Before Question Time I was dealing with the insincerity of Fianna Fáil in embarking on a system of taxation which I believed they had decided to abolish when they were in Opposition. I was explaining that, although I do not agree with Fianna Fáil, at least I give some credit where I think it is due to a party who I thought had dragged themselves away from the old methods of tax collection. I was pointing out that many people, irrespective of creed, class or politics, had arrived at the conclusion that rates as a form of taxation were unfair, inequitable and——
Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1978: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The Deputy has said that 20 times. It is hardly necessary.
I am only explaining where I left off before Question Time.
The Deputy will speak on what is relevant, that is, the Bill before the House.
You and I had a very heavy debate——
You do not have a debate with the Ceann Comhairle. The Deputy must make a speech relevant to what is before the House or he does not make a speech.
I acknowledge that, and the very difficult job you have to do, but at the same time I believe in the democratic right to express my opinion. I explained to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that any offence I gave was not intentional. However, to get back to my theme before the Dáil adjourned for Questions, I was recapitulating, for the benefit of the few Members who were in the House at the time, my train of thought. During the break for Questions, I had the opportunity of asking for a couple of documents. I found some interesting ones. Before the general election Fianna Fáil successfully persuaded people then uncommitted to them, possibly even committed to Fine Gael, that Fianna Fáil were in favour of abolishing rates. Through that method they persuaded the people that it would be in their interest to vote them back into office.
Before Question Time I was making the point that the people now can see that instead of abolishing this old system of taxation Fianna Fáil are doing the direct opposite. However, I have a copy of a document, Finance and Local Taxation, 1972, at page 10, chapter 4, of which the following occurs:
The Government have come to the conclusion that only the local rates satisfy the criteria referred to above and that the real issue is not the abolition of the rating system (with all the consequences this would involve for local financial independence and, indeed, for the taxpayer) but the reform of the system so as to eliminate its undoubted defects.
There we had the real Fianna Fáil. That is a document prepared by them when in Government, the real thinking of Fianna Fáil. They have not been reformed at all. They were never interested in changing a taxation system which has been so penal from the point of view of the underprivileged. They were only buying votes in the 1977 election campaign. Their only interest was to get back into Government, back to the loot, back to power. They were only making the people believe that they had the divine right to govern Ireland—Ireland belonged to the Fianna Fáil Party and it was like committing public adultery to have any other party in office.
I am disappointed and disillusioned, totally frustrated, that a party which had been in office during all my lifetime, except for three short periods, who had the advantage of travelling the world, consulting with financial wizards, meeting economic experts, getting the advice of the civil service free, gratis and for nothing, are not any further forward in matters like this. They still believe the rating system is fair. Deputy Conaghan and other Deputies may claim I am over-labouring the point. If so, I am in the company of the Taoiseach, who as Leader of the Opposition on 4 April 1974, speaking on the budget, said he feared that the Griffith Valuation, now 100 years old, the £100 valuation later reduced to £75, would not be reduced to £60.
There we have the former Leader of the Opposition, the Taoiseach, expressing the same fears as I am now expressing. I am in a quandary. I do not know whether the Taoiseach was exploiting the political advantages of the moment or whether he was sincere in his fears about the Government of the day or the civil servants who would advise the Government. God knows, if the lack of interest shown by Government Deputies in this debate is an indication of the lack of interest which Government Ministers have in restructuring the Department of Finance, I do not envy the officials of the Department who have to advise them. They will have to repeat themselves more often than the Chair has accused me of today before they will get Government Ministers to listen to them.
The fear I have, which is genuine, is that the removal of the agricultural rate will have far-reaching effects when the valuation is reduced to £60. I will extend the argument further than the present Taoiseach did when he was in Opposition by saying that it will be reduced to £45. It is clear that the Government are heading in that direction when the Minister for the Environment removes the agricultural grant benefits from farmers in order that local authorities may collect more rates from them. The extension of the argument is automatic. It is a simple drawing of the pen and they will arrive at the same conclusion as in the past. If you want more money just put a few more shillings on the local rates. It does not matter whether the people who find it difficult to pay are hurt. They are only a few and do not mean the loss of too many votes. They can be thrown some other sop before the election comes. That is the most objectionable way for a Government to behave.
