The effect of this section is to adapt all references to "financial year" or "local financial year", which are governed by the Interpretation Act, 1937, or by the earlier Interpretation Acts of 1923 and 1889. The adaptation has the effect that, in relation to periods occurring after 31st December, 1974, the terms will be construed as references to a period of 12 months commencing on 1st January in each year. The section also effectively repeals the existing definition in the Interpretation Acts except in so far as they concern periods occurring before 1st January, 1975.
Exchequer and Local Financial Years Bill, 1973: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I would like to ask the Minister if he could elaborate a little on the kind of statutes or statutory instruments to which section 22 of the Interpretation Act of 1889 applies. I do not want to be out of order by referring to section 3 but the Minister will appreciate that section 3 deals with those to which it does not apply. Could the Minister give us some example of the kind of statutes and statutory instruments to which the Interpretation Act will apply?
Perhaps the best way I could do it would be to explain what the various subsections mean. The first subsection defines the statutes and statutory instruments to which section 2 applies, that is to say statutes and statutory instruments— whether past or made before or after this Bill—containing references to "financial year" or "local financial year" being references which are defined as meaning a period of 12 months ending on 31st March by the relevant provisions of the various Interpretation Acts. These provisions are section 22 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, section 5 (1) of the Interpretation Act, 1923, which defines a financial year and paragraph 10 and paragraph 16 of the Schedule to the Interpretation Act, 1937, which define "financial year" and "local financial year" respectively. In statutes passed and instruments, made before the Act of 1889 in the case of "financial year", and before the Act of 1937, in respect of "the local financial year", the construction of the expressions depends on specific definitions in each case or on the surrounding circumstances.
Section 3 of the Bill applies to these pre-Interpretation Act references. Subsection (2) provides that references to "financial year" and "local financial year" occurring in statutes and statutory instruments, to which this section applies, are, as respects periods occurring after 31st December, 1974, to be taken as references to periods co-extensive with the calendar year. Thus, the first calendar financial year will commence on 1st January, 1975. As from that date Government Departments and local authorities will prepare their Estimates and, of course, they will render their accounts on a calendar year basis. A further consequence is that local rates will be struck and will also be collected on a calendar year basis.
Under subsection (3) of this section the Interpretation Act definitions will continue to apply as regards periods occurring before 1st January, 1975. Under section 4 the period 1st April, 1974, to 31st December, 1974 will constitute a separate transitional period. The effect of these provisions together means that the current financial year, 1973-74, is the last 12 month period under the present dispensation. It will be followed by a nine month transitional period ending on 31st December, 1974, and thereafter we will enter into another 12 month period, the calendar year of 1975 and each calendar year thereafter.
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I would now like to refer him back to a point which I raised on the Second Reading of this Bill which arises in subsection (2) and (3) of this section and, indeed, later in the Bill as well, but we might as well deal with it here. I refer to the wording which arises, for instance, in subsection (2) in lines 34 and 35 where there is the phrase "in relation to after the 31st day of December, 1974". I am sure the Minister will remember that I raised this point. It seems to me on the face of it—I am not saying it is not effective in achieving what the Minister is trying to achieve—to be a very clumsy form of wording. It seemed to me it would be more intelligible if it were to include such a phrase that would have it reading "in relation to any period commencing after the 31st day of December, 1974". I would like to have the Minister's comments on that.
I suppose the draughtsman has used one word instead of three. That is the first comment I can make. The second one is that I recall my boyhood days when at school an excellent teacher of English used to chastise us for using phrases like: "I am after me dinner" and used say that that sounded as if you were chasing your dinner down the street. He would not permit such a phrase to be used in an English essay. It is regarded as being precise legal terminology and much safer than using any more extensive phrases which, as Deputy Colley would know as a lawyer, can sometimes give rise to more doubts than a paucity of words. A paucity of words might be inelegant but sometimes more precise.
I accept that in normal circumstances the fewer words one uses the better and, indeed, seldom is complaint made in this House in regard to the drafting of any Bill that it is less wordy than it might be. Normally the complaint is the other way round. However, it seems to me that in this case we have at the very least a most inelegant phrase and I would be surprised if the Minister's aesthetic feelings have not been somewhat upset by this wording. It seems that to say about something "in relation to after the 31st day of December" is really unforgivable. However, it is not a matter of major moment and if the Minister's aesthetic soul can live with it I suppose mine can too.
Sometimes we have to make sacrifices for the sake of precision. It is probably safer to be precise than to be elegant.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
This section applies to references to "financial year" or "local financial year" occurring in statues or statutory instruments not governed by any of the Interpretation Acts definitions; for example, references to "financial year" occurring in legislation prior to the 1889 Act and references to "local financial year" occurring in legislation prior to the 1937 Act. The effect of this section is that such references are, as respects periods occurring after 31st December, 1974, to be taken as references to periods co-extensive with a calendar year. The adaptation only applies where the reference would otherwise be construed as a reference to a year ending on 31st March.
I am not sure if I understood the Minister correctly. I understood him to say that this section applies to statute or statutory instrument references to a financial year in instruments or statutes prior to the 1889 Act or references to a local financial year prior to the 1937 Act. Is that correct?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 1:
To add to the section a new subsection as follows:
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, where, by virtue of subsections (1) and (2) of this section, a statute or statutory instrument is construed and deemed to have effect in the way specified in subsection (1) of this section no court decree shall be obtained for non-payment of the second moiety of local or municipal rates and no distress shall be levied against any ratepayer in respect of the same prior to the 15th day of February, 1975.
I will confess at the outset that I am not entirely happy with this amendment because I can see certain difficulties arising and I have no doubt that the Minister will point out a number of these difficulties. Nevertheless, I felt obliged to put down the amendment because on the Second Stage discussion I urged the Minister and, indeed, Deputy Callanan did also, to take account of the actual position as distinct from the legal position arising. If I may, I should like to quote a small portion of what I said on the Second Stage which is reported in volume 270 of the Official Report, at column 197:
It is difficult certainly on a legal basis but I think it is possible for the Minister or his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, to take special steps to direct local authorities and rate collectors to exercise the discretion they are entitled to exercise in regard to insisting on payment of rates at a particular time. It would be appropriate in relation to this transitional period that any discretion that can be exercised in the case of ratepayers who are suffering genuine hardship as a result of the changeover, should be exercised on a much wider and, perhaps, more sympathetic scale than is normally possible for local authorities and rate collectors. There is a special problem here for ratepayers and there is no use in trying to blind ourselves to the fact that it does create special problems.
