Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jun 1967

Vol. 63 No. 7

Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1967: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Local Government (Mr. K. Boland)

The Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1946, is, in effect, a temporary Act. Under an Act of 1964, the period to which it applied was extended to 31st March, 1967. The present Bill proposes to extend this period up to 31st March 1970. The Bill also proposes to extend the reliefs afforded under the Act of 1946 as amended. These reliefs will operate in the present and two following years.

Rates relief on agricultural land will now be applied in three broad categories. In the case of small holdings with rateable valuations of £20 or less —and these comprise the great majority of farms—it is proposed to increase the primary allowance from 80 per cent to 100 per cent of the general rate in the £, thus effectively de-rating the land. Where a holding of land has a valuation of more than £20, but not more than £33, the first £20 of valuation will also, in effect, be de-rated and the occupier will be directly liable for rates only on the part of the valuation above £20. This liability can be abated in appropriate cases by the employment allowance. Finally, holdings with rateable valuations above £33 will continue to get a primary allowance of 80 per cent of the general rate in the £ on the first £20 of such valuations and a supplementary allowance of 30 per cent of the general rate on the balance.

During the next three years the employment allowance will be available towards the relief of the entire net rates payable on holdings with valuations over £20. Up to this the allowance was related only to the portion of the net rates on the part of the valuation above £20.

The increased rates of allowances under the Bill will increase the total amount of the agricultural grant by £1.6 million to almost £16 million in the current year. Ten years ago the grant totalled less than £5.5 million and met 44 per cent of all rates on agricultural land. In 1962-63, when the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1962, increased the primary allowance from 60 per cent to 70 per cent and introduced a supplementary allowance of 25 per cent on valuations over £20, the grant rose to £8.5 million and met 57 per cent of the rates on land. The primary allowance was further increased to 80 per cent by the 1964 Act which also raised the supplementary allowance to 30 per cent. In consequence, the grant increased to £11.2 million in 1964-65, meeting 64 per cent of land rates. The £16 million grant this year will, it is estimated, meet approximately 70 per cent of all rates on land in county health districts. As a result of these progressive increases in rate reliefs met from the Agricultural Grant, farmers will pay less net rates on their land this year than they paid ten years ago in 1957-58.

The proceeds of the increased grants provided during recent years have accrued in the main to smallholders. The increase to 100 per cent in rate relief provided for in section 3 of the Bill represents the final step in this process by providing, in effect, for the complete derating of all land for farmers with land valuation of £20 or under. The derating will apply to 77 per cent of all rated holdings of agricultural land in the country. The benefits provided by the increased primary allowances for the further 10 per cent or so of holdings in the £20 to £33 valuation category will range from almost complete derating at the bottom of the scale to an average relief of approximately 61 per cent of the gross rates at the top of the scale.

As a consequence of the increase in the primary allowance for holdings with valuations under £20, provision is made in section 8 for the waiving of small amounts of rates which would otherwise fall to be levied as separate charges in respect of compensation for malicious injuries. It would normally be uneconomic for a county council to levy and recover these charges on small holdings which are otherwise de-rated.

The Bill also provides that the making of the allowances will be conditional on payment of the net rates due within the year unless the county council, with the consent of the Minister, decide to waive the condition in relation to any year. It is proposed to give power to the Minister to extend the time for payment beyond the end of the year.

The reliefs proposed in the Bill will have effect in the present year and county councils generally have now reached an advanced stage in the preparation of demand notes. It is highly desirable that the Bill should become law at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Rooney

In so far as this proposal confers some benefit on the farmers we welcome it. It is not what many people were led to believe, particularly those not associated with agriculture. When this matter was announced during the Budget, people in the cities and towns were slightly shocked to learn that in one stroke the Government had decided to derate rates on all agricultural land up to £20. That is the way the case was presented. In fact, the meaning of this Bill is that an extra £4 valuation has been derated. Already there was £16 of the rates on land derated and now a further £4 making a total of £20 complete derating.

At first sight this might seem a very great benefit to the farmers. However, it is well known that at present there is a flight from the land. The people are leaving the land rapidly. Even in the last 12 months over 10,000 people left the land and you had the same pattern in previous years. We were shocked to see that something like a quarter of a million people left the land over a comparatively short number of years. It shows that the manner in which this country is being managed is driving the people from the land because they are unable to make a living. This derating of agricultural land up to £20 means, in the case of rates being £3 in the £1, the farmers who will benefit from it will get a reduction of approximately £12 over the year which, of course, is even less than the old age pensioners got. They got £13 a year but, of course, they have to live to get it. They have only got a promise of it. This relief means a reduction of approximately £12 per annum.

