Only two amendments—1 and 5—both in the name of Deputy Johnson, are in order. The other amendments are outside the scope of this particular amending Bill.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1926—THIRD STAGE.
Sections 1 to 6 put and agreed to.
I move Amendment 1:—
Before Section 7 to insert a new section as follows:—
"The rate hitherto known as the `poor rate' shall henceforward be known as the `general rate' and any reference in this or any other Act, or in any order or regulation made under any Act, to the poor rate shall be construed as a reference to the general rate."
This amendment is designed to ensure that the rate shall not any longer be illusive, and that, surely, is a most desirable reform. There was circulated a week or two ago a paper indicating the effects of the proposals in the Bill in regard to Poor Rate and it was shown by the paper that what is called "poor-rate" is not poor rate at all— that is to say, that it has a comparatively small share of relation to the poor and the relief of the poor. The effect on the public mind of using this title is deceptive. It leads people to believe that they are paying so many shillings in the pound to the poor. There may have been justification at one time for this "poor rate," but when changes in administration took place, from Act to Act, and it was found that this was the only rate that was made applicable to every ratepayer and that new charges ought to be placed on the back of every ratepayer, it was decided to put them into the poor rate. The proposal in the amendment is to achieve a reform which would mean that this rate would no longer be known as "poor rate," but that there would be a general rate which would include that portion which is eventually spent on the poor. That is all that is necessary to say about the amendment. I think the figures in the illustrations that were circulated by the Minister show that somewhere about two-fifths of the amount raised under the poor rate or, perhaps, about one-third on an average in the country, are spent on the poor. To continue to call that a "poor rate" is quite undesirable. This amendment is intended to change the terminology and to bring about a very simple but very desirable reform.
I have a good deal of sympathy with Deputy Johnson's amendment. I may say that I am ad idem with him on this particular point, but the present is not the right time to make this change, which can only apply to one particular Act. The whole question of rates nomenclature needs reconsideration, and it will be made the subject of legislation on the first opportunity I get. The matter has, however, to be carefully considered. We cannot deal with it in piecemeal fashion like this. The suggested new name—"general rate"—is impossible in present circumstances, as it is already used in practice for a portion of the poor rate—namely, the rate for "general purposes" as distinct from "separate charges." There are about a dozen different kinds of rates in operation in the country at the present time, and there is a good deal of confusion attaching to the whole subject. At some later date I hope to be in a position to meet Deputy Johnson's desire, but I do not think I could introduce the change now without making confusion worse confounded. Accordingly, I ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
I am quite satisfied to do that. I realise quite well that this opportunity is not the best for altering the terminology of the law in this matter. I wanted to get the Minister's assurance that he would take the earliest convenient opportunity to make the change indicated. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
On Section 10, I want to ask the Minister for his reasons for adopting the change provided for in this section. The section proposes to make the allowance or gratuity payable to a person who has ceased to hold office under a board of guardians or rural district council a county-at-large charge. Under older legislation, the principle was that the district where the officer served should bear the charge. I should like the Minister to explain the reason which has induced him to depart from this principle.
If the Deputy looks into the question a little more deeply, he will realise that this is the only equitable thing to do in the circumstances. When the rural district councils were abolished, the charges for pensions of officers were placed on the county-at-large. That was not, unfortunately, done in the case of the abolished board of guardians. It should have been done at that time. What happened was that in some cases officials were retained as officials of the county council or county board of health, and their salaries became a charge on the county-at-large. In those cases where the officers were pensioned, the pension was made a district charge, and those districts which were not fortunate enough to have any of their officials retained by the county council or county board of health were placed in a very unfair position. This section remedies that situation by placing every district on the same footing.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I have an amendment down to Section 11 which proposes to delete sub-section (6). This amendment has relation to a matter of some importance. I had been hoping to obtain answers to certain questions which would enlighten me upon the subject, but these answers have been postponed until to-morrow. I, therefore, propose to wait until I get the information, before moving this amendment. I will move it on the Report Stage.
I will be asking to have the Fourth and Fifth Stages of this Bill taken to-morrow. I hope this question will not make any difference?
That will depend upon the answer.
Amendment 5 not moved.
Sections 11 to 15 (inclusive), Schedules and Title agreed to.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported without amendment. Fourth Stage ordered to be taken to-morrow (Thursday).
Other Orders on the Paper postponed until to-morrow.