I would like to point out to the Minister that there is some irony in the fact that we are debating a Bill which is misleadingly titled and imposes a very heavy burden on a substantial extra number of farmers and does not give relief to farmers, other than maintain a situation which has existed for a long time. It continues relief to a certain number of farmers. The figures I quoted to the Minister on Second Stage are from his own Department in reply to a question tabled by Deputy L'Estrange in the Dáil yesterday. As is clear from the figures the increased burden is very substantial. The irony is we are debating the Bill and we are going to vote this extra burden into being when outside the House there are farmers protesting about their financial predicament at the moment. I do not know what democracy means or whether there is any connection between reality and bureaucracy but there is something drastically wrong with a system that can lead us into imposing these heavy financial penalties on farmers who are protesting that their incomes are dropping.
Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1980: Fifth Stage.
I think it is unbelieveable that Senator Cooney will not admit that this Bill gives relief to farmers. Does the Senator admit that or does he not?
It is continuing relief for a certain number.
Does it give relief to farmers?
No, quite the opposite.
Before the break for lunch I dealt with this in some detail. The Bill expired on 31 December 1979. Some Members of the House have not got the message that the Bill is giving relief. The Minister had to bring a Bill before the Oireachtas in order to give the rates relief. Other than that, legally and statutorily it could not be given. In County Galway in Senator Connaughton's own area, 97 per cent are unover £40 valuation. Only 3 per cent are over £40 valuation. We cannot shed crocodile tears and go around like Simple Simons and go one road and then go another. When the Leas-Chathaoirleach asked me to amend various sections of the Bill I was honest and said I would not. If I was going to do that I would tell the House that, but I was not. Look at the whole country, 91.6 per cent is under £40. The balance all over the country is only 8.4 per cent. The farmers have relief on their houses. Farmers paying income tax can offset the rates against their income tax account.
The Bill gives relief to the tune of £37 million a year rates on the land. No amount of talking can hide that. Everyone understands how rates are arrived at. The valuation of the property is multiplied by the rate in the £ struck by the local authority. Since we came back into office we had a ceiling on the amount by which the local authority could raise the rates. A number of farmers and the business community throughout the country have said that without the ceiling, the rates would be very much higher. The local authority would probably increase them by 100 per cent instead of the 30 per cent in the last three years.
I stated earlier the total number who were involved and what the situation is. All rates in 1977 on land houses were approximately £107 million. This year, the farmers are being asked to pay about £45 million in rates on land. If the Government did not bring in this Bill, they would be paying £38 million more and £11 million more on housing. We have to get the correct facts. I gave various instances throughout the country, county by county. In the midlands I gave a variation of percentage on what people say are very well-to-do counties but the farmers' valuation in these counties under the £40 valuation was 94.5 per cent in County Clare. Over the £40 valuation they are only 5.5 per cent. We have to put this in its proper perspective. I am satisfied that under the Bill we are putting through the House if there is any hardship the manager of the local authority has power to look into it, and he can waive the rates on any holding in the case of hardship or he can make marginal relief. I was asked earlier if I would include it in the Bill. I did not include it because the managers of local authorities have the powers. I do not want to interfere with local authorities because they are the people best able to judge the circumstances of the particular landowner or ratepayer.
Earlier, I went through all the various points that were brought up on the Bill. I have explained the reason why it is called the Rates Relief Bill. If we had not brought in the Bill, we could not do this. I want to make it clear that this is for 1980, 1981 and 1982.