Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Dec 1953

Vol. 143 No. 14

Committee on Finance. - Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1953—Committee and Final Stages.

SECTION 1.

On Section 1 I have an amendment.

The amendment, as the Deputy is aware, has been ruled out of order.

I gave notice to the Chair that I wished to make certain submissions about it. This is a Bill the Long Title of which states that it is an Act to amend the 1946 Act. It is, I think, a well-established principle that an ordinary Deputy, not a Minister, is entitled to put down an amendment toseek to prevent a Minister from withdrawing a relief. The Bill having been brought to the House in the way in which it has been brought by the Minister as being a Bill to extend the 1946 Act, I submit that in those circumstances we are entitled to put down an amendment to prevent the Minister withdrawing a relief which is already in operation. The amendment which is in my name and of which the Ceann Comhairle gave me notice last night that he felf it was out of order is an amendment designed to ensure that the Government cannot withdraw the relief of rates by way of supplementary allowance which is in existence under the 1946 Act which this Bill purports to extend.

If the question was that I was introducing an amendment to grant some additional relief I would at once agree that I could not do so, but I submit that there is a clear case here that it is an existing relief brought in by the 1946 Act and that this Bill purports to re-enact and to extend the 1946 Act, and therefore, having been introduced to the House in that way by the Minister, that it is in order for a private Deputy under those circumstances to move an amendment to ensure that the relief now existing will not be withdrawn.

As Deputy Sweetman is aware, the effect of his amendment would be to impose a charge on the revenue, and in the circumstances the amendment has been ruled out of order.

There is a very definite difference between an amendment imposing a charge and an amendment purporting to ensure that a relief will be continued. Let me give an analogous example, if I might. There is a provision by virtue of which the personal allowance of a person for income-tax purposes is £140. If the Minister for Finance in the Finance Bill brought in a provision by virtue of which that £140 would be decreased to £130 that would have exactly the same effect—that there would have to be more money found by the Government elsewhere and it would be the keeping of a relief. It is quite clear from therecords of the House that private Deputies are in order in introducing such an amendment. I suggest, Sir, that there is a very clear distinction between a private Deputy, by way of an amendment, seeking to maintain a relief and a private Deputy by way of an amendment seeking to increase a charge. The ruling of the Ceann Comhairle is that I am not entitled to bring in an amendment to impose a charge. That is not what I am asking. I am asking that a relief already existing should be continued.

I support the view put forward by Deputy Sweetman and I submit that there is some misunderstanding in this connection. Deputy Sweetman's amendment does not propose to increase the charge on the Exchequer. It is merely intended to prevent the Minister reducing a charge on the Exchequer. I submit that the matter should be reconsidered and the amendment allowed.

So far as the Chair is aware, there is no law on this matter and the Deputy's amendment cannot be accepted.

Is the Long Title not clear? If you read the Long Title you will see that it throws into the arena all the existing reliefs that are there. It is stated that it is an Act to extend, subject to modification, the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1946.

The Chair feels that any change in the modifications would cost the Exchequer more money and, as a result, the amendment must be ruled out of order.

Is it not an established rule of order that private Deputies are entitled to introduce amendments to ensure that existing reliefs will be continued?

Where an individual was concerned, the Deputy would be entitled to bring in such an amendment to relieve him of taxation, but not in present circumstances.

Could the Chair, for my guidance, explain what the distinction is between the two cases?

One is a charge on public funds, the other is a charge on an individual.

If this Bill had been introduced immediately after the expiration of the existing Act, without any interim period, would the amendment then have been in order? It seems to me that we would just be continuing benefits that already exist.

The purpose of the Deputy's amendment is to increase expenditure. Deputy Esmonde has been referring to the question of taxation, a totally different thing.

Surely any refusal to permit the relief to be withdrawn does not automatically increase expenditure. Section 1 states:—

"The Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1946 (No. 36 of 1945), shall apply to the local financial year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954."

Surely, once the Minister introduces a Bill that says the existing Act shall apply, then it is open to private Deputies to seek to prevent the Minister taking away a relief that is already there?

So far as the Chair sees, the Bill before the House makes no financial provision for the payment of a supplementary allowance and, accordingly, any amendment seeking to re-enact this provision would be out of order.

