Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Apr 1980

Vol. 319 No. 11

Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1980: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Minister of State must be aware of the feelings of small farmers and of the farming community in general in South Tipperary and in County Waterford. How effective their representations to him will be remains to be seen. Lip-service has been paid by the Government to the value of agriculture to the whole community. I have said before that, apart from our people, our greatest national asset is the nine inches of topsoil of our country. Advances have been made in the recent past, especially since our entry into the EEC, to develop this great national asset but more needs to be done. Whatever about the prospect of oil offshore or mineral wealth beneath our land, to me the nine inches of topsoil is our greatest asset. All of the energies of the Government should be directed to getting maximum output from the rich agricultural soil of Ireland.

This Bill does nothing to give confidence to the farming community. In South Tipperary alone 1,170 additional farmers will be further penalised and in North Tipperary a total of 906 additional farmers will have the relief removed if the Bill goes through the House. I should like to impress on the Minister the feelings of the farmers of South Tipperary. Last year was a disastrous one for farming in general and anyone even moderately acquainted with farming will realise that. There was a late spring, prices fell, inflation was high, costs were high and markets were bad. Not alone was the farming community assailed from within by the disastrous decisions taken by the Government with regard to levies and so on, but at EEC level there was a total anti-farmer bias. There is a lack of commitment on the part of many EEC countries to the CAP and there is a complete lack of adequate finance at home and abroad for the farming community. Farmers will tell one they could not afford to use the necessary amount of fertilisers this year. Two days ago I heard on the radio a spokesman for one of the large farm machinery companies saying that so far this year was the worst year on record for the sale of farm machinery.

The Deputy is now getting into a full debate on agriculture which does not arise on this Bill. I know what the Deputy is going to say——

It is necessary for me to fill in the background.

Not to the extent the Deputy has done. A passing reference is in order but it is not in order to have a debate on the Department of Agriculture when we are discussing this Bill. That can be done when we are discussing the Estimate.

I am trying to fill in the background. One cannot discuss a Bill in isolation without giving the whole background.

I have told the Deputy that a passing reference to it is in order but it is not in order to go into the whole background.

I am only touching very briefly on these points. I maintain that the farming community are not given value for the increased rates they must pay this year. In rural Ireland many farm homesteads have no running water, no sewerage or toilet facilities and no scavenging service. Recently, in South Tipperary, after great pressure the county council decided to but an extra scavenging truck to service part of the community. The elegibility of farmers' sons and daughters for scholarships has been greatly reduced. In many cases where a farmer's son or daughter is not eligible for a scholarship or grant at university or a third level college the father cannot afford to send that boy or girl to college. The farming community are getting less and less value for the increased imposition of rates. Also in the case of loans and grants for new houses especially——

The Deputy is again going completely away from the Bill. I ask him to keep to the Bill before the House. We are getting into a full debate on agriculture and even now going into the Department of the Environment.

As a very effective Deputy for County Wexford the Chair must know that eligibility for grants and county council loans is based on rateable valuation and this Bill deals with rates on agricultural land. Surely you must allow me——

No. The Deputy knows quite well that he may not go over the whole field of agriculture, local authority loans and so on, on a Bill of this nature. I am giving him plenty of latitude.

I beg to differ. I am only referring to these matters in so far as they relate to and are based on rateable valuation. The Bill deals with rates on agricultural land. I feel I am entitled to make a passing reference to these points.

That is not how it sounds to the Chair. The Deputy will keep to the Bill. He has plenty of scope on it.

I am trying to develop the case that because of lack of funds from the Department of the Environment, especially since the abolition of rates on private property, the roads of rural Ireland are pot-holed and the county councils have no finance to maintain them properly. Every county councillor and Deputy is aware of the representations made to him to have by-roads or boreens taken over so that——

Please, Deputy, we must not get on to that line again. I have asked the Deputy to keep to the Bill before the House. It is definitely in order to say that the decrease in money coming to the county council will mean less money for roads but it is not in order to debate roads, secondary roads, by-roads and the others.

