A very important decision made by the Government was in relation to the transfer of the health charges and housing subsidies from the rates to the Central Exchequer and the two Ministers most immediately concerned in that decision were the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Finance. The importance of this matter which I am raising here this evening is that the records of this House now show that those two Ministers were either ignorant of basic information which the Government should have had before them when making that decision or, alternatively, that they knew the situation but in answer to Parliamentary Questions deliberately misled this House. When this matter first occurred, as the record will show, I gave the benefit of the doubt, particularly to the Minister for Local Government, but the subsequent events in this regard seem to show that I was too charitable in giving the benefit of the doubt to the Minister for Local Government and that, in fact, he was aware of the situation.
The story, as far as the records of this House are concerned, commences on Thursday, the 3rd of May and it is reported in Volume 265 No. 4 of the Official Report at column 443 and column 444. In the course of supplementary questions I asked a question and I am reported as follows:
Would the Minister say whether the major portion of the cost to the Exchequer involved in this will be spent in relieving rates on dwelling houses or on other property?
Mr. Tully replied:
The Deputy is so well aware of that that, in fact, his party were attempting to do something like what we are doing during the general election but they thought of it too late. The people who will be relieved in the main are the owners of dwelling houses.
I shall quote further:
Mr. Colley: Are we to take it then, that the Minister is saving that the bulk of the money involved will be spent in relief of rates on dwelling houses? Is that what the Minister is saving?
Mr. Tully: That is what I said.
I shall read the remainder of this because it bears out what I have said:
Mr. Colley: Does the Minister not know that that is not true?
Mr. Tully: I made a statement and I expect Deputy Colley to accept that statement.
Mr. Colley: I accept that the Minister is mistaken.
An Ceann Comhairle: The insinuation that the Minister was telling an untruth must be withdrawn.
Mr. Colley: I am saying the statement made by the Minister is untrue and I accept that he is making it under a misapprehension or by mistake.
As I said, I gave the Minister the benefit of the doubt.
The next part of this saga arises on the same day, the same Question Time, the same Volume—265 No. 4— of the Official Report at column 491 when I put supplementary questions to the Minister for Finance. I quote:
Mr. Colley: Could the Minister state whether the bulk of that relief would go to the benefit of dwelling houses or other rateable hereditament?
Mr. R. Ryan: I must sympathise with the Deputy when he is unable to recall what the Minister for Local Government has already said.
Mr. Colley: I recall very well what he said. I want to hear what the Minister for Finance has to say.
Mr. R. Ryan: What the Minister for Local Government said is the absolute truth. The lions share of the relief is in respect of dwelling houses and the percentage of business and industrial premises, in respect of which the Deputy has been endeavouring to make great play, is a very small fraction of the total.
Mr. Colley: Can the Minister give us the respective figures? There are two percentage figures involved, one for dwelling houses and one for others. Could he give us the figures?
Mr. R. Ryan: I have not the figures here. If the Deputy cares or dares to ask the question I shall be very happy, indeed, to give him the answer.
Mr. Colley: I certainly will.
You will note, Sir, from that the brazenness with which these answers were given.
The next move was that I did put down a question to the Minister for Finance and it was ruled out of order. I subsequently put down a question to the Minister for Local Government and it was dealt with today but before we get to that point I should like to draw your attention, Sir, to the reply given by the Minister for Local Government to a question on the 10th of May, reported in Volume 265 No. 7 of the Official Report at column 967. This is the end of a reply given by the Minister to a question by Deputy Gene Fitzgerald. The last paragraph reads:
No precise figures are available as to the amount of rates paid in respect of private dwellings. Householders comprise the great majority of all ratepayers and it is understood that they account for over 50 per cent of the total amount of rates paid.
It so happens that the copy of the reply delivered to the Deputy in that regard showed that as originally typed the reply was:
Householders comprise the great majority of all ratepayers and it is understood that they account for about 50 per cent of the total amount of rates paid.