Surely, the ground upon which the Chair rules an amendment of this kind out of order is that it seeks to impose a new charge? This amendment does not seek to impose a new charge. It does not seek to impose any charge. The object of the amendment is to endeavour to retain what is already there. It is not that the amendment seeks to impose something; it is that the Minister is taking away something.

At the moment there is no law in respect of the allowances mentioned by the Deputy and, therefore, any Deputy moving an amendment of this type must be out of order.

What, in fact, the Minister is doing, if I may so put it, is that he is re-enacting something to enable him to continue what was there before, but omitting to include the supplementary allowance. We are not seeking to impose something. What we are seeking to do is to prevent the Minister taking something away. If I may say so with respect, that cannot be ruled out from the Chair on the grounds that the Deputy moving the amendment is seeking to impose a charge on public funds. If that is to be the ruling, I think it is establishing a new precedent. I do not think it ever happened before.

Deputy Morrissey is aware that every motion seeking to impose a charge on the Exchequer or any amendment proposing to increase a charge on the Exchequer must be made by a member of the Government.

Quite. That is the reason I am emphasising that we are not seeking to impose a new charge. We are seeking to prevent the Minister taking away something which is already there—a completely different matter, I think.

I cannot see how this matter can be discussed since there is nothing before the House.

But there is something before the House.

The last Act expired, and in these circumstances the Deputy would not be in order in moving this amendment.

Would it be in order if the other Act had not expired, if it were continuing legislation?

If it were continuing legislation, it would be in order.

This, in fact, is continuing legislation. The fact is that the Minister had, so to speak, to change his step as between his original circular and the Bill. It is, in fact, continuing legislation. In fact, the Minister is attempting to restore to some extent what he was proposing originally to take away and our object is to see that he restores it in full. We are not seeking to impose anything new or additional. We are seeking to retain what is already there.

The amendment seeks to impose a charge on the Exchequer by increasing the amount——

It does not. It proposes to prevent a relief being removed, which is not the same thing.

There is no question of any relief in law at present.

If that is the position, that is tantamount to the Chair saying that the procedure which the county councils carried out on the Minister's instructions, was illegal.

Technically it has always been so.

I do not accept that the position is that all rate demands made by the county councils were illegal. I do not think they were. I do not think the Chair should take upon itself——

The Chair is not taking anything on itself.

The Chair said that there is no provision in existence. The Chair also said that if this was continuing legislation my amendment would be in order. The Chair just said that a while ago, in reply to Deputy Esmonde.

There is no Act in existence.

The operative words in that case are "permanent legislation".

"Continuing legislation," was the Chair's reply.

"Permanent legislation" was what the Chair meant.

The Chair is the deciding person and, if the Chair decides against me, I cannot turn the Chair over, so to speak. I have to abide by the ruling. But there are other means open to us to consider the ruling of the Chair. I am not quite clear exactly what these means are and I shall have to see what my remedies are in that respect. But I want emphatically to protest against the ruling, which is obviously a new precedent and not in accordance with the facts—that the matter does not arise.

Is not this the position, that the amendment would seek to preserve the fractional relief, but that the retention of the fractional relief would mean more money on account of the money that is at issue?

That is not the point. The point we are making is that the rule which operates and always operated in this House is that a private Deputy cannot move an amendment which imposes a charge. That is one thing. But moving an amendment to prevent the Minister from taking away something which is already there is a completely different matter. We are not asking the Minister to give something which was not already there. What we are trying to do is to prevent the Minister taking away something which was there.

How could it be there when it was not there?

Supposing for the sake of argument my amendment was to increase the supplementary allowance from one-fifth to one-fourth, then clearly my amendment would be out of order, because that would be imposing a new charge.

To preserve the relief of one-fifth in this case means more money.

That is not the point. The point is that the House, through a private member, is not entitled to make the Minister responsible for the expenditure of more money than the Minister is prepared to put forward himself; but, on the other hand, I submit that the House is entitled to change by way of amendment the Minister's desire to take away what is already there. I think the Deputy sees that quite clearly. There is a very clear distinction. I am speaking from recollection but I think this is the first time that this ever arose in this House and, because of the creation of a precedent, we have to be all the more careful.

Although I am not interested very much in this, may I point out that I am not proposing to take away anything already there inasmuch as there is no Act there at the moment?

That is your fault. That is simply because the Minister did not do his duty in the proper way.