The Government have not made a decision in regard to the direction in which they should go to find an equitable system of taxation. The money that is being collected from farmers in the £75 and upwards valuation bracket will be paid irrespective of the amount of income tax which they may be called upon to pay. So you have the decided disadvantage of farmers in Border counties looking across at colleagues and friends who are working in the agricultural industry. That does not seem to concern the Government. The Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach who is responsible for ensuring that there is a quorum in the House is not paying too much attention to that aspect of his duties today. During a debate on rates on agricultural land on 18 February 1976 Deputy Lalor contested a decision of the Chair. Until I read this debate during lunchtime I thought that my dispute with the Chair was something I should be conscious of and not just be as out of order as the Chair would have me believe. When I read what Deputy Lalor had to say to the Chair——
Deputy Harte, please. No Deputy can discuss the rulings of the Chair. I would ask the Deputy not to do that, please. What has happened between Deputies and former occupants of the Chair should not be referred to.
I was referring to a motion by the Fianna Fáil Party, then in Opposition, to increase the £17 abatement to £200. In Opposition they were prepared to put an amendment to Deputy Tully's proposal when he said that the £17 abatement was irrelevant; that the amount of work it took to give the £17 abatement was costing more than that. To contest that position, the Fianna Fáil Party, under Deputy Faulkner, the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, wanted to increase the abatement to £200. There is no consistency in the Minister of State as a Deputy of the House, Chief Whip of his party then and now Chief Whip of the Government party, making everyone believe that he genuinely supported the agricultural community to the extent that instead of removing the £17, which most farmers did not value, he wanted to increase it to £200.
Instead of proposing to increase the abatement from £17 to £200 we now find that the first piece of legislation that deals directly with farmers which was introduced by the Minister for the Environment proposes to withdraw the agricultural grant. He is giving no guarantees that this will not affect those people who are below £75 next year.
Am I not entitled to express in a sincere way the same fears that were expressed by Deputy Jack Lynch on 4 April 1974, when he said that the reduction from £100 to £75 was only the beginning of a further reduction to £60? I have been saying this in many ways during this debate. I now find that the Taoiseach expressed similar fears when in Opposition. The principle behind the proposal is so objectionable that I strenuously oppose it, expose the weaknesses and shenanigans of the Fianna Fáil Party and the dishonesty of those who know what they are doing.
There are people in Fianna Fáil who, for a variety of reasons, would not be in possession of information or of power and who could not influence the party to a great degree. I excuse those people for very human reasons because a person could find himself in a similar position, caught on the wrong foot by saying something one's party stood for and then discovering that they were going in a different direction. It has never happened to me but I can conceive of a situation where it could happen and I am prepared to excuse such members of Fianna Fáil. Although they have not been present for the debate perhaps they may read the Official Report. However, I cannot excuse Cabinet Ministers, the members of the think-tank and those Deputies who are in possession of the facts.
My total objection to this measure is not because of the penny-saving methods of the Minister. It is the basic principle that for years we have been arguing about reform of local taxation. For years the debate has been going on, shared by county councillors of all parties at local level and by independents, by people who have an interest in public affairs but who are not in public life themselves, by the clergy, by town councils, borough councils, chambers of commerce, the ICA and such organisations. They want to tell their local representatives that the rating system is wrong, that it will never be right and that it should be changed.
It is a sad reflection that after nine months in office the Government party have reverted to the old system, in spite of the fact that they have had the advantages of meeting foreigners who visit our country, of meeting economic geniuses. They have had the advantage of looking at taxation systems operated by other countries, of getting all this knowledge without having to pay for it or having to make much of an effort themselves to find out what it is all about. They have the facilities of the civil service at their disposal. If they were conscious as Irishmen of their own nationality, if they would see clearly that Ireland is a 32-county state and that other Irishmen have advantages which they are depriving people of in this political system, that should be enough in itself to make them understand that what they are doing in this Bill is wrong. For that reason I shall vote against it and I shall explain to the people in Donegal why I voted against it. Deputy Conaghan is in the House and I hope he will speak. I shall listen to what he has to say because I am at a clear disadvantage in not knowing the arguments of Fianna Fáil on this matter.
I wish to put on the record of this House with as much emphasis as my English will allow that in electing me to this House the Donegal people sent me here in order to express my opinions within the rules that govern this Assembly. I believe I am justified in claiming that in putting forward those views at least I should be paid the simple respect of having a Government quorum in the House and if a Government quorum in not in the House I believe I am justified in criticising the absence of those Deputies. I consider I am justified in saying to the Government benches and to the Chair that the absence of Government Deputies is bad enough but it is nothing in comparison with the despicable way the Government have treated this debate by putting forward only one speaker. I want to protest in the strongest possible manner at the way the Ceann Comhairle tried to muzzle me in making that point. I believe the Ceann Comhairle acted irrationally. I believe he came into the House purposely to silence me——
The Deputy should not make charges against the Chair and no Deputy understands that better than Deputy Harte. Charges should not be made against the Chair and certainly not against the Ceann Comhairle in his absence. I cannot possibly allow charges to be made against the Chair and Deputy Harte knows that. If he has anything more to say on the Bill I would ask him to say it, but he must not attack or make charges against the Chair.
