Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 May 1980

Vol. 320 No. 6

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

Question again proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I have pointed out that the system of collecting revenue for the State or local authorities by rates is unjust and inequitable because it does not have regard to the capacity of the ratepayer to pay. It does not have any regard as to whether the ratepayer is well-off or in poor circumstances. The yardstick or method of assessment, the poor law valuation system, is almost 150 years old and the criteria used when it was introduced are no longer valid. The system was regarded as unjust and inequitable by all parties in this House and I would have thought that the method of collecting revenue for local authorities would have been changed away from rates. We were astounded to find that on the return to power of Fianna Fáil they set about extending the system to the agricultural community. In their first year in office they abolished the agricultural grant on valuations down to £75 and saved themselves £7 million. That was later reduced to £60 valuation, saving another £2 million. That £9 million went towards the rates Fianna Fáil removed from private houses although the former Taoiseach gave a solemn undertaking that there would not be any shifting of the rates from private houses to any other hereditaments, agricultural or industrial.

Section 1 is being introduced in pursuance of a budget announcement by the Minister for Finance which was to the effect that one of the principal objectives of the budget was to introduce greater equity into the taxation system. Instead of introducing greater equity this Bill is doing the direct opposite.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is making a Second Stage speech. We are dealing with section 1.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am putting on record the effect that section will have on the farming community.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot go through the entire field of taxation. The section reduces the valuation to £40.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I will keep within those guidelines and, if I wish, I can keep within them for quite a while. Instead of introducing equity the Government are extending the injustice of the rating system. I should like to give some examples of this inequity. Last year the rate in the £ was £11 and this year it has been increased to £12. The effect of this is to increase the rates payable on a valuation of £40 from £198 to £480, an increase of 142 per cent. The rates payable on a valuation of £41 will be increased from £205.7 last year to £492 this year while the rates payable on a valuation of £59 will increase from £344 to £708, an increase of 106 per cent. It is worth noting that the highest percentage increase is on the lowest valuation in this bracket. The percentage increase on a poor law valuation of £40 is 142 per cent while the percentage increase on a PLV of £59 is 106 per cent. That is not introducing great equity into the taxation system.

The Bill discriminates against the agricultural community compared with the non-agricultural sector.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We must keep to the section before the House. The Deputy is getting into other fields of taxation. We are only dealing with rates and rates on agricultural land.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): We are dealing with more than that because I have no doubt that the Minister will tell the House that we must deduct income tax relief from the rates. They are connected.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is well aware that speeches on Committee Stage are not in order; they are relevant to the Second Stage.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Chair is overlooking the fact that it is said that it is possible to take credit for the rates as against income tax.

A married couple in the non-agricultural sector with an income of £3,400 are free of income tax and do not pay rates. But a farmer who has a valuation of £34 and is deemed, according to the Agricultural Institute, to earn £3,400—the same as his non-agricultural friends—is liable for heavy rates. If he were a non-agricultural person earning £4,000, married with two children, he would be free from income tax and would not pay rates. But if he is a farmer with a poor law valuation of £40 with an assumed income according to the best information available—of £4,000 he is not liable to income tax but is liable for £480 rates. I want to know whether that is introducing greater equity into the taxation system. In my opinion it is discrimination against the farmer as compared with his non-agricultural counterpart.

We are told by the Minister, and his Minister of State, that of course the farmer will be given credit for those rates against his income tax liability, that is if he is liable to income tax. All of us know that many farmers in the bracket about which we are now speaking, on the accounts system, or indeed on any other system, would not be liable to income tax because of their family commitments, their method of farming or their incomes. Nevertheless these people are being called upon to pay heavy increases in rates this year as a result of the provisions of this Bill, increases ranging from the lowest rung of the group with which we are dealing, of 142 per cent in the case of a farmer with a £40 valuation on down to an increase of 106 per cent in the case of a farmer with a £59 valuation. That is totally unjust. Furthermore, we are told that the farmer can deduct the rates from his income tax. He cannot deduct this year's rates from this year's income tax; he can deduct last year's rates from this year's income tax if he is liable to income tax. Now he is being asked to pay portion of his income tax liability one year in advance, again discriminating against the farming community as compared with the non-farming sector.

I should like the Minister to tell us how much this reduction in the poor law valuation for the agricultural grant will save the Exchequer this year. In my opinion it will save approximately £10 million in round figures. If that sum of £10 million is correct, or anything like correct, it will mean that the Government will have saved approximately £20 million in agricultural grants since they assumed office. If that is so it constitutes a serious transfer of the rates on private dwellings to agricultural land and is in contravention of the solemn assurance given by the former Taoiseach when it was alleged that rates on private dwellings would be transferred by this Government to industrial buildings or to agricultural land.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this section. Would the Deputy please deal with the section before the House?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I should like the Chair to go down to some constituency, Wexford, for example, and——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is not to be involved in the debate. The Chair must control the debate and he is telling the Deputy that he is again making a Second Stage speech. There is one section only before the House at present. The principle of this Bill was adopted on Second Stage.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Far be it from me to involve the Chair in any political discussions or any economic questions——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair can defend his position in Wexford or anywhere else if he wants. The Deputy should not worry about the Chair.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): If somebody, whom we shall call Mr. A, was to go down to Wexford and tell a farmer there that a transfer of rates from private houses to his farm was not of any concern or was not worthy of discussion in the House I know what Mr. A would be told to do with himself.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not allege that the Chair is saying things he did not say. All the Chair is endeavouring to do is to keep the House on Committee Stage, on section 1 of the Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The only point I was making—and I submit with the greatest respect is a relevant one—was that this section transfers rates from private houses to agricultural land. I want to put on record that I am against that and contend that it is relevant to do so. It is against an assurance given by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, when he was challenged on this in relation to the Fianna Fáil manifesto. I have made my case as strenuously and, I hope, as clearly as I can.

I have taken a rate of £11 in the £ for last year and £12 for this year, a conservative rate because I understand that the rate in the £ in Mayo is £17.46 and in Kerry £15.11. Of course the effect on farmers there with valuations of £40 and upwards would be much more serious. I readily concede that there would not be the same percentage of such farmers in Mayo or Kerry as there would be perhaps in Counties Kildare and Meath. But so far as my constituency is concerned many farmers will be affected by this unjust operation. Between the two counties there are 1,171 farmers who will be affected in addition to those who were brought into the full rating system last year and the year before. There are 495 such farmers in County Cavan and 676 in County Monaghan. I am sure they will be very concerned about section 1 which transfers rates from the private houses of well-off people to farms.

Mr. W. O'Brien

I wish to add my voice to this protest because I represent a constituency where 1,500 farmers will be affected. We were told two years ago that any section of the community which did not derive benefit from the abolition of domestic rates would not have to pay extra. In this case the Government are more than doubling rates for many people. The Minister may say that farmers derive benefit from the abolition of domestic rates but the people who will be affected by the provisions of this Bill generally live in older houses which have an average valuation of £5. We must compare that with the average valuation of a new bungalow at £23 or £24. People who have a good income may benefit from the abolition of rates and I am not suggesting that I am opposed to this. I was one of those associated with the Government which began the abolition of domestic rates, but it was not then suggested that the difference would be made up by any other section of the community. The original intention was that the expense would be borne by the Exchequer and in this Bill we have a complete turn around. This Government have given the impression that there would be protection against further increases for other sections of the community.

The local authorities will not derive any benefit as a result of this imposition. If some portion were to be given to the local authorities, I would be prepared to accept it because it is badly needed.

The Minister speaks about relief but there is no relief whatsoever for those with a valuation between zero and £40. This year the agricultural sector are badly off. There are counties which will not suffer but there is an obligation on me to protest at this measure because I represent a constituency where the rates of 1,500 people will be doubled. We are being told that they are not making an extra contribution and are not subsidising anybody but it can be clearly seen that the farming community are the victims when one considers the allocation to county councils this year in respect of domestic rates and compares that with the agricultural grant during the past three years. I am not opposed to big farmers making a contribution but this measure will affect people of very limited means. Deputy Bruton has already given the average rural income and every rural Deputy is familiar with these facts.

In speaking of Munster I am speaking of people with more than average good land but there are people in my constituency with valuations of £40 and £50 who are in dire straits to meet their rates at present. I shudder to think that a rural Deputy would vote in favour of this Bill. I would welcome a contribution from the backbenchers on the Government side in regard to this measure. I could not defend it and I doubt if it could be defended by anybody else, particularly by those who made certain statements in 1977. An opportunity has been taken by the Government who are in dire straits for finance and it is obvious that the agricultural sector is the most vulnerable. I hope the Minister will reconsider it in view of the serious consequences for the agricultural community.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Barrett)

The purpose of this Bill is to make available to farmers relief in respect of rates. If this Bill fails to pass through the House we cannot pay to the local authorities relief which would be due for people who still qualify. The amount involved this year is £37.7 million and the Bill is necessary in order to permit us to pay that sum on behalf of farmers who are entitled to relief. Deputy Fitzpatrick asked how big a saving is involved and the sum involved is £6 million, not £10 million.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): A total of £17 million altogether.

Mr. Barrett

It will cost an extra £6 million. Regarding the allegation that farmers are being asked to bear the burden of the relief of domestic rates, the grant this year in lieu of rates on domestic dwellings, community halls and farm out-buildings comes to just over £107 million. This is being paid by the Exchequer or, in other words, by the taxpayer. The total amount this year for the relief of agricultural rates is £37.7 million, making a total of more than £144 million from the Exchequer and the taxpayer for the relief of rates. We must have this Bill in order to make this relief available to farmers having a valuation below £40.

There are 497,686 rated agricultural holdings. Of this number, 396,871 are under £20 valuation and no rates are paid. Of the remainder, 58,684 have valuations between £20 and £40 and there is partial relief. There is 80 per cent relief on the rate up to £20 valuation and 30 per cent on the remainder, except for those between £20 and £33 who pay the full rate in the £13 as well as getting relief on the £20. The number of holdings affected by the fact that the ceiling has been lowered from £60 to £40 this year is just over 20,000. In Deputy Fitzpatrick's county there are 19,969 rated holdings under £20 valuation. There are 2,865 between £20 and £40 which are getting partial relief and there are 495 holdings with valuations between £40 and £60.

The section mentions anomalies in our valuation system and the unfairness and inequity involved in them. We debated this question about two years ago. All agreed that the valuation system is not the fairest system possible where land is concerned. This is because of the variations from one area to another, even in small areas inside the same county, caused by the famous Griffith's valuation and the manner in which the valuation of land was assessed at that time. However, that is the valuation system on which we still work. Changes in the valuation system where land is concerned are not a matter for my Department. The Valuation Office comes under the Department of Finance.

There are no plans at the moment to revalue the land of this country. I have heard mention of valuations on an acreage basis or some such system, but I understand that the farming organisations are opposed to this. In other words, they would prefer the existing valuation system. The present system is the only way we have of levying rates on land at present. The question of asking the farming community to bear a major or sizeable part of the burden caused by the derating on the domestic side is not correct. All that is being saved—call it what you like—this year is £6 million.

Mr. Bruton

£15 million.

Mr. Barrett

It would cost £6 million more. In other words, instead of £37.7 million we would be talking about £43.7 million for which this Bill would be responsible.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Is the Minister aware of the effect of the agricultural relief grant on all holdings over £40 valuation? How many would be involved? There were nine previously, but that would have to be adjusted. I imagine it would be in the neighbourhood of 20.

