Private Members' Business. - Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1974: Fifth Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I want to clarify a couple of points. Perhaps the Minister mixed up some things I said with what was said by other speakers. My point was that this £17 should be increased and I hope he will consider doing so. When speaking about females I was not talking about females who work in the house. I fully appreciate that the wife should not be entitled to relief, but where there is no son and a daughter comes home and goes out to work on the farm, it is a different matter. Whether we like it or not, it sometimes happens that the daughter drives tractors and works generally on the farm. I maintain that she should be as much entitled to relief as a son. You could not give the relief where there is a son and daughter at home, but where the daughter works on the land helping her father she is as much entitled to get relief as a son. The Minister probably thought I was referring to the housekeeping end of it.

My other point was that the Minister should go up from £20, that there was nothing to be done for the £20 man because the rates are taken off him. I am referring to the man with rates of between £20 and £50 who has off-farm employment. He is caught at present because he gets only half his relief on income tax. If the Minister could help by moving the £20 up to £30 or higher so that he would get 100 per cent relief it would be appreciated.

I am sorry if I misunderstood but the Deputy did talk of a girl working as hard in the house.

I apologise if I said "in the house". I did not mean working in the house.

If she is working on the land that is a case with which I would have a certain amount of sympathy. There may be a case there and when I am reviewing the matter next year I shall consider it.

As regards the matter of £17, I am now in the same position that Deputy Molloy was in when this came up on the last occasion when he said he found it difficult to make up his mind between the point of view being put by one side of the Opposition—myself —and the other side of the Opposition —Deputy Clinton and Deputy Bruton, I think—since we seem to have different points of view. I felt the £17 was no good; the others felt it should be increased. Tonight we have Deputy Molloy who agrees with me that the £17 is no good and we have Deputy Callanan who says it should be increased. We shall have to consider it. In regard to the man who has a valuation over £20 and has a job, it is a bit much to expect that he should get special concessions. If he has a job he is doing pretty well and if he is over £20 valuation and is getting the remission——

He is lucky to have a job at present.

The building industry, as Deputy Burke knows, is still doing very well, 82,000 in it.

Tell that to the workers in Wavin.

They are not doing too badly because, as the Deputy may know, they still have a full week's wage, thanks to this Government, even if they are on short time. Returning to Deputy Callanan's point, I do not believe there should be an extra concession for somebody who has a job and a farm.

Do I take it that if a man with a farm of £20 valuation who at the moment does not have to pay any rates takes up employment, the Minister believes he should pay rates and should not get relief of rates?

That is not what I said. Perhaps Deputy Callanan would explain to the Deputy.

The Minister referred to the man with £20 valuation——

Over £20.

Perhaps the Minister slipped up and did not say "over". He said the man with £20 valuation who has full relief——

Will the Minister spell out what he is saying?

Deputy Callanan asked a question about the man who had over £20 valuation and a job and I said I did not consider that special concessions should be introduced for a man with over £20 valuation and a job. The record will tell whether I said it or not.

Question put and agreed to.