Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Dec 1946

Vol. 33 No. 4

Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1946—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

The purpose of this Bill is to make further and, I suppose as a preamble might say, better provision for the relief of agricultural land from rates during the current year and next year. Briefly, the provisions of the Bill confirm the announcement which the Minister for Finance made in the course of his Budget speech as to how the additional sum of over £1,000,000, which he proposes to provide for the relief of rates on agricultural land, would be disposed of. The House is aware, of course, that the present grant is administered and distributed in accordance with provisions of the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1939, which provides that the grant will be given in three allowances which are known as the primary allowance, the employment allowance and the supplementary allowance respectively. This Bill proposes to continue the system of giving relief under three heads, but under the Bill the existing allowances will be considerably increased. According to the estimates which we have been able to form up to the present, the primary allowance will now take £1,827,000. That approximates relatively closely to the total amount of the present grant under all three heads. In addition, the employment allowances are likely to absorb £587,000 odd, and the supplementary allowances another £464,000. Any Senator who is good at mental arithmetic can calculate what these sums will amount to. They will amount to about £2,880,000.

The proposals in this Bill depart in a fundamental way from the provisions of any Bill relating to or providing for grants in relief of rates on agricultural land which has hitherto been enacted, because under this Bill no fixed amount is settled for the agricultural grant. The total grant will be the amount needed to give the reliefs prescribed by the Bill. These reliefs, as I have said, will take the form of primary, employment and supplementary allowances. The sum provided for primary allowances this year and next year, instead of being a fixed amount as formerly, will be three-fifths of the general county rate for the year, and will, therefore, vary as the county rate varies. The supplementary allowance will be one-fifth of the general rate and will be allowed on the whole valuation above £20, and it also will vary, as in the case of the primary allowance, as the general rate varies. In addition to these two allowances, there will be an employment allowance, but it will be at a much higher rate than the existing employment allowance. Hitherto the employment allowance varied according to the primary rate of relief, and on the average it worked out at about £3 for each worker. As, however, the supplementary allowance was granted in respect of any valuation over £20 for which an employment allowance was not obtainable, the net advantage to the occupiers was only about 30/- per man employed. Under the present Bill, the average net employment allowance will be more than trebled, as it is proposed to raise the allowance to a maximum of £6 10s. 0d. per man employed, and to make it a uniform rate throughout the country.

This Bill, I should say, will not affect agricultural land in urban districts. This year the occupiers of these lands will be dealt with under the Act of 1939 and will get the share of the agricultural grant as it stood last year. The provision for that is made under sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Bill. Next year, however, Sections 21 and 25 of the Local Government Act of 1946 will apply, and these sections, as the House may recollect, provide for the differential rating of land in urban districts and the agricultural grant will be paid into a municipal fund.

Turning to the text of the Bill, the general rate is defined in Section 1 and except in County Dublin the general rate means the total rate levied over the whole county health district for any purpose except the defrayment of compensation for criminal injuries. Cork County presents a special feature in this regard, as there are three county health districts within that county and each of them has its own general rate. I have mentioned that, under the Bill, uniformity in the ratio of allowances to the rate will obtain over the whole country and this will include Dublin County, but in that county, though there is a single county health district, there are three public assistance districts, each of which has its own rate. It is to meet this case that the reference is made in Section 1 to a public assistance district when defining the expression "general rate in the pound". A further consequence flows from the definition of a general rate, as given in the Bill, for this definition makes it clear that, for the purpose of the Bill, all rates levied over the whole of the rating area, county health district or public assistance district, as the case may be, for any purpose except the purpose of defraying a charge for criminal injuries will be taken as a general rate. Some councils will find this a very substantial concession.

Section 2 prescribes that the period for which the Act will be in operation will be this year and next year. Section 3 is an important section, since it not only provides that all the additional agricultural grant of £370,000 which was given under the 1939 Act will continue, but it goes on in sub-section (2) to provide that the county councils will be entitled to get the difference between the sum allocated to them under paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the 1939 Act and any deficiencies in the revenue which, but for the new increase in the grants, would arise out of the reliefs given in the Bill. It will be obvious that the provisions in this section remove the fixed limit which hitherto has been placed on the amount of the agricultural grant.