Mr. Barrett

I do not have that figure available right now. As the Deputy will understand from the figures I have given, there are 58,600-odd holdings between £20 and £40 valuation, almost 400,000 derated under £20. Adding those gives approximately something in excess of 30,000 holdings over £60.

The total figure involved asked for by Deputy Fitzpatrick would be £17 million.

The purpose of section 1 is to permit us to give relief of £37.7 million to farm holdings under £40 valuation. We need this Bill in order to make that money available to the local authorities in lieu of the derating. Deputy Enright asked me to withdraw this section. Withdrawal of this section means withdrawal of £37.7 million from the farming community. The Deputies across the way must decide whether or not they want this sum made available under the relief of rates scheme. Deputy Fitzpatrick mentioned the number of farmers who could set this off against income tax. There is no hard and fast rule. All farmers cannot be treated alike with respect to their liability to income tax. Some types of farming would make farmers more liable to income tax possibly than their neighbours. Last year might not have been a good year for cattle, but it was not a bad year for the milk industry. Since payment is on accounts one cannot say whether it is of benefit to a farmer or not. It would be a benefit to quite a number of people to set this off against income tax. The Deputy mentioned that it would be next year's income tax.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Last year's.

Mr. Barrett

Next year the farmer would be paying income tax on the previous year's earnings. This year he would be paying on last year's accounts. That is the way it works. I cannot see that that makes a great difference.

My colleague, the Minister of State, replied to the Second Reading debate and I wish merely to deal with this section. The section is necessary, as is the Bill, to make relief available to all holders under £40 valuation.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister has said that this is a relief of rates for farmers. Certainly, this is a misnomer. This Bill could not be called a relief of rates for farmers. It is a relief as far as the present Government are concerned; but as far as the farmers between £40 and £60 valuation are concerned it is a savage attack on them. Those small farmers have often been told by Fianna Fáil in the past that they were the backbone of this country. We all know that they stood in the past between the people and hunger and want. They worked long hours. They were not promised this form of taxation when the Fianna Fáil canvassers went around the country in the dead of night saying that the Coalition Government had taxed them out of existence.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We shall now get back to section 1 please, Deputy.

Mr. L'Estrange

They claimed that they would relieve the farmers of taxation. Instead of relief, they get this savage attack by the Fianna Fáil Government. A small farmer with £40 poor law valuation in County Longford pays £266.84 extra in rates. That is the relief that the Government are giving this unfortunate man under this Bill. That is almost £5 per week, after the farmers of Longford have had a very bad year. Very few of them are engaged in the milk industry. Their land is not suitable for tillage and the vast majority are engaged in cattle production. They purchased cattle in many cases at £50 per cwt and sold them during the winter at £39 to £40 per cwt. In Westmeath the small farmer loses £271 and, what is worse, those farmers must engage an accountant because they are in the income tax bracket. They may find that they have no income tax to pay, but will have to pay the accountant anything from £200 to £400 for telling them that they are not liable for income tax. That is putting a further £4 per week on these people. Therefore they have an extra burden of from £9 to £10 per week with an inflation rate of 20 per cent and cost of living increases.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will deal with section 1 of the Bill. He is making a Second Stage speech and the Chair will not allow that.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am dealing with it. I am speaking about the £50 poor law valuation. In Longford the farmer pays £266 extra. Is that a relief for that man, to put an extra £10 per week on him? In Westmeath he pays an extra £238. Where is the relief for these people? The farmer with a £60 poor law valuation in Westmeath pays £266 extra and in Longford almost £400 extra. Will that farmer call that a relief? Will it help the small farmer with a family to increase production? The Minister said that he could set it off against his income tax. For a start off he can only set off last year's against his income tax, that is, if he is liable for income tax. Many farmers under £50 valuation will not be liable for income tax.

The Government in this Bill are imposing an extra burden of anything from £8 to £14 per week on those people. There are 928 people involved in Longford-Westmeath, with poor law valuations between £40 and £60. There are 361 affected in Longford. That makes 1,289. The Minister in replying to me on the last day mentioned the relief that those under £40 valuation will get. The bachelor with £39 poor law valuation will be getting the full relief. Where is the equity there? Will anyone turn around to his neighbour and say "Are you over £40 valuation? We shall pay quarter, or half of your rates"? They will not and there is very little use in pointing that out to anyone in this House.

Instead of a relief, this is a savage attack and, indeed, not for the first time by a Fianna Fáil Government. That is the same Government that jailed the farmers in the past, the dairy farmers who marched peacefully outside Leinster House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will deal with section 1 of the Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

We are entitled to stand up for those unfortunate people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is not entitled to bring in matters that do not concern section 1 of the Bill. He will get other opportunities to do that.

Mr. L'Estrange

Fianna Fáil got an opportunity and they jailed them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy knows he is not entitled to bring in such matters under section 1 of the Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

They jailed them at one time and now they are imposing savage taxation by way of this Bill. The farmers whom they fooled in the past should remember this when a certain man drops the flag.

Mr. D'Arcy

I listened with interest to the Minister's reply to previous speakers. The day is past when people can be fooled by figures. The Minister gave us a figure of 396,000 for people with a valuation of less than £20. If that is correct then these people are living below subsistence level and they cannot be expected to pay rates. The remainder, somewhere in the region of 90,000 people, will be responsible for a certain percentage of rates and those with a valuation of £40 and more will be responsible for full rates. According to the Minister's figures these people will contribute somewhere in the region of £100 million, taking rates, income tax and levies into consideration. I object to the heading of the Bill. The word "relief" is in the title but the only group getting relief will be the Government. There is no way that people can be fooled from now on. The impression has been given that the farmers are getting relief but it was available before Fianna Fáil came into government. People with a valuation of up to £60 got relief of rates but now the Government have reduced the threshold to £20 valuation.

Mr. Barrett

We introduced this relief in the past.

Mr. D'Arcy

That is not so. The explanatory memorandum states that rated occupiers of holdings with valuations of £20 or less will receive full relief of rates. Those unfortunates are living on subsistence allowances.

Mr. Barrett

All 400,000 of them?

Mr. D'Arcy

Some of them are working.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): How many of them are getting the small farmers' dole?

Mr. D'Arcy

The explanatory memorandum states that rated occupiers of holdings with valuations of more than £20 and less than £33 will receive full relief of rates on the first £20 valuation. Will you tell me what relief will they receive on a valuation of £33?

Mr. Barrett

They have not been getting any relief.

Mr. D'Arcy

You did not answer my question. It is not specified in your explanatory memorandum what will be the position so far as a valuation of £33 is concerned.

Mr. Barrett

They never had the relief of rates.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should address the Chair, not the Minister across the floor. The Chair has no responsibility for the Bill and when a Deputy uses the word "you" he is referring to the Chair, not to anybody else.

Mr. D'Arcy

I asked a specific question. In respect of valuations of £20 or less the occupiers will receive full relief of rates but the situation has not been explained in respect of those people with valuations between £20 and £33. The explanatory memorandum has set out clearly enough the situation with regard to valuations of £33 to £40 but has not explained the situation with regard to valuations between £20 and £33.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): They will have to pay the full rates.

Mr. D'Arcy

They could not afford to do that. They would be much worse off than people with valuations just under £40. The position has not been explained in the explanatory memorandum or by the Minister. Rates on agricultural land are a means of collecting tax in order to provide services for local authorities in particular. Tax collected at this level should be related to income. Rates must be described as taxes and they do not relate to income or family circumstances. The increase of rates, particularly in the category of £40 to £60 valuations, is becoming a burden. This is especially the case in high valuation areas such as Wexford. There are high valuations in the Macamore area which is well known to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That may be but it does not arise on section 1 of the Bill. The principle of the Bill has been adopted by the House. We are now on Committee Stage but we are having Second Stage speeches.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Chair should not be hard on the Deputy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not being hard on anyone.

Mr. D'Arcy

I am speaking of people in areas of high valuations, particularly in the Macamore area. There the valuations range from 75p in the £ up to £1.25. You are talking about relief in the the Bill but people with a valuation of £50 will be responsible for approximately £12 per £ valuation. That will be approximately £600 and they will also be responsible for full taxes because their valuations are in excess of £40. As Deputy L'Estrange pointed out, these people will have to pay an accountant and that may cost them £300. Some of these people may have only 60 acres and their return last year would have been in the region of £3,000. Their rates bill will be £600, they will have to pay £300 to an accountant and this total is approximately 30 per cent of their income and you are responsible for making them pay this amount in 1980.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will have to get this right. I am not responsible for any of this.

Mr. D'Arcy

I am not blaming you.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must refer to the Minister.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not blame the Chair for disclaiming all responsibility for the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am only worried about the records of the House. Each speaker must speak through the Chair and must refer to the Minister.

Mr. L'Estrange

We cannot blame the Chair for disclaiming responsibility for the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am here to try to get Bills through and I get very little co-operation from some people in doing that. Deputy D'Arcy, through the Chair.

Mr. D'Arcy

In relation to people being entitled to deduct their rates from their income tax, in perhaps 90 per cent of cases of people with valuations up to £60 they pay little income tax so there is absolutely no relief. Last year was one of the worst years in record——

Mr. L'Estrange

Unless they find a gold mine.

Mr. D'Arcy

As far as 1980 is concerned things are shaping up reasonably well weather wise, but the general opinion is that with the agricultural costs of production going up by 20 per cent at least, and poor representation overseas, agriculture in 1980 will have a very bad year. The Minister is putting a burden on over-burdened people to the tune of 30 per cent of their gross income for 1980 in some cases. What is the position of people with valuations of between £20 and £40? Will they get the 30 per cent relief mentioned here? The position is certainly not explained and is very misleading.

Mr. Hegarty

I endorse what Deputy D'Arcy said. It is a grave misnomer to call the Bill a rates relief Bill when the Minister knows the difference between relief and a burden. This should be called a rates burden Bill.

With some justification in the past politicians have been treated as a joke and it was considered that they spoke from both sides of their mouths. When a Minister of State brings in this sort of Bill we cannot blame the people for thinking like that about us. Let us tell the people clearly that this Bill is an extra burden on a small section of the community. It is a penal taxation on the farming community in a year that has no bright spot in it. From the point of view of marketing we cannot even get agreement on the grains situation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The grain situation certainly has nothing to do with this section of the Bill.

Mr. Hegarty

It will have a lot to do with it before the year is out.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That may be so, but at this stage it has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Hegarty

When it comes to the time to find the money——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would ask the Deputy to get away from the grain situation and stay on rates.

Mr. Hegarty

The Minister is endeavouring to make big play of the fact that the bulk of the people have under £20 valuations and that therefore the Bill is right as only a small section are involved and they do not matter. If we are doing an injustice to only one person the Bill is wrong. Numbers have nothing to do with it. When it comes to fairytales the Minister would leave Hans Christian Andersen in the shade.

Mr. Bruton

The Minister tried to make what could only be described as a semantic point when he claimed that this was a relief measure. Reliefs which existed up to now required to be renewed by statute every so often and were renewed automatically in previous years. This year instead of being renewed reliefs were substantially cut. It is purely an accident that it has been the practice to renew this relief by statute every so often. It is not as if on each occasion the statute was reintroduced and a new set of reliefs introduced. All that happened was that reliefs which existed up to now were renewed. The difference on this occasion is that instead of merely keeping existing reliefs in being the Minister is reducing these reliefs substantially.

