Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Nov 1960

Vol. 184 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Bill, 1960.—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. O'Donnell

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, line 24, to delete "three" and substitute "fifteen".

As it stands, the section says there shall be reliefs given in respect of farm buildings, outoffices and other buildings which are begun and completed in the period of three years ending on 31st day of March, 1963, and my reason for moving the amendment is as stated by Deputy Dillon on Second Reading. During the war years, we in this country were prohibited from using essential materials on the building of outoffices, barns, stables and cowsheds, owing to the scarcity of these commodities. None of the requisite materials was available for buildings such as these, but, from 1947 or 1948, onwards, there was a drive to improve farm buildings when the essential materials again became available.

In or about that time, we had a trade agreement with Great Britain which gave a certain amount of impetus to the agricultural industry, particularly to beef and livestock generally. Farmers took advantage of the availability of building materials to improve their farm buildings. They were exhorted to do so by various Ministers for Agriculture and grants were made available to them. We had the drive for the pasteurisation of milk and farm buildings were improved. Now for the past few years, there has been a drive for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and farmers have done a considerable amount of improvement. This section as it stands will give relief only to those who build their farm buildings within the three years ending 31st March, 1963. In other words, any person who built before 31st March last will get no relief whatever but any person who built or builds between 31st March last and 31st March, 1963, will get certain reliefs from taxation.

In reply to Deputy Dillon, the Minister said he could not see his way to go back to give relief to those who carried out those improvements in the past. He said a date had to be fixed. The reason we asked him to fix 1948 is that on that date building material became available. It is unfair to penalise those farmers who pioneered these schemes. At the same time as we are victimising the people who showed initiative in the building of these various outoffices, we are giving relief to laggards, those who hung back and did nothing to improve their farmyards until this incentive was given to them under this Bill.

I think that would be very unfair. When Deputy Dillon suggested 1949, the Minister said to him: "Why not make it 1939?" Of course, if it were made 1939, the 20 years would have elapsed in most cases. In any event, there was no building between 1939 and 1948. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment and give relief to those farmers who were the pioneers in farm building improvement.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

While I appreciate the Deputy's view on this matter and also that he has gone to the trouble of putting in this amendment, nevertheless, I do not think we should take this matter out of its proper perspective. The relief of rates in this Bill has the fundamental purpose of encouraging building and it is not a question of penalising or victimising anybody, as has been suggested, because of not going back to 1948. We look upon this Bill as an encouragement, as an incentive rather than a pay-off for something already done. It is true that if we went back to 1939, which seems to be as reasonable as 1949, the 20 years now proposed would already have expired, but those who built before 1948, the date now suggested by Deputy O'Donnell, would naturally have as good a case for a refund of rates as those who built in 1949 and onwards would have to get this retrospective legislation passed in their favour.

It has been said that this relief will be for the benefit of the laggards who did not build during the past 10 years, but there might be other reasons for their not building. It could well be that they might not have been in a position to build during those years or might not have foreseen that, if they had built, they would be in a position to pay the additional rates which would fall due after the seven years' remission which has been operating for some time.

In addition, we have the situation arising from the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme. As this scheme develops throughout the country, many farmers will find themselves in the position—indeed, some of them are already in the position—that in relation to full clearance status, the buildings in which they house their stock, particularly their milking stock, are no longer regarded as suitable. In fact, in order to meet the requirements of the law and eradicate the disease, they may find themselves in the position that they must build, whether they like it or not. Today, on that basis, there is a very much better case for a greater rates remission to encourage building because now people may find them selves having to build, whereas in the past they were not so compelled.

In addition, though many people built in the past when exhorted to do so by various Ministers, they would not have done so if their own circumstances and the circumstances of the time had not allowed them. Further, over the years since they erected these new buildings, they have had the advantage of them. In addition to the seven years' remission of rates, they have had the big advantage of improved buildings in order to carry on their business better and to look after their stock in a more satisfactory manner. Let me repeat that this is a matter of encouraging to build. It refers not only to farm buildings; the whole idea of rates remission is to engender more building of houses, factories and hotels, as well as farm buildings.

The farmers' associations made the case to previous Ministers, including Deputy O'Donnell, that the burden of rates should be eased on farm holdings. Nothing was done as a result of those efforts. However, on this occasion when the farmers' organisations came to seek relief of rates, they made a proposal that there should be a rates remission for the future on new buildings for a period of 25 years. In this Bill, I am proposing to give 80 per cent. of what they have asked— in other words, 20 years' remission of rates. It was the first time a proposal was made in that form and we have gone a very long way towards meeting them.

Further to that, they made the case to various Ministers that there should be a relief of rates. This is a relief as far as new buildings are concerned. It not only meets their case almost fully but should prove a decided incentive towards the building of improved farm buildings during the next three years. It is for that reason, that basically this is an encouragement and not a question of a pay-off for something already done, that the matter takes the form it does, a form in which I would propose to the House it should remain.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 2 agreed to.

Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill received for final consideration and passed.