Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) (No. 2) Bill, 1935—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

Six months ago the Seanad passed a temporary Bill dealing with the relief from rates to be given in the financial year that closed on 31st March last to occupiers of agricultural land. The present Bill reproduces for the most part that measure and deals with the grant for the current year.

There are, however, points of difference between the Bill now before the Seanad and last year's measure; but before referring to these it will perhaps be useful to recall the scheme that has been in operation. Last year every occupier of agricultural land not exceeding £20 in valuation got an abatement at the same rate as was given in the financial year 1933-34 to occupiers of land not exceeding £10 valuation. Relief at an equal rate was given on the first £20 valuation of larger holdings. This relief was called the primary allowance. Occupiers of land not exceeding £20 in valuation got the primary allowance and nothing more. Larger occupiers got, in addition to the primary allowance, an employment allowance or a supplementary allowance or both.

The employment allowance was given where one or more men were at work on the holding and the occupier made a claim. For each man employed an abatement was given at the primary allowance rate on £12 10s. if the occupier had so much additional valuation.

After the primary and employment allowances were paid there was a balance of the grant in every county which went to the relief of the part of the valuation above £20 in respect of which an employment allowance was not granted. This balance was applied by way of supplementary allowance at an equal rate over the remaining valuation. The supplementary rate of relief was everywhere below the primary allowance rate.

The present Bill makes similar arrangements with necessary changes for the current year. The period during which a man must be employed was, last year, the nine months that ended on 31st December, 1933. This year it is the whole of the year 1934. It might, perhaps, make the scheme clearer if I take a particular case and show how the relief is calculated. An occupier of a farm of which the land is valued at £50 has a relative and one paid man regularly at work. On the first £20 of the valuation he would get the primary rate of relief which differs in every county and is about 6/4 in the £ on the average. He would get relief at the primary rate on an additional £12 10s. for his relative and also on £12 10s. for his labourer. That means that he would get the maximum rate of relief on £45 altogether. On the remaining £5 valuation he would get relief at the supplementary allowance rate which this year will approximate in the average case to about half of the primary rate.

Now I come to the points of difference between this year's Bill and last year's. The main difference is in the amount of the grant. Last year the grant was £1,970,000, this year it will be £1,870,000, or £100,000 less. I may say here that the sum of £370,000, which is mentioned in Section 4, is the amount that must be added to the sums provided under the Acts of 1898, 1925 and 1931, to make up the full grant. The reduction this year will not affect the majority of occupiers as it will come out of the money available for the supplementary allowance. Approximately £400,000 was the cost of the supplementary allowances last year. The share of each county has been reduced by one quarter the cost of these allowances and the effect of this will normally be to reduce the supplementary allowance rate by one quarter. In connection with this reduction I may mention that it was never intended to maintain the supplementary allowance rate at last year's figure and when speaking in the Dáil on last year's Bill I thought it advisable to give warning that, where employment commensurate with the valuation of the holding was not afforded, occupiers should not expect to get relief in future years at the same rate as in the initial year.

The other changes are of less importance. It is left to each county council to decide whether they will give part of the abatement by means of the issue of credit notes or not. The part that can be given in this way approximates to about 2/- in the £ on the specified valuation, which means that ordinarily the credit note will amount to £1 approximately on each moiety if the valuation is £20 or over and proportionately less for lower valuations. The credit notes expire on 31st October and 31st March, but the council is given power, if they use credit notes, to extend the time in which the first moiety note can be tendered and accepted by three months and, in the case of the second, by one month. The purpose of the credit note is to offer an inducement to early payment and penalise delay. If the period in which it can be availed of is extended too far the credit note does not fulfil any purpose. Last year credit notes were in some counties issued for very large amounts and for that reason I have not refused consent to any council that wished to extend the period in which they could be realised. This year the amounts are strictly limited in amount and I think there should be some definite time within which they should be realised if they are to be of any use.

Urban districts that are entitled to participate in the grant will be treated in the same manner as last year, that is, they will get from county councils the same as they got in 1933 and, in addition, whatever is necessary to bring the rate of relief in the district, on the first £20, up to the primary rate of relief in the county. There are 22 of these urban districts, all of which have been created or extended since the Act of 1898 was passed and are for that reason getting a share of the grant.

If the share going to a county is reduced to a sum below the amount of the grant fixed in the Bill, as has happened owing to the operation of the Guarantee Fund, the shares of the urban districts in the county will be proportionately reduced.

The Bill is a temporary measure applying only to the present year. When it will be possible to bring forward a permanent measure I cannot say, though I am not without hope that the next Bill will cover more than a single year. For six years in succession the grant has varied, some years upwards and some downwards, and I am afraid it cannot be assumed it has yet settled at a fixed figure.

Mr. Counihan

I have not much to say in the way of criticism of this Bill. While I do not understand all its ramifications, I understand that our rates will be increased by something like 20 per cent. this year, and that the Government has reduced the Agricultural Grant by £100,000. When the last Government was in office a supplementary grant of £750,000 was given for the relief of farmers. The members of the present Government were then in Opposition and they denounced the Government of that day for the niggardly manner in which they were treating farmers. They proposed that the amount should be at least £1,000,000, but it was not carried. The present Government came into office the next year and they granted £1,000,000 for that year but cut it down the two following years. The grant was increased last year, but with this year's reduction the total amount is £300,000 less than it was when the last Government was denounced for being so niggardly. That is one thing which the Minister should explain. Are farmers in a better position now than they were in 1931, when the then Opposition said that at least £1,000,000 should be granted for the relief of farmers? The Government is making great bones about the allowance that is being given to farmers who give employment. The amount is not very much, and does not represent more than one week's wages of an agricultural labourer.

My principal reason in intervening now is to try to induce the Minister to agree to accept an amendment of the Bill on the next Stage, which would grant some relief to farmers who hold land in fee simple. One of the main objects of the 1933 Land Act was to give relief to farmers, by reducing the annuities by 50 per cent. At that time I pointed out that many farmers who hold in fee simple were suffering from the depression, and were in the same bad position as farmers who pay annuities, but I was not successful in having the Act amended. I had some discussion with the Minister for Local Government on the question, and this is an opportune time for introducing an amendment to deal with that position. During the Great War years and previously, some farmers who had saved money went to the Land Commission and purchased the fee simple of their holdings. Some of them borrowed money from the banks and are paying interest which is larger than the amount of annuities that ordinary tenants have to pay to the Land Commission. Under previous Land Acts farmers could only borrow from banks ten times the value of the annuity. That was all that the banks were allowed to advance on the security of the land. Where farmers wanted large advances they bought the fee simple of their holdings, and the banks were then in a position to hold the land as security for repayment of their money. As a result, many landholders are paying more in interest than is being paid by other farmers as annuities to the Land Commission. Farmers who bought in fee simple have suffered just as much as farmers who are paying annuities, and in justice and in equity they should get some relief, especially as the annuities have been reduced to half the original amount. The number of farmers that would be affected by the amendment that I suggest would not be very great and there would be no loss to the Government. As a matter of justice and fair play the case of these men should be considered, and on the Committee Stage I intend to move an amendment to that effect.