What is happening in this Bill, whatever the Minister may argue from a legalistic point of view, is a substantial reduction in reliefs. The Minister may seek to get a few lines in the paper conveying the idea that this is a relief measure and anybody who does not study the thing might be fooled into thinking that it is so, and not read any further, but the Minister will not fool any of the farming community or anybody in this House by using those terms. As a result of this Bill the property tax—-because that is what it is—payable by farmers in the £40 to £60 valuation range will be far higher than the property tax being paid by any farmer in any country in the EEC. I challenge the Minister to controvert that statement. Will the Minister inquire into this matter to assure himself that I am correct, although I am satisfied that I am.

If a farmer in Monaghan goes a few miles down the road into County Armagh he will meet a farmer in the same situation as himself working the same type of land but the Monaghan farmer will be paying substantial rates whereas the farmer in Armagh will pay no rates.

Mr. Barrett

It has been like that for years. We all know that they pay income tax.

Mr. Bruton

The farmer in Monaghan with valuations of between £40 and £60 pays income tax as well. That is no great case for the Minister to make. The farmer in Armagh will pay no rates but he will pay income tax on accounts. That is fair enough. However, the Monaghan farmer will pay income tax and rates and his rates will be increased to a far greater extent than they were previously as a result of this Bill. That is not equitable because those two farmers must complete on the world markets to sell their produce.

Mr. Barrett

But the Monaghan farmer can set off his rates against income tax.

Mr. Bruton

How can the Armagh farmer set his rates against his income tax if he pays no rates.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will have no interjections, please.

Mr. Bruton

The Minister would do better to keep quiet because he is only getting himself caught——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Bruton on section 1 of this Bill.

Mr. Bruton

The position is that the farmer in Armagh and the farmer in Monaghan have to compete on the world markets to sell their products. As far as Ireland is concerned we export four-fifths of our agricultural products so we have to be able to compete.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

All this type of speech is relevant to a Second Stage debate but not to section 1 of the Bill.

Mr. Bruton

This measure increases the amount of rates——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to speak on section 1 of the Bill.

Mr. Bruton

——increases the input cost of production and reduces the ability of Irish farmers and the Irish food industry which is based on agriculture to compete abroad with France, Germany and other countries. In Germany they have practically no taxation on their farming community.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy deal with section 1 of the Bill before the House. The Deputy is making a second stage speech.

Mr. Begley

The Deputy is doing very well.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He may be good, but it is not in order and Deputy Begley should not lecture the Chair. Deputy Bruton, please.

Mr. Bruton

What I object to about this Bill is——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not dealing with the Bill but with section 1 of the Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Which is the Bill.

Mr. Bruton

Section 1 as Deputy Fitzpatrick says is the core of the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is dealing with everything except section 1 and he is travelling all over the world. The Deputy is irrelevant.

Mr. Bruton

The Irish farmers have to travel the world to sell their products and if they cannot compete because the Irish Government are putting a penal taxation on them——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Bruton should not lecture the Chair. Deputy Bruton on section 1 of the Bill.

Mr. Bruton

I am addressing the Chair with the utmost respect.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is not obeying the Chair and that is what counts in this House.

Mr. Bruton

I am not disobeying the Chair. I respect the Chair in his person and in his office.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has to make decisions.

Mr. Begley

He is a decent man.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Too damned decent. That is the trouble. The Deputy should deal with section 1 of the Bill. The Deputy is making it impossible for the Chair.

Mr. Bruton

The Minister has not answered satisfactory the question about the divergent effects of this section on different sections of the community. It has not been contested by the Minister that the amount of income actually derived by farmers on valuations between £40 and £60 per £ of valuation can vary in a ratio of 3:1, depending on what part of the country they are living in. In some parts of the country a farmer with a valuation of £40 could be earning three times as much as a farmer with a valuation of £40 in another county.

That has been borne out by studies carried out by the Economic and Social Research Institute and by the farm management survey of the Agricultural Institute. There is no doubt about that. Yet, no allowance for that is made in this legislation which will apply straight across the board to all farmers with valuations in excess of £40. In some counties some farmers can earn an income of only one-third of the income of another farmer with exactly the same valuation in another county.

In the normal course of events if this were a tax measure, at this stage we would be able to introduce amendments to remedy the anomalies with which we are confronted, such as the one I have mentioned about the divergence in income relative to valuations in different parts of the country. Because strictly speaking this is not a tax measure, because it is merely a renewal of a relief, any amendment to remove that anomaly, if moved from this side of the House, would be deemed to be imposing a potential charge on the Exchequer and would be ruled out of order. If it were a matter of imposing exactly the same additional charges in the form of a Finance Bill, rather than in the form of an alleged relief Bill, we would have no problems at all about introducing amendments to reduce the burden of tax. Unfortunately, we are forced to raise it in the form of a general discussion. It is not my preference that we have to discuss it in this way. I would prefer to discuss it in the context of specific amendments. When this matter was before the House earlier I sought to introduce amendments and they were all ruled out of order, rightly, by the Chair, given the form of the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Under Standing Orders.

Mr. Bruton

I accept that completely. I am not contesting the Chair's ruling. I am precluded from introducing an amendment to provide this relief. Therefore, I am reduced to asking the Minister to do what he can do. Under Standing Orders he is empowered to introduce amendments to a Bill which seeks to grant a relief which will impose a charge on the Exchequer. He is empowered to do something in this instance which no other Deputy is empowered to do.

I would ask him if he is prepared to introduce an amendment to the section providing that the reliefs which applied prior to the introduction of this Bill will apply in a case where it can be shown that, in a particular county, the income levels per £ of valuation are substantially below the average for income levels per £ of valuation in the country at large. I suggest to the Minister that he should consider an amendment of that nature. I agree this could not be done in all counties. Perhaps the Minister could say that if it could be shown that the income levels were, shall we say, 40 per cent below average in a particular county per £ of valuation vis-à-vis the national average, a system would be introduced whereby the reliefs which existed prior to this year would be allowed to apply. Given the figures I have mentioned, would the Minister be prepared to consider such an amendment which he can do and which I cannot?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Taylor.

Mr. Bruton

Would the Minister care to answer the question?

Mr. Taylor

The Minister is not disposed to answer at the moment. I am amazed and really worried that the Minister has given in to what I would describe as the anti-farmer lobby within the Government who have deprived numbers of people whose valuations are £40 and in excess of £40 of rates relief. That was unexpected. It is quite obvious that rural Deputies, the people who have a rural outlook within the Cabinet, are dominated and overpowered by the thinking of the city-orientated members of the Government. I believe the Minister has a proper understanding and a proper perception of what an agricultural income is in the west. I do not believe he would introduce a Bill such as this and exclude practically 1,000 people in his own County Clare, if he had a free hand.

That is exactly what this Bill is doing. It is excluding 1,000 people with valuations between £40 and £60. It is depriving them of a total sum of £184,000. That is what the anti-farmer lobby in the Government have done to the farmers in County Clare. I certainly will oppose this section of the Bill which is deceptive in its introduction and its memorandum and attempts to gloss over its real purpose. I will oppose it and I will vote against it. If I did not, I would be accepting something which the farmers themselves resent, particularly after a year in which they had to overcome many hardships.

I do not want to repeat what I said, but we cannot give too much publicity to the losses which the farmers in that income bracket in each county are suffering. I am particularly interested in the groups which have developed in County Clare, particularly, in the dairying areas and adjacent to the seashore, where valuations are excessively high. On their behalf, I protest in the strongest way against the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. Barrett

Deputy D'Arcy asked me to explain the situation of a man with a valuation of between £20 and £33. There is no change whatsoever there. It is exactly as it was. He gets full relief on the £20 and he pays the full rate on the remainder. That is as it has been for some years.

The amendment Deputy Bruton proposes would be impossible to administer. How could one establish an average income per valuation for a particular county or for different farms?

Deputy Taylor is worried because I am not worried about Clare farmers. In Clare there is a total of 23,529 holdings with valuations under £20. I would say a big number of those are in the part of the county where Deputy Taylor lives.

Mr. Taylor

We have 70 per cent with valuations under £20.

Mr. Barrett

On valuations between £20 and £40, there are 2,858 who still get partial relief. That is a total of 26,387 in County Clare who are either on full or on partial relief. The number of those between the £40 and £60 valuation who are affected is not 1,000.

Mr. Taylor

It is practically 1,000.

Mr. Barrett

It is 697. Deputy Taylor has told us that he will vote against this section and against the Bill but I would remind him that by doing so he will be voting to deprive 26,387 holders of relief.

Mr. Bruton

He will be voting to put the Minister and the Government out of office.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the section agreed?

Mr. Taylor

On a point of information, there were 231 holders deprived of rates relief as a result of the Act brought in by the Government to reduce from £70 to £60 valuations qualifying for relief. The Minister can add that figure to the number that will now be deprived of relief and he will find that the total is very nearly 1,000. I am opposing strongly the £40 to £60 valuation group being deprived of the rates relief to which they have been accustomed almost since the founding of the State.

Mr. D'Arcy

I have raised the question of persons who will have to pay full rates in respect of a holding of between £20 and £33 valuation.

Mr. Barrett

That is if they have valuations of £33.

Mr. D'Arcy

If those with holdings of between £20 and £40 valuation are getting a 30 per cent relief why is the same level of relief not being applied to those with holdings of between £20 and £33 valuation? What is the reason for this discrimination? A person with a valuation of £33 will be earning much less than someone with a valuation of £40.

Mr. Barrett

He will be paying much less in rates than is the case of a man with a valuation of more than £33.

Mr. D'Arcy

I accept that, but there remains the question of discrimination. Surely the smaller landowner and, consequently the one with the lesser income, should be entitled to the same level of relief as applies to the person with the bigger holding. I accept that in the case of valuations of between £20 and £33 there is full relief on the first £20, relief which does not apply to a £40 valuation, but there is an anomaly here.

Mr. Barrett

There is total relief on the first £20 in respect of valuations of between £20 and £33.

Mr. D'Arcy

That is what I have said.

Mr. Barrett

In respect of holdings of between £20 and £33 there is relief of only 80 per cent on the first £20 valuation.

Mr. Deasy

The Minister referred earlier to the inequities which exist in the rating system but what do the Government intend doing to rectify these inequities?

Mr. Bruton

That is the point.

Mr. Deasy

Commissions have been set up on virtually every subject.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This does not arise on the Bill. The Minister is not responsible for it.

Mr. Deasy

The Minister referred to this matter earlier.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That was because it had been raised by somebody else, but I have ruled that it is out of order.

Mr. Deasy

Have the Government any proposal for rectifying this wrong? There are a number of people within the £40 to £60 valuation range who are literally on the breadline whereas people with valuations of less than £40 are earning a good living by reason of their land having been rated very lowly in the 1850s. This situation should be rectified.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This question does not arise on the section.

Mr. Bruton

In relation to counties such as Monaghan, and indeed to parts of my county where incomes per £1 are very low, I suggested to the Minister that he introduce an amendment to the effect that where it can be shown that county incomes per £1 of valuation on the farm are more than 40 per cent below the national average a system be introduced whereby the reliefs which existed previously should be allowed. The Minister said that this would be impossible administratively but I do not agree. The relevant figures are available. The ESRI have just completed a study—it was carried out by Mr. Micheál Ross—which dealt precisely with this point of county incomes in agriculture. It is possible to relate this information to valuations. The Agricultural Institute have carried out extensive studies in the course of their farm management survey regarding the relating of what is earned to the amount actually earned per £1 valuation. The national average is about £100 per £1 valuation but there are wide variations around this average. In some cases people would be earning as low as £30 or £40 per £1 valuation while in other cases the figure would be much higher. The Minister should introduce an amendment using the existing published data produced by the ESRI and by the Agricultural Institute for the purpose of producing an index that he could use or, if he is not satisfied to use these sources, he could commission the Central Statistics Office to produce a special study for this purpose. The system I have in mind would rectify the situation in counties in which incomes in agriculture are well below the average. This would be one way of dealing with the problem even if, admittedly, it would be crude and unsatisfactory. It would be one way of mitigating the obvious injustices of this section.

