On the question of section 1, while I am agreeable to it and certainly this Bill would pass through automatically on the basis that this is necessary because of the EEC financial year situation——
Exchequer and Local Financial Years Bill, 1973: Committee and Final Stages.
SECTION 1.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I think that the remarks the Senator is making would be more relevant to section 2 than to section 1, which is an interpretation section.
I was basing my remarks on the calendar year.
But the calendar year occurs in section 2.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
This refers to the application of section 1 in relation to the calendar year. I dislike the attitude of the present Government in relation to many measures coming before this House and the other House in that they seek to import into measures of this kind something that really is not there, because the reality of this measure is simply what I was saying: that we are now seeking by this legislation to make the financial year run from 1st January to 31st December in accordance with the EEC situation. There is nothing more to it than that so far as this legislation is concerned, with the consequential provisions relating to the adjustments to be made by local authorities and other State institutions.
I should like to see the same thing apply in relation to tax but, as the Minister said, that is a matter of some difficulty. I should also like to see private companies adopt the same procedure, and in general this makes sense. But I do not like to see imported into both the Minister's statements and his subsequent remarks much tendentious nonsense about Government policy in regard to the relieving of rates. Let us face it: there is no question of anything in this Bill being in any way designed to relieve rates in any form. Let us have this loud and clear. The Minister just now has categorically said that. He tends at times to be too glib in matters of this kind. He has stated that this Bill is in some way in ease of ratepayers. It is not. This Bill is simply a measure which we had prepared more than a year ago. It is another example of legislation which was in the pipeline and which was designed to follow as a result of our membership of the EEC. This legislation has nothing to do with the relief of rates in any way. If the Minister confined himself in his speech to the main issue this Bill would have got a very easy passage. However, it is quite obvious from page 3 that the public relations man was at work. We have a different type typescript in page 3 than we have in pages 1, 2 and 4. It is quite clear from that that there was again this political nonsense—political nonsense imported into a very sensible script prepared by the Department of Finance, given to the Minister for Finance, which, if he had delivered it to this House of the Oireachtas, would have enabled this Bill to be dispatched in very quick time as a reasonable measure flowing from what we had already prepared. Instead we have the tendentious nonsense here in paragraph 3, and again repeated by the Minister in an audacious way orally here in the House a few minutes ago, that in some way this Bill is in relief of rates. This Bill is not in relief of rates. This Bill is a simple straightforward Bill, as is said in the first sentence prepared by the Department of Finance, and I quote:
The basic purpose of the Bill is to change the Exchequer financial year and the local financial year, both of which end on the 31st of March under present law. As and from the 1st of January, 1975, they will coincide with the calendar year.
That is all that needed to be said about this Bill. That flows from our membership of the European Economic Community. There is nothing in this Bill that in any way relieves rates and it is codology for the Minister to suggest to people that, because they are paying a lesser amount in nine months by way of rates, they are being relieved in some way, when they will have to pay 12 months' rates eventually. Again why cloud the issue over? This happens in regard to so many Bills that have come to this House from Ministers of the present Government that I begin to despair about reality.
The first sentence I have quoted there is, in fact, the reality of this Bill. There is no more involved in this Bill. We are changing from a certain annual system to another calendar year system which is in accordance with EEC regulations. I feel that we should universally follow the calendar year in regard to all accounting, auditing, and taxation—although there are difficulties, as the Minister has said. That should be the situation from the point of view of easy procedures as far as people in business, finance and taxation are concerned.
It is a totally fraudulent approach for a responsible Minister of an Irish Government to come in here and suggest that in some way this Bill is associated with any other scheme of reducing rates or making things easier for people or a new initiative on their part. It is none of these things. Let us get away from this miasma of public relations and get down to the facts. This Bill is about a procedural matter — in my view a very sensible procedural matter, one that I would like to see adopted more generally. It is certainly not going to involve any easement for people in regard to payments of rates whether under the health charges category, the housing subsidies category or any other category.
