Deputy William O'Brien is in possession. The Deputy has 20 minutes.
Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill 1978: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
When I reported progress yesterday I was about to remind the House of the withdrawal of the Primary Employment allowance in 1976. When that was withdrawn by the people now on this side of the House we witnessed what could be described as crocodile tears from the people across the House. We heard many insincere speeches and we heard it said that the withdrawal of that £17 would put people off the land. When we take the full total it would be in the region of £500,000. Now the figure is completely different and we are dealing with a figure in the region of £7 million. I have not heard any speeches from the other side which would indicate their sorrow for that. The position is that people with a valuation down as far as £60 will be called upon to make a contribution to that £7 million.
I would not mind, and I do not think anyone here would mind, if this were being done because of a real shortage of money. That is not the case. If it were the case this Government would not hand back £10 million to the millionaires of the country. The reply to this from people on the other side of the House is that those with money will invest their money and investment brings wealth and wealth brings employment. I hope the day will never come when our economy will have to depend on those people to create employment because they left the country on the first occasion when they were called upon to make a contribution. I would be much happier depending on the hard-working farmers who withstood the economic war and who are now being asked in no uncertain manner to subsidise those millionaires, those tax-haven people who have come home to roost. A farm with a valuation of £60 is not colossal and a man with a young family finds it very difficult to make a living.
In spite of what was done by the previous Government in trying to keep down rates, I know quite well that rates did go up by virtue of inflation and because of a crisis which hit not only this country but the entire world. We took health charges and housing subsidies from the rates and were it not for that rates at this stage would be about £4 or £5 extra. Apart from minor charges, this grant has been in operation since 1898. I sincerely hope this Government will not succeed in abolishing the grant because I believe it is absolutely vital to farmers that it should continue.
When I look at the Deputies opposite I see that a high percentage of them come from rural Ireland and I am convinced that, as far as administration is concerned, it is now being carried on by civil servants en bloc. I could not for a moment anticipate any Fianna Fáil Deputy going into the lobby and supporting something for which he would have to account at a later stage down the country. How can they tell farmers that they had to do it because of the shortage of money? That will not be accepted as an answer. The farming community are intelligent and are associated with many organisations. They read the budget speech and see the concessions given to other sections of the community and they will be only too ready to point out how they were had in the last general election.
We are all agreed that rates are an unfair form of taxation and I realise that the abolition of domestic rates was a good thing because we had introduced this scheme and actually abolished 25 per cent of the rates, but I believe the farming community should have been told that they would be subsidising the abolition of rates. I want to harp on this point because I believe it was in no small way responsible for bringing the Government into power. The farming vote was attracted by this carrot. There is an obligation on the Government to tell the farmers why the Government have changed their minds. Farmers were called to meetings and, subject to certain conditions, were given certain guarantees. Now they have been tricked and the Government should admit it.
I have great confidence in the Minister's fairness because he represents a rural electorate. Therefore I feel sure he will find it difficult to press this legislation through. I hope many rural Deputies will follow and that there will be many amendments to this Bill. The Bill represents one of the most important issues to come before the House for a long time because it means that certain promises given to farmers are being dishonoured. Therefore, I ask the Minister to see the light as far as rural Ireland is concerned. If he does he will be doing a good job for the country.
I told Deputy O'Brien when he began that he had 20 minutes. There is no time limit to speeches on a Bill. That was a mistake by the Chair.
I oppose this Bill on several grounds. In bringing it to the Dáil the Minister is deceiving the farming community and reneging on general election promises. Farmers were told that if they returned Fianna Fáil to power everything would be bright and prosperous as far as farming is concerned. I said in my budget speech that the removal of rates remission is a definite attack on family farmers. I have not a lot of sympathy for the big ranching farmers but the Minister knows how few of them will be caught in this legislation. However, huge numbers of family farmers will be caught this year those with valuations of more than £75 and next year those with valuations of more than £60.
At this stage, after the emphasis the Government placed on the removal of rates from private dwellings, it is unfair to introduce legislation which removes rates remission from agricultural land. At the worst it should have been done in a period of four of five years, but this legislation does it immediately, in two stages on valuations of £60 or more. It has been acknowledged during the years that the rating system is unjust. It has been condemned as a method of revenue collection because it does not have regard to the incomes or the capacity to pay of land and other property owners. When my party were in power we tried to reduce the burden of rates on agricultural land. During our last period in office we removed the housing subsidy and health charges were still levied on rates they would mean an increase of £5 in the £ on all rates. Therefore, their removal was a massive step forward by the National Coalition Government. Now we have a reversion to what can be described as a penal tax. I think it would be right to say that this is an effort by the Government to try to recoup the revenue they have lost by the removal of rates on private dwellings. It is unfair and unjust to the land owners of Ireland.
In Wexford we have a special interest in this Bill because in the Macamore area there are approximately 45,000 acres whose valuation varies from 55p per acre to £1.10 per acre. The potential of the land in that area is approximately 80 per cent of the average for the nation. Macamore has a very hardworking farming community—they have to be hard working in order to exist—and they, particularly, will be seriously affected by the provisions of the Bill. The Minister may say it is the intention to revalue all land but I am sure that will not be done. No Government, least of all Fianna Fáil, will have sufficient guts to stand up and say they will get rid of this unfair valuation system.
From what I have heard, other constituencies have the same valuation variations as we have in Wexford, without having our massive problem. We have the anomaly in the rating system that some of the best land has a very low valuation and some of the poorest land has a very high valuation. Therefore, a good case can be made for the introduction of a system whereby all agricultural land valuations would be reassessed in a period of up to ten years. I do not think that would impose too severe an impact on local authority finances.
To get more back to the Macamore area and the £1.10 valuation, we have farmers with holdings as low as 80 acres who will lose their remissions this year. They are also liable for income tax. Of course, the Minister's answer will be that these people can charge their rates against their income tax. There is no such thing in the Macamores as charging rates against income tax because these people are not liable for income tax as their incomes are so low. Nevertheless, they are being penalised by having to pay rates whether they like it or not and this is very unfair.
I make the case for the Macamores, but I understand that there is a similar situation in many other counties. The Minister has not taken this into consideration in his massive effort to grab money from the agricultural community.
In regard to the £60 valuation for next year—I hope I am in order in mentioning it—we can, I understand, charge our rates against our income tax but we are 18 months behind the time. In other words, those paying rates on agricultural land will not get repayments through their income tax for 18 months after they have paid their rates. In plain language, what we are doing is financing the county councils for 18 months. This is something that has not been spoken of and it is another unfair and unjust tax. When everybody else is allowed rates on private dwellings, our farmers are asked to finance the county councils for 18 months, free of interest.
In Wexford, 600 ratepayers with £75 valuations will pay £330,000 in rates to Wexford County Council this year. I do not know what next year's figure will be and I would ask the Minister to give us the 1979 figure in his reply as it is relevant to this debate—the figure which the farmers in each county will have to pay as a result of the reduction in valuation from £75 to £60. I inquired at the County Secretary's office in Wexford but they were unable to help me.
During the general election the Minister's party wooed the farming community not only to get votes but to get money to fight the election. The Fianna Fáil Party have betrayed the farming community since they took office. This present move is another effort to extract money from the farmers to run our services. I speak from experience of a farming background and I know the amount of money that is needed for farm expansion and the potential of that expansion. The Minister's party have taken every possible step to deprive the farmers, the latest of which was last week when the Minister for Agriculture tried to deprive them of a just price for cattle under the EEC intervention system. I wonder how far the Minister intends to go. It is time the farmers' representatives asked the Fianna Fáil Party what their next step will be to deprive them of the necessary family income to carry on their small businesses and to look after their children's health and education. The Government's policy in relation to farmers, particularly today's move, is shortsighted because the amount of money involved is only £7 million. The abolition of car tax will cost £40 million and the abolition of rates on houses will cost £60 million. In comparison with these figures, £7 million is a small amount of money. How much more to the Government intend to extract from the farming community?
In speaking on this Bill, the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, the first comment that comes to mind is the rather inappropriate name for the Bill. It implies that the Bill is producing relief for farmers in the matter of paying rates on their land. While I accept that, historically, there is a certain amount of relief to farmers in relation to agricultural holdings, having this Bill before the House today under the name of the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill must be classified as a misnomer. The primary purpose of this Bill is to reduce the amount of relief to farmers in the matter of the payment of rates on agricultural property.
The concern in my mind as a rural Deputy is that this Bill is but one of a series of insidious measures that have been taken against the farming population since this Administration came into office a short nine months ago. The farmers themselves are very well aware of the promises that were made to them prior to the election by Fianna Fáil. As a result of these promises they were entitled to expect reasonable treatment from this Administration when it came to power. What has been the response of this Administration to the needs of the farming community? Virtually every week brings more bad news for them, more money out of their pocket, and this appears to be part of a planned policy on the part of the Fianna Fáil Government.
The farmers listened to the spokesmen for Fianna Fáil during the four years of Coalition rule. Listening to those spokesmen, one would have expected that the farmers would get a fair deal from Fianna Fáil if they should be returned to power. In their election manifesto Fianna Fáil said that the main thrust for the recovery of the national economy would be provided by agriculture. They listed the various measures they intended to take to ensure that this would occur. Many farmers put their faith in Fianna Fáil in the 1977 election because of this.
What has happened to the farmers since Fianna Fáil came to power last year? Money has been taken out of their pockets in a most insidious manner. Subsidies have been removed from various agricultural items, in some cases contrary to the clear and unequivocal promises given to farmers prior to the election. I refer in particular to the cheese subsidy. When Fianna Fáil were questioned prior to the election the Minister for Agriculture is on record as having said that not alone would this subsidy be maintained but that it would be increased. This cheese subsidy was removed without any great publicity or fuss. As far as the farmers are concerned there has been a budget a week over the last few months. A notice was inserted in small print in the newspapers one day and the cheese subsidy was removed. The following week the fertiliser subsidy was removed, again without any fuss or without having the matter debated in the House.
