Before tea we were discussing amendments Nos. 10 to 16 and I am now encouraged by the arrival of the Minister to hope that all the amendments will be accepted. If they are not accepted, I propose to withdraw them and to re-table them on Report Stage. I should like to give an indication to the Minister of the ones to which I attach most importance: they are Nos. 10, 14, 15, and 16.
Local Government (Rates) (No. 2) Bill, 1969: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
Before section 3 to insert the following new section:
The Rent Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1967, is hereby amended by the insertion of the following section after section 13:
13A. Where rates or portion thereof are waived in any year or part of a year in accordance with any scheme made and carried out under the Local Government (Rates) (No. 2) Act, 1969 the word "rates" appearing in section 10 (2) of the Principal Act shall be construed as meaning the rates as reduced by the amount of any such waiver.
— Senator Alexis FitzGerald.
My legal advice says that these amendments are not necessary. I do not claim to be a legal expert myself but I have always found that the legal advice available to me has been of the highest quality and I should be very disappointed in this Bill if the things that Senator FitzGerald fears might happen did, in fact, happen. However, I am legally advised that the Bill is sufficiently wide in its scope to ensure that it does not happen.
If I understand Senator FitzGerald correctly he is now telling us that he is prepared to withdraw the amendments, and possibly, to put them down again on Report Stage. If that is so, I will have the arguments put forward by him in the debate examined but as matters stand I am informed that these amendments are not necessary and in view of that it would not be advisable to accept them because what they really do is that they purport to amend the Rent Restrictions Act. If it were to turn out that the advice I have is wrong I would be prepared to amend the Act, as it would be then, but as it stands I must accept the legal advice available to me.
I am very grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has met my amendments in what he has just said, and may I repeat what I said when the matter was being debated — that is that I have the highest admiration for the legal advice available to the Minister.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a point I made earlier in so far as the Bill purports to provide for other matters. In my view, these other matters might include matters not within the province of the Minister for Local Government but within the province of the Minister for Justice, whose legal advisers will no doubt have an opportunity of considering the arguments that I have made in defence of the amendments. In law, as in politics, there are opportunities for different opinions. One of the considerations I should like to draw the Minister's attention to is if he would put this question to his advisers and, through his colleague, to his colleague's advisers. Can my amendments, if accepted, do any damage? Their intention is to prevent litigation and to save unnecessary cost, to provide for a time pending the introduction by the Minister's colleague of other amending legislation which would take in this whole rent restriction code, the whole landlord and tenant code, to provide, I understand, for that interregnum and to prevent injustice being done during that period.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 11 to 16, inclusive, not moved.
Amendments Nos. 17, 19 and 20 are all connected and should be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 17:
In subsection (1), line 6, to delete "belonging to a class to which this section applies".
We have heard here this afternoon many statements from the Parliamentary Secretary and from Senators on the other side of the House advocating the retention of those subsections in the Bill which allow to members of local authorities the power to decide on schemes for the waiver of rates. This section provides for allowing certain classes the right to pay their rates by instalment. We felt there was agreement with the Parliamentary Secretary and the Senators from the Government side of the House that it would be as well, with this great new idea of giving back power to the members of local authorities and letting them be masters of their own destiny, as Senator Nash described it, that they should be allowed to decide on the classes which would be entitled to pay their rates by instalment and to make this decision a reserved function of local authorities.
Senators will notice 8 on page 3, which is part of subsection (1) of section 3, states:
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.
The rating authority in that case were not as might appear on casual reading the members of the local authority but rather would be a managerial function. Subsections (2) and (3) allow the Minister to decide the class of hereditament and to amend his order in relation to this from time to time. In accordance with the provisions of section 2 (5), which allowed members of local authorities to decide who should qualify in this scheme for the waiver of rates, we felt in this Bill in the next subsection that we should also allow members of local authorities to decide who should be allowed to pay their rates by instalments.
I do not see anything objectionable in the idea behind those amendments. I think everybody in the House would agree that the right to pay rates by instalments should be on as wide a basis as is reasonable. I have indicated that as a minimum I intend to cover all dwellings and agricultural holdings, but there is a practical objection to this amendment and I do not think it should be pressed.
It is a fact that many local authorities succeed in getting in the full rates from large commercial undertakings quite early in the year. As a result of that, interest on overdraft is saved and there is a gain to the general body of the ratepayers. When undertakings such as that are in fact in a position to pay their rates, it should be permissible for the local authorities to take advantage of it and to gain this advantage for the general body of ratepayers. If we confer by statute the right on all ratepayers to pay their rates by instalments, then obviously those commercial undertakings, however well fitted they are financially to pay their rates in one sum, would not do so because they would be answerable to their own auditors for so doing. The result would be there would be the loss to the rates that local authorities would find themselves carrying on on overdrafts for quite a considerable time, which would not be necessary. For that reason I suggest that those amendments should not be pressed on the undertaking that I will be as liberal as possible, keeping in mind the overall interest of the ratepayers as a whole.
