I move amendment No. 21:—
To delete sub-section (1), page 10, and substitute the following sub-sections:—
(1) For the purpose of the assessment and levying of the municipal rate on a hereditament situated in an urban area which is a borough and included in a class mentioned in the second column of Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act, the valuation of the hereditament shall be deemed to be reduced to the proportion, specified in the first column of that Part of that Schedule in respect of such class, of the actual valuation under the Valuation Acts of the hereditament.
(2) For the purposes of the assessment and levying of the municipal rate on a hereditament situated in an urban area which is not a borough and included in a class mentioned in the second column of Part II of the Second Schedule to this Act, the valuation of the hereditament shall be deemed to be reduced to the proportion, specified in the first column of that Part of that Schedule in respect of such class, of the actual valuation under the Valuation Acts of the hereditament.
(3) Part II of the Second Schedule to this Act shall, in relation to a hereditament which is agricultural land within the meaning of the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1929 (No. 23 of 1929), have effect as respects the first six local financial years during which this section is in force subject to the following modifications:—
(a) in the case of the first of those years, the proportion of the valuation specified in the first column of the said Part shall be taken to be six-twentieths.
(b) in the case of the second of those years, such proportion shall be taken to be seven-twentieths,
(c) in the case of the third of those years, such proportion shall be taken to be eight-twentieths,
(d) in the case of the fourth of those years, such proportion shall be taken to be nine-twentieths,
(e) in the case of the fifth of those years, such proportion shall be taken to be ten-twentieths.
(f) in the case of the sixth of those years, such proportion shall be taken to be eleven-twentieths.
This is probably one of the most important amendments to the Bill. As the House may be aware, the powers of municipal councils in regard to raising municipal rates were not substantially altered by the Local Government Act of 1898, except for the provision in the Act for consolidating with the poor rate any municipal rate. Unfortunately, this proved abortive, and the consequence has been that rates levied in towns which were then of an extraordinary variety have still remained in a state of some confusion, because certain of these rates were raised under town statutes and a large number of local Acts. They are, of course, based on the valuation for poor rate at the time of the 1898 Act, but they have differed in the proportions in which the rates are imposed on different kinds of property.
The present system of rating is based on two principles. One is that the ability of the occupier to pay the rates is roughly proportionate to the annual value of the property he occupies and the other that the cost of the benefits of local services should be distributed equally, according to the rateable value of the property. I do not propose to contend that in every case these principles truly and accurately apply. It has, however, been generally admitted that, in regard particularly to lands in towns, the principles do not accurately apply.
One of the main purposes which we have been seeking to secure by the provisions in this part of the Bill is that rates will be levied upon more or less uniform principles in all our urban areas, and, for that purpose, in the Bill as originally drafted, we had a comparatively simple Schedule, fixing the proportions of the valuation upon which the hereditament was to be assessed. Since the Bill was circulated, this matter has been further examined, as a result of representations made from one source or another and we have come to the conclusion that it cannot be quite so simply dealt with as we had anticipated.
We propose instead to divide the one-part Schedule in the Bill as circulated into two parts, Part I of which will deal with urban areas which are boroughs, and Part II with urban areas which are not boroughs, and in respect of each of these areas to fix the appropriate fraction of the valuation upon which the hereditament is to be assessed.
If Deputies turn to the Schedule, they will see that, so far as Part I is concerned, that is, the part applicable to urban areas which are boroughs, the assessment will be made upon a larger fraction of the valuation than in the case of urban areas which are not boroughs. That arises from the fact that practically every borough has had its own level of assessment for the purpose of levying rates upon the various classes of hereditamnts, mainly, as I have said, lands, included in the Schedule. It was generally intended that the borough rate should be levied uniformly over all properties in the same way as the poor rate, but, in Clonmel, Kilkenny, Sligo and Wexford, there were systems of differential rating.
In Clonmel Borough, for instance, under a local Act of 1895 arable land was rated at one-quarter of the valuation to a consolidated borough rate. In Sligo, on the other hand, under local Acts land was rated on one-half of the valuation. In Wexford there are six rates: poor rate, borough rate, a special rate, two water rates and an improvement rate. A differential system of assessment operates on the special and on the two water rates, public and domestic. In Kilkenny only one-fourth of the borough rate is levied off land. In Drogheda, on the other hand, a local Act of 1896 put land on the same basis for rating as buildings, depriving occupiers of land of a right which, of little or no value at that time, would be of great value now. In Galway land is assessed at the full borough rate with a public water rate of 3d. in the £. We have tried to bring some sort of order out of this state of confusion and to provide a uniform rate of assessment for land, principally land and half rents in all these boroughs. The fraction which we have taken is, as I have already told the House, the fraction of three-fourths in the case of land, and of one-half in the case of half rents. This will mean that the holders of land of the nature described in the second part of the column to the Schedule, that is to say "land used solely for one or more of the following purposes: arable land, meadow or pasture ground or as woodlands, or market gardens or nursery grounds" will henceforth be assessed at three-fourths of the valuation of that particular hereditament. This, in some cases, as in the case of Drogheda and Galway, will mean that land owners and occupiers will get some relief, and that in other places their burdens will be slightly increased, but, in view of the very varied methods of assessing land for rates in these various towns, we cannot avoid that position. It would, of course, be very nice if we could allow every land holder to get relief at a uniform rate, but on the other hand, of course, that would simply mean that the burden of rates which these hereditaments should bear would be transferred to other ratepayers.
Land in towns and in urban districts is, of course, in quite a different category from land in the ordinary rural areas, and whatever views either Deputy Sheldon or Deputy Cogan may have as to the desirability of complete derating of land in rural areas, I do not think they would be quite so zealous in urging that land inside a borough or in an urban district should be derated. Well, complex and confused as is the position of the law relating to the rating of land in boroughs, it is a simple matter compared with the condition of affairs in urban districts. We have 21 urban districts where they get part of the agricultural grant and where land is, consequently, assessed at various rates. In the case of urban districts we assume that, perhaps, the value of land is not so great as in the case of county boroughs, and we are therefore proposing that the proportion of the valuation on which it should be assessed should be only three-fifths. Once again, as in the case of the boroughs, that will mean that in some cases there will be a slight gain, and in other cases a slight loss to the general body of ratepayers or to land holders, but, as I have said, we cannot do anything better than to try to strike what appears to us to be a fair average. The purpose of the amendment with which I am dealing is to provide that the provisions, in relation to the agricultural grant, will be framed to give effect to the provisions of Parts I and II of the Second Schedule.