Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 2 (a) are out of order.
Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1978: Report Stage.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I move amendment No. 3:
In page 2, between lines 37 and 38 to insert:
"2.—The Minister for the Environment, in conjunction with the Revenue Commissioners, shall, within three months of the commencement of each calendar year to which this Act has application, prepare and have presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas, a report setting out the following in respect of each of the three previous calendar years—
(a) in respect of each rating authority the number of persons, the valuation of whose tenements of agricultural land in respect of which they are rated equals or exceeds the amount standing specified on the first day of the year in section 15 (3) of the Finance Act, 1974, who were not liable to pay income tax because of insufficient income but who were liable to pay rates, as provided in this Act, in the relevant year;
(b) in respect of each rating authority the number of persons, the valuation of whose tenements of agricultural land exceeds £1 per acre on average and whose total valuation exceeds the amount standing specified on the first day of the year in section 15 (3) of the Finance Act, 1974, and
(c) in respect of each rating authority the extent to which the percentage increase in the county rate in the year exceeds the percentage increase in agricultural incomes in the State in the year in question or the latest year for which figures are available as determined by the Central Statistics Office.".
I bow to the Chair's ruling in regard to amendments Nos. 1 and 2. I understand they have been ruled out of order on the basis that they could impose a charge on the Revenue.
That is correct.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The meaning of that is that it is not outside the bounds of possibility that the income tax on farmers will be enforced at a lower threshold than that which appears in the Finance Bill of this year. If that were not so these amendments could not in any way impose any charge on the Revenue. The slogan is: farmers beware.
The effect of the Bill as it stands is to depart from its predecessors over many years, because in so far as the relief of rates by way of agricultural grant is concerned all previous agricultural relief Bills within living political memory have had the effect of granting further relief to rated occupiers of agricultural land, in so far as rate relief by way of poundage, properly so called, was concerned. Some Bills had the effect of giving 100 per cent relief in valuations up to £20. Other Bills confirm relief given by their predecessors. Of course, I make the Minister a present of the fact that the 1976 Bill removed token relief of £17 in respect of an agricultural labourer, which then represented only a fraction of a week's wages for such a labourer. With the exception of that one solitary removal, all Bills within living political memory either confirmed existing relief or increased relief. This Bill departs from that precedent in that it removes relief altogether. As from 1 January of this year it removes all relief in respect of holdings with a valuation of £75 and upwards and in respect of holdings with a valuation of £60 and upwards it removes all relief as from 1 January 1979.
When the Minister and his colleagues were speaking to the agricultural community and the farming organisations they excused this proposal and explained it by saying that farmers could take credit for the increase in rates that this measure will bring about against the income tax they will be called on to pay. I have been making the case—and I want to repeat it here —that from 1 January of this year this Bill will extract from farmers amounts ranging from £360 per annum up to a few thousand pounds depending on the valuation. The farmer with a valuation of £75 will be hit for about £360 and it will be more next year because the threshold comes down.
I have been making the case that many of these farmers will not be liable for income tax as from 1 January 1978 or from 1 January 1979. They may submit accounts showing that their income does not reach the level at which income tax is payable or they may be farmers who rely on the notional system in respect of which the Government have increased the figure from £65 to £90 per £1 PLV on a much lower threshold. The farmers who rely on the notional system may have big families that entitle them to large allowances. In addition, they may be paying substantial bank interest, heavy charges to contractors or agricultural wages. In one way or another they may be exempt from income tax but yet they will be called on to pay these heavy increases in rates without reference to their income or their ability to pay. I have tried to tie down the Minister to conceding to me in argument in this House that that is the case but, of course, he sidestepped the question. He refused to answer the arguments made.
The objective of this amendment is to bring the Minister and the Revenue Commissioners out into the open as from 1 April 1979 and to make it obligatory on them to state how many farmers who are not liable for income tax will have their rates increased as a result of this measure. That is the effect of paragraph (a) of the amendment. The section discriminates against one section of the community. It discriminates against the section of the ratepayers who are less well off than their co-ratepayers who have equal valuations. As from 1 January 1978 the ratepayer with a valuation of £75 and who is liable to pay £1,000 in income tax may not be affected by this measure because he will be able to credit that amount against his income tax. Of course he will have paid his income tax 18 months in advance but beyond that he will not be affected. However, in the case of the man with a £75 valuation who is not liable for income tax because he is less well off, he will be blistered to the extent of between £300 and £400. Clearly this discriminates against him. We said before that the rating system did not have regard to the capacity of people to pay but valuations were treated equally. What the Minister is proposing is unfair and unjust. It should be obligatory on him to state how many people will be affected.
The clear intention of paragraph (b) is to oblige the Minister to present another list, namely, a list of people who are heavily rated. We know that in the present rating system the valuations on land were carried out under the Griffith valuation. Let me at once exonerate completely the name of a great Irishman, Arthur Griffith. This matter has nothing to do with him and he is so well and honourably known that I should disassociate his great name from that measure. The valuation was done by another person of the same name. It started in 1850 or 1852 and it ended in 1865. I understand it started in the south of Ireland shortly after the Famine and the people who valued the land worked their way up north through the midlands and arrived in the north when things had become much better. The test then was the capacity of the land to grow flax or wheat. The part of the country that was valued in 1865 long after the Famine was valued at a much higher rate than the land which was valued three or four years after the famine when Griffith started. The effect of that is that some land is valued at a few pence per acre and other land is valued at well over 100 pence an acre.
The object of this amendment is to expose the inequity of this system. We ask the Minister to lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas the number of people the valuation of whose tenements of agricultural land exceeds £1 per acre and whose total valuation exceeds the amount specified on the first day of the year in section 15 (3) of the Finance Act, 1974. The Minister is invited to lay before the House in respect of each rating authority the extent to which the percentage increase in the county rate in the year exceeds the percentage increase in agricultural incomes in the State. This is because the rates in the £ will vary from rating authority to rating authority.