Another amendment that the Minister should introduce to the section is one to provide for some system of personal allowances against rates for those in the £40 to £60 valuation band and whose rates will now be almost doubled. In my earlier contribution I illustrated that the injustices, vis-à-vis the PAYE sector, of the rating system are far greater in the £40 and £60 valuation band than is the case among any other category of farmers. Therefore there would be justification for some special system of relief for those in the £40 to £60 band.

I suggest that the Minister introduce an amendment to allow a farmer with children under 18 to claim in that respect against his rates. This will apply both to farmers with families and to those without families. Large families are common in rural Ireland but particularly so among farmers in the category I am talking of. Demographic data could be adduced to sustain that case. If it is justifiable to have a system of personal allowances in respect of income tax for people who find income tax burdensome, why should there not be a personal allowance in respect of wives and children for the purposes of the rating system for farmers? The Government have always used the case of rates paid by farmers in their arguments with the trade union movement about the amount of taxation being paid by farmers and have always treated rates as a contribution by the farmers to the Exchequer. Business people or PAYE workers are making a contribution out of their incomes to the Exchequer but they are allowed to claim in respect of their families. The same allowances should apply to farmers especially those with large families. The Minister must not complain that the administration of such a system would be difficult. The data relating to the marital status of any farmer and to the number of children concerned is available in the Department of Social Welfare in respect of eligibility for children's allowances. If the data in respect of children's allowances were supplied there would be no difficulty in computing the amount of rates remission that should be allowed to the farmer in respect of the number of children he has. The Minister should consider very seriously an amendment along these lines which would be administratively quite simple to operate and would introduce a measure of justice into the provisions of this section. I hope the Minister will consider this very carefully.

There is another amendment which the Minister should consider in respect of this matter, that is, to allow some relief against rates to farmers in the £40 to £60 valuation range affected by this section for the cyclical nature of agriculture. Under this Bill some farmers in certain years will not have any income, not a single penny, and will not be able to set off their rates against income tax because they will not pay income tax. They will pay full rates in a year in which they did not have any income. Last year there were many farmers who did not have any income and some had negative incomes. The Minister as good as admitted that in the debate when he referred to the position of the cattle trade last year.

I believe there should be an amendment to this section and that a variable relief should be allowed to take account of the cyclical nature of agriculture. I would be happy if this were confined to farmers below £60 valuation because farmers above £60 valuation can look after themselves. They usually have the possibility of having more than one enterprise on their farms. If one enterprise is going badly, the other may be going reasonably well. They can inure themselves against the cyclical nature of agriculture more readily than can the small farmer who, because of the size of his farm, if he wants to be any way intensive, is driven into having a single enterprise system. It is only by having a single enterprise that he can get any economies of scale into his farming operation. The larger farmer can afford to have two or three enterprises and still obtain economies of scale. He is not so much affected by the cyclical nature of the position.

A farmer under £60 valuation, which is the classic case of a full-time small farmer, usually will be single enterprise in either milk or cattle. If the cattle trade goes bad—and this is the example I am particularly concerned with—that man could find himself without any income in a particular year, or if he borrowed money he could find he had a negative income.

There should be some provision built into the legislation so that, when price indices in agriculture for a particular range of commodities to be chosen fall below a certain line relative to the general rate of inflation, automatically a formula could be worked out quite easily by relating the agricultural prices index and the consumer price index——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is now dealing with the whole rates code, introducing children's allowances and so on. This is a matter for a different type of legislation. It does not arise under this section.

Mr. Bruton

It comes into the Short Title—an Act to amend and extend the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Acts. What I am talking about is relief, and the Minister insisted that this is a relief Bill. Therefore, I am perfectly in order in talking about——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is telling the Deputy that he is not perfectly in order. It would require a different type of legislation to deal with the whole rates code. Children's allowances and other matters mentioned by the Deputy cannot be discussed under section 1 of this Bill. The Chair has been very lenient and very fair.

Mr. Bruton

I have no quarrel with the Chair. I think he is very reasonable.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would require complete amendment of the rates legislation code to deal with the matters the Deputy is mentioning.

Mr. Bruton

As I said earlier, in the normal course of events if this measure was introduced in the Finance Bill I would be perfectly in order in introducing amendments along the lines I have been discussing, bringing in children's allowances against rates, and anti-cyclical measures to help farmers who have a bad year. But because this is not a Finance Bill—it is nominally and artificially described as a relief Bill—I am precluded from introducing these amendments, I am forced, reluctantly, to put the case in this way and to ask the Minister to introduce the amendments. I have no doubt that within the terms of this Bill the appropriate section to do that would be section 1.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would require complete amendment of the rates legislation code and does not arise under this type of Bill.

Mr. Bruton

All I am suggesting is an amendment to this section to apply a certain type of relief to farmers affected by this section. I specifically said I am not interested in extending relief to farmers with valuations above £60. There is no need for relief for farmers below £40 valuation because their rates will not be substantially increased as a result of this Bill. The people I am interested in are those in the narrow £40 to £60 band. I would argue that my comments and the amendment I am suggesting are perfectly within the section.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair does not agree. The Deputy will have to accept the Chair's ruling, whether he believes the Chair is right or wrong. The Chair believes that that type of amendment is for the rates code as such and not for this Bill.

Mr. Bruton

I should like to feel that the Minister would look at my suggestions nonetheless, because in my view there is a grave injustice in the rating system. I made practical suggestions which are worthy of thought by any responsible Minister. Deputies on all sides recognise that this is an unjust system of taxation, and this section is doing nothing but aggravating it. It behoves all Deputies to apply their best thoughts to some system of rates relief, and that is what I have been trying to do. What disillusions people most about debates in this House is that when Deputies protest that the system is unjust they cannot or will not do anything about it. We on this side of the House cannot do anything about it. The Minister admits it is unjust but he will not do anything about it, and that is more disillusioning——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair maintains that is not relevant on this Bill. It is a question for the amendment of the rates code, and that is another day's work.

Mr. Bruton

It is a day's work that under the present Government will not be undertaken.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That may or may not be so, but that does not mean it is relevant.

Mr. Bruton

I should like to ask the Minister for elaboration of this section. Subsection (1) reads:

Subject to subsection (2) of this section, the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1946, shall apply to the local financial years ending on the 31st day of December, 1980, the 31st day of December, 1981, and the 31st day of December, 1982....

What are the Minister's intentions after 1982, if he still has influence on matters after that date? It is important that the Government should outline their long-term views on this matter. Will the Minister consider extending the date to 1990? Why stop dead at 1982? The fact that the three dates were put in and no further dates envisaged suggests that there will be a worse and more draconian change in the rating system after 1982. That is why we ought to have the benefit of the Government's long-term views on this because it is impossible for the Commission on Income Taxation to discuss this as far as farmers are concerned. They are not aware of the long-term views of the Government with regard to rates, an essential component of farmer taxation. Is it the intention of the Minister to make any submission to the commission indicating his views on this matter?

I should like the Minister to elaborate on subsection (2) which states:

(2) (a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection, a rating authority (within the meaning of the Local Government Act, 1946) shall not apply the Act aforesaid to a person, as respects a local financial year, if the valuation of all the tenements of agricultural land in respect of which he is rated and which are situated—

(i) in the rating area of a county, or

(ii) in a part of the rating area of a county borough, borough or urban district, being a part which before the 2nd day of March, 1976, formed part of a county health district,

I should like to know what is meant by a rating area of a county borough, borough or urban district which formed part of a county health district before 2 March 1976. What is the significance of that date? I should like an explanation of the reference to Land Commission land. Does this refer to land that is in the hands of the Land Commission prior to division and which is being rented by them on the 11-month system? Does it mean land which has been distributed by the Land Commission to tenants but not yet vested? A large proportion of the land held by the Land Commission has been divided but is nominally in the ownership of the Land Commission in that the tenant is paying an annuity and is not the outright owner. I should be grateful if the Minister would say whether tenements of agricultural land in respect of which the Land Commission is rated includes all those people.

I was disappointed that the Minister flatly refused to have any examination carried out of the Griffith valuation. Why did he dismiss the matter? Has the matter been discussed by his colleagues? I would have thought that there were serious anomalies in this system and there should be some means by which they can be corrected. I do not think it is necessary to go to the extent of revaluing every piece of land.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. Bruton

I should like the Minister to outline his attitude in general to the amendments I suggested.

Mr. Barrett

The basis for levying rates is the valuation system and any changes would have to be in the valuation system. That is not a matter for this Bill or my Department; it is a matter for the Minister for Finance who is responsible for the valuation authority. Deputy Bruton asked if it would be possible to revalue part of the country or some areas. That would not be possible. It would be necessary to carry out a total valuation of the country which would take some years. The Deputy asked me to explain the reason why this Bill covers three years. I should like to point out that previous legislation covered two years. At the end of this three-year period the position will be reviewed. I should like to tell the Deputy that since 1976 where extensions of urban areas or boroughs have taken place into county council areas the rates relief has applied to such areas and that is why they are mentioned in this section. The reference to Land Commission means that lands where the Land Commission are the rated occupiers will be treated as one unit or one holding. There will not be any aggregation of the holdings of the Land Commission. Where the Land Commission are the rated occupiers it will be treated as one holding and it does not have anything to do with land the commission have divided or allocated.

Mr. Bruton

I was talking about counties which are below average income and was not suggesting a revaluation of those counties. I was suggesting that the reliefs which existed prior to the introduction of this Bill should be allowed in those counties. The reliefs should be restored in respect of counties where the income is very low by comparison with the valuation. Therefore, the Minister's objection that the valuation would take a long time does not apply.

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy raised a query about revaluing part of the country.

Mr. Bruton

Although the Minister stated that he sees the injustice of the valuation system he is not prepared to do anything about it and that is disappointing. There was a great hue and cry against rates on houses and, although they were unjust and capricious, the rates paid on houses represented a smaller share of actual income than the rates paid on land by the categories of farmers we are concerned with in the Bill.

If there is an injustice in the application of the rating system to the people with whom the Bill is concerned it is because it relates to a greater share of their income. It is greater than any injustice that may have existed in respect of the rating or otherwise of houses. If this legislation concerned more people than just a small section of the farming community the Minister would not get away with the attitude he has adopted because the pressure that would be put on him, electorally and otherwise, would be irresistible. It is because this section of the farming community affected by the Bill are not as electorally significant as home owners are that an injustice, which is admitted by all sides, is being left in existence. That is bad. The Minister is aware that he is presiding over and implementing a system of unjust and capricious taxation. The fact that he can do so with a straight face and no apparent expression of concern is a serious reflection on him or on his ability to influence his colleagues.