I would suggest that the Minister go back to his Departmental briefs and in any further submission to this House he should ignore the importation into sensible Ministerial statements of obviously Press relations and public relations-organised sentiments as expressed in page 3 of the memorandum before us.
In addition to what Senator Lenihan has said, which is absolutely true, not alone is the Bill not giving any relief to rates, but there is a point about which the Minister should now warn the public. After he had made his statement here in reply to the first debate he said there are people who do not pay their rates until the 31st of March. I know that that is a true statement. This year not alone will they have to pay up to the 31st of March but they will also have to pay the remainder of the rates before the 31st of December. In fact there is no relief. With all the propaganda that is printed here, particularly in page 3, this point has not been mentioned at all. There will be two demands in this year.
I wonder could I get some sense of reality and perhaps respect for the House. I should like to apologise to Senator McGlinchey and the Members of the Fianna Fáil Party in the other House who asked a question in the course of debate on this Bill about the Government's relief of rates. The reason why that is contained in the opening statement which I made in this House is that very specific questions were directed to this by Members of the Fianna Fáil Party in the other House. I thought it would be of interest to Senators and it was out of courtesy to people who might have been interested in that that the information was given. I am in politics and I am prepared to take as much abuse as anybody flings at me when it is justified and even when it is not justified.
I think it is unfair to the Members of Senator Lenihan's own party that he proceeds to abuse them for asking questions which are of interest to them and the people they represent in Seanad Éireann, Dáil Éireann and the local authorities throughout the country. If they do not want these matters discussed in this debate, very well; I will not object. But if they include them in the debate they can hardly object if the answers are given. If they do not like the answers and if they anticipate that the answers which they get are not going to be to their liking they should not ask the questions, but if they do, they should not complain when they get the answers.
I welcome this Bill in so far as it goes.
I would prefer if the Senator would talk about the section rather than the Bill.
I want to clarify a point which I think is relevant to this section. It has been suggested that because it is a shorter year people will feel there is a decrease in the amount of rates they will have to pay. I have visions of headlines across provincial papers saying that the rates have been reduced this year. People would want to be very wary that this is only a nine-months period. In actual fact rates have been increased. The point I want to make is that at our county council rates meeting yesterday we were very concerned that we were asked to make provision in our own charges so that the county council would be able to borrow money to pay compensation under malicious injury claims for bomb damage that took place in our county. This happened over 12 months ago. The people in the Border area and in Belturbet have suffered serious damage and nobody can tell them whether they will receive the money and, consequently, their business has suffered. At our meeting Senator O'Brien said, when I pressed him, that the Government were thinking about this and that this would be dealt with. If the Government have that information they should tell the local authority that they have it.
The last Government were very quick to ensure that compensation was paid and that there was a county-at-large charge regarding Nelson's Pillar when it was blown up and when the British Embassy was burned. It is now 12 months since these people in Belturbet suffered this agony and this financial loss and loss of people. The Minister for Finance should come clean with Cavan County Council and the other Border counties who have suffered and tell them where they stand so that we will not be forced at our rates meeting to put in a token estimate to ensure that these people will get paid. I should like the Minister to clarify that for me.
I should like to refer to one matter in connection with the financial year. I want to speak directly to the section on the point raised by Senator Lenihan, and repeated by him subsequently, urging business firms to change their financial year to conform with the calendar year. I think it would be chaotic if that suggestion were to be adopted. May I, as a businessman, say this: a number of firms arrange their business year to coincide with the date on which they have the lowest stocks in their firm or warehouses. This is a practice going on for many years. For that reason I do not think they would change. Apart from that, if every business firm in the country was to complete their accounts on the 31st December in any year the rush on accountancy firms for the next couple of months would be such that they would not get their accounts for at least 12 months. I have no doubt that what Senator Lenihan had in mind would be a nice tidy operation which would make everything coincide with the calendar year. In fact it is highly impractical. I do not think it should go out from this House as a sensible suggestion that should be followed by the business community. It just could not be done. It is completely hopeless.
