Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 May 1981

Vol. 328 No. 15

Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1981: Second Stage.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. R. Burke)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The major purpose of this Bill is to fix in permanent statutory form the most generous scheme of rates relief for average farmers which has obtained since rating began. The impact of its measures, first announced in the budget of last January, will be both timely and direct. First and foremost, the Bill will extend total relief of rates to 94 per cent of all land holdings and partially derate a further 3 per cent. It will complement the other considerable initiatives developed by the Government in support of agriculture by transferring a potential £62 million in tax revenue from the public sector to the free use of farmers. Finally, the Bill will achieve these objectives by way of full subvention from the State and without loss of rates income to local authorities.

Besides the unprecedented scale of the new reliefs, the Bill embodies three other welcome improvements. For the first time in 35 years, the legislation to give effect to the agricultural grant will be expressed in a permanent rather than a temporary set of measures. This departure from the principle of periodic reviews will be welcomed by farmers and will create a more stable framework for forward financial planning by them.

Another innovation of the Bill is its extension of the agricultural grant reliefs to all land in urban areas. This will benefit an additional 9,500 landholders. Lastly, the Bill sees to it that farmers eligible for relief of rates on land will no longer suffer the irritant of having to meet the levy of certain separate charges, such as those for malicious injuries, on their rateable valuations.

The Bill replaces the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1980, which was due to run until the end of 1982, with two major relief provisions. One, contained in section 8, validates the additional relief granted by the Government in 1980 when the second moiety of rates was waived for farmers in the £40 to £60 valuation category.

The primary, and permanent, form of rates relief given under the Bill is however set out in sections 2 to 4. As in the past, the reliefs will take the form of an allowance to the rated occupier against the amount of the rates which would otherwise be leviable on the valuation of his holding. For the purpose of the reliefs, land holdings may be divided into two categories — those with land valuations under £50 and those with land valuations of £50 or more but under £70.

For holdings under £50 valuation, the allowances provided under the Bill amount to 100 per cent of the gross rates. This means that the holdings concerned will be fully derated from this year on. Previously, full derating applied only to holdings with valuations of up to £20. The extension of the 100 per cent allowances to holdings with valuations between £20 and £50 means that the present Bill is derating an extra 71,250 holdings in county council areas for the first time.

The Bill also provides for allowances against their gross rates for the occupiers of holdings with land valuations between £50 and £70. For these holdings, the relief being given amounts to 50 per cent of the gross rates. This means that the rated occupiers are being relieved of one-half of the total rates which would otherwise be payable on their land valuations. An estimated 13,200 holdings in this category will benefit from this relief.

Under existing legislation, the agricultural grant reliefs applied by and large only to land situated in county council areas. The exclusion of urban areas from the scope of the reliefs, save for certain land newly embraced by boundry extensions, has been the subject of representations for many years now from urban councils, from the Association of Municipal Authorities, and from many farmers involved.

Section 5 of the Bill will bring a long needed remedy to this anomalous situation. From this year on, the agricultural grant reliefs will extend in full to land situated within the boundaries of county boroughs, boroughs and urban districts. This fundamental change means that a further 9,500 landholders will be relieved of all rates. When account is taken of the 71,250 holdings to which I have already referred, the total number being fully derated for the first time under the terms of this Bill comes to 80,750.

Another worth-while improvement, provided by section 6 of the Bill, relates to the basis on which reliefs will be calculated. Up to now, reliefs under the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Acts related to the general rate in the pound only. The rated occupier remained liable for the full amount of any separate charges which might be leviable, such as those arising from malicious injury decrees. Local authorities had a limited power to waive separate charges in certain circumstances but without the benefit of recoupment from the Exchequer. Section 6 of the Bill extends the agricultural grant reliefs to the total rate in the pound, including any separate charges, and the full cost is recoupable from the Exchequer.

The Bill is a relatively simple one, but the benefits which it brings to the farming community are far-reaching and lasting. Seen in a more general context, the Bill is part of a wider Government commitment to implementing fair and progressive reliefs in the burden of rates. This movement towards greater equity in local taxation began when our long-standing commitment to abolish domestic rates was honoured from 1 January 1978. Between the reliefs still obtaining under that initiative and the new reliefs for farmers now being given, nearly one million properties which bore either a full or a substantial rates liability before 1978 now enjoy complete exemption from rates. The total value to ratepayers of the reliefs involved amounts to £183 million in the present year.

The present Bill provides the legislative framework necessary to advance and consolidate this important work. I know that it will be welcomed by Members on all sides and I now commend it to the House.

Mr. D'Arcy

I welcome this move to relieve rates on all agricultural holdings up to £50 valuation, but let me remind the Minister — as no doubt he will be reminded before the debate is over — of the amount of damage which has been done during the four years his party have been in office to the people with rather large valuations. It is my belief, and the solid belief of many people in the State, that the reason the present Government have brought in this relief is that our party in November 1980 brought before this House a Bill and with that Bill a request to remove all agricultural rates, which would be the proper move which should have been made by the Government. As a result of that pressure, and the acceptance by the people of that measure which we brought in with that six-point plan, the present Government were forced to make this move.

PLV, as it is known, as a system has completely outlived its usefulness and, as I claimed when I first came into this House, it should not be used as a criterion either to measure the acreage of land an owner has or to decide his ability to pay taxes on that holding. Rates levied on PLV bear no relation to the ability of the land to produce or the landowner to pay. I now wish to bring to the Minister's notice what no doubt has been brought to his notice before, the position in our own county. We know that the farmers of Wexford have set up a fund and have brought before the courts the whole question of the PLV. No doubt the Minister is aware that at the moment there is a threat that before this case proceeds and while it proceeds the people who contribute to the fund to fight it will pay no rates to Wexford County Council. I would like to ask the Minister, and probably he will have some answers, the position of Wexford County Council in this whole case. What is the position in the administration of Wexford County Council if this case is not taken to the courts for two or three years? Practically 95 per cent of the farmers of County Wexford have made a contribution to this fund. This could put the county council and their services in a very difficult position, and there is very strong reason to believe that the farmers will succeed. My personal comment on that situation is I hope that when the court case comes around they will succeed.

Wexford, like most countries, has a big variation in the valuation per acre, varying from 25p to £1.25. This awful situation has carried on down through the years and very little has been done about it, and surely the time has come to do something when these valuations in certain instances drag very large amounts of money from the landowners with the high valuations. Whether that be on rates on the one hand or the resource tax, which was introduced by Fianna Fáil, on the other hand, PLV was used. We heard a lot about wealth tax and its effect, but we heard very little about this selective wealth tax which was threatened in 1979 and brought in in 1980. PLV was used and the tax at £3.50 over £75 PLV bore no relation whatsoever to the ability of the person to pay. Still the Minister is sitting there blowing his coal about what he is doing for the farmers. I remind him to look back four years. No doubt the figures are available in the Department of Agriculture which show the amount of damage that his party have done as far as the farmers are concerned with the paying of rates and levies and depriving their families of education on the one hand and health services on the other. The Government sought in a two-year period to bring down eligibility for rates relief to £40 valuation and they also sought to bring down eligibility for tax to £40 valuation. There is not much about that today, but these things have done enormous damage to the economy of this nation and have affected seriously people whose incomes were reduced over 50 per cent over a two-year period.

One of the most extraordinary things about PLV is that the better land is lowly valued and the poorer land is highly valued. I understand that this came about during the Griffith valuation sometime in the mid-1850s when the land was being tilled and crops such as beans or wheat were being sown by spade and shovel. Heavy soil was suitable for that but it is not suitable for machinery and as a result not suitable for machinery and as a result of changing times we find that good land properly titled and fertilised can produce better crops while the poor land with the marl soil is unable to stand up to the big machinery. It is no harm to mention that in this House.

We have heard little about another situation regarding rates. During 1980, as I have mentioned, we had the famous resource tax. PLV was the criterion used to qualify or disqualify a person for that tax. PLV is used also for qualifying people for the health service, for educational grants and for rates. These things are not mentioned and they affect seriously the people with very high valuations. I went to the bother of having a look at not just County Wexford but six or seven other counties also, and I find the very same position appertains to the other counties as to Wexford. A person with 100 acres of land can have a £30 valuation in a county and a person in the same county with 60 acres of land can have a £60 valuation. The officials of any Department have no other criterion or yardstick to measure whether these people should or should not benefit under certain schemes under PLV. The time is ripe for the system to be changed and for Fianna Fáil to bring in another benefit as far as rates are concerned. To use a figure of £50 valuation indiscriminately against landowners I would describe as careless because this system has no equity whatsoever. It is the same in every county whether it is west of the Shannon, in the south or in the east. I have heard officials from the Department of Agriculture state that a system cannot be introduced which has a bearing on the acreage farmers have, but I believe that if the Minister checks with the Land Commission they will tell him that they have used this system for the past 40 years. I see no obstacle to using this system in relation to rates. If the Fine Gael Party get into power we are prepared to scrap the entire rates system. The Minister may say that some of the large farmers with over £70 valuation should be well able to pay but I would like to remind him that a farmer with £100 valuation will now have to pay £14 to £15 in the pound in rates so his bill will be at least £1,500.

Such people are also responsible for taxes. The Minister may tell us that they can charge their rates against taxes. What can the people charge their rates against if they have no money to pay taxes? There is an area in Wexford known as the Macamore, an area of 40,000 acres. The average valuation in that area is 85p per acre. Those people have the worst land in County Wexford but they are deprived of educational and health grants. They pay high rates and now they are being left out of the benefits announced today. Any man who is working on an income which has been cut by 50 per cent over the last two years knows how serious it is to have to find £1,400 for rates. Most of those people have to borrow money to pay their rates. Last year these people had to borrow money to pay their rates and resource tax. They also had to borrow money to buy food to feed their families. There is not much in the Minister's Bill today about that. If a general election was not likely to take place in the near future there would be very little by way of announcement from the Government as far as agriculture is concerned. During the four years the Government have been in office the agricultural industry has declined.

