Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 May 1946

Vol. 100 No. 17

Local Government Bill, 1945—Recommittal.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 6, to delete Section 10 (4), lines 48 to 55, and substitute the following sub-section:—

(4) Expenses of the council of a county which are incurred in meeting a demand made by the commissioners of a town under sub-section (1) of Section 24 of this Act shall consist of—

(a) the amount of the said demand, and

(b) a sum (which shall not, without the consent of the Minister, exceed 7½ per cent. of the amount of the said demand) equal to the estimated amount of rates to be written off as irrecoverable and the costs of collection,

and such expenses shall be charged on the area of the town and shall be known as town charges.

This amendment, I hope, does not outrage the sensibilities of Deputy Mulcahy——

General Mulcahy

No, because it is Deputy Hughes' amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

Call it Deputy Hughes' amendment if that makes it more palatable.

General Mulcahy

And it was properly discussed in Committee.

Mr. MacEntee

The purpose of the amendment, as Deputy Mulcahy has reminded me, is to meet a point raised by Deputy Hughes.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 6, before Section 10 (5), line 56, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(5) If at the time when the estimate of expenses of a county council for a local financial year is considered in pursuance of Section 24 of the County Management Act, 1940 (No. 12 of 1940) the area on which a portion of such expenses is properly chargeable cannot yet be determined, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

(a) such portion shall be included in such estimate in the prescribed manner as a county-at-large charge and raised accordingly by means of of the county rate for the said year;

(b) provision shall be made in the prescribed manner in the accounts of the council for determining how much (if any) of such portion should have been charged on any area other than the whole of the county;

(c) if, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this sub-section, it is determined that any amount should have been charged on an area other than the whole of the county an appropriate adjustment shall be made in the prescribed manner in the county rate for a subsequent year by means of an increase in the sum charged on such area and a reduction in the county-at-large charges.

Under the Public Bodies Order, a method has been in force for allocating provisionally the areas to be charged with certain expenses, where the expenses themselves or the areas have not yet been definitely determined. The validity of this provision has not been challenged, and I am advised that there is no doubt with regard to it, but the amendment, in fact, gives statutory authority to a particular provision in the Public Bodies Order of the year 1925.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 8, before Section 14, line 26, to insert the following new section:—

14.—(1) Where a hereditament which is situated in a county but not in an urban area and which is not a small dwelling within the meaning of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928 (No. 4 of 1928), is unoccupied at the making of the county rate, such rate shall be made upon the person (in this section referred to as the owner) who is for the time being entitled to occupy the hereditament and, upon such rate being paid by the owner, he shall be entitled to claim and receive from the council of the county a refund of one-twelfth of such rate in respect of every completed month (reckoned from any day of one month to the corresponding day of the next month) during which the hereditament is unoccupied either for the purpose of the execution of additions, alterations or repairs thereto or because the owner isbona fide unable to obtain a suitable tenant therefor, in the case of a hereditament to which the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946 (No. 4 of 1946), for the time being applies, at the maximum rent for the time being permitted under that Act or, in the case of any other hereditament, at a reasonable rent.

(2) Where—

(a) a rate is made by virtue of this section on the owner of an unoccupied hereditament, and

(b) the hereditament is subsesequently let by or on behalf of the owner, and

(c) the rate or any part thereof is in arrear and unpaid,

the rate collector by whom the rate is collectible may, in addition to and without prejudice to any other remedy for the recovery of the amount of the rate so in arrear and unpaid, serve either personally or by post on the occupier of the hereditament a notice stating the said amount so in arrear and unpaid and requiring the occupier to pay to the rate collector or his successor in office all rent then due or thereafter to become due by him in respect of the hereditament until the said amount is by such payment or otherwise discharged, and thereupon the rate collector or his successor in office shall have the exclusive right to recover, receive and give a good discharge for all rent required by the notice to be paid to him.

(3) A rate made by virtue of this section on the owner of an unoccupied hereditament shall not be invalidated by any error or defect in the statement of the name of the owner or by the use of the description "the owner" without any name or addition, and the rate shall be recoverable from the owner notwithstanding any such error or defect or the use of any such description. The House will perhaps remember that, when the Bill was in Committee Stage, I refrained from moving what was originally Section 22, on the ground that, in the Rent Restrictions Bill, there was a provision relating to rates on unoccupied controlled premises, and it was proposed to take the opportunity, during the later progress of that Bill, to delete that provision, and, when that was done, to move on Report to reinsert the original section as it appeared in the Local Government Bill, as originally circulated. Accordingly, this amendment appears with amendment No. 6 on the paper, but we have decided to extend perhaps the provisions a little and to have a separate section dealing with rates on vacant premises in county areas as well as with rates on vacant premises in urban areas.

This amendment, which I suggest should be taken with amendment No. 6, deals with the rates on vacant premises in the county, and, as will be seen, the rates, where premises are unoccupied, will be charged on the owner, but the owner will be entitled to be recouped for the rates in respect of these premises, if he shows that the premises have been unoccupied for repairs, or alterations, or because he cannot get a tenant at the controlled rent, or, if the premises should happen not to be controlled, at a reasonable rent. The refund will be made to him at the rate of one-twelfth for every month during which the premises were so unoccupied, but I should like to make it quite clear that the onus of showing that the premises are unoccupied by reason of the fact that they are the subject of repairs or alterations, or because the owner cannot get a tenant at the controlled or at a reasonable rent, will rest on the owner of the premises.

I should like to say that the section —particularly Section 6—does not limit the amount to a refund of six months' rates as in the case of the Cities of Dublin and Limerick. The circum stances, I suggest, in the rural areas and smaller towns, are such that a limit to the refunds might occur in some cases where premises could not possibly be let for any purpose.

Mr. D. Morrissey

This is a most cumbersome and difficult section to understand. I submit it introduces a completely new principle into the Bill. The Minister goes much further than he even said he would. There is a proposal here that the rate collector shall recover rates by taking possession of the rent of a house. I would like to hear the Minister on that aspect. The Minister talked about allowance being made if a house were unoccupied, provided that the owner established that he was unable to get a tenant at the regulated rent. That does not appear in the section at all. What the section says is very wide—namely, a suitable tenant. We are all aware as to what house owners nowadays classify as suitable tenants. Nowadays a man with one or two children is looked upon as a very unsuitable tenant indeed. I would like to hear the Minister elaborate on that a little more. This is one of the sections (if I may say so again, with respect), that I am extremely doubtful should be discussed on the Report Stage of the Bill. It is something which has not been before us in this Bill up to now. I think the Minister should give the House a fuller explanation (1) of the necessity for this, and (2) of the way in which it is expected to work.

Mr. MacEntee

Due notice was given on the Committee Stage of the Bill when this or a similar section was not moved that provisions or proposals of this sort would be reintroduced on the Report Stage of this Bill.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I beg to differ from the Minister. We had not this before us at any time. This bears no, or very little, resemblance to the section which the Minister speaks about as not having been moved. I submit that this section is, like another famous section to which Deputy Mulcahy referred on the Committee Stage, an after-thought. It should not be before the House at all.

General Mulcahy

Would the Minister say what particular amendment he is speaking about when he says the amendment was before the House but was not actually moved and was reserved for discussion in this form now?

Mr. MacEntee

I have explained that in the Bill, as originally approved on Second Reading, there appeared Section 20 dealing with rates on vacant premises in urban areas. I have said that for convenience it would be quite simple—and I do not think it would be unprecedented or contrary to rules or order—if a verbal amendment were made to introduce here after the word "urban" the words "and county". I do not think an amendment of that sort, if moved, could possibly be objected to because we want to make it quite clear exactly what we propose to do. In order, if you like, that it will be easier to discuss, we have introduced two separate sections— one dealing with premises in urban areas and one dealing with premises in county areas. The section originally in the Bill was Section 20.

General Mulcahy

I have it here.

Mr. MacEntee

I think if anybody studies the original text that he will find a close resemblance between Section 20 and amendment No. 6. As I have already explained, due notice was given that it was not proposed to move that particular section at the time because of a certain duplication in the Rent Restrictions Bill. It was understood that when the corresponding provisions had been removed from the Rent Restrictions Bill this section would be reintroduced into this Bill.

General Mulcahy

So that we are now practically discussing for the first time Section 20 in the form of the two amendments that are now before us.

Mr. D. Morrissey

And something more.

Mr. MacEntee

They were referred to in the debate on the Second Reading.

General Mulcahy

On the Second Reading; but we are now discussing the effect of these proposals and we are discussing it in Committee. We may welcome, particularly in respect of rural areas, a provision by which premises which are vacant for adequate reasons will not have rates levied upon them. By that particular kind of relief we will get rid of this appalling anomaly which was so widespread where houses were reduced to a dilapidated condition by the removal of roofs, or in other ways, in order to escape being classified as habitable houses or houses capable of occupation. But I think there are aspects of the proposal here that require attention.

The amendments contemplate the possibility of a dispute arising between a local authority and the owner of a premises whereby, in the case of ownership passing from one to another, the local authority will regard the outgoing owner—if I may so describe him —as liable for the payment of rates which, in fact, he escaped; that is, the local authority considers the possibility that they will disagree that a house before it was occupied by, say, owner B was not vacant by reason of the fact that there were additions, or alterations, or repairs being made thereto or by reason of the fact that a suitable tenant at a reasonable cost could not be obtained. The new section, as it stands, means that the local authority will have the power of deciding whether or not a suitable tenant could have been got and that a reasonable rent would have been paid by such suitable tenant. Coming to that conclusion they can themselves issue an instruction to the rent collector and the rent collector will immediately, by virtue of the terms of this section, take possession of the rent payable by occupier B in respect of a debt that had occurred in the opinion of the local authority before his time. I submit that here you have a question of fact and a question of judgement which should not be left to either the local authority on the one hand, if it is the local authority the Minister has in mind as being the body that should come to the decision, or to the rate collector, if the rate collector is the person who is being given a judicial function in this matter by this section.

I submit that it is utterly unreasonable, if it is not actually unconstitutional, for the Minister to seek by this section to confer a judicial function on a local authority or on a rate collector that would empower them to adjudicate on the question of whether a particular tenant was a suitable one and one offering a reasonable rent. That is a matter that should not be left to either the local authority or to the rate collector and at least the District Court should be brought in to decide these matters before it would be possible to consider reasonable that occupier B should be called upon to hand over rent in respect of a debt that was owed to the local authority by a previous person.

Mr. Hughes

Why should you do that in any case? I take it that the former occupier was liable for the rate. If he gets away without discharging his liabilities to the local authority and if the local authority are not quick enough to collect the rate that has accrued under the occupancy of the former occupier, why should you turn around then and saddle someone else with the responsibility of paying his debts?

Mr. MacEntee

Why does not the Deputy read the section? Why does not he read what is proposed? There is not a word about a former occupier in the section.

General Mulcahy

What is the rent going to be seized for—for what type of debt?

Mr. MacEntee

There is not a word about a former occupier in the section.

Mr. Allen

Would the Minister say what is the difference between this section and the law as it is at present? At the present time the county council are not entitled to collect rents on vacant premises. Is not that so?

Mr. MacEntee

No; this relates to rates on unoccupied premises.

Mr. Allen

A great deal of fraud is perpetrated under the existing law and will be under this section. County councils have come across cases before now, where men would not let premises for any rent, however reasonable. There have been cranks and faddists who would not let their premises under any provision. Instead of setting out to safeguard persons who have unoccupied premises, the Minister should see that the local authority would be safeguarded to a greater extent and that all dwellings that are fit for occupation should be rateable. That is the opinion of local authorities, that all dwellings that are in good order should be rateable and that rates should be collected in respect of them. At the present time and at any time when there is great shortage of dwellinghouses there is no reason why there should be a refund of rates in respect of any house that is unoccupied if the house is occupiable and is in proper sanitary condition. There is no reason for such a provision and local authorities should be allowed to collect rates on any dwellinghouse that is occupiable.