Mr. Dillon

There are outstanding features of this Bill that it might be no harm to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister. The first is that the amount of the grant is £100,000 less than it was last year, and that, compared with the financial year 1931-32, it is about £78,000 less. It must be borne in mind that last year's warrant was £775,000 greater than the warrant for 1931-32 and that. in addition, £718,000 were retained on account of unpaid annuities. Consequently, the burden on the ratepayers under the régime of this Government is much heavier than in 1931-32. The Government must bear a good deal of the responsibility, because they have imposed a lot of rates through statutory legislation which falls on the local authorities. In addition, it must be borne in mind that there has been a complete reversal of policy. At one time the policy of this Government was derating. We were told that the land annuities when retained would be used for the purpose of giving complete derating. I suggest that there was never more necessity for derating than now, in order to give some relief from the great charges that have been imposed on ratepayers since 1931-32. We were told that the section of one Land Act dealing with employment allowance aimed at giving increased employment. Between 1932 and 1934 the increased employment of farm labourers affected only 1,600 persons. I submit that the tremendous financial burdens that have been imposed on farmers are not at all commensurate with the number of labourers that have been employed, having regard to the fact that the sons and daughters of farmers are ineffectively employed; in other words, are looking at each other on farms where they are trying to subsist. The Government should try to reverse the present policy. This Bill is totally unacceptable. It should also be mentioned that the arrears of rates last year amounted to £1,000,000 owing to the distress amongst necessitous farmers. The responsibility for that state of affairs must be borne largely by the Government, because they introduced measures during the last few years that made it impossible for farmers to earn what would pay the rates. Now, the grant given by the Government has been reduced by £100,000, while the rates warrant is £750,000 more than what it was. The troubles that farmers have to contend with in the way of selling their produce, and paying their way, are due to the inflated charges that they have to meet, because this Government did not take the opportunity to revise these charges, though the market that made it economic to carry on has been destroyed.

In his opening remarks the Minister stated that that provision was only temporary and that in the course of time it would be withdrawn. Farmers who would be entitled to an allowance under this Bill are the largest employers of labour. The people in the greatest need are those who employ agricultural labourers, men and women, who receive no reward from the State. There are no people in greater distress than those who were in receipt of that supplementary allowance, as they employed agricultural labourers. I think conditions have made it impossible and intolerable for farmers to carry on. Things that are intolerable will have to be resisted. It is possible to expect that people will resist. That is my honest view of people who are trying to carry on and to secure what will rear their families. It is quite natural for them to resist when they find it impossible to carry on and when the Government has taken all means of carrying on a livelihood from them.

Mr. Blythe

I think that it is undesirable that it should be necessary to have a Bill every year fixing the amount of the Agricultural Grant because that makes it very easy for the Government to reduce the amount of the grant. If we had permanent legislation fixing a particular sum and the Government had to introduce a Bill to reduce the amount, the reduction would not be so readily effected. As matters are, we have a reduction of £100,000 this year. I did not read the debates in the Dáil carefully but, in the Minister's statement here, no justification of the reduction was offered. The £100,000 is simply cut off from the farmers, as it were, by the stroke of a pen. If the Minister speaks again, I should be interested to hear his justification of the reduction of the grant this year. The Minister told us that the reduction comes chiefly off the Supplementary Grant. He is quite correct in saying that he indicated previously that the intention was that the Supplementary Grant should be gradually reduced. If the Supplementary Grant is to be reduced, there is no reason why the Minister should not make provision for some increase in the primary grant by whatever method is thought best or why he should not make some increase in the Employment Grant. It has been already admitted in this House on behalf of the Government—the matter was referred to again to-day—that the amount of the Employment Grant is so small that, at best, it is only a gesture. It can have no effect, while it is at its present level, in inducing any farmer to give employment. I cannot imagine that the amount available for any farmer who is wavering between giving employment and not giving employment would induce him to take on an extra man. When I referred to this matter before, the Minister admitted that the grant was only a gesture. He indicated that, as time went on, the intention of the Government was to make it more than a gesture. If there is any reason for it at all, it ought not to be continued as a gesture. While a gesture may produce certain reactions when first made, if it continues to be little more than a gesture, it is not going to have any effect. If the Minister felt that it was necessary, in pursuance of his policy, that the Supplementary Grant should be reduced, the proper course to take would have been to transfer the £100,000 to the Employment Grant so as to make it at least a trifle more substantial than it is. The Minister indicated to-day that this was not the last of these Bills—that the amount of the Agricultural Grant had not settled down at permanent level. I am afraid that that can only be taken as an indication that it is intended to make further reductions in the amount provided for the relief of rates on agricultural land. Nothing in the position of agriculture of which one hears would indicate that it is fair or reasonable to reduce the Agricultural Grant at the present time.

The Minister referred briefly to the draws on the Guarantee Fund. Even if we assume that the necessity for draws on the Guarantee Fund arises through the fault of farmers who do not pay when they could pay without difficulty, even if we assume that their not paying is an anti-social act, the fact remains that when a draw takes place on the Guarantee Fund the farmer who has paid has his rates increased because of the reduction of the amount that comes to the councils. Seeing that the draw was so big last year and that the indications are that it will be big this year, it seems to be specially hard for the Minister to reduce the total of the Agricultural Grant and, therefore, add something to the increase that is being put on the rates of those farmers who have managed to pay their land annuities and who are suffering because others have not managed to pay. I hope the Minister will alter his view on the question of permanency. I think that it is very bad for the councils and for everybody concerned that there should be uncertainty as to the amount of the Agricultural Grant. Agriculture, in the general opinion, is an industry in which rapid changes cannot be made —an industry in which there is a certain element of stability and permanence. I think that there ought to be stability in the amount of the Agricultural Grant. Whatever amount the Government is prepared to give should be set out in a permanent Bill, so that councils would know what they would receive.

Mr. Baxter

There is very great disappointment at the decision of the Minister to reduce the grant for the relief of rates on agricultural land by £100,000 as compared with the grant for last year. Senator Blythe has put the Minister a very direct question and we should like to know the Minister's justification for this reduction which, we feel, is unjust. If the position be that the money cannot be made available or is not forthcoming from another Ministry, that is an answer, but we will not accept it as a justification for this decision. In other years, in discussing the problem of rates on agricultural land, it used to be urged that the rates levied on the farmer and the services for which he was called upon to pay should be considered from the point of view as to whether these services were local or national—whether or not they were of value to him as an occupier of land. I am afraid we are getting very far, indeed, from the considerations which were in the minds of people some years ago. When we recollect that members of the Ministry urged very strongly at that period that a policy of complete derating ought to be pursued in connection with agriculture, it is little wonder that our farmers to-day are disappointed and very pessimistic as to the future. The treatment they are being given is very far from what they anticipated it would be. The Minister will, no doubt, take credit for the fact that local services in every county are being developed. Nobody will find fault with a policy which will bring the requisite amenities to towns and rural districts to make life more tolerable. But when one considers the conditions in rural Ireland to-day, when one remembers that a great many of the Minister's new schemes can only be put into operation in towns and villages by imposing additional rates on the occupiers of agricultural land up to a point beyond the capacity of these people to pay, one is inclined to question the wisdom and the justice of the policy being pursued by the Minister, however valuable in its ultimate effect that policy may be. In every county we have all sorts of new schemes — housing schemes, water schemes, sanitation schemes, and so on. They are all admirable in their results. While they are being carried out they are giving much-needed employment. To a degree they are creating a position where we have that sort of inflation that gives the appearance of prosperity, but which in reality is not justified, because it is not lasting. All that is only being done, and can only be done, by imposing to-day and to-morrow and in the future additional burdens on the dwellers on agricultural land beyond what they have been accustomed to carry in the past; burdens greater than those carried by them in the days before the present Minister occupied his position in Local Government. In those days the Minister believed, with his colleagues, that the farmers' rates were too high.

The Minister will not challenge the truth of my statement that all his new schemes can be made operative only by raising the rates on agricultural land, so that land will make its contribution towards the fund that is created under the Minister's legislation to carry out those new schemes. The farmer is supposed to be really the most conservative individual in the whole community. There may be justification for making such an allegation against him. But we have to remember the conditions under which farmers have to try to live. The farmer feels bound to throw up his defences. He finds a great mass of opinion always ready to attack him; to pass the burdens on to him where they can be passed on from the other sections of the community. He is standing with his back to the wall and cannot pass them on to anyone else. It is reasonable that the farmer should, as a whole, be a rather conservative type of individual. He may have opposed in the past policies that might have made for better conditions in our towns and in the country generally. But he did so, we believe, because he felt that most of the paying was going to be done by him and he could not see that he was going to get any great value from these new services that were being created.

