The point I was dealing with very briefly was the suggestion that we should derate land under £20 valuation, having gone so far. All I can say is that the past record would seem to indicate that if that is to take place, undoubtedly only Fianna Fáil are likely to do it. So far as farm buildings are concerned—and quite a lot was said about the rates impact on them— the average valuation on houses and offices on these various farms is something under £1. It is true that in certain cases they depart quite a bit from the average but, taking the average from the entire country, the valuation of these buildings is under £1 and, therefore, the impact of increasing rates has not got the punitive effect some speakers would seem to imply.
It is also true that in so far as out-office buildings are concerned, quite recently I brought to the House—and it is now on the Statute Book—a measure which gives complete remission of rates for 20 years after the erection of out-office buildings. Like all other houses that fall under the Housing Grants Acts, there is a graduated scale of remission for the first nine years of the life of a new house. Reconstruction is also dealt with in various enactments which were carried through the House over the years by Fianna Fáil Governments. There is also relief in relation to re-valuation following any reconstruction work.
It has been suggested here as indeed elsewhere, that the bigger farmers are really the people who are getting something for nothing out of these rates reliefs. The fact is, of course, that the figures do not bear that out. Of the £11.14 million which will be the total amount this year going to the relief of land rates, £7.95 millions actually go to the primary allowances; in other words, to the £20 and under land valuations.
Another matter raised was the different categories who do not benefit from this, those who are not land holders and whose rates are continuing to go up, putting them out of business in small towns. Deputy Dillon mentioned the shopkeeper who has to pay 10/- a week in overheads, and is being driven out of business. If 10/- a week in overheads is driving some people out of business, if they can find some alternative—as undoubtedly they must be doing according to Deputy Dillon— it might be better for them. This is not an increase of 10/- on the total overheads, and probably in the past they paid 5/- or 7/6.
The other thing that should be said about rates generally is that taking into account depreciation of money values for quite a number of years, taking into account also the very great expansion in the services rendered through the local authorities under heads such as housing grants, water schemes, sewerage schemes, road works, health services, vocational education and the advisory services under the committees of agriculture—taking into account the difference in the value of money today and 25 or 30 years ago—I do not think anyone can make the case that the ratepayers are not getting pretty good value for money spent on rates, despite the inequities which I agree exist in the system. I say that deliberately because of the fact that so much misrepresentation goes on in this regard that I think it should be said.
The amount coming from the Central Exchequer towards those services is an increasing percentage year by year. That is why it is possible to have these services vastly expanded. Though money has depreciated in value, the ratepayers and local residents get better value for what they pay in rates today than ever before.
Deputy Dillon said the only thing we can boast about is that we brought the rates back to where they were during his last year in office. Lest it was not possible to hear me because of the noise he made as a result of his annoyance, I want to say it is not a boast. It is a fact that the people today are better able to pay rates than they were in his last year in office. The trouble then was not whether the rates were big or small but that the people were put to the pin of their collar to find that amount in any quarter. Today we do not see the same situation.
I would remind Deputy Dillon and his colleagues that they had their opportunity to do all the things he was advocating, including the complete derating of land of £20 valuation or under, but the fact is that they did nothing except on a few occasions when they came to the House and continued what previous Fianna Fáil Governments were doing. Now that we are progressing further by giving further reliefs we are being criticised about the "ha'porth of tar" and asked why we do not go the whole hog. It is typical of the minimisation the Leader of the Opposition is capable of when it suits his book, that that "ha'porth of tar" would be at least £1½ million out of the £11.14 million odd we are providing this year.
So far as the farmers generally are concerned, it is only a small part of what is being done. In fact it is less than one quarter of what we know to be the total amount going by way of assistance to the various farmers. During the year the total is in the region of £47 million odd. We are not segregating the farmers from the rest of the community. We are giving that money for various reasons, not the least of which is to endeavour by this and other means to keep their standard of living in line and not to allow it to fall behind the rising standard of living of other persons in other walks of life.
This, I think, is generally understood. However, the Leader of Fine Gael would wish to imply it was otherwise and that we were merely running to panic stations to relieve in this measure the plight of the farmers. That, of course, is entirely wrong and is not the case in any way whatsoever. We are merely coming in because of the improvement in the lot of other people in this country. We feel that this, together with other aids, is necessary to keep the farmer up with them and also to encourage him to improve still further his lot by improving and increasing his output, efficiency and production.
These measures, this being only a minor one, although costing a great deal of money, are having the desired effect of boosting production on our farms both big and small. Anything that does that in a substantial way, such as, for instance, the heifer subsidy scheme—any of these things that bring about a good return and a higher output from our farms and a higher net income to the farmer, his operatives and his labourers — is to be encouraged.
To throw cold water on it and to say that this measure does not go far enough, coming from a person who in his position in past government had the opportunity to do even this and did not do it, sounds very badly and I do not think his statement will really weigh with anybody.
Deputy Dillon probably foresees that Fianna Fáil's progressive abatement of rates on the under £25 valuation and, indeed, on the larger farms as well is indicative of the possibility, that may take place in the not too distant future, of derating: he will say he thought of it first. Whether he thought of it first or last, the main thing is that we are giving it: we are giving quite a substantial amount of money. We believe that, in the division of that money, we have done fairly as between the different sizes and categories of farmers. Deputy Dillon, furthermore, did not do anything to improve this situation while he was in office despite the fact that the total rates bill was rising in his years as it has done in the years since then.