Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Jun 1980

Vol. 322 No. 6

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

Question again proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Bruton

We on this side of the House are extremely disappointed in the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill. We believe that the Bill is inherently misnamed. The effective content of this Bill is a restriction on reliefs that have existed for members of the farming community since 1898, if my researches are correct. Farmers who are now being deprived of reliefs by this Bill were receiving those reliefs, and almost a century of this has existed. Now the Government are coming along in a year, one could argue, of unparalleled gloom in the agricultural industry and removing reliefs which have existed since the latter part of the last century. A noted agricultural commentator has stated that agricultural incomes fell last year, they will fall this year and they will fall again next year, and output will be down in those three years also. There have been few periods in the agricultural history of this country when income and output in real terms fell over a sustained period of three years. Therefore, it is all the more remarkable and surprising that this Government should choose the middle of that period of decline to remove reliefs that existed and were considered to be satisfactory in previous years when incomes were rising.

We have argued that the rating system is one where reliefs of some sort are essential. One bears in mind that not only are rates levied on land on the basis of valuation dating from the last century, which in many cases is completely out of line with the production capacity of the land in modern agricultural conditions, but also there is no allowance in the rating system for the family responsibilities that people may have. If a man has six children and a farm of £40 valuation, he pays exactly the same rates with no relief as a man with a farm of the same valuation who is unmarried and has no family liability. To come along and worsen the position as far as the entire farming community are concerned in the matter of rates is to aggravate a system which already is inherently unjust.

The case has been made already, and certainly never controverted at any time by the Minister, that this Bill has a much greater effect in terms of proportionate increase in rates on the smaller farmer than on any other farmer. We have calculated that a farmer with a 40-acre farm of £40 valuation will have his rates increased from somewhere around £240 last year to £480 this year, a doubling of his rates burden for that smaller farmer. On the other hand, the position of a farmer with maybe 200 acres will be that his rates will be increased by only 10 to 15 per cent this year, a relatively small increase in his rates burden. The farmer in the 40-acre category in many cases is not earning an income which enables his to set off his rates against income tax, which is one of the reliefs allowed. Therefore, in the case of a larger farmer with perhaps 200 acres there is no doubt that he will be earning an income—if he is liable to farm adequately at all—which will be sufficient to put him in a position to use his rate payment as a payment of his income tax and thereby get the full benefit of that relief. In the case of the smaller farmer with a valuation of £40 and 40 acres, in many cases, particularly this year, he will not have an income which would put him in the income tax net. Therefore, he will not get any benefit from the concession which has been granted in 1978 to farmers which allows them to offset their rates payments as an instalment of their income tax.

I would describe this Bill as being in the classic sense regressive taxation. We heard Deputy Cluskey earlier describing the present Government's policy as being one of taking from the weaker sections of the community to give to those who are better able to fend for themselves, and there is a degree of accuracy in what he says. It would be hard to find more persuasive evidence of this proposition than this Bill, because this Bill takes more from the smaller farmer than it takes from the larger farmer. Clearly it is a regressive measure of taxation unrelated to income. Incomes of the farming community this year have fallen by varying estimates. I have cited a range of figures between 9 per cent and 20 per cent and in some cases it will be even higher. For the farmer who has substantial debt payments to make and very high interest rates his income could have fallen even more proportionately than that of a farmer who is not in debt and is not paying interest. Even though their income may be the same their outgoings are not the same. In many cases the people who have the larger debts are the most progressive farmers and these very people will find themselves having to pay very substantial increases in rates which take no account whatever of their income position. We believe this to be quite unjust.

There is a strong case for having an overall look at the rating system to see if it could be reformed. This is something which obviously would take some time to conclude. Certainly, pending such an investigation, it is very wrong to use a system which is admitted by everybody, including the Minister, to be archaic and out of date as a means of raising easy revenue in a regressive fashion in a year in which farmers are losing money on a unparalleled scale. Never could circumstances be less propitious for a measure of this sort than they are this year.

