andMr. Donegan asked the Minister for Local Government if there is any way in which a farmer, whose farm has become part of an urban area, can be compensated for the loss of employment allowances by way of rate abatement which he would have received if his holding had remained in the county area.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Loss of Employment Allowances.
54.
There is no provision for such compensation. Rates in urban areas are, however, assessed on part only of the land valuation.
Does the Minister think it fair and equitable that a farmer paying rates and enjoying employment allowances should now on the same land pay larger rates generally, and get no allowance, while employing the same number of men for the same length of time each year?
Land inside the urban boundary is obviously in a different position from land outside it. This provision does not relate to land in the urban area.
(Interruptions.)
Is the Minister aware that this arises out of the case of a farmer near Dundalk whose land has been taken into the urban area against his wishes? He employs two men and in former years got £34 allowance. He now gets nothing. Is there any way in which this man can be compensated? He still employs two men.
(Cavan): Is the Minister aware that the Association of Municipal Authorities have been pressing to have agricultural grants extended to urban land for a long number of years and will the Minister now give earnest and sympathetic consideration to this request?
That is surely a separate question.
There is special provision for these cases. In respect of such valuations the relief given by the agricultural supplementary allowances in the county health district is three-tenths of the gross rates and the relief given in rates on the portion of land over £20 valuation in an urban area is four-tenths.
(Cavan): Will the Minister look into this carefully in his new Department because he will find it is not so and ensure that farmers in urban areas are not in any less favourable position than those in rural areas?
What I have said here is so.
How does the Minister reconcile the fact that in this instance the rate in the £ is very high in the urban area and therefore any figure such as one-tenth being balanced against the allowance for two men could not possibly compensate? Also, how does he justify saying that land in an urban area is in a different position from land in a rural area when in fact it is the same land in the same position?
It is more valuable.