Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1953—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Smith)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The object of the Bill is to continue for a further three years, including the present year, the greatly increased agricultural grant introduced in 1946, by the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act of that year. The Bill also proposes to make a change in the method of distributing the grant.

The system of allowances which began in 1946 and continued up to last year provided for an abatement of three-fifths of the rates on land valuations up to £20. Where the valuation of land in a holding was greater than £20, two types of additional allowances could be paid in relief of rates on the portion of the valuation over £20. The first was a supplementary allowance of one-fifth of rates and the second an employment allowance of 10/- in the £ of valuation where one or more menwere at work on a holding. The employment allowance was limited to £6 10s. per man, and the Act provided that these two types of allowance taken together were not to exceed the actual rates on the valuation over £20. In other words, a ratepayer could not get more in allowances than he was liable to pay in rates.

In February, 1952, when I was speaking on the Bill which was to extend the 1946 system to the year ended 31st March last, I told the House that I was examining the whole question of this form of rate relief, with a view to giving greater help by means of the agricultural grant to farmers whose methods of farming afforded maximum employment and who were best serving the needs of the community as a whole in regard to agricultural production. I said then that I did not see why this very large subsidy should be paid out without exploring what we might do to induce farmers to give more employment. The Bill now before you represents what I think we can fairly do within the framework of the present system, to use the agricultural grant in the drive for agricultural production.

The Bill proposes to merge the two types of allowance hitherto payable for land valuations over £20. The supplementary allowance paid irrespective of numbers employed will disappear and the employment allowance will be increased to a figure of £17 for each man employed on the holding. No change is being made in the three-fifths abatement in the rates on land valuations up to £20.

The Bill will apply the new scale of allowances to the current year and to the two following years. A three year trial period is necessary in order to give the revised system a chance of proving itself.

The other main provision of the Bill relates to the amendment of rates. That is necessary because the Bill will govern the making of allowances during the year which began on the 1st April last. When I spoke to the House on the Bill which applied the 1946 allowances to the year 1952-53, and to which I have already referred, I said that I would have liked to makethese changes for that year in view of the situation that existed. I was not able to do so then, but I considered it essential not to lose a further year, and although the necessary legislation could not be prepared in time, I wished to introduce the new system in the current year. This presented certain difficulties, since the extensive work of applotment of the county rate and making out demand notes has to go ahead as early as possible after the beginning of the local financial year if local finances are to be kept on an even keel. For this purpose county councils must know beforehand the general lines on which the agricultural grant is to be allocated for the year. The provisions of the present Bill show a departure from the circular letter issued to county councils in May last. The departure is, in fact, an extension of the new scheme and provides an employment allowance of £17 per man instead of £13 as suggested in the circular.

If the 1946 Act had been applied unchanged to the present year, it is estimated that the agricultural grant would have amounted to approximately £5,000,000. It is estimated that the grant under this Bill will not be less. The change proposed means, therefore, that the total amount will be distributed on an improved basis. Some will gain and some lose under the new system but, taking the country at a whole, losses and gains will balance out. The main difference, and the whole idea of the Bill, is that the farmer who will gain will be the farmer engaged in those forms of agricultural production which claim most attention, most supervision and care and, more important still, provide most rural employment.

Mr. Sweetman

Listening to the speech which has just been made in so very few minutes by the Minister on such a very large subject, I must say that nobody could accuse the Minister in any way of having a sense of humour. The Minister, without a smile on his face, spoke of the extensive work of applotment of the work that has to be undertaken by local authorities in regard to the rates and thenecessity of having that work done at an early date and immediately after the close of the financial year.

Everybody knows that the financial year ends on the 31st March. Everybody knows that local authorities, after their estimates meeting in February or the beginning of March, set about straightway the completion of the applotment of their rates and that they set about at a very early date in their financial year the completion of their rate demand notes. Yet the Minister, who has just paid lip-service to the necessity for early work, waited until the 20th May last to give any indication to any local authority in the country of what he intended to do for the current year.

It was only on the 20th May, that is to say, seven weeks after every local authority should have started on the work they had to do, the Minister told the local authorities that the work they had done was, to some extent, useless and would have to be scrapped. If ever there was an example of pure bungling in the administration and execution of any plan that was before a Government, the manner in which the Minister handled this Bill is an example of such bungling. Although it has probably meant on an average about £600 wasted money per local authority on pure official red tape, as I know one Deputy opposite would describe it, that is not all. We are going to have now, as a result of the Bill, additional paper work that could have been avoided if only the Minister had properly worked out the plans at the beginning and had properly considered whatever proposals he was going to bring before the House at the present time.

The reason is plain and simple. When the Minister sent his circular letter of the 20th May last to the various counties he was merely trying to implement the decision of his colleague, the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance, we all know, issued his famous edict in the Budget that taxation bears lightly on the land and the Minister for Local Government came along on the 20th May and with his letter that he then issued he,too, joined in that chorus; he, too, showed that he was not going to be behind the times in effecting, at the expense of the farmers, savings that the Minister for Finance announced during the passage of the Budget he intended to make.

The circular that was issued on the 20th May last would have meant a reduction in the agricultural grant that would have been paid this year—as near as anybody can make the calculation totting up the figures that were available to each member of each county council, or available in the Department—a loss to the farmers of the country as a whole of approximately between £400,000 and £450,000. It was because the Minister for Local Government got such a roasting and because the Fianna Fáil Party got such a roasting throughout the country from Fine Gael and others over that project to reduce the agricultural grant by approximately £400,000, that this change was made in the Bill that is now being introduced.

Those owners of agricultural land from the end of one county to the other who are having the increases in their rates somewhat reduced from the intention of the Minister on the 20th May last can only thank those people who started a campaign throughout the country and succeeded, particularly in East Cork and in Wicklow, in opening the eyes of the farmers of the country to what was proposed to be done by the Minister for Local Government following on his colleague the Minister for Finance. It was as a result of the fright that Fianna Fáil got from East Cork and from Wicklow that at last they decided to withdraw their hand from the pockets of the farmers to the extent of that additional £300,000 that was proposed in the circular of the 20th May last.

This Bill, the Minister has told us, will mean the distribution of the same amount of money as would have been distributed otherwise under the old scheme. His line has been that some will gain and some will lose. I want to challenge the Minister on that and to say categorically that he is wrong. I have been at some pains to get from various counties the figures of whatthose counties will receive under this Bill, and what they would have received if the legislation that was in existence on 31st March last had been re-enacted. I have not got the figures for every county. I have not got the figure for Cork and I will be glad to hear from Deputy Corry what that figure is.

Mr. Corry

You will be very sorry when you hear what Deputy Corry has to say.

Mr. Sweetman

The whole difficulty about accepting a figure from Deputy Corry is that we want to be quite sure it is an accurate figure.

Mr. Corry

On a point of order. If that is another legal way for a Deputy to tell another he is a liar, I will find a legal way to reciprocate.

An Ceann Comhairle

He is not casting any aspersions on Deputy Corry. The Deputy might not be able to find the correct figure.

Mr. Corry

We all know the legal profession.

Mr. Cogan

Are the figures Deputy Sweetman supplied to the Sunday Independentcorrect?

Mr. Sweetman

They are.

Mr. Smith

Has the Deputy any reason to doubt the figures I gave on this Bill?

Mr. Sweetman

Yes, I have, and I am going to tell the Minister why.

Mr. Smith

I thought the Deputy's complaint was that I gave none.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister gave figures a second ago in his speech, showing that the position was the same. I want to state categorically that if the Minister is right the local authorities throughout the country are wrong. I am going to take each county down the line. The estimate of the officials of the County Carlow County Council is that there will be a gain of £758 during the current year. In County Cavan, the Minister's own county, the official estimate is that there will be a loss of £863; that in County Clare this Bill will mean a lossof £8,793. I have not got the figures for Cork and Donegal, but in County Dublin there will be a loss of £11,051.

