asked the Minister for the Environment if he is aware that Donegal County Council are still using the poor law valuation in order to assess landholders' eligibility to qualify for a council loan; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Council Housing Loans.
33.
The PLV system continues to be used by local authorities in accordance with article 32 of the Housing Regulations, 1980 in determining the entitlement to housing loans of persons who derive their income solely or mainly from the pursuit of agriculture. I am satisfied that it continues to provide a convenient and reasonable way of assessing eligibility for housing loans.
I would refer the Deputy to the reply by me to Question No. 371 of 7 March in which it was indicated that the Supreme Court did not find the valuation system itself unconstitutional.
In view of the fact that the Supreme Court gave a ruling that it was unconstitutional for the PLV system to be applied to rates, that the health boards do not use the PLV system in relation to assessing people for levies for health contributions and also in view of the fact that applicants are requested by local authorities to give an audited statement of their income for the previous year in relation to loan applications, does the Minister consider this is a fair system to use in respect of people applying for council loans? Further, has he notified the local authorities in writing that the PLV system still applies in respect of loans?
As I indicated in my reply, we consider it to be a reasonably fair system. Obviously there are exceptional cases that may require individual attention by the local authorities but basically it is as fair a method as can be found. Perhaps with the introduction of the new farm tax based on adjusted acres which has been used in the past by the Land Commission in the distribution of land the system could be looked at with a view to changing the method of assessing the income of farmers and perhaps could be substituted for the PLV system. The Deputy asked if I had instructed local authorities that this method should be used: my reply is that I have not instructed them that it should not be used.
Will the Minister not agree that in his reply he is indicating that the PLV system should not be used? Does he not agree it should be abolished? Many landholders are finding it difficult to get loans because they exceed the valuation despite the fact that their income from land earnings would leave them eligible if they were on a par with other applicants? These people have to submit audited accounts to the council. Does the Minister not consider that the method used is unfair and should be abolished in view of the fact that the PLV system has been found unconstitutional?
The last remark of the Deputy is not correct. The Supreme Court decision did not confirm the PLV system to be unconstitutional. It set aside the declaration of the High Court that certain sections of the Valuation Acts were unconstitutional and substituted a declaration that section 11 of the Local Government Act, 1946, to the extent that it authorised the collection of the county rate on land independent of buildings was invalid having regard to the provisions of Article 40 of the Constitution. The principal effect of the Supreme Court decision is that rates can no longer be levied and that is the net effect of the decision. In general, the use of the valuation system provides an equitable means from the farmers' point of view of assessing eligibility for loans and until a different system can be substituted I have made no provision to change the present system.
I can instance many cases where the audited accounts would qualify people under the income limits but the PLV system excludes them. Does the Minister not accept that PLV varies from townland to townland and from county to county and that in itself it was an unfair method of assessing valuation on property? Will the Minister not accept that it should be abolished? Is he telling the House in effect that he is going to remove it in view of the land tax?
I have said that in general it has proved to be an equitable system. If the Deputy has specific instances where that has not been the case I would be prepared to look at them and if, when viewing those decisions I find his contention is correct, I would take steps to see what method could be introduced to have a more equitable system. I have to repeat that the information and experience I have in this area is that the PLV system has been accepted in general by the farming community as equitable for this propose.
Is the Minister saying that if I bring to his attention cases that prove the point I am making he will apply the income limit?
The Deputy said he had numerous cases. I said there might be exceptional cases. If the Deputy has numerous cases I invite him to let me know about them and we can consider if the system is not working equitably in Donegal.