Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Dec 1953

Vol. 43 No. 4

Public Business. - Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1953—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

As Senators are aware, a change in the method of distribution of the agricultural grant was introduced in 1946. Under the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act of that year, the three types of allowances taken over from the 1939 Act—the primary allowance, the supplementary allowance and the employment allowance— were continued, but in different form. The primary allowance was calculated at three-fifths of the general rate on land valuations up to £20. The supplementary and employment allowances were payable where the valuation exceeded £20 and were applicable only to the excess of the valuation over £20. The supplementary allowance was calculated at one-fifth of the general rate, and the employment allowance at the rate of 10/- in the pound where one or more men were employed on a holding. The employment allowance was limited to £6 10s. 0d. per man, and the Act provided that the supplementary allowance and the employment allowance taken together were not to exceed the actual rates paid on the valuation over £20.

The 1946 Act originally applied to the financial years 1946/47 and 1947/48 but it was extended annually to each subsequent financial year up to and including the financial year 1952/53.

When the Bill to extend the 1946 Act to the financial year 1952/53 was before this House in March, 1952, I said that I was having the whole question of this form of rate relief examined to see if the comparatively large subsidy involved might be used to a greater extent to benefit those landowners who are engaged in the forms of agriculture which afford the maximum employment and who, in present conditions, are best serving the needs of the community in regard to agricultural production. When the Bill was before the Dáil I made a somewhat similar statement. I was anxious that my intention to change the system of distribution should be made known well in advance to all concerned.

The Bill now before the House represents what I think can fairly be done within the framework of the present system.

The main change is that the two allowances payable on land valuations over £20 are being merged. The supplementary and employment allowances provided by the 1946 Act are, in effect, being abolished and instead the Bill provides for a new employment allowance at a flat rate of £17 per man employed subject only to the limitation that the total of the employment allowances does not exceed the rates on the valuation over £20. The primary allowance is not being disturbed and farmers will, as heretofore, get relief at the rate of three-fifths of the general rate on the first £20 of their valuations.

The Bill will apply to the current financial year and to the two following years. This is necessary in order to give the revised system a chance of proving itself.

Section 2 of the Bill will enable county councils to amend rate assessments already made for the current financial year in order to bring them into conformity with the provisions of the Bill.

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.

Would the Senator tell us whether the 21,000 people who went off the land this year had all been in permanent employment on the land?

I have not the faintest idea.

One-fifth of them.

I do not care what the proportion is. The difficulty of Senators on any side of the House is that the Minister has introduced this Bill without mentioning any figures at all. We can only make the best shot we can, on the basis of the statistics published by the Central Statistics Office. It is the job of the Minister in charge of the Bill to put the Seanad in a position to examine his proposals, by letting us know what effect it will have financially or on the employment problem, as the case may be, in rural areas.

The Minister has not bothered giving us those figures, but the history of this legislation belies the claim that the Minister has made that the whole motive behind it was to endeavour to increase employment in rural areas, to give encouragement to the farmers who were willing to employ more men. On the basis of a circular issued by the Minister to local authories—and any Senator who is a member of a local authority knows that this is so—it was proposed that a sum in the region of £350,000 would be shifted on to the rates. It was only because of the protests made to the Minister by local authorities and in Dáil Éireann that the proposals made by him and outlined by him in black and white in that circular were dropped.

When this Bill was introduced, it was found in radical respects to be different from what he had indicated was his proposal. The blundering which took place in connection with this proposal from the time it was outlined has proved rather expensive with some of the local authorities. Some of them who had been directed to prepare their demand notices on the basis of the Minister's circular, found they were not able to proceed on foot of those demand notes. The original proposal—again I speak subject to correction—was dressed up as an attractive offer made to the people of rural Ireland, peculiarly enough at a time when, in one part of the country at any rate, they were voting in a by-election. Since then the Minister has changed his tune. He has been made to change it by the criticism which his proposal aroused.

I do not want to be taken as standing in the way of this Bill. I am not going to oppose its passage but I exhort the Minister, when he is concluding, to pay this House at least the courtesy of giving us some information about it.

