There was dismay in the farming community and among farm organisations when it became clear that the Government's proposal to triple to 6% the rate of stamp duty on commercial property would apply to farmland, despite the assurances of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Sinn Féin supported an amendment tabled by Deputy Fitzmaurice in an attempt to amend the Government's proposal, but Fianna Fáil abstained when it was put to a vote and this measure, therefore, came into effect. I know the Minister has read Sinn Féin's alternative budget, which proposed to increase the rate of stamp duty on commercial property to 4%. As the banking inquiry pointed out, commercial real estate was one of the major causes of the banking crash. For that reason, it needs to be monitored and taxed appropriately and that is what we had in mind in our pre-budget submission. It was never our intention to make life even more difficult for Irish farmers.

If that is the case, Sinn Féin did not know what it was doing.

Sinn Féin did not propose to exclude farmers.

In the case of farmland, we are hearing that the exemptions will be extended in the finance Bill-----

Sinn Féin did not provide for any exemptions.

-----by eliminating the cap that limits certain reliefs to those under the age of 67. This would negate the original purpose of the Government's measure, which was to incentivise the early lifetime transfer of land to the next generation and to encourage young farmers to extend their holdings. All this is being done now to cover up for the clear mistake the Government made in the budget. The core issue is that at a time when farm incomes are half the average industrial wage and many farm enterprises are not viable without being expanded, the Government is proposing to triple the level of stamp duty imposed on farmers who are trying to make their holdings viable.

The Minister, Deputy Creed, told us in his post-budget press conference that this increase would not apply to farmland. He said he wanted to "nail this one" and was adamant that "the increase in stamp duty [would] not apply to agricultural land". Did the Minister or his advisers not know what the Minister for Finance was proposing, or did they get it wrong? Fine Gael portrays itself as the farmers' party and has always had that tradition. However, the disregard for rural Ireland in the current Cabinet is so severe that this measure was introduced without any consideration of its consequences for the farming community and without any consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. At a time of low incomes and Brexit pressures, when reduced Common Agricultural Policy payments are coming down the road, is the Government happy to stand over a threefold increase in the level of stamp duty imposed on a farmer who wishes to extend his or her holding to make it viable?

It is important to put this measure in context. The Deputy has shown some understanding of this. We have a strong commercial sector, but our housing sector is not meeting the needs of the people. Our intention in introducing this measure is to secure a switch in activity to the housing area, where it is badly needed. The Minister has provided for a relief that will apply to any sale of farmland that is then used for residential purposes. He has also provided for capital gains tax measures and for a new fund that will support developers to develop land for housing. This is part of a group of measures, the aim of which is to deliver one of the most important needs of our people. The position in relation to stamp duty on commercial property, which includes certain categories of farmland, is that there will be an increase to the new 6% rate. It is not going back to the 9% rate that prevailed in the past. There are very significant exemptions, as the Deputy knows. There are exemptions for young farmers, for transfers within families when holdings are being consolidated and for sales that result in the land being used for housing purposes within a specified 30-month period. These significant concessions will ensure genuine farmers who are trying to transfer to the new generation and young farmers who are entering farming are protected.

As the Deputy has rightly said, the finance Bill will include additional provisions to deal with some anomalies in the system, such as the provision that means people over a certain age face a higher level of stamp duty. A period of time will be given to allow such transfers to occur. The Deputy has also rightly mentioned that in the longer term we want to see earlier transfers. This measure will be reviewed after a certain period to ensure our intention, which is to encourage earlier transfer, is remaining an important part of our approach to farmland. I cannot speak for Sinn Féin's intentions in submitting its proposals. I did not see any such exemption outlined in its document. I am not accountable for Sinn Féin's intentions. Sinn Féin rightly pointed out in its pre-budget submission that this is a justifiable measure. It is now being introduced. I think reasonable reliefs are being put in place to ensure it does not have unintended consequences for the sorts of farming transfers we want to see happen.

I will explain what the unintended consequences are. We all know farmers around the country with small pieces of land who are working very hard and struggling to survive and raise their families. The only way forward for them is to expand when land comes up for sale beside their farms. Many of them cannot get the money from the bank to extend their holdings in such circumstances. The issue here is the decision to increase the level of stamp duty imposed on such transactions from 2% to 6%. I acknowledge that this change will not apply to young farmers under the age of 35 who have green certs. Many farmers are not in that category, particularly in the dairy industry where farmers are expanding significantly. They will not get any exemption because they are over the age of 35. It is clear that this measure was not thought through. When it was introducing it, the Government did not realise that farmers were going to be caught. Now that it has realised that, and the backlash is under way, it is attempting to do something about it. Clearly, its attempts are not enough because they are not dealing specifically with struggling farmers who want to expand their holdings. That is the problem we need to sort out. I appeal to the Minister and the Government to do something in the upcoming finance Bill to ensure the 6% provision does not extend to farmers in this position.

I entirely disagree with the Deputy. If the owner of a small business involved in some other activity wished to expand his or her business, it would be quite unjust if he or she were subject to a different tax regime from a farmer with a small holding who wished to expand.

We all know the-----

The Deputy must recognise that the many small family businesses in this country need to be treated equitably. That is why this is designed as it is. There are certain reliefs for farmland because we want to see young people move into farming, we want to see consolidation and, in certain cases, we want to see farmland released for housing purposes. The concessions are designed to achieve what we want to achieve as a community.

The concessions are for developers.

We are not introducing a blanket system in which small business and farms are treated on a completely different basis. The Deputy will acknowledge that it would not be equitable or fair to single out one group of small businesspeople in his constituency and treat it differently. Where there is a public purpose to be achieved, such as securing farmland for building, releasing land to young farmers, consolidating holdings or providing for earlier transfer, that is a worthwhile achievement and that is what is being provided for.

It is not being provided for.