Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Feb 1946

Vol. 99 No. 5

Local Government Bill, 1945—Committee Stage.

Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (1), line 40, after the word "Minister" to insert the words "at any time within twelve months after the passing of this Act".

It appears to me that we are dealing in this section with powers of a very wide order, which undoubtedly may be necessary to give effect to the decisions embodied in the Bill. At the same time, I think we should place some limit both upon the period and upon the manner in which an Order may be made by the Minister. A period of 12 months would be a reasonable time for the Department to become acquainted with the difficulties that might have to be dealt with by Order, either in existing statutory or other enactments, and I think we should amend the section to that extent. We have a provision in Money Bills whereby the Minister can give effect to particular provisions, either by Order or by regulation. Generally, it appears that where he is given such power, the making of the Order or regulation is particularly referred to. It is based upon the definite authority set out in the Act.

In this case we are dealing with statutory or other enactments in existence before the passing of this measure. Many of them are of a character which even the Minister or the officials of his Department may not be fully aware of and they would only come to their notice when they are giving effect to the Act. We in the House would be in the same position. We would be giving to the Minister certain powers to deal by Order with existing statutory and other enactments which do not come before the House and the character of which we might not be acquainted with. Therefore, from that point of view, and because of the wide powers involved, I move this amendment limiting the period to 12 months.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee)

It is quite an unusual thing to endeavour to put a restriction on the exercise of this sort of power. The power is not an unusual one; it has been granted to a Minister in other statutes which relate to very comprehensive and complicated codes of law. The Deputy apparently has not any objection in principle to granting that power. The only thing he feels is that it ought to be exercised within 12 months. That would put us in the position that we should immediately sit down to consider what adaptations might be required—not what adaptations experience would show to be required, but what adaptations might be required— and, on the surmise that some would be required, to make those adaptations whether, in fact, they were actually needed or not.

I suggest that once the need for a power of this sort has been conceded, it would be swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat to compel the Minister to make all these adaptations within such a limited period as is here referred to. I think the wiser course would be, if it is admitted that the power is desirable, to leave the Minister the power and let him make these adaptations as the need for them becomes apparent. If the Minister, by any Order he may make, seems to act without proper justification, or upon grounds which do not commend themselves to any Deputy, that Deputy, of course, has the power to call attention to that Order in the House and he can, if necessary, take such steps as are open to any Private Member to revoke, or compel the Minister to revoke, his Order and to restore the law to the status quo.

Mr. Hughes

I think this section is very objectionable. We are told that this is an attempt to codify the local government laws. If it is, then a provision of this sort is scarcely justified and I think there is very good reason why we should limit the power of the Minister to adapt sections out of other enactments whenever it suits him to do so. We are either going to codify existing local government laws or we are not, and I suggest we will not do it if we leave this provision in which would enable the Minister to take bits out of other legislation any time he likes to do so.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy press the amendment?

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

No.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (2), line 47, to delete all words after the word "made" to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "but no such Order shall have any force or effect unless or until resolutions approving such Order have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas".

It seems to me that we ought to recognise the difficulties that will face the Minister in dealing with a measure of this kind, giving effect to it and utilising it to codify the local government law. We have had during recent years indications of the efforts to find short-cuts by way of Orders and regulations to do things which, in other years, would have been dealt with by the Legislature. We have observed the practice of regulations being made by the Minister, regulations which automatically came into force unless annulled by the Dáil within a period of 21 days. It is quite true that every Deputy has immediate access to these Orders and has an opportunity, within the stipulated period, of having attention drawn to a particular Order and, if he receives the necessary support, he can have the Order annulled. But in actual practice Deputies are aware that the spate of Orders and regulations put before the House was so great that it was difficult for the ordinary Deputy, or even a Deputy working in with a political Party, to deal with these Orders and regulations because he had not behind him the machinery that is so readily available to members of the Government.

In this amendment I am suggesting that we should adopt a different procedure namely, that the Order will not become effective until it has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. I understand this is the practice in other countries and it is more in conformity with the nature of this House and the responsibility of the Minister to the House. I do not see that any Order that will be made by the Minister under this Bill will be of such tremendous urgency that it could not be dealt with in the manner I suggest.

There are, perhaps, some Bills in connection with which some delay might occur before the necessary Orders come before the House to be dealt with, and perhaps that might give rise to difficulties; but, in so far as we are codifying existing legislation, it appears to me that it would not be imposing an intolerable strain on the Minister or his Department if he took the reverse procedure of coming to the Oireachtas and receiving sanction for an Order rather than first making the Order and then leaving it to the Oireachtas to decide whether or not it should remain in force.

Mr. MacEntee

I think the Deputy's amendment arises from a rather exaggerated view of the powers of the Minister under this section. If the Deputy will read sub-section (1) he will see that the only adaptations which the Minister may make are adaptations of any statutory or other enactment in force at the time of the passing of this Act; that is to say, adaptations of the existing law and in relation to any matter affected by this Act, so that the one Act will be brought into conformity with the other.

Mr. Hughes

Does it not also mean that you can adapt any part of an enactment which you propose to repeal in the First Schedule?

Mr. MacEntee

No; any enactment in force at the passing of this Act. When this Bill passes, these enactments in the Schedule are repealed. I grant you that it is a very nice question which came first—the repeal or the enactment—but still we may assume that it will not operate to maintain in existence an Act which is repealed and, therefore, it can relate only to actual living statue law. The purpose of that is to bring these two statutes—and there may be more than two—into conformity with each other.

Deputy Hughes criticised this section because, he said, this Bill codified some section of local government law. That is quite true, but it is only a step in that direction. There are hundreds of statutes to be dealt with and we can only proceed in relation to this matter very gradually and very largely by experiment. If we are to be denied the power of making adaptations the moment they occur, subject, of course, to review by the House, there will be unnecessary delay, and we will not get the expeditious administration which I think the country wants. I think the provision in sub-section (2) is perfectly reasonable, and that it is as much as might reasonably be demanded. These Orders will be tabled, and, if a resolution is passed by either House within the next 21 sitting days, they become null and void. I think that is the best method.

If the Order does not appear on its face to be wrong or to be unjustified, why not let it operate, because remember that these Orders in general come under the scrutiny of quite a considerable body of persons? Apart altogether from members of the House, there are the members of local authorities and the officers of local authorities, and I think we may take it as reasonably certain that if an adaptation as such would appear to be contrary to sub-section (1) or would appear to be unnecessary and unjustified, the attention of members of the House will be brought to it and the matter can be raised here and disposed of. The other way would only involve delay, and I suggest that the Deputy should not press the amendment.

Mr. Hughes

Will officers of a local authority be notified in time for an annulment motion here?

Mr. MacEntee

Certainly, and, apart altogether from that, they must be tabled.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

I am not altogether convinced by the Minister's statement. I do not want to appear as putting difficulties in the way of a measure we welcome. Any measure which will simplify local government law is very much to be welcomed, and the Minister is to be assisted in his endeavours in that respect, but some of the points he put forward do not carry very great weight with me. He says that these Orders will be brought to the attention of a large number of persons, including members of local authorities.

We know that recently we have had quite a number of Acts passed through the Dáil affecting the functions of the powers of local authorities in one way or another, and the Minister is aware that quite a number of amendments which Deputies thought necessary were inserted, requiring consultation with local authorities on certain points. I do not suggest that in making these Orders, and especially where this question of adapting existing enactments is concerned, local authorities will be ignored by the Minister; but I cannot see in the section any express obligation on the Minister to consult them.

Secondly, the Minister points out that we are dealing with a section confined both by existing statutes and this measure, so far as it is a matter of adapting existing enactments, to the provisions which we may approve and embody in this measure. Is that not in large measure what we do at any time? When we bring in Bills of this character, we may repeal a certain section of an existing Act and find that another section will have to be amended accordingly. We do that in this House. Here we give over completely that power to a Minister. We will find sections in the Bill as we go through it in respect of which we will make the necessary adaptations, and to argue that merely because they are adaptations this very wide power, almost without restriction in regard to time, and further, in the peculiar atmosphere in which Deputies are undoubtedly labouring under great difficulties, should be granted to the Minister is an argument which must be considered very carefully.

During the last two or three weeks. Deputies will agree that we have had a spate of Bills and White Papers which would require time to read, and to have to look through the Order Paper each day, check over all the papers made available and see what requires to be questioned, and, if necessary, brought before the House, is to place a tremendous strain on the ordinary Deputy. This power will continue indefinitely, and, in the course of time, this Bill, which is fresh and new to us now, will become part of the existing statute law and will be something to which attention is no longer paid. Still, an Order of this kind can be made, and, in the normal way, placed on the Table of the House, subject to review only if some wideawake Deputy happens to notice it and brings it to the-attention of the House. I still feel that the matter is not of such great urgency that the permission of the House should not be sought before an Order becomes effective.

Mr. Cogan

I strongly support Deputy Larkin. The normal procedure should be for these Orders to come automatically before the House for sanction. I have had some experience in regard to county council matters which confirms me in this view. Under the Management Act, a manager's orders are submitted to the county council, not for approval but at least for consideration. I found that the general practice was that these orders received very scant attention because they were simply laid on the council table when the council ment. My own county council in Carlow decided to make it a rule that these orders would be considered as the first item on the agenda, and, prior to the meeting of the council, sent to each councillor. The result of that change was that considerable useful discussion took place on the manager's orders in that county. I think a similar situation might prevail here. If Orders had to be submitted for sanction to the House, in many cases it would require only a few minutes of Parliamentary time to get them through, and the mere fact that they had to be submitted to the House would bring them to the attention of Deputies and might obviate the overlooking of some important matter.