I am giving the picture of rural Ireland in case the Chair does not know it.

I know rural Ireland as well as the Deputy but on this Bill we cannot debate the whole picture of rural Ireland.

The Bill is about rural Ireland.

It is about the relief of rates and nothing else.

The imposition of rates rather than the relief of rates. The title of the Bill is a misnomer. This is a further inposition on the farming community. Various farming organisations have protested as vociferously as they can at this further imposition. The Minister stated glibly that rates paid may be charged as an expense against income tax but, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, it is all very well to say that but in the case of the farmer who is not liable to income tax, whose income does not reach the required figure of £1,700 for a single person, or £3,400 for a married couple, that argument does not hold. It is poor consolation for him to know that he can write rates off against income tax. This is another means of taking an already scarce commodity, money, away from the farming community. We are told that 48 per cent of the total value of our output is in the agricultural sector. This is very poor recognition by the Government of the role the agricultural community play in the economy when the Government are continually thinking of ways and means of depriving farmers of the finance they so badly need. we are told that this Bill, together with rates, resource tax and other levies will take a further £66 million of money sorely needed for proper development and expansion.

The Bill does nothing to give confidence to the farming community, confidence so badly needed when farmers are being taxed and assailed from within by the Government, when their efforts on behalf of the economy are not appreciated and when every day brings a further levy or increase affecting the farmer imposed by some Department. Also, on the eec level there is the possibility of the super levy being imposed. This results in a total lack of confidence in the farming sector. The Minister must be aware of this. His two or three Ministers of State based in rural Ireland must surely acquaint him of the up to date position in the farming community who now see how much they were deceived in taking Fianna Fáil at their word, especially in the infamous and disgraced manifesto. They were promised the sun, moon and stars if they could get rid of the Coalition Government: they would enter a Utopia with eternal spring.

Fianna Fáil, as usual, failed to fulfil their promises.

In a statement issued recently by the IFA they stated categorically that farm income is lower now relative to the PAYE sector than it was prior to our entry into the EEC. This is a terrible indictment of the agricultural policies pursued by the Government and by successive Ministers for the farming community. What is needed is a policy of planned development in which the Government acknowledge the role the farming community and the agricultural sector play in the economy. They should give them true recognition of this role and, working in unison with the farming community, plan and work out how they could maximise our membership of the EEC and achieve greater productivity from the land.

This Bill does nothing to achieve that aim. It does the reverse. It penalises the small farmers. While South Tipperary is noted for its large farmers, there are quite a number of small farmers. To base anything on the Griffiths Poor Law Valuation System which is 120 years old is compounding an iniquitous system. It is totally iniquitous to base another system of rates or income tax on a system which is completely outmoded. Small farmers whose incomes will not reach income tax liability level will be forced to pay 100 per cent increase in their rents if their rateable valuation is £40. In South Tipperary one need own only a very small holding in some areas to have a rateable valuation of £40. This would be deemed an uneconomic holding elsewhere. I speak on behalf of those people and I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to withdraw the Bill, but I suppose this is a pious wish.

Last year the incomes, in real terms, of the farming community fell by at least 25 per cent. This year a basic increase of 7.9 per cent is hoped for but they will be lucky to get 5 per cent. With inflation this year which is expected to run at 22½ per cent, with the input cost of fertilisers, petrol, diesel, electricity and a host of other increases, the farming community will in real terms get no increase whatsoever. They look at the PAYE sector and see certain pay increases being granted——

Again the Deputy is straying away from the Bill. The Deputy on the Bill before the House.

I am trying to——

Do not argue with the Chair. I have given rulings on this umpteen times. This Bill deals with rates and nothing else.

We always seem to clash, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and you seem to take pleasure in it.

The Chair takes no pleasure in trying to keep the Deputy on the matter before the House. On the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture he will have every opportunity to deal with the matters he is dealing with now. On the Bill before the House.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you would like to be saying the things I am saying.