It does not matter. If it is a fact, the fault does not matter.

Let us put the blame where it properly lies. I do not want the Minister to race away by saying that somebody other than himself is responsible for the situation. I am dealing with the matter from the point of view of the Chair. As I said, this is a very important precedent that will be used against us in regard to a great many matters at a later stage. But we are not seeking to impose a new charge. Let that be clear. What we are attempting to do is to retain benefits which were always there. When I say "always" I mean up to the time the present Minister decided to change the whole situation originally by way of a circular and subsequently by way of this Bill. We are not trying to get something additional for the people but to retain what they are entitled to and what they have been in receipt of.

So far as this Bill is concerned, the amendmentseeks to obtain something additional.

Deputy Morrissey's statement is a complete distortion of the facts. There is no departure in regard to the manner, the time or the circumstances of the presentation of this Bill to this House. There is no Act in existence at the moment. Therefore, if there is no Act in existence, the Minister in these proposals is withdrawing nothing. The Minister in these proposals is confirming by law something that he and his Department were responsible for in the form of an issue of a circular this year as in every other previous occasion for the last 20 years.

Indeed it is not.

I am following the procedure which has been followed every year and the submissions of Deputy Morrissey and other Deputies on this issue—although, as I say, it is entirely a matter for the Chair—are a complete distortion of the facts inasmuch as, since there is no Act now in existence, there can be no question of my withdrawing something that is already there.

If it is merely a matter of carrying this out in exactly the same way as it has been carried out for the last 20 years, I submit with respect that that strengthens our case immensely. That is the Minister's statement—that it is being done in the same way as it has been done for the last 20 years.

The Chair did not understand the Minister to say that.

Then I do not understand the meaning of words.

The Minister said clearly and specifically—and, may I say, it will be on the records—that there was no change whatever, that when I alleged there was any change I was just distorting the facts.

In the procedure in regard to the introduction of this Bill.

Do not be trying to mend your hand. You cannot pin those fellows down. They say something and, when you explain what it means, they immediately start running away from it.

Your skin is too thick.

I think I will let that pass. The answer which that would call for I think would be better left unsaid. It is not because I could not give an answer, but because I prefer not to in this season. The fact is that the Minister is endeavouring to take away from the ratepayers of this country something between £120,000 and £150,000 in this year. We are endeavouring to see that he does not take that away. We are not endeavouring to see that they get an additional £120,000 or £150,000. That is the case in a nutshell. We are not attempting to impose any new charge. It is not imposing a new charge. It is our contention that what has been there——

So far as the Bill before the House is concerned, the amendment certainly seeks to impose a charge on the Exchequer and it is for that reason that the Chair has ruled it out of order.

Very well.

Will the Chair tell me what remedies are open to Deputies who object to the ruling of the Chair in this matter?

The Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Presumably, therefore, while it would be under consideration it would not be in order to take the next stage of the Bill while the matter was, so to speak, sub judice.

I did not say that the matter could be left over on that account.

Then it is not a matter for the Committee on Procedureand Privileges. What I am asking is, is there any appeal from the decision of the Chair?

There is no appeal from the decision of the Chair.

Except, of course, by way of motion.

As far as I understand it, a motion does not affect the decision of the Chair. It only affects the individual occupant.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."

The Minister, last night, when replying on the Second Reading debate, made one thing crystal clear anyway. Whatever about the provisions of this Bill, if he had been allowed to get away on the terms of the circular he issued to the county councils on the 20th May last, there would have been an additional charge of a substantial amount on the farmers in ownership of land throughout the country.

The Minister was at great pains last night to explain that he changed his own mind. He carefully avoided saying what the difference between the circular and the Bill was. It certainly did emerge—and it is just as well that it has emerged—that the original proposals of the Minister would have involved a sum of £300,000 or £350,000 additional charge on the ratepayers in occupation of land. It also emerged that the Minister was at great pains to prove that he had the question under consideration for a considerable time of changing the method by which the relief of rates would be distributed. If he had that under consideration for that time, then there is even less excuse for him in the bungle that he made in not announcing his intention to the various county councils before the 20th May and before they had all applotted their rates and had gone to the clerical trouble and expense of getting out the rate demand. There iseven less excuse for the Minister having, again as the result of the bungling manner in which this Bill has been handled, put the county councils now to the further clerical expense of again applotting the reliefs which have to be granted as a result of this Bill. The Minister was really not serious last night when he was telling us he had this in his mind for a long time before? It was his business to announce his proposals in due and proper time and to announce them in such a way that county councils would not have to scrap all the demand notes they had prepared before 20th May and now write again to each ratepayer affected, saying that the original demand was wrong and that the correct figures are being provided now.