Last year, after great pressure from the IFA, the Government brought in relief of the second moiety for people with valuation up to £50. That relief was introduced in the last quarter of last year when rates were paid by most of the people I am talking about. Rates is a very serious matter to any land owner. Most of these small farmers sold breeding stock to pay their rates. The Minister said that anybody who had paid their rates would get a refund but that did not come until January this year. The Minister's Department forced the people to pay their rates. They only got the refund after they had sold their cattle at poor prices. The people have been destocking to pay their rates and resource tax.

The Minister gave relief last year but that was done only after great damage was inflicted on the agricultural industry. The Wexford County Council find that as a result of certain commitments by the Minister's Department no pressure will be put on people to pay the rest of the rates. Wexford County Council are approximately £300,000 short and this affects our finances. The Government gave the commitment but they were not prepared to pay for it. The Minister's Department have an obligation to pay that £300,000 to allow us to carry on services within the county until the people are able to pay for them. The Minister's Department should be prepared to stand over the commitment they gave.

Let me remind the Minister, when he is talking about 94 per cent of rated owners who will benefit under this new scheme, of the thousands of farmers who have got no relief over the years in rates or taxes and who have failed to qualify for any benefits under health or education. Those are the people who keep the factories going, get the maximum production from their land and are prepared to invest. Rates were not a great burden until recently but now they are a very serious matter. The position would not be so bad if rates were related to income or profit. If a man gets a bill for £1,500 or £1,600, although it will be paid in two moieties, he will have to pay up to £800. Such a man may look wealthy and may have assets but he has no income. The income for such people has been seriously reduced in the last few years. The Minister should give some relief to those people. I understand we are not, under Standing Orders, allowed to put down any amendments which will involve the expenditure of money. We can only appeal to the Minister in the interests of the major industry, agriculture — I am prepared to accept that it is necessary to go up to about £150 valuation because we are taking in only people with 200 acres of land — to give some relief to these people because they have paid down the years and got little or no benefit.

Fianna Fáil are claiming credit for action taken by the Coalition Government, but it is my belief that relief should be given to people with valuation of £150. The policy pursued by the Government, particularly on the rates issue, has done serious damage. The resource tax has brought in very little revenue. This was another rates system, but because of pressure from this side of the House, that tax was dropped after one year. Still the Government had the audacity to introduce it in 1980 although in the two previous years farmers' incomes had taken a drop of 45 per cent. Fianna Fáil showed the farmers they were prepared to introduce what was described at that time as a selective wealth tax and they were prepared to reduce PLV from £70 to £40 valuation. This measure created a great deal of uncertainty and did a lot of damage to the agricultural community.

I welcome these measures but the sooner we have a Fine Gael Government the better because we will do away with rates altogether, which is the proper thing to do.

Mr. Tully

The PLV system has long outlived its usefulness. Despite what the Minister said in his brief, the last Coalition Government started to abolish rates on dwellings. It is not correct for the Minister to say:

This movement towards greater equity in local taxation began when our long-standing commitment to abolish domestic rates was honoured from 1 January 1978.

A few weeks before the 1973 election Fianna Fáil decided to abolish domestic rates. Domestic rates were abolished by the Coalition Government, with the exception of less than 25 per cent which would have been abolished the year they took office. It is unfair and untrue to say Fianna Fáil abolished domestic rates. I wanted to put that on the record.

It is ridiculous that in 1981 we should still be talking about a taxation system — because that is what rates are — which was introduced and operated as a result of the Griffith valuation carried out in the 1850s. I was discussing this matter with Deputy Fitzpatrick who represents Cavan-Monaghan and he told me of a curious situation which occurs there. Meath is highly rated. A rateable valuation of £1.50 per acre in Meath would be matched in the neighbouring land across the border by a rate of 50p an acre, while in Monaghan it would be over £1 per acre or even up to £1.50 per acre. The reason is that when the Griffith valuation was being carried out a lot of wheat or flax was grown in most counties but they were not grown in Cavan with the result that the rates were low. Since then they have had low rates, low valuation and everything that goes with it. In my constitutency we had to pay the higher rate. When rates were removed from dwellings farmers — with the exception of those who were covered by previous Acts like this — were paying the full rate.

The Minister should remember that last year his Government did an extraordinary thing. They did away with many of the concessions given to those who were being derated and said it was no longer possible or equitable to do that. Then, having found out that things were not going too well, the Taoiseach — not the Minister for the Environment or the Minister for Agriculture — decided to reverse engines and restore remission on rates. He went even further and said that those who had paid the first moiety need not pay the second until they were able — or words to that effect. As a matter of fact, he said to the county councils "Do not pester them. The poor fellows want time. Let us go easy on them," but he did not say what he meant by "go easy on them". The result is that in a number of areas those rates have not yet been paid. It is very difficult to collect the rates because the farmers rightly say that the Taoiseach said they need not pay them until they were able, and they say they are not able. This had repercussions on health charges because people feel that what applies to rates should also apply to health charges and they should not be forced to pay them.

Is there any gurantee that what is before us today will not be changed by Fianna Fáil if by any miracle they are returned to office after the general election? Is there any gurantee they will not decide the time has come to make farmtenc ers pay again and that they will not do what they did last year, only in reverse? Is there any guarantee they will not say that this was only a temporary measure to get them over the election? It is a political trick to say this is permanent because before now it was renewable each year.

Would the Minister answer a few questions? One deals with removing other charges, such as what would happen with regard to malicious injuries claims. This means the State will be responsible for many more malicious injury payments than they were and everyone knows the malicious injuries bill will be pretty hefty this year because the Government did not govern. That is what they are there for but they had not the guts to do it. I hope they have changed their minds and realise it is their job to run the country.

Another point, which is probably as much my fault as it is the Minister's, is that when the derating of houses took place no special provision was made to cover water rates. In this city and in many towns water rates were collected with the rates but when the houses were derated water rates ceased. In the country districts water rates were separate and farmers had to pay a few pounds a year, but these rates have been increased this year to £25. Does the Minister understand that a local authority house in County Meath which was paying £9 PLV rates a few years ago, is now paying £25 water rates? Does he consider that to be equitable? If it was a good move to abolish water rates in cities and towns, it should also be a good move to do away with water rates in the country. This also applies to a farmer who makes one, two or three water connections and who is, in many cases, paying per litre. The meter charges will be more than £25. The Minister and the Government should know this is the most unfair system and they should get the Department officials to look at it with a view to doing something about it.

The whole question of whether PLV should be continued at all should be thrashed out in the House by way of a special Bill. The onus is on the Minister and the Government to go into this question of how local taxation is to be collected because it is ridiculous to find a situation in which one section are paying but another section are relieved from paying because somebody else is carrying the burden. The ball is being tossed back and forward all the time. It is where the value of the vote is greatest that the most relief is given. That has been particularly noticeable in the past 18 months or so.

If the Government had been serious about helping the agricultural industry they would have attempted to introduce a different type of farmer taxation. Having lived all my life in the country I can say that smaller and medium-type farmers for years had a tough time. Then with the advent of the EEC membership they had it soft for a while, but now they are back to the tough old times because their percentage profit is no greater than before EEC entry. Many farmers in the two categories I have mentioned are barely able to make a living though they work hard in all weathers. They are still being taxed under the same old idea that existed before the beginning of the century.

Removing a section of farmers from the net does not mean that those who need assistance most from the State are getting it. We know that farmers with valuations of £150, as Deputy D'Arcy has said, find it very hard to make a living while those on relatively small valuations, because of the type of farming they engage in and the location of their farms, are doing well. All of them have to work hard in all types of weather but some are being treated more equal than others. In farming as well as in industry and the professions the Government should devise a system whereby those who are making big money would be called on to pay their share of taxation while those who find it hard to make a living and rear families should get all possible assistance to enable them to live.

We should not have the old system continued for no other reason than that Governments so far have not been prepared to sit down to devise something better. I do not think I could imagine anything worse than the present system of farmer taxation. It is not only land that is taxed but the valuation on which a farmer is taxed also covers persons, children, their right to free education, medical attention and 100 other things, simply because that is the way it was — if it was good enough for their grandfathers it is good enough for them.

There has been a suggestion that this is a permanent measure, that this will be the last Bill of its kind. The Minister knows that there is nothing permanent in this House, not even ministerial seats, not to talk about legislation. There is change from day to day and year to year. Therefore, if we are seriously interested in trying to help out what we have always considered to be our most important industry, we should do something about it now. Many things will have to be considered: the types of crops grown, the conditions applying to different regions, the weather. This year farmers are finding it impossible to put crops in because it has been raining at the wrong time. I have seen them in my area working all night but suddenly the rain came, the machinery got stuck in the fields and they could not get it out.

I appreciate that there cannot be an overnight decision to do something for them but the Government must try to ensure that farmers are encouraged to get the best from their lands. As I have said, a farmer whose valuation is £1 above a certain figure must pay a large proportion of his income in rates while the man immediately below him does not pay any. Last year we had a similar Bill and what was said by Government speakers turned out to be nonsense within a month. The Government attempted to reverse the situation and then we had the Taoiseach for the end of the year adopting a softly, softly approach.

I hope this will not be the last Bill dealing with rates, as the Minister seemed to suggest, because any Bill of this kind dealing with PLV cannot be permanent legislation. The way of this Bill is not the way it should be done. What we should be doing sensibly is encouraging farmers to grow what they can and what the people of the country want. Then we will not have farmers going to the Border to picket lorries of Cyprus potatoes being imported despite a solemn promise from the Minister for Agriculture that such potatoes would not be allowed in. Farmers should be encouraged to grow what is needed.

