The amendments submitted to the Bill are out of order because amendments to a continuance Bill may not be directed to the provisions of the Act which it is proposed to continue. Incidentally, I may add they impose a charge upon public funds.
Committee on Finance. - Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1956—Committee and Final Stages.
In that regard, I am wondering whether they would impose a charge.
Yes, they impose a charge. In any case, I rule that they are out of order as it is not in order to open up the provisions of the Act that is being continued.
Some of those amendments deal with a very grave anomaly. Under the Employment Act, an employer is bound to stamp the cards of youths between 16 and 17 years and no provision is made in this Act for any relief for the farmer whose employment of those youths constitutes a training school for them.
Does the Deputy not see that the ruling I am giving follows from the application of the Standing Order? I have ruled that the amendments are out of order.
SECTION 1.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
This has a connection with Section 1 of the principal Act which states:—
"(1) (a) The council of a county shall make to the person rated in respect of a tenement of agricultural land an allowance (to be called ‘employment allowance') in respect of each adult workman who was, during the whole of the qualifying period for a financial year to which this Act applies, at work on the tenement."
I do not know whether it was downright laziness on the part of the Minister concerned that he did not even go to the trouble of examining the Bill or doing anything at all about the Bill when he introduced it here. The Minister himself called attention to certain faults in connection with that Bill——
I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy, but, if he pursues that line, I am afraid I must rule him out of order, because he is opening up the entire provisions of the Act. This is merely a continuance Bill and all the Deputy may discuss on this section is whether it is right to continue the Act to the date proposed. The Deputy may not discuss the provisions of the Act which it is proposed to continue.
I do not consider that that provision should continue.
That particular provision is not open for discussion on this section.
It is open for continuation and I should like to point out that, in introducing this Act, the previous Minister laid down a specific period, and he said:—
"At the end of three years, we will see how this Act is working, whether it is working to the advantage or disadvantage of the local authorities and of the farmers concerned and then there will be an opportunity of considering the whole position and changing it."
The Minister will find a statement to that effect by Deputy Smith, the then Minister, at column 1930, Volume 143, of the Official Debates of the 10th December, 1953.
Instead of doing that, we are now presented with this Bill, with all its inadequacies, inefficiencies and faults, including the faults stated by the Minister himself. The Minister told us then that the Bill would not be of the slightest benefit to the small farmers or the mixed farmers in Donegal, and he suggested changes to the Minister that should have been made in the Bill.
And the Deputy objected to the changes I suggested.
And they are not in the Bill; that is my complaint.
My complaint is that the Deputy is endeavouring to discuss the provisions of an Act, which this section does not open for discussion.
This Bill is open for discussion on the point that the Act should be continued.
That does not allow the Deputy to discuss on the Committee Stage of the Bill the provisions of the Act.
No, but I am giving the reasons why it should not be continued. Surely I am entitled to do that?
The Deputy is not entitled at this stage to discuss the provisions of the Act, in order to say that they should not be continued. I will not allow him to get by the Chair in that fashion. He may not say that the provisions of the Act were so bad that they should not be continued and then proceed to point out how the provisions are bad. I cannot allow that because that would be discussing the Act in its entirety.
What I am endeavouring to point out is that this House and the agricultural community had set before them by a Government a definite period during which this Act would be continued.
Surely this is a Second Reading speech the Deputy is making?
I am endeavouring to keep the Deputy on the straight and narrow path. I hope I will succeed. I do not want to restrict the Deputy unduly, but he cannot discuss the Act on this Bill. This is not the Second Stage; this is the Committee Stage. We are discussing only one section which proposes to do a certain thing. The Deputy is endeavouring to open up the whole Act on this one section.
No. What I am endeavouring to do is to point out the faults that were found in the working of the Act because the agricultural community were guaranteed that there would be a definite period of three years, after which those faults, having been found in the Act, would be eliminated by amendments. I maintain that this is not done in this section in the way it should be done.
The Deputy, having said that, ought to leave it at that.
I would like to ask the Minister whether he has lost all interest in those mixed farmers of Donegal of whom he spoke and for whom he appealed to the Minister at the time I refer to, saying that very little amendment was necessary to remedy the matter? Still, he has not done it himself. I also respectfully call your attention to the statement made by the Minister himself on the Second Reading——
Of this Bill?
