Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Jul 1936

Vol. 63 No. 6

Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1936—Second Stage.

I move the Second Stage of the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1936. Up to the financial year beginning 1st April, 1932, relief from rates on agricultural land was allowed to occupiers in each county or district at the same rate irrespective of valuation. Whether a holding was small or large or whether it afforded employment or not made no difference, the relief was given at a flat rate and was subject to no conditions. The new money, amounting to £250,000, which was voted in 1932 for rate relief, went to reduce the rates on the first £10 only of the poor law valuation of every holding, or on the whole valuation if it did not exceed £10. Consequently the rate of relief on the first £10 was higher than on the remainder of the valuation by about 2/- in the £. This difference was maintained the following year. In the year next following, that is the year beginning 1st April, 1934, further changes were made. The higher rate of relief was extended from the first £10 to the first £20, and provision was made at the same time for occupiers of land of more than £20 in valuation getting the higher rate of relief if they had men at work on their holdings.

There was then a double differentiation, first between holders under and over £20 valuation, and then between the larger holders who gave employment to men and those who gave no such employment or employment deemed insufficient for the size of the holding. This new system was continued last year, the only change made being that the rate of relief for larger holders who had no men or insufficient men employed was lower than in the previous year, by reason of the grant being reduced by £100,000. The amount of the grant was £1,870,000.

The purpose of the present Bill is first to fix the Agricultural Grant for the current year at exactly the same amount as last year, to allocate it in exactly the same proportions to the local authorities entitled to share in it and to provide for its being applied to the relief of rates in exactly the same way.

The method adopted, although it may appear complicated, is in actual practice fairly simple. The rate of relief that was allowed in each county in the year beginning 1st April, 1933, on the first £10 valuation is taken and an allowance is given unconditionally, at that rate, on all valuations up to the £20 limit. These allowances are called primary allowances, and absorb altogether £1,177,000 approximately, or 63 per cent. of the grant. Then the employment allowances are granted. Early in the year each of the larger occupiers is sent a form on which he may make a claim for an employment allowance by showing the number of men, whether paid employees or relatives, whom he had at work the previous calendar year. The allowance is calculated for each man on £12 10s. 0d. valuation at the same rate as the primary allowance. If the occupier has not so much additional valuation as £12 10s. 0d. for each man, the allowance is calculated on the actual valuation in excess of £20. These employment allowances cost altogether £380,000 or 20 per cent. of the grant.

Deducting certain sums amounting to about £9,000 which are payable to urban authorities in respect of relief in areas that have become urbanised since 1898, there is a balance of £303,000, or about 16 per cent. of the grant, which goes to relief of rates on those valuations above £20 that do not get an employment allowance. This third allowance is called a supplementary allowance, and is everywhere at a lower rate than the primary allowance. In most counties it approximates to one-half of the primary allowance.

The working of the scheme in an area where the rates approximate to the average for the whole country can be seen if we take the South Cork area. Last year the rate in that area for general purposes was, to the nearest penny, 10/3 in the £. That would be the general rate to be levied off buildings and hereditaments other than land. Every occupier of land not exceeding £20 valuation received relief at a fraction over 6/8 in the £. His net rate was, therefore, 3/7 approximately, and this was also the rate on the first £20 of higher valuations. The employment allowance was, therefore, at the rate of 6/8 in the £ on £12 10s. 0d. for every man at work. When these allowances had been made, there was a balance sufficient to allow a supplementary allowance rate of 3/3 on valuations that did not rank for employment allowances, or in other words, the rate levied off such valuations was 7/- in the £, which is the difference between the gross rate of 10/3 and the supplementary rate of 3/3. The supplementary rate is, as I have said, determined by the amount of the balance of the grant left after the prior claims on it have been met. The more employment increases the smaller it becomes.

So far, then, as the present year is concerned, no change is made by this Bill. The sum of £370,000 mentioned in Section 2 is the additional sum that must be voted over and above what will be provided under the earlier Acts in order to bring the grant up to the same amount as last year.

The Bill also makes provision for allocating whatever grant may be provided next year and the year after. If there is no increase or decrease in these years the allocations will remain undisturbed. If the grant is altered, the Executive Council will make the allocations by an Order which will be laid before the Dáil.

