed to consider that farmers who give employment for six or nine months should get the benefits of this measure. The intention is to encourage the giving of permanent employment, and not to give any extra allowance for casual labour. However, that is a matter that can be discussed when the new Bill is introduced, but I think the Minister would be inclined to stick to his idea of getting people kept in permanent employment and of giving relief on that basis.

So far as this Bill is concerned it would be impossible at this stage to make any radical change in it because, as Senators know, its provisions have already been given effect to. The only apology that I can offer to Senator Wilson for bringing it forward in this way is that in doing so I am following precedent. In the years 1925 and 1931, the course that I am following now was pursued by the previous Government which probably found itself in the same difficulty. I admit that it would be desirable, if possible, not to have to delay so long in bringing in the Bill. As Senator Wilson said, what this procedure amounts to is this: doing illegalities and legalising them afterwards by a Bill of this kind. All that I can say on that is that it is a practice that has grown up, and I agree that we should try and get rid of it as quickly as possible.

Senator Counihan raised a matter which I do not think can be considered on a Bill of this kind at all. This Bill only deals with the relief of rates. The Senator wants us to consider giving relief to people who are not paying annuities but who may be paying bank interest on money they have raised to buy their farms. That is a question that could not be considered on this Bill, which is purely and simply a relief of rates Bill.

Mr. Counihan

Would not that be relief of rates?

Mr. Boland

It would be relief in connection with the making of certain payments, but not of rates. I am sure the Senator will admit that. If the Senator's suggestion were to be acted upon it would mean that people should be given help to enable them to pay off bank debts or something of that sort. I fail to see what connection they have with a relief of rates Bill. The Senator himself knows quite well, I am sure, that such a thing could not be done.

Mr. Counihan

Why not a relief of rates on land that is fee simple?

Mr. Boland

The relief which this Bill provides applies to fee simple land as well as to other land. The people who hold their land in fee simple have to pay no rent, and as regards the others, they are only paying half what they paid formerly. The Bill, as I have said, is simply to legalise what has been done, and in introducing the measure in this way we are simply following precedent.

Question put and agreed to.