Many other measures have been taken such as VAT on marts' commission and the increase of fees for veterinary services in factories. The list is virtually endless. Those measures have been introduced by an Administration which wept for the farmers over the minimal tax measures introduced by the Coalition Government. Fees under various headings have been drastically increased during the last six months. The fees in the milk recording scheme have been increased by 200 per cent. Those are relatively small items but in toto the farmers must be led to the inescapable conclusion that the present Administration are attacking the agricultural community. This is very serious when one considers the promises made to farmers prior to the election.
I believe I will have served some purpose in speaking today if I can bring home to the farmers that this attack on them is taking place. Many of those measures introduced against farmers have not been introduced in the budget but have been slipped through quietly without fuss or publicity. The attack on the farming community by the Government is the background to this Bill, the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1978. One would have expected that such a Bill would actually be relief of rates on agricultural land.
We have heard a lot of talk over the years about the difficulties of the farming community with regard to the rates on their holdings. Rates are an increasing burden on farms, irrespective of the income which is made from those farms. Fianna Fáil, during the years of the National Coalition Government, pretended they were very interested in rates on agricultural land and farmers believed they would get considerable relief if Fianna Fáil were returned to power. When those farmers heard this Bill was to be introduced they looked forward to the measures which would be contained in it. What is the relief they find? They find that the Bill is a removal of relief, a further item in the list of assaults conducted by Fianna Fáil since they came to power. The position now is that many farmers who were entitled to relief in relation to their agricultural rates will not be entitled to this relief in the future. This is being done in two stages. The relief over £75 goes this year and the relief over £60 goes next year. The net effect, whether this is done in a single swoop or in the more typically insidious fashion of Fianna Fáil of introducing it on a gradual basis, is that the farmers will be asked to pay more money to fund the extravagant promises of this Administration. The excuse given by the Minister is that such payments will be deductible against income tax. It is a rather unusual basis on which to defend this Bill. I do not believe it will be accepted as a sustainable defence of it. In many areas where tax is not payable the additional rates will in any event be payable, and I have no doubt that there will be many such cases.
What is the Minister's reaction to people who because of various personal allowances, because of various allowances in the context of interest payments, employees' wages and so on, will not be paying tax directly? What is the Minister's reply to somebody in such a situation? Is the Minister's reaction that in that event there will be a special amending clause in the Bill to allow relief? In the light of the attitude of this Administration since it came to power towards the farming community I can only anticipate that there will be no such amendment. The farmers will be told "We are now in office, we have our majority, we have our 84 seats, pay up or else".
On behalf of the farming community I record my opposition to this measure. The title of the Bill is entirely misleading. I accept that there may be some historical tradition for such a title but, on the other hand, since there is a considerable possibility that this title could mislead the public the Minister has a greater duty to point out that he is not giving relief but is removing relief from the farming community. This is just one of a series of measures in an obviously planned and concerted assault on the farming community since June 1977. There is no justification at this time for the removal of such relief on agricultural land.
I join with other speakers in recording my opposition to the proposals being made which will increase very substantially the expenses of farmers. The impositions in this Bill will fall on farmers regardless of whether or not they make a profit or have a good year. That is probably the most unfair aspect of the proposals. One could have a situation where a recently widowed woman might take over the running of a farm which had been run by her late husband. For the first few years naturally until she has found her way, she will not be able to make a profit and might live off the accumulated profits of the previous years when her husband ran the farm. Under this Bill she will have to pay these much increased rates regardless of whether or not she makes a profit. Under an income tax system if she did not make a profit there would be no tax on the income.
Farmers should realise that in exchanging this Bill, which involves very substantially higher rates, for some concessions in the income tax code they are making a very bad exchange. Indeed, it is an exchange they were not told both sides of before the election. They were told the good side of the exchange, but not the bad side. If they had been told the bad side of the exchange, if they had been told that the price they would have to pay for the improvements in the income tax situation of some farmers—those who were already in the net—was to be the imposition of rates on a very much increased scale on farmers above £60 valuation, and also the extension of the income tax code to farmers between £60 and £75, they would not have bought the package when cajoled and fooled by Fianna Fáil in the general election. The farmers will wake up to what has been done in the name of tax relief. They will realise that they were persuaded to accept at the general election something that was not in their interests. When they realise what has happened their anger will not be easily brushed aside by the present incumbents in office when they face the people at the next general election. At the next general election the farmers will take a very different view of matters to the view they took at the recent election.
It must be realised that this change in the rates is part of a pattern of a back-door method of farmer taxation. It involves a very substantial and immediate increase for the farmers. It is accompanied by the removal of the phosphate subsidy, the removal of the beef incentive scheme, the removal of the cheese subsidy and by an increase in the fees for inspections of animal slaughterings at meat plants. It is accompanied by a whole series of measures which are apparently disjointed but which are, in fact, part of a programme by the Government to take money out of agriculture by the back-door. This approach is wrong. Even accepting that a certain amount of money has to be taken out of agriculture it is not proper that it should be taken out by these back-door methods. The object of any Government should be to achieve equity of taxation, to be seen to achieve equity, and have it accepted by all members of the community that equity is being achieved. If tax is taken by back-door methods from the farming community this will not be seen by other members of the community as being back-door farmer taxation. They will continue to concentrate on the obvious fact that farmers below £60 are not paying income tax, forgetting that these farmers are being asked to pay more taxation by other methods. The result of satisfying the people that equity is being achieved will not be achieved, even though in actual hard cash terms equity may be achieved because of the extra taxation that is being taken by back-door methods from the farming community. Not only is this bad for agriculture at a time when it needs support but it is bad for achieving equity in the tax system because it is not making the change in such a way that it will be seen by members of the non-farming community to be equivalent to their position in relation to taxation.
We must realise that this measure will substantially reduce the working capital of the farming community and we must realise that farmers must expand production at the moment. In a country like Germany, for instance, farmers are receiving five times as much aid per farm from their national government as the Irish farmers are receiving from theirs. That is the market in which the Irish farmer must compete; he must compete with the German who is getting five times as much from his government as the Irish farmer is getting from his.
Surely the Deputy is dealing with the Estimate now and not with the Bill before us. The Bill before us deals only with rates on agricultural land. All the other matters are important but can be raised on the Estimate.
I agree. The relevance of this is that is part of a package of measures which is taking money from the farmers' pockets.
I know, but on this Bill we cannot go into all these other matters. The Deputy is well aware of that. On this Bill he can deal only with rates on agricultural land.
I believe that the pattern of change which involves reducing the income, in take-home terms, of the farming community by increasing their rates bill is one which overall increases their costs and reduces their competitive position. I am illustrating how difficult it is for them to compete when one of the countries which is expanding production most in the EEC, namely Germany—with whom we have to compete—is getting five times as much aid per head per farmer from their government as our farmers are getting from this Government. That illustrates very strongly the relevance of measures to reduce farmers' costs. I shall not go any further than that. I accept that it would be wrong for me to get involved in detailed discussion and, although the Chair may not believe it, I have no wish to come into conflict with him.
I presume there will be a Committee Stage discussion next week or some other time when we will be able to talk about the detailed application of the proposals. I hope the Minister will not seek to have Committee Stage of this Bill now. It would be entirely wrong if this were done because there is need for separate discussion with various minds being brought to bear on it. I shall conclude, declaring my strong opposition to this Bill.
This Bill is another indication that a further weight of taxation will be placed on the shoulders of the agricultural community. When one considers the heavy income tax many farmers will have to bear now, in addition to the reduction in rates abatement they enjoyed for many years, one asks oneself the question whether one Minister is being asked now to balance accounts by placing heavy imposts on the agricultural community while another Minister is dispensing the goodies.
In most counties at present there is a rate of approximately £10 in the £. When one considers the position of a farmer with a valuation of £75— which would be relatively high along the western seaboard, but inland there are many farmers with such a valuation—at the present rate he would be losing between £400 and £500 in rates relief. In 1979, when the poor law valuation limit is reduced to £60, a farmer with such a valuation, paying rates of £10 in the £, will be subject to a reduction of rates relief of approximately £350. I do not know whether it is in order to refer to the additional cost in income tax to that farmer when a multiplier of 90 will be applied to him and when one realises that the farming community with a valuation of £60 will have a very heavy impost on their incomes.
There are farmers very heavily rated living along the seaboard, in the maritime counties. Heretofore their valuations were increased because of their seashore rights—because of their access to sand, gravel and seaweed used as fertiliser. Valuations were based then on the privileges such farmers enjoyed because of their seashore rights. But in many cases people with equivalent acreages living perhaps a mile inland on boggy farms had valuations as low as £5. Therefore it is easy to see the injustices that arise and the anomalies that occur in valuations. It appears that such people will be carrying an exceptionally heavy load henceforth both in income tax and reduced rates relief. One wonders if this is a method of balancing the loss of income to the Government through the abolition of wealth tax; whether it will balance accounts in respect of the abolition of rates on private dwellings, not that we do not welcome their abolition. I will never understand why people of moderate means should pay the rates on other people's houses, people who can afford luxuries, such as swimming pools and all the other amenities enjoyed by the wealthy. I can never become accustomed to the idea that people of moderate means should contribute to making the rich richer.
Our farming community at present are bearing an undue share of taxation. The injection of capital into agriculture, particularly in other EEC countries over the past 30 or 40 years, has been so high that they can now do without any subsidisation. In this country, where a mere fourth or fifth of such injection of capital was given to agriculture, I doubt if farmers of smaller acreage and lower valuation are in a position to bear this sudden weight of taxation. Furthermore, while agricultural prices may be guaranteed at present, there is no indication that we will not have a slump in prices. Despite the advice of various advisers, agricultural institutions, the Department of Agriculture and so on, nobody can foretell when another agricultural recession will occur. Another peculiar aspect of our agricultural economy is that while we are advised to improve production methods and increase production generally nobody can give an advance warning as to when prices may suddenly drop and those who produce our agricultural commodities will have to cope with a weight of taxation and the abolition of rates relief. There is nothing in the Bill to recommend it to the agricultural community and I would expect the agricultural organisations to raise their voices loudly and clearly in opposition to this Bill. Those who were vocal and loud in their condemnation of the Coalition Government are now extraordinarily silent in relation to the imposition of more income tax and the reduction of rates relief. One cannot understand this sudden change of heart. Perhaps it takes time for big organisations to study and understand the implications of this kind of Bill and its effect on the economy. The Bill is not being received with open arms and the farming community will miss the rates abatement to which they were accustomed for many long years.