Mr. Smith

They must have been shaking a hand at you.

Mr. Sweetman

In County Galway the official estimate is that there will be a loss of £13,139; that in County Kerry there will be approximately a gain of £1,000; that in County Kildare there will be a loss of £16,587; that in County Kilkenny there will be a loss of £2,371; that in Laois there will be a gain of £329; the ratepayers in Leitrim as the result of this Bill will find great solace, great benefit, because the official estimate of the effect of this Bill on the ratepayers of Leitrim is that they will gain a solitary £1; in County Limerick it will make a difference of £196 to the good; in County Longford it will mean a loss of £3,267; in County Louth it will mean a loss of £4,956. I have not been able to get the figure for County Mayo, but in Meath it will mean a loss of £5,862; in Monaghan the loss will be £6,296; in Offaly the loss will be £4,817; in Roscommon they will receive under this Bill £4,425 less than they would have received if the legislation that expired on the 31st March last had been re-enacted; in Sligo the gain will be £343; in the North Riding of Tipperary the figure of loss is £4,060; in the South Riding of Tipperary the figure is £5,433; County Waterford, in Munster, will lose £13,562; Westmeath, in Leinster, will lose £16,324. I have not got the figure for Wexford, but Wicklow will lose £646 6s. 9d.

Unless my arithmetic is wrong, and I have had it checked, the total losses which I have just read out—the figures I gave were not my figures but were figures which the members of this Party obtained from the various local authorities in the constituencies they represent—amount to something over £122,400, and the total gains are approximately £2,400, leaving a net loss for those counties of £120,000. I have just heard Deputy Blowick mention some figure for County Mayo. I have not got any figure for that county.Deputy Browne, of this Party, was not able to get it from the officials there as they had not worked it out. I am only giving figures which I am prepared to stand over. They were furnished to members of this Party by the officials concerned, who had before them the basis on which they are going to have to applot the rates.

Mr. Smith

The figures are completely inaccurate. The Deputy must have got them from the local Fine Gael executive.

Mr. Sweetman

I got the figures from the secretaries of the respective county councils. I mentioned a number of counties where the figures were not available to me. In every other case, the figures which I read out were given officially to the members of this Party by the responsible local authority officer concerned, and he is the officer from whom the Minister himself said he had to get his information. When I put down a question earlier this year asking for this information, I was told in the first instance, that the Minister would give the figures for each of the counties on the Second Reading of this Bill to-day. He has failed to do that.

Mr. Smith

I have not made any such statement in this House at any time. I wish, a Cheann Comhairle, to correct the statement just made by the Deputy that I gave an assurance to the House that I would give on the Second Reading of this Bill a statement showing the exact effect which these proposals, if accepted, would have on each county. I claim that I made no such statement at any time in this House or outside of it.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister knows perfectly well that I put a question to him on the first day the Dáil met on its reassembly in October last, asking him for the figures for each county. His reply was that I would have to wait for the information until the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Smith

I am prepared to accept whatever the Official Report says in that regard, but my contention is that I made no such statement as that which is now being attributed to me.

Mr. Sweetman

I have sent for a copy of the Official Report and when I get it we can read what is in it. There was no doubt left on my mind as to what was the implication in what the Minister said. There is, equally, no doubt in my mind that, whether the Minister said that or not at that time, it was his duty to-day to give the information officially to the House if he had it. I suggest that he must have some information available to him when he contradicts the figures which I have given, and which have been supplied officially to members of my Party by the secretaries of the different county councils.

I want to say categorically, so far as this Bill is concerned, that far from being merely, as the Minister has stated, a way of redistributing the existing sum—it is not so serious as was the intention when the circular was issued in May—it is still a method of ensuring a reduction from last year's basis in the allocation of the agricultural grant.

Mr. Cogan

Are you opposing it?

Mr. Sweetman

I am not going to propose a motion and then run away from it, and vote against it, as the Deputy did last night.

Mr. Cogan

Are you supporting it or opposing it?

Mr. Sweetman

I am going to show, in relation to this Bill, that it is not the Bill which the Minister alleged it was when he was bringing it in. The primary purpose of this Bill is to save the Exchequer at the expense of the local rates that are going to be paid on agricultural land. In that purpose, the Minister is merely following on the line that has already been set by his colleague, the Minister for Finance. It has, unfortunately, been the purpose in many things lately to shift the burden from central taxation to the local rates. This Bill is going to continue that shift because, regardless of whether the figures for the present year which I have given are correct or not—I have said they have been obtained from the secretaries to thecounty councils—or whether the figures which the Minister has refused to disclose are correct, the fact is that every increase in rates in any county will mean, under this Bill, that there will be a reduction in the agricultural grant which would have been given if the legislation up to the 31st March last had been renewed.

Unfortunately, the rates have been increasing. It is unfortunate that that tendency is there. All of us agree that the trend in regard to rates seems to be towards an increase. The effect of this Bill will mean that, every time there is an increase in the rates, what the farmer-ratepayers will get by way of relief under this Bill will be less than what they would have got under the legislation that was in force prior to the 1st April last. That is, of course, because the supplemental allowance was worked on a sliding scale in relation to rates, whereas now the employment allowance will be on a fixed basis and not on a sliding scale, having regard to the amount of the rates. If the rates were to go down, it would mean that the local authorities would gain, but I am afraid few of us see much prospect of a reduction in the rates. The likelihood is that the rates will tend to increase as they have been doing.

So far as I could understand the meaning of what the Minister said in regard to Section 2, it was that he has a doubt as to whether the existing rate demands that have been struck are legal or not. In that connection, I should like to know whether the Minister was merely referring to the credit note situation that will arise in respect of the additional £4. Whether that is so or not does not affect the general principle, but the fact that the Minister delayed the introduction of his proposals, whatever these were going to be, until the 20th May, shows at best slackness and at worst indecision as to what was intended. A very unnecessary amount of work was done then following the applotment of rates that had already taken place.

Further unnecessary pen-work will now have to be done by reason of credit notes that will have to be issued, all of which could have been avoided ifthe Minister had brought his proposals to the House in time. The House knows that the existing legislation terminated on the 31st March last; that without some legislation there would not be any grant in relief of rates for the current year; that therefore if we are to oppose this Bill, if the Dáil does not pass this Bill on its Second Reading, it will mean that there will not be any relief in rates for agricultural land for the current year. Because of that, it is clear that all of us must agree that the principle behind the Bill for the relief of agricultural land from a portion of the rates is a principle which we must all accept. We of course accept that but on the Committee Stage, within the limits provided by the rules of order which prohibit Deputies other than Ministers from putting down amendments which involved a charge on public funds, we shall submit to the House certain amendments, and particularly an amendment for the continuation of relief which is in existence and which it is purported to remove by sub-section (1) of Section 1 of this Bill before the House, in regard to supplementary allowances.

We have here—I want to be quite fair to the Minister—the question of the 27th October last in which I asked the Minister for Local Government if the amount payable to each local authority under the Bill now circulated would be the same as it would have been if last year's system had been continued. The Minister then made it clear that he had not the information available in the Department and that it could be supplied only by the local authorities concerned. I suggested a second ago that the Minister said then that he would circulate that information on the Second Reading of the Bill. That is not correct. I think that must have been in regard to a question I asked in July about the cost of his circulars because he did give that reply in regard to some question I asked him. But he is quite correct in stating he did not give that reply in regard to the question I asked on the 27th October last. It does notexcuse him from giving the information to-day.

Mr. Corry

I knew there was something wrong with your head this morning.

Mr. Sweetman

Sometimes those of us on this side of the House who do not hear exactly what Deputy Corry says have to gauge what he is saying by whether he is nodding or shaking his head. It would be easier for us to judge whether he meant yes or no if we were near enough to hear the rattle inside him.

Mr. Corry

Unfortunately your rattle is a very bad one this morning.