It is not my intention to attack the Chair——
Then please do not do so.
It is my intention to point out that I have a democratic right to speak. I am here by the same right as any other Deputy, including the person who occupies the Chair. I consider it an insult for the Chair to tell me I have not the right to speak in this House.
The Deputy has full right to speak within the rules of the House.
I cannot understand the viewpoint of Deputy Harte and his argument, if one could call it such, in relation to the Bill. If the Bill had not been introduced all agricultural land would be subject to rates. Is the Deputy suggesting that anybody with a small plot attached to a council house or to a private dwelling should be rated? I cannot understand the approach of the Deputy to this measure. I have listened to a considerable part of his speech but I could not find any proposal or suggestion put forward by him that would be of benefit to the agricultural community about whom all of us are concerned. The Deputy dragged my name across the House, I do not know how many times. I as a new Member was embarrassed that an Opposition Deputy should use his opposite number in this manner in a debate in the House. In my experience here I have never seen this tactic being used.
Deputy Harte and I are both interested in County Donegal. About 70 or 80 per cent of the land owners there will not be affected by the rates. Only about 1.3 per cent would be affected by this measure and this 1.3 per cent of the farming community will have this measure offset by relief from income tax. Deputy Harte appears to be speaking on behalf of only a small section, the 1.3 per cent of the community.
We did not hear from the Opposition Deputies about the benefits which accrued to the farming community and to the community at large in relation to the derating of private property. The farming community have gained from the derating of their private dwelling houses and farm buildings. It is well to remind the House that we derated private dwellings and farm buildings. The farming community really appreciate this because any improvement of their dwellings or farm buildings could mean at a later date an increase in their valuation which in turn would mean an increase in their rates. From that point of view the farming community have benefited and any of them who read what the last speaker said will not be influenced by it but will agree with the attitude that we as a responsible Government are taking in our approach to this. These matters must be approached in a way that will bring benefit to the people and will not bring about a situation whereby the adoption of wrong measures could at a later date be the means of a heavier imposition of tax.
The last speaker indicated that the farming community had been let down in relation to the Fianna Fáil manifesto. I spent some time going through the records of debates in this House over the last four-and-a-half years. We know of the imposition put upon the farmers by farmers' income tax. I failed to see in the Official Reports where Deputy Harte put on record any protests against farmers' income tax. I was surprised to hear him say that were he in Government he would speak out directly against this measure. Why did Deputy Harte not speak out against the system of income taxation being applied to farmers? The farming community fully appreciate the benefits that have accrued from the implementation of the policies that we as a party put before the people and which the people elected us to implement. The farming community know that taxation must be imposed and that they must pay their fair share, and the reasonable element of the farming community are prepared to accept and abide by this. We all appreciate that from the farming community, we get a fair return of the wealth that this country produces, and it is in everybody's interest that major benefits should be directed towards that industry. This party have not been found wanting in that respect. During the short period that we have been in office we have implemented many proposals relating to farmers, to give the added relief from taxation that they so much deserve. One example is in relation to co-operative taxation. That is of fair benefit to the farming community as most of them are involved in the co-operative movement.
This measure is in line with Government thinking in relation to the whole question of relief from rates. When measures are introduced, sometimes people are not fully aware of the reasons for certain approaches of a party or Government to the system they adopt. It could well be that, in the long run, the introduction of this measure is a way to get over this situation, where rates eventually could be abolished from agricultural land.
There is one other matter I should like to place on the record, seeing that the last speaker referred to me particularly-and I do not understand why-that is, that I fought the election in my constituency, which is a farming one, on our manifesto. I did not mislead the farming community there. I did not go around, as was suggested by the last speaker, making untruthful statements. The people in my constituency will understand and respect me for my approach and attitude during the whole election campaign. I challenge the previous speaker to show me, through any of the local newspapers circulated in Donegal, any misleading statements of mine that may have been misinterpreted by reporters of any meetings at which I spoke in relation to the question of the rating of farmers, income tax or any other aspect of the Bill before the House. It is very easy for an Opposition speaker to criticise another Member in this House. It is also the duty of an Opposition speaker to put before the House an alternative proposal or suggestion to that he is opposing. In this respect I regret that my colleague from Donegal failed miserably to demonstrate his ability to give the people he represents any alternative to the proposals now before the House.