We have appealed throughout this very long debate—a deliberately long debate because we feel that it is only by means of consistently highlighting the injustice of this measure that it will be brought home to the farming community and the public that there is a need to reform the rating system. We have argued that this is not the year to do what the Minister is now doing. Farmers, this week particularly, are beginning to realise the enormity of the injustice of this Bill because this week they are receiving their rates demands. It is this week for the first time, when the farmers look at their rate demands and compare them with last year's demands, that they will realise the full extent of the implications of this Bill.

Many farmers ignored the proposals contained in the budget, many will not have read the reports of the debate which has taken place on this Bill over the last few weeks, but this week when they receive their rates demands and see in the case of small farmers with 40 or 50 acre farms that their rates are being doubled, and trebled in some cases, they will realise what this debate has been all about. I hope that this week, next week and every week between now and the general election, those farmers make the message clearly heard by the TDs on the other side of the House who have consistently on every occasion when the matter arose voted for these increases in the rates. Only today, when we proposed an amendment on a very tiny matter which would mitigate the effect of this Bill, again the Fianna Fáil Deputies voted down our amendment, which would have in some small measure improved the position of the farming community. That policy has, throughout, been supported by them. The only thing from which I draw solace—and I do not know if it has any political significance, perhaps it has none—is that on the vote today on this Bill the Government, who normally have a majority of 20 in this House, could only muster a majority of ten. In fact, there were only 56 Deputies from Fianna Fáil out of a total of 84 who managed to come in here to the House.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Horgan)

The Deputy should confine his remarks to the contents of the Bill rather than going back over earlier proceedings.

Mr. Bruton

Perhaps this is the beginning, at least, of a consciousness on the other side of the House that they have made a grave mistake and committed a grave injustice in imposing this Bill on the farming community. Perhaps some of the Members of the other side of the House received rates demands themselves this week and spent the time at home wondering how they were going to manage to pay them and did not come up here this week at all. That may explain their absence, that they got such a shock on Monday or Tuesday or whenever their rates demands arrived and realised what they had been voting for. Perhaps they had to stop at home to put their affairs in order, suddenly realising, when they received these rates demands, that their affairs were not as healthy as they thought. Perhaps there is a beginning of a consciousness of the injustice of this Bill. I certainly hope that the farming community will pay close attention to this debate and to the Fianna Fáil TDs and get them to realise what they have done and that, sooner rather than later, this injustice will be taken off the Statute Book.

Mr. O'Keeffe

It is clear that the Government in pressing on with this Bill are totally out of tune with the needs of our farmers. In passing, I should say that the Bill seems to be very inappropriately named. Any farmer this year who gets a rates demand for twice the amount he paid last year will be surprised to see that this is as a result of a Bill called the Relief of Rates Bill. This, in fact, is happening throughout the country at present. In pressing on with this Bill the Government are doing to the farmer what they have been doing in many other areas. The Government's approach, resulting in the ballyhoo at Dublin Airport, welcoming the wonderful package from Brussels which would mean a reduction of 15 per cent in the farmer's current year's income will not fool the farmers any longer. This is obviously Government by mirrors but, in that situation the Taoiseach's and his Minister's attempt to adopt the McLuhan philosophy of the media becoming the message will not wear. It is quite clear that the farmers will have to pay a lot more money in rates under a totally unjust system. Let me make it clear—and my point of view is shared by every Member on this side of the House, including farmer members—that we have never objected to the farmers paying tax on a fair basis on their profits. We were the first party to see that the rates system was unjust. That this Government, which afterwards adopted the same philosophy, now single out the farming community for a special attack in this regard is absolutely outrageous.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy should note that this Bill is not about taxation on farmers as such. It is about rates.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I appreciate the Chair's comments. I shall attempt to confine myself to the Bill but am forced to say that what the farmer has to pay on a rates demand note has to come from the same pocket—it has to come from the field of spuds.