I want to take advantage of this section to mention a matter in relation to allowances for employment. Unfortunately, owing to the way and the time at which this Bill is brought in, I am afraid there is nothing we can do under this particular measure; but I want to draw attention to these matters so that the Minister might have them in mind if there is to be any further changes made in connection with these grants. The Minister and the Government have been stressing that their main desire in connection with this Bill is to hold out inducements to farmers to give further full time employment on the land. I want to mention this case which, unfortunately, cannot be covered under this Bill at the moment. One of the best farmers in my constituency, probably one of the biggest employers of agricultural workers in my constituency, gets practically no relief. He employs no fewer than 14 full time agricultural labourers. Just because all of his farm, with the exception of about 50 acres, lies within the urban area, he gets practically no relief. He is one of the best farmers in the county. He derives his livelihood entirely from the working of his land and he gives full time employment to a minimum number of 14 agricultural workers. It seems to me that we are not getting what we are aiming at if we really mean to encourage people to give the maximum amount of employment on the land, yetdebar them from receipt of whatever benefits will flow from this Bill. We certainly should not debar people just because they are on the borders of the rural area or because the urban area has been increased and the farm has been brought within it. I am sure the Minister himself would like to meet the point. Unfortunately, at this stage, there is nothing we can do in this particular Bill, but I am mentioning it now. I know it is only one of hundreds of similar cases. I believe that all those people are entitled to whatever reliefs are going, particularly if they are full time farmers who are deriving their livelihood mainly from the cultivation of the land.

There is one point on which I would like clarification from the Minister in regard to the employment allowance. Sub-section (1) (a) states that the man has to be in employment for a qualifying period of the whole year. In the event of an employee leaving his employment at some period during the year—for which the employer was in no way responsible, as the man may have got a better job somewhere else—there might be an intervening period in which the farmer would not have anyone employed and it would be through no fault of his own. It seems to me that if he has the man employed for a portion of the year and the man leaves him, the farmer gets no allowance. I want to know whether, if he then employs another man, that will do instead. If he employs two separate men, each for a period of six months, does he get the allowance?

He does if there is no break in continuity.

Furthermore, if he employs a man for five months, the man leaves and he is unable to procure another man for a period of six weeks or a month—that is very likely to happen through no fault of his own—and he then employs another man as soon as he can get him, he would have given employment between the two men for only ten months in the year. Does he receive the allowance then? If he forfeits his allowanceunder those conditions I would suggest to the Minister that he should arrange a sliding scale whereby the employer would obtain the relief for such period of the year at the percentage rate for which he has given employment.

This situation would seem to me to apply in another sense. There are certain parts of the country where agricultural workers work on the land for certain months of the year, fish at other periods and at other times work in the forestry section. That may happen particularly in County Wexford. The employer would find himself not having the man the whole year round. I would therefore bring to the notice of the Minister the suggestion that he should allow the percentage ratio of the employment allowance for such period as the man is employed, provided the conditions are as I have stated and are in accord with any other conditions which might occur to the Minister himself.

I wish at this stage merely to draw the attention of the Minister and his Department to a consequence of the doubt and the protracted discussions that have occurred this year in relation to this matter. Late applications for this abatement have been accepted, in view of the fact that finality was not reached in relation to the assessment. I can see a danger next year, in view of all the confusion resulting this year. There is a danger that employers may not be in time with their applications, in view of their neighbours' late applications being valid this year because of the fact that the Minister was rather late in coming to conclusions on this matter. In all fairness to the employers, in due time notice should be given in the Press that there will be a very definite date after which applications cannot be received in the ensuing year. Again, I would just say to the Minister that in part of my constituency it is customary for the farmers to re-engage labour towards the end of the first week in January, but there is a stipulation by the labourer that he will not be expected to come to work before the 1st February. Will farmers who make such an arrangementin the future not be entitled to benefit under this Bill? I hope the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to these points.

