Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Nov 1978

Vol. 309 No. 9

Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill, 1977: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): When we reported progress I was dealing with the definition of lodgings which is given in section 1 as affected by subsection (3). I was pointing out that the net effect of the definition and of subsection (3) is to provide that registered guest houses will be subject to rates and people providing lodgings or keeping paying guests in houses or buildings which are not registered pursuant to the Tourist Traffic Acts of 1939 to 1975 will be liable for rates. I said then, and I want to say now for greater clarity, that I entirely agree with the thinking behind the Bill and with the provision in the Bill that derates unregistered tourist accommodation known as town and country house and farm house accommodation. I am in entire agreement with that: it is a good idea. To do otherwise would be to put out of business a great number of these people, who are doing a very excellent job in providing farm house accommodation and town and country accommodation if they were to attract rates simply and solely because they engage in this business. But I also believe that the small registered guest houses should also be exempt from rates. A registered guest house may have as few as five bedrooms set apart exclusively for guests, but it would be subject to rates under the Bill. Those listed as town and country accommodation or farm house accommodation may have as few as three bedrooms set aside for guests. Therefore, we are differentiating between establishments with three bedrooms set aside for guests and establishments with five bedrooms set aside for guests. We are exempting the former from rates and imposing the rates on the latter.

I said this morning that I feared that the effect of this would be to discourage the registered guest house. From some little research that I have made since I find that 25 guest house proprietors who were registered for 1977-78 are not registering for 1978-79. Presumably this is because they were influenced to a considerable extent by the knowledge that by ceasing to be registered they would be free from rates. There are not too many of these registered guest houses in this country. There are only somewhat more than 300. There are innumerable registered hotels but I am talking about registered guest houses and I am told there are only something like 300 of those in the country. It would be a mistake to encourage these people to cease to be registered and to go one step further down the ladder. I do not know whether the Minister has considered this definition of lodgings in subsection (3) and its effect. I do not know whether he has discussed it with his colleague, the Minister for Tourism and Transport, or Bord Fáilte but would certainly like to have his views on the remarks I have made.

Mr. Enright

In connection with this matter, during the period following the Government's statement in regard to rates and following the abolition of rates on private dwellings after the change of Government, the position in regard to rates on tourist accommodation was a matter of concern to me. As the Fine Gael spokesman for Tourism I would like to make clear our view on this matter as it arises in this Bill. The position is that Bord Fáilte issue booklets each year. I have them here with me. One of the booklets is 1978 Hotels and Guest Houses and the other is 1978 Irish Homes Accommodation which deals with farm houses and town and country homes. The position is that the houses registered in Irish Homes Accommodation, farm houses and town and country homes, are exempt from rates while the hotels listed in Hotels and Guest Houses are liable for rates. It is important to see how Bord Fáilte describe their guest houses in this booklet. Page 8 of the preface states:

Guest houses which provide a very high standard of comfort and personal service. A very good standard of cuisine including a full meal service for resident guests. Hot and cold running water in all bedrooms and some premises have rooms with private bathrooms.

It goes on then:

Guest houses that are well furnished offering very comfortable accommodation with limited but good standard of food and service. Hot and cold running water in all bedrooms.

It goes on then to deal with the other types of accommodation in regard to hotels and so on. It could be quite serious if we have a situation where hotels which are registered with Bord Fáilte—and the word "registration" is important—are deregistering their property.

The word "hotel" or "guesthouse" cannot be put up outside a premises unless it is registered and approved by Bord Fáilte. This is laid down by law under the Tourist Traffic Act. Once hotel or guesthouse owners comply with the most stringent regulations laid down by Bord Fáilte they are granted the right to use the word "hotel" or "guesthouse". People registered with Bord Fáilte as guesthouse owners who are providing good services for tourists and who are registered with Bord Fáilte are now being penalised by being asked to pay rates. I hope that after the Minister has given this matter some consideration and has listened to what we are saying about it he will reconsider the matter.

The Minister in this particular instance is going against the best interests of the tourist industry. He is going against the strict regulations laid down by Bord Fáilte. He is looking for people to provide something less than the best, which is a great mistake. There are people who criticise and others who praise Bord Fáilte. I believe they are contributing a lot to our tourist industry. We should not bring in a regulation whereby the standards set by them are lowered. If we bring in such a regulation we will encourage people to de-register. The Minister should ensure that guesthouses are derated. It is in the best interests of our tourist industry to encourage people to register.

A vast number of guesthouses in every part of the country are set out in the booklet issued by Bord Fáilte. A premises can become a guesthouse once it has five or more bedrooms. If the Minister penalises somebody who is providing a full meal service, breakfast, lunch and dinner everyday, hot and cold running water and all the services required by Bord Fáilte, by compelling that person to pay rates it will be a poor day for our tourist industry. Tourism, following the difficulties in Northern Ireland, took a serious knock for many years. In the last two or three years it has got back on its feet. Now increasing numbers are coming here and we should ensure that we give every possible encouragement to guesthouse owners.

There are some people who will say that the small family hotels should also be granted rates relief. There is a lot of merit in this suggestion. Hotels in general are competing in a commercial enterprise and people will make the point that there are a lot of other enterprises where people are entitled to rates relief just as much as hotels are. Consideration must be given to granting rates relief to the family hotels. There is a lot to be said for the small family hotels which are open seven days a week and are providing a service for the community. The Minister must be aware that they have gone through a very lean period because of the troubles in the North.

Some people because of spiralling overheads have not been reinvesting in their hotels. They should be granted every relief possible. Family hotels, in particular, should be granted rates relief as well as some of the hotels along the coast which close for six months in the year. It is a great hardship on those people to have to meet rates which have been struck on their hotels for a full 12month period. Hotels which depend completely on tourists and have no commercial trade such as weddings and functions during the winter to keep them open, should be given rates relief. We must encourage the expansion of our tourist industry.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry, Deputy, we cannot get into the tourist business on this section. It is in order to talk about not rating registered guesthouses or something like that but it would not be in order to expand on that into a discussion of the tourist industry.

Mr. Enright

You are right and I would not dream of going against you. I will make sure that I comply with what you have stated. Many of our hotels because of their size, the number of bedrooms, diningrooms, bars and so forth are already heavily rated. If the owners of these premises improve them or build on to them their valuations will be increased. The knowledge that valuations and rates can be increased prevents people from carrying out necessary extensions to their buildings. The types of hotels that I have mentioned should be given rates relief. The Minister is bound to agree that the encouragement of all types of hotel accommodation is necessary for the tourist industry. I compliment the Minister on granting reliefs to the owners of farmhouse accommodation. These smaller holiday homes are listed by Bord Fáilte. For the sake of the tourist industry I must ask the Minister to ensure that all registered guest houses are included in this Bill. All family-owned hotels should also be exempted from rates. Those who provide accommodation on a seasonal basis should also be exampted. Anything that would seem to be against the strict requirements of Bord Fáilte must be changed immediately.

Mr. Quinn

I am sorry that I missed the beginning of this debate but there was no disrespect intended to the House or to the Minister. Section 1 deals with the definition of properties exempted from rates. It seems that there are a number of contradictions in the attitude of the Minister in giving exemptions to some categories of properties and not to others. I understand that my amendments have been ruled out of order because they would have involved direct expenditure on the part of central government. I am not quarrelling with that ruling but would like to point out that we attempted to redress the balance in our amendments.

The first division that exists is the one between the emphasis on promoting private affluence at the expense of community wealth. In other words, discrimination against certain types of community halls and guesthouses, as Deputy Enright instanced in some detail, puts the benefit of the abolition of rates into the pockets of the individual owners. As amendments from this side of the House cannot be accepted at this stage, we can only ask the Minister to consider what I would regard as internal contradictions and to see if he could meet us on them.

Let us consider the first point made by Deputy Enright in relation to guesthouses and small hotels which are owner-occupied. The argument vis-à-vis their benefit to the tourist industry can be taken as read, as can the responsibilities of the Minister in relation to tourism. Surely there is a contradiction in disallowing any benefit of rates exemption to persons who use a part of their premises as a business, that is, a family hotel or a guesthouse, and at the same time allow relief on rates on what is described as a mixed hereditament that is, for a business which combines a house and shop. It seems a contradiction that somebody who combines a business activity of a specific kind with a domestic residence can be given the benefit of partial rates relief on the portion of the premises that is used as a residence. Surely the same logic should apply to family-run hotels, guesthouses and small hotels.

In all fairness the Minister should look at the implications in cost terms of such an extension and see if he can meet us on this point. The Second Stage of this Bill has been passed in principle. It is now the task of this House to try to make good and effective legislation. The issue of principle can no longer be contested. Therefore, it is in the interests of good legislation that this inequity be removed and that the contradictions be amended by the Minister at the relevant stage. I should like the Minister to give us an estimate of what the additional charge on the Exchequer might be of such an exemption because it must have some bearing on the matter.

Mr. Barrett

The reference to lodgings in subsection 3 does not include premises registered under the Tourist Traffic Acts, 1939 to 1975. These premises are hotels, guesthouses, holiday hostels, youth hostels, holiday camps, motor hotels, caravan sites and approved holiday cottages. They are registered under the different Acts, starting with the 1939 Act. It is not lawful for the proprietor or occupier of a premises to use any of these descriptions unless the premises is registered with Bord Fáilte. There are fines for those who are found to be in contravention of this rule. Premises registered under the Tourist Traffic Acts are therefore excluded from full domestic status for the purpose of the new rates relief.

I can justify this exclusion on the grounds that, first, premises become registered under the Tourist Traffic Acts because their proprietors seek this registration wishing as they do to benefit from the prestige of a preserved description, and, second, the regulations and other rules under which premises are registered make it clear that their primary use should be other than domestic. For instance, the rules applying to registered guesthouses state that the premises shall be used for the lodging or sleeping of travellers. Rules applying to approved holiday cottages provide that the cottages shall be used primarily for letting to and occupation by tourists with or without prior arrangements.

There is a distinct difference between registered guesthouses, hotels and so on, which are not exempt, and what are known as farm guesthouses and B. & B. places, which are exempt. The emphasis seems to be on registered guesthouses. In all, there are 307 registered guesthouses here. About 75 of those are licensed premises and others are associated with grocery shops and other types of businesses and 150 could be described as of modest size, 12 to 15 rooms, and they would not be associated with any other business. Of course, the size of these premises varies upwards and they may have as many as 80 rooms in some instances. Deputies said this could interfere with tourism. If it does the Minister for Tourism and Transport and Bord Fáilte should and will review it. Deputy Enright maintained that all hotels should be excluded.

Mr. Enright

No, not all, just family-run hotels.

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy said "hotels and particularly family-run hotels". We are all interested in promoting tourism and trying to get more tourists to come here but there is no way anybody can say that a very big percentage of our hotels are solely dependent on tourism because that is not so. If one has not booked in advance one would find great difficulty in getting a room in a hotel in this city. There is no way that these hotels are filled by tourists because when I go into any of them I do not see very many tourists at this time of year. Therefore, I cannot see any justification for including hotels which are commercial enterprises. Many of these hotels are licensed and if they are excluded we will have to exclude a great many business premises and industries.