Paragraph (c) would make it obligatory on the Minister to lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas particulars of the persons where the percentage increase in the county rate exceeds the increase in agricultural incomes. The effect of paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) is to highlight the injustice of the rating system as a means of collecting revenue. The effect of paragraph (a) is to point out the number of people who will have large sums of money extracted from them under the Bill irrespective of their capacity to pay and notwithstanding that they are in poor circumstances compared with their better off neighbours. We want to make it obligatory on the Minister to give a list of the people who are being discriminated against in this way.
Deputy Bruton put this amendment down for Committee Stage but he gave very short notice of it and the Chair did not accept it. He discussed the matter on the Committee Stage. I am sure the Minister has had an opportunity of considering it since and been advised on it. It is a reasonable amendment. I strongly urge him to accept it.
This amendment in the names of Deputies Fitzpatrick and Bruton seeks to have it written into the Bill that I should have to submit a report each year to both Houses of the Oireachtas. The report would have a number of sets of detailed figures related in some degree to the agricultural grant and covering the three previous years. I do not think the amendment is a reasonable one and I must oppose it.
With regard to the particular information sought in the amendment some of it would not arise directly from the administration of the agricultural grant. Some of the information sought involves the responsibility of other Ministers besides the Minister for the Environment. For those reasons, even if I thought the information was important enough to justify special annual reports to both Houses of the Oireachtas, I am unable to accept the amendment.
With regard to paragraph (a) of the amendment, it is really looking for information in relation to the number of people with valuations above the income tax thresholds who are not liable to pay income tax because they do not make enough money. I do not know whether or not the Revenue Commissioners would have this sort of information. I do not have it. Paragraph (b) of the amendment looks for information on a county basis of the number of people with valuations over £1 per acre and with total valuations over the income tax threshold. I have no information about the relationship between the valuation and the area of particular holdings. It does not arise from the administration of the agricultural grant or the rating system. Certain general information is available from which average valuations per acre can be worked out. For instance, the average for the country is 41p. This is a different thing from the valuation per acre of individual holdings in every county.
Paragraph (c) of the amendment seeks information about annual percentage rate increases in each county related to percentage increases in agricultural income. My Department would not have figures on agricultural incomes. These would be matters for other Ministers. The volume of local estimates, which is presented to both Houses, normally gives information about rate levels of all local authorities. It is open to anybody to relate these figures to any other figures he may be interested in. With regard to all three cases, paragraph (c) is a matter for a different Minister; the information sought in paragraph (a) is not available to me and I cannot say if it is available to the Revenue Commissioners; and the information sought in paragraph (b) has nothing whatever to do with the administration of the agricultural grants. While Deputies Fitzpatrick and Bruton gave ample notice of the amendment, I cannot accept it.
The reason for putting down this amendment is basically so that justice can be seen to be done in relation to this matter. The argument in favour of this increase in the rates consequent on the withdrawal of very important reliefs has been that farmers will be able to claim back the increased rates paid against their income tax. The purpose of the amendment is to require the Minister to justify this on a continuing basis. If it transpires that the system is operating unjustly, that farmers because of the provisions of this Bill have to pay much increased rates, which they are either not able to claim back against income tax because a significant number of them are not earning enough to be in the income tax net or, alternatively, that a significant number of them have valuations which are so high, for instance, being over £1 per acre, that the amount of rates they will have to pay will be disproportionate to the amount of rates other farmers are paying because of the anachronistic valuation system we have here which goes back to the nineteenth century. Or, thirdly, that in a particular year the increased rates are unjust because in that year the increase in agricultural income has not taken place which would enable the ratepayers to meet the cost. This amendment seeks to have, on a continuing basis each year, this information laid before the House so that it will be possible for a review to take place as to whether this Bill is operating justly.
We have said we believe it is an unjust Bill anyway. But even within the Minister's own criteria the disclosure of this information will make known whether or not the Bill is operating justly. Amendment No. 3, paragraph (a) requires that the number in relation to those who are not liable to pay income tax but who are paying the increased rates be disclosed. The Minister has said that he does not have that information in his Department. However, it is being shown, in section 45 of the current Finance Bill, which is being considered by the House at present, that in relation to this matter of rates an arrangement can be made for the exchange of information between the Department of the Environment and the Revenue Commissioners as to the farmers who should be liable for increased rates, and that the Revenue Commissioners will exchange information with the Department of the Environment on this matter. If the Minister for the Environment can get information from the Revenue Commissioners under that provision why then can he not do it as suggested in amendment 3, paragraph (a)? If the Revenue Commissioners can give the other information why can they not give the Minister information on a continuing basis as to the number of farmers they have on their books as having valuations in excess of £60 who, in a particular year, were not liable to income tax? Why can that information not be given? We are not asking for the disclosure of the names of particular farmers. We are merely asking for the number of farmers involved.
If a farmer is liable to pay income tax because of his valuation but does not pay it because he does not have an income, ipso facto that farmer has had to pay much increased rates simply because he has that valuation, the provisions of this Bill applying to him regardless of whether or not he has that income. Therefore, that information must be available to the Revenue Commissioners. They must have a record of every farmer who has a valuation in excess of the specified figure; they must have information as to how many of those are paying income tax. There is no question but that they have that information. Otherwise they could not be operating the tax system. If they have that information there is no reason that they cannot give it in an abstract form, not laying out the names or details of any individual, to the Minister for the Environment so that he can comply with the requirements of this amendment and let us know the number of persons whose valuations exceeded the specified figure but who were not liable to pay income tax. I cannot see how the Minister can claim that that information cannot be obtained. To say that he does not have it in his own Department is to suggest that his Department functions as some sort of an island in the public service and that nobody can get information into it or out of it, which, of course, is not the case. If the Minister and his Department are functioning as part of an overall Government and if they want information from other Departments in order to comply with the responsibilities which have been imposed on them by statute in this House they can get it. The fact that, in requesting it, they are able to cite a requirement of statute—such as they would if this amendment were accepted—will ensure that the Revenue Commissioners must give the information being required in this amendment to the Minister for the Environment so that he can comply with its requirements.