Mr. Hughes

There is another point. So far as a hereditament in the country is concerned, supposing it is vacant but that the farmyard is being used and supposing there is a house in the yard for a workman, which is occupied, what is the position? The Minister has not given us a definition of an unoccupied hereditament. I would like to have a definition of an unoccupied hereditament in the country because it might serve a man's purpose very well not to have a dwellinghouse occupied but to use the out-offices attached to the dwellinghouse and to use a workman's house in the yard.

Mr. Allen

And pay no rates.

Mr. Hughes

And allow the dwellinghouse to fall into disuse.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know where all this confusion arises. It is a well-known fact that, as Deputy Mulcahy himself admitted, in order to evade the payment of rates upon houses or buildings which might have been used at some time or other, the houses are virtually dismantled. I do not know whether or not the Leader of the Opposition thinks that that is a good thing. I gather that he does not. I think he welcomed this provision, because at least it would remove that inducement from people wilfully to put their property into a condition in which it could not be occupied or used for any useful purpose. That is what we are trying to do here. At the same time, we do not want to benefit a man who wilfully refuses to allow his premises to be occupied. The purpose of the section is made quite clear. First of all, he has to pay the rates. He is bound to pay the rates. The rates are levied and charged on him, in the first place, but he is entitled to claim and to receive a refund from the council if he can show that the hereditament is unoccupied either for the purpose of the execution of additions, alterations or repairs—I think that no person can regard that as being unreasonable.

Mr. Hughes

When is it decided that a hereditament is unoccupied?

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy had better go and read the common law reports in relation to that matter and he will find that there is a long series of decisions dealing with that. I could not possibly undertake to give the Deputy the benefit of all the legal learning that has gone to determine that point. Most county councils would appreciate when a hereditament is unoccupied for the purpose of this section because, remember, they are the people who have to make the refund; they are, as the section goes, the proximate judges as to when a refund should be given. If the Deputy will permit me, I was saying that the owner of the premises was entitled to a refund and could claim a refund when he could show that these premises were unoccupied either for the purpose of the execution of additions, alterations or repairs, that is to say, that they were not in his own occupation and that they were not in the occupation of a tenant and that additions, alterations or repairs were being carried out to the premises or because the owner isbona fide unable to obtain a suitable tenant therefor. Deputy Morrissey suggested that the owner might regard a tenant who had children as being an unsuitable tenant. It does not matter what the owner's opinion is. The opinion that counts in the first instance in the matter is the opinion, I assume, of the county council.

General Mulcahy

That is the manager.

Mr. MacEntee

Of the manager, certainly, the properly constituted authority. We are not going to have the council meet to determine whether a person with or without children is a suitable tenant for premises which are not occupied. So that, so far as Deputy Morrissey's suggestion is concerned, that this amendment would in fact be of advantage to the man who would not let premises to a tenant who had children, I think it is clear that there is no substance in it. We are not going to assume that a county manager would take up that anti-social attitude because, if he did, I think he would be speedily dealt with. Deputy Mulcahy, who has got very fond of litigation and law, suggests that before any claim can be allowed under this section we should initiate court proceedings; that the district justice should be called in to settle what is not a question of law, but a question of fact that could quite easily be settled, to the satisfaction of the rate-making authority, at any rate, by any ordinary person of common sense. I think it would be a preposterous procedure that a man having premises to which alterations or repairs are being carried out and who is entitled to a refund under this section in regard to rates charged on him in respect of these premises should, before he can get that refund, have to take proceedings in the District Court. That is what Deputy Mulcahy suggests.

General Mulcahy

It is not.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy asked who is going to adjudicate in the matter. It is not a question of a judicial decision; it has nothing to do with the law. It is a decision and an opinion formed in regard to facts. The Deputy asked who is to adjudicate in this matter, who is to exercise this judicial function. He said first that it ought to be a judge. He then mended his hand a little and said that, instead of a judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court, he would be satisfied with a justice of the District Court. I think that would be altogether too cumbersome a method for dealing with an ordinary matter of business and with an issue which could be determined by an ordinary man of common sense.

General Mulcahy

The Minister is insulting the intelligence of the House.

Mr. MacEntee

Then we have the next hare started by Deputy Mulcahy again. The Deputy wants to know what is all this about in sub-section (2) of the section. The sub-section reads:—

"Where (a) a rate is made by virtue of this section on the owner of an unoccupied hereditament...."

He said that these might be rates payable by a previous occupier. That is where Deputy Hughes got his idea about a previous occupier—from his Leader, Deputy Mulcahy.

Mr. Hughes

What about paragraph (c)?

Mr. MacEntee

I am coming to (c). Where the rate or any part thereof is in arrear and unpaid, the rate collector would be entitled to require the person who subsequently entered into occupation of these premises to pay over to him towards the discharge of the unpaid rates which were due by the owner the rent otherwise payable to the owner. That has nothing to do with the question of the previous occupier, unless the previous occupier happened to be the owner. So long as the premises are otherwise unoccupied the rates are chargeable on the owner. But a case might quite conceivably arise where an owner, knowing very well that he would not be entitled to a refund in respect of unoccupied premises, because he could not show that these premises were unoccupied by reason of the fact that additions, alterations or repairs were being carried out to them, or because he could not find a suitable tenant for them, might not pay any rates at all, even though the rates were charged upon him. Then, having got tired of keeping the premises unoccupied, he might quite easily let them to a tenant who would pay him the rent which he demanded.

In that event, this is the remedy which the county council has. The owner has not paid the rates. The premises become occupied. The rate collector is entitled to collect the rent towards the discharge of the rates properly payable by the owner of these premises. He is entitled to do that without prejudice to any other steps he might choose to take for the collection of the rates which are due. I do not see what all the pother has been about. There is nothing new in that principle. Surely, if the rates are due by the owner, then any income arising out of the premises can be quite easily, in accordance with the law, diverted to the discharge of the owner's rightful debts to the local authority.

General Mulcahy

The section contemplates two persons. One is the owner of the unoccupied premises. The Minister forgot to say that this was an Act of mine. I knew he forgot something.

Mr. MacEntee

I am glad the Deputy has reminded me of that fact.

General Mulcahy

As I say, there are two persons contemplated, the person who owns the property, which happens to be an unoccupied house, and the person who enters into occupation of that house. If the rate collector or the local authority wakes up to the fact that before the second person entered into occupation, the owner owed certain rates, the rate collector can demand from the second person, the occupier, that he should pay to the local authority the rent due to the owner until such time as the debt owed by the owner to the local authority is paid off. Suppose the occupier says: "I will not; I am going to pay the rent to the man who rented me the house." The position then, before the law as it would stand, would be that the local authority has a case against the owner in the first instance for not having paid the rates and against the occupier in the second instance for not having paid over the rent demanded by the local authority under the Act as it would appear if this section is inserted. The intention is not to proceed against the owner of the property, who is the real breaker of the law in the matter, but against the newly-manufactured criminal under this section, the person who becomes the occupier and who will not pay over the rent demanded under this section as a payment in lieu of rates.

Can the Minister say why, in the name of common sense, the action that would lie at law on the part of the local authority against the person who is withholding the rates should not be taken, and why, in an inequitable way, they have to bring some person in between and say: "It will be easier to get it off this poor fellow; the man of property is a fellow who might stand up against us, but the unfortunate person, who is not a man of property, and who has to rent a house from somebody else, will be an easier mark; he will be cowed and overawed"? It is a fantastic proposal.

Mr. Hughes

I should like if the Minister would try to make clear the meaning of this rather obscure amendment. He has told us it is not for the purpose of collecting any arrears that may have accrued through the occupancy of a former tenant. While the house is unoccupied no rates could accrue, so that that house would not be rateable until the new tenant would come into occupation. So far as I can see, the meaning of the section is that once you assess the owner you assess him for the 12 months and when the new tenant comes in, and the rates are not collected off the owner, then you are given power to collect them off the occupier for the end of that particular year before you assess the occupier for the new year.

I think the Minister has not given us any satisfactory explanation as to the purpose of this amendment. He has not told us if it is for the purpose of collecting arrears. How do the arrears accrue? He said they are not arrears from any old tenant, and he must admit that while the house is unoccupied no arrears could accrue. Where do they come from?

Mr. MacEntee

I have not admitted anything of the sort. I made it quite clear that the premises could be rated even if they were unoccupied.

Mr. Hughes

Are unoccupied premises liable for rates?

Mr. MacEntee

Certainly, except in the circumstances set out in this Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is No. 3 agreed?

General Mulcahy

No. In view of the Minister's remarks, will he take the word "and" in paragraph (a) and then in paragraph (b) and will he tell us if there is any meaning in that combination of words, or if there is supposed to be any meaning in the last remarks he has addressed to Deputy Hughes?

Mr. MacEntee

A rate is made by virtue of this section on the owner of an unoccupied hereditament. Deputy Hughes asked me could a rate be made on the owner of an unoccupied hereditament and I said "certainly".

General Mulcahy

Will the Minister tell the House why, in a case where a local authority has a legal claim against the owner of a house, he now proposes, instead of allowing proceedings to be taken in the ordinary way by the local authority against the owner for the recovery of rates said to be owed, to invent a new person as a defendant against whom the local authority can take action instead of against the person properly regarded as the defendant?

Mr. MacEntee

Whatever merit there may be in this proposal, I am too modest and too conscientious to claim to have invented it, because I find, in the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930, this provision appears, as Section 71 (2):—

"When the rate is made by virtue of this section on the owner of an unoccupied hereditament or tenement and such hereditament or tenement is subsequently let by or on behalf of such owner and such rate or any part thereof is in arrear and unpaid, the rate collector by whom such rate is collectible may, in addition and without prejudice to any other remedy for the recovery of the amount of such rate so in arrear and unpaid, serve either personally or by post on the occupier of such hereditament or tenement a notice stating the said amount so in arrear and unpaid and requiring such occupier to pay to such rate collector or his successor in office all rent then due or thereafter to become due by him in respect of the said hereditament or tenement until the said amount is by such payment or otherwise discharged, and, upon such notice being so served, such rate collector or his successor in office shall have the exclusive right to recover, receive, and give a good discharge for all rent required by such notice to be paid to him."

I think that is a very good provision. I admired it so much and thought such a lot of it that I have incorporated it in this Bill. I am too modest to claim that I am the inventor of it. I concede that to Deputy Mulcahy.

General Mulcahy

Did it ever happen, even in the restricted area of Dublin, that where a case was brought against a person under the section the Minister has quoted, it was not fired out of the courts? Will the Minister say what case can be made in 1946, by way of afterthought and on the Report Stage of this Bill and in circumstances that, from the point of view of order, Deputy Morrissey objects to, for bringing forward a proposal on these lines and referring it to the whole of the country? Can the Minister give the House any reason for that?

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I happen to be acquainted with a particular case bearing on this section. I can assure Deputy Mulcahy that we in Drogheda did take powers to go in and collect the rents until the rates which were due were paid off. It is quite true to say that an unoccupied house can legitimately claim a refund for six months only. After that it becomes liable for the full rate. The case I have in mind actually took place during Deputy Mulcahy's term as Minister for Local Government. We had the right to go in and collect the arrears through the rent and when the amount due was cleared off we handed it back to the rent collector for the landlord.

General Mulcahy

Will the Deputy tell us how the authority in Drogheda was able to operate a section from a Local Government Act which refers only to the City of Dublin?

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I am telling Deputy Mulcahy what we actually did in the town of Drogheda.

General Mulcahy

Under a Dublin Act?