Deputy Quinn was not correct in his assumption. Any place which provides living accommodation as well as a business will be treated as a mixed hereditament and will be treated in the same way as a grocery shop with living accommodation. I have had representations and deputations about this matter. Some people feel aggrieved if they are not excluded when a reasonably sized unregistered guesthouse down the road is excluded. There is an element of competition there but the registered guesthouses enjoy a certain amount of prestige because they comply with the regulations set down in the Tourist Traffic Acts, 1939-75. If we exclude one group we will have to exclude them all and where do we stop? As I said, if this has an adverse effect on tourism the Minister for Tourism and Transport and Bord Fáilte will review the situation but at the moment there is no question of singling out one group.

Mr. Enright

The Minister said that I spoke about all hotels but I tried to be specific. I mentioned family-run hotels and hotels that open on a seasonal basis. They are the type of hotels I had in mind, not hotels in general. There are some very wealthy people running fantastic hotels who are making a great deal of money but there is no need to grant them exemptions.

I thank the Minister for his full outline of the type of premises that will be affected, that is, registered businesses. He was very open about this and I would like to discuss it. What he said causes me a great deal of worry. The following will not get rates relief—hotels, guesthouses, holiday hostels, youth hostels, motor hotels, caravan sites and approved cottages for letting to tourists. In those areas people have to conform to certain standards. Many of us holidayed around Ireland this year and called in on some of these caravan sites. I was delighted to see the standards maintained in some of them, which I am sure are registered with Bord Fáilte, and will not qualify for rates relief, but I was appalled at the standards of other sites which will probably qualify for rates exemption simply because they are not registered. This is a very serious situation. It is absolutely essential that the Minister reconsider this situation.

Recently one of our top hoteliers attacked us for our litter problems, untidiness and so on. One of the ways to remedy this situation would be to encourage people, through exemption from rates, to conform to certain standards. Now, because a person is complying with the stringent regulations laid down by Bord Fáilte and has a registered caravan site, he is debarred from rates relief. That is not common sense. He sees his neighbour breaking every rule in the book. He may not have planning permission, sanitary accommodation or running water and he gets away with a certain amount because he is not registered and nobody has a record of his business.

I will deal with youth hostels. Bord Fáilte do not want the "fish and chips" type holidaymaker here. They want affluent tourists. However, we must encourage young people such as students to come here and they should be accommodated in registered youth hostels. It is ironic that registered youth hostels conforming with Bord Fáilte regulations are to be compelled to pay rates. The number of youth hostels is limited and they provide reasonably priced holidays for young people who are not well off. It is difficult enough to meet the running expenses without having to pay rates as well.

Our future in tourism lies in the goodwill we can generate among young people coming here. If they enjoy a good holiday they will spread the good news and may return again. It is only the best youth hostels which will be hit by this Bill. We must aim to provide best possible accommodation and I admire people who take pride in their work and believe there is prestige in a job well done. However, prestige cannot be lodged with the bank in order to pay the rates bill, nor will prestige obtain an overdraft from the bank. It is not true to say that people register with Bord Fáilte just for the sake of prestige. They register because they believe they are working for the good of tourism in general and they have the interests of the industry at heart.

We on this side of the House make a formal call to the Minister to remedy this situation. Youth hostels and caravan sites are facilities used by holiday makers who are not too well off and Bord Fáilte set standards for such accommodation. Hostels which are not registered may qualify for rates relief. The only way in which Bord Fáilte can maintain standards is by ensuring adherence to their rules and regulations. Through the provisions of this Bill the Minister is almost compelling people to deregister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Bord Fáilte's standards and the types of tourists coming here have nothing to do with the Bill. The Deputy must confine himself strictly to the question of rates on registered guesthouses.

Mr. Enright

You and I will not be staying in youth hostels.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You never know where we might stay eventually.

Mr. Enright

It is important to know where we are heading. Those who provide the very best accommodation are to be hit by rates. If their standards were not very high they would not be registered with Bord Fáilte and the maintenance of high standards is in the best interests of the tourist industry. Those providing registered accommodation may have to compete with others who are providing a shoddy service and are exempt from rates.

Holiday cottages have become very popular. There are a number of such developments throughout the country, including one in north Tipperary not far from my home.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): There is one in Clare.

Mr. Enright

These cottages were built by local people on their own initiative and they will now be liable for rates. They provide a unique type of holiday in rural surroundings. The Minister should take all these factors into consideration and remedy this mistake.

Mr. Quinn

I should like to ask a number of questions. If the Minister's motivation was to confine the abolition of rates to a number of confined properties, essentially domestic residences, on the basis that an extension of the exemption rate would be an undue expense on the Exchequer, could he give us any estimate of what the loss of direct revenue to the State would be for the list of non-exempted buildings and properties he read out? Would he comment on whether my guesstimates are reasonably accurate or not? He stated there were 107 guesthouses registered under the relevant Act and some of these were large and some were small.

Mr. Barrett

I said 307.

Mr. Quinn

If you take an average valuation of £20 and a rate of £10, the cost is approximately £61,000. If you take a rateable valuation of £30 and a rate of £10 in the £, the cost is £92,000. Are we seriously saying this kind of figure is accepted as reasonable, and if you repeat it for the other categories of houses and properties——

Mr. Barrett

Hotels?

Mr. Quinn

I am talking about family hotels. I accept that a hotel is a business and qualifies for tax concessions as a registered legal company. None of the other properties, with the exception of possibly some guesthouses, is operated and run by a registered company. We are talking about properties which are family concerns of one kind or another. Was the decision to exclude these properties from the benefit of the rates exemption made on the basis of cost and, if so, what was the Department's estimate of the cost per annum to the Exchequer of such an exemption?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): On the definition of “lodgings” as it affects subsection (3), the Minister is encouraging people to operate unregistered guesthouses. It cannot be denied that is the net result of the Minister's definition. From the point of view of rates, it will pay people to run unregistered guesthouses. These are people who provide as few as five bedrooms and up to eight mentioned by the Minister. Now, 10 per cent approximately of the guesthouses on the register last week are becoming unregistered. This Bill has been published for several months. The evidence is there that the Bill makes it more profitable for people to run unregistered guesthouses and that they are taking steps to become unregistered.

Year after year, Bord Fáilte issue reports, and invariably they point to the complaints received by them from tourists during the year covered by the report. Year after year, the most common complaint is substandard hygiene and lack of cleanliness. Those are the facts and we must face up to them. Therefore, we want more registration and more inspection, rather than less registration and less inspection. I have no doubt this proposal will damage the tourist industry. There is no use in the Minister saying that if it becomes apparent in the future that this is bad for Tourism the Minister for Tourism and Transport will have a look at it. That is not good enough. Now is the time to think about it and to consult with his colleague, the Minister for Tourism and Transport and the Director General of Bord Fáilte.

As I say, some of the places affected have as few as five bedrooms. Such establishments are obviously part-time businesses. Many of them are open for part of the year only. During that time they give a good service. I appeal to the Minister not to do anything that would lower standards. Since 1939 the policy has been to encourage people to register their guesthouses and to have them inspected. It is appalling to see that policy being thrown by the wayside and a situation being created in which it will be more profitable to run an establishment which is not registered and not subject to inspection.

This Bill was conceived in a hurry to implement an election promise. As a result we see this type of flaw coming through. If a Minister came into this House a few years ago with his tourism and transport hat on him and said: "We do not want as many inspections of hotels as we have had before. We do not want as many inspections of registered guesthouses. We believe people should be allowed to operate in a free-for-all situation and provide accommodation for tourists and holidaymakers without having to comply with any standards," he would have been laughed out of this House. He would have been told he was damaging the tourist industry. The Minister does not realise that is what he is doing. He is encouraging substandard establishments which will not be subject to registration and inspection. The evidence is there because 10 per cent of them have already opted for nonregistration since the Minister's Bill was published. I have made my case as clearly as I possibly can. This is a deplorable step in the wrong direction.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does the Minister want to come in on this? I suggest to Deputies that this point has been well and truly discussed.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I will not speak again on this point unless the Minister provokes me.

Mr. Barrett

I want to clarify the purpose for which we are here. We are not here to derate tourism which is our third largest industry, and we are all proud of it. We did not make any commitment to derate tourism. We made a commitment in our manifesto to derate domestic dwellings, secondary schools, community halls and farm out-offices and out-buildings. What we did is based on that commitment in our manifesto. Lest anybody be under any illusion, we are not bringing in this Bill solely for the purpose of putting on the Statute Book what we did when we derated these hereditaments on 6 July 1977. We are legalising also what the previous Government did when they reduced the rate bill by 25 per cent. When the Coalition made that change they were not concerned about the position of guesthouses, registered or unregistered, or about hotels. There was no question then of the partial derating of those establishments. For Deputy Enright to argue as he did in this regard is tantamount to his arguing that rates should not have to be paid by any tourist interest. I wonder what the people generally would think of any such proposal. Our purpose in relation to this Bill is to comply with the commitment in our manifesto in respect of derating.

Deputy Enright made the point that rates still have to be paid in respect of a registered caravan site while the unregistered site on which there are not proper standards is free in this respect. The Deputy is not correct. A caravan site is not a domestic dwelling in any form. It is valued by the Valuation Office in a totally different manner from that in which a domestic dwelling is valued. The caravan site is valued on a turnover basis and, consequently, has no relevance so far as domestic ratings are concerned.

It has been inferred that I am driving people out of the registered category of guesthouses. That is not so. Indeed, I am not driving anyone out of tourism or doing anything to lessen the standards of tourism. There was the implication on the part of Deputy Enright in particular that non-registered guesthouses are of an inferior standard compared with those that are registered. That is not so. Bord Fáilte do not think they are inferior. They have a list of all non-registered accommodations and bed-and-breakfast places apart from those that are registered. If the unregistered places are listed by the board they can hardly be deemed to be inferior. Of the 307 registered guesthouses to which I referred, 75 are licenced premises. Would anybody suggest that these should be derated or even that the others which are very large should be derated? We have never said we would derate such premises. We are sticking to the commitment with which we went before the people. The people voted for us on the basis that we would derate domestic dwellings but not on the understanding that we would derate tourist interests also.

Regarding Deputy Quinn's question. I do not have specific figures in the area to which he referred but some of the guesthouses, for example, are very highly valued as are some of the other properties listed.

All registered hostels are included, some of which are exceptionally large and operate on a commercial basis in accommodating students and other categories of persons. They are commercial operations and all are treated similarly for rating purposes.

