Deputy Gay Mitchell reported progress.
Farm Tax Bill, 1985: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
It is my opinion that the provisions of this Bill do not go far enough. It is a bit much for Deputies to come into this House and expect Members who represent urban areas to take seriously the comments they have been making about so-called poor farmers around the country. I, for one, will not take out my handkerchief to weep for those farmers. If they wish to see poor people they should come into St. Theresa's Gardens in my constituency where people are expected to pay tax on what is just a bare minimum salary.
On a point of order, was Deputy Mitchell in possession?
If the Deputy wants to know whether or not I am in possession, he should be in the House.
Was he in possession?
I am getting sick and tired of Deputy Brady, being the spiteful man he is, interrupting.
A Deputy
Withdraw that remark.
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order——
Please, Deputy Brady. Deputy Mitchell was in possession.
On a point of order, a personal attack has been made and I demand the withdrawal of the remark.
Would the Deputy withdraw what he said?
I will not withdraw it. Deputy Brady tried to persuade another Deputy to speak in the House and then when the Deputy was not here and I spoke, he now wants to interrupt because he is a spiteful little man.
I demand that that comment be withdrawn immediately.
I do not think "a spiteful little man" should be used in the House. The Deputy should not refer to another Deputy in such a manner.
If the Chair says so I will withdraw it——
The Deputy has withdrawn it.
——but, whatever the parliamentary equivalent is, Deputy Brady is it.
On a point of order, Deputy Brennan was in the House waiting to speak after Deputy Prendergast. I am assured by Deputy Brennan that Deputy Prendergast was in possession at 2.30 p.m.
Deputy Brennan jumped the gun, he left before the bell. The Deputy left the scene.
I hope Deputy Brady has read the Standing Orders with regard to the election of a Lord Mayor.
(Interruptions.)
I shall follow the Fine Gael tradition for the last 20 years.
The Deputy does not know what decency is. You are just Charlie's lackey.
The Minister for Finance said that I jumped the bells. The bells were ringing before I left here. I left at exactly 2.30 p.m. and at the time I left Deputy Prendergast was speaking.
(Interruptions.)
Before the Ceann Comhairle called Question Time Deputy Prendergast sat down and Deputy Mitchell stood up. Deputy Brennan had left the House.
Deputy Mitchell is in possession. Will the Deputy continue?
I am sorry to distress Deputy Matt Brennan, who is a very decent Member of the House. However, I was called before the House adjourned.
The representatives of the agricultural community in this House cannot expect the urban representatives to take their contributions seriously. I am sick and tired of carrying the can in places like Dublin along with Fianna Fáil TDs and Labour TDs in Dublin——
On a point of order, could we have a quorum in the House?
There is the parliamentary equivalent of a spiteful man in action.
Will Deputy Mitchell please resume his seat for the moment?
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
I would draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that Deputy Brady called a Member of the House a gurrier. Since the Chair asked me to withdraw my allegation will he ask Deputy Brady to do the same?
I would much prefer if Deputy Brady and Deputy Mitchell would conduct themselves in a proper manner becoming to the House and set an example to those outside and inside the House.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle might also set an example by not calling on only one side of the House to withdraw remarks——
Will both Deputies——
(Interruptions.)
Would Deputy Brady withdraw his remark and let us have peace in the House?
What remark?
You called him a name and he objected.
Was it a Dublin gurrier?
Would both Deputies withdraw their remarks and let us get on with the business of the House. It is becoming a bit of a joke, the way they are going on.
I agree. It is unfortunate that Deputy Mitchell saw fit to become personal and abusive.
Will both Deputies withdraw their remarks?
I do not think the House was in session when I passed a comment across the House.
As Opposition Chief Whip, will Deputy Brady set an example by withdrawing that remark?
I bow to the Chair, as always, I withdraw the remark, but I certainly meant what I said.
(Interruptions.)
Will Deputy Mitchell continue?
