I listened with great interest to what the previous speaker had to say about the Bill. Some of the suggestions were worthy of examination and consideration and I would hope that they would in due course be examined and carefully considered. Obviously it is too soon to hope that any amendment could be made to a Bill of this kind because, first of all, we have to put it into practice. We have to see how it operates in practice and in due course we will see the benefits which have accrued, the faults which will have occurred in the Bill, the difficulties which will have evolved as a result. The suggestion that perhaps we should consider allowing flatdwellers to set off their payment of rent against income tax to some degree is worthy of consideration. There are other suggestions that Deputy Keating has made. I do not intend to repeat them. His contribution was a constructive and positive one. It bodes well for the future of this session in contrast to the contrary behaviour of some of his colleagues last year. There is no doubt that all political parties in the last election intended one way or another ultimately to abolish rates on private dwellings. The present Government undertook to abolish rates on domestic dwellings, schools and community halls. They said in their pre-election programme for the economy in the future that all private houses would be affected by this legislation and that the rates element in the rent on local authority houses would be removed. They also said that the rate content of the rent paid by tenants of privately rented accommodation, as Deputy Keating so rightly said, needs very careful monitoring.
I am not too sure that it is appropriate to take up so soon the suggestions made by Deputy Keating but I certainly see the merit in them. The attraction of our package and the way in which it has been thought out and put in black and white had some bearing on the success of the Fianna Fáil Party in the last election, but it was only one of many attractive items that were put before the people. We are not permitted to go into detail on that.
The inequity of the rates system is general ever since rates were first introduced in the mid-nineteenth century. Adjustments and various modifications were made in the system and as time went on it became more and more inequitable. For instance, a semi-detached house with small front and back gardens might have a rateable valuation of £35 while a very large house with ten or 12 bedrooms on three or four acres of land might have a valuation of about £12. Certainly there was no equity in that system and the reaction among the 850,000 householders who were each year asked to pay in some cases upwards of £500 to £1,000 was growing all the time. We recognised that earlier than the previous Government. Families were in the position that when the rates demands came in all other activities came almost to a halt. It was like a sheriff coming to take away anything that remained. No consideration was given in the rating system to the ability of people to pay. The man on a low income of £40, £50, or £60 a week had to pay the same as the person with £150 or £200.
There is no argument on either side of the House about rates being abolished, I am glad to say, but there is some argument about how rates on private flats or the rate content should be allowed to the tenant of each flat and how people in these flats can get the benefit. The suggestion by Deputy Keating and other speakers that under the system we have set up, whereby the tenants or flatdwellers can go to court to pursue the rate content in the rent, only very few people will do so is not really a serious suggestion. If people feel aggrieved they may appeal to the court. No great cost is involved and if they have a case the courts will support it as laid down under this Bill. The suggestion that they will not do this is, to me, rather arrogant. It assumes that people are not prepared to assert their rights. In my time as public representative of one kind or another I have never noticed anybody slow to pursue his rights whether in the courts, in social welfare or otherwise and I am sure that when the rate content involved in a flatdweller's rent comes in question the matter will be pursued. There is a very vocal organisation as we heard here to-day to support tenants. We had quotations from the Flatdwellers' Association and so on. The tenants have a very professional organisation to support them. I see no reason why the courts cannot be used at least as an interim measure to see how they go in the next year or two.
The fact that the Bill also covers the use of dwellings which provide lodgings and that this will not in itself disqualify premises from domestic status is very important. It means in effect that houses which are listed, as distinct from registered, with Bord Fáilte will not lose their entitlement to domestic rates relief. The Minister has said that registered guesthouses under the Tourist Traffic Act are in a different category from ordinary dwellings and as such cannot qualify for relief as ordinary dwellings under the Bill. That is eminently reasonable and I have heard nobody complain about it. Many registered guesthouses, in addition to accommodation permanently and specifically set aside for guests, will also include ordinary domestic quarters and such a guesthouse will qualify for some reliefs as a mixed premises. These matters have been mentioned by the Minister. His introductory speech was quite reasonable and I do not think anybody can argue with it to any great extent. I feel very much like somebody asked to speak on something on which not only is there unanimity in the House but in the country.
