Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Jun 1967

Vol. 229 No. 5

Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1967: Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Boland)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Bill is intended to give effect to the Government's decision—announced by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement last April—to make available an additional £1.6 million towards the relief of rates on agricultural land. The Bill will apply to the three years ending on 31st March, 1970.

During that period rates relief on agricultural land will be applied in three broad categories. In the case of small holdings with rateable valuations of £20 or less—and these comprise the great majority of farms—it is proposed to increase the primary allowance from 80 per cent to 100 per cent of the general rate in the £, thus effectively derating the land. Where a holding of land has a valuation of more than £20, but not more than £33, the first £20 of valuation will also be effectively derated and the occupier will be directly liable for rates only on the part of the valuation above £20. This limited liability can be abated in appropriate cases by the employment allowance, to which I will refer later. Finally, holdings with rateable valuations above £33 will continue to get a primary allowance of 80 per cent of the general rate in the £ on the first £20 of such valuations and a supplementary allowance of 30 per cent of the general rate on the balance.

During the next three years the employment allowance will be available towards the relief of the entire net rates payable on holdings with valuations over £20. Up to this the allowance was related only to the portion of the net rates on the part of the valuation above £20.

The increased rates of allowances under the Bill will bring the total amount of the agricultural grant to almost £16 million in the current year. Ten years ago the grant totalled less than £5.5 million and met 44 per cent of all rates on agricultural land. In 1962-63, when the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1962, increased the primary allowance from 60 per cent to 70 per cent and introduced a supplementary allowance of 25 per cent on valuations over £20, the grant rose to £8.5 million and met 57 per cent of the rates on land. The primary allowance was further increased to 80 per cent by the 1964 Act which also raised the supplementary allowance to 30 per cent. In consequence, the grant increased to £11.2 million in 1964-65, meeting 64 per cent of land rates. The £16 million grant this year will, it is estimated, meet approximately 70 per cent of all rates on land in county health districts. As a result of these progressive subventions from State funds, farmers will be in the happy position of paying less net rates on their land this year than they paid ten years ago, in 1957-58.

The proceeds of the increased grants provided during recent years have accrued in the main to smallholders. The increase to 100 per cent in rate relief provided for in section 3 of the Bill represents the final step in this process by providing, in effect, for the complete derating of all land for farmers in the £20 valuation or under category. The derating will apply to 77 per cent of all rated holdings of agricultural land in the country. The benefits provided by the increased primary allowances for the further 10 per cent or so of holdings in the £20 to £33 valuation category will range from almost complete derating at the bottom of the scale to an average relief of approximately 61 per cent of the gross rates at the top of the scale.

Section 8 of the Bill introduces a novel concept into the rating law. As a consequence of the increase in the primary allowance for holdings with valuations under £20, provision is made in this section for the waiving of small amounts of rates which would otherwise fall to be levied as separate charges in respect of compensation for malicious injuries. It would normally be uneconomic for a county council to levy and recover these charges on small holdings which are otherwise derated.

The Bill also provides that the making of the allowances will be conditional on payment of the net rates due within the year unless the county council, with the consent of the Minister, decide to waive the condition in relation to any year. It is proposed to give power to the Minister to extend the time for payment beyond the end of the year.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. L'Estrange

We welcome this Bill for what is in it, but it does not go far enough. I remember the time when the farmers were promised complete derating of their land. At that time the average rate was something between 6/- and 7/- in the £. The rates now range roughly from 50/- in Meath to over 90/- in many counties in the west of Ireland. Instead of the promise about derating being kept, the rates have increased more than ten times since that promise was made.

The Minister states that an additional sum of £1.6 million will be made available to the farmers towards the relief of rates on agricultural land. We believe and it has been our policy over the past five years that derating should be up to £25 poor law valuation. This sum of £1.6 million will do very little to take the small farmer out of the hopeless position he is in today. It is a well-known fact that there are over 100,000 small farmers trying to exist on £5 per week or less. We must also take into consideration the fact that in the past many of these people worked on the roads to augment the few pounds they were getting from the land. Now we find the Minister for Local Government cutting those grants by 25 per cent, and so many small farmers will not be able to get work on the roads this year.

In this connection we must take into consideration what has been done for other sections of the community. We hear much about the 1916 Proclamation in relation to cherishing all our children equally. In 1964 there were roughly 30,000 civil servants earning approximately £19 million per annum. They got a status increase and the ninth round increase in that year; they got an increase of £11 million, and they are getting it since. A sum of £11 million is divided among 30,000 people, while a meagre sum of £1.6 million is being divided among 150,000 to 200,000 farmers.