I wish to point out the confusion that this alteration in demand notes has brought to the secretarial staff in my county. I am credibly informed that the Bill means a net loss of £10,000 to the finances of County Mayo. I am also informed that it means a loss of £3,000 more than that to Galway and that Roscommon loses less, but still the loss there is £4,000. Unfortunately any motive the Minister may have to absorb farm labourers has no application to the majority of farmers in Mayo, where those farmers have not sufficient land to employ themselves for the greater part of the year. They have to leave the land and supplement earnings at home by their work as labourers across the Channel. Therefore a remission of £17 in the rates means nothing to most of the farmers of my county. It means that the rates will have to make up at least £10,000 that was hitherto made over to the county in the distribution of the agricultural grant.

I agree with Senator O'Higgins on the question of relief to the few farmers of Mayo whose valuation is over £20 that none of them is going to employ an extra labourer and pay him £4 or £4 10s. a week for the purpose of getting a remission of £17—or twice £17 where the employs two men—in the rates. That is not going to happen. The Bill is not one to make people in my county enthusiastic and I certainly am not enthusiastic about it.

One wonders how easy it is for members of the Opposition to change their views on various matters when they change sides in this or the other house. We have had almost annually a Bill in connection with these rates on agricultural land. During the term of office of the inter-Party Government, the then Minister for Finance was here dealing with this matter. I would advise Senator O'Higgins and Senator Ruane to go back over the debates of that period and revive their memories on his approach, at that particular time, to this matter of subsidising the farmers.

What was the Senator's reply?

I do not think I have ever heard a Minister for Local Government or a Minister for Agriculture in this House claiming that this measure was a measure to create employment on the land. The Bill is just a proposal to give relief of rates to holders of agricultural land.

When the Minister informed us here, about this time last year, that he proposed to change the system, we were all anxious that whatever assistance would be given should be given to those people who were engaged in agriculture proper—that is, those who produce the food for this country.

Senator Ruane suggested that County Mayo would lose £10,000 or £100,000 and in particular he referred to the smallholders of under £20 valuation. If he had read the Bill he would have found that no change is made in relation to this particular section at all. As a matter of fact, taking it by and large, Mayo is one of the counties which should benefit most under the proposed changes. It is extraordinary that in this House to-night, and in the Dáil during the week when these matters were under discussion, quite a number of Opposition speakers urged the Minister to be more generous had to extend the provisions of the Bill as it relates to agricultural workers to include female workers. That, in itself, is a contradiction because it is an admission that the £17 provided per man under this Bill will be of considerable influence on the farmer in the matter of keeping in permanent employment persons whom he formerly employed for, say, ten months or 11 months of the year. If it is not an inducement to the landowners to keep persons in continuous employment, then surely if it were extended to female labour it would not have the desired effect either.

They are there already.

So are the men employed on the land. If Senator O'Higgins says that they are there already there is no point in the Bill at all.

They are there but there is no relief for them.

The relief is there in so far as the majority of cases of that kind will be covered by the relief under the £20 valuation on the other section of the Bill.

Senator O'Higgins referred to some 21,000 or 22,000 persons who have fled from the land. This Bill has no relief at all for that. It is a simple measure to give relief of rates to a certain section of the people: it is nothing more or less than that.

When the change was made in the distribution some years ago, the principle was generally approved throughout the country. Previous to that, the same relief was given to the poor man with a low valuation as was given to the rancher, to the man with a big house and broad acres, even if he were an absentee. An effort was made to remedy that state of affairs and the principle was introduced of giving a primary allowance on all valuations under £20 and in respect of the first £20 in all higher valuations. That was followed by an employment allowance of £6 10s. per man. In our county, that was based on a valuation of £12 10s. You got the relief per man employed after £20. The £20 is covered by the primary allowance. My desire is that the unit will be made £20, with a rate of 10/- in the £. That will represent £10 per man employed. That means that a farmer with a valuation of £40 would get the primary relief on the first £20 and then substantial relief on the second £20 in respect of the employment of a man.

When the principle of giving the primary allowance in respect of the first £20 was introduced it was followed by an employment allowance on the next £12 10s. of the valuation: the rest was covered by the supplementary allowance. In my view, it was a pity that the £12 10s. was not increased to £20. That would mean that a man with £40 valuation would be given a bigger allowance.