Amendment 3, paragraph (b) requires information as to the number of valuations in each county which exceed £1 per acre. It is well accepted that the usual valuation of land is somewhere between 60p per acre and £1. If a farmer has a valuation in excess of £1 per acre under the Griffith Law Valuation he has very highly valued land as his rates are based, not on the number of acres he has or on his income but simply and solely on his rateable valuation if he has a valuation in excess of £1. I have heard cases of farmers with quite bad land, insufficiently drained or something like that or which was situated in a part of the country where for some reason because he wanted influence in parliament at the time the landlord, who was in a position to influence Mr. Griffith when he was carrying out his valuation in the last century, was able to have his particular area valued at a much higher level. I have heard of examples, for instance, in County Tipperary where one landlord wanted his land valued highly and he was able to get it valued at nearly £2 per acre. This is land, I think, in the vicinity of Tipperary town. I have heard of other parts of the country where other landlords, for other political reasons long since irrelevant in modern times—and there is no need for us to go into them at this stage—wanted to have their land valued at a low rate. Therefore, they were able to influence Mr. Griffith when he was carrying out his valuation, and they got a low valuation, maybe 70p or 80p per acre, put on their land. But the farmers who live on that land today have inherited those valuations and the rates they are paying on them. Indeed the much increased rates which will be levied as a result of this Bill, double or treble the amount in some cases, will be based on those valuations drawn up in the nineteenth century on the basis of long and anachronistic political considerations of those times. To my mind that is most unjust.
The purpose of paragraph (b) of this amendment is that the Minister should be required to place that information before the House, to let us have once and for all information in respect of each county which identifies exactly how many landholders in each county have valuations in excess of £1 per acre. That would be some indication, a rough one—and indeed not sufficient because it is not related to the actual potential of the land but a rough indication—of the number of farmers in each county who have valuations which are very high and who, consequently, are paying very high rates. If we have that sort of information lodged in the House every year I believe it will bring home eventually the need to have this valuation system revised particularly because these excessively increased rates are being based on that valuation system but also in view of the fact that eligibility for many other benefits—eligibility indeed to pay income tax or not to pay income tax—is based on these valuations drawn up on the basis of anachronistic political considerations in the last century, considerations based also on forms of agriculture which have long since gone.
If I may revert to what I was saying about landlords and give another explanation as to why, in some cases, land is valued very highly, we all know that in certain parts of the country in the last century the production of linen was very common. Anybody going through the country and seeing the circles of trees in the middle of fields which are known as bleaches will know that those trees were planted originally so that the linen could be dried. One can see these bleaches all over the country. They are evidence of the fact that at the time Griffith land valuation was drawn up flax cultivation and linen production were very common and very profitable. Only certain types of land are suitable for flax production and land so suitable is not suitable for other forms of agricultural production. Because flax was a profitable crop at the time of the Griffith evaluation the land on which it grew was valued much more highly and the result of that is that that land, no longer producing flax, still carries a very high valuation and the disappearance of that particular type of cultivation has left areas very unjustly too highly valued.
That is another illustration of how unfair the retention of the Griffith valuation system is and another reason for the adoption of that part of my amendment in paragraph 2 (b) which requires the Minister to give details of the use in respect of each county of the number of holdings where the valuation per acre exceeds £1. That information will have to be obtained by the county councils. I agree with the Minister that it probably is not readily available at the moment but, if it is once done, the number of times it will have to be changed will be very few because, unless the valuations are changed or holdings are amalgamated, the information will not have to be revised. Now we all know that rate collectors have not as much work to do since domestic rates were abolished and there you have people readily available, and none better qualified, to obtain the sort of information required here, information which will clearly illustrate the injustices that exist. The Minister cannot say that it is not possible for him administratively to get this information. He can get it done quite easily by asking the rate collectors to do the work.
Paragraph (c) is concerned about the extent to which the percentage increase in the county rate in the year exceeds the percentage increase in agricultural incomes or the latest year for which figures are available as determined by the Central Statistics Office. A basic principle governing taxation is that it should be based on ability to pay. One does not deny that in recent years there have been reasonably good increases in agricultural incomes because of a succession of price increases plus the devaluation of the green £, but that need not necessarily continue to be the case, particularly as other member states of the EEC are anxious that price increases should be moderated. Indeed, we have our own Minister for Agriculture looking for less in terms of devaluation of the green £ than he would be entitled to get. Our own Minister for Agriculture is in Brussels looking for less for the Irish farmer. If that is the approach of the most agricultural Minister in the most agricultural country in the EEC we can see the type of pressure that exists to curb income increases to farmers and we can see that it will not always be the case that farmers will have substantial increases in their incomes.
Under this Bill, regardless of their incomes, the rates they pay will go up as a result of factors entirely extraneous to agriculture, factors relating to the needs of local authorities, to public finance, to the fact that the Government are not prepared to put up the money and want more money levied on non-domestic ratepayers. The pressure of consumer interest and large industrial countries to keep food prices down will depress farmers' incomes. Pressure to increase local authority expenditure will force up rates. In the years ahead, therefore, farmers will be paid increased rates while not getting any equivalent increase in incomes —perhaps half or one-quarter as much of an increase percentage wise as they will have to pay percentage wise in rate increases.