Mr. Quinn

It seems to me that the Minister's objective in this legislation is clear. I appreciate that there was no commitment to derate tourist interests, regardless of the merits or otherwise of any such change but would the Minister not accept that in this draft legislation he is providing a financial incentive for people to have themselves de-registered? Therefore, between now and Report Stage would the Minister consider redrafting the definition of "lodgings" so that the incentive to de-register is avoided. As Deputy Fitzpatrick has said rightly—I have checked the figures for myself—10 per cent of the categories of guesthouses we are talking of have not been included for registration this year. On the basis of a valuation of £30 per year which perhaps is low, that works out at only £92,000, but if the cost is £200,000 directly to the Exchequer in the event of exemption, the real cost in terms of circular transfers and the ineffectiveness of Bord Fáilte's promotional campaign in attempting to get registration of such properties would be much higher. Therefore, within the total of Government there must be a more efficient way of achieving the objective that the Government have set themselves legitimately. The Minister has produced what is a patently bad piece of legislation which contains the proven incentive for people to opt out so far as registration of their premises is concerned. Either the Minister's Department are doing their job well or the Minister for Tourism and Transport is not doing his job but if one compares his inactivity in regard to telephones, for instance, with his apparent inactivity in opposing the section before us when it was circulated within the Cabinet, this is not surprising. Without going into the benefits of tourism the Minister for the Environment by virtue of having some residual responsibility in this area, should bring forward on Report Stage a new definition section that would meet the reasonable requirements being made from this side of the House. Nobody is asking the Minister to do anything that would involve extra expenditure or to increase the volume of direct expenditure in which the Department will be involved by way of compensation.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am aware that the Minister is not committed to the derating of dwellings in the tourist industry but what I object to is that in derating domestic dwellings the tourist industry is being damaged by making it possible for tourist operators to free themselves from registration and, consequently, from inspection.

The Minister says that some of the guesthouses are operating licensed bars and that some of them have up to 80 bedrooms. Those two matters can be dealt with quickly but I am concerned with the five- to ten-bedroomed type of non-licensed guesthouse that operates for part of the year. I see no reason for the Minister not redrafting the section so as to exclude such houses from rates so that they will not be disadvantaged compared with the unregistered establishments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the section agreed?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot go back on those points any more.

Mr. Enright

There is just one point——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot allow the Deputies to go back on the points we have been discussing for the past hour and a half. Deputy Fitzpatrick on another point.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): On the next definition which deals with mixed hereditaments I was very glad when it was proposed to abolish rates. But this was part of the policy of the National Coalition who planned to phase out rates. We started this programme by removing health charges and housing subsidies from rates and later we abolished 25 per cent of the rates on private houses. That was an instalment on the way to the ultimate abolition of rates but our intention was to abolish rates totally in an orderly way and as the economy could afford that. I regard as inequitable and unjust the system of raising local finance by way of rates. That system took no account of the capacity of people to pay and worse still did not ensure that buildings of like size and description paid like rates. It was a hit and miss operation. For instance, a person could improve his buildings but if the improvements did not come to the notice of the rate collector or if, having come to his notice, they were not brought by him to the notice of the local authority, he could be paying rates on a £10 valuation, whereas his neighbour down the street with a building exactly the same in all respects could be paying rates on a valuation of £30 or £40. That was unfair, and I had hoped sincerely that when rates on private houses were being abolished the inequity that went with the rating system would go along with them. I regret that the definition of mixed hereditaments will continue the hit and miss system of collecting money. Mixed hereditaments mean hereditaments which consist wholly or partly of a building which is used partly as a dwelling to a significant extent——

Mr. Quinn

That is right.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): ——and partly for another or other purposes to such an extent. How are we to get uniformity out of that? How is any rate collector to know whether he should in the first place list the building for valuation purposes? How is the county council, the corporation or urban council to decide when it comes before them whether the building is being used for another purpose to a significant extent, as a dwelling to a significant extent or for some other purpose? If the matter has to go before the court how is the court going to make up its mind? This is a crazy definition that can lead only to a perpetuation of the injustice that was inherent in the rating system down the years. It was a hit and miss system. I could put down an amendment to this. Indeed, I considered putting down many amendments to this Bill but they would have had the fate of Deputy Quinn's amendment: they would have been ruled out of order one after another as imposing a charge on the Exchequer.

It would be better to abolish altogether the category of mixed hereditaments than to have this crazy definition here which will lead to some people being rated and other people with similar buildings or buildings which should properly be rated not being rated at all. That has been the system in force here for years and years. People added to their houses substantially and the rate collector never heard about it. Other people maybe only painted their houses and they were listed for revaluation. That has been going on ever since I had occasion, either in my professional capacity or my political capacity, to notice these things. I had hoped fervently that the abolition of rates would have meant the abolition of this injustice and inequity.

The Minister will say "There is the definition and it means what it says. If a house is being used to a significant extent as a dwelling and to a significant extent for other purposes, then it is a mixed hereditament and it must bear some rates." That is lovely and it is an answer that the Minister would expect to get away with. But I put it to this House that if the whole 148 Deputies were here from all over Ireland with their huge amount of common sense, whatever else we may say about them, they would know and accept that that would lead to a hit and miss system of rating, that it would mean that some people who are entitled to be rated would be rated and that many others who are entitled to be rated would not be rated.

There must be some thinking in the Minister's Department behind this definition and the Minister must have some intentions as to how he hopes to operate this. I would like the Minister for the Environment to give us his views on this. By way of supplementary question here one day I named a list of people whom I thought might be partially rated under this Bill. I mentioned people like rate collectors, insurance people and many others whom I will not list here. The Minister's colleague, the present Minister for Defence, shouted back at me, "It is that kind of thinking that has you in Opposition". That led me to believe that the Minister and the Government intend that there is going to be a very liberal interpretation of this section in regard to imposing any rates on houses in which people live. If that is so I would like the Minister to say it. If that is the intention of the Government they should clarify it by giving a proper guide to it.

I regard this definition as very serious. It goes to the very root of the proposal to exonerate dwellings from rates but to impose rates on buildings in which some people live and carry on other occupations. I would like the Minister to list 20 or 30 occupations that he considers might or might not incur liability for rates. This is just a passing of the buck by the Government and the Minister to the rate collectors, the local authorities and others without any proper guidance. I would like the Minister's views on it.

Mr. Barrett

The purpose of the qualification "significant" is to give flexibility to local authorities in the administration of relief. As an example, rather than taking rate collectors in this instance, we will take a housewife who carries on a small amount of dressmaking or such like. The local authority will be able to ignore this as a non-domestic use.

Deputy Fitzpatrick spoke about the inequality of the valuation system down the years and he always maintained that it was not very just and there was victimisation. He is quite right, but the cure for that lies in the hands of the local authorities. It is the local authorities who submit the annual list to the Commissioner for Valuations for revision. The councils always had this option open to them. If, for instance, one ratepayer felt that he was being victimised and his valuation was too high he always had the right to have it submitted for revaluation. That machinery was always available.

With regard to this mixed hereditament, or whatever we are going to decide to call it, a person is entitled to relief if it is mixed up to one-third of the total valuation subject to a maximum of £18. If the person feels aggrieved and if the £18 bears an unjust relationship to the total amount of the building which is used for domestic purposes, that person can appeal to the Valuation Office and the Commissioner for Valuations in the ordinary course of his duties will send somebody along during the following months and have the building properly valued between the two or he will treat the applicant in a just manner. I know instances of where this has happened already and in some instances the people did very well. That right is there for the ratepayers and I hope that if they feel aggrieved——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): What right is that? I am sorry if I did not understand the Minister.

Mr. Barrett

If the stipulation in the Bill of one-third of the valuation subject to a maximum of £18 is not satisfactory for the ratepayers they have the right of appeal to the commissioner through the ordinary channels to have it put right. In instances which have occurred, and I have heard about them, no cause of complaint against the Valuation Office has been experienced. Inequalities which exist can be put right, as they have always been put right, by the local authority. All that has to be done is for the local officials and local rate collectors to submit properties for revaluation. I do not see that there is any new problem.

Mr. Quinn

I am sorry to appear unduly argumentative but the core of much of this Bill lies in section 1 and, once we get the definition right, the rest will be purely procedural. We have to go through the definitions one by one. According to the Bill, "mixed hereditament" means "a hereditament which consists wholly or partly of a building which is used partly as a dwelling to a significant extent and partly for another or other purposes to such an extent." The words "to a significant extent" seem to me to be in the nature of a double-edged sword. If a family running a guesthouse occupy 20 to 25 per cent of the accommodation is that "a significant extent?" There is provision elsewhere for the specific valuation of the residential and non-residential content of all property. The provision says it will be one-third the total valuation, or £18, or less. Why complicate matters? Quite frankly, this will mean more work for Deputies because constituents will be appealing to them for an interpretation of "to a significant extent". Perhaps the Minister would have another look at this. Would he tell us how he visualises his Department and the Valuation Office implementing this or arbitrating on the interpretation of the words "to a significant extent"?

Mr. Barrett

I cannot speak for the Valuation Office or say how they would react but from what little experience we have we know they have treated people very fairly when apportioning existing valuations as between commercial and domestic. We will depend to a great extent on the local authorities for their interpretation and, if that is not satisfactory, the ratepayer will have the right to appeal. It is quite flexible and the "significant" qualification makes it more flexible still. There is no way in which my Department could know how much of a building is used for commercial purposes and how much for domestic purposes but the local authority will know and if things are not satisfactory, then there will be the right of appeal.

Mr. Quinn

Would the Minister not agree it is bad law to resort to the defence of saying that, if the law does not work, people will have the right to appeal either to the courts or to the Valuation Office? There is a section which provides for apportionment quite clearly so why introduce this phrase "to a significant extent"? This phrase could be used to prevent people living in mixed hereditaments benefiting from domestic rates because one person's interpretation may differ from another's. The Minister has covered the matter adequately elsewhere where he says one-third the total valuation, or £18, whichever is the less, or two separate valuations. That covers all the options. Why complicate it? The result could easily be that this would be interpreted to the benefit of the local authority and not to the benefit of the individual.

Mr. Barrett

There must be a definition of "mixed hereditament". Take again the example of a private house in which one room is used for dress-making. Flexibility permits the local authority to treat that as a domestic dwelling instead of putting the lady affected through all the necessity of apportionment and so forth. I would have more confidence in our local authorities than Deputy Quinn seems to have with regard to the way in which they will interpret this. I believe we can trust them. This is not bad law. If it is then every law passed the operation of which depended solely on local authorities was bad law. I trust local authorities.

Mr. Quinn

The obligation rests on this House to make good law. We would be abdicating our responsibility if we were to trust in the wisdom and common sense of local authorities. I am not now casting any aspersions on local authorities but it is my job to ensure we make good law, law which is not open to misinterpretation, and I suggest that, if the Minister removes the phrase "to a significant extent" from the definition he will remove a phrase which could be interpreted to the detriment of the individual at the receiving end. Our obligation is to make good law. Administering it is someone else's problem. If we make laws that can be interpreted differently by different people, then that is bad law. I cannot see what the Minister would lose if he took out this phrase. We are not talking about a handful of properties or 307 guesthouses. We are talking about thousands of properties all over the country and this could cause untold problems for people who do not have the resources, the power or the time to go arguing, apportioning and all the rest of it.

Mr. Enright

About four or six weeks ago I put a question to the Minister for Finance in relation to the increases this year and last year in valuations on non-domestic hereditaments, and in the form of a written reply I was told that it would be too costly to provide that information. I was taken aback at this, because when a Deputy tables a question the regulations of the House are that the information is furnished after three working days. I asked the question because I received information during the summer that approximately 70 people worked in the Valuation Office and of that 70, 69 of them were travelling around the country revising valuations. As far as I was aware and as far as the people in the Valuation Office were aware there had never before been such a large number of people carrying out valuations. It also came to my notice that the valuation of one person who had a domestic portion on his premises was increased 400 per cent. This businessman had carried out improvements.