The Chair is aware that it was my intention to move an amendment covering the points raised by Deputy Esmonde and Deputy D. J. O'Sullivan. Unfortunately that amendment was ruled out of order for the same reason as Deputy Sweetman's amendment was ruled out of order. I submit that it is a matter to which the Minister should give consideration before introducing similar legislation next year. A pro ratarebate in respect of employment would be the only fair way to deal with this matter. I mentioned a specific case during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill where there is an interval of three weeks in respect of the replacement of a farm labourer who has left of his own accord and whose employer did not want him to leave. Because such a man could not be replaced for three weeks, the farmer must suffer the loss of the employment rebate. It is only fair that there should be apro rataabatement in respect of persons employed on the land.

Most employers employ staff when they require their services and then dispense with them when they do not need them. In business, it is quite customary, at rush times, to employ extra hands and then to dispense with these extra hands when the rush is over. It happens also at the seaside. Hotels and boarding houses employ persons during the rush season and then dispense with their services when the rush is over. Is it suggested that the farmer is unreasonable when he does that? I am sure that if the Minister examines the point carefully he will see its justice.

It is clear that the concealed purpose of this Bill is to take £100,000 from the farmers.

I would remind the Deputy that we are discussing Section 1.

This section pretendsto give a rebate in respect of a man employed all the year round—a rebate of £17. If there were any sincerity in the suggestion of the Government that this Bill is designed to encourage employment, they could honour that argument by saying that a rebate would be allowed in respect of a shorter period than 12 months. Why not allow the rebate for a period of one month's continuous employment? It could be allowed at the rate of £1 8s. 6d. per month for each man employed by the farmer. The fact that it will be allowed only in respect of a full year's continuous employment will mean that many employers will not be entitled to this rebate of £17 in respect of each man employed.

The excuse is made that this Bill is designed to encourage employment by giving a rebate of £17 per man in respect of each full year's employment. The sincerity of that argument can be demonstrated by giving a rebate of £1 8s. 6d. for each month's continuous employment which is given to a worker. That would mean that if a man were employed for ten months or for two months, a rebate would be given in respect of that continuous employment instead of requiring that a complete year's employment be given before the rebate is allowed.

The Minister is very well aware that farmers give a good deal of seasonal employment and that their round-the-year staff is much smaller than the temporary and casual staff which they may have during the spring and the harvest. If the Minister wants to encourage the employment of men at these times of the year he should do so by offering a rebate in respect of every full month worked by each man.

The Minister should take advantage of this opportunity to assure farmers generally that farmers under £20 valuation are not affected one way or another by this Bill. The relief which they had heretofore still operates—that is, the abatement of three-fifths of their rates. It might be necessary to say that, because some small farmers might feel that they were not deriving any benefit from this Bill and that, in fact, they might suffersome loss. The Minister now has an opportunity of making it quite clear that these people will not suffer any loss whatever and that they will continue to receive the three-fifths abatement which they have been receiving. The only abatement that has been withdrawn is the one-fifth on the valuation over £20. To offset that, there is an allowance of £17 in respect of each man who is in continuous employment there for a year.

It would reduce the whole matter to absurdity if one adopted Deputy Rooney's suggestion that an abatement should be given in respect of each month's employment. We have to look on this matter not only from the farmer's point of view but also from the worker's point of view. The worker has to live the whole year round, whether he is working with a farmer or whether he is idle. Our aim should be to give an incentive to the farmer to give continuous employment the whole year round. I think that that is the main objective of this Bill—to encourage the farmers to give permanent employment the whole year round. Everybody will admit that that is a desirable objective. If we were to try to get away from that objective and to casualise agricultural labour—as was suggested by Deputy Rooney—I feel that we would be moving in entirely the wrong direction. In addition, I think his proposal is absurd because it would be impossible to operate it. It would lead to an enormous increase in the staff of county council offices. As it is, this abatement in respect of a year's continuous employment involves a very considerable amount of clerical work in the county council offices. I do not think it would be desirable to increase that work in these offices to the extent suggested by Deputy Rooney.