It must be remembered also that up to the present time four-fifths of the first £20 valuation was derated. I asked a question here about a month ago as to what was the average these farmers would gain, and I was told it was £3 17s 9d. The Minister knows as well as I do that the price of the loaf recently went up by 2d and that any small family will use 400 loaves in the year, which takes away whatever benefit the Minister thinks may accrue to the small farmer. What the small farmer really wants at the present time is not sops or doles. The vast majority of them are decent, respectable, hardworking people, and what they want is fair prices so that they can stay on the land and rear their children in ordinary, frugal comfort. This Bill certainly does not go far enough. It will not make up for the loss to the small farmer today, especially in the west of Ireland where he cannot sell his cattle, where he cannot sell his sheep except at a few pounds less than last year.

The Minister said that ten years ago the grant totalled less than £5.5 million and met 44 per cent of rates on agricultural land. When saying this, the Minister should also have said, to be fair, that ten years ago the farmers' costs of production were much less than they are today, that ten years ago the small farmer could make some money out of pigs and buy meal at £26 or £27 per ton. When the Minister quotes figures, let him give the whole picture. The small farmer could also get more for his small cattle ten years ago than he is getting today, and the Minister for Agriculture knows as well as I do——

Mr. Boland

He is not here.

Mr. L'Estrange

——despite the promises he made in regard to the new Trade Agreement with Britain that cattle prices would rise by £6 to £7 per head, that today they are down £20 per head, especially small cattle.

Mr. Reynolds

They cannot sell them.

Mr. L'Estrange

No, they cannot sell them. If the Minister wants to tell us what the Government were doing for the farmers ten years ago and what they are doing today, let him give us a true picture and not a distorted one.

Mr. Boland

I do not think I would be in order.

Mr. L'Estrange

When the Minister gave these figures we are entitled to give the full picture.

Mr. Boland

I do not think I would be allowed to deal with the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture on this Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am not dealing with the Estimate, but when we are given certain figures and comparisons are made, we are entitled to the truth. The very reason for giving these figures is to try to prove that the Government today are doing more for the farmers than was done by another Government ten years ago.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not go outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is plain to be seen that the Minister was trying to compare what the Government are doing for the farmers at the present time with what was being done ten years ago. If that was not the purpose, why did he go back exactly ten years when a different Government were in power? Why not go back 12 or 14 years when Fianna Fáil were in power? Why not go back seven or eight years, again when Fianna Fáil were in power? If the Minister presents one side of the picture then we are entitled to present the other side. At that time the small farmer in the West was getting 6/-to 7/- per lb. for his wool. Today he is getting 2/6d. For hoggets, wethers, poultry and eggs, he was getting a fair return. Today it is a well-known fact that the small farmer has given up producing these commodities because there is no return.

The Taoiseach is shortly to tour Europe and it is envisaged that we may be in the EEC within the next few years. On the Continent of Europe, farmers pay no rates. Farmers in Britain and in Northern Ireland pay no rates. Is it the intention of the Government to go the whole way and give our farmers complete derating to bring them into line with Northern Ireland, Britain and European countries? Our farmers cannot be asked to compete with farmers elsewhere unless they enjoy the same terms. I should like the Minister to give us this information when he comes to reply.

Mr. James Tully

From the first time I listened to a political speech, as a small boy in my local village, I heard the cry from the stone walls and the barrels for complete derating of agricultural land. The extraordinary thing is that all Parties seem to be in favour of complete derating of agricultural land. Yet, when a measure is introduced dealing with derating, we find that the result will be a very small drop indeed in the ocean. I am not quarrelling with this measure, because we must be thankful, I suppose, for small mercies. What I am quarrelling with is the song and dance by the Government as if this small relief were something that would save the small farmer. It is utter nonsense to suggest that the derating of the remaining one-fifth of the first £20 valuation will make one bit of difference to the small farmer. The fact that he will not have to find the £3, £4 or £5 which hitherto he was required to pay will save him nothing. Now we are all anxious to save the small farmer. Billy Graham is only trotting after some of the politicians here when it comes to saving the small farmer. But when it comes to doing something practical, all we see is this meagre concession; they will have an extra couple of shillings a week. At the beginning the small farmers did not appreciate that they were getting practically nothing, but they do appreciate it now.

There is another angle to which the Minister should direct his attention. On many holdings the houses and outoffices carry a very substantial rate and that substantial rate will continue. Cottiers have been told by Fianna Fáil canvassers, who should know and, if they do not know, they should not be candidates in the local elections, that this complete derating applies to cottiers, their gardens and their houses. These canvassers should know that buildings are not included. I had an old age pensioner coming to me last week. She pays a rate of £10 on an acre of land and a vested cottage. That poor old lady had been told that, because her acre was classed as agricultural land, she would not have to pay any more rates. She said £10 was not a great deal of money but it was a good deal to her. As the Minister knows, there is absolutely no truth in this; if people believe it until after 28th June that will be all right. That is the sort of nonsense to which I object. It is nothing but a build-up.