——of this Bill, when he attacked Deputy Moher and said he was glad attention had been drawn to certain issues.
I did not attack the Deputy at all.
We may have different ideas about that.
The Deputy would have been very glad indeed, if I did attack him.
It was as harmful as it could be, if I can put it frankly now, and I would like to point out to the Minister that he was mistaken, that these farmers are within the law.
That ends it, if they are.
The Minister wanted to know why the county council was not asked to take action.
On the statement of Deputy Moher.
On the statement of Deputy Moher.
And, as Deputy Corry pointed out, he was not the first Deputy who talked himself out of this House.
The Minister is a lawyer. I am not. I want to point out to the Minister that, where a yearly contract is made—and it is a yearly contract for a definite sum for 12 months——
I accept that.
——if that man leaves on 10th December or 1st December, or 1st November, that contract holds so long as the farmer stamps his card up to the end of the year.
I accept that.
Surely that is not relevant on the section.
This is one of the things that came up on this section, on the Second Reading.
This section was not discussed before.
It came up on Second Reading.
It came up on the question: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
That particular principle came up. A testing period was set up by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Smith. The Minister stated at that time, and he was upheld by Deputy Sweetman, the present Minister for Finance, that the Bill was robbing the farmers. In view of the testing period set up by Deputy Smith, I looked for information from the Minister's Department as to how much the change in the Act would have meant each year.
Surely this is a Second Reading speech.
It is, and it is entirely irrelevant on the section. I asked the Deputy five minutes ago to desist. I do not want to rule him out. He thinks he has a grievance. He has not. The Deputy may not make a Second Reading speech on every section of the Bill.
I am not making a Second Reading speech on this.
The Deputy has gone beyond what I should allow.
I am sorry, Sir. I am endeavouring to put forward what practically every rural Deputy in this House has complained about.
That is quite possible. I am not disputing that at all.
Every Deputy on the opposite benches has complained.
Urban or rural Deputies may have grievances, but they cannot be remedied on this. section. That is all I am ruling. There may be a grievance. I am not disputing that at all with the Deputy. I am disputing that he can try to get rid of it on this section. The Deputy may have an opportunity to say something about it later.
There is only one other way of doing it, that is, to bring in an amending Bill, and I promise the Minister I will trot him around the Lobby even on that.
I should like to ask the Minister to consider very seriously before the next stage that he should himself bring in an amendment to Section 1 to delete the words in the first paragraph of the section:—
"the 31st day of March, 1958, and the 31st day of March, 1959."
The reason I say that is that the Minister has had a year's experience already of the principal Act. There were two years' experience before that that his predecessor had; his office has had the three years' experience, and I think one further year of experience would be quite sufficient.
The Minister's case is that he should go on trying the system. To go on trying the system, in which there are admitted faults, for six years is asking a bit too much, and I should like to suggest to him that he should seriously consider changing the period mentioned in Section 1 and making it shorter, that, instead of making the Act run for a further three years, he should cut the period down. No one can say that it requires three more years in which to get experience of something that has been running three years already.
Surely the Long Title of the Bill mentions three years.
We have not come to the Long Title yet.
I think we have. We are on the Committee Stage.
We are on the Committee Stage and the Long Title will come last.
Are we not taking Section 1?
So far, the Chair has put only Section 1?
Are we not dealing with that?
I am dealing with Section 1.
The Long Title, of course, covers the three years.
The Chair called Section 1 and I am talking about Section 1.
Surely it was passed on Second Reading.
I am merely suggesting that the Minister should not close his mind at the end of the Second Reading debate. He still has three stages of the Bill before him. It is quite possible for him to change his mind. I was hoping by my eloquence to persuade him, that, having regard to his knowledge and experience, a further year is sufficient. I do not think he needs three more years' experience in which to make up his mind about any necessary change. I think he should indicate that now by limiting the period for which the new measure would run to one year, rather than to three years. I know that, at the end of a year, it will be possible for the Minister to bring in an amending Bill, ignoring this one, but I think it would satisfy the House more—there have been criticisms from both sides of the House—if they knew that an amending Bill would have to be brought in in a year's time. The Minister should take cognisance of the arguments made.
