Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Nov 1969

Vol. 67 No. 2

Private Business. - Local Government (Rates) (No. 2) Bill, 1969: Second Stage.

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

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. P. Brennan)

This Bill has two purposes —the waiver of rates by local authorities in certain cases and the payment of rates by instalments.

I will deal first with the waiver of rates. The existing power of local authorities to write off rates as irrecoverable can only be exercised after the close of the financial year and in the meantime there is an obligation on local authorities to make every effort possible to collect the rates with resultant anxiety and distress for the persons who are unable to pay. This power is unsatisfactory in that it requires local authorities to adopt an inflexible approach to the whole problem and it puts them in the position of demanding and accepting rates in cases where, if the ratepayer concerned refused to pay, they would, because of his poor circumstances, be willing to strike out the rates as irrecoverable. Any new system should as far as possible give definite rights of exemption from rates to clearly defined groups, while at the same time preserving a reasonable degree of flexibility.

Section 2 of the Bill gives to each rating authority the power to make and carry out a scheme for the waiver of all or portion of the rates due by ratepayers or classes of ratepayers or in respect of a class of hereditaments. This power is a reserved function exercisable by the elected members of the rating authorities. The section is drafted in very wide terms and the making and carrying out of a scheme is subject only to such regulations as may be made by the Minister under section 4. It is intended that these regulations will contain provision for essentially procedural matters and a stipulation that each scheme shall require the consent of the Minister.

It is hoped, as experience is gained of the working of the schemes, to provide for a general form of consent by the Minister which will in practice give a wide measure of discretion to local authorities, and will dispense with the need for individual consents, provided specified general guide lines are followed. Eventually I would envisage each rating authority making a scheme which would specify the classes of ratepayers who may claim total or partial remission of rates, due regard being had both to the circumstances of the local authority area and to the requirements of regulations made by the Minister.

More than one half of the local authorities have already adopted provisional schemes in relation to the present financial year. Earlier in the year a circular letter from my Department advised that for the current year these schemes might, in general, be confined to social welfare beneficiaries of the means test categories, except in cases of special hardship. Most schemes adopted have followed this advice. Present indications are that the cost of these schemes will not be great. The intention is that the position should be reviewed further in the light of experience gained in the present year. I might mention that a feasibility study for a project on the impact of rates on households prepared by the Institute of Public Administration is being considered in my Department.

The second purpose of the Bill is provided for in section 3 of the Bill which will confer a legal right to pay rates by instalments on occupiers of rated hereditaments of a class to which the section has been applied by order under subsection (2) or (3). Under existing law rates are payable in two moieties, one in respect of each half year. Although local authorities have been urged by my Department to provide adequate instalment facilities on an informal basis the response has generally been poor. The section will initially be applied to all dwellings and holdings of agricultural land. The manner of calculating the amount and number of instalments, the dates on which they are due and other details of the instalment system will be dealt with in regulations. My present intention is to spread payment over the period April to February inclusive, each instalment becoming due on the 1st day of the month and with provision for a period of grace. The system will be reviewed from time to time in the light of experience.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. O'Higgins

Before the Parliamentary Secretary concludes, may we take it that there will be no order of general application for ratepayers, that this will be dealt with in sections, first as indicated, for agricultural land, that there is to be no general right to a ratepayer to pay by instalments?

Mr. P. Brennan

To householders and holders of agricultural land.

Mr. O'Higgins

My understanding when this idea was first mooted was that this Bill would give a legal right to any ratepayer to pay his rates by instalment whether he is a businessman, farmer, shopkeeper or whatever he might be.

An Cathaoirleach

Would it not be better if the Senator——

Mr. O'Higgins

Just before the Parliamentary Secretary concludes.

Mr. P. Brennan

It applies to——

Mr. O'Higgins

It is limited?

Mr. P. Brennan

Yes.

Mr. J. Boland

One cannot but welcome a Bill which provides relief, however restricted or penny pinching one might think it to be, for a certain section of the ratepaying community. However, many of us feel that we are doing little more in discussing this Bill than processing a legacy of the recent general election campaign. This is the much lauded, much vaunted, much spoken about rates relief measure that we heard so much about before the general election. At that time the Bill itself had not been published and many of us and indeed many members of the general public certainly expected a far wider ranging Bill than we have before us today. However, in so far as it does provide relief for even some sections of the community and provides for the payment legally by instalment of the rates one must welcome it, with certain reservations.

It seems to me that the Minister has put the onus and the burden of compiling the scheme upon the local authorities and in this regard he has once again abdicated from his responsibilities in so far as the members of the local authorities are the ones who will have to decide who is eligible and who is not. The Minister was at great pains when speaking on the Bill in the Dáil to point out that this is a reserved function of the members of local authorities. What he did not bring out so forcibly or remind the Members of so often was that the scheme as prepared by any local authority would only be a draft scheme until such time as it receives his sanction.

To my mind we are, in looking at this Bill and reviewing it, seeing yet again another example of the Government's concept of social justice. What has been given here seems to me to have been given with the hand of grudging charity and indeed in rather a Machiavellian way even in the granting of it to ensure that somebody else rather than the National Exchequer is the one who pays the piper. We must remember that it does not matter how many groups may be relieved in the implementation of this scheme the cost of providing that relief will fall upon the remaining members of the rate-paying community in that local authority area. The cost will not be, as far as we can estimate, in any local authority area a very considerable one. In fact in certain areas it would be true to say it will be almost negligible.

Nonetheless, it seems to me rather unfair that at a time when representative organisations and communities throughout the country are complaining about the intolerable burden of the rates demand, we should have a Bill coming before this House which through its very specific wording places yet another cost and charge on certain sections of the ratepayers. In so far as this applies and there can be no effort made or agreement to meet even part of the cost from central funds, one must view the whole move with quite a deal of misgiving.

There is also the anomaly which arises that it will be open to each local authority either to accept or to opt out of this scheme. Consequently, we are quite likely to have a situation where if we may take as an example the two local authority areas of Dublin city and Dublin county, as Members will know the boundary line between these two areas is very often an arbitrary one running down the centre of a suburban road. Let us take as an example a contributory widow living on the county side of the boundary line and a contributory widow living right opposite on the city side. As far as I know the contributory widow in County Dublin will be entitled to apply for and to receive waiver of rates either in whole or in part and unless the Minister's Commissioner in Dublin Corporation has amended the suggested scheme that we in the county provide for contributory widows, the contributory widow on the city side will receive no relief whatsoever.

This seems to me to be a bad provision of the Bill in so far as there is no uniformity throughout the country. In yet another area, and indeed this has already happened in many areas throughout the country, local authorities have opted out of the scheme completely because of the fact that the cost will devolve upon the rest of the rate-paying community so that we will have all the social assistance classes in those counties paying the rates as before while their counterparts or perhaps even people who are better off but in a different local administrative area will have their rates relieved. This hardly seems to me to be a fair provision or indeed to be a justification of the much heard of claim of the Government to cherish all the children of the nation equally.

I was interested to hear the Parliamentary Secretary refer to the feasibility study on the problem of rates. This is the third or perhaps the fourth such study that has been prepared on this whole problem but the only action we have seen to come out of it is this unnecessarily small and restricted measure. I understand that this is an enabling Bill and consequently we cannot propose any amendment which would put the cost of the provision on to the national Exchequer and as such there is not much point in speaking about it much further.

If I could I should like to refer to the provisions of the scheme in County Dublin. The estimated cost of this scheme in County Dublin within this financial year, and I give this as an example, will be £4,500. On investigation I discover that already it had been estimated that the amount of rates which will be waived by the County Manager will amount to £2,500. In the remainder of the estimate provision has to be made for the provisional cost of running this scheme which obviously will be quite high in so far as inquiring officers and inspectors will have to be sent out from the local authority to investigate the circumstances of each applicant, and it seems to me that this Bill does not go very far beyond the powers given to county managers in the Special Powers Order of 1946. However, in so far as they are most specific, and many persons may apply for relief of rates at the beginning of the year, it will relieve them of the hardship of this running battle with the rate collector during the year and waiting until the end of the year before relief can be obtained.

This is a welcome thing but it does not seem to me as if it will provide very great relief for any other section other than the people who would in any way obtain such relief from the county manager. I would be interested to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary how he envisages the local authority ensuring, in the case of tenants living in dwellings controlled by the 1928 Act, where they are in a property with a valuation under a certain figure which qualifies them for rates relief or in making an application to the local authority for such relief and that relief being granted—they are already little more than the occupier of a tenancy—that the relief will pass on to the tenant occupier rather than to the owner of the property in question.

This is an important point in circumstances where very easily we could find we were giving relief to owners of property who did not at all merit such relief and that the occupier was not obtaining the relief as he was before.

While I am on this topic I should also like to inquire from the Parliamentary Secretary what the position will be regarding tenants of local authority houses who would presumably be on differential rents. As many Members of the House, who are also members of local authorities, will know, the differential rent is fixed for those tenants according to their income or profit over a period and if this income drops then the rent drops accordingly. However, what about the rent charged by local authorities, which is actually a figure which provides for rates. Can we take it when a tenant on differential rent applies to have his rent reduced, because of straitened financial circumstances, the local authority will automatically take that as being an application for waiving or part waiving of the rates in question, or will the ratepayer have to become aware himself that such a scheme exists and go and seek an application form, fill it out and make this application? It seems to me these two things could very well be done in conjunction with each other.

I should like to refer again to this onus which now falls on the members of local authorities of deciding who will or who will not be eligible to participate in this scheme. It seems to me that if at some time in the future criticism is levelled at this scheme in general, or as it operates in certain areas, the Minister of the day, whoever he may be, can very easily turn and, washing his hands of the matter, say: "I was not the one to counsel this scheme. It was provided by members of your own local authority. Go and argue with them". It seems to me that the Minister has left members of local authorities in rather an invidious position much as he does now in regard to the differential rent scheme because it is up to them to decide who is eligible but they do not know how far they may go in including various categories because they do not know if the Minister will sanction those categories which were not actually in the circular which recently emanated from his Department.

I should like to refer to a situation which I can see developing and I understand it applies in most counties. A person in receipt of home assistance may apply for a full waiver of his rates and be suitable but, as many Members know, those on home assistance are very often in receipt of this benefit only for a short time. It could happen that a man would be in receipt of home assistance for perhaps the months of April and May and apply for and receive a waiver of rates. In June of that year he might once again obtain very lucrative employment and so far as the remaining ten months of the financial year are concerned he might derive an income which would be far in excess of many other categories who have to continue to pay their rate demand notices. I wonder what provision, if any, has been envisaged to counteract this sort of thing happening.

I notice the Bill provides for the Minister to make regulations under the Act. I do not know whether it is a very unusual request to make but it might be useful to the House if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us an outline draft of such regulations or let us know what he envisages might be included in those regulations. In subsection (6) of section 2 we are told:

A decision by a rating authority as to whether or not a person is qualified for relief under a scheme under this section shall be final and conclusive.

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this means that the rating authority in question would be the members of the local authority or whether a decision on an individual application would be made by the county manager. It seems to me that a situation could very easily arise where a person who feels he is eligible for benefit and is not getting much joy from the officials with his application might be placed in the situation we had some years ago of having to lobby each and every member of the local authority to vote to have his application accepted. It seems to me that we are continuing the application of the Victorian Poor Law system and reverting to a situation such as this and it would, I think, be far preferable if the scheme were clear cut and that the decision made would be made by the county manager rather than by a vote by members of the local authority generally.

Coming to the section which deals with payment of rates by instalments, as many members know, informal ad hoc arrangements have obtained in quite a number of local authorities for many years past whereby ratepayers could pay from time to time such money as they could afford and in that way meet their rate demand notices. To the best of my recollection there was a legal case in this regard some years ago when a man offered part payment of rates which was refused by the rate collector, who subsequently brought him to court for failure to pay the full amount. The case was dismissed and I understand since that time local authorities have been wary of refusing any offer of money.