I support this Bill because it constitutes something on which I and other members of my party were elected. It was part of our policy in the election manifesto. We have carried out that programme so far. It would appear that no document has been more widely read in this country by Opposition members than the Fianna Fáil manifesto. They may have read it, reread it, digested it, slept and dreamed on it for so long that they are only now realising that practically all of its contents have been implemented.
The people of Donegal responded to our policy and proposals. Let the last speaker have no illusions or wild dreams that the people in Donegal are annoyed about the proposals contained in this Bill. It is said that only 1.3 per cent of the people in Donegal are affected and any imposition on them will be offset by relief from income tax. All that worries and puzzles me is that the last speaker from the Opposition side advocated that this Bill should not go through the House thereby rendering all the land of this country liable to rates. I understand that was the only suggestion he had to offer the House. God knows if that is his attitude to this Bill I do not know what the people he represents will have to say to him.
I would not like all the Donegal Members to monopolise this debate. I should like to be factual in speaking on this Bill. I am delighted that my friend and colleague, Deputy Conaghan, was the previous speaker. I shall forgive him for missing one point about the Bill. I realise he has not been in the House too long. We must all when speaking on any measure in this House know implicitly what we are speaking about. People on the Opposition side have said it will not affect some people. Certainly it will affect people with a land valuation of over £33. In respect of people with a land valuation of between £33 and £60,20 per cent of the first £20 valuation allowance will go and 80 per cent will remain. Might I ask the Minister if my interpretation is correct?
No change.
As I read it here, the position is that the next category of land holdings embraces those with valuations in excess of £33 but less than the income tax threshold for whole-time farmers applicable from 1 January of the relevant local financial year. Therefore, what the Minister is saying is that between £33 and £60 there will be no change.
They get 80 per cent primary allowance and 30 per cent supplementary allowance.
I thank the Minister for correcting me there because I had read that part of the Bill wrongly. There can be no argument at all about the next category, that is, from next year, people whose land valuation is over £60 and those whose land valuation is over £75 this year. As I understand the position the £20 relief they were getting has gone.
The last speaker said it would not affect people in Donegal. Of course it will affect people in Donegal and those in every county. Rather than speaking about different counties we should be speaking about the country at large and the people who will be affected. My criticism of the Government is that at present they are imposing many different forms of hidden taxation that many of the general public do not realise is taking place. We are speaking here particularly of agriculture. This is one form of hidden taxation that has not been explained.
Nobody on the Government benches can say that was mentioned in the Fianna Fáil manifesto. Since the idea of relieving rates on agricultural land was first mooted a Bill similar to this has come before the House every year. It is absolutely essential that this relief should be continued for those farmers with low valuations. They should pay no rates on their land and anyone who thinks they should should come down and live amongst these farmers and see for himself what the position really is.
Someone said Fianna Fáil have been in Government for only nine months and Fianna Fáil's greatest weakness seems to be their greatest strength because they have the numbers and every Bill introduced by them will automatically go through. Farmers with a valuation of £60 should continue to get relief. Fianna Fáil propose now to deny them this relief.
There is a second type of hidden taxation imposed on the farming community. Not many weeks ago the health charge was increased. In their manifesto Fianna Fáil said the stamp would be reduced. But it has not been reduced and the farmer who employs an agricultural worker will have to meet the cost of the stamp. As regards the abolition of rates on private dwellings, it was the Coalition Government which five years ago initiated this scheme. Those who are now on the Government benches said at that time that it could not be done. I am delighted they have changed their minds and I am glad that it was we who started to change them for them. We promised that over a period all rates would be abolished. Private house owners pay no rates. Their income tax was reduced in the last budget. The income tax for the farmer was increased. Now his rates are being increased. The man with a £60 valuation will be paying £360 more and the man with a £100 valuation will be paying £600 more.
