I should like to thank the House for the welcome which they have given to the Bill. From what has been said here, it is clear that, through the system of rate relief as operated under this Bill, massive support is given by the State to the agricultural community. It is no harm on an occasion such as this to highlight this fact, because it seems to go unnoticed. As Senator Cranitch, particularly, mentioned, the sum this year is in the region of £28 million. That is quite a sizeable amount of aid to any section of the community. It is going to the agricultural community just to relieve the rate burden. The Bill continues the level of relief which has been applicable since the 1967 Bill was passed and also makes a change from £5 to £15 in the valuation limit for employees who will now qualify for the employment allowance.
There is always a temptation, on an occasion like this, for Members of the House to drift into a discussion on the general rating system. I am glad that that was avoided, in general, by the people who spoke. As it was mentioned, the Inter-Department Committee on Local Finance has already published three reports—the Government have published their reports without commitment—of which the House will be aware: Valuations for Rating Purposes; Exemptions from and Remissions of Rates; and Rates and Other Sources of Finance for Local Authorities.
The present position is that the whole question of local finance—including the recommendations of this inter-departmental committee—have been under consideration and the Government are committed to publishing a White Paper on this subject. All I can tell the House, at this stage, is that every effort is being made to have the White Paper published at a very early date. We are all concerned with the continued operation of the existing system and are well aware of the many inequities it contains; we are anxious to improve the situation and bring relief where the burden lies greatest at the moment, if it is at all possible.
Senator McDonald, when he was dealing with this matter, said that a very large number of persons are paying very high rates. I should like to point out to him that the allowances increase automatically with whatever rises occur, from year to year, in the rates—all the allowances mentioned, except the employment allowance.
The fact that this is so is quite evident from the substantial jump in the year 1972-73 to the figure of over £28 million which I have already mentioned, from the figure of £24.4 million in 1971-72. The grant is increased substantially each year and is cushioning the effect of rates even on the larger farmer.
The employment allowance was mentioned here. I was in the unusual position, last night, in the Dáil that I had a similar type argument as that put forward by Senator McDonald this morning, pleading for a very substantial increase in the employment allowance. It is £17 at the moment. The request from the Fine Gael Party was to increase it to £100. On the other hand, when the Labour spokesman rose he was strongly opposed to the continuance of this allowance at all and suggested that the wisest thing to do would be to abolish the employment allowance. He referred to the reasons for the introduction of an employment allowance which were to act as an encouragement or an incentive to farmers to employ agricultural labourers.
It, obviously, has not had that effect if one looks at the numbers employed in agriculture. The figure has been dropping steeply. If this allowance has not met the primary need for which it was introduced—it seems to be recognised all round that it has not brought any great benefit to those who receive it—the question of abolishing it should be strongly considered. However, I have decided to continue payment of the allowance of £17 for every employee of a farmer who is not the rated owner of a holding of over £15 and who is over the age of 16 years. I think the increase from £5 to £15 in the valuation qualification for an employee is a very generous one and something we should allow to run for some time.
Senator McDonald referred to the question of flooded lands. Lands which are liable to flooding annually or regularly are already valued lower than ordinary land and their valuations reflect the quality of the land. Provision is made for the likelihood of flooding in that way. However, where an occupier of such land suffers hardship by the imposition of rates the local authorities have power to grant relief. The rates waiver scheme can be operated, in certain circumstances, by the county manager. He also has authority to write off rates where he deems them to be irrecoverable.
Senator McDonald asked me a question in relation to section 2 (2) of the Bill. He asked me to explain the reference to 16 years in that section and mentioned the 1953 Act and said that he could not find the words "16 years" in that Act. It would be difficult to find the words "16 years" in the 1953 Act because that Act merely provided for a period of two years. All of the Acts that have been passed since, continuing this relief, have added whatever the period of years the relief has been granted for to that figure of two. The last Act to be passed contained a figure of 16. We are merely adding the further five-year period that I am proposing in this Bill to bring it to 21 years, from 31st March, 1954, which was the operative date in the 1953 Act. Twenty-one years following that date would bring us to 1975 and this Bill extends the relief to 31st March, 1975.
Senator Butler asked me a question in relation to a valuation of £20 and a rate of £3 being struck. He wanted to know if this would mean a relief of £60 to the farmer with a £20 valuation and the answer is "yes". On the question of continuity of employment, the position is that payment of an employment allowance is related to whole-time employment during the preceding calendar year. In practice, county councils do not disqualify a claim in respect of an employee whose casual absences, due to illness or so on, do not exceed an aggregate of about four weeks in the year. This is a matter for the discretion of each local authority but a period of four weeks was suggested to them as a guideline.
On the question of whether rates relief of this kind would in any way be affected by our entry to the EEC, I would like to assure the House and Deputy Butler, who raised this interesting point, that it is not necessary for the continuation of the agricultural grant that there should be any specific EEC provision or regulation authorising it. It can continue so long as there is no provision which would rule it out. There is none at present so the agricultural grant is not affected in any way by our impending entry to the EEC.
Senator O'Brien mentioned the question of extending the employment allowance to female employees. This suggestion has been made on a few occasions in the past but, on examination, I am sure all will agree that it would be very difficult to apply the allowance to a female employee of a farmer. Whatever duties she may perform of a strictly agricultural nature one would accept that she would also be involved in many domestic duties around the farmer's house. As the allowance only applies to farming employment, which must be wholetime, we would have to set up an army of inspectors to apply the allowance properly. I think it better to leave it out altogether. There are not that many people involved and it would not benefit any great number of people.
The lower age limit for farm workers was reduced from 17 years to 16 years in the 1962 Act. Senator O'Brien talked about lowering it further but if we did so we would be encouraging farmers to take their sons out of school earlier and encouraging young people to leave school and work on farms in order to get this small allowance. I do not think the House would generally support that situation. The present age is a reasonable one and will be continued.
I think I have covered most of the points raised during the course of the debate. I would like to place on the record of the House a reference to the extent to which ratepayers have been shielded from the full impact of the rising costs of local authority services. This has been a most striking feature of local finance in recent years: the increases in the amounts of grants and subsidies being paid by the State towards local authority expenditure. In 1971-72 the revenue spent by local authorities was of the order of £180 million. Of this amount £60—roughly one-third—came from rates while approximately £90 million was provided by the State in the form of grants and subsidies. In the present financial year the corresponding total of State grants, including the agricultural and health grants, is likely to exceed £104 million.