Unless a full year's employment is given to a man, the farmer will not get the benefit of the allowance. In my county, it is usual for a farmer to enter into a contract in regard to the employment of a workman. The contract starts about the 1st February and it continues until the following Christmas Eve. January is looked upon as a kind of a holiday month. It is frequently the case that a workman has a certain amount of work to do for himself and he looks forward to the month of January in which to do it. That means that his period of employment with the farmer is about eight weeks short of a full year.

It is a pity a farmer would not be entitled to claim five-sixths of the full year's allowance in respect of the ten months' employment which he gives to his worker. Obviously, a great deal of money would have to be spent in administering such a scheme and, in the end, we should probably find that the game was not worth the candle.

In counties where there are very high valuations, even if a man is giving employment, quite a good portion of his valuation is untouched if the owner himself is a farmer and works on the farm. If the owner is elderly and has two sons working on the farm he will be able to claim an allowance and thus he will be doing well for himself. However, if the owner is a young man and is working the farm himself, no matter how good a worker he may be, he will not get any allowance.

This scheme must be tried out. I think that all public bodies put their views before the Minister on this matter. I remember that in my own county I pressed for the extension of the employment unit to £20 at 10s. in the £ after the first £20. However, I did not succeed. It must be borne in mind that relief is also given if the worker is a male member of the family. It is only fair that there should be some recompense for him and it is surely better that he should get it than that it should be passed on to a man who let his land to a grazier from Kerry or some place 30 or 50 miles away. Anybody will agree with that. In my county, under this change, 7,000 odd people are benefiting and another 2,000 losing.

What is the net gain to Limerick?

It is not a question of net gain to any county.

What is the net gain to County Limerick?

There is no net gain.

What is the net loss?

There is no net loss.

That is fair enough.

Individuals who got certain relief under this heading before will not get it any more. Will there be an item in the demand note in respect of it? Perhaps the Senator, who is an authority on these matters, will tell me that.

The Minister will reply to that.

When you speak of rates you speak of the rates struck by a local authority. When I speak of people losing, it means that they have to find a certain sum which people, here in Dublin and elsewhere, found for them before. We now ask you to find it for them no more—they will have to find it themselves. To the extent to which there will be less money reaching the county from the Exchequer this year as compared with last year, 1,700 or 1,800 people are making it up for us.

You will be a few hundred short.

No. It is not going to be an impost on the industrious and hard working man. I want to make that quite clear.

The Senator is arguing then that there are 2,000 idlers in Limerick.

I am not.

The Senator should be allowed to make his speech. He does not usually interrupt anybody.

We do not stock any of them in the west of the county. We have them in the east, but I do not touch them, as I come from the hard working side of the county.

The principle of this proposal is sound, but its working out is troublesome. There was objection when the first change was made by the man who had not employed anybody before because he was going to lose and the same objection is made to-day, but I maintain that it is sound economics. If a man does not want to employ, he is not being asked to do so. If a man employed last year he will be remunerated for it this year. It is for the men employed in 1953 that a farmer claims in 1954. I should like to see arrangements made, however, for some allowance in the case of the man who has given over six months' employment. I do not ask that smaller periods be taken into account, because I know it means trouble and worry, but at least where six months' employment has been given, there should be some recognition for it.

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá ar an mBille seo. Mar tá fhios againn go léir tá an gearradh condae anois ag dul as miosúr in áirde. Tá sé ag dul thar acmhuinn na ndaoine an gearradh a dhíol agus do réir gach cosúlacht beidh sé níos aoirde sna bliantaí atá romhainn. Níl aon Bhille a theidheas fríd an Dáil nach gcuireann ualach eile ar an ghearradh condae. Níl amhras ar bith orm nach é an gearradh trom seo is cionntach leis an imirce atá againn anois de fheirmeoirí óga na tíre. Níl faoiseamh ar bith le fáil as an Bhille seo atá romhainn. In áit sin, caillfidh gach condae na mílte púnt de bharr an t-athrú a rinneadh i ndíolaíocht na fóirthine seo. Is bocht an dóigh sin le tarrthail a thabhairt ar na feirmeoirí atá ag obair ó cheann ceann na bliana. An chabhair a bheir an Rialtas le láimh amháin do na feirmeoirí, baineann siad díobh é leis an láimh eile. Má mhaireann an scéal mar sin ní fada go mbéidh an tír seo gan curraidheacht ar bith. Ní bheidh againn ach fásach fhiáin do na buláin. Nár leigidh Dia go mbeadh sin amhlaidh.