Some years ago farmers and their workers were regarded simply as people who were not much use for anything but agriculture. Now they have to be technicians as well, they have to be able to service their machinery to keep it working. It is not right that we should still be using a system devised by somebody in the 1850s, that we should now be attempting to regulate what that person should pay because of what happened over 130 years ago. It does not make sense. We have changed most things that occurred since then where we could. I would appeal to the Minister to let his name be remembered in the Department for at least one suggestion of his, a better way for paying taxation other than rates based on PLV, because we could not have a worse system.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Connolly)

I am very glad to have this opportunity to speak in support of the Bill. The wellbeing of our biggest industry, agriculture, is vital to the wellbeing of our economy. One of the many measures Governments have chosen over the years to promote this wellbeing has been abating the effects of various taxes, including rates, on farmers' land. The measures this Bill proposes will give the small and medium sized farmers rent abatements on a scale which is without equal in our history. Farmers with valuations up to £50 will pay no rates and farmers with valuations between £50 and £70 will pay only half the rates. These are worthwhile and welcome improvements in the lot of farmers.

In my own county of Offaly, 92 per cent of all rated holdings of land will be free of all rents, thanks to this Bill. Another 4 per cent will pay only half the rates. In other words, a total of 96 per cent of land holdings in Offaly will be derated. But for the provisions of this Bill a farmer with a valuation of £49 would be paying £591 for rates this year. Now he will be paying nothing. A farmer rated at £69 valuation will have his rates bill cut by £416. I am confident that for the farmers in Offaly and elsewhere these measures will represent a welcome change.

The Bill also extends the same generous rate abatements to urban areas. In Tullamore Urban District, for example, about 70 land holders will be free of rates altogether as a result of this Bill. I am glad that the Government saw fit to include the urban farmers in these generous new measures. In all, as the Minister has stated, over 81,000 farmers, who were up to now liable for some rates, will now be totally exempt. The measures proposed in this Bill will cost over £62 million this year and I am satisfied that these measures, together with the other incentives that the Government have extended to the farming sector, will provide a powerful stimulus to the farming industry and to the economy in general.

This debate has been wide ranging and the Opposition went into more than rating. They dealt with agricultural income in great detail. In my constituency very few people applied for the refund of rates last year. As far as I can recall, at the November meeting of the county council the manager said that he had got no applications at all for a refund because they knew the money was going to come. I am glad to say that these two councils and many other councils paid out the money very quickly at the time. There might have been an odd case where one might be inclined to exaggerate but I am satisfied that the repayments were paid very promptly and it was not the fault of our Department if some were not paid promptly because we took the necessary measures to deal with them.

I do not want to get into farmers' incomes but I come from a farming community so I have a very good knowledge of the situation. I can assure the House that the measures taken by the Minister for Agriculture have pleased the farming community and the results can be seen everywhere. The people in Laois and Offaly are quite happy and I have no doubt that at the election we will get a mandate to continue the good work.

Mr. Deasy

We give a guarded welcome to this Bill. Over all however, I would regard it as being a case of too little too late. A great deal of damage has been done to the agricultural sector over the past four years and in particular in the past two years. There was a time when relief was needed not just from rates but from taxation on all farmers, for the farming community. Unfortunately, this was not forthcoming. The result is that we have had the greatest depression ever known here, as bad as if not worse than in the thirties. It has had serious repercussions on the economy. It will take many years for the farming sector to set out of this recession, for the agriculture-related industries to get back on their feet fully. We have seen more closures and job losses in the agriculture-related industries than in any other sector in the last two years. It was a time when discretion should have been used by the Government to see that people were not put in a position where they had to cut back on production. That is what has happened. We have seen farmers reducing their stock.

An Leas-Chean Comhairle

The Deputy is getting into a debate on agriculture. This Bill deals only with rates.

Mr. Deasy

Not at all. I am just dealing with the problems which farmers have had to endure due to the payments of rates. We have seen cattle in calf being sold to the meat factories so people could pay their bills and in particular their rates. That should not have been the case. It has been a disastrous couple of years. As Deputy D'Arcy mentioned, it is going to take a long time for the farming community to recover from that situation.

Statistics can make people believe all sorts of untruths. The statistics here in front of us today look wonderful, but if one delves a little more deeply into them one sees that they do not tell the true story at all. We are told by the Minister that 71,000 landowners in the country are now completely derated. We are also told that over 13,000 are partially derated. The fact of the matter is that of those 71,000 people who are totally derated, the majority are not farmers at all. A certain section of them may be involved in farming, but merely on a part-time basis. A landowner can be defined and is defined as anybody who owns land which is rated, and that can be a small fraction of an acre. For instance, I own two and a half acres of land and I certainly would not be classified as a farmer.

Every cottier with an acre or less would come into that category, so it is misleading to give the impression that 71,000 farmers are being totally derated. That is the impression the Government are trying to give although a considerably lesser number of full-time farmers are being derated. In relation to the figure of 13,000 they are obviously the people within the rate of valuations from £50 to £70 and they are being only partly derated. The people who contribute most per head to agriculture are the people in the higher rateable valuations although there may be some exceptions. The people with valuations in excess of £70 are not getting any relief under this Bill. These are the large producers whether they are dairy farmers milking 100 or 200 cows or whether they are producing beef. It is these progressive farmers who have been hammered, especially during the past two years by the recession and they get no relief under this Bill. People in this category have rates bills which vary from £1,000 to £3,000 irrespective of whether they are making a profit or not. In the past two years many of them have not made a profit. They have had to sell off stock and to forego development which is so necessary for the progress of agriculture. It is a ruinous situation and we cannot condone a form of taxation which is not related to the income. Such a system cannot be tolerated. We have advocated that the sooner rates as a form of taxation are eliminated the better. A farmer or businessman cannot complain if he is taxed on his net profits and that is as it should be. That is not the case at the moment.

The Minister boasts that 94 per cent of landowners are being completely derated and that another 3 per cent are being partially derated but he should think in terms of 100 per cent derating. That does not seem an impossible target. We should fully derate the other 3 per cent and the 3 per cent who are already partially derated. Why is there a great barrier and why can this not be done completely?

With the recession we have had a national slump in employment and a national economic slump from which it will take us years to recover. The agricultural sphere is where the assistance is needed but instead of eliminating rates on people in that category more impositions such as the 2 per cent levy on all forms of agricultural output, and a resource tax on farmers with valuations over £70 were imposed. The Government are killing the goose that lays the golden egg because agriculture is the basis of our whole economy. When there is a recession in agriculture all sectors suffer and it has taken this recession to make the PAYE sector realise how dependent we are on a booming agricultural sector. In times of depression measures should be taken to alleviate the hardships involved. While the Taoiseach last January made noises about doing that, he did not come through with the necessary measures.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): He is not making much noise these days.

Mr. Deasy

At that time the Taoiseach said that nobody would be unduly pressed for payment if they had not the means. However farmers in my county have been getting summonses for nonpayment of rates in the past couple of weeks. Many of them can ill afford to pay rates. Many people were too proud to wait and in order to pay their way they did what was not prudent for themselves or for the country; they sold off stock which is badly needed to build up the national herd. There should have been a definite form of relief and not just a half promise which is what they got from the Taoiseach. There was no definite follow up to what the Taoiseach said.

The local rating authorities may have let up for a short space but they have now started to call in the money and some people cannot afford that demand. We would like to have seen something more concrete as a result of the Taoiseach's statement. As well as misleading the farming community he seriously depleted the resources of local authorities, particularly county councils because rates were not coming in. The Government should have compensated the county councils and written off the rates which were being demanded from people who were not in a position to pay them. That was the solution. Great damage has been done to the agriculture sector by the inflexible attitude adopted. There should have been some definite form of relief. The farming community do not object to paying tax on profits but we certainly object to being asked to pay a penal tax such as rates, the 2 per cent levy or resource tax when a profit is not being made.

Deputy Tully pointed out in his speech that factors other than rates arise nowadays. In many cases they exceed what would have normally been payable in rates. Deputy Tully referred to water rates from which there is no relief. The amount of money to be paid in water rates has become astronomical. In cases it is almost £1,000. It is a new form of rate which takes the place of the rates which were relieved. Besides that, there are excessive charges in respect of VAT. All these things are adding tremendously to the cost of inputs in farming. One cannot talk about relief in just one sphere when the impositions in other spheres more than offset the relief given. It is a misnomer to say that farmers are being relieved when their overheads have become considerably greater due to new forms of taxation and an increase in existing forms of taxation such as water rates.

We give a certain welcome to this Bill as it goes a small way towards alleviating the hardships of certain farmers. However, it does not alleviate the hardships of some of the more progressive farmers and as a result agriculture and employment are taking the beating. We welcome the extension of the relief to farmers in urban areas. This was an anomaly which should not have been tolerated. It was most unfair that a person inside an urban boundary would have to pay full rates when a neighbour would get relief. I compliment the Minister on eliminating that, something which was long overdue. Overall the Bill is only a sop. It does not solve the current financial problems of farmers or of the farming industry.

Mr. Callanan

I would like to congratulate the Minister on this Bill of which there has been unfair criticism. Deputy Deasy mentioned that farmers had been left out, that the rest of them were part-time farmers. If 96 per cent of landholders are part-time farmers, only 3 per cent are contributing in any way towards the economy. I do not agree with that. I believe small farmers are hard-working people who have contributed down through the years——

Mr. Deasy

I did not say that——

Mr. Callanan

The Deputy said that most of the people who were getting relief are part-time farmers. That is not so.

Mr. Deasy

I said it did not distinguish between farmers and non-farmers.

Mr. Callanan

The Deputy said that people who got no relief were carrying the country on their backs. I believe every farmer is doing a good job but I do not accept that 3 per cent are carrying the country on their backs.

Mr. Deasy

I did not say that——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Callanan without interruption, please.

Mr. Callanan

I was the odd man out in my own party because I did not agree with completely derating small houses and farms. Taxation must come from somewhere. If it comes off one thing it goes on something else. In this case you must take from the wealthy to give to the lower classes. Down through the years when subsidies were given to farmers the sky was the limit. The more acres a farmer had the bigger subsidy he drew. I believe in subsidising a person to a point where he can make a living. I do not believe in subsidising the rich to get richer. I know some farmers are in a bad way.