The case has been made many times in favour of complete derating of all agricultural land. There is complete derating of all agricultural land in the Six Counties and in Britain. We are mainly an agricultural economy and we are within the framework of the British Isles. Our economy is bound up with the economy of the North of Ireland and Britain. There is a very strong case for complete derating of all agricultural land. The Minister may come back and say that it would cost too much but we can see that the Budget this year is approaching the £300 million mark. It is not many years ago since the annual Budget was approximately £100 million. I remember the Fianna Fáil Party who were in Opposition at the time saying that we had reached a fantastic situation when the expenditure to run this small country of three million people was £100 million. We have gone a long way since then in the matter of national expenditure, not alone ordinary current expenditure but also capital expenditure. If you take those very steep increases into consideration, it must be agreed that the derating of agricultural land is quite within the bounds of possibility and it should be tackled. In his statement here the Minister has not extended any hope that we can expect complete derating of all agricultural land. It is probable that when we get into the EEC our rating system so far as agricultural land is concerned will be changed considerably. It is possible that so far as agricultural land is concerned the rates will be very nominal compared with what they are at present.

At present whether it be a large or a small holding the rates loom large in the domestic circumstances of any family. Being ready to meet the rates is one of the big burdens. The people are finding it very difficult because from the official statistics given we have seen that a number of farmers are earning only around £5 per week compared with workers in other occupations, and it is obvious that it is necessary to derate land with valuations up to £20 and indeed higher. On this occasion we are giving some concessions on up to valuations of £33.

When it was announced in the Budget that rates on valuations between £20 and £33 would be relieved to some extent, people thought it would be of great benefit. However, the Minister, I am sure, will be able to give us figures to show in fact what benefits will be available to those people who qualify and who have valuations not exceeding £33. We shall then be able to compare those figures with figures in respect of valuations not exceeding £20 and it will be shown that the relief on valuations of between £20 and £33 will not be very substantial.

Numbers of farm labourers have dropped considerably and the result is that many farmers with valuations up to £33 are dependent on family labour or must do without any. A farm up to £33 valuation in many parts of the country is not capable of providing a week's wages for a farm labourer. Indeed the farmer himself finds it difficult to get sufficient out of the holding to make ends meet. Of course it can be said that if the farm were covered with grass, it would be a different matter but all farmers are not geared for that kind of economy.

Taking the average farmer with a valuation of £33, we may assume, generally speaking, that it would not be viable without family labour, that it would possibly barely make ends meet. It is obvious that apart from the concessions made here, the economic situation is not good enough to keep members of farmers' families on the holdings. They are leaving, emigrating or going into other occupations, because the living they can get from the land is not sufficient to keep them at home. The same applies to farm workers. They are able to obtain higher wages in other occupations. The rate of wages for an able-bodied man on the land is lower than in other employments. There is no doubt it would be higher if the landowner were in a position to pay more: the farm worker would then be in a position to demand and to get more in return for his work.

I should like to say that the Minister has not given much to the farmers, considering this is mainly an agricultural economy. When one takes into consideration the amount of revenue derived from farmers and their families by way of general taxation, this £1½ million in addition to what farmers have been getting is not much. It is less than Potez got towards their Clondalkin factory by way of grants. All the farmers of Ireland have got less in this year's Budget than the Clondalkin factory got—this enterprise, if I may call it such.

We consider, however, that this is a move in the right direction. We agree that agriculture needs to be subsidised. It is not the right way to do it but it is the only way at the moment, apparently, as far as one can judge from Government policy. In the long run, this type of relief should not be necessary. A policy should be operated which would replace this form of relief and which would put the farmers and those working on the land in a position to make ends meet without this form of relief which really does nothing except ease the burden.

This does not make a useful contribution towards achieving a general increase in farm output or towards achieving efficiency in farming methods or towards improving the land. On average, this works out at approximately 6d a day relief for each farmer on the first £20 valuation. Therefore, the Minister should not talk to us in terms of £16 million. That is the total amount farmers are getting and it was already in the framework of our economy, in the framework of the farmers' economy in so far as rates are concerned. What the Minister is giving them this year is £1½ million—less than the grant made available to Potez.

Mr. Malone

One of the great problems facing councillors when they come to strike a rate each year is to hold an even balance between the services the people require, which they are entitled to, and their capacity to pay. Any relief which the Minister can give of this colossal burden of rates is therefore to be welcomed, and I do just that. Nevertheless, when one considers that the first £20 of rateable valuation is now to be free of rates, one must look at the other side of the picture. The person concerned in this valuation bracket usually had some other job or tried to meet his rates from the humble pig in the yard, which he reared with a view to meeting the rates bill when it came due, and some farmyard poultry which also helped in that direction.