Section 4 has been made necessary by reason of the fact that a new rating system was prescribed in the Local Government Act this year for land in urban districts. In view of this provision, it has been necessary to redefine the specified valuation. There is, in fact, no significant change in it. Section 5 provides that the scale of primary allowances is to be equivalent to three-fifths of the general rate.

Section 6 deals with the new supplementary allowance and, as I have already explained, it differs from the old in being an allowance on the whole of the valuation over £20 and will be fixed at one-fifth of the general rate. In Section 7 the provisions relating to employment allowances will be found. Sub-section (3) is a new provision which enables the county councils to receive claims up to the 1st February in a financial year in respect of which the employment allowance is claimed.

Section 8 safeguards any occupier whose rates on land this year under the Bill might be greater than they would be under the Act of 1939. Section 9 will allow for reliefs being given by way of credit notes this year.

Section 10 suspends the operation of those sections of the Act of 1939, which will be temporarily suspended by the Bill, that is to say, Section 11 of the Act of 1939, which contains provisions in relation to urban districts. I should explain also that Section 11 of the Act of 1939 has been wholly repealed by the Local Government Act this year, but the repeal will not come into operation until next April. The section, therefore, will continue in operation this year. Similarly, in regard to Section 12 of the Act of 1939, which was partially repealed by the Act of 1946. Those are all the provisions of the Bill

The first point I have to make—and I suppose the Minister may be expecting it—is one of complaint. It was unfortunate that the Minister, anticipating, as he did, and knowing what was coming, did not intimate to county councils this year, before they sat down to levy the rate, that they should hold their hand. Now, as he is aware, some councils are facing the problem of a greatly increased rate for the current year and were so perplexed with the difficulties in which they found themselves that they actually put off striking a rate from one meeting to another. As far as I can recollect, the neighbouring county of Monaghan adjourned their meetings— whether they had special information or not I do not know—while we in Cavan struck our rate. Then we received the Minister's intimation and had to come along at considerable expense and alter the accounting and the demand notes. In addition we were making a demand from the ratepayers which we certainly would not have made if we had the later information. It would have been better if there had been some intimation that the striking of the rate might be adjourned for two or three weeks.

I do not know what other members of the House think about the Bill, but to me it seems a terribly complicated measure for what is in it. I am not suggesting it is put in that form deliberately. Because of the way he had to construct the relief, I suppose the Minister had to put it like that, but I can say from experience that it is very difficult for the local representatives to understand the whole process by which this relief has been determined.

I put it to the Minister that Section 7, as it is operated at present with regard to employment allowances, is hardly equitable. The situation is that an employer will get an allowance for an employee only on the condition that the man is the full year in his employment. I am sure we all know that many employers may have three or four men permanently employed and for a considerable period of the year they may have as many as another half a dozen, yet there is no consideration or relief at all for the extra expenditure of the ratepayer on those men who are not occupied for the full year.

The whole question of employment is determined by the National Health Insurance cards. These cards have to be produced as evidence of employment for a full year. Thousands of farmers have numbers of men employed, not for the full year, but for several months of the year. This section makes provision for relief in relation to the number of men employed. If the equities of the situation are to be discharged, I think that the provision should be extended to cover all the employment which a farmer gives. If a farmer has four temporary men, surely these are equivalent to one man in full-time employment. With many farmers they would be the equivalent of two men in full employment. There is no consideration for that. It is not the fault of the farmers that men are not in full-time employment. They are not available. I am sure Senator O'Callaghan or Senator Kehoe will bear me out when I say there are men on whose services you can draw for a period of months but you cannot draw on their services for the full year. That aspect is worthy of consideration.

I suggest that the whole question of our rating system should be open for examination and discussion again. This relief, which the Minister thinks is very generous, does no more in the majority of counties than bring the rate for the present year back to the level of last year's rate. In all our counties the demands on the local ratepayers are rising very steeply. Extra services of all kinds are being imposed and they have to be paid for. The ability of the local ratepayer to bear the burden will have to be examined. I say that, not out of my ignorance, but because I have gone to pains to study the conditions in my own county.