As this is annual legislation, there are a few points that arise in connection with it. There is the question of a break between the disemployment of one man and the employment of another man in his stead. If it were possible to allow a period of three or four weeks within the year to cover such a break, it would be beneficial; that is, if a farmer gives employment to a man for the full 11 months of the year, hewould be going a long way towards giving constant employment. It is unfair to deprive a farmer of the benefit of this allowance, because, through no fault of his own, there has been a broken period. Another point I mentioned on Second Reading was the age limit which, I think, should be 16 to 70 rather than 17 to 70. Most young men, farmers' sons and farm workers, start work on the farm at 16, and if it were possible at a later date to consider bringing them within the age limit, it would be appreciated.

Will local authorities get any rebate in respect of the employment of men?

They are not covered by these proposals, anyhow.

They should be.

You are getting very generous grants from us. What more do you want?

If an employee is sick for a couple of weeks and draws National Health Insurance in respect of such sickness, does the drawing of that benefit exclude his employer from this allowance?

I understand that it is a matter for the local authority to decide.

Is there no direction? The local authority have to decide on the particular facts of the case, but what is the general direction to them?

The provision is that every question and dispute which shall arise——

I know that section is there, but is there no direction at all?

No, and I think it is a good idea that it should be left to the local authority because I imagine it would be generously decided.

If an employee were sick for six months?

Even so.

Or in a sanatorium for nearly a year?

Even so.

It surprises me that the Department of Finance have not insisted on a direction.

I might say to Deputy Rooney that there is no obstacle which he can put up which we cannot get over.

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

Would the Minister explain the exact purpose of this section?

Sub-section (1) provides that a county council may amend the rate assessment so that the reliefs will be in accordance with this Bill. In other words, they can amend the assessment arrived at on the basis of the circular of May 20th. I should like to speak of that because Deputies remind me of it so often.

That was the whole purpose of my question.

I feel so shy and sensitive about my muddling incompetence that I should like to mention it in order to indicate to the House that I have a good deal of courage. My information is that the sub-section is designed to enable an amendment of the rate determined on the basis of the circular of 20th May.

Farmers will have to pay more under the Health Act, but there will be no reliefs.

I cannot listen to the Deputy and, at the same time, gather my own wits together. Maybe they are scattered enough.

Window dressing is all you are doing.

The Minister is a superman.

I never thought that, but I am thankful for the compliment.

The Minister is in possession and is entitled to be heard.

It is sometimes an advantage not to be heard.

As in the present case.

Sub-section (2) of the section sets out:—

"An amendment made by the council of a county before the passing of this Act which, if made after such passing, would have been authorised by sub-section (1) of this section shall be deemed to have been made under the authority of that sub-section."

Sub-section (3) provides that a person aggrieved by an amendment will have the same right of appeal against the amended assessment as he had in relation to the original.

The Minister told us that the circular, while a direction, in accordance with the procedure for years, had no legal force. If that is so, where was the legal force for the striking of the rate? Sub-section (1) is, in fact, the operative section under which the credit notes will be issued, in any cases where credit notes are to go out in respect of the difference between £13 and £17.

I do not understand how the Deputy connects the striking of the rate with the provision of the reliefs provided under this annual measure.

As I understand the legal position in respect of the striking of the rate, it is the gross figure that appears on the demand note.

That is right.

As I understand the position, though I believe that legal people connected with some local authorities advise otherwise, so long as the demand did not exceed the grossfigure, the striking of the rate was legal, and it was a matter, if you like, of discretion as to what rebate off that figure was given, and it was given under the Minister's circular or the Bill. If that is so, if the gross demand is the striking of the rate, and the matter of what relief off that demand is to be given is a matter for the local authority, knowing what amount it is going to get from the central Exchequer, why do we have to have in this sub-section express power to amend the rate? If we have to have express power as is provided here to do that, surely that is tantamount to saying that we had not got power to make the other deduction without the authority of an Act which had expired on 31st March last?

As I see it, a county council has the legal responsibility to strike a rate and that council strikes that rate without, I take it, any regard to reliefs. In order that they may, as a result of the legal striking of the rate, prepare their demand notes, they are informed by the Department of the extent of that relief. That information is conveyed to these local bodies by letter, and the understanding is that that letter will convey information which will enable them to prepare their rate dockets and that Parliament will give the necessary legal sanction some time after to the Minister for the circular he has issued.

As I see it, the rate was struck in March last; the circular letter was issued; and the demand notes were prepared on the basis of that circular.

For the second time.