I never agreed with the poor law valuation. Why is there a song and dance about it today? I am in favour of the adjusted acre because I think poor law valuation is grossly unfair. For as long as I can remember I have been complaining about it and no Government have done anything about it. The Minister, who came in with a good package, should not be criticised for not doing something about the poor law valuation. I would like to see an alternative to the poor law valuation. Deputy D'Arcy made good suggestions.

The Land Commission adjusted acre scheme is very fair, putting the good with the bad and getting an average. Having said that, I think the Minister has done a reasonably good job. We had a recession in 1974. I spent evenings on the Opposition benches trying to get the Government to do something. I remember they gave a fodder subsidy. At that time you had to gamble a calf. Things were also bad in 1978, but the Government made an effort by meeting farming organisations——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are getting into a general debate on agriculture.

Mr. Callanan

It might be my last day here and I do not want to quarrel with the Chair——

Mr. Tully

Deputy Callanan will be back.

Mr. Callanan

I do not know whether I will or not. I do not want to fight with anyone in the House. I have had good relationships with everybody in the House. I have given credit where credit is due. I want to give credit today to the Minister for bringing in a good package.

I also want to congratulate the Minister for including urban farmers. I have been campaigning for this for years. It is extraordinary what can happen coming up to an election. I read in our local paper where a councillor mentioned at the urban council meeting at Ballinasloe that he had got a letter from a Senator saying that urban farmers were now going to get the same relief as rural farmers. One would imagine the Senator had given that relief, which came from the Fianna Fáil Party.

The relief on rates does not affect the overall situation. I have been preaching for a long time that we should subsidise the cost of production. This is partly subsidising the cost of production because it has taken the rates off land. Deputy Deasy mentioned £49 valuation. Where I come from the rates are about £14 in the pound. That will given an idea of what relief a small farmer has this year. Deputy Tully rightly mentioned other charges. Something will have to be done to remedy the whole question of local rates——

Mr. Tully

Not as long as Fianna Fáil are there, but that will not be for much longer——

Mr. R. Burke

The Deputy might as well be dreaming here as in bed.

Mr. Callanan

I shall be the first to congratulate the Deputies when they are over here, but I doubt if that will happen——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will leave that for another week or so——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No interruptions, please.

Mr. Callanan

There are calls to abolish this and abolish that but everything must be paid for. Do the Opposition believe they can get money from the moon? If we take rates off something it must be paid for. The Minister has gone a long way——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Deputy Martin O'Donoghue wrote a standard work on it.

Mr. Callanan

The Minister has done a good job in this Bill. I criticise the Government as often as I criticise the Opposition, but no reasonable person could criticise this Bill. Ninety-six per cent of land owners in the country have been completely derated. Small farmers have been the backbone of the country down through the years. I hope they will be again and that they will get subsidies to keep them on the land. They did not get big subsidies from directive 159 when it came in. They gave lousy grants to the small farmers and large grants to the bigger farmers. This Bill has given them something. There was no talk about the PLV for the first £20. I do not agree with PLV, but what is the point of making a song and dance about it today when it has been in existence for so many years?

Mr. Tully

We have to start somewhere.

Mr. Callanan

I could not agree more. The Opposition had a poor case today. I shall not be here to listen to what Deputy Fitzpatrick will have to say, but he will have something better to say, wherever he gets it.

That package is a good one which will be accepted by the farmers, because farmers are in no way fools at all. There are a few who are in the higher valuation and it is unfair and unjust, but we have no other system. I would appeal to the Minister and to any Government in office to try to get away from that form of taxation. I want to put it on record that I would be in thorough agreement with its abolition. It was certainly great that the 9,000 farmers in the urban area were put in the same category as those in the rural area. I could ramble on, but the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is the very man who would control my rambling. I am convinced, as far as subsidising farm income is concerned, that there should be a complete change in attitude and not such emphasis on price rises. After we joined the EEC, prices fell flat in 1974 and went up at an amazing rate in 1978 but the cost of production went up along with the price increases. I would be better off, as a farmer, taking £100 less for cattle if my cost of production was less. The EEC should consider that. High prices are only feeding inflation. The farmers' input should be subsidised.

This may be my last term here, but I will say that any time anything good came along, no matter which Government were in power — and Deputy Tully knows this more than anyone — I gave them great praise.

Mr. R. Burke

It is a good job the Deputy gave Deputy Tully credit, because he needed every little bit. He did not get much credit during his term of office.

Mr. Callanan

Any time there was credit due to him, I gave it. I gave credit to Deputy Fitzpatrick when he was Minister for Lands on a couple of occasions.

Mr. Tully

That is because Deputy Callanan is an honest man. The Minister would not know anything about that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputies please get back to the subject matter of rates on agricultural lands?

Mr. Callanan

I shall finish on rates. The Minister is to be congratulated on doing a very good job for our farmers. He deserves all credit for that. The Bill is a good one and deserves the support of the House.

Mr. Deasy

That was a good speech.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): There can be no doubt about it, a confident and prosperous agricultural industry is the backbone of this country. The success or failure of our economy depends on a confident and prosperous agricultural sector. Our capacity for generating employment depends on agriculture. The extent of our balance of payments and our trade balance depend on agriculture. It is, therefore, essential that we have an agricultural industry which has confidence in itself and which can generate wealth. Unless we have that sort of agricultural industry, there is no future for our other industries. Direct employment in agriculture is enormous and there is a very considerable amount of spin-off employment from it. The number of people directly and indirectly employed here in this sector is very high indeed.

At the moment, our balance of trade is alarming and is worrying all our experts and economists. To get the situation into a managable state we must rely on agriculture. Our foreign debt is also enormous and again we rely on agriculture. Our farmers will do a good job if they are given conditions in which they can engage in long-term planning. The performance of the Government in regard to farming taxation, and rates in particular, over the last number of years is a glaring example of the way in which uncertainty is created in agriculture. We have had a stop-go policy in regard to agricultural taxation, an up and down policy. Nowhere was that more apparent than in regard to rates.

When the Government were campaigning before the 1977 election they gave the impression, in their manifesto, and certainly at the doors of the houses of rural Ireland, that if Fianna Fáil were returned to power, agricultural rates and farm taxation would disappear like snow off a road. I propose only to deal with their performance in regard to agricultural rates. The first thing they did on resuming power was to introduce a Bill which abolished relief in respect of rates on all agricultural holdings with a valuation of more than £70 a year. In that way, they increased enormously the rates payable by farmers with valuations exceeding £70. These rates went up by something like 50 per cent. Some of the Deputies in this House may not have a lot of sympathy for farmers with a valuation of over £70, but that is what the Government did as from 1 January 1978. On 1 January 1979 they abolished relief in respect of rates on agricultural holdings with a valuation of £60, almost doubling the rates for that category of farmer. Again, some people may not have much sympathy with people with a valuation of £60, which they may think is a high valuation. As from 1 January 1980 the Fianna Fáil Government had a right go at the agricultural community. They abolished relief on rates in respect of agricultural holdings with valuations of £40 or over. The farmer who the previous year paid on average about £190 on rates was asked to pay £490. In other words, his rates went up two-and-a-half times. That was the performance of this Government in regard to rates, as well as introducing the numerous levies which we all know about, including the notorious 2 per cent levy. Farmers did not know what their taxation would be. For that reason, they cut down on production. The national cattle herd, about which Deputy Gibbons used to talk so much, is back to our pre-EEC figures. Fianna Fáil undid all the good that had been achieved as a result of the aids and increases that we had benefited from. They did this by way of the uncertainty they created in regard to taxation and also by way of inflation. The result is that the national herd is now at about 1970 figures and is certainly well below the 1972 figure. What is worse, as Deputy Leonard knows, the cow herd is very low. This is very unfortunate especially in our part of the country where milk production and the grazing of cattle constitute the backbone of the income of the agricultural community. In County Wexford the predominant aspect of agriculture may be grain but that is not so where I come from.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are now moving back into the agriculture debate whereas all that is before us is a Bill dealing with rates on agricultural land.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am relating my argument to the effect of the increase——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In this way we could relate everything to agricultural rates.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): If I began to talk about the next election, I would be out of order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Several people have endeavoured to bring in that, too.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am relating the fall in agricultural production and in cattle numbers to the increases in rates in 1978, 1979 and 1980 and to the uncertainty created by the taxation policy. Farmers did not know what was happening. Because of the very serious drop in the national cow herd numbers, it will be many years before the position can be rectified. In the meantime, the small and medium farmers of Counties Cavan and Monaghan and of the other counties also, are suffering drastically.

In these circumstances I am glad that this Bill is before us. It is a Bill that indicates an about turn and rightly so in the policy pursued by Fianna Fáil since 1978 when they increased rates by two-and-a-half times on valuations of between £40 and £50, when they were increasing rates substantially on valuations of between £50 and £70 and when they were increasing rates very substantially also on valuations of more than £70. The Bill indicates a repentance, albeit a death-bed repentance, on the part of the Government who, fortunately, have realised how unjust was their policy and how bad it was for agriculture and for the country generally.

In the context of the overall lack of confidence among the agriculture community, there is nothing more serious than the drop in cow numbers because this situation will continue to manifest itself in the years ahead as its ill effects will be experienced by the farmers and by those employed in the meat factories in Ballyjamesduff, in Clones and elsewhere. The factories will not be able to obtain supplies and, consequently, the workers will be either put on a three-day week or laid off entirely.

By way of this Bill the Government are reversing a policy which has done a lot of damage and about which they did not say anything when they were campaigning for the farmers' votes in 1977. In addition to what I have mentioned here, there were the various levies that are too numerous to mention but the one that we remember most, perhaps, was the 2 per cent levy. Then, there was the resource tax which amounted to a wealth tax, a selective wealth tax, on the agricultural community and which was nothing more nor less than rates on top of rates. However, Fianna Fáil learned the hard way. They dropped the resource tax after it had done a lot of damage and now they are reducing the rates that they increased enormously after those increases, too, have resulted in a lot of damage. The 2 per cent levy damaged not only the farmers but the entire country. It had the result of separating the agricultural community from the urban community. After the Government changed their mind about the levy, they were hit by the trade union sector. The damage that has been done to this country by the crazy policy of Fianna Fáil in the area of rates, levies and resource taxes, is untold.