Acting Chairman

That is not the concern of the Chair.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I appreciate that point. In conclusion, this Government will have to have a re-think on their attitude to farmers. I recall that the Fianna Fáil Party when in Opposition made strident calls on behalf of the farmers and on behalf of farmers of over £100 valuation who were paying tax. They wept crocodile tears. Here we have the small farmers being reached through this Bill by the present administration, without any shame or any thought of their personal situation. I must record my personal opposition to this Bill and my belief that the approach by the present Government is absolutely outrageous.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Fine Gael Party have strenously opposed this Bill at all Stages. We believe that the Bill consolidates and extends an unfair system of taxation of farmers. It consolidates the rating system and extends it on the basis of 100 per cent on all farmers with a valuation of £40 or upwards. We have voted against this Bill on Second Stage. We opposed it on Committee Stage. We put down amendments on Committee and Report Stages. They were all voted down by the Government. We cannot vote against the Fifth Stage of this Bill—and I want to explain that—because all that is left in the Bill now is relief for farmers with a poor law valuation of £40 and, were we to vote against it, they would be taxed on a full basis also.

I rose first to explain that and, secondly, to say that the effect of this Bill on a farmer with a £40 valuation in an average county will be to increase his rates bill this year from approximately £198 to £498. That is an increase of two-and-a-half times the present rates or thereabouts. That is a tax being imposed on farmers irrespective of their earning capacity or their ability to pay. That is the second time this year, under two different Bills, that the Government have imposed a farmers' tax without regard to their income or capacity to pay—this Bill and the resource tax which was bulldozed through here on the Finance Bill.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy would do well to confine his remarks to this Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I make those remarks by way of passing reference only. Where, I ask, is Deputy Connolly, the Minister of State at the Minister's Department, who solemnly and eloquently enunciated in this House that the farmer paid if he had an income, that the farmer paid if he showed a profit, but that the farmer would not be asked to pay if he did not have an income and did not show a profit? That is not what is in this Bill. This Bill says that the farmer shall pay whether or not he has an income or shows a profit. It is no excuse to say that the farmer can claim as credit against his income tax the rates which he pays. As those of us who live in rural Ireland know, those of us who come from the land, who are familiar with farming, in this or indeed in any year very few farmers with a poor law valuation of £40 and approximately 50 acres of land will on an accounts system show sufficient profit as to be liable to tax.

This is really an effort—and a successful one—by this Government to get at the farmer, to extract income tax from him whether or not he is earning an income sufficient to attract income tax under the income tax code. That is what this Bill is all about. As Deputy Bruton has said, it is particularly regrettable that in this year, when the farmer's income is tumbling down, when it will show a reduction of at least 10 per cent and perhaps up to 20 per cent, this unjust, arbitrary tax should be imposed on him. This is a transfer of rates from private houses, from industrial buildings, to the farmer. That is what it is all about. This is another method of paying for the Fianna Fáil manifesto. This is another method of paying for the political debts Fianna Fáil incurred in getting them selves back into power at the last general election.

This is the second type of tax to be imposed on farmers this year without any regard to income or capacity to pay. It hits the smaller farmer much harder than the larger farmer. The category of farmer or valuation bands affected this year for the first time are those between £40 and £60. The farmer with a £40 valuation is hit much harder by this Bill percentagewise than is the farmer with a £60 valuation. For some reason or other this Government, perhaps unconsciously, every time they have spread out their claws this year looking for more money have hit the poorer rather than the well—off man. That applies right across the board whether it be in regard to income tax, cottage rents or whatever. The man on the low income is asked to pay more than his better—off brother or sister. That is unjust and unfair. It is unfair as it applies to farmers in the poor law valuation bands but it is unfair also as it applies between farmers in one county and another.

We live in an age when people bring various complaints as far as the Supreme Court. I believe that if the rating system with its inequitable yardstick were brought before the Supreme Court it might very well be rejected as being inequitable. No part of Ireland will be affected more by the provisions of this Bill than my constituency. The poor law valuations in my constituency, particularly in County Monaghan, are notoriously unjust and unfair. To the extent that the farmers of Monaghan are unjustly and unfairly discriminated against they will be hit all the harder by the provisions of this Bill. When I tell the Minister that a £70 poor law valuation represents 95 acres of land in County Monaghan and represents 100 acres of land in County Kildare I hope he will see the enormity of the injustice, of the unfair discrimination against the farmers of Monaghan and, to a marginally lesser degree only, the farmers of Cavan. All of that was based on some myth way back in 1852, or some time between 1852 and 1865 when the Monaghan farmers were sufficiently industrious, hardworking and, I suspect, hungry enough to indulge in the hard task of growing flax. They were driven to growing flax because they had no other means of livelihood. Now, 150 years later, they are to be penalised for their industry, hard work and for getting the most out of their land that could have been got at that time.