Mr. Sheldon

I find myself disagreeing with both the Minister and Deputy Larkin. I admit that Deputy Larkin's amendment is some improvement, but I object to the inclusion of the section. Would the Minister not agree that it is a bad precedent, in so far as it is a precedent, to include a section which more or less provides for bad draftsmanship and carelessness in the preparation of a Bill? The Minister is seeking to provide for omissions which may have occurred when he was considering what repeals were necessary in previous legislation. Does he not consider that a bad precedent to set up?

My main disagreement is based on this: that there is a very great difference between considering some particular point in an Act which is affected by a Bill at the time the Bill is before the House and considering it later when put forward in the form of an Order. It is difficult enough sometimes for Deputies to appreciate the precise force of a change in the law in a Bill in relation to the general body of legislation, but I think that to take a particular point which may turn up under an Order and try to get that discussed in a proper manner would lead to a difficulty.

Mr. MacEntee

I am afraid that Deputy Sheldon is urging upon us a counsel of perfection. After all, even Minister have a limited capacity, and I gather from what Deputy Larkin and Deputy Cogan have said that the capacity of Deputies is more limited still. We are not able to foresee what precise amendments may require to be made in that vast body of law which bears on local government matters. I think it is only reasonable that we should admit that fact to ourselves, and say that, in the course of experience, certain minor points—because they are minor points—will arise which will require that one Act be dovetailed into another, and that two statutes should be co-ordinated. That is all the power that sub-section (1) of Section 6 gives to us.

With regard to the issue that is involved in the amendment to sub-section (2), it seems to me to be almost a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee except for this: that Deputy Larkin has told us of the immense volume of work which falls upon Deputies. I can tell the Deputy that the volume of work which falls upon Ministers and their Departments is not a light one either.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

We have no Departments.

Mr. MacEntee

And, of course, you have no Opposition to deal with. The House very often, and from now on certainly much more often, finds itself faced with a vast mass of business to deal with, so that if our system is going to work we must find a way to make it work with reasonable efficiency and expedition. If Deputies are going to put upon the Government, not merely the onus which the terms of the section as it stands impose upon it but the onus of bringing to the attention of the Oireachtas, by tabling these Orders, anything which the Minister may do under sub-section (1) of Section 6 so that those who are interested in local government matters— there are some Deputies who are particularly interested in them—may have an opportunity of examining the Orders for themselves and, if they feel that the Orders are not justified, of drawing the attention of the House to that fact and persuading the House, if they are able to do so, to annual the Orders: if, as I say, you not only put the onus upon the Government of giving the House the opportunity of considering these matters in that way but you put upon it the heavier obligation of moving motions in the House in relation to every one of these Orders and of initiating discussions on each of them, I think you would so clutter the House up with business relating to minor matters of this kind that the much more important matters pressing on the House would not be attended to for the reason that there would not be time to deal with them. I think, as I have said, bearing in mind that we have to make this system of ours work, when you put the onus on the Government of letting the members of the House know what is being done under the section, leaving them to take action in relation to any of these matters that they feel called upon to do so, that, in all the circumstances, you have imposed a heavy enough obligation on us, and that to go further in the matter would not be reasonable.

Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put and declared carried.

Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hughes

I think this is a most objectionable section. The Minister has told us that if we are to make our Parliamentary system work at all we must give him the sort of power he is seeking here. I do not think that the House should stand for bureacratic power of this sort. If, at a later stage, the Minister wants to amend this measure in any way, there is the normal machinery of Parliament to do that. What I fear may happen if this section is left in the Bill is this: if there is some action pending, and if the Department of Local Government find that the action is inconvenient in any way, they will hunt through every piece of legislation on the Statute Book to find a section that will protect them, and the Minister will then make an Order embodying that section in this particular piece of legislation. The action will then fall to the ground immediately. I think that is most undesirable. I think that is the real danger that is inherent in this section, and I do not think the House should stand for it. We know that in certain litigation recently the Attorney General was beaten, and that a new Order, with retrospective effect, was made defeating the decision of the court in that particular case. That is a warning to the House, and for that reason I strongly object to the section. If the Minister and his Department anticipate that anything is likely to occur in the future they are bound to hunt through every piece of legislation on the Statute Book and pick out a section that will protect them. The Minister will then make an Order adopting that particular section. I think that is most objectionable.

Mr. Sheldon

I wonder would the Minister consider changing the sub-section and, instead of putting it in a negative way, put it in a positive way, which would, I think, probably meet Deputy Larkin's difficulty. I suggest that the sub-section should be: "Every Order proposed to be made under the section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and if a resolution annulling the Order is not passed within 21 days, it shall have the force of law."

Mr. MacEntee

I should like to give the Parliamentary draftsman the problem of dealing with that but I think it would leave the law in such a state of uncertainly that the House would only stultify itself by adopting the proposal. The Deputy says: "Any Order which the Minister proposes to make" not "any Order which he has made." I suppose you could say, if the House were to carry a resolution objecting to the proposal that within a stipulated period of time the Minister would be debarred from making the Order, but I am afraid that that would make normal administration quite impossible.

Mr. Hughes

This is not normal legislation.

Mr. MacEntee

Administration.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister cannot call an Order normal legislation.

Mr. MacEntee

I said administration. I did not say legislation. I said that would make normal administration quite impossible. I am sorry if the Deputy misunderstood me. There is nothing abnormal about this proposal. It is not a new precedent. There is scarcely an Act of the Oireachtas that does not contain a provision of this sort for the making of Orders, the making of regulations, the tabling of them before the House, and providing that the regulations shall come into effect when they are made and shall only cease to have effect if the House passes a resolution annulling. This is the normal way to deal with these matters. What the Deputy is proposing to do is quite abnormal. Are we to tie the hands of the Minister and make it quite impossible to administer the affairs of this country?

The Deputy has endeavoured to prejudice this matter by making reference to some Order that has been made. If such Order has been made it will be tabled here and the Deputy will have an opportunity of making a case against it, in the same way as he will have an opportunity of making a case, if he so desires, against any Order made under this section. These Orders have been discussed in this House before, not merely during the period of the emergency, but prior to that and during the time of the administration of the Party to which the Deputy belongs. It has been accepted as the only way in which you can really deal with matters of minor detail and minor importance. As to the point the Deputy has made, that the purpose of this provision is to enable a Minister to anticipate a decision of the courts——

Mr. Hughes

I did not say that. I said it could be used in that way.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy said, if a court action were pending that the Minister would search all the obscure statutes on the Statute Book and, if he could find one that would be applicable to the particular issue involved in these court proceedings, he would make an adaptation Order.

Mr. Hughes

I did not say that. I did not say it was the purpose of this section. I said it could be used in that manner.

Mr. MacEntee

Well, supposing it were used in that manner, would not the knowledge of the pending proceedings be available to some member of the House at least—to many members of the House, perhaps? Would it not be open to them to come in here and to make their case against it then, not upon a mere hypothesis, but upon the basis of facts which could be adduced to this House, and I am sure that if this section were to be used in the manner the Deputy anticipates, he would have a considerable volume of support in relation to a particular case? I am perfectly certain that, in these circumstances, no Minister would try to use a power of this sort, the scope of which has been well established by precedent and by practice, to defeat the ordinary process of law.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister has not denied that it could be used in that way.

Mr. MacEntee

Any power can be misused or abused but that is no justification for leaving a Government or an administration powerless.

Mr. Sheldon

I do not know whether it is an omission on purpose, or an omission by error but, in the last few Bills that were before the House—they were not the Minister's—we had quite a debate here about a phrase which cropped up in this type of section where Orders were given the force of law. I was wondering is there any particular reason why that phrase is left out here. The Minister has not taken any step to give his Orders the force of law.

Mr. MacEntee

It has it under sub-section (1). It is not necessary. The Order will, under sub-section (1), have the force of law, once the Order is made under the sub-section. The purpose of sub-section (2) is to annul the Order, to deprive it of the force of law, without prejudice to anything that may have been done under it.

Mr. Sheldon

I raised the point because a very good case was made by the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that the Order would not have the force of law without the phrase being included. He was very particular that it should be in the sub-section.

Mr. MacEntee

There is another thing I think I may say in relation to that aspect of the matter: the mere fact that that proviso is not included in the section is a clear indication that it is merely an adaptation of machinery, and not a change in the law, that is contemplated.

Mr. Keyes

I recognise that a section like this, or something similar, is essential to enable the Minister to make necessary adaptations of previous legislation. The only difficulty seems to be as to the method of preserving the control of the House and, in the meantime, without being obstructive, to do the thing the Minister requires. We know that in many cases, even in the pre-emergency period, Orders were tabled and were discussed in this House but we have discussed Orders in this House that had been in operation for two or three months before they were tabled. There is nothing to indicate when the Order will be tabled and when the 21 days start. Taking into account absence from the House, there is, to my mind, a great danger that Orders may go through and there would be very little chance of surveillance or supervision by individual Deputies or Parties. These may be Orders changing local government law, not period Orders such as we have been dealing with formerly, but permanent legislation enacted into the code, and the question is whether it is desirable to give the Minister permission to make such enactments at any time he feels it is necessary, when it is quite possible that it will escape the vigilance of the House. I think that is really the point at issue. If it were going to entail serious delays that would hinder the Minister from achieving the purpose in mind, that is a serious matter, but can we visualise that the changes to be made from the old Acts would be of such an urgent character that they could not afford to wait so that they could be brought in the normal way before us and before the Seanad and have them passed formally in perhaps a few minutes if they were not of an objectionable character. I think the Minister should devise some better means than he has. He has not accepted the amendment and no more can be said about it, but I think the section as it stands leaves room for grave objection by the House.

