Before the House goes into Committee, the Chair wishes to point out that amendment No. 9 standing in the names of Senators Boland and Reynolds is being ruled out of order on the ground of its being a potential charge on public funds. The Senators have been communicated with accordingly.
Local Government (Rates) (No. 2) Bill, 1969: Committee Stage.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 22 has been ruled as being consequential on amendment No. 1. Accordingly, amendments Nos. 1 and 22 will be debated together with a single decision on amendment No. 1.
May I also suggest that it would be appropriate if amendment No. 4 would be taken in conjunction with these two other amendments?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
This is a matter for the House to decide, a matter of the House controlling its own business. If there is no objection to these amendments, all of which are in the name of Senator Boland, can we take it that the House agrees to debate Nos. 1, 4 and 22?
May we have a word of explanation? I am not quite clear as to what the exact relationship is between amendment No. 4 and the other two amendments.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It would probably be necessary to debate the amendments in order to get an explanation.
I am prepared to accept that.
I move amendment No. 1:
In subsection (1), line 19, to delete "may from time to time" and substitute "shall, at the commencement of each financial year or as near as is practicable to such date,".
The Bill, as originally framed, allowed local authorities to decide whether they wished to make schemes to provide for the waiver of rates. We believe that it would be more appropriate to put an obligation on each local authority to draw up a scheme at the beginning of each financial year, and in the making of that scheme the local authority would naturally prepare an estimate of how much it would cost within that financial year. If they consider that that cost might be excessive or might be an undue burden on the remainder of the ratepayers, they could appeal to the Minister to allow them Minister and ask for permission to opt to suspend the carrying out of that scheme within that financial year. This is the purpose of amendment No. 4 and it is for this reason that I should like to have amendment No. 4 taken in conjunction with amendment No. 1.
Already this year, several local authorities have opted out of the making of a scheme because it was feared that it would impose an excessive charge on the remaining ratepayers. Our worry was that these local authorities and perhaps other local authorities might never again attempt to make a scheme at the beginning of any financial year or assess how much such a scheme would be likely to cost them in that year. We thought it would be better if each local authority were obliged under the Bill to set about making a scheme and, having made it, to assess how much it would cost, and if they thought it would cost too much they could ask the Minister's consent to suspending the carrying out of the scheme for that year. This would in no way allow them to forget about it and at the beginning of the next year they would be again obliged to make a scheme.
There is, of course, much to be said in favour of the point of view suggested. However, it would be destroying what is the real spirit of the Bill and that is that local authorities must be masters of their own affairs. I should much prefer to see a local authority consider their own scheme, consider what it would cost and consider whether they have adequate public supplement to put it into effect. Very often local authorities have the habit of sliding out of their responsibilities by saying that the Minister will not allow them to do such and such or that the Minister insists that they do such and such.
In this case, if Senator Boland's amendment is accepted the local authorities must accept this particular course and, having adopted it, it should, of course, be put into effect. But then they may say they cannot afford to do so, thereby, perhaps, falling down on their social obligations, and they might try to make the Minister the keeper of their consciences. They might come to the out. I do not know if that would be right. The Minister might say: "You cannot opt out", and they could go back to the ratepayers saying that the Minister says such and such. The whole purpose of this Bill is to give local authorities, even if only in a small way, a sense of responsibility, a sense of responsibility which I should hope to see growing from time to time as more and more power and authority are given to local authorities.
I do not know whether it is generally realised by all Senators in the House, but as the section stands the local authorities could not implement any scheme without having the consent of the Minister. It can hardly be argued, therefore, that local authorities are completely the masters of their own affairs even as the Bill was originally drafted, because the Minister retained his entitlement to alter any scheme submitted to him by any local authority. I do not know whether Senator Nash is a member of a local authority but I think I can fairly say, having discussed this with many people who are serving on local authorities at the moment, as I am myself, that they would prefer to see local authorities obliged to set about the task each year of looking at the type of people who might get relief under this scheme, seeing whether they could economically carry it out and if they felt they could not, applying to the Minister for power to suspend it for a year.
The feeling was that if they made a case to the Minister that it would create a demand of 1/- or 1/6 in the £ on their rates in that year, the Minister would be intelligent enough to say: "Very well, I will allow you to suspend that scheme for this year but at the next estimates meeting you must again prepare a costing on the scheme to see if you might be able to prepare a scheme, perhaps not on such a lavish scale". Every year local authorities must devote themselves to the task and lend themselves to the task of seeing whether they could assist in providing relief for those needy classes.
As Senator Nash said, this piece of legislation is permissive as far as local authorities are concerned. Each local authority are entitled to have a scheme depending entirely on their circumstances and nobody knows this better than the local authorities themselves. If the local authority are poor this year they will be poor next year, so the idea of making it mandatory at this stage in relation to those schemes would not be satisfactory. Many of us who are members of local authorities know the resentment there is at the central Government interfering with matters of this kind.
This amendment is not acceptable to us because we are quite satisfied that the local authorities — quite a large number of them have already drawn up schemes along the lines suggested by the Minister — will draw up schemes in the knowledge of their own localities and the circumstances of their own areas. There is nothing in this amendment in my opinion which would help in any way because if we are to force local authorities to make schemes — this is what the amendment means — there is nothing to stop them saying: "OK, we will keep within the law, we will have a scheme but we will have the minimum amount of relief granted here". We want local authorities to realise there is an obligation so far as people living within their areas are concerned and they must decide on the type of scheme best suited to their own localities. As far as the Minister is concerned, this amendment is not acceptable to us.
The Parliamentary Secretary does local authorities, and local authority members generally, less than justice when he suggests that if they were obliged to make schemes they would consequently rebel and make schemes which would provide for the minimum amount of relief possible. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary can fairly claim this has been the experience of the Department of Local Government, at least in the recent past. Their feeling was that this would serve more as a guideline to the local authorities, that they would have to bend themselves to this task every year.
The argument has been made, and I do not want to be contentious about this, that in this section as it stands the Minister has seen to it that the local authority members are the ones who must decide whether a scheme is to be made, who is to be included and who is not to be included. Consequently, any complaints which arise out of the making or non-making of a scheme can be levelled only at local authority members — that the Minister for Local Government, who is the person bringing in this Bill presumably as one of the measures which are resulting from the many studies on the problems on rates, can fairly wash his hands of the problem and say: "I had nothing to do with the scheme or the non-making of the scheme in your local authority area. If there is any fault that fault is that of each of the members of your own local authority".
We wanted to bring about a situation where those local authority members, responsible or otherwise, would have to draw up a scheme each year. The Parliamentary Secretary might be able to envisage a situation where, at least in the opinion of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary if not in the opinion of all political groups, one particular local authority were irresponsible in the eyes of the Minister.
Let us consider for a moment such an irresponsible local authority who might decide for reasons of their own, for reasons of laziness, for reasons of popularity to keep the rates as low as possible, not to bother making this scheme. They might decide not to do so because they did not have the social conscience spoken about by Senator Nash and they might decide they would not bother making such a scheme. We want to avoid such a situation where such an irresponsible local authority, or indeed a responsible local authority which had not got a proper crusading conscience, might decide not to bother making this scheme, might indeed forget about making this scheme because they had not made it this year and it never again would come before them. We want a situation to be brought about where the making of this scheme must come before each local authority each year and they must consider and examine their own consciences, their collective consciences, to see whether they could fairly implement it in that year.
The strange thing is that probably for the same line of argument as Senator Boland has, I am opposed to those amendments. The whole purpose of any member of a local authority is to serve the public and for that purpose he stands for election and goes to a certain amount of trouble in getting elected. I must say in most local authorities the members devote their time and service to serving the public to the best of their ability——
Hear, hear.
——and within the limits of their knowledge. Senator Boland argues that some of those people may be lacking in social conscience and if so the Minister should be keeper of their consciences. That rather reminds me of the argument of the British Lord Chancellor always being keeper of the king's conscience and as a result very frequently in England in olden days the State certainly abused the ordinary individual No private individual could sue the State because he could not sue the king. The king had no conscience — it was the lord chancellor who kept his conscience.
I should much prefer to see a local authority which have not a social conscience, or the majority of whose members not having a social conscience, develop it gradually, progressively and, if you like, being shamed into it by other local authorities.