I welcome unreservedly the section which provides for equal instalments over a 10- or 11-month period. My only apprehension about it is that a rate collector might feel bound once this Bill becomes law to accept only these equal instalments, whichever they might be, whether one-tenth or one-eleventh, and if somebody offered, say, one-twentieth he might feel no longer entitled to accept this smaller amount. If this were to happen I feel this would not be a progressive move. I do not envisage this would, in fact, happen, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might clarify the situation.

There is a fear in the minds of many rate collectors throughout the country that this move will mean that much extra work will devolve on their shoulders without any provision for additional payment, and what is more important in their view, without any increase in the expenses allocated to them for the collection of their rate books. Again, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would clarify this position.

In many official circles it has for a long time been felt that under the Public Bodies Order, 1946, power already existed for the making of a scheme for payment of rates by instalments. However, I understand that certain legal people felt this might not be valid in a court of law and I presume this to some extent is the reason we are getting these specific provisions in the later sections of this Bill.

Referring briefly to the last section, which is a minor one, it provides when the Bill is passed that it will be retrospective to 1st April, 1969. This is a rather interesting section coming from this particular Department and, if I might crave the indulgence of the Chair, I will refer to the view of the Department on another matter regarding the introduction of retrospective legislation to control development which was granted prior to the appointed day for the 1963 Planning Act. I understand the Minister always held the view that he could not introduce legislation to control developers because of the fact that this would be retrospective legislation and consequently would be bad.

Here we have a clearcut example of retrospective legislation in this section and I presume this would indicate that the views of the Department have now changed and that the Department of Local Government may shortly be preparing a retrospective Bill bringing these people under effective control. I certainly hope so.

In general one would welcome this Bill in so far as it provides these measures of relief. One would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider introducing a Bill at as early a date as possible which would transfer the cost of financing the local authorities from the ratepayers to central funds.

In conclusion I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that, as I suggested, this Bill is a legacy of the general election and is a great disappointment to the many people who cast their votes on the promises they were made. However, even at this stage before the Bill becomes law, in several parts of the country the hatchet men of the Government Party are contacting various groups, especially widows —I have had examples of this recently —asking them if they had applied for a waiver of rates. When told they had not, either because they did not know about the scheme or because they felt they would not qualify, they were told to fill up the forms immediately and that their local Fianna Fáil Deputy would ensure that once the Bill passed through both Houses he would secure a complete waiver for them.

If this is the kind of action we are to get as a result of such a penny-pinching, miserly measure as this Bill, one wonders what might happen if the Bill were more far-reaching in its scope and provision. I can only hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take steps to see that more guidance is given to the local authorities in the matter of the various groups who may or may not be included in this scheme, and indeed if I might suggest that far more guidance is given to the representatives of his own Party in their proposed abuse of this Bill.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

On behalf of the Labour Party I wish to welcome the small and minimal relief in this Bill. As Senator Boland has pointed out, those of us who heard the Government Party spokesmen during the recent general election campaign heard of much more than is contained in this very small Bill. In effect, what is contained in the Bill one might say was already there prior to its introduction. Those of us who know rate collectors, who are members of local authorities and who know officials of local authorities, realise that minimal pressure was put on ratepayers who were unable to pay and perhaps it is a good thing that this is now being made official and that local authorities and rate collectors may now be able to help the less well-off section of ratepayers than they could heretofore.

We know that there are very different views on the system of rating. Coming from a local authority that will have an estimates meeting in February or March to strike a rate for 1970-71 we will be confronted with a bill under the Malicious Injuries Act, of an increase of 7/1½d in the pound over our present rate. We are very proud of the fact that our rate happens to be one of the lowest in the country but I am afraid we will lose that proud position as a result of this staggering claim that now confronts the ratepayers of my county. I am sure that a neighbouring county will be affected in a somewhat different way. So it does appear to me that when the Minister and his officials are designing a Rates Bill this is one aspect of it that they could have a look at. There are so many facets of the rating system that could have been looked at that a much more worthy Bill could be introduced than the one before the House.

I do not intend to take up the time of the House longer, except to reiterate that I welcome the minimal reliefs in the Bill and to express disappointment that this Bill did not live up to the hopes that we expected when it was being bandied around the country prior to the election in June of this year.

Mr. Nash

I welcome this Bill as an enabling measure. It does not set out to be anything extraordinary or outstanding. It merely sets out what was already stated in the Budget speech of the Minister for Finance prior to the general election. In that speech a short synopsis was given of the contents of this Bill, therefore there is no justification whatsoever for suggesting that anyone in the general public was misled during the election. I have no doubt that any person who would be capable of some of the what I regard as contortions in argument which we have heard here from Senator Boland would be quite capable on a public platform of making the utmost capital of what was set out in the Budget speech if it were, as he suggests, merely a gimmick.

The Bill is just one link in the progressive chain of assistance to the less well-off sections of the community. Those steps are taken one at a time. No one of those steps in itself is spectacular, but the total comes to quite a substantial amount, and the total progress which we have made in this country during the last ten years in that regard is something of which we can be reasonably proud having regard to our resources. At constant 1958 prices, the cost of benefit payments in the year 1958-59 was £9.1 million. At constant 1958 prices the cost of benefit payments in the year 1967-68 was £25.1 million. Therefore, at constant prices the benefit payments were increased to more than two and a half times what they had been in that ten years. None of this was done by any spectacular legislation. It was all done gradually and progressively as it was felt the community could afford it and as it was felt the community were prepared to pay for it, because no Government can without the will of the community give portion of the wealth of the community from one section to another.

An Cathaoirleach

I do not wish to interrupt the Senator, but this is going rather a long way from the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Nash

All right. Now we have been told by Senator Boland that the benefits of this Bill are illusory on the one hand. We have been told by him on the other hand that they will put an untold burden on the ratepayers. Surely those arguments do not make logic if put together. The effect of this Bill is first of all to put beyond doubt in the minds of certain sections of the community, those qualified for social welfare benefit and other sections as selected by the various local authorities, that in the future they do not have to cause themselves unnecessary worry regarding their rates and that in the future no demands will be made for rates upon them.

Some of those people heretofore have had more tender consciences than others. Some were perhaps fairly thick-skinned and did not worry. Others of them who were perhaps the most helpless sections of the community— widows who had nobody to advise them—got a demand note for rates, later on got a six-day notice, and later got a threat from the rate collector that a summons would be issued against them. All these things, to those unfortunate people, must have caused very grave worry.

In the future they do not have to worry. In addition to that, it is up to each rating authority, knowing the circumstances and conditions of their people and knowing the capacity to pay of other sections of the community, to introduce such a scheme as they feel proper. The scheme of course has to fall within general national policy by corresponding with general regulations to be prepared by the Minister, for you must have some degree of uniformity. But within that, a wide discretion is given to the local authority, and it is for the local authority to prepare a scheme.

While the Bill does not put any obligation on them at the moment to pay for it, and it may have to be paid out of the Central Fund—I do not know—it would seem to me to be only logical that they, too, should have the obligation to meet the cost, because authority without responsibility leads inevitably to difficulty and trouble.

Senator Boland suggested also that it would be much more satisfactory if all this were left in the hands of the county manager and not left in the hands of the local authorities. Surely the complaint through most of this country is that authority is too centralised in bureaucracy outside the power and responsibility of the elected representatives of the people. He wished to know, referring to subsection (6) of section 2, who would have the authority to decide whether a person is qualified for a relief under the scheme. By subsection (5) it is provided that the making of any such scheme shall be a reserved function for the purposes of the County Management Acts. Therefore, the making of all those schemes is in the hands of the elected representatives of the people and not in the hands of the county manager.

I, personally, feel that that is how it should be, because only the elected representatives of the people spread throughout the whole rating area, be it county or otherwise, are fully cognisant of the circumstances of the people among whom they live, and to erode their authority progressively and gradually would be ultimately to make a mockery of local authorities.

Senator Boland indulged in a cheap jibe saying that members of Fianna Fáil have been going around and asking people if they applied. Why should this apply to members of Fianna Fáil any more than to members of any other party? Why indulge in those cheap jibes? This is the sort of thing that brings politics into disrepute. Surely the elected representatives of all parties, be they members of Fine Gael, of Labour or of Fianna Fáil, are men of the same mental and moral fibre. Why should a man be of lower degree of moral fibre just because he has the impertinence to disagree politically with Senator Boland or with anybody else?

The whole purpose of the Bill is simply one further link in this continuous chain of growth. Perhaps, I sympathise with the views expressed by Senator J. Fitzgerald. He, like many more of us here would like to see much more being done for the underprivileged sections of our community if only the country could afford this, but it must be a gradual process. I welcome this Bill for what it is—one small link in that chain and it is in that spirit that I commend it to the House.

Mr. O'Higgins

Senator Nash says that this Bill does not set out to be anything extraordinary or outstanding. Perhaps it is as well that a Senator on the other side of the House said that because it gives the lead to those sitting behind him, probably they will not be as disappointed about this Bill as I am.

I am disappointed with the Bill and I am not basing my disappointment on anything the Minister may have said in the Budget or on anything said by any Government spokesman during the course of the general election. I am disappointed in the Bill principally because I understood there was a measure of agreement among those in public life that the time was overdue when ratepayers should be armed by the Oireachtas with a legal right to pay their rates by instalments regardless of who they were, or of whether they were rich or poor, farmers or industrialists. While all of us and every ratepayer must realise that when a rate is struck it is applicable to his holding, we should also realise that people should have as a legal right the opportunity of paying those rates by instalments. I understood that whatever legislation would be introduced would provide for this opportunity and that it would vest in each ratepayer a legal right to pay his rates in this manner. I find now that this Bill, which Senator Nash says does not set out to do anything extraordinary, in fact does not give ratepayers any legal right to pay their rates by instalments. It also gives as much right to the Minister as to the local authority to say who may or may not pay rates by instalments. As an Act the Bill will not specify who will be able to claim a legal right to pay rates by instalments unless certain conditions are fulfilled and unless a person comes within a category designated by the Minister.

I am also disappointed with the Bill because it is one more example of legislation by Ministerial order and Ministerial regulation and the sooner the Houses of the Oireachtas try to get away from the position, which is becoming increasingly common, of legislation by Ministerial order, the better. Instead of getting away from that system we are going into it further so that every Act coming before the Houses is an example of legislation by regulation. If we look at subsection (3) of section 4 of the Bill we shall see there is also provision for amending legislation by Ministerial regulation. That subsection states that one of the matters which may be dealt with by Ministerial regulation is the:

modification or adaptation of any enactment relating to the determining, making, levying, collecting and recovering of rates.

As I read that—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—it is putting power into the hands of the Minister to amend any existing legislation in regard to rates while not coming before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The only safeguard or genuflection to democracy contained in this Bill in that regard is that the Order would have to come before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is bad enough that we should have legislation by regulation but it is even worse that we should now have, maybe for the first time but perhaps there are precedents for it, amendment of legislation by regulation also. I have serious doubt as to whether a provision such as this does not offend against the Constitution of which I have not got a copy with me but my recollection is that the Constitution provides that legislation and the right to legislate are vested in the Oireachtas and not in individual Ministers.

My grave disappointment with this Bill is that it will not allow people, except subject to certain conditions which may hamstring the entire Bill, the legal right to pay their rates by instalments. With regard to this question I do not visualise the necessity for anything very formidable. All we need is a short Act of Parliament which will either direct or enable local authorities to fix instalments by which rates shall be paid. Nothing more is necessary to give the people the right to pay their rates by instalments. That is not provided for in this Bill.

Under section 3, one finds:

Notwithstanding any other enactment, the rated occupier of a hereditament belonging to a class to which this section applies may, subject to compliance with such conditions as may from time to time be specified by the appropriate rating authority, pay rates to that authority by instalments in respect of that hereditament.

First of all, he has to belong to a class to which the section applies. Secondly, he has to comply with conditions that are specified by the rating authority. Overriding it all is subsection (2) of section 3 which states: "This section applies to a class of hereditaments for the time being specified by order made by the Minister"; and by subsection (3) which goes on: "The Minister may by order amend or revoke an order under this section".