Both have now disappeared, due to changes in farming methods and other factors. It is no longer possible to see the couple of pigs in the pigsty or the few hens in the yard. That applies to those farmers—they cannot be called large farmers—with valuations between £20 and £33. Therefore, the case Senator Rooney made in connection with derating can be taken further. Are small farmers who had jobs, very often as council workers, to be deprived of those jobs, due to reductions in grants from the Road Fund? In that respect I wonder is the Minister robbing Peter to pay Paul. If he is, the last situation will be much worse than the first. The entire system of rates must soon be reviewed because it is not just the small farmers who are badly affected by this. One can make a case for the small shopkeepers and indeed for the big ones too but we are dealing here with the question of relief of rates on agricultural land. In so far as it helps to alleviate some of the hardship and some of the stress brought about by the ever-increasing burden of rates, it is welcome, but we must remember that while the land is derated, they still have to pay rates on their buildings and on their houses. These will be very heavy on them. I certainly welcome the Bill for any benefit the Minister gives in it.

Mr. McDonald

The present iniquitous system of taxation by means of rates certainly needs to be changed. I welcome the Bill in so far as it is a step in the right direction. At the time this measure was announced in the Budget Statement, it was certainly very welcome news throughout the country. Unfortunately, when people got down to working out exactly how much they were to gain by this measure, it worked out, as I read in a Dáil reply to a question, that it was only something like £3 17s 9d, or some such figure, so on the whole it is not a great relief. But it is a step in the right direction.

I should like to avail of this opportunity of appealing to the Minister to introduce legislation for the devaluation of agricultural land, as distinct from derating, because we find in many parts of the country, in the Nore Valley, the Barrow Valley and the Shannon Valley, where land is constantly subject to flooding, that people pay high rates on high valuation on land which is to all intents and purposes useless to them. The very same applies in relation to pollution and, may I say, pollution by Bord na Móna, especially in Kildare, Offaly and in particular, the Blackwater district of West Offaly where this pollution has rendered vast areas of agricultural pasture land completely useless. Despite this, those people must still pay rates on this land. Furthermore, the valuations on this useless land deprive many farmers of the right, shall we say, to medical services. If their valuations happen to be over £50 for a while, they are deprived of certain grants. This is surely an injustice.

Our present rating system completely ignores the ability of the ratepayers to pay and for that reason there is no social justice whatsoever in the system. Our entire rating system has outlasted its usefulness. The Fine Gael Party on this side have given considerable thought to the entire question of rates and we have many proposals which we feel are in accord with modern times.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): Including revaluation, by what you say.

Mr. McDonald

I was dealing with devaluation.

Mr. O'Quigley

The acoustics in the Chamber are not good.

Mr. McDonald

I was dealing with devaluation. I refer particularly to the Barrow, Nore and Shannon Valleys, which are subject to flooding for three-quarters of the year. The land is completely useless to the unfortunate farmers who must pay rates on it. It is also completely useless to the unfortunate farmers in West Offaly whose lands have been affected by pollution from Bord na Móna bogs. When the flooding subsides, not even the grass grows. Yet, those people get no compensation and no alleviation whatsoever so there is a genuine case for devaluation of agricultural land. I would appeal to the Minister to bring in legislation to deal with that situation.

On the general question of rates, the time has come to tackle the problem directly. The present system of the rates providing 50 per cent of the cost of the health services in the various counties is an excessive burden on the ratepayers. The vast majority of people, except in towns, do not pay any rates. It is only the householders and the occupiers of agricultural land who pay rates. There are quite a number of people in the country who avail of all services that are paid for partly through the rates, such as roads and health, and who are not asked to contribute towards this rates burden. We in the Fine Gael Party propose that the contribution from the Central Fund towards the cost of health services in the various counties should be increased from 50 per cent to at least 70 per cent to reduce the burden of rates in the various counties.

A great case can also be made with respect to local authority housing. We favour again that the greater share of the cost of local authority housing should be paid of central funds and thereby act as an incentive to local authorities to tackle the problem of providing the required number of houses more quickly. The present system is certainly a deterrent to any council to get abreast of their building programme. As the present system is certainly inequitable in the towns especially, we find that people pay very high rates irrespective of whether there is any business at all going on in the shops or business premises. In most of the county towns business in some premises has declined but yet rates are the same. I would like the Minister to say if subsection (2) of section 7 means that it is a reserved function of the council and not of the county manager. I welcome the Bill.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): This Bill has been given a halfhearted welcome by the three Senators who have spoken.

Mr. McDonald

I would not say so.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): They welcomed it, and then said it was a very small matter indeed of between £1 million and £2 million. It may be that I have a small mind but I know that £1½ million is a very big sum indeed for any purpose, and that it can be very hard sometimes to get that or even a smaller sum if you try to borrow it.