Paragraph (c) provides that the Minister shall—
in respect of each rating authority the extent to which the percentage increase in the county rate in the year exceeds the percentage increase in agricultural incomes in the State in the year in question or the latest year for which figures are available as determined by the Central Statistics Office.
Suppose in a particular year rates in Mayo increase by 60 per cent and agricultural incomes increase by only 5 per cent a statement of that blatant injustice, and no one can deny it would be nothing other than a blatant injustice, must be laid before this House by the Minister so that the effect of this Bill can be clearly seen by being brought to the attention of the House on a regular basis and the position reviewed on a regular basis. This sort of hidden increase in taxation can take place without its being clearly and consciously adverted to by those responsible, namely, Members of this House.
We all know the way in which tax free allowances are eroded but that is never drawn to the attention of the House. Buoyancy in revenue is in fact a real increase in taxation and affects the income of all income tax payers. So far as this Bill is concerned I want to ensure that, if farmers have to pay a 60, 70 or 80 per cent increase in rates without obtaining any increase in incomes, that fact will be clearly drawn to the attention of the House. That is an eminently reasonable request and one the Minister should not reject. The Minister claimed it would be difficult to get this information. I think he claimed this in respect of item (c) also. Is that correct?
Yes.
I do not believe that is true. Firstly, the county rate in respect of each county is easily determinable. All counties must strike their rate at the same time each year. We know what their rate was last year—that is a matter of public record—and the decision as to the rate for this year, is also a matter of public record. The rates are struck on the same basis across the board. Therefore, in respect of any county it is perfectly easy to calculate the percentage rate increase. If the rate last year was £10 in the £ and this year it is £15 in the £, there is no problem in working out the percentage increase. You do not have to be a mathematician. A child in third class in the national school could tell you that the percentage increase in rates was 50 per cent.
That is only part of paragraph (c).
I am coming to the other part. Will the Minister agree with me when I say that it is not too hard to find the percentage increase in rates? The second part of the amendment reads: "the percentage increase in agricultural incomes in the State in the year in question or the latest year for which figures are available as determined by the Central Statistics Office." We all know the CSO do exercises of this sort. If the Minister is not satisfied with my inclusion of the CSO he can put in An Foras Talúntais, because they too do surveys on the increases in agricultural incomes on a regular basis. As I said, I am not insisting that we have the CSO. If the Minister is not happy with them, he can include the Agricultural Institute.
If the statute requires "the percentage increase in agricultural incomes in the State in the years in question or the latest year for which figures are available as determined by the Central Statistic Office", there is no doubt but that that office, which ultimately has its mandate from this House, will produce those figures. There is no problem getting this information from the Central Statistics Office or the Agricultural Institute. Does the Minister contend there is a problem?
One must relate the two sets of information. What is the point of the amendment——
I am asking the Minister——
The Minister or any other Deputy can speak once on Report Stage. The Minister cannot reply to any long questions asked.
(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order, Deputy Bruton is asking the Minister to accept certain things.
He can ask questions of the Minister but he cannot ask him to come back into the debate.
I am seeking elucidation of the subject, not a lengthy contribution from the Minister. Far be it from me to force him to speak more than he wants on what must be an unpalatable subject for him.
The Minister has admitted that the information in paragraph (c) is and can be available. Why, then, does he object to his being required to lay this information annually before this House so that it can be seen clearly in any year that farmers in a particular county, as a result of the provisions of this Bill, have to pay an increase in rates which is way ahead of the increase in income they obtained that year? If that were seen to be the case and if a statement to that effect were laid before this House, I believe it would draw to the public mind clearly the injustice of the provisions of this Bill. The Minister would have to take account of this and make sure, either by subsidisation of local authorities or by some other means, that the farming community were not asked to pay an increase in rates in any one year which was out of line with the increase in income they were getting in the same year. That is a reasonable amendment and I hope the Minister is prepared to accept it.
I would like to make a general remark about the purpose of this amendment and amendments of this sort. In respect of legislation enacted it is a good principle that the Minister should be required to report on a regular basis on the implementation and effects of that legislation. Too often legislation is passed in this House and its provisions forgotten and not discussed again. If the provision I am advocating is adopted in this case there would be a procedure for the regular, continuous and annual review of the way this Bill is operating so that the justice, or otherwise, of this legislation will be brought clearly into the light of day. In view of these arguments, I hope the Minister accepts this amendment.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not have very much more to say on this amendment. Deputy Bruton put the case extremely clearly. When speaking originally I stated that it is quite clear that the Bill as presented to this House discriminates against a section of the farming community. I want the Minister to come clean with the farming community and spell out early next year the number of people, county by county, who are discriminated against. The only real excuse given by the Minister for failing to comply with paragraph (a) of the new section is that the information is not available to him.
I pointed out on the last occasion that the Minister proposes to consult the Revenue Commissioners about other points in this Bill and to avail of and invoke the extraordinary powers of inquisition and of prying into the private affairs of the taxpayer which the Revenue Commissioners have. He proposes to use those powers in implementing this Bill. I find it difficult to see why he is not prepared to go ahead and avail of the same information to lay before both Houses the number of people who are being discriminated against. The only reason I can see for it—and I propose to elaborate on this on the other amendments —is that he is thoroughly ashamed of himself and of his performance here. As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle pointed out a few minutes ago, on this Stage it would be out of order for the Minister or any other Deputy, other than the proposer of the amendment, to speak twice. I want to repeat that it is very difficult, and has been found impossible, to get Members of the Fianna Fáil Party to speak even once on this Bill.