Mr. Deasy

Can the Minister say if the Department or his colleagues carried out any examination as to the length of time it would take to rationalise the rating system?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has already ruled that that is not relevant to this Bill or to the Minister in the House. It is a matter for another code and another Minister.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It has now become clear that this section and the similar section of the 1978 Bill introduced by the Minister is collecting an additional £17 million from farmers. If the position had obtained as it was when Fianna Fáil resumed office, this year farmers would be paying £17 million less in rates than they are now being asked. That is rather disgraceful coming from a Government who wrote a small paragraph into their election manifesto regarding rates and tax to the effect that Fianna Fáil would retain the notional system of farm taxation and allow rates on agricultural land as an instalment of farmers' tax bills. It was added further that taxes due under the national system would be payable at the end of each year and that farmers would be free to opt for assessment by farm accounts. There is there not one hint of any change in the method of assessing rates on farmers, or in the method of collecting rates from them. Yet, as a result of a direct action by this Government since their return to office, they will this year collect £17 million extra from farmers. In fact they will collect more because, in addition to that, they have imposed a resource tax which will bring in another few million pounds.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this section.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I could talk about this resource tax for a very long time but I shall not even try.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will be afforded an opportunity next week on the Finance Bill, when such matters will arise.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am bewildered by this section in view of the statement made by the Minister for Finance on budget day. I have already put on record that he said his first budgetary objective was to introduce greater equity into the taxation system.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has already made that case. He is repeating himself and he knows that repetition is not in order.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I have shown that this Bill rather than introducing greater equity into the taxation system imposes greater injustice.

The Minister for Finance said his second budgetary objective was to improve the position of those on lower incomes. This section rather than improving their position attacks those on lower incomes. As I have illustrated already, it increases the demand for rates on a poor law valuation of £40 by 142 per cent, whereas the increase for those farmers with a poor law valuation of £59 will be increased by 106 per cent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy made that point about an hour ago. Repetition is not in order.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am making the point in relation to the solemn promise given to improve the position of those on lower incomes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy knows the rules of this House as well as the Chair and that repetition on all of these matters is not in order.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The average increase—I did not give this before—in the valuation band between £40 and £60 is 124 per cent but the lower income group are being asked to pay 142 per cent. Therefore this is an attack on the lower income people rather than an effort to improve their lot.

Amongst other things the Minister for Finance gave as his third and final budgetary objective the protection of sources of economic growth. I cannot see this as anything other than an attack on one source of economic growth, that is, agricultural production, because this is not a tax on wealth from production but rather constitutes an addition to the overhead expenses of the farming sector and, to that extent, is an attack on the source of economic growth. I can only assume that there must be very bad lines of communication between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Environment. The Minister for Finance comes into the House saying that he will introduce more equity into the taxation system, that he will improve the position of the lower income groups and sources of economic growth. Then he sends his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, in with section 1 of this Bill which will reverse all of those things. As Deputy D'Arcy rightly pointed out, the Minister, in an earlier contribution, was making a virtue out of necessity. I do not know how many farmers the Minister said there are in this country—I think he spoke in terms of 400,000; that could not be so. I assume he must have been talking about holdings.

Mr. Barrett

I said rated holdings.

Mr. Bruton

Some farmers in the west have three or four holdings, little patches of land which would not amount to more than 20 acres altogether.

Mr. Barrett

Not any more. They are all in one now.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): As Deputy D'Arcy rightly pointed out there are tens of thousands of farmers who fall into exempted categories. For example, categorised by area there are 11,778 farmers with less than an acre.

Mr. Bruton

I suppose these are some of the beneficiaries, the big numbers.

Mr. Barrett

I suppose the Deputy would be one of those himself.

Mr. Bruton

I suppose the Minister is, too. Is he?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If we had one Deputy at a time we might make some progress. We are not going to make any progress anyway. That is very evident.

Mr. Bruton

We do not want to on this Bill anyway.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Apparently not, but the Chair is interested in making some progress and repetition and irrelevancy are not in order.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Between one side and the other it is difficult to battle on.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

But the Deputy is repeating himself more often than anybody else. The Chair is not deaf. The Chair has heard——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): But I got this information only a moment ago.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is time we made some effort to move on.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I want to put on the record the type of farmer about whom the Minister is boasting at not claiming rates. There are 11,778 holdings under one acre of land; 38,398 with less than five acres; 41,027 holding between five and 15 acres; 57,146 holding between 15 and 30 acres, with 56,344 holding between 30 and 50 acres. In my opinion practically all of those would have a valuation of less than £40 and, of course, they are receiving some relief. Most of them would have a valuation of less than £20 and would not be rated at all. But is the Minister serious in saying that they should pay rates. There are some thousands of them deemed——

Mr. Barrett

I never said that.

Mr. Bruton

The Minister gave the impression that he was being very generous in not imposing rates on them.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister stuck out his chest and gave the impression that he was a very fine fellow dispensing all this largesse, that he was something like lady bountiful. These are unfortunates who are not able to live and a large number of them are deemed to be on such substandard incomes as to be entitled to social welfare. I mentioned earlier that this is a most inopportune time to change the system of rating in regard to agriculture which has existed for about 50 years. I say that because the Government recently set up a commission to inquire into taxation in general and farmer taxation in particular and to advise the Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is the third time during the past two hours the Deputy has repeated that point. The Deputy is long enough here to understand that the Chair must get co-operation.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I made a passing reference to it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I had heard the point twice already and the Chair has a fairly good memory.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am suggesting that it would be better to wait until the commission report.

Deputy Bruton has appealed to the Minister to make various amendments which we cannot make or even seek to make because they would impose a potential charge on the Revenue. It is admitted by all that the rating system is unjust and the Griffith valuation is out of date. There are various precedents for treating the western counties in a special way. The old Congested Districts Board recognised certain areas in the west as being in need of special treatment and assistance. The areas involved are referred to nowadays as the 12 western counties and this includes Monaghan, Cavan and Longford. The Minister should bring in an amendment on Report Stage which would allow the present law regarding relief of rates to stand in regard to the 12 western counties.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is making a Second Stage speech. The Chair must put the question if we cannot get anything new or relevant to the section. The Chair has a duty to the House to see that some progress is made and to ensure that everything is relevant and there is no repetition. Despite the fact that it has been disputed, the Chair has a right to put the section if the Chair feels that nothing further relevant to the section is being raised.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Chair would be establishing a precedent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It has been done.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I have known debates to be guillotined but I have never known the Chair to put a question to a vote until the debate has ceased. I respectfully submit that the matter of extending relief to the 12 western counties has now been raised for the first time. This is a Committee Stage debate during which it is appropriate to make such a point. If anything is relevant to the section, it is this point. As far back as 1906 special notice was taken of the type of land and the impoverished conditions prevailing in the western counties.

Mr. Barrett

We are not that badly off.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is Second Stage material which does not arise on this section. We are dealing with one small point and there is no amendment.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am asking the Minister to bring in an amendment. The seaboard counties have their tourist attractions but there is real poverty in the inland counties. The Minister should consider between now and Report Stage the desirability of allowing existing reliefs to continue in the 12 western counties.

Mr. Bruton

I asserted very strongly earlier—and it may be significant that the Minister did not contradict what I said—that as a result of this section the farming community in this range of acreage will be paying a higher level of property taxation than farmers in any other country in Europe against whom Irish farmers must compete. The Minister should be aware of the taxation position of farmers vis-à-vis their competitors in Europe. The introduction of a system such as we are discussing affects the competitive position. If input costs are increased the selling price of one's product must also be increased if one is to make a reasonable income. The Minister has not given an answer on this matter and the information should be available because I understand that the Community are collating information on various systems of farm taxation.

Deputy Fitzpatrick made a case in respect of the western regions, but it is important to bear in mind that the concession he sought should not be confined only to western counties but should be extended to all disadvantaged areas. Some of these areas, such as parts of Laois and Offaly, are outside the western counties. Very sophisticated means have been used to determine whether or not certain districts should be included in the areas deemed to be disadvantaged. The bulk of that work has already been done by the Department of Agriculture and has been cross-checked by the European Commission. There is no question of any being undeservedly included.

There should not be allowed to exist a situation where people in a disadvantaged area have to pay a penal increase in rates. The Irish Government are arguing in Brussels that farmers in the west are in a bad way and need help and assistance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is all relevant to Second Stage. It does not arise on this section. I have said that 14 times in the last two hours and can get no obedience whatsoever from the Deputies. There is nothing before the House but section 1 of the Bill and the Deputy will deal with section 1 as it stands.

Mr. Bruton

I am sure the Chair will realise how frustrated we are.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is very frustrated trying to get Deputies to obey him. Deputy Bruton has made about six Second Stage speeches in the last hour-and-a-half. The Chair has told him on each occasion that he is doing that and still he persists. He may be frustrated, but the Chair is becoming frustrated with all this. We must make progress with the Bill. It is up to the Chair to see that the Deputies deal with the section before the House, section 1 of the Bill.

Mr. Bruton

It is a totally bad section.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That may be. That is how it is and the Chair has no say in it. That does not mean that the Deputies can make Second Stage speeches.

Mr. D'Arcy

We have spoken widely, I admit.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is nearly time that somebody admitted it.

Mr. D'Arcy

In regard to the disadvantaged areas, has the Minister available to him the actual average valuation for each county? If so, the disadvantaged area in each county should be available in his office. If one speaks of disadvantaged areas and low incomes as a result of disadvantage, is the Minister prepared to consider any moves to combat this as far as rating is concerned?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has already ruled that that is not relevant. That is a matter for other legislation.

Mr. Barrett

The average valuation in the country is £1.10, speaking from memory. I do not have the average for the different areas of the country. In the western counties, to which the Deputy is probably referring, the valuations are low except in specific areas such as the Shannon estuary where they are £2.00 to £2.50 per acre—higher than Wexford, I can assure you. That is again as a result of the Griffith valuation. He decided that the land along the estuary was ideal for growing wheat, whereas by modern standards it is not suitable at all. That is another anomaly.

If there is any redeeming feature in the Griffith system of valuation it is that it has not changed over the years despite the improvements which have been made in production and land due to modern methods. The valuation has remained static and cannot change without new legislation for the whole country. On the other hand, a person could have a business and if he improves his business his valuation goes up. That is the only redeeming feature about the system that I can see, anyway.

Deputy Fitzpatrick said that we were responsible now for making the farmers pay £17 million more since we came into power. That is not correct. At least it is not correct when one considers that we have relieved farming ratepayers of £12 million because of the domestic derating and derating of farm buildings which were still rated in 1977. There is £12 million on the credit side there. I do not have available the number of farmers liable for income tax who can set that off against the rates. Seventeen million pounds extra is not a true figure.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is £17 million over and above the farmers' estimate.

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy said that we were asking the farmers to pay this extra, but we reduced this commitment by £12 million under the derating of the domestic sector. I do not have any information on the taxation system throughout the EEC. This is not a taxation Bill. This Bill, let me repeat again, is necessary in order to give £37.7 million relief to the farming community. It is necessary to have the Bill to give legislative power to the local authorities to make that deduction in the demand notes when striking the rates.

Mr. Bruton

It is outrageous that a Minister can come in here to introduce a measure which will dramatically increase the rates paid by farmers who are exporting and competing on the international market and admit that he does not know even the system of taxation which applies in the other countries with which Irish farmers are supposed to compete. This is completely wrong. The Minister should have that information about the system of property taxation applicable in other countries. I repeat that as a result of this Bill the small farmers who will be affected by it will be paying substantially more property taxation than in any other country in Europe with which they are supposed to be competing. This is wrong. We are an exporting country and must depend on export markets to sell our products successfully. If our farmers are forced to pay higher levels of property taxation regardless of whether they make a profit or not, they will not be able to compete equitably.