I am opposed to this Bill. This is yet another Fianna Fáil fraud perpetrated on the agricultural community. We are annoyed, and we have good reason to be annoyed, about the double-think practised by the Fianna Fáil Government on the farming community. We lost very heavily in the last general election because of the smear campaign conducted against us by the then Opposition. The farming community were told time and time again that if the Coalition were returned to office farmers' income tax would be greatly increased because the Coalition Government were anti-farmer and Fianna Fáil were the farmers' friends. Ever since this Government took office the farmers have suffered one tax imposition after another. Levies have been removed. There has been an increase in the rate of income tax payable. There has been a reduction in the thresholds at which income tax is payable. Now we have the abolition of the relief of rates on agricultural land.
A farmer whose valuation is £70 or more will get no relief. Up to now he got full relief on the first £20, 80 per cent on that portion from £20 to £33 and 20 per cent on the portion in excess of £33. Those reliefs will now be eliminated and in return he is offered a pittance—his home and outbuildings will be exempt from rating. That is small consolation to a farmer who may be liable for income tax but who does not pay it because his income does not justify the payment of such tax.
There has been a marked reluctance on the part of Fianna Fáil Deputies to speak in support of this Bill, something they would be expected to do as members of the Government party. Is this because of the fraudulent way in which the agricultural sector has been treated since this Government took office? Instead of the benefits promised it has been a whole series of impositions. This is just one further imposition. In my county the officials of the county council tell me they will have a shortfall this year of £200,000 because of the inadequate Government subvention to compensate for the abolition of rates on domestic dwellings. That is a sizeable shortfall in a small county. It means road maintenance and other essential services will deteriorate.
These matters do not arise on this Bill. We are dealing only with rates on agricultural land and the matters the Deputy is raising should properly be raised on the Estimate.
But these matters are interwoven. One cannot divorce one from the other.
We cannot have a full discussion on rates. The Bill deals only with rates on agricultural land.
I said there is a shortfall and the £38.5 million represents a shortfall in real terms and a drastic cut-back on last year. That will affect the services of every local authority. In my own county the shortfall is £200,000.
That would be in order on the Estimate but not on this Bill.
I cannot see how one can differentiate, because the matters are interdependent. This year the threshold for the abolition is £75. From 1 January next it will be £60. This will be a further hardship because a £60 to £75 valuation is not a very high valuation. Recent figures have shown that many farmers in that category are earning less than the average industrial worker. Adopting the line set in the smear campaign to which I referred, we are now entitled to say it looks as if Fianna Fáil will reduce the threshold not just from £75 to £60 but to £50 or £40. Perhaps there will be total abolition.
Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick, our spokesman on agriculture, said rightly yesterday that this is not a relief Bill. It is a penal Bill and the title is incorrect. What the public were told by Fianna Fáil the Coalition Government would do has been done by this Fianna Fáil Government on a much wider and more penal scale. We will point this out at every opportunity that offers. I am totally opposed to the Bill. We want a little more honesty from the Government. We want Government Deputies to get up and justify what is being done rather than ignore the debate completely. That is what is happening at the moment.
I do not intend to delay the Minister but, as a Deputy representing a constituency that is partly rural, I wish to join with my colleagues from this side of the House in condemning this measure.
It is generally agreed that rates are the least equitable form of taxation because of the fact that they do not take into account the ability or capacity of the person to pay. The 1971 document published by the then Fianna Fáil Government on local authority finance and taxation was interesting and it dealt with various ways and means by which finance or local taxation could be raised. Various views were put forward, but the indications from that 1971 study seemed to be that rates were the only practical from of local taxation. Then in 1973, prior to the general election, there was a last-minute mad stampede by the outgoing Government to announce the abolition of rates. That misfired and subsequently during the period of office of the National Coalition Government we approached the question of rates in a realistic fashion. The first major step towards the abolition of rates was taken by us when we were in office.
I am not going into the details or the history of local taxation. The real significance of this Bill is the way in which it cleverly attempts to extract additional taxation from a section of the farming community. This is a retrograde measure. The Bill will impose an additional financial burden on the farmers who have been caught irrespective of their incomes, their production or their capacity to pay.
It is another indication of the successful way the Fianna Fáil Party conned the farming community during the general election campaign. There was nothing in their manifesto to indicate that they were going to take this step. There was no indication from the Fianna Fáil canvassers who went up the highways and the byways of rural Ireland into every farm and who conveyed in a subtle way that if Fianna Fáil got back there would be no further taxation imposed on farmers. This measure will impose additional substantial taxation. It is a dishonest measure.
We had the example of the abolition of the subsidy on fertilisers. The Minister should rethink the measure now before the House. The farming community and the leaders of the farming organisations have said they have no objection to bearing a fair and equitable share of taxation. This is not a fair or equitable measure. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the matter, to bear in mind what the Taoiseach when he was Leader of the Opposition said in a speech in this House on 4 April 1974. He referred to rates as being a heavy imposition on farmers, particularly the progressive ones. At column 1515 of the Official Report of 4 April 1974 he stated:
Therefore, there would be now a much stronger case to extend the Fianna Fáil policy or relieving homes, to relieving agricultural land from rates, if the incidence of income tax is going to bear more heavily on farmers as time goes on. It has been pointed out—and I think the point has been well taken—that farmers are the only producers whose means of production would be subject to income taxation. Another point which I think has been well taken is that about 50 per cent of their output, 50 per cent of their product, goes for export, whereas those in industrial production enjoy complete freedom of taxation from profits deriving from those industrial exports. This is a point the Minister will have to take into account— obviously he has not done so at this stage—in order to ensure that fair taxation will be applied across the board.
That was the Taoiseach speaking in 1974 when he was Leader of the Opposition. This Bill is a complete about-turn. It is a grossly dishonest measure and, unfortunately, its impact does not appear to have been fully appreciated by the farming community. I urge the Minister to reconsider proceeding with this Bill.
The title of this Bill is Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1978. To my mind the word "relief" is a misnomer because what the Bill is doing is imposing extra taxation in the form of rates on a wide section of the farming community. In the light of what has been said by Fianna Fáil in the last few years this is rather strange to say the least. As has been pointed out, we were sick and tired listening to statements from Fianna Fáil when they were in Opposition about the terrible injustice perpetrated by the then Government in the imposition made on farmers by that Government. As has been said, these same people, including the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture, stated that an equitable from of taxation would be found to satisfy the needs and demands of the farming community.
This was repeatedly said by these people.
Now we find that the position has changed drastically. We are all in agreement about the rating system. We regard it as unjust and inequitable as a form of taxation. This has been known for any years and has been admitted by all sides of the House and by people outside the House who are expert in this field of taxation. The fact is that the Minister's party in the past five years have changed their minds so often on the issue of rates with regard to their inequity or otherwise that it is difficult now to see what is their logic. In 1973 there was no question of abolition. Within a fortnight of that statement being made, abolition was Fianna Fáil policy. On assuming office in 1977 they abolished rates on domestic dwellings and other categories. Now we find a reintroduction of the rating system in the form of collection of local taxation.
The object of all this escapes me and escapes everybody. In particular, it escapes the farmers who are being caught in this net. If rates are unjust and inequitable in principle, and if the Government of the day accept that, as is shown by the abolition of rates, where is the logic in imposing extra rates on a category of farmers? The excuse will be given that they can claim their rates as an allowance against taxation. That is accepted.
What about the person who is in this category but who is not a taxpayer because of circumstances such as a large family, extra commitments, owing money to the ACC, the bank or some other institution, a person who would not normally be paying income tax? There is no point in telling him he can claim his rates as an allowance if that does not make any difference because he is not a taxpayer. To my mind this is discriminatory and unjust. The injustice was seen to be accepted by the Government because of their action in the abolition of rates. How they can impose this burden of rates as local taxation on a category of farmers is beyond me. I cannot understand its logic. There is no logic in it. It is as simple as that.
The most naïve part of the Minister's speech was where he said:
All farmers will, of course, benefit from the abolition of rates on their domestic dwellings along with all other domestic ratepayers and from the Government's decision to abolish rates on farm outbuildings.
On the one hand, the abolition of rates is seen as a virtue, and it is acceptable as that to me. It was a fine gesture and it was time it was done. To impose that very same form of taxation and to try to justify it shows that the respect in which a certain category of farmers is held by the Government is not great.
On assuming office the Minister became known as Minister for the Environment. In my innocence and my naïvety I hoped some imaginative work would be undertaken by the Minister, work which would cover a much broader aspect of the environment. So far the only new approach I can see is that the Minister is taking over from the Minister for Finance in the collection of taxation. That is what he is doing in introducing this Bill and calling it a relief Bill. As I said the word "relief" is a misnomer if ever there was one.
This will be seen for what it is, penal taxation. The result of this imposition will be a loss to the local authorities. I understand I am debarred from mentioning this but I will not labour the point. There will be a loss involved and the local authorities will not be in a position to carry out the programme of work they expected to do especially in the counties where this imposition will reach large proportions.
I welcome the Bill as a continuation of the relief given to small farmers, a total relief on farms of up to £20 valuation which, taken in conjunction with the relief on the rates on domestic dwellings and other buildings, is a great incentive, with further graded reliefs up to valuations of £33. From the middle of the 19th century, when the valuations on which we work today were set, a great evil in the rural community was the question of rates. We had many no rates campaigns, a vicious one in the sixties in which the only question affecting a certain section of the rural community was the rates. To some extent that has subsided.
In that period, together with a reduction in the burden of rates on holdings, we had an unprecedented increase in the cost of conacre land taken by farmers. Today we should have a noconacre campaign rather than too much emphasis on the rates. Let us take an average case of £6, £7 or £8 per £ of the valuation of land. Side by side with that a man is compelled in many cases to take his neighbour's land at any-thing up to £200 for one year if he is to remain in agriculture.