Mr. O'Quigley

That is true. We are all agreed about that.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): This is quite a substantial step forward and a substantial relief in that it gives a measure of relief to a large number of people, and in the long run, it is people that count rather than systems. It affects to a great degree a very large number of people in the congested districts in the west of Ireland and in many other counties, because there are pockets in Meath, Kildare and other counties normally regarded by people living in the West as uncongested. It is true to say that up to £20 valuation the responsibility of paying rates has been removed on agricultural land, and a measure of relief up to £33. That is a substantial forward movement. It does involve approximately £1½ million. It is part of the budgetary proposals of the Government and therefore cannot be taken in isolation.

Coupled with that, there are other reliefs and supports for the working farmer. I know that the support given to the milk producer in the creamery area where I live, according to a document I recently received from the local creamery management, will amount to 3d per pound in my particular case and in that of the other suppliers in the area, since they pay on a butter fat basis. It would therefore be very wrong to take this in isolation since it is part of the budgetary proposals of the Government. Even taken by itself, as the three previous speakers wished to take it, I still say that it is not a small thing.

Human nature being what it is, it is practically impossible to have absolute equity in this question of rating. When I was a younger man, most of 20 years ago, I remember being a representative of a county council on the General Council of County Councils, and advocating from the council I represented a particular scheme of basic rating whereby the same amount of rate would be collected in Leitrim, Kerry and Clare—in each county— with a subvention available from central funds. The idea was that the subvention would go to the poorer counties as well as to the richer to achieve a situation in which you could have equality of services, and an equal standard of service in housing, water, sewerage and other responsibilities of the local authorities. What Senator McDonald said brought that back to my mind.

What I found then was that the representatives from Donegal, Leitrim, Mayo, Clare, Kerry, Galway and so on on the western seaboard, and indeed Cork and Kerry, supported it. There was some measure of support for the idea in certain areas in the midlands, but along the eastern seaboard—and this irrespective of political Party— there was opposition to the ideas from the representatives from Dundalk to Cork on the eastern seaboard. It was debated fairly fully and for some considerable time, and finally defeated. It has not been resurrected since.

I think of this in view of what Senator McDonald has said. I believe that no matter what system of revaluation there is, you cannot have equity so long as you have different boundaries, different local authority areas with different economic capacities and different taxable capacities. I could not envisage a situation in which you could have that idea I have outlined, equality of standard as between Mayo and Meath or Kildare and Leitrim, because the taxable capacity of Leitrim and Mayo is quite different by any standard. Therefore the idea suggested by Senator McDonald of revaluation would not, to my mind, solve the problem between counties.

Mr. McDonald

On a point of order, I was mentioning devaluation of specific holdings where the occupiers were subjected to hardship.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): I am not able to distinguish between devaluation and revaluation.

Mr. McDonald

I never mentioned revaluation.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): You cannot have devaluation or increase in valuation without a revaluation. I am intelligent enough to see that part of it. No matter what we call it, or what its name may be, I am not making myself more or less shibbolethic, though I know that Senator McDonald was not intending to talk in shibboleths —I will pay him that tribute. While you might by devaluation or revaluation, or whatever name we want to put on it, achieve more equity within county boundaries—because there can be glaring cases where some properties are valued far lower, though they are valuable business premises, than newly-built houses which have a residential value—that will not in any way achieve equity or justice as between counties, because of the fact that there is such a wide difference in taxable capacity from the central or local point of view between Mayo and Meath, Leitrim and Kildare or Longford and Offaly, say.

All we have to do to see that is to look at the gross capital value of Meath and what a penny in the £ will yield, as compared with Longford, Leitrim or Cavan. It is no harm that now and again somebody should refer to this in the hope that at some stage there will be a more equitable scheme for providing money for local services. It is a fact that counties with a low taxable capacity cannot provide the same services—health services, housing, sewerage and water—as counties with a high taxable capacity. The services are bound to be poorer. A county in such circumstances, even doing its best, cannot provide as good a service as a county with a high taxable capacity; there will be better services in a better-off county.

With regard to the question of rates relief, may I join with the others who have welcomed it, although some welcomed it half-heartedly? It is a step forward. The Bill gives rates relief on agricultural land up to £20 valuation and further relief up to £33. That is welcome. It may not be welcomed in the better-off counties like Kildare and Meath but it is a quite substantial relief in the congested districts, Leitrim, Longford and Cavan.

Mr. O'Quigley

Were it not for the fact that we are pressed for time and coming up to the local elections, the debate on a Bill like this would, I think, be more fundamental than certainly it has been from the Government side of the House. Senator O'Reilly has got a point and an appreciation of the problems involved in financing local authorities when he speaks of what we in Fine Gael refer to as a rates equalisation fund so as to ensure that poorer counties——

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): Please do not associate me with your policies.