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I am not concerned with the City of Dublin; I am concerned only with the administration in the town of Drogheda. We adopted that procedure there.

Mr. Furlong

Surely the suggestion in the Bill is much more reasonable than what exists under the Act, whereby a rate collector is entitled to seize the goods of a tenant and sell them in order to recover the amount due and the tenant's only remedy is to proceed against the landlord for the recovery of the amount. I consider that the suggestion in the Bill is far more reasonable than that.

General Mulcahy

Not being able to get any kind of reasonable case made for the amendment from that point of view, may I go back to what the Minister started with? He started by suggesting that it was argued here that before the owner of a premises which he considered should be regarded as unoccupied could get relief, or a refund of rates, he should go to the court. On the contrary, what was suggested here was that the owner of a premises could not be denied the relief that this section proposes to give him, in respect of an unoccupied house, by the local authority, without a reference to the District Court for decision by a body with judicial functions, on the question of any claim so made by the local authority, that a suitable tenant was available for the house and that a reasonable rent was obtainable.

Mr. Coogan

My recollection is that vacancy meant the absence of furniture and that premises were empty. Now we have a position in which the onus is on the owner to show that the premises are vacant. What would be the position of an owner of an empty warehouse in Deputy Allen's constituency in New Ross or Wexford which cannot, by reason say of the decay of a port, be of any value to the owner? If Deputy Allen's suggestion is to be followed then the owner would be liable for rates. Is that the intention?

Mr. MacEntee

No. If premises cannot be let to a suitable tenant at a reasonable rent the owner will not be liable.

Mr. Allen

Local authorities believe that there is too much concern shown people who own property, whether houses or warehouses, and that for some reason no rates are paid on them. This section is going to complicate the matter. County council and other bodies are operating the existing law in regard to such property for a considerable time. I do not see any reference to the existing law or to an amendment of it in this section. In a large number of cases local authorities come across cases where fraud is attempted. I could point out a half-dozen residences that could be let at substantial rents, but the owners refuse to let them. I know warehouses in New Ross that the owners refused to let to a shipping company or to give berthage to develop the port. Warehouses have been closed there for 20 years.

Mr. McGilligan

Why would the owner not let in people who wanted berthage?

Mr. L.J. Walsh

To tighten the ring —to keep out competition.

Mr. Allen

It would create competition. I know of persons who wanted a berthage on the quay at New Ross but who would not be given it by the owner.

Mr. McGilligan

Why would the owner not give it?

Mr. Allen

Because he did not want competition against himself, and his own warehouses were closed.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

That is not the only town in which that happened.

Mr. Allen

There should not be consideration in law for people who own property, and will not let it. Everybody knows that vacant residences and warehouses are scarce at the present time. There is no such thing as a big number of vacant houses or warehouses because tenants cannot be got for them. It is the other way about. That has been the experience of local authorities in the past dozen years. Whatever may have been the position 20 or 30 years ago, it is different now. Building materials cannot be got now for the erection of anything. I, as a member of a local authority, cannot understand why the Minister is so considerate for the owners of such property.

General Mulcahy

We are given to understand that rates struck on property at present have to be paid, and unless the local authority is satisfied, without the intervention of any kind of judicial authority, they can hold on to the rates and then give a refund. If that is so, I cannot understand Deputy Allen's statement. Why do they refund the rates?

Mr. Allen

When a dwellinghouse is unoccupied. Although the rate is struck it is not collected. On March 31st the rate collector returns the premises as unoccupied.

Mr. Hughes

The Deputy should read the amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

I think the Deputy should read it.

General Mulcahy

We are trying to get information as to the law on the subject.

Mr. Allen

The rates are going to be collected under any circumstances and then refunded.

Mr. MacEntee

This is not the first time Deputy Allen has criticised an amendment without reading it. The position, as I understand it, is that rates levied on unoccupied premises are not collectible when the premises are unoccupied. In this case the collector, as a matter of fact, collects the rates, and I think that is a substantial improvement on the existing position. It gives the owner the right to claim a refund under certain circumstances.

Mr. Allen

It complicates the matter.

Mr. MacEntee

It does not complicate it; it simplifies it, unless a person is going to be so perverse that he is going to close premises or not allow repairs to be made. If you like take up this attitude that whether a man is to maintain his premises or not or cannot make any use of them, then he must pay rates. Otherwise what is going to happen to the demands we heard in this House from time to time to induce farmers to improve their premises and to give them concessions in respect of rates on improvements? Is the only person who is to receive no consideration to be the man who, having built houses or business premises, tries to maintain them in a habitable condition and as an economic unit? The other condition in which a person is entitled to a refund is when he cannot find suitable. premises or premises at a reasonable rent. Are we to come to this situation that if a man cannot get a suitable tenant he is going to be mulcted in rates? What inducement will there be to any private person to go ahead with building for the purpose of letting to other individuals if property is to carry these disadvantages?

The purpose of this section is to simplify, from the point of view of the local authority, the position in regard to rates or unoccupied premises. It makes the rates chargeable, in the first instance, on the owner and the owner is entitled, provided he satisfies certain conditions, to claim and to get a refund, but only for so long as the premises are genuinely unoccupied,bona fide unoccupied in accordance with the provisions of the section. The moment they cease to fulfil these conditions, the rates are properly chargeable upon him and we have sub-section (2) to deal with that situation and with kindred situations. So far from being too concerned about the rights of property owners, we have in this section done something to ease the position of county councils, to meet equitably the position of owners of property which is unoccupied for bona fide reasons—not because the owner happens to be an anti-social person but because he is trying to maintain his property or because he cannot get a suitable tenant for it. In these circumstances, I think that, instead of being criticised by Deputies who have not read the section, we ought to be congratulated by them when they appreciate what we are trying to do.

Mr. McGilligan

How do the arrears arise under the second sub-section?

Mr. MacEntee

The arrears might arise by reason of the fact that the owner——

Mr. McGilligan

But he would have to pay under the first sub-section.

Mr. MacEntee

He might not necessarily pay. He is charged with the rates but the rates might not be paid.

Mr. Hughes

The arrears arise for the purpose of making a refund. That is what it means. The Minister is not fair to Deputy Allen and I think there is a good deal to be said for Deputy Allen's point of view. Let me put this example to the Minister. Suppose a big farmer, occupying a substantial unit of land, buys a neighbouring farm—he might buy two or three neighbouring farms, which would not be desirable—on which there are a good dwellinghouse and out-offices. He wants to use the land as an out-farm and it is unlikely that he will get what is described as a suitable tenant for the house, because a man does not want to take over such a house without getting the unit of land with it. The man who has bought the farm, however, wants the land, but does not want the house, so that we are going to turn an entire district into a ranch by encouraging the buying of farms of that sort and preventing other men from occupying them and rearing families on them. I do not think that sort of thing should be encouraged.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

Get the Minister for Lands to stop that.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister for Lands cannot stop it.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

It is up to him to sponsor legislation to stop it.

Mr. McGilligan

The arrears will be arrears as against the owner?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

But they are to be collected from the occupier?

Mr. MacEntee

To the extent to which the rate collector will be entitled to recover through the rent payable to the owner.

Mr. McGilligan

He serves notice, either personally or by post, on the occupier——

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Although there is power to make the owner pay and to make a refund to him in relation to the months for which the place is unoccupied, you are going to make the occupier bear the arrears.

Mr. MacEntee

The arrears due by the owner.

Mr. McGilligan

You are going to make the occupier pay these arrears.

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. McGilligan

Although you have a right against the owner.

Mr. MacEntee

We presume that the occupier pays the rent to the owner, we collect such rent until the arrears of rates are discharged.

Mr. McGilligan

Under the first sub-section, you have control of the owner and you make him pay, but, notwithstanding that, you are going to ask the occupier to pay the arrears.

Mr. MacEntee

To pay the arrears in lieu of rent.

Mr. McGilligan

That is not set out here.

Mr. MacEntee

Indeed, it is.

Mr. McGilligan

He has to pay the amount in arrear and unpaid.

Mr. MacEntee

No—

"to pay to the rate collector or his successor in office all rent then due or thereafter to become due to the owner."

Mr. Hughes

Having gone to the trouble of collecting from the occupier, you then make a refund to the owner.

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. Hughes

He is entitled to a refund.

Mr. MacEntee

The rate is in arrear and unpaid.

Mr. McGilligan

Then, it is only to be paid in order to be given back?

Mr. MacEntee

No. It may be one or the other.

Mr. McGilligan

Let us take a case of a premises unoccupied for six months and then let. If the owner had paid under sub-section (1), he could have recovered for each of the six months the rates which he paid.

Mr. MacEntee

He could.

Mr. McGilligan

But he does not do that, and an occupier comes in. You are then going to make the occupier pay the arrears of rate, that is, for the six months, for which the owner could claim a refund.

Mr. MacEntee

That is a subsequent procedure.

Mr. McGilligan

You are going to collect for the months for which the premises were unoccupied in order to repay.

Mr. MacEntee

No, it does not necessarily or essentially follow.

Mr. McGilligan

I am taking the clear case——

Mr. MacEntee

It is not a clear case the Deputy is taking.

Mr. McGilligan

May I take a clear case, a case in which the owner has failed to get a suitable tenant at a reasonable rent for a period of six months? If he had paid up the whole of the rates, he would have been entitled, month by month, for each of the six months, to a refund.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, if he had satisfied the conditions of the section.

Mr. McGilligan

I am taking a case in which he has. An occupier comes in and he apparently is going to be served with notice regarding the six months' arrears. That is to be taken from the occupier and is to be deducted from the rent, orvice versa, he is going to pay an equivalent of rent so as to pay the six months' arrears, whereupon the owner says: “I am entitled to have six months' rates paid back to me”, and you pay him. Why go through all that nonsense?

Mr. MacEntee

That is an extreme case and I am prepared to concede that it might arise, but who will be damnified by that?

Mr. McGilligan

First, the local authority or the rating authority. This applies only to hereditaments which are not in urban areas. Let us take the case of an area where there is no trouble about the situation. The rating authority has power to make the owner pay for the whole year in one payment and thereafter to refund it to him month by month.

Mr. MacEntee

As the law stands at present, the occupier—

Mr. McGilligan

I am dealing with it on the basis of this amendment. When this amendment is passed, the rating authority can make the owner of premises which are unoccupied pay. Let us assume that, for some reason, they do not do so.

Mr. MacEntee

For some reason, he does not do so, anyway.

Mr. McGilligan

There are then six months' rates in arrears. For these six months, he has not been able to get a suitable tenant at a reasonable rent, and then he does get a tenant. The first thing the rating authority does is to serve on the new occupier a demand for the six months' arrears, and, when he pays the arrears, can the owner not step in and get a refund?

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps he might.

Mr. McGilligan

Then what is the purpose of all this?

Mr. MacEntee

It is an extreme case, but the purpose is to ensure that the local authority will get its money eventually.

Mr. Hughes

Is that not the only case in which it can occur? Where can arrears arise otherwise?

Mr. MacEntee

I have told the Deputy that they could quite easily arise in respect of premises which the owner kept unoccupied under conditions which were not in accordance with those in the section and in consequence of which he became liable for the rates.

Mr. McGilligan

And thereby become liable to the rating authority for the whole sum.

Mr. MacEntee

Certainly.

Mr. McGilligan

If they do not pay it then you charge the occupier.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

If the occupier gets a receipt, and that receipt is declared a valid discharge against the debt of the owner and the occupier is in a position to clear his account with the owner, in what way then does hardship lie so far as the occupier is concerned? I can quite well conceive circumstances where the local authority would regard the occupier as a better mark for the debt rather than the original owner.