Mr. Sweetman

That reply to which the Minister was kind enough to refer me and without which reference I might not have remembered the exact terms of his reply said—it was the Minister himself who answered—that the information could be supplied only by the local authorities concerned. The figures that I have stated in this House have been supplied by the local authorities——

Mr. Smith

Would you read my supplementary reply in its entirety please?

Mr. Sweetman

"It could be supplied only by the local authorities concerned after examination of the terms of the proposed new legislation."

Mr. Smith

Which we are now examining.

Mr. Sweetman

And the local authorities concerned were asked to give this information not on the basis of the circular I have mentioned but on the basis of the Bill that is already before the House. The query sheet that was made out made that clear beyond question—that it was not on the basis of the circular and that it was on the basis of the Bill that had been introduced, that they produced that information. They were the people whom the Minister said would be the only people able to give the information. On that basis, excluding the Counties of Cork, Donegal, Mayo and Wexford, it means that £120,000 less is being given in relation to rates this year than would have been given if last year's legislation were renewedand re-enacted. Those are the figures whether the Minister likes them or not.

Mr. J. Flynn

Are you including Kerry?

Mr. Sweetman

As gaining £1,000. I read that out earlier if the Deputy was here. Those are the facts and that is the effect of this Bill—that £120,000 more is being asked to be paid as a result of this Bill by the very people to whom lip-service—and only lip-service—in respect of increased production is being paid by the Minister and his colleagues.

Dr. Esmonde

I think it is a great pity that the Minister in his opening statement could not have given us the figures which Deputy Sweetman gave us. After all a Minister in control of a Department has opportunities over and above those of a private Deputy and it seems quite unreasonable to suggest that the Minister in introducing a Bill such as this, a Bill that is bound to be controversial, could not have given us the facts, and all the facts as he was in a position to obtain them. Since he has not given us the facts, we in the Opposition have got to try to make it crystal clear to the Minister and to those on the benches behind who are supporting him, that this Bill is not acceptable to the farmers of Ireland and is not going to be of benefit to the economic position of the country and to production generally. It is a bad Bill. It is an ill-conceived Bill.

Deputy Sweetman has made it clear that we on this side of the House will not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill because the purpose of it is to make a belated attempt to give the farmers that which they should have had since 31st March last. I can see no reason why there was not a continuation of the state of affairs that existed then and the Minister has given no reason as to why this Bill was not introduced six months ago.

Furthermore, if the Minister intended to make a change in the rates position as applicable to agricultural land he could have worked out his scheme with the assistance of his advisers beforehand and then come inhere and given us the detailed statement to which we, as public representatives, are entitled. I take it other Deputies have had experiences similar to mine, irrespective of whether they are sitting on this side of the House or on the Government Benches; I am sure they have had innumerable letters from their constituents asking if it is legal for the Minister to do what he proposes to do in asking the farmers to pay the full rate. The position would appear to be that it is legal. Quite frankly, I think it is sharp practice, and nothing more.

The Minister is himself a farmer. Most of us here are farmers. Anyone concerned with or associated in any way with land knows that it is essential for farmers to make arrangements well in advance. If there is one profession in the world in which it is necessary to plan not only one year in advance but several years in advance, it is farming and for that reason the farmer is entitled to know what his charges and his costings for the ensuing year, or years, will be.

I submit to the House—I think it is a fair submission—that the farmers have no indication from the Minister or from the Government as to what their rateable charges will be in the coming year. I know that that is so because of the letters I have received from my constituents in relation to this matter. Deputy Sweetman has given the House certain figures. The Minister has said that those figures are inaccurate. I do not know whether or not they are accurate but they have come from the only source from which it is possible to procure such figures. They were obtained from the secretaries of the local authorities who replied to Deputy Sweetman. I fail to see why all the secretaries of all the local authorities should not have answered Deputy Sweetman. It is our function and purpose here to debate Bills that come before the House. We are not a pack of yes-men. We are entitled to offer our opinion. As the main Opposition Party we are entitled to receive the courtesy of a reply from local authorities when they are written to by Deputy Sweetman on behalf of this party. There was a certain amount of sneering on the GovernmentBenches because certain county councils did reply. As a responsible Deputy I assert that every local authority should have replied, the more so as we did not have any information from the Minister and the only means left to us of obtaining the information we required was through the medium of the local authorities themselves. It would have considerably simplified this debate if we had had replies from every local authority. Those that we have had speak for themselves. The farmers will lose approximately £120,000 this year. That is a hypothetical figure. They may lose a great deal more than that.

Mr. Allen

I thought it was an accurate figure.

Dr. Esmonde

I knew it would not be long before Deputy Allen interrupted. If Deputy Allen would keep quiet for a few moments and allow me to develop my argument we would get on more rapidly. I am sure Deputy Allen will give us a discourse later on local government affairs which will enthrall this House. The only people who are in a position to produce a figure are the secretaries of the local authorities. That figure is a hypothetical figure. It is hypothetical because the Minister is basing his claim in relation to this Bill on the fact that it will give more employment. That is one reason why the figure is a hypothetical one. He is also founding this Bill on the fact that the rates will remain static. Does any Deputy believe that the rates will remain static? Has it not been acknowledged by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare that the rates will go up by 2/- in the £ as a result of the Health Act? That, again, is a hypothetical figure. The figures we have procured—we should have had these figures from every local authority —are hypothetical for two reasons: they are based on the assumption that the rates will remain static; and, secondly, that the level of employment will remain static.

Who will be hit most by this Bill? The bigger farmers will lose most. It is, of course, good political tactics tohit the bigger farmer and commend the small man. Up and down the country we have heard public appeals by Ministers for increased production. Who is the man who bears the heaviest load in agricultural production? Who is the man who takes the biggest risk? Who produces most? It is the big farmer. Who is the man who will lose most by this? It is the big farmer.

Mr. Davern

Who is the man who gives the least employment?

Dr. Esmonde

Does the Deputy seriously suggest for one moment that the big farmer gives less employment than anybody else?

Mr. Davern

Definitely, in proportion to the number of acres he holds.

Dr. Esmonde

That may be so, because the small farmer is himself a working farmer. In the main, the major portion of agricultural employment is provided on the bigger holdings. I am not now arguing the case of the big farmer as against the small farmer. It may be economic to have more small farms. It may be the policy of Fianna Fáil to seize the large farms and break them up. But, if it is, there has not been much sign of that policy being implemented during the years in which Fianna Fáil has been in office.

In the last analysis we depend on what we can produce and what we can sell. The cities and towns depend for their very existence on what the farmers can produce and sell. This Bill will take money out of the pockets of the farmers and, irrespective of whether it will take that money from the big farmer or the small farmer, it is sharp practice and nothing else. The one-fifth remission is to go. Originally the allowance ceiling was £13. That is now to be raised to £17 as a result of public outcry. Deputy Sweetman stated to-day that that increase was given because of the by-election and for no other reason. Is there any guarantee that that £17 will encourage the farmers to employ more labour? Is there any guarantee that it will force them to employ more labour? The more we can put into employmenton the land the better it will be. Is there any indication, judging by the trend of circumstances, that more people will be employed on the land? There is no indication of that and there is no indication that this Bill will confer any benefit on the agricultural community as a whole. There is no reason for removing the one-fifth allowance quaagricultural rates relief over the £20 valuation figure unless it is that the Government wants to save money or hold more money back in order to devote it to other purposes.

There is no use in Ministers going about the country paying lip-service to agriculture. There is no point in the Government's attitude in relation to this Bill. I said in the beginning that we were entitled to proper information on this Bill. We have not got that information and we have a very strong suspicion, when all is said and done, that it will not be a question of £120,000 being taken away from the farmers; it may be a far bigger sum than that.