I oppose this Bill. I gather that there is some confusion as to its objective. The Minister thought that in introducing it he was endeavouring to provide for maximum employment on the land. Senator Hawkins—perhaps he was not fully briefed—seems to think that the matter of employment on the land does not enter into the effects of the Bill at all, and I should like the Minister to clear that matter up for us and let us know exactly what is the idea behind the Bill. One thing appears clear to me and it is that the Central Fund is going to save a considerable sum of money.

How much?

It is up to the Minister to give us all the figures.

It is you who are making the statement.

The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but the Central Fund is going to be the gainer of a considerable sum if this Bill goes through. The idea behind all this saving goes back to the mind of another Minister, who said not very long ago that taxation presses lightly on the land. The Minister for Local Government has taken his cue from that, has looked around and has seen that he can do something for the Central Fund as a result of this Bill. More rates will be paid by the farmers as a result of it. That cannot be denied. Taxation, we are informed, presses lightly on the land.

Do you agree with that?

I agree that it should press lightly.

Do you agree that it does or not?

I agree that it should.

Does it?

I am not in a position to say whether, in fact, it does. However, the idea has been put abroad and has been accepted by at least one Minister, and at the moment we have a commission sitting to inquire generally into income-tax and the incidence of income-tax. If that commission takes the view that taxation presses lightly on the land, the proprietors of the land will hear a great deal more about taxation in the future. It will be seen that some Ministers of this Government think that taxation does press lightly on the land and farmers may find the entire system of taxation, local and national, changed considerably to their detriment. For these reasons, I oppose the Bill. Senator Hartney, though I could not be quite clear about it, apparently supports this Bill, but he supports it with some reservations, complaining that Limerick will lose some money and also that the provision as to employment operates unfairly against some farmers. I oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

I am somewhat surprised at the announcement made by the Senator who has just sat down because I was given to understand that the policy of the Fine Gael Party in relation to this Bill in the Seanad would be, perhaps, the sort of criticism to which we listened but that there would be no formidable opposition in the sense in which it has just been announced. It was mentioned here that at some particular time or another I made the statement that the employment allowance was designed to increase employment on the land. I did not make that statement here or in the other House, nor did I make it outside either of these Houses. During the course of the debate on this Bill and the discussion on the Bill last year I made a simple statement over which I am prepared to stand. If, as is the case, large sums of money are being extracted from the taxpayer for the purpose of affording relief to landholders, it should be the policy of those charged with the formulation of a scheme for the distribution of that money amongst landowners to ensure that such money would go, in the main, to give employment, whether it is paid employment or employment given to adult members of families.

I can be asked in a flippant sort of way what the difference between £6 10s. and £17 will mean to a farmer. It is a matter of 2/6 per week in one case and 7/- in the other. Those who want to play around with little footling points like that can always make as much freedom as they like with these little questions. I should like if Senator Ruane were here now to hear what I have to say. If a farmer in County Mayo with a valuation of £40, on the first £20 of which he was entitled to get a three-fifths remission of the rates struck, and if that Mayo farmer had, perhaps, two sons over 17 years of age working at home with him, I can assure Senator Ruane that if he asked that Mayo farmer whether he would prefer to get in respect of these two sons £34 or £13 he would not be long until he would get an answer.

I do not contend that this method of distribution is going to make any dent in unemployment on the land, but the man who employs for wages or provides employment for additional members of his own family will be glad to get in respect of each such person so employed £17 as against £6 10s. at the end of the year.

I do not know where the Senators got the figures to which they referred, but I suppose it does not really matter. It is true to say that I have not given any figures myself. In the Dáil I gave my reasons not only in the course of the discussion on this measure but in reply to parliamentary questions designed largely over a period to press me into introducing this measure and, strange to say, although there seemed to be great urgency about it this year—for the first year in my memory—when I came along with it, they were not anxious to give it to me. It reminds me of the story that I attempted to tell in the Dáil one time about the lady who was asked by a man at her door for a drink of buttermilk. There happened to be a mouse in it. He handed the drink back to her and she turned her back and whipped the mouse out of the buttermilk and again gave it to him to drink. He said: "Sure, it is as bad as it was. You do not expect me to drink it this way." She said: "You would not take the drink when the mouse was in it and now, when I have taken it out, you will not take it either." That was the attitude of Fine Gael in the Dáil. They badly wanted me to introduce the measure, and when I came along with it they did not want it.