Mr. McGilligan

Rather than the owner of the property?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

General Mulcahy

Surely Deputy O'Sullivan realises that persons who seek to become occupiers of houses have difficulties enough without necessarily being thrown into a situation where they can be caught by the throat by the local authority and put into the position that they are withholding.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

But eventually they will not suffer.

General Mulcahy

They will suffer in their relations between themselves and their landlords.

Mr. MacEntee

Because they pay the money over to the rate collector.

General Mulcahy

Yes, certainly; and we have not yet had any explanation as to why an owner should be put into a position where he may refuse and say: "I am not going to pay this debt for which I am not responsible to the local authority." He then becomes a criminal under this Act; but instead of proceeding against the real criminal we here are providing for the local authority to proceed against the lesser criminal—that is a person who to-day is not a defendant in these matters or even a possible defendant until this Act becomes law. I think the Minister and Deputy Walsh fell too easily into the temptation to accept my invitation to say that this idea was a child of my brain. I do not recognise the child after the recent discussions we have had in this matter, and I want to suggest that if the Minister gets any more ideas like this we will need a kind of cinematograph apparatus here in order to give the House some chance of understanding what is involved in this, because the processes through which the Minister's brain has gone in dealing with this particular matter could only be adequately portrayed by some rather up-to-date type of photographic apparatus.

Mr. McGilligan

Would the Minister enlighten me on one point? I am not sure of the position outside the city here. Under the law as it stood before this Act was passed was it possible to recover 12 months' rates in respect of premises unoccupied or was there a limit of six months' refund?

Mr. MacEntee

As things stand at the moment the rates are leviable on the occupier. If the premises are vacant and a new occupier goes into them such new occupier becomes liable for the accrued rates.

Mr. McGilligan

Does he become liable for the whole rate?

Mr. MacEntee

Not for the whole year.

Mr. McGilligan

I am talking of the whole year.

Mr. MacEntee

For all arrears.

Mr. Coogan

If the premises are unoccupied for a full 12 months is it not the position that the owner is entitled to a refund for six months?

Mr. MacEntee

In respect of Dublin —yes.

Mr. Coogan

In respect of that year. Is not that the position?

Mr. MacEntee

That only applied to Dublin, Cork and Limerick.

Mr. McGilligan

Did the limitation to six months apply only to the city?

Mr. Coogan

You are not giving him 12 months now.

Mr. MacEntee

In the county and urban areas.

Mr. McGilligan

You mean in County Dublin and in the urban areas.

Mr. MacEntee

In the County of Dublin, yes.

Mr. McGilligan

And in the other counties?

Mr. MacEntee

In the county council administrative areas and in the urban districts.

Mr. McGilligan

The limitation was six months?

Mr. MacEntee

No. In the City of Dublin a person was entitled to one-twenty-fourth; in the City of Waterford to one-twelfth; in the Cities of Limerick and Cork one-twenty-fourth. That is the refund in respect of vacant premises. Elsewhere I do not think owners were chargeable at all.

Mr. D. Morrissey

That was under the Rates and Small Dwellings Act?

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. D. Morrissey

We cannot leave that out, because this proposed new section is an amendment not merely of this Bill but of the Rates on Small Dwellings Act. That is the crux of the whole matter.

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Of course it is. It is for the purpose of bringing this into line. It is to enable the Minister to do in the county what he is now entitled to do under the Rates on Small Dwellings Act.

Mr. MacEntee

That is so. In fact, under the Rates on Small Dwellings Act the owner was liable for rates whether the premises were occupied or unoccupied.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Quite.

Mr. MacEntee

We are dealing now with unoccupied premises.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Yes, and we are also dealing now with an amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. D. Morrissey

It is a completely new principle.

Amendment No. 3 to insert a new section put and declared carried.

Mr. McGilligan

Before we pass from that, I understand a point is being raised that this is completely new matter brought in in the Report Stage. I understand you have ruled on that?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

I want to understand whether the ruling is comprehensive and, whether the matter is new or not, that all amendments are open to amended introduction at this later stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair did not so rule.

Mr. McGilligan

I was trying to get the principle. I understood it was agreed that this was not a matter which had been under discussion before and was, therefore, entirely new.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is Section 20 modified.

Mr. D. Morrissey

It was not discussed before.

Mr. McGilligan

I understood the question was whether the matter had been discussed in the earlier stages. I understood this matter had not been discussed on the Committee Stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

It was said in the Committee Stage that something else would be introduced in respect of Section 20 and it was said that these amendments might be recommitted. That has been done and the amendments are being considered in Committee.

Mr. D. Morrissey

With all respect that does not necessarily bring them into order. This is a completely new section.

General Mulcahy

This is onlyad hoc.

Mr. MacEntee

I think we can take amendments Nos.4 and 5 together, Sir. They are quite simple. Their purpose is to preserve to the urban district rate collectors who, under the Act, become municipal rate collectors whatever rights they enjoy in regard to conditions of service, remuneration and pensionable status. I move the amendments:—

4. In page 10, Section 18 (3), line 6, to insert before the word "and" the words "upon the same terms of office (including terms relating to pension and superannuation rights) as he held office immediately before such commencement".

5. In page 10, Section 18 (4), line 14, to insert before the word "and" the words "upon the same terms of office (including terms relating to pension and superannuation rights) as he held office immediately before such commencement".

Amendments agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 6. This has already been discussed.

Mr. McGilligan

Is this in order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think they have all been declared in order.

Mr. McGilligan

I want to record a protest against any such ruling. It is entirely contrary to the rules of procedure governing this House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think that was discussed.

Mr. McGilligan

It may have been discussed but I am speaking now for the purpose of having the words taken down. I want to record a protest that this, in my opinion, is completely contrary to the rulings given heretofore and contrary to the whole scheme of legislation in this House. I hope it will not be taken as a principle hereafter.

General Mulcahy

The Minister did not seem to think he had a fair start in having said what amendment No. 3 was about. Now I take it we can all, including the Minister, sit down. Would the Minister explain to us in simple words and in a series of points what exactly amendment No. 6 is about?

Mr. MacEntee

I have already dealt with that on amendment No. 3.

Mr. McGilligan

And the same law applies.

General Mulcahy

The Minister in dealing with amendment No.3 was like a boy who goes into a clear pool and starts to stir the mud in the bottom. By the time he has finished stirring he has no earthly idea as to what is in the pool.

Mr. MacEntee

I understood that we were taking amendments Nos. 3 and 6 together.

Mr. Morrissey

Nobody spoke about it but the Minister himself.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think they were discussed.

Mr. D. Morrissey

They were not.

General Mulcahy

Inadvertently, Deputy Allen raised some matters with regard to the urban district of New Ross.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Well, they were discussed.

General Mulcahy

And he was reproved by the Minister, Sir.

Mr. MacEntee

No, he was not. I think Deputy McGilligan joined in that discussion too.

Mr. Coogan

May I point out to the Minister that the old law in relation to this matter was entirely different from the old law which was the background to the previous amendment? We are now coming to urban areas, which includes county boroughs.

Mr. MacEntee

It does not include county boroughs.

Mr. Coogan

Urban area includes county borough.

Mr. MacEntee

No, it does not.

Mr. Coogan

The Minister apparently has not read the Bill—"The expression ‘urban area' means (a) a borough other than a county borough or (b) an urban district".

Mr. MacEntee

"Other than a county borough" but the Deputy has just been saying it includes county boroughs. I am awfully sorry, but really!

Mr. Coogan

In any event, it relates to urban and borough areas as distinct from county areas.

Mr. MacEntee

That is different, now.

Mr. Coogan

I want to hear the Minister explain what is the old law in the urban and borough areas which it is proposed to change now by this amendment and I think we are entitled to hear that from the Minister.

Mr. Morrissey

Surely.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

There are two terms in the amendment in respect of the interpretation of which I think we might have useful discussion, especially from our legal friend, Deputy McGilligan.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Let us hear the Minister on it first.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

The House might also have the benefit of the Deputy's contribution on that particular subject. I refer to the interpretation of "suitable tenant" and also "reasonable rent". I understand more trouble has arisen around these two terms in relation to a section of this character than any other cause of action in the courts, and I am at a loss to know what way we include the old section in so far as these two sections are concerned.

General Mulcahy

We appreciate the Deputy's desire to have the Minister's point explained from this side of the House and we will do our best.

Mr. MacEntee

I have already indicated that in the first instance the local authority is to be the deciding voice as to what is a suitable tenant.

Mr. McGilligan

The local authority is?

Mr. MacEntee

Certainly.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister has not moved or explained this section.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment, Deputy.

Mr. MacEntee

I have, on amendment No. 3. I have nothing to add to it.

Mr. D. Morrissey

The Minister cannot move this when moving amendment No. 3.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It was discussed with amendment No. 3.

General Mulcahy

It was not, Sir. There was no intention.

Mr. MacEntee

It was.

Mr. Morrissey

I am submitting, Sir, that it is not even yet before the House.

Mr. MacEntee

I move it, Sir, and it is then before the House:—

In page 11, before Section 22, line 30, to insert the following new section:—

22.—(1) Where a hereditament which is situated in an urban area and which is not a small dwelling within the meaning of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928 (No. 4 of 1928), is unoccupied at the making of the municipal rate, such rate shall be made upon the person (in this section referred to as the owner) who is for the time being entitled to occupy the hereditament and, upon such rate being paid by the owner, he shall be entitled to claim and receive from the urban authority of the urban area a refund of one-twelfth of such rate in respect of every completed month (reckoned from any day of one month to the corresponding day of the next month) during which the hereditament is unoccupied either for the purpose of the execution of additions, alterations or repairs thereto or because the owner isbona fide unable to obtain a suitable tenant therefor, in the case of a hereditament to which the Rent Restrictions Act, 1946 (No. 4 of 1946) for the time being applies, at the maximum rent for the time being permitted under that Act, or, in the case of any other hereditament, at a reasonable rent.

(2) Where—

(a) a rate is made by virtue of this section on the owner of an unoccupied hereditament, and

(b) the hereditament is subsequently let by or on behalf of the owner, and

(c) the rate or any part therof is in arrear and unpaid.

the rate collector by whom the rate is collectable may, in addition to and without prejudice to any other remedy for the recovery of the amount of the rate so in arrear and unpaid, serve either personally or by post on the occupier of the hereditament a notice stating the said amount so in arrear and unpaid and requiring the occupier to pay to the rate collector or his successor in office all rent then due or thereafter to become due by him in respect of the hereditament until the said amount is by such payment or otherwise discharged, and thereupon the rate collector or his successor in office shall have the exclusive right to recover, receive and give a good discharge for all rent required by the notice to be paid to him.

(3) A rate made by virtue of this section on the owner of an unoccupied hereditament shall not be invalidated by any error or defect in the statement of the name of the owner or by the use of the description "the owner" without any name or addition, and the rate shall be recoverable from the owner notwithstanding any such error or defect or the use of any such discription.

General Mulcahy

Will the Minister explain?

Mr. MacEntee

I have already explained.

General Mulcahy

When?

Mr. MacEntee

On amendment No. 3.

General Mulcahy

The Minister did no such thing.

Mr. MacEntee

I did. Not only New Ross, but even Dublin, was discussed.

Mr. Coogan

I respectfully suggest that the Minister has given no explanation of the effect of this amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

The effect of the amendment is quite clear.

Mr. Coogan

It is quite clear, to my mind, that the law relating to urban and borough areas may in certain instances be different entirely from that in the county areas and the introduction of this amendment should at least be explained to the House before we can discuss it. I would respectfully, through you, Sir, ask the Minister to state for us the old law obtaining in urban and borough areas and then the effect of this amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not propose to follow the Deputy at that length at all. The purpose of this amendment is quite clear.

Mr. Coogan

Then we will have to elicit the information by a process of cross-examination.

Mr. MacEntee

No. The Minister is not going to submit to that.

