Amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Hogan has been ruled out of order since it would involve a charge on State funds.
Local Government (Rates) (No. 2) Bill, 1969: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
One of the cardinal objections we had to this Bill was this question of the Minister imposing an extra charge which would devolve upon the local authorities. It was that which impelled me to put down this amendment, which has been ruled out of order, to the effect that the cost of implementing a scheme under this section should be met from central funds.
The Minister has placed himself in a rather difficult position here, in so far as he is introducing a Bill and taking upon himself under section 4 and section 2 the right to make regulations, and yet he is contributing nothing from central funds to the running cost of the measure. Therefore, he is forced to act to a certain extent with his tongue in his cheek. He has paid lip service to the local authorities by giving them a considerable amount of apparent authority under section 2. The first part of that section states, in effect, that subject to the regulations the rating authorities may make out a scheme. Prior to the introduction of this Bill a number of local authorities had already done so. Some of them have demurred and some have refused so far.
My greatest objection to asking the individual local authorities to make out a scheme under this Bill is the lack of uniformity this will produce. We can all recall the analogous situation in which different local authorities were allowed to issue health cards and by virtue of the fact that they had different levels of incomes, there was an extraordinary divergence in the percentage of health cards issued all over the country. In effect, it happened that where the health cards were most needed in the poorer counties the percentage of health cards issued was the lowest. For example, Leitrim had the lowest issue of health cards in Ireland.
If you have that difference existing between relatively comparable bodies like county councils, will you not have still greater differences when you take into consideration not alone the county councils but all the urban bodies? A well-off county may be disposed to handle this generously but a poorer urban body will be less disposed to introduce this measure at all. Let us take my own constituency of South Tipperary. Let us take the county council and the Cashel Urban Council. A penny on the rates brings into the county council about £1,500 or £1,600—perhaps, it is more now— but a penny on the rates brings in only £20 to Cashel Urban Council. Yet these two bodies are supposed to introduce this form of social service. It is clear that a county council can carry this much more readily than an urban body.
The Minister says they are quite free to reject or implement it. If, for instance, Cashel Urban Council refuse to adopt this scheme and the county council adopt it, we have the awkward situation that an old age pensioner living 100 yards outside the boundary of Cashel will be derated, while a similar old age pensioner in the same circumstances living in the town of Cashel will not be derated. Here we have straight away distress and dissatisfaction. By virtue of the fact that he fails to meet in any way the financial implications of this measure the Minister's action may lead to such a possibility.
I feel, therefore, that the fundamental concept of this Bill is faulty. If the Minister wants to help the less privileged sections of the community, that help should be based on need, and not upon the relative capacity to meet that need which will vary between one local body and another. That can only be met by a substantial contribution from central funds on the part of the Minister. To my mind this is a serious objection to the Bill. The Minister has given so much authority and discretion to the local authorities because he is not prepared to make any contribution from central funds to this excess expenditure.
In subsection (2) he introduces the idea that the rating authority may amend the scheme—again leading to a lack of uniformity. South Tipperary has introduced a scheme under which people in certain categories will not have to pay rates. These categories were drawn up, largely I think, at the instance of the Minister. I think he sent a circular to the local authorities on these lines: non-contributory old age pensions, non-contributory widows' pensions, blind pensions, unemployment pensions, home assistance, disabled persons maintenance allowances and infectious diseases maintenance allowances. These are all very deserving classes but, by virtue of the fact that local authorities are free to opt out of this scheme, it may mean that there will be pockets of the country where this type of social help will not obtain. How is the concept of cherishing all our children equally to obtain, when we have a type of legislation being introduced here where the under-privileged members of our society will receive help in one area and may not receive it in another area? That is a fundamental objection to this Bill.
Had the Minister met the local authorities in some fashion this risk would have been obviated. When I put down the amendment which the Ceann Comhairle ruled out of order, I expected that it would be ruled out of order, but, in any case, I did not expect that the Minister would foot the entire bill. However, if he were prepared to meet it on a fifty-fifty basis, which is the usual way we meet costs at county council level, it would have been something. I appreciate the central authority could not say to local authorities: "Go ahead. Derate as much as you like. We will meet the bill." If that happened, of course, there would be an avalanche of derating all over the country. But he could at least have laid down fairly strict regulations as to whom it would apply to and make a 50 per cent contribution to the cost of it.
Everybody recognises the increasing impact of rates upon the community. It is now in the region of £35 million, as I think the Minister told me the other day, and it is increasing steeply every year. The Minister himself mentioned more than once in this House that it was an unfair form of taxation, not being based in any adequate sense upon a person's capacity to pay. Yet he continues to rely on that method of collecting money, a method which has been generally decried and on which he himself has had three reports submitted to him in his Department.
In these circumstances the Minister should reconsider the entire question of financing this Bill and give some measure of reciprocity in payment to the local authority. He has placed substantial powers in the hands of the local authority, powers which I feel he might not have placed in their hands if he was making a contribution himself. He has told us that he will draw up regulations, but I fail to see what regulations he can draw up that will introduce any uniformity to this system. For instance, section 2 (1) allows any local authority who may so wish to opt out of the scheme. Will the Minister be happy with a form of relief obtaining in some areas and not obtaining in others? I agree that, in practice, with the help of county managers and so on he may be able to get a more uniform acceptance of it That would appear possible at first sight, but it is quite possible also that some councils will still refuse to operate the scheme as put before the House by the Minister.
As Deputy Hogan is advocating that the State should meet the cost of this scheme or part of it from central funds, I want to make it quite clear that, even if we had decided that, and we have not, it would not be, in my opinion, appropriate to insert a provision to that effect in this Bill It would be more appropriate to do it either in the Finance Act or by making provision in the Department's Vote. The provision that is here in section 2 (4) would be necessary in any case, even if this were decided. That means that the Bill as it stands does not preclude some subvention being made by the State at some future date. If it should decide to do that there would be no need for any amendment of the Bill.
This Bill does not provide for relief for any particular class of ratepayer It simply establishes a legal framework which empowers local authorities to provide in their schemes for relief for the types of cases which an individual local authority considers should be dealt with in its own area. I think it is obvious then that any possible question of recoupment of some of the cost by the State should be dealt with in the context of the categories of people whom it has been decided to exempt from the payment of rates rather than by writing into legislation what would be a blank cheque given in advance to local authorities to give relief to anybody they liked at the expense of the Exchequer. In my opinion there is no need for any change in the section of the Bill, even if it was decided that the State should contribute.
The other point Deputy Hogan made was that there is likely to be a lack of uniformity in the schemes adopted throughout the country as a whole. This is quite likely, but that is what local government is all about. We either have local democracy or we do not. If decisions are not to be made locally then we have not got local government. It is inherent in the whole concept of local government that there should be a measure of discretion allowed to the local authorities, that they should take into account the circumstances of the different types of areas under their control, rural areas, urban areas, some being relatively well off compared to others. The circumstances are different in different local authority areas and, therefore, there should be this discretion left to them. If there is absolute uniformity imposed by the Government then you just have not got local government.
The whole concept of local government is that local authorities should be free, within broad limits, to differ in their approaches to their problems. The suggestions Deputy Hogan attempted to make, although he was ruled out of order, that this should be met entirely from the Central Fund is not a realistic one. It is simply not realistic to suggest that local authorities should decide who is to be exempt and that the Central Fund should pay the whole cost; that would amount to a blank cheque to the local authorities to exempt anybody they liked from the burden of rates at the expense of the general taxpayer.
The Minister, in his statement, said that the Bill had been drafted giving each authority the power to make and carry out a scheme for the waiver of all or a portion of the rates of different classes of ratepayers.
I wonder if the measure with regard to the classes of ratepayers is wide enough? I am particularly interested in a group who suffer more to meet their commitments to local authorities than any other section of the community at the present time and they are the small shopkeepers. We have a number of such people who do not qualify for any social welfare benefits either because they have not the insurance contributions or because they are self-employed workers who cannot avail of the schemes giving assistance or making allowances to certain classes under the local authority regulations.
