In resuming the debate on the subject matter of the motion standing in the names of Deputies Belton, O'Higgins and Minch, I acknowledge that it has dragged out at considerable length, but if it has I consider that that is a matter of necessity as it is a matter of very great concern for the farmers of the Free State. On this question of derating it is unnecessary to go into its history, or at all events should be unnecessary. We know that at a certain period total derating was promised and there can hardly be any doubt in the minds of anybody as to what that meant. That promise was made at a particular time when it was necessary for those seeking office to try to hold out some bait to the electorate of the country. I have a very distinct recollection of a certain proposal made here in 1931 by the Government then in office, the Cosgrave Government. That proposal was for a grant of £750,000 towards derating. That proposal was opposed in the House by the then Opposition who are on the Government Benches now. They maintained that it was not sufficient and that it should be £1,000,000. It was put to a vote and the vote for £750,000 was carried. Further than that, the goods were delivered and the farmers got the full benefit of that sum. That sum was allocated on the basis of fifty per cent. on rates and fifty per cent. on population, and I say that it worked out very equitably in the sense that it brought fair play and justice to the people in congested districts where there was a large population but poor land and small valuations. I can say for my own county that it brought a reduction in the rate of 3/2 in the pound. In the adjoining county, that can boast of good land and high valuations but with perhaps a smaller population, it brought a reduction of 2/5 in the pound.
I could look at this matter very lightly were it not that when it was being debated here the other night I could hear Deputies on the other side of the House joking about this matter in such a callous way as to bring home to one's mind that the present position of the farmers in the Free State was a joke and nothing else. Very few people have any doubt, or at least none should have a doubt, as to where the responsibility for the present position of the farmers lies. The consequences of the action of the present Government are now within the recollection of every member of this House and, I think, should be well within the recollection of every member of the general public. In 1931 they wanted to insist on a million pounds for the purpose of derating. The farmers got £750,000. In 1932 they gave an additional £250,000 and in 1933 they took away from the farmers, at a time when they were most in need of any aid that could be given to them, the sum of £448,000. That meant to the ratepayers all over the Free State an increase in the rate of 1/4 in the pound. Apart from that, at what time were the local councils given to understand that they would have to meet this additional rate of 1/4 in the pound? I know that in Mayo it was when they had their estimates already made out and when they were just ready to strike the rate that this bombshell was thrown into them and that they had to look for this additional 1/4. There were complaints with regard to the attitude of the county councils in such matters. Is it to be wondered at that there should be such complaints? The county councils were considered then to be unreasonable because they resented the treatment meted out to them. Without any indication or warning this demand was made on them for an additional 1/4 in the pound when their estimates were already made out.
We were told by the Minister here last week that this is immaterial and, in fact, that it is infinitesimal as compared with the land annuities; but what is the position with regard to the land annuities? They were going to collect only one-fourth of the land annuities this year, but what about how the land annuities are being paid to England? Is there any Deputy or Minister on the other side who can deny that the land annuities and a sum of £2,000,000 in addition are being paid by the farmers? Instead of three million odd pounds they are paying five million odd pounds. That is their responsibility, as they say themselves, in the front line trenches. But perhaps they will be told, and we have been told without a blush, that they are well off. Listening to Deputy Corry last week in this House it would appear that things must be all serene with the farmers in Cork. In fact, listening to him, one would imagine that the farmers there were in such a position now that they were inclined to get out with bands and banners to show how well off they are and how much they enjoy it. We are told they are not paying the land annuities. Are they not paying them twice over? Of course, things will be much better in the future since the Attorney-General has embarked in the cattle trade through his agents, Patsy Killeen and John Brown. Fourteen pounds was the price paid for these cattle and £15 duty on the other side. What is the value of these cattle? If 40 per cent. was the duty what is the value of the cattle? That is all over now, but I think it is right and proper to refer to it here so that people should get a proper idea of what is happening and what treatment is being meted out to the farmers at the present time.
There is another matter to which perhaps it is no harm to refer. I think it is right and proper to refer to it. I speak for my own county. I know that we are going to have sugar beet and the privilege of contributing to the expense of establishing sugar beet factories in other places. I am not trying to take a narrow view of that situation but we were told by a Deputy—and a Mayo Deputy too—that we were to have the industry established in Mayo. These hopes are blasted but we will have the advantage of contributing to the establishment of these beet factories in other places. I do not mind so much about that but I think that it was the Minister for Finance, in introducing his last Budget, who said when imposing a tax on tea, that it was a luxury. In the very recent past, the President himself said "tea is a luxury and we should not use it, but the farmers can get light beer for their breakfast." If that is the position and if, in military parlance, tea is to be out of bounds for the farmers in the future, what is the necessity for us to have sugar beet or to invest millions in setting up factories? If we are not going to have tea, what do we require the sugar for? It seems extraordinary that men occupying the positions occupied by the Minister for Finance and the President of the State should make these statements. In face of all that, the farmers and everybody else are asked to make a contribution to the establishment of these beet factories.