There is nothing in the amendments to prevent those big commercial bodies or anybody else like that from paying their rates in the one amount.
If they have a statutory right not to pay them in one lump sum but to pay them by instalments then, should they in fact pay them in one lump sum, their own auditors would question their action in doing so.
The first paragraph of amendment No. 20 would not confer that statutory right on them.
I did not in fact deal with amendment No. 20. The purpose of section 3 is to give a legal right to the relevant ratepayers to pay rates by instalments. Amendment No. 20 strikes at the very root of this section because a local authority can nullify a whole section simply by not specifying in the classes or by specifying a very limited number of classes. This is not a theoretical point because we have been pressing local authorities down the years to do this of their own accord. Quite a number of them have been unwilling to adopt effective instalment schemes and it is because of that that this part of the Bill is being brought in at all. If we were to leave it completely to the local authorities themselves they could qualify this by not specifying any particular class or by being very restrictive in the classes they specified, so that I could not accept this amendment either.
I was a little bit led astray by the Minister's initial remarks but now that I realise that he had not been dealing with amendment No. 20, which I understood was being taken with amendments Nos. 17 and 19, I realise what he was getting at. The most important part of the three amendments, and the one out of which the others really arise, is the first paragraph in amendment No. 20 which states that "subject to the sanction of the Minister a rating authority may, from time to time, specify the class or classes of hereditament to which this section applies."
In other words, what the amendment is doing is giving to the local authority members instead of to the Minister the power to decide who should be allowed to pay their rates by instalments. The Minister was not with us this afternoon, but a great case was made, and repeatedly made, by his own Senators and his own Parliamentary Secretary that the members of local authorities should be given as much power and responsibility as possible, and this was the reason for having subsection (5) of section 2 in the section.
They had complete and utter faith in the responsible attitude which would be adopted by members of local authorities towards the making of any scheme for the provision of waiver of rates or any other activity that members of the local authority might engage in. For that reason I was very heartened to hear those remarks, even though they were opposed to our amendment to section 2, because I presumed from that that it was the Minister's intention to accept amendments to section 3 which did no more than transfer the onus of deciding who may pay rates by instalments from the Minister to the members of the local authorities, just as the provisions of section 2 put the onus of deciding who may receive waiver of rates on the members of local authorities.
If we want to be consistent about this, and if those Senators on this side of the House are to accept the remarks of the Government Senators and the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon as genuine, which I am quite sure they were, then these amendments surely must be acceptable — certainly amendment No. 20 which allows the rating authority, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to decide on the class or classes to which the section applies, and the second paragraph of amendment No. 20 provides that this would be a reserved function rather than managerial. This is merely in keeping with the provisions of section 2 and in keeping with the remarks of Senator Nash and the Parliamentary Secretary and others from the Government side of the House this afternoon.
The Government's undertaking to the people was to give them an effective scheme for paying rates by instalment as of right. If they are to do this and to leave it to each local authority in effect to decide whether they will adopt an instalment scheme, then we would not be honouring that undertaking. The point about this is that we have reason to believe from past experience that a number of local authorities would not in fact introduce effective instalment schemes if it were not decided in this way, that is, if the Minister did not specify the classes to be covered.
For that reason, as I said, local authorities have in the main in fact resisted promptings from my Department in the past to introduce effective instalment schemes. Because of that it is my opinion that this is necessary if we are to ensure that there will be effective instalment schemes in the country. It is certainly necessary to implement the undertaking that was given to people by the Government. I suppose really the ideal thing to do would be to specify the classes in the Bill but I considered that we have not got sufficient experience of it to do that at present. After some years of experience I would be prepared to take the opportunity in a suitable Bill to include the classes to which this facility of paying rates by instalment should be given.
It is a pity that the Minister was not here this afternoon to hear some of the Members of his own Party speaking about what they thought about local authorities. They thought that they were quite competent to do practically everything. The Minister's opinion, or his fear, of the local authorities runs completely counter to the statements uttered on his own side of the House that we heard this afternoon. I am afraid that there is drifting into the debates from that side of the House a certain amount of inconsistency, a certain amount of the feeling that local authorities are right when it suits the manager or the Minister or the Government and they are wrong when it suits the manager, the Minister or the Government. This is what one could deduce from the debate this afternoon and on the debate concluded just now on those various amendments. I am very sorry that the Minister was not here this afternoon to hear his own Party eulogise the councils on various things all over the country, saying that they were highly responsible and that they knew their social responsibility. This came out very clearly in the debate this afternoon.
