In relation to the farmer with a valuation of £5, may I point out to the Minister that, as regards making more labour available, many small holders in the country will suffer in this respect? A farmer will not be able to get any abatement from his rates if he employs such a small holder. These men cannot stay at home because of their small holdings. They have to get out and work because they could not make a living on a place that would have such a low valuation. I would suggest to the Minister that if he would put the figure up a few pounds he would make more labour available for farmers and provide employment for small holders.
Committee on Finance. - Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1959—Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That Section I stand part of the Bill."
I am not unsympathetic to the suggestion but if you make an argument for this—and I believe a very sound argument has been made by the Deputy for the making available of more labour for the farmer—and if you relate that to the purpose for which the employment allowances are given, it would seem that the employment allowances would no longer be justified. In other words, we bring it in because there was a pool of labour in order to encourage the farmers to maintain their labour all the year round. We have now reached the stage where, if that argument were to be allowed, it would indicate that the labour pool is no longer large enough to keep the farmers with sufficient employees. While it is a very good argument, it could well be used in the other direction.
The Minister is missing the point. I am saying that that man is debarred from getting employment the whole year round. The whole idea behind the measure is that the man would have a continuation of employment and that farmers would not employ them just seasonally. There must be an enormous number of holdings in Donegal on which people would be debarred in the same way. There is one part of my constituency where there is a great number of small holdings. It is a great hardship on these men.
It does not debar a man from getting employment. I can see what the Deputy is leading to. It is a discouragement to his employment as against someone who will qualify. Then, again, the actual conditions of both people in question must be measured: the man who has land over £5 valuation—say, £6 or £7—and the fellow who has none. If there is a discouragement to the employment of the man just at £6 as against the man who has none, a certain amount of justification should be held to exist in that case but it does not debar him from casual employment.
In regard to the statement the Minister read from this Commission, the Minister and all Governments in this State in future should be careful when appointing people in sheltered positions who are carried on the backs of the workers of the community. They should be a little more careful about the people they select. I quite realise that a Government looking for money appoints a team to find out where that money can be found or taken from somebody else. The team appointed are very anxious to take the money from somebody else provided they themselves are not touched— particularly when the members of that commission are in sheltered positions and entitled to a pension from the workers when they retire at the end of their days.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.