The Government introduced forms of taxation that took no account of profit or income. The increase in rates from between 33 to 60 per cent on farmers in the various categories took no account of capacity to pay. The same applied so far as the 2 per cent levy was concerned and also so far as the resource tax was concerned.

Is the Minister for the Environment intending to pursue the abolition of rates and to cease to assess the means of farmers for educational grants whether general education or agricultural, or for health charges on the rating system? The Minister admits that abolishing rates up to the £50 valuation level is unfair. Is it his intention to abolish the system of applying the PLV to assess the income of a farmer for education and scholarship grants for his children and in respect of his liability for health contributions? It is obvious that a farmer should be assessed on his income and not on an imaginary profit. Farmers made no profit either in 1979 or in 1980 but in those years they were assessed on a profit basis and deprived of educational grants for their families. This was in a situation in which farmers suffered losses and where their cousins in the towns were enjoying the type of grants, although earning more, that the farmers were being deprived of. What is the Minister's policy in regard to that?

I want to know also what the Minister intends to do with regard to farmers who are receiving writs for rates they were unable to pay last year. Does he intend to allow those proceedings to go ahead? Does he intend to allow the county councils to sue farmers, as they must do unless they get a direction to the contrary from the Minister?

The Minister is now proposing to abolish rates in respect of holdings with a PLV of up to £50 and to halve rates where the PLV is between £50 and £70. Does he intend to extract from farmers an amount equivalent to 50 per cent of the rates in one way or another? This year the Minister made a speech at Kilkenny and he told the gathering on that occasion that there were ways and means for local authorities to boost their incomes. He pointed out that there was at least £1 million to be got in the area of planning applications. In his speech the Minister said local authorities could make good the loss they had suffered by charging for services. What services was he talking about? Is it the Minister's intention to charge for services that have been free up to now? In my opinion the Minister is imposing charges on farmers to counter the abolition of rates. I defy any Deputy in the House to say the Minister did not make that speech in Kilkenny. I think he spoke on that occasion to county managers and I should like an interpretation of that speech from the Minister when he is replying. He specifically mentioned water rates and planning applications.

The Minister has said that farmers within urban districts who did not enjoy relief of rates will have their rates abolished now. That measure is long overdue. I have been a member of a local authority since 1950, with a short break when I was in government. During all that time I have advocated at conferences that farmers within urban areas should get the same treatment as farmers elsewhere. Deputy Tully raised this matter also. He and I want to know if water rates will be abolished. They are payable in some local authority areas but not in others. When rates on private dwellings were abolished water rates were not abolished and I want to know what is being proposed with regard to this matter.

I hope that the introduction of this Bill can be taken as an assurance to the agricultural community that there is an end to the up and down form of taxation operated by Fianna Fáil since 1977. There was the proposal to increase rates for three years and the introduction of a two-tier rating system by imposing a resource tax and various levies in addition to rates but now Fianna Fáil see the folly of their ways when the damage is done. Restitution is welcome at any time but farmers have suffered severe hardship. This Bill can be welcomed in the same way as was the prodigal son when he returned home. The prodigal son did not offend half as much as this Government have offended the farmers by the imposition of huge amounts of rates.

This is not the first strange performance of Fianna Fáil in regard to rates. Some people here referred to the 1977 election campaign in this connection. I should like to make a passing reference to the 1973 election when we campaigned on the basis of making certain concessions with regard to rates. We proposed abolishing rates on houses by instalments over four years but Fianna Fáil said that was stupid, that the money could not be got. They relied on a white paper they had produced a few years previously which said that the only way to finance local government was by way of rates. In the 1973 election campaign——

Mr. Tully

They issued 100,000 leaflets.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Deputy Collins arranged for the printing of one million leaflets to distribute throughout the country, stating that the policy of the National Coalition in relation to abolition of rates was daft, that it could not be introduced and that it would ruin the country. That was done for two of the three weeks of the election campaign and then there was an about-turn by Fianna Fáil.

Deputy Collins's leaflets were scrapped, but he could not stop the advertisement in the local paper. He took a full-page advertisement in the local paper condemning the policy of abolishing rates in four equal instalments. While the local paper in Deputy Collins's constituency carried this huge advertisement, the leaders of the party changed the policy. They made speeches saying that if they were elected they would abolish rates the next day. They would abolish rates holus bolus, rump and stump, immediately they got into office, although Deputy Collins's advertisement was condemning and damning and denouncing any such policy. It is no wonder that they have an up and down stop-go approach to the rating system.

It would be funny, and we could all laugh at it and enjoy it, if it did not have the disastrous effect on agriculture which it had in the past couple of years. Let us hope that sort of performance is at an end. The only way the Irish farmers can ensure that some new tax will not be thought of by Fianna Fáil to extract money from them in the form of charges other than rates is to change the Government at once. I do not know when the election will be held. They say it was ready to be held last week and put off. There is an old saying in our part of the country: "He who hesitates is lost".

Mr. J. Leonard

I welcome this Bill. It is a unique measure which gives total rate relief to 94 per cent of all land holdings and partially derates a further 3 per cent. Any Bill which provides relief to the extent of £62 million to a section of the community is to be welcomed, and hopefully they are emerging from a period in which they had difficulties.

Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to the Bill as a funny performance. There would be nothing funny about a mistake costing £62 million. Far from it. This Bill is necessary and I welcome it wholeheartedly. Mention has been made of the PLV system. Anyone coming from the region I represent must support this Bill. There is probably more marginal land in Cavan than there is in Monaghan and therefore the PLV is not as high as it is in Monaghan. Monaghan is fifth or sixth in the league after Meath, Louth, Dublin, Kildare, Limerick, and so on, with the highest PLVs per acre in the country. The Griffith valuation is out of date and I support very strongly any move towards revaluation.

Farmers with PLVs under £50 are completely derated. That is to be commended. Most farmers in the Border regions have valuations of £50 or less. Many of them are full-time farmers. There are many PLVs per acre as high as £1.25 or £1.30 and many farmers are working on 45 or 50 acres of land. They face a real struggle, irrespective of how capable they are, and irrespective of how efficient their production is of meat, milk, or whatever. They are working on a limited acreage.

The Minister said:

Besides the unprecedented scale of the new reliefs, the Bill embodies three other welcome improvements. For the first time in 35 years the legislation to give effect to the agricultural grant will be expressed in a permanent rather than a temporary set of measures.

That is very important. People can plan in advance and know their commitments. If they are developing their land, or purchasing land, or increasing their stock numbers, or breeding stock, or fertilising, or reseeding, they will know that they have not got to meet the burden of rates in the future. That is a very important aspect.

I could not follow Deputy Deasy's line of thought when he mentioned the derating of an extra 71,000 holdings. The Minister said:

The extension of the 100 per cent allowances to holdings with valuations between £20 and £50 means that the present Bill is derating an extra 71,250 holdings in county council areas for the first time.

Deputy Deasy referred to cottiers with half acres. Did he realise that up to now cottiers with half acres and farmers with two-and-a-half acres were under the £20 valuation and were not paying rates on their land? That knocks his argument that the cottiers and the men with very small acreages made up the 71,000 people mentioned in the Minister's speech. I take it their valuations are between £20 PLV and £50 PLV which are completely derated.

The Minister said:

Another innovation of the Bill is its extension of the agricultural grant reliefs to all land in urban areas. This will benefit an additional 9,500 land holders.

While the number is not very large, it is an important aspect of the Bill.

Years ago the land of farmers in urban areas was more valuable when they supplied milk and vegetables because they lived a very short distance from the market place. Now milk is supplied by the co-operatives and there is no fresh milk in most towns. There are no fresh milk outlets in Monaghan town. It is all pasteurised, packaged and bottled. Many of the vegetables purchased in that region come from north County Dublin and other places, which is deplorable. The farmer in the urban area is now producing on a par with the man in the rural areas. I am glad to see that anomaly being removed.

The Minister said that farmers eligible for relief of rates on land will no longer suffer the irritant of having to meet the levy of certain separate charges, such as those for malicious injuries, on their rateable valuations. This separate charge was discussed by most local authorities. In our county especially the situation obtained in which many farmers were not liable for rates since the withdrawal of rates from domestic dwellings and those with a valuation of under £20. In Monaghan 10p or perhaps 13p in the £ was levied as a separate charge for malicious injuries. We decided that it was not worth while and would cost too much in stationery. Therefore, I am glad to note that that charge will be met now from central funds. This is particularly welcome in Monaghan where over the past few weeks we have been faced with the wanton destruction of the finest building in the town, the courthouse, and another private dwelling belonging to Lord Rossmore which contained many valuables. Following the burning of the courthouse an estimate of the damage caused was £2 million. Even if that were exaggerated there is no doubt that the bill for damages in both those cases will total £2 million. That is a bill that could not be met by any local authority.

A number of Deputies mentioned the remaining 6 per cent, the 3 per cent receiving partial relief and the other 3 per cent receiving none. It would be interesting to know the amount of revenue such would yield. The people finding it most difficult to earn a living from the land are those with valuations up to £50 and also those with valuations between £50 and £70, receiving 50 per cent relief. There has been mention here also of the difficulties farmers face. This rates relief, along with other measures introduced, constitute a positive step in enabling them to plan ahead in so far as they know they do not have to meet a rates bill in future years.

Mr. Crinion

It gives me great pleasure to support this Bill, one of the many measures this Government, who are a caring Government, have introduced. The Government realise that farmers have been experiencing bad times over the past two years. Last year grants were given to first time silage makers to help them produce winter feed, enabling them to carry their cattle over the glut period in the months of October and November. The grant given, £150, was quite small but it meant that many farmers were able to keep their cattle over to the springtime, when prices rose, when confidence was restored, when there was realisation that we had an excellent Minister for Agriculture who could negotiate with his counterparts in Brussels to get the bestever Irish package brought back by any Minister since we joined the EEC.