That may be so, but it does not arise on this amendment.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It does, because the only explanation I can get for the Minister's failure to accept the amendment is that he wants to hush the whole thing up. We had a very long Second Stage and Committee Stage debate on this Bill. We could only persuade two members of the Fianna Fáil Party to contribute about ten minutes between them to this debate. That is in keeping with the Minister's attitude to this amendment because he is not prepared to give information and he is not prepared to tell the people how many ratepayers he is discriminating against. That is regrettable and shameful. The information which this amendment seeks to put before the House is relevant information which would enable the taxpayers in general to see whether the tax laws are being equitably enforced. There is and has been an attempt to build up a conflict between the agricultural community and the urban community. It is only right in that sort of a climate that things that are being done to the agricultural community should be open for everyone to see.
The Minister has decided to get this Bill out of the House and on to the Statute Book as quickly and as quietly as he can. That has been the attitude of the Minister and his party since they first saw the light in this House. If it was debated here, the Government said, it would not be the Government's fault. Sometimes a Government do not put in speakers on Bills because they have a lot of work to get through and they do not want to take up the time of the House. That is not the position with this Government because they are now nearly 12 months in office and they have brought nothing before the House except Bills like this.
The Deputy is getting away from his own amendment.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Government are not prepared to justify the Minister in opposing this amendment. They are not prepared to stand behind the Minister and say that it is an unreasonable amendment. I made the case I wished to make in introducing this amendment and I consider that Deputy Bruton has covered the ground in an excellent way in regard to the three paragraphs of the amendment. The Minister has refused point blank to yield an inch. Deputy Bruton's amendment seeks to highlight and isolate discrimination. The Minister does not deny that there is discrimination and the only change that the Minister has made in this Bill since it came into the House was to perpetuate and consolidate discrimination in another way by an amendment which he introduced. The Minister consolidated an absurdity and it is no wonder then that he resists this amendment because this amendment would highlight another absurdity and further discrimination, while the Minister apparently is prepared to enforce discriminations and absurdities.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 47; Níl, 62.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Creed, Donal.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John F.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Horgan, John.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kerrigan, Pat.
- Lipper, Mick.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Spring, Dan.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Tully, James.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Kit.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Cogan, Barry.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joe.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Morley, P.J.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, James N.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- French, Seán.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Creed and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies P. Lalor and Briscoe.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 may be discussed together.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I move amendment No. 4:
In page 2, line 39, before "Relief" to insert "Withdrawal of".
The effect of this amendment is to change the title of the Bill from the present title which reads: "Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill" to "Rates on Agricultural Land (Withdrawal of Relief) Bill" and to change the collective title of the Acts from 1939 to 1976 and this Bill from the proposed title, the "Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Acts, 1939 to 1978" to the "Rates on Agricultural Land Acts 1939 to 1978". I have been a Member of this House since 1965 and I am aware that it is rather unusual and rare to challenge the title of a Bill and seek to amend it. I am seriously asking the House to change the Title in accordance with my amendments. I regard the Bill as a double-cross on the farming community, as a cynical going back on solemn promises made to the farming community by the Fianna Fáil Party before the last election. This Bill is not a rates relief Bill and the Minister knows that. The procedure in the past has been to re-enact those Acts giving relief and extending or enlarging on that relief. This Bill does not do that.
This Bill proposes to extract from the pockets of the agricultural rated occupiers £7 million this year and £9.2 million next year. Anybody who would call that part of the Bill agricultural land relief is calling it something which is erroneous, dishonest and fraudulent. The Fianna Fáil manifesto dealt at length with farming taxation, income tax and rates but it did not give even the slightest hint that they proposed to increase rates on agricultural land. In that manifesto, under the title of "Local Government", the question of rates in general is dealt with with particular reference to private houses. Nobody could detect from that section that Fianna Fáil had any intention of increasing rates on agricultural land when they got into power. I remember it being stated during the election campaign that Fianna Fáil in office would pass on the rates relief on private houses to other ratepayers.
Who said that?
(Cavan-Monaghan): That was stated by members of the then Opposition during that campaign. Representatives of the then Government parties, Fine Gael and Labour, stated during that campaign that Fianna Fáil in office would pass on the rates which they propose to abolish on private houses to other ratepayers. I clearly remember a person of no less a calibre than the Taoiseach indignantly denying that Fianna Fáil would do any such thing. He gave an assurance, on behalf of Fianna Fáil, that while rates would be abolished——
I should like to remind the Deputy again that on Report Stage it is not permissible for Members to make a Second Stage speech.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not propose to do that. However, I must make the case that the title is misleading.
I have been permitting the Deputy to do that.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is misleading in the extreme. I will get away from that subject in a moment. I remember the charge being made by Fine Gael and Labour people that Fianna Fáil would pass the rates they intended abolishing on private houses onto other sections of the community. I can recall an assurance being given on behalf of Fianna Fáil that no such thing would happen. Assurances were given that following the abolition of rates on private houses those rates would not be passed on to other sections of the community but that will happen under this Bill. Does this Bill not provide that £7 million of the rates which will not be collected on private houses this year will be paid by the agricultural community? Are we not going to increase that figure to £9.2 million next year? It was a political double-cross, a cynical reneging by Fianna Fáil on their solemn pre-election promises. That is why I am seriously challenging this Title. I propose to put this issue to a vote.
The Minister may seek to defend the existing title by saying that the Bill does provide relief on agricultural rates because he is providing £38 million. That is like the Fianna Fáil manifesto, it is only half the truth. The people who will get that relief will say: "Thank you for nothing, we had it before, we have had it for the past 50 years." It must be remembered that relief is being taken away on all ratepayers whose valuation exceeds £75 this year and £60 next year. Does the Minister deny that? I defy the Minister to deny that this Bill goes only a bit of the way its predecessor went. To call it the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill is dishonest in the extreme and is only half true at very best. The collective title goes on to connect all its predecessors with this Bill and to pretend there is no difference whatever. Of course that is not the case and the Minister knows it.