Mr. Hughes

I think the objection goes much farther than that. If the section only gave the Minister power to provide by Order the machinery to operate the law, I would not take serious objection to it. It goes much farther, and empowers the Minister to adapt other statutory sections after the passing of this Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. Hughes

It will have a far-reaching effect. I am not going to suggest that the Minister is going to do that, but it is the responsibility of this House to make the legislation as watertight as we can, in order to protect every individual. If what I suggested could happen under the section as it stands, it would be too late then. This is not the type of section that, as the Minister suggested, is usually given empowering him to make Orders providing machinery to operate the law. It goes much farther. If it went only a distance I would not take such exception to it.

Mr. Sheldon

Would the Minister state what precisely is meant by sub-section (2) under which every Order made shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as conveniently may be after it is made? Is it to suit the Minister's convenience?

Mr. MacEntee

No; that is generally there.

Question—"That Section 6 stand part of the Bill"—put and declared carried.

SECTION 7.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are interrelated. Amendment No. 5 stands or falls with amendment No. 3.

Mr. Blowick

I move amendment No. 3:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Rates shall be paid directly to the secretary of the local authority and may be sent by registered post, or lodged in any bank to the credit of the local authority.

To put the matter in a nutshell, the object is to do away with the necessity of paying huge sums for the collection of rates all over the country. In Mayo £13,200 was collected in this way. We have a precedent for this method in the manner in which the Irish Land Commission collects money from all parts of the country. There is no flaw in that method of collection, and I do not see why there should be any flaw in the method suggested by this amendment for the collection of rates. There would also be a substantial saving.

Mr. MacEntee

I could not accept this amendment because it would, as Deputy Blowick virtually stated, abolish the existing system of rate collection which, whatever may be said about some counties, has shown itself to be a cheap and efficient method of rate collection. The Deputy would substitute for it a system which has already been tried in one county, and an approximation of which has been tried in another county. In both cases it was attended with such ill success that, in the county with an approximation to it, the system of collecting rates through the Post Office was abolished in 1926 and, in the other county, the abolition of the system and adoption of the more general system is under consideration. This proposal by Deputy Blowick has already been tried in two counties, and found very unsatisfactory, and, so far as the present system of rate collection is concerned, in the vast majority of the counties, it operates very satisfactorily and with reasonable economy. In the light of these circumstances, I think that we should not adopt the principle of the amendment at all. Apart altogether from the question of principle, the amendment in its drafting is very unsatisfactory, and it would not be quite as simple, even it we did agree that the principle was a sound one, or that it would be as simple as the amendment implies, to put it into operation. We should require a vast number of consequential amendments. I do not think we could undertake this at the moment. Apart from that, we have tried in a couple of counties something very like this system, and in neither case has it been a success. Therefore, faced with past experience, the Committee ought to reject the amendment.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

The Minister stated that he must continue the old system of rate collection and the instance of paying at the post office was cited. I do not know where that was tried, but it seems to me to be a rather peculiar way of paying rates. Another aspect was not mentioned by Deputy Blowick, nor was it referred to in the amendment. I wish to know from the Minister if the custom of people having to attend in person at rate collector's offices between certain hours will continue, or will payment by cheque be recognised? I wish to call the Minister's attention to that in order that in avoiding one danger we might not fall into another.

An Ceann Comhairle

The method of rate collection does not arise at all, except in so far as it is raised in the amendment. Payment by cheque or otherwise does not arise on Section 7.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

On Section 8?

An Ceann Comhairle

Not on this section.

Mr. Cogan

I think the Minister's arguments against this amendment are not convincing. He stated that the experiment was tried out by two counties, but we have now new evidence before us as to the manner in which it was conducted. Much would depend on the machinery adopted to ensure that payment would be regular and punctual. We have had experience in regard to land annuities which are paid into the banks. That has been found satisfactory and convenient to the annuitants as well as being inexpensive. It might be contended that land annuities consist of the same sums being paid yearly or half-yearly, and that for that reason it is simpler than the payment of rates from year to year.

If proper notification were sent through the post, clearly stating the amount of rates to be paid, and where they were to be paid, it would be sufficient indication to each ratepayer and the system should work fairly well. In many counties, the ratepayer has to go into some town to meet the rate collector and give him the money. I do not think that that was what was intended when rate collectors were appointed. The intention in appointing rate collectors was that they should visit the ratepayer and personally collect the rates. The opinion, no doubt, was that the visit of the rate collector would be so psychologically unpleasant that the ratepayer would be induced to pay up promptly. That system has been departed from in many counties. The ratepayer has to meet the rate collector at a certain town or village. It would be just as easy for ratepayers to go into a bank with their rates as to go into a publichouse or hotel to meet the rate collector. There is nothing objectionable in this amendment and the experiment has not got a fair trial. It should be given a further trial.

Mr. Allen

I hope that the Minister will not agree to accept this amendment. County councils would get very little rates if this system were put into operation. An experiment was tried in some part of the country by which rates were paid directly to the county council and it did not work out. Deputy Cogan is not accurate in saying that it is not the duty of a rate collector to call on a ratepayer. That is part of the terms of his appointment. He is not, however, bound to wait for a week or a month for his rates. If he calls once, he is entitled to take any action he thinks fit if the rates are not paid. But he is bound, under the terms of his appointment, to call and, so far as I know, rate collectors always to call. If they do not, it is the duty of the county council to compel them to do so.

It is well known that rates are collected much more expeditiously than land annuities. There is much less owing in rates in any particular county than there is in land annuities. That is because there are rate collectors who call on the ratepayers and get in the rates. That is why arrears of rates are less than arrears of land annuities in any county at any given date in any year. I think that I am fairly accurate in saying that, even though rates are much higher in amount than land annuities in every county. If there are efficient collectors, they will call on the people and get the rates. The ratepayer is not bound to call on the rate collector until the collector has called upon him. If the rate collector does not call on him, then he is not bound to seek out the collector. If such a system as is advocated were adopted, county councils would find that there would be big arrears of rates. It would be a bad system, and would not obtain the rates for the county councils.

Mr. O'Donnell

One receives the rate dockets and pays half on the 30th September. My rates amount to £50. If you do not pay by the 30th September, they can claim the whole amount. If you do pay, you need not pay the other moiety until 31st March. Perhaps what I am about to mention does not arise on this amendment. If you go to a manufacturer for goods, you will get 5 per cent. discount if you pay cash within five days after delivery or 2½ per cent. for payment within a month or 1¼ per cent. for payment within two months. There is a system of discount for prompt payment.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's surmise was right—that that does not arise on this amendment.

Mr. O'Donnell

If there were a system of discounts, you would get the rates in more quickly. I pay immediately when I get 2½ per cent. discount, but I hold on to the money as long as I can if I do not get discount.

Mr. Blowick

I cannot agree with the Minister or with Deputy Allen that this amendment would not work. The Land Commission, a responsible Government Department, has been collecting annuities for a long time and, if they had found the system advocated in this amendment as unsatisfactory as Deputy Allen would have us believe, they would have changed it and adopted a better system. I do not agree that the amount of annuities outstanding is greater than the amount of rates outstanding. The present system of rate collection may be fairly satisfactory from the collection point of view but it can scarcely be claimed that it is satisfactory from the expense point of view. I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision in view of the fact that the Land Commission have collected annuities under the system here proposed for so many years.

Even though the amendment was not drafted by a lawyer, I do not think that the difficulties suggested by the Minister would arise. It has been put forward as an argument against the amendment that, because of the varying amount of the rates from year to year, the minds of the people would become confused. That would not occur. From year to year, there is only one variation in rates—an increase. The increase may be heavy or light, but the people have a fair idea of what their rates amount to from year to year. Most people are anxious to clear their way as they go along and it is immaterial to them whether they discharge their liabilities through the post or otherwise. There are, of course, slackers who will not pay rent or rates if they can get away with it, but the majority of people meet their liabilities and there is no necessity for a rate collector to call. It is the precedent established by the Land Commission which induced us to put down this amendment.

Mr. Hughes

This might be an admirable way of collecting rates, but the answer to the case for the amendment is that the Minister told us that they experimented with this system and that it failed.

Mr. Blowick

He did not say where the dissatisfaction arose in connection with the two experiments carried out.

Mr. MacEntee

The rates were not got in.

Mr. Hughes

Where were the experiments carried out?

Mr. MacEntee

In Sligo and Kerry.

Mr. Blowick

It was not proven that the fact that the rates did not come in was the fault of the system.

Mr. McCarthy

Experiments in both types of collections have been tried in the county from which I come. I admit that it is a very large county. We have rate collectors who go around in the ordinary way, and we have the office system by which ratepayers come to the courthouse, as they would come to a bank, to pay their rates. We have found that that system does not bring any saving in expense. A staff has to be kept there. At certain times of the year, temporary hands have to be employed, and the rate collection in this way is much on a par with that of the ordinary collection throughout the county. I do not think that there is any advantage in the system proposed.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I think that a good deal could be urged to show that the impersonal form of collection suggested in the amendment would not be a success, as Deputy Allen contends. Personal contact by the rate collector has tremendous influence. There is the additional point that arrangements are made between the payee and the collector in regard to instalments of the rates. There is the important point to be considered, too, that if the amendment were adopted, it would mean the displacement of a number of individuals whom we would not like to see displaced. I think I am correct in stating that the point of view expressed by Deputy O'Donnell is not quite the law as it stands at the moment, that is, that he could manage to get away, so far as the legal point is concerned, by not paying his full rate until the 31st March. If the law were enforced, he would find himself in trouble after the 1st October.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: —Tá: 6; Níl: 68.