As an urban member of the Fine Gael Party I find it difficult to continue to justify to my electorate the so-called equity that exists between taxpayers. I can no longer accept that the PAYE sector should continue to be expected to pay the sort of contributions they are paying when the farming community constantly say that they want to pay their fair share of tax, but every time a proposal is put they say: "This is not the system which we will accept," despite the fact that it can be proved that Mr. Rea advocated the introduction of a land tax. As soon as that tax is ready and on the table, Mr. Rea is the one who rejects it as not being an appropriate form of taxation for farmers. The PAYE sector and other income tax paying members of the public have no choice as to the form of taxation, but the farming community have had time and time again the power of veto. Not only that, but when we try to introduce taxation and try to vary stock valuations, for instance, they come in and demand the watering down of it so much so that they are now paying less than 5 per cent of their incomes in taxation. I accept that there are poor farmers who are finding times difficult, but not every farmer is finding the times difficult. For far too long the big ranchers, represented by Mr. Rea, have been hiding behind the small farmers who would find it difficult to make a contribution. People who cannot afford to pay should not pay, but everybody should make a contribution according to their means. There are ranchers on the east coast, in the midlands and in the south who are making practically no contribution in tax. These are the same people who, at the drop of a hat, are drawing out money in large grants for everything.
If one takes the income tax and rates contributions by farmers in 1979 as a percentage of what the Government spent on direct grants to agriculture, it was about 30 per cent. Now it is of the order of 13 per cent of what the Government are spending. The money the Government are spending comes from the PAYE sector. The Government are not taking it from the farmers and distributing it to the farming community but from the PAYE sector. It is not electorally worth a damn curse for this Government to pursue that course. We will still get only one out of three seats in East Galway. It is time we copped on to ourselves and said to these people that neither electorally nor morally nor for any other purpose can we continue to justify the existing tax arrangements.
This Bill does not go far enough. I am sorry that Mr. Rea has not pushed us even that little bit harder because a very strong backlash is waiting to be unleashed and Mr. Rea has gone a long way towards projecting that backlash. I am sorry for farmers. Most farmers are civic minded and will tell you that they want to pay their fair share of taxes, but the IFA leadership has not done anything that reflects well on farmers. I believe that the PAYE sector marches have been ignored and that some form of special action will have to be taken if we are to do something about this form of financial apartheid which is operating in the tax area where sections of the community receive priviliged treatment in comparison with other sections who have sought to air their grievences by way of orderly protests which were not listened to.
It was disgusting to see people turning out in big numbers last week to vote for a party who promised to abolish this land tax if returned to office, and to see Dublin people in big numbers being conned into voting for that party who want to continue to operate under this tax regime a form of apartheid comparable to the way coloured people are treated in South Africa. That is what it amounts to. Time and time again a privileged group in this community have exercised the veto, and those who are being discriminated against have been foolish enough to support a party who have pledged themselves to continue to screw them into the ground.
During the period of Government 1973-1977, my party introduced capital gains tax, wealth tax, a capital acquisitions tax, corporation tax and farmer taxation. The electorate did not thank us for trying to introduce a fair tax regime and in 1977 we were thrown out. Capital gains tax was mitigated to a great extent by the then Government. The wealth tax was repealed. The capital acquisitions tax was mitigated to a great extent. Corporation tax has not kept pace with inflation and farmer tax is less than 5 per cent of income and not worth a curse. The community must take a certain amount of responsibility for the way the tax regime operates because they tolerated the Fianna Fáil Government who between 1977 and 1981 removed fair and equitable tax provisions in the wealth and capital areas generally.
The people accepted that and continued to accept it and turned out in big numbers last week to support that party despite the fact that, during the campaign, the Leader of the Opposition said he would abolish the land tax. It is not the first time they have done it. They mitigated capital gains tax, and abolished wealth tax. Steps taken to introduce tax equity have not been supported by the general public, so they must bear a certain amount of responsibility in this area.
If the level of PAYE continues as it is compared to the level of taxation being contributed by the farming group we, as joint parties in Government, will have to look jointly at where we are going. We simply cannot continue to tolerate people who are paying less than 5 per cent of their income in taxation screaming blue murder and threatening blackmail on TDs at their clinics because of an attempt to bring them up even one rung of the ladder on the way to a farm tax system. Something is seriously wrong, and we may well have to bring the whole thing to confrontation sooner rather than later, rather than wait for Mr. Rea to do so.
Does Mr. Rea think people are sitting around shivering? If the road is confrontation we may as well have it now because right is on the side of those who are already being screwed into the ground. Very soon we will need a joint session of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties to look at the whole question of the PAYE tax contribution and the blackguarding we have been getting from the IFA leadership to the detriment of farmers. This Bill helps. It is a start, but it is only one rung on the ladder and we have a long way to go to get tax equity. I do not mind explaining to my constituents that they have to pay high tax because, if the Government spend £10,000 million they must get in £10,000 million, but I mind having to explain to them that there is not a fair tax regime. There is not a fair tax regime.
