I move the following motion, which stands in my name and in the name of Deputy Patrick O'Reilly:—
That, in order to secure a more equitable system of financing local administration and to promote increased employment and production, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that agricultural land should be completely derated and, furthermore, that rates on houses and other property should be stabilised at a moderate and reasonable level.
There are certain amendments to this motion which, I assume, will also be moved by those who have tabled them, but, as far as the mover and seconder of the main motion are concerned, we believe that the proposal which we are laying before the House is one that is long overdue. In 1928, rates on agricultural land were completely abolished in Great Britain and also in that portion of our country over which the British Government exercise authority. During the 21 years that have elapsed since 1928 this question of derating of agricultural land has been a very important issue in rural Ireland, and, not only that, but it has been an important issue in Party warfare in this State.
Every Party that was in opposition up to the time of the last election, since 1928, has, from time to time, guaranteed to derate agricultural land. Governments, however, or Parties when they become the Government of the country, seem to have some reluctance in carrying those pledges into effect. However, I may say that, so far as I am concerned, I have been absolutely consistent in this matter, inasmuch as in every Dáil in which I was a member, since 1938, I have brought forward a motion similar to this. It has always been defeated, but I am hopeful now that on this occasion it will meet with a favourable reception in this House.
The last occasion on which a motion similar to this motion was before the House was in February, 1946. At that time, the Fianna Fáil Party, who are now in opposition, had complete control of the Government and had a majority in this House. Most of the other Parties that are now supporting the Government supported this motion in 1946, and I cannot help feeling that they will continue to do so. I am glad that Deputy Donnellan is in the House because both he and I were members of the same Party at the time a motion similar to this motion was introduced in 1946 and it was promoted by that Party and had the support of other Parties which are now supporting the Government.
I do not think that any Party in this House, whether on the Government side or on the opposition side, has any need to be apologetic about supporting a motion of this nature. The fact that six counties of this nation enjoy complete exemption from rates on agricultural land ought to be an impelling motive why we should consider this matter seriously. Does anyone seriously think that the small struggling farmers of the six excluded counties will be as enthusiastic as they should be about national unity when they know that in the Republic of Ireland we still have the rate collector collecting rates upon agricultural land —regardless of how well that land may be worked, of how industrious its owner may be, or of how much employment he is giving on his holding? The fact that derating was introduced in Great Britain in 1928 is one that should set people, generally, thinking about the incidence of rates upon agriculture and why the British Government decided to make this concession to the farming community. Surely they must have had some impelling motive for doing so. A moment's consideration will show they had an impelling motive. They realised that the land was the nation's most important asset and that the imposition of a direct tax on land, regardless of how well worked or of how industrious its owner might be, was just the same as imposing a form of protection in favour of the foreigner as against the home producer.
Everybody must acknowledge that it is the duty of a Government to be zealous in promoting the interests of its own citizens and particularly in helping its own home producers. Yet, this direct levy on land has always been a burden which farmers have found it very difficult to bear in times of agricultural depression and which, unfortunately, tends to increase out of all proportion when there is some little improvement in agricultural conditions. Nobody will deny that there is an improvement in agricultural conditions today as compared, say, with 1935 or 1936. However, that improvement has not been in any way proportionate to the increase in the burdens which have been placed upon agriculture. We all know the extent to which farmers' costs have increased—and rates constitute a very substantial portion of the farmer's overhead charges. They constitute a charge which has to be met, regardless of whether the year is good or bad, of whether the farmer's cattle thrive or of whether they are afflicted with all those diseases and parasites which the Minister for Agriculture frequently warns us against. Rates are also a burden that have to be met whether conditions are favourable or otherwise to the farmer. They are a burden which are levied on the farmer irrespective of what his financial position may be. Unlike income-tax, no attempt is made to grade rates in proportion to income. The farmer who may be struggling to maintain a family on a miserable piece of poor land has to meet his burden just the same as if he were prosperous and had good land.
While this motion has lain very quietly on the Order Paper for the past 18 months, and while its being taken to-day has come as a great surprise to me because I had begun to feel that it would never be reached, I must say that it has come at an opportune time because, throughout the length and breadth of this State, there is a growing feeling that something must be done to relieve the burden of rates. I move the adjournment of the debate.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Thursday, 3rd November, 1949.