Last year relief of the second moiety of rates was granted to certain farmers in an effort to help them, and we saw the benefit it was to them. This relief is a follow-up on that. Ninety-four per cent of farmers will now be relieved of rates. But what is of more interest to me is to know that the grant for the relief of rates from the Government to County Meath alone will amount to £1.9 million. Eighty-seven per cent of all holdings in the county will be completely relieved of rates, with a further 4.4 per cent paying half only. That means just over 8 per cent of farmers in Meath will be paying rates this year. To give the House some idea of the benefit in hard cash to individual farmers, a farmer with a valuation of £49 will benefit to the tune of £483 while a farmer with a valuation of £69 will benefit to the tune of £340 in rates relief. Therefore this constitutes something really concrete and worthwhile for farmers, enabling them to plan ahead. Now farmers know they will not have to meet the first moiety, usually collected in June—which was the worst possible time for them—or the second in September. The small and medium-sized farmers are being relieved of this rates burden in future years.

There is also the question of urban areas being relieved of this burden. Formerly in some towns the urban area stretched out to the farmland, where people were badly caught, having to pay full rates, receiving no relief whatsoever.

One provision particularly welcome is that the State will now take over responsibility for malicious damage claims. Indeed in the past week two very fine buildings were burned down at enormous cost. I well remember being a member of the county council when there was this type of burning of property in the early seventies, or earlier, when the bill for damages was astronomical. The ratepayers of County Meath had to pay for the burnings and explosions that took place and which, in most instances we felt, were not carried out by people within the county. In one case the Garda were able to follow the perpetrators of such misdeeds across the county boundary. Also we were always being billed with any malicious injuries that took place in Drogheda because Drogheda Corporation felt the people who cause the damage could have come from County Meath since it was just on the border. To be on the safe side they would always put in a claim against Louth County Council and an equal claim against Meath County Council and then the courts would decide which county would have to meet the bill.

This Bill is very welcome and will be of immense value to the County Meath farmers. When the figures are added up they amount to quite a substantial sum of £1.9 million, a worthwhile sum when you consider that it refers to just one county. The farmers in Meath and elsewhere will appreciate very much the benefits accruing from this Bill. It will bring into effect the benefits of the budget apart from taking away the malicious injuries claims which can be substantial.

Mr. Boland

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle earlier remarked that this Bill was not about the general election but about rates on agricultural land. In fact he probably was not describing the situation entirely accurately because it would be unreal for us to think that the debate on the Bill is not being held in a situation where members are and have been expecting for some weeks past a general election. In that context it is interesting to see that arrangements for discussing the Bill were very hurriedly moved forward. The original Order of Business for this week was changed so as to bring discussion on this Bill forward from its original place in the list to become the first item to be discussed on this first sitting of the Dáil this week. I believe it was because of the imminence of a general election and because of the anxiety of Government Deputies to see this legislation enacted so as to give effect to budget proposals that this move was made.

Obviously, the move was felt necessary by Government Deputies because of the lack of confidence among the agricultural sector in the attitude of the Government and in the record of the Government regarding our farmers over the past four years. That is in stark contrast with the supposed restoration of confidence referred to by Deputy Crinion and others this afternoon. The fact is that Irish farmers' confidence in the Government's attitude towards them and in the Government's ability to deliver for them was sorely and severely tested in the past four years. Let us be honest about it: those farmers who in large measure helped to elect the present Government in 1977 by changing their political allegiance, many of them for the first time in a lifetime of voting, on foot of promises made to them mainly regarding farmer taxation were lured into a false situation on the basis of the misinformation and misleading prom— ises and have suffered the consequences since. While I understand the anxiety of Government Deputies to have this Bill enacted before the Dáil is dissolved because of their difficulties with the farming community, I do not believe that any measures such as this or any other belated measure by the Government would regain for them the confidence of the farming community, which as a Government they deliberately, one might almost have thought, threw away in the past four years. As other Opposition Deputies have said, both in relation to the 2 per cent levy and the introduction of the resource tax, which in all but name was a replacement of the wealth tax, the Government showed their true colours and attitude towards the farming community.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy please come back to the Bill?

Mr. Boland

Most extraordinary was the Government's attitude towards rates on agricultural land because, as Deputy Fitzpatrick said, in three successive years the Government took steps to dismantle assistance traditionally given to the agricultural sector. They first reduced to £70 the limit for farmers to get agricultural abatement. In the following year they reduced it to £60 and later reduced it to £40. So it remains that only those farmers under £40 valuation could receive agricultural abatement. That was the situation up to early 1980. Yet we now have a Bill which the Government had to introduce when they saw the chaos created in the agricultural community during 1980. This Bill gives relief of the second moiety of rates for farmers of between £40 and £60 valuation and it also seeks to implement the provisions of this year's budget.

I do not believe the Irish farmers will be fooled again as they were in 1977 or that they regard this Bill as an expression of the Government's good intent towards agriculture, because the record of the past four years is clear. It is a record of sorry mismanagement in regard to the agricultural community. As has been asked by other Deputies, I ask how was it, when in the course of 1980 local authorities were asked to "go easy"— I think that was the expression used — with the farmers who found difficulty in paying their rates, that there was no talk then about who would pick up the tab? The fact is that it was going easy very belatedly on the part of the Government to announce that local authorities should hold their hands against farmers in financial difficulties. The Government were spending other people's money in that announcement; they were suggesting that local authorities should go without money they could ill afford to forego. That was the position regarding that piece of deceit and sleight of hand on that occasion.

As regards agricultural rates we are doing nothing more now than tinkering with the system. No doubt this measure would not have been proposed had there not been put forward by Deputy Bruton, then Fine Gael spokesman on agriculture and subsequently Deputy D'Arcy, six points to become as it were a rescue package for our farmers. In those six points we as a party undertook to relieve the agricultural community entirely of the burden of rates and we introduced a Bill to that effect here some months ago. The simple situation is that there is no way this proposal would have been before the House were it not for the fact that the Government perceived we were prepared to make a realistic approach to the farming community and provide a climate to restore confidence in agriculture, something which has been lacking in recent years.

Very often in the past it has been an easy pastime for Deputies who did not have a rural segment in their constituency to indulge in farmer-bashing, but the remarks made today are valid. In the same way as what is good for General Motors is good for the United States, what is good for Irish agriculture is good for the Irish economy. When agriculture suffers the entire economy suffers. In the last two years we have seen the effects of the downturn in agriculture on the economy, the balance of trade and on our exports. I do not accept that the partial measures proposed in the Bill will go towards solving the problems of our farmers. The Minister for the Environment, who introduced the Bill, should know that a large proportion of the farmers in his constituency and in mine, will not be assisted by this measure because many of them have valuations in excess of £70. Certainly a high number of them in the £50 to £70 category are endevouring to carry on business in Fingal, the constituency of Dublin-North. The Minister must know that farmers with large valuations have been faced with rate demands of the order of £2,000 or £2,500. The Minister must be aware of people in north County Dublin who in their agricultural trading account last year lost up to £5,000. However, they are still obliged to pay up to £2,500 in rates to the local authority.

It is irresponsible of the Government to suggest that local authorities should go easy in seeking this money. That money is due to the local authorities and without it they cannot provide the services they are legally charged to provide. I should like to emphasise, on behalf of Fine Gael, that our commitment is to the total abolition of rates on agricultural land. We are disappointed that this measure has not gone as far as was proposed some months ago by us or as far as is necessary to restore confidence to the farming community. I am disappointed that the Minister, who must be aware that a number of his constituents lost money in the course of their farming enterprises in the last year, had not done anything to help such people. In some cases the amount of help they received is marginal. There is inequity in a system where a man operating to the best of his ability over 12 months who experiences a sizeable loss on his operations can be asked to pay a sum of the order of £2,000 or £2,500 as a form of local taxation.

As Deputy Callanan said, there is a need to examine the sources of local finance and assess where the local authority system now stands. There is a need to examine the future method of funding, but it would be unrealistic at this stage to suggest that there is now going to be a reintroduction of rates as a form of local taxation. All political parties have committed themselves to the abolition of rates on domestic property and it is, as Deputy Tully said, a little less than honest of the Minister to suggest that it was his party alone who abolished domestic rates. My recollection is that his party abolished one-quarter of the remaining domestic rates. The health and housing charges had been removed from the rates between 1973 and 1976 and between 1975 and 1977 three-quarters of the remaining domestic rate was funded by the Government at the time. The additional amount abolished by Fianna Fáil was to meet the one-quarter levy that would have been sought for domestic rates in 1978 as a last contribution.

It is unrealistic to suggest that any of the political parties will put forward the notion of the re-introduction of domestic rates to finance local government. That should be made clear. It is also unrealistic to suggest that there will be a continuation of agricultural rates. An indication that Fianna Fáil are moving towards Fine Gael policy in this matter is the introduction of the Bill before the House. Is it not extraordinary that over a succession of three years farmers should have seen their rate bills more than doubled? That has been the situation through the change in the abatement structure and as a result of increases of the order of 10 and 12 per cent in rate demands that came about each year since 1977. The average farmer is now paying more than twice the amount he paid for rates in 1977. Is it not extraordinary that a Government who deliberately brought about that situation in three successive years should now turn about and attempt to abolish agricultural rates in this partial fashion? On behalf of Fine Gael I want to state clearly that in Government it is our intention that rates on agricultural land be abolished entirely. In that way this measure falls far short of that.

