Amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Fitzpatrick has been ruled out of order. As amendment No. 2 is consequential on No. 7, Nos. 2 and 7 together with the amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 7 may be taken together.
Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1978: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 2, subsection (1), line 9, to delete "subsection (2)" and to substitute "subsections (2) and (3)".
This amendment is simply a technical one to link up with the change proposed in amendment No. 7.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Do I understand that we are taking amendment No. 3 also?
No. Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are out of order. What we are taking is amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 7.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 2, after line 19, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) (a) Notwithstanding sub-section (2) of this section, if and whenever the Minister, as respects a local financial year, so provides by order, a rating authority (within the meaning of the said Local Government Act, 1946) shall not apply the Act aforesaid to a person, as respects that local financial year, if the valuation of all the tenements of agricultural land in the rating area of the authority in respect of which he is rated equals or exceeds the amount standing specified, on the first day of that year, in section 15 (3) of the Finance Act, 1974.
(b) An order under paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either such House within the next twenty-one days on which that House has sat after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.".
This amendment will enable the provisions of section 1 to be modified by ministerial order in relation to a particular year. As circulated, the Bill would limit the relief to holdings of less than £75 land valuation in 1978. For the purpose of the limit, the total of the land valuation of a farmer anywhere in the State would have to be taken into account as the Bill stands now. The amendment will allow the position to be eased. This will mean that each county council will take account only of any holding a farmer may have in its own rating area. If the amendment is agreed it is my intention to make an order in respect of 1978, the effect of which will be that the less widespread form of aggregation provided for in the amendment will operate in 1978 instead of the national type of aggregation provided for in section 1 (2) of the Bill as it stands.
Both amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 7 are out of order.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I move amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 7:
To delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following paragraph:
"(b) Whenever an order is proposed to be made under paragraph (a) of this subsection a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft order has been passed by each such House.".
I am having some difficulty in understanding the effect of the amendment moved by the Minister. Section 1 (2) provides that section 1 shall not be applied by a local authority to any rated occupier if all the hereditaments of which he is rated, wherever they are, exceed the specified figure. If section 2 is to stand as it is, the effect will be that if a farmer has a valuation of, say, £50 in county A and of £30 in county B, he will not get any agricultural relief grant this year.
The Minister's amendment says simply that:
In page 2, after line 19, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) (a) Notwithstanding sub-section (2) of this section, if and whenever the Minister, as respects a local financial year, so provides by order, a rating authority (within the meaning of the said Local Government Act, 1946) shall not apply the Act aforesaid to a person, as respects that local financial year, if the valuation of all the tenements of agricultural land in the rating area of the authority in respect of which he is rated equals or exceeds the amount standing specified, on the first day of that year, in section 15 (3) of the Finance Act, 1974.
That is clear. If the Minister makes this order the Act shall not be applied to a farmer who may have several different ratings in the same county or rating area if all those ratings together are equal to or exceed the specified amount. If my thinking is right—I am doing the Minister's work for him— but if I understand it the new sub-section (3) will be in addition to and not in substitution for the existing section 2. In that case when the Minister by order brings into operation the new subsection (3) he is not taking any power to suspend the existing subsection (2). The existing subsection (2) and the new subsection, if I am correct, would be in force at the same time.
As the section stands it would apply to an aggregate of holdings of a particular rated occupier in a number of counties or in two counties. In other words, if a rated occupier had a holding of £50 valuation in county A and a holding of £30 valuation in county B the two would be aggregated and there would be no relief over the required figure.
Would the Minister repeat that?
As the Bill now stands, even though they were in two separate rating authority areas the two would be aggregated and there would be no relief. If the amendment is accepted and I make an order excluding that particular rated occupier's holding in a rating authority area other than the one in which he lives, it will be excluded for 1978. If a man has a £50 valuation in county A and a £30 valuation in county B he will get relief because the aggregate will not count in 1978. It may appear complicated but the draftsman and particularly my legal advisers have assured me that this is how it will work.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Can the Minister explain to me how his making an order as provided for in the amendment will suspend subsection (2) as it stands?
The legal advisers have given me an absolute assurance that this is how it will work.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I sympathise with the Minister, but reading subsection (2) and the amendment I believe that the two of them would stand binding at the same time. They would not be contradicting each other because the first one says that the Act shall not apply if the man's valuations, all added together, wherever they are, exceed a specified figure and the amendment says that the Act shall not apply if the man's valuations in a lesser area, all totalled, exceed a certain figure. The specialists may have a better knowledge of this than I have and their opinions may be worth more, but anybody can make a mistake. I could understand the amendment if it read:
Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, if and whenever the Minister, as respects a local financial year, so provides by order, subsection (2) shall stand suspended and...