I understand that the Chair has ruled that one cannot discuss the details of the administration of the principal Act, or how it worked, or what difficulties one found in it, or what objection one has to it. That is for Second Reading. The Second Reading debate is there in black and white, and objections and suggestions were made, and I think the Minister, in view of those and in view of the fact that the agricultural community is disturbed about this, should indicate to the House and to the agricultural community that he is prepared to change the dates that are mentioned in Section 1 and limit the period of the Bill to one year, instead of three years.
I entirely support what Deputy Sheldon has put forward, because it has been pointed out, not alone to the House but to the public at large, that there was to be a testing period of three years for this. If the Minister wants 12 months to go into it, take 12 months, as the Deputy has suggested, and carry on then, but I would like to hear from the Minister if he has any knowledge, or has got any information from his Department, as to the effect of this Act as far as local authorities are concerned. In reply to me, the Minister stated that there is a saving to the State of £100,000 the first year. I want to know what the saving would be for the second and the third year. I think we are entitled to that information when the Bill is being renewed for three years. We have not got it. I want to know whether this statement made by the Minister for Defence that the State would get £300,000 every year is correct.
The Minister for Defence said what?
That the State would gain £300,000 a year. Perhaps the Minister for Defence would like to hear what he said would happen if this Bill were carried through. He made that statement in 1953 when the Bill was introduced by Deputy Smith.
Surely we are dealing with a section?
The Deputy seems to be dealing with the Bill.
I am trying to get information to which I am entitled as to the effect this Bill will have if it is continued.
You got it on the 10th of this month by way of question and answer.
Section 1 says:—
"The Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1953 (No. 36 of 1953), shall have effect in relation to the local financial years ending on the 31st day of March, 1957, the 31st day of March, 1958, and the 31st day of March, 1959."
I am submitting that, before giving that lengthy period of three years, we should have a knowledge of the effect of the changes that were made in this Bill—the effect which the continuance for another three years of the 1953 Act would have. We know, according to a reply to a question of mine a fortnight ago, that it has the effect in the first year of a State gain of £100,000. What would the State gain in the second year? What would the State gain in the third year? We are entitled to that information. I want to know whether the Minister for Defence was right in his statement in 1953. I want to know if the Minister for Finance was right and whether Deputy Dillon, the present Minister for Agriculture, was right. I want to know whether the present Minister for Local Government is now being turned out and used as a doormat by the Executive Council, as Deputy Dillon stated——
Surely this is not relevant to the section?
The principle in this Bill has been accepted and consequently the Deputy's remarks must relate to this section.
Section 1 is the continuation section. Under it the Act of 1953 is continued for a further three years. I gave the reasons why it should not be continued for three further years and why the House and the agricultural community should know immediately the effects such a continuation of the Act would have. I endeavoured to relieve the Minister of that trouble by putting down a question, but the officials of his Department were so busy that they were not able to make up figures, although we were assured by a previous Minister that the whole effect would be put before us after the first three-year period. That information has not been given by the Minister.
The Minister assured me that the knowledge was not in his Department a fortnight ago. That is the reason why we are very loth to give a further three-year period to this. We require an assurance from the Minister that the period will be for only 12 months. If he gives us that assurance, he will have no further trouble in getting the Bill through. We do not want to hear the financial geniuses on the opposite benches standing up and saying that, as the years go by, the farmers will get less out of it and the State gain more.
It was alleged here that the farmers were gaining £500,000. I am under the impression that the farmers should have got £1,000,000 out of this. We are pressing the Minister for the information I have mentioned. I want to know if the farmers of the country are being done out of as much money as was alleged by the present Minister for Defence, by the Minister for Finance, by the Minister for Local Government and by the Minister for Lands, when they sat on these benches. They got up here then, one after the other, and stated the Bill was brought in specially to rob the farmers and the local authorities for the benefit of the State.
The Deputy is discussing the Bill, not the section.
I am discussing the reason why this continuation should be decided upon.
And he has been ruled out of order twice already.