Mr. Keegan

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill, one of the most welcomed pieces of legislation to be introduced in recent years. It is welcome because it is acceptable and is a step in the right direction. It is welcome because it endeavours, as far as possible, to restore equity to the majority of our small farmers. I should like to commend the Minister, and the Government, on their foresight in placing this Bill before the House. Farmers appreciate what is being done for them in this legislation. I am not surprised at the muddled thinking which is affecting the minds of Opposition Deputies. They feel their thunder has been stolen from them. They feel that there is not any opportunity now of getting back into Government. Their contribution to the debate clearly indicates they have lost a weapon they felt they could use on Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil and the Government deserve great credit for introducing this Bill at a time when the farming community need a boost. We are delighted to have reached a stage where 96 per cent of our farmers enjoy derating, complete or partial. That is a step in the right direction.

The debate has indicated that Fine Gael are concerned only about the big farmers, that 3½ per cent or 4 per cent of our people who have big farms. If a farmer with 1,000 acres, 500 acres or 300 acres is not capable of farming that holding and paying rates, he should get out of agriculture quickly. Another matter which was carefully missed by Opposition speakers is the fact that farmers who pay rates qualify for tax remission. That is a concession to all farmers, but Opposition speakers cleverly ignored that fact, because it would not suit them to see it. But the farmers who are paying rates know full well that they can claim remission for the full contribution of rates when making their tax returns. That in itself is a benefit which those bigger farmers who are not covered by this Bill are getting. Generally speaking it is wonderful legislation and is going to benefit the farming community. In my county of Westmeath the farmers stand to benefit to the tune of £1.5 million this year. That may seem insignificant in the eyes of the Labour Party but it is a very significant advance in so far as the farming community are concerned because they have no longer to worry about the appearance of the rate collector at their door twice yearly.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy would not be able to look in the eyes of the Labour Party.

Mr. Keegan

The Deputy got his chance to speak and I will get my chance and he will not interrupt me.

Mr. Tully

I will if I like.

Mr. Keegan

He was very lucky to get back into the Dáil in 1977.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy just scrambled in the last time.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Keegan, please.

Mr. Keegan

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. The fact that the Opposition are so annoyed here today is one clear indication that the Bill is a success. The farming community are going to accept it and they are going to go to the polls and once again endorse the Fianna Fáil Party as the friend of the small farmer. That has been clearly borne out here today when Opposition Deputies expressed concern for only the bigger farmers who already are enjoying benefits through tax concessions by the rates set-off. This Bill will introduce a new element of confidence in farming in Ireland. This has been a successful year so far for Irish agriculture and this Bill goes further to demonstrate the Government's concern for the farming community. Whether we like it or not, farming is our greatest single industry and, therefore, every effort must be made, is being made and has been made by this Government over the last six months, to ensure that the farmers will regain the confidence required in order to give a boost to agriculture in general.

Agriculture is associated mainly with exports, and that fact is of great benefit to the economy of this country. It is of great benefit to the employment incentives here because money generated through agricultural wealth filters right back through the economy and every section of the community benefits directly or indirectly because farmers are good spenders. Loók at the employment content of the co-operatives today. That would not have been possible without a thriving and progressive farming community. This Bill gives a further incentive to farmers to modernise their own economies and produce more for export. The markets are there and the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy MacSharry, brought back a fine package from Brussels. This is a further fine package which will benefit the farming community and I have no hesitation in saying that it will be remembered by them. The words of the Opposition expressing concern for the bigger farmers only will be remembered by the 100,000 small farmers in this country.

This is fine legislation and I accept it without any criticism whatsoever because it has come when the agricultural economy needs that little boost because agriculture has gone through a difficult period. I have never tried to conceal the fact that we had problems in agriculture in 1979 and through the greater part of 1980, but the situation was not as bad as it was in 1974-75 when a Coalition Government were in office and the men who claimed to have superior intelligence had control of agriculture and of the Department of Local Government, now the Department of the Environment. There was little concern for the farming community at that time. The best that the then Government could offer them was an ill-conceived fodder scheme badly administered and we all know that there was a High Court inquiry regarding the administration of that scheme. Many traders were issued at that time with vouchers which have not been paid for yet due to the fact that the scheme was ill-timed, badly administered and hastily conceived by the then Minister for Agriculture who is now an MEP.

This is wonderful legislation designed in the long-term to relieve the farmers of the burden of rates, as the Minister has said. It replaces the grants under the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act which was required to be introduced annually. The scheme coming through this Bill replaces that old scheme, and it will be welcomed by thousands of farmers. It has been said that the urban dweller received complete remission of rates on his house but the farmer still was obliged to pay rates on his land. That obligation no longer exists in so far as the majority of farmers are concerned, and let there be no doubt about it, the majority of the farmers are in the £15-£20 land valuation bracket.

People must come first. People must come before the broad acres. Fine Gael do not see it in that light. They put the broad acres first and the people last and that was borne out today in contributions by previous speakers. The old saying is, "The man for the road and the bullock for the land". I am convinced that Fine Gael believe in that philosophy still. Deputy Deasy, for one, seems to believe in it. I do not know how he is associated with agriculture or how much he knows about it, but that philosophy was borne out today by his statements. We in Fianna Fáil never believed in that type of philosophy. We believe that people come first. No nation can survive without people and this Bill is not only going to benefit the farmers but it is going to encourage many more farmers to stay in agriculture because they are relieved of this burden and, therefore, have a few pounds more to invest in their industry, in their homes and farm buildings and in their efforts to increase farm production. Let there be no doubt about it, everything that can be done must be done to improve the lot of those engaged in Irish agriculture because of the contribution they are making to the national economy. Our Government have left nobody in any doubt whatsoever about their concern for the problems of agriculture and, as one engaged in that industry, I am satisfied that the farming community appreciate what is being done for them. One point I have to make is that thousands and thousands of farmers flocked to the Fianna Fáil national collection tables last Sunday because they appreciate what is being done by the Government for them. This Bill is a further indication of the Government's concern for the farmer. I am satisfied that it is the best legislation that has come in the way of the small farmers for a long time. It is worthy of the unanimous support of this House and I wish the Bill a speedy passage through both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. C. Murphy

I welcome the opportunity to speak for a short period on the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1981. It is a fine Bill which comprises four main features. The first is that it now offers total relief to some 94 per cent of all land holdings and 50 per cent relief to a further 3 per cent. This is estimated to leave with the farming community the spending of £62 million. This is a considerable amount of money to be left to that community. Knowing the diligence of this community and also the fact that they spend — and spend Irish in the main — this will be a very big boost to the economy and to employment here at home. I know that in County Wicklow this year there will be a grant of £1.2 million in relief of farmers' rates and over 91 per cent of all land holdings will be exempt from rates and a further 3.4 per cent will pay only half rates. This is to be welcomed. As far as I can read, it will be just below the national average, but that is the way it works under the PLV system.

The second feature is that it removes or abolishes a temporary set of measures. A temporary set of measures is not satisfactory. By nature the word "temporary" does not exude confidence and does not leave people with a feeling or sense of confidence. By putting this measure on a permanent basis we boost the confidence of people involved in agriculture. The farming community will see it in this regard, will see their fortunes considerably enhanced by this measure and will respond accordingly.

The third factor in the Bill is the extension of the agricultural grants relief to all land owners in urban areas. There was an anomaly here which I saw when Bray secured an extension to its boundary on 1 January 1980. This incorporated quite a number of land owners who lost any relief they had. This Bill will give those people the opportunity to benefit. The Minister referred to 9,500 landowners who will fall within this category.

The fourth category is farmers eligible for the 100 per cent relief or the 50 per cent relief who will now be freed from malicious injuries charges. This is a considerable improvement when one considers the extent of malicious injuries charges which are reflected in the payments which must be paid through the rating system by those eligible to pay rates. There is an allowance of 100 per cent to those under £50 valuation and 50 per cent allowance to those in the category of £50 valuation but under £70 valuation. This shows the continuation of a policy of moving towards a better system of equity within the overall tax code. Certainly the pledge of exempting domestic dwellings, farmhouses and so forth was honoured on 1 January 1978. In the intervening years we had various other temporary relief schemes introduced. This Bill is putting the matter on a permanent footing.

The Minister stated that there will be a saving of £62 million to the farming community. Would the Minister breakdown that £62 million as between those in the category of under £50 valuation and those in the category between £50 and £70 valuation? What would the cost be of derating all farming lands? What projections would be involved in that?

The Bill is an excellent one to which the farming community have given a great welcome. People throughout society have a much better appreciation of the problems which each sector has. There has been some excellent debate over the years involving various groupings in our society. There is a deep appreciation of all the problems and needs. I know the urban dwellers appreciate that there is respite on a permanent basis for the people who really need it, the small and middle men. This Bill offers those people this relief. I have every confidence in the Bill and I would like to congratulate the Minister and his Department on introducing it. I know it is having a speedy passage through the House because every Member welcomes it. There have been all sorts of pledges, but this is a factual Bill. The people see it as a rational measure. People are becoming more rational and are not taken in by emotive issues. The Bill will give people considerable confidence to move forward in what is our greatest industry.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. R. Burke)

I would like to thank all the Deputies who contributed to the debate, particularly those who expressed such a warm welcome for the Bill. That has not been from this side of the House alone, but it would be expected that this side of the House would recognise such a step forward in the assistance which has traditionally been given to the farming community by this party. All Deputies referred to the importance of agriculture to the economy. I could not agree more with the sentiments expressed. Agriculture is the backbone of our economy. It is very important from our economic point of view that the agricultural sector is in a healthy state and does well. This is why the Government have been working to assist the farming community and also working, as is the guiding principle of this party, in close consultation with the representatives of the various communities concerned, no matter what issues are under discussion.

The Government have been working in very close consultation with the IFA and the ICMSA. This has been going on since the Government were elected in 1977 and particularly since the appointment of the present Taoiseach. There have been a series of meetings between the Taoiseach, the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance to improve the lot of the farming community. This process of discussion will continue in the years ahead. The Minister for Agriculture, in his very successful negotiations in Brussels, achieved the farming package, which is something we are all very proud of. I know all sectors of the agricultural community have welcomed this.