This sort of Bill would be very unjust and unacceptable at any time. But to introduce Bills at this time, when not so very long ago the Minister recognised the injustice of rates by their abolition, is rubbing salt into the wounds. That is what happened here.

The Minister and his colleagues sought votes in the last election on the basis that the rating system was unfair, unjust and should be abolished. Now Fianna Fáil are introducing a Bill to consolidate, reinforce and extend that system. They are consolidating it by applying it on a basis of a 100 per cent payment without any relief on farmers with a PLV of £40 or over. This is the second belt they have had since Fianna Fáil returned to office on a campaign which said rates were unjust and unfair and that using the rating system as a yardstick was inequitable and unjust. They abolished agricultural grants on farms under £75, then £60 and now £40 with, for good measure, a resource tax of £3.50 on a £70 valuation. Is the Minister not ashamed of himself?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is making a Second Stage speech. The rule on Fifth Stage is that speeches are brief and deal strictly with what is in the Bill and nothing else.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I hope I am dealing with what is in the Bill because I am telling the effects this Bill will have——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is not being brief. This ruling has been given for years.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I got up to explain why it is impossible to vote on a trick of a Bill like this on Fifth Stage. This Bill is couched in such a way that it says “you cannot hit me with a child in my arms”. They have not got at the farmer under £40 valuation yet, but no doubt they will when they are advised by the Department of Finance. This is a disgraceful performance particularly from a Government part of whose programme was: “Rates are unjust, poor law valuation is unfair. Put us into office and we will abolish them”. There was not a word about this legislation when the former Taoiseach was giving an assurance that there would be no question of transferring rates from one category of hereditament to another.

I agree it is not necessary to say anything more about this Bill because, as Deputy Bruton said, the farmers affected are getting a clearer and more meaningful message about it through their letter boxes and from their rate collectors than I could give if I spoke about this all night. They are getting the message that they will have to pay two-and-a-half times as much rates as they did last year. I believe the farmers will not forget this. Immediately I saw the precursor of this Bill a few years ago I and my party exposed what was in it as loudly as we could but we did not deter the Department of Finance from cracking the whip over the Minister for the Environment. I agree that this year he was not in a position to talk back to the people who were ordering him about after, if I may say so in a jocose way, the midnight tea party.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing in the Bill about tea parties. Deputy Fitzpatrick please be brief and keep strictly to the Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Does the Chair know what I am talking about? I did not think it was that notorious.

Mr. Barrett

I do not like tea.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): We have had the tea pot since then. Between tea parties and teapots we could get a little confused. The Minister has my sympathy because his professional and private life qualifies him better than most to know the type of unfortunates who are being asked to pay 100 per cent rates. He has walked, driven and cycled the roads of Clare collecting rates and knows the people who are being asked to pay. I am sure it is not his heart that is urging him to bring in this Bill because he knows better than most how unjust and unfair it is.

Mr. Hegarty

I will not say anything about tea parties, Boston or otherwise. I do not think the inequity of the rates system was obvious to farmers until the primary grants were removed from rates. Now the full impact of the inequity of the valuation system has hit them. In my own area there are farms of 70 acres with a valuation of £140 and farms of 140 acres with £70 valuation. That is how unfair this system is. This Government are basing their taxation system and the resource tax on valuation, and now full rates are also based on that system.