I have given my reasons why I want this information. If the present Minister for Finance knows anything whatever about financial figures, surely there was some basis for the argument he put up here against this continuation in 1953? Rates have gone up by 5/2 in the £ in my county this year. They may go up another 5/- next year and we want to know by how much the farmers will benefit and how much the farmers will lose as the Act goes into its second and third years. I think the Minister should have had this information at his fingertips before he brought the Bill in. Can he give the figures now?
Deputy Corry has given certain criticisms of this section. He is merely parrot-like, repeating the views given from this side of the House when we were in Opposition. Despite those views, the Deputy was one of the first into the Lobby to vote for the Act of 1953.
Would the Minister go to the trouble of reading my speech?
I agreed with Deputy Smith, when he introduced the Bill, that this measure was entitled to be given a trial. Deputy Corry says now that the Act of 1953 has proved what we stated it would be and that we should end it. I say, as I said in 1953, that Deputy Smith was entitled to have his Act experimented with, so that its benefits and its disadvantages could be considered. I am in full agreement with Deputy Smith that his measure should be given a trial. Deputy Corry now says it has got a trial and that it is a failure. In fairness to the Opposition and to my predecessor who introduced the Bill, I want to say it has not got a fair trial. It must get a fair trial in order that we may consider whether it should be amended or otherwise.
I said in my Second Reading speech of 22nd March:—
"The employment allowance may be claimed only in respect of a man at work during the whole of the calendar year preceding the relevant financial year. The 1953 Act which applied to the financial years 1953-54, 1954-55, and 1955-56 did not become law until the 23rd December, 1953. Hence the Act could not have affected the number of employees until, at the earliest, the calendar year 1954 and claims in respect of those employees did not arise until 1955-56."
Let us give the Act a trial. Deputy Sheldon made a fair suggestion that if, after one, two or three years, the continuation of the Bill is not a success, it is quite simple to introduce an amending measure. I think, in fairness to my predecessor, the Bill should be given a fair trial. It has not had that. We have not had a full experience of the benefits, if any, which may be expected from this Bill.
We seem to be discussing the Bill.
I am discussing the duration of the Bill which is governed by Section I. It is on that particular section that Deputy Corry spoke. If we find out that three years is too long a period it is quite simple to amend Section 1 by bringing in an amending Bill. In deference to what was said by Deputy Corry and his Party and particularly by the Minister of the day, we must give it a fair trial. Deputy Corry now says the Bill is a failure. That is not fair to my predecessor.
That is not what I said. The Minister has had experience of dealing with clients in court and he thinks he can take advantages of that here. He will not get a chance of dealing with it in that manner in the House. My statement was that we were entitled here to get the results of the three years from the Minister and his Department. We have not got them. We want to know whether the statements are true or not. I have not said they are true. I realise that, when a Bill is put through this House for three years, it is very difficult to amend it during those three years. Deputy Smith, as Minister for Local Government, asked for a three years' trial. The Bill has got the three years' trial.
No.
There were the years 1953-54; 1954-55 and 1955-56. The Bill operated for the full three years and the farmers got the advantages or disadvantages of the Bill during those three years. I asked the Minister a question on this matter a fortnight ago and his reply was that, for the year 1953-54, the State gained £100,000.
The claims did not arise in 1955 or 1956.
And that he had no information of what happened from the day he came in up to now.
If the Deputy would read my reply.
What does it say?
You are able to read.
It says it is too much trouble to get it; and, goodness knows, there are enough in the Minister's Department to get it.
The Deputy should confine his remarks to the section.
We have not yet heard from the Minister if he is prepared to accept the suggestion put up by Deputy Sheldon and, instead of giving the Bill a three-year period, to amend it to a one-year period.
I will consider that during the course of the next three years, if necessary.
If this is what we are going to get from the Minister's Department for the next three years, I will do my damnedest to shorten his period here.
That is a dangerous threat.
Honestly, I am amazed at the Minister.
You did not think I would agree with you!
I would say this much: a bigger exhibition of hypocrisy has never before been seen in this House than we are witnessing here to-day. It is something that has made this Dáil a by-word for the ordinary people of this country.
The Deputy should not charge a Minister with hypocrisy.
He has been performing here himself for 20-odd years.
He is never taken seriously.