Mr. Coogan

What was the position in, say, the borough area of Kilkenny?

Mr. MacEntee

I think the Deputy had better consult the local authority.

Mr. Coogan

The Minister has his advisers with him and surely we are entitled to information as to how this amendment will affect the rating law in the urban area of Kilkenny.

Mr. MacEntee

The only thing this does is to make the owner of unoccupied premises which are wilfully kept unoccupied by him in contravention of the provisions of this section liable for the rates.

Mr. Morrissey

I suggest that this is treating the House with absolute contempt. The Minister has succeeded in convincing the Chair that the introduction of a completely new principle and a new section on Report Stage is in order. So far for that. Surely if there is any point in Committee discussion and in discussion on Report Stage in this House it is that the House should understand what it is discussing. Surely, if a Minister brings in a Bill here, a new Bill, and if, on Committee and on Report, he brings in amendments of his own, it is the duty of the Minister to explain to the House why it is necessary that the Bill should be amended in this way. The Minister referred to amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 3 was dealing with buildings situate in the county as distinct from the urban area. We are dealing exclusively, in this amendment, with buildings in an urban or borough area. I submit that if we are to have useful discussion, if we are to know what we are doing in relation to a Bill of this importance, it is not unreasonable to ask the Minister to give as full an explanation as he is capable of giving dealing with an important new principle such as this. Surely that is the purpose of any discussion in this House on this or any other Bill. Or, does the Minister want the House to pass a Bill or a new section of a Bill on which he is not prepared to inform? The Minister knows quite well that he has sources of information at his disposal that ordinary members of the House have not got. The Minister I take it brought in this particular amendment for one reason. Surely we are entitled to know what that reason is. That is what we are asking. We are not asking for anything to which we are not entitled and I suggest that the Minister, in courtesy, apart from any question of duty, should give the House that information.

Mr. MacEntee

I have already given that in respect of a precisely similar amendment, amendment No. 3.

Mr. Morrissey

I want again to protest on that. This is all the more regrettable in view of the fact that the Minister has been allowed to do on this Bill what was never allowed to be done in this House since it was set up, to do something which is not only in flat contradiction of the whole practice and procedure of this House, but in flat contradiction of the Standing Orders.

Mr. Bennett

I submit that we are proceeding on a line on which this House never proceeded before. We have here an absolutely new section to the Bill, moved by the Minister. The Minister refuses to give the House any explanation of it, except to say that he has explained it previously. That is not a practice that has been adopted in this House as long as I have been in it, over a period of 20 years. The Minister, following that practice, might tell us, when we came to the last amendment, if any Deputy asked for an explanation, that he had already given it at some other time. I suggest the time to give an explanation of this amendment is when the Minister is moving it.

Mr. Morrissey

And no other time.

Mr. Coogan

Will the Minister say whether in an urban or borough area the owner of an unoccupied premises was entitled to a refund and, if so, to what extent? Was it in respect of six months in any particular financial year or in respect of the whole year?

Mr. MacEntee

I have indicated previously that the occupier of premises was liable to pay the rates charged on the premises. This now makes the owner definitely liable for rates on unoccupied premises except in circumstances as set out in the Bill. There is nothing more to be said about the matter than that.

Mr. Coogan

Is not a new position being created now? Previously a refund in respect of six months in any year might have been obtained whereas you can now go month by month and obtain the maximum refund of 12 months' rates on any empty premises.

Mr. MacEntee

You can, if the premises fall within the section.

Mr. Coogan

Then you are introducing two new principles.

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. Coogan

You are transferring the liability from the occupier to the owner and introducing a new test of non-occupation. Previously, as I understand the position, the test was that the premises were empty and untenanted. Now we are introducing four new conditions: that the premises are unoccupied by reason of the fact that they are vacant for the purpose of additions, alterations or repairs, or that the owner has been unable to make abona fide letting of the premises. We are introducing four entirely new conditions as a test of non-occupation. On this side of the House at least we should like to hear from the Minister what are the reasons for this new departure, and I submit that we are entitled to that information. Furthermore, as has already been indicated, these amendments introduce on the Report Stage an entirely new principle into this Bill which, in the opinion of this side of the House, is entirely out of order.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not want to be difficult with the members of the Opposition, but I have a shrewd suspicion that a matter which was fully discussed on one amendment is being rediscussed again on another which is of almost identical purport. I cannot see what their difficulty is.

Mr. Coogan

I want to explain this from my own personal point of view. On the previous amendment I tried to elicit from the Minister the legal position, and the only concrete fact I got was that, so far as premises under the control of a county council were concerned, there was no liability for rates whatever there. That was his answer to me—that there was no liability.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Coogan

I want to get, however, what was the previous liability in urban and borough areas and how that is being altered by the present amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy may remember a recent Act passed through this House. I was not in charge of it. I think he took a great deal of interest in the discussion of the Mortgage and Rent Restrictions Act. I think he has overlooked the fact that the previous provisions making the owner chargeable for six months' rates have been repealed in the recent Act. This amendment is adverting to the new position and therefore bringing the position as it now exists into line with Waterford.

Mr. Coogan

Why is the Minister quarrelling with us for asking for that information?

Mr. McGilligan

Is it not a fact that the Minister has only recently got that information?

Mr. Coogan

The old test is further complicated by reason of the fact that the owner has to show that he isbona fide unable to let the premises to a suitable tenant at a reasonable rent. Deputy O'Sullivan quite properly asked the Minister to give some information to the House as to who is to be the arbiter as to the suitability of the tenant; and, secondly, as to the reasonableness of the rent. I respectfully submit that we are entitled to that information.

Mr. MacEntee

I think I dealt with that point on amendment No. 3. I said that, in the first instance at any rate, it has got to be the local authority. If any person feels aggrieved by the refusal of the local authority to make a refund to him, I presume he has the ordinary remedy under the law.

Mr. Coogan

Is that in relation to suitability and reasonableness?

Mr. MacEntee

I should say in respect of both.

Mr. Coogan

So that if a landlord objects to a tenant because, shall we say, of some social objection, the local authority can come along and say: "That is not abona fide reason for your keeping the premises vacant. You have had an offer from X”. If the landlord says: “He is socially objectionable to me”, then he is not bona fide making an effort to let the premises.

Mr. MacEntee

I think there is aprima facie case that he is not. It is up to him to go further if he wants to get a refund.

Mr. McGilligan

A moment ago the courts were ruled out.

Mr. MacEntee

They were ruled out in the way in which Deputy Mulcahy wished to bring them in.

Mr. McGilligan

I think the answer to Deputy O'Sullivan was that the local authority decided these points.

Mr. MacEntee

In the first instance.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

Would it not be desirable, if power is to be given to the local authority, that it should be incorporated in the section so that at least it cannot be repudiated in the courts afterwards?

Mr. MacEntee

The local authority have the power because they can refuse the refund on the ground that he has not complied with the conditions.

Mr. Coogan

Are we getting to this position: that the Minister proposes to confer on the local authority power to encroach on the landlord's freedom of contract? He has a perfect right to let the premises to whomsoever he wishes. He has a perfect right to object to X, Y, or Z as tenants, either on the ground of their credibility or on the ground of social objection or any other reasonable ground. If, in these circumstances, he objects to taking X, Y, or Z are we to reach the position that the urban council can come along and say: "You will have to take X, Y or Z or else you will be liable for the rates"?

Mr. MacEntee

They do not have to say you will have to take X, Y or Z. All they need say is: "We are not satisfied that a suitable tenant is not forthcoming." Then the owner has his remedy. He can go to court and claim a refund.

Mr. Coogan

Then you have the other position that if X, Y or Z offers a rent which the landlord considers is not a fair market rent for the premises and he will not take them at that and X, Y or Z is able to work the oracle on the urban council in the particular area, then the question of reasonableness will again be decided by the urban council.

Mr. MacEntee

In the first instance.

Mr. Coogan

They can say: "You could have got X, Y or Z and you refused them. You are not making abona fide effort to let the premises.”

Mr. MacEntee

The owner then has his remedy in the courts.

Mr. Coogan

I respectfully submit that these are all matters that can only be decided by the courts.

Mr. MacEntee

I would say, if agreement is not reached, then perhaps by the courts——

Mr. Coogan

Then, I take it, the Minister does not propose to instruct the House as to the old law in relation to urban and borough areas and the effect of this amendment upon it?

Mr. MacEntee

I have already instructed the House.

Mr. Coogan

You have explained the law in relation to county areas and the effect of amendment No. 3 upon that law. I respectfully submit that we have not yet got any indication from the Minister as to the effect of this amendment on the law relating to urban and borough areas and that we are entitled to it.

Mr. McGilligan

This discussion has done some good, because we have now got some statement from the Minister trying to discriminate between amendment No. 6 and amendment No. 3 which does not go very far. I think a fair test of the information given to the House is this: would anybody who does not know anything about the law relating to rates in respect to either urban areas or non-urban areas say that his mind has been clarified by what has been said in this House? I do not think he would. I think a person who came in here with some sort of standing as an expert on rating would find himself considerably confused. It must be understood that these are amendments put up for the first time. It is not as if this matter was discussed thoroughly and this was merely bringing into form the result of a fruitful discussion at an earlier stage. They are brought in now for the first time. I think the test as to the information given by the Minister to the House is, how far the House is enlightened on the different rating systems, particularly as these rating systems bear upon unoccupied dwellings in urban and non-urban areas. The Minister has had information suddenly given to him by his informers and he told us there is a certain reference in this to the Rent Restrictions Act just passed. That was a late thought to him, I must say.

Mr. MacEntee

It was not.

Mr. McGilligan

We are at least thankful to the Minister that he gave us the information almost as soon as he got it himself.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy was not here when the amendment was being moved.

Mr. McGilligan

There was very little time between the period when it was breathed to him and when he vocalised it in an audible way to the House. I am glad I was not here, if the debate was anything so confusing as it is now. Deputy Martin O'Sullivan asked a question which surely could have been replied to. He asked what was a suitable tenant and what was a reasonable rent. These are matters on which court decisions have been given arising out of other Acts over the years, but the Minister's comment was that the decision as to a suitable tenant would be made by the local authority.

Mr. MacEntee

In the first instance.

Mr. McGilligan

That was not said.

Mr. MacEntee

It was said before the Deputy came into the House. The Deputy should remember that he came in only quite recently.

Mr. McGilligan

If it was said, then it was quite an easy addition to make in the reply to Deputy Martin O'Sullivan. That addition was not made.

Mr. MacEntee

I was dealing at the time with Deputy Mulcahy's preposterous suggestion.

Mr. McGilligan

The suggestion was made that the courts would decide what was a suitable tenant and what was a reasonable rent, and the Minister recently made the addition that it will be the local authority in the first instance. I presume the same thing applies in the other case, namely, that the local authority will say whether it thinks that there is lack of occupation for the purpose of enabling alterations, additions or repairs to be made. I suppose, again, it will be the local authority which will decide whether the owner isbona fide unable to obtain a suitable tenant. There may be a suitable tenant in the offing and there may be a tenant offering reasonable rent and there may be a case where the owner would be bona fide unable to get such a person. He may not know of such a person being in the vicinity. I understand now from the Minister that the local authority will decide that in the first instance. What I am anxious to discover is whether the courts will decide that in the end.

The courts have from time to time laid down who would not be regarded as a suitable tenant, who would be unsuitable by reason of previous history in regard to occupied premises, habits he had shown and had already proved to the satisfaction of the courts. A man might not be suitable also on financial grounds, even though he might offer what was regarded as a reasonable rent for a period. Men often make efforts which they are not in a position to carry out.

