I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The main purpose of the Bill is to continue for a further period of three years the rate remission provisions of Part II of the Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Act, 1954. The Bill also provides for a new method of calculating the county demand on the Buncrana Urban District Council in the year 1960/61 and subsequent financial years, the extension of the period of exemption from rates on new or improved farm buildings from seven to 20 years, and the reduction by one-half of the rates levied on half rents by county councils.
Part II of the Act of 1954 provided for the granting of a two-thirds remission of rates for a period of seven years on the valuation of new buildings and on the increase in the valuations of existing buildings that were enlarged or improved where the work on the construction, enlargement or improvement was begun and completed between 27th July, 1953, and 26th July, 1956. The Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Act, 1956, extended this period up to 31st March, 1960. The remission so provided applies to all buildings, including hotels, shops, factories, offices and dwellinghouses, which do not qualify for a remission of rates under any other Statute. Where a building is enlarged during the prescribed period and in the revised valuation following that enlargement, earlier improvements or additions are taken into account, the remission will also apply to those earlier improvements and additions.
The purpose of this legislation is to expedite works of building or construction to which the rate remission provisions of other statutes do not apply and the execution of which might otherwise be delayed. From this point of view it appears to be desirable to continue for a further period of three years the rate remission provisions of the Act of 1954 and Section 1 of this Bill provides accordingly. It is estimated that the number of buildings which receive rate remissions under these Acts amounts to about 1,500 premises each year.
Section 2 of the Bill provides for the amendment of Section 14 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852. The Act of 1852, provides that no hereditament or tenement shall be rated in respect of any increase in value arising from the erection of any farm, outhouse or office buildings for a period of seven years. This exemption provision has been interpreted as applying also to the enlargement or improvement of such farm buildings. In present circumstances, when many farmers are effecting very desirable improvements in farm buildings, particularly in connection with the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme, there is a good case for making a further concession in the rating of such buildings. It is accordingly, proposed in Section 2 of the Bill to extend the period of rate remission provided in the Act of 1852 to 20 years in respect of farm buildings which are erected, enlarged or improved between 1st April, 1960 and 31st March, 1963.
As a result of the revision of all rateable hereditaments which was carried out in Buncrana urban district in the year 1950 at the request of the then urban district council, the total valuation of the urban district increased from £7,563 at 1st March, 1950, to £11,445 at 1st March, 1951. This steep increase in valuation resulted in a corresponding increase in the demand levied on the urban district council by the Donegal County Council. A provision was included in the Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Act, 1954, which was intended to bring the valuation of the urban district for county demand purposes in the year 1954/55 back to what it was estimated it would have been if no general revision had occurred and only normal increases had taken place. That Act provided for an increase in valuation of £330 each year until, in the year 1963-64, the county demand would be based on a valuation of £11,520, after which the ordinary basis of valuation would apply.
This provision did not afford the intended degree of relief because the estimate of a normal annual increase of £330 was not realised. The average annual increase in the valuation over the past nine years has, in fact, been only £93. The result has been that the county demand on Buncrana is now considerably more than it would be if the general revision had not taken place. It has been estimated that to date Buncrana has lost up to £16,000 by reason of the 1950 revision.
The position of Buncrana vis-a-vis urban districts generally was further worsened by Section 50 of the Local Government Act, 1955, which provided for calculating the county demand on urban districts on the basis of net valuation and not, as hitherto, on the basis of gross valuation. This provision was to the advantage of urban districts generally but a special provision was included to the effect that, in the case of Buncrana, the county demand should be assessed on the gross valuation, thus preventing that urban district from gaining the benefit conferred on urban districts generally by the 1955 Act.
The Buncrana urban council have been pressing strongly for amending legislation to give them relief in respect of the disproportionately heavy impact of the county demand on their district and the Donegal County Council have supported their request. Section 3 of the present Bill is intended to meet their application for such relief. The Bill provides that for the year 1960-61 the county demand on Buncrana will be calculated on the basis of 70 of the net produce of a rate of a penny in the £. This will have the effect of placing Buncrana in the position in regard to the county demand in which it is estimated it would be if the general revision of valuations requested by the then urban council in 1950 had not been made and only normal increases in valuation had taken place. For the year 1961-62 and the subsequent years the fractions proposed are .71, .72, .73 of a penny and so on until in the thirtieth year the fraction will be .99. The result of this will be to spread over a period of 30 years from the year 1960-61 the effect on the county demand of the abnormal increase which resulted from the 1950 revision. The immediate effect of the proposed legislation would be to reduce by approximately £3,700 the county demand on Buncrana for the year 1960-61.
Section 4 of the Bill provides for the granting of rate relief on half rent valuations in county health districts. Under existing legislation, a person receiving a rent in respect of a hereditament exempt from rating under Section 63 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838, used for charitable or public purposes is liable to be rated in respect of half such rent—called the half rent. In county boroughs, boroughs and urban districts, rates are assessed on a fraction only of such half rents. The fraction is 50 per cent. in urban districts and boroughs, and in the county boroughs it varies from 22 per cent. in Dublin to 60 per cent. in Waterford. The existing legislative provisions in regard to the rating of half rents are anomalous. Where an owner pays full rates on the half rent, he would, in fact, suffer a loss in cases where the county rate exceeds 40/- in the £.
While I am aware that in a large proportion of cases, the tenant, by arrangement, pays the rates, I feel there is a strong case for granting rate relief on these half rent valuations. Section 4 accordingly provides that for a period of 10 years from 1st April, 1960, half rents in county health districts shall be assessed on half their valuation only. This Bill is a temporary Bill and it would not be appropriate to include in it general provisions dealing in a permanent way with the rating of half rents. It is hoped that before the expiration of this 10 year period the general question of the rating of half rents will have been fully examined.
Local Government legislation granting remission of rates in one circumstance or another has been, in operation for the past 40 years and has always been on a temporary basis. The Bill proposes to continue the temporary nature of the legislation so that it will be subject to review from time to time. In present circumstances, the impetus these rate remissions give to building projects more than compensates for the extra levy it places on the ratepayers and I recommend the Bill to the House.
