I am amazed at the Minister introducing this Bill. The Minister now proposes to continue for the next three years, which would be his full lifetime as Minister for Local Government and the full lifetime of his Party if they remain in office for that period, a Bill which he condemned root and branch when it was introduced. I expected from the Minister something better. I expected that he would take some steps to remedy the defects which he pointed out to his predecessor in office, Deputy Smith. Instead, the Minister appears to be getting lazy. I cannot describe his action in any other words having regard to the fact that he comes in here on the last day of the session with a Bill like this. Speaking in this House on the 15th December, 1953, at column 2282, Volume 143 of the Official Report, the Minister pointed out:—
"This Bill will not benefit in any way the small farmer who goes in for mixed farming. The Minister knows as well as I do that the small farmer of £20 or £30 poor law valuation who crops, say, ten or 15 acres of his land, must employ five or six hands during the spring and again during the harvest. I submit that the aggregate number of days, if they were totted up, of all his employees during these periods of spring and harvest would total more than 365 days of one labourer's employment on the farm. No provision is made in this Bill for the mixed farmer: he will derive no benefit under sub-section (1) (a) of Section 1 of this Bill. I recommend to the Minister, in calculating the qualifying period under the 1946 Act, to consider seriously the matter of taking into account the aggregate number of days worked by the employees of a particular farmer. If the Minister does that, he will give considerable benefit to small farmers in West Donegal and South Donegal who will derive no benefit whatsoever from the Bill as it is at present framed."
That is the Minister's own statement in this House on the Bill which he is now asking us to pass — not for one but for three years. He went further and made an appeal for the ladies, for in column 2280 of the same Volume he said:—
"I am reliably informed that, during the recent war, 50 per cent. of the land workers of Britain were of the female sex. Unfortunately, a considerable number of those lady workers on the lands of Britain were Irish citizens. While in Britain they became adapted to employment as farm labourers. Some of them have returned to this country. Some of them have acquired farms here and some of them are employed as farm labourers here—driving tractors, driving threshing machines and, as Deputy Dillon said, in charge of piggeries. I think that the farmer who employs such female workers is entitled to some relief. In all the legislation introduced in this country, there has never been discrimination, so far as I know, between male and female citizens. Here, however, we are definitely discriminating in favour of the male."
I am amazed at the Minister. He goes on:—
"I think the Minister should seriously consider amending this situation. Very little amendment of this Bill would be required in the Committee Stage to place female employees on a par with male employees, in so far as farming is concerned."
The Minister then called attention to certain defects in this Act which I expected that he, as a good Deputy, anxious to serve his constituents, would remedy the moment he got the opportunity himself but, having got this heaven-sent opportunity, he comes along with Deputy Smith's Bill and slaps it down saying it is all right. That is my first complaint in connection with the Minister himself on this Bill but there is worse than that.
The Minister for Finance, when speaking on this Bill in this House, said in column 1937, Volume 143 of the Official Debates of the 10th December, 1953:—
"I am going to show, in relation to this Bill, that it is not the Bill which the Minister alleged it was when he was bringing it in. The primary purpose of his Bill is to save the Exchequer at the expense of the local rates that are going to be paid on agricultural land. In that purpose, the Minister is merely following on the line that has already been set by his colleague, the Minister for Finance. It has, unfortunately, been the purpose in many things lately to shift the burden from central taxation to the local rates. This Bill is going to continue that shift because, regardless of whether the figures for the present year which I have given are correct or not — I have said they have been obtained from the secretaries to the county councils—or whether the figures which the Minister has refused to disclose are correct, the fact is that every increase in rates in any county will mean, under this Bill, that there will be a reduction in the agricultural grant which would have been given if the legislation up to the 31st March last had been renewed."
That is the statement from the present Minister for Finance, Deputy Sweetman, speaking in this House. He continues:—
"Unfortunately, the rates have been increasing. It is unfortunate that that tendency is there. All of us agree that the trend in regard to rates seems to be towards an increase. The effect of this Bill will mean that, every time there is an increase in the rates, what the farmer-ratepayers will get by way of relief under this Bill will be less than what they would have got under the legislation that was in force prior to the 1st April, last. That is, of course, because the supplemental allowance was worked on a sliding scale in relation to rates, whereas now the employment allowance will be on a fixed basis and not on a sliding scale, having regard to the amount of the rates. If the rates were to go down, it would mean that the local authorities would gain, but I am afraid few of us see much prospect of a reduction in the rates. The likelihood is that the rates will tend to increase as they have been doing."
That is the statement made by the present Minister for Finance, Deputy Sweetman, on the 10th December, 1953, during the debate on the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1953. That represents his reading of the position obtaining from 1953 up to the present. One would expect some improvement when we would come to a matter of that description.
I shall quote now from what the present Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, had to say on the 15th December, 1953, on that same Bill. He had a lot of nice things to say about it. At column 2274 of the Official Report, Volume 143, he is reported as follows:—
"The set-up prior to this brilliant brainwave of the present Minister was your first £20 of valuation was, in substance, relieved of rates in so far as agricultural land was concerned. In respect of the next £5 I think it was, you were relieved of the agricultural rate so far as agricultural land is concerned to the extent of two-thirds."
"I do not know how the supplementary grant was distributed, but in addition to the derating of the first £20 of valuation, over and above the supplementary grant which gave you a further relief after the first £20, you were entitled to a relief of £6 10s. 0d. in respect of every agricultural worker whom you employed for the full 12 months of the rateable year. Everybody got the benefit of the supplementary grant but the employer of labour got the employment allowance.
"It is now proposed to remove the supplementary grant altogether and to substitute therefor £17 in respect of each agricultural worker, and the case made is that this Bill will encourage farmers to employ more men. In the present state of the rural labour market for agricultural labourers, every farmer who employs a man must pay him £5 a week if he wants to get £17 per annum, which means approximately 7/- per week. What farmer is going to employ a man for 52 weeks of the year for £5 a week in order to earn 7/- per week for himself? Will this device induce any farmer to employ another man? Unless Dáil Éireann solemnly comes to the conclusion that the farmers are all daft, we are not going to legislate to induce a farmer to employ a man he does not want at £5 a week by offering him 7/- a week."
That statement was made by the present Minister for Agriculture on the 1953 Act which is now to be extended for a further three years. Deputy Dillon, as he was then, continued:—
"If we want to subsidise family labour, will anyone tell me, if a farmer has five daughters instead of five sons, why is he fined 35/- a week because Providence did not send him five sons? Here is Deputy Mrs. Rice now and let her take the field. Surely she has something to say for the farmer who has five daughters and whose daughters are helping about the farm.
"Mr. Beegan: Would you like to have the daughters working on the land?
"Mr. Dillon: Let us not get sentimental about the daughters. I do not want to see any daughter working on the land, driving a plough or sitting on a tractor, although some of them might not be averse to that."
The present Minister for Agriculture— Deputy Dillon as he was then—continued and is reported at column 2277 as follows:—
"The only amendment in this Bill which differentiates it from any previous Bill is that the supplementary agricultural grant is withdrawn and in lieu there is £17 provided for each agricultural worker. The net result of this Bill is to collect about £100,000 from the land of Ireland more than was collected heretofore, for the benefit of the Exchequer."
I have read for the House the opinions held in 1953 by the present Minister for Finance, by the present Minister for Local Government and by the present Minister for Agriculture in connection with the Bill which is now to be extended for a further three years. Is there any shame at all in the Ministers of this House? Surely the Minister for Local Government is blushing?