I will give the Seanad a brief picture of the kind of situation that presents itself to the local authority in Cavan. I have a copy of the auditor's report which, at the end of the 1945 audit, revealed the fact that the balance due on loans borrowed by Cavan County Council amounted to £273,644. Recently we had under discussion a variety of schemes, all of which are essential for the better living of the community. The council has given consideration to them to a lesser or greater extent at a number of meetings. I asked that the members of the council should be provided with an approximate idea of what these schemes would cost. The schemes, for which plans had been prepared, included water supplies, sewerage schemes, work under the Labourers Acts, hospitals and courthouses. The total estimated cost for those schemes that should be put into operation in my county amounts to £556,000, well over £500,000. We owe £273,644, and if you tot the two amounts you will see that between the balance due and what ought to be spent in the county we have a total of £829,644.

That would be our dead-weight debt, and the total valuation which would have to bear that burden is £282,375. At present our indebtedness is the equivalent of the total valuation of the county. I do not know what the situation may be in other counties, but it seems quite clear that local authorities are faced with a stupendous problem. Great courage is required to do the things that are necessary. We have to give an answer as to whether or not the people who entrust us with the responsibility of managing their local affairs are able to bear the burden which, under our present scheme of taxation, must be placed on their shoulders if these schemes are to be carried out.

The Minister is very enthusiastic about his scheme. I am not quarrelling with it; in many ways I am just as enthusiastic as he is about the need of raising standards of health and living standards generally. We have reached the stage when our whole system of rating and giving relief by way of grants to local authorities is very much like a patchwork quilt. We have never tried to balance our accounts or considered what services must be given first consideration or whether we can devise a plan that will enable us to try to get ahead with schemes that the local authorities have in mind and that the Minister wants to see carried out.

The ratepayers and their representatives are bound to be disturbed by the responsibilities they have to shoulder. There are certain demands which are necessary in our towns and villages. Sewerage and water schemes are urgently required. People concerned with the health of the community cannot burke the issue. When you realise the liabilities that have to be borne by the rural community if these schemes are implemented, then you become fearful. There must be a national plan. We must know over a long period what commitments we ought to enter into, so that we will be able to meet the liabilities arising from them. The time has come for a review of local rating.

So far as the Bill is concerned, we are glad of the relief which the Minister is giving through it, and I am prepared to facilitate the Minister in its passage through the House.

The hour is late, and the House is not uncomfortably crowded. Accordingly, I do not propose to spend any great time in drawing once more to the Minister's attention a provision in a form of words which, I think, is unfortunate and which ought not to be regarded as a precedent.

By Section 3 (2), the Oireachtas commits itself to entrusting the Minister with paying an entirely indefinite sum in the future. This matter has been debated in the Dáil, and the Minister has given certain answers. He suggested that no precedent is being created. So far as my researches go, a precedent is being created. One of the few restraints which the Oireachtas has over the Government is the ultimate power of the purse. I am aware, of course, that this matter is one in which the Seanad has comparatively little power. But the Oireachtas as a whole is bound to vote any moneys which are expended from the Central Fund. It can do so by voting a specific sum. It can do so by empowering the expenditure of a sum up to a specified amount. It has also done so in the past by empowering the Minister to expend a certain sum with the consent of the Minister for Finance. In so far as it gave, by the last, formal power to the Government to expend the sum without coming back to the Oireachtas, I think it was exceeding what is desirable. But, in the present Bill, by Section 3 power is given to the Minister for Finance to fill up any gap which may be necessary to supply the money to meet the rates and, at the same time, satisfy the agricultural grant. I believe that to be a very undesirable precedent. I believe it to be a precedent which we should not lay down. I cannot accept that the answer which the Minister made to the Dáil is any answer at all, because the Minister said that, eventually, the actual sum will have to come up on the Estimates and the Estimates must be passed. But how can any Legislature which had already expressly given the Minister power to commit himself to an indefinite sum and had allowed the local authorities to build upon that, subsequently refuse to sanction the Estimates which were within the power it had itself given? I am not going to say any more about it. I think the Minister will probably agree with me that the form of words here chosen follow no precedent in any other State. If he justifies it on the ground of an exceptional emergency, I can understand it. But, if he is anxious to justify it as a form or practice which he is going to pursue in future, it is a matter which may have to be taken up more fully.