Whether the Opposition care to use every conceivable scare to frighten the people with alternatives to rates, whether they can continue to do that and maintain credibility as a serious Opposition, I do not know. We have heard that as an alternative to rates we will introduce a property tax of some kind and rumours are spread by the Opposition that some separate taxes will be laid on householders for public lighting, sanitary services and all the other services available. This is deliberate scaremongering. Unreasonable approaches of this kind frighten people and they have been frightened enough over the years by the constantly increasing rates bills not to be threatened in this way. It should be emphasised and they should be assured that there is no question of property taxes. Nobody has ever suggested this. A previous speaker mentioned that a house registration tax would be introduced. Where do the Opposition get this information? On what do they base their allegations about substitute taxation to replace rates? It is not a reasonable approach to their own defeat in the election to try to frighten people into disbelieving something which brought great relief to almost 1,000,000 householders.
The Opposition should not continue to suggest that alternatives will be found. If they intend to introduce alternatives if and when they return to office, they should come out and say what their alternatives are. Not once from the Government side of the House have I heard any suggestion from anybody that Fianna Fáil intend to introduce property tax, or house registration tax, or separate taxation for the ordinary services such as sanitation, water, and so on. If the Opposition have such proposals for the future, they should lay them on the line for the people and not attribute suggestions of that kind to us. If they intend to return to a different form of rates or taxation let them say so and not try to pin that on us.
It has been suggested that local government will be undermined and local authorities will increasingly lose their significance and their power. I do not accept that at all. Local authorities must be consulted about various issues such as road building in their administrative areas. The zoning and planning of their areas are subject to their own development plans. The feedback from local councillors and members of local authorities is part and parcel of democracy. I do not accept that this Bill can undermine in any way the autonomy of local authorities. We are told there will be a tight rein on money. Why not? Anybody running a business will ensure that his accountant keeps a very close eye on his accounts and his investments and how his money is spent. Why not? Why should we not keep an eye on how public money is spent and keep control of it?
A certain amount of money is available to every local authority. The suggestion—and I must say I thought it a mean suggestion—that local authorities who would not toe the line would be penalised by the withdrawal of a percentage of their allocations every year is unwarranted. Such an allegation is unworthy in a democratic Parliament such as ours. A suggestion that a local authority who do not agree with the manner in which the central Government are operating will be penalised by the withdrawal of funds or by a reduction in the allocation of funds is mean, and I regret that it was made. I do not think it arises at all.
A suggestion that the powers of the local authorities will be curbed is not on. I do not accept it. This is a very good Bill. It carries out what we undertook to do. We undertook to abolish rates on private dwellings, schools and community halls. We have done that. We undertook to abolish car tax. We did that. Our undertakings have been delivered in this Bill and I cannot see why anybody feels aggrieved about it. Every Bill put through the House is bound to hurt somebody, perhaps half a dozen people, or maybe 100 people. Every Bill makes a change and change frequently hurts a small minority of people. There is no question or doubt about that.
The cost to central funds of £8 million in a full year is an enormous amount. Obviously ways will have to be found to recoup some of the money. The Government have outlined the ways and means in which they propose to do this. Taxation is buoyant and more money than ever before has been flowing in to the Exchequer. The country has never been better. Anyone travelling in rural Ireland will see that money is available in enormous amounts. I am very pleased about that. The return to the Exchequer is there and will continue to rise. As a nation we have money which we must divide in so many ways. The real benefit of this Bill is that it removes the ultimate burden on householders. Every year householders had to find £200, £300, £400 or £500. Whether we like it or not, people had not the foresight to save £10 a week, or £5 a week, or whatever was required. Then the Bill came and contributed to an air of gloom and depression on the part of householders. The gross inequity of the system was such that it was no longer justifiable.
I hope the Minister will continue to review the operation of the Bill in the years to come. As things stand I do not see any necessity to amend the Bill. I am quite satisfied it covers precisely everything we undertook to do. I suppose it is fair to say no other Bill introduced so far has been welcomed by so many people. I congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill thereby fulfilling the undertakings we gave in the last general election.