Mr. Barrett

Who is to blame for that?

Mr. Enright

That is exactly what Deputy Quinn was saying. Nobody obviously, unless there was an appeal.

Mr. Barrett

The local authority submits a list.

Mr. Enright

They submit the list and the revision is carried out by the Valuation Office.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy say what point he is raising? There are only two very small lines in this section dealing with valuation.

Mr. Enright

I was dealing with mixed hereditaments. This was a mixed hereditament which was probably submitted by the local authority to the Valuation Office to ascertain the situation in relation to the mixed hereditaments portion. The person received a 400 per cent increase in his valuation. In another area a person in a business premises who had made a minor renovation to his mixed hereditament property had his valuation raised by £30. When I raised this matter the Department of the Environment stated that it was a matter for the Department of Finance and the Department of Finance said it was a matter for the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Quinn

They are very good at that kind of to-ing and fro-ing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is wondering if it is a matter for this section of the Bill. The Deputy is bringing in something under a definition here that is surely broadening the definition.

Mr. Enright

We can deal with this under mixed hereditaments or under valuations. Both are covered by the one section and they qualify for discussion under both headings.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I agree, but valuations as such and the making of valuations by the Valuation Office down the country and all that, do not come in under this section. The Deputy should stay with the definition he is dealing with.

Mr. Enright

I am dealing with a person whose valuation was increased by £30 because he carried out a minor improvement to his premises which did not require planning permission and for which no grant was payable. That person is only being allowed on one third of his premises, that portion being the domestic section of his property.

Mr. Barrett

What was the appeal for? It must have been appealed by the local authority. On what grounds was it appealed?

Mr. Enright

This person was not aware that there were any grounds for an appeal or for changing his valuation. All he knows is that the Valuation Office inspected his premises and increased his valuation by £30.

Mr. Barrett

The local authority appealed it, otherwise they could not revalue it.

Mr. Enright

The situation is that irrespective of who was responsible this person must pay the extra money. He has recourse to the Valuation Office in the first instance and later to the courts, but that is not satisfactory.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would again point out to the Deputy that this section is dealing only with definitions, the definition of valuation, the definition of valuation lists and that sort of thing referring to other sections in the Bill. It is possible that the Deputy could raise the question of the increases in valuations and that sort of thing on another section if relevant on another section, but not on the definitions section where we are dealing with the validity of definitions.

Mr. Enright

When I raise this on another section I am sure I will be told that I should have raised it on this section.

Revisions are being carried out at present. The Minister says that the revaluations are being carried out on the instructions of the local authority. In one small town there has been £1,000 of an increase in valuations on about eight premises. This is a savage increase in valuations.

Mr. Barrett

The local authority are to blame, because otherwise the valuation officer cannot revalue them.

Mr. Quinn

The Minister for Finance has to get his money.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would ask the Deputy to get away from the question of the increases in valuations down the country. It does not arise on this section.

Mr. Enright

The local authority have to instruct the Valuation Office. Can the local authority therefore call on any premises? Have the local authority the power to instruct the Valuation Office to call on any business premises at present to separate the hereditaments where no improvements have been made? Could the Minister answer that?

Mr. Barrett

The Valuation Office comes under the Department of Finance and not under this Department. The Valuation Office only value or apportion hereditaments or ratings which are submitted by a local authority in their annual lists. The local authority always had the right to do this. In some instances the local authority would maintain that the valuation was too low, that it should be higher. The local authority submit an annual list to the Valuations Commissioner who sends out his valuation officer and the valuation officer cannot revalue or apportion anything unless it is submitted in the local authority lists. Do I answer the Deputy's question?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not going to pursue that. It is not relevant for the Deputy to pursue it nor for the Minister to reply to it. The Chair must be obeyed in this matter.

Mr. Enright

Dealing with mixed hereditaments, I asked the Minister if local authorities have power to refer to the Valuation Office.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would ask the Deputy not to continue on this line. This is a definition section and only the validity of terms and definitions arise. The Deputy is dealing with matters that do not arise.

Mr. Enright

The definition of mixed hereditaments arises and the ones I am referring to are premises that are domestic and business. According to the Minister, local authorities have power to submit these to the Valuation Office for revision without improvements being carried out.

Mr. Barrett

For an apportionment, if that is required or if they consider it is too low. Local authorities always had this power.

Mr. Enright

I am not aware of reductions but I am aware of them going into private businesses where minor improvements were carried out, and to others where no improvements were carried out and savagely increasing the valuation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has already ruled that we will not continue on that line. Increases in valuations which are carried out by a different body do not arise. The Deputy should move to another point or I will have to ask him to desist.

Mr. Enright

The regulation dealing with mixed hereditaments is an unsatisfactory one. Everybody is disclaiming responsibility for it and it is being landed in the lap of the Valuation Office and local authorities. Valuations are being increased quietly with everybody disclaiming responsibility. I will leave that matter now and move to the question of secondary schools.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will not move on until Deputies are satisfied as long as relevant questions are being raised.

Mr. Quinn

We should take this in consequential order rather than jumping to items like secondary schools.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am anxious to do that because we are going back and forth without getting anywhere. We have spent more than two hours on one section. I accept it is an important one, but we should move along and deal with the various definitions.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I made a strong case against the definition of “mixed hereditament” as it appears in section 1. In my view it will be impossible to operate it in a fair way. In defending the definition the Minister said it was drafted in such a way as to give flexibility but that is what is wrong with it. What I am afraid of is that we will have flexibility to such an extent that some will be in and others excluded. That has been the position down the years. Valuations could not be revised unless they were listed by the local authorities but there was flexibility there to the extent that some were listed and others which should have been listed were not. As a result some valuations jumped up dramatically while others were left unchanged. Some people had a valuation of £10 while others for identical premises paid on a valuation of £50.

The Minister told us on several occasions that these premises could be listed for apportionment and if there was trouble between the local authority and the ratepayer as to the apportionment put on the dwelling portion, which is exempt, and the business portion, the matter could be referred to the Valuation Office. I am sure the Minister is aware that as a result of that a valuation of £20 which is referred to the Valuation Office for apportionment between a domestic and business section of a premises could be increased to £50 with £40 on the business portion and £10 on the dwelling. The Minister cannot deny that because he must have had a lot of experience of it. Once the Commissioner of Valuation is asked about a dormant valuation, a valuation that has not been revised since 1920, the inevitable result is a dramatic increase in the valuation.

The definition is unworkable and will lead to injustices and inequity all over the place. I accept, as the Minister said, that there was no new problem but I understood we would be endeavouring to get rid of problems. We are having a perpetuation of a problem that has existed since the rating system was introduced. We will have the same old system whereby if one is lucky one is not listed. I will go further and say that if one is friendly with the rate collector and if he is unscrupulous enough to keep quiet one would not be listed. In that event such a person would be treated as having a private dwelling while somebody else down the street would be listed and have to pay rates. We should not stand over that system. I have been dealing with this problem for many years and I am aware of what has been happening. This definition is a recipe for injustice in the future. I urge the Minister to redraft it so that it will be fair all round. I invited the Minister to list a number of businesses or professions he thought should attract rates and the only one he gave me was dress-making. In that case that person would not be liable for rates.

The Minister is afraid of this; it is a hot potato for him. This is drafted so as to pass the buck from the Cabinet table and the Custom House. The Minister should give us a fair example of the type of business or profession that should not be liable for rates. This buck-passing when it is going to mean that some people will be paying a lot of money in rates annually while others in similar circumstances who are lucky enough not to be listed pay none is unfair. It is a system which should not be condoned or tolerated. We should get rid of it.

Mr. Barrett

I have not forgotten the point made by Deputy Quinn and I wish to tell him that I am prepared to have a look at this with a view to improvement, if that is the case. I wish to clarify these business valuations. Deputy Fitzpatrick has a wrong conception of them and Deputy Quinn seems to agree with him. When these valuation lists are submitted by a local authority they see if they want a place revalued. We are talking about an apportionment for derating purposes. It will be listed for apportionment and not for revaluing. Buildings will not be revalued if they are not listed for revaluing.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It will be listed for revision. That is the term that is used.

Mr. Barrett

The expression is "revalued". I have seen this. I have written to local authorities, believe it or not. This is how it happens. It is wrong to conclude that a person who appeals through a local authority for an apportionment of a mixed hereditament would have to have his valuation increased. That is not the case.

Mr. Quinn

Would the Minister not accept from his own personal experience that, if he or I were involved in a local authority and had the opportunity of sending up a list for either apportionment or revaluation, we both know what we would opt to do? Whether it was in the Town Hall in Ennis or elsewhere, if the option was there we would opt for a revaluation and not a simple apportionment. I accept the legal distinction between the two. But the question is: are we going to get a legal definition of what portion of property is residential and what portion is for other purposes? Is this going to be done in the context of the 1978 valuation and not the 1910 valuation, because most local authorities if they had any sense would go for revaluation?

Mr. Barrett

It is the ratepayer who will be appealing for an apportionment and not the local authority. Local authorities are not going to do this in these instances. It just does not happen. It is the ratepayer who is appealing.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am not satisfied that there is no danger of a valuation of £20 which is sent up to be apportioned coming back as a £30, £40 or £50 valuation. Once the valuation people are brought on a premises it is up to them, in my opinion, to regularise the whole valuation. If it is the Minister's intention that an application to apportion a valuation could not result in an increase in a valuation, he should write that into the Bill. Would the Minister write that into the Bill on the Report Stage? Will he introduce an amendment which will say that on an application to apportion a valuation it shall not be open to the Commissioner of Valuation to increase the valuation submitted to him for apportionment? Will the Minister do that?

Mr. Barrett

If I find that existing legislation does not ensure that, I will certainly have a look at it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Will the Minister tell us about it on the Report Stage?

Mr. Barrett

Yes.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): That goes a long way to deal with that but I want to repeat that I am not satisfied that the Minister has dealt in a satisfactory way with the definition there and with the argument that I have put forward against it. Some of these valuations will be submitted to the county council. Some of them will be apportioned as between private and business occupations. Some of them will simply be treated as private occupations and will not be interfered with at all. I asked the Minister on a number of occasions to give us an idea of his thinking on occupations or business professions that should attract rates and he refuses to do it. He has been less than frank with us not to give us the benefit of his departmental knowledge on this. Surely the Department must have views as to whether certain businesses or occupations or professions should attract rates.

Mr. Barrett

I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy but I told Deputy Quinn I was going to have a look at this.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Is the Minister going to have a look at the whole thing?

Mr. Barrett

Yes. I am going to have a look at the definitions. It includes the definition the Deputy is talking about.

