Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas Next - Ar Aghaidh

Dáil Éireann - Volume 37 - 26 March, 1931

Public Business. - Relief of Rates on Agricultural Land.

Mr. de Valera: I move:—

That the Dáil is of opinion that, in the present depressed condition of agricultural industry, the Executive Council should this year provide a special Additional Grant of one million pounds for the relief of the local rates on agricultural land, the sum allocated to each county to be in proportion to the average of the total assessments on such land in the county over the current and past two years.

Back as far as 1925, when a Bill was passing through this House providing a supplementary grant, the Minister for Finance indicated that the question of the best manner for the relief of rates was having his attention. That was six years ago. Since that time de-rating was brought into operation in England. When introducing the Budget in 1929, two years ago—the Act had been in operation for a considerable time before that— the Minister said that since the British Act was passed the question of de-rating had occupied the attention of Ministers and Departments. It is no harm to remind the House of the actual words the Minister used. He said that “in consequence of this British Scheme having been adopted the whole problem (of de-rating) has received a good deal of attention from Minister and Departments since the end of last summer. An inter-Departmental Committee was appointed to examine the matter systematically and its report was carefully considered.” That was in April, 1929. [2176] A short time after that a De-rating Commission was set up and that De-rating Commission has been considering the matter for well over a year and a half. Here we are entering on another year and no provision is going to be made for the relief of the farming community. We all know that this question of de-rating and the manner in which relief is to be applied does need careful examination, but there is a limit to the time which we can give to the examination, and there is a very definite limit to the time that can be given to it when the industry affected is suffering severely and suffering in such a way that if we delay assistance we may very well find that it will be so crippled that the assistance will be given too late and that the steps which will have to be taken to bring it back to a prosperous condition will require a far greater effort on the part of the community than would be required if timely aid were given.

Now this motion of mine is not intended to be a substitute for a considered scheme of de-rating. It is purely a temporary measure introduced to give timely assistance, because we are of opinion that immediate assistance is wanted. It does not indicate, as far as we are concerned, the lines on which we would propose a de-rating scheme if the duty of proposing such a scheme devolved upon us. We have given to this problem independently a great deal of consideration. We understand the difficulties that are involved, and we think it would not be right, when this matter has been examined by a commission, to bring in any schemes of our own just when there is a hope that such a commission might report. We have got no indication from the Ministry that they have any scheme in mind, that this scheme would be available this year, and, as I said, we are introducing this because we feel that immediate assistance is necessary. It is a case of the old Irish proverb, “Gheibheann an capall bás an fhaid atá an féar ag fás.” We want to see that the horse does not die whilst the grass is growing. Why is it this assistance is necessary? In the preamble to the motion there is a statement [2177] that the agricultural industry is at present depressed. I think we all know that it is.

I have some figures which I propose to give the House to prove that this state of depression is not an imaginary condition, that it is not the result of hypochondria as some Minister on the opposite side said it was, that it is a reality, and that being a reality, and agriculture being our most important industry, it is our duty to come to its aid at once. I will give some of these figures. Let us take the figures for tillage either before, during or immediately after the war, and compare them with the number of acres tilled at the present time. In 1914 the number of acres under tillage was 1,697,706. To-day the figure is 1,458,465. That is, it is 219,241 acres less than it was in 1914. If we were to take the year 1918, when we had 2,382,776 acres tilled, the diminution as represented by the present figure would be very nearly a million acres, 924,311. Since 1923 there has been a diminution of 210,836 acres, and since 1929 there has been a further diminution of 62,998 acres. Now, taking roughly, say an average of £10 an acre as representing the value of tillage crops, that would represent a loss of several million pounds. As compared with 1914, it would represent a loss of over £2,000,000, as compared with 1918, a loss of very nearly nine and a quarter million pounds, and so on. The diminution of 62,998 acres would represent a loss of about £629,000.

That is a loss due to the reduction of tillage. But side by side with the loss due to reduction of tillage, we have a diminution of the pasture stock. Our pasture stock has not gone up. If we take the figures for 1914, we find that there were 4,236,751 head of cattle in 1914; to-day we have 4,038,344. That is a reduction of roughly 200,000 head of cattle. In connection with horses— I will leave the odd figures out. There were 486,000 in 1914, and we have 447,000 to-day. There is a reduction of roughly 40,000 horses. The only thing there is an increase in is in sheep, but a comparatively small increase that does not at all make up [2178] for the reduction in cattle. The increase in sheep is only about 300,000, whereas the reduction in cattle alone is about 200,000, so you see the increase in sheep does not at all make up for the loss in cattle. So side by side with this diminution in tillage we have a loss of capital wealth in pasture stock as well. If we try to estimate this as far as pasture stock is concerned, we find again that we have a diminution of national wealth in the agricultural industry of some millions of pounds.

We have been dealing with butter fairly recently, and it is hardly necessary to call the attention of the House to the position in the dairying industry. Butter prices have fallen, the fall in price representing 24.9 per cent. decrease between 1929 and 1930. Comparing the quarter October-December of 1930 with that of 1929, there is a 32 per cent. decrease. If we compare the prices of eggs we find that between 1929 and 1930 there is a 15.7 per cent. decrease, and if we take the quarter October-December for 1930 and compare it with 1929, there is a 14.4 per cent. decrease. The more we examine it the more we are convinced. We find there is a diminution of capital wealth, a diminution of the farmers' income, and we find, side by side with this reduction in the price which the farmer gets for his produce and with the reduction of his capital wealth, that the prices of what he has to buy do not keep step at all.

It hardly needs proof to a House where there are so many farmer Deputies who know the position of the industry, from their own experience, in a way that no figures will really add to their knowledge of it or convince them more about it. But, in order to show each one that his own experience is borne out by the general statistical information, I am giving these figures. I am going to show that the reduction in agricultural prices is far greater than the reduction in the prices of the commodities which the farmer has to buy and, therefore, I think I will prove to you generally that the farmer is more hardly hit than other sections of the community, than even other producing sections [2179] of the community. From the index of agricultural prices, we find that for the year 1930 the average index figure was 124.8, taking the pre-war years, 1911 and 1913, as 100. That is, for the year 1930 agricultural prices were not quite one and a quarter times the prices in 1911-1913. If we take into account the fall in prices that has taken place since 1930—that is, the recent fall in prices—we find that the price of agricultural produce is much less than a quarter as much again of what it was in pre-war years. Fat cattle and fat sheep, for instance, the prices of which enter into the calculation of the index number, have both fallen heavily in price since last autumn. I gave you already the fall in the prices of butter and eggs. Fat cattle are 14.8 per cent. and fat sheep 27.5 per cent. cheaper than at the beginning of March, 1930.

Let us compare the general prices with the food prices. For food prices the index figure last January was 154. The general price index was 168. These are the retail prices. The position really is that whilst the farmer has to sell his produce at something like 15 per cent. in advance of the prices which obtained in pre-war years he has to pay something like 68 per cent. more for the goods he buys. Therefore, the position is telling against the farmer. The index number of food prices since 1924 has fallen by 21.4 per cent., whereas the general price index has fallen only by 10.6 per cent., and the unequal rate of fall has obviously been to the detriment of the producer of food as compared with the producer of other commodities.

There is one point to make, that this fall in prices which has occurred has been to the disadvantage of the farmer as compared with the producer of other commodities. A more serious loss has occurred to the farmer and that is due to the disparity between wholesale and retail prices. That disparity is constantly growing. It is growing to the disadvantage of all producers and especially to the disadvantage, as I have shown, of the farmer. The agricultural price index [2180] for 1930, I have said, was 24.8 per cent. above the pre-war level. Taking the recent fall it is probably at present about 15 per cent. over 1914, whereas the index of retail prices in general last year, 70.75 per cent., was higher than in 1914. That is the position of the farmer due to this fall in prices. It has been to his disadvantage as compared with the producers of other commodities. Therefore, as he is suffering from this disadvantage, we think it is only fair that the other sections of the community who are in a relatively better position than he is should come to his assistance at this particular time. More than any other section of the community the farmers are at the mercy of their market. The conditions of their industry are such that they cannot withhold their produce from the market or substantially restrict production. They are much more unfavourably situated than other producers in that respect. The traders in farm produce, the transport interests and others through whose hands their produce must pass before it reaches the consumer, are all in a position of much greater economic strength and are able to make the farmer bear practically the entire burden of the fall in prices. The retailers are also in a better position than the farmer is. The consequence is that the burden of the improvement in the standard of living of the other classes of the community and of the increased public expenditure has ultimately to be borne by the farming section of the community. That is the position and, being such, I think it justifies this motion to come to his relief not when some De-rating Commission will have reported in one or two years' time but immediately.

The importance of the agricultural industry is recognised. If anybody doubts it the census of production, showing the relative poduction of wealth in the farming industry and other industries, proves it. According to the census of 1926, the net output of the agricultural industry was 73.7 per cent. of the whole.

The output of the other industries and manufactures covered by the census [2181] returns was only 26.3 per cent. so that, roughly speaking, the agricultural industry is in relation of 73.7 to 26.3. As regards employment, the industries covered by the production census of 1926 only accounted for 107,000 workers. The census of occupations accounted for 186,000. The number employed in agriculture was 672,000. From the point of view of output of wealth, number of people employed and so forth, agriculture deserves to be regarded as our principal industry. On its prosperity must the prosperity of the whole community depend. That being so, everybody interested in the prosperity of the country as a whole must take seriously to heart the present position of agriculture and must be, if it is necessary, prepared to take from other sections of the community in order to assist agriculture. Everybody must be satisfied that to do that would be in the general interests of the community.