The reasonable rent is the matter about which I am anxious. Has that been changed by the framework in which the phrase is now enclosed? A reasonable rent in the past, when free disposal of property obtained, meant a rent which the owner of the property considered reasonable. I should imagine that is no longer the case. There have been tests applied. The courts have made a comparison with neighbouring premises of a similar type and by that system they arrive, in respect of a certain premises, at what is a reasonable rent. But all this has now been put into a peculiar setting which more or less says that it is the duty of people to let property so that the local authority can get the benefit of the rates paid on it.

I wonder is there any intention to make any change in the old-time court attitude towards a reasonable rent because of the peculiar framework in which this matter is encompassed? There is definitely a new slant on this subject. Anybody reading the new sections will see the idea lurking in the background that property ought to be in occupation and there is the onus on a person who has not let property to show why he leaves it unoccupied. The idea of the two sections is that property ought to be in occupation. I should like to know from the Minister if the courts are to be asked to put a new interpretation on reasonable rents, having against that an acceptance of the idea that rates ought to be derived on property and, therefore, property ought to be let.

Mr. MacEntee

I think the courts will have regard to existing statutes dealing with the question of rent.

Mr. McGilligan

There is a simple test. Will the Minister say it is not intended to change the old idea and standards made applicable to the determination of what will be considered a reasonable rent?

Mr. MacEntee

There is nothing in this section which does.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister apparently is not anxious to say that there is no intention to change the standards?

Mr. MacEntee

Does not the Deputy know that anything I might say in that regard would have no binding effect on the courts?

Mr. McGilligan

There is no intention to change the interpretation of reasonable rent?

Mr. MacEntee

There is nothing in this section which changes that interpretation.

Mr. McGilligan

For the third time, is there any intention to have a change worked in the old-time standards?

Mr. MacEntee

I do not see what purpose would be served by my saying "yes" or "no".

Mr. McGilligan

Thanks very much for the reply. One goes out of this House fully informed.

General Mulcahy

The amendment proposes that where a hereditament is unoccupied by reason of additions, alterations and repairs, the rates shall be paid, but that application can be made and, where it is considered by the local authority that the hereditament was actually unoccupied for the additions, alterations or repairs, then the rates can be refunded. That is the proposal. I would like the Minister to say, in respect of the Borough of Clonmel and the Urban District Council of Tipperary, what are the circumstances there at the moment in respect of unoccupied premises which the proposal in this section will change?

Mr. MacEntee

I cannot answer that in detail.

General Mulcahy

Can the Minister not tell me whether, at the present moment, if premises in Clonmel are unoccupied by reason of additions, alterations and repairs, rates are not collected or are not payable?

Mr. MacEntee

I cannot answer in respect of a particular town because these Acts are already complicated and I cannot at the moment say what the position would be.

General Mulcahy

Can the Minister give me that information in respect of the Urban District Council of Tipperary?

Mr. MacEntee

No.

General Mulcahy

Can the Minister say, in regard to a normal urban district council, whether, at the present moment, a hereditament that is unoccupied, by reason of alterations, additions or repairs, is liable for rates?

Mr. MacEntee

The difficulty of answering cases like that is the extent to which the premises will be regarded as unoccupied.

General Mulcahy

Assuming that premises are unoccupied for the purpose of additions, alterations and repairs, and that the local authority agrees that they are unoccupied, what is the position in regard to rates in urban districts?

Mr. MacEntee

Last year I think the owner would be entitled to get nothing back.

General Mulcahy

The Minister cannot assist the House in the matter.

Mr. MacEntee

Last year the premises were uncontrolled, but this year the owner will be entitled to recover half the rates.

General Mulcahy

When the Minister says that the owner will be entitled to recover half rates if a house was unoccupied for six months, do I understand that he would be entitled to recover only for three months?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

General Mulcahy

Under the Rent Restrictions Act, he would not be entitled to recover anything.

Mr. MacEntee

This amendment is to create a uniform position in all urban districts.

General Mulcahy

If the premises were not controlled, what would be the position?

Mr. MacEntee

If unoccupied, the owner was not rated. The premises were rated, but not the owner. If there were arrears when a person entered into occupation, he would be liable for a certain proportion.

General Mulcahy

For what proportion of the arrears would he be liable?

Mr. MacEntee

Whatever happened to be the amount of the arrears.

Mr. McGilligan

In the case of controlled premises unoccupied for eight months, there would be only an allowance in respect of four months?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

If controlled premises were unoccupied for eight months, according to the Minister, the allowance would only be in respect of half that period.

Mr. MacEntee

To the owner. On the other hand, if the premises were not controlled and he went into occupation, he would be liable for a period.

Mr. McGilligan

I am glad to get that statement on record.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 7:—

In page 11, before Section 23 (2), line 39, to insert the following new sub-section:—

(2) Any part of the agricultural grant which becomes payable after the commencement of this section to an urban authority under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1939 (No. 23 of 1939), shall be paid into the municipal fund.

This is intended to cover the position in an urban area which, after the passing of the Act, includes agricultural land. It merely provides that the appropriate part of the grant will be included in the municipal fund and that the occupier of the land will get the relief set out in the Second Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 8:—

In page 12 to add at the end of Section 24 the following new sub-section:

(4) A person who immediately before the commencement of this section—

(a) held the office of collector of rates under the commissioners of a town, and

(b) also held another office or offices under the said commissioners or any other local authority, and

(c) devoted the whole of his time to the duties of all the said offices, and

(d) was a pensionable officer for the purposes of Part IV of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925),

shall be deemed for the purposes of the said Part IV, for so long as he shall continue to hold such other office or other offices, to devote the whole of his time to the duties of such other office or other offices (as the case may be).

This is to ensure that a rate collector under town commissioners who holds other official posts will not lose his pension by reason of the abolition of the position of rate collector to town commissioners.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 9:—

In page 12, to delete Section 25 (2), lines 21 to 27, and substitute the following sub-section:—

(2) If a sum, which consists either of portion of a 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, is not included by the commissioners in the appropriate demand under sub-section (1) of Section 24 of this Act, such sum shall be deemed to have been included in the demand and sub-section (4) of Section 10 of this Act shall have effect accordingly.

This is merely a re-draft of the sub-section. A county council was allowed to make an automatic addition of 7½ per cent. to cover the cost of collection. That power, which was given in Section 65, was dropped, and it should have been dropped out of this sub-section also.

Mr. Hughes

Would it not be necessary to add the words "in accordance with".

Mr. MacEntee

Where?

Mr. Hughes

It is deemed that the interest on the loan is included, but it does not say that it shall be included.

Mr. MacEntee

That is the form in which the draftsman gave the sub-section. That precise point was not put to him.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 10:—

In page 12, before Section 26, line 35, to insert a new section as follows:—

26.—(1) Where a hereditament situated in a town which is not an urban district is, on the date of the commencement of this section, held (whether together with or without other premises) under a lease which binds the lessor to pay or allow a deduction or set off against or otherwise to relieve the lessee from any rates made by the commissioners of the town payable in respect of the hereditament, all rent payable under the lease in respect of a period commencing on or after the date of the commencement of this section shall be reduced—

(a) in the case of an annual rent, by an amount equal to the amount of the rates made by the commissioners of the town in respect of the hereditament for the local financial year expiring at the commencement of this section to which the relief afforded to the lessee by the lease lawfully extended, and

(b) in the case of any rent other than an annual rent, by an amount which bears to the rates made by the commissioners of the town in respect of the hereditament for the said local financial year to which the relief afforded to the lessee by the lease lawfully extended the same proportion as the period by reference to which such rent is calculated bears to one year.

(2) In this section, the word "lease" includes any contract of tenancy, whether in writing or verbal, whereby the relation of landlord and tenant is created, and the words "lessor" and "lessee" respectively include the landlord of and the tenant under such tenancy.

This section provides for the adjustment of rent under town commissioners and corresponds to Section 19. When town charges are raised, the rated occupier becomes liable. Under an existing lease, the lessor has to pay the rates in urban areas.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 11:—

In page 13, before Section 28, line 45, to insert the following new section:—

28.—A rate made by the commissioners of a town under the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, for the local financial year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1946, shall not be invalidated by reason of a failure to comply with Section 172 of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, which is repealed by this Act.

The rating authority makes a rate by passing a resolution and making it accessible in the rate book. In the case of a county council, the chairman and two other members present at the meeting make a statement under seal that the rate has been made by the county council. In the case, however, of town commissioners, where the total number of commissioners is nine, no less than six commissioners must sign the rate book. Under the Bill, the provision in the Act of 1847 to this effect will be repealed, but the repeal will not come into effect until the Bill generally is put into operation. The purpose of the amendment is to dispense with the necessity in the current year for six members to sign the rate book.

Mr. McGilligan

Is there any regulation other than Section 172 as to how many must sign?

Mr. MacEntee

Five members must adopt it, but there is no such provision as the Deputy refers to.

Mr. McGilligan

Previously, Section 172 governed this matter. That is being repealed. What comes instead of it?

Mr. MacEntee

So far as a definite number is concerned, nothing, but five members must adopt the rate under the Public Bodies Order.

Mr. McGilligan

What was the purpose of having six in the old days?

Mr. MacEntee

Heaven knows. We have reduced the quorum to three.

Mr. McGilligan

I can understand a reduction of the number, but why abolish all provision in respect of the numbers who must sign?

Mr. MacEntee

When the Bill is passed, town commissioners will not make a rate, but will make a demand on the county council which will make the rate. I do not think it is necessary to put in any specific provision because the whole machinery is being changed.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 12:—

In page 13, before Section 28, line 45, to insert the following new section:—

28.—The poor rate made by the council of a county for the local financial year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1946, shall not be invalidated by reason of the fact that, subsequent to the estimates meeting, held under Section 24 of the County Management Act, 1940 (No. 12 of 1940), at which the said council determined a rate in the £ to be levied for the purposes of the construction and maintenance of roads, the said council, in anticipation of an increase in the receipts by way of grant from the Road Fund, reduced the said rate in the £ and made the poor rate for the said year accordingly.

This amendment is designed to meet the situation which arose in the case of a few counties this year. When the increased allocation from the Road Fund was announced this year, some county councils had already made their rates and had made them upon a much higher scale than would have been necessary, if they had been aware of the increased allocation from the Road Fund. Under the existing law, they could not alter the rate in the £ which they had determined and this amendment will validate any change they have made.

Mr. Hughes

Can the Minister say what counties are involved?

Mr. MacEntee

There are several, including Wexford and Waterford.

Mr. Hughes

How were some counties in a position to anticipate the grant, while others had no informamation?

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy has Misunderstood me. Some councils had already made the rate at a higher figure than would have been necessary, if they had been aware of the allocation, while others put back their meetings.

Mr. Hughes

Surely there was some leakage somewhere. I am a member of a county council and I know that we had no information whatever about it and we struck a high rate, while other counties held their hand and did not strike a rate, in anticipation of the increased grant. What was the source of the information and how was it possible for some counties to anticipate an increase in the grant while others had no information?

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy, I think, is——

Mr. Hughes

The Deputy is right.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is not right. The position is that county councils do not all hold their rate meetings on the same day, and what happened was that some of them held their meetings before the circular went out, and struck a rate.

Mr. Hughes

And some held their meetings and postponed the striking of the rate.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

And some reduced the rate.

Mr. Hughes

How did that happen?

Mr. MacEntee

One council at least took up the attitude that it was going to strike no rate.

Mr. McGilligan

What does this amendment refer to?

Mr. MacEntee

It refers to those counties where the rate had already been made and where, when the allocation from the Road Fund became known, it was realised that they had struck too high a rate. They have now amended the rate, reduced it, but, in order to make that proceeding valid, this section is necessary.

Mr. McGilligan

As I read the amendment, it is that something shall not be invalid by reason of the fact that a council, in anticipation of an increase in the receipts, etc., reduced the said rate in the £.