Tá

• Beirne, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, William F.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• De Valera, Vivion.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Everett, James.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Hughes, James.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• McCann, John.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Norton, William.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Reilly, Thomas.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Pattison, James P.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Spring, Daniel.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
• Walsh, Laurence.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Conn.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Cogan and Commons; Níl: Deputies O Ciosáin and Allen.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 7 agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

On the section, does the Minister think there is any point in requiring people to attend personally for the purpose of payment?

Mr. MacEntee

I cannot enter into that. The section merely provides for the payment of moneys into the one fund, with the exception of the civic fund, and with the giving of receipts. It provides, as you see, that only the receipts of the treasurer of the council shall be a good discharge to the person paying the sum, or the receipt of a collector of rates of the council of a county or of any person duty authorised by the council to receive payments. I do not think the question is whether the payment should be made by cheque or anything else.

Mr. Hughes

What about a cheque made payable to the county council?

Mr. MacEntee

A cheque is not legal tender.

Mr. Hughes

It is evidence that the payment was made. In the case of embezzlement by a rate collector—we know that there have been victims of fellows who set out to embezzle money and who might do a job on the receipts that are issued—I suggest that where the rates are paid by a cheque made payable to the county council, and the cashed cheque can be produced, it should be accepted as evidence that the payment was made.

An Ceann Comhairle

It does not arise here, because whether the Minister says "Yes" or "No" it does not affect this measure. It is merely a matter of information.

Mr. MacEntee

It is the duty of every person who tenders any money to a rate collector or any other officer of the county council to receive a receipt in the official form at the moment he tenders the money.

Mr. Hughes

It sometimes happens, as the Minister knows, that a man who is collecting rates asks for a cheque and gets it, and then says: "I have no receipt book with me."

Mr. MacEntee

The cheque can be made payable to the county council, crossed properly, and so on.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Mr. Hughes

I move amendment No. 6:—

To add at the end a new sub-section as follows:—

Payments made by a county manager under any particular heading shall not exceed the amount allowed by the county council at their estimates meeting, without the expressed permission of the county council.

I am not sure whether this is necessary or not. First of all, we are now changing the method of financing local affairs. We are adopting the method we have here of paying out of the Central Fund to ensure that the manager cannot appropriate from one heading to another without the consent of the county council itself.

Mr. MacEntee

With regard to this amendment, I think the best thing to do is to quote sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the County Management Act, 1940, which provides that:—

"Save with a consent given by resolution under the foregoing sub-section of this section, the total amount of money expended and liability incurred by the council of a county or by an elective body in any local financial year for any particular purpose specified in the estimate of expenses for such local financial year shall not exceed the total amount specified in the said estimate of expenses in respect of that purpose."

That would seem to cover the point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 9 put and agreed to.

SECTION 10.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 might be discussed together.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I move amendment No. 7, standing in the name of Deputy Larkin (Junior):—

To delete sub-section (4).

I am not familiar with the Deputy's arguments in favour of this amendment, but I am moving it in order to get an explanation from the Minister on the sub-section itself, particularly with regard to the amount of 7½ per cent.

Mr. MacEntee

The deletion of the sub-section would mean that the expenses of town commissioners would become a county-at-large charge, and that the county council could not charge the commissioners for the cost of collection, and other expenses. As the Deputy is aware, the purpose of sub-section (4) is to make the county council responsible for meeting the demand of the town commissioners, and for that purpose to enable the county council to collect the rate which is appropriate to the demand of the town commissioners.

At the present moment, as the Deputy knows, town commissioners collect their own rate, which is limited, I think, to 2/6 in the £, except where they have special expenses arising out of housing undertakings or the provision of school meals. At present, of course, the town commissioners strike their own rate and are responsible for its collection. When the Bill becomes law, the town commissioners will demand what they require from the county council, and the county council will collect it with their rate. It is intended to simplify the procedure from the point of view of the inhabitants of towns which are administered by town commissioners, and to rationalise the existing system of collection. The demand will be made by the town commissioners in the first place on the county council, and the county council will levy the necessary town rate and will be responsible for its collection. If Deputy Larkin's amendment No. 7 were accepted the position would remain unchanged, and we could not do what we are trying to do: to establish a system of uniform rate collection over the whole county area.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

Why the figure of 7½?

Mr. MacEntee

To cover the cost of the expenses of collection. The normal poundage is 5 per cent., but in addition to that there would be other administrative expenses—demand notes, receipts, and so on.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 8 not moved.

Mr. Hughes

I move amendment No. 9:—

Before sub-section (5) to insert the following new sub-section:—

Where the expenses of a council under the foregoing sub-section exceed 7½ per cent. the excess amount may with the consent of the Minister be recovered in the succeeding financial year by a levy on the area of the town.

The Minister is anxious to rationalise the whole system of collecting local rates and to make it more economical in the case of a county council, where a rate collector calls on an individual living in a local town and where you have town commissioners. I suppose that, from the Minister's point of view, it was ridiculous to send another man to collect the one rate, and that it would be better to let the one man do the job. I do not know whether 7½ per cent. will cover the cost in the case of the administrative work that would be required. The Minister has told us that 5 per cent. is the normal amount allowed to the rate collector for collection. I am wondering whether the other 2½ per cent. will cover expenses and also cover whatever amount would be irrecoverable, that is, expenses of a county council which are incurred in meeting a demand made by the commissioners of a town in the county. I am suggesting in my amendment that if you are going to throw this responsibility on the county council, they at least should not lose by it, and that if they are down in a particular year, they can make good the deficiency in the rate the following year. I think that the Minister is attempting to deal with the matter of a deficiency in another way under Section 13, but I must say that I do not like the Minister's amendment. However, my case is that if we are going to use the county council for this purpose, we can at least ensure that the county council will not lose anything by the transaction; and I am prepared to meet the Minister and say that they should not be allowed to benefit by the transaction either. Certainly, however, we ought to ensure here that the county council will be in a position to recover whatever expenses are involved. The Minister may not like my amendment, but if he assures me that he will bring in some provision that will ensure the county council being in a position to recover their expenses, I shall not press the amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

Well, of course, I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that it is very difficult to estimate accurately in advance what would be the actual cost to a county authority of collecting town rates. We have to have some figure, however, and we have suggested 7½ per cent. I have pointed out that of the 7½ per cent., we may assume that at least 5 per cent. would be poundage and that the other 2½ per cent. would be to cover expenses such as the preparation of rate books, demand notes, and all these other things. I think that, on the whole, it ought to be sufficient to do that. After all, it amounts to only 6d. in the £, and it is difficult, I think, to expect that it will cost as much as 6d. in the £ to send out demand notes for everybody. I am, in fact, rather surprised at the line which Deputy Hughes has taken in regard to this matter, because any criticism that I anticipated on this section was in the opposite direction.

Mr. Hughes

Why?

Mr. MacEntee

That perhaps we might be allowing the county council too big an expense item. However, it is not possible to fix this thing with any sort of definiteness, and I suggest that we should try it out at the 7½ per cent., and then, if after a few years it should prove to be too much or too little, as the case may be, I have no doubt that we can mend our hand. The objection I have to Deputy Hughes's amendment is that while it will allow a county council to recoup itself if the 7½ per cent. is too little, it does not make any provision requiring a county council to refund to the ratepayers any part of the 7½ per cent., if it is found to be too much. I think also that Deputy Hughes will agree that it would hardly lead to prudent administration.

Mr. Hughes

Well, I can only say that I am sorry that Deputy Allen is in the Chair at the moment because I feel quite sure that he would support me in this. Why not fix the amount at 7½ per cent., provisionally, for the first year, and then, every year after that, fix the actual amount on the basis of the previous year? The Minister admits that it is a rough estimate and that it is very hard to measure it accurately. Now, I do not want to see a county council losing money, or to have an extra job or extra work thrust on it. Accordingly, I suggest making it provisional for the first year on a 7½ per cent. basis. Then, every succeeding year, you can fix the actual cost of the preceding year and collect for the preceding year; so that your administrative expenses would be a year in arrears all the time. The thing would be based on the previous year. I suggest that you can get over the difficulty that way.

Mr. MacEntee

Well, I do not want to be too steadfast in a matter of this sort, which is a matter of personal judgment rather than anything else, but there is a difficulty which I think the Deputy will appreciate. Supposing you have, as we anticipate we will have, the one person collecting and the one staff issuing receipts and demand notes: how will you apportion their time as between the collection of what is actually due in the case of the town commissioners and what is a county-at-large charge? The amendment would raise these difficulties, and I think that, as we are trying to iron out all the anomalies that exist in connection with the collection of rates, it would be better to prescribe a definite percentage in the Bill, and let us see how it works. However, I shall think over what the Deputy has said and see if, between now and the Report Stage, I might find some way of dealing with the problem. I admit the Deputy's point about the county-at-large charges and the matter of town charges, but it might be very difficult to get it to work.