I did try to say them at one time but I did not get very far with the then occupant of the Chair.

Unfortunately through your high office as Leas-Cheann Comhairle and a member of the ruling party you cannot utter these things but——

It is getting beyond a joke now if the Deputy wants to accuse the Chair about something for which the Chair is not responsible. Deputy Griffin on the Bill before the House.

On behalf of the small farmers in south Tipperary and north Tipperary I urge the Minister to have second thoughts about this Bill in view of the lack of any increase in farming income this year, and to maintain the grant relief at the existing level of £60 rateable valuation. If he would agree to that, he would be telling the farming community he appreciates the difficulties they are experiencing at home and abroad, that he appreciates their contribution and the value of their efforts in the agricultural sector. He would get something which is badly needed at this stage—their full co-operation with the Government in formulating a plan which would give some ray of hope and confidence to the farming community.

I urge him seriously to consider the various points raised by all Deputies who spoke on this Bill. The amount of money the Minister will gain is sorely needed at the moment to be put into machinery, farm buildings and further expansion. What he is doing is tantamount to blood sucking. He is drawing off the essential life blood of the farming community. The money they so urgently and badly need is being syphoned off from them, money which could be put into their land to increase production and to avail of the somewhat limited opportunities in the EEC. I suppose, as in the past, these pleas will fall on deaf ears, but at least the Minister will be aware of the feelings of the small farmers and some Members of the House.

I have pleasure in congratulating the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment on his promotion and on his return to the glory that once he knew. I hope he will be successful in that office. I find it difficult to understand how the Minister and the farming members of the Government can introduce a long list of Bills into this House reducing the income of the farming community. I cannot understand why there is this silent acceptance by the farming lobby within the Government of the introduction of these measures. They seem to think the farming community must submit with pleasure to them. I can assure the House that there is total opposition to the measures referred to by previous speakers.

There is a long list dealing with income tax, levies, loss of rates abatement and resource tax. I appeal to the farming lobby within the Government to abandon the resource tax which they intend to introduce on farmers whose valuation is over £75. It is penal to put on them a levy of £3.50 per acre, plus liability for income tax, plus other impositions to which I have referred. We must give some thought to the whole question of valuations. I want to refer particularly to people who live adjacent to our shores. The Griffiths valuation and other valuations have been excessive and because of those valuations the impositions have been excessively high. In every Bill which goes through here, valuation seems to be the basis on which their taxation is assessed.

People living adjacent to our shores were supposed to enjoy rights to sand, gravel and seaweed in the landlord days. Those rights are no longer enjoyed by those farmers because of prohibition Bills and prohibitions by the Department of Industry, Commerce and Tourism on the removal of sand and gravel from our seashore. Their valuations are excessive.

This is termed a Rates relief Bill. It is not a relief Bill in the sense that it imposes more taxation on farmers, but it does give relief to the Exchequer in some measure. I refer to the position since the National Coalition left office. Prior to that there was no allowance for people with over £70 valuation. In 1978 there was no allowance for those over £75. In 1979 the figure was reduced to £60 and nobody with over £60 valuation got any rates abatement. Now in 1980 nobody with over £40 will get rates abatement, either primary or supplementary. In County Clare people with between £60 and £70 valuation number exactly 213 and the group with between £40 and £60 is 697. That means that nearly 1,000 people will not now enjoy the benefits of rates relief and you cannot expect those people to be overjoyed about this imposition.

It has been said that 1979 was an unprofitable year for agriculture. This year there is restriction of finance for farming, and purchases and inputs have had to be restricted. Because of rumblings of levies and other impositions there is a fear of instability in dairying areas and this must be corrected if we are to have some confidence in future in agricultural development. Over a number of years we have had constant improvement in every area of agriculture and investment was pretty high. There was encouragement to take credit in order to purchase land and to develop that land. That being so, it seems rather like cheating now to come down on a community who have a big influence in generating employment throughout the country and who if given normal encouragement will continue to be very productive. At the moment there is a sourness amongst that community, who work very long hours. If the price of food had to be determined by the work done in a 40-hour week by farmers it would be very dear indeed. The minimum hours worked by a farmer would be possibly double those of people in industry, and obviously the farmer has no overtime concessions. He has to accept losses and the varying climatic influences which affect every area of farming. Therefore, it is not surprising to find the farming community reluctantly carrying on a very important job.