I would not feel so strongly about this Bill if I did not relate it to the performance of the Government in Opposition on taxation in general, and if I did not relate it to their manifesto. A couple of times in the manifesto it is said that income tax will fall due at the end of each financial year. In this case, income tax will fall due, where it is payable by these people, 18 months before the end of the financial year in question. The Minister has no apology to make, and no explanation to give. All he can say is: "That will happen once only. It will iron itself out in due time." A nice explanation to give for not fulfilling a solemn undertaking in this historic document that tax payments will fall due at the end of each financial year. This measure proposes to extract them 18 months in advance.
It is no wonder the Evening Press of today's date carries a huge headline: “Govt. Tightens The Purse String.” Those are the words of the Taoiseach yesterday. Has there been a complete and utter change? Have they run out of money? Can they not borrow what they thought they could borrow? Is this a cynical going back on all the promises made, now that they have 84 seats and can sit there for the next four years? They do not give a damn. They are shameless. You could not extract a blush from them. You could not get a word out of Deputies sitting behind the Minister. They will troop in here with a majority of 20—although they did not have that majority on the last occasion—to vote these provisions through regardless of the promises they made, regardless of the undertakings and assurances they gave. They will talk about one thing and enact another.
There are decent Fianna Fáil Deputies in the House. Some of them are so decent and so down to earth that they cannot sit in the House. They take their place in the Lobbies because they are thoroughly ashamed of the performance of the Fianna Fáil Government and the performance of the Minister. If this Bill goes on the Statute Book with the short title proposed in section 2 (1) which reads: "This Act may be cited as the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1978," nobody will be able to identify it in the index of statutes. Students and others in search of this Bill in the immediate future or in the years to come, knowing what is in it and knowing the history of these Bills, will not be able to identify it as a relief of rates on agricultural land Bill.
The Minister will say: "Of course it contains reliefs. Of course it gives relief to the extent of £28 million or £38 million" or whatever it is. That is half the truth. The Minister should be thoroughly ashamed to hide under that umbrella, to get out of the House under that smokescreen. He should have the decency to say that the whole ball game has changed and there is not money to spare as one of the players said long ago. He should say: "Did you not hear the Taoiseach speaking yesterday? We have tightened the purse strings. We have to get money everywhere". There is a picture of the Taoiseach smoking his pipe like a contented man beside that headline. Well he may smoke his pipe with the majority he has in this House.
There is nothing in the amendment about smoking.
(Cavan-Monaghan): If we are to take the Bill at its true value, it might be about smoking or anything else. It is misleading. We might be able to discuss any topic under the Bill.
We should be honest with each other. We should be honest with the House and with the people. We should call this Bill what it is, a withdrawal of relief Bill. If the Minister does not like that title, he can call it a discontinuance of relief of rates on agricultural land in respect of valuations of £75 and over as from 1 January 1978 and in respect of valuations of £60 and over as from 1 January 1979, and a continuation of relief in respect of lower valuations. I will accept that, if it will make him happy. In no circumstances am I prepared to accept an omnibus title which creates the impression that the position is as it was. It is not. The position is the same as it was on holdings with valuations up to £60 but it is utterly different on holdings with valuations of £60 or over.
I do not mind what the Minister calls this Bill so long as he does not create the impression that it is a repetition of the law on agricultural rating as it stood up to the end of last year. That is what this Bill leads people to believe, but it is no such thing. It is a withdrawal of relief on holdings of £60 and over.
I should like the Minister to deal with the amendment because I am putting it forward as a serious amendment. I propose to have it voted on to put the record straight on the Bill and its amendment.
This amendment seeks to change the name of this Bill from Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill to Rates on Agricultural Land (Withdrawal of Relief) Bill. If Deputy Fitzpatrick really believes in what he has been saying in regard to the name of this Bill, surely he was very inconsistent in 1976 when a similar Bill was brought in with the same title which withdrew the employment allowance from farmers with over £20 valuation. Why did he not vote against that Bill? He was a member of the Government which brought it in. There is a definite inconsistency in the Deputy's approach.
This Bill gives rates relief to the farming community of £38.5 million and if the Bill had not been brought in we would not be able to apply the relief. The Bill is properly named. It is a Bill giving relief. I am not in any way disposed to accept an amendment which will misname the Bill.
Regarding Deputy Fitzpatrick's references to the undertakings in the manifesto, I do not recall any mention in the famous 14-point plan of 1973 about the taxation of farmers. There was none to my knowledge. I emphasise again that under domestic derating, which comes to £80.75 million, the farming community will benefit to the tune of £9.5 million because of the derating of residences and farm buildings which were still rated. The total relief this year between domestic derating and this Bill amounts to £120 million. This Bill gives relief of £38.5 million and to this must be added £9.5 million because of domestic derating of the farming community. People who do not benefit under the supplementary or primary allowance under this Bill can set off extra rates against their income tax. This is a relief Bill to give £38.5 million relief to the farming community. I am not disposed to misname the Bill under the amendments proposed.
Deputy Fitzpatrick has made the case with considerable eloquence that this Bill is the expression of a double-cross perpetrated on the farming community during the recent election by the party opposite. They told the farmers all about the changes to be made in income tax and about the improvements they would make in various matters relating to agriculture —for instance, the farm modernisation scheme. They told them about the removal of domestic rates on their houses and the houses of others, but they did not tell the farmers before the election about the content of this Bill.