The Minister's net contribution to the carrying out of his new policy this year is to withhold from the farmers £100,000 which he gave to them last year. That is not an incentive to the representatives of the farmers to come forward with new schemes in their counties. In the present circumstances, to withhold £100,000 from agriculture is not helping it along through its difficulties, and is unjustifiable. Ministers generally admit that the farmers are passing through a most difficult period. They are urging, when they get the opportunity to speak to the public, that the farmers need help and co-operation from other sections of the community, if they are to be helped through their difficulties and put on to firmer ground. The Minister's contribution is not the way to give that help. I think it is admitted, whatever may be happening here and there, that as far as local services are concerned, and as far as the farmer is concerned in making his contribution through his rates, he is doing it like a man. He is doing his best in every county to pay his rates. Goodness only knows the difficulties that many of our farmers are encountering to-day in finding the money for the rate collector when he comes along. Notwithstanding all that, there are very considerable arrears of rates accumulating in the country generally. These arrears are being carried forward from one year to another. I do not know the figure at which they stand at present, but I presume the Minister will be able to let us have the figure.

In addition to these arrears, which have to be met some time, and which to-day are being met in one way or another by overdrafts from the banks at not very low rates of interest, there are other arrears accumulating in the matter of land annuities. The Minister has repeated that it is the policy, where land annuities are not being paid, that moneys from the Guarantee Fund will not be available in the shape of grants for the relief of rates on agricultural land. If there ever was a case, if there ever was justification for an examination of the position, there is justification on the statement which the Minister made. If it is to be the continued policy of the Government to withhold these moneys and not pass them on to the county councils in the shape of relief of rates on agricultural land, the Minister and the Executive Council ought to be satisfied that the arrears are accumulating and the moneys not being paid into the land annuities fund because men cannot pay them and will not pay them.

I suggest seriously to the Minister that the arrears of land annuities are creating a problem for all of us, for himself as Minister for Local Government and for the Executive Council generally, that it would be well for the country to have tackled and examined at once. If the present position continues, the Guarantee Fund is going to be in such a position that very little money will be available from it towards the relief of rates. If, on the other hand, the payment of rates in the counties is becoming increasingly difficult, by what means are our local services going to be maintained?

It is my view that the land annuities fund is in the position in which it is to-day because of the difficulties through which our farmers are passing and in spite of which they are trying to exist. These difficulties are not going to be overcome either by ignoring them or by suggesting that the farmers are creating them for themselves. The Minister's policy of withholding the grants, which local ratepayers believe ought to be paid to the county councils, is not a wise policy. We believe that the Minister ought to alter the law by introducing into this Bill a section which would change the present position which makes it possible to withhold from the county councils the grants which they believe are due to them merely because the farmers in these counties find themselves unable to pay their land annuities. The position is that the farmers are unable to pay and, because they are unable to pay, the Minister decides that the local ratepayers must be taxed more highly to find the balance which the Minister ought to supply.

The Minister ought to amend the law or if he is not prepared to amend the law he ought to examine the position, and he ought to satisfy himself whether on grounds of equity his policy is justified. Many of us believe, honestly and genuinely, that if there was the type of investigation which we believe could be carried out, there are facts to prove that the situation is so serious that, in this respect particularly, the Minister's policy should be altered. We believe that if the facts were brought home, as they would be brought home, to the Executive Council by an impartial investigation, the Executive Council would decide that their policy should be altered. The Minister can do either of two things in this Bill. He can amend the Bill or he can alter the present position by altering the law. If that be not done, little wonder that the farmers of the country will feel that they are not getting a square deal. You cannot make any man feel that he is getting a square deal if you call on him to pay charges that are ever growing higher while at the same time he finds himself in the position that the price of the commodities he has to sell is ever getting lower.

Mr. Wilson

The reduction of £100,000 in this grant is one which the Government ought to explain. As the Seanad knows the term "Agricultural Grant" is a misnomer. It is not a grant at all. It is simply a payment from the Exchequer to meet the debit which is placed on the farmer to pay for services which he does not receive. The cost of these services is debited to the farmer in his rates and the sum of money which is called a grant is the amount which the Government has to pay for the services, the cost of which as I say is debited to the farmer although he receives no benefit from them. I was a little bit surprised by the remarks which Senator Blythe addressed to the Minister regarding this grant, especially when he asked the Minister why legislation was not introduced to make this grant a special fixed sum yearly. Senator Blythe was just as big an obstacle in the farmers' eyes to the payment of these agricultural grants as the present Minister for Finance, and although the farmers had a period of prosperity under his régime, we were always under the impression that the rights of the case were that farms should be derated on the merits and on the equities. That proposal, however, was turned down, and I am surprised that Senator Blythe should ask the Minister why this amount is not made a fixed amount by legislation so that we should not have these variations from year to year, because he was ten years at the job and he did not finish it.

I should like to ask the Minister how we stand this year in respect of the amounts which were deducted from the grant last year because of the nonpayment of annuities which have since been collected and paid into the fund. I should like to know whether any credit has been allowed for these amounts and how they balance with the amounts deducted this year owing to the short payment of annuities. As between the two sums, do we gain anything this year? Has there been a greater sum collected than has been cut off? If we stand fairly level I will be satisfied. I must say that in these times it is very difficult for the farmers to pay up for their neighbours' delinquencies, especially since Ministers themselves preach the doctrine to everybody: "Oh, the farmers are in a depressed condition; help them along and give them a good price for their commodities." Yet the Minister in this Bill docks our allowance by £100,000. I call that lip sympathy or deceptive publicity, if you like, but it is very bad for the farmer. Just imagine our position. The returns from everything we have to sell are only 80 per cent. of pre-war prices. That means that we are only getting 16/- in the £ on pre-war prices while our expenses have increased enormously. The official cost-of-living figure is returned at 154, showing an increase of 50 per cent. over pre-war, but we know that many items of the farmers' outlay have increased considerably more. Wages, for instance, are 100 per cent. over the pre-war figure. How the Ministry should consider that the farming community can exist under conditions of that sort while they dock £100,000 off the Agricultural Grant, puzzles me.

I have said that the farmers are getting only 80 per cent. of the pre-war price for their produce. Everybody knows that the money realised from the sale of cattle represented the largest share of the farmers' income. The stipulated price for cattle, which we never get, is now supposed to be 22/- per cwt. You may take it that the actual price is about 18/-. Contrast that price with the price of 32/- or 33/- per cwt. pre-war. That shows a bigger reduction than 20 per cent. on pre-war prices. Conditions such as that are shaking the financial institutions of the State and unless they are remedied we shall have to face some very hard times. We farmers, who are determined to carry on as best we can, are up against a very bad position and I am sorry that the Minister should be so ignorant of the true condition of things as to reduce this year's Agricultural Grant by £100,000.

Mr. Honan

I have no desire to minimise the conditions under which the farmers have to live, but I think they seem to be a little bit selfish. The farmers are not the entire community. They are really the producers of the raw material which has to be handled by other members of the community before it becomes the finished article. In my opinion, there is a big section of the community who have much greater grievances to bear than the farmers have. I am not at all insensible to the difficulties attached to existence on the land at the present time, but, as against these difficulties, the farmers have got many concessions in recent years. The land annuities have been halved and they are getting bounties and subsidies on almost every crop that they grow. There is a very big section of the community living in the towns and villages of the country who have not got any concessions at all. It is a natural thing to assume that, as the farmers have got all the land of the country in their possession, they are the producers of the entire wealth of the country. If they are, and if the return from the produce which they have to sell has decreased by 40 or 50 per cent., it is also quite reasonable to assume that the income of town dwellers who have to live on the farmers, has decreased proportionately. But how are these town dwellers treated? Have their rents been halved? Certainly not. Their rates have been increased, their income tax has grown enormously, and the property tax, as calculated on the valuation of their houses, has been increased by 25 per cent. this year. In every way the town dweller has got the worst end of the bargain and he has to pay more than his share towards the bounties and subsidies which have been granted to the farmers.

