I apologise to the Chair and to the Minister for the fact that I was engaged. I was attending a party meeting and did not notice that the new business had come up. In our amendment we are asking the Minister to give certain information about the impact of this Bill. We want the Minister to let us know of cases that exist where farmers are paying very substantial rates relative to the incomes they receive. There are a number of cases where farmers will be paying rates which will be about twice the amount of income tax they would have to pay if they were solely on an income tax code. We have produced evidence that in the case of farmers with valuations in excess of £40 and £60 some of them will be paying in rates twice as much as a PAYE person with the same income would pay in tax.
This is calculated on the basis that on average last year a farmer with a £40 valuation had an income of £4,000 and a farmer with £50 valuation had an income of £5,000. This year that is a generous estimate of the income that would be derived on a farm of that size. Farmers with incomes between £4,000 and £5,000, valuations between £40 and £50, will be paying—if they are married with two children—about twice as much in rates as a result of this Bill as an equivalent person on PAYE would pay in income tax. We regard this as unfair and something that should be brought to the notice of the House.
In the amendment we are seeking that the Minister would give a report to the House each year on the impact of this legislation. We are looking for evidence of cases where farmers who because of insufficient income would not pay income tax but who as a result of this Bill are liable to pay substantial rates. We believe that this is unfair.
We are urging in this amendment that that information referred to be brought before the House in the form of a report to be presented annually. We are paticularly mindful of the fact that this week farmers received substantial rate demands. Farmers this week are beginning to realise the full impact of this Bill because the rate demands being issued are based on provisions in it. Farmers are now finding that they must face a substantial increase in their rates over and above the rates they paid last year. In some cases the rates are double what they were last year while in other cases they are treble and farmers must pay them at a time when their incomes are falling. All independent assessments indicate that farmer incomes this year will be conservatively between 9 and 20 per cent down on last year. In some cases they will be down by a considerably higher percentage. Yet, those farmers will find that the rates they will have to pay, which are assessed regardless of their income, will be double and in some cases treble last year's demand. Clearly that is unfair.
We also want information about cases where the rate in the £ which farmers have to pay is increased in any given year by a larger proportion than agricultural incomes increased in that year. That information is readily available to the Minister. The presentation of an annual report in which the agricultural incomes and the agricultural rates are compared would clearly show that in certain cases in some years rates would increase less than the amount of agricultural incomes. There is no harm in having that information presented to, the House. In other cases—certainly this year—such a report would show that although agricultural rates are being increased substantially agricultural incomes are falling substantially.
If that information was presented to the House in the form of an annual report we would be able to see exactly the effect this legislation is having. That is important. We should understand what we are doing and the implications of legislation of this sort. The implications should be constantly brought to our notice in the changing circumstances in which it is applied. In many cases the impact of this legislation may not be foreseen now and, therefore, it is most important that a mechanism be set up whereby each year the implications of the legislation is brought to our notice. My amendment, which seeks an annual report on the implementation and effect of the legislation, will ensure that it is kept under constant review and constantly before public notice.
One other aspect of the amendment which is worthy of support is the provision whereby each local authority reported to the House as to the number of cases which exist within its area of responsibility where valuations of land are exceptionally high. There are cases, as Deputy Fitzpatrick can testify, where valuations are extremely high in counties like Monaghan and Cavan. Those valuations were drawn up on the basis of flax culture in the nineteenth century and gave the land at that time a relatively high value which it no longer has in the predominant cultures of the twentieth century. Those high valuations still remain and rates are based on them. We want a report annually on all counties where the average valuations in respect of areas within them exceeds £1 per acre. We want an indication of the extent of those areas in each county.
That information would enable us to see, for the first time in any comprehensive report, the areas where valuations are unduly high and where as a consequence the rates which are being levied may well be equally unduly high. The Minister has admitted that there are places to his knowledge in County Clare where the rates are unduly high—I believe he mentioned a figure as high as £2 per acre in parts of south Clare along the Shannon. Such cases, which can be brought to the notice of the House in the course of a debate, should be surveyed comprehensively. We should have information on all cases throughout the country on a uniform objectively reported basis where in certain county council areas the rates are unduly high. That information, if presented in an annual report such as we are seeking, would enable us to see at a glance cases where the rates by virtue of the valuation being unduly high are also likely to be unduly burdensome on a particular sector of the farming community and on a certain number of farmers.
That information could be collected relatively easily, but the fact that it could be presented in one document annually will focus public attention on the inequities which exist in the rating system. It could bring about a situation where the Minister responsible will have an informed public opinion behind him when seeking to eliminate whatever injustices exist in the rating system. The elimination of those injustices does not necessarily presuppose the revaluation of the entire country or the scrapping of the work done by Griffith of the last century. Indeed, it may be possible to concentrate on areas where rates are either excessively high or excessively low and to do some selective revaluation in order to eliminate difficulties which may exist in certain counties. Such a report would disclose individual counties which have cases of particularly high valuations on given areas of land.
Some precedure should exist for the elimination of injustices in the rating system. It is not enough for any Minister to say that the rating system is unjust, that he admits that, but that it would be too big a job to change it and that more harm than good might be done if that was tried. That is not an adequate response.