When Senator Boland mentions what we were discussing this afternoon, we were discussing different amendments entirely, put up by Senator FitzGerald. We were not discussing this one at all, but were referring to the amendments that were before the House. These amendments were not before the House at that time. I think that nobody who has experience of the work of local authorities would even contemplate amendment No. 20 here, that the council would be required to deal with each single application to pay rates by instalments.
I feel that the purpose in this is to deal with people who either are on a monthly salary or who would find it convenient to pay their rates quarterly, and I do not visualise that any big commercial concern operating in a particular area would be claiming the same as an ordinary weekly or monthly wage earner. When I became concerned with this Bill and got to know of it, I could see that the underlying thing was to relieve the great burden of responsibility of the small wage earner, or monthly salaried people, who can make suitable arrangements between themselves and the rate collector to pay rates as they so desire. I would not for a moment contemplate that these amendments were to be considered whereby a number of big concerns could use themselves as pressure groups against the county council to win for themselves the same right as that which we are proposing to give to what I would not consider under-privileged people but people who are making a very genuine effort to pay their way and to meet their commitments. We were talking about different things. We were not talking this afternoon about this particular amendment but about a different one entirely, which has been withdrawn now.
Senator Honan is mistaken about this. We spoke at length, and Senator FitzGerald also spoke, about the amendment to make it obligatory on the rating authority to have a scheme for the waiver of rates each year but with the right, with the Minister's consent, to suspend the implementation of that scheme in any particular year. The case was made to us that there was no need to oblige members of the local authority to make a scheme because they were responsible people with social consciences, that they would make that scheme without having any obligation on them.
I do not think that the Senator was here at the time, but Senator Nash spoke at length and repeatedly about it and the Parliamentary Secretary spoke at some length on several occasions on the fact that the members of the local authorities generally, as I agree, are very responsible people who give their time and their services generously and who can be expected to implement any scheme that would be for the benefit of the ratepayers or their constituents; and we noted in particular that the members of the local authority act in nothing other than a responsible fashion.
Bearing in mind the remarks of Senator Nash and the Parliamentary Secretary, I was quite happy that these amendments would be accepted, because they are doing no more than asking for a transfer from the Minister to the members of the local authority of the decision as to the class or classes of hereditaments to be included in this scheme. I think the Minister is very mistaken that it is the intention, or would become the law if our amendment was accepted, that the members of each local authority would have to decide on each individual case. This is not the intention. This is something which we would certainly be totally opposed to, having members of local authorities canvass in this way to support the idea of providing to one particular ratepayer the facility of paying his rates in instalments and perhaps refusing it to another.
This was not the intention, and I think the Minister will agree that even if these amendments had been agreed, what they would in effect do would be to allow each local authority to decide which classes should be allowed to pay their rates by instalments — classes, not individuals — bearing in mind that before that decision could be implemented it would have had to be sanctioned by the Minister in accordance with the first six words of paragraph 1 of amendment No. 20. It was merely taking power away from the Minister and giving it as a reserved function to the local authorities, which course has been advocated by Senators on the Government side and by the Parliamentary Secretary in relation to section 2. The one point made by the Minister which I thought had much validity was in relation to the wording of amendment 20:
"( ) Subject to the sanction of the Minister a rating authority may, from time to time, specify the class or classes of hereditament to which this section applies.
Had we entered the amendment more or less on the lines of "subject to sanction of the Minister a rating authority shall, at the commencement of each financial year," which would oblige a rating authority to specify the classes in each year and ought to get over the difficulty envisaged by the Minister, the rating authority might not bother to provide this facility at all. I wondered whether the amendment might not have been more acceptable in that fashion and I would ask him to give us some guidelines which would be useful.
I was here this afternoon although I did not take part in the debate. I think there is confusion in Senator Boland's mind. What we were talking about refers to a rating authority waiving an amount of rates but what we are dealing with here, which the Minister has referred to in section 20, is not the waiving of payment: it is the question of payment by instalment. The point raised by Senator Boland where he quoted Senator Nash related to the principle of giving the power to a local authority to waive rates rather than compelling a local authority to do it, but what the Minister has referred to under this amendment is that some local authorities have not allowed payment of rates by instalments. They are two different principles and I would side with the Minister here on the giving of power to local authorities to waive payment of rates to certain necessitous classes. Section 3 (2) gives the Minister power to ensure that local authorities which have not so far been prepared to make the payment of rates by instalment do so. They are two different principles.
What Senator Brugha has said is that local authorities should have power to waive rates, or to decide on the people whose rates shall be waived, but the local authority should not have power over the people from whom rates should be collected by instalments, and I think this is the comparison which has been made. If a local authority are capable on one side they are bound to be capable on the other side. It is all very well to bring in red herrings and to talk about large businesses who normally pay their rates in one instalment or at the outside in two instalments — that the local authority would have to pay further interest if they were not collecting these rates. Who would be better judges of this than the local authority? Very often one might come across a large business that finds it as difficult to pay its rates as a salaried person and for that reason I think local authorities should have the power.