What every agricultural worker wants and what I would like to see him getting is employment the whole year round. The more the overhead burden on the farming community is relieved the more employment will be created. That is common sense. This Bill, it is stated, is designed for that purpose. Personally I cannot see it. The best thing that the Minister could do would be to restore the one-fifth allowance which he has taken off so that the farmers may know where they stand. I repeat that if it were not for the pressure exerted by this Party, and the fact that we showed the people throughout the country what was behind this scheme, the Minister would not now be offering the farming community the reliefs he is offering them to-day.

Mr. Smith

So you are taking credit for the Bill you opposed.

Mr. J. Flynn

I interrupted Deputy Sweetman's statement about gains and losses by various counties. I was not present for his opening statement but I understood that he said that Kerry would gain £1,000 under the arrangement.I am not clear as to whether he meant that the ratepayers would gain £1,000 under the original arrangement or under this new arrangement. The Deputy read out a list, I understand, giving the advantages and disadvantages to the ratepayers in each county under the previous legislation and this new legislation. Am I to understand that the Deputy stated that Kerry would gain £1,000 under the old arrangement? If that is the statement made, I would question it. At our county council meeting last Monday, there was a motion put down by Mr. M. J. O'Connell as follows:—

That we consider the effect of the Government's decision to reduce the agricultural grant in Kerry.

In reply to that, the county manager allowed the county secretary to make a statement that we would lose £6,000 under the previous arrangement made by the Minister. How does that contrast with Deputy Sweetman's statement that we would gain £1,000?

Mr. Sweetman

One refers to the circular. The other refers to the Bill.

Mr. J. Flynn

You cannot make one case here and the other case in Kerry to suit each circumstance and each group of people. Members of the Deputy's Party made great propaganda on this whole question.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

That is quite true.

Mr. Dillon

And signs on it, the circular was changed.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

The circular was changed in consequence.

Mr. J. Flynn

That Party tried to make it appear, as they did at our meeting on Monday last, that the ratepayers of Kerry would lose considerably.

Mr. Dillon

And they would have if the circular was not changed.

Mr. Sweetman

They would have.

Mr. J. Flynn

I contradicted the county manager's statement and the secretary's statement and that of themover of the motion by saying that this legislation was being put through in the same financial year as the year for which we were considering the rate in Kerry and that the county manager was not yet in a position to say whether he would have a loss or otherwise, before the end of the financial year. I stated at the meeting on Monday that we did not have a loss because our valuations are, comparatively speaking, low valuations. I made the case that before final figures could be produced by the county manager, even if we did have a loss, the new legislation would be retrospective and the whole position would be readjusted. They seemed to realise as a result of my statement that they could not make a bald statement to the effect that the ratepayers would lose £6,000 as a result of the arrangement made by the Department some time ago.

Therefore, I say that this camouflage, as I call it, this propaganda, is of no service to the ratepayers. It is misrepresentation of the position as between this arrangement and the previous arrangement in order to gain a political point. In counties like Kerry, where the valuations are low as compared with other counties the circumstances are different. I was amazed that any county manager or county secretary would give a definite figure of a loss of £6,000 when he was not in a position to have the whole period under review and the whole question examined.

There is one important matter that concerns Kerry which I would mention to the Minister in the hope that he may be able to do something about it in this legislation or at a later date as a result of this legislation. The farmers in Kerry have been agitating for years for some adjustment of the employment period. It is a well-known fact that in our county and in other southern counties farmers cannot get employees to give the full 12 months' period of employment. The nearest we can get to it is a nine or ten months' period, and under the arrangement if they cannot at the end of the year show through their returns and through their statements and all the rest of itthat they have been employed by the farmers concerned for the full 12 months' period, that allowance cannot be granted and no allowance in respect of their work can be granted.

What I have been asked to do and to make representations to the Minister on is to ask if an arrangement could be made that where a farmer can show that he has a man employed for ten months of the year he would get the necessary allowance in respect of that employee. A number of farmers were unable to avail of any concessions that were available in the ordinary way owing to this position. That is the system. We realise that it was no fault of the Government or the Department concerned that this occurred, but owing to our system. It may be a peculiar system, and I understand that it does not obtain in County Dublin, where the employment period is the full 12 months, but in Kerry, in any case, that is the position. I would be grateful if the Minister would examine that. Perhaps it cannot be done now under this special arrangement and under this legislation, but nevertheless I think that it is more or less appropriate to mention it now in the passing through of this proposal, and that is all I have to say at the moment.

We appreciate what the Minister has done for us under this proposal, and despite the misrepresentation and statements that have been made about his actions in regard to the loss to the ratepayers I think there is no justification for it. The facts will prove and have proved that, as I have stated the case here, Deputy Sweetman when it suits him up here will make a certain statement and down in Kerry his colleagues and his friends will make a different statement, and when you examine both of them you have only to come to the one conclusion, that it is a distortion of the facts and misrepresentation.

Mr. Sweetman

We saved Kerry £7,000.

Mr. Finan

I think it was pretty evident from the statement which the Minister for Finance made in introducing his Budget that we would havesomething like this to deal with. When the Minister indicated that he believed taxation rested lightly on the land it thereby became evident that he was going to ensure that it would rest somewhat more heavily.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Finan

The introduction of this Bill is clearly an indication in that direction. I think that the Minister for Local Government should have asserted his rights and his opposition, and resisted the efforts of the Minister for Finance to put further taxation on the land.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Finan

He had already calmly submitted to the reduction in the Local Authorities (Works) Act of £250,000 which might go some way towards assisting the farmers to offset any further charge. He had accepted that weakly. He was then entitled, I submit, as Minister for Local Government to insist that no further demands would be made on the farming community. I would like to say now that I think there is a terribly erroneous feeling in this country with regard to the position of the farming community. There are people in this country who believe that the farmers are rolling in wealth. I do not want to suggest that the farmers are not pretty well off but I do say that the present price obtaining for live stock is not yielding the returns to the farmers which many people believe, because while it is true to say that the farmer gets good prices for his live stock which he has to sell, he must replace that stock at considerably enhanced prices and his margin of profit is not what the prices obtained would indicate. If the Government imagine that they can come along and put further burdens on the farming community ad lib.they are making a very serious mistake.

I am concerned mainly with the effects of this Bill in my own county, and from the information which was put at my disposal yesterday we will lose approximately £5,000 in Roscommon. It is true to say that the largerfarmers will suffer that loss, but I want to make this clear, that the larger and middle-sized farmers in any event make the greatest contribution. They make the main contribution to the social services, from many of which they themselves can derive no benefit. That has always been my attitude in regard to this whole question. The middle class farmers who will be hit most by this legislation are the men in many instances who will not qualify for any of the benefits for which the Government claim so much credit in their social welfare services, but on the other hand they must finance it. I do not think that is just or fair.

I want to say quite frankly that I do not think the increase in the employment allowance, especially in this part of the year, is going to mean any benefit at all to the larger farmers, because it is well known now that any farmer who really is intelligent and serious about farming is every year mechanising his farm more and more and dispensing with employing labour, and it is not likely that he will derive any benefit whatsoever from the increased allowances in many instances.

I want to say in that connection that I have always felt it was grossly unfair to confine that employment allowance to males only. I think the Act worked very unfairly, because in many instances a man has two or three daughters and no son and those daughters do good work on the farm and are still doing it, but there is no employment allowance for them. I think that the Act should be made applicable to any male or female employed on a holding to give some compensation to the man not in a position to claim for an adult worker.