Already, before this Bill becomes law, and in anticipation of it becoming law, quite a number of local authorities have adopted it and I do not think you will teach anybody by pressurising them or by forcing them. Example is the best form of teacher. I would hope there would be very few, if any, local authorities who would not adopt a scheme and that those few who would be left, ultimately, by reason of the example given by the majority, would be shamed into adopting it. I would rather have them learn than forced into it. A social conscience is something you cannot force on a person. It is one which he must develop or which a body must develop within themselves.
The position at the moment is, as we all know, that there is a mandatory obligation on local authorities to collect the rates as far as possible. That is the current position. What Senator Boland is asking is that each local authority continue to collect their rates, with the exception that rates will not be leviable on certain classes clearly defined and decided on democratically by each local authority.
Senator Nash has made the point, and I think there is a good deal in what he said, that he would like to leave it to the local authorities responsible to decide whether they want to implement such a scheme. All those local authorities, if this amendment is accepted, will still have the right to decide the type of scheme they want to bring in, but the uniformity which the Minister declared in his reply on the Second Stage of the Bill to be desirable throughout all local authorities, will not be achieved unless the Minister is prepared to make it mandatory on all local authorities to bring in such a scheme. In fact this I think is what Senator Boland wishes.
I do not go with Senator Nash's point about waiting for the social conscience of some local authorities to catch up on the others. Speaking as a member of a local authority, I think that it would be far better if all the local authorities were placed in the same position, that they would collect their rates as heretofore with the exception of certain classes who would be exempt under a particular scheme drawn up by the local authority according to their own ideas. The point made by the Minister on the Second Stage is a good one, that there should be uniformity throughout the local authorities. There is nothing new in this principle, and I would support Senator Boland and ask the House to support him also on this amendment.
I do not think that the Minister made the point that the schemes should have uniformity. Conditions would surely be different in different local authority areas, financially and otherwise. The purpose of the Bill is to allow a local authority, if they so wish, to draw up a scheme, and this scheme would have certain guidelines. Each scheme would be drafted and adopted as each local authority decided in their own wisdom, and it is not the intention of the Minister to force them into doing something that they do not want.
Tributes have been paid to the members of local authorities, and I want to join in those tributes because I think they give great service. They are best fitted to know the circumstances in their own locality and the vast majority of the members have a social conscience. During the years they have been helping in other ways. I do not think that this amendment will help in the least. Rather it will hinder, because I know the resentment that there is in the local authorities to being told to do something. We have established the precedent of where local authorities have operated permissive legislation of this kind and all of them have come into line after some time because of the example set by their neighbours and their initiative. As I said earlier, as far as we are concerned the principle of this amendment is not acceptable to us.
First of all it is rather difficult to hear some of the speakers from back here. This makes it very difficult to follow some of the statements that have been made. Whether this is due to a fault in the acoustics or to the present epidemic of laryngitis running through the country I do not know. Anyway, I would support Senator Boland on this, but I think that the point has not been emphasised sufficiently that if you allow in any particular year a local authority to opt out until the following year and they must make arrangements to carry out the provisions of this Bill, then this is giving them an incentive to adopt the scheme. I cannot hear very well, but this is what I understand to be the meaning of the amendment: that it would give the local authorities an incentive to adopt this section. I have no doubt that if this amendment is carried into effect the result aimed at in the Bill will be far better implemented since the incentive will be there for the local authorities.
I only want to make one point on this amendment, and this is that the Parliamentary Secretary must ask himself, and so must Senator Nash——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Again, Senator Belton cannot hear what is being said from your particular position. The question of the acoustics of the Chamber is under consideration, and is being dealt with, but in the meantime perhaps Senators could speak a little louder.
Where this was rejected the reason was that there was a financial commitment in it for local authorities and the Minister who prepared the scheme knew that there was a weak section of the community in every local authority who required financial help with regard to rates. That is why the scheme was prepared and sent to the local authorities in the first instance. There is bound to be some contribution made from the Central Fund to the local authorities if the Minister for Local Government thinks, as we all know, that there is a weaker section of people clearly specified in the Bill such as people in receipt of old age pensions and non-contributory pensons — and we have an amendment in to include people with an income of less than £300 — and that is the reason that we press the amendments and feel that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary should accept them.
I find myself in the position of being opposed to the amendment chiefly because I think that the section is bad and that the amendment makes it worse. The point I should like to make is that granting local authorities the right to provide for the waiver of all or portion of the rates for certain sections or classes of ratepayers is a principle which seems to me to be a bad one. If rates are due as assessed and if for the moment we accept that there are certain sections unable to pay, this should be a community charge, not a local authority charge. I believe that to waive portion of their rates is a way of giving a concealed subsidy to such people.
It is clear that the class or classes of people involved might be in greater or lesser numbers from county to county, and it might well be that they are in greater numbers in the poorer counties; therefore the method of distributing this concealed subsidy to them in relation only to local ratepayers is unjust, because it may well be that the local ratepayers are far less able to stand the burden than the taxpayers, direct or indirect.
The whole section is aimed at allowing local authorities to transfer portion of what ought to be a national burden on to the local ratepayer. I believe that the income tax is far more justly levied and the weight falls more evenly, more uniformly, more equitably, than the rates, because the rates are far less well distributed, calculated and assessed. Therefore I think that the section is bad, but the amendment is worse, because the section allows the rating authority from time to time to make such a scheme whereas the amendment demands that they shall do so. Therefore I will oppose the amendment and also, indeed, the section.
Táimid i bhfabhair rialtais áitiúil no nílimid i bhfabhair rialtais áitiúil. The idea of a local authority is, or should be, to give as much authority as possible to the body most competent to judge in their own particular area, in other words, the local authority, and the less interference we have with them, the more power we give to them, the better. If this amendment were accepted we would be at the stage where we were dictating to the local authority, especially by the use of the word "shall", whenever they go into this matter of the waiver of the rates. We would be dictating to them on how they would make any necessary changes. We would be saying to them that at the beginning of each financial year, or as soon as practicable thereafter, they must do something, instead of letting it to their own good sense, their competent and sympathetic study of all the conditions in their area.
Instead of allowing them their own discretion, as we were about to do it in the section, the amendment would say that they shall do it instead of that they may. That they may from time to time do this as it stands does not preclude them from exercising their discretion every year if they so wish. In other words, if this amendment were accepted we would be doing this little bit more to curb the power of local authorities to carry out their business as they best know how to do it.
Again not wanting to appear contentious, it seems to me to be a remarkable about-face on the part of speakers from the Government side suddenly to be concerned with giving local authorities as much power as possible to decide their own destinies. Have we not during the past ten or 15 years, in nearly every legislative measure relating to local authorities, made specific rulings making local authorities to carry out certain tasks whether they liked carrying them out or not? If we were to take it that the idea embodied in the first section is indicative of a change of heart, and that in all future legislation which regulates the manner of the operation of local government in this country local authority members would once again be given the power to decide for themselves on virtually every matter relating to their local authority areas, this would be a welcome departure at which we should have to look very carefully.
However, looking at the various sections in the Bill, we see the old form returning. Accordingly, I cannot honestly accept that we are now getting a situation, through this Bill, by which the Government want to give more power to local authority members — to place more power in their hands.
Have we not enshrined in our Constitution, and indeed has it not been used occasionally by one of our political parties, the creed and the demand that we should cherish all the children of the nation equally? If we are allowing one local authority to make a scheme and allowing another local authority immediately adjoining not to make a scheme. I fail to see how we are cherishing equally the widow in the area which is allowed to make a scheme and the widow in the area which is not allowed. Such a situation might well occur as between the city and the county of Dublin. In County Dublin, non-contributory widows have been included as people eligible to claim waiver of payment or part-payment of rates.
I did not catch the Senator. Did he say "contributory" or "non-contributory"? Contributory and non-contributory widows are included in the county.
To the best of my recollection, both are included but the recommendations emanating from the Department did not include non-contributory widows. In an adjoining townland, a widow who is perhaps in as bad circumstances financially as a widow in another townland could not be allowed waiver.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think a discussion of this type would be more appropriate on the proposed Schedule to the Bill or, perhaps, on some later amendments rather than that with which we are concerned at the moment. Here we are concerned with the times at which a local authority should address themselves to the question of making schemes.