I do not want to lower myself to the depths to which the present Minister for Agriculture lowered himself in dealing with Deputy Smith on this Bill, when he said that he had turned himself into a doormat for the Executive Council. It is more decent to say that the Minister is a hypocrite than to say he is a doormat or a Tory.
Will the Deputy come to the section?
Why did you vote for it?
The Bill was not voted for.
You all sat down there. You were too lazy to walk around.
Like Deputy Corry, I am made a bit suspicious by the Minister throwing bouquets at his predecessor. It is enough to make anybody suspicious.
You never heard me do anything else in this House.
I get terribly embarrassed.
I am embarrassed when the Minister says it in that disarming way. There may have been bouquets, but not quite the particular set of flowers as is in this one. The Minister has shortened the period of the Act to be amended by talking about the date on which it passed the House. Everyone knew for some time before the Act passed what the provisions were to be, so that to say there has not been three years' experience already is just nonsense. The Department has three years' experience of the provisions of the Principal Act. The Minister very kindly said something about my having suggested that we could amend it to one, two or three years, but I want to limit it to one year. I think four years' experience is more than enough.
The Deputy will appreciate that I will have to withdraw the Bill to do that.
So what? My heart would not break over that. I doubt if that is really necessary. I think greater amendments than that have been put in. Even if the Minister had said he would give serious consideration to the objections made, we would feel happier, but so far his line has been merely that all the Opposition are now shrieking about is something they have passed themselves. That is not good enough.
I did not say "all the Opposition". The only member of the Opposition concerned is Deputy Corry.
It is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. We are going to get involved as to whether Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael did it first. Personally, I could not care less.
Neither did it. Dáil Éireann did it.
It is very nice to say that Dáil Éireann did it. In spite of what some of the Deputies behind the Minister said about Deputy Corry being the first man to vote, the principal Bill went through without a division. Let us be quite clear on that. No one is disagreeing with the principle at all. I am suggesting that a sufficient case was made on the Second Reading for the Minister to take serious notice of it. If he is not prepared to amend the Bill, will he even say that he will give immediate consideration to it and that there will be active consideration given to bringing in an amending Bill within the next year, and that he will not just let it rest at this and look for a six years' trial for Deputy Smith's original thought? I do not think it requires a six years' trial.
I am not satisfied with the position as regards those three years.
You told us that ten times already.
You can never satisfy Deputy Corry.
I think we will have a few more in.
Do not make a Youghal Bridge out of the whole thing.
Get a few more of the Deputies in.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,
I should like to see the Minister for Agriculture stay here and see his colleague become a doormat for him, but he has gone. I am not satisfied with the three-year period. It was pointed out from all sides of this House in 1953 that this Bill and this section needed amendment at that time. It was pointed out by Deputy O'Sullivan, the Parliamentary Secretary, that the Bill should be amended then by putting in the 12-month period. Other Deputies pointed out the same thing. That section has continued as it was since that time and now we are asked to continue it for three years more.
I am suggesting to the Minister that 12 months is quite sufficient for him to get his Department to wake up and give him some information about this Bill and its effects, this Bill for which he is asking a further three-year period. I should like to know from the Minister whether he intends amending Section 10 to provide for only one year instead of three. I do not think we are looking for too much. It would give us an opportunity, in the next 12 months, of endeavouring to get together all the complaints that have been made as to the working of this employment section throughout the country; it would also give us an opportunity of endeavouring to improve on it. Surely we are not asking too much of the Minister in asking him to limit the Bill to 12 months instead of three years, so as to give us an opportunity of examining the Bill, seeing that his Department has gone to sleep since he went into it and has not got the information we require.
It is not since I came into it that the Deputy first accused the Department of going to sleep.
The Minister came into this House without the slightest knowledge of what is in the Bill and without reading what he himself said in 1953 about it. If he had done that, he might see how much it needed amendment.
This is not my Bill —it is my predecessor's. On a point of order, are we dealing with the section?
I expected the amendments which I put down here and which were ruled out of order would have been brought in by the Minister.
You cannot discuss the amendments now, Deputy.
I am giving the reasons why, in my opinion, this Bill should not be continued for more than 12 months.
Does the Deputy say that the Bill is a failure?
