The decision of the Fianna Fáil Government in 1953 to change the system of allocation of the agricultural grant was very strongly criticised at the time it was introduced. Nevertheless, I think the principle embodied in that reform was sound. Where, as the Minister pointed out, in 1946, the agricultural grant was distributed on a flat rate, that is to say, whatever amount was distributed, each farmer got the same benefit according to his valuation, in 1953, the principle of a primary and a supplementary employment allowance was introduced. The then Government decided to abandon the supplementary allowance of one-fifth of the rate and to substitute instead an increase in the employment allowance from £6 10s. to £17, in respect of each person employed. The reason for so doing was to give some recognition and encouragement to the farmer who was endeavouring to employ labour on his farm. For that reason, the principle was sound.
Senator Walsh has referred to the advice which is being given to farmers to dispense with labour, in view of the higher wages. That advice is being generally given, and I was rather surprised to note that it is being given sometimes by agricultural advisers evidently working on economics. They say: "Well, if wages are high and if it is difficult to meet the rising wages, the only way to achieve it is by increased mechanisation and by reducing the number of workers." Farmers do feel that there is a certain amount of truth in that, and they do tend to take that line of action; but it is the duty of the State, in the national interest, to encourage every owner of land as far as possible to give the maximum amount of labour as a social duty, because, as we know, social considerations are at least as important as, and in my opinion more important than, economic considerations. The farmer who has to live out of a piece of land must be concerned mainly with economic considerations, if he is to remain in business. The original Act, which this Bill seeks to prolong, recognised that principle and gave increased benefit to the person who was employing labour.
The Minister said that there has not been, since the original Act was introduced, any substantial increase in the volume of labour on the land and questioned, therefore, whether the Act has justified itself or not. I think the Act could not be judged entirely by that standard. The forces operating to reduce the number of workers on the land are strong economic forces and it would be difficult to expect that an allowance of £17 would induce a farmer to keep an additional employee, whose wage bill would probably be in the region of £250 a year, if it was not otherwise economic for him to keep him.
What the original Act sought to do was to give some recognition in the matter of relief of rates to the man who employed labour, to give him some little benefit—it was undoubtedly small —over and above the person who gave the minimum amount of labour.
The supplementary allowance which was provided in the 1946 Act applied to all valuations over £20, irrespective of whether there was employment given on the land or not. The farmer whose valuation was over £20 got an abatement of one-fifth of his rates on every £1 of his valuation over £20, irrespective of whether he gave employment or not. That concession was withdrawn under the 1953 Act and, on the whole, that legislation was a reform in the matter of the distribution of the agricultural grant.
It will be recognised that the 1953 Act had only a short duration—I think three years. That was deliberately done to ensure that the new system would be given a trial and, if certain anomalies or injustices were found in the system, it could be revised. That has been made clear. The Act of 1953 provided that the benefits which farmers as a body would get under that Act would be equal to what they would have got under the previous legislation. That position operated for the whole period. In the last year, it has become clear that, with the rapid rise in rates, the farming community are not getting now as much benefits as they would have got under the 1946 Act. Therefore, at the end of the three-year period, the provisions should be revised and should be made more generous.
Certain suggestions have been submitted to the Minister—in my opinion, constructive suggestions—as to how the Act might be amended in a small way for the benefit of the farmers. First of all, there is the position that relief in respect of the employment of a worker will not be operative unless the worker is in constant employment for a full year. Every Senator will recognise that it is, again, socially desirable that employment should be continuous and that, therefore, the worker should be in constant employment for the full year, if possible; but everyone knows that, in practice, it is very difficult to ensure that that will be the case.
A farmer may have a worker in constant employment, but the worker may decide to leave, or he may become ill, or may die. In that case, it may not be possible for the employer to replace him immediately. Some little time must elapse before another permanent employee can be secured, and, as a result, the farmer would lose the benefit of the allowance under the Act. That is just one example of how the Act has operated unfairly to the employer. It would not be unreasonable to ask the Minister to introduce an amendment, providing that any farmer who gives constant employment to a worker for a period of at least 11 months would be qualified to receive the employment allowance.
There is another matter also in this connection, that is, that a worker must be over 17 years of age in order that his employer may qualify for this allowance. That is unfair, because, in the majority of cases, workers take up employment on the land at 16 years of age or earlier. It is, again, socially desirable that a boy living in the country and intending to work on the land should enter constant employment at the age of 16, if he is to become a trained agricultural worker.
It is provided in the Health Act that a worker must be insured at 16 years of age. The age of 16 is recognised as a desirable age for entry to employment. I do not see any reason why the allowance should not be given at 16 years of age, or why a worker over the age of 16, who is in constant employment, is not recognised as an employee under the Act.
If those two concessions were made to employers, it would bring the measure into line with what was intended, that is, that the employer who is making a decent effort to give reasonable employment should get reasonable benefit under the agricultural grant. It will be remembered that in the report of the Commission on Emigration, Most Rev. Dr. Lucey, Bishop of Cork, referred to this matter and suggested that an effort should be made by the adjustment of taxation— and he made particular reference to rates—to ensure that the maximum amount of employment will be given on the land.
That is what is sought, and the Minister would be doing a good service if he were to amend the Act under the two headings I have mentioned. There is a common view, and I think it was mentioned briefly by Senator Ruane here to-day, that people under £20 valuation do not get any benefit. That is not true, of course. This Bill applies to any person under £20 valuation and to the first £20 of all valuations, which means three-fifths of the rates, and it is a substantial benefit. Therefore, Senator Ruane was not quite correct when he suggested that people under £20 valuation would not benefit by the Act. They do undoubtedly benefit and I think it is only right that they should.
I hope the Minister, before this Bill passes through the Seanad, will see his way to revise the measure by the introduction of suitable amendments. I am rather inclined to think that Senators could not introduce such amendments to this Bill because, I suppose, they would be adding to the cost of the measure. I am not sure on that point. I think that the Minister should consider it. A reasonable case has been made for the two concessions which have been suggested. A case has certainly been made for the one suggested by Senator Walsh that the period of employment for 11 months should be reckoned as employment for 12 months.