My reason for including examples at this stage is to try to point out that if each local authority were obliged to make a scheme I am convinced that then at least old people, widows and those at or below subsistence level, would receive waiver of rates in every area because I do not believe there is any local authority which would fail to include these three groups. At least then we would have something near uniformity. I am not suggesting we should force a local authority to adopt a scheme where it might impose a crippling charge on the remaining ratepayers. I did not suggest that in my Second Reading speech.
It was my impression then that the cost would not be great, but as Senator Belton has said, the acoustics here are so bad that I was afterwards quoted as having said it. I did not think there would be a crippling burden on the remaining ratepayers, but after listening to speakers at a later stage, mainly those from rural areas and from the west, it seems to me that in certain counties the charge could be considerable. What we envisage is that in such an area the local authority could go to the Minister and say: "The charge will be very great this year but we think that next year we may not have such a great demand for sanitary services that we will not be able to include a scheme of some type next year".
For instance, in Dublin city and county this year a large charge may go on to the rates in respect of a major sewerage scheme. This is not a scheme which is likely to occur every year and it might be a good reason for the local authorities this year to say to the Minister: "We will have a greater demand this year and we may not be able to implement our rates scheme." They will be obliged, then, to set about estimating what the cost of such a scheme would be. I did not understand Senator Nash when he said that every local authority out of shame will end up adopting a scheme. This is an urgent, pressing problem in all sections of the community, especially those classes who are in straitened circumstances. We cannot wait until local authorities are shamed by the good acts of their neighbours.
They have always been doing this.
What is the point of the Bill then?
To regularise the situation.
I am trying to regularise it further.
The local authority are a democratic body——
Except when they are abolished.
They were abolished, of course, because they endeavoured not to act in a democratic manner. Local authorities are elected by the communities, they represent a crosssection of the people and by and large the views of the local authority are taken to be the common consensus of opinion of the areas they represent. There is not a very great difference between the social conscience of an Irishman living in one part of the country and that of an Irishman living in another unless they want to make political gambits when sometimes they can be very cussed. The sections of the community referred to by Senator Boland should be supported and I cannot imagine any decent local community who would refuse this support. Local authority representatives must come before their constituents every four years——
The subsistence classes will suffer in the meantime.
Senator Reynolds, if I understand him correctly, said that the reason this was rejected in some areas was because of financial commitments; in other words, that local authorities who rejected it are really an unkind type of people who say: "We will be charitable provided it comes out of somebody else's pocket." That is a very poor standard and I should be sorry to feel that it is the standard of many local authorities in Ireland.
Senator Boland says that if the amendments are not carried it will mean we are defaulting on something that is enshrined in the Constitution — that we cherish all our people equally. The amendments mean we would have the same scheme for every local authority — that they get no discretion whatever, that the Minister prepares a scheme and says to each local authority that they must adopt it whether they like it or not.
I come back to my first argument — and nothing I have heard has caused me to change my mind — that it should be a gradual and progressive growth of social conscience among every section of our community, from the local urban council to the county council, right up to the very top, and that we owe an obligation to those people who are not well-off. Therefore, because I feel that it would help a growth of this spirit if we leave discretion to the local authorities, I am still unconvinced by the arguments I have heard in favour of these amendments.
I should like to suggest to Senator Boland and the House that by forcing each local authority to make a scheme for the waiver of a certain proportion of rates and so on we will not ensure uniformity, because the waiver may be for a tiny sum or for a very large proportion. You could have two neighbouring counties giving different treatment to widow pensioners and so on. The only way of ensuring uniformity would be if such widows and the other underprivileged sections of the community were assured by the State of adequate pensions under present money values. Then you could ensure they would not require this additional subsidy from the ratepayers which might vary from county to county but would be able to pay what the section calls the "rates due".
I wish to take up Senator Boland's point that there is a change of heart in regard to this side of the House relating to local authorities and their powers. There has been no change of heart. I do not know of any legislation passed in this House in the last 15 years, during which time I have been a member of a local authority, where we tried compulsorily to get the local authorities to do anything. The only matter I can recall is the Planning Act, where we made it compulsory for them to draw up plans but we did not dictate how they should do this. We are being quite consistent and I might remind Senators that we have a permissive scheme under the Housing Act whereby local authorities can pay supplementary housing grants both in respect of new houses and for the reconstruction of old houses.
For years some local authorities did not take part but they have been coming into line, I think, because of the example set by progressive local authorities who adopted the scheme in the early stages and kept it up. I am open to contradiction on this point but some local authorities even have had a graded scheme. It is up to them to operate it on the basis of the finances they can collect; if a local authority decide to have a scheme, regulations will be made by the Minister and this will lead to uniformity.
Senator Boland made reference to the fact that Dublin County Council have drawn up a scheme to include contributory widows. However, you could have a widow who is in receipt of a contributory pension and yet she might have an income of £2,000 a year and that would surely be wrong. It would be right for the local authority to have uniformity in a case where they had an old age pensioner in one house and a contributory pensioner in the next house whose incomes were the same, but I do not think it should be seriously suggested that this uniformity should be applied in blanket form. I know people in receipt of contributory pensions who are teachers.
They could even be Members of this House.
Perhaps that might be going too far. We should leave it to the discretion of local authorities and I think most of them will come into line; in fact quite a substantial number have come up with schemes. I do not think anything in this amendment would help in any way because as Senator Sheehy Skeffington said you could have the maximum on one side and the minimum on the other. There could be a great divergence between two local authorities: one might say that to keep within the limit of the law it would only give the absolute minimum relief. Let us hope that the social consciences of members of local authorities will be such that maximum reliefs will be given to those who need it.
The scheme as adopted by Dublin County Council provided for widows' pensions, contributory and non-contributory. When I read it I raised my eyebrows. I presumed when it was sent to the Minister for sanction that it was outlined in some way as suggesting a contributory widows' pension where the person was not in receipt of an income of any kind and that this was adopted by the county council. I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary refer to progressive local authorities. I am sure both he and the Minister will include Dublin County Council prominently in that group because we were one of the first to adopt this scheme. We believe that the uniformity we have been speaking about was to provide relief to the worst-off classes, to widows who had no income, to old age pensioners with no other income, to people in receipt of home assistance or disablement allowances with no other income.
I see the point to the arguments put forward by Senator Nash that eventually every local authority will come into line as they have done with supplementary grants. We must, as a matter of urgency, ensure that relief is provided for the worst-off sections, and it is because of this that the amendments were introduced. If I had realised that I would have been allowed to make the sort of contribution made by Senator Sheehy Skeffington suggesting that central taxation would be a more appropriate way of financing the whole scheme, I would not have bothered with the amendment. I would have introduced amendments of that type if I had known they would not be out of order.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I can assure the Senator that they would.
I agree with him that there is a great case for financing, at least in part, the scheme from central taxation but I did not think I would be allowed to discuss that.
Perhaps I did not make my point clear. Senator Nash took me up on it. Take, for instance, one local authority with a total population of 30,572 people and of these 3,440 are 70 years of age and upwards. That means that 11.2 per cent of these people would be more than 70 years of age. That is the type of local authority area I was referring to, while bearing in mind that the average for the whole country of people over 70 is only four per cent. It would mean that there would be a very heavy burden passed on to ratepayers in the area with the high percentage of old people.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
The Committee divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 19.
Tá
- Ahern, Liam.
- Brennan, John J.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Cranitch, Mícheál C.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Doyle, John.
- Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Farrell, Peggy.
- Fitzsimons, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Thomas P.
- Gallanagh, Michael.
- Garrett, Jack.
- Hanafin, Desmond.
- Honan, Dermot P.
- Keery, Neville.
- Killilea, Mark.
- McElgunn, Farrell.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- Nash, John J.
- Norton, Patrick.
- Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
- O'Sullivan, Terry.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, Patrick W.
- Ryan, William.
- Sheehy Skeffington, O.L.
- Walsh, Seán.
Níl
- Belton, Richard.
- Boland, John.
- Bourke, Mary T.W.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Dooge, James C.I.
- Dunne, James.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- FitzGerald, Alexis.