The Bill, it will be seen, is a measure for continuing last year's Act for another year, and leaves open the question of the amount of the grant for the two succeeding years, whilst providing for the same method of giving relief to the occupiers in those years.

The new system of giving relief appears on the whole to have worked satisfactorily. Very little in the way of complaint has reached the Department. It may be necessary to tighten up the examination of claims for employment allowances so that these allowances will go only to those for whom they are intended. A move in that direction has already been made this year, but next year it will be necessary to be stricter still.

Finally, I may add a word as to the assessments on land. The assessment for general charges on land in rural areas, after allowing for all Government grants, except the agricultural grant, was last year estimated at £3,618,000. The amount of the grant, it will be seen, is more than half this sum. The net amount leviable off land last year for general purposes was estimated at £1,750,000. In addition to this there would be £180,000 for separate charges. The total levy off land would therefore be under £2,000,000. The expenditure of county councils from revenue falls between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 a year. The greater portion of this expenditure is met out of Government grants derived from the general taxpayer and rates levied off rateable property other than land. The levy off land now meets about one-third of the expenditure of the councils.

This measure, which is simply carrying on the legislation we have had for the past two or three years, falls far short of the promises the Government made when letting into power, far short of the derating proposals. I should like if the Minister would tell us if he has any statistics or figures to show whether the amount allocated for employment of labour has been responsible for an increase of employment on the land. There is one other matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister. His attention was drawn to it last year and the year before but, for some unknown reason, he did not think the matter was of any serious consequence. It is the matter of the employment rate to a farmer who employs a man who has land himself valued at £5 or over. I do not know exactly what type of mind conceived a regulation of that kind. It is a most extraordinary thing that if A is entitled to certain reliefs for the employment of labour, he will not get that relief if he employs B, who has already got a similar relief on his own small holding of land.

There are various farmers in my locality who constantly give employment. The people they employ are men of wide experience in farm work in looking after live stock, etc. They are married men with families with small holdings. If these farmers are to get the relief which the Minister thinks they ought to get they must dismiss these men and employ men who have not a holding of £5 valuation. There is no sense in it. If a farmer wants to get on and make his farm pay he must employ the best men. If he has a man of experience who he knows will look after his stock and work his horses properly, must he, in order to get the relief which the Minister says he is entitled to because of giving employment, dismiss that man because he has a holding of £5 valuation? Last year the Minister said the Executive Council did not think it would be fair that two people could get relief in respect of the same matter. It is not the same matter at all. They are two separate people working out their living in their own way. There is no reason why a farmer employing a man of that type should be denied the relief to which he is otherwise entitled.

In regard to the proposed allocation of the agricultural grant, I have to make the same remarks that I made on previous occasions. In counties like Limerick and Tipperary the distribution of this particular grant is not fair. It does not give a fair result to different farmers. Without going into the whole principle of whether the grant should be administered according to the rates that a man pays, there are in Limerick and Tipperary peculiar circumstances, as I pointed out before to the Minister, inasmuch as there is a great employment of women labour. It had previously been held by some Government Deputies that the employment of women labour should not be encouraged and that in many cases they were getting miserable wages. That does not apply to the dairying counties. There are, in fact, many women employed, and in some districts a larger number of women than men, who are getting equal wages, and in many cases more wages than men. I can point to the case of a large farmer whose valuation is well over £150 and who owes no annuities or rates. He employs six hands, four of whom are women. What is his position? He is under no obligation to the State; in fact the State is under many obligations to him. He pays his rates and annuities punctually. He contributes his share of the defaulting annuities of his neighbour. He contributes a larger share in rates than most of his neighbours. But, when the agricultural grant comes to be allocated, he gets a smaller portion of the grant than any of his neighbours. From whatever point of view you look at it that is not equitable.