This is an integral part of the means whereby the package put to the people and accepted by them at the last election is to be financed. Yet the party opposite did not have the courage or honesty to tell the people that in voting for them they were voting for this Bill. They did not tell the farmers that if they had a valuation in excess of £60 there would be an increase in their rates of a minimum of £360 and it could be up to £500 or £600 or even £1,000. When they were soliciting the votes of the farmers they did not tell them that they would be voting to have their rates increased. The farmers were told many things, some true and some untrue. This was deliberately concealed. I can say without fear of contradiction that the Minister and his party knew that they would introduce a Bill of this sort. They knew at the time of the election that this would have to be done if the exaggerated promises made then were to be fulfilled, but they deliberately concealed their intention from the farmers and failed to tell them the full story.
Very many farmers do not realise the reality yet because they have not received their rates demands. They will receive them during the next few weeks. In my own county they will probably be received next week. Then they will realise the truth of Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment and that this is the most misnamed Bill which has come before this House for many years. It is disingenuously described as a relief Bill. It is nothing of the sort. It is the black side of the manifesto about which the people were not told when they were so seduously courted for their votes at the election. Why was it concealed? I contend that it was deliberately concealed because I do not think that Fianna Fáil could have made the promises they made without being fully conscious that they would have to introduce a Bill of this sort. They deliberately concealed those aspects of their taxation and rating proposals which would not be viewed favourably.
Fianna Fáil realised clearly the double-cross. At the most recent Division in this House on this Bill less than half-an-hour ago, Fianna Fáil had the smallest majority they have had since this Dáil assembled. That is clear evidence that many of the Deputies who know that this matter is being discussed realise that they are being asked to vote for something which is clearly detrimental to the interests of their constituents among the farming community. They have chosen for one excuse or another to absent themselves from this House. That is the reason for this small majority of 15. The Government should have a majority of at least 20. Usually the Government have more Members in the House as a proportion of their total strength than have the Opposition because of having to maintain a quorum and so on. Yet they have a majority of only 15 on this Bill. That is a clear indication that the conscience of the party opposite in relation to this Bill is not clear.
The Minister seeks to describe the relief granted by this Bill. This Bill merely continues reliefs which have been there since 1946 and earlier. It is usual in relation to statutes that if a scheme is introduced which will cost money a Bill is introduced enabling the money to be spent and provision is made in the Estimates every year. The Estimates are incorporated in the Appropriation Bill which becomes an Act at the end of the year. There is no need for a separate statute to be introduced every year to allow the money to be spent in that particular year. Let us take, for example, expenditure in relation to the subsidisation of national schools. There is no need to bring in an Education Act every year to enable capitation grants to be paid to national schools.
Agricultural reliefs are in exactly the same category. They are a continuing scheme which has been in operation since 1946. For some reason it has become the custom that these reliefs, instead of being allowed to continue, are renewed every year or two by a new Bill. In the past this has been purely a formality. On many occasions such Bills were put through this House without any discussion at all. Nobody ever pretended, just because a Bill was being reintroduced to continue something which had been there since 1946, that there was in any sense a new relief or any particular benefit being conferred on the farming community. It was a continuation of something that had been there for many years. It was the same as any other scheme of Government expenditure which did not require, as this for some quirk of legislative history requires, to be renewed by statute every year.
Every two years.
The fact that the Minister has come back with a Bill that simply reviews what was given in the past, but on a much reduced scale in relation to agricultural relief, is nothing new. It does not allow him to pretend to be giving something away, to pretend that he is being generous. He is merely giving some farmers something that they have had since 1946, but he is taking away from many other farmers an allowance that they have had since then. The only unusual characteristic of this Bill is that it is taking away from a substantial number of farmers an allowance they have had since 1946. That is the political and legislative reality of this Bill and that is what it should be called.
The Minister tried to make the argument that the 1976 Bill contained a provision regarding the withdrawal of relief that had been granted up to then and said that, if that Bill was called an Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, this one should also be called that. Let us compare what happened in 1976 with what happened in this Bill. In 1976 the employment allowance was withdrawn, but as most farmers do not employ anyone that withdrawal did not affect the majority of farmers. In the main our farmers rely on their own labour and that of their children but not on paid labour. However, for the farmers who had paid labour it was a relief of £17——
I do not think it necessary that we should go back to discuss that.
The Minister made that point.
(Cavan-Monaghan): That was the only defence he put forward against the amendment.
The Minister seeks to compare the withdrawal of £17 with what is proposed in this Bill, namely, a withdrawal of relief to the extent of £360 minimum ranging up to £1,000. He is not comparing like with like and he should not try to press that argument too far. It may give him and his non-existent supporters here some small comfort in this debate, but it will not carry him far when he has to justify this Bill to the farmers in Clare and throughout the country. When they get their rate demands in the next few months they will ask the Minister what has happened. They will wonder why he did not mention that fact when he was canvassing in Ennis before the general election. The Minister's colleague, Deputy Daly, may not agree with what the Minister is proposing, but the ratepayers of the county will wonder also why he did not mention what the Government had in mind. The Minister may tell the farmers that the National Coalition Government withdrew the employment allowance, but that was only £17 in comparison with the amounts now proposed to be taken from them, namely, from £360 to £1,000. I do not think the ratepayers in County Clare or in any other county will be very enamoured of the Minister's argument. He should have another think before he comes up with the next manifesto he has to produce to enable him to get the farming supporters of his party to accept this legislation.