I believe the farmers' hackles are up. Before this year is out we will have a contest in the courts on this serious issue. When we were in power we introduced farm taxation and we got a lot of "aggro" from the farming community. A farmer said to me the other day: "We had `aggro' but we were able to pay". Now there is a different situation. These people have very reduced incomes. Most of them are having great difficulty trying to meet their financial commitments. To get a rates Bill for two-and-a-half years' figure is something they cannot tolerate, nor would it be tolerated by any other section of the community. If a man does not have any money, how can be pay? These farmers do not have any money. It is as simple as that.

There is no point talking about the EEC package. At 5 per cent that was an excellent package for the EEC farmers who have single figure inflation, single figure bank interest rates and can balance their books, but at 20 per cent inflation, zero growth and 20 per cent bank interest rates, there is no way an Irish farmer will make money this year. He will lose money left, right and centre and this rates burden will cripple him.

There is another very serious side to this and that is, the Irish farmer maintaining his viability in the European market place. Most of his EEC competitors pay one tax—income tax. The Irish farmer has many disadvantages —a sea journey, trying to break in to new markets and so on but on top of all this the farmer is being crippled with the resource tax and rates. How can our farmers compete against people who do not have to pay either of these taxes and who live in the middle of the market-place? There is no way they can do that.

Because of the manifesto and Fianna Fáil's anxiety to get State cars, they have put this economy in the present situation. We see what they are doing at every county council meeting. County managers are trying to cough up new things like development charges and extra water charges.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to stick strictly to what is in the Bill. I will not allow him to talk about everything under the sun. The Bill deals only with rates.

Mr. Hegarty

One section of the community, the farming section, are being asked with business people to carry the entire Department of the Environment. That cannot be done. I said recently at a county council meeting that our roads are like minefields and our hedges are untrimmed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will not talk about roads and hedges on this Bill. I am asking him to stick strictly to what is contained in the Bill. This is in accordance with Standing Orders and has been so for generations. There should be short speeches on Fifth Stage dealing only with what is contained in the Bill.

Mr. Hegarty

Because of this legislation and because of what is coming through the letter boxes of so many people this week, there will be chaos in Irish agriculture and the reaction will be severe because people know that these are bills they cannot pay. In this situation there will be an appeal to their organisation to do something about it. No other section of the community could carry this burden. This is the one section which could, if given the opportunity, pull this country out of the mess it is in at present but we are trying to screw the last bob out of them.

Mr. Deasy

The title of this Bill is surely a misnomer. The only people who will be relieved by it are the Government and it is retrograde in every respect. I wish to be associated with the remarks of previous speakers because during the past few weeks I have received a greater flood of representations than at any time since I became a Deputy. This has occurred since the rates demand notices have been issued to people who will be affected by this Bill because they have valuations between £40 and £60. We all accept that people should pay tax on profits but there is no logical or Christian basis for a levy on people who are not making a profit sufficient for their families to live on. Throughout 1979 and 1980 there has been a drastic recession in the agricultural sector and people are finding it exceedingly difficult to make ends meet. I have no objection—and neither have members of the farming community—to people paying tax on profits, but it is most unfair that people should face an exorbitant increase which in my country is at least in excess of 100 per cent and in some cases as high as 140 per cent. People who last year paid rates of £200 are expected to pay as much as £500 this year; people who paid £300 last year are expected to pay £700 this year. At the same time their real income has decreased. I cannot see any justification for the removal of relief in these circumstances. The Government should take a serious look at the whole matter once again and this is their last opportunity to do so. If this Bill were allowed to go through this House in its present form it would be politically very stupid and socially wrong.

This is the third year in which there has been removal of rates relief. Initially it was reduced for people with valuations in excess of £75; last year it was reduced for people with valuations between £75 and £60 and now it is reduced for those with valuations between £60 and £40. At a time when agriculture is at a standstill or going backwards in terms of real incomes surely it is wrong to levy higher rates and taxes. This levy is being imposed on people who may not be making any profits. I cannot see any sense in such an imposition.

It has been put to me by people affected by this legislation that they should be allowed to pay their rates by instalments. Under existing legislation local authorities expect people to pay rates in two moieties. Perhaps the Minister would consider extending the system because it is hardly fair to expect people with such a low income to fork out £600 or £700. Perhaps payment of rates could be spread over a greater length of time.