I should like to see the farmers in a prosperous condition but, while the present difficulties, due to world depression, last, let us try to bear them equally. Let us not have all the complaints from one side because there is another big section of the community that is suffering even more. I would advise the farmers to do the best they can, like all other sections of the community until better times arrive. It is a most depressing thing to sit here and listen to the same old statements and the same old speeches about the farmers' sufferings while there are others suffering equally, who say nothing but carry on to the best of their ability under grave difficulties, grave restrictions and at great loss to their families. Still, they are willing to bear the burden while the fight is being pursued, not on behalf of one section, but on behalf of the community as a whole.

Miss Browne

I only wish to say a very few words, but I think we have listened to a typical Fianna Fáil speech just now and, for one thing, I want to deny, as I think we ought to deny every time we hear this falsehood, that the farmers have been allowed off half their annuities, when, as a matter of fact, they have paid their annuities three times. We have heard an extraordinary statements to the effect that the people in the towns are bearing a share of this burden. If they are, it is only by way of a reflection from what the farmers are suffering and passing it on to them. Everybody knows that the towns in the country depend entirely on the prosperity of the farmers in the surrounding districts for their own prosperity. I deny that the towns are paying more than the farmers themselves for the subsidies and so on—a very small portion of which is reaching the farmers. In any case, these subsidies are not worth mentioning when you think of the great losses that have been brought about directly by the Government policy. This question has been very fully threshed out by other Senators, and so I do not wish to say more, but I simply want to deny the allegation that the farmers are being relieved in any way by these subsidies, and so on. They are very small, in any case, and some of them do not even reach the farmer.

Mr. Quirke

If Senator Honan is rightly accused of making a typical Fianna Fáil speech, I feel sure that no such accusation can be levelled against me. We have heard this old tale about the land annuities having been paid three or four times from practically every speaker to-day, and we have heard it on many other occasions during the last few years. In that connection, I do not mind repeating what I said last week which was to the effect that, while I have sympathy with people who are genuinely distressed, I have no sympathy at all with the type of people who refuse to pay and who are jumping on their hind legs to pay the sheriff. Senator Honan seems to have absorbed a lot of this talk that has been handed out by members of the Opposition, and I am inclined to think that the Senator believes that these people are representative of the farming community of this country. They are not representative of the farming community of the country. As we go along, it is daily becoming more and more evident that there are two sections of farmers in the country, and that the two sections, while they may not be definitely opposed politically to one another, are represented in this House by people who are definitely opposed to one another politically.

This question of full derating on agricultural land has been thrown up to us here to-day as seemingly the last line trenches of the United Ireland Party. Now, that Party, at their recent Ard-Fheis, I understand, discussed this question of full derating and, so far as I am aware, they were not able to get a majority on the question of full derating of agricultural land. I dare say that they, as well as we, have gone thoroughly into this question of the full derating of agricultural land; but, in any case, it is pretty evident to anybody who has carefully examined this question that a policy of full derating, while it would definitely benefit one section of the farming community, would just as definitely injure another section of the farming community. Fully 75 per cent. of the holdings in the entire Free State are under £15 valuation, and every one of these holdings under £15 valuation would lose by a system of full derating of agricultural land. That class includes everybody from the cottier to the man with a few acres, and on up through the holdings of larger valuation until you come to the man with a holding of £15 valuation. The man with the holding of £15 valuation would probably work out about even, and the fellow with a valuation of over £15 would gain, in proportion to the size of his holding, by a system of full derating. It is quite evident that Senator Dillon was referring to that, and the same applies to the other speakers who have dealt to-day with this question of the full derating of agricultural land.

I agree that the members of the Opposition were a little bit shortsighted and that Senator Wilson and Senator Blythe should have foreseen this position, and that they should have taken the necessary steps to see that Fianna Fáil would not be handed a stick with which to beat the Opposition. However, they handed that and other sticks to Fianna Fáil and, apparently, they do not like an occasional little tip of the stick which is now in the hands of the Fianna Fáil Government. It is possible that if they had full derating of agricultural land they might be a little more successful in the campaign for non-payment of the annuities. They might be able to get on in that way, but the farmers, in a great number of cases, have realised by now that they have been ruined by this policy of non-payment of annuities. They realise now that that campaign is going to react on themselves, and that if they do not pay their annuities their default will have to be made up in the rates. I am sure that that is having a pretty bad effect on the policy of Fine Gael through the country, and I can sympathise with the people who are trying to bolster up that policy. I think it was Senator Dillon who said that this measure, which provides for the relief of agriculture in proportion to the amount of employment given on the land, was totally unacceptable to the farming community. I can quite understand its being unacceptable to a man with a few hundred acres of land who never employed more than one or two men on his land; but if the Senator says that that is applicable to the farmers of this country as a whole, I wish to say that that is incorrect.

The fact of the matter is that it is very acceptable to such men as have been employing men on their land for a considerable number of years. It is very acceptable to such a man to find that now, at long last, a Government has come into power which is prepared to place a premium on industry and not, as heretofore, on idleness. The policy indicated by the various speakers who are opposed to this Bill is that of placing a premium on idleness and a penalty on industry, because you cannot possibly put a man who is giving generous employment on his land on the same footing as a man who is giving little or no employment. It is an extraordinary state of affairs to find Senator Blythe and other speakers coming along and saying that this thing is only a gesture and that it did not amount to anything. If it is only a gesture, and if the amount involved is so insignificant, why all the row about it? I, as a farmer, appreciate what is being done. I appreciate the fact that, with the development of our agricultural policy, not alone are we going to encourage the provision of markets for our produce but that we are to be compensated, in so far as it is possible to do so, in the amount of employment to be given on our farms. I believe that, far from its being unacceptable to the farming community as a whole, it will be very acceptable to the farming community, of whom 75 per cent. have holdings under £15 valuation. I believe it will be appreciated through the country, as the various other measures are appreciated by the majority of the people of this country, as a definite effort to distribute the weight as evenly as possible amongst every section of the community.

Mr. Baxter

Might I ask Senator Quirke——

Cathaoirleach

I am afraid you cannot make another speech.

Mr. Baxter

I want to ask a question.

Cathaoirleach

You can ask the Minister.

Mr. Milroy

After the speech we have heard, I feel inclined to ask, paraphrasing the old question, "Is this a private debate for farmers or can anybody join in?" I am not a farmer; I know nothing about farming. It is about the only slice of luck I ever had in my life, except listening to speeches such as that we have just listened to and the one which came from Senator Honan. It is to be hoped the Minister, when replying, has a better defence for his Bill than any that has fallen from the two Senators who support the Government here to-day. Could anything be more melancholy, more saddening or more disillusioning than the wail of Senator Honan, whose home town, mind you, is very near to the throne? He comes from that part of the country which returned to the Dáil the present President of the Executive Council and with such close association to the powers deciding the present, and likely to decide the future, of the country, we have from Senator Honan only a melancholy appeal to help the townsmen who have embarked on a fight which, judging by the tone in which Senator Honan expressed his words, must be a very badly losing fight.

As to Senator Quirke's speech, it is idle to attempt to get a single point from it on which to build a concrete idea or argument. I think the statement with which the Minister initiated this discussion was one the implications of which it was very difficult to grasp. It would have to be read and considered in detail before one could grasp exactly its implications; but the one chief item in this Bill which has figured most in the discussion so far is that the Government are defaulting in the payment of rates to the extent of £100,000. That is precisely what it amounts to, and the effect of this Bill is to increase the rates for local services by £100,000. What effect is that going to have, and, above all, how can the Government justify it? So far as I could follow the trend of the Minister's observations in sponsoring this Bill, there was no attempt either to explain or to justify the reduction of this grant in relief of local rates.