Speaking a couple of days ago on the Central Fund Bill, I pointed out that whilst the prices the farmer got for his produce were only about 15 per cent. in advance of the prices obtained in 1914, the burden of taxation upon the farmer had increased threefold. The purpose of this motion is to come to the farmer's relief and lighten that burden. Ministers in the Dublin election clearly foreshadowed relief for the farming community. The President, speaking in Dun Laoghaire, on November 22, said:—

The evidence the De-rating Commission had collected would be of the greatest assistance to the Government in order to decide what was the most suitable form the relief now to be provided for the agriculturists should take. We are agreed that the farmer deserves, and must receive, every assistance that, having regard to our resources, can be given to him.

I take it, therefore, that there is no need for me or for any speaker on this side to impress upon the Ministers and the members of Cumann na nGaedheal that the farmer deserves and ought to receive every assistance which can be given to him within our resources. [2182] Professor O'Sullivan speaking at Lusk said:—

When the Report of the De-rating Commission was available, he trusted that they would be able to give substantial assistance to the farmers, not through quack remedies but in a way that would be helpful to them and to the community as a whole. We, as a Government, believe that help must go to the agricultural community of this country, but it cannot be given by compelling people to grow wheat or by the application of tariffs. We should like to give it in such a way as to reduce the expenses of the farmer.

I remember seeing—I have not traced it—a leaflet sent out on behalf of the candidate in that election, in which it was stated that the principle of relief to the farmer was accepted and that £1,000,000 or so was to go for that relief. We propose, in this motion, to give relief immediately and the sum suggested is the sum that was mentioned in that leaflet. The Minister for Finance will say, no doubt, that the round million had some attraction for me. If the system proposed were such that I could get the actual figure—which is near a million —I would have chosen it rather than a million. If the Minister is prepared to take it that the figure should be one half the average rates on agricultural land, I would prefer it to the million because it would reduce the amount of calculation. The amount, I think, is slightly more than a million. The million was originated not by me, but by the advocates of this grant on the other side. I think that it is a fair amount. The amount we could afford at present would be roughly sufficient to give relief to the farmer of half the amount he is paying in respect of agricultural rates. That is roughly the intention of the motion—to provide relief for the farmer to the extent of half the rates he is paying on his agricultural land. It will be seen that the proposal is that the sum be allocated to each county in proportion to the average of the total assessments on such land in the county over the current and past two years.

Deputies who remember the origin [2183] of the Agricultural Grant of 1898, and who were here when the Supplementary Grant was passed in 1925, are aware of the lines on which that grant was to be allocated. In introducing the Bill of 1925, the Minister said that as he was in a hurry and wanted it to operate that year—he was in the same circumstances then as we find ourselves now—he proposed that instead of going into all these intricate questions as to the burdens of the different classes of farmers and trying to select the particular class of farmers best entitled to relief, the relief should follow, roughly, on the lines of the original Agricultural Grant. The proposition here is that it should roughly follow on the same lines. Waiting as we are for the Report of the De-rating Commission, and immediate relief being necessary, we think the simplest way to give this immediate relief would be to follow on those lines. The only point of difference is this: the old grant having been fixed upon a certain condition back in '97, is now more or less in the form of a flat rate, whereas our proposition is that the rate of relief should be in proportion to the present burdens. It would be about nine-twentieths if the million itself were adhered to, but, roughly, it is half, and the effect of it, if the grant is allocated to the counties in proportion to the average of the total assessments on agricultural land, will roughly be that the farmer will be relieved of half the burden which he has to carry. It is intended to operate universally so that every farmer in every condition—we are not taking these conditions into account because the examination would take too much time—paying rates on his agricultural land will be relieved of the same proportion of the burden. That is to say, the relief will be, roughly, half the burden in every case.

I saw some speeches that were delivered by members of the Labour Party in criticism of this motion. Deputy O'Connell, I think, said that this proposal was to divide the money in proportion to the valuation. It does not propose to divide the money in proportion to the valuation, but to [2184] divide it, roughly, in proportion to the services. The whole purpose is to divide the money so that there will be the same fraction of the burden relieved in the case of everybody. It is not to be divided in relation to the valuation; it is in relation, if you like, to the services, or the total rates raised by the valuation. The fundamental idea is that relief is to be of such a kind as will give a proportionate diminution of the burden right through.

The Labour Party has introduced an amendment, the effect of which is that there should be relief, not as would be the case with my motion of roughly half the agricultural rate right through, but that there should be relief of three-fourths of the rates in the case of holdings where the valuation of the land does not exceed £50, “and of one-half of such rate where the valuation of the land exceeds £50, and where the occupier satisfies the Minister for Agriculture that not less than 20 per cent. of the arable land is under tillage and that the sum required to provide this grant shall be raised in such manner as will not place any additional taxation on the small farmers and wage-earners.” There is every evidence of speed and haste, notwithstanding that Deputy Davin said very careful consideration was given to this particular amendment. I do not know if the Deputy was correctly reported when he said that this amendment was brought forward by the Labour Party for the purpose of helping the Government out of a difficult position.

Mr. Davin: Deputy Derrig said that at Borris, Co. Carlow. Does Deputy Derrig deny it?

Mr. de Valera: I thought it was Deputy Davin said it. I could not believe that he said such a thing, and I expected accordingly that we would have a denial of it. It was a newspaper report. Now I see that it is only a report of something that Deputy Derrig was supposed to have said. I do not know what purpose the Labour Party had, but I give them credit for whatever purpose is revealed on the face of the amendment. As far as I can see, the amendment is an attempt [2185] to anticipate the findings of the De-rating Commission, and to try to get some scheme of distribution which will assist tillage and the small farmer. If it did that there might be something to be said for the amendment. I do not think we are entitled at this moment to anticipate the findings, in the way of distribution, of the De-rating Commission. If this Commission has taken a year and a half to try to get some permanent scheme let us wait for that permanent scheme. This motion is not intended to secure anything more than immediate relief, and if the Labour Party's amendment means the same thing, to give immediate relief, it falls short of its purpose, because it cannot be applied as simply and as quickly as the motion can.

Mr. Davin: Why?

Mr. de Valera: The Deputy will hear enough of “why.” I assure the Deputy that if he had heard many of the criticisms from members of our Party of this amendment from the point of view of its feasibility he would be satisfied. I will give one or two reasons that occur to me. First of all, we have got the £50 valuation. I can imagine the criticism the Minister for Finance would level at the round figure of £50, the magic of that figure, why you had a sudden break at 50, and what about the man with a valuation of £49 and £51. If you had a scheme of this sort, in order not to have these sudden breaks, it must be scaled in some way. Deputy O'Connell would say, of course: “We do not design this as a perfect scheme; we are in a hurry.” I reply: “Very well.” If that is the attitude of the Labour Party they had better take our motion and try to get it through, because for this division of £50 there is no basis whatever.

Let us deal with another “why.” The occupier has to satisfy the Minister for Agriculture “that not less than 20 per cent. of the arable land is under tillage.” If Deputy O'Connell had heard the Minister for Agriculture telling us on one occasion that a host of inspectors, and so on, would be necessary in order to examine and to make certain that the 20 per cent. of tillage was actually there he would immediately [2186] see that there are insuperable difficulties from the practical point of view in putting this motion into effect. We have got to know that 20 per cent. of the farmers' arable land is under tillage. Of “arable land” probably the definition that Deputy O'Connell would like us to take would be of land that could actually be ploughed.

Mr. O'Connell: No.

Mr. de Valera: Then Deputy O'Connell is in a worse position. Perhaps the Deputy will explain, when he speaks, what exactly he means by “arable land.” I will let him give that explanation. To my mind, if you mean by arable land land that can actually be ploughed we would have nice trouble in finding out the 20 per cent. But if you take another possible meaning of arable land, generally accepted when we meet the word in statistics, the Deputy will find he is in another difficulty, because it would be most unfair in many cases to insist on anything like this percentage. We are as anxious as Deputy O'Connell is to encourage tillage, but we do not see any way of doing so by a proposal of this kind. If Deputy O'Connell has any proposal for the encouragement of tillage other than a proposal which is clearly unworkable, and which would mean delay and extra cost of administration, taking away from the farmer some of the advantages we would give him, we will be prepared to meet him on that.

I suggest, however, that to put in this particular amendment here will defeat the main purpose of giving immediate relief to the farmers. I think that I have covered fairly fully the points I intended to make. I have shown that it is high time that this relief should be given. I have shown that the relief is justified, and that even members on the opposite benches are satisfied that it is justified. I have shown that this particular way of giving relief is the most expeditious way in which it can be given. I have pointed out to Deputy O'Connell, who has introduced the amendment, that such amendment is unworkable, and that if he were to press it——

[2187] The President: It would put you in a very awkward position.

Mr. de Valera: No; our position is quite clear, but if he really wishes to get immediate relief for the farmer the best way to get it is through our motion. I was reading a short time ago a speech made by Senator Johnson, when the 1925 Act was introduced in which he mentioned the idea that it would be a useful thing if tillage could be helped. He welcomed the idea that some proposal was likely to be introduced for the assistance of tillage, and that some de-rating proposal was likely to come. Labour has had four or five years in which to work out this scheme of de-rating but it waits until this practical scheme of ours is put in here for giving immediate relief on lines that have been tested and known, it waits for this particular moment to bring in what we regard as more or less side tracking of the issue. I would like to think that it would help, but it seems to me that the only effect would be to side-track the main issue. Let us have a clear expression of opinion as to whether the farmer should not, here and now, get relief to the extent of £1,000,000 or whether he should wait for it until the examination undertaken by the De-rating Commission has been completed. If Deputies want it now let them vote for the motion. If they want to anticipate de-rating and to have a full discussion as to the best methods of relief let the Labour Deputies persist in their amendment. I hope that the Labour Deputies will support us in this motion, so that it can be put up clearly to the Government from all benches, other than the Government Benches, to make good their promise. We have introduced this motion neither to put the Government into difficulties nor to get them out of difficulties. We have brought it in because we believe that it is time that the farmers got relief without further delay.

