——let me explain why. This Bill develops the concept of the adjusted acre. I will try to summarise it. The Bill provides that it is "any area of agricultural land ... the estimated capacity of which for agricultural production is equivalent to the capacity for such production of one acre of land capable of the estimated highest such production in the State ...". That is the first area of doubt in determining the adjusted acre. The explanatory memorandum does a better job even. It says: "provides that an adjusted acre is an area of land with the equivalent productive potential of one acre of the best land in the State ...". Will someone please define with total confidence what in hell's blazes that means? What lawyer will not be able to point out that the one acre of land was adjusted not in relation to the best land in the State but in relation to anything but the best? There will be a million ways of getting across that point.
The second area of doubt arises in regard to the phrase "capable of the estimated highest such production". The land is deemed to be capable of the highest such production based on an estimate, not the realised highest production in this notional acre of Tír na nÓg, wherever it is. Before the first-year barrister even considers the rest of it he is already into money, a lawyer's bonanza. If there is money to be made out of farming, the place to go now is into the Law Library of the Incorporated Law Society. Why is this so? The reason is to be found in subsection (2) which states that in estimating the capacity for argicultural production of land in any place regard shall be had to a whole range of factors which must be considered in determining the adjusted acreage. Under this notional nonsense every acre will have to be adjusted taking into account each of these factors.
The first of these factors is the range of uses to which the land can be put for the purposes of agricultural production. There was a time when people might have thought that the Minister had some association with agriculture but obviously this provision is capable of a multiplicity of interpretations. In a mixed farming area the land could be put ot dairying use or could be used for fattening stores. There could be intense tillage activity or it could be used for mixed farming or sheep farming. Which of these uses will determine the adjusted acreage? The second point relates to the adequacy of the means of access to the land. I accept that this is a very important point and is a reasonable criterion in determining the value of any land.
Subsection (2) (a) (iii) refers to a following list of factors and any other natural phenomena affecting the capacity of the land for agricultural production. The first factor on the list is the nature and qualify of the soil. This implies that the nature and quality are different, one from the other. I presume that the adjuster — or "the adjuster man" as he will come to be known if this proposal is ever implemented — will have to give evidence as to the exact nature of the soil. He will be asked to give detailed evidence as to the ingredients of the soil. This will have to be done on every farm, according to this Bill. The qualify must also be assessed. I am not too divorced from farming but some of my colleagues here are engaged in it. I am only related to those who are engaged in farming. The provision in regard to the nature and qualify of the soil will make a nonsense of this legislation.
The next factor to be considered is the location and climate of the place. Is the Minister serious? Who will give evidence on the climate and the difference between Donegal, Kerry and Armagh? For once the people in Armagh will be glad to be excluded. The Six Counties will be very happy to be excluded from this kind of nonsense. Some farmers will say the climate is bad in Donegal or good in Wexford but that is not evidence.
The next factor is whether the land is flat or sloping and, if it is sloping, the adjuster will have to measure the direction and degree of the slope. Does the Minister not recognise that this is getting into cloud cuckooland?
The next condition that must be taken into account is whether the land is sheltered. Let us assume we all know what "shelter" means but the legal definition will give rise to delays and expense. In our part of the country when a young man marries a fairly old woman it will be said that he only went in there for shelter. The adjuster must also consider whether the land is overlooked by hills or mountains. I do not know what is intended to be conveyed by this phrase. Some of the best land in Tipperary, my home place, is overlooked by hills and mountains. The lads around Clonoulty and Boherlahan will be making a strong case to the Minister that the Galtees are looking down on them and asking if that means they are to be adjusted at a lower level.
The subsection goes on to deal with the structure of the agricultural land holding of which the land forms part and then the natural drainage of the land. How qualified will these adjusters be to determine on a casual visit the exact extent of the natural drainage, most of which is underground?
The adequacy of the water supply to the land must also be considered. The Minister has decided to delete the word "natural". If a farmer is inventive and efficient enough to provide a better water supply to his farm holding he will be effectively penalised under this legislation. He is penalised anyway for any kind of productive activity. It then goes on to talk about the accessibility of the land and justice is not being done to its importance.
To get an accurate figure of the adjusted acre we must refer to subsection (2) (b) which says:
It shall be assumed that the land has been, is being and will continue to be, farmed, and that the land and the business of farming the land, has been, is being, and will continue to be, managed reasonably and reasonably efficiently,...
The section goes on to mention the nature and amount of investment in land and the kind of investment we are talking about to get the standard notional, dreamland adjusted acre. The section guarantees that this Bill will never get off the ground until it is brought to every court in the land. When introducing this legislation the Minister for the Environment said:
The classification of land will take some years to complete and will, as I mentioned earlier, commence with the bigger farms and work downwards. The tax will commence in 1986 and will be levied on the larger farms initially. The Bill facilitates this. The effect will be that if, for example, by 1987 the classification has progressed down to, say, 40 adjusted acres, the threshold for liability to the tax in that year will be prescribed by the Minister for Finance at 40 adjusted acres.
It is time, therefore, that the Minister told the PAYE sector that the threshold for liability might not be 20 adjusted acres for the first, second or third year. My guess is that if the Government get 60 adjusted acres in the first year, they will be doing exceptionally well because the farmers, as is their right and obligation, will test the adjusted acreage determination on the basis of the legislation. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that we do not have to abide by the obligations in the Bill and that the valuation adjuster will merely have to drop out to Ballycahill, cast an eye over the ditch, ask about cattle and tillage and work out the acreage without delving too deeply into the farmer's affairs. This tax is based on nonsense and they will be waving flags and banners in honour of the Minister for Finance or the Minister for the Environment down at the Four Courts if this Bill goes through. However, the farmers will have a different opinion.