In our towns and villages in rural areas we have a substantial number of struggling shopkeepers who find it very difficult to exist in view of the fight being raged by the supermarkets to wipe them out and take over the entire business whether it be grocery, drapery or any other classification of business. I want to know from the Minister whether or not the local authority is empowered to help such people if they so decide to seek help. My understanding is that they are not unless they can make a case that they are unable to pay. While we are discussing rating, payment by instalment and the question of waiving rates for certain classes of people there is no harm in bringing the plight of such people before the House.
As far as agriculturalists are concerned the full rate on agricultural land is paid for from the Central Fund but the small shopkeeper has to bear the full burden of rates. The rates in West Cork are more than £4 in the £ and in other districts the rates are even higher. I want to know if some form of legislation can be enacted to help these people who are fighting a very hard battle to exist at all at the present time.
We all know the advantages the supermarkets have of bulk buying and the impersonal nature of the services they give which make it more advantageous for the customer. Of course, our citizens are free to patronise any store they like but I do appeal to the Minister to indicate what powers this Bill would give a local authority to help such shopkeepers. If there is not such power, I would ask that particular attention be given to this group of people. I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that this group do not want to impose themselves on the local authority for assistance. They have held a certain standard down through the years and they are trying—in many cases they are struggling—to educate their families and keep their independence. I appeal to the House and to the Minister to consider some way in which we can help these people.
Deputies on the Opposition benches have suggested that the State should bear the full cost of relief given to the ratepaying shopkeepers. If the State were to do this we would have the ironic situation whereby in order to relieve the social welfare class of its rate burden we would also be relieving the biggest business people in the city.
We do not have a rich economy. If the Minister was to give the full subvention to any local authority which had adopted this scheme we would be relieving some people well able to pay their own rates. I think the local authority should be given power to have a kind of property tax on certain big commercial and industrial undertakings. I have in mind the small factory owner, the small business owner, the wealthy industrialists and the wealthy property owners who might well be subject to a property tax equal to the amount which the local authority would lose on the rates. We have got to help the people in the social welfare class who just cannot pay their rates. When looking for money one always goes to the place where there is most. The big property owners and the big industrialists are well able to afford this extra tax. It would not amount to very much in the case of Dublin because there are plenty of taxable properties, and it would give people the satisfaction of knowing they were relieving the social welfare class. This may seem to be rather idealistic and not very practical, but the Minister for Finance in the last Budget brought in a tax on office buildings and, perhaps, the Minister would have a talk now with the Minister for Finance and tell him that this new tax should go to the local authorities in the area in which the offices are as a further subvention towards the rates. I cannot see the sense in the State taking over everything without some compensation to the other side.
The Minister mentioned giving a blank cheque to a local authority. It would be a blank cheque if the Minister said he would underwrite all the expense involved in derating an unspecified section of the community but it would be no blank cheque if the Minister made strict regulations and exercised a strict control over the particular classes covered in any proposed derating. There is a perfect analogy in this. I refer to the agricultural grants. In some counties a very high percentage of farmers are derated. In most counties, between total derating and partial derating, a huge number of ratepayers are already being helped and the Minister meets the position by means of a block grant to each local authority. I forget what the exact figure is. It has been increased year by year and is now quite substantial, running into millions. Nobody begrudges this relief in the case of the small, uneconomic farmer. But there should be no difficulty about the Minister meeting this particular problem in the same way.
As Deputy Murphy said, numbers of people in villages and towns get no help at all from the point of view of rates. Small shopkeepers are in very poor circumstances indeed. In every village there is an old man and an old woman in a little shop, barely able to survive. These people should be helped It would be beyond the capacity of a local body, desirable though it is, to bear the burden of such help. The Minister should make some form of block grant to enable local authorities to help out in these cases. It is done for certain sections of the farming community. There is no reason why it could not be done for these particular sections. It could be done by way of a means test. Such a test would have more reality in assessing income and would be more in conformity with absolute equity than is the valuation stipulation in regard to farmers. This is the approach the Minister should adopt if he is seeking after social justice. Instead of doing that he throws the whole thing on to the local authority and then, willy-nilly, he is forced to give them a degree of local attitude, even to the point of their deciding whether or not to implement the scheme. From that point of view the Bill is a miserably inadequate measure. It is not calculated to give the kind of relief we would expect to be given. The Minister has sidestepped the issue but the Bill highlights a gap in our social legislation and social thinking and the Minister has focused attention on that gap. He said, in his opening speech, that the measure would not cost the rates very much — .7 per cent of the total warrant. If it is so small why would the Minister not meet the bill out of central taxation so that lowly rated local authorities need have no hesitation in implementing the scheme?
Had the Minister not introduced any Bill there would, of course, be no problem and we would have continued as we are. It would certainly be a long time before we would get a similar measure from either of the Opposition parties. The position is somewhat unusual, but not very original, when it is remembered that local authorities will themselves have to find the money to give this relief. The original example for this was given by the Coalition Government in a housing Act which provided that local authorities could pay exactly the same amount towards housing grants as the State paid. From that day to this there has been mass robbery of local authorities. This Bill will not take anything like the amount of money that has been paid out in my county and other western counties for housing. Some people seem to have very short memories when they come in here with the kinds of stories that were told here this evening. That housing Act was one of the most crushing measures ever enacted. We had to pay out hundreds of thousands of pounds, a bill which, in my opinion, should have been met by the Government. It was the Coalition Government which enacted that measure. I do not see any difference between this measure and that. The change of opinion that has taken place puzzles me. Quite a number of people are in difficult circumstances for various reasons and I do not think it is envisaged that all these people should have their rates wiped out. Nobody has been able to make an estimate. I have been a member of a local authority for 20 years and we have not been able to make any reasonable estimate of what this will cost us, but I know it will not put us in the county home, or anything like that. It would be better if the Minister gave the old age pensioners a few extra shillings instead of taking a shilling off, as happened in my lifetime. There are various ways of giving relief. We may not be doing it in exactly the right way but it is better to do it in some way than not do it at all. I commend the Minister for the attempt he is making in this Bill. The only trouble is as to where the line will be drawn. It will involve a great many county councillors in trouble. They will be called on to make representations day and night for people who may or may not be entitled to relief under this Bill when it becomes an Act but I suppose we are so used to this in the west that the extra cases will not upset us unduly.
There are some people who, although not old age pensioners, would be entitled to relief. I have in mind Old IRA pensioners and their widows. I do not mind whether it is paid out of the rates or out of the Central Fund. There should be some directive from the top. As I said here some nights ago, there should be some uniformity. If it is left to every local authority to adopt its own attitude towards this type of scheme, the end result may be chaos in many cases. This risk was never more obvious than at some health meetings recently when we found that the richest counties had the highest number of medical cards.
That is right.
For instance, in Roscommon, which has the best farms in the west of Ireland, 53 per cent had medical cards; in Galway about 48 per cent of the people had medical cards, whereas in Mayo only 43 per cent had medical cards. The percentage in Sligo is only 33 per cent. It is possible that in other counties the percentage is even lower. There is no uniformity.
I am not concerned as to how this will be financed. What I am concerned about is that there should be uniformity in the method of dealing with the matter, that a directive aimed at uniformity should come from this House, that it should not be left to the local home assistance officer to decide. If we come down to that point we are back in queer street. I am sure my friends in the Labour Party will agree with me on that. I do not want to see it brought down to the level where the decision as to who will pay rates or who will not pay rates or the amount a ratepayers will pay, will rest with the home assistance officer. I would ask the Minister to insist on uniformity.