A good deal of stress has been laid by several speakers on this side upon the Government's previous assurances of derating and their present policy. I remember when the Finance Bill was being discussed here I made some similar reference, and Senator MacEllin, who is not here to-day, interjected that no responsible member of the Fianna Fáil Party promised derating. I had not the exact authority with me at the time and, therefore, I could make only a tentative denial, but I have this extract from a statement by one whom, I think, Senator MacEllin would be slow to define as irresponsible:

"The over-head charges of the farmers are too heavy for them and must be lightened. One of the heaviest of these charges is the burden of local rates. We propose to derate agricultural holdings. They are derated in Britain and in the Six Counties. £2,000,000 of the £3,000,000 unjustly taken from us every year in land annuities will suffice for this derating."

That statement was made at an interview by Mr. de Valera with a representative of the News Chronicle and published in the Irish Press on 18th February, 1932. Is that an irresponsible statement? Is that a statement from an irresponsible person? I have here even a more interesting statement. The Minister, speaking in the Dáil on this measure, referred to Westmeath. He was dealing with the alleged campaign to prevent the payment of annuities and rates. He said:

"Take the latest illustration, the County Westmeath. It was the most backward of the Twenty-Six Counties in the payment of its rates. Then, when the county council was got rid of, and a Commissioner appointed, the rates came in without the asking."

In 1930, there was an election in Longford-Westmeath, and here is a leaflet published on behalf of the Fianna Fáil candidate which gives certain interesting figures and make certain interesting statements. It says:

"The Free State Government takes from Longford as land annuities and sends to England each year £57,466, and from Westmeath £419,822, a total of £177,288, so that if the Government elected by the people would only stand by the rights of the people—rights admitted to be theirs by British Statute—the farmers, householders, shopkeepers of Longford-Westmeath need not pay one penny in the rates. The land annuities would do the whole thing and leave £30,000 over to aid agriculture."

Senator MacEllin would probably say that that was not the statement of any responsible Party, but that is the dope that got the Fianna Fáil candidate elected and the dope primarily responsible for getting the Fianna Fáil Government elected to control of this country. To-day, however, that is all to be disclaimed, and to-day Senator Quirke wants to show how inequitable to one section of the community, the farmers, full derating would be.

Mr. Quirke

Why did you not tell them that in Galway?

Mr. Milroy

We told them something like that in Galway and your Party lost 13,000 good honest votes. If that was a victory, the more victories like that with a loss of 13,000 votes for the victor, the better; more of them would be all right.

Mr. Quirke

But we won the election.

Mr. Milroy

This matter of the land annuities is a very serious one and will not be settled merely by interchanges of this kind. I should like to say a few words in reference to what Senator Baxter stated. The acrimonious aspect of this question and the fact that it is playing havoc with the morale of public life is a very serious matter. The question of the land annuities and the reduction of moneys to public bodies which would normally go to the relief of rates, and which are deducted in consequence of the so-called non-payment of the land annuities, is having a very serious effect upon the public life of the country. I raised this matter on the Finance Bill, and other Senators, including Senator Baxter, referred to it. They pointed out that the equity of the matter should be enquired into. I believe there is a prima facie case in justification of those who say that Saorstát Eireann has no right to collect one penny of these annuities for the purpose of general Exchequer revenue, whilst the amount originally arranged and agreed upon, is being paid by the purchasing tenants and is being collected by the British Government. I suggest that this matter is not disposed of by requests or suggestions that the people should take that point of view, and act upon it, and refuse to pay the land annuities. All that they complain of and all that is behind their attitude, is not going to be swept aside or disposed of by the flippant reference that under the machinery which the British Exchequer has devised to collect the moneys the farmer is paying more than the full amount which would normally be paid in the form of land annuities, and for the purpose of clearing off the land annuities. That is incontestable. No one will deny that every penny that is going to the British Ministry, to be utilised to pay off the commitments of the land annuities, is being paid by the farmer. Is there anyone who will deny that? The question the farmer asks is this: That being so, is it just or equitable that they, the farmers, should be asked to contribute another 50 per cent in the form of land annuities to the Free State Exchequer?

Now the Minister, dealing in a sort of elusive way with this matter, said "the law is the law." That may be so. But I certainly agree with Senator Baxter that this matter should be enquired into. The equity of the matter should be enquired into, and the effect of the whole transaction upon the morale of public life should be enquired into. And if there is some basis for the contention that I am trying to express, and if the law, as the Minister says, is there, then I say it should be altered in the regular way. Meantime the one fact the agricultural community have to consider, in regard to this Bill, is that in spite of all those splendid conditions which the Fianna Fáil Party promised to bring to pass, once it got into office, there has been, as far as this Bill is concerned, a definite, substantial, and serious increase in the burden which the agricultural community have to bear. I do not expect that the Minister can give judgment upon these matters that I have raised. Senator Colonel Moore need not be apprehensive that I have raised these matters for the purpose of trying to assail his pet theory. I am not discussing the matter that originally gave rise to the question of equity or otherwise of the land annuities. I am only emphasising this point, and I want to conclude upon it, so that it will remain in the mind of the Minister: That no matter what be the equity as to the collection of the land annuities, the fact remains that these annuities are being collected by Britain, and until the dispute is settled between Britain and Saorstát Eireann, there is no moral right here as far as I can judge, to collect one penny of these annuities from the farmers. That is the contention I put up, and it is the contention I should like to see examined. If it can be rebutted it should be rebutted. If it cannot be rebutted, and if it stands as incontrovertible, then I say it should not be swept aside as a triviality, because it is, in fact, a very serious matter and should receive very serious treatment at the hands of the Government.

Colonel Moore

The Minister stated that this Bill varies from Bills that have preceded it in certain matters, and that such Bills will vary very likely from time to time as the necessity arises. There is, I think, perhaps, no harm, without speaking directly to this particular Bill, to speak a little generally of such Bills, as they have been, and will be in the future. There are two ways in which Bills brought in in the last two or three years vary from the custom known before. One of these is a differentiation between small farmers and large farmers, and the second is a differentiation in the question of the employment of workers. First, with regard to the small farmers with a valuation of £10 or £15, I do not speak of these at all. These people, to my mind, are more a matter for charitable consideration than anything else and they certainly are not suitable from the point of view of imposing taxation because they are at a decided disadvantage and hardly anybody will dispute that. It is certainly undesirable that the poor people who live in very bad cottages should be taxed.

The question that next arises is a more difficult one and that is the question of the employment of labour, or rather the allowance to farmers who employ labourers to work their farms. It seems difficult to understand why they should be included. There are farms suitable for the employment of labour and, on the other hand, many farms are unsuitable from this point of view. Why should a man with a bad farm, a farm unsuitable for tillage, be differentiated against as compared with a man who has a fine, flourishing tillage farm? He is already in the possession of much more valuable property. He is in a position of security and possibly makes considerable sums of money out of the employment of people. He is all the better off because he employs them. I know places in Clare where the holdings contain little but barren patches and rocky ground. It is largely used by farmers for the grazing of sheep, but that does not require a large number of workers. The land is not very valuable, but the owner makes something out of it through the grazing of sheep. It seems rather strange that that type of man should be taxed more than the man with the fine, rich farm, living almost beside him. I think that is a matter that ought seriously to be considered because it is really deserving of consideration. Perhaps the Minister could explain in what way the existing condition of things has come about. I know that the matter has already been discussed, but there was never an attempt to answer it. I would like some reason given why a man with rocky and barren land should be charged more than the person who occupies a holding of fine, cultivable land.

Mr. Bagwell

The limits of Second Reading debates are sometimes elastic, and this one is no exception. As the debate here has taken the form of an assertion by certain farming Senators that the farming section of the community are worse hit than other sections in those bad times and are more in need of relief and that, therefore, this Bill is inadequate and should be amended, and counter-assertions on the part of other Senators who are not farming Senators to the effect that the farming community are not by any means the worst off, that there are people far worse off and that this is a selfish move on the part of farming Senators, I feel that I should like to make my views on the matter clear. I am not a professional farmer, but at the same time I am not entirely ignorant of the subject or of the position of the farming community as related to the rest of the community. My view is that this is an agricultural country and that nothing, however artificial and however hard driven, will make it otherwise without disaster. Farming is the true source of our national wealth; all else really hangs upon it. I consider farmers are worse hit than anybody else and that more hangs on them.