Today we should put the emphasis on the conacre system. A great deal of land is held on which the relief on rates has been granted. The Land Commission are a striking example of where land is held and rates relief is granted. In many cases it is given in conacre at greatly inflated prices to the small farmer who is compelled to take it to remain in agriculture. I welcome this relief to farmers and commend the Bill to the House.
In voicing my opposition to the Bill I want to object to its title because it should be regarded as a rates imposition Bill. I should like to compliment Deputy Filgate who broke the silence from the Government benches. Although I did not agree with most of what he said, at least he tried to justify this piece of legislation. The Minister, like many of us, represents farmers who will be affected by this increase in rates and he knows that, there is a general belief that the rating system is not an equitable one because it does not take into account the ability of the ratepayer to pay. It has always been contended that it was an unfair system as far as buildings and domestic dwellings were concerned. But I should like to remind the Minister that it is more inequitable as far as agricultural land is concerned, because land was valued under a different criteria than would apply today. Land was valued more than 100 years ago. I am sure the Minister is aware that some reasonably good land has a low valuation while some poor land has a high valuation. I have come across this in many places in my constituency.
To impose an increase in rates on land valuation must be regarded as a penal and unfair system. I should like to remind the Minister that on a £60 valuation a farmer would be called upon to pay an increase of £6 per week in 1979. If such an increase was imposed on PAYE taxpayers or industrial workers by a stroke of a ministerial pen there would be an uproar. During the election campaign there was a lot of emphasis placed by Fianna Fáil campaigners on the fact that the National Coalition had brought farmers into the income tax net. Candidates in my constituency exploited the fear of the unknown as far as farmers were concerned. Little did the farmers realise that they would be asked to pay an increase of £6 per week by Fianna Fáil. This is a totally dishonest piece of legislation. The farming community were conned by Fianna Fáil into thinking that if they got back into power their tax liabilities would be eased considerably.
We accept that farmers are doing better now but because that is the case the Government are like vultures on top of them trying to extract extra taxation. Does the Minister consider the Fianna Fáil policy in relation to rates and car tax a wise one when he considers that the Government must get the money elsewhere? We must remember that the Taoiseach in this House and outside stated that there would not be any alternative system of taxation in lieu of rates on domestic dwellings and tax on cars. Would the Minister now say that that was an honest statement? The situation now is that there are many professional people and big industrialists who built expensive mansions—there are a number of them in my constituency—who will not have to pay rates on their palatial buildings while the farmer across the fence with a £60 valuation must face an increase of £6 per week in rates in 1979. That farmer may have a young family and many domestic problems but he still must face that increase.
I regard the income tax system introduced by the National Coalition as a far more equitable system of taxation than rates because it takes into account domestic problems and difficulties. Before any of us pay out money for any item we ask ourselves what return are we likely to get and the Minister must be aware that next year the farmers will ask us what additional services they will get for the extra £6 per week they will be asked to pay. City and town dwellers get the services at the expense of the State. They have water, sewerage, electricity and telephones. The farming community cannot avail of them but they are being called upon to pay more taxes even though they will not get any more services. It is worth mentioning that our county roads are in a shocking state.
We cannot discuss roads on this Bill.
The last speaker discussed conacre and the Land Commission.
The last speaker was relating the value of land to the rates paid on it.
I am drawing the attention of the House to the fact that farmers are being asked to pay this extra £6 per week next year without any guarantee that county roads will be improved or that they will get better services. This is a fraud. The farmers were conned. The reason they must pay this extra tax is because the Government are desperate for money because of the abolition of rates on domestic dwellings and the abolition of car tax. What increase in farmers' incomes—we are talking about a 2 per cent increase this year—would justify such an increase in rates particularly when the cost of input has increased considerably in the last eight months? The cost of fertilisers and other items has increased considerably. I condemn this measure and the way it was introduced. I also condemn the title of the Bill, which is misleading.
I should like to know what saving to the Exchequer will arise from this measure. If the same allocations were available this year as last year what sum would be required to pay the agricultural grants? The Minister says that the figure required this year will be £38.5 million. What would that figure be if the same circumstances were to prevail? Perhaps the Minister will tell us when replying.
It is not a great exercise to go back on the past year but one must refer to the election propaganda about farming taxation. One of the main weapons used by the Government, and to an extent used successfully, was to convey that if Fianna Fáil were to replace the National Coalition the farmers would fare much better. Many of them felt that the income tax system would be wiped out. There was no mention of increased rates on farmers during that campaign. Many Fianna Fáil candidates made it clear that once they got back to power the farmers would benefit immensely from a reduction if not an abolition of the income tax and modification of rates demands, if anything; if any changes were to be made it would be on a moderate scale. To put it mildly, this was deceitful. As Opposition Deputies we are entitled to an explanation why this change is being brought about. Why is the Minister going contrary to the expressed views of his party a year ago when the election campaign began? These questions should be answered. We must try to investigate dishonest tactics. This tactic was dishonest. It was meant to get the votes of a section of the community by making assertions and giving assurances of relief. Instead, at present, additional taxation is being imposed.
What is the position now of a farmer of over £75 valuation? He will pay full rates this year. Many of these are people who helped Fianna Fáil to get where they are now. Next year the figure will be reduced by £15 to £60 and it is not unlikely to assume that further reductions will be made as time goes on. This imposition, coming when rates are being completely wiped out in respect of private dwellings, is all the more difficult to understand. There are many dwellings in County Dublin, particularly in the more exclusive areas, with valuations in excess of £100. Many are very close to that figure. People living in such dwellings are reasonably well off and I think it is fair to say they did not make any great outcry or representations on the rating question. They now have complete derating which must be a great advantage to them. With a possible rate in Dublin County this year of £11.50 in the £ a man with £100 valuation would benefit to the extent of £1,150. I do not think it fair to lift a burden of that size entirely from his shoulders and transfer it to the farming community. It is not just.
I am rather doubtful about the wisdom of all these changes. We all like to see rates abolished; it means something to each of us, but is it a wise move? People have been paying rates through the years and have been willing to meet the demands. The only outcry we encountered as public representatives was in an effort to keep the rates at as reasonable a figure as possible. In order to get money to replace rates we have to borrow. According to the proposals of the Minister for Finance announced in his Financial Statement the money required by the State for current expenditure in 1978 is £416 million. There is a borrowing of £821 million: £405 million is supposed to go for capital expenditure and £416 million for current expenditure. That must be paid back with interest. I would not oppose the present Bill were it not for the fact that farmers are not being treated like others. I have given the illustration of house valuation. In present circumstances I certainly oppose this additional imposition on the farming community.
The Government party made great play about helping farmers to develop their holdings, assisting them in any way possible and being fair and equitable in dealing with them as with any other sections of the community. I do not think that that assurance is in keeping with the terms of this measure and for that reason I oppose it. In conclusion I would like the Minister to give us the figure of savings which this Bill will effect, because whatever that figure is, that is the figure which is being imposed by way of additional tax on the farming community.
It might be in keeping to have a quorum in the House.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
Does Deputy Harte wish to speak?
No. Does some other Deputy wish to speak?
An t-Aire. Deputy Harte informs me that he does not wish to speak.
You, Sir, asked me to speak. I offered to speak in asking for a quorum.
I ask you now if you wish to speak.
In default of any Government Deputy, Sir, I would like to speak?
I have called the Minister twice already. Deputies should not stand up and interfere with the Minister's speech. The Deputy called for a quorum. I then asked him if he wished to speak and he asked if other Deputies did. Deputy Harte please, on the Bill.
Where are Fine Gael and Labour?
There is no obligation on them to be present.
It is not my form to interrupt the duties of Deputies. Like other Deputies I have constituency work to attend to and I appreciate the difficulty of having to leave an office and come into the House to listen to a debate that is not very interesting, but the reason I asked for a quorum——
We cannot debate that. On the Bill, please, Deputy.
I am speaking on the Bill.
(Interruptions.)
I suggest you give him a few notes.
Deputy Harte on the Bill.
I would like to be allowed to develop my point. The reason I asked for a quorum is that I am disappointed that no Government Deputy has indicated his desire to speak on this Bill.
A Deputy
The Deputy is wrong.
I would like some of them to do this. Like other Deputies who have spoken from this side of the House I find it very strange that Government Deputies who have come in here in such numbers since the last general election——
Did Deputy Filgate speak on it?
Deputy Filgate spoke for a couple of minutes on it. Deputy Harte on the Bill, please.
(Interruptions.)
Which Bill are we talking about?
Deputy Harte on the Bill. Deputy Harte is in possession.
Deputy Harte was not allowed to speak for four years and eight months and he should be given his head now. He was in Coventry for four years.
Is it not great to have a little bit of education? Such an intelligent remark from the Minister for Justice deserves comment from me.
I ask Deputies to listen, please. If they do not wish to stay in the House there is no obligation on them to do so. Deputy Harte on the Bill.
I beg to differ from you, Sir. There is an obligation on them to stay in the House.
There is an obligation to keep a quorum.
I do not see any reason why you should offer them very bad advice.
Deputy Harte on the Bill. I prefer to offer them that advice and to hear the Deputy on the Bill.
I have tried to start on the Bill three times and you have interrupted me. Not alone have you interrupted me but you have offered the Government Deputies in the House very bad misleading information, that there is no need for them to stay in the House if they do not want to speak.
Deputy Harte knows quite well what I am trying to achieve.
There is a grave obligation not alone for the Deputies to be present in the House to provide a quorum but to give their views to the electorate whom they misled at the last general election into believing that if the Fianna Fáil Party were elected to govern this country everything would be rosy in the agricultural industry. The most important Bill to come before the House dealing in the slightest way possible with agriculture is from the Minister for the Environment, and he tells us that he is going to penalise the agricultural community above the £75 valuation, bearing in mind that that category will be reduced to £60 PLV next year. How consistent is this with the manifesto issued by the Fianna Fáil Party before the last general election? I want to know why you, Sir, have excused so many members of your own party from listening to a debate in the House and have told them virtually that there is no need for them to come in here and put their points of view across. With respect to you, Sir, I bow to your ruling in the House, but I take great exception to the remark which you have made. You have excused members of your own party from coming in here and saying what they have said in election addresses outside chapel gates and at street corners, at election meetings inside and outside this House, that if they were returned to office the agricultural industry of this country would be safe in the hands of the Fianna Fáil Party. I want to know why you gave advice to the members of the Fianna Fáil Party excusing them from the House, saying that they should not have either to listen to me or make contributions on their own benches.