Mr. D'Arcy

The Minister made a statement that the redeeming feature of the Griffith valuation was that it never changed. I might point out that the use of the land changed. Land which was highly productive when the Griffith valuation system was introduced is the low productive land now. The land with the low valuation is now the high productive land. This is where the inequity comes into the valuation system. This valuation system has completely outlived its usefulness. If lands were suitable for beans and wheat at that time, they are not suitable today as a result of the movement from horse to machinery. This land is unsuitable for high productivity and the Minister's own county has 40,000 acres of Macamore land. This is able to produce only 75 per cent of its potential while the other land can produce up to 100 per cent. Those are facts and are the results of modernisation. The Minister certainly has got it wrong when he said it has a redeeming feature. There is no redeeming feature in the fact that the valuation has not changed.

Mr. Barrett

I said that the one redeeming feature that might be in the Griffith valuation is that it never changed.

Mr. D'Arcy

I do not consider it a redeeming feature.

Mr. Barrett

It does not change like building valuation.

Mr. D'Arcy

Fair enough, but the fact is that the average valuation of £1.10 means that people who are liable for rating in most counties will be talking in terms of £18 to £20 per acre. That is a direct tax, taking the average into consideration.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): A brief intervention. I stated when last speaking that the present Government were extracting £17 million more from farmers by way of rates this year than farmers would have been paying if the law were not changed. The Minister corrects me and says that that is not so. Perhaps the Minister is technically correct. Certainly the Government are extracting £17 million more from farmers in rates than they led the farmers to believe that they would have to pay. Before the election they stated that the farmers would not have to pay rates on private houses. Before the election they stated that they would not have to pay rates on farm buildings. The farmers were entitled to assume that. The Government said that loudly and clearly all over the country, but never said a word about the abolition of relief in respect of agricultural rates down to £40. They told the electorate about the goodies. They did not tell them about this particular operation. Perhaps I should correct myself and put on record that, as a result of this section and the same section of section 1 of the 1978 Act, £17 million more is being extracted from the farmers than they were led to believe by Fianna Fáil before the last election they would have to pay. That is a disgrace.

Do I correctly understand the position. Could the Minister explain briefly from his brief section 1 (2) (a) of the Bill? Could he tell me if I am correct in thinking that the effect of this section is to say that holdings in the possession of the Land Commission will not be aggregated in order to bring them over £40 valuation and suffer a loss of the relief grants? Am I correct in thinking that the proviso to section 1 (2) (b) means that if any holding in the hands of the Land Commission exceeds £40 valuation it will lose relief?

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy is correct in both instances.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I should like the Minister to explain section 1 (2) (a).

Mr. Barrett

It means there is no relief if the valuation is more than £40.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): What is the situation with regard to section 1 (2) (a) (ii)?

Mr. Barrett

I explained that earlier to Deputy Bruton. It means that extensions of urban and borough areas into counties qualify for relief of rates whereas old boroughs and urban councils prior to 1976 did not qualify for rates relief. Since that time extensions have been qualifying for relief of rates.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Does land within urban boundaries other than that brought in since 1976 qualify now?

Mr. Barrett

No. Agricultural relief applies to land since 1976.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): There are certain urban areas that encompass quite a lot of land and two examples come to mind. Ballinasloe is a big urban area with quite a lot of land and Naas is another example. Does the Minister think it reasonable that those areas should be excluded from the benefit of agricultural rates relief? I presume the thinking behind not giving the lands the benefit of agricultural rates relief was that it was thought they had all the amenities of a town and had inflated values as a result of being in an urban area. As I understand it, modern thinking now proposes to value these lands at use value.

Mr. Barrett

There is an existing system of reliefs for those areas. For example, urban district councils get 40 per cent; borough councils, except Dún Laoghaire, get 25 per cent; Dún Laoghaire Borough gets 50 per cent, as do the county boroughs of Dublin and Cork; Waterford County Borough gets 30 per cent and Limerick Borough gets 40 per cent. This means that areas taken in by urban councils since 1976 qualify for the agricultural relief we are talking about in this Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I understood the Minister to say that Dún Laoghaire Borough gets 50 per cent while other borough councils get 25 per cent. Why the special position for Dún Laoghaire?

Mr. Barrett

The county boroughs of Dublin and Cork get 50 per cent, Limerick gets 40 per cent and Waterford gets 30 per cent. It is historically based.

Mr. Griffin

As a Deputy from south Tipperary, again I should like to place my views on the record of the House. The spring show is being held at Ballsbridge now and every effort is being made to show the people the value of agriculture to the economy and to build up the confidence of the farming community in their industry. Yet, in this House we are trying to extract an extra £6 million from farmers, money that could be spent on the development of their industry. Farmers today have no confidence in their industry. They do not know what direction agriculture is going and they have no confidence in the Government to protect their interests at home or at EEC level.

An Ceann Comhairle

This seems to be a Second Stage speech. We must keep to the section.

Mr. Griffin

No. I am just filling in the background.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy said at the beginning of his statement that he would again like to place his views on the record. It is not necessary to repeat them. I ask the Deputy to speak on section 1.

Mr. Griffin

I should like to emphasise the points I made. With regard to eligibility for county council loans to enable the farming community to erect houses or to purchase houses, will the Minister state if he has any intention of lowering the threshold——

An Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the section.

Mr. Griffin

I beg to differ with the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

Loans for housing have nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Griffin

They are based on the rateable valuation and this applies also with regard to grants for third-level institutions.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Bill before the House deals with rates on agricultural land.

Mr. Griffin

As eligibility for loans, grants and scholarships are based on the rateable valuation, I want the Minister to say if he has any intention of lowering the threshold.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will not allow a discussion on this. It is outside the scope of the Bill, let alone the section with which we are dealing.

Mr. Griffin

I am awaiting a reply from the Minister.

Mr. Barrett

It does not arise.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has said that this has nothing whatever to do with the section.

Mr. Griffin

The Ceann Comhairle is limiting the discussion.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Ceann Comhairle is doing exactly what Standing Orders strictly lay down. We are on Committee Stage and we are dealing with it section by section. The Deputy knows that.

Mr. Griffin

I fully appreciate the position but I would stress that the farmers, particularly the small farmers of south Tipperary, are totally disappointed that here again the Minister has not taken their plight into consideration. They look upon this as a further levy on them, a further means of extracting £6 million that is sorely needed for reinvestment in plant, machinery, farm buildings and in extra livestock. The Minister mentioned a figure of 20,000 extra people with valuations of between £40 and £60 being brought into this. There is a predominantly larger number of farmers involved in south Tipperary and I would ask the Minister for the exact figure of the number of farmers in south Tipperary and indeed in north Tipperary who will be affected if and when this Bill goes through.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question is not even relevant. If every Deputy in the House wanted to know how their constituencies were affected under section 1 we would be here until Christmas. We have to deal with the section.

Mr. Griffin

I am dealing with it. I am waiting for a reply.

An Ceann Comhairle

The section does not deal with south Tipperary any more than any other part of Ireland. There is no good in making a mockery out of the debate.

Mr. Griffin

It is a serious debate.

An Ceann Comhairle

It should be.

Mr. Griffin

No one is trying to make a mockery out of it. Nobody is making a laughing stock out of it, expecially with the further extraction of £6 million from the farming community.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to have said that a few times.

Mr. Bruton

I asked the Minister about land valuations and he surprised me by pointing out that there were valuations as high as £2.50 per acre in the Shannon estuary.

Mr. Barrett

It is lower in north Clare.

Mr. Bruton

The position is capable of being remedied in that the Agricultural Institute have done considerable work based in Johnstown Castle on a soil survey of the country. It should be possible on the basis of their information to arrive at a more equitable valuation of land. The Minister said that where a person feels that a valuation on his house is excessive he can appeal to have it revalued. Am I correct in my understanding that the Minister is saying that one of his constituents in the Shannon estuary area of south Clare is precluded by law from appealing to have his valuation altered in the light of changed circumstances?

An Ceann Comhairle

What has this to do with the section?

Mr. Bruton

It has a great deal because——

An Ceann Comhairle

The question of changing valuations of agricultural land is a totally separate matter.

Mr. Bruton

I am concerned about the impact of rates on farmers and rates are related to the valuations. The impact of this section depends on the valuation of land and if the valuation system is, as is a common case on both sides of the House, unjust, the impact of the section will be ipso facto unjust. It is a matter that we should try to remedy. I am asking the Minister how the injustice which is inherent in this section, because it is based on an unjust valuation system, can be remedied.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is an obvious effort to make it relevant but it does not impress the Chair. We are still miles away from the section.

Mr. Griffin

The Chair is very restrictive this evening.

An Ceann Comhairle

We must have some sort of order.

Mr. Bruton

I take it that it is not possible to appeal an individual valuation of land. Will the Minister consider introducing some mechanism whereby it will become possible on a case by case basis——

Mr. Barrett

Any change in the valuation system is a matter for the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Hegarty

In view of the substantial increase in farm rates especially in this category—and we know that other EEC countries do not have this problem—I am surprised that none of the Cabinet seems to be aware of the problem and their ignorance is inexcusable. Will the Minister consider the abolition of rates, because this section of the community are now carrying the entire burden of the State for bin collection and the whole lot? We are coming to a stage where this sectional type of tax is becoming unconstitutional.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 2.

Mr. Barrett

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 2, after "municipal rate" to insert "(within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, 1967)".

The reason for this amendment is that the term "municipal rate" is not defined in this legislation. The definition chosen is the one in the Income Tax Act 1967 which covers the municipal rates in boroughs and urban districts and in the four county boroughs.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): What is the purpose of this amendment and the effect it has on this section?

Mr. Barrett

It is not defined in this legislation and we have chosen this definition which is the definition in the Income Tax Act 1967.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Will the Minister give us the definition in the 1967 Act?

Mr. Barrett

In this Part "the municipal rate" means any rate which is—

(a) the rate leviable by the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Dublin under section 63 of the Local Government Dublin Act, 1930.

or

(b) the rate leviable by the Corporation of Dún Laoghaire under section 63 of the said Local Government Dublin Act, 1930, or

(c) the rate leviable under section 25 of the Limerick City Management Act, 1934, or

(d) the rate leviable under section 24 of the Waterford City Management Act, 1939, or

(e) the rate leviable under section 16 of the Cork City Management (Amendment) Act, 1941, or

(f) the rate leviable under section 18 of the Local Government Act, 1946.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I thought that the Act did not apply to those areas except in respect of land brought into them from outside since 1976.

Mr. Barrett

That is correct.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Is the definition being put in simply in order to apply the relief to those areas situated within local authority areas listed by the Minister in respect of land brought in to them since 1976?

Mr. Barrett

That is correct.

Mr. Griffin

Would the Minister tell the House what section 2 of the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1976, is? Will he quote the relevant section?

Mr. Barrett

This is the section that applies agricultural grant relief to areas taken in since 1976.

Mr. Griffin

Would the Minister quote the exact section?

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy speaking to the amendment or the section?

Mr. Griffin

Could we hear the relevant section quoted?

An Ceann Comhairle

There is nothing in the amendment to justify the question the Deputy is asking.

Mr. Griffin

A Cheann Comhairle, you need not come to the defence of the Minister on every occasion.

Mr. Barrett

I am not looking for any defence. It is a question of what the Chair rules.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will not have snide remarks. The Chair is most lenient. The Bill will be debated and discussed strictly in accordance with Standing Orders. There is nothing in the amendment which relates to the question asked by the Deputy. We will come to the section.

Mr. Griffin

Surely we are entitled to that information.

An Ceann Comhairle

The section will be discussed after the amendment is dealt with and passed or defeated.

Mr. Griffin

Surely I am entitled to inquire from the Minister what is stated in that section.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not on the section. We are on the amendment.