Mr. Quinn

We could go on a long time in relation to these definitions. The Minister has already conceded in principle that there are a number of interpretations that can be taken. If he is prepared to come back on Report Stage with a considered viewpoint on this and deal with the loopholes, I would then be happy to leave it at that and go on to the next matter, which is the municipal rate. We could go on and on about this matter without getting very far. Perhaps the Minister and his own officials would need time to consider this and let us have their comments on Report Stage.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not intend to prolong the debate on this but there should be some guidelines. We all know of the innumerable businesses, professions or occupations that are carried on gainfully in residences. I want to know are all these going to be subject to rates or are we going to have a case where some person in a huckster's shop is making a few hundred pounds and his premises are rated and some other person practising some other totally different occupation and earning several thousand pounds in a similar building is going to be free of rates? That is calling a spade a spade and that is what I want to know. The courts are entitled to some guidelines and guidelines they are not getting in this definition section as it stands.

Mr. Quinn

I would just like to add something to that because I can see untold work for public representatives seeking appeals. Take, for example, the question of a music teacher who gives lessons in his or her house. The house is a private dwelling but that may be his or her main occupation. How, in regard to that case, would the Minister see that person's house being defined? Would it be a mixture since it is being used for business purposes or, to use the phrase, "for another or other purposes to such an extent..."? From everybody's point of view, including that of the Minister whose backbenchers will be plaguing him to make exemptions, he should sit down and produce some list along the lines suggested by Deputy Fitzpatrick. It would go a long way to clarify this. It certainly is necessary because it is a matter that could cause a lot of trouble. It is incumbent on the Minister to clarify it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister said he would consider the matter of the definitions and also the problems that may arise when local authorities submit lists for apportionment as distinct from revision. If the Minister would keep in mind exactly what I have said in regard to the apportionment of domestic as distinct from business sections, I would be happy. I would be happy if he would bring in an amendment on Report Stage. I do not know whether Deputy Quinn and myself are at cross-purposes in regard to what the Minister has said. I understood the Minister to say that if he found the law unsatisfactory in this area he would consider introducing legislation. I do not think the Minister quite said he was going to bring it in on the Report Stage. In cases where improvements were carried out, when those properties went to the Valuation Office for apportionment they decided to increase them. I understand that the criterion the Valuation Office use to value property is the current market letting value of a premises, that is what the person letting the property on the open market would get.

Mr. Barrett

That is when there is a letting only.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): That is the theory of it.

Mr. Enright

The square footage and the improvements are taken into account. The Valuation Office officials told me the way they work it out is they work out current market letting value for a similar premises in the area and the square footage and everything else is taken into account. The local authorities will look down their list of valuations and they will see house and business premises, house and licensed premises and so on. I want to ensure that we do not have a situation where local authorities submit those lists for apportionment and the staff of the Valuation Office revalue the properties upwards. If this occurs it will hit the business community very seriously. I can furnish the Minister proof of this.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would this not arise more appropriately on another section rather than the definition section?

Mr. Enright

We have been discussing it in a very wide manner.

An Ceann Comhairle

It seems to be very wide.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

The definition section usually passes with very little delay.

Mr. Enright

All sides of the House have agreed and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle also agreed that once the definition section in this Bill is clarified the rest of the Bill will go through quickly. It is absolutely essential that business premises do not find that the officials of the Valuation Office inspect their properties for apportionment purposes and then increase their valuations. As Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out when a valuation of £20 goes to the Valuation Office for apportionment it could come back with a total of £40, that is £30 on the business and £10 on the domestic dwelling, an increase of £20. I have two particular towns in mind where there have been sizeable increases. I can show the Minister the figures for County Leitrim where there have been increases of up to £1,000 on non-domestic properties. The Minister may not be aware that this is happening.

Mr. Barrett

I am aware how little it has happened.

Mr. Enright

I can show the Minister where it has happened. There are a total of 70 people in the Valuation Office and 69 of them were out doing valuations on one occasion and 67 on another. Never before, as far as I am aware, have so many people been out doing valuations. I believe that if those apportionments are carried out in this way they will hit the business community very hard. Some people will get benefit but there will be an imposition on others.

Mr. Barrett

This is a continuing accusation, which has also been made on Second Stage, about valuation officers running madly around the country revaluing everything.

Mr. Enright

I did not speak on Second Stage.

Mr. Barrett

I did not say the Deputy spoke on it. The total increase in building valuations for the whole country arising from the revisions published on 1 October was £650,000. This figure is almost identical with the corresponding figure two years ago.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): When was that list sent up?

Mr. Barrett

This list was published on 1 October.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): That is the result of the activities of the Commissioner of Valuation on a list submitted to him. I believe that list had to be in before June 1977. I believe the list closes about 18 months before it comes back.

Mr. Barrett

The list was submitted in December 1977 and derating had already come to stay, not only the 25 per cent but also the derating of July 1977. This is the list submitted in December 1977.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): That was submitted by the county council but they made up the list several months before that.

Mr. Barrett

This list could not be made up until the end of the rateable year which was December 1977. They would not know the full list of properties which would have to be submitted so it could not have been made up before then.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I invite the Minister to get information on this. I believe the list which came down in October from the Commissioner of Valuation was submitted by the county council about the previous December. The county council did not make up that list the day they sent it up. There was a last day for submitting the applications to revise to the county council. I believe it was the previous June but the Minister would have more information than I would.

Mr. Barrett

There are so many properties listed every year and the list is not completed and sent up until after the end of the rateable year. The particular year ended 31 December 1977. The list would then be prepared and submitted to the Valuation Office. This is the return of lists for the year ending 31 December 1977.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It takes about 18 months to get the valuation.

Mr. Barrett

Not any more.

Mr. Enright

I asked the Minister for Finance a specific question. He told me he would not be able to furnish me with the information I requested.

Mr. Barrett

What question?

Mr. Enright

I asked him to let me know the increases in non-domestic hereditaments.

Mr. Barrett

When did the Deputy ask the question?

Mr. Enright

I asked it about four to six weeks ago.

Mr. Barrett

The valuation list was not published until after 31 October.

Mr. Enright

I asked him to give this information over a number of years. I will furnish the Minister with that question in a few minutes.

Mr. Barrett

It is not my job to answer that question.

Mr. Enright

Everybody is disclaiming responsibility. The Minister for the Environment is now giving information similar to that.

Mr. Barrett

I am giving the total valuation increase.

Mr. Enright

I wanted a break down on the figures to show where the increases in business premises has occurred and I was not able to get this information from the Minister for Finance. I feel this is trying to cover up what is going on. Those increases have been carried out in the last few months, which is the period we are speaking about.

Mr. Quinn

I know we have probably spent a lot of time on this section but there is a lot of doubt in this area. I am not sure if I am in order in asking this question on a definition section. Could the Minister now or at some other time during the passage of this Bill tell us if there will be any communication between his Department and the Valuation Office on the way in which valuations are made as a result of the interpretation of this particular clause? Would he be at liberty to talk about that area of his administration? The Department and the Government have assumed responsibility for the direct reimbursement to local authorities of revenue which local authorities are now forfeiting as a result of the abolition of rates. One way in which the Government can save themselves revenue is to allow non-residential property valuations to be revalued upwards to a scale similar to the one referred to by Deputy Enright. If this happens, the rateable valuation base of local authorities is going to rise. Therefore, the amount reimbursed to local authorities will be somewhat reduced. In many cases small businesses will have to pay increased rates.

My concern is for those with small operations who are not registered as companies and who frequently cannot get the benefit of a tax write-off.

I accept that the Chair has been indulgent, but this matter requires clarification. If the Minister gave us some indication of how he is going to deal with the matter and told us the connection between his Department's interpretation of this section and the interpretation of the Valuation Office, our analysis and interpretation of the situation would be more accurate. It is open to the interpretation that the tax base of small businesses will be raised without reference to publicised statements or policy and this could have a detrimental effect on small operators.

Mr. Barrett

As well as the commitment on derating, there was also a commitment that the non-domestic sector would not be called up to bear any part of the derating, nor has it been called upon to do so this year. Local authorities should list properties for valuation. It is in their interests to have new domestic properties valued in order to get an increased share of the grant. This should not endanger the commercial and industrial sectors in any way. The same guidelines for listing new properties will apply. It was always easy to list new houses as they qualified for grants and it is still necessary to apply for planning permission. Both lists are at the disposal of local authorities when compiling annual records for the Valuation Office.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I cannot accept the Minister's assurance that the non-domestic sector will not be called on to make up for the abolition of rates in the domestic sector. We know from one Bill introduced by the Minister this year that £7 million was taken from the farmers by abolishing the agricultural grant.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will put the question if the Deputy does not relate to the section.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The farmers will have paid £9 million——

An Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the definition section of this Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Chair will see that the Minister does not put inaccurate facts on the record, even if they are irrelevant. My trouble with the definition section is that it will not ensure that all people who are liable for rates will pay them. It is a section that will operate the imposition of rates on mixed dwellings in a hit and miss way. I said that a considerable time ago and I have not had an assurance from the Minister that he will remedy the situation nor have I had an answer to the case that I made. There have been grave injustices in the rating system and the introduction of this Bill is the time to do away with those injustices. The definition does nothing but perpetuate the injustices.

Mr. Enright

The Minister referred to the sum of £650,000 in relation to business premises. We are dealing with mixed hereditaments.

Mr. Barrett

Land never changes. These are building construction valuations.

Mr. Enright

I asked the Minister for Finance the total increase in poor law valuations on non-domestic hereditaments for each of the past five years. The interesting reply I received was "I am informed by the Commissioner of Valuation that separate details of the total annual increases in the valuation of non-domestic hereditaments have never appeared in the statutory valuation list or been compiled otherwise."

An Ceann Comhairle

What has that to do with the section?

Mr. Enright

The Minister was able to specify types of non-domestic hereditaments and I was endeavouring to find out if there had been any increases. The Minister for the Environment was able to give that information but the Minister for Finance——

Mr. Barrett

Take the matter up with the Minister for Finance.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is worried about the delay on the definition section. Everything that is being raised would be more appropriate on other sections.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): There are some absurd definitions and we are presently dealing with the most absurd one.

Mr. Enright

I believe that I am in order and within the scope of the Bill in dealing with mixed hereditaments. Originally I put the question down to the Minister for the Environment.

Mr. Barrett

What question?

Mr. Enright

Question No. 419 of 1 November 1978.

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy said that he put it down to the Minister for Finance and now he is saying that it was put down to the Minister for the Environment.

Mr. Enright

The Minister for Finance answered the question.

Mr. Barrett

Because it comes under the Valuation Office.

Mr. Enright

What is happening here is that nobody has responsibility. The Commissioner of Valuation refused to give this information, a great deal of which the Minister was able to furnish to the House.

Mr. Barrett

The figure I gave was published after 1 October.

Mr. Enright

The figures I was looking for could have been, and should have been, furnished because they were relevant. I wanted those figures because this Bill was coming before the House and I wanted to quote them. There appears to be a conscious effort to hide information dealing with this matter. What is there to hide? I think it is what I said earlier: there have been savage increases in the valuation of business premises. This has occurred because the local authorities are sending to the Commissioner of Valuation a list of premises for apportionment. Instead of being apportioned they are being revised upwards. It is my contention that there have been sizeable, savage increases on business premises. All this comes under the heading of mixed hereditaments. This is simply a way of levying on the business community sizeable increases by way of rates. The local authorities are anxious to obtain any information they can——

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy objecting to the definition?

Mr. Enright

I am because what we have here is a mixed hereditament which is being used to levy and increase rateable valuations on the business community. This is wrong because the business community should not be asked to pay increased rates at this time.