It is difficult to know why those hardships of taxation were imposed all at the one time. It is unfair distribution. I hope that the resource tax will be abandoned because it would be the last straw in taxation.

I have nothing further to say on the Bill other than that, with my party, I oppose it.

First, I thank the Deputies who have contributed to the debate. It proved to be such a wide-ranging debate that it is difficult to confine one's reply. I have sat here for all of the speeches since the introduction of Second Stage and I found it difficult to follow a lot of the reasoning of the speakers from the Opposition benches. They made an effort to claim that the Bill was not properly named the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill. Of course it is properly named and if such legislation were not passed by the House many people would not be getting the relief that this Bill is giving to them. That is the purpose of the Bill, but in the discussion here we went up boreens and into farm buildings, barley fields, machinery and PAYE. I could only think that the Opposition must be trying to take the minds of some people away from what is contained in this Bill.

Rates relief of course has been provided over the years by a series of temporary Acts and the last of these expired on 31 December last. If there were no Bill there would be no relief. That is what the Bill is all about, and it is as simple as that. The primary purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to authorise the payment of £37.7 million for the relief of rated occupiers of the land and it is well worthwhile as far as ratepayers are concerned. They would not like us to get away from that fact and nothing said here by Opposition speakers will succeed in taking away from the smallholders the knowledge of the relief that they are getting under this Bill. Rightly, they will welcome the Bill.

Deputy Fitzpatrick asked me when the agricultural grant was introduced first. The agricultural grant was introduced first in 1898 and that is quite a long time ago. Deputy Fitzpatrick then went on to talk about the Fianna Fáil manifesto and the promises contained therein. Again he introduced matters other than rates. I wish to confine my remarks to rates and to point out to the House and to Deputy Fitzpatrick that every line in that manifesto which applied to rates has been fully honoured, that the benefits promised have all been delivered. We have had the derating of domestic dwellings, of farm buildings, of community halls and secondary schools. All of these benefits have accrued to the people and no words of Deputy Fitzpatrick or of anybody else in Opposition will succeed in confusing this fact. Indeed if they endeavour to confuse it we shall continue to bring home to the people the benefits they have derived from that manifesto particularly in so far as rates are concerned.

There was the intimation also of how much money the Exchequer will be saved by this Bill. That could be put the other way round: how much relief taxpayers will be given under this Bill. I would estimate that relief to taxpayers will be £6 million in 1980 but that does not mean that the grant will be £6 million less than in 1979. In fact the grant is approximately £37.725 million in 1980 as against £39.8 in 1979. Those figures should put the record straight in that regard.

I should like to remind the House also that the record of Fianna Fáil in regard to rates is one of which we are particularly proud because it was we who introduced derating of smallholders. I think it was Deputy Quinn who mentioned the year 1920 when asking me about derating. There was no derating of agricultural land at that time. Deputy Quinn and other speakers also suggested that next year we might see the introduction of a Bill lowering yet again the threshold from £40 valuation to £30, or even lower. This Bill provides that the ceiling will be £40 valuation for three years, including this year. Therefore farmers in that bracket can be assured that that threshold will not be lowered in that period. It was Fianna Fáil who introduced the derating of small farmers of £20 valuation and under by relieving them of all rates on land. This Bill continues the full derating of these smallholders. I do not think the Opposition would like to be seen to be objecting to that. In fact land holdings of less than £20 valuation represent almost 80 per cent of all rated occupiers of agricultural land. Relief to this category will absorb almost £22.8 million of the total relief of £37.7 million. Therefore all the comments we have heard about the small farmer and small landowner being penalised under this Bill surely must go by the board in view of those facts.

Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy O'Brien advanced the argument that because relief was being excluded for farmers with higher valuations they were being asked to pay for domestic derating. This is simply not the case. Farmers, like all domestic ratepayers, have been relieved of rates on their dwellings. Also, farmers were given the additional benefit of having their outbuildings derated since 1978. A conservative estimate of the annual cost of this would be over £11 million, a considerable sum of money given by way of relief from which farmers as well as other sections of the community have benefited.

Deputy L'Estrange expressed concern about the jump in liability of a farmer with £40 valuation as against one with a valuation of £39. I should like to put the record straight here. A farmer on £39 valuation receives the benefits of the reliefs but not full derating; he will pay rates on £17.30 of that valuation and the State, through the grant, pays the balance. The farmer with a valuation of £40 is liable for full rates but his dwellinghouse and outbuildings are now fully derated, which is of considerable benefit to him. Needless to say we did not have mention of these things by Opposition speakers here this morning.

Then we had Deputy L'Estrange saying that 929 more farmers in Westmeath would lose relief and 361 in Longford. Putting that the other way round, it is a fact that 7,386 holdings in Longford and 11,179 in Weatmeath are fully derated because they are under £20 valuation. Again, we are dealing with the vast majority of ratepayers in both counties, as indeed we are throughout the country —in Longford there will be a further 1,096 and in Westmeath an additional 1,576 with valuations under £33, with a complete derating on the first £20 of their valuations. Tremendous relief is being given small farmers under this Bill. Because of this I can understand why Opposition Deputies were taking us up boreens, into outbuildings, barley fields, PAYE machinery and so on in order to detract from these facts in people's minds but we shall continue to remind them.

I should tell Deputy Griffin that under the provisions of this Bill 6,312 rated landholders in south Tipperary will continue to be fully derated and a further 1,518 holdings in south Tipperary will receive full relief on the first £20 valuation. The valuations of those latter holdings range between £20 and £33. In North Tipperary the full derating applies to 7,825 holdings and the full derating on the first £20 applies to 1,992 holdings.

This Bill is properly named because of the reliefs it will mean for our small farmers. We are proud of our record in regard to the derating of those who need this relief most. So far as income tax is concerned, those farmers who do not have to pay this tax have nothing to worry about. I doubt if the Opposition could be sincere in regard to the relief being given by way of this Bill to the small farmers.

Not one Fianna Fáil backbencher has come in to back the Minister. What is the reason for this?

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 30.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Kit.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, Niall.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Cogan, Barry.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kileen, Tim.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lemass, Eileen.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Loughnane, William.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Colley, George.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joe.
  • Filgate, Eddie.
  • Fitzsimons, James N.
  • Fox, Christopher J.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, Dennis.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Murphy, Ciarán P.
  • Nolan, Tom.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Power, Paddy.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Barry, Peter.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Boland, John.
  • Burke, Joan.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Michael J.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Horgan, John.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • O'Brien, William.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Toole, Paddy.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Moore and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies L'Estrange and B. Desmond.
Question declared carried.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

I understand it is agreed by the people in the House to take the Committee Stage now.

I am not too sure what the position is. I do not know if it has been agreed between the Whips to take the Committee Stage now.

I suggested that we take it now when the Ceann Comhairle asked.

The Ceann Comhairle assured me that it is agreed to take the Committee Stage now.

The Minister has just stated that it is not agreed, that he just proposed it.

When the Ceann Comhairle asked if it was agreed to take it now.

We agreed not to take it. Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick instructed me not to take it now.

It is a matter for the Chair.

I suggest that we take it next week.

The Chair understood that it was agreed by the Fine Gael Party.

I was the only Member sitting here when the Ceann Comhairle put the question to the Minister. I gave no indication whatever about it because I was not in a position to do so. I was not aware of any arrangement between the Whips.

We must have a day for next week.

Next Tuesday?

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 29 April 1980.
Top
Share