Mr. Corry: I formally second the motion.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: I move:

[2188] To delete all words after the word “Grant” in line 3, and insert the following:—

“for the relief of the local rates on agricultural land sufficient to allow for the remission of three-fourths of the rates on agricultural land in the case of holdings where the valuation of the land does not exceed £50, and of one half of such rates where the valuation of the land exceeds £50 and where the occupier satisfies the Minister for Agriculture that not less than twenty per cent. of the arable land is under tillage and that the sum required to provide this grant shall be raised in such manner as will not place any additional taxation on the small farmers and wage-earners.”

I think that everyone will agree that the House is at a very great disadvantage indeed in discussing this motion in the absence of such data as would undoubtedly be available had the Commission on De-rating which was appointed some eighteen months ago reported. I quite agree with Deputy de Valera that in the circumstances his motion is justified, inasmuch as there has been an altogether unwarranted delay on the part of the De-rating Commission in bringing in its report. It must be several months since evidence was taken and completed and, although I agree that the question is very complicated, I could not imagine how those who are on that Commission, those who have expert knowledge, could delay their report so long as they have done. Apart from that, there is no guarantee as to the length of time it would take the Government to consider that report when it comes to hand—I am assuming that it has not yet come to hand. If we were to judge by the length of time which it took the Government to consider other questions not so complicated as this, I am afraid that the farmers would have to wait a long time before any measure of relief would be given to them. That is why I say that the motion would be justified, even if it did nothing else beyond extracting from the Government a definite statement as to their plans and [2189] intentions for the relief of the farming community this year.

I agree with Deputy de Valera as to the necessity for relief and, as it is common cause on all sides of the House, there is no need for me to elaborate what Deputy de Valera has said. He has gone into the matter in great detail, and I do not propose to follow him, especially as the question of depression and the necessity for relief is admitted on all sides and does not need to be argued. I think that this is a time when it is appropriate that some indication should be given to the farmers as to what is to be the nature and extent of the relief to be afforded to them. This is the time of the year when the farmer is laying his plans, and when he wants to know what his burdens for the year are likely to be. This debate may be a deciding factor as to the amount of land he will till, the amount of manure or seed he will buy, and as to whether he will keep his stock or sell it off before it reaches maturity.

All these things are troubling the farmer at this juncture. Therefore it is essential that we should have a definite declaration from the Government as to whether they intend to give relief this year, and what is the nature and extent of that relief. As I have said, the motion is useful if it did nothing else than to secure such a declaration. As to the necessity for relief and the depression calling for relief, we are in agreement with the Fianna Fáil proposition, but when it comes to the question of the allocation of the particular sum which may be set aside, it is there we part company. Immediately it was reported in the Press that this motion was to be put down, and when the manner in which the proposed grant was to be distributed was indicated, I took occasion to criticise that method in a speech which I made, I think, in Drogheda, and I thought that by doing so I would give a hint to those responsible for the motion as to the necessity for a further examination regarding the basis of distribution of the money. The motion had not appeared on the Order Paper, but instead of taking the hint, as I thought might possibly be the case, a [2190] prominent member of the Fianna Fáil Party, Deputy Derrig, rather defended this particular method and said it was fair, and that everyone would be relieved according to the rates he paid, and also that it was an extension of the Agricultural Grant. I think it was on that occasion that the statement was made by Deputy Derrig that we were really helping the Government. That was the statement to which Deputy de Valera referred a few moments ago. I think it was Deputy Derrig who made that statement. I think that Deputy Lemass said something very like that later on.

Mr. Davin: That it was humbug.

Mr. O'Connell: That it was helping the Government—that was the general idea. These two Deputies have got into the habit of saying that kind of thing about the Labour Party, so that I did not pay as much attention to their remarks as I might otherwise have done. That, however, is not the case—it is not to help the Government. So far as the Fianna Fáil proposition is concerned, we are accepting the general principle of it but we do believe that a measure of relief can be given, and given immediately, which will be distinctly more favourable to the class of farmer who in our opinion is most deserving of relief in the community.

The amendment is simple and requires little explanation. There are three sections in it. The first two deal with the method of allocation and the last portion has reference to the manner in which the sum required is to be raised. For the purposes of allocation we make two broad divisions, those with a valuation of £50 or under, and those with a valuation of over £50. To those with a valuation of £50 or under the amendment proposes to grant immediate relief of three-fourths of their current rates—on agricultural land, of course. We are dealing entirely with rates on agricultural land. To those with a valuation over £50 it proposes to give relief equal to half their current rates on certain conditions. The conditions apply only to those whose valuation is over £50. Let me say at once, as Deputy de [2191] Valera himself admitted with regard to his own motion, that it is entirely because of the urgency of the question that this broad and rough-and-ready method of affording relief has been adopted by us. It is not the method we would adopt if we were framing a permanent scheme.

I doubt indeed if the method of pure and simple relief of rates would be the method which the Labour Party would advocate if they were framing a permanent scheme. I do not speak after having made a very exhaustive examination of the question but I do not think that merely to relieve rates irrespective of the effect which that would have on individual farmers is the best way. It is at least possible that a way could be found which would ensure that any relief given would be turned to the purpose of increasing production on the part of the farmer. It is quite possible that a way could be found to ensure, for instance, that the money was spent for the purposes of production. That might be difficult and it might require a very keen examination. I am sure it would. Machinery would have to be devised, and therefore it is out of the question as far as this particular proposal is concerned.

It might be suggested, and it has been suggested repeatedly from these benches and by our speakers so far back as the 1923 election and certainly in the 1927 election, that the time had come when certain expenditure that is now found from the rates should be found entirely from the Central Fund. This has special reference to the upkeep of main and trunk roads. We have argued that these can no longer be regarded as local services and therefore ought not be purely local burdens, as a matter of fact, that no portion of the local rates should go to the upkeep of the main and trunk roads. The same thing would apply to other services, such as the upkeep of mental hospitals. The capitation grant that is given from the Central Fund towards the upkeep of mental hospitals has not been changed since the early years of the century, despite the fact that the cost of maintenance in these hospitals [2192] has increased very much indeed. These are directions along which it would be possible to give relief if there was time to examine them. I quite admit that all these things would require time, and therefore we do not suggest them now. We had to fall back on the simple method of relief of rates, but even there we believe it is possible to make a distinction as to the people who will get the greatest relief. We fix the figure at £50. Quite obviously, Deputy de Valera and other critics will ask: “Why £50?” Why any figure? Why a million? We could argue about any figure to the same extent, and let me say quite candidly that if I have any apology to offer it is because I think this figure is too high. If I had my own way, and had regard only for my own particular constituents, the figure would be fixed much less than £50. I agree, however, that the lower down you go the more difficulty you would have in fixing conditions.

By fixing a figure of £50 valuation we do get in 92 per cent. of the occupiers of agricultural land, and that is a figure I want Deputy de Valera to take into consideration. Ninety-two per cent. of the occupiers of agricultural holdings in this country are covered by that figure. There are some within that figure who, I admit, are not deserving of any consideration, but they are a comparatively small number. In any case, by taking that rough-and-ready figure and taking into account all the time the same consideration which Deputy de Valera had in regard to the urgency of the matter and the time, we believe that it is fairer to everybody concerned, fairer to this particular class of farmer than the all-round proposition of Deputy de Valera. Deputy de Valera's motion on his own figures, and as I calculated too, approximately gives relief equal to an extent of one-half of the burden. Our proposition is that those with a valuation of £50 or under should be relieved of three-fourths of the burden.

I just want to say a word on the method of averaging the assessment. I think if Deputy de Valera examines his method he will find a rather remarkable thing, namely, that it will be least fair to the counties that have a [2193] progressively rising rate, that is, where the rates are higher this year than last year, and were higher last year than the year before. This method of averaging the relief will be least fair to those whose rates are higher this year. If he examines the figures he will find that is so, and it is the county that has a high rate this year that is specially deserving of relief in view of the depression. It will be said perhaps that if Fianna Fáil with a million pounds can only give relief to the extent of 50 per cent., and if we propose to relieve 92 per cent. of the occupiers of land, to the extent of three-quarters, that at first blush our proposal would cost very much more than a million, and that that perhaps is the reason we do not mention the cost in our proposal. That is not so, because if Deputy de Valera examines the figures he will find this further remarkable fact, that in the case of these 92 per cent. of the occupiers the valuation of the amount of land they hold is only 52 per cent. of the total valuation of agricultural land. The remaining 48 per cent. is held by the remaining 8 per cent. of the occupiers. These are figures I would specially commend to Deputy Corry. He will find that, roughly speaking, the figures are four millions held by the 92 per cent., and roughly 3½ millions held by the 8 per cent. These are very round and rough figures, as Deputy de Valera said. So that almost one-half of the £1,000,000, certainly £400,000 of it, would go to relieve the burden of this 8 per cent. who hold land of £50 valuation and over.