Mr. O'Rourke

There is more than 6d. in the £ paid in some counties. We pay about 8d. in the £ in most cases. Sixpence is the normal sum, but for some collection we pay 8d.

Mr. MacEntee

I said the normal poundage was 5 per cent. and over and above that we are adding an additional 2½ per cent. for administrative expenses.

Mr. Hughes

Could the Minister tell us what is the maximum cost in towns of this kind, what is the average cost, and what is the minimum cost?

Mr. MacEntee

I could not, because the existing rate collectors are doing all sorts of other jobs as well.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister could not attempt to give us any idea?

Mr. MacEntee

I could not, but we could try to get it between now and the Report Stage.

Mr. Hughes

In view of the Minister's promise to try to meet my point I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cogan

I move amendment No. 10:—

To add at the end a new sub-section as follows:—

Nothing in this section shall operate to prevent the council of a county from imposing a separate charge on a particular area in respect of expenses incurred in that area.

This amendment was merely put down for the purpose of eliciting from the Minister some information. I want an assurance that the section as it stands does not debar the county council from striking a separate rate in regard to a particular area for expenses incurred in that area. I know that the present policy of the Minister is to encourage county-at-large charges in general. I am not altogether against that principle where it can be carried out with justice and fair play, as it makes for more ease and efficiency, perhaps, in administration. At the same time, I do not think that county councils should be deprived of the right to strike a separate rate in a particular area where they think it is necessary and justifiable. This amendment is merely put down to ensure that county councils shall continue to enjoy their right to strike a separate rate.

Mr. MacEntee

This amendment is not necessary. There is nothing in this Bill which affects the fixing of separate charges on a contributory basis. There is nothing in the Bill which would affect the particular situation in regard to special expenses or charges under the Public Health Act, 1878. That position will remain unchanged. The Deputy might look at the Public Health Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 10 put and agreed to.

Amendment No. 11 not moved.

Section 11 agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 12:—

In sub-section (2), page 7, line 54, to delete the word "prescribed" and substitute the word "used".

This is merely a verbal change. "Prescribed" is referred to in the definition section and we only propose to substitute the word "used" for the word "prescribed".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 13:—

Before Section 13, page 8, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) The following provisions shall apply in relation to any portion of the county rate made by the council of a county for the purposes of a deficiency in the county fund arising from town charges:—

(a) such portion shall be assessed and made separately from the remainder of the county rate,

(b) for the purposes of such assessment, the valuation of a hereditament of any of the following classes shall be reduced to one quarter of the actual valuation under the Valuation Acts of the hereditament:—

(i) land used solely for one or more of the following purposes, that is to say, as arable, meadow or pasture ground or as woodlands, or market gardens, or nursery grounds,

(ii) land covered with water and used as a canal and any towing path to the same,

(iii) land used as a railway constructed under statutory powers for public conveyance,

(c) no assessment shall be made on any half-rent rateable to the poor rate under Section 63 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838, and the enactments amending the same.

(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to or operate to reduce the annual value with reference to which the tax in respect of any hereditament under Schedules A and B of the Income Tax Act, 1918, is ascertained.

The purpose of this new section is to have town charges assessed on the same basis as the town rate levied by town commissioners is assessed at present. The rate levied for the purpose of the Town Improvement Act, 1854, is assessed on occupiers rated to poor rate, but in the case of land in the towns only on one-fourth of the valuation. The purpose of this section is to preserve that basis of assessment, as Deputies will see if they read the section.

Mr. Hughes

Does this mean that if the town commissioners want a supplementary sum from the county council that deficiency will be made good in the following year?

Mr. MacEntee

No, it only means that, if the county fund is not able to meet the demand on it by the town commissioners, the county council will make provision for raising the necessary money on this basis. It affects the general basis of the rating law applicable to town commissioners of towns under the Town Improvement Act. It is merely a restatement of the law as it stands.

Mr. Hughes

The rate is applicable only to the town areas?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes. If the Deputy looks at paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) it says: "such portion shall be assessed and made separately from the remainder of the county rate." These are the funds that must be raised to meet the deficiency in the county fund arising from town charges. Paragraph (b) says: "for the purposes of such assessment, the valuation of a hereditament of any of the following classes shall be reduced to one-quarter of the actual valuation under the Valuation Acts of the hereditament." All the classes are set out. They relate mainly to land. Sub-paragraph (i) says: "land used solely for one or more of the following purposes, that is to say, as arable, meadow or pasture ground or as woodlands, or market gardens, or nursery grounds." Under sub-paragraph (ii) you have: "land covered with water and used as a canal and any towing path to the same". Under sub-paragraph (iii) you have: "land used as a railway constructed under statutory powers for public conveyance". It is the basis of the existing rates.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Sheldon

I move amendment No. 14:—

Before Section 13 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) In this section the expression "the Act of 1939" means the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1939 (No. 23 of 1939).

(2) The application of the agricultural grant in a county by allowances as provided for in the Act of 1939 shall cease to apply.

(3) For the purpose of the assessment and levying of the county rate on a tenement of agricultural land situated in a rural area—

(a) the specified valuation as defined in the Act of 1939 shall be reduced to not more than 2/5ths of the valuation thereof under the Valuation Acts;

(b) where the valuation of the agricultural land exceeds £20, the excess shall be reduced to not more than 3/5ths of the valuation thereof under the Valuation Acts.

I am glad the Minister is in a mood to appreciate something which makes for increased efficiency and despatch in the conduct of local government affairs. Before I go any further I might say that there are a couple of omissions apart from the general sense. I can appreciate that to produce the precise effect I want a great deal more elaboration would be necessary. I bring this forward principally in the spirit of the amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps more money too.

Mr. Sheldon

I meant to include the clause the Minister has in the section passed with regard to income-tax. That was an inadvertence on my part. Also I would be prepared to include that the precise fractions which I mention in paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) should be fixed by the Minister in order to take such affairs out of local polities. A situation might arise where a candidate for a local election might say: "I will reduce the fraction to one-fifth." I would be prepared to allow the Minister to settle that by fixing it.

I want to make it clear that my main purpose is to simplify the system of distributing the agricultural grant inside a county. Anyone who is a farmer and pays rates, or anyone associated with the affairs of a local authority, realises that the present system under the 1939 Act is highly complex, and leads to a great deal of work in the offices of the various county councils each spring. It also leads to some trouble to the individual farmer, as he has a long form to fill up each year, showing how many people are employed between the ages of 17 and 70. The next thing that happens is that these forms are all related to the amount of the agricultural grant in the county, and then each occupier of agricultural land has to be sent a form showing him how his relief is arrived at.

This is the first point I would like to make. Any landowner would realise that it is difficult enough for an ordinary person to check up from an ordinary demand and know whether it is correct or not—mistakes do occur occasionally—but it is almost physically impossible for anyone to make out whether or not he is getting the proper relief. In my county the rates in the £ for the various grants—primary, secondary and supplemental—are shown to four places of decimals, and most people burk at trying to calculate the rate on £13 6s. 9d. at 9.3472d. in the £. I have had cases brought to my notice where mistakes have occurred. It is a minor point, but has been the cause of quite an amount of annoyance to the individual. In the office, this work is complex, too, though not complex as far as the actual calculation is concerned, once one has the figure. I imagine there is a fair amount of complexity in arriving at the exact number of pence in the £ under the three headings which will absorb the agricultural grant in the county. Presumably, the accountant and the staff must attempt to do that. I admit freely that I do not claim any more credit than is necessary for what I propose. I got the idea from the Minister. He is providing something similar in Section 39 to deal with land in urban areas, and it struck me that that would be a very sensible way to give the relief on agricultural land and put the intentions of the 1939 Act into force without all the long complications every year.

The only major change in policy which this will bring about is to do away with the employment grant which, as Deputies probably know, was an attempt to encourage long-term employment by giving relief from rates. In fact, it does not give any encouragement whatever. Most people are inclined to take the amount of the secondary grant—the number of pence in the £—and multiply it by £12 10s., to show the relief they get for employing a man for a full year. That is not so. It is the difference between the secondary grant and the supplemental grant which they must multiply by £12 10s., because he would get the supplemental grant anyway. In Donegal, with a rate of almost 20/- in the £, the precise amount of extra relief which is got by employing another man for a full year is something less than 36/-, and I do not think anyone would consider that a great encouragement. I am not saying for a moment that it is a bad thing to encourage employment, but I do suggest that, in effect, the 1939 Act did not encourage employment. If employment has increased since then, it is due to other causes. For instance, in my own county, anyone can see that 36/- might encourage you to employ a man for 52 weeks instead of 51, but not for 12 months instead of two or three. However, I do not want to say too much until I hear the Minister's reactions, but I would like to put it very strongly that it would give simplicity. The first bit of work that would have to be done would be the finding of the figure. After that, it would go on for year after year.

In framing the thing and finding the fractions, I have another minor point in view, that is, partially to shift the burden of rates from the shoulders of the farmers to other property owners. I am not sure that the Minister will get up to defend the property owners, as I have heard him on the subject before and I think I am on fairly safe ground. The actual amount of shift that would take place would be a good deal less than might appear at first. The drop in valuation which would take place in a county would mean that, if you have a good rate in the £, the county's income would drop and, therefore, a higher rate would have to be struck but that increase would bear more heavily on other hereditaments than on agricultural land, through the provisions of this proposed section. I suggest that that is perfectly fair.