- Fitzgerald, Jack.
- Kelly, John.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Mannion, John M.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- Prendergast, Micheál A.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Russell, G.E.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Brennan and J. Farrell; Níl, Senators McDonald and Russell.
Question declared carried.
Amendment negatived.
This decision covers amendments Nos. 4 and 22.
I move amendment No. 2:
To add at the end of subsection (1) "or in respect of hereditaments occupied by a class or classes of persons specified in the scheme whether ratepayers or not".
I mentioned on the Second Reading that on reading this subsection I was not altogether clear that the words were apt to achieve the intentions of the Bill. I am bound to say that if the Parliamentary Secretary were to indicate any resistance to this amendment I should not press it. It was designed merely to eliminate any doubt about the persons to be considered and so that it would be open to local authorities to consider the circumstances of ratepayers and the circumstances of occupiers who are not ratepayers. This is the intention of the Bill and I am not absolutely certain that the words of subsection (1) of section 2 are apt to achieve this purpose. They may be. If the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to oppose the amendment I will withdraw it.
I do not consider that it is necessary.
I am withdrawing it.
There is another code involved in so far as we are not responsible for the Rent Restrictions Act.
This amendment has nothing to do with the Rent Restrictions Act. If I am reading my Order Paper correctly, the amendment is to add to the end of subsection (1):
"or in respect of hereditaments occupied by a class or classes of persons specified in the scheme whether ratepayers or not."
I had some doubt as to whether the scheme could be so drawn as to take in persons who are not ratepayers. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that he is not accepting this amendment and he made some reference to the rent restriction code. I would like him to reconsider this in the light of my drawing his attention to the fact that the rent restriction code has absolutely nothing to do with amendment No. 2.
I accept that; I was on a different line but we are advised that there need be no doubt in the Senator's mind in relation to this and that the regulations cover the people about whom he is concerned. That is the legal advice that has been given to us. Therefore, there is no necessity for this amendment.
I merely had some doubt. I withdraw the amendment and I am satisfied that I have drawn the attention of the Miniter, the Parliamentary Secretary and his advisers to the fact that I had that doubt. As I have been informed that this has been considered by the advisers, I withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
Before subsection (2) to insert the following subsection:
( ) In any scheme as shall be made by a rating authority provision shall be made for the waiver of all or portion of the rates due to it by the classes as set out in the Schedule to this Act.
Amendment No. 26 is consequential on this debate at this time.
Amendment No. 26 sets out the classes that I should like to see included in any scheme that might be drawn up in consequence of amendment No. 1 not being accepted. It would not be obligatory on a rating authority to make a scheme. However, I do not think that that affects the intent or validity of this amendment to a great extent. It would oblige any rating authority, in drawing up a scheme, to provide for the consideration of non-contributory old age pensioners, non-contributory widow pensioners and people in receipt of home assistance.
Perhaps I might explain paragraph (c) of the proposed Schedule. Those in receipt of home assistance at the time of the setting of the rate are more or less based on the categories suggested in the circular sent out from the Department of Local Government to all local authorities. However, we thought it would be as well to include the additional restrictions in relation to those in receipt of home assistance because a situation could arise where a person would be in receipt of home assistance for a short period, which might happen to be the period during which the scheme was drawn up and that person might improve his income by going back into very lucrative employment so that for the remaining nine or ten months of the year he would earn more money than many people who would not qualify for relief.
Those of us who are associated with health authorities know that from time to time people get home assistance for a short period and then go back into lucrative employment, and it is because of this that the condition was added providing for the rating authority to be satisfied that a recipient is not likely to improve his income within the financial year for which waiver has been sought to such an extent as to bring his income outside the income limits of the classes set out in the subsection.
Paragraphs (e) and (f) of the proposed Schedule provide that people in receipt of contributory old age or widows' pensions would also be eligible for relief if they have no other income save the equivalent of "disregarded income" as laid down by the Social Welfare Acts, if the recipient is living alone and has no other income or is living with others whose income does not exceed the appropriate amount. Paragraph (g) provides for those
not in receipt of any other income save the equivalent of "disregarded income" as laid down by the Social Welfare Acts...
I might mention for the benefit of Senators and, perhaps, for the benefit of some people in the Department of Local Government who might have wondered how we arrived at this figure of 88 per cent in relation to occupational injuries benefit, that it possibly was because of my bad handwriting that the figure appeared as 88 and not 80. The figure has not been arrived at by any complicated mathematical formula.
We were concerned about the tenants of local authority houses and we mentioned this during the debate on Second Reading, but we did not receive any satisfactory answer from the Minister. The feeling was that in paying their rents the tenants of local authority houses were also paying the rates by way of the inclusion in the rent of a provision for rates. The rent paid by a tenant of a local authority house is in almost every instance a differential rent based on income. According as the income goes down so does the rent drop providing, of course, that the tenant of the local authority house notifies the local authority concerned his income has fallen.
We imagine that even in the reduced figure a portion of that reduced sum would still be set aside as being some contribution towards what is called by the local authority the equivalent of rates. When those tenants went below a certain figure of income per week if they had been the rated occupier of a private house they would no longer be eligible to pay rates according to the scheme.
We felt that by including those people in this scheme the amount provided for by rates would be abolished. I am rather inclined to think that all classes set out in the proposed Schedule are more or less covered by subsection (3), that is a person whose income in the current financial year is not likely to exceed £300, because I do not imagine, unless in very exceptional circumstances, that any of the classes envisaged would receive an income of more than £300 in any one year unless, perhaps, those in receipt of contributory pensions who had some other income which was the equivalent of disregarded income under the Social Welfare Acts as well.
This amendment is consistent with amendment No. 1 proposed by the Senator. Instead of leaving it to the discretion of the local authority to decide to which category they would apply this scheme, he wanted it spelt out in the Bill. We are opposed to this because the House has already rejected the idea of compulsion within the Bill and the same applies as far as this amendment is concerned. We are quite happy that the local authorities themselves will cover the necessitous people within their areas in a scheme, and if they do, most of the people in the category referred to by the Senator will be included. I recall the Senator making the point about local authority tenants on the Second Reading because I was here at the time but I do not know whether the Minister replied to this. The proposal set down by the Minister, the yardsticks by which the local authorities shall adopt a scheme, included people who are tenants of local authority houses. As a matter of fact I think we have already approved of some of the schemes which include local authority tenants, so he or she is covered. That deals with amendment No. 26.
Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether in some schemes which have been prepared the classes are actually specified?
My information is that they are. Some of the schemes which have come up to the Department — was that the worry the Senator had on the Second Reading?
Yes.
Did we not specify the classes of people in the circular which was sent to local authorities?
Tenants of local authority houses were referred to.
I know they were, but did we specify the other people who should qualify? I think some people were specified in it.
No, but there was in relation to persons who were tenants of local authority houses. That was Senator Boland's worry.
Did we not specify the type of necessitous persons? That is what I want to know.
I think they were mentioned.
Yes, there were some mentioned. Recipients of non-contributory old age or widows' pensions or other similar forms of social assistance, recipients of home assistance at the time of the making of the rate or at any subsequent date, and then also tenants of local authority houses.
What does it say about tenants of local authority houses?
Portion of the weekly payments of tenants of local authority houses who pay a weekly rent is for rates. The local authority now are entitled to include in their scheme the waiving of rates in such cases, provided that people come within the categories mentioned — old age pensioners and so on.
There is another type of tenant of the county council, those who pay rent to the rent collector and rates to the rate collector. Those would be tenants of vested houses. There are thousands of those people in my own county council area.
If the principle were accepted, whether the house be vested or whether it is an ordinary tenancy, then it would apply, only that it would be done by the rent collector in one instance and by the rate collector in the other.
Miss Bourke
There is some confusion which is possibly caused by the fact that I am not so familiar with this, but it seems to me that the amendment proposed is hard to reconcile with section 4 (2) (d). The section relates to the powers of the Minister — that the Minister may make regulations for the purpose of sections 2 and 3 and then it states:
the considerations to be taken into account by a rating authority in determining the classes of persons or the classes of hereditaments to which such a scheme shall apply;
I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's point when he said the idea of this is to give the local authority a certain leeway in this matter, but I find it hard to reconcile this amendment with that because this amendment seems to state the classes which should be taken into account and in the proposed Schedule I notice it does not advert to section 4 (2) (d), so I wonder is it purporting to an amendment in that the finding of the classes would not be left entirely to regulation by the Minister but would be left to regulation by the Minister taking into account the Schedule. Are these to be read together or is the Schedule an amendment of section 4 (2) (d)?
