Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 19 Jul 1962

Vol. 196 No. 16

Committee on Finance. - Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill—Committee and Final Stages.

Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."

What is the significance of the 11 versus the 18?

That really means the number of years since 1953.

Why have we to go back to 1953? Why do we not start anew now?

I have been asking the same question myself.

I assume when the Minister does not give me an answer, he has not got one.

I say that I have been asking the same question, why do we go back?

The Minister has not got an answer?

The answer I have got did not satisfy me and I do not think it would satisfy the Deputy, either.

Would the Minister not try it on the Deputy?

I do not think so; the Deputy would not appreciate it.

Then it must be very bad.

Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

We are in the same position here—16 and 17.


Question put and agree to.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Are we in the same situation again?

This is an additional primary allowance.

But in regard to its reference back, unfortunately we are in the same position.

I will not raise the same objection on Section 3 as on Section 1 and 2. There might be a reason for Section 3 but there is no reason for Sections 1 and 2.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."

What is the effect of Section 5?

The net effect is that local authorities will not find themselves in the position of owing the ratepayer money. That is the net effect.

I should like to know how that could arise?

It cannot arise now. The £17 employment allowance and the supplementary allowance added together could in certain circumstances be greater than the amount of rates to be paid after deducting all the other allowances.

Would the Minister look into the point raised on the Second Stage regarding the limitation of the valuation in connection with this allowance?

I have looked into this particular point and I am afraid my view has not changed after consideration of the findings of quite a number of my colleagues who have examined it in the past. I appreciate the idea in the point raised but I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that we shall do anything about changing it.

A man with a valuation of £5 cannot hope to exist on that £5. By keeping the restriction, the Minister is perhaps preventing him from getting employment.

There is another difficulty in this matter. The £5 valuation man and the under £5 land valuation man have already qualified for the primary allowance on whatever his rates may have been calculated. That is a matter that has to be taken into consideration when considering the matter of the employment allowance.

I am afraid it is going to work inequitably.

Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."

This is a change from the old amount paid under the 1898 Act?

From the Central Fund. There was some £600,000 fixed and it was paid out and additional money required each year was voted——

It is for administrative convenience only?

It does not affect the amount of money going out?

There is no such effect whatever.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.