What would the proposal we suggest cost? Everybody will admit that it is difficult to measure that in the absence of the kind of data that would be available if the De-rating Commission had reported. It is not easy to make these calculations, but there is a considerable amount of data available. I will explain if the calculation is questioned, but I calculate that, roughly speaking, this 92 per cent. of people of £50 valuation and under could be relieved of three-fourths of their burden at a cost of £750,000 or £800,000. That is our main concern. We on these benches are not particularly concerned [2194] with the 8 per cent. as compared with the 92 per cent. At the same time, we recognise that they have a claim, and we suggest that we put in certain conditions with regard to relieving these. We should remember, and Deputy de Valera should remember it especially when he talked of the difficulty of it, that the number is small—8 per cent. In my own county of Mayo, out of 33,900 rated occupiers there are only about 600, or about 2 per cent. of them, with farms of £50 valuation and over. They are not very many, and the difficulty of applying this particular test is more apparent than real.

Deputy de Valera talked about arable land. Arable land is scheduled since the war years, and I believe that the returns are available. The Minister for Agriculture would be able to tell us whether that is so or not— whether the amount of arable land in the possession of each individual or on each holding is scheduled. In any case, it is a matter for each of these particular people to make his case. Immediate relief can be given to the others. After all, we must remember that these people of £50 valuation and under are the backbone of the country. They are the people we hear so much about—the small farmers, though some of them are not very small farmers. A farm valued at £50 is quite a good farm. So far as the second class is concerned, our estimate of the cost would be about £75,000. I am calculating that by basing it on certain data made available in 1917 as to the number of farms which had 20 per cent. of tillage and over and, making due allowance for the great fall in tillage which has since taken place, I estimate the amount necessary to give the relief which I propose in that case would be £75,000.

The President: Multiplied by ten.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Hogan): £750,000.

Mr. O'Connell: I am making two divisions. I am suggesting that the amount necessary to give the relief we suggest to those with £50 valuation and under would be £750,000. In the [2195] second portion for those with £50 valuation and over and who fulfil the conditions we lay down—i.e., 20 per cent. tillage—it would cost about £75,000. I hope I have made that clear to the President.

The President: I am afraid the Deputy put his foot in it the first time.

Mr. O'Connell: No. I am making two divisions. Deputy de Valera is making one clear cut. We are making two divisions. For those with £50 valuation and under we estimate £750,000, and for those in the other class above that, who would fulfil the conditions as to tilling 20 per cent. of the land, we estimate it will cost about £75,000, or a total of £850,000. In any case, let it be the million. I do not think it would be. I believe it would mean, as a matter of fact, a saving of £120,000 or so to the State. But, even if it were a million, we believe it would be divided more equitably in this particular manner than in the manner suggested by Deputy de Valera.

Who is going to suffer as a result of our proposals? As compared with Deputy de Valera's scheme, undoubtedly those who have farms valued at £50 or over and who till less than 20 per cent. of the land. I do not believe that Deputy Corry will have very great sympathy with that class of person, if I am to judge by what I heard in the last two or three days here. No one would suffer except whatever number of these landholders—these 8 per cent.—who are not tilling 20 per cent. Our main object here, if we are to judge by the many things we have been saying from time to time in this House, is the encouragement of tillage, because it is the encouragement of tillage which gives employment. I will say at once that there is one particular class of man, because I am quite ready to see the weaknesses of this, who may be engaged in dairy farming and have a valuation of over £50. That is one of the difficulties undoubtedly. The number, however, is not very large.

I spoke a moment ago of how these respective proposals would affect the various counties, and I put it to every [2196] Deputy to apply both proposals to his own county, where he knows the conditions. I have calculated that Mayo would, under Deputy de Valera's proposal, get about £30,000 for the relief of rates, or a little over that, perhaps. As a matter of fact, owing to peculiar circumstances, if you like, and the fact that the rates in Mayo have been raised very considerably as compared with two years ago, this sum would only relieve rates in Mayo to the extent of about one-third on any particular holding.

Mr. de Valera: In every case it must be half.

Mr. O'Connell: I do not think in every case it would be half. If I understand it, the sum allocated to each county would be in proportion to the average of the total assessment over three years, and I am pointing out that on the average over three years it would be lower.

Mr. de Valera: I follow that.

Mr. O'Connell: Owing to the fact that the rates are higher this year in that particular county it would only get a sum that would relieve the burden to the extent of one-third. But our motion would relieve the burden of 98 per cent. of the landholders in Mayo to the extent of three-fourths. So far as Mayo is concerned, under our proposal they would get at least double what they would get under Deputy de Valera's proposal.

Mr. Lemass: They would get it next year.

Mr. O'Connell: Deputy de Valera's proposal and ours is for one year only. In the county of Meath, which is in what may be called the opposite end of the scale to Mayo, they would get £45,000 as against £30,000 for Mayo. That is, they would get one-and-a-third times times as much as Mayo, while they have already got one-and-a-third times as much as Mayo under the agricultural grant.

Dr. Ryan: But it is the same with yours.

Mr. O'Connell: I need not dwell on what I may call the social values in the [2197] difference between these two counties. The population of Mayo is nearly three times the population of Meath; there are almost exactly ten times the number of holders with fifteen acres of land in Mayo as there are in Meath. I need not dwell on these points. Numerous other examples could be given to show that the proposal made by Fianna Fáil works out to the disadvantage of the small farmer and to the advantage of the big farmer. And that is the real issue between Deputy de Valera's motion and ours.

I cannot understand, in view of all I heard repeatedly from the Fianna Fáil Benches, how this one objection to our motion that was mentioned can weigh with many of the Deputies on those benches to the extent that they were prepared to let some 6,000 of those people with big ranches and graziers and all that class of people about whom we hear so much get away with something like £400,000 of this money. Does Deputy Clery from Mayo approve of that, and do Deputies from Donegal, Galway and Clare approve of that? I cannot understand it. As I say, is this objection made to our proposal so weighty that it will weigh with them to that extent that those people who, after all, have a good share of the world's goods must get relief out of the common fund to that extent? So far as we are concerned, at any rate, we are not prepared to admit that principle; because we think there is no real substance in the objection so long as you have 92 per cent. of the farmers, and those the most deserving class of farmers, getting immediate relief as they would under this proposal of ours. I think the trouble and difficulty with the remaining 8 per cent. is not so great that we should allow them to get away with half the spoils as is proposed in the motion here. I think that must be plainly evident to everybody on the Fianna Fáil Benches, and on the Government Benches, too.

I want to refer for a moment to the latter portion of my amendment. There is no reference in Deputy de Valera's motion, and there was no reference in his speech as to where this money is to come from, but I think it is important. And while it is not our [2198] business to make definite suggestions or to go into any definite detail as to where the money is to be raised, it is our business to say—and we say quite definitely—that it must not be raised from the very class of people we are anxious to help. In other words we do not believe in what Deputy Nolan, I think, described when the Butter Tariff question was under debate, in feeding the dog with a piece of his own tail. We had a statement, and a very important statement, from the President on the opening day of the Autumn session, and I think it should not be forgotten when looking round for money for this particular proposal. He said, that the aggregate actual income assessed for income tax had increased by four and three-quarter millions during the period between 1923-24 and 1928-29. That was a remarkable statement. And we know that under various guises and for various reasons, the Minister for Finance for the last four or five years has been specially kind to that particular section of the community who are in the fortunate position of having to pay income tax. I do not know that the Minister for Finance himself would be prepared to say that the object he had in mind when he afforded that relief has been achieved. In other words, that the particular section of the community relieved have risen to the occasion to the extent that he expected they would. If it is a question however, of raising this money, we do say at once, that the strongest objection will be taken by members on the Labour Benches to anything in the nature of an indirect tax, or any tax on the necessaries of life, because these are bound to fall, and always do fall, most heavily upon the poorer section of the community. It is not our business to say definitely where this money is to be raised. I have thrown out a hint about the income tax; there are people who would make other suggestions.