I wish to direct the Minister's attention to subsections (5) and (6) of section 2. The burden of subsection (5) is that the county council may make amendments to any scheme they introduce. This, to me, straight away presents an administrative difficulty. We introduce, for example, in any county council a scheme such as the one I have outlined here and it operates for a couple of months and then immediately the local county councillors are inundated by demands from local persons to be included in the scheme and in the month of January Councillor So-and-So brings in an amendment; two months later there is another amendment introduced. I can see administrative chaos.
We have had examples of this in local administration as regards the simple question of taking over boreens. In my constituency we had to introduce strict regulations to prevent some members jumping the gun because they had the agenda full of boreens at every meeting. Amendments to this measure may be introduced by men who will be anxious to make themselves popular and that is a thing which every public representative is exposed to.
Again, subsection (6) says:
A decision by a rating authority as to whether or not a person is qualified for relief under a scheme under this section shall be final and conclusive.
Can you not see here a battery of section 4 notices of motion coming in demanding that Mr. So-and-So or Mary So-and-So should now be included in the scheme even though their qualifications to be excluded may be very tenuous? This is the kind of administrative difficulty which the Minister is now providing us with by allowing so much discretion to the local authority by virtue of the fact that he feels impelled to do so when he is not providing any of the money. If the Minister were financing this Bill totally or in part he would not be so inhibited as he is now in this matter and we would find that the regulations drafted by him would be pretty decisive and would say exactly what type and class of income would be included or excluded.
I feel that subsections (5) and (6) will lead to many administrative difficulties, will lead to much abuse and it does not require too much imagination to realise that they may even lead to political discrimination up and down the country, certainly, discrimination of some sort or another, and perhaps, favouritism because certain councillors or certain sections may feel obliged to buy popular favour by pushing the case of someone whose entitlement may not be a very valid one. The Minister has opened the gate wide to any county councillor to press that some special friend be derated as against a neighbour who may have lesser income and be less well situated financially.
I do not know what thinking has impelled the Minister to introduce these two subsections. They are calculated, I suppose, to appease the local authority, particularly elected members. This was a reserved function and this is, perhaps, the carrot to encourage them to take on this scheme by just saying to them: "OK lads, take over the scheme. You will be running it and I will give you a free hand to run it. You will be paying for it. So you may as well run it".
There is an element of pretence in this whole Bill. The Minister reminds me of the chap who invites you into the bar and when you go in lets you buy the drink. That is what is happening here. The Minister is being very generous to certain sections of the rate-paying public but it is the unfortunate local authority that will have to buy the drink.
Earlier in the discussion I mentioned a classification of persons who require help and I should like to make it clear now that I anticipated that any help that would be forthcoming would be forthcoming out of public funds. This Bill as set out is a great gimmick. It is worth nothing. County councils have already the power contained in section 2 if we interpret that section strictly. Any county council can, if they so decide, agree to waive the rates demand on a ratepayer because of his inability to pay. That is happening all over the country. We are getting no money. This is a piece of political propaganda. It will be published in the papers that Fianna Fáil are now waiving rates so far as certain classifications of our people are concerned. This is supposed to be another handout by Fianna Fáil. In actual fact, whatever rates are struck out will have to be made up by the remaining body of ratepayers within the rate-paying authority. No money is made available from central funds.
I have reasonable experience of the work and administration of local authorities. I cannot see what useful purpose this Bill serves. At the present time, people in receipt of public assistance are not liable for rates. It is quite usual that their rates are struck out—elderly people living alone, blind people, physically and mentally-handicapped people who are rated occupiers. What more does this section do? I cannot see why we are wasting the time of the House on this measure. I was seeking earlier the formulation of legislation whereby we would get a bulk sum, as mentioned by Deputy Hogan, from central funds to help certain classifications of our ratepayers. I mentioned specifically small shopkeepers who are getting nothing under this Bill. What I have in mind was that they would get the same consideration from central funds as agriculturists do at present. We know the money must come from other sources. I mentioned that point earlier in this discussion. However, we must take into account changing circumstances. There is no group of people whose circumstances have changed more than the group I have mentioned but there is nothing in this measure to help them.
I do not see why the Minister should dictate to any county council or borough council in any part of this country what they should do with their own money. That applies under a system where there is a dictator. The Minister may be a type of dictator. However, I do not see his right to say to the Cork County Council members, for example, what they should do in regard to classifications of people who may apply for the remission of all or part of their rates—and I make that statement here as chairman of Cork County Council. I do not see why we should take any dictation from the Minister through this measure.
It has always been the objective of the county council—I am sure the same could be said of other councils throughout the country—where they were satisfied beyond doubt that hardship would ensue from payment of liabilities to the county council, to strike out the rates. I do not think the system has been abused. I would not like to see any system abused. Close scrutiny must be kept. We must have close scrutiny of such applications by virtue of the fact that, in striking out rates for Mr. A, Mr. B and company will have to pay.
I do not want to take up the time of the House too much on this section and on this Bill. I would stress that no money is forthcoming from central funds. What is in the Bill, any county council, urban council or corporation in this country has a right to do today. No new powers are imposed or given under it. As I said at the outset, this is a gimmick. We shall have people going around saying: "Now, Fianna Fáil will make sure that those less fortunate sections of the people will pay no rates as a result of their Local Government (Rates) (No. 2) Bill, 1969." I want Deputy Boland, Minister for Local Government, to tell this House the additional powers given to local authorities by virtue of this Bill and also to tell us whether he intends to formulate legislation that would make available grants to local authorities to help to ease the pressure of rates on sections of the people who are heavily burdened by them and who will not benefit under this Bill.
I think I made it clear in my Second Reading speech, and in my reply, that there should be in all these schemes a clause empowering hardship cases not covered in the classes specified to be covered by the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, small shopkeepers, who, because of changed circumstances, find themselves unable to pay the rates, could obviously be covered by that. But if it is found possible to classify any particular type of small shopkeeper in any way then these can, in fact, be covered as a class, though I must say I think it would still be necessary to decide individual cases on their merits.
I have already pointed out that we are not in fact deciding in this Bill who will eventually pay the cost— whether it will be the taxpayer or the ratepayer. The present intention is that it will not be paid from central funds but, if a decision is made at a later date to recoup part of the cost to local authorities, there is not any need for any amendment to this Bill. Even if that decision were made now, the Bill would not be altered in any respect.
There seems to be a fairly clear divergence between the two Opposition Parties in regard to this matter. Deputy Hogan argues for uniformity. He argues that the classes to be covered should be laid down by the Government so that we would have uniformity as between one local authority and another. On the other hand, Deputy Murphy describes any attempt to do this as dictation by the Government and as something that will not be tolerated. Obviously, there are two different concepts here as to the meaning of local democracy. In fact, the Bill leaves this at the discretion of the local authority and it does not attempt to dictate.
With regard to subsections (5) and (6), here again there seems to be an inconsistency in the approach of Deputy Hogan. He now objects to the fact that local authorities are entitled to amend the schemes. This seems to me to be an objection to the whole system of local government by councils comprised of elected local representatives. I find it difficult to follow the changes in the Opposition attitude to the whole question of local government. At one time, they are in favour of complete freedom for the local councils to decide all local government matters and, here, when it is being provided in a Bill not only that they themselves should be empowered to adopt such schemes as they see fit but also that they should be able to amend them, this is objected to. Apparently, the local councils are not deemed fit to make these types of decisions for themselves.
The suggestion that amendments are likely to be so frequent as to amount to administrative chaos seems to me to be an unwarranted reflection on the elected members of local authorities. I do not think there is any evidence to lead us to believe we would have this type of irresponsibility—that we would have amendments every few months, so that the scheme would become difficult to administer. I have not found that type of irresponsibility in local authorities. However, if this should happen well, just as the schemes have to be sanctioned by the Minister for Local Government, the same will apply to amendments; amendments would have to be sanctioned by the Minister for Local Government.