One could argue on the strict legality of the matter and imagine there is not a problem but there is, in practice, a problem and there will be for a number of ratepayers. That being so, it behoves the Minister or his colleague the Minister for Local Government in so far as they can do so, to ensure that ratepayers who suffer hardship as a result of this are not harried and hounded by local authorities or rate collectors in the special circumstances which will arise.
I had hoped that the Minister would review this problem in a realistic and sympathetic way because it is a real problem that can arise for certain ratepayers. Unfortunately, the Minister in his reply, as reported in the same volume at column 203 said:
That is the law. Many people pay them then or within a certain time afterwards. Indeed rate collectors use many devices to secure early payment because the sooner they receive payment the higher commission they earn. A large number of people pay their rates earlier than the end of March or December. I accept there is a difficulty as far as the farming community is concerned but the present practice in relation to the farming community is one that has arisen because of consideration in rural areas of the peak periods of income which farmers have. I do not see any reason for a change in that. It will be a matter for each local authority to adopt its own procedures for the collection of its own rates.
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy. Quotations, of course, are in order but very long quotations could hardly be deemed to be in order. Perhaps the Deputy might be a little more brief when quoting from the Official Report.
I have quoted one paragraph and I propose to quote another half paragraph to establish the point I am trying to make, if I may. I will not be very long on this. The Minister continued:
Of course, local authorities, if they do not obtain payment of the rate when it becomes due, are obliged then to resort to borrowing, and borrowing as we know today can be a most costly process.
The point I want to bring out in this is that there is a real problem and I think the Minister has acknowledged it in that quotation. It is no answer to the problem simply to stand on the law and to say that that is the law. We know that is the law and we said so on Second Stage. What we were seeking was for the Minister to undertake in this House, either on his own behalf or on behalf of the Minister for Local Government, that all the discretion which was available within the law could be exercised on a special basis in relation to the transitional period because of the special problems that are arising. However, from the quotation from the Minister's reply which I have given, it emerges that the Minister was not prepared to give that undertaking but rather was standing on what the law is and then leaving it to the local authorities to do whatever they thought fit. He did advance the argument, in order to justify this stand that he was taking, that if there were a substantial amount of rates withheld after what would be, with the transitional period, the statutory date for payment, this would mean additional borrowing by the local authority with additional cost to the local authority and, therefore, to the ratepayers.
I suggest to the Minister that if this should arise and if there is substantial borrowing necessary by the local authorities for the reasons I have mentioned, then there is a very strong case in these special circumstances for the Exchequer to discharge the cost of that borrowing for the local authorities. I say that because this transitional period, which is the one that is causing the problem, is not being brought about by the local authorities; it is being brought about by the Minister and by the Government in introducing this Bill. I am not saying they are wrong in introducing it, but I am saying that when serious problems can arise for ratepayers directly consequent on the action of the Government in promoting this Bill then there is an obligation on the Government, and on the Minister for Finance in particular, to do anything possible to ease the consequences of those changes and the hardships that arise on ratepayers.
I was prepared on the Second Stage to accept, because of the legal difficulties which are in this context enshrined in this amendment, if the Minister would give a firm undertaking in the House that the Government would give a special direction to local authorities in this matter, that this was probably the best approach to the problem, being flexible and not being tied exactly to the law as it stands. As the Minister knows, even within the law as it stands there are certain powers open to local authorities and rate collectors to give time in certain circumstances to ratepayers who are in difficulty.
However, the problem that arose for me and for us on this side of the House is that the Minister, although pressed to do so, did not give that undertaking and, consequently, I was left in the position that in order to do anything about it I was obliged to put down this amendment. I freely concede that there are difficulties in the way of this amendment but I think we would probably have to live with those difficulties rather than allow a situation to obtain in which no different approach would be adopted by local authorities and rate collectors in regard to the problems arising in the transitional period from the approach they would normally adopt in the collection of rates. There is the difference —I pointed it out on the previous reading—that it can easily happen that a number of ratepayers, particularly farmers, will have to pay three moieties of rates in a period of about ten months. In these circumstances, it is no use standing on the law. We have got to recognise that these problems exist. This amendment is an effort to try to meet these problems. I freely concede it is not the ideal way to meet them but, in the absence of a better suggestion from the Minister, this is at least some approach to it. It may be, when the Minister is dealing with this amendment, he will give us more assurance than he did last time. If he does, then I will reconsider the position in regard to this amendment. I hope the Minister will see that it is very important that a special approach be made to the particular problems arising in the transitional period.
I would encourage the Minister to give some consideration to the thinking behind this amendment because he has himself mentioned the question of the law. In the present situation we know that the second moiety is due on the 1st October but, in practice, there are very many cases in which rate collectors have found it good practice to allow the period to be extended. In fact, in quite a number of cases of which I have knowledge, it was extended as far as the 15th or 20th March but not later. Again, in practice, what occurs after that is that the collector, or the collecting authority, then moves because it is not desirable that it should go past the financial year's end.
The situation that can develop here —to which I think Deputy Colley has been referring—is that with the change in the financial year moving backwards to 31st December, the great majority of rate collectors and collecting authorities will follow the line the Minister has mentioned, that is, the question of law, and will insist on collection by 31st December.
Reference has been made to the 75 per cent but, with some fairly substantial increases in rent, what many ratepayers will be called upon to pay might be very little less than that for a full year. If there is not some provision, if the Minister cannot find some way of introducing flexibility for a period—perhaps for the first two years at the outside, to enable the situation to settle down and enable many concerns to adjust in their own financial situations to paying by 31st December—it could cause considerable difficulty. The situation is not one moving from 1st April to 1st June; it is moving backwards from 1st April to 31st December. I would urge the Minister to consider the introduction of some flexibility into this situation. It has been discussed by us in a genuine endeavour to reach some sort of workable compromise in the interests of quite a large number of ratepayers.
With respect to the Deputies who put down the amendment——
I wonder does the Minister wish to reply now? Deputy Callanan has been offering before——
We are on Committee Stage.
I mentioned that just in case the Minister did not know.
Deputy Callanan is quite entitled to speak as often as he wishes on this matter.
I thought it might be of assistance if I were to come in and say that the alarm that Deputies have sounded—and I am quite prepared to accept that it is sincere though I find it hard to accept it—is without any justification whatsoever. All the discretion of which they speak is available to rate collectors and to local authorities and I have no reason to suspect that in this year rate collectors are going to turn out to be heartless, ruthless, inconsiderate people who will not have regard to the capacity of people to pay at different times of the year.