The question of the petrol tax has been a favourite suggestion. I say again that while I merely refer to this I do so in order to emphasise what I have stated in our motion: “That the [2199] sum required to provide this grant shall be raised in such manner as will not place any additional taxation on the small farmers and wage earners”; in other words, that there shall not be any indirect taxation that would press most heavily upon the poorer section of the community. Deputy de Valera suggested to us that we should abandon this amendment and vote for the motion. I suggest to him that he should accept the amendment. I think from every point of view it is the most sensible thing to do. It is what in any case one would have a right to expect from that particular Party. The line the Fianna Fáil Party has always taken is that when any distinction is to be made, the distinction should be made in favour of the small farmers. The objection which he makes, as I have said, does not hold. So far as the vast majority of the small farmers and the wage earners whom we are anxious to relieve are concerned, our scheme could be applied and applied immediately to 92 per cent. of the rated occupiers. As a matter of fact I think it would be a much simpler method so far as that percentage is concerned than this system of averages which is set out in Deputy de Valera's motion. To tell the truth, I am not absolutely clear as to how it would work out under his motion in the different counties all over the State. I think our method is much simpler. So far as the county council secretaries are concerned they could much more easily deal with the matter by our method than they could under the suggestion in Deputy de Valera's motion. I suggest that the proper thing for Deputy de Valera and the Fianna Fáil Party to do is to accept the amendment. If, however, in the interests of the 6,000 who are going to get away with a big share of the spoils, they are going to join with the Cumann na nGaedheal Party in defeating the amendment, and if they succeed in defeating it, we will vote for the motion as the next best thing, because it contains the principle of relief. But in doing that I want to make it quite clear that we are totally opposed to this method of allocation where by such a small percentage [2200] will get away with such a big proportion of the grant that will be made available.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe): In the course of the Budget statement which I made in 1929 I indicated, as Deputy de Valera has already said, that a Departmental Committee had given some examination to this matter, and I pointed out to the Dáil in some little detail the complexities of the whole business. The question of de-rating became urgent after a de-rating scheme had been adopted in England. When that scheme had been put into operation a great many people here wanted that de-rating scheme adopted in its entirety and in all its details in the Saorstát. It is quite obvious that conditions here are different, that such need as there might then have been for a measure of the kind, arose from entirely different circumstances to the circumstances which dictate de-rating in England. I pointed out that de-rating was a very much bigger proposition here than in Great Britain; that whereas the sum required in Great Britain was 2.8 per cent. of the national revenue, the sum that would be required here was 9.2 per cent. of the national revenue. I pointed out the difficulties that would be met in raising the sum of money that would be required for de-rating along the British Government lines here. The sum that would be required here would be a sum of practically two and a quarter millions. I pointed out how that sum could not be raised by any scheme of taxation that could be devised, or it appeared that could not be raised by any scheme of taxation that might be devised without involving taxation of the necessaries of life. I pointed out that it would be almost impossible to raise that sum by a petrol tax or even to raise a substantial fraction of that sum by petrol tax. The sum required in England was raised by a tax on petrol. Here the maximum that could be got by a tax on petrol would be one-fifth or one-fourth or something [2201] around that of the whole cost of de-rating. I indicated that even a petrol tax, coupled with a conceivable or reasonable increase in income tax would not get the amount. I indicated moreover that from another aspect the proposition was a very different thing here to what it was in Great Britain. For, whereas, in Great Britain, agricultural land represented only two and a half per cent. of the total valuation, agricultural land in Scotland 6 per cent. of the valuation, in the North of Ireland 38 per cent. of the valuation, it represented 65 per cent. of the valuation here. I pointed out that, if we were to have de-rating on the English plan here, in the case of a great many of the local authorities 90 per cent. of the revenue would come from the Exchequer. I indicated that in such circumstances it would be impossible to allow local government as we know it to remain in existence.

To give something like 90 per cent. of their revenue to local authorities and allow them to carry on with their existing powers would invite an orgy of extravagance and inefficiency. Consequently I pointed out that the matter was one which was in every way a very much bigger proposition than the proposition that had to be faced in Great Britain, and an amount of consideration that it had not been possible to give to it up to that time, was necessary. Some time after the making of that statement a Commission was set up. The terms of reference of the Commission were:—

To enquire and report to the Minister for Finance as to

(1) The effect on production and employment of local rates at present levied on agricultural land and buildings and industrial and freight transport hereditaments.

(2) The probable economic consequences, including in particular the effect on production, employment, taxation and the cost of living, of affording partial or complete relief from such rates by means of contributions from the Exchequer to local authorities, or, alternatively, by transferring to the Central Government the administration of particular [2202] services at present administered by local authorities.

(3) The effect of affording such relief on the existing system of local government including local financial administration, and any modifications of that system which would thereby be rendered desirable.

(4) The basis on which Exchequer Grants are at present distributed to local authorities, and whether, and if so, in what manner that basis could be so modified as to secure increased agricultural and industrial production as a consequence of distributing the grants.

The Commission numbered 18 members, one of whom has since died. The Commission has given a very great deal of study to the problem. Not only have the Commission given a great deal of time to the work, but a great deal of time has been given by Government Departments which were required to supply material of various sorts for the information of the Commission. We are now reaching a point when the report of the Commission will be before us, and at that point we have this resolution set down. I say that the putting down of this resolution can serve no purpose, and can be intended to serve no purpose in connection with the matter, except the purpose of raising an ordinary sort of political debate. Because the time at which an announcement would be made in connection with this matter— the time at which it would be proper to make an announcement in connection with it—would be on the introduction of the Budget.

When, some four or five years ago, a measure of relief to rates was given, that relief was first announced in connection with the Budget when the general scheme of taxation for the year was put before the Dáil. The only time, and the natural time, for the Government to make an announcement in connection with the matter would be on the Budget, when the whole general scheme of taxation is before us. The members of this Commission have given a great deal of study and have devoted a great deal of work to the problem that is before [2203] us. They were asked to explore the various methods by which relief can be given to agriculture.

Reference has been made to the speech which the President delivered in Dun Laoghaire in November last. Some parts of it have been quoted. The President on that occasion, said: “The Government accept it that it is essential that an adjustment of conditions shall be secured to relieve the farmer of his most pressing obstacles, to assist him to increase his output, and secure better marketing facilities.” Speaking in reference to the De-rating Commission, he said: “They are now engaged in the preparation of their Report. I cannot forecast what their conclusions will be. Whatever they are, the evidence the Commission has collected will be of the greatest assistance to the Government in deciding what is the most suitable form which the relief we intend to provide for the agriculturist shall take. We agree the farmer must receive every assistance that, having regard to our resources, can be given to him. The only question which remains is the form of assistance which will be the greatest value to him, and will at the same time render necessary a minimum imposition of burdens on the rest of the community.”

As I indicated when reading the terms of reference of the Commission, they have to consider, first, whether de-rating is the only effective way to afford relief to the agricultural community, whether we might have some alternative to de-rating, or whether we might have some measure of de-rating coupled with other schemes and, secondly, they have to consider, in the event of it being found necessary to have grants from the Exchequer for the relief of rates, how these grants should be given, and whether, instead of giving the grants to the local authorities we should not afford relief of rates by taking over certain services. Everybody knows that in certain respects, at any rate, by taking over certain services, economies might be achieved through the measure of combination that would be thereby effected. It is the business of the Commission to consider all [2204] these problems and to put up some report to us.

My view is that it would be impossible to get any Commission of responsible people of this sort ever again to give their full mind to the work that would be put before them if we were, at this stage, before the Commission's report has been received, to pass a resolution of this sort. Whatever the conclusions of the Commission may be, they will be before the Government shortly. Any matters that they put up will be dealt with promptly, and the Government are in a position to deal with them promptly, because, apart altogether from the work of the Commission, this whole matter, as I have already said, has been engaging the attention of Departments and Ministers for a very considerable time past. It was the subject of Departmental consideration, and it was the subject of consideration by a sub-committee of the Cabinet before this Commission was appointed at all. There will be no difficulty, when the views of the Commission are before the Government, in coming to a speedy conclusion as to what should be done.

My view is that anything that is to be done this year should, if possible, be in accordance with whatever permanent measures are to be adopted. If it is possible at all, whatever we are going to do in a permanent way should be done this year. If it is not possible to carry out whatever permanent scheme may be adopted, then we should endeavour to have an instalment of that permanent scheme. If it is not even possible to work out all the details in order to have an instalment of the permanent scheme, we should endeavour to have adopted something, at any rate, that is fully in line with the permanent scheme.

I think it is entirely wrong, in dealing with this problem, that we should follow the lines proposed in Deputy de Valera's resolution; it is entirely wrong to go along the old lines. For all practical purposes this resolution simply means going somewhere near doubling the two existing agricultural grants. Although there is a slight variation in distribution, the whole thing amounts to very little more than [2205] that. It would amount to doubling the existing agricultural grants without having taken into consideration at all the question of a reform of local government. There would also be the question of whether any such sum as this should be handed over to the local authorities without taking steps to see that the result is not going to be, in a year or two, the levying of taxation to obtain whatever money may be now handed over, with a consequent increase in rates, bringing them up almost to the amount that they were before this grant would be given. I know there are very many people who are most urgently anxious to have some system of de-rating, either complete or partial, put into operation, who hold that it would be entirely wrong to give big sums to the local authorities which would, perhaps, bring the rates down for a year or two. They hold it would be wrong to do that without examining the system, without seeing whether checks cannot be imposed upon extravagance, or whether some other adjustments in the machinery cannot be made that will ensure that the country is not going to be in a worse position in a couple of years than it is at the present time.

There is no need for a motion of this kind. The Government have stated, and the remarks made by the President have set out clearly and definitely their view, that, in the face of world conditions, and certain local circumstances, the condition of the agriculturist is such that relief is being afforded to him. There is only one question that remains to be settled, and that is the form that the relief should take. Of course the auxiliary problem of the particular method by which the money required for relief should be raised, remains to be solved. There was no motion before the Dáil when the Agricultural Grant was doubled in 1926. There was no motion a few months in advance, requiring that that grant should be doubled. There is no need for any motion now. The whole matter is being dealt with as one which must be faced, and faced immediately.

We do think that it is too complex and too serious a matter to be dealt [2206] with in the manner proposed here. As a matter of fact Deputy de Valera said he did not wish to anticipate the findings or the recommendations of the De-rating Commission. His motion is, in fact, an anticipation of it. Although it may be described and intended as a proposal for one year only, everyone knows that the adoption of any particular scheme for one year does mean that that line has to be followed for future years. If there is going to be any different distribution or any different method adopted permanently, it will be very much more difficult to get that adopted than if we do whatever we are going to do now, in line with any permanent scheme that might be adopted. I do not see any reason why, whatever permanent scheme is going to be adopted should not be adopted, either in whole or in part, or in some parallel way this year.