My question to the Minister for Finance was for information that should have been available to the Commissioner for Valuation. It is the right of Deputies to have their questions answered because, if we do not get this information but get a meaningless reply, as happened to me, this House and Question Time will be rendered useless.

I wanted to speak on the Second Stage debate but could not do so because I did not have this information. Today the Minister was able to give figures for buildings but they are not relevant at this point in time because they are outdated.

Mr. Barrett

They are the up-to-date figures for 1 October. The Deputy said they were outdated, but how much nearer can you get?

Mr. Enright

For what year?

Mr. Barrett

For the year ending 31 December 1977. You cannot get more up-to-date than that.

Mr. Enright

I am referring to the increases in the apportionments that are taking place in 1978.

Mr. Barrett

This is for the year ending 31 December 1977. No list has gone up for 1978 because the year has not ended.

Mr. Enright

The lists have been published for 1978.

Mr. Barrett

For 1977.

Mr. Enright

For 1978. I will bring them in and show them to the Minister. The Minister has been working as a rate collector and he knows it. The 1978 lists are out and published.

Mr. Barrett

The lists are submitted for the year ending 31 December 1977. The revision of those lists takes place during 1978, and has been completed. That is what we are talking about. There is no other list at the moment.

Mr. Enright

Last June I was in my office in Birr when a person from the Revenue Commissioners——

Mr. Barrett

They have nothing to do with rates.

Mr. Enright

——an official from the Valuation Office measured my offices. I received notice——

Mr. Barrett

When did he call?

Mr. Enright

About June.

Mr. Barrett

As I said, he was doing his work for the year ending 31 December 1977.

Mr. Enright

And he sent out notices since——

Mr. Barrett

That is right.

Mr. Enright

He could not have sent me a notice for 1977 when he did not come until 1978.

Mr. Barrett

He was working on the lists for 1977. He did not send the notice; it was the county secretary.

Mr. Enright

It was the town clerk, if the Minister must be specific.

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not relate to the definitions section of this Bill. The Deputy is using a ruse to pretend it does. I am going to put the question.

Mr. Enright

He called in June. He had not seen the office beforehand and the increases came out some weeks ago. The increases are for the annual revision list for 1978.

Mr. Barrett

The work takes place in 1978 but they are for the year ending 31 December 1977.

Mr. Enright

I do not know where the Minister is getting his information. When it comes out it will be for the year ending 1978. Wait and see.

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy said it was out and he got the result. Now he says when it comes out it will be for 1978.

Mr. Enright

The increases I am referring to are for 1978 and the information the Minister gave covered the period to 1 October 1977.

Mr. Barrett

We could not have a revision for 1978 because the year is not yet over.

Mr. Enright

I am surprised at the Minister. The lists are out——

Mr. Barrett

They are now revising for the year in advance. They do not know what they have to submit but they are revising in advance. Is that what the Deputy said?

Mr. Enright

The revision for 1978 is taking place. The Minister can check that with his officials.

An Ceann Comhairle

Whether they are for 1978 or 1977 has nothing to do with the definitions section of this Bill.

Mr. Quinn

There are one or two other items to which I want to refer. The next definition is that of a municipal rate. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten me and tell me if I am right in assuming that in some local authorities this does not include a water rate. People are presently getting bills from local authorities for water rates because water rates are not covered by the abolition of rates in general. If this is the case, would he consider broadening the scope of the definition of municipal rates to include water rates?

Mr. Barrett

There is no such thing as a water rate. It is a charge for water. Municipal rates do not include water charges.

Mr. Quinn

I accept the Minister's correction that it is a charge but would he not concede that in some local authorities water charges are incorporated in the local authority rates while they are not in others? Am I right in assuming that?

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy is right.

Mr. Quinn

Does he not agree that citizens in one part of the country are being exempted from paying water charges while others are not? Does he regard this as being equitable?

Mr. Barrett

The main reason separate charges for domestic water supplies are permitted in county council areas is that while virtually all urban developments are served from local authority water systems 16 per cent of rural dwellings have not as yet any piped water supplies and only 40 per cent of rural dwellings are connected to county council water mains. It is considered that the minority of rural residents with public water supplies should pay charges towards the cost of the service rather than have the entire cost fall on the rates. Rural householders, including members of group schemes, who take water from private sources are not liable for water charges. Dublin County Council have what is described as a water rate and Dublin Corporation include the charge in the rate. This is the way it has been done. Certain local authorities in boroughs and urban areas include the charge in the overall rate.

Mr. Quinn

Why did the Government decide to exclude water charges? Could the Minister give some estimate of the net saving to the Exchequer as a result of this exclusion?

Mr. Barrett

The saving to the Exchequer is £1.2 million.

Mr. Quinn

This is a particular kind of service provided by local authorities among all the others, such as refuse collection, library services and the "lollipop" men and women who take children across the road. The provision of water supply has been singled out simply because it was charged under a different system. The Minister and the Government are being niggardly in saving this £1.2 million by taking advantage of this legal definition and in so doing they are discriminating against householders in one area as against those in another area. This definition will result in inequity if the Minister is not prepared to broaden it to include water charges. He has already given the cost of such inclusion. Would he not consider that the logic of his argument with regard to the provision of water services could equally apply to other things like public lighting or the provision of tarred roads in certain rural areas? Why single out the provision of water services from the normal range of services provided by local authorities? Why make the distinction between urban and rural in this regard?

There was not, to my knowledge, any statement in the Fianna Fáil manifesto to the effect that rates would be abolished but people in the countryside would not get the full benefit because of the water charge. The spirit of the political commitment made in May 1977, on the basis of which Fianna Fáil received a mandate to govern, is being broken by this miserable clawback of £1.2 million. It is a contradictory clawback which could be applied in other areas and it is discriminatory to some sections of the community.

Mr. Clinton

Deputy Quinn has drawn attention to a very important matter in relation to the adequacy of the definition because it does not cover water rates. It would be outrageous if some people received their water supply free because it is included in the rate which is abolished while another group have to pay these charges.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is nothing whatever in the definition about water charges. The Deputy is bringing it in irrelevantly.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order, according to the definition “municipal rate” means “the municipal rate within the meaning of Part II of the Income Tax Act, 1967”, and Deputy Quinn has been pointing out that this will still leave a charge for water, whether it is called a water charge or a water rate, to be paid by the householder.

An Ceann Comhairle

The section refers to rates and rates only. Water charges do not arise.

Mr. Quinn

On a point of information, in the Dublin County Council area the bill is described as a water rate and I have received representations from people complaining about documentation dealing with water rates. We are dealing with rates in that context.

An Ceann Comhairle

That may be so but it has nothing to do with the definition in this Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): This House could be completely muzzled.

An Ceann Comhairle

Anything referring to rates could be discussed here if that is held to be relevant. You will be talking about the dog licence next.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The House could be muzzled unintentionally in this way. It is not possible for Deputy Quinn or anybody else to put down an amendment to extend that meaning because you would rule it out of order as imposing a charge on the Exchequer. As a matter of fact, you have done so. Surely in dealing with a definition section we are entitled to put forward an argument that the definition should be changed and enlarged so as to include water rates. There are such things as water rates and the argument is relevant.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy wishes to make this relevant he could argue that any rates could be put into the charge. It has nothing to do with water rates. We have been debating the definition section for three and a half hours.

Mr. Clinton

We could be ten and a half hours on it and we must have patience. I was a member of Dublin County Council long enough to know what was being done there and there was an even more peculiar aspect. In county council areas adjoining the city there was a water rate and no other water charge but further out in the county there was a separate water charge. There were endless problems about this because in the county they were paying two rates, a water rate and the ordinary rate, whereas in areas adjoining the city there was a water rate only. Where there was a water rate they now get water free, whereas the water charge must still be paid. It is appalling if the definition does not cover what was known in some areas as the water rate and in others as the water charge. It is very inequitable and should not be let through easily.

Mr. Barrett

Water charges are sometimes called water rates. They are a direct charge for a service and are not, therefore, part of the domestic rate. We gave a commitment in the manifesto regarding domestic rates, rates on community halls, farm out-offices and buildings and secondary schools. This Bill complies with that commitment. We did not give a commitment about water rates, nor did the Coalition Government when they removed 25 per cent of rates.

Mr. Clinton

If there was not a commitment, how is it that the water rate in some areas is to be removed?

Mr. Barrett

Because of previous legislation which governs Dublin Corporation and Cork Corporation— powers under previous legislation which those corporations enjoy.

Mr. Clinton

Privileged sections.

Mr. Barrett

Previous legislation governs it, not this legislation.

Mr. Clinton

This legislation could rectify it.

An Ceann Comhairle

If Deputies wish to argue about something that is not in the Bill and should be in it, there are means of doing that other than discussing it on the definition section.

Mr. Quinn

One of the means is to put down an amendment. Unfortunately, the amendment I intended to put down was ruled out of order. Therefore, all I can do is talk about the definition of the municipal rate. There is a certain amount of poetic licence about political promises which is not peculiar to any side of the House. If the Minister says there was no firm political commitment to abolish water charges or water rates, there can be no argument with him.

The Minister should forget about last year's election and previous legislation. Does he seriously propose to institute legislation which will discriminate between one part of the country and another, between one section of the community and another, on the grounds of the administrative hotch-potch there was in the past about how the charge was made for the provision of water supplies? Does he intend to freeze this into law for the future for £1.2 million? Is this the price of inequity and discrimination? Bearing in mind the hardship this will cause to some families, is there not a very strong argument for looking again at the definition of the municipal rate? Is there not a very good argument in terms of equity and justice for ensuring that a water supply is available on the same basis up and down the country?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I agree with Deputy Quinn that it seems to be spoiling the ship for a hap'orth of tar to claw back £1.2 million in respect of this service which is included in the rates in a great part of the country and is included by way of another charge in the rest of the country.

Mr. Barrett

Because of previous legislation.

Mr. Quinn

The Minister has the opportunity to tidy that up by changing the definition.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister did not add a little PS to the manifesto saying that they would be looking for water rates. What is the position in regard to malicious injury charges? They are now limited to 25p or something like that. Where an award is made for malicious damage and a charge is put on the rates, will it continue to be paid, or will it be abolished by the abolition of rates? In an area where a malicious injury award has been placed on the rates, will the owner of a private house have to contribute to that?

Mr. Barrett

The State will contribute that portion.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Surely there is no difference between that and the question of the water charge raised by Deputy Quinn. The Minister should have another think about this. Surely the spirit of the manifesto was that payments to the county council for local services would be abolished. That is what was meant by the abolition of rates on private houses. In order to implement that, the Minister must amend this definition of the words “municipal rate” and include this miserable little charge of a few shillings or a few pence in the £ amounting to £1.2 million. As Deputy Clinton and Deputy Quinn said, it is outrageous that the water supply should be free in one area and should be charged for in another. That does not make sense.

Mr. Barrett

Two previous Acts govern the municipal authorities we are speaking about. They could not charge for water service. No commitment was given about water charges. Dublin Corporation and urban authorities still have to supply the service and include it in their overall estimates. There is no change whatsoever. They will still have to find the money to give the service. Two previous Acts govern the fact that the municipal authorities do not make a separate water charge such as county councils do. It is not just a matter of changing a word in this Bill.