The fact that a very large proportion of the agricultural endeavour of the country is being carried on and has been carried on at a loss for a considerable time is, to my mind, by far the more serious aspect of the national economic position, because everything else hangs on it and it is only by artificial means we can disguise it, and that only for a time. Relief of rates or any other form of relief is no real cure; it is only a sort of alleviation. The cure is the restoration of the markets which we used to have and which we might have now if they had not been deliberately thrown away. If by that means you arrive at a reasonable measure of prosperity for our farming community, all else will follow and we would not hear so much of relief being wanted by every other section. I recognise that that is unrealisable at the moment, that it is not practical politics at the moment, but as the economic situation is being reviewed generally, I feel justified in saying that.

Those farmer Senators who have argued that this Bill is inadequate and that more relief ought to be given to the farming community, are justified in their statements and that is the only attitude they can adopt. The position of a great many farmers is, through no fault of their own, quite desperate. If Senators introduce amendments on the Committee Stage, and if those amendments recommend themselves to me, I shall feel disposed to support them.

Mr. Jameson

There is one subject that has been referred to frequently in this debate, and that is the question of the land annuities and the non-payment of them. The opinion has been expressed that this is a matter that really requires investigation. I would like to say a few words to that effect, because it certainly does seem to be a matter which ought to be investigated. First and foremost, I do not know where the truth lies as to why these annuities are not being paid. The Government adopt a certain line of policy and have taken and are taking certain action. They are taking very harsh action, indeed, in the way of seizing farming stock and everything of that kind and selling it off, leaving the farmer without any stock for his land. Then there are statements that that stock, although it will not be sold back to the owner at a certain price, is sold by the Government, who make quite a lot of money out of the transaction. These statements are injurious to the farming community and to the Government. I think it would be advisable to have some inquiry held to decide whether the farmers who are not paying their annuities are not paying them because they have not got the money and cannot pay them, or whether there is any combination not to pay the annuities which are due and which the farmers can pay. It is a very serious matter concerning a very large number of inhabitants. I think it is a matter that an interested committee could inquire into, and they could find out where the truth lies.

Then there is this other disputed point that Senator Milroy is dealing with. It is a very complicated point— the application of the land annuities that are collected by the present Government. The idea, I think, that lies in Senator Milroy's mind is that these land annuities should be applied, but in some way dealing with the British claims. The present Government have definitely stated that they took the payment of those land annuities over to themselves without any obligation whatever as regards the British people, that they were going to use them for their own purpose, and apparently they have done so. But they have released a large amount of them, half of them without asking anybody's leave, good, bad or indifferent, and whatever other amount they have collected they have, I believe, applied it to whatever expenditure they considered advisable. But certainly the one thing to which the money has never been put is the payment of the debt which the British people claim from this country.

The great grievance of the farmers is that by having taken this step and repudiated payment of these annuities that have not been paid, the British people have put a taxation on our live stock and agricultural produce which has destroyed our farmers' markets and destroyed the prices they got. These things have brought them down barely to a living way of carrying on their business. That is the point where the farmers consider they are getting a very bad deal. If we look at it now from the British point of view we see another thing. The British have no claim for the non-payment of the annuities in the past. They say that they have got out of the taxation upon Irish agricultural produce all the interest to which they are entitled. Therefore, if we sit down to-morrow and settle with the British, they would make no claim for the past. They stated they cannot make a claim for the past, and that being so, the payment of the annuities is wiped out as far as that aspect of it is concerned. Our farmers say: "Yes, the British have got all the money they claimed from us in the past for the interest on the land bonds, but it has been paid at our expense. They have got it out of taxation on agricultural produce which we sent over to Great Britain." In reality our farmers have already paid all this money. It is an extremely complicated argument, because the British have no claim against us. They have been paid. It would be a very wise thing if the Government came out now with a definite statement about the land annuities, showing the public how they have been applied, and what the future of them is—making it quite clear that the future payments of the annuities by our farmers is a vital thing in their own self interest, because thereby hangs the title to their own land. It is a much more serious thing for our farmers, who hold their land by the payment of annuities. The Government should deal with that question in the near future.

I believe if there was to be an honest inquiry made into the matter that there is no question that some very big concessions would be found to be due to our farmers, because the land annuities in the past as claimed by the British have been really paid and levied on our agricultural stock. That would only come out in a final inquiry as to who was liable. I think that our farmers in paying their annuities ought to be warned by some good authority that in that payment the title to their land is at issue. They ought be told that that has no relation whatever to the settlement with Great Britain or the payment of interest on the land bonds to Great Britain. The Government ought to make some definite statement on the whole of this point, and they ought also to hold an inquiry as to the real truth as to why land annuities are not now being paid. From the banking point of view I have had dealings with the farmers of this country for a great number of years. During all those years I found that the most honest section of the community with whom we had to deal were the farmers.

Mr. Wilson

Hear, hear.

Mr. Jameson

Except under very exceptional circumstances the farmers have always paid up. We have had an extremely small number of bad debts amongst them in all those years. Of late years there have been complications but despite that I believe that our farmers now are as honest as ever and if there has been non-payment of debts there is some real definite reason for it. Some great effort ought to be made to find out what is the cause of it. If this enquiry were held then some statement as to the facts would be elicited and some remedy applied.

Mr. Kennedy

I wish to say just a few words on this subject. I certainly think that Senator Baxter's amendment should be entertained by the Minister. Senators are all aware that last year the British Government collected, through this tariff imposed on live stock and agricultural produce from this country, something like £4,900,000. Everybody knows that that money has come from the farmers of this country. I remember some short time ago that a question was asked of the President of the Executive Council in the Dáil. The President then announced that the land annuities proper amounted to £2,960,000. If you deduct £2,960,000 from £4,900,000 the balance is £1,940,000. That item of £1,940,000 represents what the farmers of this country paid, in excess, in these tariffs on their cattle and agricultural produce. They paid £1,940,000 more than if they had been paying the annuities. One can understand that some such things as police pensions and quite a number of other things besides land annuities are included in this sum of approximately £5,000,000 which the British have claimed. It is my candid opinion now that as the quota on store cattle is no longer in force that the British will get another £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 next year. Surely it ought to be quite enough for the farmers of this country to pay £2,960,000 in annuities proper. In a few years' time these land annuities will have been much reduced. Anybody who has bought out under the Ashbourne Acts knows that in some cases the land annuities either have already expired or will expire in a few years. If things went on normally the amount of the annuities that would have to be paid within the next few years would be ever so much lower than it is at present. That is really all that I have to say on this question of the annuities. I have heard some farmers, people who make out they are farmers anyhow, say, that they are all well satisfied with this reduction of £100,000. All that I can say to them is "If you are, you are very easily pleased."

Mr. Lynch

I did not propose to take part in this debate, but it has diverged into so many channels that I feel it my duty to say something, and particularly about the legal aspects of it which have been touched upon. I can quite appreciate what has been said by Senator Jameson or what can be said by anybody about this question of the annuities who has not studied it. I would venture to say to anyone who suggests the setting up of a tribunal of the kind suggested by Senator Jameson that the fundamental question in the issue about the annuities is whether or not this country is liable to pay them. You may have as many conferences as you wish as to whether the Free State is liable to pay them to Great Britain, or otherwise, but these conferences can never lead to anything definite or conclusive except on that basis.

At this point, Sir, I must call your attention to what has occurred during the course of this debate, and that is that when certain Senators, including myself, stand up to address the House, we do so under great difficulty owing to the persistent conversation carried on here by certain Senators. I wish to say that if that course is persisted in while I am addressing the House, then I shall feel it my duty to call the attention of the Chair to it. When I was interrupted in my address by the noise of those who have already spoken in the debate, some of them at considerable length, I was proceeding to make certain observations on what might appear to be the suggestion of a useful character that was made by Senator Jameson. Indeed, I may say that I have never heard Senator Jameson speak in this House without contributing something useful to our discussions. In answer to his suggestion, that something ought to be done to end this trouble about the annuities, I wish to impress upon him and upon any person so well-intentioned, that the fundamental question to be determined in any discussions that may take place is the liability of this country to pay the annuities or not. Once you have that ascertained you can very easily settle the question.