What about the 1983 budget?
The farming community have been getting away with murder because of their grip on rural TDs in particular which urban TDs have been accepting and backing away from because they do not want to cause a divide. That cannot be allowed to continue. This is one rung up the ladder, but it is only the start and I will be seeking more reform particularly during this session and next session.
Deputy Mitchell has said many of the things I would like to say on this Farm Tax Bill surprisingly enough, or maybe not surprisingly. He has a good insight into the IFA and knows what they have been doing. He represents a constituency in Dublin, like mine, which is a deprived area with a level of poverty not seen in many farming areas. Those at work are paying exceptionally high rates of tax to which I will be referring. Therefore, there is great resentment on the tax question. I have repeated this a number of times. What people resent most is not the level of taxation but the fact that one sector pays all the tax and another does not pay. People are prepared to make great sacrifices if they believe that the sacrifices are necessary for the country's sake, but if people in receipt of pensions and social welfare benefits are not contributing to the State anything like the level required there is great resentment. The question is asked continuously in places like Ballyfermot why only 1 per cent of working class children in Dublin can get a third level education despite the fact that the average PAYE earner is paying £1,800 taxation in the year. Deputy Michael Noonan was told in reply to a parliamentary question last year that there were 44,194 farmers in the tax net, the average payment charge was £570 and the actual amount they paid was £430 per farmer. Their participation in third level education is ten times higher than that of the urban working class person in Dublin. This is what causes such great resentment among the PAYE workers who are paying more than their share and yet they see those paying less than their share getting the same services plus grants and various incentives.
Mr. Joe Rea has been emphasising the fact that we have been calling for land tax for many years. I would like to give a very warm welcome to the land tax which is to be introduced at last. Unfortunately its provisions are so weak and ineffective in many ways we cannot summon any enthusiasm for the Bill before the House. The intention is apparently to use it to replace the loss of agricultural rates. I suppose at best it may just about recoup the loss in agricultural rates to the Exchequer. It could be just as ineffective as the property tax with all the complex procedures involved in the Bill. The property tax only brought in £1.6 million last year. That is not the major defect in it. It is also seems to be replacing income tax which, as far as we are concerned, is not the purpose of the land tax.
We acknowledge that the Bill is introducing the principle of a land tax and that it is a step forward. We support the principle involved and we will seek to improve the Bill on Committee Stage. The Bill is published against the background of the type of tax regime to which I was referring. In 1984 the PAYE sector paid 85.5 per cent of all income tax, the self-employed paid 13 per cent and the farmers paid a mere 1.5 per cent. That 1.5 per cent is a reducing amount. In 1980 it was still a very small amount. In that year the farming income tax was just over 2 per cent. The PAYE tax element has been an increasing amount. In 1979 the average tax payment by the PAYE worker was £915 and the average for a farmer was £488. By 1983 the figure had gone to £1,875 for the PAYE worker and, as I pointed out here, in the year 1983-84 the average demand of the 44,194 farmers was £570 and the average payment was £430 per farmer and no income tax at all was paid by the remaining 120,000 farmers.
In 1979 the total amount of tax taken from the PAYE sector was £648 million which had risen by 1984 to £1,682 million. That was an increase of 106 per cent. At the same time wages and salaries had gone up from £4,379 million in 1979 to £8,610 million in 1984, an increase of 97 per cent. There was an increase in wages and salaries between 1979 and 1984 of 97 per cent and there was an increase in tax of 106 per cent in the same period. What happened in relation to the farming sector? There was an actual decrease. In 1979 the total tax taken from farmers was £52 million, which included £36 million in agricultural rates. By 1984, with the abolition of rates, the total tax taken from farmers was down to £30 million, a reduction of 42 per cent; yet in those years income from agriculture increased from £759 million to an estimated £1,250 million. They had an increase in incomes of 65 per cent and a reduction in tax of 42 per cent in that period.