Mr. Quinn

Obviously the Minister has more experience than I and he has the benefit of advice from his Department. Would he agree that if this definition of the municipal rate goes through unchanged, people who lived in one part of the country in a property which has not sought an extension of the water system from the local authority and then moved into a house with an existing water supply will have to make a direct financial contribution on an annual basis to their local authority for that water supply, whereas other people will not, even though they are benefiting from a very similar if not identical service. Does the Minister not feel this is creating an injustice in the allocation of local authority services? If he feels that is the case, as any reasonable person must, could he not see his way—at a cost of £1.2 million; and one hesitates to think what the administrative cost is of gathering that sum—to tidy up the legislation identified with this Bill. This Bill impinges on a whole range of other Acts.

It was long enough being drafted for this anomaly to have been recognised and costed. When I asked the Minister the cost he got it very promptly from his advisers, £1.2 million. If the Minister is not prepared to change this definition, we must come to the conclusion that the Government are worse off for money than we thought since they are clawing back £1.2 million in such a miserable and mealy-mouthed fashion. I do not want to get into the abuse business. The Minister has an opportunity to tidy up the Bill and to provide equal treatment for everybody. Perhaps more is involved than simply amending and definition. Consequential amendments may be necessary in other legislation. That would be for the experts to decide.

My amendment to this definition was ruled out of order on the grounds that it would impose an extra charge on the Exchequer. We believe that if this definition becomes law there will be discrimination. On that basis would the Minister not be prepared either to indicate now or on Report Stage that he will equalise the treatment for people availing of like water services?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Which local authorities will contribute the £1.2 million?

Mr. Barrett

All of them with the exception of Dublin Corporation, Cork Corporation and the urban authorities. Regarding Deputy Quinn's argument, if one can call the situation discriminatory, that has been the situation for a long time. The provision is governed by previous Acts, Acts that were in existence long before either my time or the Deputy's. What is involved is a water charge, not a water rate. This situation existed long before there was any question of derating. It is not my intention to make any change in this regard.

Mr. Quinn

I do not agree that the situation has always been as it is proposed here. I would argue that what has happened is that in some local authorities the cost of the provision of water services has been identified as a separate item and charged separately but in essence the domestic householder has had levelled on him by way of rates a direct charge for the use of local authority services. The rates vary from one local authority to another. As a result of the definition here becoming law, some householders will have to pay a direct charge for the provision of a service which they would not have to pay for if they were in a different local authority area. If that is not discrimination, I do not know the meaning of that word. If the Minister is not prepared to indicate his willingness to review the situation between now and Report Stage we shall have to conclude that the Government are so hard up for money that they must have this clawback of £1.2 million.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The position has been clarified and to this extent Deputy Quinn has rendered a good service.

An Ceann Comhairle

I agree that the matter has been debated now and I shall not allow the Deputy to intervene further unless he has some new point to make.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): From what the Minister has told us now, private houses in Cork, Dublin and all the other urban authority areas will be covered in the Bill. They will be completely derated while all the owners of private houses in towns such as Bailieboro, Belturbet and Cootehill will continue to make some small payment to the rate collector, call it rates, water charges or anything else. I say this because the Minister tells us that the £1.2 million will be contributed by all local authorities other than those in Dublin and Cork and the urban authorities. The towns I have mentioned are not in urban authority areas so householders there will be liable to pay rates. The owners of houses throughout County Cavan and other counties who are in local authority areas and who are supplied with water by the county councils concerned will pay a water charge. I should like the Minister to clarify what he has said in regard to the liability of all local authorities with the exception of the ones he mentioned.

Mr. Barrett

Any local authority has discretionary powers with the exception of the urban municipalities of Dublin and Cork. If Cavan County Council, for instance, decide not to impose a water charge they are free to do so.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Is this charge included in the rates at present?

Mr. Barrett

No. Local authorities have discretionary power in this respect. If they have been imposing a water charge it is for them to decide whether that charge is included in their overall estimate. It is not necessary for them to have a separate water charge.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): If the charge is included in the rates it will remain as a remnant of the rates to be paid by rated occupiers.

Mr. Barrett

That is not so.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Where is the £1.2 million to come from?

Mr. Barrett

From local authorities who are imposing a water charge.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It will still be a liability on the householders concerned.

Mr. Barrett

The local authority have discretion as to whether to include this charge in their estimate figure. It need not be a separate charge.

Mr. Quinn

I do not claim to be an expert in the area of municipal legislation but regarding the Minister's comments on this definition, am I right in saying that a local authority which have previously been charging a water charge as an item separate from the domestic rate, will now have the option of combining the two into a single charge?

Mr. Barrett

Yes.

Mr. Quinn

Therefore, local authorities who will be forfeiting a percentage of the £1.2 million and who will be getting the water charge separately will have the option of combining the rates and the water charge without the Department deducting what was collected previously by way of water charge?

Mr. Barrett

They always had that power.

Mr. Quinn

Is the Minister prepared to tidy up what is a messy situation by ensuring local authorities that, having regard to the legal implications of this legislation, they may combine what previously were two separate charges in terms of their revenue yield and that the Department will respect any such decision and will not deduct the amount charged previously for water.

Mr. Barrett

I will not do that. Since the introduction of this Bill I have been accused of interfering with the powers of local authorities and I have no intention of dictating to them that they should do as the Deputy suggests.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Would the Minister be prepared to have passed an enabling section in that regard?

Mr. Barrett

That will not be necessary. The matter rests with the discretion of local authorities.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Am I correct in assuming that local authorities, if they wish, can pass on the £1.2 million to the Department?

Mr. Barrett

No. Part of it will continue to be included in their overall estimates and in the rates they will strike.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): May I conclude, then, that they can pass on approximately 66? per cent of the £1.2 million to the Department since that is approximately the proportion of the rates the Department are reimbursing?

Mr. Barrett

The decision as to whether to make the water charge a separate item is at the discretion of the local authorities. Some local authorities are doing this while others are not doing it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): But I understand that £1.2 million is being collected separately. May I take it that local authorities, if they so wish, can pass on to the Department approximately two-thirds of that?

Mr. Barrett

I have told the Deputy that it is a matter for the discretion of the local authorities. I am not giving any commitment regarding the £1.2 million.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Then, they may at their discretion pass on two-thirds of that amount to the Department.

Mr. Barrett

I have explained that it is a matter for the discretion of the local authority whether to have a separate charge. I am not giving any commitment about passing on £1.2 million, either in full or in part.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister is wobbling around. If what he says is correct I conclude that local authorities at their discretion can pass on to the Department two-thirds of the £1.2 million.

Mr. Barrett

It will be a matter for them to decide whether to have a separate water charge.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): What would be the position should a local authority decide not to have a separate water charge?

Mr. Barrett

That is not for me to say.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Am I right in assuming that in that event they could pass on two-thirds of the £1.2 million?

Mr. Barrett

I have explained that the way they charge it is at their own discretion.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): If they exercise that discretion will the Department become liable for two-thirds of it? Yes or no? That is a straight question and I would like a straight answer.

Mr. Barrett

If it happens where Cork and Dublin are concerned that it is included in the overall estimates it should happen accordingly in any other place.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Dublin and Cork are not in this; they are out of it.

Mr. Barrett

Sorry, municipal authorities.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Are there any other matters to be raised? At 3.30 p.m. to-day, three long hours ago, the Chair decided to give a lot of latitude on this section but we have had nothing but repetition and irrelevancies, a lot of it senseless.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): We spent three days on an amendment here not so many years ago.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must make some protest. The Chair has the responsibility to keep debates relevant at any rate.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I protest that I am not getting co-operation from the Minister in clarifying this simple little matter which has emerged from a point raised by Deputy Quinn: that there is a liability of £1.2 million due by domestic and other ratepayers to local authorities. I understand the Minister to say that these local authorities, who are all local authorities other than Dublin and Cork and the urban authorities, can get rid of this liability by ceasing to have a water charge and having a water rate, and he says that that is at their discretion. I ask him the simple question: if they exercise their discretion to abolish the water charge and include it in the rates will his Department automatically under the Act become liable to reimburse the local authority to the extent of 66? per cent of that £1.2 million? He will not answer me. That is a straight question and if the Minister will give a straight answer we can pass on.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has no responsibility for the answering of the Minister; that is a matter for the Minister. The Deputy is aware that he cannot repeat and repeat and repeat a question. That is out of order.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): If the Minister will not deal in a straightforward way with that the Chair cannot reasonably object to my pursuing the matter as far as I can, not by way of repetition.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If a question is repeated time and time again it is not in order, and the Deputy is repeating the same question over and over again.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am not, Sir. I am putting forward arguments in favour of getting a reply and the Minister will not give me a reply.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has no responsibility for that.

Mr. Tully

I am very interested in this aspect and the way this debate is going along. I have great sympathy with the Minister who will over a period have a lot of awkward questions to answer and he will be getting expert advice on them. A question of fact is involved here; a thing is or is not. I am anxious to know whether at this stage an answer can be given to the question which Deputy Fitzpatrick has asked. If it cannot be given would it be necessary to have the matter raised at a later date? I have had lots of complaints from people who tell me that they have not to pay rates now but they have to pay a very substantial water rate for very small holdings. If that is so and if some local authorities can get out of it by not having a water rate at all, why should others feel at a disadvantage? Why should they not also get out of paying the water rate?

I know, Sir, that you are anxious to proceed with this Bill and down the years have been anxious to proceed when a Bill seems to be slowed up, but my sympathy with the Minister does not carry me so far that I would agree that it is right that anybody should attempt to get through this House a section that could be clarified without clarifying it. We all agree that it is unfair that the items in the Bill should be held up for a long time, but this is something on which the House is entitled to a reply. It is a simple yes or no and if that reply is given we will know what procedure to adopt.

Mr. Barrett

This is discretionary power for the local authorities. I have already said that. It is not for me to be seen to interfere in any way with local authorities or their powers. I have been accused of that often enough in recent weeks. The Government commitment and my commitment is that we will be responsible for the domestic portion of rates. This is what we have been responsible for.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The cupboard must lie all bare.

Mr. Barrett

It is not for me to dictate percentages or figures.

Mr. Tully

Could I have a little more information from the Minister? Is it a fact that in 1972 a circular issued from the then Department of Local Government advising local authorities who had not separated their water rate from the general rate to do so and to update the charges for water? Did this happen? It may have been earlier than 1972 but my recollection is it was pretty late in that year. It had the effect of making people pay a considerable amount. I do not accept that there is anything discretionary when it comes to the question of laying down a concession for the whole country. If it is laid down for every ratepayer in the country and we are told that rates are to be done away with completely, it is not right to say that rates are to be done away with completely but some people will still have to pay rates, which is what water rates amount to. It is just not good enough to get out of this by saying what the Minister has said. If it is discretionary it should not be discretionary. This is one case where the Minister could say "Look, you must relieve these people".

Mr. Barrett

It is a water charge, not a water rate.

Mr. Tully

It is a water rate according to the documents issued by the local authorities.