For instance if we were to reform local government it might not be possible to carry out the reform at once. At any rate the whole thing ought to be taken together. Any reforms that are to be carried out ought to be foreshadowed with any proposal for grants or expenditure. The extent to which the whole scheme will go must regulate, to a considerable extent, proposals of reform. If we were going to have de-rating on the British scale, I think something like complete abolition of local government, as we know it, would be necessary. If it was decided that relief should be given to the farmers by a means other than de-rating, if further schemes were found to be practicable, it might not be necessary to touch local government at all. If on the other hand, there was some substantial measure of de-rating, then something not so drastic as practical abolition of local government, but some other changes, might be sufficient to meet the situation.

At any rate, I think it is a matter that must be faced as a whole, and the only business-like way to meet this as a whole and to take our decision on all the matters together. The form of relief, the conditions in regard to reform of local government which may be attached to it, and the methods by which any necessary funds are to be [2207] raised, are closely related and the decision on all of them should be taken at the one time as far as possible by the Dáil. It may not be possible to adopt all of them at once, but, at any rate, whatever is the principle of the first proposal put before the Dáil any of the other concurrent proposals should be known to it. I think it is not necessary to go into details of any possible schemes at present. I think they should be dealt with at a later time, and they should be dealt with when not only the Government but the members of the Dáil have before them all the material the absence of which Deputy O'Connell deplored to-day, the material which the De-rating Commission has spent a great deal of time and labour in putting together.

Mr. Aiken: Is the Minister making any promise whatsoever that anything will be done for the relief of farmers further than the present agricultural grant when the Budget comes along?

Mr. Blythe: The proposal I am making is this. I have already stated that relief has been promised to the farmers in the clearest possible terms. The only thing that remains to be decided is the best form in which such relief should be given. I have said that the report of the De-rating Commission is very nearly ready, that it is to be available quite soon, and that the matter will be dealt with immediately, and that the Government is in a position to come to decisions in the matter without delay, because none of the problems connected with this matter are new to departments or the Ministers. When a decision has been come to action will be taken, and the action that the Government propose to take in connection with the matter will be announced as it normally would be announced in the Budget speech when the related proposals in connection with the raising of revenue will be before the House.

Mr. Aiken: Is the Minister making a promise that he will announce further additional relief for agriculture in this year's Budget?

[2208] Mr. Blythe: Of course.

Mr. Carty: To what extent?

Dr. Ryan: I am afraid the Minister was compelled very reluctantly to make the statement that he was going to give relief in this year's Budget, because if he was definite on that and gave us any indication of what that relief was to consist of I do not think we should lose any time on this motion. Seeing that the Minister is allowing the time of the Dáil to be taken up for the whole day on this discussion I think we should press him a little further and see what a division might do later on, and also see if his own Party and members of the allied Party, the Farmers' Party, will not bring some influence to bear on him in order to make his position even more clear before this discussion is over. It is not contested here at all that farmers want relief, and seeing also that Deputy de Valera gave the figures that are available on this subject, it is not necessary to make that case again. We admit from every side of this House, because I think we have not any members of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce here, that the farmers do want relief. The only thing, as the Minister said in concluding, is to decide what form that relief was to take and how to find the money. Those are the two big questions that have been agitating us for some years, and if those two questions are not yet solved by the Government we are not much nearer the solution.

I want to make this point as to the necessity for relief. As an agricultural country we are dependent greatly on the export market for the sale of our produce and we are competing there with many other countries. The question of the export of butter has been before us all very prominently for the last couple of years. We all know that during the twelve months of 1930 on the British market there was a very disastrous fall in the price of butter, with a consequent severe loss to the creameries and the suppliers of milk to the creameries. We know also that during the last few years a greater amount of butter has come in than before to the British market and that our three big competitors there are Denmark, [2209] New Zealand and Australia, and that they are getting the British market to a greater extent than we have ever got it.

We learn from the Report of the Tariff Commission on butter that during 1930 Danish butter realised a price of 23/- per cwt. more than Free State butter for the whole year. That means to the farmer supplying milk to the creamery a higher price of 1d. per gallon in Denmark than here. Take the other countries supplying, Australia and New Zealand; they are both exporting butter to the British market under subsidies. If we take even our rival, the North of Ireland, which is sending butter to England, the farmer there has the advantage of being de-rated, so we are at a distinct disadvantage as compared with our competitors in the foreign market. Unless something is done very quickly, as Deputy de Valera pointed out, we may not have the relief brought forth in time and we may find our farmers have gone out of production and will be in a much worse position to capture whatever part of the export market they had a couple of years ago. We find that is borne out by the figures of exports of milch cows from this country. A greater number of milch cows are being exported, and it would appear that some at least of the farmers are going out of the production of butter. Even in our home market we are up against the same competition. We are competing not alone on the British market but in our home market against bacon produced under subsidy. For instance, Polish bacon. If we take the grain business, we find we have been driven out of it completely. We have been driven out of the British market, and even in our home market we are competing against subsidised grain from Russia and Germany. The prices of the various commodities have gone down in the foreign market, and there has been, of course, a natural fall in prices at home, with the result that our farmers have found it impossible to remain in production and many of them have become bankrupt. I know in County Wexford, that I represent, a large number of farms have become [2210] derelict. No rates or annuities are paid in respect of them. The result has been that the County of Wexford has had the large sum of £22,000 deducted from the grants that were due owing to defaulting land annuitants. No rates have been paid on these derelict farms. There is nobody living on some of them. The farmers who have remained on their farms are, as a result, paying more in rates, and for a few years back we have seen a gradual rise in the rate struck in most counties. Of course, it is not altogether due to the derelict farms and the fact that certain farmers are going out of business. It is also due to the policy of the Government in putting on certain rates in counties, some of which were not there before and others of which were optional.

On the Vote on Account last week I mentioned certain rates that are being inflicted on counties. While the President was talking in Dun Laoghaire about the intentions of the Government in regard to de-rating and while other Ministers were talking about the intentions in regard to de-rating, Bills were brought before this Dáil which put additional rates on counties. The consequence is that the counties are now paying at least a shilling in the £ more. For instance, the Vocational Education Bill imposes a rate of 1¾d., rising to 4d. Then we have the Local Government (Special Expenses) Bill, which may put on a rate of anything up to 3d. in the £ on agricultural land. We had last week, or the week before, an Agriculture Bill which put a mandatory rate of 2d. in the £ on agricultural land where before the rate was optional. Formerly if the farmers who were on the county councils found they could no longer bear the burden of the rates they could, at least, knock off that 2d. rate for the time being, but now it is mandatory.

I mentioned also the position in regard to the money that was voted for relief before Christmas. Where the Local Government Department sanctions a scheme in a village or small town usually they offer 30 per cent. of the cost. The local people or local councils, being anxious to give employment, [2211] accept the 30 per cent. and take on the burden of paying the other 70 per cent. themselves. The rates have gone up as a result of all these things. I think there is a necessity for immediate relief for the farmers, if we want to keep them in production at all. The motion that was put down here was put down in its present form because it was simple and could be applied immediately. It was put down, more or less, on the lines of the present agricultural grant, with the exception that it was based on the rates raised during the last three years instead of being based on the rates raised in the year 1898. We would very much like to include in this motion provisions to deal with tillage, but we do not see that the question of tillage could be dealt with in a satisfactory manner in a motion like this.

As a matter of fact, we have on occasions during the last few years brought in motions here dealing with the encouragement of tillage, and we believe that the methods suggested in these motions would be best to deal with the encouragement of tillage. It is very difficult to differentiate in the rates as between those who till and those who do not till. As a matter of fact, the amendment, as it is put down here, is, in my opinion, in no way sufficient to encourage tillage or to induce a man who is at present tilling to continue tilling. Take the average rate that a man is paying on land at the present time to be 4/-, 5/-, or perhaps 6/- in the £. The relief that he is going to get under this motion, where he has a valuation of over £50, provided he tills, is half that. That is, he is going to get relief on five acres if he tills one. It works out really as a subsidy of 15/- per acre on tillage. That is not sufficient in present circumstances to induce people to till if they are not inclined to till without this inducement. If we look at the price of grain for the year 1930 as compared with pre-war prices, we find that the price of malting barley in 1930 was 10 per cent. less than it was in 1913 and 1914, and the price of oats is exactly the same as it was before the war. How could a farmer who has to [2212] employ labourers afford to till, when the cost of living is about 66 per cent. higher than before the war, on an extra 15/- per acre? In the case of oats he would get, for instance, £6 5s. for the produce of an acre before the war, and he would now get £7. How could he afford, on a subsidy of 15/-an acre, to till where the general cost of living has gone up by 66 per cent.? We had figures published in the “Irish Trade Journal” some time ago of agricultural wages as they were before the war and as they are at the present time. We find that agricultural wages have gone up by 100 per cent. from before the war until now. I am prepared to admit that even at the present time they are not high enough, that they should be higher. Nevertheless, the farmer who is selling barley and oats, and who has over £50 valuation, is doing that with agricultural labour which he was getting at 50 per cent. less before the war than he is getting it at to-day. That being so, this inducement of fifteen shillings per acre is not going to make him till.

Mr. O'Connell: That is all you are giving him.

Dr. Ryan: We may be giving him less for all I know. We do not say, however, that we are going to get 20 per cent. of land tilled by this motion. We take it merely as a simple method—a method which can be put into operation immediately. We do not bother putting in a provision regarding tillage, because we think that it would be absolutely ineffective. During the Great War, when farmers had to till their land under regulations, we know that they did not make any attempt to till it properly. If there is an inducement to a large farmer to get a large portion of his land de-rated, he will probably—especially considering the price of grain at the present time— make a pretence at tilling in order to get that de-rating. If he has not been using his own grain or tilling for other reasons, he is not going into proper tillage on account of this amendment. He is going to make pretence of tilling 20 per cent. of his land to get de-rating.