I do agree with Deputy Flynn on the point which he has raised in connection with the man who does not employ a man the whole year round. It might impress the Minister if I tell him that in my county there was a man who had a regular workman employed during the first months of the year—from the 1st January until 3rd May last year. On the 3rd May his workman left him and he was unable to get a permanent man until the 1st June, and because of that and althoughhe had a casual workman employed he was deprived of his whole 52 weeks' employment rebate. When he brought the matter to the attention of the county council, they said that if he supplied the name of the casual workman who was employed they would consider the matter, and he did. He sent in the name of the casual workman, but when they discovered that that workman's valuation was over £5, they disallowed the rebate. I think that is sheer absurdity. I believe we could alter this Act very sensibly by allowing a pro rataremission—that in the case where a man is employed for six months the farmer should get 50 per cent. of the rebate and if he worked nine months, 75 per cent. I think it is unreasonable to deprive the employer of the full rebate because he has not his man in continuous employment from the 1st January to 31st December. It is most inequitable and unjust, and I hope that an amendment I intend to put forward will be allowed by the Chair so that the Minister will be in a position under the Bill to use his discretion and deal fairly and equitably with those men. I want to say in conclusion that we of this Party are entirely disappointed at the introduction of this measure, because we feel it is a further attempt to put more liabilities and burdens on the farming community, and for that reason we are opposing it.

Mr. Norton

We have had this pattern of legislation for some years past, and although the Minister is making certain changes in the Bill this year on the whole the Bill follows the general pattern of our rates legislation so far as agriculture is concerned. But observing the operation of this Act up to the moment and listening to some of the speeches here to-day, I am tempted to ask whether, in fact, we get any real value from legislation based on the principles set out in this Bill. Under the Bill approximately £5,000,000 will be spent by the State in the relief of rates on agricultural land. Five million pounds is a very substantial amount of money, a sum which would more than service a loan of £100,000,000. I wonder if we are gettingany adequate return by paying out that £5,000,000 a year on the basis that we assume—and it is the most facile and unwarrantable assumption I know—that the paying out of this large sum does in fact make the farmer employ labour which he would not otherwise employ? The present allowance is £6 10s. for every adult worker employed the whole year round, that is 2/6 per week. Does anybody imagine that a farmer employs a man for 52 weeks and pays him £4 per week for the privilege of getting 2/6 per week in return by way of relief on rates?

Mr. Dillon

It does not cost £5,000,000 a year to pay that 2/6 a week.

Mr. Norton

This whole legislation is based on the assumption that agriculture needs to be assisted and one of the devices adopted for that purpose is to give the farmer £6 10s. by way of relief for every man he employs. No man employs an agricultural worker because he gets 2/6 a week rebate. He employs a man simply because he wants him, simply because he cannot do without him. The man would still be in the market place if the farmer did not need him and he would never be induced to employ a man merely because he gets 2/6 a week for relief in his rates. I do not think we can get any really effective return from the payment of this £5,000,000.

Quite frankly, I think that if we were to float a national loan for £100,000,000, buy £100,000,000 worth of fertilisers and say to the farmers: "Here is £100,000,000 worth of fertilisers free" in lieu of this £5,000,000, at the end of 20 years we would have better farmers than you are likely to get by pouring out this £5,000,000 every year because it is putting nothing positive into the land. It is making no special contribution to the small farmer who, because of his financially impoverished condition, is not farming his land; he is quarrying it. He is taking everything he can out of the land but he is putting nothing back into it.

I think from every point of view it would be better to buy, say, £5,000,000worth of fertilisers, load it into aeroplanes, and drop it at random on the soil of the country. The farmer, who at present cannot afford to buy fertilisers, would have a better farm by a process of that kind than he is ever likely to have on the basis of paying him 2/6 a week for every man he employs. I think there might have been a more thorough examination of the whole problem and that some effort might have been made to ensure that this £5,000,000 would be used in a way which would bring us some return from the land and that it would not be used in the money-changing sense, on the facile assumption that we are in some way aiding agriculture. I doubt very much if it does aid agriculture. I think substantial evidence can be produced to show that, in fact, it renders practically no assistance to the agricultural industry as a production unit in the economy of the country.

The assumption in the existing legislation and in this Bill is that because of the aid given in respect to the employment of labour, farmers will be tempted to employ more workers but the facts show that in the 12 months between June, 1952, and June, 1953, more than 21,000 people have left the land. There has been a bigger decline in the employment on the land between June, 1952, and June, 1953, than in any similar period in the last 30 years. Notwithstanding that fact, we still proceed on the assumption, because we prefer not to think about it, that a Bill of this kind induces the farmer to employ more labour than would otherwise be employed. I do not think that one additional person will be employed as a result of this Bill. A farmer will only employ a person because he needs his services. If a farmer puts down on the one hand what it costs him for wages and, on the other hand, the relief he gets under the Bill, I do not think he is going to be attracted by the microscopic subsidy he gets towards the employment of agricultural labour.

As I have said, I think the farmer might be assisted in other ways, in ways that would certainly enhance the value and the productivity of his land. If, however, there is to be anyemphasis in respect of where the money is to go, I agree that that emphasis should be put on the employment of labour. In so far as the Bill does that, I think it is preferable to have the emphasis on the employment of labour than on the mere ownership of land unrelated to the employment of labour. I still doubt whether, in fact, a Bill of this kind does make a real contribution towards providing additional employment but, in so far as anybody believes it does, I am completely out of step with the viewpoints expressed by Deputy Flynn and Deputy Finan in the course of the discussion.

One of the most detestable things about agriculture is the casual nature of the employment in the industry. Agricultural workers are employed when the farmer wants them and they are "fired" when the farmer does not want them. That may be due to the type of agriculture we follow, it may be due in some measure to the size of our holdings but the plain fact is that the agricultural worker has got to live for 52 weeks in the year. You cannot say to the agricultural worker: "I have got nine months' work for you. I will pay you wages for nine months but you can go and hibernate for the other three months and keep your wife and children for these three months as best you can." The agricultural labourer has got to live for these three months and he must get some wages, otherwise he will have to be maintained by the State. Anything that puts a premium on the casualisation of employment in agriculture will beget my fiercest opposition. I think, therefore, the view expressed by Deputy Finan and Deputy Flynn was short-sighted. Anything which would put a premium on putting off the agricultural worker with less than 12 months' work in the year, in other words, casual employment, is something that should not be tolerated by this House.

Mr. Finan

Suppose his employee goes away and he cannot replace him for a period of say two or three weeks. Is the farmer to be penalised for that?

Mr. Norton

There may be a difficulty now and again in getting workers but looking at the figures circulated by the Department we see that there arenow at least 70,000 registered unemployed. In Roscommon and Kerry there are quite substantial quotas of unemployed.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

They will not work on the land.

Mr. Norton

Not only have we this large number of people unemployed but we would have a still larger number were it not for the fact that the emigrant ship takes many of our unemployed away from our shores each year.

Mr. Finan

One may find plenty of registered unemployed in the country but the farmer cannot get them to work.

Mr. Norton

If he pays them a decent wage——

Mr. Finan

He is bound to pay them a certain standard.

Mr. Norton

I should like to see an individual who makes that assertion brought before some tribunal and examined with regard to it. I refuse to believe that a fellow will not work in Roscommon but that he will go to work in Birmingham to face all the evils associated with employment in large industrial cities. I think if you give him decent wages he will work here. If he is not getting decent wages, he is a free man and he is entitled to go to work wherever he likes. At all events there is a residue of 70,000 unemployed in this country and, so long as you have that residue, you cannot at the same time plead that you have an insufficiency of labour. I hope the Minister will set his face against any proposal which would aid the casualisation of agricultural employment by giving an employment allowance for employment of less than 12 months' duration. Every effort should be made to step up the amount of employment which the agricultural worker gets each year and the immediate aim ought to be to try to get regular employment for the agricultural worker in the same way as the industrial worker can, in the main, secure that type of employment. Itis because of the fact that work in agriculture is so often casual that the agricultural workers leave the rural areas and go into the towns where they look for jobs in industry or in commerce because they know that there is regular employment in these jobs as distinct from the casual character of their employment in agriculture.

There is no question at this stage of voting against this Bill because to do so would be completely to deny agriculture all the benefit which it has had for years and which it still requires. But there is a good case, not from the point of view of the farmers in this county or in that county, but from the over-all national point of view for examining this question of aiding agriculture through this medium with a view to seeing whether we could not find some better scheme which would put something more positive into the land and enable us to take out of it a greater volume of production for the nation and a greater return for the farmer who owns the land.