Mr. MacEntee

No, that is not what it says. There is no word about anticipation in this.

Mr. McGilligan

Will the Minister look at the fourth last line?

General Mulcahy

This is an amendment for the purpose of permitting local authorities, at a considerable amount of inconvenience, to rectify the position created by the futility and incompetency of the Minister's Department, in not making the allocations from the Road Fund at such a date as would enable local authorities, sitting down to discuss what moneys they would have to raise by rates for the coming year, to know what contribution they were to get from the Road Fund for the maintenance and upkeep of roads.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister is trying to validate here an illegal action taken by local authorities. I have in mind a specific county council which considered this matter and which was advised that, as the law stood, it could not mend its hand, when they had the information that an increased grant was forthcoming.

Mr. MacEntee

That council was rightly advised, but the position was that some other councils took a chance and decided to strike a lower rate. On the point which Deputy Mulcahy has raised, I am quite prepared to admit that the allocations from the Road Fund were made known at a very late date, but I can say in regard to that that it would have been unfair to the county councils to have made the allocations at an earlier date, because we would not have been in a position to estimate what was going to be the effect on the Road Fund of the increase in the petrol ration and, consequently, in the motor vehicle duties payable. We could not possibly have anticipated that so many more vehicles would have been put on the road, that the reaction to the restoration of the petrol ration would have been so favourable, and, therefore, we, quite rightly, I think, waited until we saw what was the maximum amount we could give, and we gave that accordingly.

The Deputy may say that was blameworthy, but the only alternative was to have taken a rather conservative view of the position some weeks earlier and to have released much smaller grants than we were in fact able to release. I thought it was better, since we had the money and since it was essential that the work of restoring the roads should be begun as early as possible, even though it did mean that, in one or two cases, county councils had already made their rate, to release the larger sum. I thought it was much better to proceed and release the large sum. With regard to what Deputy Hughes has said, he is quite right. The county councils who have already struck their rates and which, subsequently to the release of the notification of an increased grant in the road fund, adopted a lower and I might say a fictitious rate, acted illegally. Their second rate could be quashed in court. It is to deal with that situation and to validate the reduction in the rates which they made that we are here to-day.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister now tells us that when considering the responsibility of the Department in relation to the maintenance and upkeep of the roads instead of approaching the problem from the point of view of a realisation of the fact that we are now 12 months after the end of the war the Minister made, or was preparing to make, his allocation, not in respect of the urgent and necessary work essential on the roads, but in respect of the amount of money which he calculated would come to the Road Fund. Surely the Minister realises that the Exchequer stands behind the Road Fund and that on many occasions there have been borrowings from the Exchequer for the purpose of the Road Fund. The present debacle illustrates very clearly the way in which the Department is breaking down, not only in the manner in which it is dealing with its legislative work but in the manner in which it is dealing with its ordinary administration when it can make an announcement so late as to completely upset the machinery for striking a proper and adequate rate on the part of a number of local authorities. In relation to the work carried out on the roads it is quite obvious that the Minister was waiting to see how the barometer was rising in order to calculate how much money he would make available for the Road Fund in the present year.

Mr. Hughes

I appreciate the Minister's difficulty in that respect, but I do say very emphatically that he has not been fair in the treatment he has meted out to the various county councils. I protest strongly that there were sources of information available to some county councils that were not available to others. The responsibility is on the Minister to ensure that whatever information is available should be available to all. Possibly they were sources of political information. I think that is not good enough and I want to emphatically protest against an administration in a Department which permits that to happen.

Mr. MacEntee

That is quite untrue.

Mr. L. Walsh

I disagree with the statement that there were political sources of information in this matter. I was one of the people engaged in the striking of the rate in County Louth and those who refused to strike the rate were those who were diametrically opposed to us politically. They were successful in their opposition and, therefore, it cannot be said that there were political motives.

General Mulcahy

So it was mere Ministerial incompetence then that was responsible for that position.

Mr. Allen

I would like to support Deputy Walsh in what he has said. Ours was one of the counties that struck a rate. We had no information, and the rate was struck on the proper date.

Mr. McGilligan

And you would have had the information if it was going politically—is that the inference?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Which used to be the case when Deputy Mulcahy was Minister.

Mr. Allen

According to Deputy Hughes, I should have had it.

Mr. Hughes

Did you mend your hand?

General Mulcahy

Whatever happens they should not have to change their rates. Have you changed the rate?

Mr. Hughes

Give us the whole history.

Mr. Allen

What happened was that some counties did not strike the rate. In those counties the position is that the date of their meetings was probably a fortnight or three weeks later than in the case of other counties. The result was that in those counties where the later date prevailed they had the information before the rate was struck. That is what happened.

Mr. McGilligan

That is all right. You are not concerned in this amendment. This is only for the purpose of legalising an illegality.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Whether it is legalising an illegality or not the grant was welcomed by the county councils. It was a good thing that was done; and if it is necessary to legalise it now then that is a good act.

General Mulcahy

A good act that should have been done in time.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Is fearr déanach ná ró-dhéanach, béidir.

General Mulcahy

The introduction of an amendment would not be necessary were it not for the utter incompetency of the Minister in administering the allocations from the Road Fund this year. He did not make that allocation in sufficient time to let the local authorities know where exactly they stood in regard to such allocations when they met to strike the rate for the purposes of road upkeep and maintenance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment agreed.

Mr. McGilligan

Oh, no. We could not condone an illegality. I did not understand the discussion was over.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Nobody offered to speak.

Mr. McGilligan

Is not this validating an illegality? That is clearly the purpose of this amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Is it not a fact that illegality happened because certain people anticipated something that subsequently did happen?

Mr. MacEntee

There is a long story behind that.

General Mulcahy

We have not got the story.

Mr. McGilligan

The amendment is introduced because county councils in anticipation reduced the rate. Is not that the only reason why it is being amended? Is there anything else in the amendment except the validation of something that is illegal?

Mr. MacEntee

Nothing except the validation of the reduction of the rates.

Mr. McGilligan

And that reduction was illegal.

Mr. MacEntee

That reduction could not stand.

Mr. McGilligan

And that reduction occurred because some people anticipated.

Mr. MacEntee

No. I think perhaps the Deputy is misconstruing that sentence.

Mr. McGilligan

May I read it again:—

"The said council in anticipation of an increase in the rate reduced the rate."

Mr. MacEntee

Knowing in anticipation what moneys they were going to receive from the Road Fund—a grant which had already been notified to them but which they had not yet received.

Mr. McGilligan

In anticipation of an increased rate, they reduced the rate.

Mr. Allen

They have not received it yet.

Mr. McGilligan

And, in anticipation of it, whether they ever do receive it or not, they reduced the rate and they thereby acted illegally.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy knows as well as I do that they strike the rate in anticipation of money which they will receive from the Road Fund.

Mr. McGilligan

But that is in anticipation, according to the amendment, of an increase in the receipts.

Mr. MacEntee

Precisely.

Mr. McGilligan

Very good. Then somebody passed on the tip that there were going to be increased receipts.

Mr. MacEntee

No tip was passed on. An official circular was issued to all local authorities, some of them, unlike Carlow, acted rather intelligently and as soon as they saw that they were going to get increased moneys decided to reduce the rates.

Mr. Hughes

But where did they see that?

Mr. MacEntee

They saw it in the circular.

Mr. Hughes

When was the circular sent out?

Mr. MacEntee

The circular was sent out apparently—and perhaps unfortunately—after Carlow had met and struck its rate but prior to the striking of the rate by many other county councils.

Mr. Hughes

Surely the Minister ought to give us the complete history. Was there not a previous circular appealing to county councils generally to bring the roads into good condition because of the deterioration that had taken place; and the suggested period was a two years' programme?

Mr. MacEntee

That is quite true.

Mr. Hughes

Did all county councils adopt that two years' programme?

Mr. MacEntee

I am not in a position to say that they did, but they all endeavoured to give effect to the circular.

Mr. Hughes

Would the Minister tell the House what are the implications behind this amendment?

Mr. MacEntee

There are no implications at all.

Mr. Hughes

Does the Minister envisage the possibility of county councils calling a further meeting to mend their hands?

Mr. MacEntee

I do not see any reason why they should not.

Mr. Hughes

I think they may.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister is very fortunate in having the Report Stage of this Bill on which to bring it in. If he had to bring in a special Bill to validate what was being done, we might have got the whole story.

Mr. MacEntee

You will get the whole story now, if you like.

Mr. McGilligan

I want to be precise about this. Is not it the purpose of this amendment to validate a poor rate which might be invalidated?

Mr. MacEntee

To validate the county rate.

Mr. McGilligan

The poor rate made by the council of a county.

Mr. MacEntee

There is no poor rate made by the council of a county.

Mr. McGilligan

Would the Minister let me read the amendment?

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is right. I was anticipating the effect of this Bill.

Mr. McGilligan

The poor rate made by a council of a county for a particular period shall not be invalidated. Does not that mean that but for this amendment it would be invalidated?

Mr. Hughes

Yes.

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. McGilligan

Then let us not pass the amendment and see what happens.

Mr. MacEntee

The poor rate would not be invalidated except in certain circumstances.

Mr. McGilligan

The circumstances set out here?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

The poor rate shall not be invalidated by reason of a certain fact.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Therefore, something did happen which would invalidate this poor rate and that was, as I read it, that the council reduced the rate in the £ and that they did that in anticipation of an increase in the receipts. Is not that the whole purpose of the amendment?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, that is all.

Mr. McGilligan

I want to know how did they come to anticipate an increase in receipts?

Mr. MacEntee

Because they were given clear and open indication in a circular that there was going to be an increase in the grants from the Road Fund.

Mr. McGilligan

Therefore, as the Minister said, acting intelligently, they acted illegally.

Mr. MacEntee

Precisely; it may sometimes happen.

Mr. McGilligan

Somebody's intelligence is in fault or some procedure is in fault.

Mr. MacEntee

The Dáil has got a reputation for intelligence.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister is getting down below the legal standards, even in regard to intelligence.

Mr. MacEntee

That merely affects me.

Mr. Hughes

May I ask the Minister how many counties adopted the two years' programme?

Mr. MacEntee

All of them did.

Mr. Hughes

I do not agree with the Minister. Quite a number of them decided that they would not have a two year programme, that they would do it in three years and, if they were tied to striking the original rate, they could with the increased grant carry out the programme that they had decided they would carry out in three years, in two years.

Mr. MacEntee

If they got the materials and plant.

Mr. Hughes

Is there any doubt about that?

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think so, now.

Mr. McGilligan

Let us get rid of the evil thing.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 13:—

In page 14, before Section 29, line 3, but in Part II, to insert the following new section:—

29.—(1) A hereditament which but for this section would, as regards any local financial year, be a small dwelling within the meaning of the Act of 1928 shall not, as regards that local financial year, be a small dwelling within the meaning of the Act of 1928 if on the 1st day of April in that local financial year the owner of such hereditament within the meaning of the said Act is a State authority.

(2) Where a gale of rent paid, before the passing of this Act, to a State authority by the occupier of a hereditament was, in purported compliance with Section 6 of the Act of 1928, increased by a sum (in this sub-section referred to as the increase) purporting to represent part of a rate purporting to have been made in respect of the said hereditament under Section 4 of the Act of 1928, for the service of a particular local financial year, then, unless the increase was returned by that State authority to such occupier before the passing of this Act, the following provisions shall have effect—

(a) That State authority shall pay the increase to the rating authority by whom the said rate was made,

(b) the increase when so paid to that rating authority shall be deemed to have been paid by that State authority at the request of such occupier in respect of a rate lawfully made on such occupier in respect of the said hereditament for the service of the said local financial year.