Those with experience of business in rural areas know very well that, as compared with agricultural holdings, their valuation is a negligible matter. I have experience of that myself and I know that, taking a business in a village or a country town, the amount they have to meet in the way of rates is a very small part of their expenses; whereas to a farmer it is a very high part of his expenses. If you take a farmer of £20 valuation of land—and I am talking only about his land valuation—in my county he pays round about £12 in rates, as his relief is something like £7 13s. 6d. and our rate is almost 20/- in the £. I do not know whether it is generally realised that, if you take someone with an earned income in a city or town who is paying in direct taxation about £12, he would have an income of over £500 a year, if a married man with two children. I have taken two children, to avoid any complexity in wandering into children's allowances when he has three. Such a man with £500 a year would pay about £11 5s. 0d. I am subject to correction, but I think that is fairly accurate. I do not think anyone would suggest that a farmer with a £20 valuation of land was better off than a man with £500 a year. They both pay about the same in direct taxation. That is a point not often realised. I suggest it is quite fair that some slight part of the burden, at any rate, should be shifted, but I want to make it clear that my main intention is to secure for rural areas the simplicity which the Minister is seeking to bring in for urban areas.

Mr. MacEntee

We have heard a very interesting statement from Deputy Sheldon in support of this amendment, so interesting that I am rather sorry that, if he wanted to raise this matter at all, he did not raise it in a form which would allow it to be discussed in its full implications. I do not know whether the Deputy is aware of it or not—though, having listened to his speech, I think there is scarcely an aspect of his amendment that has escaped his attention—but the effect of accepting this amendment would be practically to nullify the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act of 1939, and to wipe out the whole system which was brought into operation by that Act.

If for no other reason than that, I could not accept an amendment which would have that effect on a Bill of this sort. The proper approach to it would be to bring in a Bill to amend the Act of 1939 by substituting for it the principles on which his amendment is founded; or, if the Deputy did not wish to do it in that precise form, to put down his amendment as a motion and have it discussed by the House. The fact of the matter is that his amendment would not only nullify the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act of 1939, but would also, as the Deputy has admitted, result in the shifting of a very considerable portion of the burden of rates from land to other hereditaments; so much so that I think any caluculation would show that on the average there would be an increase of two shillings or more in the pound in the burden on other hereditaments.

I think that is a matter the full implications of which would have to be very seriously considered. It certainly will not be any encouragement to a farmer to improve his dwelling or the offices attached to his farm if we are going to have the already heavy rates, as the Deputy says, increased by as much as 10 per cent., or perhaps more in some cases. For that reason, though I must say that I appreciate the attention which the Deputy has given to the matter and the scheme, apparently, is one to which he has given a great deal of consideration, I could not possibly accept an amendment of such a far-reaching character on a Bill of this sort. I suggest to the Deputy that he ought to give the House another opportunity of considering his proposal.

Mr. Sheldon

The Minister said that this would have the effect of nullifying the 1939 Act. Perhaps he would amplify that?

Mr. MacEntee

As the Deputy is aware, one of the cardinal features of the 1939 Act is this system of allowances, the primary, secondary and supplemental allowances. These would all disappear if the Deputy's amendment were passed and, not only would they disappear but, if it were desired, if it were the Deputy's intention, to prevent any heavy increase in the rates on hereditaments other than land, then the amount of the agricultural grant would have to be very considerably increased.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister is not suggesting that the benefits that normally accrue to a local authority from the agricultural grant would be nullified by this?

Mr. MacEntee

They would get the grant, but the method of distribution would be very considerably altered.

Mr. Sheldon

That was my intention. I hope the Minister is not taking it that it was a subsidiary part of my intention to change the method of distribution.

Mr. MacEntee

I know that, but the Deputy has a proposition which could be reasonably argued. I do not suggest that it could be argued to such effect that I could accept this amendment on this Bill.

Mr. Cogan

I agree with a good deal of what Deputy Sheldon has said, and particularly with his comparison as between the valuation of agricultural land and other hereditaments, such as a business premises. There is no doubt that there is inequality as between the two types of valuation. I think the principle he has outlined of reducing the valuation of agricultural land has a good deal to be said in its favour but, unfortunately, it does not go far enough, because there are at the present time quite a number of citizens who, by reason of the fact that they enjoy fairly considerable incomes and do not hold rateable property to any extent, avoid paying their fair share of contributions to the local expenditure.

I feel, however, that I would not like to see the principle of employment allowances abolished because only yesterday we were arguing that the employment allowance should be increased so as to provide for complete derating up to £15 in respect of each man employed. I would not like to depart from that principle. I think that the failure of the employment allowance up to the present to increase employment has been due to the very meagre relief that it gives. As a matter of fact, it is only £2 or £3. The employment of an additional man gives relief to the extent of only a couple of pounds and it would hardly pay the health insurance or workmen's compensation insurance of the employee. It would not encourage a farmer to employ additional men.

I think the amendment is too far-reaching in one sense, and it does not go far enough in another sense. What we require is the complete abolition of rates on agricultural land.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Sections 13, 14 and 15 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 not moved.

Section 16 agreed to.

SECTION 17.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 18:—

In sub-section (1), to add at the end of the sub-section the words "and any such portion shall for the purposes of such collection or recovery be deemed to be arrears of the municipal rate".

This is merely to ensure that where there are uncollected arrears at the date of the passing of this measure they will be carried into the next period for collection, and will become part of the municipal and town rate.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 19:—

In page 9, to add at the end of the section two new sub-sections as follows:—

(3) Where immediately before the commencement of this section there were two or more persons acting as rate collectors in an urban area, each of such persons shall be deemed to have been duly appointed immediately upon the commencement of this section to be a collector of the municipal rate in the urban area for such district as may be assigned to him and, for the purposes of any enactment relating to superannuation or compensation for loss of office, this Act shall be deemed not to have operated to abolish his office or to alter his position materially to his detriment.

(4) Where immediately before the commencement of this section there was one person only acting as rate collector in an urban area, such person shall be deemed to have been duly appointed immediately upon the commencement of this section to be the collector of the municipal rate in the urban area and, for the purposes of any enactment relating to superannuation or compensation for loss of office, this Act shall be deemed not to have operated to abolish his office or to alter his position materially to his detriment.

The purpose of this amendment is to make the poor rate and town rate collectors the collectors of the new municipal rate. Sub-section (3) makes the existing rate collectors the collectors of the municipal rate. It is necessary to do that so that they cannot retire and claim compensation on the grounds that their offices have been abolished. Sub-section (3) deals with the position which will arise in urban areas where there are separate collectors for the town rate and the poor rate. In that case, the collectors will remain, but, as there will be only one rate, the collectors will be given each a separate district. It will be an easy matter to adjust the districts so that the collectors will have the same remuneration as before.

Mr. Hughes

Can the Minister say why a similar provision is not inserted for county council collectors?

Mr. MacEntee

They are not dealt with here.

Mr. Hughes

I know, but why is there not a similar provision in the part of the Bill applying to county council collectors?

Mr. MacEntee

That is, where we propose to amalgamate areas? I will deal with that when we come to it. There are already existing town rate collectors and poor rate collectors, and, as the Bill stands, we are making it a municipal rate, and unless we have a provision in the Bill to safeguard the position, they could claim that their offices were abolished and could retire on pension. It is to ensure that their employment will be regarded as continuous and that in the case where there happened to be two collectors in one town, we would be able to apportion the town area between them.

Mr. Corish

In so far as one part of a town might be more highly valued than another, does the Minister imagine that the division of a town into two parts would not lessen the return to one collector as against another? I have Wexford town in mind. Anybody who knows Wexford town realises that a particular section is more highly valued than another.

Mr. MacEntee

I am afraid we shall have to try to approximate to it in some way. I suppose the aim will be to try to preserve their existing remuneration. If we are not able to do that, we may have to allow them to be compensated in some other way, but we want to make sure that there will be no cesser of employment.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment No. 20 not moved.

Section 18 agreed to.

SECTION 19.

Mr. MacEntee

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.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 19, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 20.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 22 in the name of Deputy Martin O'Sullivan.

Mr. MacEntee

In connection with this amendment may I say that I do not propose to move Section 20? The position is that the Minister for Justice has proposed that Section 49 in the Rent Restrictions Bill, now before the Seanad, should be dropped from that Bill, and that rates on unoccupied premises should be dealt with solely in this Local Government Bill which is now before the House. In order to enable us to do that, we are proposing not to proceed with Section 20 of this Bill until the Seanad has finally disposed of the Rent Restrictions Bill when we shall re-introduce this or some alternative provision on the Report Stage of the Bill. In these circumstances, I do not think it will be necessary to proceed with the amendments to this section.

I should also like to say that I may be bringing in on the Report Stage, in connection with this, an amendment dealing with rates on certain small dwellings owned by the State. At that stage the House will have an opportunity of discussing the whole matter.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I take it that when the new section is introduced on the Report Stage, the Bill will be recommitted to enable us to discuss these amendments?

Mr. Sheldon

But suppose the Minister does not propose to bring in a new Section 20, how can that be done?

An Ceann Comhairle

Notice having been given, I think the House would agree to do so.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

And especially in view of the fact that the Rent Restrictions Bill is still before the Seanad.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies would be surprised at what Parliament can do if it makes up its mind.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

We have had evidence of that already.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

But not against Standing Orders?

An Ceann Comhairle

Parliament can overrule Standing Orders

Question—"That Section 20 be deleted"—put and agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25 not moved.

Section 21 agreed to.

SECTION 22.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 26:—

Before Section 22, page 11, to insert a new section as follows:—Sections 13 to 21 of this Act shall not apply in relation to the borough of Dun Laoghaire or the corporation of that borough.