Mr. O'Quigley

You have no policy at all for local elections and no policy at all with regard to rates. For years we used to hear Fianna Fáil saying: "We have a policy; that policy is well known." What is it? We hear little about the Second Programme for Economic Expansion.

Mr. Dolan

Look around you.

Mr. O'Quigley

All we hear is that they were proposing to revise the targets and the only target they have reached is the target for taxation and expenditure and getting people off the land.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

There will be another policy tomorrow.

Mr. Dolan

Will the Senator tell us where all the money is to come from that Senator McDonald and Senator Rooney talk about?

Mr. O'Quigley

It would be grossly irregular and out of order to talk about raising money for land and improving the economy on a Bill of this kind.

Mr. Dolan

Tell us about how you raised the finances in 1957 when you ran out.

Mr. O'Quigley

There was never a shortage of money for housing in 1957, about which the Minister for Local Government spoke here the last day. We did not go around the capitals of Europe and to New York looking for capital for housing.

Mr. K. Boland

The Division bells are ringing in the Dáil and perhaps I can be excused.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Perhaps the House would like to continue the debate.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am quite prepared to say that there never was a shortage of money for housing.

Mr. Dolan

The houses were vacant; the people were running away. There were 1,700 too many in Dublin.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Quigley on the Bill, without interruption.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator is asking for interruptions.

Mr. O'Quigley

In 1962 the Government produced a White Paper on housing and they told us in 1963 that there were 50,000 houses unfit for human habitation. It is extraordinary that there were 1,700 too many in Dublin. I do not know how you can reconcile these figures.

Mr. Dolan

You were selling out the planes and sending the workers abroad. The houses were vacant in Dublin city and the keys were hanging up.

Mr. O'Quigley

That might be all right for a few of your pals in a pub but nobody would seriously accept that that is in any way in accordance with the facts. What I was saying when I was interrupted was that if we had a little more time to devote to this matter and there was not such a rush in getting Bills through all Stages this evening, we should devote a good deal more time to the problem of taxation.

Mr. Dolan

There is no rush.

Mr. O'Quigley

What we are dealing with is the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1967. As I understand it, the meaning of the word "relief" is that you are suffering or carrying some burden, and that is about the size of the situation in relation to rates on agricultural land in this country. They are a burden. We should not have rates on agricultural land at all. The poor rate in this country, the system of rating we have at the present time, was known as the poor law relief, introduced by what we refer to as a foreign Government at that time, a rate that was levied on the rich for the relief of the poor. In modern times, the poor and the rich are lumped together in the inequitable system of taxation we have for our local authorities. It is quite scandalous in modern times to say that an old age pensioner, a sick widow or somebody who is only qualified for outdoor relief who is living in a house is required to pay rates. How anybody can square that with social justice beats me. We have a Fianna Fáil Government in office for ten years and they have produced no plan.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We had Fine Gael under various guises for 15 years.

Mr. Dolan

You took 1/- off them.

Mr. O'Quigley

How many people had 5/- taken off because of Mr. Wilson's increase and how many got the 5/- promised in 1966? Let Senator Dolan speak. We shall hear him afterwards.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Quigley on the Bill, without further interruption.

Mr. O'Quigley

I cannot understand how anybody can say in this day and age that it is right and proper to tax the old age pensioner or a widow with maybe five, six or ten orphans. That is what is involved in levying rates on the houses of old age pensioners and small farmers. Let it not be forgotten that all this Bill is doing is relieving rates on land up to a valuation of £20, and the poor farmer living on the hills of Mayo, in Leitrim or on the hills of Donegal will still have to pay rates on his land and in respect of his house and buildings. I cannot see how you can tax somebody and demand money from him out of 35/-or 40/- a week. If Fianna Fáil want to say that that is social justice, let them do so.

It is not social justice and it is an outrage to say that the poor of this country are taxed on money that is inadequate, by any standard, to give them a reasonable standard of living. Therefore, when you come to examine this Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, from a Government who have been ten years in office, with all the talk they have about their First Programme for Economic Expansion and their Second Programme for Economic Expansion, remember that we are still going to tax the widow, the orphans, the sickly brother, the sickly man who is not yet entitled to any pension, who is trying to eke out a meagre existence in the most humble circumstances.

Mr. Yeats

We are still giving £11 million more a year than you gave.

Mr. O'Quigley

What else would you be doing in office for ten years? Do you expect that you should have been sitting back doing nothing? Senator Dolan is still living back in 1957.

Mr. Dolan

The Senator does not like to hear it.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am quite prepared to debate the position in 1957 with him, and use all the statistics——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

But not on the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill.

Mr. O'Quigley

——but not on this Bill, because the Chair would not allow me.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

For God's sake, stop shedding these crocodile tears and get on with the Bill.