I would regard this amendment as a vote of no confidence in local authorities, as a vote of no confidence in local representatives, as a vote of no confidence in the rate collectors. It is most unfair to suggest that there should be any change in the general demeanour and attitude of rate collectors towards ratepayers. If rate collectors have brought to their attention the problems of particular ratepayers they will allow them to pay by instalments, whatever way is best suited to the ratepayer, or to leave over payment until such time as the cash is at hand. We believe it would be doing a disservice to ratepayers if we were to try to devise some formula in this legislation which would appear to entitle postponement to a certain date or would appear to impose obligations upon rate collectors to adapt themselves to some new formula.
Deputy Colley has already recognised that rate collectors have ample discretion as to the manner and rate at which they collect rates. I think that this is the best way in which to leave it. We have not left anything to chance in that. Already the Minister for Local Government has directed the attention of local authorities to the problems which could arise; discussions have taken place throughout the length and breadth of the country with local authorities and their rate collecting departments, urging them to use the discretions which are available to them to ensure that there will be the least possible disturbance in the normal pattern of payment. I think this is the sensible way in which to do it and not try to tie ourselves into statutory knots which might become very difficult to unravel and which, in the course of tying, might well be an embarrassment to the ratepayers whom I assume Deputy Colley and Deputy Brugha are endeavouring to help.
I gave an assurance on the last Stage, and I give it again, that the Government are most anxious that the change would not involve any additional difficulty or hardship for anyone. We want this change to go through smoothly; we believe it can go through smoothly and that the best way to do it is to leave local authorities with all the discretion they have rather than commanding or directing them to do something. Indeed, as Deputy Colley knows, Ministers have not got power to direct or command local authorities in certain fields. If we believe in local government then we ought leave the people involved in local government to get about local government with the least possible direction, command or interference from the Dáil. It is because we have confidence in public representatives and in their capacity to influence their own local councils, to ensure that rate collectors are as considerate in this year as they have always been in the past, that we feel there is no justification for alarm. We accept that Deputies are justified in expressing their worries in this regard but we would trust that they would have as much faith as we have in the people who are involved in local administration.
I am afraid the Minister misunderstood the amendment. The Minister stated that we are interfering with local authorities. The local authorities have to close their accounts this year on December 31st unless one does something which will allow them some kind of a bridging loan until February. The Minister spoke of rate collectors. Rate collectors have discretionary power within the limit for collecting rates, but they have no discretion whatsoever to allow a man go beyond the end of the financial year. They can use what discretion they like during the financial year. At present it is stated also that rates are due when they are struck, or on demand, but they are usually not demanded until June or July because the demand notes have not been issued. They have been paid traditionally for years; the good ratepayer paid his rates in September and again in March. That has been going on for years. Some people with very small rates might pay the whole lot in November or December. An odd substantial ratepayer—who had a bit of spare money—might oblige the rate collector by giving him the second moiety at Christmas. But the normal times for collecting rates from the farmer were September and March, September because it was then he sold the grass fed stock and March because it was then he sold the stock he had in feeding for the winter. Those were the two traditional times for paying rates.
What we are trying to say is that this year, of all years—a disastrous year for farming—the farmer will have to pay the second moiety of his 1973-74 rate in March. He will get a demand note for 75 per cent according to the Minister. We have not the final figures for Galway yet, but they will be up substantially even for three-quarters of the year. He will have to pay a moiety some time in the summer. Unless something is done he will have to close his account before the 31st December. That means that he will have to pay three moieties in the one year. No matter how nice the rate collector is, he must close his account at the end of the financial year. Therefore, he has no authority to give the farmer, or any ratepayer, a longer period than 31st December, 1974.
The Minister is a Dublin-based man and is not in touch with the country. The other day he said that everybody had more money in his pocket this year than ever before. If he went down the country he would realise that circumstances for the farmer this year are worse than in any year since the economic war. Therefore, it is unfortunate that he decided on this year as the year in which to collect the rates in three moieties.
In our amendment we want to find out if something can be done. To say that we are trying to take power from the local authorities is to misrepresent us. Rate collectors have authority to give time within the financial year. When the financial year has passed— usually 31st March, or this year, 31st December—if a ratepayer has not paid his rates he is put on the arrears list. Rate collectors are not paid commission on any moneys collected after that date. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances this year, can the Minister do anything about this?
The Minister, on the Second Stage in the portion of the speech which I quoted earlier, referred to the fact that rate collectors earned commission on rates paid early. That is not quite precise but I know what he has in mind. We are asking rate collectors to exercise discretion in the special circumstances of the transitional year, reinforced by the situation described by Deputy Callanan. Are we asking them to forego some of their remuneration in order to assist ratepayers? If so, we are being unrealistic. I understood the Minister to say that discussions had taken place with local authorities throughout the country and that they had been urged to exercise as much discretion as possible in this special transitional period. The Minister is drawing a very fine distinction between what appears to have been done on the instructions of some members of his Government.
He seemed to think that what we were asking was that local authorities be commanded to do certain things whereas what he described as having been done presumably would not fall into the category of commanding them. Whatever category he wants to put it into on the basis of what he disclosed as having happened, he has gone very close to what we have asked him to do. While discussions would be useful it would be even more useful if a letter were to issue to local authorities, presumably from the Minister for Local Government, or maybe the Minister for Finance, specifying that what the Minister said was dealt with in discussions, in other words, urging the local authorities to exercise all the discretion at their command in the special circumstances of the transitional period.
As I said earlier, it is unrealistic to expect rate collectors to forego part of their remuneration if that is to be a consequence of the special exercise of discretion in this transitional period and, on the face of it, that would appear to be so. From what the Minister says about the discussions it seems to me that he is getting very close to what we are urging him to do. Could the Minister elaborate further and assure us that, in addition to the discussions, a letter would issue to this effect? Then there would be no arguments afterwards in certain local authorities as to what they were urged to do. This would go a long way to meet the point we are trying to make.
Rate collectors may leave rates uncollected in a particular financial year as long as they are in a position to show that the rates are temporarily uncollectable, or that they are irrecoverable. There are many circumstances of different kinds in each year which make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to collect within the year. Rates are often collected in arrear, as I am sure Deputy Colley being a practising solicitor knows.
Do they not lose money on it?
They lose money if they have allowed the rates, through their own default, to remain uncollected. If these circumstances are outside the control of the rate collector, he will collect his poundage when eventually the money is collected. It is an incentive to the rate collector not to let an undeserving person escape the net.