Mr. Griffin

In section 2 of the Bill that section of the Act is mentioned. Surely a Deputy is entitled to ask the Minister to tell us exactly what is in the section.

An Ceann Comhairle

Definitely, when we come to the section.

Mr. Griffin

We are on the section.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not on the section. We are on amendment No. 1 in the Minister's name. Is the amendment agreed to?

Mr. Griffin

No.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): With all respect, I do not want to get involved but I think it could be said fairly that in order to understand the amendment the Deputy is entitled to have read section 2 of the Rates on Agriculture Land (Relief) Act, 1976. In order to understand the amendment it is necessary to know what is in that section. I am just making that point.

An Ceann Comhairle

The amendment is on the paper and reads:

In page 3, line 2, after "municipal rate" to insert "(within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, 1967)".

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Unless somebody interested in this was familiar with the wording of that Act he would not understand the amendment. That is a reasonable submission.

An Ceann Comairle

When we come to the section the Deputy can raise whatever matters he wishes.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Then the amendment will have gone through or will have been rejected.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Question proposed: "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not want to get mixed up in this.

Mr. Griffin

I would request the Minister to quote section 2 of the 1976 Act so that we can discuss it.

An Ceann Comairle

It is quite in order now.

Mr. Barrett

Section 2 (1) reads:

Where after the passing of this Act the boundary of a county borough, borough or urban district is extended so as to include hereditaments of agricultural land which before the extension formed part of a county health district, the allowances provided under the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Acts, 1939 to 1976, shall, subject to subsection (2) of this section, be made to occupiers of such hereditaments by the local authority whose boundary has been so extended, and such portion of the agricultural grant as may be necessary to enable that authority to make such allowances without loss to itself shall be paid by the Minister for Finance to the authority.

Subsection (2) reads:

Subsection (1) of this section shall apply to a hereditament only for so long as it continues to be used solely or mainly for agricultural purposes, that is to say, as arable, meadow or pasture ground or as woodlands, market gardens or nursery grounds.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I have been trying to understand this section. Am I correct in thinking the effect of section 3 is merely to bring into section I the areas of land which were brought into urban authorities since 1976?

Mr. Barrett

That is right.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): As a matter of interest, could the Minister give me any idea how much land was involved and how many urban areas and corporations and so on have been extended since 1976? How much land are we dealing with?

Mr. Barrett

For example, Drogheda, Waterford city, Youghal, and perhaps one or two others.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Is there much land involved?

Mr. Barrett

The biggest would have been Waterford. That was recently. I have not got the total.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Has the Minister any thoughts about simplifying the method of extending urban boundaries? I am very doubtful as to whether that is in order. If the Minister has, perhaps he would tell us?

Mr. Barrett

The procedure in Waterford did not present any difficulty.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

I understand Deputy Bruton is not moving amendment No. 2.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Bruton

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"5.—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.".

The purpose of this amendment is to introduce a new section. At the beginning of the year the Minister will be required to make a report on the application of the Act and he will be making that report under three headings: first to indicate the number of people in each rating authority who, although they will suffer an increase in rates under the removal of reliefs, do not have sufficient income to render them liable for income tax.

In other words, we want to know in respect of each area the number of farmers who are being asked to pay substantially increased rates but who do not have to pay income tax because of their not having an income that would be taxable. We want to pinpoint those farmers who are the victims of injustice. As I said earlier, farmers who are paying income tax can set their rates off against that tax so that the injustice to them of an unfair rates demand is greatly mitigated. But for those farmers who do not have sufficient incomes to justify their paying income tax but who will be faced with a dramatic increase in rates there is an injustice because there is nothing against which they can set off their rates. Each year for the next three years we want a report from the Minister on the position in each rating authority in respect of the number of people who do not have sufficient income to justify their paying income tax but who are being asked to pay this dramatic increase in rates.

We want to know also in respect of each rating authority the number of people whose valuations exceed £1 per acre on average and who are being subjected also to reduced rates relief. In such cases the burden of rates will be more substantial on an acreage basis for somebody whose valuation is less than £1 per acre. Thirdly, we want a report in respect of each rating authority on the extent to which the percentage increase in the county rate is more than the rate of increase in agricultural income in the State as a whole. We can foresee a situation occurring quite often where in a given local authority area the rate of increase in the rate will be much faster than the rate of increase in agricultural incomes. Perhaps this year is the best one for this sort of assessment because while rates will increase by about 10 per cent agricultural incomes have fallen by about 3 per cent. Therefore we will have a situation in which the relief for farmers against rates will be reduced, with their rates being increased by 10 per cent on a substantially increased amount of their holdings as a result of the removal of the relief at a time when their incomes will have fallen by 3 per cent.

We are asking that information be laid before the House each year to demonstrate clearly every case in which the increase in rates exceeds substantially the increase in income from which the rates should be paid.

The purpose of this amendment which is seeking information, and that is all we can do under this Bill, is to get information about the inherent injustices in the Bill and about the system which the Bill is aggravating. If the information that we request is laid before the House each year the public will see clearly the injustice of the system. The amendment is very reasonable and its acceptance would be very useful in that it would expose the injustices of the rating system and would bring about a situation in which by force of public opinion and of public information this unjust system would be changed.

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy's amendment seeks to have written into the Bill a provision that each year I would be bound to submit report to both Houses of the Oireachtas. Such 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 conslider the amendment to be reasonable and I must oppose it.

My Department publish three major document on an annual basis and all three are submitted to both Houses. There documents between them contain a large amount of figures and of information of general interest relating to the work of my Department and of local authorities. If at any time any Deputy wishes to have extra figures or information about particular schemes or services it is open to him to table a parliamentary question and I should be willing always to answer any such question to the extent to which I have the information being sought. But it would not be right for me to undertake to submit detailed figures of particular servies as a matter of routine. If this were to be the case we would all be snowed under quickly with facts and figures which might be of very little general interest or value. I must take into account also the likely value of detailed information in relation to the cost of producing it.

Regarding the particular information to which the amendment refers, some of it would not arise directly from the administration of the agricultural grant while some of it would involve the responsibilites of other Ministers. Therfore, even if I thought that the information concerned was important to justify the submitting of a special annual report to both Houses—and I do not think that is the case—I would be unable to accept it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The amendment highlights the inequities of this piece of legislation. If a tax of any kind is being introduced or imposed it should be applied uniformly. Let us take a case of two landholders each wilth a valuation of £40. If one of them is liable to pay income tax—and the amount of the rates liability will be, at £12 in the £1, £480—he can deduct the amount of the rates from the income tax liability with the result that he will not be paying any rates. However if he has a large family or if for one reason or another matters are not good with him—for instance, if his herd is stricken with brucellosis or with TB and he is not liable for any income tax by reason of the Inspector of Taxes being satisfied that his income is such as to absolve him from income tax —he still must pay the £480 rates so that the net result is the same. Surely that is unfair in the extreme. It is a system of taxation that cannot be justified. It is saying that although somebody is not liable for imcome tax he is being told that he will have to pay the £480 anyway. Therefore two farmers with similar valuations could find themselves in two very different situations. One could get a credit note for his £480 rates and would not have to pay while the other farmer would have to pay. How can such a system be justified?

Mr. Barrett

That is under paragraph (a) of the amendment. Whether the Revenue Commissioners will have this sort of information I do not know but I would not have any information on the amount of income tax paid.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am asking the Minister how he can justify a system under which two farmers with a valuation of £40 will find themselves in the position where one will have to pay £480 rates and the other will not have to pay any rates because he will ger a refund or a credit note.

Mr. Barrett

One man will be liable for income tax; otherwise he could not set his rates off against his tax and the other man is not liable for income tax. We discussed this earlier this afternoon. It all depends on whether he has a liability to pay income tax.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): If a man is liable to pay income tax, it is because he has an income which justifiers the assessment of income tax on him. That man is obviously in a much better position than his neighbour who is not liable for income tax. Yet, each pays the same amount of tax—call it rates, tax or what you like—although it is acknowledged that one man is much worse off than the other. One has an income which attracts income tax and justifies the demand of income tax from him but the other man has an income which excuses him from paying income tax. Each pays the same tax. Is that not an unfair law? Is it not an unjust law? Is it not a discriminatory law?

Mr. Barrett

That has been part of the Finance Acts in recent year.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It has not. It is collusion between the Minister for the Environment and—

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not being facetous when I ask the Deputy to relate this to the amendment.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The amendment proposes to give details of that sort of thing. It proposes that the Minister would have to bring before the Oireachtas a list of cases where a person is liable for income tax, yet has lost the benefit of the agricultural relief Acts. The amendment can be justified when I explain what Deputy Bruton wants to bring into the open. He wants to knwon how many people will find themselves in that position. If the people knew and understood this legislation, they would rebel against it. I could see the Supreme Court overruling this sort of legislation as being unfair.

Mr. Griffin

Like Deputy Fitzpatrick I find these amendments reasonable, When giving the reasons for rejecting the amendment the Minister said that the information was available from various sources—he quoted three sources. As he is responsible for introducing this type of legislation, he should have this infomation at hand and it should be incorporated into any legislation for which he is responsible so that the very obvious and glaring anomalies of this Bill can be seen by the people concerned.

Deputy Fitzpatrick quoted the obvious case of two farmers and the injustice being done to one farmer. If this amendment were accepted we would know immediately the number of such cases affected and the injustice perpetrated on our farming ratepayers. The Minister in rejecting this amendment so glibly is doing a disservice to the farming community. If, as he says, the infomation is readily available from three sources, it would not be too difficult to have that information transferred into a Bill.

Mr. Bruton

I do not know what the Minister is afraid of in accepting this amendment. He said most of the information is available already and I cannot see why he does not accept the amendment. The information will be very relevant in deciding whether the legislation is operating justly. The intention of the removal of the rates relief should be seen in its overall context. It was announced in the budget as part of a measure of achieving equity between the farming community and the reat of the prople and figures were provided of revenue that would be derived under various heads, rates being one of them, from the farming community. The whole idea was to achieve a sufficient amount of revenue from the farming community so that it could be said that equity was being achieved between farmers and everyone else.

If we are concerned with equity, this information is very relevant because it shows how equitable or otherwise the mesures introduced in this Bill will be in practice. If the idea is that people should be paying an equivalent amount on an equivalent income, whether they be farmers or somebody else, it is clearly not equitable if farmers who have no liability for income tax have to pay a very substantial increase in their rates. That is not equity. Yer the Government are arguing that the whole idea of their budgetary policy is to achieve equity . If that is happening, the information should be brought to public knowledge and this amendment will ensure that that happens. Equally, if valuations differ widely from one part of the country to another, that is not equitable or in line with the objectives of the budget. If the increase in rates is completely out of line with the increase in agricultural incomes, with which these rates have to be paid, that is not equitable either. This information should be made available so that we can see if these circumstances exist.

I believe an amendment such as this, seeking from amendment Minister that he make avaialble on a regular basis statistical information as to the application and effect of the legislation he is sponsoring, should be included in much more legislation than it is at present. Far too often we pass Bills and forget entirely about their effect for years afterwards and we do not discuss them in any way until for some reason or other, amending legislation is brought in. In the meantime, this legislation could have caused considerable injustice, could have been applied in circunstances which were never the intention when the legislation was passed. There is no system for review on a regular basis of on the Statute Book.