That was changed in handwriting to "over" 50 per cent. It may, I think, be considered significant in the light of what went before and what came subsequently. Incidentally, it is difficult to know what the Minister was trying to convey by "over 50 per cent". Did he mean 51 per cent or 99 per cent? It will emerge that what the Minister was trying to do was to justify to some extent what he had said on the 3rd of May and what had been said by the Minister for Finance.
Today the Minister replied to a question by me which was:
To ask the Minister for Local Government the basis on which it has been calculated that the rates paid by householders account for over 50 per cent of the total amount of rates paid.
The reply was:
The estimate is based on a sample survey and includes an element in respect of the residential portion of mixed hereditaments.
In response to a question by me as to when this sample survey was carried out the Minister stated among other things:
It is calculated on the basis that 49.56 per cent of the total rates is paid in respect of domestic hereditaments and approximately 4 per cent relates to the domestic element in mixed hereditaments.
That is to cases such as a house and a shop together. The interesting thing about that supplementary reply is that the Minister was clearly trying to indicate that although the figures showed that the correct answer to the question: "How much is attributable to dwelling houses and how much to other property?" is: "Approximately 50 per cent" the Minister could not say that so today he managed to drag in another 4 per cent from somewhere. The strange thing is that if one looks at the report of the proceedings on the 10th of May—Volume 265 No. 7 —one will find that in relation to the Local Government (Rates) Bill, 1973 Deputy Seán Moore asked a question. He said at column 901:
I just want to ask a question. Although naturally I welcome the Bill, would the Minister inform us if there is any possible way of restricting the health charge remission to residential houses only? As the Bill stands, huge industrial concerns will benefit as well as the ordinary ratepayer and I do not think this would be desirable. I hope the Minister can devise some means by which large industrial concerns will be excluded from this benefit.
There were a few more exchanges and then Deputy Moore said again:
Take the large industrial concerns. They will now benefit from the remission of the health charges.
The Minister for Local Government replied:
It could not be done. The rate is a common one which applies to an entire building and it would not be possible at this stage to do what the Deputy suggests.
You will see, Sir, that on that day it was not possible to divide the rates in, say, a shop and house combined for the purpose of the Local Government (Rates) Bill but when it came to trying to get the Minister out of a fix it was possible to divide them and produce a figure of 4 per cent.
The pattern that is emerging from this is that the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Finance gave wrong answers on the 3rd of May. They were given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to get off the hook but they did not take it. They persisted in their bluffing in this way. One can see that the correct answer to: "How much is due to dwelling houses and how much to other properties?" is "Approximately 50 per cent" but even if one takes the figure given today by the Minister for Local Government, having denied what he said earlier on the Local Government (Rates) Bill, you still get 53 point something per cent. Does that percentage, taking the best figure the Minister can produce, justify the Minister for Local Government saying that the bulk of the money was going to relieve dwelling houses? Does it justify the Minister for Finance saying that the lion's share of the money was going to relieve dwelling houses?
Is it not clear that both of these replies were totally misleading? You might well wonder, Sir, why all this deception. The first reason is that the lack of real social concern, which is a characteristic of many of the policies of this Coalition Government, is emphasised glaringly in their policy in relation to rates. They wanted to get off that hook, particularly when their scheme is compared with the Fianna Fáil scheme. But the second reason and the one that has become much more urgent now for the Minister is that since the budget it is clear to voters that all of the enormous extra taxation that is being imposed is being imposed partly to enable the taxpayer to have the privilege of reducing the rates paid on office blocks and other commercial property.
I know, as I am sure the Minister knows, that very many of the voters want to know why they are being asked to pay 3p extra on a packet of cigarettes, 3p extra on a glass of spirits, 1p extra on the pint, a 50 per cent increase in telephone coin box charges, 1p extra on the postage of a letter, substantial extra motor taxation and millions more than is necessary under the VAT impositions on essentials to replace VAT on food. The Minister for Health and Social Welfare, whom I am glad to see is in the House, is reducing the estimates of the health boards by more than £8 million. All of these things are going on in a context in which, so far as the voter is concerned——