A good deal has been written and spoken on this subject by people who take different views on it. I am afraid that it we were to follow in this debate the question as to whether a particular contribution is to be made by the Exchequer in relief of rates, and to have a discussion on the question of the annuities, such a debate would certainly furnish an irresistible argument for the abolition of this Chamber. I would venture to say that for an Assembly of this sort, which is a revising Chamber, to have a discussion on the question as to whether a particular sum, which admittedly must vary every year and which, according to our legislation, has never been made permanent—a discussion of the kind that has been indulged in here for the last two hours—is not very complimentary to a revising Chamber such as this. It is obvious, of course, to anyone who has followed what has occurred in this country during the last two or three years that the farming community, and particularly those whom my friends, if I may call them my friends, claim to represent—the very extensive farmers—have suffered very considerably during that period. It has been suggested, in the course of this debate, that the situation which produced that distress was caused by the present Government. Here, again, is an initial and a fundamental question on which it is necessary to have clear thinking before there is any discussion on the annuities. If this country was not liable to pay the annuities, surely it was the business of the Executive Council to say that they could not pay out of the revenue of the country sums of money which they were never authorised by the legislature to pay out. If they took up that position, and if it was a clear, definite and legally sound position, I presume there is a way of determining whether they are right or wrong other than the means that were adopted. What were these means?

It is said that the war, or, as it is called, the economic war, was caused owing to the attitude taken up by this Government. I deny that. If the Government were not liable, and were bound in duty to their citizens not to pay out these moneys, they did not produce the war. The war was produced by a powerful neighbour, who said: "If you do not pay this sum of money we will not discuss with you whether you are liable for it or not, but we will collect it off the cattle your farmers send into this country." And this powerful neighbour did that, and that is how the economic war started. There is no use in blinking, or in denying, the facts.

Mr. Milroy

Who fired the first shot?

Mr. Lynch

I must claim the protection of the Chair for myself and two or three other members on this side of the House from the interruptions of this gentleman.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator asked who fired the first shot. You might have answered that. I think he got an answer already.

Mr. Lynch

The fundamental question at the root of the dispute about the annuities is: Is this country liable to pay or is it not? Is a solution of the question likely to be contributed to by the debate that we have listened to for the last two hours? I venture to suggest not. Is it, consequently, a discussion that the House should consider useful? I suggest that it is not. I suggest that the introduction of the very acrimonious, bitter, political addresses which have been delivered here during the last two hours on a question which ought to be considered by us in a quiet, calm, semi-judicial manner will be used as an argument for the abolition of this House, if that question arises.

Mr. O'Connor

I hold strong views regarding the annuities question and the origin of the dispute that has contributed to the present deplorable position of our farmers since the economic war was started, because of the refusal to pay over the land annuities. From the commencement I held the opinion that when arbitration was offered by the present Government the chairman of the commission should be someone outside the British Commonwealth of Nations. I agreed to that principle in view of what happened in Ireland when this country was partitioned and when the Boundary Commission of which Mr. Justice Feetham was Chairman was set up. In my opinion he showed partiality to the British and to the Northern majority. I consider that Mr. J.H. Thomas is to be blamed more than any one else for the deplorable position that arose in connection with the land annuities. As the representative of the great British Empire and the British Dominions, upon which they boast the sun never sets, he should have agreed to the offer that was made. The present position, as I understand it, is that the legal advisers of the present Government hold that the annuities are not owing, while the legal advisers of the last Government are of opinion that the annuities are owing. The dispute should have been settled without letting things drift. In the meantime there have been enormous losses amongst farmers. I can speak from personal knowledge of the losses that have been occasioned. There can be no change in the situation until the question is thrashed out and settled, when the people will know whether they do or not owe the money. Mr. Thomas, as the representative of the British Government, imposed duties on live stock exports from this country and collected more than the amount of the land annuities. He was in a position to dictate terms in that way. It reminds one of the story of Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. The cattle trade of this country is being penalised all the time. As the prosperity of this country depends upon the live stock industry the sooner the dispute is settled the better. There is evidence now of a possibility of the question being settled. The onus as to the rights and wrongs of the question should be decided seeing that the annuities are being retained by the Government and used for purposes about which there are differences of opinion. I hope the question of a settlement will be brought to a successful conclusion at an early date.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not know whether it would be out of place on my part to call the attention of the House to the fact that from start to finish there is not a word about land annuities in this Bill. There are 23 sections in the Bill. It takes a good many words to formulate 23 sections, but I defy any member of the House, however ingenious—and there are some ingenious members in it—to find any words on which to hang a speech relating to land annuities. Yet it has been done with good effect. Personally it is very interesting to come here and to listen to the speeches of members of this House, even when dealing with topics restricted to what are to some extent ex gratia grants to help the agricultural community, or to speeches on the variety of topics that we listened to in the course of to-day's discussion. The economic war was widely quoted. Any complaint I might make might be that there might be a little more originality. I do not come to this House as often as I should like, because it is always very interesting but, with all respect, I should like to hear a little more originality, after a debate that lasted nearly three hours, on “the eternal economic war,” as it is called. It would appear from the tone of some of the speeches, rather than the matter, that some Senators would like me to appear in the dock, as it were, on behalf of the Government, and to have to defend my action in coming here on behalf of the Government, to ask the House to pass this Bill which gives a considerable sum of money out of the nation's purse to help the farming community in a time of stress. I do not feel a bit like coming into the dock. People who would suggest that that should be the proper attitude ought to examine their consciences, and ought to look into their own hearts to see who should be in the dock. Should it not be Senator Counihan, who criticised the Government, and who, I gathered from the tone of his speech, would, if possible, like to see this Bill thrown out, although it gives a considerable sum of money to help the farming community? I should like to hear what the farming community that he may represent would say to that proposition. I hope I am not misrepresenting what the Senator said. I suggest his proposition would be to throw out the Bill or to amend it in such a way——

Mr. Counihan

To get more.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Do not interrupt, Senator.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not object in the least. I have no doubt that Senator Counihan and many other Senators, perhaps on different sides of the House, would like to ask that more and more should be given to the farming community. Personally I would like to be in a position to give a great deal more to the farming community. Nobody can deny that the farming community is going through hard times. It is like a proposition in euclid, and has been so since 1929. The farming community is suffering to a certain extent. Perhaps it is suffering more than other sections of the community. That is debatable but, at any rate, the farming community is suffering. Everybody would like to see the farming community assisted to the fullest extent that the nation's resources permit. I should like, as any other Minister would like, to be able to come in here with full hands and give as large a measure of assistance as possible to the farming community. That is what we are proposing, to a certain extent, in this Bill. The Government have given generously out of the nation's purse to meet agricultural conditions since they came into office. We realise that the farming community needs certain assistance, as does the farming community in every other country with which I am acquainted. I know of the farming conditions in many countries of Europe. I know what the conditions are in America, Australia and other countries. Senators know as well as I do that the collapse in agricultural prices is not confined to Ireland, to Europe, or to the United States but is universal. It is not worse here than in many countries Senators and I could mention and, in many respects, it is not as bad. In one respect it is worse, perhaps, but if we take the nation as a whole, it is not as bad. From my observation in the last few years I should say that the agricultural community here is not so badly off as members of some agricultural communities with whom I have personal acquaintance— people who were in days gone by better off than our farmers.

Miss Browne

Mention one.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I know that Senator Miss Browne would not be convinced if the Archangel Michael came down and gave his word from this seat. There is no use in my trying to offer her anything which would help her in coming to a conclusion.

