Could the Minister explain this section?
Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1972: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Section 2 provides for the continuance in respect of the period up to 31st March, 1975, of the rate relief provided in existing legislation subject to the modifications in sections 3 and 4 of the Bill.
If it said that in the Bill it would be much easier.
Could the Minister tell me the reason for the insertion of subsection 2 of section (2) and to what the numbers 21 and 16 refer.
This provides for relief from 1954 to 1975, which is a change from 16 to 21 years.
Why is it necessary to operate this by reference to 1954?
Because of the arrangements which were built up in this legislation. Due to the fact that it has been done in Westminster, we have to refer back to previous legislation without stating clearly what is being done.
What was Deputy Bruton's question?
I want to know why it is necessary to refer back to 1954 in subsection (2) of section 2. I might add that Deputy Sweetman asked precisely the same question of Deputy Blaney when the 1962 Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill was put through. Deputy Blaney said he could not give the answer—this is what he implied— that the answer that was given by his officials to give to this question was so silly that he was not prepared to give it in the House.
I suppose that was as good an answer as any. I am assured that this is a drafting point and if "16" is mentioned in a previous Act I am obliged to mention "21" in this Bill, being so many years further on.
Would the Minister agree that 21 would bring us up to 1975?
Yes.
That will mean we shall have to introduce another Bill during 1975 with the same provisions?
Correct.
Does the Minister consider this to be a desirable use of parliamentary time?
To continue the Bill again?
No, to be having the same provisions introduced here in this House every two years when, as the Government so loudly protest, they have so much legislative business that they cannot get it through? They take up the time of the House by bringing in items such as this which could easily be put on a permanent basis, thus avoiding the parliamentary logjam which the Government lament from time to time when they want to find excuses for the fact that they have not lived up to their promises.
The Deputy will have noted that the period which traditionally has been three years is now extended to five years.
That is only because you forgot it the last time and now have to make up the two years.
If the Deputy is pretending to be genuine about not taking up the time of the House, it is very hard to believe him.
Could the Minister tell me what would have happened to a county council if a question arose in the past two years as to their operation of this scheme?
There would not have been any difficulty because the money had been voted by the House.
Without statutory authority?
The House is the statutory authority.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Could I ask when the decision to raise the figure from £5 to £15 was conveyed to the county councils because I note that under subsection (2) the concession has been operative from the financial year ending 31st March 1969? Under what authority was the Minister able to direct local authorities to increase this allowance for that year and subsequent years without legislation being introduced?
The budget announcement and the fact that the money was voted was sufficient authorisation.
It was not, of course. If what the Minister says is correct, there is no need to have this legislation before the House at all. The practice has grown up of doing it in this way and somebody will have to do a little spring cleaning one of these days.
"Greater than fifteen pounds" is being substituted "equal to or greater than five pounds". Should that not be "equal to or greater than fifteen pounds"?
I left out "equal to".
Deliberately?
Yes.
What difference does it make?
It is an improvement on the former position.
If a man has a £15.5s valuation and somebody claimed for it, does it still mean that he cannot have over £15 valuation?
He cannot have greater than £15.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Is this to save county councils in relation to what has already been done?
Yes.
Does the Minister consider it a desirable legislative practice?
Would the Minister say whether they have been operating illegally?
No.
Over the past two years?
There is plenty of precedent for this practice, as the House is aware. The only alternative was to withhold the concession until such time as a Bill was passed.
Another alternative is to bring the legislation in in time.
This was done on numerous occasions in the past.
Is there any limit to what the State can do in anticipation of legislation?
Is the Deputy objecting to the concession being given now?
This is what the Minister would like to convey to the public. My only objection, which I made in the few words I said, is that we are not improving the situation half enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration and passed.