John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am aware there are other questions but I will start with that question while it is fresh in my head. The idea behind the proposed section 20(d) is as the Deputy has said. The legislation as currently worded would allow for that situation to occur every number of years where a revaluation of utilities coincides with a revaluation of X number of local authorities. This would see any potential increase - or buoyancy - from revenue received in rates from the utilities offset against other existing rates received from existing businesses in their local area. The main purpose of section 20(d), as proposed in amendment No. 15, is to ensure that this loophole is covered off.

The Deputy also referred to the appeals process and he makes a valid point. Talk is ongoing between departmental officials and the Valuation Office to ensure staffing levels will be sufficient to allow for valuations to occur and for appeals to be heard in a timely fashion. When the revaluation process was introduced originally, as everybody is aware, it was intended to be a revenue-neutral change and that any increases would be offset by decreases to other ratepayers in the local authority area.

On the length of time for appeals to be heard, members who deal with local authority members will know that when rates are agreed at budget meetings in the local authority, sometimes - even with the best of intentions by members and officials - if there are a number of appeals outstanding and if there are appeals that have been successful, it has led to a situation where the cost has not always been neutral with a resulting loss or reduction on the books of the local authority in terms of the potential income it thought it was going to accrue from commercial rates.

Part of amendment No. 15 is designed as an attempt to ensure that such revenue neutrality will occur into the future. It does not fully occur at present but varies from local authority to local authority. Amendment No. 15 refers to the change that will allow for another figure or factor to be used in respect of the volume of appeals and the difference between what was agreed by the local authority at budget time and what it can sometimes turn out to be. The purpose of that particular section of the amendment is to ensure that this shortfall is as small as possible and may be fully eliminated. I hope that answers some of what Deputy Ó Broin has asked.

As to Deputy Casey's point, the process of valuation for Irish Water has not been completed yet. Off the top of my head, Wicklow has significant water infrastructure, which serves a far greater region than Wicklow alone and that obviously would be a reason for Wicklow to have a greater commercial rate potential from Irish Water than most other local authorities.

I fully agree with the Deputy, and it is his entitlement, to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage that Wicklow would see a commensurate benefit from that Irish Water revaluations process when it is completed. As to whether it will be offset, there is a further job to be done in the local government section as to how the Local Government Fund is administered in future. I believe everyone present has been a member of the local authority at some stage and understands the number of movable parts that currently exist in the local authority fund, many of which are grossly outdated at this stage. We need a more simplified, streamlined method of allocating local authority funding that is more easily explicable to the public. That might well mean that a situation like the Deputy has outlined as to some of the buoyancy that is obtained from utility companies in the future would be distributed in a different manner. I do not want to pre-empt whatever the ultimate outcome would be by completely agreeing with Deputy Casey.