This Bill gives statutory effect to the commitment given in the budget and is a further indication of the Government's commitment to the agricultural sector. The Deputies on the other side attempted to pour cold water on the Bill and suggested it was merely a half-hearted measure and an election ploy. I assure them they will not convince the farming community about that statement. The farmers have shown their support for this measure since the budget was introduced. I am glad to have the opportunity of introducing the Bill and replying to the Second Stage. I want to put on the record of the House the number of holdings involved: 71,250 holdings together with 9,500 landholders in the urban areas, bringing the total number of people whose property is being fully derated for the first time under the terms of this Bill to 80,750.

Deputies are entitled to know what this will mean for their own counties and I would like to put on record the exact number of people who will benefit: in Wicklow those with valuations of up to £50, 10,011, 91.27 per cent, and between £50 and £70 valuation, 380 people, 3.46 per cent. Deputy Boland spoke at length about the problems of agriculture and their effects in our constituency. There are 11,924 holdings being fully derated and a further 276 have been partially derated — a 50 per cent rate of reduction — 93.23 per cent plus 2.16 per cent of all farmers in the area.

Mr. Boland

In our constituency?

Mr. R. Burke

In County Dublin.

Mr. Boland

In five constituencies.

Mr. R. Burke

In County Dublin.

Mr. Boland

How many in our constituency?

Mr. R. Burke

I knew that figure would raise the Deputy from his slumber. He was inferring that——

Mr. Boland

How many in North County Dublin?

Mr. R. Burke

——the loyalty of the farmers of County Dublin to Fianna Fáil was under question. I look forward to the opportunity——

Mr. Keating

The Minister will get his chance.

Mr. R. Burke

——of proving to Deputy Boland that like so many other sweeping statements about North County Dublin once again, his is incorrect.

Mr. Tully

When?

Mr. R. Burke

Deputy D'Arcy, opening the debate for Fine Gael, spoke about the valuation system, as did a number of other speakers. Deputy Tully made a very good contribution on the inadequacies of that system. Nobody claims that the valuation system is perfect but this Bill goes a long way to help adjust inequities by relieving all rates on properties up to £50 and half rates on valuations between £50 and £70. These two reliefs will benefit over 95 per cent of the rated holdings in County Wexford.

Deputy D'Arcy then went into the total nonsense area when he attempted to claim that the Government were forced by Fine Gael of all people, to bring in this relief. The Fianna Fáil record on rates relief goes back to 1932 when the first relief was directed especially to those under £10 valuation. In 1967 we gave total derating up to £20 and we continued with full derating up to £50 valuation — a record of continuous derating.

Deputy D'Arcy mentioned Fine Gael scrapping the system and this was echoed by a number of other Deputies. I would like to ask the Fine Gael Party — who when it suits them regularly chastise the Government about taxation and borrowing levels — who will be taxed to raise the £31.5 million that will be necessary to meet their commitment here and now? I read in this morning's paper and I heard on the radio that there will not be a Fine Gael manifesto next October when the election is held, but I ask them to answer this simple question——

Mr. Keating

That is the Minister's responsibility.

Mr. R. Burke

——if they promise to raise £31.5 million which section of taxpayers will have to pay, or will they borrow the money?

Mr. Keating

The Minister was not worried about that at the Ard-Fheis.

Mr. Boland

Did the Minister explain today how this Bill would be funded?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister to reply without interruption.

Mr. R. Burke

Deputy Tully spoke about the rating system but he did not tell us if he supported the Fine Gael Party's decision to totally derate agricultural land — he very studiously avoided making that commitment — nor have I ever seen it mentioned in any of the Labour Party literature which was given to me by some Labour Deputies. In their literature — some of which was very well printed — they say that if elected they would demand a fair taxation system, including the reintroduction of the wealth tax. If Fine Gael are to scrap the rates system will Labour go along with them, and if Labour are to reintroduce the wealth tax, will Fine Gael support them? They cannot have it both ways.

If former Senator M. D. Higgins is to be believed, the farmers will not have to worry about rates relief on agricultural land because we will be into the nationalisation business.

Mr. Tully

That is not true. This has been stated outside this House and it is only fair that a Minister should not make false statements in the House.

Mr. R. Burke

That was the clear suggestion made.

Mr. Tully

On a point of order, I want the Minister to substantiate what he said or to withdraw it. I am stating that what he said is untrue. Neither ex-Senator M. D. Higgins nor any other member of the Labour Party said he would nationalise agriculture.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister without interruption.

Mr. Tully

The Minister made a statement which is untrue.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not responsible for the Minister's statements.

Mr. Tully

Is it not the practice of this House that if a statement is made by a Minister or anybody else and a Deputy says it is untrue, the Deputy's word is taken since the Minister has no proof of what he is saying?

An Ceann Comhairle

That concerns a Deputy himself. It does not refer to anybody else.

Mr. Keating

It is cowardly and scurrilous——

An Ceann Comhairle

If a Deputy states that what was said about a statement he made himself is untrue, that is a different matter.

Mr. Tully

That is not the procedure. The procedure has been that, if a statement made was contradicted by the person responsible on the other side of the House, it was withdrawn and accepted as being withdrawn. If we are going to change the rules for a Minister who cannot——

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not changing any rules.

Mr. Tully

The procedure has been entirely different up to now. I want to state categorically that the Labour Party never made a statement that they would nationalise land. That is the truth of it and, if the Minister says it is not, he is not telling the truth.

Mr. Keating

Sneers.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister to continue without interruption.

Mr. R. Burke

I accept Deputy Tully's statement and I refer him to the statement of former Senator Michael D. Higgins——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister should not refer to names of people who are not in the House.

Mr. Boland

How long did it take the Chair to remember the existence of those common rules?

Mr. Tully

Will the Minister give the quotation?

Mr. R. Burke

I do not have the quotation. I will refer the Deputy to the statement of the gentleman I mentioned on the implications of the Kenny Report. That is the matter I was referring to.

Mr. Tully

That is a different matter. It was introduced by a Fianna Fáil Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister without interruption.

Mr. R. Burke

Deputy D'Arcy said that farmers with valuation of £40 to £60 did not get refunds of the second moiety before January 1981. Every last penny of the £6 million was paid out by the Government before the end of last December. If there was a single farmer who had to wait for his refund, the fault was not with my Department. Deputy Tully claimed that the Coalition abolished domestic rates. I would remind him that it was Fianna Fáil who first proposed the abolition before the 1973 General Election. The Coalition were converted to the idea very late in the day. They gave a 25 per cent remission of domestic rates in their last year of office in 1977, not 75 per cent as given by Deputy Tully.

Mr. Tully

The 75 per cent had already gone. There was only 25 per cent left. Would the Minister tell the truth for a change?

An Ceann Comhairle

Would Deputies please cease interrupting? They had their opportunities to contribute.

Mr. R. Burke

I am telling the truth.

Mr. Boland

At this rate the Minister will have a tough time on Committee Stage.

Mr. B. Burke

Deputy Tully asked about separate charges. They will cost £380,000 this year and the Government will pay it out of the agricultural grant. If the cost of water rates has gone up as the Deputy said, it is the responsibility of the county councils who put them up at their own discretion.

Mr. Tully

They did not get enough money from the Government.

Mr. Keating

They did not get a bob from the Government.

Mr. R. Burke

Deputy Deasy made a statement which was very well answered by Deputy Keegan. I will not go into detail on it except to say that the figures quoted do not tell the full story. Deputy Deasy said that the 71,000 derated are not all farmers, that they include cottiers. The 71,000 are all people with valuations of between £20 and £50. They do not include cottiers as alleged by Deputy Deasy. The same Deputy said that those with valuations of more than £70 do not get any relief. This is not so. Most of those farmers would be liable to income tax. Despite what Deputy Deasy said, rate bills are allowed as a direct offset against income tax. Therefore such farmers get relief of rates. Deputy Deasy also said that people have been getting summonses. It came to my notice that this had happened in a few isolated cases. I spoke to the managers involved, I have been in touch with the IFA about certain counties where such action had been taken and I can assure the House that the situation is now under control. I would be surprised if the IFA are unaware of that. I am satisfied that any farmers who may be in difficulty about paying rates can be assured of a reasonable and helpful attitude on the part of the local authorities.

Mr. Boland

Will the Minister make good the money to the local authorities?

Mr. R. Burke

I thank Deputy Callanan for his comments and, for his information I will give the figures for Galway. The number of holdings in that county fully derated is 34,169, that is, 98.37 per cent, and the number of holdings liable for the 50 per cent rate is 311, that is 0.9 per cent. Deputy Fitzpatrick suggested that the reason for abolishing rates on valuations up to £50 is an acknowledgment that the valuation system is unfair. That is not so. The reason for the relief to this category is that it comprises smaller farmers who will benefit most from rates relief. The Bill has nothing to do with other services such as health, education or eligibility for these services. The Deputy criticised various changes made in rates relief legislation since 1978. I want to put on record that the various Bills introduced since 1978 had the effect of steadily increasing the amount of the agricultural grant. For example, in 1978 the agricultural grant was £38.3 million; in 1979, it was £39.8 million; in 1980, it was £43.5 million, and this year it will be £62.2 million. On top of that, since 1978, with Fianna Fáil honouring their commitment to derate domestic property, farmers have been free of rates on their dwellings and farm buildings at a cost of about £13 million a year.

Deputy Keegan put on record Fianna Fáil's commitment to the small farmers and to the farming sector as a whole. I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this Bill and I thank Deputies from all sides for their welcome. Admittedly the welcome from the other side was——

Mr. Keating

Lukewarm.

Mr. R. Burke

—-more reserved. I can appreciate that because it must be a difficult and bitter pill for them to swallow to see that once more Fianna Fáil are honouring their commitment to the development of agriculture, that Fianna Fáil are continuing on their programme of relieving and therefore assisting agriculture through the medium of this Bill. I can appreciate why Fine Gael would not be particularly pleased and why Labour have not been wholehearted in their support. However, I thank Members of the House for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 26 May 1981, subject to agreement between the Whips.