It is true we suggested farmers should pay income tax but I was shocked when the Minister in his budget statement said that the valuation was being reduced from £75 to £60. I was also astonished to hear that the multiplier was being increased from £60 to £90. Deputy Harte said the whole system is wrong. I agree with him. A new system should be introduced. About 15 years ago another Minister was looking into the possibility of introducing a new system of rateable valuation. What we have is a Victorian system of taxation. It is completely wrong. A new system must be evolved. It is quite possible to have two farms with £60 valuations ten miles apart one with an income of thousands of pounds and the other with an income of hundreds of pounds. Inequities must inevitably arise. I know the whole matter is very complicated but the time has come for a major restructuring of the entire system. The farming organisations agree farmers should pay tax but I am confident the majority of Members here would agree that the present system of taxation of farmers is not a fair system. I cannot understand why this penal provision has been introduced. Someone said it will not affect many. It will affect quite a number all over the country. A farm with a £60 valuation is not making thousands of pounds. What the Government are trying to do here is to discourage people increasing productivity.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
I cannot understand the muddled thinking of Fianna Fáil at the present time.
A Deputy
We cannot understand the Deputy either.
(Interruptions.)
What about Fianna Fáil thinking last June?
Interruptions are not in order. Deputy White on the Bill. Deputy White should not reply to interruptions. They are not in order.
I was going to explain that those of us who live in Donegal are very concerned about the nation's finance, particularly when it affects small farmers. It affects farmers in Galway and Clare and it certainly affects farmers in Donegal. Anybody on the other side of the House who states that it does not affect his farmer constituents when those farmers get bills next year for £316 if their rateable valuation is £60 can say to them "I told you it would not affect you". I stated that as far as the small farmers are concerned everybody welcomes the Bill in relation to people with a land valuation of under £60. We are talking about the farming population who find that suddenly they are being squeezed as far as income tax is concerned because the limit has come down from £75 to £60. Those people now find they are being squeezed a second time and they also find if they employ an agricultural worker he has to pay extra money for his stamp. The manifesto we have heard so much about stated that the cost of the stamp would be reduced.
Some of us who come from the supermarket business have an old slogan: "Three for the price of one". As far as the farmers are concerned they are being taxed for the third time in nine months even though nine months ago Fianna Fáil Deputies going around the country said they would look after the farming community. Those of us who live on the western seaboard have been concerned recently about getting people up to an economic standard under the farm modernisation scheme. We have been trying to give them extra land valuation.
We cannot discuss that on this Bill.
Under this Bill those people are being given a disincentive, to try to be under the valuation of £60. I have been disturbed over the last six months that we are not hearing from the Government benches about direct taxation. This Bill is a form of indirect taxation which will affect a lot of people. Many rural Deputies will find it very hard to explain to the farming community why suddenly they are being taxed from a valuation of £75 down. This is another form of hidden taxation.
This Bill is obviously not considered to be very important by Members on the opposite side of the House because we have had to remind them a number of times today that things were being said here that should be listened to. It is fairly obvious that they have taken more heed of things which have been said in their party rooms. I believe that one of the instructions given to the Deputies on the opposite side of the House is that they should get this Bill through as quickly as possible and that no backbenchers on the Government side were on any account to make contributions. One speaker broke that instruction or perhaps it did not reach his ears. Another speaker was dragged into the debate by Deputy Harte today.
This side of the House welcome those contributions. I hope, before the debate ends, that many more Fianna Fáil backbenchers will make their voices heard. I am quite sure if they do not that the rank and file members of their party in many parts of the country, the people being caught in this extra tax net, will voice their opinions to the representatives they have sent to this House. I do not know if Deputy Woods is prepared to make a contribution but he claims he is one of the agricultural experts of the Government party. Others have also claimed that too. We would welcome a contribution from Deputy Woods. If he is waiting to get in I will not delay him very long.
Will the Deputy sit down now?
This is a very important Bill but I do not think the people on the opposite side of the House are very proud of it. We have had Bills brought into the House over the last few months with a fanfare of trumpets and headlines in the papers. Deputies came in behind the particular Minister involved as he announced many measures but I think there is a great change today.
Deputy McMahon is in the House today.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy McMahon on the Bill.
A Deputy
The farmers are paying the bill.
(Interruptions.)
One Deputy is in possession.
We are finding it extremely hard to find one quarter of the 84 Government Deputies. It has been very difficult to get them in here to hear the contributions on this Bill. No one will disagree when I say it is quite obvious the instruction has been given: "We do not want a fanfare of trumpets on this measure. We do not want any delay. Let us get it through as quickly as possible". A large number of people in every county will be affected by this Bill to a very large extent. Many of them who will read about it in tomorrow's papers or hear about it on the radio tonight or tomorrow will not realise until they get down to the figures the extra taxation which will be required from them —a section of the community who have already been hit pretty hard by the Government.
