Most, or all, of the objectionable parts of this Bill are contained in Section 1. The first point that comes to the notice of farmers who have to pay rates at this rate and are so deprived of the relief that was offered in this Bill when it was previously introduced, is the question of the employment allowance. The unemployment allowance as it applied in the past was only £15. This figure has not been relevant for a number of years and it was removed in an earlier Bill. It applied at a time when the full relief that was normally given when this Bill was introduced every two years applied and so the issue of rates for the average farmer was not a very serious one. However at this stage since the issue of rates has become a very important issue again, we find now that farmers are being asked to make an immensely increased contribution to local authority finances.
It would be an ideal time to reintroduce a worth-while employment allowance in this section. An employment allowance could be supported by any reasonable Minister. This would benefit a section of farmers, not very many, but nevertheless a number of farmers who give employment and are forced to meet the increased cost of a stamp, the increased cost of wages and the difficulty in getting farm labour at present at the sort of wages that applied in the past. There is a case for including here a generous employment allowance, and I cannot understand why this could not have been done, particularly since it would not have applied to all of them but would apply to the comparatively small number of farmers who are giving employment.
I would like clarification also on the aggregation of valuation. Heretofore there was no aggregation of valuation outside the different rating authority areas. Now, if a farmer owns land in different counties we are going to have an aggregation of valuation. It is a very difficult situation for the people involved in the rating authority. It is probably a useless inclusion because most local authorities will not have any means of knowing where farmers own land in different rating authority areas.
The point which is most worrying to all farmers is the question of the relief of rates being tied to liability for income tax. In future years if the threshold for income tax is reduced to £50, £40 or £30, the Minister does not have to take any legislation. The total rate on relief of rates on agricultural land will automatically disappear to the extent that we could find ourselves, in the life of this Government, in a situation where farmers were liable for tax from the first farmers down to a valuation of perhaps £20. This would mean that most farmers would have the total relief of rates on agricultural land.
This is a cruel imposition in the current year. Next year it is down to £60. Nevertheless it does not worry them as much as the prospect of total abolition of relief which is likely to come for most farmers in the years ahead. The farmers should have an assurance from the Minister on this, or an amendment which would leave the situation as stated in the Bill for this year and next year so that farmers would know where they stand, or an assurance that the relief of rates will not be tied to liability to pay income tax. Looking at it from any point of view, this is not a reasonable way in which to tax the agricultural community. The Minister will concede that there are too many inconsistencies from one county to another and from one farm to another. There is no provision whatever for any realistic adjustment related to income for farmers who may be in a difficult situation perhaps because of failing health. Farmers are faced with this bill year after year regardless of their ability to pay, regardless of their income, regardless of trends in the market, regardless of prices and many other factors.
It is regrettable that the Government have found it necessary to impose taxation of this sort. The least we might give farmers is an assurance that this is all that is being asked at the moment. What the Government is looking for here is a blank cheque which will be tied to the provisions of the Finance Act and farmers could find themselves liable to pay the full rates on every acre of agricultural land which they possess in the future. I would like the Minister to comment on these points.