They had a good reason. They told the Minister the reason.

The mouse is still in it.

Fine Gael trim their sails, change from one foot to another and switch about without principle or policy, but it does not matter.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We will not discuss these matters. They scarcely arise on a discussion of a measure of this nature.

The Minister commenced it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We will continue to discuss the Bill.

I agree, Sir. It might be best.

I suggest the Minister might say something about the Bill.

I think I gave a very good reason for the change that has been effected by the consolidation of the amounts formerly distributed through the supplementary and employment allowances and by the creation of an employment allowance of £17 per person—not alone per person employed on the land but in addition the owners' male relatives over 17 and not exceeding 70 years. Therefore, not only does this affect farmers who are providing paid employment but, what is far more important, it affects the farmer whose valuation is over £20 and who is providing employment for members of his family.

I have no doubt that the many thousands of farmers who will benefit from this will see the reason for it. In fact, one of the reasons why the idea of making this change was seriously considered was that everywhere one went throughout the country one found a man who was in need of labour saying: "I cannot get men to milk my cows. They will not work on Sunday. They do not want to do this or that form of agricultural work." Therefore, having regard to the known facts in these matters, we should all agree that if the Government collects money from the taxpayer to assist agriculture in the form of the relief of rates the dice should be loaded in favour of those who carry on agriculture in its most difficult forms in these times. These are the reasons that underlie the new principle set out in this Bill.

All these other questions about the employment of female labour and part-time labour have been debated over the last 20 years since first this method of relief of rates was instituted. One time I went back on the discussions that took place in both Houses of the Oireachtas. The case was made year in, year out, pleading for the inclusion of women working on the land and pleading for part-time employees, making a case for the men who were employed for six months and others for nine months.

There is no use in my going over the whole argument against these recommendations—the impossibility of administration, the impossibility of determining when a woman is actually working on the land, or the amount of time that a woman or girl might devote to agricultural matters. In any event it finally came down to the question of the amount of money that the State decided to provide. The sum that has been provided this year is a fairly large one—£5,000,000. A statement was made by at least one Deputy in the Dáil who was critical as to whether or not we were getting as good value for this money as we could get, perhaps, if some other method of distribution influenced or determined on the basis of real production were followed. I did say that I could not think of any other method by which you could reach so many people as by the method that is employed here. It is a large sum and we should be careful to secure the best results from it.

I do not know if I gave the reasons as to why I did not commit myself to figures for different counties. I did not do so in the Dáil or here mainly because I could not get figures I could stand over as completely firm for each county. My officials, of course, made calculations——

Could you give us those?

——as to what the results would be and the basis on which the present method has been decided was that of providing the same amount of money towards the relief of rates that would have been provided if the system in operation last year and the year before were in operation now. The method of distribution is being changed but the method decided upon in this Bill is designed to absorb the same amount of money provided by the taxpayer.

Senator Hartney was pretending to be all innocence in this matter. I believe he knew quite well his county was going to benefit and benefit fairly substantially as a result of this new method of distribution but, of course, although the Limerick men try to give you the impression they are always flathúil and open, he was keeping this to himself for fear there might be jealousy on the part of other Senators who come from other counties which may not fare so well.

Senator Ruane need not shed any tears in regard to Mayo. This county will benefit substantially as a result of the new method. Senators have been critical and Deputies in the other House have been critical of the fact that certain counties will benefit and others will not. I agree that even in Limerick and in Mayo, where they stand to benefit, taking each county as a unit, there will be individuals who will lose. The fact that a county as a unit will gain does not mean that some individuals within the county will not lose. They will lose because there will be people with fairly large tracts of land who will have fairly high valuations and who will not be giving employment. They may have their own personal reasons for that and I am not objecting. I suppose they have to be free agents in that matter but the taxpayer who pays and we who speak for him should at least have a say as to where the money will go that is being provided in the hard way.