Mr. Cogan

Deputy Sweetman has indicated that it is his intention to support this Bill. We may take it, therefore, that the Bill will be unanimously approved of by the House. That is all to the good. But it does seem rather peculiar that the official organ of the Fine Gael Party, or should we call it the Fine Gael Izvestia,describes this Bill in very large type as a bitter pill for ratepayers. It appears now that the Fine Gael Party have decided to impose this bitter pill on the ratepayers. I think, however, that Deputies who view this matter fairly, impartially and objectively will acknowledge that it is not a bitter pill. The Minister indicated that there will be gains and losses in regard to this alteration of the allocation of the agricultural grant as between individual ratepayers and as between counties, but that these gains and losses will balance out and that the relief given this year will be equal to that which would have been given under the previous arrangement which was first introduced in the 1946 Act.

It is no harm to consider this matter fairly, leaving these little eruptions ofParty feeling on the Opposition side out of account. It is no harm to consider whether this Bill does or does not improve the allocation of the agricultural grant. I hold that it does definitely improve the allocation. It gives greater relief to the man who gives the maximum of employment. The man who provides reasonable employment, not excessive employment, on his holding will gain very substantially by this Bill, and the man who refuses to give employment and who thinks he can sit back and forget that there are other citizens living in this country, forget that he has neighbours with children and ignore their wants will lose something under this Bill.

Let us examine how this Bill affects the ordinary farmer with a valuation of £120. The first £20 of that valuation will not be affected in any way. There is a three-fifths rebate of rates on the first £20 valuation regardless of the size of the holding or of the valuation. Under the previous legislation the farmer would get a rebate of £30 or one-fifth of the rates on the remaining £100 of valuation, assuming the rates would be 30/- in the £. Now under this Bill he will lose that supplementary allowance. Instead of that, he will gain £10 10s. in respect of each man employed. Where he formerly got £6 10s. he will now get £17. If a farmer employs three men, on £100 of his valuation he will receive £31 10s. over and above what he would have got under the previous legislation. In other words, he will lose £30 and he will gain £31 10s. That is the position of an ordinary farmer giving, not an excessive amount of employment, but just the minimum employment that would be required to carry on a holding valued at £120.

Somebody may say that three men per £100 valuation represent a very high rate of employment. I wonder will anyone be so foolish as to suggest that. In the ordinary course of events we do not refer to our own business, but it is in regard to our own farming operations that we can speak with authority. I have an agricultural valuation of £75 and I employ three men. I find I could not carry on that farmwith fewer than three men, or one man per £25 valuation. I think a farm would not be worked efficiently or well with a lesser number. So that the farmer who employs one man per £30 valuation is not giving excessive employment. If he wants to farm intensively, he has to employ more, and if he employs four men per £100 valuation he will gain £18 10s. as a result of that.

I am not suggesting that any farmer might employ an additional man simply and solely because of the relief given under this Bill or under the previous Act. There is, however, always the question of giving encouragement to the man who is doing the right thing and this Bill certainly does that. For example, a man may be weighing in his mind whether he will till a little more extensively and employ an additional man or carry more live stock for the winter and employ an additional man. If he knows that he will get £17 additional, it will help him to decide on giving that additional employment. That is where the merit lies in this Bill. But even if it did not have that effect, it would still be desirable in justice and in fair play to give the maximum amount of relief to the man who is giving the maximum amount of employment. That is the chief merit of this Bill. I was glad to see that Deputy Norton accepted that point. I would compliment him on his approaching the Bill in a fair and reasonable way, although I profoundly disagree with the majority of the points he made. He asked whether it is right or proper to go on paying out of the Exchequer £5,000,000 per year for the relief of rates. I would like to indicate to him that it is not quite as simple as that. Rateable valuations on land are high, having regard to its income producing capacity. The whole idea of the initiation of this agricultural grant was to offset the injustice to agriculture through the relatively high valuation of agricultural land, having regard to its income earning capacity. Therefore, it is not a question of a subsidy to help agriculture but a question of doing justice to agriculture. The allocation of this £5,000,000 is an attempt to offset aninjustice which was found to exist in the rating system.

Deputy Norton suggested we might do better by borrowing £100,000,000 and dumping it on the land in the form of fertilisers. I have a certain amount of sympathy with Deputy Norton. He probably expressed the view in good faith but it shows a lamentable ignorance of the use of fertilisers. If you dump a very large quantity of fertilisers in one year you are not going to reap a reward over a considerable number of years. They tend to operate only for a very short period. Modern agricultural science indicates that the farmer should seek to use fertilisers with a view to getting the utmost value within one season. In fact, the suggestion that ordinary fertilisers other than lime would have a life of over one or two years at the outside is quite a mistake. In addition to that, fertilisers can be applied only on the basis of a scientific soil analysis. Therefore we have to take it that it is desirable to allocate this £5,000,000 per year to equalise or help to equalise the burden of taxation as between agriculture and the rest of the community. It is not a question of giving a dole to the mendicant farmer or anything like that but of spreading the burden of taxation as fairly as possible over the community.

Having decided that this £5,000,000 ought to be allocated to agriculture, the next question is to decide the fairest method of allocation. As far as the first £20 is concerned I think it is generally agreed that the three-fifths rebate is a fairly substantial benefit, and that three-fifths rebate is being continued under this Bill. A farmer under £20 valuation is not affected in the slightest way by the passing of the Bill.

With regard to a farmer over £20 valuation, he will gain substantially by the Bill provided he is able to employ one man to every £30 of his valuation over £20. That is to say, a farmer of £50 valuation employing one man will gain slightly by the Bill. If he happens to employ two men on a £50 or £60 valuation he will gain fairly substantially.Is there anything wrong with the principle that the man who is farming his land intensively and giving the maximum amount of employment on the land should get the maximum benefit that is provided by the State for the relief of rates?

Mr. Davern

Hear, hear!

Mr. Cogan

It is a sound principle to help the man who is helping the country by providing employment. The whole campaign which has been waged against the Bill by Fine Gael, a campaign of misrepresentation, is utterly harmful. Surely our most important asset is the land—and land is no use unless it is worked. Is it not a reasonable suggestion that a farmer who employs one man to every 30 acres of good land—that is all that is provided for in the Bill—should gain, whereas a man who does not do so will lose? There is a big principle involved. We have a limited acreage—12,000,000 acres—of agricultural land. It should be the aim of any Government to see that that land is utilised to the best advantage. Socially, it is desirable to ensure that every 20 or 30 acres are supporting a family. We know a family can live on a farm of £30 valuation. They are living on it in many cases. Here in this country and all over the world there are bishops, judges and other people in prominent positions in Church and State who were reared on farms of £30 valuation. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the suggestion that such a farm will not provide enough to pay the wages of one man.

This Bill seeks to ensure that the farmer who employs one man to every additional £30 of his valuation will gain by the allocation of the agricultural grant. A man who employs less than that will lose. The man who employs no one on a £500 to £700 valuation farm will lose substantially— there is no doubt about that. The suggestion was made by Deputy Esmonde that this Bill is designed to hit the big farmer. It is not; it will help him. I know big farmers of £400 or £500 valuation employing men and farming intensively. They will gain substantially by this change in the distribution of the agricultural grant, asthey are employing more than one man to every £30 of their valuation. This Bill does not hit the big farmer but hits the farmer, big or small, who refuses to give employment. It hits the selfish man who says: "I can make a living for myself on the land without regard to my neighbours, without regard to my country, without regard to anyone else and without trying to help to give employment and I refuse to employ any workers on my land."