Where is the security for a ratepayer who finds it suitable in terms of his own family budget or in terms of his own business budget to pay his rates by instalment? Where is there any security for him in the scheme envisaged in this Bill? It is true to say that with the vast increase in local taxation that has taken place during the years in this country rates payments constitute one of the greatest problems that the people of this country have to face. It is a problem that afflicts the rich as well as the poor.

I do not speak either for the rich or for the poor in this regard. I am trying to speak for the generality of the ordinary people. I am sure many Senators in the House know, just as well as I do, that the ordinary person in this country, whether he be rich or poor, finds the payment of rates one of the biggest headaches he has to face today.

The farming community have been mentioned in the Parliamentary Secretary's statement. They find at particular times of the year, when they are in funds because they have reaped the benefits of their harvest or have sold off some stock, that they are in a position to pay their rates. At other times of the year they are not in a position to pay rates. We should try to establish for them and for others like them that they will not be required to pay rates at a particular time when they cannot afford to pay them—but they are not to be relieved of the obligation of paying rates—but that we will try to mete out even-handed justice so that they will be able to pay rates by instalments which they can afford.

I do not see anything in this Bill which necessarily amounts to a situation like that. The Parliamentary Secretary said that section 3 will be initially applied to all dwellings and holdings of agricultural land. I do not doubt his word, and I am sure that is the intention of the Bill once he says it, but it is not written into the Bill that that should be so. If it is the intention, why should it not be written into the Bill?

As regards section 2 which deals with schemes by rating authorities for waiver of rates, so far as I personally am concerned I am glad to see this section in the Bill. In a number of small ways, as well as in major ways, it is as well that local authorities should have power of this sort. I hope that the power which this Bill seeks to invest in them will not be too much embroiled and trammelled in Ministerial red tape. There is room here for a great deal of flexibility.

Anyone who has had occasion, as a number of Senators have had, to go through the country will have noticed here and there throughout our land fine mansions and substantial buildings which have been deroofed solely in order to avoid the payment of rates. I can think of many of them which I have seen myself. I have seen buildings deroofed which it would have been well worthwhile preserving even for their architectural value. If local authorities were in a position to say to the owners of those buildings, "We now have authority to relieve you of rates in respect of that building: so long as it is unproductive to you you will not have to pay rates and then seek a refund," it would help considerably. If such power existed and had been exercised by local authorities, many buildings of architectural work and merit in this country could have been preserved. Even today substantial buildings which, for the moment, are unused and for which a useful purpose cannot be immediately found even though they might not be of particularly great architectural merit, could be preserved and could possibly in the future be the basis of an industry in some of the more remote parts of the country where industries are required, provided the schemes which can be brought into operation under section 2 are flexible enough to enable local authorities to waive rates in these cases.

I do not think that section 2 combined with the necessity to fit in with general regulations made by the Minister under section 4 will be flexible enough to give a local authority the power to waive rates in cases such as those I have in mind. While I have said these things in criticism of the Bill and while I am quite frankly disappointed with the Bill, I suppose it would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Bill, even as it is, may very well be useful. I am sorry it does not go much further than it does. There will be general agreement with the proposition that a general review of the rating system in this country is required and that this Bill merely makes a very small dent in the problem. I know I would not be allowed to discuss generalities of that sort very long or very far here. For what is in the Bill I am glad it has been introduced. I am only sorry it does not go very much further than it does.

Mr. Keery

Some Senators have been so busy looking back to alleged election promises that they do not seem to have been prepared to go back as far as July, 1968, when the Interdepartmental Committee on Local Finance and Taxation produced their third report. It is there that in fact they would have seen the origin of this Bill. This Bill aims at putting into effect two of the recommendations of that committee which are found on page 26 of their report. These recommendations are for a flexible form of rate relief and for the introduction of proper facilities for the payment of rates by instalments.

In the same way, too, when some Senators talk about the need for a comprehensive review of local taxation they should at least realise that the Minister himself has talked about this on a number of occasions. As recently as the 23rd October in the Dáil he indicated that a review of this kind was under way and he hoped that it would not be delayed by a suggestion which was made in the Dáil at Question Time. Also, any further progress will be dependent on social research to find what exactly is the situation regarding local taxation and what is the best way to improve matters in the future.

That is why I was particularly disturbed to hear Senator Boland, a young man—and I would hope that the young men of this country would be the people who would favour social research and favour a re-examination of the structure of society—being so scathing about the idea that the Institute of Public Administration should examine these things. I would suggest that no progress will be made on the front of taxation reform without this type of research. I would urge the Minister to take up and act on the feasibility study of the Institute of Public Administration and to put a full survey of the impact of rates on households in hand.

Though the proposals in the Bill before us are limited, they are limited on the lines that the Interdepartmental Committee suggested. They said at page 20 of their Third Report:

At the outset it would be desirable to make conditions as stringent as possible but as experience is gained of the working of the scheme and as more accurate costings become available more liberal provisions could be considered.

This Bill is, in fact, an extract from a work in progress and everyone can welcome it as such and look forward to more legislation on this topic in the future.

When I read this report when it first came out, one item that caught my eye particularly as a member of the National Savings Committee was paragraph 46 on page 23 which gave a description of how the Coventry City Council in Britain run their instalments schemes for the payment of rates. I am happy to say, too, that the National Savings Committee in October wrote to the Minister and suggested that should he act on this report and introduce legislation to enable the payment of rates by instalments—that he should consider the suggestion following on this Coventry City Council idea that the payment of monthly instalments of rates might be made through a savings institution like the Trustee Savings Bank.

I suggest to the Minister that when he is acting under this Bill and making regulations on which local authorities should consider framing their schemes, he should suggest to them particularly if it is a local authority in an area served by a Trustee Savings Bank, that the possibility of paying the monthly instalments of rates through the Trustee Savings Bank should be placed before the ratepayers. I feel it would be particularly opportune at this time when the Government are so anxious that savings by the community should be increased and I should like to have the Minister's view on this.

Broadly, then, I welcome the Bill. It is an extract from a work in progress. It has sufficient flexibility for development but I hope, on the strength of further social research and of the studies that the Minister is making at the moment, that in fact this Bill will be replaced very quickly by more far reaching legislation.

Professor Quinlan

I find this Bill rather disturbing. The principles enshrined in it are ones that we should consider very seriously and take note of before they become precedents for further and graver uses.

First of all we note the approach that legislation by Ministerial order is becoming more blatant still. As Senator O'Higgins has very clearly outlined, the whole process is the antithesis of what one would expect to find in a democratic approach with the Minister even being enabled to change legislation by Ministerial order. In coming before us what is asked in the first instance is little because the Minister says that in the first year it will be concerned with those in the social welfare benefits class. However, that is only a beginning. The Bill is wide open. It is enabling legislation of the worst kind because we have no estimate whatsoever of where this is likely to lead. We should surely have some forecast of what is contemplated over the next five to ten years, how much of a burden this will mean on the rates in, say, five to ten years time. That is a very short period to look ahead. Admittedly the amount given to the social welfare classes as outlined here will not be much but what about all the other partial reliefs that might or might not be put up by certain local authorities? Might we not envisage even certain classes being waived to the extent of 50 per cent of their commitments? It is all possible under the legislation before us and I think that before radical departures are made from the very innocuous classes mentioned by the Minister as an example of what is likely to take place in the first few years that the matter should come again before the Houses of the Oireachtas and these new classes should be clearly identified and agreement of the Houses should be got to them. Admittedly there is the usual provision for laying an order before both Houses and it can be annulled if an order calling for annulment is passed within 21 days but that is, as we know, very little use in practice.

The second point I would make is that the Bill has come to us with the plea that it is giving something to deserving classes, to social welfare classes in the means test range. We all agree that it is right and proper to help these whenever and wherever we can but surely the help given to them should not be given on a regional basis. Any exemption they are entitled to should be given at national level and legislated for at national level. Indeed it would seem that already these classes have been subject to a means test that is mentioned specifically and it should be a simple matter in that means test if a rates allowance is appropriate to grant it at that stage and indeed perhaps to make direct payment to the authority concerned of the amount in question but I do not think we should aim at a situation where in one county there are lower welfare standards than in another. One might liken it to what prevailed in local authority university scholarship schemes five or ten years ago where it depended on the local authority and on their capacity to pay and we got grave inequalities due to that. This was corrected in the scholarship scheme that was introduced two years ago. I do not see why these classes should come in here.

In regard to the whole question of unused buildings or properties that call for remission of rates, surely that again should be faced on a national level and calls for a more speedy and more co-ordinated approach to revaluation? There should be a system of revaluation at the request of the people concerned when agreed to by the local authorities. Those are I think the principles we should look for and I am disturbed to see that the principles are so dangerous in one of the first Bills coming before us.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

As my sermon proceeds my congregation may become dissipated so I want to start with a point I might normally make at a later stage but I want to do so while Senator Nash is still here. It is a serious question I have to raise with regard to the Bill itself. In fact it has two aspects. Section 2 of this Bill provides for the waiver by the rating authority of rates due by ratepayers. As we all know, it is a principle of taxation that in an area where there is development and progress and increasing population, the incidence of taxation tends to shift from the person who was formerly paying it to someone else; and in an area such as, for example, the City of Dublin, forgetting for a moment the rent restrictions code, there will be an inevitable shift for the demand in accommodation and liability for rates on to other tenants because the demand for accommodation in the City of Dublin and many parts of Ireland is inelastic, and this may affect, in those conditions, the application of that principle. This perhaps is not very important because the kind of people who would not be covered by the rent restrictions code probably would not be within the category for whom any relief is intended.

My chief concern with this Bill, as it is presented to us, is that there seems to be a complete failure to direct the provisions of this Bill, the reliefs which I accept unreservedly are genuinely intended, to the intended classes. Personally, I am pre-disposed to favour the wide provisions of the section as to the persons and the holders of rateable hereditaments who might now benefit in certain circumstances and that this might be extended to persons other than people within the social assistance group.

I do not profess any particular competency in this matter of the Rent Restrictions Act and I hope I do not trouble the Seanad unduly if I start with what I have to say on this matter because if I am correct in my view— if I am wrong I can be corrected— then there will be considerable amendment required to this Bill on the Committee Stage.

I should like to direct the attention of the Seanad to the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960, which has an amendment to it in the Rent Restrictions Act, 1967, which is not relevant, I think, for the particular point I have to make, where there is provision for the addition under section 10, subsection (2) (a) for the making of a lawful addition to the rent of a controlled dwelling:

(a) in case the landlord of the dwelling pays or allows a deduction or set-off against, or indemnifies the tenant in respect of, the rates or any part thereof, a sum equal to the amount for the time being of the payment, deduction, set-off or indemnity (as the case may be).

The rent restrictions code provides, as may be well known by many, under section 16 if:

the rent of a controlled dwelling (being a dwelling to which section 7 of this Act applies) in respect of any period beginning on or after the operative date exceeds the rent to be paid (in accordance with this Act) for that dwelling in respect of that period.

or another alternative, which it is not necessary to refer to

the amount of the excess shall notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, be irrecoverable from the tenant of the dwelling.

Section 17 contemplates the situation that where you have a rent which will be irrecoverable in those circumstances from the tenant that the tenant can by due proceeding recover it if he has made payment on account of the rent. The phrase used in section 17 is:

where any sum

(b) is a sum declared by section 16 of this Act should be irrecoverable from the tenant.

Such sum shall, subject to section 18 of this Act, be recoverable from the landlord who received the payment.

I question whether, without amendment of the rent restrictions code, it will be possible for the tenant to recover rates that in my view—I offer this view to the House and invite the attention of the House to it because it is a matter of fundamental importance because we do not want the Act which is well intended to be totally nugatory or largely nugatory in its effects—are insufficiently drafted here.

I suggest the only persons under this Act to whom relief can be made are the ratepayers, and the ratepayers are not necessarily the people whose conditions and circumstances will be taken into account within the intention of this Act in deciding whether relief should be given. If it is clear that no problem arises under this Act with regard to relief of rates, then it is all right.

