Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Jun 1925

Vol. 12 No. 1

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 17—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £68,000 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1926, chun Rátaí agus Síntiúisí in ionad Rátaí, etc., i dtaobh Maoine Rialtais.

That a sum not exceeding £68,000 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property.

This is an ex-gratia payment which has been made, I think, since 1875 to the local authorities in lieu of rates on Government property, Government property not being liable to assessment for rates. The amount varies with the amount of rates. The reduction this year is partly due to the reduction in rates, and partly due to the fact that last year this Vote contained a sum of £9,000 which was really due in respect of the year before, but which was not claimed in time. Appropriation-in-aid is paid by the British Government in respect of certain premises occupied by them, such as those places where they have coastal defence arrangements; Pensions Department; the Training Branch of the Ministry of Labour, and the Sailors' and Soldiers' Department.

Would the Minister explain the reduction in respect of the Governor-General's establishment from £16,755, the figure at which it stood last year, to £615 this year?

I could not.

As I understand, the amount that is fixed is based upon a certain valuation that is made by the Commissioners of Valuation.

I take it that that particular amount was part of the £9,000 which was dealt with the previous year. Certain arrears were provided for, to the extent of £9,000, in last year's vote.

Can I take it, then, that the reduction is in respect of the non-necessity of having back rates to pay?

The only thing that I could suggest as a reason might be that the Chief Secretary's lodge and the Under-Secretary's lodge might have been there, rather than under some heading of the Department of Finance, as being a matter in charge of the Board of Public Works. At any rate, the whole thing is based on the valuation and the rates leviable by the local authority.

What I am anxious to know is whether the Dublin County Council is not being deprived of any money this year?

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share