Deputy Harte, please do not try to put an interpretation that was not there on something the Chair has said. The Chair said that there was no obligation on people who wished to interrupt you to remain in the House. If the Deputy wants to keep a quorum in the House he is entitled to do that, that is his privilege, but I am asking him to speak to the Bill before the House. The Chair will call whoever offers, no matter which side it is from. That is the Chair's duty. The Chair has no power to excuse anybody. It is wrong to try to put words of that sort into the mouth of the Chair. Deputy Harte on the Bill, please.
I accept your explanation without dispute. What I am saying is that I too am entitled to make my own interpretation of what you meant. If you say something, as a Member of this House I am entitled to listen to it and to interpret it. Having listened to you, I accept your explanation. But my duty, my right and my obligation here is to think for myself.
The Deputy has no right to question the Chair. That is a long-standing rule.
I have a right to examine what was said.
The Deputy must speak on the Bill before the House.
I called for a quorum because I felt there was a neglect on the part of the Government party to come into this House and to give their views. I was waiting patiently for Members of the Fianna Fáil Party to offer opinions. The only person who spoke was Deputy Filgate who was very honest and straightforward.
As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is leaving the House, I would like to explain to the Ceann Comhairle why I am developing this point. When I got to my feet there were two Government Deputies in the House. I asked for a quorum, not because I wanted to disturb the Members, because like them I find myself busy in the office attending constituency matters, ringing different Departments—it is very difficult to do that at the moment with the present telephone service—or trying to make contact with my home or constituency. I recognise that these difficulties are shared by Members of the Fianna Fáil Party, including Deputy Lalor, Chief Whip. He came into the House, noticed that there were only two Members present and left totally unconcerned that a Bill of this nature was before the House and that his party, for which he has direct responsibility, had only two Members present.
We are discussing the Bill.
The Deputy has not discussed it for ten minutes.
I am explaining why the Leas-Cheann Comhairle challenged me and told Members of the Government party that there was no obligation on them to stay in the House to listen to me and that they could go when I had just asked for a quorum. The reason I asked for the quorum was that no Members of the Government party were putting forward views. I would like to know what their views are. I see Deputy Conaghan in the House. He comes from the same constituency as I do. I would like to hear what he has to say on this Bill. I would have preferred to have heard his views before I got on my feet.
During the general election I did not pledge myself outside church gates nor did I make speeches in the papers nor did I indicate in any way that I would support a Bill of this nature when it came before the House. Deputy Conaghan gave pledges outside the chapel gates, rowed in with the Fianna Fáil manifesto saying that if the Fianna Fáil Party were returned to office the agricultural community in the Republic would be in safe keeping.
I recognise that Deputy Conaghan fits into the category I have just mentioned: the category of Deputies who are extremely busy on a Thursday morning tidying up constituency work and trying to make contact with his constituency, which is impossible at the moment and about which he is doing very little. If I were a Government Deputy from Donegal I would be kicking up a bigger row than Deputy Conaghan is.
The Deputy should discuss the Bill. Any Deputy may or may not speak as he wishes.
I beg to differ. I rose to speak on the Bill——
It is the business of every Deputy whether he speaks or not. We are wasting the time of the House talking about who should and who should not speak.
I disagree completely with you.
We are discussing the Agricultural Rates Bill. I have allowed the Deputy a great deal of leniency, but since I took the Chair he has not once mentioned the Bill.
On a point of order, is it correct for a Deputy to make a personal attack on another Deputy such as that Deputy Harte has made in relation to me?
I want to put the Deputy's mind at ease. I was not personally attacking him. Far be it from me to attack him personally because I have the utmost regard for him. I hold him in very high esteem. He is one of the most gentlemanly Deputies ever to come out of Donegal and I acknowledge that. I want to apologise to him if he understood me to personally attack him.
Will Deputies please discuss the matter before the House?
Yes. My argument is this: the only views I have heard are those from Members of my own party which are shared by me. The only person who has spoken contrary, and not that much in opposition, to the views put forward by Members of my party is Deputy Filgate. My argument, which I want to put before the House and later develop, is that I would prefer this Chamber to be used as a debating chamber than as voting fodder for the Government to say "We are putting this motion before the House, Government Deputies will keep quiet and will walk through the Division Lobbies when the Division Bells ring". I believe I am justified in making this argument. As an Opposition Deputy opposing these measures—I have already outlined why I am opposing them—I am justified in asking why Members of the Government party have not come into this House to argue their point of view. It is not that I want to hear their points of view but if they put their points of view before the House I can then debate intelligently——
If the Deputy insists on discussing a matter which is not before the House and is not relevant I will have to ask him to resume his seat.
I will ask for another quorum because it is important that Fianna Fáil Deputies should listen to a point of view if they are not going to give their own points of view.
I want to ask Deputy Harte to withdraw the remarks he made——
I have called for a quorum.
The House is temporarily suspended pending a quorum.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
Before I move the Bill——
The Deputy has already taken up ten minutes of the time of the House without discussing the Bill. He will not be permitted to continue in that fashion. He must move to the Bill now. There is no time permitted for discussion that is not relevant. The Order of the House is important.
I do not wish to disagree with you but——
Deputy Harte on the Bill please.
If the Chair will bear with me——
The Deputy is endeavouring to have himself suspended.
If Deputy Conaghan wishes me to withdraw something that he found offensive I shall be happy to do so but it was not my intention to be offensive to the Deputy.
That matter is finished with. The Chair has not made reference to it other than to say that there was no personal reference to the Deputy. Will Deputy Harte now proceed?
Will Deputy Conaghan accept my apology and my assurance that there was no intention on my part to be offensive to him? I was merely referring to him as a colleague from County Donegal and saying that at this time if I were a Government Deputy I would be taking action of a kind that he is not taking.
To get to the Bill, it is a Bill that is totally inconsistent with the attitude of Fianna Fáil while in opposition. In their manifesto they stated that the agricultural industry would be safer in their hands. At election time I heard many speeches to this effect in the constituency from members of Fianna Fáil who are now in high positions.
The Chair will know that there are not many people in the higher poor law valuation bracket in County Donegal but there are a few and even if only one person is being caught in the net, while the principle of rating land is wrong the situation should not be tolerated. The Chair should recognise that, too, because he has a long history of representing the people of Donegal. Although he is now above politics he remains a public representative for the county. Therefore, I am sure you will agree with everything I have to say and that you recognise the difficulties of the farming community in County Donegal who find themselves in the higher poor law valuation bracket. When one considers the situation just across the Border one realises how unfair is the situation for our farmers. The farming communities in Counties Fermanagh, Tyrone and Derry—people who have the same background and who do the same type of work as farmers in County Donegal—have added subsidies. Consequently, there is unfair competition between the farming communities in those counties and in Donegal. The Government are totally insensitive to this situation. No party have proclaimed more than they about national unity, about fairness and the recognition of the rights of minorities. Yet they are totally insensitive regarding the need to harmonise the agricultural community, the one that is the easiest to tackle. They place impositions on people who have poor law valuations of £75 or more. So far as Fianna Fáil are concerned all that is involved is the collection of a few more pounds for the coffers. Before the election the impression I got was that according to Fianna Fáil thinking the system of rates was wrong. I agree with that because it is unfair that any group of people should be imposed on in this way. The valuation system of taxation is wrong in the extreme. It is regrettable that the Fianna Fáil Deputies are not prepared to listen to the observations I am making.
Where are the people from the Deputy's party?
If the people opposite have no wish to contribute to the debate perhaps the Chair would request them at least to stay and listen. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle told them that there was no obligation on the Govto stay but I pointed out that at least there was an obligation on the Government to maintain a quorum. I do not wish to call for another count because counts disturb the normal working routine of Deputies.
The Deputy has not disturbed many from his own party.
I cannot hear what the Deputies on the other side are saying.
I would suggest that the Deputy speak to the Bill in which case we might have greater order.
I am speaking to the Bill but it is not necessary for a Deputy to speak only to the Chair. As I understand parliamentary democracy we are elected to speak to the House, to give our views on the merits or otherwise of whatever legislation is before us. It is pitiful to think that I should have to speak to empty benches. Such a situation leaves this Chamber totally irrelevant. It is pitiful in particular for the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to tell Deputies that there is no obligation on them to stay here.
That is not true.
Deputy Andrews was not here at the time. I seek the protection of the Chair.
I have been waiting for the past 20 minutes for the Deputy to make some remarks that are relevant to the Bill.
If Deputy Harte would speak to the Bill we might make some progress.
It is not important for me to address the House if the House is to be empty. Such a situation is a sad reflection on what we term "democracy".
We are not discussing parliamentary democracy.
I beg to differ.
The Deputy has taken up 15 minutes. He may not continue in this way.
Are you muzzling me?
If the Deputy is not prepared to discuss what is before the House I shall have to ask him to leave.
I do not wish to be in conflict with you but I will not be muzzled. I want people here to listen to my remarks.
The Deputy has repeated that remark many times. If he does not move on to the Bill now I shall adjourn the House.
I have no wish to upset you but I have definite rights as an elected representative. One of those rights is my entitlement to listen to the views of other Deputies before expressing my considered opinions. That is impossible if the House is empty, if Government Deputies refuse to put forward their points of view. How do I know what they are thinking? How can I debate the arguments for and against the Bill? I can merely put forward my own points of view.
The Deputy is insisting on being disorderly and he knows it.
No, I am asking——
The Deputy has said that. Please get on to the Bill.
I am saying that my concept of this House is that we should debate the pros and cons of any matter before us. How can I debate this matter if there is no one here to put forward contrary points of view and no one to listen to what I want to say?
There is a Bill before the House and there is nothing in Standing Orders to say that someone must speak or not speak before another. The Chair is asking the Deputy to discuss the Bill or leave the House.