I would again ask the Minister if it would not be possible on this occasion to bring in an amendment making it possible that men who employ genuine women farm workers at reasonable and satisfactory wages would be given some allowance in respect of these workers. As I pointed out before, farmers are bound in the beginning of the year to put in a list of their workers if they are to get this relief. If they do not put in the list, they do not get the relief. They have, therefore, to send in a list to the county council. It is quite possible that later on, when statisticians are looking for information about agricultural employment, the easiest way to get the information will be to apply to the different county councils who would have in each man's own handwriting particulars as to the employment he gave. If that were done in the case of this man who had six workers four of whom were women, he would be returned as employing only two. Apart from the injustice which he suffers owing to the way in which the grant is allocated, it might be thrown in his face in the future that in a certain year he only employed two people. It is an important matter for dairying farmers. I appeal to the Minister to receive my suggestion sympathetically that women workers in dairying districts should be included when making these allowances for the employment of workers.

Deputy Bennett pleads for the extension of the employment grant in respect of women who are employed at reasonable rates. He ought to recollect the opinion that some Government officials have as to the wages that ought to be paid to women, say, in County Limerick.

Such wages never were paid.

At any rate, it was stated from a Government Department that wages of 36/-, 35/- and 16/- were excessive to pay to men engaged in milking, as this work was usually done by women at 5/-, 6/- and 7/- per week. Probably the official mind is that, if women can be got at these rates, there is no great necessity to assist farmers by giving them employment grants. Deputy Bennett no doubt will be able to bring forward a case as to the wages that are paid to women. I have no doubt that he will be able to show that the wages paid in the dairying industry in Limerick to women are higher than Government Departments seem to think women can be got for.

However, the point I should like to raise is the effect of the employment grant. I should like to ask the Minister whether, in dealing with the granting of relief by means of the employment grant, any examination has been made as to the effect which the granting of that has in increased employment of labour on the farms. The situation with regard to that, as disclosed by figures published some time ago by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is rather remarkable. It is disclosed by these figures that when we compare employment in 1935 and employment in the previous year, 1934, if we take the number of farmers' families regarded as being employed on agricultural work, the number of male persons so employed had decreased by 5,464 persons in 1935, and if we consider the number of permanent labourers employed in agriculture in 1935, the number has decreased by 1,055 persons. So that, between the members of farmers' families alone and of permanent agricultural labourers there was a decrease in 1935 of 6,519 persons in agricultural employment as compared with 1934. Now, if that really indicates the state of affairs that exists we are all very much concerned. The figures that I have quoted do show a very serious state of affairs, particularly when we take into consideration the substantial increase in subsidised crops between 1934 and 1935. The explanation suggests itself, and it is that the figures for 1934 were perhaps inflated as a result of the inducement offered of relief for employment on agricultural land. Would the Minister say if he had any evidence to show that there was an inflation of the 1934 figures, either in respect of the members of farmers' families or of permanent agricultural labourers with a view to taking advantage of the grant, because except there is some factor like that in the situation the fall in agricultural employment, both of permanent agricultural labourers and of members of farmers' families in 1935 as compared to 1934 would otherwise be disconcerting.

I understand that in last year's Act there was a stipulation whereby a person who would not be in a position to pay the first moiety of his rates would not get the benefit of the credit note, and that likewise he would be deprived of the benefit of it if he had not the second moiety paid before the end of March. Some cases have been brought to my notice in which this regulation has caused great hardship. Some people, because they were not able to pay the first moiety of their rates within the stipulated period, did not get the benefit of the credit notes. Last year I was given to understand that an arrangement was come to whereby people would get the benefit of the credit notes, no matter at what date they paid their rates, provided that the rate collectors in the different districts had 75 per cent. of their collection in at the dates fixed for them. I think it would be a very good thing if some regulation to that effect were made under this Bill. Otherwise, ratepayers who are not able to pay their rates at the end of each specified period will be placed at a considerable disadvantage if they are deprived of the benefit of the credit notes.

I desire to support what Deputy Beegan has said about the credit notes. Last year I understood from the Minister that people would be given the benefit of the credit notes even if they had not their rates paid within the specified period. It would certainly be a great hardship on ratepayers to be deprived of the benefit of these credit notes, and, therefore, I think a little elasticity might be allowed in connection with them. I was told last year that the local authorities had the power themselves to meet ratepayers in that respect. I was also told by the Minister that the period within which they could claim the benefit of these credit notes could not be an indefinite one. I agree; but at the same time I think that ratepayers should be facilitated in every possible way. People who are prepared to pay their rates should be given reasonable facilities in the matter of meeting their obligations, and a little elasticity might be allowed as regards the availability of credit notes.