Deputy Hegarty raised a pertinent point in asking how we as an agricultural country are expected to compete with our partners in the EEC when we have such an unfavourable rating and taxation system. We have reached the stage where our system is now the most unfavourable, although some years ago the opposite was true. Farming is now becoming uneconomic and the time is coming when farmers will have to get a second job outside farming in order to make a decent living. Costs have been soaring during 1980 and there has been no increase in real income. There has been a drop in the price of cattle and no increase in the price of milk and it is unreasonable to expect people to pay rates which are more than double the amounts paid last year.

Mr. L'Estrange

I wish to condemn in the strongest possible manner the cruel, harsh impositions in this Bill. They are unfair and unjust in regard to the small farmers, especially those who have valuations between £40 and £60. I defy the Minister to deny that their income is between £60 and £80 per week and many of them earn less than an agricultural labourer. Last week Professor Sheehy stated that farmers' incomes last year dropped by 25 per cent and he reckoned they would drop this year by a further 25 per cent, thus making a 50 per cent drop in two years. This Bill imposes an increase of between £4 and £10 per week on these unfortunate people. Other sections got an increase of 20 per cent last year and they will get a similar increase this year. These people work a five-day week with a month's holiday but the small farmer works for 52 weeks in the year, seven days each week, without any holiday. In the past Fianna Fáil referred to the small farmers as the salt of the earth. The Minister is rubbing salt into their wounds this year.

Many small farmers in Longford and Westmeath have complained to me about the savage increases proposed by the Minister. Last Saturday night some of these farmers told me they could not pay an extra £6 or £10 per week when their overhead costs were increasing by 25 per cent and the cost of living increasing by 22 per cent. Many of them have overdrafts and they must pay the banks an interest rate of 18 per cent. The Minister knows that last year young cattle cost £50 per cwt. but they had to be sold afterwards for £39 per cwt. I cannot understand why those people who suffered such a loss are now expected to pay more to the Government.

Previous speakers said it was a misnomer to refer to the Bill as giving relief of rates to farmers. There is no relief for farmers with valuations of from £40 to £60. For example, in Longford a farmer with a PLV of £50 will pay an extra £306 while a farmer in Westmeath with a similar valuation will pay an extra £238. On a £60 valuation a farmer in Longford will pay an extra £400 and in Westmeath he will pay an extra £266. In Westmeath 926 people will be affected while 361 people in Longford will be affected, making a total of 1,289 farmers who have to meet this additional cost while their incomes are falling. There is no justification for this savage attack on small farmers.

I am not surprised that not a single Fianna Fáil backbencher has been prepared to sit behind the Minister and support this Bill. I do not blame them. Many of them made promises when they were canvassing before the last general election. They told farmers the National Coalition would impose cruel, harsh taxation but they said Fianna Fáil were their friends. They had many promises in their manifesto but they did not tell the small farmers in Longford and Westmeath or in the west of Ireland that they would have to pay an additional £250 to £300. There is very little equity in what the Government are proposing. This rates system is most unfair and unjust and putting an extra burden on small farmers makes it even worse. Where is the equity in putting this cruel taxation on people whose incomes are dropping? Other sections of the population got an increase of 20 per cent last year and they will get a further increase this year but the income of small farmers has dropped by 50 per cent. This Government talk about equity and about cherishing all the children of the nation equally but the fact is that they are reducing the income of one section by 40 or 50 per cent while increasing the income of the other section by the same amount.

As Deputy Hegarty said, we may be on the edge of a precipice. In the past the farmers stood in the front line in many wars, national and economic. If they were given the chance they would come to the rescue of the nation once again but unfortunately they are reeling under increased taxation and an increased cost of living at a time when the price of animals is falling. If they were given the opportunity farmers could help to take the country out of the doldrums. I am afraid the time is coming when the sheriff will call at the farmer's door. I have never advocated to anyone that they should break the law but many farmers have told me that if it is a choice between their keeping the extra £4 or £10 to feed their wives and families they will do that even if it means that the sheriff will call. It is a bad day for the farmers who have given their support to Fianna Fáil for many years. They have been let down by the Government. Many of them are waiting for the opportunity to toss Fianna Fáil out of power in a general election.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Barrett)

We have had a long debate on this Bill during which we travelled many roads. Many of the points made had little to do with the Bill. We were treated to contributions on valuations, income tax, farmers' prices and profits and housing loans and at the end of the debate we were discussing tea parties.

