Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Feb 1934

Vol. 18 No. 6

Local Government (Amendment) Bill, 1934—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. O'Kelly)

The purpose of this Bill is to extend the period within which a new building must be begun or completed in order to obtain a partial suspension of an increase in valuation under the Local Government Act, 1927.

Remissions of rates on new buildings are designed to promote employment by encouraging business enterprise. The Local Government Act of 1927 enabled a reduction of two-thirds to be made in any increased valuation for a period of five years from the date of the increase or for the period from such date up to that in which a general revision of valuation became effective in an area, whichever was the shorter. The period originally fixed within which the new work should have been completed to enable such benefit to be secured ended on 1st October, 1930. By an amending Act of 1930 this date was advanced to 1st October, 1933, and in view of the representations which have been received it is now proposed to extend the date to 1st October, 1938.

These remissions do not apply to houses erected under the Housing Acts or the Housing (Gaeltacht) Act, 1929, which are otherwise provided for, nor do they apply to cottages erected under the Labourers Acts. The Bill contains no new principle; it merely continues the existing practice for five years longer.

Mr. Douglas

I welcome this Bill. It is a very desirable one. My only criticism is that the principle involved should be a permanent one instead of being merely for five years. I am satisfied in the case of new buildings that local authorities do not lose by their creation, and that it is in their interest to have a reduction of the rates for a reasonable period. I understand this Bill applies to alterations of existing buildings by way of the increase in valuation which may result, and that two-thirds of the increased valuation will be remitted for five years. That is absolutely necessary if business firms are to improve their premises. In the case of improvements they are generally paid for in five or ten years, so that it is to the advantage of all, and makes it easier for business people to consider extensions or improvements if there is some concession made during the period when they will have to repay expenditure out of profits. Corporations or local authorities lose nothing. I would like to see the Government extending the scope of the Bill by making the principle a permanent one. My principal criticism concerns the form and the shape of the Bill, and I suggest to the Minister that he might convey to the draftsman the view that Bills of this kind, which alter other Acts, might appear in a simpler manner. I see Senator Comyn looking at me. He may realise that a Bill of this kind may be in the interests of his profession, but I am sure he would not support it on that ground. After careful examination of three Acts I know that a number of people who are interested told me that they could not understand this Bill. It would be much clearer if the sections that are being repealed were indicated. I suggest that a hint of that kind might be given to the draftsman, so that these things would be clear to ordinary people.

Mr. Comyn

When I looked at Senator Douglas it was really a look of approval, because I thoroughly agree with him that while legislation by reference was probably necessary in the state of the times, and in the press of legislation, it is not desirable. In more leisured times the practice was to have each measure self contained, and in a sense self sufficient. That is the idea of all legislation. It would be best for the public, and for the lawyers also, if that ideal could be approached as nearly as possible. Departments having so many new functions now, apparently have little time for perfect legislation, and as a result we have legislation by reference. It is not the fault of the draftsman; it is not the fault of the Departments; it probably arises from the fact that great numbers of new Bills come before Parliament now. If you look at the statute books they seem to be growing in bulk year by year. Our statute book for one year now is much more bulky than the statute book for a year of the Imperial Parliament was 30 or 40 years ago. It is a curious fact, however, that the statutes which survive, like the Statute of Frauds, the Real Property Limitation Act, and measures of that kind are self contained and perfectly drawn. Therefore I thoroughly agree with Senator Douglas that, if possible, statutes should be self contained, and perfect in themselves, without reference to any other legislation, if that could be accomplished. I emphasise the fact that the fault is not with the draftsman. The draftsman usually does what he is told. A draftsman can draft anything when he is told what to draft. So far from being displeased because a statute is perfect, lawyers are always pleased because legislation by reference causes more trouble, more inconvenience, and loss of profit than any other form of legislation.

Mr. Johnson

Following upon that lead may I suggest that it is worth while repeating what has been said frequently, that Bills that are not self-explanatory should have attached to them something explaining them in every-day terms, having no legal effect, but helpful to those who will be reading them, whether legislators or the general public. This is a Local Government (Amendment) Bill, 1934 and will appear under that title in the files and in the bound statutes. People who will come across the Bill will want to know what it means, and the time that will be wasted looking up paragraphs and sections of other Local Government Acts, which are referred to, will be infinitely greater than what would be lost by a simple statement summarising what the Minister has stated to-day. The principle of issuing an explanatory statement, describing in simple terms the purport and intention of these Bills, will be particularly valuable in cases where there is so much legislation by reference.

Mr. O'Kelly

I have not much to say, in reply, on this Bill. One or two points were raised by Senator Douglas. His first was as to the desirability for permanency in the case of a measure of this kind. I do not think you would get the local authorities, who are primarily concerned with the subject matter of this Bill, to agree with him that it ought to be a permanent measure. Such has not been my experience. At any rate, perhaps, three of the most important public authorities that will be concerned with the Bill have not been enthusiastic about it, nor have they been enthusiastic about the suggestion to extend its period. They claim that every extension of this kind means putting a tax on other ratepayers in their area to provide benefits for people who improve their property. Of course, we have to bear that in mind when considering any legislation of this kind. I agree that there is a good deal to be said for the point of view of Senator Douglas: that it would be well to encourage people to put up new buildings and to improve their property, but you have to take other view points into consideration as well.

With regard to the form of the Bill, I must say that I am probably responsible to a very considerable extent myself for the fact that it comes up in this shape. I have been pressing —as one or two members of the House know who were anxious to get this Bill brought in and to get the period extended—to get that done, but I found it would be with great difficulty that I could get a new Bill through the draftsman's office. It was only when I consented to have a very short Bill of this kind put through that I found it would be possible to do so in this session.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 28th February.