As the Bill stands no credit note is going to be of any use in respect of the first moiety after 31st October. I pointed out to the Minister the position the ratepayers are going to stand in between now and October 31st. If a man's share is not paid by October 31st, 1935, he is going to lose the value of his credit note. That is very serious. It is an outlandish proposal that the Minister should not leave in the Bill.
Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) (No. 2) Bill—Money Resolution. - Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) (No. 2) Bill, 1935—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 6.
I do not think it can be said to be an outlandish proposal, considering that the whole credit note system is a voluntary one. We did not ask any county council to adopt the credit note system. Some county councils refused to adopt it saying that it is an unfair system. Some did so and defend it as being a very useful piece of machinery to help them to get in the rates. There is no compulsion on any local authority to use it. If they found it served a useful purpose in some counties—and evidently they did when they put it into operation—I do not see why we should take it away. I do not see how we could help with the use of the credit note system if we extended the period of operation to anything like what is suggested in the amendment. It would lose all its value if it were extended in that way. I could understand if it were extended to be used within the period of the financial year, for the first or the second moiety, but if the question arises of using the credit note system for arrears then it should not be allowed, and should not be adopted by any county council.
I am not pressing the amendment as it stands, and Deputy Brennan was only forced into putting down the amendment by reason of what has occurred. The Minister says it is a matter for the local councils. Remember that local councils in framing this system of collection for this year had before them not the Bill that the Minister introduced in May, 1935, containing this rigid system, but the Bill which the Minister introduced on December 5th last which contained a very elastic proposal. I would be quite satisfied to have that extended to the present Bill. I think the Minister must sympathise with the idea that a man ought not, in the peculiar circumstances of this half year, lose the value of his credit note simply because he is caught by October 31st. If the Minister sympathises and undertakes to bring in some kind of elasticity into the dates, 31st October or 31st March, I am not pressing him to the strict wording of the amendment.
I will see if I can do what the Deputy suggests. I do not think it should go beyond the end of the financial year.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 14 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 18 stand part of the Bill."
This section states that the secretary of a council "may from time to time amend any rate or assessment made for the service of the current financial year on any tenement of agricultural land in any rate-book." That is an extraordinary power. For the last three years we had a series of Bills introduced which imposed penalties varying from £1 to £100 on citizens who deviated in any respect from the law. Now we have a Bill amending the provisions of a previous Bill. If an official of a county council makes a mistake, or if something of that kind occurs, he can amend it with impunity. That is an extraordinary power to give. I do not think it should be exercised in the way laid down in the Bill. If the ordinary citizen is expected to obey the law, and if, after nearly 40 years of local government administration, we have not arrived at the point when we can look with certitude on figures of assessment, it is very bad. What usually happens in these cases is that someone becomes careless about what is being done, or says that all he has to do is to ring up the Minister about it. I do not know anything more reprehensible or anything which reflects more gravely on the local government service than to have to ask the Minister about this and that. While that state of affairs exists there will always be a disposition to lean on the central authority. It is far better that people should realise that they must lean upon themselves. There might be some excuse for this sort of thing in disturbed or difficult conditions, or if books were not available, but, in the normal course of events, men who are acting as secretaries of county councils should be qualified to deal perfectly with rate-books and accounts, without having this power reserved, enabling amendments to be made in the rate-books.
There was a period in this country when it was practically impossible to frame a demand note in accordance with the law. There were numerous difficulties and complexities in the way, but, notwithstanding that, in only one instance in 25 years was a rate broken. People learned from the evils that flowed from the breaking of that rate not to go on with it. In this case we are, apparently, getting at the point where that cannot be done. If this were a habit that had been persisted in, or if this provision were designed to correct an abuse, there might be some justification for it. The Minister is aware that Bills like this impose considerable expense on county councils. I heard Deputy Brennan say here recently that the administration costs had involved Roscommon County Council in a sum of £600 or £800 for a period three years. Where administration costs are added, it amounts to a reduction of whatever grants are made from the Central Fund. Dealing with this section, it is regrettable that it should find a place on the Statute Book of the State, and, if it be used to any great extent, public confidence will be shaken. We can imagine the story which will go round: "Did you hear the power that the secretary of the county council has now; he can alter any rate and charge a ratepayer anything he likes?" That is the kind of story that gets about, and I think the Minister should reconsider this matter before Report Stage and, if possible, exclude this clause from this Bill.
I agree with Deputy Cosgrave that the power sought is an unusual one. It is one that ought not ordinarily be brought into a piece of legislation of this character. It was, however, put up to me that owing to the new and complicated nature of the machinery implementing this legislation, it would be wise to have a power of this kind so as to prevent any effort at litigation that might lead to the quashing of the rate on account of errors in arriving at the strict allocation of the moneys under the Bill. I raised points similar to those raised by the leader of the Opposition when the draft of this measure was put before me. I thought that a section of this kind ought not to be necessary. It was only on strong pressure and on representations that it would, probably, not be necessary to repeat this provision when local authorities got used to the machinery, that I agreed to the inclusion of the section.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Belton, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Coburn, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and O'Leary.
Question declared carried.
Section ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 put and agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the First Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Question—"That the First Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill"— put and agreed to.
Question—"That the First Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill"— put and agreed to.
Title agreed to, and Bill reported without amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 23rd July.