The intention was that the whole business of how much should be included in the actual Bill and how much should be drawn up by regulation or by order of the Minister should be queried at this point. There is quite a feeling, and it is becoming more and more prevalent, that the Bill merely outlines the proposals and allows a wide scope to the Minister in the matter of regulations and orders; and there is a feeling that the idea now is to allow a far wider scope than many people would like to see. It was mainly because of this that the Schedule was suggested and amendment No. 4 entered. I do not know if this clarifies the position for Senator Miss Bourke.
Miss Bourke
I am still not clear.
To the best of my recollection it was intended that the Schedule would limit the powers of the Minister. We felt that it would not necessarily be taken by putting an amendment to subsection (2) of section 4, and that it should be taken in conjunction with paragraph (d) of that subsection.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
That covers amendment No. 26.
In the absence of Senator McDonald, I move amendment No. 5:
In subsection (3), line 27, before "to" to insert "or person".
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 must be taken in conjunction because they relate to identical problems.
The House can easily decide to take them together. Is there any objection?
As far as I know, the intention of Senator McDonald in introducing this amendment was to provide relief for those local voluntary bodies throughout the country who are doing such great work and providing such great service for local communities. Very often they are operating on a shoe-string budget and having to pay rates on their parish hall or community hall often imposes a very great hardship on them. Any small moneys which they manage to raise usually go towards the cost of providing whatever sort of community effort they are involved in. This additional charge on them can be quite a considerable burden depending on the size of the hall and whichever local authority area they may or may not be fortunate or unfortunate enough to be placed in. It was because of this that Senator McDonald felt this would be very worthwhile, to provide a rate relief for organisations, non-profit making bodies, such as those.
He had not in mind private enterprises or dancehall owners. What he had in mind, I think, was that rural areas would have a community centre or parish hall which is being squeezed out as far as dances is concerned, and functions held in it in the line of meetings for cultural, sporting and other objectives specified clearly in amendment No. 6.
The amendment makes it clear that they must be non-profit making.
I see a difficulty in this. Though the motive in most cases for such rates being taken off would seem to be a very proper one, the effect of this amendment would not be to amend this Bill but to amend the actual Valuation Act itself under which rates are struck by a local authority. Under the Valuation Act a valuation is not fixed at all on any property which is used exclusively for cultural or social purposes. If any organisation have a hall or property which they think comes within that definition, and the Department of Local Government or the local authority are not prepared to waive the rate valuation on it, then the society or whoever it is who occupy or own the building or the land can apply to the court. The whole thing is then heard on evidence. All the details are brought out and the court comes to a decision as to whether the building is used exclusively for cultural, social or educational purposes.
To leave this amendment here would mean in all these cases, as I read the amendment, that they must be used exclusively for social, cultural or educational purposes, that if a scheme is made by a local authority, if you have any building whatsoever that is used by non-profit making bodies on these particular lines, it could be used only once a year, once a month or once in six months, but it would be obligatory on the local authority to exclude that building from rates. I think the effect of this amendment would be to amend a different Act altogether. I doubt if it would be relevant, and I think it would be improper to discuss it under this Bill. Thirdly, I would prefer the Schedule stating the purposes for which such buildings are used under the Valuation Act rather than a general obligatory clause on local authorities.
Perhaps Senator Nash and myself are not on the same wavelength in this matter. The idea I have in mind is that in rural Ireland there is a grave need for proper social amenities, and in the past ten years many parish halls or halls perhaps of the ICA, Macra na Feirme or hurling clubs were erected. The valuation on these buildings is usually between £20 and £50.
I know of one case where a farming organisation, Macra na Feirme, built a hall. Last year they paid £150 in rates and just a few miles up the road there was a commercial dance hall with which the parochial hall had to compete, and they could not afford to get the top-class bands they needed to run dances. In rural Ireland, with its declining population, it is difficult to make these centres pay. Nevertheless, the need for public recreation and social centres is very great if we are serious about trying to keep people in rural Ireland.
There is difficulty in having these places revalued by the Valuation Office and under the present law it is not possible for local authorities to waive the rates. I know of one parochial hall in my county where we found a loophole in the scheme and by apportioning a corner of the building and by calling the place a museum and by putting in a few relics here and there, we were able to give that committee, in a completely rural parish in my county, relief of £90 a year.
I have in mind the empowering of local authorities to grant relief where the imposition of rates would be a hardship on a voluntary committee and to give the local authority power to use their discretion in waiving rates. This is a more direct way of getting at the problem than by merely applying to the Valuation Office, because if the place looks well the valuation officer will invariably put the normal valuation on the building.
At the present time, when rates are £3 10s and £4 in the £, this can be a substantial amount. When a function is held in these halls the organisers must pay turnover tax and with the cost of bands et cetera the profit margin is very low. The methods by which adequate funds can be raised to provide amenities for boys' clubs are limited and it is imperative that proper accommodation be provided for them. I should like to see local authorities with power to waive rates when they think fit, and it was for this reason I put down my amendments.
I should like very much to support this amendment, which I feel to be worthy of support. This Bill is intended for the relief of rates for a section of the community on whom payment is a considerable hardship. Through my connection with the GAA, I have been involved in the matter of making social amenities available in rural Ireland and I am very conscious of the difficulties mentioned by Senator McDonald. It is quite a job for the group concerned to build the hall or community centre and then the valuation officer comes and puts a very high valuation on it. It has been mentioned that this must be got over through the Valuation Office but we have a situation where certain people are on the dividing line, those who might or might not be entitled to relief in the payment of rates and it might be a hardship on them to pay the rates. On the other hand, we might have a community centre perhaps doing very well who are able to pay their rates and yet they might get a waiver. We would need to be very careful on this point.
I am conscious of the problem and should like to do what I can for genuine social centres who are carrying out what they were set up to do, but we must remember there may be a number of such centres operating under the guise of social centres and yet they might be commercial propositions at the same time.
I had not intended to address the House on this matter, about which I do not know very much, but I should like to draw the attention of Senators to a problem which arises due to the fact that the Valuation Office has to be operated where properties occupied for charitable purposes come to be transferred to persons who no longer operate them for such purposes. It may be that the existing machinery with regard to the revision of valuation in these cases means that local authorities will lose rates because, I think, it depends on whether certain authorities become aware that the property is no longer being given over to charitable purposes. This scheme depends on annual information being provided to the authority with regard to the circumstances of the occupiers and if this annual information is not provided these people are not caught into the net of ratepayers for perhaps quite a substantial period of time. This depends very much on where the property is situated. For example, in Dublin a property might cease to be a church and yet it would be quite a considerable time before the new occupiers were rated.
It is open to the Houses of the Oireachtas in a Bill of this kind to amend another code if appropriate, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this amendment in the light of the possibility that under the existing scheme there may be a loss in rates to local authorities, a loss which is benefiting people who ought to pay rates.
We all know of cases of genuine hardship involved in the categories mentioned by Senator McDonald, certainly those who live in rural Ireland. I might mention that an interdepartmental committee have been sitting on this question of local taxation and finance and in their second report on exemptions and remissions of rates they dealt fully with this question. It is under consideration at the moment and it may mean the amendment of the Valuation Acts.
This is a very different problem; it is to help necessitous people who year in year out have had to pay rates. Formerly when local authorities found they could not collect the amount, they had to write the rates off. We are now endeavouring to allow local authorities to make a scheme whereby these needy people will not be harassed by getting demand notes and by the rate collector calling on a number of occasions during the year: that is the real purpose of this Bill and it is not appropriate at this stage to extend it to cover people mentioned by Senator McDonald. This is a big problem, so great that the committee who were sitting on it went into it in the fullest way possible and referred specifically to the whole question of exemption and remission of rates. Their report has been published and is under consideration, and if the Government decide to do something about it they will consider an amendment of the Valuation Acts rather than the Local Government Act. Therefore, it is not possible for me to accept the amendment.