One aspect that needs to be mentioned is that this opens the door to the withdrawal of relief of rates simply by changing a figure in the Finance Bill. Although relief will be withdrawn from farmers who have a valuation in excess of £60 as a result of this measure, it will merely require a change in the figure in the Finance Bill for next year or any other year for a greater amount to be withdrawn. Relief can also be withdrawn without this Bill or a similar one ever having to be discussed again, and this may affect farmers with a valuation of, say, £30 or £20. In fact, it will be possible for the Minister to withdraw all agricultural relief without having it discussed in this House so long as he can persuade the Minister for Finance to change the specified figure in section 15 (3) of the Finance Bill, 1974. If the Minister for Finance in next year's Finance Bill were to introduce an amendment stating that the specified figure shall not be £75 but that it shall be £1, simply by doing that all agricultural relief would be abolished at a stroke and the Minister for the Environment would not be required to justify it. Although it will be withdrawing something for which he is responsible and to which this Bill relates, by the powers conferred by this Bill that can be done by the Minister for Finance without the Minister for the Environment having to justify it. This Bill is conferring such powers on another Minister. This is not a relief Bill. It is allowing the permanent and total withdrawal of all agricultural relief.
There is no way of knowing what increase in rates farmers will have to pay in the future. This year there is a ceiling of 11 per cent on all rates. This includes any rates paid on domestic dwellings by the Minister and rates paid by people on rated property that is not exempted. Next year the Minister could freeze domestic rates at 11 per cent, but he could allow local authorities to increase rates on farms by 40 per cent or 50 per cent. There is nothing to prevent him from doing that. He can tell any county council if they are short of money to increase the rates on agricultural land by 40 or 50 per cent. Although the farmers' rates are being doubled this year and although this Bill confers power on the Minister to abolish agricultural relief entirely, the realities of the rating system do not allow the Minister to authorise an increase in domestic rates thereby starving local authorities of finance. At the same time he can allow a limited increase in the rates in any particular year by local authorities on non-domestic property, land, buildings and commercial property. It could easily occur under the evolution of the local government system that the entire burden of local government will be paid by agricultural ratepayers and commercial ratepayers. That does not happen at the moment because there is an 11 per cent ceiling across the board but it could happen at some future stage. This Bill, which is so erroneously described as a relief, is facilitating such a development. How could the Minister honestly describe a Bill of this sort, which has such grave implications for our major industry, as a relief Bill? It is no such thing and it should not be so described.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am not surprised that the Minister is apparently determined to brazen this debate out. He has failed to justify his proposals and failed to reply to arguments. This has been a very difficult debate to conduct because we had no response from the Government and the Minister. It was apparent from the first few minutes of this debate that this party and the Labour Party were absolutely opposed to the proposals contained in the Bill, that we were opposed to the title of the Bill and that we would debate against it. The reaction from the Minister and his party was silence and refusal to argue.
We have been treated to an exhibition of arrogance by the Minister and his party, not the arrogance of words but arrogance in absence from the House and silence. The worst arrogance is relying on a massive majority to steamroll the Bill through the House. This amendment proposes to change the name of this Bill and to call it what it is, a measure to withdraw relief in respect of rates on agricultural holdings. We get no reply from the Minister.
Deputy Bruton said the Minister referred to the provisions in the 1976 Bill which abolished relief which ceased to be meaningful, £17 in respect of each labourer employed. This represented at least a month's wages and perhaps six weeks' wages when it was introduced but when it was abolished it represented three days' wages. That is the only defence the Minister has. In his reply to the amendment he referred to the Coalition's 14-point programme in 1973 and said that we did not promise taxation. We did. We were honest with the people. We solemnly undertook to abolish a form of taxation which terrified the people. We explained that death duties would be replaced by another form of taxation. That is the difference between Fianna Fáil and the National Coalition.
The National Coalition abolished death duties. When I went on television as the Fine Gael spokesman I made it absolutely clear that the then iniquitous and terrifying taxation in the form of death duties would be replaced by other capital taxation. When the Minister says otherwise he is putting up dishonest arguments to justify a despicable performance in the form of this Bill.
It is hard to reply to arguments which have not been made. It is hard to reply to an intervention by the Minister when he does not justify the measure he is pushing through and when he relies entirely on his 84 people or whatever number of them are here to vote this through. Things have changed utterly since the manifesto and the election campaign. I want to give a short quotation from today's Evening Press of Wednesday, 10 May 1978 by John Wallace. The heading is “Government Tightens the Purse Strings”. It states:
Government purse strings are being tightened because the economy cannot sustain the present level of borrowing, the Taoiseach said today.
Mr. Lynch revealed that what he called "a thorough-going reassessment of public expenditure priorities" was under way. Spending was being critically reviewed, he said.
We are dealing with public expenditure here. This is a saving of £7 million this year, a cut-back in that £7 million public expenditure in the teeth of the promises made in the manifesto and the election campaign. This cut-back in public expenditure is evident throughout every parish in the country, in the homes of the old age pensioners and in the homes of all social welfare classes. The Minister should be honest enough to say that this is a first public instalment of what the Taoiseach has for us.
We have made the arguments but the Minister has not replied to them. We can only repeat what we said before. It becomes very frustrating to come in here and be expected to reply when you have nothing to reply to. I must put it on record that it is evident that Fianna Fáil Ministers are nice fellows in the House but it does not need aggressive contributions to constitute arrogance. There is the terrible arrogance of failing to argue and relying on the strength of their colleagues' feet in the lobbies. That is what the Government is doing.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided; Tá, 45; Níl, 63.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Clinton, Mark,
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Creed, Donal.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John F.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Horgan, John.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kerrigan, Pat.
- Lipper, Mick.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Spring, Dan.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Tully, James.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Kit.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Cogan, Barry.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Daly, Brendan.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joe.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, James N.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Fox, Christopher J.
- French, Seán.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies McMahon and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies P. J. Lalor and Briscoe.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 2, line 42, to delete "(Relief)".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Bill received for final consideration.