[2213] This amendment would mean delay in getting a census of the tillage area. The Government, I am afraid, would insist on knowing what they were to be involved in under this proposal before they would adopt it. Therefore, they would have to get a fair estimate of the number of holders over £50 valuation who have 20 per cent. of their land tilled or would be likely to till 20 per cent. If the Government were willing to take a chance and say that the scheme was going to cost them three-quarters of a million, under Deputy O'Connell's proposal, or up to one million, and that they would put it into effect, there would be some justification for Deputy O'Connell's scheme. We know, however, that the Government is not like that. We know that the Government does not take chances with a quarter of a million, especially when it is for the relief of agriculture. They would not take a chance in this case and that would mean delay. What is more, it would mean dissatisfaction, because there will be always dissatisfaction where there is likely to be a dispute between the land holder and the authority paying the relief as to whether the 20 per cent. is tilled or not, and as to whether the 20 per cent. is really 20 per cent of the arable land or not. There would be a great deal of dissatisfaction. I believe that tillage must be encouraged on the basis of crop yield and not of area. This amendment means area. If there is 20 per cent. of the area under tillage, there is to be relief of rates. That is not a fair basis. If we want to encourage tillage, we should bear in mind that we will have to encourage the man who produces the good crop. The only way in which you can compensate the man who produces the good crop as against the man who produces a poor crop, is to pay on yield and quality of the crop, and not on area. This tillage clause only refers to men with over £50 valuation. In the Dáil yesterday, there was a discussion on a valuation clause in the Land Bill. The Minister for Agriculture then gave it as his opinion —nobody objected to it—that the [2214] valuation of good land in this country would be about ten shillings per acre.

Mr. P. Hogan: The average valuation of land.

Dr. Ryan: I thought you said “good land.”

Mr. Hogan: Leaving out mountain.

Dr. Ryan: The valuation of the 12,000,000 acres we are dealing with?

Mr. Hogan: Per statute acre.

Dr. Ryan: This amendment means that a man with 100 acres, or under 100 acres, will get the 75 per cent. relief whether he tills or not. The only exception that is made is in the case of the man who has over 100 acres.

Mr. O'Connell: What about your motion?

Dr. Ryan: Our motion does not pretend to make any of these distinctions. I might also say that, as the amendment is drafted, this poor man of over £50 valuation must satisfy the Minister that any relief he may get will not come from any taxation on small farmers or wage earners.

Mr. O'Connell: That applies to the whole lot.

Dr. Ryan: As it reads here, it does not. I am prepared, however, to take Deputy O'Connell's statement. This amendment has been on the paper for several days and, as it reads, this particular provision refers only to men with over £50 valuation.

Mr. O'Connell: There was a comma dropped.

Dr. Ryan: It must have been dropped from the first day the amendment appeared on the paper. However, I accept the Deputy's word. Deputy O'Connell is anxious, naturally, to get this money without taking any of it from the small farmer or wage earner. What is a small farmer? If we are to judge from Deputy O'Connell's amendment, a small farmer is a man under £50 valuation. That is the distinction he made in the first part of his amendment. A large farmer is, consequently, a man of over £50 valuation. [2215] We are really going to say that every farmer, whether he tills his land or not, if he is under £50 valuation, must not be asked in any way to contribute to this relief. I believe that it would be impossible to pick out taxation in which he would not be involved in some way. A small number of those men will have motor cars. Therefore, you must rule out petrol. A few of them may possibly be occupiers of fee-simple land. In that case, I believe they are liable to income tax. You must rule out income tax. Where are you to get the money? I believe, as Deputy de Valera said, that this amendment was framed hurriedly, and that if all its implications had been considered, Deputy O'Connell would not have put it in so quickly. If he waited for six or seven years while this Commission was going on, he could have waited six or seven days longer before putting in an amendment to this motion.

Deputy O'Connell said that the farmer can now decide on the amount that he will till. I am afraid it is too late. I think that the farmer who will decide now on the amount of land he will till this year is not the type of farmer who should receive relief even if he did till. The man who would decide on tilling now would not be a tillage farmer at all.

Mr. O'Connell: That had reference to every farmer.

Mr. Reynolds: You could not attempt to do tilling in some parts of the country until now.

Dr. Ryan: I know that, as Deputy O'Connell has said, this refers to every farmer, but it is too late now to decide about tilling. I am surprised if Deputy Reynolds is right, that you could even now commence to plough lea land and get your crop sown. They should be sown within the next few weeks.

Mr. Hogan: Do you think that either scheme is going to do anything for tillage?

Dr. Ryan: Deputy O'Connell also said that the Labour Party has been advocating, since the 1923 election, [2216] that the central authority should take over main and trunk roads and mental hospitals. That has been advocated by practically every party that I know, in local polities at all events. I do not believe that any Labour speaker advocated that in giving this relief to the county councils for main roads, trunk roads and mental hospitals, you must relieve only the farmer under £50 valuation and differentiate between the men over £50 valuation.

Mr. O'Connell: I certainly did advocate that. I will show it to you in my election address, though I may not have mentioned the £50 figure.

Dr. Ryan: It is the first time I heard it advocated. I heard it advocated by every party that mental hospitals and main and trunk roads should be taken over. I have never yet heard that there should be any differentiation made in the rates that would be thereby relieved. As a matter of fact, I think some county councils that passed resolutions were going to take the rates off as a whole, and not to make any differentiation between agricultural land and other ratings. Deputy O'Connell said that if he had his way the £50 figure would be less, that it was a round figure, but that if he had Mayo in mind it would be lower. I do not object to that. Some rough-and-ready figure has to be taken. The figure £50 appears to me to be very high. I would not regard the farmer of £50 valuation as a small farmer. I think the Labour Party's attitude on this matter is very liberal if they regard a man with 100 acres and with £50 valuation as a small farmer. Deputy O'Connell made a point about the three years which come into our scheme. I think the Deputy will find that exactly the same thing happened in Meath as in Mayo, that the rates have gone up fairly rapidly for the last three years. If we are hitting Mayo we are also hitting Meath.

Mr. O'Connell: The rates are down in Meath.

Dr. Ryan: I am talking of the total rate collected in the County Meath and of the total amount collected in County Mayo. I notice a peculiar [2217] thing about Meath, that it looks as if there were a revaluation. The total amounts of rates leviable off agricultural land in County Meath in the years 1928-29-30 were £91,000, £89,000, and £109,000: in Mayo the amounts were £57,000, £50,000, and £79,000. There is the same tendency in both counties. The point made by Deputy O'Connell that his amendment would give greater relief to County Mayo than our motion is not right, in my opinion. I had not time to study the figures. I saw figures with Deputy MacEntee yesterday and I took them as correct, that the total rate leviable on agricultural land in Meath has gone up just as much as it has gone up in Mayo, and that if you are doing an injustice to Mayo under the motion you are also doing an injustice to Meath. If you are doing an injustice to both a strong county and to a weak county, it comes to this, that it is justice all round, because you are doing the same injustice to everybody.

I do not know if Deputy O'Connell is right in the figures he gave of the total cost. Deputy O'Connell admitted that it might be doing an injustice where the valuation of a farm was over £50 where dairy cows were kept. I do not like to have to stand up for people of over £50 valuation, but that shows the necessity of examining the question more fully than the Labour Party has done. It will be found that in Limerick and Tipperary there are a considerable number of farmers over £50 valuation who keep cows and supply milk to the creameries. The number of landholders over £50 valuation was given by Deputy O'Connell as very small, being only 8 per cent. of the whole. While I cannot vouch for the figures, I am told that these 8 per cent. employ 90,000 agricultural labourers. That is a very big number to be employed. If we have large dairy farmers over £50 valuation, and if they are employing this amount of labour, I think they are just as much entitled to relief as tillage farmers, particularly this year, because they have been hit worse than any other type of farmer during the last twelve months. The tillage farmer was badly hit in the past, but for the past twelve [2218] months the dairy farmer has been badly hit. Eight per cent. of these landholders employ 90,000 agricultural labourers. According to the figures given by Deputy O'Connell, the small amount that would be required under his amendment shows that there is not much tillage. Therefore there must be a good deal of dairying. We should remember that employment. I do not want to go into any other points which Deputy O'Connell has made. I do not believe that the amendment will in any way increase tillage, because the inducement to do so is not big enough.

Mr. O'Connell: It is not intended to be an inducement.

Dr. Ryan: I accept that. It will not increase tillage. It is not intended to.

Mr. O'Connell: It will mean greater expense to the man who does not till.

Dr. Ryan: You mean it to be a sort of penalty on the man who does not till?

Mr. O'Connell: Yes.

Dr. Ryan: If we in this Party thought that we could encourage those who are in tillage to remain in it and to employ additional labour, either in dairying or other agricultural industry, immediately, we would certainly do so, but we do not believe that it can be done immediately. That is where we differ. The Minister for Finance quoted some figures which he gave in his last Budget statement, and showed the difficulties regarding de-rating here as compared with those in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Obviously there are difficulties, but no difficulties can deter us from finding some relief for agriculture. We have to get over difficulties, because agriculture cannot go on unless we give some relief immediately. The Minister for Finance has stated that they intend to do something in the coming Budget. We all hope they will. He stated that the time to do it was when introducing the Budget. He also stated that the introduction of a motion like this, while a Commission was sitting and [2219] preparing its report on the question of de-rating, would prevent any self-respecting Commission from sitting again on that subject. All I can say about that statement is that it is no wonder he left the House after making it. He told us that the Commission was going to report soon, and that if we were going to give relief now it should be done in a permanent way this year. We all agree with that if it could be done in a permanent and satisfactory way, but why did the Government allow the motion to go on if that is the case? They had only to get up and say: “We are going to deal with the matter in the next Budget.” They did not do that. The Minister for Finance said: “If it is not possible to do it in a permanent way this year, at least let us give an instalment of it.” Again he said: “Even if that is not possible, let us do something in the direction of a permanent way.”