The Minister knows that that is adjudicated on at the end of the financial year and the collector will not know whether it is allowable.
I repeat the assurance I have already given. Local authorities and people involved in rate collecting have been informed that they should exercise their discretion. I will convey Deputy Colley's suggestion to the Minister for Local Government—if a written document has not already issued—that this instruction should be confirmed in writing.
Is the Minister aware that bonuses are paid during the year? If the rate collector has not certain percentages in by a certain date he will not get his bonus.
Is Deputy Callanan suggesting that the poundage should be abolished? There will be no difference this year so far as incentives are concerned.
Is the rate collector expected to forego his bonus?
As I said, we have had discussions with local authorities and negotiations have taken place with the rate collectors regarding any variations which might be appropriate this year in relation to their bonuses. We do not want anybody to lose. We want the transition period to go through as smoothly as possible and with the least difficulty for everybody. I think it is possible to do this and I will ensure that the general intention of this amendment is carried out. What I ask is that it be not pressed.
Local authorities rarely resort to court proceedings and still less often to execution procedures in order to recover rates. That shows how humane and considerate the rate collecting departments of local authorities are. There can be cases where specific circumstances would come to light which would justify the local authorities in issuing proceedings in order to ensure payment of the rates. For instance, in cases where a local authority become aware that a person is about to sell his house, or that a person is in financial difficulties with a lot of creditors forming a queue and ready to pounce it would be prudent and proper for that local authority to protect the general body of ratepayers by seeking court remedies in order to ensure that judgement should be registered for rates long overdue just as in respect of any other debt. The number of times that would happen in any year in relation to all of the country could probably be counted on one or two hands.
In my view it would be wrong to provide in the statute a restriction which would prevent a local authority from moving in in a case where clearly it was in the public interest to take court action. Those are the rare cases and we should not allow the rare cases to make bad law. We would be making bad law if this amendment were accepted. The amendment is unnecessary because we have already taken the steps to ensure that the objective is achieved.
I should like the Minister to inform the House when the discussions he spoke of took place and who was involved in them. When Wexford County Council, of which I am a member, met on three or four occasions to deal with estimates we were informed by the officials that they had not a clue as to how they would be treated during the coming year in regard to the agricultural grant, the health grant and other State grants. A 25 per cent reduction in the health charge was promised each year.
The members of that council questioned the officials about that matter but did not obtain any information. In my view the discussions must have been very poor ones. When were these discussions held? Who was involved in them and what county officials attended them? If instructions were given by the Department of Local Government council officials should be better informed as to what will happen in the coming year. All we know is that there will be three collections of rates in the coming year, at the end of March, six months later, and a final collection at the end of December.
If county councils are out a lot of money at the end of December by reason of the change in the financial year their overdrafts will be in a very shaky position. Has the Minister any intention of relieving that position? Local authorities will find themselves in serious difficulties because there is no possibility of collecting a big percentage of the rates at the end of this present year. It is essential that during the next two or three weeks we should be made aware of the amount of the State grants so that we can prepare our estimate. We are not in a position to prepare them from the information available to us.
Were a rate collector to allow his collection to run past the financial year it could affect his own tax liability for the following year, depending, of course, on what his income is.
It could also affect his salary.
This could happen in cases where rate collectors are earning a commission on the amount of rates collected.
Is the Deputy concerned with the collectors' income tax liability in the following year?
No, I am concerned with the motivation when the rate collector is going out to collect his rates. If he does not allow it to go past the financial year he may be in a different assessment situation and, realising that, he may endeavour to collect all rates before 31st March.
The liability on the ratepayer will be the same.
It cannot be.
It will make no difference. The fact that a ratepayer does not pay the rates in any particular year does not give him any reduction in his rates the following year. Is it a question of the tax liability of the rate collector that the Deputy is concerned with?
I am concerned with how it will affect the rate collector and not the ratepayer.
I understood the Deputy to contradict my interpretation which now appears to be correct. I should like to point out to the Deputy that the income tax year will not be changed and, accordingly, the Deputy's worry should not activate any rate collector at all because, in practice, the income tax year will not expire until 5th April, 1975. Even if we were not changing this year from the old financial year to the new calendar year the situation would be precisely the same as far as the income tax liability of the rate collector is concerned.
In reply to Deputy Browne, I should like to state that the meeting the people from the Wexford County Council attended was held in Waterford. In common with people from other local authorities there, the representatives of Wexford County Council were advised as to the steps to be taken to ensure the smoothest possible transfer. This Bill is necessary before final decisions can be taken and when these meetings took place, between October and January last, it was only possible to give general guidelines as to how to make the necessary arrangements in the preparation of this year's estimates, the general conduct of the financial year and the collection of rates.
When this Bill is passed it will be possible to give more precise information regarding these matters, payments, refunds, and collections, just as the Deputy has in mind. It is a difficult period. We are not saying it is not a difficult problem but if we keep postponing making the right decision because of difficulties we are going to have during periods of transition we will never do anything. If one is to be afraid of change one will not achieve very much in this world. We believe these changes are necessary. We are going to make the change as smooth as possible and ensure that nobody is any worse off. If possible we would like to see everybody a little better off.
Nobody is afraid of change. Change is necessary and essential but we know exactly what we have to pay to the various Departments in loan charges and so on. At this stage we have not a clue as to how Departments will deal with us. It is a simple matter of coming to decisions as far as the various Departments are concerned, particularly the Departments of Health and Local Government.
We have been asked to strike a rate on assumptions. Two meetings have already been held in Galway and the final meeting will be held on Monday next to declare our rate but we are going on assumptions. The various local authorities are being asked to prepare their estimates on assumptions. Apparently it was in order for the Department to assume this Bill would go through and we have to assume the same at county council level. Therefore, why have the Department not given some indication to the local authorities of what they can expect to receive by way of grants?
Again, I should like to emphasise the position of the rate collectors. These people have salaries with bonuses. The bonus is given in an effort to get the rate collectors to collect their rates efficiently and speedily. Any rate collector in my county could lose between £300 and £400 if he lost any of these percentages. In the old days rate collectors were paid a bonus for having collected a certain amount on 30th September, so much by 31st October, for having collected 65 per cent at the end of December and for having collected 95 per cent at the 31st March. Rate collectors cannot be blamed for trying to achieve these targets and there is no use us asking anybody to lose money.