Deputy L'Estrange referred to the difference in the rate in Meath and the rate in other counties. Our land is very highly valued, not because it is better land but because, when Griffith was travelling around, there must have been a very fine summer; he listed as good land land that was growing wheat. Apparently land that grew wheat then, unlike now, was regarded as good land. A good deal of this land is now and has been in living memory under rushes, but there is still a high valuation on it. It is easy keeping the rate down when the valuation is high. Some Deputies do not seem to understand that. It is relatively easy to give the appearance of keeping the rate down because the same amount of money is being paid one way or the other.

Mr. L'Estrange

We have the same situation in Westmeath.

Mr. James Tully

With regard to the £20 up to £33, a Fianna Fáil back bencher, speaking here the other day, was under the impression that there was a graded allowance from £20 up to £33. I should like the Minister to go into detail on that when he is replying because, if there is a graded allowance, the Deputy knows more about it than I do. I cannot find any graded allowance. The reference is to the employment allowance.

This is a small step forward and we must be thankful for small mercies, but this will mean very little to the income of the small farmer and the sooner that is generally accepted the better it will be. The mistake initially was that of the Minister for Finance in announcing this: he did not say: "This is a small concession; it is a beginning and we hope to be able to improve on it". What he did imply was that the Government were doing wonderful things for the small farmer; they were completely derating the first £20 on agricultural land. He made the announcement with his tongue in his cheek obviously because he is the one person who should know that this meant shillings per week and not pounds per week in most cases.

Mr. Reynolds

The Minister said that:

As a result of these progressive subventions from State funds, farmers will be in the happy position of paying less net rates on their land this year than they paid ten years ago, in 1957-58.

I do not know how true that is, but I rather doubt it somehow. I should like to get an isolated case. In my opinion, farmers were in a much better position in 1957-58 to pay anything up to £100 in rates than they are to pay anything at all this year. I do not think the Minister realises what the situation of the farmer is. Store cattle, for which the farmers in the west of Ireland were getting in the region of £40 to £45 a few years ago, are unsaleable today. If the farmers take them into the fair, they just cannot sell them. They are not even asked how much they want for them. The situation is as bad as that and it is quite wrong, therefore, to argue that they will pay less in rates. They may pay less but they could afford to pay far more in 1957-58. It is a pity the Government did not adopt our policy and have complete derating on the first £25.

Every one of us knows that the income of the small farmer is supplemented by various types of employment. No later than last week notification was sent to each county by the Department of Local Government that road grants are substantially reduced. Particularly in the areas I represent, the small farmer was used to getting employment on many schemes. It means that the amount of money will substantially be reduced this year and that there will be much less employment for them. His plight this year and the next year, as far as I can see, will be desperate. I do not think the Government can pride themselves on the little bit of relief we are giving him in rates.

There is another section of the community in the West to whom the Minister should try to give some relief at a very early date, that is, the small businessman.

Mr. Boland

I suppose it causes no trouble to Deputy L'Estrange and Deputy Tully to refer to the disbursement of an amount of money of the magnitude of £1.6 million as a meagre concession, a mere bagatelle, and so on. They have a lot of experience during this Government's term of office of having to try to belittle the amounts of money which are being collected from the community for distribution to people in need.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister should stop codding himself.

Mr. Boland

They have that experience at least once a year.

Mr. James Tully

Twice a year last year. We had two Budgets last year.

Mr. L'Estrange

And we shall have two Budgets this year, too.

Mr. Boland

Yes, and two distributions to sections of the community which were in need and which were entitled to this redistribution. The Labour Party, on other occasions, pretend to be in favour of this process of redistribution of income but when it comes to the question of raising the money, the attitude is completely different.

Mr. James Tully

That is entirely wrong. The Minister should not tell lies in this House.

Mr. Boland

The Labour Party or any other Party have never supported the efforts of the Government to arrange for this redistribution which is a two-stage operation.

Mr. L'Estrange

And neither did Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Boland

The money must, first of all, be collected and then distributed. That is something Fine Gael have never faced up to. The question of the collection of the money is irrelevant: I had it yesterday in the Seanad. The cost of the preservation of old houses is irrelevant according to Fine Gael Senators. Here, again, to the Fine Gael Party who claim to have a policy of complete derating of the first £25 of land valuation, the question of cost is of course completely irrelevant. Unfortunately, a Government who decide to do these things, rather than to have them as a so-called policy, have to face up to the question that the extraction of an extra £1.6 million for distribution to the small farmers is not an irrelevant thing which can be brushed aside. Suitable fiscal arrangements have to be made to collect this money from the people so that it can be given in relief of rates on agricultural land.