It is true that that man will be adversely affected by this Bill. However, such men are in a very small minority in the farming community. Most of our farmers, big and small, try to provide the maximum employment on their holdings. They try to get the most they can out of their holdings and to improve them. In my opinion, it is impossible to work a farm of even £75 valuation with less than three men. It is impossible to work a farm of £25 valuation without one man, even with the aid of modern machinery. Of course that is provided you are growing a fair acreage of beet and a fair acreage of wheat and that you are growing feeding stuffs for your live stock. If you are doing that, then not alone are you working your farm well and in your own interests, but you are also doing a service to your country. You will find that it is necessary to employ at least one man for every £25 of your valuation. If you do that, you will gain substantially by this change in the allocation of agricultural grants.

The general principle of the Bill is sound. It is a marked improvement on the 1946 Act and the 1946 Act was an improvement on previous legislation. This Bill will give that little incentive that is needed to the man who is doing the right thing. This Bill will encourage him. He is not employing labour merely in order to get the £6 10s., as the amount formerly was, or the £17 provided under this Bill: he believes in giving good employment and he believes in working his land to the best advantage. That farmer will get an increase of £10 10s. per man in the allowance. That represents a substantial gain.

There are some minor matters in regard to this Bill upon which I shouldlike to comment. Under the 1946 Act, an allowance of 10/- in the £ was provided in respect of each man employed, with a maximum of £6 10s. An allowance of £6 10s. was provided in respect of each man. Now, there is no question of any allowance in the £. What we have instead is a clear and straightforward allowance of £17 per man employed. Take, for the sake of example, a farmer with a valuation of £30, who employs one man. Assuming that the rate is 30/- in the £, the rate over and above the first £20 would be £15. Over and above the first £20, the rate in the £ on his valuation would be £15. Under this Bill, that £15 will be completely wiped out. In other words, the farmer will be completely derated in respect of every £ over the first £20 of his valuation— that is, assuming that his valuation does not exceed £30 or £31. Under this Bill, the valuation of a number of farmers will be completely derated for the first time since this type of relief was introduced. I think that that is rather a good thing. There may be some little inequities as between different valuations but, on the whole, I think the man whose valuation is between £20 and £40, and who has a grown-up son, or who employs a worker, will gain very substantially inasmuch as every £ of his valuation over the first £20 will be completely derated. It is no harm to stress the fact that in this Bill we have for the first time in legislation a measure of complete derating.

Mr. Deering

Wait a moment. What happens if you employ so many men that it works in a cycle? Does Deputy Cogan suggest that the rate collector would give back money?

Mr. Cogan

No. If Deputy Deering had read the Bill, he would have found that there is a provision in it whereby you cannot get an allowance in excess of the rate you have to pay. I was looking through the Bill to see if that point was in it, and it is.

Mr. Deering

You could never get money back, even if you were the ideal employer.

Mr. Cogan

I think we may take it that when the rate collector, on his visits, goes around handing out money to the ratepayers, we will have reached Utopian conditions. I do not think that that stage is in sight at the moment. However, it is no harm for the farmer to know that if he employs a sufficient number of men in proportion to the size of his holding he can have a substantial portion of his holding derated. Of course, it is only on very intensively worked farms that that would be effective. Some people farm very intensively and they must, therefore, keep a considerable number of man. There are other smallish farmers with valuations of £40 or £50 who may have grown-up sons working and helping them. They have no rates to pay on that portion of their farm over £20.

I should like to deal now with one or two smaller points mentioned by some Deputies. Deputy Finan, Deputy Norton and Deputy Flynn mentioned casual labour. Farmers have always felt a grievance because they do not get any abatement in respect of short-time workers, weekly workers or workers employed at piece rates. I think that the main objective of this Bill, as of previous legislation, is to encourage the employment of workers all the year round. Everybody will agree that that is a good objective. As Deputy Norton pointed out, the workers have to live during the 52 weeks of the year. In so far as it is possible for a farmer so to organise his work as to provide employment for his workers over the whole year, it is all to the good. Between the termination of a worker's employment and the re-employment of another worker in his place, there is often a gap of a few weeks. In that connection, I think it would be no harm if there were a provision in the Bill to allow for a period of three or four weeks, so that a farmer who has lost the services of one man could get a little time in which to employ another. A farmer who employs a man for at least 11 months of the year should be entitled to qualify as giving full-time employment to his worker.

I come now to the matter of the age qualification. I have not checked upon this, but I understand that a claim for abatement can be made in respect of a paid worker between the ages of 16 and 70. If a member of the farmer's own family is working with him on the farm, abatement can be claimed only in respect of the ages 17 to 70. If that is so, I feel that the Bill should put the farmer's son on the same footing as the agricultural worker and that there should be abatement in respect of every worker over the age of 16.

There may be some minor amendments which it might be possible to introduce in connection with this Bill: I do not know. On the whole, the Bill is fundamentally sound and represents a substantial improvement on existing legislation. It marks the beginning, I should say, of a concentrated movement on the part of the State to give the maximum amount of encouragement, incentive, protection and aid to the man giving the maximum amount of employment, and that is a very substantial advance.

It is not true, as some Deputies have suggested, that mechanisation will eliminate the agricultural worker. I believe that the good farmer can keep as many workers on his holding with mechanisation as without it but the change he will make in his agricultural operations is that he will farm his land more intensively, increasing the area under cultivation and relying more on home-produced feeding stuffs than on imported feeding stuffs. In that way, he will ensure continued remunerative employment for his workers.

It is gratifying to note that this Bill, so far as we have heard up to the present, is being unanimously accepted by the House, and it is also gratifying to note that the campaign directed against the Bill has completely broken down and that those who sought to represent the change as something in the nature of injustice to the farming community have been shown up as being very foolish indeed. Those who condemned this Bill were merely condemning the employment of additional workers on the land. We have an outcry about the reduction of employment on the land and about the flight from the land of our male agriculturalworkers, and, if we are sincere in deploring that, and most Deputies are, irrespective of the side of the House on which they sit, we ought at least do something to offset it, to give encouragement to the man who is trying to maintain the existing number of employees on the land or to increase the number of employees on his holding.

The flight from the land did not happen only under the present Government. It happened under the previous Government also. It was very marked during the years of the inter-Party Government and I commented on it at that time. It is still a marked feature of our economic position. It has got to be tackled and this Bill is a move in the right direction. The tendency of workers to get away from the land is not confined to this country; it has been noted in most other European countries, and, I suppose, in every civilised country in the world. In Denmark, Holland and other countries, however, the number of employees per 1,000 acres is much greater than the number here, so we cannot afford to be complacent in regard to the reduction in employment on the land. That being so, we must welcome the Bill and give it, not the grudging support which some Opposition Deputies have given it, but our wholehearted and enthusiastic support.

Mr. Lehane

This Bill is an improvement on the Bill envisaged in the Minister's circular of May last, and, in so far as it is an improvement on that Bill, I support it. I am glad the Minister has gone some way to remedy the weaknesses involved in the scheme outlined in that circular, but there is still one very objectionable feature in this new Bill. Under the old system, there was an abatement of rates of one-fifth, on the basis of the supplementary grant, of rates over £20 and the fact that the Exchequer had to contribute one-fifth of the rates, no matter what the size of the rate, had a deterring effect on the sending by Ministers of Orders to county councils, corporations and other local authorities instructing them to incur certain expenditure which eventually went on the rates.

Mr. Cogan

They still have to contribute the three-fifths.

Mr. Lehane

On rates over £20, the Government had the responsibility of contributing one-fifth. The rates are progressively increasing and we can expect further increases next year when the health scheme charges come into operation. The Government now, however, more or less fix the amount they will pay by way of this grant and as the rates are rising progressively, and, so far as we can see, will continue to rise, there will be no deterrent to the sending down of Orders to local authorities to increase rates and transfer certain commitments which should be national charges to the rates. I do not like that feature of the Bill.