I should like to add my voice to what has been said already. However, unlike rural Deputies, who have based their case on the situation in respect of farmers, which is not very favourable, I would be concerned with the question of city dwellers, who are accustomed to dealing with their rates problem at certain times of the year. Without studying the situation, a city dweller nowadays assumes from reading his paper that there will be a reduction in rates; but he will now find that at Christmas time, in addition to all the expenses associated with that season and notwithstanding the unfavourable economic conditions prevailing, he will be faced with his rates bill. While we here may say we are familiar with the situation, the rank and file are outside, and no doubt in Dublin city there will be thousands of people who in December will not be able to meet this new demand to be made on them at that time.
I anticipate from the Minister his acceptance of the inevitability of there being problems at that stage. I am not too happy with his reminding us of the powers vested in the rate collector in the matter of extending the time for payment. I detected from that that while the citizen may be satisfied with the extensions which rate collectors have been applying to date, we all know that those extensions have been very limited. Perhaps it would be better to indicate precisely that there will be the time extension that has been requested in respect of this year. That would help to avoid the consternation which otherwise will prevail next Christmas—not consternation in the sense that rates will not be paid but in the sense that there will be no Santa Claus visiting homes and that the customary purchases of that season will have to be foregone. We should indicate now that, in respect of this year at least, the final moiety will be collected at some point removed from the Christmas season.
I imagine that by now the Minister knows there are potentially serious problems involved in this matter. In moving this amendment I said I was aware that this was not the most satisfactory way of dealing with the question. I am aware of problems which could arise as a result of the amendment being incorporated in the Bill but I explained that I had tabled the amendment because I was not satisfied on Second Reading that the Minister had met the points we had made in a way that would give some reassurance to the effect that a sympathetic and understanding approach would be adopted towards ratepayers who, through no fault of their own but as a direct consequence of this Bill, might find themselves in difficulties.
In the course of the discussion on this amendment the Minister has gone a good deal further than he went on Second Stage and has told us about discussions that have taken place with local authorities. I am not sure whether those discussions were conducted by his Department or by the Department of Local Government but from something he said it appeared that what was involved was the discussion of the kinds of administrative problems that would arise. It was not quite so clear that any great emphasis would have been placed in those discussions on the point we are making here, which is that there should be an understanding approach to the problems which are arising directly as a consequence of this transitional period. The Minister has undertaken, if I have understood him correctly, to convey to the Minister for Local Government our very strong suggestion that there ought to be communication in writing to each local authority urging them to use the maximum discretion possible in dealing with the special problems arising in the transitional period. In the light of that undertaking by the Minister I am prepared not to press the amendment, an amendment which, I realise, could create problems of its own.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2.
To add to the section a new subsection as follows:
"(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment the local or municipal rates payable in respect of any property for the period from the 1st day of April, 1974 to the 31st day of December, 1974 shall not exceed 75 per cent of the local or municipal rates payable in respect of the same property for the period from the 1st day of April, 1973 to the 31st day of March, 1974 provided that the rateable valuation of such property shall not have been altered for the duration of the period from the 1st day of April, 1974 to the 31st day of December, 1974."
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the rates charged during the nine-month transitional period from the 1st April to the 31st December next will not exceed 75 per cent of the rates charged in the present financial year on any rateable hereditament in respect of which there has not been a change in valuation. In substance, that is what the amendment is all about.
One of the reasons why this amendment is down is that on Second Reading we sought from the Minister clarification in regard to what the Government proposed to do on the question of the relief of health charges and loan charges for local authorities during this transitional period. I think I am right in saying that in regard to health charges the Minister said there would be an announcement on this before the end of this month. I do not think he said anything specific in regard to the other charges.
Which charges?
The Minister said there would be an announcement on health charges but we have heard nothing specific in regard to loan charges. There is some evidence to suggest that loan charges on local authorities might, during the nine-month period, be in respect of a 12-month period of repayment. That is something of which we would disapprove. I understood the Minister to say that it was not his intention that it should work out that way and I would assume that if this amendment were accepted it would not be possible to do it that way. Our main concern is to ensure that when the rates for the transitional period are being charged they would not exceed 75 per cent of the rates chargeable for the previous 12-month period since they are only for a nine-month period.
Having regard to what the Government have said they would do in regard to a reduction in health charges and in certain charges in connection with housing on the rates for local authorities, it seems to me that if the Government do what they have said this will provide the necessary elbow room for local authorities to enable them to meet the necessarily increased charges they will be facing in other areas.
On the last occasion I referred to the temptation that must exist for some local authorities when striking a rate for a nine-month period to take the opportunity to impose certain higher charges than they would otherwise do if there were a clear comparison between what they are doing now and what they did last year. On consideration of this matter it seemed to me that in order to ensure this would not happen and that ratepayers would not find themselves paying what would amount to a 12-month charge for a nine-month period, the best way to ensure that was to provide in the legislation, as is suggested in this amendment, that the charge for nine months should not exceed 75 per cent of the charge for the previous 12 months.
That allows room for inflation in other charges, taking account of what the Government have said they will do with regard to relieving rates of health and certain housing charges. That being so, I hope the Government will see no objection to this amendment. I hope they will accept it, so that ratepayers throughout the country can rest assured they will not be misled or charged a great deal more during the nine-months transitional period than they would be entitled to expect, having regard to the fact that it is only a nine-months period and not a full year.
There are two reasons why we find the amendment is not acceptable. I am sure the first is not one that Deputy Colley intended, but the amendment would have the effect of absolutely prohibiting any local authority from making their own determination regarding the type of services they wanted to provide for their own people. For instance, if they wanted to improve parks or facilities for youth clubs, it would prevent them from striking a rate to meet those services because the effect of this amendment would be to freeze all local authorities and take from them one of the few powers they have, namely, the power to decide what rate they want to strike to meet the services required by their local communities.
The second reason is that the amendment is not necessary to achieve what the Government have in mind, and which we have reiterated on a number of occasions. In a nine-month period local authorities should have to meet only three-quarters of a 12-month bill. The local authorities will be striking a rate to cover services for nine months, no more and no less. We have said this very clearly to local authorities.
We said we would be announcing this month the position in relation to the transfer of the cost of health services and local authority housing from local funds to the central Exchequer. The Minister for Local Government has already notified local authorities that instead of having to bear 50 per cent of the 1972-73 charges which they would have had to bear if operating on a 12-month basis, for the nine months they should consider themselves liable for 37½ per cent instead of 50 per cent, namely, three-quarters of what they would otherwise have had to pay. In fact, they would have a lesser sum to pay in the nine-month period than if they were in the 12-month period.
Can the Minister state what this is in respect of?