The Deputy does not. The Deputy pointed out in 1953 the manner in which this Bill would affect his constituents. The Minister pointed out in 1953 the manner in which it would affect his constituents. Deputy Sweetman, the Minister for Finance, pointed out in 1953 the harm the Bill was going to do to his constituents.
The Deputy should confine his remarks to Section 1.
The Deputy is showing the reasons why the Bill should operate only for 12 months. I consider it absolutely essential that this Bill should operate only at the most for 12 months, and I want to give the Minister an opportunity for mending his hand in regard to it. If he will do that, I will do my best to keep him in for another 12 months.
Thank you very much indeed.
If he came back at the end of that 12 months and said that he would amend the Bill, he need not then go back to the small farmers in Donegal and tell them that, in 1953, he had said that the Bill was useless and that, in 1956, he tried to continue it for another three years.
The Deputy is discussing the merits of the Bill.
I am discussing the reasons why the Minister should mend his hand now; I am discussing the reason why the Minister should bring in these amendments now.
Why did you not bring them in in 1953?
Deputy Morrissey kicked up a great row in this House in 1953 about the amendments that would not be taken. Deputy Morrissey sat in that Chair for five years and that is an experience that I have not had.
You did not move any amendment in 1953.
You moved them for me, and, when I came in to support you, you were missing.
No wonder.
You said you could not get them through and you started an argument with the Ceann Comhairle.
Are we discussing the section?
We seem to be wandering a bit from the section.
I can see no reason why the Minister should not agree with the suggestion put up by Deputy Sheldon that the Bill be continued for only 12 months, and in the meantime let the Minister take the matter up with his Department. I suggest that the Minister, before he brought in this Bill in its present form, should have had for the Deputies of this House the information to which they are entitled and which they have not got. That is the effect of this Bill, as compared with the previous Bill, as far as the ratepayers of the country are concerned. He has failed in his duty in not giving us that information. I am endeavouring to save him from the effects of his foolishness. If he wants to save himself from the effects of his foolishness as regards the period of operation of the Bill, he will make it 12 months, instead of three years, and then he will have those 12 months in which to consider the matter. Surely 12 months is sufficient for the Minister to get the information with which his Department did not supply him, and give it to this House. I am again asking the Minister whether he is prepared to help to have the Bill for 12 months, instead of three years. Are we going to get an answer to that question?
The Minister only speaks once. He does not repeat himself like the Deputy.
It would be better for the Minister if he said some words of wisdom when he is speaking instead of doing the parrot.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 38.
Tá
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Barry, Anthony.
- Barry, Richard.
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, Jack.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Burke, James J.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Carew, John.
- Casey, Seán.
- Coburn, George
- Collins, Seán.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Deering, Mark.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Glynn, Brendan M.
- Hession, James M.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Larkin, James.
- Leary, Johnny.
- Lindsay, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Morrissey, Dan.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Carroll, Maureen.
- O'Connor, Kathleen.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donovan, John.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Sheldon, William A. W.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, James.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Allen, Denis.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kenneally, William.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Moher, John W.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Malley, Donough.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Mrs. O'Carroll and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Hilliard and Corry.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
This section says:—
"The Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Acts, 1939 to 1953 and this Act may be cited together as the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Acts, 1939 to 1956."
I am suggesting that, on this portion of it, we can deal with the previous Act.
The Title?
Surely the Deputy is not suggesting that. This is merely what the Bill may be called.
I am asking for your ruling.
I am giving a definite ruling that the Deputy may not deal with it and the Deputy did not expect me to give any other ruling.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Now, Sir, on the Bill.
I have only put the Title. Next stage?
I would ask for the next stage now.
No. We want an opportunity of bringing in amendments on Report Stage.
Will the Minister fix the date?
This day week.
Is it possible that we could get some of the information for which Deputy Corry has been seeking? Might I suggest that the Minister has not made any real effort to give us the information that some of us thought should be available at this stage? If we get that information, I do not see any purpose in holding up the further stages of the measure.
Perhaps Deputy Smith did not get Deputy Corry's question and answer. Deputy Corry asked me a question on 10th April. He asked me if I would state in respect of each of the financial years 1953-1954 to 1956-1957 the exact amount of the gain or loss to (a) the Cork County Council, (b) all local authorities and (c) the Exchequer by the dropping of the supplementary allowance given in the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1946.