In the course of his speech the Minister told us that the rates for the period will be paid in two parts—two-thirds on demand and the remaining one-third on the 1st October, 1974. That is the position for 1974. We do not appear to have received any information about what will happen after 1974. Local authorities will strike their rates in the month of December. Demand notes will be issued in January and I presume that the first moiety will be payable then. Would the Minister tell me when is it proposed to collect the second moiety? I cannot see any reference to it here after 1974.
At the end of six months—the 1st July.
I have a particular reason for raising this matter: the position that would arise with the farming population. I am not a farmer but I feel the position of the farming population should be taken into consideration when arriving at a date. The 30th June, which would appear to be the logical date to use, would in my opinion not be suitable for the farming population. The harvest is not over until the end of September or October. I think that the farming population would experience tremendous difficulty in paying the second moiety at that stage.
I presume that an order will be made under this Bill at some stage fixing the date of the second moiety after 1974. Would the Minister consider the plight of the farming population when fixing that date?
Mr. Ryan
I would love to oblige Senator Dolan by replying to his question. Maybe he was not here. I think he came in when I was being chastised because I was replying to questions from other Senators which Senator Lenihan considered were irrelevant to this particular Bill. So I am now on the horns of a dilemma.
He has gone now.
Senator McGlinchey believes that the mice can play when the cat is away. If that is all right with him and if he can be sure that Senator Lenihan will not launch into another attack on me—I seem to be like a red rag to Senator Lenihan whenever I appear in the Seanad; he always uses it as an occasion for using superlative accusations about me——
Perhaps the Minister would come to the point before Senator Lenihan comes back.
If that is a hint I can take it now with the leave of the Chair. On the point raised by Senator Dolan, the Government have already given an assurance that any bomb damage in border counties arising out of the unhappy disturbances in the North of Ireland will not become a charge on the local rates. This was again confirmed by a statement made in Belturbet this week by the Minister for Lands. The law in relation to malicious damage to property is under review by the Minister for Justice at the moment. I am sure Senator Dolan appreciates that any claims in relation to malicious damage have to be dealt with through the courts. It is no reflection on the people who file claims when I say that in most cases the compensation actually awarded is a great deal less than the claims made when they originally come in. I have no doubt that whatever difficulties exist can be smoothed over and people who have been at a loss or their neighbour ratepayers need not have any fear that any damage arising out of the unhappy events in the North of Ireland will be left as a liability on the local rates.
Now I will deal with Senator McGlinchey's question about the date of payment. At the moment the first moiety is payable on demand and the second moiety is paid on the 1st October. It has been acknowledged by all sides of the House here that a large proportion is not collected until six months afterwards. If the 1st of July is the date for this second moiety—I am not going to encourage people not to pay on demand—and if they do not pay for several months later, that is a matter for the people themselves, the local rate collector and the local authority. Of course what suits one person might not suit another. The 1st of July might be suitable for some and a bad time for others. The local rate collector, with all his knowledge of local habits—the peak and valley periods—can make the necessary adjustments. We do not think there should be any change in the system for time of payment. It is a matter for negotiation between the local rate collector and the individual payer.
I am sure if local representatives have any particular views to offer to their own local authorities about changing the time of payment it would be appropriate that they would express their views in the local authorities where everything would be taken into account in accordance with local customs and needs.
I want to thank the Minister for his reply in this. I am wondering if he is aware that these particular cases that I mentioned have already been processed and the claims have been made and lodged with the local council. What the people in Belturbet and Clones and these places wanted was that the money would be paid so that they could get ahead with the reconstruction work and build up the business again.
I will certainly bring the matter to the notice of the Minister for Local Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 9 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment received for final consideration and passed.