From my point of view, the Bill is a good one. From my own experience over a long period of years a slump, such as has followed every war, will occur in 1948 or 1949. If that slump is accompanied by an increase in the rates, it will be a bad job. I should like to encourage the Minister to go forward with the Bill and to extend it over a great number of years. I think the £6 10s. relief to be given for each man employed on the land is a unique method of creating employment on the land and also a very desirable one and is appreciated by a great number of ratepayers to whom I have been speaking. I feel that it will have the effect of creating much greater employment on the land.

As the hour is late, I do not propose to say very much, because I do not think very much has been said in regard to the Bill. I do not think that it would be opportune on this occasion to discuss, as Deputy Baxter seemed to think it would be, the whole system of rating and revenue-raising devices which we have adopted for financing the local authorities. After all, this Bill does not provide for anything except for the relief of rates on agricultural land. It provides, primarily and ultimately, for the relief of individuals, and not of local authorities. Nor do I propose to say very much about his rather unique expression of disappointment that a Minister should not have divulged Budget secrets in advance of the Budget speech. The proposals which this Bill is to give effect to were announced by the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement and I was not in a position, naturally, to disclose them in advance. I am at a loss to understand exactly in what way any local authority was put to undue expense by reason of the fact that the announcement of these new proposals was deferred until the Financial Statement. These proposals do not involve the making of any amendment in the existing rate. The rate was struck, I think, early in April in most cases, even in those cases where an amended rate had to be made, and this Bill does not in any way affect the making of that rate, good, bad or indifferent. It merely provides that the amount of the rate to be collected ultimately from a certain section of the ratepayers will be less than it would otherwise have been.

As to the extent to which the employment allowance has been criticised, I must say that it only covers whole-time constant employment. The purpose of the allowance is to encourage the giving of whole-time constant employment. So far as my personal influence in the counsels of the Government goes, I will not advocate any measure which would tend to a further casualisation of agricultural labour. This Bill is intended to encourage farmers to keep their men in employment all the year round. If any farmer is not able to do that, it may be regrettable, but he is not going to get any benefit under this Bill, so far as the employment allowance is concerned.

As to Senator Kingsmill Moore's remarks, I have only to repeat that we are not creating a precedent. I do not propose to enter into a legal argument with a learned lawyer. I would not be able to hold my own.

Shall we say a form of words which is a precedent, and compromise on that?

I would refer the Senator to the provisions of the Medical Treatment of Children (Ireland) Act, 1919; and, briefly, to summarise the provision of sub-section (7) of Section 1, that sub-section provides that any expenses incurred by a local authority in the execution of this Act shall be paid to the local authority from moneys provided by Parliament. The phraseology is not exactly the same, but it seems to me that the purpose is the same, that is to say, to indicate that moneys will be provided, provided, of course, that these expenses have been properly certified, within certain limits. Similarly, the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1932 provides that the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and subject to the prescribed regulations—those are regulations made by the Minister for Local Government—make out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas during such period, not exceeding 35 years, as the Minister may determine, a contribution toward the annual loan charges incurred by a local authority in respect of money borrowed by them for the provision of houses under the Housing of the Working Class Acts. Then the section goes on to fix the proportion of those charges which may be defrayed out of a contribution by the Minister. In one case it is a proportion not exceeding 66? per centum of such annual loan charges and in another case not exceeding 33? per centum. So that it would seem as if after all we are not creating a unique precedent when we are providing here that the Minister for Finance shall make in respect of each financial year to which this Act applies an additional grant equal to an amount which would make good any deficiency in the council's revenue, which would arise by reason of the implementation of Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill.

There is another point which I think I should make, that is, that the Oireachtas is not losing financial control for an indefinite period. This Bill, as Senator O'Callaghan has pointed out, operates only for this year and next year. This year we know very closely what our liabilities are going to be. I do not anticipate that next year they will be very much greater.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take Committee Stage now.
Sections 1 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Agreed to take the Fourth Stage now.
Bill received for final consideration.
Agreed to take Fifth Stage now.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—agreed to.
Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil.
Top
Share