I think that the raising of the total grant in relief of rates on agricultural land to £16 million is not something of which this Government need be ashamed. Deputy L'Estrange and Deputy Tully maintain that this is very little relief to small farmers. I do not see that it is possible to do any more by way of rates relief than to remit 100 per cent of the rates. To do anything more than this would involve an actual payment to stay on the land and, in fact, this is being done also by way of the extension of the unemployment assistance scheme——

Mr. James Tully

The dole.

Mr. Boland

——to the full period of the year.

Mr. L'Estrange

The farmers want fair prices, not the dole.

Mr. Boland

Therefore, this is additional assistance to small farmers. I appreciate that, although some Deputies pretend to be in favour of some redistribution of income, in actual fact they are always prepared to sneer at measures such as this. I am well aware of what is behind the Fine Gael attitude of sneering at "sops" and "doles" and advocating that instead of this, there should be subsidised prices. I am quite well aware of all that. This is the gambit used by all those who want to use the small farmers in order to get completely disproportionate benefits for those who do not need them.

Deputy L'Estrange and the other members of the Fine Gael Party appreciate that if, instead of proceeding in this manner, instead of re-aligning the unemployment assistance scheme so that it will, in effect, be an income supplement for small farmers and instead of giving relief to small farmers in the matter of rates, we proceeded by way of subsidising prices or giving increased subsidies on fertilisers, and so on, the bigger farmer would automatically profit to a much greater extent than the smaller farmer. Deputy L'Estrange and his Party and other people who specialise in utilising the small farmer for their own motives could pretend that they had got this benefit for the small farmer in the knowledge that in fact it is the larger farmer who will benefit.

Apart from this type of rates relief which is directed mainly to the small farmer, the other assistance such as the unemployment assistance scheme and other assistance to agriculture is naturally related to the productive capacity of the farm. The result is that the benefits from it accrue to people in direct proportion to the productive capacity of the farm and, therefore, in inverse proportion to the need of the individual for assistance. I can see nothing whatever wrong in arranging to do something which will, in fact, be related more directly to the need of the person for assistance than to the increasing of production. I agree that, in the economic context, the increasing of production is important but there are also social considerations to be taken into account. I can see no more objection to providing some income supplement for small farmers than to providing assistance for industry or to providing subsidy on fertilisers, lime, milk or any other item of production in regard to agriculture.

I do not know why Deputy Tully tries to pretend that there is not some graded relief for farms with valuations between £20 and £33. There cannot be any Deputy who is not capable of making out a simple table for himself showing exactly the position of farmers with valuations of £20, £21, £22 and so on, up to £33, previous to the introduction of this Bill and subsequent to it. If any Deputy will go to the trouble of making out such a table, he will see that the result of this Bill is to give a perfectly graded system of relief in the range of valuations from £20 to £33.

At present the person on £20 valuation gets relief on 80 per cent of that valuation. In other words, he pays his rates on £4 valuation. Now he will pay none. A person at present on, say, £25 valuation, pays his rates on £4 of his valuation under £20 on .7 of the other £5, that is, £3.5. In other words, he pays on £7 10s valuation at present. When the Bill is enacted, he will pay nothing on the first £20 and he will pay on the portion between £20 and £25, that is, on £5 valuation. Here the man with the £20 valuation gets relief on £4 and the £25 man gets relief on——

Mr. James Tully

The Minister should not become so involved; it is quite simple, as he says himself.

Mr. Boland

——an extra £2 10s. Therefore, you have a perfect graduation, step by step, from £20 valuation down to £33.

Mr. James Tully

Did you ever hear anything so stupid?

Mr. Boland

The £20 man gets extra relief on £4, the £21 man on £3 14s and so on, down to the man on the £33 valuation whose position will only be marginally better under the Bill than it is now. Therefore, when a Fianna Fáil Deputy, whether he sits on the back benches or on the front benches, says that there is a graded system, he is stating the absolute truth, as Deputy Tully knows full well.

Mr. James Tully

The first £20, that is all. The Minister should not be trying to cod himself.

Mr. Boland

There is a graded scale from £20 to £33. What Deputy Tully wants is the same relief for everybody.

Mr. James Tully

Not at all.

Mr. Boland

In this Party we believe that this type of subsidy should be directed mainly towards the small man.

Mr. James Tully

Do not be claiming credit for what you are not giving.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Boland

Some Deputies like to pretend that they want to get concessions for the small man and they want to get concessions in such a way that the big man in whom they are really interested will get at least as much and preferably will get concessions proportionately to his size and productive capacity rather more than his needs.

Mr. L'Estrange

There is a Fianna Fáil Deputy sitting behind the Minister who has 1,000 acres.

Mr. Boland

And he will get nothing out of this.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.