Is it any wonder there has been anger and bitterness among the PAYE sector? Is it any wonder they get so mad when Mr. Joe Rea appears on television with loud bullyboy tactics saying that farmers will not pay any more tax? If we take the 1979 figures as a base and if farmers' tax had risen in line with the overall increase in tax they would have paid £115.4 million in 1984 instead of £30 million. If farmers' tax had risen in line with the increase in the PAYE sector they would have paid £135.2 million in 1984 instead of £30 million. If farmers' tax had risen in line with inflation they would have paid £104 million in 1984. It did not rise in line with any of these.
The farming sector is very definitely a separate sector. Joe Rea and the IFA say they should be treated like everybody else, not separately. Deputy O'Kennedy said the same thing this morning, that this land tax is treating farmers as if they were a separate sector. They certainly are a very special separate sector and are treated as such in Europe. They are the only sector who are not subjected to market forces and are totally protected under the CAP. They are exceptional and there is no reason why they should not be treated as such in the matter of taxation to ensure that the system produces a tax yield from the farming community in accordance with their income and their land holding and the necessity to make such holdings productive.
We have always believed in a land tax, not just to produce income for the Exchequer — that is one aspect — but as a weapon to encourage the more efficient use of agricultural land, our greatest natural resource. Here is the nub of the question. It is our land, the land for which people in urban areas fought as well as those in rural areas, the land for which people in the cities of Dublin, Cork and Galway fought as well as those in Clare, Tipperary, Galway and elsewhere. It belongs to all the people. This was recognised throughout our history, by James Fintan Lawlor and by Davitt at the beginning of the Land League campaign. He wanted to ensure that the land would become the right of all the people of this country. A similar view was held by James Connolly and Patrick Pearse in 1916. Let not people think they can hide behind Patrick Pearse in their republicanism and reject Connolly. Pearse accepted totally the concept of Connolly and wrote about it in his pamphlet The Sovereign People. What does a “sovereign people” mean? It means the people have sovereignty over all this country, over the land and the mineral wealth, from the sod to the sky. While farmers have holdings of land, it is only by the agreement of the people. Therefore they must use that land, not just for their own personal good or personal aggrandisement but for the good of the whole country, the common good. That is written into the Constitution, no matter what way they try to get around it. Private property is supposed to be used for the common good, particularly our land, our greatest natural resource which should be the very basis of our industrialisation and job creation policy.
The farming community have a special obligation and responsibility to the nation. Joe Rea and the IFA do not in any way give an indication that they have a responsibility to anybody. They claim the land is theirs by right. It is not theirs by right — it is theirs by the will of the people and they must understand that. The people are entitled to charge a rent for that land, call it a land tax or a resource tax or whatever. The people are entitled to ensure that the land is used productively and not wasted. It must be used for the benefit of the people. With such rich land in this country there should be no poverty in any area, in my constituency or Deputy Mitchell's constituency or anywhere else. We have sufficient wealth for all our people if it is used and developed properly. A land tax is the very minimum that this House should be entitled to impose on the farming community as part of the stick to ensure that the land is used to its full potential.
The major flaw in this Bill is that it is seen as a method of collecting money from farmers and as a replacement for income tax, so that farmers will not have to keep accounts and produce books for the income tax authorities. The poor farmers are not able to do this sort of thing. They are incapable of keeping accounts, yet every little shopkeeper with far less wealth and property, less education and a much smaller turnover is supposed to be able to do all this and has to keep accounts of VAT, taxation and PRSI. The farming community are supposed to be too ignorant to do it. Far more farmers and their sons and daughters have a third level education than in any other sector. It is not that they are too ignorant to keep accounts but simply that they do not want anybody to know what is happening or what they are getting.
Is it not time that Joe Rea, for instance, told us what his income is every year and how much tax he pays? He is very quick to publicise to the whole country how much the workers in the co-ops are getting when they look for a higher wage or threaten to stike. What is Joe Rea's income and how much tax did he pay last year or in any year? It is time we had publication of the amount of land held by farmers and their income. The income of everybody employed by this State and semi-State companies is public knowledge. Why should the farming community be the exception? The reason they do not want to keep accounts is that they do not want their income to be known. There is no reason why they should not keep accounts and pay income tax in accordance with their income.