It is in respect of health and housing, taking the 1972-73 liability which lay on local authorities to meet those items. Last year by virtue of the State taking on 25 per cent, the local authorities had to pay 75 per cent in the 12-month period. In the next period which will be nine months, instead of paying 50 per cent of the 1972-73 sum they will levy for 37½ per cent which will be the appropriate sum for nine months.
When was this communicated?
Yesterday.
Why did the Minister consult his watch?
Because my watch is dated the 19th. I knew it went out on the 18th and I thought this was the best way to give the information to the House.
It is an interesting way to run the Government.
Perhaps the Deputy is not aware that now there are calendar watches. However, if he keeps an eye on us he will learn how to go modern and be with and ahead of the times. With regard to loan charges, those charges which would have to be met by the local authorities are being considerably reduced because the central Exchequer is absorbing the immense liability which formerly lay on local authorities. I refer in particular to housing charges. Therefore, this burden is not as serious as it was a year ago or as it might have been if the Government had not been changed.
So far as local authorities are concerned, in respect of housing loans they get contributions from those who are making repayments to them by regular instalments so that they do not have to run up a considerable debit. If there is a debit at the end of the year, there is no reason why local authorities should not carry it into 1975. There is no necessity for all of it to be collected before 31st December, 1974. Accordingly, we cannot see there is a need to accept Deputy Colley's amendment. I am sure the Deputy will accept from me that it would be an impertinence for the Dáil to tell local authorities that they might not strike a rate next year which they did not strike the previous year. That would be tying the hands of local councillors and would prevent them from exercising one of the few freedoms or rights they have, namely, the right to strike a rate.
Unless the Minister can explain more precisely what he meant by his first reason I cannot accept his argument. On the face of it, it does not seem to me that this amendment ties the hands of a local authority to any extent more than confining them to 75 per cent of the rate struck for the previous 12 months—that is, for the current year. So far as they are confined to that, this means that with the Government reducing the liability of rates for health and housing charges, to that extent the local authorities have that much room to manoeuvre. The only limitation proposed in this amendment is that the overall total should not exceed 75 per cent of the previous 12 months rates.
Therefore, there is no restriction in any way on a local authority improving their services with regard to parks or anything else except the limitation that the overall total would not exceed 75 per cent of the amount charged for the previous 12 months. I believe this is no infringement on local authorities. I think it is very much in the interests of the ratepayers throughout the country that they would be assured that this House has provided, in relation to the transitional period, that whatever rate bill they get will not exceed 75 per cent of the amount charged for the previous 12 months. According to the Minister the Government are reducing the charges on the rates and this leaves the local authority considerable room to manoeuvre. It also ensures that ratepayers will not be compelled to pay more for the nine months' period than would reasonably be thought to be necessary for that nine months' period.
In so far as any major improvement in services is contemplated by the local authorities, there is a lot to be said for ensuring that such a major improvement is not embarked upon during the transitional period. Ordinary improvements to services, yes, but the transitional period is not the time to do it because it can mislead the ratepayers if a major expansion of local authority services is embarked on during the transitional period. If only nine months of the cost are involved, it will not be clear to ratepayers the full extent of the liability which will fall on them thereafter. Most ratepayers would be grateful to the House if it were to enact this amendment and would regard it as a reasonable protection of their interests in the special circumstances of the transitional period.
What Deputy Colley has said should be borne in mind by the Minister. There may well be a temptation to go on a spending spree because a lower rate will have been announced. One of the biggest items which has come before Dublin Corporation so far in the estimates we have been looking at is the increase in wages and salaries. The prices of fuel, oil and electricity have increased vastly and it has been estimated that there will be considerably greater increases by the end of the year. This will tend to eat up quite a proportion of the supposed 25 per cent saving. The Minister should give some undertaking that he will protect the ratepayers from the excessive rate burdens they will have to face this year and next year. It will amount to an enormous sum which they will not be able to pay, in my view. I should like the Minister to bear that in mind.
Deputy Briscoe has put his finger on the problem. There are massive increases in charges which have to be borne by local authorities the same as every other person in this State by reason of world commodity prices and so forth. There are increases in wages in the pipeline and local authorities will have to meet them. To accept the amendment would be, in fact, to say that we ought to impose a wage freeze order on the local authorities, that we should say to local authorities: "You shall not buy oil. You shall not consume electricity beyond the cost of what you consumed last year." That is not on.
It is not responsible to say to any Government: "You will have to pay everybody else's bill." This Government, no more than any other democratic Government in the world, have not got a pipeline into some wonderful Central Bank of the World with unlimited money that can be pumped into it and come out at the far end like oil. It is just not on. Any Government's revenue is only as good as the revenue they collect from their citizens. There seems to be little point in suggesting in an amendment like this that we ought to put a freeze on local authorities to stop them spending any more money than they need for a continuation of the existing services or the improvement of the services.
If the local representatives decide that the local services should be improved it is not for us in Dáil Éireann to say: "No, you will not improve them." If there is anybody in this House who believes that we should kill local government, that we should abolish every local authority, I would ask that person to stand up and declare his or her attitude here before the public. In essence that is what this amendment is suggesting. Local authorities would be deprived of the one discretion they have, the one power they have, that is, to strike the rate.
We hope that, as happened last year by reason of the central Exchequer taking over a large section of the rates liability, the rates in a number of local authority areas, if not all, will go down. It is up to the local representatives to do their duty and, if local representatives decide to be slick this year and try to jump in with a few pet schemes of their own and charge them on the rates in the hope that the ratepayers will not see what they are up to, I feel certain that the media in the public interest will identify what the local representatives are up to and, when the local elections are held, if the people do not approve of what is being done they will turn their rightful indignation against those people who acted in a way which they regarded as being contrary to their wishes. The question is: do we believe in local government or do we not? If we believe in local government we must leave the discretion to the local authorities. If we want to take it away from them, let us do it openly and boldly. Fianna Fáil did it when they abolished Dublin Corporation.
You did it in 1924.
They did not get any credit for that. It has been restored. We believe in local government. If the day comes when people believe that local government should be abolished, they ought to say so. They should not try to slip in amendments to a Bill of this kind which would tie the hands of every local government representative and prevent him from providing the kind of services and amenities which the people who elected him expect him to provide.
I resent very much the Minister's attempt deliberately to misrepresent what is being said and what is in this amendment. The amount of money being spent on improvements is minimal in relation to the other increases with which the local authorities are being faced. The number of improvements is way below what everyone would desire. Every councillor of every party is conscious of the fact that this costs money. I do not think it is fair for the Minister to suggest that, because members of this party propose that the central Exchequer should take over the payment of, say, rates on private dwellings, this is, in fact, saying that local authorities should be abolished.