Would it be better to put this in order now? The Report Stage has not been put. Perhaps this could come on the Fifth Stage.
Bill reported without amendment, and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
The Minister will now give the information he wishes to give.
In response to that question, I replied:—
"It is assumed that the Deputy wishes to be informed as to what amount of agricultural grant would have been paid to the Cork County Council and to local authorities generally if the system of distribution provided for under the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1946, had applied to the financial years 1953-54 to 1956-57. This information is not available and to obtain it would necessitate its being calculated by each local authority concerned. An estimate prepared in my Department in respect of the year 1955-56 would indicate that in that year the new system of distribution of the Agricultural Grant resulted in a saving of approximately £100,000 to the Exchequer."
On my Second Reading speech, I said, and I have already quoted this on the section:—
"The employment allowance may be claimed only in respect of a man at work during the whole of the calendar year preceding the relevant financial year. The 1953 Act, which applied to the financial years 1953-54 1954-55 and 1955-56, did not become law until 23rd December, 1953. Hence the Act could not have affected the number of employees until, at the earliest, the calendar year 1954, and claims in respect of those employees did not arise until 1955-56."
So the Deputy will appreciate that we have had only one year's experience, namely, claims which have arisen in the financial year 1955-56.
That is nonsense.
I am only giving the facts. I think Deputy Smith asked a very sensible question when he asked me why I was not able to give the information. I have explained now why I am not able to give it; and the only reason why I am asking for an extension of the Act for another three years is to enable us to study the position and see if the Act should be amended, as we suggested it should when we were in opposition.
Might I ask a further question? When the original Bill was introduced, I remember the discussion that took place. I remember that, as a result of the attitude of this House, amendments had to be proposed to that original Bill. I am not able to say whether or not what the Minister claims now is completely accurate, but it was then possible for me in a very short period to find out from local authorities—as a matter of fact, not only was I able to do it but Deputies were able to find out in a week or two —the effect these proposals would have on local bodies. That being the case, I am surprised now that the Minister finds it so difficult—in fact, he claims it is impossible—to procure figures, the procurement of which, I think, should be a very simple matter indeed.
Remember that the Deputy's original circular of May, 1953, was amended. That circular proposed a £13 allowance, and then there was a rough-and-ready estimate made of that. For reasons I need not go into at this stage, that was eventually amended.
In a very short time.
But it was calculated from the rate at that time. I can assure Deputies, if this information was available, I would make it available to the House. I have no reason for cloaking anything. The Act is not mine; it is Deputy Smith's Act of 1953. It was an Act I criticised, and if I could find any information that I could give the House to fortify my criticisms, I would be only too pleased to do so, but I am not able to procure that information. I have given the House all the information that is available to me and further than that I cannot go. That is the only reason that I ask for an extension of this time. If the Act is not the success which Deputy Smith suggested it would be, then let us amend it, but let us give it a fair trial and put democracy to work and see what will happen.
What fair trial does the Minister want? It was passed by this House in 1953. It operated for the financial years 1953-54, 1954-55, 1955-56, that is, for three years. The Minister was able to give me figures for one year. Surely if local authorities were able to give members of the Opposition figures to show what the gain or loss in each case would be, and were able to give those figures in the course of a month to both the Minister and members of the House, the Department itself should be able to know what the loss was to the local authorities in 1954-55 and in 1955-56. Those are the figures we are looking for.
I take it that any question of amending the measure does not now arise, as we are now on the last stage, and that is that. There is a good deal of talk about losses or gains to local authorities. I suppose no local authority, as such, either gains or loses. The ratepayers may gain or lose, but a local authority, as such, neither gains nor loses. The amount of money passed in this House for the relief of rates does not affect the income of the local authority; it merely affects the source from which it gets its income, so that any talk about gains or losses is purely beside the point.
It is the taxpayers.
Yes, but we have been talking about local authorities.
By local authorities, we meant the effect on the ratepayers.
Whatever the net gain to the State may be, we may take it that that gain is spread over the ratepayers generally, and that is the only effect it has. The Minister spoke about the need for experience. I do not see what experience has to do with it. The Minister is talking as if there was some huge organisation——
Not experience—laziness.