I am going to discuss the Bill. How can I discuss the Bill if there is no one here to listen to me, if there is no one to put forward points of view? I will leave the point on this. To whom am I to speak? Am I to speak to the Minister, who is not allowed to speak until I have finished? I think you are being most unhelpful, a Cheann Comhairle.
I do not think the House has experienced anything like this before. The Chair is being overly tolerant. It is not the Chair's duty to make regulations about who should speak before another speaks. There is a Bill before the House and it is up to Deputies to come in and speak. The Minister made an introductory speech when he brought in the Bill and we are now discussing the question that the Bill be read a second time. Would the Deputy please get on to that?
That is what I am doing. I have not yet said to you—and I want to apologise if you have read me as saying it—that you have directed anyone to speak in this House, nor do I have to direct anyone to speak in the House. What I am saying——
The Deputy is taking up the time of the House by claiming he cannot speak since other people have not spoken before him. I do not mind his referring to that, but if he intends to keep on interminably I will ask him to leave the House.
For what reason will you ask me to leave the House? Because I have begged you, as Chairman, and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to provide a quorum to listen to me or to put forward other points of view? Is that the reason you are asking me to leave the House?
You will not question the Chair about the ruling. I am asking the Deputy to speak on what is relevant. There is a Bill before the House.
A Cheann Comhairle, you are asking——
I will ask the Deputy to leave the House and if he does not I will have to ask the Minister to name him.
If I am to leave the House I want to know the reason.
Because you have refused to speak relevantly.
I have not.
You have defied the Chair and you will not proceed in this manner. I will adjourn the House, if necessary.
You are being most unhelpful. Might I ask what is happening?
I have asked you to leave the House.
Why?
Because you have disobeyed the Chair. You will not argue with the Chair and make a farce of this House.
You are wreaking your spite on me and I deem your actions not to be in keeping with the office of the Chair.
This is the most reprehensible remark you have yet made.
I want to apologise to the Chair for making it but I am left with no other conclusion.
Will the Deputy now leave the House or withdraw the remark?
I withdraw any insulting remark I have made, but I want to say that as a Deputy I am entitled to rise and to develop my argument as I see fit. I am doing that and I would have developed it long ago if you had allowed me to do so, but you keep insisting that I am not entitled to make this decision.
The Deputy is insisting on being disorderly.
I cannot be muzzled. If that offends you I am sorry.
The Deputy must talk relevantly.
I apologise for annoying you but I have a right to speak my mind in the House and to relate as far as possible and to criticise the lack of attendance by Fianna Fáil Deputies and their lack of interest in the Bill. If you tell me that is out of order and the reason for my leaving the House, I want to know why.
The Deputy is not speaking on what is before the House. He has refused to discuss this Bill.
No, I have not refused to discuss it.
Would the Deputy please discuss it? I am asking for the last time.
I am prepared to discuss it but I want your ruling on this basic fundamental right of a Deputy of this House. I want you to tell me why you have asked me to leave the House since I have not been disorderly.
I am asking you to leave the House because you have refused to discuss what is before the House and you have questioned the ruling of the Chair and made the most insulting remarks to the Chair. If the Deputy will now discuss the Bill he may now carry on; if not, I will adjourn the House.
I have known you long enough as a friend and it is not my intention——
The Deputy will refrain from making personal references to the Chair.
How can I develop my argument if you keep interrupting me? I have the utmost respect for the Ceann Comhairle. I do not wish to destroy a personal relationship which goes back almost 20 years.
This is not relevant in the House of Parliament.
It is relevant as far as my own personal position in this House is concerned. I believe I am justified in making arguments and criticising Government Deputies and I want to know why you have picked on me. Other Deputies argued just as irrelevantly and I want to know why you have picked on me for asking for the attendance of Government Members. Because I criticised their failure to be present and to make contributions to the debate, you told me this was out of order. Because I disagree with you you asked me to leave the House. I know that I may be getting under your skin, but I feel sore about this. As an elected Member of Dáil Éireann I am entitled to put forward my point of view and to develop the argument that, if there are no Government Deputies to offer, I can criticise that position. If there are no Government Deputies here to listen, I can criticise that position.
Business suspended at 1.00 p.m. and resumed at 1.10 p.m.
When the Minister introduced this Bill his request was that it be read a second time, and I believe that in doing that he should have dropped from the title the word "Relief", because this is not a relief but an imposition. I am sure many of the Government's Deputies are asking why the Minister is doing this instead of attempting to help the agricultural community who, as most of us realise, are the backbone of the country, particularly of the community which I have the honour to represent.
In introducing this Bill the Government party are totally out of line with general modern taxation trends. They are reverting to a taxation system which is 120 years' old. The PLV system was introduced here by a British administration in the 1860s to collect tax to help to run society as they then understood its needs. That is not the case nowadays when society is so well organised that certain services are provided for from the Exchequer. These services demand so much from the Exchequer that the system of taxation known as rates is now totally out of focus with modern revenue needs. Every country, every government, every parliament in the world knows this, but the Government party has such a lack of interest that they do not give a damn. The Minister for the Environment has said in the Cabinet room: "We will withdraw or reduce benefits from those in the agricultural community who have valuations of more than £75, and each of you will keep his mouth shut and you will not appear in the House unless a quorum is called for."
This is a reflection on the House, on the Government and on the Government party. It is something I want to protest most strongly about. The impositions introduced through this Bill will gain momentum in the next 12 months when the qualifying PLV will be reduced to £60. This type of legislation is something. I would not like to have on my conscience if I were a member of a party who paraded outside church gates and in the streets making glowing promises that if Fianna Fáil were returned to office everything the farmer needed would be in the safe hands of a new Fianna Fáil administration, not in the selfish hands of the National Coalition Government.
That is why I find it so difficult to tolerate this. It is not because any member of the farming community will be asked to pay so much. It is not that any farmer in my constituency may have to go to the bank to ask for £1,000 or so to help him to pay his rates. What I am talking about is the dishonesty of the Government who preached so much while in Opposition about what they would do for the agricultural community.
If Government Deputies feel they have no obligation to speak on this Bill or to come in here to hear the views put forward on it, it is up to the Taoiseach to say to his Chief Whip : "There is an allowance, a Parliamentary salary, which Members are paid for attending here." This allowance is the envy of many people. It is not received by people defeated in last year's election. They would gladly serve here if they had been successful. I deem it an insult to be forced to address empty benches. I deem it an insult to the institutions of the country that a party elected to power with 84 Members should have such little interest in the community to whom they gave so many promises. This morning, before midday, I had to ask for a quorum, and now at 1.20 I have occasion to ask for another quorum, for which I have apologised to the Chair. I should like to put it on record once more that I do not like to be annoying Deputies throughout the morning. I am a friend of many Government Deputies whom I regard as colleagues, even though we disagree politically. I do not like to have to ask them to come in here. I do not do so in order to interfere with their office work, with their work of telephoning Departments on behalf of constituents or with their public duties generally. No one knows more than I do that this is a very necessary part of public life. At the same time there has to be a proper balance between the hours a Deputy spends in his office in Leinster House and the time he spends in the Chamber. I submit that many Government Deputies have shied away from this Bill because they want to feel justified in their arguments with their constituents who might be caught by this Bill. They may feel justified because their think-tank told them at the time that it was fair and safe to do this. I believe that many Deputies, including Deputy Conaghan from Donegal, would give undertakings to their constituents, to ordinary decent people who share the same parish church. I do not believe that a person like Deputy Conaghan would tell a blatant lie to a colleague who was a constituent, whether a member of my party or of Deputy Conaghan's party or whether he had no political affiliations. I accept that, when Deputy Conaghan is talking to the agricultural community in Donegal about this Bill, he will be able to tell them that the impositions which the Minister for the Environment is putting on that community were not understood by him when he was campaigning for their votes last June. I accept that Deputy Conaghan is an honourable person but I want to know why he did not put his views before the House. Deputy Conaghan is the Donegal representative of the Fianna Fáil Party in this House. As you know, we have five members from Donegal: two Fine Gael Deputies, Deputy White and I, Deputy Blaney who is Independent Fianna Fáil and who does not put forward the authentic view of the Fianna Fáil Party——
Surely the composition of the Dáil membership from Donegal has nothing to do with the Bill before the House.
It has.
Will Deputy Harte please deal with the Bill? He has not been on the Bill for the last ten minutes.
I am on the Bill, Sir. In case anyone thinks I am picking on Deputy Conaghan and being spiteful, as Deputy Conaghan felt I was before the House was adjourned, I want to say that my reason for doing this is that the only two Fianna Fáil Deputies in the House are the Ceann Comhairle and Deputy Conaghan. The Chair knows as well as I do that Deputy Brennan as Ceann Comhairle cannot be politically in the House. That is why I am asking Deputy Conaghan to explain why he has not availed of the opportunity to come in here and put the authentic voice of the Fianna Fáil Party as their representative from Donegal. He has left me at a distinct disadvantage in having to guess what he would say if he were speaking on this Bill.
I should like to hear what the Deputy has to say on the Bill rather than guessing what any other Deputy might or should say.
It may be difficult for the Chair to understand the point I am making.
I understand that the Deputy is not speaking on the Bill and that is all I am asking him to do.
I appeal to the Chair for assistance. I am trying to speak on the Bill. If the Chair finds me inadequate perhaps he would assist me.
The Chair has not the power to assist any Deputy. All the Chair asks any Deputy to do is to speak on the matter before the House.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, do not make it any more difficult than it is.
Deputy Harte, please.
This Bill is an imposition.
It is in order to say that.
The Chair is now being helpful and is assisting me.
Continue on the Bill. I will listen to the Deputy if he continues on the Bill.
Thank you. My argument is that the Bill is an imposition. It is totally out of character and is inconsistent with the stated policy of the Fianna Fáil Party before the election. That is why I am labouring the point that I should like to hear the voices of the Fianna Fáil Party explain it to me. That is why I took exception to the Chair telling them a short time ago that they need not be present.
Do not introduce that again. I asked Deputies not to interrupt and I told them that they had no obligation to listen if they did not want to. It is your privilege to ask for a quorum in this House at any time.