Deputy Murphy went on to say that this Bill which he has described as dictation by the Minister does not do anything at all, that it does not give any power that is not there already and he asked me to explain what it does. I have already explained what it does and there does not seem to be any point in repeating myself in this matter. It does, of course, change the position. At present, rate collectors are required to take every possible step to collect rates from ratepayers whether or not they are in a position to pay them. It is only those ratepayers who are sufficiently well informed or sufficiently tough to resist the efforts to collect the rates who eventually qualify for exemption at the end of the financial year under the present system.
This Bill will at least ensure in the case of local authorities, if they adopt the scheme, that there will be that amount of uniformity, that people coming within the same category will get this exemption from the payment of rates irrespective of their powers of resistance to the various efforts that have to be made under the present legislation to collect these rates from them. The only other point I need refer to is that raised by Deputy Moore who spoke about the possibility of a property tax. This is getting into the field of differential rating which is being considered at present and will be reported on in the next report of the inter-departmental committee. It hardly seems to be appropriate to discuss it here although I agree that it is something that possibly would merit examination.
Perhaps, the Minister would clarify one point in regard to the payment for this measure. He states that if the Government paid the bill, the bill would still not be altered. I am confused about this. How does he reconcile that with section 2 (4) which states:
The cost of implementing a scheme under this section shall form part of the expenses of a local authority for the purposes of any provision relating to the determining, making, levying and assessment of rates.
I find it hard to reconcile his statement with that subsection. The Minister mentioned hardship cases. I never like this question of hardship cases and I think they should always be kept to the minimum.
That is the idea.
People should get these things as a right and not as a concession. The phrase "hardship case" connotes some poor fellow running around pulling the coat tails of a TD or a county councillor or writing letters to a Department. As far as one can in social administration one should lay down on the line what classes are entitled to particular social services in operation for the time being. We cannot eliminate hardship cases from society but good administration should reduce that category as much as possible. The Minister in this loose type of legislation has left that category very ill-defined and it will ultimately lead to many people being disappointed and it will lead to a number of people spending their time running around after local councillors asking to be included under a hardship clause, or that a special notice of motion be submitted to have them included under this derating Bill.
Hardship cases, of course, should be included because it is desirable that there should be a certain amount of flexibility. Deputies know that it is difficult to define in precise terms every type of case that may arise.
Yes, it is.
If no such clause were to be included it is almost certain cases will arise which everybody would agree should be included and could not be included because of the absence of such a clause. I have been advised that section 2 (4) is necessary in order to put beyond doubt the local authority power to treat the cost of giving relief as an ordinary expense which can be charged to rates in the same way as other expenses, but if the Government at some stage decided to recoup the whole or part of the cost there is no need to alter that in any way.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 2:
To add to the section the following subsection:
"( ) Without prejudice to anything in this section, any changes effected under this Act shall not in any manner cause any worsening of employment conditions, salary or emoluments of existing rate collectors."
In reply to a Parliamentary Question which I tabled the Minister stated— and I am speaking from memory— that he felt satisfied that local authorities would see that no injustice would be done to local rate collectors by any alteration which this Bill might introduce. I tabled this amendment in order to have it written into the Bill, spelt out beyond doubt, that this House was anxious to ensure that without prejudice to the operation of the Bill, rate collectors throughout the country would not have their conditions worsened. This measure will involve them in extra work and extra expense. It is partially in operation in some places at the moment and I understand that some rate collectors are somewhat annoyed about the extra work being placed upon them. They may be asked to act as assessors of the incomes of various categories who may now be claiming relief under the Bill. The Minister may correct me if I am wrong but I assume that if somebody makes an application under this it will be the local rate collector, or the home assistance officer, who will be asked to give his views. He may have to call out and interview that person and say whether he thinks he belongs to that specific category or not. If that is so, it will involve extra work and expenses. In view of that contingency I deemed it expedient to insert this amendment and I hope the Minister will consider it favourably.
I fear I cannot accept this amendment. As I have already told the Deputy in reply to a Parliamentary Question, I am satisfied that the interests of rate collectors will not be adversely affected by this measure, and if it should turn out that in certain cases this does happen I am certain the local authorities would make whatever arrangements were necessary to get over the difficulty.
I could not accept the amendment because it would be unthinkable that these improvements we are making in providing for the payment of rates by instalments as of right should, possibly, be prevented from coming into operation by any official who felt he would be adversely affected, making a claim that such a change would result in worsening his conditions of employment. If this amendment were accepted that is exactly what the position would be. Any rate collector who felt he would be adversely affected could effectively prevent the granting of this right to ratepayers, not indefinitely, but, at least, delay it while a claim was being made and dealt with. There are other methods available to local government officers who have complaints in regard to conditions of service to have their complaints dealt with and I think these are adequate. As I said in reply to the Parliamentary Question, it is very unlikely that there will be any worsening of conditions of any rate collector but, if it should happen, the normal methods of seeking a satisfactory settlement are available to those concerned and I think these are sufficient. A statutory safeguard of this kind is completely unnecessary and is unacceptable because it could result in delaying the granting of this right to ratepayers.
I do not quite understand the Minister's reluctance to accept this very simple amendment. There could be a worsening of conditions for rate collectors when this Bill is passed. Most of our rate collectors were paid on a poundage basis in the old days. Now, a number of them are paid a salary and a bonus. That bonus is contingent on their being able to get in a certain amount of money by a certain date. I do not know how the instalments would be arranged but it could certainly depend on the measure of the collection decided on by the local county council, whether a man got, perhaps, a smaller bonus at the end of the year than he would have got under the old system.
There is also the question that if he has to take a number of instalments and travel around as they do—they hold a collection sometimes in a town and may have to go from house to house—and if this measure will be treated in a liberal fashion, the rate collector will have to take payment in ten or twelve instalments instead of in two moieties. In those circumstances his travelling and his work will increase and he may lose on his bonus. I cannot understand why the Minister so glibly states that he cannot see how this Bill will cause any worsening of rate collectors' conditions.
The Minister also thinks that if the amendment were accepted it could cause some delay in implementing the measure. On the other hand, if there is considerable local dissatisfaction among rate collectors it might equally cause delay. I do not believe either will happen. I think the rate collectors will continue to do their job and, whether this provision is incorporated in the Bill or whether it is dealt with by arbitration later, I do not think it will matter and that the position will be ironed out either way. I am sorry the Minister is reluctant to accept the amendment. It was introduced in the hope that it would reassure rate collectors who are a little anxious at present about what the Bill may mean for them.
May I inquire from the Minister in regard to this amendment, conscious that it is not generally desirable that this House should try to define conditions of employment of particular persons in the local government service, if, in the event of the local government officials union making particular representations to him on any alleged worsening of conditions, he would be prepared to meet them on this matter as it is a moot point whether there would be a worsening of conditions. It could be argued that collectors operating the instalment system would, in fact, be getting their money earlier rather than getting it or chasing it all over a short period. It is a matter of debate and I think the House should be reluctant to define conditions of employment with such rigidity. If the Minister gave that assurance we, on this side of the House, would be somewhat relieved.
This would be a matter for discussion and negotiation between the body representing the rate collectors and the managers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
We have had representations from time to time and from many councils to bring about payment of rates by instalments and this is now to become a legal right under this Bill. I doubt the advantages of this method. I say that knowing it has support from all sections of political opinion and several local councils. My view is and will continue to be that where people are capable of meeting their commitment to a local authority they should pay their rates as early as possible. We know the burden of paying interest on moneys borrowed by local authorities. The principle is clearly set out and has been so set out in Cork county through the years, that the council expect those ratepayers who can afford to pay their rates to do so as soon as the rate is struck. The advantage of that is that the ratepayer completes his contribution to the local council in one instalment for the year and it also gives the council the advantage of having that money at their disposal to meet liabilities.