There is nothing about laziness in it either, and there is no question of experience.
If the Deputy would wish me to enlarge——
I do not want to come in again after we have had the discussion, but I think the Minister is exaggerating when he speaks about the experience needed. A change in agricultural wage rates would knock the whole thing out, and, if we had 20 years' experience, it would be of no use to us. The only thing we can gain is a knowledge of the relationship between the employment grant and agricultural wages—does the employment grant increase agricultural employment or does it not? As I say, we are fixing it now for three years. The Minister talks about gaining experience, but with the first change in agricultural wages, all the experience is gone for nothing and the figures must be gone into again. Clearly no experience is necessary.
As far as the local authorities are concerned, it does not matter; they will get it from the agricultural grant or the ratepayers.
But I am talking about the ratepayers. Every ratepayer knew in six months what the effect would be. Those whose valuation was high lost because it would be quite impossible for them to employ enough men to qualify for the supplementary grant. Nobody with a big valuation could possibly employ sufficient men and consequently everybody knew those with big valuations were bound to lose. I cannot see that experience could tell any more. I am sure the Minister is perfectly honest, but I do not know what he is talking about when he is looking for years ahead to find out what will happen. The whole thing is: how much is the State prepared to give to subsidise rates on agricultural land? That is merely a matter of the generosity of the State or of the Minister for Finance.
I think——
Is the Minister concluding? This is the Fifth Stage. I will allow Deputy Smith to ask a question.
I merely want to say to the Minister there is no reason why the passage of this measure should be held up at all, so far as I am concerned. Apart from the point made by Deputy Sheldon, of which we can all see the force, I suppose I must accept the Minister's assurance that these figures that I would have expected would be given were not available.
I must say that I am hesitant about accepting the assurance that the Minister has given, and it was because of that fact and because of his hesitancy and because of his refusal to give the information that Deputy Corry sought, that I really thought it was no harm to have a division on the matter. There was no enthusiasm for this measure when it was being considered in 1953, and, when there was a request that its lifetime should be limited to a further year, there was some argument to be made having regard to the coolness of the reception the Minister gave the Bill then.
We should remember the purpose of this Bill. The main purpose behind it is to encourage farmers to give full-time employment to the farm labourers. In talking about experience, I am talking about the experience which has been gained under the Act and I am referring to employment experience. We will not have the 1955 figure until October next and that should be realised. May I point out that it was not until December, 1953, that this Act was passed by the Oireachtas and employment is calculated for the calendar year, so that therefore we got the first experience of the Bill for the year, 1954 in 1955 and for the year 1955 in 1956. But the grant as distinct from employment relates to the financial year and we, therefore, have given the House the information for the only financial year that has been experienced, that is 1954-55. I can give the figures for employment under the Act, and there has been very little change, but Deputy Corry and the rest of us, when discussing this matter, should remember that the main purpose behind the Bill is to encourage farmers to give full-time employment all the year round to their employees.
I do not want to say any more than that about it. Deputy Corry gives an explanation and he talks about lawyers. Well, it was a lawyer's explanation he gave me about full-time employment of labourers down in County Cork. But Deputy Moher did let the cat out of the bag. There have been methods of driving a coach and four through Acts of Parliament and Deputy Moher has given the farmers of Cork a very good method of doing it. Then he does the ordinary country attorney and says: "I know nothing, but I am saying this." That is what he did.
Would the Minister not come and try it? I invite him to try it.
Deputy Moher let the cat out of the bag and, as has been remarked before, many a man talked himself out of the House.
Deputy Moher gave the facts as they were, and they were justified.
You changed them.
The Minister to conclude.
I assure Deputy Smith that if any information were available in my Department that I could procure, he would get it. If, by way of question and answer, any information is procurable in the future, I shall be only too glad to give it. I gave the only information I had when he and Deputy Corry put down the question on 10th April. We must remember that the employment problem is the serious problem and that it was the reason why this Act was introduced by my predecessor, Deputy Smith. We have only one year's experience and we are trying to give the Act the benefit of a fair run. That is the only reason why I am asking the House to continue it.
Question put and agreed to.