Miss Browne

Not the slightest.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not waste my breath on Senator Miss Browne. Senator Counihan said that the Government were proposing to give £300,000 less than was given by the last Government in 1932-33, when the grant reached its highest figure. That is not correct. The correct figure was given by Senator Dillon. The amount is £78,000 less. That is a considerable sum of money. Any of us here would be glad to have it but, spread over 26 counties by way of relief of rates, what does it mean? It would mean about £3,000 per county, as some of it would have to go into the City of Dublin. In that way, the reduction of £100,000 is not a very serious matter when spread over the 26 counties.

Mr. Baxter

That is an argument for giving it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

If you spread it over the 26 counties it means a small sum for each county, but the total represents a large sum out of the national Exchequer. It would probably amount to some pence per head of every member of the agricultural community in each county. People may say that pence have to be reckoned in these times, but this would be a small sum per county and a smaller sum for the members of the agricultural community in each county, while it is a considerable sum to pay out of the national Exchequer. The suggestion made by Senator Counihan that amendments should be introduced relative to holders of land in fee-simple is not a matter which could come into this Bill. If it is to be considered at all, it should be incorporated in a Land Bill. I doubt if an amendment could be framed on that subject which would come within the title of the Bill at present under consideration.

I do not think that there would be any purpose in my following the various speakers who shed so much light on the question of the land annuities. Senator Jameson asked that the Government should make further pronouncements and declarations on this matter and that it should hold an inquiry into the question of the annuities. The Senator was answered very well by Senator Lynch. I think there is no subject on which there has been so much written and spoken from all sides as the subject of the land annuities. I am sure that these discussions and that that publicity will continue until some agreement is arrived at. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by setting up a Commission of the kind suggested by the Senator and by Senator Baxter. I do not see what value it would be. Even if you had such a Commission set up and a report issued, I do not see that we would be any nearer agreement or that we could secure acceptance of the findings of the Commission. A smaller Commission and one which was not of as great importance nationally was set up in recent years—the Derating Commission. Senator Baxter was, I think, a member of that Commission, and on it there were also members of the Seanad and Dáil, and members of local authorities representing the agricultural community and other interests. There was a very full investigation into derating. The question whether derating would be a good proposition for the country as a whole was considered. Generally speaking, the findings of that Commission were against the complete derating of agricultural land, and that is not so long ago. Only a few weeks ago in the Dáil we had a discussion on a motion to reverse that decision. We had some of the signatories to the report of the Commission standing up and arguing with all the force they could use against the findings in their own report. We had several members of the Party which, when in office, nominated that Commission voting for complete derating and tearing up the recommendations of the Commission.

Mr. Baxter

Conditions are different now.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not think we would arrive at any better position if we set up a commission in regard to the land annuities. You would have the same frame of mind and the same mentality with regard to the annuities as we have seen exhibited in regard to the Derating Commission report.

Miss Browne

Why did you recommend derating?

Cathaoirleach

The Minister ought to be allowed to reply without interruption.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Senator Blythe asked why this was not a permanent Bill. I think Senator Wilson answered him.

Mr. Blythe

The point I was making was that the first provision was made by permanent legislation. It is now demonstrated that the lack of permanent legislation makes it unduly easy for the Government, without explanation, to reduce the amount of the grant.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is so. Probably that is why there is certain opposition now, as there was in Senator Blythe's day, to making this permanent legislation. Senator Blythe and his Government gave a very generous increase in 1931-2, but there was a general election the following year, and the reason is pretty obvious.

Mr. Blythe

They gave another several years before that, and they made no reduction.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Senator Blythe had his chance.

Mr. Blythe

We had several years after 1926 to reduce it, and we did not.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I beg your pardon. There were reductions and increases. The last increase, which was a very generous one, I admit, was given the year before a general election.

Mr. Blythe

Will the Minister do anything like that?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am not going to make any promise that I am not sure of carrying out. Senator Blythe knows the position of the Guarantee Fund and how it stands with regard to legislation. He knows, and the Seanad generally knows, that it is being operated now in the same manner as it was operated all the time. Unquestionably it comes with a little greater weight on the local authorities and on certain people as the draws from the Guarantee Fund go back on to the rates. Let us hope that will not continue. I do not know what the position is at the moment with regard to the Guarantee Fund and the payment of arrears of annuities, but the Government are prepared to make advances out of that fund, as they did last year, as the arrears come in, probably once a quarter, to the local authorities to help them to meet the draws taken from them in previous years. But until the fund is balanced, which does not take place until some time in the middle of February each year, it would be impossible to say what amount had come in or what amount would be available out of that money for the local authorities.

As I said in the beginning, I have no intention of allowing the Government or myself to be put in the dock in regard to this matter. We are legislating now for a reduction of £100,000 this year in the amount of the additional agricultural grant. While that is so, much more money has been given directly or indirectly to the farming community through other channels. My Department deals with the administration of old age pensions and blind pensions, and in the past two years the amount distributed in old age pensions has increased by some £700,000. That is a large sum of money, and I do not think anybody will deny that two-thirds of that goes into the rural areas. So that while we have admittedly reduced, and I will say personally with regret, the agricultural grant this year by £100,000, we have in the one item alone of old age pensions given that sum back four-fold to the rural areas. That cannot be denied.

Then the Widows' and Orphans' Bill, which will come into operation on 1st January, will cost the Government during this financial year £250,000. A great part of that will go to the widows and orphans of agriculturists, as well as of other members of the community. That is a considerable sum of money put at the disposal of agriculturists that they had not before. All this additional expenditure, as well as that on blind pensions, has to come out of the national purse, and if there are economies here and there the agricultural community have to bear some of them. They are not bearing it all, but they have to bear some. I know what the arguments are as to the present position of the agriculturists and that they should not be asked to bear any additional burden. But the whole nation is bearing a heavy burden at present and, unquestionably, the agriculturists will have to bear their share of it. It is a matter for argument, of course, what their right share is. I doubt if we would ever get agreement in this House on that, or in any other mixed assembly.

Senator Baxter gave credit to the Government for the extension of social services. We are doing a good deal in improving the social services. In my own Department we are spending a considerable sum of money, not alone in the cities and towns, but in the small villages in providing waterworks and sewage works. A great deal of money is being spent in that way. More than ever before in the history of the country has been spent in the last couple of years, and will be spent, as long as this Government is in existence, every year to improve these social services. Senator Counihan and Senator Baxter, who made the best case they could for the farming community, will probably ask: "What benefit does the farmer derive from these services?" He does derive a benefit, although it may not go direct into his home in the view of some people, but I claim it does. We are reducing the incidence of diseases of various kinds all over the country by the provision of improved water supplies and sewerage in these villages and towns into which the farming community have to go almost every day in the week. Where the communities are larger there is likely to be a greater amount of illness, and if such diseases as scarlet fever and diphtheria are rife they are more likely to be contracted in the villages. Would a farmer not be prepared to pay a few pence more in the £ in the year in his rates to save the lives of his children? If the incidence of scarlet fever and diphtheria is going to decrease, or if these diseases are going to disappear, as they have in many cases, as a result of the improved health services, would not the farmers, though the schemes did not come to their door, be prepared to pay a little more so that the health of the community might be improved and their own lives and the lives of their families might be saved.

You cannot measure in terms of money what it costs a family to have serious illness of the kind I speak of brought into the home, or to have a child's life taken away as a result. Put in that way I say that the farmers, as well as every other section in the community, are getting good value for the amount they are paying in rates, having regard to the improved and extended services that are given to them in every part of the country.

It is regretted that the non-payment of land annuities does affect local authorities and the position actually now is that if there were little or no arrears of land annuities in the country, no county council would be in financial difficulties. As to the collection of rates I am not unduly worried about the position. Last year, owing partly to our own fault —legislation was late—the collection of rates was not begun until a late period in the year. In fact at the 31st December the collection looked very bad but by the 31st March there was a brisk payment and on the 30th June this year the condition of the collection was much better than the year before. As far as I can see, certainly the collection for the coming year will be no worse and I have reason to believe that it will be considerably better.

Question put and agreed to.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 31 Jul 1935