There are too many “ifs” about his statement. He stated that he expects the Commission to report almost immediately, and that the Government will be in a position to consider the report without any delay when they get it. By the time, however, that they consider the various “ifs” of the Minister for Finance I do not think that they will be in time for the Budget. The Minister said that there was no need for the motion, and that we should all know that the Government were going to deal with the matter because the President mentioned it in Dun Laoghaire last November. We often found the President and Ministers making similar statements before, but they did not come to very much. They have been mentioning the question of de-rating for the last few years. Whenever there is a bye-election it becomes a very prominent subject. When the bye-election in Dublin last year was over, however, we were told that nothing could be done about de-rating this year. Thus it will be seen that there is necessity for the motion. The Minister for Finance said that only two questions remained to be settled, namely, the form of relief and how to raise the money. The Minister may think that [2220] these are rather trivial matters, but to us they are very big ones. The form in which the relief is to be given has, we presume, been engaging the attention of the De-rating Commission for over eighteen months, and I suppose the question of raising the money has been considered, not only by that Commission, but also by the Department of Finance.

If we were in the position here of being able to say that we were only going through a temporary depression in agriculture and that we felt that at the end of 1931 we would have turned the corner—the corner about which we have heard so often—we might have some patience and even some consideration for the De-rating Commission, and give them time to present the best report possible and allow the Executive Council to consider it. There is, however, no time for that, There is no prospect for farming, so far as we can see. The prospects for farming were never worse. Up to last year we thought that things were going to improve, but now we see that they are going the other way and that relief is wanted immediately if we are to keep farmers in production. In the last issue of the “Irish Trade Journal” it was stated that the world's export of butter in the year before the war was 6,931,000 cwts., and in 1929 the amount was 10,232,000 cwts., so that the amount of butter available for export in the world's market had gone up by almost 50 per cent. We are competing also in that market with whatever butter we have to export. There were formerly some good markets, but now there is no free market except Great Britain left for imported butter. Even Germany and Canada, which were the two next best importers of butter after Great Britain, have imposed tariffs against imported butter because they are trying to produce their own requirements and, when that is done, as it probably will be done in two or three years, we will have all the surplus butter in the world dumped into Great Britain.

Are we in a position to compete in that market with our half a million [2221] cwts. against the ten million cwts. that will be thrown on the British market within the next few years? The same development is taking place in regard to bacon, grain, and, possibly, mutton and beef. So far, we have practically no competitors in fresh mutton and beef, but we have competitors in frozen mutton and frozen beef. We find year after year that the commodities sent from the Argentine or New Zealand, frozen or chilled, are coming closer as regards price to our fresh beef and mutton. Are we able to stand up against these competitors in the foreign market and get satisfactory prices for our goods? I do not believe that we can unless our farmers are helped to keep in their present production, if not to increase it. The Free State farmer has the smallest output of any farmer in the countries mentioned in the last Census of Agricultural Production. The output of the Free State agricultural worker is £96 a year. In Northern Ireland it is £104, in England £169, in Scotland £184, and in Denmark £196. Those people in England and Scotland have their own home market, and are obviously better equipped to withstand competition than we are because they have a bigger output and are better able to meet their competitors, seeing that they are getting, at least, some money into their hands to help them to do so. We are going to be up against these foreign competitors and we find that even in Great Britain they are tending towards protection. Recently they passed a Marketing Bill with the object of increasing agricultural production in Great Britain in order to hold the home market for home products. We find the Farmers' Union in Scotland calling for protection and safeguarding in certain directions.

The only chance I see, therefore, for our agricultural industries is at least to keep our farmers in the production in which they are engaged at present. If they once recede from what they are producing at present, they are going to lose even the small bit of the export market which they hold, and they are going to lose more of the home market, which is worse. At any time I suppose it is never too late to [2222] secure the home market for agricultural produce because we will always be able to recapture the home market for such produce. We have, however, to do more than that. We must be in a position always to pay for the imports which we require in this country. We do want some very necessary imports, and the only thing we have to export as a surplus to pay for these imports is agricultural produce.

There is no use in exporting agricultural produce unless there is a market for it, and unless we hold the market for it, we are going to be nowhere in a few years. Therefore, I say: Do not let the farmer go out of production. Do not delay in giving him the relief he wants. Let members of Cumann na nGaedheal and the Farmers' Party, at least, be quite certain, before going into the Division Lobby to vote against this motion to-night, that the Minister for Finance will definitely introduce in the Budget some measure of relief for agriculture.

Mr. O'Hanlon: This motion, if it has done nothing else has proved to the people who sent us here that in this House there is a consensus of opinion in favour of relief for agriculture. We have that demonstrated from every Party in the House, including the Government Party. That fact was known in the country for the last ten years, becoming more acute year after year. Deputies have quoted here, in the course of their speeches, statements made by various responsible Ministers and others, that relief was necessary for agriculture, from 1923, 1925 and subsequent years. While all sides have been admitting this fact, for those years past, up to the present moment nothing tangible has been done to assist agriculture until this motion was put on the Order Paper.

In comparing the motion and the amendment, I think myself that the Labour Party have not enhanced their reputation by producing this amendment. It is pretty obvious to me, as I think it is obvious to most members of the House, that there is no bulk of agricultural opinion behind the amendment proposed by Deputy O'Connell.

[2223] Mr. T.J. O'Connell: The small farmers.

Mr. O'Hanlon: Deputy O'Connell says the small farmers. I come from a county of small farmers, perhaps the most typical county of small mixed farmers in the Free State. I have in my pocket at the present moment a mandate from 6,200 organised farmers of the County of Cavan, and they have instructed me to vote in favour of this motion. I am going to vote in favour of it. They have also, in discussing this question, for three or four years definitely stated that on this question of de-rating they, as I said, a community of small farmers and I will say the most industrious farmers in Ireland, do not take a selfish view of the question. They have stated, from the very start, that if de-rating of agricultural land is going to be a success in this country, we cannot differentiate between the large farmer and the small farmer.

The small farmer, notwithstanding what Deputy O'Connell says, and there may be something in it—that the small farmer will not get as great benefit out of de-rating as the large farmer—is not going to complicate this issue on the first occasion on which the necessity for the relief for agriculture has been brought prominently before the public. He is not going to complicate the issue by raising the question of the small or large farmer, to throw a spanner, as it were, into the works and leave a difficulty which the Government, if they were in a difficulty in dealing with this question, will seize on and say: “This is too complicated altogether. This question of dealing with the small farmer on a different basis to the large farmer will involve employing more officials. It will create difficulties all over the country, and consequently we will have to give more time to the consideration of the question.” It is giving an excuse to the Government.

Mr. Davin: This is not a de-rating motion.

Mr. O'Hanlon: It is not a de-rating motion, but it is the preliminary to it. If the Labour Party are not in favour of de-rating let them say so now. If it is not a de-rating motion, what was [2224] the necessity for Deputy O'Connell to go into all the extraordinary calculations he made as to how much a small farmer under £50 valuation would get? I would call such a farmer a large farmer in my county. What is the necessity at all of de-rating if it is not to relieve agriculture? What I want to point out is that the farmers in my county are in favour of de-rating. They have given me a mandate to vote for this half-loaf policy, and that is all we can call it. It is a half-loaf policy. This half-loaf policy is necessary at this time of the year, when agriculture is in a most depressed condition, and when the farmers find it very difficult to know where they are going to get money to seed their land. They want to know what their obligations are for the future, and if they are certain that the rate collector is only going to take 50 per cent. of the present assessment later on, it will induce them to go in for more tillage with a lighter heart than under present conditions. There will be a better prospect of buying the seeds and manures they have to use this year.

The main burden of the arguments of the Minister for Finance against this motion is that it is inopportune. He does not say it is unnecessary. There is a lot in what he says when he puts forward the case, by inference, that it is unwise to anticipate the Budget statement. I am very glad to have got a declaration from the Government that they recognise that agriculture requires relief and that provision will be made for that in the Budget—at least we hope so. But, in the meantime, if this motion were not discussed in the House, or some motion on similar lines, would we feel confident that there was going to be very considerable relief offered to agriculture in the Budget? Personally, I do not see any indication of that beyond statements which up to this I would say were purely unofficial, statements which possibly might not commit the Government to any particular line when the Budget was produced, and which would leave it open to the Government to say: “We quite recognise that relief for agriculture is necessary, but we have not before us the report of the De-rating Commission, [2225] and until we have we do not know on what lines to proceed and the matter will have to be held over until next year.”

On this matter of the De-rating Commission, Deputies, no matter from what county they come, will recognise that there is a general feeling, justified or otherwise, that the report is being held back unduly. That is putting the interpretation of the rank and file of the farmers in a very mild way. I do not want to go beyond that. But I think it is obvious that the report should have been produced before this. I have no knowledge of what way the Commission are going to report, whether it is to be for or against de-rating or a kind of half measure. But, if it is not a whole measure, so far as those whom I represent are concerned the relief to agriculture from de-rating will still remain a very vital question until it is completely dealt with.

It may be said, a