However, in most municipalities and towns there are lots of houses occupied by tenants and if the position is that the person who alone will be entitled to get the relief will be the ratepayers, who may not be the landlord, and the landlord may not be obliged, if I construe the rent restrictions code and the sections to which I have referred correctly, then the landlord is not obliged, if he has received payment on account, to refund rates. The landlord will have received payment on account for rates which will be lawfully due to him at the time he made demand for them. If this be so, amendment of the rent restrictions code is required to make this Bill of any use to the persons who being tenants of houses in municipalities or towns of this country are intended to get the benefit.

If my view on this is correct, I think it is also agreed that only the ratepayers can recover. What is the position of a landlord who perhaps—landlords are not all always as grasping of their rights as some are—is careless about his affairs or is advised by people who are careless of their affairs, and he does not serve the appropriate notice and not having served the appropriate notice will in fact be paying a part of the rates while the tenant will be paying a part of the rates through paying the landlord an addition to his rent?

I see no provision for any of this in this Bill and there seems to me to be a great weakness in it. What is the position if in fact the tenant, the occupier, whose conditions will be looked at no doubt in determining whether there is to be a waiver of rates made available to benefit him, who changes his residence in the course of the year? What is the relationship between that landlord and the tenant in relation to that matter? This would seem to require very considerable amendment. Assuming I am wrong, assuming the condition is that others than ratepayers can in fact get this money back, there is no provision whereby, for example, this situation having arisen, for the landlord to know that his tenant has got this relief. There is no obligation on the tenant to give notice to the landlord. Therefore, if he does not know it, how is he to make appropriate arrangements? What happens if the ownership of the landlord's interest in the house is changed during the year?

If, in fact, the sort of amendments I would envisage ought to be made to give effect, as we would wish, to such benefits as are intended by this legislation, then I think we should have a clearer amendment of the rent restrictions code providing that in any case where the landlord received rates, because of the poor circumstances of his tenant this is immediately recoverable by the tenant, and I would like to see teeth put into the rent restrictions code on this, so that it would not be a mere matter of a liability civilly— that once he has been appropriately notified of the circumstances which had arisen there should be a penalty imposed on the landlord to make immediate repayment to the tenant.

There is one other consequential matter in relation to this before I depart from this point and let Senator Nash, the Minister and his advisers think about it. There is a provision in section 2, súbsection (4) of the Rent Restrictions (Amendment) Act—I am not sure whether it was passed in 1960 or 1964. For some reason, which to me appears utterly bizarre, the legislature provided that a dwelling gets decontrolled when it is occupied by a bachelor or a spinster between the ages of 21 and 65 years. I should have thought that conditions would require that they get additional relief instead of which no relief is provided by the rent restrictions code. This code does not apply if the valuation is in excess of £10. You could have a situation in which this property is occupied by a person who falls within one of the classes for which relief is to be given, but the rent restrictions code would not oblige the landlord not to raise the rent and to collect the entire rates waived in favour of the occupier.

So much for that point, and for such consideration as is required to be given to it. I hope I may be permitted —I think it is quite relevant to this Bill—to refer to this whole question of valuation. I am encouraged to do so by the fact that the Minister has himself on a number of occasions indicated that there is genuine dissatisfaction with the basis of valuation. This made me hopeful that he had in mind in some way persons who are being unjustly taxed through the unjust valuation system which exists throughout the country, and the fact that it is unjust is a very important matter for the legislature to reflect on. The major criticism of the system is its undue rigidity. I know this is generally agreed but I hope the Seanad will indulge me in continuing on this because I think there are certain aspects which should be looked at closely. I shall take just one sentence of the Devlin Report as my opening comment:

The present system of valuation was established in 1852 and has never been modernised so that the taxable basis for local government purposes is outdated and almost certainly inequitable.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair would be somewhat perturbed if the debate were to be a debate on the whole question of rates as a suitable method of raising local authority revenue. It is in order to refer to it in so far as certain categories are concerned and to refer to it briefly in a general way as background to the Bill.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

I accept that immediately but I submit that my argument is that the completely wrong approach has been made to the solution of a problem which it is genuinely the concern of the Minister to solve because through the system of imposing this cost on the other local taxpayers it is necessary to look to see whether this will cause further injustice to them.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is entitled to talk about the incremental injustice but not the basic injustice.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

For me to talk about incremental injustice would be imposing a task on me beyond my competence in so far as my familiarity with this is no more than to have studied such references as I have found to it in a number of cases. Surely where we are to have extra taxation imposed on certain local taxpayers by a new Bill, it is appropriate to look at some of the factors affecting the basis of valuation on which the taxation will be charged.

I do not need to address myself very much to this but I should like to be permitted to refer to two or three matters. First, it is well known that at the time of the Griffith Valuation one of the reasons why certain properties were landed properties—I am thinking of Senators who have rural interests in mind—they received particularly high valuations because certain local characters wanted to qualify for the grand jury. This is well known. Recently, particularly valuable research has been done under the auspices of An Foras Talúntais on observations on the tax assessment of land in Wicklow County. The effect of the agricultural revolution, the technological changes in the last one hundred years, has meant that a great deal of agricultural land is grossly over-valued in terms of modern conditions and much land is also under-valued. This refers to the richer parts of the country, the areas further away from the sea, which are under-valued in many cases.

They valued a tenement in the years following 1852 and looked at the particular holding and also looked at three or four different qualities of land. Indeed when that tenement comes to be divided up, as many such tenements have been divided up, the valuation will be divided on an equitable basis, but sometimes a man who gets poor land will have a valuation put on his holding which will in fact reflect the higher valuation which was imposed on a part of the tenement of which he has no share at all. This seems to me to make it very wrong to proceed with a scheme which is going to impose further taxation on people in that position.

The final point I want to make is an argument for the prime cost of this being borne by the Central Government preceding a general revaluation of the country, which may be much more in the interests of many parts of the agricultural community than they are quite aware of. The curious situation has arisen in this country that rates are the only taxes which it is evident will always rise. If I wanted to make a political speech I could say that tobacco, spirits and so on will go up in the next budget, but I am not making that kind of speech, and it is only rates which will always go up. They are a tax on accommodation, and the effect of that was that as a result of the 1947 Health Act between 1948-49 and 1965-66 when they shifted the burden of the ever-accelerating expenditure on health from the local authority and fixed it, that for that period of years it is an interesting comment on what was the policy then pursued that the persons who thought they were beneficiaries of the free health services being made available to them were in fact paying half of them in rent to the landlords apart from any other effect that taxation may have had on them.

My last point is this. I do think that while Devlin in paragraph 5.3.16 said that the committee which considered local taxation of all the countries found that in Ireland central control was the most stringent, this in a country which proclaims belief in Papal encyclicals— God help us—and the principle of subsidiarity and all that seems really to make our whole position quite untenable, but this seems to be the one case where the thing should be done on a central basis. We have only to reflect on some of the illustrations which have been given here today of people on one side with a mean-minded county council who will not be given any benefit, and people on the other side of the road under a generous county council, to realise that this seems to be an absolutely intolerable system to set up. It should be decreed by the Minister— sorry, enacted by the Minister—and there should be a schedule setting out the basis for this relief.

Ruairí Brugha

Tá cupla focail le rá agam ar an mBílle seo. I must say that it is always very interesting to listen to Senator FitzGerald. I am sure that when he was at school he was never accused of not doing his homework. The two specific provisions in the Bill, from my reading of it, are firstly to enable local authorities to waive rates in certain cases. The objection from the other side of the House is that it should be the ratepayers who should do this and not the central Exchequer. I find it very difficult to accept that the Exchequer should have to carry this burden, because I am sure that we realise on all sides of the House that this would leave the transfer of the entire rate to the unfortunate taxpayer, with consequent dislocation in earning capacity and effect on the economy. I have not heard any argument sufficiently strong to convince me that this should be on the central Exchequer.

I am wondering whether we are reading a different Bill, but both Senators O'Higgins and I think, Quinlan, had strong objections to section 3 because they felt that this was an extension of bureaucracy. Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but it seems to me that there is an effort here to give power to a local authority to make arrangements for payments by instalments. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us, but it seems to me that subsection (2) of section 5 means that the Minister may make an order where an authority is not prepared to make arrangements for instalments. I understand that there are some county councils which have already done this, and possibly the reason for this provision in the Bill is to ensure that county councils which are not prepared to do so do do so.

I have not been able to ascertain what exactly the classes are that the Minister has in mind, but perhaps he could enlighten us in relation to the first part of the Bill. I myself would feel that there could be a small number of various classes—for instance I understand that as a result of the increasing rates in Dublin you have a special category of people who would normally not be applying to local authorities for anything, who are on retirement pensions or on fixed incomes, and who have had to dispose of some of their property in order to pay the rates. I wonder if this category could fall within the Bill.

I myself support the two basic contentions behind the Bill and support the Bill. In conclusion I am very sorry to hear a young member of the Seanad earlier on referring to what he described as the proposed abuse of the Bill. They are the words I wrote down anyway. We are all entitled, I suppose, at one time or another to criticise what may have happened in the past, but it is going too far, if this is what the Senator intended, to refer to what people are going to do wrong in the future. I must say that I regret this remark about the proposed abuses of the Bill in the future by county councillors or TDs of any kind.

Mr. Russell

I think we would all be prepared to welcome the Bill as a timid step in the right direction. At least it does one thing. It acknowledges to a limited degree that the payment of rates must be related to the ability, or rather the inability, of the rated occupier to pay. That is a principle that all of us in public life, county councillors or city councillors or TDs, have tried to get over to successive Ministers over the years. I regret that the Minister did not logically follow this first step and indicate that portion at least of the cost of this waiver of rates scheme would be met out of Central Funds. Certainly he did not eschew the possibility of that. Speaking on the Committee Stage of the Bill in the Dáil he said:

I have already pointed out that we are not in fact deciding in this Bill who will eventually pay the cost— whether it will be the taxpayer or the ratepayer. The present intention is that it will not be paid from Central Funds but if a decision is made at a later date to recoup part of the cost to local authorities, there is not any need for any amendment to this Bill. Even if that decision were made now, the Bill would not be altered in any respect.

I hope it is not too much to ask that the Minister when he is replying will give some indication that at some future date a proportion of the cost of this scheme will be met out of Central Funds. The present rating system does not consider the inability of any person to pay rates. In the context of this Bill the word "relief" is something of a misnomer in that it transfers the burden of paying rates from one class of ratepayers to the other class many of whom are finding the present position an intolerable burden. It is for that reason that I suggest that portion of the cost should be borne out of Central Funds.

There are one or two categories of ratepayers that I should like the Minister to define when he is replying. In particular, I have in mind the type of rated occupier of a premises whose income, perhaps through ill health or family circumstances, has declined over a period of years. The present practice of local authorities when such people are unable to pay is to raise a mortgage on the property. Apart from the humiliation and inconvenience caused by this method it means in effect that the property is tied up until it is sold or until the rated occupier dies and the estate is administered. In such cases even if the local authorities have to wait for years, they inevitably get their pound of flesh.

I should like the Minister to assure me that the Bill before us at least covers that particular category of ratepayers. Perhaps there are only a small number of them in our community but all of us have had some experience at one time or another of people who, through no fault of their own, suffered a serious diminution in income and who have been left with quite a substantial property the rates of which they are unable to pay out of these incomes.

The second category I have in mind are the rated occupiers of land inside county borough boundaries. I think I am correct in saying that the present rates abatements do not apply to owners of agricultural land inside a county borough boundary. If my assumption is correct and if these people now qualify for the waiver of rates it would seem to me that the cost of such waiver to be borne from the Central Exchequer will now be borne by the ratepayers. Perhaps the Minister will clarify this anomaly when he is replying.

I should like to know also if the provisions of this Bill can be applied to voluntary organisations who run club houses. Will they qualify if it is proved that their incomes are not sufficient to allow them to carry on the useful work of charity they are doing? The other question which I hope comes within the ambit of the Bill is the question of fairly substantial properties which may be held by persons of reduced means or possibly by persons of adequate means but due to the size of the properties, they are not useful for any purpose. From evidence all over the country the present procedure appears to be that the roofs are taken off these buildings so that rates will not have to be paid on them. There should be some method by which these properties could be preserved in their present form for future use.