There is a section of our ratepayers who cannot do so. That section can get consideration, and, in fact, get more consideration when the position obtains that those who can pay, pay early. Consideration can then be given to those who find it more difficult to pay and it can be spread out, as is happening, over two instalments. Very often there is no set date for the payment of such instalments. The rate collectors know their people. They know them individually and generally they are helpful and sympathetic when they know a man is honest and willing to meet his commitments, and anxious to do so, but he may be finding it difficult to pay within a particular time. He may have cattle for the fair or he may have a few pigs fattening and he may require a month, six weeks or two months. By and large, that time is granted to him, particularly where the county council carries out the collection of the rates, the officer collection, and some of the outdoor collectors do the same. Others may not be so helpful.
Under this section these people will now find that they are legally entitled to pay their rates by instalments. In view of the big price we have to pay for money and the interest which is available for those who have money to invest—running at ten per cent now —naturally the people who pay their rates regularly at present will avail of the instalment system because, looking at it on a commercial basis, and looking at the personal advantages, they will find that by investing their money now they can earn some interest. They have from April until February to meet their commitments legally.
I am very doubtful about this section being a step forward, conscious of the fact that honest ratepayers who are in difficult circumstances get consideration from the councils. I am sure that applies all over the country. I can see extra difficulties arising from this instalment system. Such difficulties have been mentioned in the House. The Minister is pressed by Deputy Hogan and Deputy Desmond to make special allowances so far as such difficulties are concerned. The views I am stating here are views I already expressed when this motion was brought forward in Cork County by some of the Minister's party, some members of the Fianna Fáil Party and the Labour Party. I expressed doubt about it then. I did not give it support, although I am just as mindful of the difficulties of paying rates as any other person.
A person who would like to avail of the instalment system of paying rates can open a little account in the post office and put in £1 or £2, or 1/12th of his rates, monthly, so that he will have the bulk sums to pay out twice yearly. In this enlightened age there are several ways in which the difficulties which a limited number of ratepayers find in meeting their commitments twice yearly as against monthly instalments can be overcome. I doubt if this legislation is necessary. I think it will cost the local councils some additional money and it will induce those people who pay early, and who meet the demands of the councils and pay in the early part of the financial year, to avail of the instalment system. It will undoubtedly result in additional burdens and possibly additional difficulties with office staffs, and so on, without contributing much to those it is supposed to help.
Deputy Murphy thinks this will cost the local authorities extra money but I think the reverse will be the case because the instalment will be payable from 1st April on, so that by 1st July four instalments will have been paid. That is the time of year when, in most cases under the present system, the rate demands will not even have been served. So there should, if anything, be a saving to the council in interest on overdrafts.
I quite agree that there are probably many ratepayers who are quite well suited by the present system but all this Bill proposes to do is to confer a right on ratepayers to pay their rates by instalment if they wish to do so. Anyone who wishes to continue paying his rates by the present method can opt to do so.
I was going to make the point on this section that the councils have to work on overdrafts. We are all familiar with this. I often wondered if we could provide in legislation that ratepayers should receive an incentive bonus for paying both moieties of the rates together, thus reducing the overdraft or avoiding incurring an overdraft as far as possible. We know that an overdraft is built up by reason of the fact that rates are not paid reasonably on time in some instances. There is also the custom and the method of paying the first instalment in the spring and the other instalment in the autumn. Would it not be an incentive to any ratepayer if he got discount for paying both moieties in the spring, thus reducing the overdraft and thereby reducing the payment of interest to the banks?
That suggestion has already been made to me by a body known as ACRA and it is under consideration. It seems to me to be a suggestion which is well worth considering.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 3:
In subsection (2), between lines 35 and 36, to add to the subsection the following paragraph:—
"(h) providing for the application of such a scheme to all classes whose incomes and circumstances are comparable to social welfare beneficiaries of the means test categories."
On Second Stage of this Bill considerable dissatisfaction was expressed on this side of the House—and with even greater emphasis by Deputy Treacy from the Labour benches—at the fact that the contributory social welfare classes were excluded. The Minister gave his explanation, and it was simply this: that the income of the assistance classes was already known. They had already been subjected to the means test. Nobody knew what the income of a contributory old age pensioner or a contributory widow's pensioner might be. They could be people substantially well placed financially and in those circumstances he felt precluded from including them. However, while it may be true that the contributory classes on occasion may be quite well situated financially, it is also true that a number of contributory social welfare recipients are in poor circumstances. I understand that there are 2,000 such persons in this city on public assistance.
I think every Deputy here must be aware of the numerous cases of contributory social welfare recipients who would be deemed by them to be people not well off, to put it roughly. I put down this amendment to embrace that category. I am not going any further than the Minister has done. He has limited his Bill to what he terms the social welfare beneficiaries of the means test categories, that is, the assistance classes under the social welfare scheme, but I merely introduced all other classes who would be in an analogous position having regard to income, family size and so on.
If, for example, an old age pensioner getting so much per week is entitled to be derated, why should the contributory pensioner whose circumstances are the same not also be derated? Unless this amendment is accepted you are going to introduce discrimination of the worst type as between one poor person and another. It is to obviate that possibility that I have put in this amendment. It would be quite unjust to walk down a street and find two persons of approximately the same income and that one was being derated because he happened to be a non-contributory old age pensioner and the other person, whose income is practically the same and perhaps has the same commitments, merely because he has earned his income, should be discriminated against. It may be argued that they all earn their income; but there is no doubt but that the contributory recipients, who have paid their contributions year in year out during their lifetime, have paid for what they get in their final years by way of contributory old age pension or contributory widow's pension, where she has contributed in the form of stamps or, if not, her husband has had stamps.
We should not draw a line between one poor person and another. We cannot deal with all these things by saying they are covered by a hardship clause; we would have so many clauses on our hands we would need a computer to work them out. The proper way to cover these classes is to have them included in this Bill.
To adopt this amendment in the context of the Bill as it stands would be somewhat ridiculous. What the section does is to provide for the making of regulations, and paragraph (d) says that regulations may provide for the considerations to be taken into account by a rating authority in determining the classes of persons and so on to which such a scheme shall apply. But the Bill does not specify any class. It does not specify the social assistance recipients. I think it would be rather silly to specify classes whose incomes are comparable to the social welfare beneficiaries of the means test categories. It is intended that the schemes should cover such classes, and I know that at least five schemes adopted by local authorities have a clause to this effect. I think they should all have it and I certainly recommend local authorities to include in their schemes a category such as this. I have not spelled out any categories in the Bill, and I do not think it is desirable that I should endeavour to spell out the categories to whom it might apply. I have already made it clear that I am leaving it for the local authorities themselves to decide, but, as I said, I think every local authority should adopt a scheme embracing recipients of social assistance, and obviously then they should also include people whose means are comparable to those of people who are in receipt of social assistance.
It is not correct to say that recipients of contributory social welfare benefits are excluded. I do not think it would be appropriate specifically to include them as a class because nothing at all is known about incomes of people in receipt of contributory social welfare benefits by virtue of the fact that they are in receipt of those benefits, because they are not subject to a means test. The recipient of a contributory social welfare benefit is not necessarily excluded, and as I say, I would assume that local authorities would include people in this category. I certainly think they should. I know that some of them have already done so. It would be quite inappropriate for me to specify this class when I do not specify any other class.
Does the Minister envisage that the regulations would be able to deal with a situation such as this: there may be a widow getting a non-contributory widow's pension but she may have two or three of her family working and the total income of the family may be very high; whereas next door to her there may be a person with a contributory pension whose income is not nearly as high. Obviously if the widow is the rated occupier she may apply for this benefit. By analogy with the medical card system we could find ourselves in the position that it was decided that the family income would not be taken into account in the issue of a medical card for medical benefits. Could the Minister say if in estimating the income, the total family income would be taken into account or would it only be that of the applicant? I am thinking specifically of a non-contributory widow pensioner with three sons whose income could reach over £40 between them.