The land tax should be separate from the income tax code and not seen as a replacement of income tax for some farmers. It is wrong that those with less than 80 adjusted acres will not pay any income tax. Very many farmers will benefit from this Bill. The Government have estimated that only 10 per cent of farmers — 15,000 — will be liable for income tax if this Bill is passed. That is a very retrograde step going back to the situation in 1977 or 1978 when only farmers who had a rateable valuation above £75 were assessable for income tax. If the income tax and the rates payable in 1978-79 were indexed to retain their real value, the total farm tax yield would have exceeded £100 million in 1984. According to the Minister, the total estimated take in 1987 will at best be in the order of £60 million or £65 million. We already pointed out that they paid £52 million in 1979, so looking for £65 million in 1987 is a retrograde step.
The procedures for reclassifying actual acres into adjusted acres are exceptionally complex and will take a very long time to implement. When they are implemented, the appeals procedures, etc. will take up a lot of the time of the courts and it is unlikely that anything will be taken in in the first couple of years. The Agricultural Institute have published an interesting little booklet called Irish Agriculture in Figures and the 1983 issue quotes gross margins per acre in certain enterprises in farming. It gives the margins for the various crops, wheat, feed barley, malting barley, sugar beet, creamery milk and so on. The last figures available are for 1982 and, in that year, the gross margins per acre were: £214 per acre for wheat, £340 per acre for sugar beet, £293 per acre for creamery milk and so on. It was exceptionally low for cattle. £93 per acre. These figures obviously increased since then. For instance, the Agricultural Institute reported that farm income from full time farms increased by 15 per cent in 1983, so obviously there is a 15 per cent increase on the prices of the commodities to which I referred. Even based on the 1982 figures, it is clear that a farmer with 80 acres — I am not talking about adjusted acres — could have a gross income of £24,000 per annum. If you allow for farm inputs, this would still leave him with a net income well in excess of the national average and yet, under this Bill, that farmer will now face a maximum tax bill of £800 irrespective of what he earns. As I said, with the complex system of classification and appeals through tribunals and the High Court, it will be a bureaucratic quagmire. You may be quite sure it will be exploited to the full by solicitors, lawyers and accountants.
Nobody begrudges farmers the support and assistance necessary to make agriculture more efficient and neither can anyone deny that there are farmers living in circumstances of poverty. However, farmers with substantial holdings — and there is no doubt that Joe Rea has a very substantial holding — and good incomes continue to expect lavish support from the Exchequer while refusing to acknowledge that they must pay a fair share of taxation. That is intolerable and must be ended.
Despite the hundreds of millions of pounds invested by the State in agriculture, the level of net agricultural production has shown virtually no increase since 1975. However, farm incomes have continued to grow by as much as 15 per cent. At the same time, the IFA have waged a ruthlessly effective campaign to resist any demands that they should pay their fair share of tax. They blocked the resource tax which was brought in and it was then abolished by Fianna Fáil. The farmers refused to pay it and none was brought to court although people in urban areas who do not pay water rates are being brought to court. An honest 10 per cent of farmers paid something in the region of £700,000 — the income from the resource tax was estimated at £7 million which was a minimal tax which farmers would not have noticed — and the farmers who paid the resource tax had their money refunded to them by Fianna Fáil when they abolished the tax. Let us hope they will do the same for people who paid water charges when they abolish them as they promised to do. The 2 per cent levy was also blocked and they are now blocking the land tax. They just refused to pay any tax. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have been used as allies on different occasions in regard to tax. The Coalition introduces the resource tax, so the farmers voted for Fianna Fáil who abolished it. Fianna Fáil brought in the 2 per cent levy and there were howls of opposition from Fine Gael who were in opposition at that time. They allied themselves with the farmers and, of course, Fianna Fáil, backed down on the 2 per cent levy. The IFA used the two conservative parties to get away with paying no taxes. In the recent local elections Fianna Fáil, possibly thinking of the 1987 general election, totally surrendered to the IFA on the land tax issue, but I do not know if it will do them much good.
The larger farmers, the 15,000 who will have to pay income tax as well as the land tax, are those whom Joe Rea is screaming about and whom Fianna Fáil are now backing. Joe Rea and the larger ranchers have consistently refused to pay tax and have used the 110,000 farmers who were never in the tax net as bait and cannon fodder by telling them that they will be taxed to the hilt and driven off their holdings.