As I said at the outset, I hope the Minister will give some indication that the principle that he appears to have set in this Bill to the effect that some cognisance will be taken of the ability to pay rates will be taken to its logical conclusion so that portion of the cost will ultimately be covered from Central Funds.

Mr. Gallanagh

I welcome the provision of section 3 of this Bill for the payment of rates by instalments. There has been a great demand down through the years, particularly from Opposition councillors throughout the country, for this provision. I do not see that it is a great privilege because people at any time could have saved the money for rates by placing it in the Post Office or elsewhere. It will be argued against that that the rates are payable on demand on the 1st of September but this is not so in practice.

I welcome, also, the provision of subsection (1) (d) of section 4 because I realise the necessity for the inclusion in many areas of people who are living alone, who have reached an advanced age and who, because they may have provided for some member of the family down through the years, now find themselves with incomes that are inadequate to meet the rates demand. I am glad that the onus with regard to cases such as these has been left with local authorities. This should be so because it is the local authorities who will have to answer to the people after each election as to what provisions they made to allow for this.

We continously hear the cry that health costs among other costs be paid for out of the Exchequer while at the same time there is a cry for a reduction in taxation. When there is an increase in the cost of living, people seek an increase in wages and rightly so but if all these services are to be paid for out of the Exchequer, there will have to be an increase in taxation. We argued this matter in Bray Urban District Council and it was also argued in Dublin Corporation but the Minister was forced to do away with both these bodies because they refused to allow the ratepayers of Dublin to pay for 50 per cent of the health service. Instead, they tried to have the health service paid for by the poor unfortunate man who could not afford to pay.

I should like an explanation of subsection (7) of section 2 which reads:

In the case of the council of a county, the expenses of the council in relation to a scheme under this section shall be charged on the whole of the county, exclusive of every borough and urban district therein.

I should like to know whether this means, in fact, that even though portion of the rates is a county council demand and portion is for an urban area, that all the rates in the urban area will be met by the county council or only that the portion applicable to the county council demand will be met and whether their decision in this respect to allow this is mandatory on the county council. In other words, if the urban council decide to give relief of rates, are the county council in that area bound to give the same relief?

Mr. W. O'Brien

I, like other Senators, welcome this measure. From my experience as a member of a local authority, many of the concessions which we read about here today have been applied already throughout the country. Nobody would disagree that the people referred to in this category are entitled to help. We must all admit that we have an ever-increasing cost of living and for that reason it is about time that we gave some relief to such people. I believe that the rates are a very cruel form of taxation. In spite of how we think of other forms of taxation, such as income tax, we must admit at least that new dependants are taken into consideration. In applying for scholarships at university level the income of the father and the number of his dependants are taken into consideration. In fixing rates on a person no such consideration is taken.

I am glad the Bill proposes to give some relief to the people who need it most. I was a bit perturbed at the references made by Senator Nash to Senator Boland's contribution. Senator Nash thought that Senator Boland said that the cost on the local authority would be prohibitive. That is not what I heard Senator Boland saying. Senator Boland said he thought, as I do, that it should be placed on the Central Fund. It might be argued that the contribution which would be made by the local authorities would be small. In this country we have reason to be afraid of any contribution. We all know of contributions to a certain scheme which has now become a major problem for the ratepayers of this country. I hope the Minister may see fit to include other categories which I have in mind but which I do not want to mention.

Mr. Flanagan

I welcome this Bill and any steps that the Minister or the Government may take towards giving relief where it is needed or desirable. The implications of this Bill as far as the country districts are concerned, and particularly in so far as the West of Ireland is concerned have not been mentioned at all. We heard that the Bill is inadequate. Senator Boland regarded the Bill as frivolous and said that so far as Dublin is concerned it is only a matter of a few thousand pounds which I believe would be a very small contribution from the rates of that particular area.

Senator Keery has pointed out that this measure follows up an investigation which was made by the Inter-departmental Committee on Local Finance and Taxation. The report of that committee states that "on the basis of inquiries made from selected local authorities we are satisfied that a great deal of hardship would be alleviated if, say, 2 per cent of the whole was set aside to finance a scheme of concession to social welfare beneficiaries". The real cost would be less than this since in many of these cases already it is the practice of the manager to strike off these rates as irrecoverable. This function of the manager is necessarily and properly exercised in a conservative manner and only after every attempt has been made to collect the rates. The committee felt that the social welfare beneficiaries should be entitled to exemption.

The result of that inter-departmental committee set the cost, based on a certain number of counties which they examined in detail, at 2 per cent. It is a fact that county managers and county councils already exercise the discretion vested in them of giving relief as far as possible to necessitous cases which come under their notice or are brought under their notice by the rate collectors or otherwise. I feel from what I have heard here today that possibly the poorer counties, like my own, are the most generous. I am speaking on behalf of a county where the current county rate is 107/- in the £. It is a fact that in the last financial year the amount of rates struck off as irrecoverable from vacant or derelict holdings, from derelict buildings and from people who were unable to pay even after their circumstances were investigated, reasonably thoroughly and efficiently, amounted only to £21,800 in round figures, which is equivalent to 1s 2d in the £.

A study has also been made arising out of the circular sent out by the Minister as to what the probable effect or the probable cost would be of implementing this scheme if the cost came to be borne entirely out of county rates. I shall not give the figures as they might be embarrassing. Categories examined included recipients of home assistance, old age and blind non-contributory pensioners, non-contributory widow pensioners, and recipients of disability allowances. Anybody here would agree with me that those classes of people would be entitled to full benefit under this scheme. If all those people got the full benefit of this Bill, or Act when it is enacted, it would mean an addition of 4s 4d in the £ in the rates of my county. When we consider the categories of people who are mentioned we must all realise that side by side with these there are other people equally deserving who are perhaps too proud to disclose their circumstances. The circumstances of such people may not be known but they would in fact be equally deserving. These people are now ratepayers and they will continue to pay rates as long as they can to give the benefit of their rates to less deserving people. In the report of the committee which I have mentioned it was estimated that two per cent of the rate would be a reasonable amount to meet the requirements of those categories whom we now try to help.

I am satisfied from what I heard here today that two per cent of the rates would not be necessary in some counties whereas in my county the amount which would be necessary would be approximately six per cent. The six per cent would fall on the county and on the ratepayers who are unfortunately the highest ratepayers on their valuation in the country. Therefore notwithstanding anything that has been said here, I should like to take advantage of what the Minister said in the Dáil, that nothing in this Bill prevents him from making a contribution towards implementing the scheme outlined in this Bill.

My suggestion, my earnest wish and the wish of my county council would be that he would make a contribution. We would be quite prepared to pay the two per cent which was envisaged in the report of the inter-departmental committee, to saddle that extra two per cent on the ratepayers who are already very heavily taxed, and we would ask the Minister to provide the balance out of central funds. I have heard it said here that it is not a reasonable thing to change the cost of schemes from ratepayers to the central fund. I have heard it said that it would be unjust or unfair to put extra on income tax. People are paying income tax because they can afford to pay it. People are paying taxes on cigarettes and drink because they can afford it or at least think they can, but there are people paying rates in my county who are too proud to disclose their poor circumstances and who continue to pay rates that they are badly able to pay and deprive themselves of other necessities. It is for that reason that I make no apology to anybody for suggesting that there should be a contribution from the central fund which would ensure that the amount to be borne by any local authority would not exceed the two per cent which was envisaged in the report of the inter-departmental committee.

There have been many suggestions made, particularly from the west of Ireland, about a rates equalisation fund. It may be a far cry to the time when we can have rates equalisation throughout the country but I feel that a start might be made here and I appeal to the Minister to limit the amount which any local authority may have to contribute to that two per cent envisaged in the report which prompted this Bill and that the balance should be met from State funds.

Mr. Reynolds

I should certainly like to welcome the payment of rates by instalment but the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech here today said:

The section will initially be applied to all dwellings and holdings of agricultural land....

and the Bill itself states:

This section applies to a class of hereditaments for the time being specified by order made by the Minister.

I should like the Minister to tell us what type of person will qualify for the payment of rates by instalment. We all know that there are a number of small shopkeepers and small salaried people who find it a great hardship to pay their rates in two instalments and I would not like the Minister to lose sight of those two sections of the people.

A circular was sent out to county councils on 29th April. It arrived just after every county council in Ireland had held their estimates meeting. If there was much sincerity behind the circular it would have arrived prior to the estimates meeting. I know of one council which prepared a scheme and it would cost them a further shilling in the pound for 1969-70 and a further shilling for the incoming year. For that reason this council abandoned the idea of the scheme.

The circular clearly specifies people who are in receipt of non-contributory old age pensions, widows' pensions and home assistance. One wonders why the Minister did not mention people who are in receipt of disabled persons' allowances, unemployment assistance or contributory old age pensions. There is not much difference today between a contributory and a non-contributory pension, only about 10/- a week. I realise that when the Minister is replying he will say: "If any county council sent up a scheme to me including the people in the categories you have mentioned it is possible that I would have accepted it." I want to be quite sincere and honest about this. If this scheme is to work it will have to be with the co-operation of the Department of Local Government and the local authorities.

For that reason the Department of Local Government will have to make a substantial contribution towards the implementation of this scheme. There is not much point in sending this circular to county councils if the Department of Local Government are not prepared to play their part. In my opinion the central fund should subscribe at least 75 per cent of the total cost of the scheme. All of us who are members of local authorities know the substantial contributions made by the ratepayers in our areas. These people suffer tremendous hardship in making these contributions. There is a lot of lip service paid to ratepayers. An expression often used by a political party is that the system is outmoded and outdated. If it is, as everybody realises, what are the Government doing about it? Do they intend to change it? It is all right to hear a Senator here today say that this is the first leg of the Departmental report. God knows when we will get the second leg and if this is the first leg the foundation will be very weak. We know the hardship being suffered by small shopkeepers in paying their rates. Those people are now in competition with supermarkets. They are asked to accept a smaller level of profit than they have been used to.

Demands in every sphere are going up and demands for rates are also going up and they are the people we are asking to make a very substantial contribution towards this scheme. We have farmers with valuations of £20 and those people will also be asked to subscribe substantially to this scheme. In most of our towns, as has been mentioned by the Senator from Mayo, people who are living on very nominal retirement pensions, or people who have very small incomes, will also be asked to subscribe the full amount of the cost of this scheme within their own local authority areas.

We all know that we have this rating system in this country which is operating for more than 100 years and when it was introduced first it was introduced because people who had property, people who owned land, were the people at that particular time who had money. Nowadays that whole trend has changed. Every one of us knows people who are living with their parents, who are working like them, who have money freely available. We also know of people working at various jobs throughout the country, who are not married and who live with their parents or in digs have a good flow of money which goes to prove that the system we are operating here of collecting rates on valuation basis from the Poor Law Valuation is completely wrong.

I should not like the Minister to think for one moment that I or anybody in my Party was anxious to fire this scheme. We all know that in this Bill relief will be provided for people who badly need it but if that is the situation in it I want to emphasise and to tell the Minister it will not work unless his Department or the Central Fund play their part in future because the county councils will not implement it. In my opinion if they did it would mean higher rates and in the rural areas we have heard Senator Flanagan talking about, and the area which I represent, it would mean a higher rate of emigration if we increased the rates much higher.

I do not think we can get away from the fact that this is a complete social problem and any social problem should be financed from the Central Fund. We had an experience in this country about four years ago where the Minister for Finance in one of his Budgets increased the old age non-contributory pension by 5/- a week. At the same time he decided that increase would not apply to people who were living in houses of their own. Now, four years later, we have his colleague the Minister for Local Government coming in here and asking us to get county councils to pay the rates of those people. That is the situation and I certainly think it is not a very fair way of dealing with it.

Most county councils in Ireland, and I am sure I am speaking for every one of them, feel ashamed and very often are afraid to ask their ratepayers to make further contributions for the things they are obliged to do such as housing, water, sewerage, swimming pools and other needed amenities, while at the same time we have the Minister for Local Government asking them to make a contribution towards a scheme which in my opinion is a scheme for the Department of Social Welfare. As has been clearly pointed out by Senator Flanagan from Mayo— I quote him because he represents the same type of constituency I do—we wipe out rates for various types of people, especially widows. As long as I can remember, and I am 30 years a member of a local authority, this has been the case.