The purpose of the Bill is simple. It is to give farmers relief to the tune of £37.7 million which they would not otherwise get and no amount of talking can get away from that fact. It is not true that the title of the Bill is not accurate. Considerable relief is being given to farmers. Everyone understands how rates are calculated. The valuation of the property is multiplied by the rate in the £ struck by the local authority. The answer obtained as a result of this calculation is the gross rate on the property and this is what the ratepayer is obliged to pay under the general law relating to rates unless some action is taken to give relief. In this Bill such action is being taken with regard to land. The Bill will ensure that for 396,871 rated occupiers with land valuations of up to £20 rates will not be payable. For another 58,684 people with holdings between £20 and £40 valuation part of the gross rates are relieved.

The total cost of relief from which a total number of 455,555 people will benefit is £37.7 million this year. This amount is made good to the local authority through the agricultural grant so that they are not left short as a result of this rates relief. The relief will apply in 1981 and 1982 as well. This is a departure from previous years where the Bill covered only two years. The reliefs are quite substantial. Farmers with land of up to £20 valuation will pay no rates and those with land of valuations between £20 and £33 will get full relief on the first £20 and pay the full rate on the remaining £s valuation up to a total of £33. With regard to the rated occupiers between £33 and £40 valuation they are relieved to the extent of 80 per cent on the first £20 valuation and 30 per cent on the remaining amount up to £40.

The question of valuations was dealt with at length by a number of speakers and Deputy Bruton suggested that I take steps to ensure that, as valuations in some areas are very high based on Griffith's valuation, these areas should be revalued. A suggestion that revaluation should be carried out on a selective basis is grossly unfair. The whole country should be revalued or not at all. The Deputy mentioned that valuations along the Shannon Estuary are very high based on Griffith's valuation but other areas away from the Shannon Estuary have very low valuations in comparison with other areas. If we reduced valuations in the heavily valued areas the valuations would be liable to rise in other areas. There should definitely not be a selective revaluation of land.

Deputy Deasy wished to know if it is possible to pay rates by instalment. It is possible and it has always been possible to adopt this procedure. There is nothing new here. Many ratepayers use the instalment system to pay rates on an interim basis and they get an interim receipt.

The total sum involved in bringing the upper limit for relief from £60 down to £40 this year is £6 million. The total sum given in relief is £37.7 million. A factor that seems to be forgotten is the 10 per cent limit which was imposed this year with regard to the increase in rates. Deputy Fitzpatrick said that we were asking the farmer to take up the Bill for the derating of the domestic sector. We are not asking the farmer or the industrialist to do that and that is the purpose of the 10 per cent limit. There was a lot of song and dance about the 10 per cent limit but we must also remember that the annual increase in rates of 10 per cent, although one year it was 11 per cent, is part of the increase where farmers are concerned. The farmers benefited from the relief of domestic rates and from the relief of rates on farm buildings which had been subjected to rates. The farming community benefited to the tune of £11 million as a result of the relief of domestic rates and of rates on farm outbuildings. On the one hand there is the saving of £6 million and there is also a total relief under the relief of domestic rates of £11 million. I do not see the argument that the farming community with valuations between £40 and £60 are being asked to pay for the domestic sector.

Because of this Bill this year a total of 455,555 people will benefit by £37.7 million. They will benefit to the tune of £11 million also because of the derating of the domestic sector. This Bill is properly named. It is to relieve rates and we could not give that relief if this Bill were not passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): One would think that the farmers' were overall much better off so convincing did the Minister sound.

Mr. W. O'Brien

May I ask one question?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There will be no questions. The debate is closed.

Question put and agreed to.