He referred to Fianna Fáil abolishing Dublin Corporation but he did not pay any attention to the fact that his own party did that in 1924 when they suspended Dublin Corporation for six years for a similar offence, as it were, of not striking an adequate rate. Our party believe in local authorities. We believe in the powers of local authorities. Any improvements suggested this year are minimal in cost as well as everything else. The major proportion of any increase in cost is due to the inflationary situation in which we find ourselves.
The Minister did not find it possible to accept the other amendment but he should accept that because of this extraordinary change which is occurring for the ratepayer, the ratepayer is entitled to some consideration. The Minister may endeavour to bring what I regard as irrelevant considerations into this. He can attempt to accuse Members on this side of the House of not having due regard for the local authorities. I would say out straight to him that my regard for the individual person, my regard for the ratepayer, is superior to that which I hold for any local authority. If the Minister wants to put any twist on that he is entitled to do so. It should be the responsibility of every Member of the House to show his concern for that person.
It is not very long since the Minister was in the forefront of those who would claim that the ratepayer could no longer bear the burdens that fell upon him in the matter of this special taxation. This year we have a complete innovation in the payment of rates. The Minister has refused the request in the previous amendment to allow one month's grace and now he is not prepared in respect of one nine-month period to guarantee the ratepayers, who are already finding it difficult to make ends meet, that wherever the balance of the money required to pay for these services will be raised the ratepayers will not be required to pay any more than was appropriate in respect of the year that has passed.
It is not too much to ask that the Minister should examine areas open to him to make it possible to give the ratepayers this guarantee. I can speak on behalf of the same type of constituent that the Minister has the honour to represent and we know that in Dublin at present there is emerging a new poor class, the rate-paying public. Apart from cost of living increases and increases which we understand are yet to come, the least we might do is to assure the ratepayer that when the end of the year arrives he will not have been asked to pay any more in rates than was required in the preceding year. In view of the fact that the Minister refused to accept the previous amendment, if he has any genuine interest in the ratepayer, he should accept this one. Let him forget about this anonymous, bureaucratic local authority. All the institutions in the country exist in the interests of the individual citizens and the sooner we realise that we must give some control to the individual over these terrible institutions which exercise so much control over the citizens, the better. I am not hesitant in suggesting that whatever case can be made for local authorities not being able to supply or provide community halls or playing pitches, however desirable these may be, my concern in respect of this crisis year is that the ratepayers of Dublin will not be put into the position of having to sell their houses to pay their rates.
This has been a very enlightening debate for me especially. Like previous speakers, I think this is a very acceptable amendment and that it should be written into the legislation. I do not accept the word of some Ministers. In relation to another matter recently, the question of the claw-back of children's allowances, the Taoiseach said one thing and the cabin boy and mutinous crew said another thing. A directive was issued by the Department of Finance on that occasion that the allowance be clawed back in full on a particular day but the Taoiseach on another occasion indicated that this was not so, that there was flexibility. One cannot rely on the word of some Members of the present Government in the House. For that reason it is necessary to have this provision embodied in legislation.
I would tell the Minister for Finance that any suggestion of a wage freeze for local authority personnel will be resisted here and throughout the country. If that is a kite the Minister is flying, indicating a wage freeze on local authority workers, it will not be tolerated. Apparently, this is something the Minister has in mind.
The Deputy is moving completely away from the amendment.
The Minister was permitted to refer to the wage freeze.
On your amendment.
I want to tell the Minister that this will be resisted if the Minister attempts it. We will not permit——
It is the Deputy's amendment.
We will not permit the Minister to impose a wage freeze on Dublin Corporation workers or on any other local authority workers.
Is the Deputy withdrawing his amendment?
Another fact that came to light was the Minister's suggestion that if a local authority representative suggested an improvement, the media should take up the matter and spotlight it to ensure that this irresponsible action of an irresponsible person was seen for what it was. It is desirable and necessary that local authority services throughout the country be improved and our members will continue to press for improvements. We are not concerned whether the media, the Minister, or anybody else points to this as irresponsibility. We feel we have responsibility to the people we represent to ensure improvements in the services. I am rather amazed that the Minister for Finance indicated that to suggest improvements was irresponsible and that the media should continue to expose people who make such suggestions. This anti-improvement mentality is something new because when the Minister was a member of Dublin Corporation he made suggestions for improvements— and rightly so—and some were carried out; some were not; but when he is in Government, to suggest this is irresponsible is something that makes me think. It is now clear that the Government will not allow any improvements in local authorities in the coming year. That is an irresponsible attitude and our members will press where necessary to ensure that improvements will take place.
It was very enlightening to hear the Minister suggest that Dublin Corporation was abolished some time ago. It was abolished and the Minister was one of those responsible for its abolition because of his suggestion that Dublin Corporation should not meet in full its responsibility in regard to the rates. Rates must be paid to provide for the services that are necessary. The Minister at one stage suggested that the corporation should not strike a rate. I wonder what would be his reaction now if Members of the House and of the local authority suggested Dublin Corporation should not strike a rate to meet their responsibility for various services. The Minister went on to state that the local authorities should have regard to the wishes of the community in relation to local responsibility—and rightly so.
We always have had that point of view. To suggest that we were responsible for the abolition of Dublin Corporation is complete nonsense and the Minister knows it. It was he, his party and his colleagues in the Labour Party who were responsible for their abolition. In relation to a statement made by the Minister yesterday——
Would the Deputy keep to the amendment?
In relation to yesterday's statement by the Minister to the effect that if there are arrears of £1½ million in Dublin this year the Minister for Local Government will allow a period of two years for repayments to be made, have the Government assured the local authority that this deficiency in their revenue will be fully met by the Government and that their finances will not be depleted by the loss of this money for a period of two years?
The Deputy must deal with the amendment.
The Minister made a number of remarkable statements. In future Members of this House must ensure that amendments of this nature will be written into the original legislation in order to protect the people from the type of double talk which we have been having in recent times. We hear one Minister talking about collective responsibility and yet we hear other Ministers making their own statements in their own way at their own time. The Minister for Finance made a reference at one time to the thousands who were victimised——
Will the Deputy come to the amendment?
It is undesirable that we should have this type of double talk. Things like this should be written into legislation so that people will know where they are and not have the Taoiseach giving one explanation and the Department of Finance giving another to the thousands of people who are victimised as ratepayers in the same way as thousands of workers were victimised by the children's allowances clawback.
