Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 15 Jun 1934

Vol. 53 No. 4

Vote 17—Rates on Government Property.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £62,350 chun slanuithe na suime is gá chun íochta an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníochta i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1935, chun rátaí agus Síntiúisí in ionad Rátaí, etc., i dtaobh Maoine Rialtais.

That a sum not exceeding £62,350 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, 1935, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property.

Technically, Government property is supposed to be free from rates. This Vote really represents ex gratia payments by the State in lieu of the rates which an ordinary occupant of State property would pay.

To whom?

To the local authority.

How does that compare with last year?

It is practically the same as it was last year.

Is that fair to the local authority, considering that the local authority principally affected is Dublin. The Dublin Corporation is faced with a statutory increase in the rates of 1/6 in the £ for unemployment. Why should not the grant to the Dublin Corporation and the other local authorities concerned be increased by 1/6 in the £, or whatever the amount may be in other parts of the country? In Dublin the maximum amount is levied.

There is an increase in the case of the Department of Finance of £375. The increase is due to the provision under the heading of Public Works and Buildings for rates on the premises known as the Viceregal Lodge. The gross increase is offset by a reduction in the Dublin City rates and by the transfer of premises in Dublin Castle to the Department of Industry and Commerce. In the case of the Department of Justice, there is an increase of £105, due to provision for increased rates in rural areas and to the expiration of the limited rating period. In the case of the Department of Agriculture, there is a decrease of £2,870 due to the transfer of the Forestry Service to the Department of Lands. In the case of the Department of Industry and Commerce, there is an increase of £200, due to provision for new premises required in connection with Unemployment Assistance. As regards the other services, the increases are, generally, due to additional accommodation having been provided for the Department concerned, or to an increase in rural rates. Decreases, on the other hand, result from reduced accommodation or a reduction in the rates for the City of Dublin.

I do not follow the Parliamentary Secretary. The rate in Dublin this year is about 16/- in the £. That includes the 1/6 in the £ to which I have referred. That is roughly one-eleventh of the total rate. This grant that is made to the Dublin Corporation is not increased, because one-eleventh of the rate has been added on. Why do we not get an increase when this added burden of 1/6 in the £ has been put on the poor law valuation of Dublin.

The Deputy's censure for not increasing the rate should, I suggest to him, be passed on to the City Manager and not to me.

It is an efficient Corporation, on which you did not get a majority, that has brought down the rate in Dublin.

At any rate, if the Deputy wants to complain in relation to a reduction of the rates in Dublin, I am not the person that he should make that complaint to.

I have not given the Parliamentary Secretary any credit for the reduction in the rates in Dublin.

There is the item of 1/6 in the £ for unemployment assistance, but there is a reduction on the other side. The whole complaint of the Deputy is that the rates in Dublin have been reduced.

I have contributed to the work of reducing the rates in Dublin, but the Parliamentary Secretary has not.

When the Deputy does not understand these matters, why does he not sit quiet?

I understand them quite well.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share