Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Mar 1950

Vol. 119 No. 10

In Committee on Finance. - Local Government (Remission of Rates) Bill, 1950—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Keyes)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The explanatory memorandum circulated with this Bill gives a brief outline of the history of rate remission on residences of the type to which the Bill applies. When the previous Bill in this series was before the Dáil and Seanad in 1948, the late Minister for Local Government undertook to make a memorandum of this nature available in future to facilitate Deputies and Senators in understanding the scope of the measure, as this is not readily apparent on the face of the Bill. I do not, therefore, think that it is necessary for me to deal in any greater detail with the background of this legislation.

The Bill does not embody any new principle. It merely proposes to extend for a further two years, that is to the 31st March, 1951, the period within which the erection, enlargement or improvement of certain residences must be completed in order to qualify for remission of two-thirds of the rates for five years. The Bill does not increase the period over which the remission of rates will be given. That period will remain the same as it has been since the Local Government Act, 1927, namely, five years.

The amendment of the definition of the word "residence" being effected in sub-section (1) of Section 1 is merely a drafting amendment, its purpose being to bring up to date the reference to the collective title of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, and thereby continue to exclude from the scope of the Rates Remission Acts residences in respect of which grants are paid under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts and the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948.

As Deputies are aware, this legislation has never been on a permanent basis but has been continued from time to time by Acts whose duration is limited. The reason for this is that a concession of this nature, which is paid for by the ratepayers, must be subject to periodical review lest in changing circumstances it might be imposing an unnecessary burden on the ratepayers. On the other hand, I do not think it would be fair if the concession which has been in operation since 1925 were not continued. It is reasonable to assume that there are persons who have completed dwellings of the type to which this code applies, after the 31st March, 1949, and who entered into commitments on the assumption that the period for completion would be extended as in the past. Such persons would be subjected to hardships if the concession which they expected were not made available.

The principle of this Bill has received the approval of the House on many occasions. I am sure, therefore, that the House will again agree to its continuation for the further period specified, and so enable rates remission to be applied in respect of houses, the erection, enlargement or improvement of which is completed not later than the 31st March, 1951.

Mr. Sweetman

The Title of this Bill is "An Act to Amend and Extend ... the Local Government (Remission of Rates) Act, 1940" and I want to put to the Minister a point of view about that 1940 Act. I am not quite clear whether the word "extend" will cover the point I have in mind, but if I might make a submission to you——

An Ceann Comhairle

I understand the word "extend" means to extend the period only. That is my interpretation and the Minister supports that. It merely extends the period of completion by two years until March, 1951.

Mr. Sweetman

That is, if the Bill is to deal only with the extension of the 1940 Act, but would it be permissible under the Bill to reinsert in the Statute Book an extension of the principle of remission which was there from 1925 to 1940 but which was deleted by the 1940 Act? I am entirely in the hands of the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy submits an amendment in writing, I will consider it.

Mr. Sweetman

It is ready, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

For the Committee Stage.

Mr. Sweetman

Am I entitled to indicate the reasons why I think it might be in order? The 1925 Act in Section 69, and the 1927 Act in Section 12, provided that where an effort was being made to modernise a premises, certain assistance would be given towards such modernisation not by way of State grant, as of course that could not be dealt with, but by way of rates remission, so that an inducement would be given to the persons concerned to bring their premises up to date. This is particularly important, as the Minister will appreciate. With regard to premises used for the distribution of food, for example——

An Ceann Comhairle

So far, I am afraid the Deputy has gone wide already.

Mr. Sweetman

If the Chair feels I am wide——

An Ceann Comhairle

I will hear the Deputy further, but I think he has already gone wide of the Bill.

Mr. Sweetman

I am in your hands.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may continue. We may hear other arguments more in order.

Mr. Sweetman

The section concerned was included in the 1925 Act and included again in the 1927 Act, and for the first time the section was removed in the 1940 Act, which is the one that we are asked here to extend. Up to that time, the provision had been that where buildings were reconstructed, enlarged or improved and in consequence of all that, the valuation was varied, there was, after such valuation was varied, a remission for rating purposes alone of two-thirds of the additional valuation, for a short period after the new valuation was struck. That was removed by the 1940 Act, which we are now here extending in point of time.

An Ceann Comhairle

It was that alone that was removed.

Mr. Sweetman

I think it was the power that was contained in Section 12 of the 1927 Act to remit the rate that was also removed. Whether a suitable amendment of that nature can be included in this Bill depends entirely on whether the word "extend" in the Long Title of the Bill means extend in point of time or in other respects.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister confirms my view that it means extend in point of time.

Mr. Sweetman

But the Minister has varied a definition as well, in sub-section (1). In sub-section (1) he has done more than extend it, he has amended it, and I think it would be desirable if the Minister could see his way, and if the Chair permits it to be in order, to reintroduce—perhaps not immediately, as there may be immediare circumstances which prevent its being dealt with, because of the shortage of cement, for instance—at some stage the inducement towards modernisation that there was in the earlier Act and which was removed by the 1940 Act.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy submits his amendment, but I think it is out of order.

Major de Valera

If this amendment is to be submitted, and confining myself strictly to Deputy Sweetman's remarks, there is one question I would like to raise. If I understand the Deputy correctly, he is, in effect, suggesting that this Bill be so extended that remissions of rates would apply to business premises reconstructed and improved, in addition to dwellings. I am acting on that hypothesis and I hope I have interpreted the Deputy correctly. I wonder if Deputy Sweetman has adverted to this problem, and I merely mention it as a problem. Since the matter comes from the Deputy, I would like to put this point back to him. Take the rates of the City of Dublin. In the city, there is a very large number of business premises occupied by a very large number of firms and many of those business premises are highly valued and, therefore, are paying very high rates. If any such proposal were accepted, would it not mean that the rate return to the Dublin Corporation would be deficient by the amount of the remission which the Deputy contemplates?