However, on the waiving of rates, new industries in the rural part can get exemptions for a period of years. That is a function of the local authority and it is they who decide which industries get the benefit of the scheme to waive rates. For that reason I think the Minister should have another look at this because members of local authorities would be better judges of what type of person should pay rates by instalments than an official sitting in the Minister's office or the Minister himself.
I was not here when either Senator Nash or the Parliamentary Secretary spoke with regard to the discretion to be given to local authorities on the rates-waiver scheme, but I am quite sure I would have endorsed everything they said. The principle involved in the two sections is completely different. The adoption or otherwise of a rates-waiver scheme is a matter of policy, something that would affect the actual striking of a rate and it will result, if adopted, in the incurring of extra expenditure on the other ratepayers. Therefore, it is quite appropriate that this decision should be left to the rating authority.
On the other hand, what is proposed in this section is to confer on certain classes of ratepayers the statutory right to pay their rates by instalment. It was promised by the Government that those people, in particular householders and farmers, would have a statutory right to pay their rates by instalment. What is involved so far as the rating authority are concerned is the purely administrative matter as to whether the rates are to be collected in two or ten instalments, and what is proposed in the Bill is to give a right to classes of ratepayers, in particular householders and farmers, to pay their rates in ten instalments rather than in two if they so desire. The only way in which this can be ensured is by providing in the Bill that it will be done. We have had the experience that urgings from the Department to adopt instalment schemes have not been responded to by quite a number of local authorities, and even if we substitute the word "shall" by "may" the intention could still be circumvented by specifying only a very limited class which would make the provisions of the Bill ineffective. For that reason I think amendment No. 20 as well as amendments Nos. 17 and 19 should not be pressed.
The Minister has mentioned householders and farmers. I presume, then, that businesses are excluded from the Minister's mind.
No.
The Minister gave that impression. What valuation has the Minister in mind? You can have a farmer of £20 valuation whose land is de-rated but you can also have a farmer with a £400 valuation.
I do not feel that we have enough experience on it to make a decision so definite now as to include it in the Bill. I would visualise the gaining of this experience over a number of years and after we have experience of it I would be prepared to specify the classes in legislation and take advantage of some appropriate amending legislation to bring in such a provision. However, I have not any clear-cut opinion at present as to the exact classes which should be specified. I would certainly hope effectively to exclude such businesses as are in fact in a position to pay their rates in one lump sum or in two lump sums so that ratepayers in general would not lose the advantage that at present rating authorities can get by avoiding a certain amount of interest on overdrafts.
Would the Minister not agree that in general it would help the local authority to have a steady flow of money coming in in a ten-month period rather than on two occasions during the year? Would he not also imagine that in the case of a large concern which is capable of paying in either one or two large instalments it is far more likely that they will pay those instalments at the last moment rather than at the first possible moment — that in fact if they were obliged to pay in ten equal instalments it would almost certainly ensure that we would never have the situation of a local authority becoming almost bankrupt for one or two months of the year? I cannot see the difficulty for the local authority which in their own local area ought to have the best knowledge of which sections could best benefit and in which way the local authority operation could best benefit by including certain sections in the instalments scheme.
I do not want to be contentious about this but the remarks of Senators from the Government side of the House this evening about the irresponsible attitude that might be adopted by members of local authorities in this regard are completely out of tune with the type of remarks that were made this afternoon when local authority members were being lauded to the skies and we were being told that not only could they and should they make the scheme for the waiver of rates but in fact that they were capable of doing virtually everything within their own administrative area and that it would be the ideal of the Government that they should be allowed every possible power. Yet here in a simple section which provides for rates to be paid by instalment by certain sections, the Government Senators and indeed the Minister seem to think that some members or some local authorities would not act in a responsible fashion and might decide to include only a very small number of classes. I cannot reconcile these two attitudes. We seem to have had a complete about-face on the part of Senators on the other side of the House simply because we have had a break for tea.
There are some irresponsible members of local authorities.
There were not this afternoon.
May I point out for the information of the Minister, and also in case the press might misunderstand, that only two Senators spoke from this side of the House during that debate and it is an exaggeration to talk as if every Senator spoke.
I presumed they agreed.
I have no doubt I would have endorsed the sentiments expressed here. The point is that we have experience of the fact that local authorities in the main have not been prepared to do this. There is a certain amount of administrative difficulty involved in collecting rates in ten instalments rather than in two and local authorities have not, in the main, been prepared to accept this administrative difficulty. As well as that, we have given an undertaking to give this statutory right to people to pay their rates by instalment and this is the only way in which we can do it.