The change made now can give them power to make the necessary alteration from the basis of the circular to which I referred. Is not that so?

I do not think it is. As I understand the position, there are two different things involved. There is the gross rate, excluding such things as separate charges, and the net rate after the abatement for agricultural land. The two figures appear on theface of the demand note. The position, as I understand it, is that the power to strike the gross rate is all that matters and that that was struck. If the Minister is right when he said there was power to strike the net rate, I would like to know where that power is. If I understand the position correctly, it is not necessary to have any power for the net figure.

What do you mean by the net figure? What does the Deputy mean by striking a net rate?

Let us take a concrete example in simple figures. On a valuation of £20 on agricultural land if the rate is 30/- in the £ the gross rate is £30. The primary allowance is £18. Therefore, the rate demand shows that there is a gross demand of £30, an agricultural rebate of £18 and a net demand for £12. As I understand the position, there is ample power for the striking of the £30 demand which is the gross rate. If I understood the position correctly, there was no legal power at all there previously for the £18 reduction and this sub-section gives the power to amend that demand —in fact, the primary allowance is not altered—by reason of the terms of this Bill but it does not validate what was previously done in accordance with the terms of the circular.

When a council proceeds to strike a rate, they have regard entirely to the needs and demands of all the services.

That does not come into it at all.

It has nothing to do with the rate that will be struck.

A circular letter follows before the officers and officials of the council can make out the demand notes for the different landowners and ratepayers. That circular letter is an intimation in advance of what is going to be confirmed later by law. It is technically correct, as I have tried tosay not only in the course of this discussion, but in reply to parliamentary questions, some of which were addressed to me by the Deputy, that on all occasions as far as I can remember, as between the date of the issue last year, the year before or for the last 20 years, on a circular to local authorities conveying the information as to the extent of the reliefs that would be provided from the date of the issue of that circular until the date on which the Bill introduced in this House became law, there was no sort of legal coverage for what had been done, but the local authorities would proceed on the safe understanding that whatever intimation they had conveyed would be validated by the passage into law of an Act.

I am afraid I have not made myself clear enough.

I have made myself clear.

The Minister is talking about a different point altogether. There is what I call the gross figure which the Minister agrees is the figure necessary for all the services. That does not enter into the matter at all. Once that figure was determined on the basis of the circular, rate demand notes were completed and sent out to all the ratepayers in the country. As I understand the position, those rate demand notes are sent out in accordance with the established practice. I am not going to argue about the established practice at this stage. Sub-section (1) of this Bill validates that practice. Is that the position?

That is correct.

The rate demand notes having been validated under sub-section (1) of this Bill, as issued, I cannot understand where the statutory provision is which authorises the rate demand notes to be further amended by way of a credit note as between the circular and the Bill.

Sub-section (1) of Section 2 is the sub-section which legalises the further amendment. It says:—

"The council of a county by whom a rate has been made for the service of the local financial year may from time to time amend any rate or assessment made by them in respect of a tenement of agricultural land so as to make it conform with the provisions of the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1946, as applied by this Act."

Is not that correct?

Perfectly but I think that permits one amendment.

I do not think that "from time to time" says you may make the amendment any time. It does not say you can amend a notice that was issued in the first instance. I think the Minister has left himself open on that.

Might I be permitted to point out to Deputy Sweetman, although I am not a lawyer, that the words used here are "rate or assessment"? As I see it, those words are used to cover not only the gross rate struck by the county council but the revision made in the demand note by reason of the abatement given on agricultural land. A farmer does not get a demand from the county council for a gross rate but for a rate which is reduced by reason of the abatement he gets under the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Acts. Therefore, the words "rate or assessment" more or less cover the demand that is made on the farmers. Since that demand has now got to be revised in the light of this Bill, I think it has got to be amended in the light of this Bill. Farmers have got a demand for £50, £60 or £70. That demand, which was presented to us some months ago, will now have to be amended. I think this section provides for the amendment of that demand note.

Certainly it provides for the amendment now, but the Bill does not validate the assessment that went out on the basis of the circular between the date of the circular and now. It must, therefore, have been illegal.

At any rate, it gives the Minister power to amend.

It can be amended now.

It does not matter whether we validate or not the assessment made on the 20th May.

It does matter. A ratepayer might have acted on that and, unless there is a clause validating it, it would have been an illegal seizure.