The local authority will rule on individual applications for this relief, and I cannot see any difficulty in dealing with the two types of cases to which Deputy Dr. Gibbons referred.
Does he envisage taking into account the total family income?
That would be a matter for the local authority.
Is it not now very obvious that the weakness of the Minister's position has become transparently clear? In his effort to evade any financial responsibility for this Bill he is inhibited in making any specific ruling as to how it should be implemented. Under section 4 there are a lot of things about the procedure, period, content, consideration and conditions. But when the Minister is asked a very definite question by a member of his own party which should be answered he is not able to answer it.
Of course, I am able to answer it.
The Minister waffles away and says that this is a matter for the local authority. He cannot give us any guarantee that each local authority will not deal with it in a different fashion. One local authority might say they will not avail of this gap and as a consequence say we will not give it to such a person——
Of course, I cannot; it is not desirable to do so.
——whereas another county council will give it. The difficulty here stems from the fact that the Minister is trying to do things on the cheap. He is trying to get local authorities to pay for something which central funds should be paying for. I understand his difficulty as regards my amendment; he approves of it, he say it's right.
I said it was wrong and silly.
But the Minister does approve of it. He said he hoped and assumed that all local authorities would implement it, but there is no guarantee that they will. Surely, if the Minister approves of it, what is preventing him from writing it into the Bill so that there will be some uniformity in the operation of this measure up and down the country? I have already stressed the defect that it will operate in the same way as the issue of the health cards, where you have one local authority giving out a high percentage of health cards and another giving out a low percentage. The extraordinary thing was that the health authorities who issued the lowest percentage of health cards were in areas where they were, in fact, most needed. I mention Leitrim because it is the classical example.
We have here a situation where the Minister is unable to adopt a specific course. He says this is a matter for the local authority and, as a result of the multitude of the local authorities all with varying rating capacities, we will have different systems adopted everywhere. I fail to see why the Minister, who says he approves of my amendment and assumes that local authorities will adopt it, will not incorporate it into the Bill. The Minister knows quite well that the local authorities are free to accept or reject this whole Bill. If the Minister is concerned with distributive justice and uniformity of social welfare dispensation he should at least ensure that all needy people, whether they are contributory or non-contributory, be treated the same.
The type of distinction which will arise here will lead to considerable social stress up and down the country. I beg the Minister to reconsider this amendment between now and the Report Stage, and if he does not want to accept an amendment put down by me let him put in an amendment incorporating my amendment. The Minister appears to be digging with both feet. As the Minister for Local Government he has the audacity to say to a Deputy of his own party that he cannot answer his question because it is a matter for local government.
The fundamental difference between Deputy Hogan and myself and between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil is that we in Fianna Fáil believe in local government but Deputy Dr. Hogan and Fine Gael do not.
All through this Bill the argument has been that I should lay down what local authorities should do. This is an argument against autonomy for local authorities. I accept that Fine Gael do not believe in local government and that I do. I made it very clear from the start that what we were doing here was giving power to local authorities to adopt this scheme if they saw fit. In my circular letter to them I suggested certain categories which should be classified. I agree it would be reasonable to include a category such as that suggested by Deputy Hogan, and a number of local authorities have in fact done so, but that does not mean I have accepted the principle of this amendment. I have described it as a silly amendment. It would completely alter the whole Bill if I were to accept it. What Deputy Hogan is asking us to do is to specify one particular section and leave out all the others. That would be a ridiculous thing to do.
I was asked a question by Deputy Dr. Gibbons and I replied that it was a matter for the local authorities to decide the classes to whom relief will be given and to decide specific matters to be taken into account. Here again some of the local authorities have adopted schemes which cover the point raised by Deputy Dr. Gibbons. Longford County Council is one that comes to mind. They have adopted a provision in their scheme which will deal with that type of case. Deputy Hogan does not think local authorities should be given the power to decide these things, but I believe in the concept of local government and that seems to be the sole difference between us.
I do not accept the Minister's twist of the remarks I made.
The Labour Party described it as dictation.
The point is if these regulations are to be made by individual local authorities there cannot be any uniformity. The Minister saw what happened in regard to the issue of the health cards when it was made a local responsibility based on a means test. The Minister must be further aware that the Minister for Health in the new Health Bill going through the House has taken back the authority to specify what classes and categories should be included for free service because he has found lack of uniformity. It was the very necessary lack of uniformity of a number of individual local authorities which led to the position regarding the issue of health cards. An analogous position will arise here because of the lack of co-operation between local authorities. How can you get 30 to 40 local authorities—I do not know how many local authorities we have—to agree to produce a uniform system of social welfare, which this essentially is? The Minister is merely twisting my remarks by saying that I am criticising local authorities. I am criticising them by virtue of the fact that there are so many of them that they cannot produce any uniformity whatsoever in a matter like this. If the Minister took it on himself to draw up the regulations just as the Minister for Health under the new Health Bill is doing now there would be uniformity. Those regulations, whether they be right or wrong, will at least be uniform and one person will not feel aggrieved as against another person, which is what will obtain here if there is not some uniformity. I fear, by virtue of the lack of uniformity which will obtain when this Bill goes into operation, that those people will certainly feel aggrieved.
I agree with Deputy Hogan that if local authorities were abolished life would be a lot more convenient for local government——
The Minister started well with Dublin Corporation.
——but the fact that that is so does not justify the abolition of local authorities.
What I heard from Deputy Hogan prompts me to ask what he means when he says he would like a situation where we should discriminate against one section of the poor. I speak for the city of Dublin and I suppose it would be a fair comment to say that quite a few ratepayers in Dublin are poor, and those are not the people who are the recipients of social welfare benefits. I share with him his anxiety and his concern that we should not discriminate but on the other hand I think he makes a bad case.
The Bill, as I see it, does not necessarily exclude widows and old age pensioners who are in receipt of the contributory pension, but the important point is that it does not necessarily admit them and I do not think it should. You may have a situation where the recipient of an old age pension may have dividends and may have other sources of income. It would not be fair, in a situation where the rest of the ratepaying community will be forced to provide the services, that a married man with a wife and family, who is trying to get by on a fixed salary, should be obliged to pay a contribution for somebody who is in a better position to pay it than he is.
As I said earlier, I cannot see how Deputy Hogan can make the point that we should discriminate against one class of poor person.
I must say I find it very hard to understand Deputy Tunney's argument.
That is nothing new.
The truth is that, for instance, in the Dublin region there are over 2,000 contributory pensioners who are in receipt of home assistance because the contributory pension and their circumstances are such that they are unable under the Victorian law to provide out of their own industry or other lawful means sufficient to pay for food, clothing and shelter.
They are not excluded.
They are because, as far as I see it, the test the Minister is applying is the test of people who are on Department of Social Welfare, as distinct from Local Government, assistance, which is something entirely different. The local authority at the moment have a totally different form of assistance in respect of which they receive no contribution whatsoever from the National Exchequer and that on a strict interpretation of the Bill would exclude them from benefit. If we are wrong on this we would be glad to hear from the Minister that we are but it seems to me that such people are not within the scope of the Bill.
Then there are those who are just marginally outside, whose circumstances are such that perhaps with a strict application of the law, which does not provide for all the individual stresses and strains of human life and family circumstances, they would be excluded. The sole purpose of the amendment is that where on a fair assessment it is considered the people are in comparable circumstances, they can be provided for. It is not going to enlarge the scope or the benefits of the Bill greatly. We would like to go a great deal further but it is in order to provide a basis for coming to the assistance of those marginal cases that Deputy Hogan has put down his amendment.