An urban authority means the corporation or council of an urban area, and an urban area means a borough other than a county borough. An urban authority, therefore, in this section would include the Dun Laoghaire Corporation. Now the rates in Dun Laoghaire have already been consolidated in one municipal rate by the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930, and similar provisions to those in Sections 13 to 21 of this Bill are already in force in Dun Laoghaire. Therefore, it is not necessary to bring them within the scope of this measure. In view of the fact that there is a special Act, we propose to exclude them from the scope of this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 27:—

Before Section 22, page 11, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Where, in the local financial year ending immediately before the commencement of this section, any part of the agricultural grant was payable by the council of a county to the council of an urban district, such council of a county shall, in each subsequent local financial year, pay an amount equal to such part to such council of an urban district out of the agricultural grant and such amount shall thereupon be paid into the municipal fund.

(2) In this section, the expression "the agricultural grant" has the same meaning as it has in the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1939 (No. 23 of 1939).

This Bill relates to those urban areas —and there are some which have been, I think, established since the Act of 1898 came into operation—in respect of which portion of the agricultural grant payable to the county council has become payable to the urban district council. Under the Bill, as I have shown, agricultural lands and urban districts will get relief from the municipal rates to the extent set out in the Second Schedule. In the boroughs, land will be assessed at three-fourths of the valuation and in other urban districts, at three-fifths. Where the agricultural grant has been applied to the relief of rates in an urban district the assessment, it is proposed, will be, in the first year, on six-twentieths, rising gradually until the 7th year, when it will be twelve-twentieths, that is to say, three-fifths. The reason of that is, of course, that existing land holders in certain of these areas receive the benefit of the agricultural grant and it is not proposed to deprive them of that immediately. The agricultural grant will continue to be paid at the present rate to the county council, who will pay it to the urban district council, when it will go into the municipal fund and gradually, as I have said, land inside these urban areas will be assessed, in the first instance, in the first year, at six-twentieths of its valuation and will continue to bear an increasing assessment until it is brought into uniformity with land in all other urban districts, that is to say, it will be assessed at three-fifths of its valuation.

Mr. Hughes

In the Minister's amendment there is the phrase "pay an amount equal to such part to such council". If there is any variation in it at any time, if the Government increase the agricultural grant at any time, what would happen?

Mr. MacEntee

It would not go to any of these. We follow the procedure, say, that exists in the case of Dublin— Dublin still receives portion of the agricultural grant—where we fix the amount once and for all for the urban area and it remains fixed. It will mean so much more money for the farmers.

Mr. Hughes

Supposing you reduce the grant?

Mr. MacEntee

Then I am afraid it will have to be reduced all round.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 28 not moved.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 29:—

In page 11, to add at the end of the section the following sub-section:—

(3) A person who—

(a) immediately before the commencement of this section held the office of collector of rates under the commissioners of a town, and

(b) had held that office for not less than ten years, and

(c) is not entitled under any enactment other than this sub-section to compensation for the abolition of that office,

shall be paid by such commissioners on account of such abolition a gratuity equal to either—

(i) one-fifteenth of his yearly salary and emoluments, within the meaning of Part IV of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), in respect of that office for each complete year of his service, or

(ii) such yearly salary and emoluments,

whichever is the less.

This is an amendment to provide compensation for loss of offices in certain cases. It is meant, in fact, to deal with the point which was raised by Deputy Fogarty on the Second Reading of the Bill. It was a point which was overlooked. It is a perfectly reasonable proposal, I think. It may happen that in certain of these very small towns a person who held office as collector of rates under the commissioners of the town should not be employed by the county council for the purpose of collecting the rates, and this provides that in certain circumstances, namely, that he had held the office for not less than ten years, and is not entitled under any other enactment to compensation for the abolition of that office, he shall be paid by the commissioners on account of the abolition a gratuity equal to either one-fifteenth of his yearly salary and emoluments, or such yearly salary and emoluments, whichever is the less.

Mr. Hughes

Why would not it be "whichever is the greater"? He is losing his job.

Mr. MacEntee

We are fixing a maximum of one year's salary. I think that is quite reasonable.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

It is the old "safety first" rule.

Mr. Hughes

I think it should be the other way about.

Mr. MacEntee

He is getting a very large proportion. Normally, gratuities are calculated in sixtieths. He is getting fifths.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister must remember that in this case he is interfering with an office and with a contract. It is not like an ordinary retirement. In a case like this you should be more generous, because you are infringing a contract.

Mr. MacEntee

These are non-pensionable offices—all of them.

Mr. Hughes

I understand that, but he is losing his job and his income and he may have arrived at a period of his life when he is not much good for anything else. I think the Minister should consider that. There may be cases of hardship arising out of this. It is a very small matter for the local authority and it may be a very big matter for the individual.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is not aware of the fact that it is not a small matter for the local authority. It will be charged on the town.

Mr. Hughes

I am aware of that.

Mr. MacEntee

Apart altogether from that, a number of these local authorities and town commissioners are abolishing themselves, and there is no compensation in that case.

Mr. Corish

There would be a big difference between the compensation in the case of a man who had worked as a rate collector for five years and in the case of one who had worked for 15 years. The man who gets 15 years' compensation would get a year's salary.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Corish

And the man who had worked for five years——

Mr. MacEntee

Would get nothing. He must have held the office for at least 10 years.

Mr. Corish

Even comparing 10 years with 15 years, is not there a big difference?

Mr. MacEntee

There is, but the thing about it is that these offices are not pensionable. They are not full time. They are part-time collectors. Many of them have other jobs. This is some recognition—I am not saying it is very generous—but the office is not very valuable.

Mr. Hughes

I am thinking of the individual who has been a good many years in the service and who had been looking forward to remaining in the service for the rest of his life. He may be 55 to 60 years of age. Now we are interfering with his work and he loses his job and he may be little use for anything else. In a situation like that I think we might be more generous.

Mr. Sheldon

Surely Deputy Hughes should realise that, if he is losing a job, a man with long service is getting a year's salary for doing nothing at all.

Mr. Hughes

He is getting that for losing his job.

Mr. MacEntee

The thing about it is, he is not losing his job. In the great majority of cases he is not losing his employment. He continues to hold other offices.

Mr. Hughes

He may or he may not. He will get no compensation for these other offices. What we are doing is: we are depriving him of the opportunity of earning a living.

Mr. MacEntee

Very few of these people get very much. We are allowing a year's salary. It is easy for us to feel very generous. Do not let us forget that not one of us is being generous in this matter at our own expense. We have to think of other people. No matter how much we may feel for people who are, in fact, redundant—whose time has passed by— and no matter how sympathetic we may be, we must remember that we have obligations to the people who have to provide the money. I think I have not been unreasonable. If the House presses very strongly, I might make this one-twelfth and, perhaps, make "one year""18 months", but I suggest that it should not go any further than that. I have been dealing fairly with the matter.

Mr. Hughes

I appreciate what the Minister says and I am in agreement with him, as I do not want to throw an unreasonable charge on the ratepayers. The Minister suggested that it is easy to be generous here, but it has to be remembered that we are preventing a local authority being generous, if they were anxious to be generous, to men with good service. The type of man I am thinking of is one who is getting on in years. After all, a year's salary is of very little use.

Mr. MacEntee

A local authority cannot be generous, as the Bill stands, without the amendment. These people lose office and have no claim for compensation. There is another point of view to be put before the House. Every time we give generous terms on the abolition of an office we are, certainly, giving ground for increased demands in future, because, every time a question of abolition comes up, some one wants to do better than the last time. We have simply to act with a sense of responsibility in these matters. If the Committee presses me very strongly, I should be prepared to concede a little, but I do not think I would be inclined to go much further.

Mr. Hughes

Would the Minister look into the question again?

Mr. MacEntee

I shall.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 23.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 30:—

Before Section 23, page 11, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) The council of a county may, with the consent of the Minister, borrow on the security of the county rate for the purpose of lending, to the commissioners of a town which is not an urban district and is situated in the county, any sums required by the commissioners for the purpose of the exercise or performance of any of their powers, functions or duties.

(2) If a sum, which consists either of portion of loan advanced pursuant to this section by the council of a county to the commissioners of a town or of interest on any such loan, remains due and unpaid for a period of three months, the council may, without prejudice to any other remedy, raise such sum, increased by 7½ per cent. thereof, on the area of the town as if such sum, as so increased, were part of the town charges.

(3) A loan as respects which the commissioners of a town which is not an urban district are the borrower and which, immediately before the commencement of this section, stood charged upon a rate ceasing, by virtue of the repeal by this Act of Sections 60 to 65 of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, to be leviable shall stand charged upon the county rate of the county in which the town is situated.

This amendment is to give a county council power to loan money to commissioners of towns which are not urban districts. At present, town commissioners have power to borrow on the credit of the rates and to mortgage the rates. They have, in fact, borrowed almost £500,000, most of which is for housing. Under this Bill, the town rate will disappear and the expenses of the commissioners will be provided out of the county rates. What the new section proposes is that, in future, the county council will have power to lend money to commissioners in towns, and the existing loans of town commissioners will be charged on the county rates. The county council is given effective means of recovering in case of default, and the question of a charge on the rates, therefore, will be little more than a legal formality.

Mr. Hughes

Can the Minister say why he considers it necessary to do that? Why not permit town commissioners to borrow whatever capital they require?