Mr. Sweetman

No, because the effect of the remission would be to get more people to go in for reconstruction.

Mr. Lemass

But first of all they would have to get a licence, and would be refused that.

Mr. Sweetman

I appreciate that.

Major de Valera

I am merely putting this as a question without any expression of opinion. Apart from the question of licences, and leaving out any hypothesis about further building, would there not be a decrease in the rate revenue, a decrease which would throw a further burden back on the other ratepayers?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. S. Collins

On a point of order, without interrupting Deputy de Valera, I fear we are getting into a legalistic argument entirely out of order. I would submit to the Chair that the amendment raised by Deputy Sweetman himself originally is out of order and that the references by Deputy de Valera to the case made by Deputy Sweetman are equally out of order, because the amendment proposed by Deputy Sweetman does not come within the concept of the Bill before the House.

Major de Valera

I have no intention of labouring the point further. Deputy Sweetman was allowed to proceed and I am merely raising that in reply. The members of Fine Gael seem to be very nervous of it.

Mr. S. Collins

I think Deputy de Valera has misunderstood me. The Ceann Comhairle ruled that Deputy Sweetman might submit the amendment, but that the Chair was of opinion, even at this stage, that the amendment would be out of order. I think that, until the Committee Stage is reached and the amendment is ruled on, we are all out of order in discussing it.

Mr. Beegan

In certain towns, in regard to the urban areas, there was some doubt a few months ago as to whether rates remission applied to houses commenced before the 1st November, 1947, but only completed after 1st November, 1947. I think there was some correspondance with the Department on that matter in respect of certain cases and I wonder if it has been cleared up.

Mr. Lemass

Before the Minister replies, might I ask him to express his own personal view on the value of rates remission as an incentive to building? Secondly, am I to understand, from his observations in introducing the Bill, that he is giving notice that rates remission will finally cease in 1952?

Mr. Keyes

I am advised that the suggested amendment by Deputy Sweetman is completely outside the scope of this Bill. The Bill in its Long Title sets out "An Act to Amend and Extend, with Restrospective Effect, the Local Government (Remission of Rates) Act, 1940." Deputy Sweetman suggests that the word "extend" may mean to extend the scope. The previous Acts leading up to this one had the same wording but definitely were intended only to extend the date of their application. Since the 1940 Act, the one we are dealing with, there have been various Acts extending the date, but not the principle. The principle proposed by Deputy Sweetman is a completely new principle and I am advised it is not possible to consider it in this Bill. The Chair may take the same view. The Act that we are amending is the Local Government (Remission of Rates) Act, 1940, an Act to give partial relief from rates in respect of certain new enlarged and improved residences. In all the supplementary Acts since then, "residences" has been stressed and there was no question of extending the principle of the Act, as enunciated here. All we have been doing in the House for several years past is to continue to give rates relief to certain cases which do not get grants from the State. If the Chair accepts the amendment, I will have to abide by that, but I am advised that it could not be inserted.

I think the cases referred to by Deputy Beegan would be under Section 17 of the Act of 1940. There is a weakness in the interpretation of Section 17 owing to the omission of a word or something of the kind, and I intend, in the forthcoming Housing Bill, to consider meeting that and having it remedied. We could not deal with it now. We could not do it in this rates remission. This is dealing with houses that do not get grants. Whatever weakness is in the other Act is in relation to those that do get grants. Whatever weakness is there, I propose to have removed in the Housing Bill which will be introduced shortly.

Mr. Beegan

Will the benefit be withheld from people who have not got remission, from whom the local authority has insisted on getting the full rate? Will they come under the amending legislation?

Mr. Keyes

I am assuming that the Deputy is referring to those that come under Section 17?

Mr. Beegan

I expect so.

Mr. Keyes

The question that has been referred to pertains to the Housing Act and will be amended immediately. I could not accept Deputy Sweetman's amendment unless the Chair decided that it is in order. My advice is that it is not. I am asking the House to give me an extension of the principle we have been carrying out for all these years.

Mr. Lemass

To what extent is it possible at present to get a licence to build a house that is not of grant size?

Mr. Keyes

After March, 1951——

Mr. Lemass

It stops then?

Mr. Keyes

Yes.

Mr. Lemass

Are you giving notice that it will stop then?

Mr. Keyes

I do not follow the Deputy.

Mr. Lemass

I queried the Minister as to his personal views as to the value of this rates remission in encouraging building activity in present circumstances. I assume it is not possible to get a building licence for a house to which this remission applies. I am assuming that he is giving notice, that he is continuing the Act because it would be unfair to end remission abruptly, and that in fact it is likely to end finally in 1951.

Mr. Keyes

The numbers are comparatively few. The number of licences issued for private enterprise housing has been diminishing, as a matter of fact. In the month of April, 1949, it was 36; in May, 20; June, 16; July, 30; August, 16; September, 17; October, 14; November, 16, and December, 5. It is really comparatively small. There is a tendency to diminish. These people are inclined to keep inside the 1,250 feet to get the benefit of the grant rather than such remission as they will enjoy here.

Mr. Lemass

It is a fair deduction that these people would have built houses if they got licences even if there was no rate remission?

Mr. Keyes

That is a moot point.

Mr. Lemass

They are the lucky people who got a licence and rates remission thrown in.

Mr. Keyes

The vast majority are keeping inside the 1,250 feet and trying to get a few extra feet shoved on.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining stages now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid I will have to rule Deputy Sweetman's amendment outside the scope of the Bill.

Amendment not moved.

Bill put through Committee without amendment, reported, received for final consideration and passed.