The Deputy must come to the amendment.
We had the skipper making one charge and the cabin boy and his mutinous crew making another.
I do not think it is fair for the Minister to say that because the amendment was put down by Fianna Fáil it would take away from the authority of the local authorities. Anything more than £1 in the £ rates which ratepayers would have to pay next year should be met by the Exchequer. Anything over and above 75 per cent of last year's rates should be made good by the Exchequer. I do not wish to delay the House but I would remind Deputies again that the last year has been disastrous for the farmers and I cannot afford to pay three moieties of rates in one year. That is why we insist that the Exchequer meet 75 per cent of extra rates, and that is why we put down this amendment. In an emergency year such as this the Exchequer should come in to help.
It seems Fianna Fáil are talking with Ard-Fheis hyperbole. It is interesting to hear what they are saying now and to anticipate what they will say after 6 o'clock during Private Members time. They are now trying to add considerable, according to their own assessments, to the money they would spend on local authorities —they want to add considerably to the Exchequer expenditure next year. At the same time, they are looking for reductions in income tax. They cannot have it both ways and I would suggest that they retire and make up their minds on what precisely they want to do. They should not be coming in here pretending that they can add vastly to the central expenditure and at the same time give massive tax reduction. I was interested in what Deputy Callanan had to say. He put his finger on what Deputy Dowling was suggesting. Deputy Dowling never disappoints. One always expects a certain standard from him. He never departs from it—he always lives up to it. I suppose he is Fianna Fáil's successor to Martin Corry. One can always get a laugh but one would expect a little more responsibility from a Deputy. What led to the abolition of Dublin Corporation was a breach of a promise, to which Deputy Callanan referred. It was a promise to protect local authorities against any increases in health charge, and it was because of a failure to live up to that promise——
The Minister is a fine man to talk about promises. He is a disgrace.
Dublin Corporation members refused to add to the rates——
Resign, get out.
——that portion which the then Minister for Health of the then Fianna Fáil Government had undertaken to pay. They failed to pay it and so it was felt by the members of Dublin Corporation, who were truly representing the people and who were asking the Government to live up to their promise, that that bill should be taken up by the Government and not by the local people. Since then we have taken up the bill——
The Minister has broken every promise he ever made.
The ratepayers last year had to pay only 75 per cent of the previous year's bill on health and housing charges and in the nine months from April to December, 1974, they are being asked to pay only 37½ per cent of the bill which would still be at 100 per cent if Fianna Fáil had their way.
On the Fianna Fáil suggestion thrown up here today about the abolition of rates, it is time people knew that the suggestion was coupled with a Fianna Fáil plan to impose a new property tax at Government level which would have been far above any relief given to the owners and occupiers of private residences. One can say a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but when it is covered with the thorns of a new central taxation, a property tax which Fianna Fáil would have imposed, it is quite clear that the ratepayers would have been saddled with a new punitive and inescapable tax. We are presenting the ratepayers here today with a scheme which is operated with some sense of responsibility.
The Labour Party Ministers had their lunch in the restaurant today——
Will Deputy Andrews cease interrupting?
The effect of the Fianna Fáil amendment would be to impose a wage freeze on all local authority employees. It would also lead to dismissals because of the increased costs local authorities would have to meet—this pattern has been going on ever since local authorities came into being in this country—and it would also mean a running down of services. What we in Government have said is that the rates for next year for the nine months period should be the appropriate rates for three-quarters of 12 months. That is the fairest way of doing it and that is the correct way of doing it, not trying to relate the expenses of local authorities in the next nine months to expenses which were applicable in the financial year 1973-74. The truth is that there is little reality in the Fianna Fáil amendment, and I would ask the Members opposite to withdraw it now. They have made their point. I think they are quite right to underline the necessity for every local authority not to collect any more than nine months' rates in a nine months' period.
In so far as it is within our power in Government we shall ensure that this is done. If we see any local authorities abusing the nine-months' period by trying to jack up the rates to meet some scheme or some new expenditure which has not been properly identified to the public, we shall see that the public are made aware of what any particular local authority or local representative is doing. Deputy Dowling seemed to think that was a threat. I do not think it is. I believe in full and frank democracy, and it is because I believe in real democracy that I believe in democracy at local level, where the local representative who wants a better service has to justify it to his own people, because it will be quickly pointed out to any local authority what will be the cost of any local service. It is when you try to tuck things away in the Central Exchequer that it becomes more and more difficult for the ratepayer and the taxpayer to find out who is imposing the charge. We believe in local democracy. This Bill proposes to keep everything as simple as it is at the moment, and all we have had in the course of this debate is an attempt by the Members opposite to multiply the complexities of the problem.
(Interruptions).
Would Deputy Andrews cease interrupting.
I should like to ask the Minister what has caused him to change his mind since he was on Dublin Corporation and was then calling on the Exchequer to pay these excessive amounts instead of having it put on the ratepayers. He talked about the poor, overburdened taxpayer. Everybody agrees the taxpayer is overburdened, but at least he is taxed on his ability to pay, whereas the ratepayer is not taxed on his ability to pay. What we are asking is that if there is an excess of expenditure the Exchequer should meet it, and the Minister should come straight out and say that the Exchequer will meet it or that it is not able to meet it. He should not be playing two games. He played one game when he was on Dublin Corporation and was urging his fellow councillors not to strike an adequate rate; now he is urging them, as it is a Coalition-dominated council in any case, to strike the rate when it comes up. The Minister is being most dishonest in his arguments and in his reply to these amendments, and is very unfair in his criticism.
I just want briefly to reply. We have, by virtue of the decisions of this Government, already taken on about £14 million which used to lie on the local ratepayers, and for the year 1974, between the various reliefs we are giving, we are taking on to the Exchequer about £27 million. This will go on, so that by the time the programme of transfer of burdens from rates to the Central Exchequer is completed, we shall have on the Central Exchequer £75 million. We believe that is of massive assistance to the ratepayers, and the ratepayers realise this and do not think it is prudent now that we should add further to the burden of the Central Exchequer in respect of a proposal here which would, as it were, remove all responsibility from local authorities for the fixing of the rates. Deputy Briscoe is a member of Dublin Corporation and I think at heart he wants some power to be left to the local authorities.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá: 58; Níl: 69.
Tá
- Ahern, Liam.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Leonard, James.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerald.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Lalor and S. Browne; Níl, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond.
Amendment declared lost.
I should like to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that there was a written request for pairings and the Government Deputies voted.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.