In regard to the Senator's point about the advantage of having a steady flow of money accruing to local authorities, the fact is that at present the first moiety is payable on demand as soon as the rate is struck and the demand notices are sent out. Some local authorities manage to get them out as early as June, some in July and I think none of them go beyond August. The experience has been that it has proved quite feasible to collect a substantial amount of the rates due quite early in the financial year. The result is that local authorities have been getting, I admit from the larger businesses, quite a substantial amount of their revenue early on. Therefore, they have money in hand with which to carry on their activities without having to work on a bank overdraft. If every class of ratepayer had a statutory right to pay in ten monthly instalments rather than in two instalments as at present, that would be availed of and local authorities would not have the same amount of money in hand to carry on their activities and they would be involved in paying interest on overdrafts over a longer period.
Therefore, it is not desirable to make this change that has been suggested and if the amendment were to be accepted I would not in fact be doing what we set out to do: I would not be conferring this statutory right on classes of ratepayers to pay their rates by instalments. In fact, this strikes at the whole root of this section.
I would ask the Minister to consider introducing on Report Stage an amendment on the lines of the first paragraph of amendment No. 20, using the word "shall" instead of "may" and specifying that at least the certain basic classes which he suggested, and which we all agree ought to be included, be included. In the meantime, I will withdraw these amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On a point of information, may I ask if it is the intention to put all these amendments that are being withdrawn down again on Report Stage?
No.
No.
May I point out that any Senator has the right to put down those amendments on Report Stage. I do not think it is fair of Senator Ó Maoláin to put that question. Every Senator has the right to put down amendments if he wants to.
Senator Sheehy Skeffington is correct, provided, of course, they are in order.
I should like to be as helpful as possible.
Senator Ó Maoláin has every right to ask the movers of these amendments for information. Unlike Senator Sheehy Skeffington, he does not know all the answers.
We will be putting down some of them.
The Senator's question was "all". I move amendment No. 18:
Before subsection (2) to insert the following subsection:
The making of conditions under this section, or an amendment to any such condition, shall be a reserved function for the purposes of the County Management Acts, 1940 to 1955, or the Acts relating to the management of county boroughs, as may be appropriate.
This refers to the making of conditions. The Bill as it stands at section 3 says:
subject to compliance with such conditions as may from time to time be specified by the appropriate rating authority...
and section 4 (3) (a) reads:
the specifying of conditions (including the specifying of conditions by a rating authority) subject to which a person may pay rates in instalments, and the conditions which may be so specified;
This allows the Minister apparently to specify these conditions. Yet in section 3, the rating authority, and in this case it would be a managerial rather than a reserved function, seem to have the power to specify the conditions. I must confess I put down this amendment as much as anything else to seek clarification of this point.
The difficulty here is that if we accept this amendment every condition made, either for all ratepayers or for an individual ratepayer, would have to come before the council. For instance, if a particular ratepayer failed to keep the general conditions under the Bill as it stands, he might agree on new conditions with an appropriate official if this appears to be reasonable.
A ratepayer might go into an office and say he could not pay his instalment in that month and that he wished to leave it until the following month, but this might not be permitted. This amendment is as much by way of clarification as anything else.
The position is that this scheme will be difficult to work initially and it is desirable that it be as flexible as possible.
Thank you. I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.
I move amendment No. 21:
To add at the end of the section the following subsection:
( ) This section shall not be interpreted as in any way interfering with the right of a rating authority to arrange with a ratepayer for payment of rates in a manner which meets with the satisfaction of both the authority and said ratepayer.
The purpose of this amendment again is to some extent to enable us to have some clarification. As Members of the House are aware, rate collectors in certain parts of the country arrange to collect rates at times when the ratepayer is capable of paying and we are a little concerned that if it is specifically laid down by regulation the rate collector might say that he could not accept the rates in three instalments at certain times because of the regulations.
I am advised that this is not necessary. This does not make it compulsory for any ratepayer to pay by instalments but it gives him the right to pay by instalments if he so wishes. If he wishes to pay in any other manner he will be at liberty to do so. The powers of the rating authority are sufficiently flexible to facilitate any reasonable arrangement where the uniform conditions laid down cannot be reasonably compiled with.
The question is whether this section would affect cases in which special arrangements are made.
I would not think so.
The point Senator Boland is making is that if this Bill is enacted there might be only two ways of paying rates.
There would be two only statutory ways but the conditions laid down will be flexible enough to make it permissible for different arrangements to be made with individual ratepayers. As I said, we will not be ensuring these other arrangements will be made — all we will be providing by statute is the right to pay in ten instalments.
That is not there now.
The flexibility that is permissible to local authorities will still be permissible.
That, in effect, is what we were trying to bring about. We were afraid that if somebody had an arrangement with a rate collector and if the rate collector happened to be changed, the new collector might consider himself obliged to collect the rates as laid down by statute.