As a matter of fact, at any time of any year the assessment made on the basis of the circular letter could be held to be technically incorrect.

I agree, but is there not always a sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Bill that comes during the year? This is the standard form.

This is the sub-section which covers it.

In other years it always covers the rate demand that has been issued, because in other years the Bill always follows the demand note, but this year the Bill did not follow the demand note.

It is not right to say that the Bill always follows the demand. I have looked it up.

Every year since 1946.

It follows it all right, but at this time of the year. This measure is providing more generously for recipients. The assessment of the rate has been made on the basis of £13 employment relief for each man. Suppose the rate collector has claimed on that basis and this Bill is coming along to give, not less than £13 but more, £17, I cannot see where the technical difficulty referred to by the Deputy could arise.

There must be another sub-section to cover it.

Supposing a farmer did not claim in respect of his employees before 31st March last, his rate assessmentwas made on the basis that he had no employees. Assuming he claims, say, on the 12th October, in respect of the next few weeks he will get a credit note that will reduce his rate. He has actually paid his first moiety.

That is not the basis on which we operate in Kildare. In Kildare they have to pay and they get it back.

It amounts to the same thing. He has already paid his first moiety on the basis that he is not getting an allowance for employment because he did not claim before the rate was struck. However, in respect of the next month he will get from the county council office a credit note in respect of each employee to the extent of, say, £13. Therefore, the argument made by Deputy Sweetman falls to the ground.

Supposing in February next in the Minister's wisdom and judgment, because of all the money that Fine Gael think the Minister is going to save and have to his credit before the next Budget——

He is going to have plenty, do not worry about that.

——supposing the mythical £10,000,000 comes to light and the Minister decides to give another £5 in respect of each employer, will he need legislation to do it? Will not a credit note from the county council do? Assuming he decides to go further in February, which is not very likely I expect, I do not believe he would need legal power to do it.

That is not a question of demand, it is a question of collection.

The council had legal power to collect the rate in respect of farmer A who had, say, two employees last year but did not claim up to 15th October. They had power to collect that rate, the first and second moiety.

That is not what the Minister said.

The rate was legally collected from him because he did not claim. He got no credit in his demand note in respect of his employees for last year, but he will get a credit note whether this Bill is passed or not.

I understand that perfectly well, but the Minister gave a different explanation.

Your argument falls to the ground.

I consider an extra section is needed because some of the rate collectors were unofficially allowing an anticipated rebate and the others were collecting according to their demand note. If this extra section would clarify that situation I consider that desirable. It is a fact that there were rate collectors collecting rates and informing the ratepayers that they were collecting on the assumption that this Bill was going to give £17.

I am afraid I can do nothing for them.

There was a point raised by Deputy O'Sullivan earlier. The normal date for old applications for employment allowances is 15th October. On account of the passage of this Bill and the position not being clear, is it possible to extend that date for the current year or is that a statutory date?

Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

Am I entitled to submit again on this stage the amendments which you have ruled out of order so that I could make to you submissions that I was unable to make to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle before?

I am afraid it would have the very same effect.

If you rule I am not entitled to do so, I must put up with it.

Amendments ruled out of order are out of order on any stage.

Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Might I make this perfectly clear? The reason why, following the discussion yesterday, we agreed that the remaining stages of this Bill should be taken to-day is that the Minister indicated he wanted to bring it to the Seanad to-morrow and if it was not enacted before Christmas there would be serious administrative difficulties for county councils in trying to deal with matters in connection with this Bill at the same time as they were making their rates estimate for the forthcoming year.

It will facilitate councils all over the country and it will enable us to pay the grants to them. Deputy Sweetman and other Deputies who are members of local authorities realise the importance of that fact and I am grateful to the House for facilitating the passage of this Bill.

It is because of that, not because of our love.

Do not take the good out of it.

I do not wish to start a discussion on this but I would like to put it to the Minister again that there is a very strong case in favour of an abatement of £17 being allowed to female labour employed by farmers. Many of them are doing work similar to that being done by male farm labourers in respect of whom this £17 allowance is to be made.

What section of the Bill was that under?

The Deputy is introducing a matter which is not in the Bill. The only thing you can discuss on the Fifth Stage is what is in the Bill.

They have our sympathy, the Deputy's and mine.

They would rather have mine.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share