There are other people who are not mentioned here. There is the silent type of person who lives in rural Ireland who finds it very difficult to pay rates and it seems to be the greatest burden on that person. This very often comes to the notice of the county council and that person's rates have been wiped out. Those things were done by the various county councils up and down the country with the hope that some day the Minister for Finance would accept the problem and provide for them by legislation.

The figures which I have for County Leitrim are rather interesting. I will just quote them in conclusion. According to the 1966 census, volume II, the population of Leitrim was 30,572. The proportion of elderly people in the population was the highest in the country. The number of people aged 70 and upwards was 3,440 or 11.2 per cent of the total population. Some years ago the national average number of people in receipt of old age pensions was less than 4 per cent. In addition, the number of widows under 70 years of age was 776 or 2.5 per cent of the population. Take one out of four as ratepayers, this means that the number of people who would qualify for this remission in Leitrim is over 1,000.

Míchéal Cranitch

Deirtear go mbíonn an fear deireannach díobhálach, ach pé díobháil a dhéanfaidh mé ní bheidh mé im chéirnin fadsheinnteach. Is mian liom cur síos gairid a dhéanamh ar an mBille seo.

I wish to make one or two observations on the Bill before us this afternoon. I deliberately say "the Bill before us" because judging by the number of speeches and the remarks this afternoon one would think we were dealing with some Bill which actually is not before us. I will be very brief.

There are two points in this Bill I should like to refer to. The first is putting in order a position which should actually never have been allowed to exist. The position is where the rate collectors and local authorities, their masters, were if you wish to say so, compelled to take money from some people in rates who could not afford to pay—in short to knock blood out of a turnip. It is true to say that in their kindness of heart and in their Christian approach to the problem, local authorities waived rates in various circumstances but it was by the goodness of their hearts they did so. It was not conceded that the person who was being assessed had a right not to be assessed if he could not afford to pay it.

Furthermore, I know this to be quite true. There are people practically destitute and they would rather go hungry than refuse to pay their rates or rather than let it be said about them that they could not pay their rates. Pride is not the prerogative of the wealthy or middle classes. Very often pride is in inverse ratio to the wealth of the person. If this Bill did nothing else but to regularise and christianise the attitude towards those people, then a good day's work has been done.

We come to section 2 of the Bill, which is payment by instalments. If a man buys an article, say a tractor or a combine harvester, he incurs a debt, and he and his creditor arrange terms of payment. When a person acquires a property he incurs a debt to the local authority and I think it should follow that any convenient arrangement between the debtor and his creditor—the local authority— would be most commendable. Accordingly, I welcome the suggestion that rates may be paid by instalment.

We had mention this afternoon of the rating system. This Bill does not deal comprehensively with the rating system. Perhaps other categories which might be called the social service categories could be brought in later; I think the Bill is flexible enough to deal with this. I therefore wish to congratulate the Minister.

Dr. Belton

Like all the previous speakers—I think I am right in saying all—we welcome the crumb from the Minister's table as regards rates. While I say that, there are in my opinion two serious objections or drawbacks. The first objection is the method of producing the end result that this Bill is aiming at. This was brought out earlier by Senators O'Higgins and Quinlan in the making of enacting of legislation by methods of regulations, by putting papers on the Tables of the Houses of the Oireachtas. That is not the proper way to do it. The other is this question of the whole rating system.

This is my first time here and I am not supposed to produce an analogy that might not be parliamentary, but this small measure—and it was stated by Senator Nash himself that this was a small measure—reminds me of a certain gentleman in Dún Laoghaire. There are certain Members here, perhaps my friend Senator Ó Maoláin, who may know this gentleman of whom I speak. He is a most amusing person but is well known as a "touch" and everybody avoids him. However, I fell into a trap and lost £1, though perhaps I was more fortunate than some of my friends who lost considerably more. This reminds me of the Minister's attitude—he wants to be touched only for a small sum. By "small sum" I mean that he is not dealing with rates in a proper way. He is offering us a small inducement to see if we will be satisfied with this, and yet the burden of rates will go on in spite of it all. This does not mean that I do not welcome this small crumb. Like all ratepayers, a small crumb is welcome to a hungry man and I am sure the people who are getting relief are deserving of it.

However, several points arise. I could have said much more but it is useless and a waste of the time of this House to rehash all that has been said by other Members on both sides. In section 2 there is mention somewhere that any costs incurred in this will be defrayed by the local authority. I do not think this is correct. It should be borne by the central authority and I will give one reason. I am coming back to another statement of Senator Nash. He said: "The total comes to a substantial amount". If it comes to a substantial amount and if ratepayers have to bear this substantial amount, it follows, therefore, that the categories not included in this proposed Bill will have to bear a higher proportion of rates than they are bearing today, and in the view of all local authority personnel, all Senators and Deputies, all the impending higher imposition that health will bear on the rates during this and the coming years is going to be pretty severe.

It will follow also from this higher rate that for these categories which are on the fringe it will depress their available money and these people will ultimately find themselves exempted from rates. Therefore we will have the position that more and more categories of people exempted will snowball and eventually there will be very few people paying rates in a local authority area.

Another reason this should be on a Central Fund basis is that somewhere along the line it is mentioned that a decision by a rating authority as to whether a person qualifies for relief under this section shall be final and conclusive, and it is also stated that it will be the decision of a local authority as to who will be brought additionally into any particular category. It does not define whether this is the manager or the members of a local authority. I should like this to be a charge on the Central Fund and that the manager would be responsible for its administration. I would accept as a general principle that councillors should not have the expenditure of Central Fund moneys at all times for which they are not accountable, and therefore it would be better if the manager were the man who makes the decision.

A further reason why the manager should make this decision is that it is not a particularly pleasant job that councillors would like to do because they will be bombarded with cases all over the place and every councillor will be hunted to death under this. Therefore, I am convinced that it should be a managerial function to make these decisions as to who should be eligible for this relief of rates.

This Bill also deals with payment of rates by instalments, and I do not think that there is much I can add to what has already been said about this. There is a general consensus in this House that what has been introduced in this Bill about payments by instalments is acceptable. There may be technical and legal points brought up here and there that I would not be competent to judge or make any statement about. There will probably be more speakers after me on this side of the House, but if there are not I trust that the Minister will deal in his reply with the remarks made not alone from this but from the other side of the House and will see his way if possible to accommodate us on the various points raised.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I notice that the two types of relief promised under this Bill to various people suffering from different disabilities—pensioners and so on—recognise the fact that such pensioners and others need to be relieved of part or all of their rates payments. I would ask why in the main is this so, and I would answer that it is because their pensions and allowances are not enough at present, and I would see two ways of meeting this fact.

One would be to increase their pensions and allowances until they would be in a position in which they could pay their rates, but if this were to be done it would be the State that would be footing the bill—the income tax payer. The second method would be the method proposed by this Bill, to decrease their rate-paying obligations, in which case the bill is footed by other ratepayers. We have these alternatives for the Minister, or it would be better to say for the Government, to decide—whether it would be better to increase these apparently insufficient allowances and pensions, disability allowances and so on, and let the State foot the bill, or in view of the fact that the pensions are not enough recognise this fact by decreasing their ratepaying obligations and putting the burden on other ratepayers. This second solution is what the Government has decided.

The Minister found it more convenient, obviously, to put the burden on the other ratepayers than to accept the burden arising from Government stinginess in the first place as a burden which should be nationally spread. It is true already, of course, that there are concealed subsidies paid by the ratepayers to a number of institutions and buildings, the owners or administrators of which pay reduced rates for one reason or another. We are all familiar with this fact, and the fact that certain institutions get reduced rates means in fact—and we should face this fact— that the ratepayers who pay full rates are partly subsidising such schools, hospitals, churches, convents, monasteries and so on, whatever they may be, educational institutions of all kinds. One wonders is it right to place the burden of such concealed subsidies upon the ratepayer, or should this not rather be a national charge if such subsidies are justifiable.

I notice further in this Bill a reference in section 2 to the fact that a rating authority may from time to time provide for a waiver of rates. "A rating authority" is a nice phrase. In practice, of course, it turns out that since this is a reserved function the rating authority is the county or city manager, and if the corporation or the county council should decide to exercise some authority in relation to the rates we know of course that the real authority is the Minister and the corporation or council gets abolished straight away if they really try to behave as if they had any rating authority at all. They have not, of course. The present Minister has shown this in the way he has suspended Dublin Corporation and deprived the citizens of Dublin who put them there of their civil rights in that regard.

Under section 5 we are told in subsection (2) that "Anything done by a rating authority, with the consent of the Minister, before and in anticipation of the enactment of this Act shall have and shall be deemed always to have had all such validity and effect as it would have had if this Act had been in force when that thing was done.

This has been referred to before, but it obviously is not only retrospective legisation but affords encouragement to certain unnamed people to act illegally in—and I quote the subsection—"anticipation of the enactment of the Act". I find that a very odd type of legislation, this encouragement to people in the future on other occasions to say "I know that I am breaking the law but I am breaking it in the confident anticipation that the Government will see to it that such and such an Act will be eventually enacted with retrospective powers".

I feel that this is a very odd way to include such powers here, and that the Bill asks for too much and requires a bit of amendment.

There is only one other point that I want to make in relation to the whole question of rates that has been referred to by the other side of the House and by some of the earlier speakers, and that is the question of the necessity throughout the country, and certainly in the cities for a revaluation. There are in this City of Dublin commercial and industrial premises making profits out of the premises out of all proportion to the poor law valuation, and I suggest that in some of the counties which have been mentioned where the rates struck were enormous and in the cities where they are very high this results not so much from the charges but from the inequitable way in which the charges are distributed by reason of the out of date valuation system. I feel, therefore, that this Bill before us is inadequate and asks us to approve of things which it is not just to ask of this House. I feel that it is a piece of patchwork and a poor piece of legislation.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I would point out for Senator Sheehy Skeffington's information—probably he has forgotten it—that valuation is a matter for the Minister for Finance and it has nothing to do with this.

Senator McDonald rose.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I would point out to the Senator that it is now two minutes from the customary time for the adjournment.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.

Mr. McDonald

I admit that I am slightly disappointed that the Minister did not avail of the opportunity to introduce a more comprehensive Bill to deal with the many injustices and anomalies that exist in our outdated rating system. However, I do not wish to belittle the provisions outlined in the Bill but I should like to put one or two points to the Minister in the hope that he will clarify them for me.

In section 2, which is the section dealing with the waiving of rates, this has been the practice down through the years in a limited number of cases, and under existing legislation it is possible to escape paying rates even in the case of an organisation. Perhaps the Minister will consider allowing the rating authorities to waive rates in the cases of voluntary organisations and sports clubs also. Great efforts are being made to provide facilities for youth clubs and I am particularly concerned with the provision of halls and community centres throughout rural Ireland. I know of one hall in particular on which the rates are more than £150 a year. The occupiers are not in a position to recoup this large amount of money and when they run dances to help in this direction they are subject to the high rate of turnover tax.

Perhaps the Minister might see his way to extending this section so that it would cover cases such as the one I have mentioned. If such an organisation were to devote a corner of their premises for use as a folk museum, there is provision under existing legislation to describe the building as a museum in which case they would escape the payment of rates. The House will agree that this is not a solution to our present problems at this time. We have an opportunity of doing something practical in this House to cure an ill that is very prevalent in this country.

Young farmers' organisations have done a tremendous job during the past decade to help to stem the flow of emigration. They have made rural Ireland a much brighter place to live in by erecting so many hundreds of community centres and halls throughout the country. Unfortunately, they now find that the high rates plus the high rate of turnover tax and the high costs of lighting and fuel are progressively closing down these establishments.

I urge the Minister to widen the scope of this section and to include provision in subsection (3) of section 2 not only for a person who is liable to pay rates but also for organisations.