I looked through my files today to see if I could find a certain Green Paper issued by Fianna Fáil in 1972, I think, in which it was said rates could not be abolished, that it was a system of taxation with which we had to live. It was there, and there was no way out of it. It was not until the National Coalition showed them the way that Fianna Fáil changed their minds. They changed their minds so rapidly that the Custom House has been thrown into dire confusion. Many local authority schemes are being held up for want of finance. The Custom House has failed to come up with the necessary finance to keep the various schemes——
We are discussing rates on agricultural land, not all the undertakings of the Custom House.
I hope the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will permit me to develop the point. Local authorities are now feeling the pinch. They are not able to finance their undertakings as they did in previous years. The money has been slow to come. Why? We await the answer to that question. It may be that the purse is fairly empty. This may be an effort to fill a purse which has been emptying rather rapidly.
The Fianna Fáil Party did not do their sums on abolishing rates. They did not realise the enormous job they were letting themselves in for and now they are looking around for ways and means of finding money to keep things ticking over. Many people are worried because lack of finance flowing from the Custom House to the local authorities is begining to affect jobs. It might be interesting to know how much money left the Custom House and was given to the local authorities over the first three months of this year.
It does not arise on this Bill.
This is an effort to keep the local authorities quiet, to give them a shot in the arm to enable them to keep things ticking over at least. I understand this Bill will bring in an extra £7 million in this year. Am I correct in that?
I will tell the Deputy later.
I wonder is this the thin end of the wedge and what will come next from the front benches opposite. Nobody who voted for the Fianna Fáil Party in the general election was given the slightest hint that rates on any property would be increased. It was stated in the Fianna Fáil manifesto that the rates on many properties would be abolished. The impression was given that now we were on the road to abolishing rates on private dwelling there would be no increase in rates on any other property. Not only have they succeeded in giving a slap in the face to people who voted for them, I believe, but in this Bill they are giving them a slap on the other cheek.
I am firmly convinced that many Deputies sitting behind the Government feel this Bill should never have been introduced and that feeling got through to the Minister, hence the instruction to the backbenchers today to stay out of this House. It is unfortunate that the business of the State should be handled in this way. It is unfortunate that the Cabinet should have seen fit to hand down such an instruction to their backbenchers to muzzle the voice of democracy.
Absolute nonsense.
That is not true.
It has been extremely hard to see even a sprinkling of those 84 Deputies in this House today. We have seen them here in great numbers in the past when the trumpets were being sounded, when the rates were being abolished, when the £1,000 grant for new houses was announced. They have been caught out on that one and that is beginning to sink in.
It does not arise on this Bill. We are dealing with rates on agricultural land.
That is true. I am making the point that Fianna Fáil voices are absent from the House today. If the Minister has found £7 million here, what other properties will be affected? Is he looking around to see on what other properties rates can be increased? Will the small businessman be the next to fall under the hammer? Will industrial premises and factories be next to be caught in this search for extra capital? Not only is this frightening the farming community but it is also frightening those with small businesses and owners of factory premises. They have every reason to be frightened because since the Government took office we have had a period of hand-outs. Fianna Fáil made promises during the election campaign which Members on the Government side never expected they would have to honour. But the period of hand-outs is coming to an end and it has certainly come to an end for the farming community affected by this Bill.
Not only will farmers rethink their support for the Government but those who might next be affected are frightened. It matters little whether these increases are paid in the form of income tax or in the form of rates because it is still a tax. Our people must dip into their pockets to pay. I believe the Minister had hoped that the Opposition would not take much notice of the Bill. He was hoping that, if he succeeded in muzzling the Members behind him and took the Bill this week, it would not attract much attention because it is normal that in the week after a Recess less important business is attended to. I am sure the Minister hoped that the Bill would have been slid over and whatever publicity would come from it would have been contained in one issue of the national newspapers. He hoped that it would then be forgotten.
Even though we have not had many contributions from Government Members I believe they are concerned and are expressing that concern to the Minister. They are not so anxious to return to their constituencies to face the people to whom they had promised relief less than a year ago. It will not be easy for Government members when meeting their constituents, because quite a substantial proportion of those who must now pay rates have been given a tremendous shock. I notice that the Minister did not outline the effect this Bill would have on certain categories as is usual. He did not give the figures of what people with a certain valuation would have to pay next year compared with this year.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 April 1978.