Mr. O'Quigley

If the Leader of the House thinks that to speak with feeling about the wrongs and injustices being done to the widows, orphans and old age pensioners of this country is shedding crocodile tears, he is entitled to that view. I do not, and I think it is time we protested against a Government who have a working majority and have no plan whatever to deal with this. Mind you, I have been looking at the Fianna Fáil propaganda for the local elections to see what was their policy and how it squared with ours and, in all the election literature I have got to date, all I have seen are the names of the candidates and—Vote Fianna Fáil. There is neither a word of their achievements, because they do not exist, nor a word of their policy, because that does not exist either.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): We do not want to produce a new policy, like Fine Gael, before every election.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I would ask Senator O'Quigley to keep to the Bill and other Senators to refrain from interrupting.

Mr. O'Quigley

It is a sobering thought that in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion there is a projected decrease in the number on the land, I think, of 35,000, 40,000 or 50,000 a year from 1965 to 1970 and that in fact for almost the same services we will have 50,000 or 60,000 fewer people paying.

The bill to be met from local taxation is yearly being shared out among fewer people in rural Ireland. I know of no plan being put forward by the Minister for Agriculture, or the Minister for Local Government to deal with that particular problem.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Have Fine Gael got a plan?

Mr. O'Quigley

It is a growing problem; Fine Gael have got a plan.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

What steps exactly will you take to implement it? It is a dead secret.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): Senator McDonald suggested revaluation.

Mr. O'Quigley

This is typical Fianna Fáil propaganda. Senator McDonald never used the word "revaluation" once tonight and Senator O'Reilly is now saying he has used it; that is a typical method of Fianna Fáil propaganda. I am surprised at Senator O'Reilly.

I would have thought that in a Bill of this kind we might have found that there was another relief we could offer, not alone to the rural population but to the rate-paying population in general, that is, the simple method of paying rates by instalments. I do not see any reason why we cannot enact legislation to provide that rates will be paid by, if not 12 monthly instalments—because the demand notes have to come out some time after the beginning of the local financial year—then, by nine monthly instalments, at the option of the ratepayer. There are many people whose family budget is geared to weekly and monthly payments. It is high time this facility was provided for the ratepayers. It would cost nothing to implement this, by way of legislation, and in practice, and it is another of the reliefs we ought to afford the overburdened ratepayers.

Finally, on the form of the Bill, might I say that while we propose, if the House wishes it—from this side at any rate—to enact this Bill tonight, might I say I must again object to the slovenly manner in which this Bill has been prepared? Any farmer or rate collector trying to ascertain what is the position, when it comes to working out the allowances, will find it extremely difficult when he takes this Bill in conjunction with the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act of 1939, another Act of 1946, another Act of 1953, another Act of 1962 and yet another of 1964. And we have this form of legislation presented to us here—to quote subsection (1) of section 1 of this Bill:

Section 6 of the Act of 1946, as amended by section 4 of the Act of 1962 and section 4 of the Act of 1964, shall not apply in relation to a person rated in respect of a tenement of agricultural land the primary allowance in respect of which is, by virtue of section 3, equal to the general rate in the pound on the specified valuation.

This is the kind of legislation we are enacting and expecting people to understand. In my time, I have seen courts learned in the law finding it extremely difficult to patch, first of all, these various amendments of amendments of amendments and then, having done that—having assembled the pieces—try to work out what the Legislature intends to do. It is high time, when we introduce a Bill of this kind, that we introduce it in a form readily understandable by ordinary members of the community.

Mr. K. Boland

I suppose, particularly in view of what transpired in the Dáil, it was only to be expected that the concession involving the granting of an increase of £1.6 million under this Bill would be belittled. I had some idea of the type of criticism we would have—for example, that the extra relief on a £20 valuation holding with rates at 60/- in the £ would be only £12 a year. But the fact of the matter is that the agricultural grant will now meet the full £60 of the rates on this holding; this is an additional £12 and, even if it does look in any individual case as a fairly small relief, you cannot remit more than 100 per cent of anything. This is an additional relief and is a continuing benefit. If it should happen that there are further increases in rates, then the benefit under this concession of 100 per cent relief will, of course, increase.

Senator Rooney advocated the complete derating of agricultural land, as obtains in Britain and the Six Counties. He did not advert to the fact that the valuation of agricultural land in Great Britain and Northern Ireland—combined for this purpose—is less than ten per cent of all property valuations, whereas in this country land valuations total nearly 45 per cent of all rateable valuations. Therefore, the derating of agricultural land here would be a much greater burden on other ratepayers and taxpayers than is the case in Great Britain or Northern Ireland. It is also a fact that the valuations of farm houses in Britain and Northern Ireland are very much higher than here and that they are, of course, not devalued.