It would depend on the Party who had appointed him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. 22 is covered by the decision on amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
I move amendment No. 23:
In subsection (2), paragraph (c), line 22, before "consent" to insert "general" and in line 23 to delete "(which may be general or particular)".
This amendment once again is an effort to obtain some information. Subsection (2) of section 4, paragraph (c) seems to indicate that the Minister could give his general or particular consent to the making of any scheme for the waiver of rates, and it seemed to us that this would be inconsistent. Before we heard about the great admiration which Government Senators have for the responsible attitude of members of local authorities, we were aware that members of local authorities are a responsible body of men and it is for that reason that we are concerned about that part of the Bill that provides that members of local authorities might be told to draw up a scheme but that the Minister could give not only his general but his particular consent to such a scheme.
I have considerable sympathy with this point of view, as I indicated in my speech on the Second Reading. I hope that a situation will eventually be achieved when authorities will be enabled to adopt schemes without referring to me, but there are two practical difficulties in the way of this amendment. First of all, there is the difficulty that we have no experience in the working of these schemes until such time as we get experience, and until some kind of general consensus has emerged it would be wiser to retain the power to request a specific sanction for each scheme, Secondly, even when the time has come to issue a general sanction, some local authorities may still wish, for some particular reasons of their own, to work in a different direction to suit the particular needs in their own area. The need for individual consent would have to be retained to permit them to adopt the particular type of scheme that they deemed to be most suitable for their area. While I have sympathy with the point of view expressed, I am opposed to the amendment because of these difficulties.
Perhaps the Minister could enlighten me on this: it can be interpreted in different ways. Section 4 (2) (c) provides that such a scheme
shall require the consent (which may be general or particular) of the Minister.
I should like to have it phrased in such a way that the word "particular" is applied more closely to the scheme. In actual fact, the word "particular" is dangerous.
It is the scheme that requires the consent.
I must confess that I now feel like one who has been shipwrecked off the Bahamas. The dreadful heat of the Chamber places me in that particular part of the world — this, together with the changing about that is taking place. At one stage the Minister expresses complete faith in the responsibility of local authorities and at the next he gives the impression that he is still afraid that they will not act responsibly. All this, together with the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary and Senator Honan——
And then my correction.
I accept that the Minister knows what we are getting at and I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 24 is consequential.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
I move amendment No. 25:
To delete subsection (5) and substitute the following:
( ) Where it is proposed to make regulations under this Act, a draft of the regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulations shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.
I do not know what the attitude of the Minister will be on amendment No. 25. Let me assure him that it was tabled by a new and innocent Member of the House with the idea that as much legislation as possible would be drafted for anything which relates to the activities of our everyday life, and where it was unable to give that detail and instead had to allow the relevant Minister the power to make orders or regulations, he should be given the power to make suggested orders and regulations which would be draft orders or draft regulations which would come before each House of the Oireachtas where he could let Members know what he intended to do and receive their support on it, rather than to make the order or make the regulation, then lay it before each House of the Oireachtas and see whether anybody wanted to put down a motion to have it annulled. This seemed to be asking the Houses of the Oireachtas if they do not agree with the particular move to adopt at all times a negative attitude. For those reasons we entered this amendment.
Again, it could even be that the Minister might want to make regulations, not perhaps particularly in relation to this particular Bill but on a matter of principle generally — that a Minister might want to make regulations or make an order and that Members from all sides of the House might like to rise to lend their voice of support to the move being adopted by the Minister. Under the subsection as it stands, they would not be afforded the opportunity of so doing. However, if our amendment were accepted, Members would be allowed to speak better in favour of a regulation or to vote against it before it was actually brought into being. This is good democracy and good government and I am sure the Minister will agree.
With regard to this question of the making of regulations, there are two procedures. The normal procedure is the one that is being adopted in this Bill, that is that the regulations to be made under this Bill must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and they may be annulled by either House within 21 sitting days. As I said, this is the normal procedure. In the case of a relatively small number of statutory provisions this requirement which Senator Boland has suggested of prior approval by each House of the regulations is used only because some matter of major policy or principle may be involved.
It has been generally accepted over the years that the purpose of delegating regulation powers to Ministers would be frustrated if this procedure were required in the case of every regulation. If every regulation to be made had to be debated in the two Houses of the Oireachtas a lot of legislation which has been passed by the Houses would certainly be a lot slower in coming into operation and I think generally would be to the detriment of the community as a whole. I suggest the issue before the House now is not of such a character as to require this special procedure to be adopted.
In so far as the regulations relating to waiver of rates are concerned, these will be procedural and the effect of the instrument for the granting of waivers will be the schemes which are made by the councils for their areas, and irrespective of what regulations are made it will be entirely a matter for each council to decide whether to adopt a scheme, and it is the scheme which will regulate what is to be done in that particular area. In that respect, although I agree it is quite right that in regard to regulations it should be possible for either House of the Oireachtas to move to have the regulations annulled, it is not of such importance as to require this special procedure of insisting on a debate in the House on the regulations, whether there is any objection to them or not.