Mr. Barrett

It is a water charge; it should not be a water rate.

Mr. Tully

I am not saying what it should not be, I am saying what it is.

Mr. Barrett

That is what it is, a charge for service. I have no knowledge of the 1972 circular and I cannot clarify whether such a circular went out.

Mr. Tully

It is a fact that the water rate is collected as a rate, not as a charge per unit of, say, 1,000 gallons of water. There are cases where that is done but not where houses which are affected by the rates remission are concerned. In their case it is referred to on the document issued as a demand for payment for water rate and the rate is laid down at so much per valuation of house. Since some local authorities have tied it up with the general rate all local authorities should be instructed to do the same.

Mr. Barrett

It is at the discretion of the ones who still charge the water charge, and some of them do term it the water rate. They are empowered to do that if they want to. There are certain municipal authorities and boroughs who because of previous legislation cannot make an extra charge or separate it from the ordinary estimates which we have been discussing here this evening. It is not for me to dictate or direct local authorities as to how they should raise their finances. If they see fit or at their discretion decide to make an extra charge for a service such as a water charge, that is at their discretion and they are empowered to do it.

Mr. Tully

Is the Minister saying that if a local authority decide that for a particular thing—be it fire protection or anything else—they want to increase their income, they are entitled to strike a special rate for a special thing?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): And will be encouraged to do so?

Mr. Tully

And will be encouraged by the Department to do that?

Mr. Barrett

No, no.

Mr. Tully

The Minister cannot have it both ways. Either they can or they cannot and the Minister has put his finger on the whole thing. It is a question of money and the money involved is where local authorities making this charge are not carrying out what was laid down in the Fianna Fáil manifesto to the effect that rates were to be abolished. Rates have not been abolished in County Meath. There is a water charge and the occupier of the house or cottage as well as the occupier of the farmhouse or castle was paying a rate in proportion to the size of the dwelling on the rateable valuation before rates were done away with. I do not know how the Minister would be able to stand up to a local authority, which required money for something and asked for permission to raise an overdraft, and say "You cannot raise an overdraft".

I had a reply the other day from the Minister's office which stated that in specific cases it was a kind of block overdraft that would be required and specific instances would not be laid down. Therefore, if a local authority applies for an overdraft and does not get permission to raise it, is it not a fact that the local authority, according to what the Minister has just told the House, can have a rate within its own local authority area to raise local finance—that is the term the Minister used—and if they can do that for water does it not follow that the local authority can also do it for other things? Can they not then increase the water rate very substantially? Where is the limit? If rates are being abolished they are being abolished and, if the water rate is not abolished, there is just no point in saying rates have been fully abolished. There is a special charge for public houses and a special charge for farmers watering cattle at so much per gallon. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a rate on occupiers of certain dwellings. Deputy Fitzpatrick's question was very relevant. If the local authority decide that the £20,000 it is raising by way of water rate is no longer to be collected because it is tied to the general rate and the water rate is abolished, is the Minister prepared to guarantee that money will be made available or must the local authority go short? Will the local authority be penalised for falling into line with what they thought was the thinking of the present Government?

Mr. Barrett

The local authority have discretion with regard to the size of the rate and how it is charged. They have that power under the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1962.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): But they have to get sanction.

Mr. Barrett

No. The local authority are empowered to do this under the 1962 Act.

Mr. Tully

The amount is not in question.

Mr. Barrett

No, not generally. The local authority have discretionary power. They can instal meters and so on. All this is embodied in the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act. With regard to any other kind of charges the authority might wish to make they are not empowered by the Act. They are empowered only where water charges are concerned.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): If a local authority decides to abolish a separate water rate by including it in the general rate will that have the effect of relieving domestic ratepayers, community halls, secondary schools, farm buildings without passing any further charge over on to the remaining ratepayers? That is a fair question.

Mr. Barrett

If they decide to do so then it is at their own discretion. Our commitment and this Bill ensures that the Government, through my Department, will be responsible for rates.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Can the local authority do it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am putting the question that section I stand part of the Bill. We are on a definition section. We have spent hours on it and it is not in order to do so.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Because the Minister will not answer the question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Because of the latitude given by the Chair.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): No, Sir.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy listen to me? Two previous office holders in this Chair gave the following ruling on the interpretation section: only the mere interpretation of terms arises. If I were to stick strictly to this the debate on this section would have been over in half an hour or less, but the Chair decided at half past three today it would give Deputies a certain amount of latitude and now they are abusing that latitude and have abused it all afternoon. I am sorry to have to say that.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The last thing I want to do is to be out of order or abuse any concession given by the Chair. I have asked a staightforward, simple question in different ways and the Minister wriggles and refuses to answer.

Mr. Barrett

I have answered twice. That should be sufficient.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I will ask the question once more. If local authorities affected by this one £2 million because they have a separate water rate decide in their discretion to abolish that separate water charge and amalgamate it with their rates will that relieve domestic ratepayers without adding additional charge to the other ratepayers in the area?

Mr. Barrett

For the third time, the local authority has discretionary powers.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I know that.

Mr. Barrett

For the third time, with regard to the Government commitment, through my Department we will be responsible for the derating which takes place under this Bill—domestic rates, rates on secondary schools, farm out-offices and buildings and community halls. That is our commitment and this is the third time I have answered the Deputy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are leaving this matter now. I am putting the question.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister is not prepared to pay the water rate. He has no intention of paying it and he will not be man enough to admit it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will leave this matter now. I am going to put the question because there is nothing but irrelevancy and repetition.

Mr. Tully

Is the Chair applying the guillotine to the discussion at the very outset? If so, there does not appear to be any point in discussing any section at all.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputy Tully listen to me for one moment? At half past three I came in on this Bill and, in my wisdom or otherwise, I at that stage decided to give Deputies a good deal of latitude on this section. It is now ten minutes to seven. Goodness gracious, am I now being accused of trying to guillotine this section? If there are any other matters to be raised, then raise them, but we cannot have this repetition.

Mr. Tully

I sat in those benches not for three and a half hours but for three and a half weeks and members of the party to which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle belongs held up one section of a Bill for three and a half weeks.

Mr. Kelly

And Deputy de Valera single-handed kept this House three weeks on the wealth tax in 1975 and he was not even a spokesman.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are on the definition section and, if there are any other matters to be raised, please raise them.

Mr. Tully

Would the Leas-Cheann Comhairle tell me, if we allow this to go through now without getting it clarified, in what way can we have this matter clarified in this Bill?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Really if the Chair were to apply the rules strictly, which are in front of him, given by previous occupants of the Chair this debate would have ended hours ago. We are on the definition section and that applies only to other sections in the Bill but Deputies are discussing the whole Bill on this section.

Mr. Tully

I am only interested in one interpretation and that is the interpretation of what rates are. If rates are abolished, then they should be abolished but, according to the reply we got, there are rates and rates. Because local authority A lumps its water rates in with general rates nobody has to pay water rates in that county whereas because local authority B puts down the water charge as a separate item, the people must pay. It is not just a matter of trying to hold up a section in the House. The point is that people have been complaining bitterly about this and this is the first opportunity we got to try to get the position clarified. Deputy Fitzpatrick asked a question in four or five different ways. I will put it in a simpler way. In the event of Meath County Council, which charges a water rate, deciding that from 1979 onwards they will not charge that water rate but will include it in the general rate, will the Minister be prepared to give the extra money which is covered by the water rate, or will he allow the local authority, in addition to whatever percentage increase he proposes to allow in the rate, to increase the rates by the amount or in what way will it be dealt with? That is a simple question and the Minister could clarify the situation by giving a straight answer to it.

Mr. Barrett

For the last time, it is a water charge, although it is sometimes called a water rate: it is strictly a charge for a service rendered by the local authority. As I have already said it is at the discretion of the local authority under the 1962 Act whether they make that a separate charge or not. I assure the House that the Government will continue to pick up the tabs for the domestic rate and the other headings embodied in this Bill in accordance with our commitment. I will not attempt to dictate to the local authorities as to what they should do. For three weeks I have listened to accusations of interfering with the autonomy of the local authorities.

The purpose of this Bill is to do away with domestic rates to the tune of £80.77 million, and here we are arguing about a definition of a water charge or rate. There is no commitment about a water charge. There was a commitment about the domestic rates which we have honoured.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Can we get on to the next question. Are there any other questions?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is obvious that the Minister is not a free agent and that he cannot give us an answer on this without consulting the Minister for Finance. If we adjourn this and leave it over until the next day perhaps the Minister for the Environment might have a chat with the Minister for Finance who has obviously screwed him to the last penny.

Mr. Barrett

I will not have a chat with him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must insist——

Mr. Barrett

If you adjourn it for a month I will still not have a chat about it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must insist that we move away from it. We were discussing it when I left the House at half past five, it is now almost seven o'clock and the same question is being repeated. We will go on to something else. Have the Deputies any other questions to ask on this?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I ask the Chair as a fair man——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is too fair, that is the trouble as far as the Chair is concerned.

Mr. Kelly

Deputies Sean Treacy and Jones were saints by comparison.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will never be a saint dealing with some of the people I have to deal with in this House. Would the Deputy get on to the next matter, please?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): By doing some of his purgatory here the Chair might become a saint sooner than he thinks.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It will be very quickly with you people.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Tully

The Chair kept us three weeks on one section.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I was not in the Chair then; I will not take any responsibility for that.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Tully

You were in the benches assisting them.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): As a fair man will the Chair not agree that this has dragged on because the Minister would not answer a straight question but wriggled out of it.

Mr. Barrett

I answered it five times.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister is the only one who says so. We will leave that but we will come back to it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Not on this section, I assure the Deputy.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): We will find some section on which to come back to it. Subsection 5 of section 1 which is part of the definition section, says:

In determining, in relation to a particular local financial year, whether or not a hereditament is a domestic hereditament, a mixed hereditament, a secondary school or a community hall, regard to the purpose for which the hereditament is used shall be confined to the purposes for which, immediately prior to the making by the rating authority of the rate for that local financial year, the hereditament was ordinarily used or, where appropriate, was last ordinarily used.

That is wide open to all sorts of abuses. It seems that whether a house is to be regarded as a dwelling house or a business house will depend on what use was being made of it immediately before the rate was struck. It seems that there is nothing to prevent somebody moving into a house that was a mixed dwelling as a dwelling house a week before the making of the rate. Surely, the house will as of that day ordinarly be used as a dwelling house and that is the only time that will count. This could occur on the day immediately prior to the making by the rating authority of the rate for that local financial year. If ordinary language means ordinary language it means that if the place is a business house or mixed hereditament and it is occupied solely as living accommodation immediately before the striking of the rate it will be rated as a domestic dwelling which will mean that it will be exempt from rates. I would like the Minister's views on that.

Mr. Barrett

Subsection 5 provides that generally, apart from the case of farm buildings entitlement to rates relief under the Bill will depend on the use ordinarly made of a premises at the time of making the rate or if no use is actually being made, on the use last ordinarily made of the premises. No account will be taken then until the following rating year of changes of use which will take place after the making of the rate. This may seem inflexible but it is no different from the situation obtaining under the valuation rates in regard to the revision of valuations.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Minister move to report progress, if any?

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.