Regarding section 3 which deals with the payment of rates by instalments, this method of paying rates has been widespread throughout the country but because it is now being legalised it may become applicable to more people. We have a body of excellent rate collectors in this country—perhaps there is the odd exception—but most of them have always accepted the payment of rates by instalments and they have helped many a person by paying the rates for them to tide him over a few lean months. This section is merely legalising the system that has been working haphazardly but, nevertheless, effectively for a great number of years.

One thing that worries me is that people who are carrying the great burden of rates now will be further burdened by the payment of the administration costs of this section. In my own county I find that out of some 8,000 farmers, only 1,800 are paying full rates and those 1,800 pay more than half the entire demand in the county. There is no justification for placing an unnecessary burden on those people.

One of the greatest disadvantages of the present system is the complete inability to take any account of the ability of the ratepayer to pay. The system is outdated. So many people apart from the ratepayers are now enjoying facilities provided for out of the rates that the time has come when a wider section of the community should be called on to pay a greater share of this burden. Again and again we find that it is not always the people in the lower income group who find it difficult to pay their rates. This difficulty is experienced by people in all walks of life particularly by widows and by the proprietors of businesses, not necessarily small businesses.

The system has dealt a crippling blow to many thousands of our fellow country men and women. It is unfortunate that the Minister is not tackling the problem. However, in the two small steps which he is taking I welcome the provisions and I hope that before long he will be back to us with more comprehensive proposals so that we can get down to tackling this huge problem which is causing more headaches throughout the country than any other problem in our society. There are indications that next January and February the ratepayers of the country will be faced with a large increase in the rate demand. The present Minister for Local Government has attempted to fool many people in the past few months. We saw large headlines in the national newspapers stating that the Department of Local Government were taking over control and responsibility for a section of our road network and that this is to become a national charge.

An Cathaoirleach

That does not come under this Bill.

Mr. McDonald

People reading these headlines were led to believe that they would not have to pay for the roads, but the Minister took over only the roads he was paying for already by grants.

An Cathaoirleach

This is a fairly limited Bill.

Mr. McDonald

From reading headlines in the newspapers people have been misled not only on this point about the roads but here in this Bill where a vast majority of ratepayers have been led to expect concessions whereas all they will get is an increase in administration costs. I should like to ask that the administration costs of this scheme would be borne by the Minister. The Minister may have second thoughts on this matter before the Bill leaves this House.

Mr. Crinion

I should like to welcome this Bill which is a step in the right direction. Some counties had been giving a little assistance by way of relief of rates to home assistance recipients, but such assistance was irregular. People went through quite an amount of agony before they were able to get relief from rates. Old people and widows should come under this scheme. Such people are always very keen to stay in their own community. We should encourage them to stay there and any assistance we can give them to do so is well justified. Such people are afraid of being unable to stay in their own community and of being forced to go into the county home. They are often dependent on pensions and should get any relief we can give them.

It has been Government policy to help people by providing health facilities. The schemes mentioned under this Bill should help them also. Many have not availed of the reliefs available at the present time. Some have even paid their rates without realising that it was possible to have them refunded to them. In my own county people have been told that rates will be refunded to them. Most of these people are working on a weekly budget and any big demand like a rates bill is hard for them to meet. We have given them free television licences. We are taking burdens away from them so that they may be able to live without having large amounts demanded from them twice a year.

Senators on the opposite side of the House have been asking the Minister to help with the cost of this scheme. The Minister is helping because normally he gives an amount equal to that collected by way of rates. If one penny in the rates is collected the Department give approximately the same amount.

Mr. Reynolds

Will that happen under this Bill? It will hardly happen under section 2.

Mr. Crinion

When a bill is sent to the Department showing the rates collected, the Department will give a similar amount. Senator Boland mentioned a figure of £4,500 as the cost. If the Senator looks up his rate for the county he will find that such a scheme will cost only 1d, or perhaps 1½d in the £. In very few counties would this Bill cost more than 2d. I do not believe there is anybody in the country who would begrudge a penny or twopence in the £ to help the less well-off sections of the community. In most cases such people have given service to the community, have lived in it and been well thought of. Nobody would mind a small addition on the rates to help such people to have a little enjoyment and to take away anxiety about the payment of rates. It would be an ease for them if they had not got to face a rates bill twice a year. In some cases such people would be saved a few pounds which might take them several weeks to collect. These people have their pride and would not like to feel that the rate collector would call and find them unable to meet his demand.

I welcome the wide scope that the Minister has given to the local authorities in preparing this scheme. They are the people who know best the type of scheme which would come within the broad limits of the Bill. The councillors and the officials together should be able to work out a scheme which would suit the needs of the county. Many of us who are members of local authorities hear often: "This scheme is dictated by the Department. We have no function whatever but to accept it."

Here we are just giving the broad outlines in this Bill, regularising it and asking each county council to make out its own scheme to suit the needs of the county. I would say that most councils are glad to see something like this because they have been doing it in a higgledy-piggledy manner up to now. It is good basic democracy to bring local authorities into the preparation of a scheme that is to benefit the less well-off sections of the community.

I am also glad to see that rates may be paid in instalments because over the years different organisations have asked for something like this. The world seems to be moving in that particular way. Shopkeepers have what they call budget accounts so that people may settle their accounts when they get paid at the end of the week or at the end of the month. People in all aspects of business and even farmers are arranging things so that there will be something coming in each month. Therefore I would say that this idea was welcomed. I should like to commend this Bill to the House.

Mr. A. O'Brien

It is a good thing that certain classes of people are being afforded, under this Bill, the statutory right to pay their rates in instalments. It is also a good thing that certain sections of the less well-off people in our community will in future have the right to have their rates waived and will not have to rely on being granted a favour by a particular rate collector or county manager. In so far as this Bill regularises these things and puts them on the statute book I am wholeheartedly in favour of it. I feel it is only right to say too that it is an indication of the Minister's thoughts with regard to these sections of the community and it is fair to assume that as time goes on that tendency will grow and develop.

On the other hand one must examine the possibility of this scheme not being adopted at all in some counties. We have heard figures here today that would lead one to believe that it is comparatively easy for some county councils to adopt this scheme and comparatively difficult for other county councils to adopt it. Senator Boland told us that the amount of irrecoverable rates in Dublin County Council last year amounted to £2,500, that is about 1¼d in the £. On the other hand a speaker on the other side of the House said that in his county the amount of irrecoverable rates totalled over £21,000. That means that Dublin County Council by the imposition of 1¼d, 1½d or twopence in the £ can adopt this scheme and implement it, but when the question comes before a county council that is confronted with a bill of over £20,000 they may have a different approach to it. They may feel that they could not impose an extra burden of over £20,000 on the section of the community who are paying rates and they may be deterred from adopting the scheme altogether. Then the position will arise that this benefit, which must be described as a social benefit, will be operative in some parts of the country and not operative in other parts. I know of one county council that have decided not to adopt the scheme. They decided this unanimously and that council contains many members of the Minister's party. They believe that the introduction of this scheme in their particular county would impose too great a burden on the rate-paying community.

I suppose one cannot speak on the rates problem in its entirety on this Bill but when this scheme is put before a council the members of the council who must make a decision on it will have to look at the rates problem in its entirety as it affects the people in that county. There is in operation rates abatement, agricultural grants and various relief measures designed to help certain sections of the community but there are no relief measures applying to business people in small towns throughout the country, the hinterlands of which are suffering a rapid decrease in population and small business people are therefore less able to meet the rates demand. When members of a council sit down to consider whether or not they should adopt this scheme they must examine the rates situation in that county and they must be mindful of the burden it imposes on householders, merchants and people on fixed incomes who have difficulty in meeting the rates. They are therefore slow to adopt the scheme.

That leads me to join with the speakers on both sides of the House who have appealed to the Minister to make available to the local authorities a considerable grant to get this scheme off the ground because as I have said in some counties it may mean an extra 1½d in the £ or less while in others it may mean 4d in the £. I have been told on good authority that when one council considered adopting this scheme they discovered it would cost them 1/- in the £. The figures given by the Senator from Mayo would lead one to expect that if it were adopted in that county it would mean a much greater increase in rates.

Therefore, you will have local authorities approaching it in different ways. The only way to undo that and to help to have the matter operative in the country as a whole is to have a percentage grant from the Minister for Local Government. I sincerely hope the Minister will approach it from that point of view. I might also raise two questions and when the Minister is replying I should be grateful if he would answer them. I should like him to indicate whether the sections of the community who would not normally come under the scope of this Bill, but who might be included temporarily, would be considered.

Take the case of people who have great losses on the land. There was an outbreak of swine fever ten or 12 years ago which was very severe in counties Cavan and Monaghan and in other areas of the country. The net result of that was that the number of people who would not normally be entitled to this scheme would need to be included in it. They should be included until they get back on their feet again. I should like to know if the county councils might consider if such people could be included within the scope of this scheme.

Take the case of a storm such as that which occurred in 1961. A storm can cause great havoc, which would be a temporary hardship. In such circumstances would the Minister indicate, if he was then Minister for Local Government, if he would have been prepared to include such people in this scheme? There could be an increased grant from the Department to help them. There are many other cases which should come under this scheme temporarily, such as a period of prolonged unemployment, or say a breakdown in a factory which might cause hardship in an urban area for some time and after a while things would be normal again. Could such people be included in this scheme? It would be of great help to them if they could.

A number of cases can occur at the present time where farmers who are just able to carry on have an outbreak of brucellosis and this can cause great hardship because their herds are out of production for some time. Admittedly they are compensated for the loss of, say, 10 cows but due to the lack of production over a long period they are out of milk production. Such people might be able to make a genuine case for temporary inclusion in this scheme. I should be grateful if the Minister would indicate what the views of the Department are in regard to those temporary cases.

In conclusion, I should like to join with the appeal from all sides of the House to the Minister to see to it that a contribution is made from the Exchequer to help local authorities to implement this scheme. I am afraid it will not be adopted in some counties very easily but it will be adopted in other counties much easier. It could put a considerable burden on the rates in many counties.

Mr. Horgan

I think it would be ungenerous to attempt to cast any aspersions on the Government or to appear ungrateful in any way for an item of relief, however small this relief may happen to be. For this reason I think basically the two provisions in the Bill before us must be welcomed. Indeed I think also it would perhaps be ungenerous not to welcome it even if it is, as previous speakers have suggested, an example of a Government attempting to fulfil their election promises. Birds of that feather are perhaps rare enough in these latitudes and we should be grateful for them when they come along.

All I have to say is very brief and will be based primarily on something about which the Minister was very insistent when he spoke in the other House, namely the whole situation of this Bill within the concept of local government, and local democracy as it finds expression in the attitudes of this particular Government and indeed of the community as a whole. Other speakers have shown I think with some clarity how those measures valuable and all as they are, are a very two-dimensional and limited exercise of local democracy and there is a certain ambiguity about their relationship between local and central authority as it finds expression in the Bill.

There is another more fundamental point. I am grateful and pleased that the Minister's concern for underprivileged people generally should find expression in the several parts of this Bill but I think we would all be happier if we saw from the Government side of the House a greater realisation of the fact that the problem which this Bill sets out to deal with is only situated in one end of the spectrum, a continuous spectrum whose other extreme and whose reductio ad absurdum has been the suspension of Dublin Corporation. For this reason I welcome this Bill because I should like to see in it, with it and alongside it an indication that priorities in the Department of Local Government are being shaken up and there was a realisation in the Department that it is not just the question of affording rates relief to needy people and indeed not just the question of rates themselves but the whole question of their authenticity and of the working quality of local government which is being increasingly called into question now.

We are living in an age when all our institutions are creaking under the strains which are being put on them and unless they show themselves as willing to adapt themselves the community they serve will suffer. I have very little experience of and very little acquaintance with members of local authorities but those I have spoken to have given me a depressing picture of their powerlessness in the face of both managerial and Ministerial power. I feel very strongly unless steps are taken to examine this whole question of local democracy much more radically than it is being done at the moment then our community as a whole will suffer.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. K. Boland)

I think I should first of all deal with an allegation which was made, I believe, before I found it possible to be here myself this afternoon. I believe it was alleged that this was merely a legacy from the general election campaign and that this Bill was introduced in the first instance as a general election gimmick. As a matter of fact I think this has been fairly adequately dealt with by Senator Keery who showed that the two proposals in the Bill emanated directly from some of the recommendations of the interdepartmental committee on local authority finance. The circular to local authorities indicating that this legislation was to be produced and advocating that they make provision for these two matters in advance of the actual legislation, was sent out in April, which was well in advance of the general election or, indeed, of any decision to have a general election. This allegation is typical of what we can expect from certain people. It is quite obvious that it is completely without foundation.