As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the addition of this £1.6 million to the grants in relief of rates on agricultural land brings the total of the grants to £16 million and, as I said, this means that now 70 per cent of the rates on agricultural land in this country is being relieved. It does not take a very involved calculation to work out that 100 per cent relief of the rates on agricultural land would cost approximately £23 million. That is an extra £7 million.

I know it was not necessary for the Senators who spoke on the opposite benches to point it out—that Fine Gael have recently announced their intention of relieving rates in general and many other costly proposals which would cost the taxpayer, or cost the Exchequer, an astronomical extra amount of money. In fact I expect to be dealing in great detail with this announcement of Fine Gael at another and more appropriate time, but, however, I am aware of this proposal of theirs. I am also aware that, as in the case of all the other proposals of the Fine Gael Party, the problem of raising the taxes necessary for this is not considered relevant, so I suppose that the addition to their proposals of another £7 million is neither here nor there. After all, if the cost of what they have already promised is not relevant, well, why bother about another £7 million? I can quite see their point on that.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Minister is aware that the document specifically points out and draws attention to the fact that this is a transfer involving no net increase in the burden of taxation.

Mr. K. Boland

I am talking of the problem of getting the money. It does not say how that is going to be done.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Central taxation.

Mr. K. Boland

It seems to me a matter that the people will feel is fairly relevant in view of the fact that as late as last week, Fine Gael Members in the Dáil were talking about the unbearable burden of existing taxation.

Mr. Dolan

That is right.

Mr. K. Boland

However, they now have proposals to increase that by an indeterminate amount.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

To shift the burden.

Mr. Dolan

To another country.

Mr. K. Boland

We are led to believe that the rates and taxes at the moment are more than people can bear. However, I shall be going into that during the time that still remains between now and next Wednesday. I can assure the policymakers of Fine Gael that so will other Members of the Government and of this House.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

We are glad of any publicity for our policy.

Mr. K. Boland

Fine Gael Senators on this Bill and indeed on the Bill dealing with planning, which is to follow, maintain that the problem of raising the actual money to implement these things is not relevant. Still it might be interesting if at some time in the future the Fine Gael policymakers would show some activity after an election. I will not ask them to do this before the election.

Mr. O'Quigley

Fianna Fáil never did anything like that. They never increased the price of milk before the Presidential election.

Mr. K. Boland

But if after the election they would explain even broadly how they propose to raise this extra money which has now been added to by Senator Rooney to the tune of an extra £7 million, I am sure the taxpayers and the people in general would find that interesting. I also think that they would pay more attention to Fine Gael policy, that they would treat these regular productions of new policies as something more serious, if there were some indication as to what new taxes or what new tax structure were to be imposed in order to raise this money and also, of course, if there were some indication as to how they were going to so depart from their previous performance as to ensure that the community would be able to provide the money in any shape or form. So far, however, we are without such an indication.

I can assure the Fine Gael experts, most of whom, I think, are in this House, that we do not worry overmuch about their efforts because we know that the voters, largely because of their past experience, do consider the question of cost very relevant indeed and I am quite satisfied that the agricultural community in general will consider this addition to the grant in relief of rates on agricultural land of £1.6 million, in conjunction with, as Senator O'Reilly said, the other subventions provided in the Budget this year a significant contribution.

Senator Malone referred to the fact that there were farmers earning £5 a week and less. Admittedly, it appears that there are some persons on agricultural holdings who get a return of £5 or less a week from the land. However, an examination of the census will show that the majority of smallholders have some alternative or additional source of income. The 1961 census showed that the owners of farms of under 30 acres include 2,703 labourers, 725 agricultural and forestry workers, 869 shopkeepers, 140 publicans, 327 tradesmen and 504 fishermen, a total of 5,268 who presumably would be in this category of farmers who earn £5 a week or less from their agricultural holdings. Therefore, the position in this regard is not as serious as some people try to pretend it is. In so far as there are people who are not earning an adequate livelihood from the land, the Government in the Budget this year made some arrangements for a modest income supplement for these people for the whole year round. However, that does not arise on this Bill.

I can assure Senator McDonald that the general question of rates is being investigated and has been for some time. It has been investigated both by the Economic Research Institute and by an interdepartmental committee which has published one report and a second report is now ready and will be published in the very near future. A third report is nearing completion.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

For the election?

Mr. K. Boland

That is a Fine Gael tactic to which Fianna Fáil do not resort.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

It is not a favourable report then.

Mr. K. Boland

Unlike the regular production of new policies by Fine Gael, this is a scientific investigation of the problem by an interdepartmental committee, not a political Party matter at all, and it will not be utilised by the Fianna Fáil Party as an election tactic.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

It is understandable that it is not a favourable report.