I support the suggestions made by Deputies Flynn and Finan with regard to the period of employment. I agree that every help should be given to the farmer who gives full-time employment but there will be cases of men who will not be able to get an employee for one week. He may have six employees for six weeks but unless he can show that he has a man employed for each of the 52 weeks he will get no credit in respect of the payment he has made in wages to that employee, even though he may have had six or seven men employed for three months as well. At times it is impossible to replace an employee within a week and I think some provision should be made in the Bill for cases in which it is obvious that it is the intention of the employer, and that he has done his best, to employ a man but through circumstances outside his control a week or two weeks elapse before he can get a man. That employer should be given the benefit of the allowances.

I was surprised to hear Deputy Sweetman saying that a member of his Party had succeeded in getting a good deal of information from local authorities. I am a member of a county council but when I asked for certain information from that council I was told that the council could give information only to the Minister or to the chairman.

Mr. S. Collins

Actually we were not able to get it from the county council.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

We have the same experience.

Mr. Lehane

I was glad to see the competition between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael as to who is responsible for the good features in the Bill or who is responsible for improving the Bill from the way it was set out in the circular of last May. Fine Gael say that, due to their campaign, they forced the Minister. Fianna Fáil Deputies state that they got the Minister to see reason. The view of the Evening Heraldof the 8th July last was:—

"Every reasonable person would agree that the larger farmers are in a better position to forgo the benefits of Government assistance than many other sections of the community. It is well known that they pay no income-tax worth mentioning and, furthermore, the prices of agricultural produce are still rising. It has now transpired that Deputy Lehane has forced the Government to cave in."

Mr. Davern

The Evening Heraldis the organ of Fine Gael.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

That is the case of an over-all majority.

Mr. Lehane

When everybody seems to be claiming whatever is good in the Bill, I said I might as well put in my claim too.

Mr. Davern

Hear, hear!

Mr. Cogan

Who put down the motion?

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

The Deputy put down the motion and ran away from it last night. The Deputy is unique in that respect.

Mr. Lehane

Deputy Norton spoke about paying out £5,000,000 a year to the farmers. Actually, this is only an effort to give back to the farmers some of the money that was taken from them. Considerable sums of money are collected from the farming community by way of rates. We collect about £30,000,000 each year in tariffs which are eventually paid by the farming community. The cost of production andcost of living have increased because the farmers have to buy their products behind a tariff wall. In addition to that, Deputy Norton should remember that in the Six Counties and in Britain there is derating of agricultural land. The £5,000,000 he referred to is to permit the farmers to continue in production. It is an effort to prevent the killing of the goose that lays the golden egg. I think Deputy Norton should remember that. I should like the Minister on the next stage of the Bill to try and make some arrangement whereby the farmers will not be deprived of the benefits of the allowance.

Mr. S. Collins

I do not propose to delay the House very long on this particular measure but I do feel that the time has come to get to grips with what I consider the most iniquitous feature of recent legislation. All the talking that anybody can do will not in any way offset the fact that this Bill in relation to last year is raising a further concealed tax on the land of Ireland. It is possibly the result of the cynicism of the Minister for Finance who suggested that taxation had lain lightly on the land. There is no doubt at all but that it is a continuation of the policy of shedding responsibility for the raising of money.

Last year, the Minister for Local Government was the pawn in a different way when a considerable sum of money was raised indirectly for certain purposes. This whole type of legislation is difficult. The conception of it originally might well be argued as wrong. We are in an extraordinary cleft stick position done, I would say, with a deliberate political adroitness of which the Government are the masters. This Bill is somewhat like the curate's egg and leaves us in the position that we cannot deny the people in Ireland limited relief such as this Bill offers.

At the same time, one realises its political significance. It is an effort to save the face of the Government Party. Had not the situation developed when a vote of confidence arose, and subsequent to that by-elections, there would have been a bludgeoning through of the Bill as conceived in the originalcircular of the Minister. I do not care who claims credit for it, whether it is Deputy Lehane who might be entitled to some bit of credit, or Independent Deputy Cogan, as he then was, who apparently boasted that he had twisted the lion's tail. That makes no difference. It still does not in any way take from the fact that there is going to be raised from the farmers of Ireland a substantially increased sum by way of taxation.

I want to say in a deliberate kind of way that this is a bit of political codology. Even though Deputy Cogan may unctuously talk about unanimity in this House, unanimity can be gained in peculiar ways, particularly when one recollects the passage of the Republic of Ireland Bill through this House. Unanimity, as suggested by Deputy Cogan, is claimed simply because we cannot deny to people who are going to get relief that relief. We accede to what might have been the pious desire of the Government in opposing the Bill on Second Reading because we believe we have to assist agriculture in every way possible.

But that does not for one moment gainsay the fact that this is a shabby, contemptible measure. I have seen Deputy Cogan trying to gibe cheaply at a daily newspaper, trying to tie it up in an association that I do not really think exists. To be quite honest, I feel that paper attacks me as often as it praises me. That is its journalistic privilege. Deputy Cogan, the champion of the ratepayers and the political gyrist, who might be described as the acrobatic king of cerebral gymnastics, might find in that article an indication that this shifting of responsibility from one Department to another is an unwelcome feature. The responsibility of raising money is being bandied around in a dangerous way.

We can take the general experience of this House. Whether it was the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs or the Minister for Local Government we have had as a continuous feature of the last year in this House the raising of money in an indirect way. I think that is more than worthy of comment in the public Press of this country. Had it not been for the capricious or, possibly,voracious appetite of the Fianna Fáil Party when it swallowed and digested Deputy Cogan, I am quite sure he would have been the most vociferous denouncer to-day of this type of indirect increase on the rates throughout Ireland.

A Deputy

There is no increase.

Mr. S. Collins

Do not talk rubbish and do not allow your lack of concept to intrude too much into the debate.

Mr. Cogan

In regard to the agricultural grant——

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

Twenty-one thousand left the land last year.

Mr. S. Collins

They do not like the story and they are becoming a little bit agitated. The fact remains that you must accept responsibility for this additional impost on the land of Ireland. I am glad I disturbed you.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please address the Chair?

Mr. S. Collins

I am glad I have been able to disrupt the equanimity and the attitude of complacency of a Party which has no thought other than to obey a typical directive epitomised last night by the proposer of the motion before the House being the first to vote against it.

Mr. Corry

This Bill only carries out and is a continuation of a policy for which you, a Cheann Comhairle, and I stood in this House for the last 25 or 26 years. I remember in November, 1929, the policy as announced was one of seeing that a man who made use of his land, who tilled his land and employed workers, received a relief in rates from the Government aspect alone on that. Away back in November, 1929, I had the honour of introducing here a motion proposing that the relief of rates would only be given to any man who had at least 15 per cent. of his land under tillage. That is a long time ago. That policy was followed by the Ceann Comhairle himself in this House as an ordinary Deputy in 1931, two years later, when he supported a proposal brought in by another Deputy of the Labour Party,Deputy O'Connell, that the relief of rates on agricultural land would only be given to a man who had 20 per cent. of his land under tillage. Those are fundamental policies and they were opposed then, as now, by the Party that represented the bigger landholders in the country. The ratepayer is a rather funny individual and when I look back and quote figures that were given by the Ceann Comhairle, then Deputy Patrick Hogan——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy had better refer to the Deputy as Deputy Hogan.

Mr. Corry

These figures were given by Deputy Patrick Hogan of the Labour Party in this House in 1931. He then pointed out to us that in 1914 the rates on agricultural land were 1/10 in the £. They had a long way to go. In 1917 they went up to 2/2; in 1919 they were 3/9; in 1920 they were 4/4; in 1923 they were 5/10; and in 1931 they were 7/-. At that time the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, as they were then, opposed a motion for £1,000,000 relief of rates brought in by the present Taoiseach, then Deputy de Valera, and seconded by me; it was opposed by the Party which held the balance of power and relief was given to the extent of £725,000.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 10 Dec 1953

Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1953—Second Stage.

A Deputy

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Dec 1953