It may be my inexperience.
The Deputy cannot plead that.
The Bill is easy to read but there is no information in the Minister's speech which states that he proposes to do certain things. He applauds himself and his party for saying that all farmers will benefit from the abolition of rates on their domestic dwellings. That is not relevant because everyone benefits from rates relief on domestic dwellings. The point I am making and about which I feel strongly is that there should be an obligation on Government Deputies to argue the merits of the Bill as there is on Opposition Deputies to argue from their point of view.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
The Government are totally insensitive to the needs of the agricultural community particularly in Donegal. As a Donegal Deputy it is only natural that I should put forward the point of view of my constituents. I am sure Deputy White and Deputy Conaghan will confirm that the agricultural community in the neighbouring counties of Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh have greater benefits than farmers in County Donegal. It is much more advantageous to farm on the northern side of the Border than it is in the Republic. I do not see why I should remain silent when the Government propose to increase taxation on the farming section of my constituency. It is totally dishonest. I object to the principle involved. I cannot understand the silence of the Fianna Fáil Party.
I am sure Deputy Conaghan will agree with me that there are farmers in the Lagan area, in the Newtown-cunningham, St. Johnston, Raphoe. Lifford and many other areas of Donegal where the poor law valuation on agricultural holdings is low, who are the hardest working farmers not alone in the Twenty-six Counties but in the 32 counties of Ireland. When I attend cattle marts and meetings where the agricultural community are dominant I hear visitors to Donegal saying that farmers in that county are the hardest working individuals in the country. They are asked to complete with farmers on the northern side of the Border who have a distinct advantage over them, who receive subsidies which make it very attractive for them to farm on that side of the Border. When the farmers who will now be penalised under this Bill go to buy livestock, fertilisers, tractors and all types of farming implements they will pay more for all of those things because they have less money. The argument can be put forward that the imposition is not so great. I stated at the outset that none of the farmers I have in mind will have to go to their local bank managers and say: "Could you stake me a few hundred pounds to pay my rates because the Government have increased my rates by withdrawing the agricultural grant?" The position will be more aggravated next year when the poor law valuation is reduced to £60.
I wonder what the arguments of the Fianna Fáil Party will be then? When they canvassed the farmers for their votes before the general election their think-tank and their party's propaganda machine told them it was safe to tell the farmers what they did. I accept there can be a breakdown in communications. I accept that backbench Deputies do not know what happens at the Cabinet table. I accept that sometimes a Deputy might not be listening properly or the lines of communication do not convey the information to him and that Deputy finds himself committing himself to the electorate. I am now warning Deputies on the Government side of the House that there is no way a Government Deputy can be excused in 12 months time when the poor law valuation brings a lot more people into the taxation net imposed by this Bill.
It seems to be a very simple Bill. We had only a short statement from the Minister which said very little. He took less than two minutes to tell the House that he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I excuse Fianna Fáil Deputies for inadvertently ignoring such a document. This is a very important Bill because it means that my constituents who have now got a £75 valuation or more will be caught in this net. I can, with justification, say that this was not part of the Fianna Fáil policy before the general election and those farmers in that PLV bracket who voted for Fianna Fáil have been misled. The only explanation which Deputy Conaghan can put before the House—I have explained why I mention Deputy Conaghan——
The Deputy has mentioned Deputy Conaghan in this context on at least five occasions since I came in. Deputy Harte knows that repetition is completely out of order. The Deputy has repeated and continues to repeat the same thing over and over again. Deputy Harte knows better than I that it is completely out of order to repeat a thing time and time again.
I do not wish to come into conflict with the Chair. I wish to be as orderly and as co-operative as any other Deputy and I acknowledge the ruling of the Chair. I would be sore at myself if I thought for the slightest moment that I was being obstructive.
I am not saying that, but repetition is completely out of order and nobody knows that better than the Deputy.
I accept that. Since I came into the House I never had a cross word with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and I do not want my contribution to this Bill to interfere in the slightest with that relationship. If I appear from the Chair to be other than what I want to be there is a mistake and I apologise for it.
Please, Deputy, repetition is completely out of order. That is all I am saying. I appeal to the Deputy to speak to the Bill and not to go back over the same thing time and time again.
I take the Chair's point that I should not refer to Deputy Conaghan so glibly. The point I am making is that if I am to debate the merits of this Bill before a Donegal audience, before the people who sent me here and if Deputy Conaghan, who is the only other Donegal representative here——
I have not prevented the Deputy from mentioning Deputy Conaghan. The Deputy is entitled to do that, but only once, not time and time again on the same subject.
I appreciate the point but the people who sent me here are Donegal people. I wish to explain to them my actions in this House as a Donegal representative on the Opposition side. If they would like to hear a Government Deputy, Deputy Conaghan is the only Government Donegal representative at the moment. For that reason I am tempted to use the name of Deputy Conaghan.
I am not objecting to that. What I am objecting to is the repetition of that.
The Chair sees my difficulty?
Surely the Deputy sees the Chair's difficulty in trying to keep order in the House. The Deputy on the Bill, please.
I accept that, but I still feel my point is legitimate and is justified and that I have to explain to my constituents my opposition to this Bill, not because the bailiff will call at the door to collect extra rates, but because of the principle at stake. Principles are more precious than money. Money can be earned or bought but principles cannot be bought. This is the fundamental point I am trying to get through. I know I am making rough water. I know that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the Ceann Comhairle may have had a difficult time with me. That may be as much my fault as the Chair's. If the Chair sees me as a troublemaker on this Bill I would ask the Chair not to judge me that way because I do not intend to be a troublemaker.
I am not suggesting that the Deputy is a troublemaker. I am only suggesting that he is saying the same thing over and over again and repetition is not in order. I am putting it as simply, as quietly and as nicely as I can and I ask the Deputy to accept that.
I have been a member of this House for 17 years and one of the first things I was told when I come into this House was that repetition was not in order. I also believe that a fundamental right in a democracy is the right to debate, to discuss and to exchange points of view in parliament. I am at a very distinct disadvantage in not knowing the attitude of the Government through their representative in County Donegal whose name I am told I keep repeating.
I am not talking about repetition of the man's name, but repetition of the same idea. The Deputy repeated this twice or three times after I said that. Will the Deputy please get back to the Bill?
Donegal is different from the rest of the country.
Not as far as the Chair of this House is concerned.
As far as I am concerned as a Deputy having the liberty to speak my point of view for the consideration of the Chair and the Minister, Donegal is unique as indeed are other border counties. The point I am making and am possibly developing more than I should because I feel strongly about it, I believe, is in order. As a Deputy I am entitled to speak in great detail in very specific terms about any matter that comes before this House which directly affects even one of my constituents.
The Chair agrees fully with the Deputy on that so long as he does not repeat the same argument time and time again.
We are beginning to communicate. The reason I am labouring this point and the reason why I feel I am justified in that, is that the Government are blind to agricultural grants, to agricultural assistance and to the manner in which the agricultural community in Northern Ireland benefit, and because of that, they are putting constituents of mine in a very disadvantageous position. In the peculiar circumstances of the agricultural community in County Donegal, which has very close ties agriculturally, economically and socially with people on the other side of the Border, the Donegal people will suffer because of the imposition of the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1978. I am trying to explain that it is difficult for me to come to a decision because I have not heard the voice of any Government Deputy. That is a valid case. Because of the validity of that case and the strong views expressed in putting my point of view to the House, I have spoken in greater detail. This may have caused the Chair to feel I was being awkward, but I do not think so. I believe that when the farmers of Donegal next listen to Fianna Fáil canvassers, when they go to the polls next time, they will read the small print in this biblical document called the Fianna Fáil manifesto. Of all the documents I have read in my lifetime none has taken me to the funnies as much as this one.
Most of our people have heard all the good news so far. This is the beginning of the bad news. It does not matter whether or not a farmer pays income tax, he will still have to pay the additional rates caused by the withdrawal of the agricultural grant relief. This is blatantly unfair not merely because of the amount of money involved but because of the principle involved—it was not in the manifesto, rather the reverse was the spirit of the manifesto. The imposition of rates, whether it be on domestic or commercial dwellings or on agricultural land, constitutes an antiquated system, one that militates against the weaker sections of our community and is totally unfair. Instead of increasing the impositions we should be making the position easier, heading in the direction of harmonisation.
This party when in Government looked at the question of rates. We realised that to remove rates from domestic or agricultural holdings in one year possibly would cause economic convulsion. We hesitated but were committed to the reduction and eventual removal of rates as we understood them to be paid at present. The consensus of opinion within my party is that the imposition of rates is wrong because it does not take into account the ability of the person to pay. Let us take the example of a widow with a young family, sufficiently young to be unable to work, sufficiently young that, had the father survived longer, they would have had an opportunity to avail of second or indeed third level education. A widow left in those circumstances with a £75 valuation will have to employ manual labour and to engage agricultural machinery to harvest and work the lands. That woman will be subject to the payment of that amount of rates whereas her next door neighbour may have a Poor Law Valuation of £80 but her husband is living. There is a very distinct disadvantage in imposing an extra burden on that widow. The imposition on her would be very much more serious than that in the case of a farmer who might have five or six sons working the land, who might have a hefty bank balance and be in no difficulties with his local bank manager.
In some cases I would not have that much sympathy with regard to the question of finance. But I object strenuously to the principle because it is totally out of keeping with modern methods of collecting moneys to provide the services which we, as public representatives, demand. I know the Government must get money to provide more houses, build more roads, clean more rivers, build more hospitals, provide more agricultural grants, all of which takes money. Heretofore when local authorities needed extra money to balance their books at estimates time, the county manager informed them he needed, say 12p more in the £ to meet all the demands. It was left to the local councillors to decide the added load their local community could withstand without great hardship. At all the local authority meetings I have attended since I became a member of Donegal County Council in 1960, year after year with monotonous regularity, members of the Fianna Fáil Party and I myself have said that the system of rates is basically unfair and I am sure Deputy Filgate, when speaking, was referring to this in an obscure way and would agree with me.