Our experience in the Dublin region is such that we fear there are very many people who will not benefit, and their circumstances are such that they are in need of some relief. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent there are many people who once knew better fortune than they now enjoy. There are people who in days when the £1 was worth £1 had a reasonable standard of living. I am thinking particularly of the many cases of widows in Rathmines and Rathgar who are living in homes which have a very high rateable valuation because at one time that area was regarded as having a certain status—and this apparently under our strange valuation laws obliges the Valuation Commissioners to put an enhanced value on their property. Even though they have let their houses in flats to provide some kind of income, they are in dire straits at the present time endeavouring to pay the rates. In many cases they actually go without necessary food and clothing in order to meet the rates bill.
The Minister mentioned earlier that there are many cases where people are unaware of the fact that if they resist the majesty of the law and the threat of the rate collector they can perhaps get an exemption or some relief at the end of the year. There are many people who are not aware of that. In any event the unfortunate people should not have to live in a state of fear and in an atmosphere of intimidation. Those are the kind of people who will not be assisted by this Bill as it has been drafted but who would be assisted if the amendment which Deputy Hogan has tabled were accepted. It would allow the kind of humane administration which would provide assistance to people who are in those difficult circumstances. These are circumstances for which it is next to impossible to try to legislate. You certainly cannot fit them into any particular statutory definition. Those are people who are living in a poverty which is often unrelieved and often unknown, but it would be possible to relieve it if you had the clause Deputy Hogan is endeavouring to insert.
Mr. J. Lenehan
The big problem with regard to an amendment of this type is that the Opposition parties can bring in any type of proposition they wish because they know they will never be called on to implement it and that is where the trouble starts. The Opposition themselves gave the original example of this type of thing. When the local authorities had to pay the double grants, they did not say that the State should pay but they speak now on what is merely a triviality except that this applies to a number of privileged type people. They can afford to be generous because they know they will be never called upon to form a Government in this country. Deputy Hogan has made a famous statement and he used the county of Leitrim as an example of what could happen. The Deputy should understand that it is not the poorer counties which have the highest number of medical cards but it is counties like Roscommon and Waterford which hold the record. Leitrim is a very small county. How can the Deputy say that Roscommon should have a higher number of medical cards than, say, Mayo or Galway? It does not make sense. That type of argument does not get us anywhere.
It is possible that the Minister will give relief in the long run and that he will give money to the local authorities to meet this change. As a matter of fact, the Act is worded in such a way that it is possible for him to do that without even changing the Act. We just have to wait and see.
The only point with which I am concerned at the moment is that I would not like to see every county councillor being chased around the country to county managers trying to get them to do something which should not be done. It is for that reason that I have asked for some type of uniformity in this matter. If we are to have 27 different councils dealing with this problem in 27 different ways much trouble will be caused. However, when the Bill is implemented it will prove a tremendous boon and a great blessing.
There appears to be some suggestion here that county councillors are fools of some sort. Perhaps they were some years ago but I can assure the House that in the West of Ireland at any rate if one is not a very slick operator and does not know his stuff he has no business going forward for county council elections. The idea of somebody going to a county councillor with a goose or a turkey in the hope of having his rates waived is something that has long since passed.
One party is talking about centralisation while the other is talking about decentralisation. I do not hold at all with county councils because I think they are achronistic and outdated and should be replaced by some other body. That would lead to more uniformity.
If this matter is to be left to home assistance officers we will see the difference, as I said earlier, between Roscommon and Mayo. In the rich county of Roscommon, 53 per cent of the people hold medical cards while in the so-called poor county of Mayo, medical cards are held by 43 per cent of the population. However, wherever the money comes from, I hope there will be some degree of uniformity and that it will not be based on the percentage of people holding medical cards. To take county Leitrim as an example is not very good because Leitrim is not representative of the whole country and when one sees what is happening in Roscommon, it is doubtful if any county is really representative.
Many people seem to have forgotten that if there is not a rate collector in an area the county manager may waive the rates in any way he decides. Some parts of Kerry were without a rate collector for quite some time and I was told that the people in those parts were not in the least bit anxious to have a rate collector appointed. In my county, rate collectors are all paid salaries now but there was a time when they were paid in a different way when they did not get their pay if the rates were not collected. It is a question of what difference the percentage will make in the amount of rates to be waived now and what was being waived at that time. I do not think it will be very great.
To be quite honest, I am not particularly happy to support the Fine Gael amendment as it stands now. I do not know what Deputy Hogan had in mind when he moved this amendment. It seems to me that no matter what his intention is, the amendment in itself would not be adequate. Perhaps I would be correct in assuming, because if not there is no reason for this particular section at all, that if there is to be relief in rates for anybody it should be for the people who are described here and, therefore, we consider the amendment to be superfluous. There is no point in giving relief if it does not apply to the widowed old age pensioner who has to pay rates on a cottage that has been vested in her name or in that of her late husband.
The amendment is too wide. It applies, as far as I can see, to the rated occupier who might only have an income of £3 10s or £3 15s per week but who would be living in a household where the income was between £40 and £60 a week. This is the flaw I see and I do not see any qualification in that respect. The rated occupier is responsible for the payment of the rates and if there were other incomes of three or four children working it would be unjust and inequitable so far as the other ratepayers are concerned to give relief to one particular person when there was an income coming into the house. If it does not provide for the type of person that Deputy Hogan mentioned when introducing this amendment there is no use having it at all.
I will not join issue with the Minister with regard to his attitude towards local authorities and their autonomy and what is or is not pure local government. His opinion would not be very valued in this House on that subject. It is only fair in this instance because they have to have regard to the rates. The local authorities strike the rate. For years afterwards they will have to make considerable provision for the amount of rates remitted in respect of certain people. They are the people who should determine the type of person who should have this waiver applied to them. The local authorities will not be over-generous in this. They would not take much notice of any copperfastened direction the Minister might give because they are noticeably mean when it comes to this type of person, particularly in the matter of home assistance. Take the case of an unmarried mother with three or four young children under 16 years of age. About £2 is the extent of the generosity of the authority to her. I can say that in respect of some of the constituencies I know. I hope they will be more generous about the rates than they have been to the poor in their own areas where they could give relief to a certain extent so that the people would have a minimum standard of living.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4.
In subsection (2), between lines 35 and 36, to add to the subsection the following paragraph:—
"(i) providing for the application of such a scheme to all I.R.A. pensioners".
I expect I will get a stereotyped reply from the Minister. This is a matter for the local authority. We have seen fit in this House to introduce help of an analogous nature in respect of this category of persons in recent budgets. On the same line of thinking, I put down this amendment here. IRA pensioners are a dwindling number of our population. It is true that many of them are by no means wealthy men. Any of us who may have attended memorial functions and seen the parades of the Old IRA must realise that a number of them appear to be not wealthy. Some of them are, perhaps, reasonably well off but there are a number of persons who are by no means well placed financially. I have not mentioned any question of a means test. I wanted to test the Minister's reaction and see would he be sympathetic to the idea of some concession to these people. One may say there are certain IRA pensioners who may not want and would not look for a concession of this nature because they would not need it. They can be excluded. By and large, I would ask the Minister to accept this amendment and to incorporate it into the Bill. I know the Minister will tell me it can be done at local level but the question remains as to whether it will be done and how far it will be done. If the Minister wishes to ponder over this and say that he will introduce an amendment of his own on Report Stage I will be quite happy. If he gives me any indication that he would like the amendment adjusted in some way I would be quite happy to accede to his wishes in that respect.
I hope that neither the Minister nor the local authority will accept this amendment. I do not know about the present Dáil but I remember that in the last Dáil—and the Minister knows this—there were Members of the Cabinet who had IRA pensions. The IRA pension has no means test whatever. There are wealthy men with IRA pensions. Surely we do not suggest they will get a remission of rates?
(Cavan): The idea behind this amendment is to give relief to people in necessitous cases. The special allowances provisions of the Army Pensions Acts provides pensions to keep body and soul together——
This does not refer to special allowances.
(Cavan):—— in regard to certain categories of people who took part in the fight for freedom provided they hold a medal with bar.
The Deputy does not understand the special allowances.