The most cynical thing of all, as far as Fianna Fáil are concerned, is that they make their deal with the IFA and then come back to Dublin pretending that they are against the land tax because it will not take enough from the farmers. They say that is why they are against it. They tell the people in Dublin that they want to take more from the farmers, but down the country they tell the people that they do not want to have them taxed at all. They get away with it and the people in both areas seem to believe them — just as Kerry people believe Deputy Charlie Haughey is a Kerryman, the Dublin people believe he is a Dublinman, Castlebar people think he is a Mayoman and the people in Tyrone say he is from that county. The party can do the same thing and be all things to all people everywhere. I suppose they will get away with it for a while longer, but it was a most cynical effort to fool the urban working class into thinking that they were defending their interests when in fact they were defending the interests of the larger farmers.
Fianna Fáil say there is only minority support for the introduction of the land tax. I do not know how they worked that out. If they believe that the thousands of workers who marched a few years ago against the PAYE rate of taxation have forgotten, that their demands are dead and gone and nobody is thinking of them any more, they are very wrong. The people are thinking and asking why the trade union movement did not support that campaign. They showed by taking to the streets that they were prepared to fight against this enormous burden of taxation. Those people want to know why the trade union movement let them down. They believe the movement should have pushed that campaign to the limit, even to the extent of a general strike. People in working class areas say they have been let down by the politicians, the Governments, and that they expected more militancy from the trade union leadership.
However, that does not mean that they have sat down on the campaign. They are thinking of how to fight against the system. They are using many ruses in different places and there has been a growth in the black economy, which is one way of defeating it. Fianna Fáil are making a great mistake if they think that those who marched in the PAYE protests have sat down, accepted and surrendered to the tax burden and are prepared to let everybody else get away with it. They are not and Fianna Fáil are making a major mistake if they think that only a minority support the introduction of a land tax. At their peril they will accept such an idea because they will be shown quickly that it is not true.
Many people have deplored the animosity that appears to have developed in recent years between farmers and workers. It is something that should never have been allowed to develop. One of the main factors leading to the animosity and resentment was the persistent refusal, and, in particular, the abrasive attitude, of the leader of the IFA, to agree to any system suggested in recent years. That refusal is causing more animosity by urban workers against the farming community. Unfortunately, only a small number of militant big farmers are fighting this campaign, but nevertheless urban workers view it as being all farmers who are objecting. I have spoken to many farmers who have said that they realise they should be paying more tax but they were not going to offer the tax. Nobody would expect them to approach Deputy Dukes and say: "Here is some tax for you". The vast majority of farmers are prepared to accept a fair and just tax system. The majority of them are reasonable people who understand that they are getting more than their fair share out of the economy and are prepared to put their fair share into it. They are embarrassed by Joe Rea's performance and by the lashing and refusal to pay any tax. They are embarrassed by the kowtowing of political parties to Joe Rea and the IFA instead of telling them: "This is the tax and you will pay it or go to jail like anybody else". That is what will have to be done with it or otherwise the division between urban workers and farmers will develop.
I am not saying that farmers are the only people who are not paying their fair share of taxation. There are many others such as self-employed, professional people and speculators of one kind or another who are getting away without paying their fair share of taxation. Capital taxes have been continuously reduced in the last ten years and the wealth tax was abolished. There are some benefits in the land tax. I am not satisfied with the restrictions in it, but it represents a step in the right direction — the principle is more important than the revenue it will yield, which will be relatively small. Certainly, it will be less than should be taken from the farming community.
I am concerned about land that has been reclaimed. We are all aware of the crippling effect of taxation here. The sad truth is that taxation here is the highest in western Europe. I agree that farmers have to pay tax but I am concerned about the classified adjusted acres. Many farmers in my constituency in the last ten years reclaimed land and obtained grants under the farm modernisation scheme to do so. Those farmers may have between 20 and 50 acres that are very good today but ten years ago that land was marshy and rough. I am concerned about such people. After the commissioners visit such holdings to classify those adjusted acres I have no doubt that the owners will have to pay more tax than they should.
There are in the region of 160,000 farmers here but in the sixties there were 500,000. What has happened? Farmers have been driven off the land in rural Ireland because they were unable to make a living on their small holdings. Up to now the Land Commission took over land and distributed it to make small holdings viable, but the Land Commission has been abolished. That was a sad day for the farming community. I hope the Minister will ensure that small farmers will not have to pay £10 on their adjusted acres. I do not know how the system will work for such people. The fairest taxation system for farmers here would be the accounts system. A farmer with 60 or 70 acres of good arable land is not paying big money when paying £10 per adjusted acre if he is a dairy farmer.
Debate Adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 5 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.