I should be happy to see local authorities given power to waive rates; they must strike the rates and if they take it off one sector they must put it on to another. The number of occasions this comes before counsellors in general will be very few. I knew I was stepping out of line in putting the amendment down but it was worth the chance and it might have been an opportune time to get it in. However, I accept the point made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 7:
To delete subsection (4).
It seemed to me that the onus of making or of not making a scheme was being put on the shoulders of members of local authorities and that if the remaining ratepayers who had to bear the cost of providing this waiver to the people who are eligible for relief complained about the additional cost they would be very quickly told that it was their own local authority members who had taken the steps of imposing this additional charge upon them and that it had nothing to do with the Minister.
We should have liked to suggest, as amendment No. 9 would have done had it not been ruled out of order, that in some way after a certain costing there should have been some assessment or reassessment of the situation to see if some part of the cost could have been met in some way other than through the rates. However, as this might be taken as imposing a potential charge on central funds, we could not be more specific in amendment No. 8. Indeed this was the reason we introduced amendment No. 9. It might not be a bad idea, however, if amendment No. 8 were accepted. It would mean that the Minister would order as to how the cost of a scheme was to be met and, indeed, if at some subsequent date the Minister was able to devise some marvellous scheme whereby some of the cost or all of it was met in some way other than by rates, this amendment written into the Act ought to help him to do so.
I cannot find myself in agreement with this because it purports to take powers from Parliament and give them to the Minister. Thereby it proposes a bad precedent. Subsection (4) sets out how the cost is to be met:
The cost of implementing a scheme under this section shall form part of the expenses of a local authority for the purposes of any provision relating to the determining, making, levying and assessment of rates.
What is suggested to be put in instead of that is that the discretion should be given to the Minister to say whether it should be implemented by the local authority or by somebody else. The Minister for Local Government surely cannot say that it will be implemented by the central authority. He has no power or control at all there. In my view it would reduce the whole purpose of the Bill to an absurdity. It would be taking from Parliament the right of saying where the rates should go, as is set out here. It would be purporting to give a discretion to the Minister although it is really not giving him any discretion. It seems to me that, as Euclid would have said, it would be making the Bill reductio ad absurdum. I say that without offence to the Senator.
I would not take offence at a remark like that.
That is how it seems to me.
With due respect to Senator Nash, it strikes me that not alone in this Bill but in other Bills, some of them going through the Dáil, the Minister dispenses his authority and powers to suit himself and he distributes responsibility to local authorities where they may become the object and butt of slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. When it suits him he will give local authorities certain responsibilities but when it suits him to retain the appointments of chairmen and vice-chairmen he will retain this. The validity of Senator Nash's statement may be real but there is validity too — it does not come out so much in this Bill — in the assertion that different Ministers retain powers of certain appointments, something from which they will get some kudos. When kudos is not to be gained it will then devolve on members of local authorities to bear the brunt of all the criticism. This is running through many of the Bills that come before the Dáil and this House. The more this is examined the better, and for that reason, whether this amendment is pursued or not, it is as well to have this discussed. I have a feeling that Ministers use their discretion as to what they will retain or release to local authorities according to what they will gain or not gain from that discretion.
Far be it from me to subscribe to the notion that Senators on the other side are devoid of any political intelligence. They know quite clearly how we feel about the intent of this whole section and the reason for this amendment. We feel, as Senator Belton has said, that if any embarrassment should arise over the cost of providing this service it will be an embarrassment which will have to be borne by the local authorities and the Minister will have lily-white hands in the matter.
This, we felt, was not a good thing and was not being fair to local authorities. Obviously the ruling out of order of amendment No. 9 does not help the ideas behind amendments Nos. 7 and 8, which really were leading up to the ideas expressed in amendment No. 9. Because of this, it is not my intention to press amendment No. 7 or amendment No. 8 but merely to say that the Parliamentary Secretary, Senator Nash and others know very well the difficulty which I am in. I cannot advocate that the cost or part of it should be borne by the Central Fund, much as I should like to. Consequently, amendment No. 9 is out of order. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would not be capable of carrying out the idea expressed in the three amendments. Because of that, I withdraw amendments Nos. 7 and 8 but ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the ideas expressed in amendment No. 9, which I think is rather a good one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Amendment No. 9 ruled out of order.
Section 2 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 may be discussed together.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 10:
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.
May I ask to be advised as to what the procedures are when a series of amendments are taken together. Do I address the House on each one separately?
The Senator may speak on them in any order he likes.
We preserve in the law certain curious practices. One of the most curious is that although we are not allowed to indicate to anyone in any manner that would be straight that we know a bit more about some subjects than anybody else, and this is difficult to understand — the medical profession have long since found it easy to say: "I happen to know about eyes, someone else knows about corns, someone else about other parts of the body"— we are not allowed to say that but we are allowed to tell everybody what we do not know about. Certainly I should have liked if we could send in alternates to speak for us on certain subjects, this being one of them; but as it is entered it will be necessary for the House to consider the integration of the provisions of this Bill with an existing body of law. I consider it my duty to do to the best of my ability what, frankly, I thought the Minister and his advisers should have done when they were drafting the Bill. I would welcome the assistance of the Members of the House, not all present, who would know more about the matters that I am discussing. I would draw the attention of the House to that part of the Title to the Bill which provides for
other matters connected with the matters aforesaid.
The Bill does not provide sufficiently for matters connected with the matters aforesaid and it is for that reason that I must move these amendments.
Amendment No. 10 proposes the amendment of the Rent Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1967, by the insertion of a new section in that Act to be called section 13A. The Bill before the House does not impose any restrictions on the categories of persons whose circumstances may be considered in relation to the matter of the waiver of rates. Section 10 of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960, contemplates a case, which arises very often, when premises are let, and I speak only of facts that I know of, in the city of Dublin — and there are many such cases — where the landlord of the dwelling
pays or allows an injunction 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);
This is an addition to the rents currently being paid by the tenant to him under the restriction contained in the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960. My amendment is designed to protect the position of tenants whose circumstances have been taken into account by the rating authority and to ensure that the rates, which are to be a lawful addition to the rent by the landlord where the tenant's circumstances have determined the amount of waiver of rates by which he can increase the letting, shall be the rates as reduced by the amount of waiver and that no rates save as so reduced shall be a lawful addition.
My second amendment, No. 11, provides that the Rent Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1967, be amended by the insertion of this section. I am no expert on these matters: I am not as clear on these matters as the Minister's advisers, but Senator Nash certainly is clear as to why it became necessary to have subsection (9) of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960.
I should have thought that the terms of section 6 of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928, provided for that matter but those who advised the Minister for Justice in the presentation of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960, at least thought that there was doubt about the matter. It is a good principle and, as a practitioner, I recommend to the House that people would be saved a lot of expense and many lawyers would get rich less quickly. However, the Minister for Justice had not only the advice of his advisers but he also had the benefit of commissions that consulted on the matters and I accept that it was necessary to have in the Act subsection (9) which states:
In the application of this Chapter to a small dwelling, within the meaning of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928, the following provisions shall have effect:
(a) the word "rates" in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section shall not include a rate made by virtue of the last-mentioned Act on the owner of the small dwelling, and
(b) the amount by which the rent of the small dwelling is increased by virtue of section 6 of the last-mentioned Act shall be taken into account as a lawful addition in calculating the lawful rent of the small dwelling.
I would have thought that section 6 of the Local Government Act of 1928 provided, in respect of such premises, the owners or the tenants and not the occupiers. May I remind the House that the valuation figure is no greater than £6 subject to the powers vested in the Minister, and I should like to know if the powers of the Minister to increase that figure to £12 have been exercised?
The figure is still £6.
Section 10, subsection (9) provides:
the amount by which the rent of the small dwellings is increased by virtue of section 6 of the last-mentioned Act shall be taken into account as a lawful addition in calculating the lawful rent of the small dwelling.
Perhaps they were contemplating some situation in which the parties were taking advantage of this Act and where in fact the tenant was rated under some other arrangement between them for payment of rates.