With regard to the question raised by Deputy Beegan and Deputy Curran, it will be within the recollection of the House that last year, and the year before, we had a very prolonged and detailed debate on the question of credit notes when dealing with the Bill similar to this one. I remember distinctly being pressed very hard by Deputy Cosgrave and by other Deputies from both sides of the House to have the period, during which a credit note would still be available, extended. Power was taken to enable the Minister for Local Government, on application being made to him by a county council, to extend the period to almost any date within the financial year. The result of that has been that most county councils have decided not to use the credit note any more. For the financial year ending on the 31st March last credit notes were extended, in some cases, up to the present month. My own view was that if the availability of the credit note was unduly extended, any good that was in the idea would go, and that has proved to be true. This matter of credit notes is one that is entirely within the discretion of the county councils. They can use the credit note or not use it just as they please. In the beginning, at any rate, the officials of some county councils and the members, too, I think, were enthusiastic about the credit note idea, but since its availability has been extended those who were most enthusiastic about it have become its strongest opponents. The tendency of most county councils at the present time is to do away with the credit note altogether.

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Mulcahy as to whether this system has increased the number of men employed as workers on land, I have not got the figures for 1935. The figures showing the number of male workers employed on land in the calendar year 1935 are only now being supplied to the county councils.

Supplied to the county councils by whom?

By the farmers. I have the figures for 1933 and 1934, and they disclose something in the nature of what Deputy Mulcahy has said. In the year 1933 the number of relatives of occupiers who were employed on land totalled 52,334, and the figure for 1934 is 52,036. Employees, those not regarded as relatives, numbered in 1933, according to our figures, 77,219, and in 1934, 73,531. The totals for the two years then were 129,533 in 1933 and 125,567 in 1934. When shown those figures I asked if there was any explanation and the explanation was that in the second year there was a considerable tightening up and supervision of the checking of the returns submitted and possibly that might account for the reduction in numbers. In so far as the rate collectors and the secretaries of county councils reported, there was not much change in employment actually as far as they could discover. They thought those figures would be due to the close check. Probably in the coming year, as the check will be still more strict, there might be a further difference disclosed.

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Brennan about the giving of relief to men employed by one farmer though they themselves have holdings valued at £5 on which they get the employment allowance and the other allowances, it appears to me that it would be reasonable to suggest that a man who had a farm of his own at that valuation could hardly be a whole-time employee on another farm and, if he is not a whole-time employee on the other farm, he could not be reckoned for a claim for the employment allowance. A farm of £5 valuation in some parts of the country would probably be one that would afford that man employment all the year round if he were to look after it properly.

As regards the question raised by Deputy Bennett as to women, I suppose that would probably be a hardy annual. I do not see any likelihood of a change under present conditions — any likelihood of a change being introduced in this Bill. Apart from that, I think from the philosophical point of view there is a case to be made for giving preference to the employment of men and giving them decent wages. From the purely philosophical and Christian point of view, I think that would be more desirable.

What does Deputy Mrs. Concannon say to that?

I say it would be better to give encouragement to the employment of men. There is work on farms, particularly in the dairying counties for which Deputy Bennett speaks, in connection with which women may have a greater aptitude, but we know that these women, while being employed on agricultural work for perhaps half their time, would be engaged in domestic work as well.

A great percentage of them would not be.

Perhaps I do not know the conditions in the county as well as Deputy Bennett, but it seems to me unlikely that a woman employed on a farm in County Limerick would not, for instance, be asked to bake the bread. I think she would be, and that she would have to look after other domestic work. How you are to make the division between what would be naturally regarded as domestic work and agricultural work would raise difficulties that, aside from the other ones I have mentioned, it would not be easy to get over.

The Minister wants to change the whole system of economy in the county.

I think it could be changed in some respects with advantage.

In the future, instead of "Where are you going to my pretty maid?" it will be "Where are you going to my pretty boy?".

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.

If there is no objection, I should like to have the Committee and remaining Stages taken to-morrow.

The Estimate has yet to be taken and a Supplementary Estimate is to be introduced. In the circumstances I think we could promise the Minister the remaining Stages to-morrow.

Ordered: That the remaining Stages be taken to-morrow.
Barr
Roinn