As this is a non-controversial Bill I know that it will pass through the House unanimously. It is merely a continuation of certain relief measures provided some years ago for the agricultural ratepayer. These reliefs were not granted to the farmers as any special gift but merely in realisation that the present system of rating is fundamentally unfair to the agricultural community inasmuch as the valuation of land is much higher in proportion to land's income-producing capacity than other property, particularly business property. It is also, of course, realised that total income from land is less than one-third, certainly very little more than one-fourth, of the national income, while the valuation of land is far in excess of 50 per cent., nearer 75 per cent., of the total valuation of the country. So there is an injustice to agriculture in the present valuation system which this relief measure seeks to adjust.
I said that this Bill was non-contentious, but there are certain people who have contentious minds who see something contentious in everything that comes before this House. It is a pity that an able and well-informed man like Deputy O'Higgins should allow the stimulation and production of bile in his internal organs to distort to a great extent and warp his mental development.
Deputy O'Higgins charges me with the awful crime of being actively associated with an organisation which sought to advocate and advance the cause of the unfortunate ratepayers generally. That organisation, of course, was strictly non-political and it was supported by many members, and even prominent members, of Deputy O'Higgins's Party. I do not think anything can be said on the ground that it was in any sense a political movement. It was a movement that sought to bring about some reform in our present system of local government, in our system of valuation and in our system of rates.
All those systems are antiquated and there is no doubt whatever that vast sums of money are wasted, not through any malice on the part of local authorities, the administrative staff or local representatives, but because of the antiquated and inefficient system which they are trying to operate.
Deputy O'Higgins referred to the fact that roadmaking and road maintenance constitute a very high proportion of the burden on rates. He will I think, admit that our whole system of roadmaking is utterly and completely antiquated and that there is waste because local authorities are trying to operate on out-of-date lines, trying to operate with sporadic grants of unpredictable amounts, trying to operate in many counties, particularly smaller counties, with antiquated machinery that is not sufficient for highly-efficient road construction. In addition, there are many difficulties in administration arising out of the fact that local authorities have to try to relieve social problems by giving employment irrespective of whether the labour can be efficiently employed or not.
All those matters make for ever-increasing expense, for overlapping, for a certain amount of inefficiency and waste and a very high burden on local ratepayers.
In this Bill we are seeking to provide for the distribution of very considerable sums of money for the relief of rates on agricultural land. This system has been in operation since 1926. It provides for a primary grant of three-fifths of the rate, under £20, for a supplementary grant of one-fifth, over £20, and for an employment grant.
I was glad to hear the Minister say that he is considering the desirability of some improvement in this system. I feel strongly that the agricultural grant should be distributed not only to relieve the agricultural producer but in such a way as to stimulate, more efficiently perhaps than it does, increased agricultural production, and particularly increased production of those essential crops for which the nation is crying out, that is, tillage crops. If a farmer knew that he would get a relief on his present year's rates in respect of the amount of tillage which he was carrying out on his farm this year, rather than a relief in respect of the amount of employment which he gave last year, there would be a greater incentive to him to increase tillage.
We know that under the present system a farmer who employs additional men this year may look forward to a reduction in his rates next year. That is looking forward a good distance and the amount of relief given is so small now in proportion to the wages of one agricultural worker, that it does not materially influence a farmer in employing a man. It costs very close on £200 to employ a man fully for the whole year, taking into account the full wage to which he is entitled and the premiums on his insurance. The relief given in respect of that expenditure of £200 under this scheme is £6 10s. 0d. That does not pay the insurance premium of that worker, under present circumstances. As that relief is given, not in respect of a man that the farmer might think of employing now but in respect of a worker whom he employed last year, it does not offer a real incentive to him to increase agricultural production, to increase employment, or to increase tillage. If a farmer were told that for every additional acre he would put under tillage or for whatever acreage he actually has under tillage, he would get relief—if the Minister would come out boldly and say, "I will completely de-rate every acre of land that is under tillage"—that would be a great incentive to him to increase tillage.
I know there may be people who would raise objections to that, who would say that the farmer might produce wrong figures in connection with the acreage he had under tillage. These figures can be checked. There are other people who might say that the checking of figures might involve expense. The answer is that under this scheme we already have inspection of a very close character, not only into the manner in which the farmer manages his business, but into his circumstances.
If a farmer claims relief in respect of a worker there is a check as to whether he employed that worker or not. That is a matter that can be checked through the national health insurance. If a farmer claims relief in respect of a member of his family, a very intensive investigation is carried out already under this scheme as to the accuracy of that claim.
As a matter of fact, I think the investigation under the existing scheme is more intimate, if you like, and more intensive than any inspection that it might be necessary to make in respect of a claim based upon the amount of land under tillage. For example, if a father claims an abatement in respect of one of his sons who has been employed on the farm, the local rate-collector or some other officer of the local authority will have to investigate whether that young man was employed all the year on the farm or whether he had done some other work for some portion of the year or was away from home for portion of the year. That does constitute a close investigation into the family circumstances of the farmer. On that score, there is nothing to be said against an abatement claim on the amount of tillage carried out. I, therefore, compliment the Minister on his decision to consider this whole matter, at any rate. Nothing can be done as far as the present year is concerned, as the present scheme is already in operation and the abatement forms in most cases have been completed, but for the coming year the matter should be further investigated, at any rate.
I think it will be admitted that there has been a change in the circumstances of the farming community since this scheme was first introduced. At any rate, agricultural wages were much lower in 1946 or whenever this scheme first came into operation and £6 10s. 0d. then constituted a greater proportion of the expenditure on employing a man than it constitutes to-day. On that score, there is certainly room for an improved scheme. It is particularly essential that the scheme should be improved with a view to stimulating increased agricultural production, particularly increased production of tillage crops. We know that it has been pointed out on a number of occasions that production in agriculture has gone down over the last two years. We have fewer cows, fewer sows and fewer acres under the plough now than two or three years ago. As between 1949-50 and 1950-51 there has been a reduction in the numbers of cows, the number of sows and the number of acres under the plough. Although one of the people responsible for the direction of agricultural policy used to say that he wanted one more cow, one more sow and one more acre under the plough, policy moved in the opposite direction. I think all the machinery of this State should now be employed on moving agricultural policy in the other direction. You cannot have increased production when there is a shortage of basic feeding stuffs. You cannot have more pigs and more poultry in the country when there is nothing to feed them, and the only feeding you can get for pigs and poultry is cereal crops produced on the land. I am glad, therefore, that the Minister has indicated that it is his intention to try to make this relief of agricultural rates conform as far as possible to the needs of the nation.
