It is suggested that amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 3 (a) which appear on the Order Paper be taken together.
Private Business. - Local Government (Rates) (No. 2) Bill, 1969: Report and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration".
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
As those amendments are to be taken together, does this mean that those standing in my name and in that of Senator J. Boland are all being moved?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 1 should now be moved and the other amendments may be discussed with it. Amendment No. 1 will be decided and, if necessary and possible, decisions can be taken on the further amendments.
Surely you could not possibly pass Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 3 (a)?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I said "if possible". We can discuss them together and take separate decisions.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 3, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
"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'."
I do not intend to delay the time of the House in repeating views I have already expressed with regard to amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Very briefly, I will say that these three amendments were designed to exclude difficulties arising on the application of existing legislation, in particular the Rent Restrictions Code about which I spoke at some length on Committee Stage. As the word "rates" is defined in the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960, the definition therein excludes from the construction of rates any rates which would be waived under this Act. This gave rise to considerable doubts in my mind as to the position of tenants and their rights to recover rates which they might have paid at a time when a waiver had not then been made but was being made in their favour.
The difficulties amendments Nos. 1 and 3 were designed to overcome for the benefit of affected persons would be almost completely overcome if amendment No. 3 (a) were acceptable to the House. The additional amendment is more comprehensive and takes in the case where rates are paid by persons without statutory rights but rights under contract. I am not absolutely satisfied about it, but I think it eliminates the difficulties under statute as well as contract.
With regard to amendment No. 2, I will not press this although I think, in principle, I probably should do so. It is designed to protect a tenant regarding the minimum compensation he would get in the case where under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, a court would be entitled to put him out of premises. The point was made in this House that this ought not to concern us a great deal because, as the section is operated, judges do not ever give the minimum compensation but always exceed it. However, having made the point, if the Minister after having sought and taken advice does not want to accept this amendment I shall not press it although I think it is desirable. I shall be content if amendment No. 3 (a) is accepted.
What Senator FitzGerald fears happening is something that none of us wishes to see occurring, but my advice is that the amendment is not necessary and that the Bill is adequate as it stands. Nevertheless, I do not object to the principle of making assurance doubly sure. So far as amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned, there are some objections to doing the job in that way in that it does not seem appropriate to amend the Rent Restrictions Act in a Bill of this kind. Amendment No. 3 (a) is not open to the same objections on these grounds and it may well achieve in a broader and more general way the same effect as those amendments were intended to achieve in a more limited and specific way. I do not accept that it is necessary from a strictly legal point of view but if it will be of any help in removing any doubts or otherwise ensuring that the Bill becomes effective, then the amendment will have been well worthwhile and, on that basis, I am prepared to accept amendment No. 3 (a).
I express gratitude to the Minister for his attitude.
Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3 (a):
In page 3, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following section:
"Where a hereditament is let at a rent which includes a payment for rates in respect of the hereditament and all or portion of those rates are waived by a rating authority in accordance with a scheme under section 2 of this Act, the rent shall be reduced by an amount equal to the amount of the rates so waived, and any sum paid (whether before or after the waiver) in excess of the reduced rent shall be recoverable as a simple contract debt by the tenant by whom it was paid or his legal personal representative from the landlord to whom it was paid or his legal personal representative."
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 3, to delete lines 10 to 13, and substitute the following subsections:
"(2) This section applies to the following classes—
(a) hereditaments consisting wholly or mainly of a dwelling,
(b) hereditaments consisting wholly or mainly of agricultural land within the meaning of the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1939, and
During the Committee Stage discussion on section 3 I undertook to consider the suggestion that classes of hereditaments coming within the scope of the section should be determined by the local authority with the consent of the Minister provided that, as a minimum, dwellings and agricultural holdings were covered. Having considered the matter I am satisfied that this is a worthwhile suggestion and the purpose of the amendment is to give effect to it.
I should like to thank the Minister for having introduced this amendment which, perhaps, was brought about as a result of some suggestions made by us in Fine Gael as to the Bill not being consistent in placing the onus on local members to decide on who is eligible for waiver of rates while leaving it to the Minister to decide where rates should be paid by instalment. Personally, I am very pleased that the Minister has introduced this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Miss Bourke
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 3, to delete lines 48 to 50 inclusive.
The reason why I move this amendment is because the Act may have too sweeping a power which we, in Parliament, ought not to delegate. Subsection (d) of section 4 reads:
the modification or adaptation of any enactment relating to the determining, making, levying, collecting and recovering of rates.
I pointed out that this could be interpreted in a very wide manner and the Minister was disposed at that stage to consider this.
I explained on the Committee Stage why this provision was inserted in the Bill and I admitted on that occasion that it was purely precautionary and that there were not any particular circumstances envisaged in which it might be necessary. I have no reason to believe that it will be necessary on the understanding that if any further amendment becomes necessary I will be prepared to come back and accept the amendment.
Miss Bourke
I thank the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration and passed.
The Seanad adjourned at 9.45 p.m.sine die.