(3) In this section—

the expression "the Act of 1928" means the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928 (No. 4 of 1928);

the expression "State authority" means any authority being—

(a) a Minister of State, or

(b) the Revenue Commissioners, or

(c) the Irish Land Commission, or

(d) the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland.

This is to place the occupiers of small dwellings owned by State authorities in the same position as occupiers of dwellings that are not small dwellings, that is to say, it will make the occupiers of dwellings owned by State authorities liable for rates in future. This will mean that the rates will not be collected by the owner, that is, by the State. It will not make any difference to the rates payable by the occupiers but it will mean that these rates will have to be collected by the rating authority.

Mr. McGilligan

What small dwellings or what hereditaments that might be small dwellings are owned by the Revenue Commissioners?

Mr. MacEntee

There may be a number. I am not so certain whether there is or not at the moment, but I know that it was contemplated at one time that dwellinghouses might have to be provided for preventive officers and others in remote areas.

Mr. McGilligan

Would they not be under the first heading of Ministers of State?

Mr. MacEntee

No. They belong to the Revenue Commissioners. I think the Revenue Commissioners probably own those.

Mr. McGilligan

Surely the State Lands Act does not allow the Revenue Commissioners to own houses.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know. The Commissioners of Public Works. I know, do.

Mr. McGilligan

That is different. They always did.

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps it is put in there as a precautionary measure. I am not personally aware.

Mr. McGilligan

Would a customs hut on our side of the Border belong to the Revenue Commissioners? Would it be in their ownership?

Mr. MacEntee

First of all, the hut is not, except in very exceptional circumstances, a dwelling. I do not know if anybody ever lives in these huts, but I assume they are the property of the Revenue Commissioners.

Mr. McGilligan

We will have to go on then to say, "a dwelling, that is, a place where people ordinarily reside".

Mr. MacEntee

It is a small dwelling.

Mr. McGilligan

What premises are there that are capable of being a dwelling owned by the Revenue Commissioners?

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know. I am told that the Revenue Commissioners do have dwellings under their control. I do not know how they come to have them, but they have them, apparently.

Mr. McGilligan

But we do not know of any property.

Mr. MacEntee

I presume a dwelling would be a house let for rent. It must be a dwelling within the meaning of the Act of 1928.

Mr. McGilligan

I know. It must be one that would be rated.

Mr. MacEntee

Under this section, it must be a small dwelling within the meaning of the Act of 1928.

Mr. McGilligan

And it must be capable of being rated?

Mr. MacEntee

It must be liable to rate, yes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the amendment agreed to?

Mr. McGilligan

It is passed not merely in silence but in obscurity. We do not know what it means.

Amendment agreed to.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. Childers)

I move amendment No. 14:—

In page 17, before Section 38, line 21, to insert the following new section:—

38.—(1) Any two or more road authorities may, by resolution under this section passed by each of such authorities, establish a joint committee of their members to consider proposals for an application for a bridge Order to be made by any one of such road authorities and to facilitate the obtaining of the consent of every such road authority to the terms of such an application.

(2) A resolution passed under this section by each of several road authorities shall state—

(a) the general character and purpose of the work,

(b) the number of members from each such road authority who are to be members of the joint committee established by the resolution, and

(c) the manner in which the expenses incurred by such joint committee are to be defrayed by the several road authorities.

(3) A joint committee of two or more road authorities established by a resolution under this section shall consider proposals for the application in respect of which they are so established and shall furnish to each such road authority a report setting out the terms in which, in their opinion, such application should be made and, for the purposes of such consideration and report, Section 46 of this Act shall apply as if the committee were a road authority.

(4) The expenses incurred by a joint committee established under this section by two or more road authorities shall be defrayed by such authorities in the manner specified in the resolution establishing such committee.

This new section is intended to meet the case made by Deputy Broderick for provision by which road authorities might meet and reach agreement regarding an application for a bridge Order. It will be recalled that on Committee Stage Deputy Broderick said that if two county authorities come together and reach agreement on an application for a bridge Order it was undesirable that the whole processes involved in Part IV of this Bill should be put into operation and this section is included so that a joint committee may be formed of the members of two or more local authorities and that by that means the preliminary inquiry may be dispensed with.

Mr. Hughes

As the Parliamentary Secretary says, this is an amendment to meet the point made by Deputy Broderick but sub-section (2) provides for a resolution to be passed by each of the several road authorities. Surely there is some necessity for referring the decisions taken by the committee before those resolutions are passed.

Mr. Childers

I should think the section is fairly clear. Two road authorities may desire to come together and dispense with the preliminary report and the inquiry and establish a joint committee of their members to consider proposals. In doing so they have to indicate the general character and purpose of the work and also to provide for their expenses. I do not follow what the Deputy means.

Mr. Hughes

They may set up a joint committee but supposing they do not, they may pass completely different resolutions under sub-section (2).

Mr. Childers

If they should pass conflicting resolutions, the general provisions in Part IV of the Bill dealing with bridge Orders take place. The Minister would have to refuse the application for the bridge Order if there is anything that is not desirable or anything which shows conflict of opinion. Then the preliminary report has to be prepared and inquiry held. It is only if all goes well that this section becomes operative and the Minister must be the person who finally decides whether all does go well between the two authorities.

General Mulcahy

Would the Parliamentary Secretary say what is covered by the expression "expenses" in (c) of sub-section (2)?

Mr. Childers

That covers the expenses for the administration of the joint committee. The joint committee will obviously have to have some clerical staff for the purpose of keeping minutes, for the purpose of examining reports.

General Mulcahy

It seems that some preliminary preparation is left unattended to there. We will have to see how it gets on.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Childers

I move amendment No. 15:—

In page 18, Section 40, to delete sub-section (1), lines 5-7 and substitute the following three sub-sections:

(1) Subject to sub-sections (2) and (4) of this section, the Minister may make the bridge Order in such terms as he thinks proper.

(2) The Minister shall not make the bridge Order unless, either—

(a) every road authority to which the bridge Order applies has consented to such application, or

(b) the following things have been done—

(i) a preliminary report has been prepared and furnished under Section 38 of this Act, and

(ii) a local inquiry has been held under Section 39 of this Act, and

(iii) every road authority to which the Order applies was given notice of the inquiry, and

(iv) the Minister has considered the report of the inquiry.

(3) The giving by a road authority of consent to the application to such road authority of a bridge Order shall be a reserved function.

This amendment follows on from the previous amendment and enables the Minister to dispense with the making of a preliminary report and the holding of a local inquiry when the terms of a bridge Order have been agreed upon by all the road authorities concerned. It will be noted that the Minister now makes a bridge Order subject to two or three main considerations:— (1) that he must have a preliminary report and a local inquiry and he must ensure that every road authority has been given notice of the inquiry before he makes the bridge Order, unless the road authorities concerned have already consented to the application by means of having formed a joint committee. It will be noted in this case that the giving by a road authority of consent to the application of such road authority to the Order is a reserved function; in other words it is for the county councils concerned to make a decision as to the action of the joint committee and in approval of their submission to the Minister.

Mr. Allen

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say in respect of Section 40 and this amendment what is to happen in the case of the bridge at Wexford? Have they to go through all the preliminaries again? Work has been done in respect of that bridge. Plans were prepared and borings made over four years ago. What is to happen in respect of the work done? Have the county council there to go through all these preliminaries here?

Mr. Childers

So far as I can understand, this Part of the Bill is principally designed to resolve conflicts between authorities as to their responsibility with regard to the construction or reconstruction of bridges. Since all these matters have been gone through in connection with the Wexford bridge, there will be no need for them to conform with this Part of the Bill. On the other hand, if at any time any of the authorities concerned disagree as to the cost of the bridge in its final form, then they will take advantage of Part IV.

Mr. Allen

There is only one authority in it.

Mr. McGilligan

The new sub-section says:—

"Subject to sub-sections (2) and (4) of this section."

What is going to be sub-section (4)?

Mr. Childers

It is the sub-section to the original section in the Bill. Sub-section (2) becomes sub-section (4). Perhaps the Deputy would look at Section 40 as amended in Committee.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Sub-section (2) will become sub-section (4).

Mr. Childers

Yes; the sub-section with regard to consulting the Minister for Industry and Commerce becomes sub-section (4).

Mr. McGilligan

Is that the procedure? If you re-number the new sub-sections it is all right.

Mr. Childers

I should tell the Deputy that it confused me when I saw it.

Mr. McGilligan

Is that the practice?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There will be four sub-sections in Section 40. One goes out.

Mr. McGilligan

It is the numbering I am interested in.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The numbering will be changed.

Mr. McGilligan

Why is not the numbering of this changed? It will make a difference as to which are the governing ones.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There will be three new sub-sections. The present sub-section (2) will become sub-section (4).

Mr. Childers

The draftsman recommended that method.

Mr. McGilligan

It is quite clear that what now stands as sub-section (2) on page 18 will become sub-section (4)?

Mr. Childers

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

The two sub-sections hereafter to govern the Minister are in the amendment at the top of page 6 and what is in Section 40 as sub-section (2) will become sub-section (4)?

Mr. Childers

Yes, consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Childers

I move amendment No. 16:—

In page 18, Section 42, to delete sub-section (1), lines 28-33, and substitute the following sub-section:—

(1) The bridge Order shall contain a direction to a road authority to execute the work in accordance with the bridge Order and this Part of this Act.

This amendment is consequential on the amendment of Section 40, which provides either that agreement has been reached by all the road authorities concerned or a preliminary report has been obtained and a local inquiry held of which notice was given to each road authority concerned before a bridge Order is made.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Childers

I move amendment No. 17:—

In page 19, Section 45 (1), line 32, to delete the words "who were given notice of the inquiry".

The same observations apply to this. It is making the Bill conform with the new arrangement for the joint committee.

Mr. McGilligan

You are taking out the words "who were given notice of the inquiry"?

Mr. Childers

The amendment provides that the Order cannot be made unless they got notice of the inquiry.

Mr. McGilligan

If so, why not leave in the words "who were given notice of the inquiry"?

Mr. Childers

Because it conflicts with the arrangement for the formation of a joint committee. It is purely consequential. If an Order is made by agreement, the words become meaningless. If any Order is not made by agreement, the section still holds good.

Mr. McGilligan

I understand that a road authority must be given notice.

Mr. Childers

Unless agreement is made in advance.

Mr. McGilligan

If an agreement was made, the agreement would incorporate such a thing as the allocation of expenses.

Mr. Childers

There will be no inquiry and therefore there will be no allocation of expenses.

Mr. McGilligan

Therefore it would have no application?

Mr. Childers

The allocation would have been already provided for in the agreement of the joint committee.

Mr. McGilligan

Why not leave in these words?

Mr. Childers

If the Deputy reads No. 15 he will find that the necessary phrases have been inserted there which makes this unnecessary.

Mr. McGilligan

Refer me to the necessary phrases.

Mr. Childers

That the Minister shall not make the bridge Order unless the following things have been done.

Mr. McGilligan

"Every road authority to which the Order applies was given notice of the inquiry." Why are the words objectionable?

Mr. Childers

Every road authority to which the bridge Order applies has consented to such application, otherwise has agreed in advance. It is only a matter of wording. The Deputy is unduly disturbed about it.

Mr. McGilligan

I am only mystified by the explanation and I am still in doubt about it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Childers

I move amendment No. 18:—

In page 10, Section 46 (3), line 58, to insert after the word "consent" the following: "(in the case of occupied land) of the occupier or".

This is simply a drafting amendment. We did not use the words "of the occupier" in indicating the person upon whom the notice is to be served for the purpose of making a survey and investigation. It corrects an omission in the original draft. Obviously we must be able to make surveys and in so doing to obtain the consent not only of the owner of the land but of the occupier of the land if the owner is absent.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.