The Minister makes this sound a very simple measure, and possibly it is; but the House should take some cognisance of the history which leads up to the introduction of the Bill into the Seanad, even thought the Minister decided to skip anything in the nature of a review of the history of this Bill or its proposals in recent months. Every Senator is aware of the fact that the proposals which ultimately found their way into this measure were announced by the Government some time ago. These proposals are not ones in which I would have any particular personal interest, being a Senator living in and making his living from the capital city of this country, but a great many Senators and a great many members of the Dáil represent interest in rural areas which would be affected by this Bill.
The Minister presents the case that he had made up his mind to do what he could to encourage employment in rural areas within the framework of the existing rates relief legislation. I agree that that is a very praiseworthy objective but I certainly question whether or not it is likely to be achieved by what is contained in this Bill, particularly having regard to the manner in which it has been approached by the Minister. The Minister presents the Bill as something to relieve unemployment in rural areas, something presumably to discourage the flight from the land and to encourage farmers to employ more men and thus keep them on the land.
I do not believe that that was the motivating intention behind this Bill at all. I believe the reason this Bill was proposed by the Government was for the purpose of shifting about £500,000 from the Exchequer to local rates. In the original pronouncement made by the Minister and Government spokesmen with regard to the legislation now before us, it was quite clear that a sum of £500,000 was going to be put on to local rates by this change in the mechanics of the agricultural rates relief system. Even now, after the Minister was pressed to amend his original proposals by the Opposition in the Dáil, and having given way to a great extent to that pressure, the Bill as introduced by him will mean something in the region of £120,000 per annum as an imposition on the local rates.
I am surprised, particularly having regard to the discussion which took place in the Dáil, that the Minister did not extend to Senators the courtesy of giving them figures in relation to the losses or gains which would be sustained by different local authorities by reason of this legislation. Those figures are available to him. The Opposition Deputies in the Dáil, when they did not get that assistance from the Minister, went to the trouble of making their own inquiries from local authorities and obtaining the figures from them. It is showing very scant courtesy or regard for this House that even after those figures were available to him the Minister did not bother mentioning them, that all he has to say about this Bill is that he thinks it is all that can be done within the present system. The fact of the matter is that a number of counties will find themselves poorer by some thousands of pounds.
What will be obtained in return for that? If the Minister could only claim that in return for whatever additional burden is being placed on the rates there would be a substantial improvement in the employment position in these counties, he would find very little adverse criticism of this Bill. But does anyone seriously think that any farmer will be induced to spend another £200 or £400 a year to employ one or two more men for the sake of securing a relief grant to the extent of £17 or £34? I think it would be made economics if that were the way a farmer set about his business.
If, as the Minister seemed to indicate when he approached this matter in the Dáil, there will not be any great charge on the local authorities or on the Exchequer, why, then, was it necessary to have any alteration in the position at all? I suggest to the Minister and to the House that this measure, even pared down as it is, is designed solely for the purpose of shifting from the Exchequer a burden on to the local rates. There is no change being made in the three-fifths relief given up to the £20 valuation. The position formerly, I understand, was that over the £20 valuation the one-fifth allowance was given.
The Minister referred to three types of allowance—the primary allowance, the supplementary allowance and the unemployment allowance. His definition is that while the three-fifths allowance remains unaltered up to the £20 valuation, the other two allowances are bulked together. They are not only bulked together, they are abolished and in their place an allowance of £17 a year is being given in respect of a person employed for the full period of 12 months.
It seems that under this Bill as it stands—and I presume Senators will correct me if I am wrong—the same has applied heretofore: that the allowance is only given in the case of male labour. I suggest that it would be well worth the Minister's while to consider giving a grant where female workers are employed. It would be an improvement in the present Bill and I do not think it would affect the cost to any very appreciable extent.
Another point I want to make is that the Minister has not given the Seanad any estimate with regard to what the working of this Bill will mean either in terms of persons who it is anticipated might be put into employment because of its provisions or in relation to the pounds, shillings and pence aspect of this legislation. Last year, according to the figures that were published, approximately 21,000 people left the land. Whatever calculations the Minister has made under this Bill, he has kept them a secret and has not bothered telling us about them, but it is reasonable to assume that whatever calculations he made were based on the number of people employed last year or in the last few years and the number of additional people to whom he hoped employment might be given by holding out this £17-carrot to the farmers.
If I am right in saying that there are 21,000 persons less on the land now than were there last year, that 21,000 left the rural areas, left agricultural work, does the Minister expect that no one at all will leave this year? Suppose the Minister achieves his purpose and only 10,000 persons leave this year? If the Seanad will consider those figures for a moment, I think all on the far side, and the Minister himself, would be congratulating the Government if that position were achieved, that only 10,000 left in 1953 as against 21,000 in 1952. What would that mean in relation to the financial position under this Bill? It would mean a very considerable saving to the Exchequer. The Minister has not bothered giving us calculations of that sort. I think those calculations should be given. The Minister should have endeavoured to find out per county what the effect of this legislation would be and he should have informed the House about that.