There may have been some situation which the Minister has been advised about. Whatever the reason which led to this amendment, it was interesting enough to be noted for an amendment in an Act introduced by the Minister for Justice, of an Act which was the responsibility of the Minister for Local Government. Therefore, one line I would not welcome today would be any suggestion that because this is not the province of the Minister for Local Government we should not be considering matters which are the province of the Minister for Justice, if he could spare the time for such problems. It is my concern by this amendment to ensure that the amount by which the rent of a small dwelling is increased, by virtue of section 6, shall be only the rates as reduced. The words I have used in the proposed amendment are:
section 10 (9) of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960, is hereby amended by the addition to paragraph (b) thereof...
I think I had better reread paragraph (b) which is:
the amount by which the rent of the small dwelling is increased by virtue of section 6 of the last-mentioned Act shall be taken into account as a lawful addition in calculating the lawful rent of the small dwelling.
I add the proposal that there should be added to this:
save to the extent that the 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.
I should like to make one comment, which applies as well to the earlier amendments, as indeed to all the other amendments, and that is the circumstances in which you will have — I am sure these circumstances will arise, though perhaps they will not arise too widely — the occupation of a house changing, in which during the course of the year someone whose circumstances were taken into account as justifying a waiver of rates will cease to be the occupier and the house will be occupied by someone whose circumstances would not justify a waiver of rates, and where you, will have to deal with the situation arising from those facts.
I appreciate that in so far as it is a small dwelling it may be within the power of the Minister to make provision for this under section 4 (2), but the advisers of the Minister for Justice did not think so when they introduced section 10 (9) of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960. This House should try to improve this legislation to ensure that any waiver is benefiting only the tenant in respect of whose circumstances the waiver has been made. That deals with amendment 11. I am beginning to see a great disadvantage in accepting the treatment of the six amendments together because there is a serious danger you will get lost and if you get lost the probability you will get lost becomes almost a certainty.
My amendment No. 12 again provides for a like matter. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the kind of cases where provisional orders are made. I have not got the valuation figures at my fingertips but there are cases where provisional orders are made. The scheme was to provide an expeditious way of getting a rent fixed. It would be more expeditious and less expensive. I think that is the basic theory behind the provisional order scheme. At any rate, section 12 (1) of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1967, reads:
(1) where an order under section 21 of the Principal Act, stood in force immediately before the passing of this Act, it shall have effect as from such passing subject to the following modifications:
(a) for the amount specified therein as the basic rent of the dwelling in question there shall be substituted an amount equal to the lawful rent so specified less any amount so specified in respect of rates, and
(b) for the amount so specified in respect of lawful additions there shall be substituted an amount equal to any amount so specified in respect of rates.
I take that to mean the adjustment upwards of rates on which public policy is founded should be recognised and that the rates increases should become lawful additions to the rates to be paid by the tenants.
We should make it clear by the language we use in this section by an amendment of section 12 (1) of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1967, that the increase which will be lawful will be the increase which is the increase reduced by the amount of the waiver in any case which may be, repeating what I said in relation to all those amendments, that there may have to be adjustments made in the scheme designed here for circumstances where there is a change; but those adjustments, mark you, may not be possible under this section. I would reserve myself very much on this. I should like here to express the view that no regulation will be open to the Minister which will vary the rights and contract of the tenant or the rights under other statutes unless he is specifically empowered to vary other statutes by this Bill, and it is not proposed he should.
Amendment No. 13 standing in my name expressly provides for an amendment of section 6 of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928, which the Minister for Justice and his advisers thought it was necessary to amend under the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960. May I say that this is the one amendment that I would not press if I were satisfied it had been fully considered, and if I received an undertaking that it would be fully considered, because I think it might be possible under section 6 as it stands to ensure that the rates causing the increase would be only the rates as adjusted. I am not by any means happy about it. I should very much prefer to see section 6 amended. It was designed 41 years ago without this Bill in mind. I should like to see an express amendment making it quite clear that the amount of the increase is only to be the increase in the rates as reduced.
Amendment No. 14 is the fifth of these amendments, and it is an amendment to section 13 (3) (vii) of the Rent Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1967, which, I have to bore you with the further news, makes it necessary to look at section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931. Section 23 of that Act is a very important section because it contemplates that where tenants would be put out of their abodes they shall be provided with compensation. But not everyone is happy about it. It provides for the measure of compensation that would be awarded to them.
As that section is being operated at present, I am bound to say that the attitude of the courts is reasonable, judges being on the whole reasonable persons affected by awareness of the circumstances. Here again I should like to be guided by those better informed than I on it, but I believe the judges look at minimum compensation entitlements.
We are concerned with minimum compensation entitlements because the courts could change and judges could change and there might be circumstances which might prejudice them — I need not dwell on the kind of circumstances. Section 13 (3) applies also to section 23, which simply gives power
where the court awards to a tenant compensation for disturbance the measure of such compensation shall be the pecuniary loss, damage or expenses which such tenant sustains or incurs or will sustain or incur by reason of his quitting the tenement in respect of which such compensation is awarded and which is the direct consequence of his quitting such tenement.
Section 13 provides for the extension of the benefits of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, to persons in certain categories. The section applies to a dwellinghouse or a flat which immediately before the passing of the Act was a controlled dwelling, subject to not being a letting for temporary convenience. May I explain this to mean that they get the benefits of the Landlord and Tenant Act but the benefits of the rent restrictions code are taken from them?
One particular subsection, subsection (2), perhaps is the simplest example to give. This, for some reason I think connected with the time of the day that the Act may have been passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas, contains a provision which I think is outrageous. If I had been permitted to be articulate by the electorate at the time I would not have let it go by without at least talking about it. This was an amending Bill of 1966 passed in 1967, I think. When you get a date on an Act I do not know what that means. Does it mean the date that it is signed?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The present occupant of the Chair would require notice of that question. I am advised that it is the date on which the Act was signed.
I am looking at the Rent Restrictions Act, 1966, but I am informed that it is the Rent Restrictions Act of 1967. At any rate, that Act directed its attention at attacking bachelors or spinsters over the age of 21 and under the age of 65. I am not a bachelor or a spinster and I am over 21 and under 65. The persons concerned occupied what could be modest enough premises with a valuation not in excess of £10, particularly if it was a flat or part of an old building or something of that kind that had not been revalued for many years.
At any rate, they took the benefits of the rent restrictions code from such persons and gave them the benefits of the Landlord and Tenant Act. In any case where the benefits of the rent restrictions code were taken from these people, I will not exhaust you by telling all of them; I do not understand them and I am concerned to look at only one of them because I think that this is the only one relevant to any application of section 23, that any such dwelling which is a dwelling which has got decontrolled by this Rent Restrictions (Amendment) Act:
In any application of section 23 of that Act to any such dwelling, that section shall have effect as if "whichever of the following is the greater, that is to say, such sum, for the purpose of enabling the tenant, without incurring hardship, to secure appropriate alternative accommodation, as the court considers proper, not less than three years rent (including rates, whether or not payable by the tenant) or" were inserted after "the measure of such compensation shall be",
I do not want us to amend, by passing this Bill, the code relating to and protecting tenants so that a tenant coming in, whose circumstances were such that he would never get the benefit of the rates, is in fact entitled to a similar amount of compensation because of the fact that some time during the three years somebody did get the benefit of this minimum. I should like to put it further, that perhaps the person most entitled to the protection of this minimum is the person who all the time occupied it. It should be made quite clear that we do not deprive tenants of rights they have under existing codes. That is the object of amendment No. 14.
Amendment No. 15 standing in my name provides for an amendment which in fact is not an amendment but the insertion of a new section to avoid the doubt which I definitely feel can be resolved here only by the Houses of the Oireachtas or at great expense by somebody in the courts. I will have to refer you now to section 17 (1) of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960:
Where any sum (a) has been paid on account of any rent which has accrued due after the operative date and
(b) is a sum declared by section 16 of this Act to be irrecoverable from the tenant, such sum shall, subject to section 18 of this Act, be recoverable from the landlord who received the payment or his legal personal representative by the tenant by whom it was paid or his legal personal representative.
