Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Mar 1943

Vol. 89 No. 11

Local Government (Remission of Rates) Bill, 1943—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

In the course of the Second Reading debate on this Bill a number of Deputies put certain queries to me which I promised to look into and give an authoritative answer to each. The first of these queries was put by Deputy Brennan who asked how would the Bill operate in the case of a house in respect of which remission had already been granted. That question arose because of the retrospective effect of Section 2 of the Bill. Now, though sub-section (2) of Section 2 is retrospective in terms, it nevertheless expressly preserves in its latter portion the benefit obtained by a person under the Principal Act in respect of a house which would be excluded from such benefit by the new definition of residence. The person; therefore, who has got a benefit under the Principal Act will still retain it and continue to get a remission until the period of remission expires. I should like, therefore, to emphasise that the amendment contained in paragraph (b), sub-section (1) of Section 2 is merely a drafting amendment and that sub-section (2) is inserted lest it might possibly affect anybody who had already got a remission, although the remission was not intended for him. I may say that we are not aware that there is a single case of this kind, but I should like to assure Deputy Brennan again that, so far as anything which has happened prior to the introduction of the Bill is concerned, it will not be affected by the passing of the Bill.

Deputy Dillon asked whether a man who built a house in 1938, and got a grant under the Housing Acts would be entitled to enjoy ten years' remission on the new house until 1948. The remission under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1932 is two-thirds of the rates for seven years. This is the remission that would apply and such remission is not affected by this Bill. The purpose of the definition is to ensure, however, that a person who has already got the seven years' remission will not get remission for five years under this Bill. Henceforward, he can benefit only under one Act.

Deputy Dillon also asked whether a man who built a new house in 1943, and got a grant under the Housing Acts, would not get the usual abatement of rates for ten years. I think the doubt in the Deputy's mind in regard to that matter arises from the fact that he has not quite grasped the purpose of the Principal Act the life of which this Bill will extend. The purpose of that Act was to provide for remissions of rates for residences that could not otherwise have got them. If they have got them or can get them under other Acts this Bill will not deprive them of what they have already got or are entitled to get. A man who builds a new house in 1943, therefore cannot get a grant unless it were in a rural area and in that case the period of the remission of the rates will be seven years, not ten. Residences built in urban areas in 1943 and residences in rural areas which are not entitled to housing grants can get remission under the Principal Act, as extended by this Bill, that is to say, they can get remission of two-thirds of the rates for a period of five years.

Deputy Dillon also raised a point with regard to the rating of rooms added to a cottage. Grants are made in respect of such additions under the Housing Act of 1932 where such an addition would be regarded as a reconstruction. The same Act provides that the increase in the valuation by reason of such addition shall not come into force for seven years. Accordingly, that means that there is a complete remission in such a case for seven years in respect of the additional valuation. I should like to make it clear that that provision still stands and is not affected by this Bill.

The last point to which I wish to refer is a point that was made by Deputy Corish, who raised the question of remission of rates on houses purchased from local authorities under a system of weekly payments. I should like to point out that such houses were sold by the local authorities at less than cost price and our view is that the local authorities should not be asked to give further assistance in these cases. I should like to point out that the basic principle of this Bill is to ensure that only one concession will be granted in respect of any particular hereditament. An example of the case we have in mind is given, say, in the annual report of the Department where, among other things, it is pointed out that in Wexford two houses were sold for £360 each on the deferred payments system, that is to say, one with £100 deposit and a weekly charge of 11/- per week for 20 years or £160 deposit and a weekly charge for the same period of 8/4. The second house was sold with a deposit of £20 and a weekly charge of 12/- for 40 years. Both these houses were sold at the basic price of £360. In fact, the all-in cost of these houses was £440 15s. Od. each. That is to say that houses which cost the Wexford municipality £440 have already been sold at £80 under cost and, therefore, I do not think there would be any justification for extending a further concession to them at the cost of the municipality.

These five points are the only points which were raised on the Second Stage of the Bill and I promised to deal with them on the Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 and Title put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration, and passed.
Top
Share