As far as the figures that have been quoted are concerned, there is not much to be gained by my making a forecast as to the exact amount any particular county will gain or lose. Next year when each county has adopted this particular system we will know to a penny, or to a pound at any rate, how things have worked out. I will take the risk of saying that Senator Ruane will find a far more pleasant picture at the end of the year than he seems to contemplate now.

Is there any provision made for the case in which a farmer employs a man for six months in the year and if that man leaves of his own free will, say, in a few weeks' time, the farmer gets another man?

He can change the man, but if there is a substantial break of continuity he is not eligible.

The farmer might not find it possible to secure a man immediately.

These difficulties will always arise, but you cannot provide for or against everything.

That should be provided for.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.
Bill passed through Committee and reported without amendment.
Question: "That the Bill be received for final consideration," put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I want to emphasise the point which was made by Senator O'Rourke, because it is an important one and one which I did not appreciate until the Senator spoke. I can only deal now with what is in the Bill and it provides that this supplementary or employment allowance, whatever it is called, will be given only where there is continuity of employment. Senators from rural areas can speak with much more authority than I can on this aspect of the matter. If you could draw a parallel with employment in urban or city areas you would very frequently have the case where a person does three months, six months or nine months' work and then leaves that employment of his own free will.

Yes, or leaves to better himself. For one reason or another the continuity is broken. In such a case if the person who would, but for this break of continuity, have qualified for the allowance does everything he can to employ another man and to lesson the break in continuity, the allowance should be given. It should not be difficult to work out such a scheme. If it cannot be done under this Bill, some amending Bill should be introduced.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

I do not think Senator O'Rourke or Senator O'Higgins are so simple. Senator O'Higgins elects to have no experience of rural matters. They should know that rural people are not such fools. If you leave the gate wide open to the people of any county, they are not that foolish— they will know exactly how wide it is open.

Senator O'Reilly does not know who gets the grant.

I have been an employer for 20 years or more and I know all about it. It is entirely unjust that where a man walks out, giving no notice, and you try immediately to get another man and advertise for one, you will lose £17 thereby.

I want to emphasise the point made by Senator O'Rourke. I know many cases where workmen left without any reason. The employer did his best to get a man but it was often at a crucial time. Any farmer will realise that it is much harder to find a farm labourer immediately than to find a man for any industrial job. For that reason I would stress very strongly the point made by Senator O'Rourke. If possible, some steps should be taken to ratify this. In our own county a man who failed by just one week—the employee left—will lose his benefit although he did everything possible to get another man immediately.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister to conclude.

I suppose public men, especially those associated with local administration, have all had their own experience. I must confess I have never been confronted in any capacity by a farmer who had that type of complaint to make to me. I admit that my connection would be limited to a particular county but it extends over a long period of association with local bodies and otherwise. This matter is provided for in the Act of 1939. There must be continuity of employment but that continuity does not mean that the man cannot have holidays.

No one is objecting to that.

Supposing the man left to better his position?

I am not talking of that. We all want men to better their positions. No one wants to stop that. If a man leaves to better his position he usually leaves without his holidays.

Holidays do not enter into it.

No. The Senator does not wish me to develop the point.

If the man dies?

I will make the point, anyhow—the Senator cannot stop me. If a man is ill there is a good deal of discretion given to the local authority to make a decision, where there is any question as to whether continuity is maintained. The officials of a local authority have the obligation of examining these matters. There are the two weeks provided by law to an agricultural worker, and the farmer can therefore be without an employee for those two weeks, if the man runs out on him. After all, he runs out without his holidays, and the farmer has two weeks in which to engage another, if the local authority so decides. It is not cut just as fine as is suggested. It need not be cut as fine as some Senators would have us believe.

The 1939 Act provides that there must be continuity of employment. That was discussed at great length on a number of occasions, in the same way as other matters referred to here. There is also provided in the law the discretion to the individual local body to examine and discuss this and to settle questions of doubt. In that way, I think the employer would normally be given some time and that in actual practice he does not really have to have his finger on a bell, and when Johnny leaves in the morning he must switch on to Michael.

Question put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 9.10 p.m.sine die.
Top
Share