In regard to the other provision, the one relating to instalments, those will, of course, apply directly but the House has already accepted the principle of instalments and all that is involved in the regulations is the working out of the actual number of instalments and the procedural matters. This will be done in consultation with local authorities. As well as that, no ratepayer will be compelled to use the system of instalments: it will be entirely up to each individual ratepayer to decide, in the light of the system we produce, whether he wants to avail of it or to adhere to the existing method of paying rates.
I have already indicated to Senator Boland that I am prepared to consider between now and the Report Stage his suggestion with regard to amendment No. 20 which he has withdrawn, that is whether we would be able to meet him there by adopting his amendment in part by substituting the word "shall" for "may" and specifying certain minimum classes which will be covered. I think it may be possible to do that.
Or shall.
I am not using the legal phraseology now, but I think that will probably be possible. I do not think it can be seriously suggested that the powers here involve such major matters of principle that we should adopt this special procedure with regard to the making of the regulations. To adopt them in regard to this Bill, which has received a fairly general measure of agreement, would be setting a precedent for other Bills and the ultimate result would be to make the implementation of a lot of legislation passed by the Oireachtas much more cumbersome and much slower.
In view of the Minister's long and detailed explanation, and now his kindness in saying that he will consider some form of amendment 20 for the Report Stage, I would be quite happy — not quite happy, but prepared — to withdraw amendment No. 25. I would explain to the Minister that I realised that it would be unusual to deviate from the excepted scheme on this Bill, but he will realise that this is the first opportunity I had of entering an amendment such as this. I do not think that this is a principle which is worth the consideration of the Government and of each House of the Oireachtas. It is not providing that in every case there would be a discussion on the draft, but allowing that if a discussion were wanted it could take place. I think that there was a draft before the House last week on which no discussion took place, but I am not sure. However, I am quite prepared to withdraw this amendment, but I imagine that Senators might see it appearing in relation to some other Bill at some other time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".
Miss Bourke
I wish to speak on paragraph (d) of subsection (3) of this section and to ask the Minister very seriously to consider deleting this paragraph before the Bill reaches the Report Stage. I put this particularly as a lawyer. This is the type of residual catch-all phrase that we should not advocate in our legislation. It sets a very bad precedent. The paragraph as it now stands reads:
The modification or adaptation of any enactment relating to the determining, making, levying, collecting and recovering of rates.
It covers the general power in subsection (3) of the Minister to make regulations.
My first point is that it is widely phrased, and it is the type of paragraph one quite often finds at the end of a section set out in this way. It seems to be the habit of parliamentary draftsmen to have a wide undefined discretion in case something may have been left out from some more specific point further up. As a lawyer I regret it very much that this is open to the interpretation that the Minister can make recommendaions relating to section 3 which would modify or adapt any enactment relating to the determining, making, levying, collecting and recovering of rates, and could authorise differentiation between one householder and another or one farmer and another, since it is a provision which relates principally to householders and farmers. I am not suggesting at all the Minister would do this. I do not think he would, but the phrase as it is drafted is very general and gives an unfettered discretion to the Minister which we must be very wary of giving. I would ask the Minister to delete this.
Another argument for deleting it is that I think it does nothing not already done in section 3 and in subsection (3) of section 4. Section 3 sets out the powers the Minister will have to make regulations. Subsection (3) of section 4 continues these powers and I think is adequate for the purposes for which the Minister said he has introduced the section. Under subsection (3) the Minister may, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of the section, make regulations for the purposes of section 3 for a number of matters, and makes provision for conditions in which a person may pay rates by instalments.
I should like to argue very strongly that the Minister should leave out paragraph (d) of subsection (3) of section 4. These are very wide powers, more than adequate for the Minister and this is a catch-all residual power which could be abused. Therefore, I ask the Minister, from a lawyer's point of view, not to adopt legislation of this type, which I do not like to see going through this House. I ask him if he would be prepared to delete it. I hope that he will be prepared to do so, and I should also like to mention that if not, I should like to put an amendment at the Report Stage.
I must say that I find it hard to resist the request. This subsection, as Senator Bourke says, provides a reserve power. It is intended as a reserve power and is probably there merely in the event of some unforeseen circumstances arising. The warrants issued to rate collectors are the result of some old statutes, and they require the rate collector to collect his rates in a certain way — to collect them forthwith, the only condition laid down being those two moieties. There may be some legal difficulties arising in respect of altering those warrants. If we were sure that these difficulties would arise, they would have been dealt with in some particular way. It is possible, indeed it is more than likely, that these powers may not be needed. The power of annulment of regulations that is there extends over a period of 21 sitting days and that, I think, is really sufficient guarantee against abuse, particularly in the case of the Seanad where 21 sitting days might cover a considerable period.