This Bill has never been represented as doing more than it actually does. I do not think anybody spoke of it as being a major operation in so far as the elimination of complaints with regard to the rating system in general was concerned. Certainly nobody in the Government or in the Fianna Fail Party regarded it in this way, and they never suggested that it dealt in a comprehensive way with complaints regarding the rating system. However, this does not say that this Bill does not do anything worthwhile, and I maintain that the two minor adjustments that are being made are, in fact, well worthwhile.

What this Bill does is that in the first instance it enables local authorities to provide in advance that certain categories of necessitous people, who can be classified as people not in a position to pay their rates, shall be exempted from the word go from payment. It has been stated here and in the other House that those people are already exempted from payment of rates but that is not correct. The statutory position is that the rating authority must make every possible effort to collect the rates.

The rate collectors must try to collect their full warrant and at the end of the year when the accounts are audited if it is found that there are people unable to pay, they are generally exempted. However, the position now will be that these people will know in advance that they do not have to pay and the various demands being made at present will not be made and therefore, we shall have uniformity in this regard in cases where the local authority adopts the scheme.

At the moment the position is that it is only those needy people who are well informed and know that they do not have to pay rates or who are tough enough to resist the demands of the rate collector who get this relief. Others who are needy but who perhaps do not know they would qualify for exemption, who are not tough enough to resist the demands, or who, as has been pointed out by some Senators, have pride that will not allow them to present themselves as persons unable to meet what they look on as a commitment, these people succumb to the efforts of the local rate collectors to extract from them payment of the rates of which they should properly be relieved. The result is that some of the most needy cases do by some manner of means, which remains a mystery to most of us, actually pay their rates, which they should not be required to do.

Similarly with regard to the provision to pay rates in instalments as the right of a ratepayer; in some local authority areas, but not in all, facilities are at present available. Although local authorities have been asked to make this facility available a number of them have been slow to do so and even in areas where payment of rates by instalment is allowed this fact is not publicised and often is not known to the ratepayers. The position now will be that of right of every ratepayer will be able to pay by instalments, but they, of course, are not compelled to do so, and if they find it more convenient to pay in one or two lump sums as at the moment this they will be able to do.

Therefore, the two things being done in this Bill are worthwhile but the Bill does not deal with the rating system in a major way and nobody on this side of the House ever said it did. I often wonder if Opposition speakers ever read either their own or their colleagues speeches. If they did I am sure they would notice all the contradictions in them. On the one hand we were told that the two provisions in this Bill are already available and on the other hand, in the same speech, we were told that what is provided here will impose a crushing new impost on the ratepayers. If it were already being done I find it difficult to see how anyone can argue it is going to impose a crushing new impost on the other ratepayers.

Again, tonight we were told this does not do anything at all, and in the same speech there is mention of the substantial financial implications of what is proposed by this Bill. I wonder how there can be substantial financial implications if there is nothing whatever proposed in this Bill. The adoption of the suggestions in the Bill regarding relief for needy persons is a matter for each Local Authority. This is purely an enabling Bill, but if as a result of the adoption of the scheme proposed there is going to be a considerable impost on the ratepayers who are not exempted it must mean there is a substantial amount of extra money going to be raised from those ratepayers and surely there is going to be some use made of it and it must convey some benefit to someone.

We were told it is not going to convey any benefit on anyone. That appears to me to be completely contradictory. The main point that was argued here tonight was that the Bill should contain a provision that the Exchequer should meet either in whole or in part the cost of the rates relief scheme. I may say at the outset that I would not for a moment advocate to the Government that the whole of the cost of this should be a charge on what has been described as central funds, that is on the general taxpayer rather than on the local taxpayer.

It is quite obvious that to do that and still leave the adoption of schemes to the local authority—that is still adhere to the concept of local government and local democracy—we would in fact be giving a blank cheque to the local authorities to exempt all and sundry, any type of ratepayer they liked, at the expense of the general taxpayer. Indeed some of the suggestions that were made here as to the types of cases that might be covered by this rates relief indicated quite clearly what the attitude would be if there were no financial implications for the rating authority in the adoption of a scheme. I certainly would not advocate that.

As I made clear in the Dáil, and as the Parliamentary Secretary also made clear in his opening statement here today, the Bill does not, in fact, indicate from what source the money for the implementation of this is to come. At the same time at present it is not the intention that the State should contribute, but this is a decision that can be made at a later date, and if it were to be decided to make a contribution from the Central Exchequer towards the cost of this then it could be done either by an item in the Estimates for my Department or in the Finance Bill, Just as was done, for instance, in regard to the expenses incurred by Dublin Corporation in the Nelson's Pillar Act. That was dealt with in my Department's Vote. This proposal is simply an enabling Bill providing the necessary legal framework to empower local authorities to adopt schemes providing for the writing off of rates in certain cases, a power which they have not got now. They can only write off rates as recoverable after every effort has been made to collect them and after the final accounts have been examined. As I say, it would be irresponsible to write what would amount to be a blank cheque for State assistance for rate relief.

Any demand for additional grants for local authorities must be considered against the background of the fact that the State is already meeting 50 per cent of the total revenue expenditure of local authorities as against 43 per cent in 1958/59. In the two counties mentioned here, in Leitrim the State is, in fact, meeting 78.87 per cent of the total revenue expenditure and the rates are meeting 16.18 per cent, and in Mayo the State is meeting 76.94 per cent and the rates are meeting 15.66 per cent, so that in those two cases there is already very substantial State assistance towards the cost of administering the various local authority services. Over the country as a whole the proportion of expenditure met from the rates has for the same period fallen from 40 per cent to 33 per cent. State grants to local authorities in the year 1968/69 amounted to £58 million and a further sum of £8 million was provided in the current year, making a total of £65 million, which is equivalent to the total yield from the turnover tax plus half the yield from income tax. It is just as well to know that, particularly for Senators who advocate the total transfer of the rates to general taxation.

Mr. Reynolds

Nobody advocated that.

Mr. K. Boland

It was advocated. I would not say for certain that it was advocated tonight, but it certainly has been advocated in the Dáil.

Mr. Reynolds

Nobody advocated it here.

Mr. K. Boland

I would also draw attention to the fact that the interdepartmental committee that studied this matter has given a definite recommendation that rates should continue as a major source of local authority revenue.

Another point that might be mentioned in this regard is that the amount of money raised by rates as a proportion of GNP has remained practically static at around 3 per cent since 1938-39 while rates as a percentage of total taxation have fallen from 16 per cent to 11 per cent over the period 1958-59 to date. I think then that while I do not by any means want to be taken as saying that there is not a substantial need to make changes in the rating system, at the same time there is clear evidence to show that the Government has been assisting local authorities on an increasing scale from central taxation.

Another point I want to make clear is that this Bill does not, in fact, specify the classes or persons who may benefit under a rates relief scheme, nor does it debar any classes from benefiting. It is purely an enabling provision which will empower local authorities to adopt schemes providing for remission in appropriate cases subject to the Minister's sanction to the scheme. The aim is to leave the Bill as flexible as possible to enable appropriate amendments as necessary to be made to the scope of schemes and give as much discretion as possible to the local authorities in the matter. It would be a mistake to try to specify in legislation the classes or types of person who should qualify for remission, and any such attempt would result in an inflexibility which would prove to be very unsatisfactory in practice.

In the circular letter sent out last April it was suggested that schemes should, until such time as experience of their working was obtained, be confined to certain limited and well-defined classes such as the recipients of noncontributory pensions or other forms of social assistance, and also to cases of special hardship, but obviously it would be appropriate to include also classes of people whose means would be on the same general scale as the recipients of social assistance.

I certainly would include in that type of cases mentioned here of recipients of contributory widows' pensions who have no other means, but that does not say that I think it would be advisable to specify that the recipients of contributory social welfare benefits as a class should be entitled to this relief, because there is not any knowledge available by virtue of the fact that they are recipients of benefits of their capacity to pay rates. But such a person who has not any other income would certainly be in the same category as those who have already been means tested for the receipt of social assistance, and indeed a number of rating authorities have already adopted schemes of this nature. It was quite clear from the debate that cases could be made for the exclusion of many different types of people. but if the cost of this were to be borne solely by the Central Exchequer it seems clear there would be a very wide category of ratepayers indeed included.

Senator Alexis FitzGerald raised the question of a tenant who is not liable for rates, that is, where the landlord is liable for rates. Subsection (2) (g) of section 4 will, I believe, deal adequately with cases of that sort. Such people would generally be the occupiers of small dwellings within the meaning of the Local Government (Rates) Act of 1928. This part of section 4 makes provision for the making of regulations for appropriate adjustment of rents in order to confer benefit under a rates waiver scheme on the tenant rather than on the landlord. I think this is adequately covered but if it is not I will have it more closely examined before Committee Stage. It would not be reasonable to expect me to go into all aspects of the Rents Restriction Act to which Senator FitzGerald referred and, in any case, this is a matter for the Minister for Justice.

Senators Gallanagh and Belton raised questions in connection with subsection (7) of section 2. The effect of this subsection will be to provide that the ratepayers in the county areas as such will bear the cost of relief given in their area and in the urban area they will bear the cost of relief given in the urban area only. If this section were not put in the ratepayers of the urban areas would bear the proportionate share of the cost of relief given in the county areas as well as the cost of relief in their own area. It is not true that this will be purely a managerial function. The decision as to what classes will be covered in the council scheme will be a matter for the elected council, but decisions on individual cases will be a matter for the managers. However, this will not over-ride the provisions of section 4 and the council can always invoke section 4 in appropriate cases.

Senator O'Higgins suggested that local authorities should have the power to waive rates on buildings of architectural merit which were no longer of any great utility and no longer of any great benefit to the owner—buildings that have been partially demolished so as to avoid the payment of rates. The scope of the Bill is sufficiently wide to enable the council to use the scheme for that purpose if they see fit.

Senator O'Higgins also said that everybody should have the right to pay rates in instalments. There is no question of excluding anybody but the intention is initially, at any rate, to confine this to domestic ratepayers and occupiers of agricultural land who would be the classes who would be most likely to find this of help. Of course, it can be extended to other classes if necessary after we have had some experience of the working of the scheme.

Senator Keery suggested that it might be a good idea to provide that payments could be made through the Trustee Savings Bank. That could be recommended and it would not be impossible to arrange it, but from the point of view of the local authorities it would be preferable to have instalments paid direct to the local authority because it would result in a saving to the local authorities by reason of the fact that they would have an income from rates for five months earlier than any income they get at present. Therefore, the necessity of working on an overdraft for a large part of the year would be eliminated or reduced as a result.

Many other points that were raised could be very well dealt with on Committee Stage. I admit to being sorely tempted to follow Senators Horgan and Sheehy Skeffington in regard to the fate that befell Dublin Corporation because of the refusal of the majority of its members to fulfil the undertakings they gave to the citizens of Dublin just a short while previously but it does not arise on this Bill. Much as I would like to deal with that subject and because some of the Senators on this side of the House do not wish me to do so, it might be as well to resist in the hope that I will have an opportunity at a later date of educating Senator Horgan on this matter. As regards Senator Sheehy Skeffington I am quite sure that the chaos that would have happened by allowing Dublin Corporation to renege on their responsibilities to the citizens of Dublin would have been something that the Senator would not be adverse to happening.

Mr. Alexis FitzGerald

That is not fair.

Question put and agreed to.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Would the House contemplate completing the Bill tonight?

Professor Dooge

Some Members would like to have some amendments.

Committee Stage ordered for next sitting day.

Mr. McDonald

May we have an indication of when that might be?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

As soon as the Dáil speeds up its machine.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.40 p.m. sine die.