Mr. MacEntee

They cannot, as we are abolishing the town rate. Therefore they cannot borrow and cannot mortgage rates which do not exist. We have to carry over their obligations.

Mr. Allen

With regard to sub-section (3) of the amendment, I take it that loans now outstanding become a liability of the county councils.

Mr. MacEntee

They do. Of course, the property goes with that too.

Mr. Allen

Is there any provision to compel a local authority to provide a sufficient rate?

Mr. MacEntee

That would be a charge on the county rates. The town rate will have gone.

Mr. Allen

The provision that already exists of charging interest and sinking fund on town rates will continue?

Mr. MacEntee

No, the charge will cease with the repeal of Section 66 of the Towns Improvement Act. The charge will, therefore, be transferred to the county rates.

Mr. Hughes

But the property will remain the property of the town commissioners?

Mr. MacEntee

I suppose it is so, with the charge on that property.

Mr. Allen

Will the county rate be liable for the interest and sinking fund charge?

Mr. MacEntee

No, because the county council will be able to levy it off the town.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 31:—

Before Section 23, page 11, to insert a new section as follows:—

A rating authority shall, either immediately prior to or at the beginning of each local financial year, make one rate for the whole financial year and shall collect such rate in equal moities, one such moiety for each half year of such local financial year.

This amendment re-enacts sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Local Government Act, 1927, and applies to all rating authorities. It, in effect, makes no change. We shall not be able to repeal the whole of Section 6 by this Bill.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

Will the Minister explain how the date for payment of rates will stand?

Mr. MacEntee

I think Deputy O'Donnell was quite wrong in what he said earlier. The first moiety should be paid earlier in the year and the second moiety as soon as possible after October 1st.

Mr. O'Donnell

I understand that, in Donegal, they collect the whole rate immediately, but in Tipperary that is not so.

Mr. Hughes

I presume the term "local financial year" is in the original Act.

Mr. McMenamin

What does it mean?

Mr. MacEntee

The financial year which begins on 1st April.

Mr. Hughes

And which is applicable to a local authority.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Is it mandatory for the rate collector to ask for two half-yearly payments?

Mr. MacEntee

This amendment has nothing to do with rate collectors. It prescribes that a local authority shall make one rate and that a rating authority "shall collect such rate in equal moieties".

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Will a local authority now be precluded from collecting the rate by one payment?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, they must collect in two moieties. There is, however, nothing to prevent ratepayers paying the whole amount in one instalment.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

In some areas, apparently, the whole amount is demanded at one payment, while others seem to accept two half-yearly payments.

Mr. MacEntee

In towns they demand it in one payment but, henceforth, every rating authority will make a demand for two moieties.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

And that will be mandatory?

Mr. O'Donnell

As regards the dates, a question was raised by a few county councils and it was suggested to the Minister that September and March are not suitable months for the collection. The big cattle fairs occur in October. If the months were October and April, they would be more suitable. October would, certainly, be a better month for the first moiety.

An Ceann Comhairle

The months are not being fixed in the proposed new section.

Mr. O'Donnell

Galway made a suggestion in this connection. The people have no cash on the 30th September.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 31 (a):—

To delete sub-section (1) and substitute the following sub-sections:

(1) If, at any time after the rate in the pound of the rate for a local financial year has been determined by a rating authority, it appears to the Minister that such rate at such rate in the pound is likely to be insufficient to meet the part defrayable out of rates of the expenses to be incurred by the rating authority in that financial year in—

(a) maintaining at a reasonable standard the public services for the maintenance of which the rating authority is responsible, and

(b) paying to any other body any sums which the rating authority are bound to supply to that body,

the Minister, after holding a local inquiry into the sufficiency of such rate in the pound for such rate or authority either to revoke such determination and determine a new rate, may require the rating (if by reason of any steps already taken for the making, levying or collecting of such rate, such a course is more convenient) determine a rate in the pound of a supplementary rate for that local financial year.

(2) Within 14 days after the date of the receipt by the secretary or clerk of a rating authority of notification that a requirement has been made under sub-section (1) of this section, the rating authority shall comply with such requirement.

(3) Where a rating authority determine pursuant to a requirement under sub-section (1) of this section a rate in the pound of a supplementary rate, it shall be the duty of the rating authority to make, levy, collect and recover such supplementary rate.

(4) Where a rating authority in relation to whom a requirement is made under sub-section (1) of this section determine and make pursuant to the direction either—

(a) a new rate in the pound of a rate, or

(b) a rate in the pound of a supplementary rate,

which in the opinion of the Minister is insufficient, the Minister may by Order remove from office the members of the rating authority.

(5) For the purposes of Part IV of the Act of 1941, an Order under sub-section (4) of this section shall be deemed to be an Order under Section 44 of that Act and the removal from office of the members of the rating authority concerned shall be deemed to be a removal from office under that section.

(6) Where a person or persons has or have been appointed under Part IV of the Act of 1941 to be a commissioner or commissioners for a rating authority whose members have been removed from office, such person or persons may revoke any determination by the rating authority of a rate in the pound of a rate for the current or the next local financial year as had been made before his or their appointment (whether it is the first determination of a rate in the pound, the determination of the rate in the pound of a new rate or the determination of the rate in the pound of a supplementary rate) and may determine the rate in the pound of such rate as if no earlier determination had been made or may determine a rate in the pound of a supplementary rate for such local financial year and make, levy, collect and recover such supplementary rate.

This amendment is intended to make clearer the original intention of Section 23. In the debate on Second Reading, sub-section (1) was criticised very severely by financial purists— people like myself who think there should be only one budget in the year. I think that there should be only one budget in the year but the Committee will agree that that budget should be sufficient to cover all the expenses of the year. Where there is reason to believe that, wilfully and deliberately, a rate has been struck which would be insufficient to provide for the reasonable, normal expenses of the public services and insufficient to enable a local authority to fulfil such obligations as it may have to any other body, the Minister should have power to step in and say: "This is undesirable financial procedure" and, accordingly, direct the local authority to strike a rate which would be sufficient.

In any case in which the local authority, having received that direction, fails or refuses to comply with it, then the Minister should have power to remove members from office and to put in a commissioner who will ensure that the county services will be properly maintained, and that the necessary revenues will be raised for that purpose.

Mr. Sheldon

I want to resist the idea that the Minister has obtained from some source a function to override the locally elected body. I could appreciate the Minister taking that power if local authorities were elected on a restricted franchise. Since the Minister's own Party brought in adult franchise for election to local authorities, those bodies are now as democratically elected as this House, from which the Minister derives his authority. I do not see why he should have that overriding authority in respect of a democratically elected body. Surely the inhabitants of an area who elect their local authority have the right to determine how much they can afford to expend. Whence does the Minister derive greater authority than members of the local authority, elected on the same franchise as members of this House?

Mr. O'Donnell

Vox populi, vox Dei.

Mr. Sheldon

In a neighbouring country, where there is to be a different system of election for local authorities, I could appreciate the Minister responsible saying that he has to safeguard sections of the population who have no say in the election of those authorities, but, in this case, the very same people elect the local authority and the members of this House, and there does not seem to be any section of the community in need of safeguards. I do not know where the Minister derives his authority to override the local authorities.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Deus ex machina.

Mr. Keyes

I thought that the Minister had the power which he now seeks. He has decapitated local authorities in circumstances similar to those now contemplated. Local managers were appointed under the control of the Minister. In a recent Departmental circular, the power and authority vested in local authorities is stressed. It has been said by somebody that the local authorities are in the saddle on one day of the 365 days of the year. That is the day they strike the rate. That is a mere fairy tale. They are not in the saddle on that day, because, if they do not strike the rate which the Minister's manager thinks proper, the Minister has power to abolish those bodies. This is a further encroachment upon the limited authority and freedom of the locally elected representatives of the people. Although it is an additional statutory power, the Minister has already been exercising it. Whether the Minister has done so legally or illegally, he has scrapped county councils for refusing to strike the rate which he regarded as proper. We had the case of Cork County Council. It was held that the local authority was the body entitled to strike the rate but, despite the opinion of Mr. Lavery, the authority of the Minister could not be challenged and the council had either to bow or get out. What is the purpose behind this amendment? Would it not be decent to tell the local authority to get out completely and let the whole business be run from the Custom House? Why did the Minister go to the trouble of sending us a circular telling us all the things we could do when every Act restricts local authorities more and more? County councils will strike a proper rate but, if they do not do things according to the Minister's views, they can be struck off.

Mr. O'Donnell

The voice of the people is not the voice of God.

Mr. Allen

I think that the Minister should further consider this whole section. It is unjust to members of local authorities who are elected by the people. The number of local authorities which refused, over a 20-year period, to strike an adequate rate would be very small. The Minister was Minister for Finance for many years and I am told that he ran short of funds, as a result of his Budget estimate, on certain occasions. He was not impeached because he had to borrow for a short period. The same principle would apply here. Governments have often to bring in supplementary budgets because they find themselves short of funds. If a local authority deliberately sets out to strike a rate which will not meet the cost of local services, it is looking for trouble. Most local authorities will, according to my experience, strike a sufficient rate to meet the cost of services for the year ahead. A large number of the charges on local authorities are statutory charges for which they must strike a rate. There are, then, the charges for salaries. Four-fifths of the charges which local authorities have to meet from year to year are statutory and cannot be altered. The only discretion they have the Minister seeks to abolish, if they will not strike a rate sufficiently high, in his opinion, to cover one-fifth of the services of the county. I move to report progress.

Progress reported. Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 8th February, 1946.