This section is, in that sense, breaking new ground in that it seeks to institute a system whereby the responsible Minister will have to report regularly on the implementation of this legislation. If that system were adopted, It would be a very good day's work. I believe very strongly in this and propose to have it further discussed on Report Stage. This matter is important enough to warrant further discussion. I will withdraw my amendment to give the Minister an opportunity to reconsider his position. I believe that when he reconsiders it he will alow our amendment or something similar. It will not cost anything to give this sort of information.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5

Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): What is the effect of the repeal? This section repeals suvsections (2) and (3) of section 1 of the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1978 but I thought that Act had expired by the effluxion of time.

Mr. Barrett

The section provides for the repeal of subsections (2) and (3) of section 1 of the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1978 which had been replaced by section 1 of the Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I thought the 1978 Act had expired

Mr. Barrett

Subsection (2) of section 1 of the 1978 Act provided that allowances would not apply to a person the rateable valuation of whose land holdings exceeded the income tax threshold for full-time farmers applicable on 1st January in the relevant local financial year. This threshold was £60 on 1st January 1979 and £50 on 1 January 1980. The Minister for Finance in his budget statement indicated that the imcome threshold was being settled at £40 for 1980,1981 and 1982. Subsection (2) of section (1) of the 1978 Act is being replaced by subsection (2) of section 1 of the Bill which specifies the ceiling of £40. Subsection (3) of section 1 of the 1978 Act empowered the Minister by order to grant a waiver to local authorities generally from the requirement of national aggregation. This was necessary at the time for administrative reason. Order were made in 1978 and 1979 under subsection (3) of section1 of the 1978 Act.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I thought the 1978 Act only applied to 1978 and 1979 and that it expired on 31 December 1970.

Mr. Barrett

That Act specified £50 from 1 January 1980 whereas the Bill changes that to £40.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Subsection (1) of section 1 of the 1978 Act stated that ssubject to subsection (2) of section 1 the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) ACt, 1946 shall apply to local financial years ending 31 December 1978 and 31 December 1979 and shall so apply subject to the modification that no employment allowance shall be made. In the Bill as initiated in 1978 there was no subsection (3) but, perhaps, an amendment was inserted later.

Mr. Barrett

The allowances given in the 1978 Act expired. The threshold was £60 according to the Act up to 1 January 1979 and £50 from 1 january 1980. The Bill specifies the ceiling at £40 from 1 January.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Apparentlym, the Act did not expire at the end of 1979.

Mr. Barrett

The relief given under the Act expired but the subsections did not.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Mr. Bruton

I move amendment no.4:

In page 3, line 34, before "Relief" to insert "Wilthdrawal of".

The Bill is misleadingly titled Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill and I propose to change that title to Rates on Agricultural Land (Withdrawal of Relief) Bill because the effect of the Bill is to withdraw reliefs which previously existed and had been renewed annually. Although some of the previous reliefs are being renewed automatically this year a substaintial portion of the reliefs which were previously given are withdrawns the Bill. The Bill is one which withdraws reliefs which perviously existed. Legislation should not be misleadingly titled; it should always be titled as to its real effect so that people can see what it is about. There is not doubt that in any reasonable interpretation of political and economic reality the Bill is about the withdrawal of relief from rates. It is not about granting reliefs because the reliefs which it renews and maintains existed for years. The only major change in the Bill from the situation which existed previously is one of withdrawing relief which have existed since the last war. That justifies a more honest title and that is why I am proposing a change.

Mr. Griffin

It is a misnomer to call the Bill Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill because noboday could take it as a relief. I would go so far as to suggest that the word "imposition" instead of "relief" be used. The Minister may look upon this as providing relief but he has told us that a further £6 million will be extracted from the farming acommunity and that could not be termed relief. If that is the Minister's interpretation of the word "relief" he should check a dictionary to find the true meaning of the word. If the Minister is trying to get across to tlhe farmers that he is granting them relief he is deceiving them because he is extraction £6 million from them. I support Deputy Bruton on this.

Mr. Barrett

I cannot accept this amendment. I agree with Deputy Bruton that no Bill should have a Misleading title. If I were to comply with what is in this amendment I would be giving the Bill a misleading title. Without this Bill all farmers throughout the country would be paying full rates. This Bill gives relief to the extent of £37.7 million. We must have the Bill to give that relief; without the Bill no rate-paying farmer would get any relief. Therefore the Bill is properly named and I cannot accept an amendment which would misname it.

Mr. Bruton

It is purely a legislative accident that this relief requires statutory renewal every few years. The fact that the Minister is introducing a Bill to prolong something which had existed before the war—

Mr. Barrett

There have been changes over the years.

Mr. Bruton

Not significant changes. The fact that the Minister is doing that is in no sense creating a situation in which it would be said that he is granting any relief. He is merely renewing or maintaining something that has existed for a number of years. There is nothing new about it. What is new about this Bill is the withdrawal of reliefs which existed previously. That is how this Bill will be seen by the farming communilty when they come to pay their rates later in the year. That is the effect that this bill will be perceived as having had. If people choose to look up the index of statutes for the year 1980 in order to find out the legal authority for the substantial and dramatic increase in their rates this year and they see a Bill entitled Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill they will say that could not be the appropriate Bill, that that would not be a Bill that would increase rates. Yet the reality is that this misleadingly entitled relief Bill will increase the rates on lthe farming community. It is a misleading title.

Mr. Barrett

How about farmers below a £40 valuation? Would the Deputy have them rated?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): As we know, when this relief was first introduced it was an omnibus relief that covered all agricultural holdings. Then the Bill was quite rightly holdings. Then the Bill was quite rightly entitled Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1939, or whenever it was. That was a proper title for it then. But we are inclined to follow precendent. If we can find a precedent for anything we are inclined to take it out of a pigeon hole or a file and continue to use it. There is no relation between the type of Bill first introduced to grant rates relief on agricultural land and the present one. What is being done here is that relief that existed is being withdrawn. It is being allowed expire and is not beng received.

Of course one can have an argument about anything but, as Deputies Bruton and Griffin have said, anybody looking for a rates relief Bill would not recognise this as such. As the Minister has gone so far as to include in it withdrawal of relief he might consider striking out the word "relief" and calling it the Rates on Agricultural Land Bill, 1980. That would go some way towards correcting the misleading title. In those circumstances a person would stop, look and inquire what the Bill was about. But to leave the Bill as at present entitled, when it takes away relief from a category of agricultural holdings extending from a valuation of £40 to £60, is going a bit far. This Bill abolishes relief in respect of that band of holdings and in so doing increases the rates this year by varying degree from 106 per cent to 1472 per cent.

Mr. Griffin

I agree with the Minister that it is not his wish to mislead the House ot the farming community. No legislation passing through this House should be deceitful, attempt to misrepresent the factual position or lead any section of the community astray; it should be clearly stated and specified what is the intention of the legislation.

Is the Minister serious when he tells us that a Bill such as this which will bring an extra 20,000 farmers into a rateable category is granting relief? I doubt very much if the 20,000 farmers adversely affected will accept glibly what the Minister tells them, that he is granting them relief. It is outrangeous that a Bill such as this carrying a deceptive title should pass through this House. I would ask the Minister to consider seriously if not Deputy Bruton's amendment at least the reasonable request of Deputy Fitzpatrick when he urged that the word "relief" be removed from the title. I cannot stand over such a title nor can the Minister, especially in the full knowledge that this year 20,000 extra farmers will be affected by the provisions of a Bill misleadingly termed a relief Bill.

Mr. Barrett

Of course the Bill affects farmers. The Bill is necessary because it offords total relief to holdings numbering approximately 390,000—no rates on holdings under £20 valuation. The Bill affords partial relief on further 58,000 holdings. Therefore it is affording relief of rates on something in the region of 460,000 holdings. I have no intention of misnaming the Bill.

Mr. D'Arcy

The Minister quoted that figure of 390,000 people who will receive relief.

Mr. Barrett

No. Deputy, holdings.

Mr. D'Arcy

How many people are involved in those 390,000 holdings? That is important.

Mr. Barrett

I am talking about rateable holdings; I am not talking about numbers of people.

Mr. D'Arcy

We want the nembers of people involved. Deputy Bruton raised the question of a farmer in, say, County Mayo with fragmented holdings, with perhaps two acres in one holding, four acres in another and six in yet another. Can the Minister tell us how many people are involved in those 390,000 holdings.

Mr. Barrett

We do not have that information. We do not have the nembers of farmers. I would suggest that the Deputy put down a question to the minister for Agriculture.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are getting back into the same repetition. We are dealing here only with the Title of the Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister should have that information.

Mr. D'Arcy

The Minister's Department must have that information.

Mr. Barrett

No.

Mr. D'Arcy

For the simple reason that these people must be put down for relief on rates. Therefore the Minister must have the individual names of these people.

Mr. Barrett

No, we do not have the number of farmers.

Mr. D'Arcy

The different county councils will have them.

Mr. Barrett

I said we do not have that information in my Department.

Mr. D'Arcy

Surely the MInister's Department are in contact with the various local councils—

Mr. Barrett

We do not have the number of farmers. We have holdings, valuations

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amendment deals only with Title of the Bill.

Mr. D'Arcy

I too object to the title carrying the word "relief". It is only right to leave out the word "relief" There is relief only for those living on subsistence incomes who could not possibly be expected to pay because they are already completely over-burdened.

Question put. The Committee divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 61.

Tá

Barry, Myra.Barry, Richard.Begley, Michael.Belton, Luke.Bermingham, Joseph.Burton, John.Burke, Joan.Cluskey, Frank.Colliins, Edward.Conlain, John F.Cosgrave, Michael J.Creed, Donal.Crotty, Kieran.D'Arcy, Micheal J.Deasy, Martin A.Desmond, Barry.Enright, Thomas W.FitzGerald, Garret.Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).Griffin, Bredan.

Harte, Patrick D.Hegarty, Paddy.Horgan, John.Keating, Michael.Kelly, John.Kenhy, Enda.Lipper, Mick.Mitchell, Jim.O'Brien, Fergus.O'Brien, William.O'Donnell. Tom.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Toole, Paddy.Pattison, Séamus.Taylor, Frank.Timmins. Godfrey.Treacy, Seán.Tully, James.White, James.

Níl

Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Kit.Andrews, David.Andrews, Niall.Aylward, LIam.Barrett, Sylvester.Brady, Garard.Bardy, Vincent.Bronwe, Seán.Burke, Raphael P.Callanan, Hon.Calleary, Seán.Cogan, Barry.Conaghan, Hugh.Connolly, Gerard.Cowen, Bernard.Crinion, Brendan.Cronin, Jerry.de Valera, VivionDoherty, Seán.Farrell, Joe.Faulkner, Pádraig.Filgate, Eddie.Fitzgerald, Gene.Fitzsimons, James N.Flynn, Pádraig.Fox, Christopher J.French, Seán.Gallagher, Dennis.Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.Gibbons, Jim.

Herbert, Michael.Hussey, Thomas.Kenneally, Willam.Kileen, Tim.Lawlor, Liam.Lemass, Eileen.Lenihan, Brian.Leonard, Jimmy.Leonard, Tom.Leyden, Terry.McCreevy, Charlie.Molloy, Rober.Moore, Seán.Morley, P.J.Murphy, Ciará P.Noonan, Michael.O'Connor, Timothy Co.O'Donoghue, Martin.O'hanlon, Rory.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Leary, John.Power, Paddy.Reynolds. Albert.Smith, Michael.Tunney, Jim.Walsh, Joe.Walsh, Seán.Wilson, John P.Woods, Michael J.Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies W. O'Brien and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Moore and B. Ahern.

Amendment declared lost.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.