That was the opinion of the Fine Gael Party. We made no secret of the fact that, in partnership with Labour, we were heading in the direction of the removal of rates from domestic, commercial and agricultural holdings. We said we would move slowly in order to avoid economic convulsion in the community. It was with bated breath and amazement that I stood back and observed the Fianna Fáil determination to remove rates. I felt that, for once, we had all the major parties in the Republic of Ireland in total agreement about the system of rates being antiquated and the need to find new solutions. These were the kind of thoughts going through my mind when I read extracts from the now famous, or infamous, manifesto. I am disappointed to discover, and this probably reflects my attitude today, that I read the Fianna Fáil Party position wrongly. I am disappointed, not because I was wrong but because they have not yet caught on and we have to start the whole thing all over again. The arguments will begin at the next estimates meetings and they will continue in this Chamber. When will that end? When can we hope the Minister for the Environment will convey to his colleagues in the Cabinet that society does not want rates as a system of taxation, that society objects to the rating system as an unfair and inequitable system of taxation? When can we ever hope to reach that advanced stage?
The National Coalition Government of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties, did not have a big majority here, but that Government went through a term of office which, economically, was the most difficult faced by any Government. There was an unparalleled economic world crisis. But we did not shift our views about the inequity of the rates system where agricultural land was concerned or where domestic dwellings or commercial buildings were concerned. The system is wrong and I do not know when the penny will drop with the present Government.
The economy changed. This Government took over the country in good condition. The books were balanced. The economy was improving, not alone here but in western Europe. In every country the economy is changing. The inflation rate, according to the Minister for Justice, is down to single figures. With that economic background and in that climate why do the present Government decide to embark on an antiquated system which no longer makes sense? I do not understand the thinking here. Society is all the time demanding progress and improvement. It puzzles me why this antiquated system should now be imposed on a section of the agricultural community when other sections of the community are receiving certain benefits?
The Minister may argue this will not increase the rates that much because the farmer will have the benefit of the abolition of rates on his residence and outoffices. I do not think that is fair. I am not a farmer but I have the advantage of rates being taken off my house. It should be remembered here that the Coalition Government removed the first quarter of the rates and had that Government remained in office a second quarter would have been removed. I do not throw any bouquet at the present administration for having done something great. In fact I am now confirmed in my earlier suspicion that the only reason the Fianna Fáil Party promised to abolish rates was for vote catching purposes. It was not because they regarded the system as unfair and inequitable. It had nothing to do with that. All they were interested in was getting back to office. The cliché of the racketeer politician in the United States, the card to success, the key which opens all doors, is to get the votes first—it does not matter by what means—and then forget all about the promises. If I am right then this is a dreadful reflection on our society.
It is almost incredible that a party in Opposition would deceive the people in such a fraudulent fashion. The people were opposed to the rates system because it militated against those who find it most difficult to meet the demand. The farmer has to employ labour. He has to hire machinery. I am perfectly certain that the complaints I hear in my advice centres are no different from those the Minister for the Environment hears in his advice centres. Enlightened public opinion had brought about a situation in which all political parties appeared to be at one and were unanimous in their approach that the system of rates was wrong. It was wrong because people who were nextdoor neighbours, who lived in the same community and to whom life was not kind were being forced to pay that amount of money. I should like to emphasise the lack of interest on the part of the Government party by pointing out that Deputy Filgate who is present is the only Government Deputy who has spoken in the debate.
When people voted for the Minister or for Deputy Filgate they did so because they agreed with the attitude of the Fianna Fáil candidates who contested the last general election. They believed in the policy of that party as put forward in that election campaign, that a wrong in society was going to be dealt with. That wrong in society is the matter that I am bringing before the House as forcibly as I can even though I am addressing empty Fianna Fáil benches. That does not seem important anymore. The importance of public life now is to get elected, to stay as close as possible to the grassroots in one's constituency, thus ensuring re-election. It is to be a postman, to attend to the old age pensions, to getting the boreens fixed and to making people understand that the Deputy alone got them a house. That is not what public life should be about——
We cannot discuss that aspect on the Bill.
I hope the Chair will let me make the point. That seems to be the attitude of the Government, but politics is about changing and improving society so that those who are less well-off can have a better chance of survival. That is the reason that people at the last general election were persuaded, encouraged, misled and fooled into supporting Fianna Fáil. The people believed in the basic ingredients of politics, that if there was a wrong it would be rectified. They supported the Fianna Fáil candidates who said they would attend to that wrong. If I were an uncommitted voter, without any great difficulty I could be persuaded into voting for a candidate who would talk to me in a language I understood and who would agree with me about changing society.
I paint a picture of a Fianna Fáil candidate knocking at the door of a constituent—perhaps at the door of the widow to whom I referred earlier —and seeking his or her vote. I can imagine the candidate being asked what his party proposed to do about rates on agricultural land if they got into Government and I can visualise the candidate telling the constituent that his party had issued a manifesto, that his leaders had said they would remove rates from domestic and commercial properties and that it was their intention to remove rates from agricultural land in a gradual way. Undoubtedly that situation arose during the course of the election campaign and was repeated in every constituency of the Twenty-six Counties that we call the Republic of Ireland. That election sent representatives to this House to legislate for the people and to change and improve society. Perhaps I place more emphasis on these matters than do other Members of the House. Perhaps the Chair and I would disagree——
The only thing I disagree about is repetition. The Deputy has made the same point about three times in the last 20 or 25 minutes.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is there any significance in the fact that Deputy Filgate has been the only Government backbencher to speak and is the only Fianna Fáil Deputy in the House?
Deputy Harte on the Bill. I am only asking him to avoid repetition. He is repeating himself time and time again.
I do not recall doing that.
I have to listen to the Deputy and I recall him making the same statement about five times in the last 30 minutes since I came into the House.
You may be the only member of your party who has to listen to him.
Deputy Harte on the Bill, please.
I do not recall making the point I have just made at any time during the course of my address to the House but perhaps I have. The principle at stake here is not so much the amount of money that will be imposed in borderline cases, although I could pick extreme examples where it will be an imposition. It is totally dishonest for Fianna Fáil to impose this burden, especially after misleading so many people. I was trying to explain this in greater detail than perhaps I should when the Chair brought to my attention the fact that I was being repetitive. I was trying to paint a picture that would convey to the few Members present the attitude of society and the attitude by which people like myself can be influenced. Of course I accept that many people were very anxious to abolish rates completely but they would have gone along with the policy of the National Coalition Government for the gradual removal of rates if Fianna Fáil had not come along and told them: "We are not prepared to wait three or four years to remove rates. Basically we are against a system of collecting taxation through rates. We oppose it and we will reform it." I made that point earlier.
In fairness to the Chair, during the coming week would the Deputy read his speech? He will find he has made those points about seven or eight times already. That is all the Chair is saying to the Deputy at this stage.
I accept that. I am merely repeating it for the second time not so much to challenge the Chair as to dispute with him that I said it earlier.
The Deputy is trying to test my memory but it is fairly good.
We will leave it at that. When the PLV is reduced to the £60 level, many more people will be angry and they will not all be in Donegal. Clare is not by any means a wealthy agricultural community. Farmers with valuations of £75 would be few in number in Clare. As we move on towards £100 PLV they become more scarce.
(Cavan-Monaghan): We have the best land in Ireland around the cliffs of Moher.
We had better keep away from the Cliffs of Moher and see if there is any possibility of keeping to the Bill.
As I said earlier, the number of people in County Donegal——
The trouble about it is that the Deputy has said it so often earlier.
If I want to make an argument about valuations of £60 I should be allowed to refer to something I said earlier, or do I have to start the whole argument all over again? The number of valuations of £75 and over in County Donegal are not that great, but there are quite a number of valuations of £60. When it comes to assessing the political advantages of Clare, the Minister for the Environment will know from his own constituents how he misled them as the Fianna Fáil candiate in the general election, those who are not committed blindly to his party, those people who are called the floating vote, those people who are open to persuasion, good people who recognise wrongs and inadequacies in society and are prepared to support candidates who speak the same language as themselves, people who identify themselves with needs which have to be met.
In Clare undoubtedly there are people who voted for Deputy Barrett because they were Fianna Fáil supporters. There are people in Clare who voted for him because of some personal service he rendered them. From what I hear he is a very attentive constituency Deputy.
Hear, hear.
Having paid him these compliments I submit there are people in Clare who voted for him because they believed he would remove rates rather than impose them. If the number in the £75 bracket are few at the moment they will become quite numerous when the PLV is reduced to £60. The Minister may not have the same reasons for opposing this Bill as Deputy White and I have in County Donegal, or as Deputy Filgate from County Louth has, or as Deputy Leonard from County Monaghan has, or as Deputy Wilson from County Monaghan has, or as Deputy Fitzpatrick from Cavan has.
All the Border Deputies know the terrible disadvantage farmers in the Republic of Ireland have in competition with fellow Irishmen on the northern side of the Border who have agricultural grant advantages. The Minister may be blind to this fact. He may not be aware that such a thing exists but I am patently aware of it. I know the number of constituents who come to my advice centres and say "When we went into the Common Market were not farm prices to be the same? Were we not to have the same advantages as farmers in Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh?" Farmers in Northern Ireland are not taxed on agricultural land. This is one of the few countries where agricultural land is taxed on a rates system.
I was glad to notice the Fianna Fáil Party in their manifesto and in public statements before the general election were in agreement with me. The rates system of taxation was so wrong that they committed themselves to change it. I believed that at long last they shared a point of view which was fundamental to my political philosophy. I am terribly disillusioned. I am disappointed in the extreme that the Fianna Fáil Party are again embarking on a policy of collecting taxation through rates under an antiquated system which the people who devised it never meant to be used in this modern society. The people who now need money to provide services in this modern society have forgotten why this system was introduced.
I hope that during the debate more Fianna Fáil Deputies will be present in the House to put their honest opinions before the House, like Deputy Filgate. This is what democracy is about. It is an insult to Opposition Members of this House that we should be expected to debate a Bill which is so relevant to the farming community and that no Government Deputy should come in here and listen to us, and that we should be expected to address empty benches. If that is the interest the Government have in preserving democracy, God save Ireland.
Debate adjourned.