A year.
The power is not undefined. It can be exercised only in relation to the purposes of subsection (3), so it is not completely undefined, and I think it is only needed in case those difficulties arise in connection with alteration of the warrant. It could not be used to differentiate between one ratepayer and another. It can be used only to modify the wording of some enactment. As I say, if we knew that these difficulties did exist this subsection would not be there at all, and I would be inclined to take a chance that we could do without it. I will consider withdrawing it on the Report Stage, and if Senator Bourke likes to put down an amendment herself, well and good.
Miss Bourke
I thank the Minister for his attitude. I think that there is the danger that I have pointed to. I suggest that the difficulties are adequately met by the powers the Minister has under the other section and the procedural arrangements under subsection (3) of section 4. I do not suggest that the Minister himself or anybody under the present system would particularise between people, but these powers are terribly wide. These regulations come before the House in a negative process but at the same time very often attention has not been drawn to them though there is some safeguard in this respect. Really the point I am making is that this is a bad precedent and I think that the Minister has adequate powers.
I do not know whether this is needed or not.
I should like to refer briefly on the section to what I said on the Second Reading, at column 67 of volume 67 of the Official Report, namely
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.
I wonder if on the Report Stage the Minister might be able to give us some indication of what it is his intention to include in the regulations, which I presume must be almost ready at this stage because these schemes are in operation in many local authority areas at the moment — to give us a clear indication of what the Bill will involve in all its aspects.
We were intending to discuss the regulations with local authorities before they are made.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
In relation to section 5, after long deliberation we decided not to introduce an amendment to this section. Again, perhaps, the Minister can explain to us what is the purpose of subsection (2) of section 5. The first subsection provides that the Act shall have effect in relation to the local financial year which commenced on 1st day of April, 1969, and to all subsequent financial years. The second subsection states:
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.
Both these subsections are retrospective and provide that the consequences of the Bill, which indeed it presumes will be passed, will be backdated to 1st April last. However, there are some dangers contained in subsection (2) in that if an officer of a local authority saw this subsection he might decide to act in a very irresponsible fashion, presuming that his action would be covered by subsection (2). Perhaps the Minister would explain this.
He would have to obtain the consent of the Minister.
I will bite my tongue. That is quite true. However, the Minister might explain what subsection (2) of section 5 does that is not provided for in subsection (1) and also tell us whether, in view of the retrospective subsections, this means he will shortly be bringing in a retrospective Act to control developers who had planning permission prior to the appointed day of the 1963 Planning Act?
Leave that for the moment. The purpose of the present legislation is to validate decisions that have been taken by a local authority in connection with the waiver of rates scheme. Subsection (1) is obviously not sufficient because it only provides that the Act shall cover the financial year commencing 1st April, 1969. Subsection (2) is necessary to cover decisions taken by the rating authority with consent of the Minister prior to the passing of the Act. It provides they will all have such validity and effect and, in fact, a number of local authorities have already acted as if this Act were in force on the basis of a circular from my Department.
I am not an expert on constitutional law but I wonder whether either of these subsections would, if challenged, stand up in the courts. Perhaps it is just as well that we read through the sections before we came in to discuss this Bill; it is fairly clear that it was not particularly the intention or desire of the Minister to accept any amendments because he presumed that the schemes as approved by him would be in conformity with the Bill, which seemed to indicate he did not expect that any amendments would be acceptable to him.
I am not sure whether it is on this section or if I should have referred to it in relation to the draft regulations, but in regard to the waiver of rates is there any closing date after which an applicant could not apply within that financial year? I mention this because to my astonishment I discovered that one of the local authorities have imposed a closing date and they are now informing applicants who have applied after the closing date that they will not receive relief until the end of this financial year and in the meantime the rate collectors are persisting in demanding money from those who have not got it.
Obviously it is desirable that applications be made as early as possible and local authorities should try to arrange that this is done. Even in the case mentioned by Senator Boland where a closing date has been applied, surely the applications concerned can be dealt with in the same way as those of necessitous people, at the conclusion of the financial year.
In the meantime, the rate collectors will continue to make their demands.
The rate collectors will continue to try to collect but if the people cannot pay they should not have to, and they will be no worse off than at present. Generally speaking, we should not try to frustrate rating authorities in their efforts to deal with the matter within a reasonable time. The whole purpose of subsection (2) is that subsection (1) on its own did not cover actions already taken in relation to this financial year.
Am I correct in presuming the Minister would not accept any amendments?
I thought the principles involved were so widely accepted that it was unlikely a majority of either House would be against them. I did not expect any amendment that would radically alter the proposals to such an extent as to invalidate any of the schemes.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 17th December, 1969.