I want to recommend to this House that we introduce a new section into the Rent Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1967, which would read as follows:
The Rent Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1967, is hereby amended by the insertion of the following section after section 13B:
13C. To avoid doubts it is hereby declared that any sum paid by a tenant on account of any rent shall be recoverable from the landlord who received the payment or his legal personal representative by the tenant by whom it was paid or his legal personal representative to the extent that same shall be equal to the amount of any rates waived in accordance with any scheme made and carried out under the Local Government (Rates) (No. 2) Act, 1969.
Perhaps the situation will be that schemes will be adopted before the issue of demand notes, perhaps demand notes will relate to the circumstances of the tenant, but even if they do I see difficulty in this because you have a system of fresh demand notes when the tenant ceases to occupy the premises. I do not know how it is proposed that this should work. We are handling over now to highly accomplished gentlemen in the Department of Local Government the work of drafting regulations approving of schemes that may open up great pitfalls for many people to the benefit of people like Senator Nash and myself. Perhaps I should include Senator Bourke in this also — she would benefit more than anyone — but I do not think that this is a good system.
There is great doubt where a landlord has served his notice under the terms of the rent restrictions code adding to the rent the rates which are lawfully due by him under the agreement whether a tenant who pays rent based on such a notice will get back as overpayment portion of the rates which represent a waiver of the entire part of the rates in question. Perhaps others have doubts also on this, so therefore is there any reason why we should not resolve that doubt here and now and make it quite clear that such a tenant is entitled to recover the amount of the waiver if he has paid to the landlord a sum which includes the amount waived?
That brings me to amendment No. 16 — I will not talk on this because on further consideration I think it is possible that if amendment No. 15 were accepted it would probably cover the matter. I shall express my difficulty to you without being able to think out the consequences: I am thinking of a situation where, for example, the Minister may increase the valuation to which the Local Government (Small Dwellings) Act applies from £6 to £12 and thereby push somebody over the £10 valuation and outside the rent restrictions code. I think this is the intention of my amendment but I shall not say any more about this because my general attitude to these amendments has been expressed to you as well as I can do.
The purpose of the amendments appears to be to ensure that the benefits of the rates waiver will be made available to persons who, as tenants of rent controlled dwellings, are indirectly liable for rate although they are not the rated occupiers. We agree with these sentiments but our legal advisers consider them unnecessary as there is already sufficient power in sections 2 and 4 to cover fully those matters. In the absence of any clear need for these amendments it would be inappropriate to provide for extensive revision of the Rent Restrictions Act in a Local Government Bill. I am glad that Senator FitzGerald has gone into such detail on this matter and am grateful for the number of useful points that have been brought out, and I can assure him that I will bring these points to the notice of the local authorities. However, we are opposing the amendments because our legal advisers do not think they are necessary.
With the greatest respect to the legal advisers in the Department of Local Government, whom I know very well, I would be unable to accept that. It is not my business to advise anyone here but I personally am quite satisfied that there is no section which gives the Minister power to make a regulation that will amend the Landlord and Tenant Act, as the Minister for Justice thought it necessary to introduce a section in the Rent Restrictions (Amendment) Act expressly to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act with regard to the minimum compensation payable to a tenant. I find the matter inadequately dealt with, I find the response to the proposals inadequate and I would simply have to divide the House. Hoping the Parliamentary Secretary's attitude might have been different, I was proposing to suggest that the Minister would give consideration to what I have said between now and Report Stage. Is it the position that the Minister can introduce amendments at the next stage?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The position is that Government amendments or amendments proposed by two Senators can be introduced on Report Stage provided the matter has not been determined. I think it only proper to point out to the Senator that he is entitled to withdraw these amendments on Committee Stage and re-table them on Report Stage and give the Minister an opportunity to consider what has been said.
Before I consider what I shall do on this matter, perhaps somebody else may wish to address the House.
I sympathised with the Parliamentary Secretary when he said that he did not think it appropriate to amend another Act by these means. Senator FitzGerald has made it clear that this was done in the Landlord and Tenant Act and although I must say I accept entirely the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that he will have the power under section 4 to do these things and to make the allowances which concern Senator FitzGerald in relation to these amendments, nevertheless I personally am not satisfied that he would have the power to behave generously and equitably on these matters. This does not bind him or any of his successors to do so, whereas the amendments would have this effect. Therefore, we in this House should not be satisfied merely with the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary saying he will have the power to behave equitably and to treat people equitably, because even his good will is not permanently guaranteed.
This Bill is an enabling Bill which gives power to local authorities to make the schemes. While I concede there is a certain amount of misgiving in the mind of Senator FitzGerald, I could not imagine any set of conditions in which a local authority would make a regulation exempting someone from rates and then finding, in fact, that they had exempted the landlord. The local authorities in their own right make quite a number of regulations with regard to rents and various activities that belong to the county council, and I could not see any county council being so foolish as to make a regulation that would exempt a landlord when in point of fact it was the tenant who should be exempted. I am not a legal person, but I feel that this Bill gives county councils entitlement to make the schemes that they intend to operate under their own jurisdiction. I would not have any misgivings that county councils and their officials would be so foolish as to put themselves in the situation envisaged by Senator FitzGerald. I feel we are over-labouring this point.
Senator Honan has not said that these amendments would be harmful. He merely contends that they would probably be unnecessary. The Parliamentary Secretary made the same point, that since he would have the power to act equitably there is no need to place an obligation on him to do so. I feel, as a Member of this House, that it is necessary, if there is no fundamental objection to the amendments, to enshrine it in the Act so as to ensure that justice will be done. Unless it can be shown to me that any one of these amendments would be actively harmful I should be inclined to urge Senator FitzGerald to ask leave to withdraw them now and to give the Minister a week or so to think about this and re-introduce them, if necessary, on the Report Stage.
I agree with that proposal wholly. The one which particularly concerns me is the one which amends the Landlord and Tenant Act which has the effect that it raises doubts about the minimum compensation which a tenant is entitled to under the Landlord and Tenant Act. With regard to the amendment introduced to the Rent Restrictions Act, 1957, to deal with the whole problem of the ejectment of tenants for the development of property, I will be taking a firm view as to the significance of this amendment but I would adopt Senator Sheehy Skeffington's proposal to give the Minister a further opportunity of considering it.
I should like to inform the House that we have got legal advice not alone from our own people in the Department of Local Government but from the Department of Justice. We are told that section 10 (2) of the 1960 Rent Restrictions Act, as amended, applies only to actual payments made by the landlord by way of rates and allows him to pass on such payments by way of a lawful addition. As Senator Honan said, if it should transpire that under this provision we could not ensure that the tenant would get the benefit of the waiver on rates as intended by the local authority, then under the regulations and the scheme itself the local authority could ensure that this would apply because they are the people who would operate the scheme. The officials of the local authorities will be in the best position to know whether or not the provisions of their scheme are passed down along the line to the people it was intended for. We are quite satisfied from the legal advice we have got that we can deal with this matter under the Bill as it is.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he sees any point in Senator FitzGerald withdrawing his amendments to allow the Minister time to consider the matter between now and Report Stage?
Before the Parliamentary Secretary answers that, I want to say that there is room for many opinions on different sections of Acts of Parliament. Anyone who practises the law knows that there can be conflicting opinions on something and it must go to the court to be resolved. This incurs expense for people and leads them to complain about lawyers. One of the objects of this Assembly should be to do everything to save people the expense of litigation. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it might not be wise if the legal advisers who have advised — of course I accept that they have — were given an opportunity of considering what has been said here today.
I had hoped that Senator Nash would give us the benefit of his rich experience in this and other fields. I may be unfair to him, he may not have had an opportunity, but if the amendments were withdrawn for the Minister's further consideration we might have an opportunity of learning what Senator Nash's views are, whether expressed on the Report Stage on a repeat of these amendments or otherwise.
I must confess I was very impressed by Senator FitzGerald's arguments. I must apologise to him. I misled him in a slight way. In relation to the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act I was correct in saying £6 but there are two exceptions — Dublin and Cork — which are £8. I apologise.
Thank you.
I have listened to these arguments but it is like hearing one side of a case. I wonder if we could adjourn for tea at this stage and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would have an opportunity of communicating——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The clock in the Chamber is still five minutes short of the hour of adjournment. I think the majority of Senators' watches would disagree.
It is after 6 o'clock.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Will Senator Nash move to report progress?
I shall not because I am afraid it will be impossible for me to be back after tea.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.