Mr. K. Boland

It is available to be published in the near future and a third report is now nearing completion which deals with the incidence of rates generally, with the possibility of opening new sources of revenue and with the feasibility and the consequences of transferring some part of the expenditure now partially met by rates to the Exchequer. Senators may be assured that any decision taken by the Government will be taken in the light of the problem of providing that the Exchequer will be able to pay the extra amount.

I appreciate that the temptation to suggest that the State should relieve local ratepayers of an even greater part of the cost of local services grows stronger as the local elections approach but the facts of the matter are that over the country as a whole the State will meet 52 per cent of all local revenue expenditure this year and that the rates will meet only 32 per cent. That is over the whole country. In regard to county councils the percentages are below these averages.

Therefore, I am satisfied that the people appreciate that this Government have been pursuing this policy for some considerable time, that they appreciate there is a problem in regard to rates and that they are having it investigated, not from a political angle but with a view to arriving at a really feasible solution which will result in lessening the burden on the rates. I am satisfied the people appreciate that when this Government take a decision they will do so having assessed the consequences of transferring the burden to the taxpayers and that they have made up their minds on what necessary impositions will be required on the taxpayer.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): Can the Minister give us any indication whether, in that study, it is intended to have regard to the fact that there is a difference of taxable capacity in different counties with consequent inequality of service?

Mr. K. Boland

All these factors will be considered by the inter-departmental committee and by the Economic Research Institute and the reports will be published in the expectation that they will produce comments from different section of the public.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

None of the burden will be transferred to central taxation.

Mr. K. Boland

That is a decision that still has to be taken.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

But the Minister has said we cannot afford it.

Mr. K. Boland

What I have said is that if this Government take that decision they will also take a decision as to what the new taxes will be, what the taxation structure will be. We are waiting until we have all the facts.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

And you will announce your decision before the Budget.

Mr. K. Boland

We will decide what taxes it will be necessary to impose. If we should so decide, we will announce it at Budget time and we will make arrangements in the Budget to ensure that the extra money will be available. We would not have the nerve to ask the people of Ireland to believe this could be done without inconvenience to anybody as the Fine Gael Party do.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

That is why we point out that it will increase the burden of taxation.

Mr. K. Boland

But who will it affect? Nobody, according to you. It is not relevant. It is like the other Bill we were discussing here last week. The cost is not relevant. All we have to do is enunciate desirable principles and——

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Like O'Malley's health scheme.

Mr. K. Boland

The cost is not relevant. Of course, we could do that as well as you. We know all the things that are desirable. One does not have to be an economic expert to list all that is desirable.

Mr. O'Quigley

Would the Minister give us the taxation proposals for the health scheme? Would he answer that one?

Mr. K. Boland

We realise it is necessary to ensure that the economy will be able to provide the money. That is the difference between us and Fine Gael. That is why we continue to be the Government and you continue to sit over there. The taxes will be imposed when the changes are introduced.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

So will our taxes be announced when our changes are introduced.

Mr. K. Boland

But we shall never have the country in the bankrupt state we found it——

Mr. O'Quigley

We never had to go all over the world looking for a loan.

Mr. K. Boland

We will arrange that any benefits that will be provided for the people can be financed by the community. Another point was raised by Senator McDonald who wanted to know if this would be a reserved function of the councils. That is the position.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill considered in Committee.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

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

Mr. O'Quigley

Would the Minister be good enough to indicate if the Land Commission pay rates on their properties throughout the country? Are they entitled to reliefs?

Mr. K. Boland

I understand the position is that if the Land Commission take over property after the rate has been made they are liable. Otherwise they are not.

Mr. O'Quigley

I gather from what the Minister has said that only in the event of the Land Commission having land which is lying idle do they pay rates.

Mr. Malone

They are collecting for lettings, just the same.

Mr. O'Quigley

It is most iniquitous. We all know that in many counties, because of lack of Government funds, the Land Commission cannot get on with their business and there are farms lying idle between the time of acquisition and the time of outright purchase when the price is fixed. It seems a great loss to the ratepayers in those localities.

Mr. K. Boland

It would be some loss but not a very great one.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 3 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

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

Mr. O'Quigley

On the Bill we are about to enact, I should like to say I hope that in the coming year, to which this Bill relates, we shall see the Government taking some kind of active steps to ensure that this long promised, long awaited and much needed further scheme, which may have an impact on the rates, that is to say, the health scheme, which was to come in last November, will be quickly brought into operation.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is hardly appropriate to the Final Stage of this Bill.

Mr. O'Quigley

It is all very well for the Minister to criticise Fine Gael but he has his civil servants to do his work.

Question put and agreed to.

The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m.sine die.