(Cavan): The amendment, as drafted, applies to IRA pensioners only. I concede that that might open the gate to comparatively wealthy people. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, as drafted, and if he considers it too wide would he be prepared to accept it in respect of people in receipt of special allowances under the Army Pensions Act? The Minister must concede that those people are in necessitous circumstances. Otherwise they would not be in receipt of special allowances.
Whatever may be the interpretation which Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) is putting on this the meaning of the amendment is clear. It says “providing for the application of such a scheme to all IRA pensioners.” These are simple words and there is no doubt about what they mean.
I have no doubt but that Deputy Fitzpatrick is putting a veneer over this amendment when he talks about the special allowances. He does not seem to be fully aware of the purpose of special allowances. Laying that aside, as Deputy Corish rightly said if one were to pay heed to this amendment certain Deputies of this House would be covered and I could name various categories of persons who would be covered by this magnanimous effort of Deputy Hogan.
His amendment reads:
providing for the application of such a scheme to all IRA pensioners.
When we are dealing with matters of this kind we must realise that ratepayers are called upon to pay rates. This being so, when we are extending services to which the rates contribute we must be realistic and we must be aware of what we are able to achieve by any measure put through this House to accord relief to those in the lower income bracket. It has been mentioned that certain people are not included in the scheme and that a rigid code should apply; that the Minister should prescribe the various categories to be covered. I suggest that local authorities would not easily fall in line with any attempt to prescribe for them who should and who should not be covered. After all, it is the local authorities who have the responsibility of ensuring that the rates are collected and that the distribution is fair and equitable. If we were to fall in line with the terms of this amendment one could not foresee where the scope of the scheme would end.
Would the Deputy be prepared to give any special concessions to those classes?
I would ask Deputy Hogan to leave this to the good sense of members of local authorities. I hate spelling things out in an Act. As Deputy Corish said some of them will be mean enough if they have to pay for it themselves. Every year in Westmeath we provide for £5,000 or £6,000 of irrecoverable rates, rates that we know we will have to write off. In Athlone Urban Council we have a yearly meeting in committee and we consider the circumstances of people and we write off rates. In a sense we are operating a scheme like this. We are putting that into law now. Leave this to the local authorities to put through. We will do our best with it, we will make our mistakes and if, in a few years time, it needs to be put on a better footing as regards eligibility as we are doing with the Health Act, well and good, but give the local authorities a chance first.
Surely the Minister expects that the local authority would come to the aid of those who have small pensions or special allowances and nothing else?
Yes.
Deputy Fitzpatrick and other Deputies have probably by now enlightened Deputy Hogan as to the scope of IRA pensions. I admit I feel tempted to explain what special allowances under the Army Pensions Acts are but I do not think that is really relevant.
This Bill does not include any class and it does not exclude any class. It is quite obvious not alone that there would be no point in a local authority adopting any scheme that did not cover the type of person who would qualify for a special allowance under the Army Pensions Act or who would qualify for any of the various forms of social assistance but I cannot see how they could, in fact, devise a scheme that would not cover these classes. I cannot visualise what classes they would bring into such a scheme. This Bill does not include any class and it does not exclude any class and I cannot see how an amendment such as this could be rationally incorporated into the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
(Cavan): On the Second Reading I raised the question of the cost of implementing the Bill. In other words, I objected to the provisions contained in section 2 (4) which places fairly and squarely on the ratepayers of the country the cost of implementing it. The Bill is a move in the right direction and in so far as it relieves the social welfare classes and the people in similar financial circumstances from the demand of rates I welcome it wholeheartedly and I say it is long overdue but I feel that the provisions contained in section 2 (4) are all wrong because this, in effect, seeks to impose on the ratepayers the cost of discharging the social services.
The remission of rates for people who cannot afford to pay them is a highly desirable social service. It falls into the same category in my opinion as old age pensions, unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. I would have expected that not alone would the Minister, when he was introducing this Bill, have refrained from imposing this charge on the rates but that he would have availed of this opportunity to move away from the system of raising money by rates because not alone does this party claim that the present rating system is unjust, unfair and inequitable but I think every Member on the Minister's side of the House acknowledges that the present system of rating is unfair in so far as it does not have any regard to the capacity of the ratepayer to pay. It raises a sum of £80 from a ratepayer in well-off circumstances and the same sum from a neighbouring ratepayer who is in very poor circumstances. Deputy Flanagan, the former Minister for Health, said in a debate on the Health Estimate that the argument in favour of paying for health out of the national Exchequer instead of out of the rates was that raising it from the national Exchequer was a fairer system. That, in my opinion, is an unanswerable argument against the system of financing anything out of the rates that could be financed in any other way. I want it to go on record that, in my opinion, subsection (4) of section 2 constitutes an extension of the iniquitous rating system, an extension of the unjust system of raising money through rates.
I cannot see how the rating system arises on this section.
(Cavan): With the greatest respect, it arises directly on the section because the section provides:
The cost of implementing a scheme under this section shall form part of the expenses of a local authority for the purposes of any provision relating to the determining, making, levying and assessment of rates.
The position is that on Fifth Stage only matters contained in the Bill can be discussed.
(Cavan): I am quite aware of that and I am referring to this subsection which I have just read out verbatim. The effect of imposing this as a charge on the rates will mean that small urban authorities, who find it very difficult at the moment to raise sufficient money for their existing commitments, will be very reluctant to implement this scheme and the result will be that those whom it is intended to benefit will receive no benefit at all.
On Second Stage I asked the Minister to tell us how many local authorities had refused point blank to make or had adjourned the making of a scheme under this measure. The Minister told us that something like 40 local authorities had agreed to implement it. I should like the Minister to tell us how many have refused and how many have adjourned consideration of the matter and petitioned the Minister to accept financial responsibility. It is because I believe this Bill could, if properly worked, relieve very necessitous cases that I am so disappointed with the particular provision which will, in my opinion, deprive these people of the benefit the Minister says he intends to give them. We should be moving away from the rating system rather than consolidating it, as we are doing here, writing it in black and white into this Bill. That is a mistake. Everyone admits the system is wrong and unfair. It is deplorable that we should actually add to it instead of trying to get away from it.
I do not think there is any point in explaining once again that this subsection does not, in fact, provide for the payment of the amount involved here in any particular way. If, at some stage in the future, the Government should decide to pay either portion of the cost or the whole of it, it will not be necessary to amend this Bill.
(Cavan): Will the Minister do it this year?
I have explained that on a number of occasions, but Deputy Fitzpatrick insists that it is stated in black and white in the Bill that the cost of this must be paid by the rates.
(Cavan): If the Minister followed the example of his colleague, the Minister for Health, it would be much easier to get on with the business of the House.
Deputy Fitzpatrick has already spoken and he should allow the Minister now to speak without interruption.
The only Fine Gael Deputy who has remained throughout the debate is Deputy Hogan. The others have been coming in and out and these others all make the same allegation. I have already explained that this provision must be in the Bill.
(Cavan): Who will pay it this year?
The fact is that the greater part of the expense which will arise for local authorities has already arisen because many of the people covered by this are, in fact, already covered when the accounts come to be examined at the end of the year. All the Bill is doing is ensuring that those who are unable to pay their rates, but who succumb to the efforts of the rate collectors to extract them from them, will, in future, be dealt with in the same way as those better informed, who know that, if they resist the demands, they will be exempted at the end of the year. There is no reason to believe that there will be any substantially increased commitment in this regard. It is unrealistic to suggest, as Deputy Fitzpatrick suggests, that the adoption of the scheme should be a matter for the local authorities and the payment of the amount involved should be a matter for the Exchequer. As I have already pointed out, that would amount to giving a blank cheque in advance to local authorities to exempt whoever they liked at no cost to themselves. That is quite unrealistic and I certainly would not recommend such an approach to the Government.
Question put and agreed to.