But as I see it subsection (2) and sub-section (3) will be binding and valid at the same time.
I sympathise with Deputy Fitzpatrick, but we raised this with the legal advisers and the draftsman and they have assured me that when subsection (3) is substituted for subsection (2) for a year the effect will be as I have said: that the aggregate for holdings in different counties will not count. I accept their assurances, but it is my intention as soon as this is passed to circularise the rating authorities to inform them that this is how it will happen this year.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Will this mean that a farmer may have a valuation of £40 in an urban area within a county and a valuation of £40 outside the urban area in the same county and not be caught by the Act?
It applies to the rating area in the county. At present there is no agricultural rates relief in an urban area.
I understand what the Minister is saying about urban and rural areas but what is the position of a farmer with a valuation of £40 in County Clare and a valuation of £40 in County Galway?
As the Bill stands, the two would be aggregated and he would have no agricultural rates relief. If the amendment is accepted and the order made for 1978, they will not be totalled. He will get agricultural relief on the £40 in Clare and the £40 in Galway.
I live in the town of Birr, but let us take the case of a person living a few miles outside that urban area. He has a farm which straddles the counties Offaly and Tipperary and has a valuation of £40 in Offaly and £40 in Tipperary. Am I to take it that because he is lucky enough to have a farm which straddles two counties he gets all the rates relief that is going?
That is correct, if the amendment is accepted and I make the order for 1978.
Is this not discriminatory and what are the Minister's main reasons for doing it?
There are definitely difficulties as regards where people have holdings and so forth.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is not out of the goodness of the Minister's heart he is doing it.
It is out of the goodness of my heart. If the Deputies accept this amendment they will be helping those people. That must be clear.
This amendment is very welcome but what the Minister is doing is allowing people who are lucky enough to have land in two different counties to be granted rates relief in excess of £75, but every other person with a valuation of over £75 is being left to carry the can and to pay up. It is amazing that if my total valuation exceeds £75 I am lucky enough to get this remission but a farmer with a total valuation of £80 situated wholly in Offaly gets no rates remission whatsoever. A farmer in County Tipperary with a valuation exceeding £80 gets no rates remission nor does the farmer in County Cork or County Clare whose valuation is over £75. If a farmer is lucky enough to have land in two counties he gets total rates remission.
We welcome this Bill as far as this amendment goes, but as we said on Second Stage, this Bill is not welcome——
Deputy Enright may raise those points on the section. We are dealing with the amendment and the amendment to the amendment at the moment.
I am dealing with the amendment which caters for a certain section of the population who have land in two or three counties. I can see no logic in this. Why does the Minister not extend the remission to everybody? This is necessary if he is to be fair because he is discriminating against people who have land in one county only.
A farmer with a valuation of over £75 is not getting any relief in regard to educational or health matters, but if his land is in two counties he gets rates relief. That is amazing and unusual. The number of people involved is relatively small but I can see no logic or common sense in what the Minister is doing. We agree with the amendment but it should be extended to cover everybody. The Minister intends to give rates relief to farmers with valuation under £75 in 1978 and £60 in 1979, but he should extend this concession to everybody.
It is not discriminatory in any way. If it is, the rating system has been disciminatory for years. The Deputy must know that if his friend had a valuation of £40 in County Offaly and £40 valuation in County Tipperary for some years, he got full primary allowance in Offaly and Tipperary since the allowances were introduced and he also got full supplementary allowance in Offaly and Tipperary. This is not unusual. It cannot be described as amazing because this is the way it always happened. My amendment means that they will not be aggregated. If a man had two holdings of £40 valuation in Offaly heretofore they were grouped under one total valuation of £80 but if he had £40 valuation in another rating authority, they were not grouped. There is nothing unusual here; it is not discriminatory. It is not a new departure.
The Minister said that this has always been discriminatory. A man could have a valuation of £60 in four counties. Is that right?
If he always had that.
It is the Minister's duty to bring some equity into this——
Is the Deputy saying that he wants an aggregate of all the holdings?
No, I am saying that a man can have four holdings of £60 valuation in four counties and get total rates relief but another man with a valuation of £76 in one county gets no relief. The Minister says that this has always been discriminatory but it is his duty to remove that discrimination and bring in some equity——
Does the Deputy want me to aggregate them?
(Cavan-Monaghan): This demonstrates clearly the absolute absurdity and inequity of the rating system and is the best argument I can see for abolishing rates instead of increasing them. If a man has a valuation of £75 in County Kildare he will lose his agricultural relief grant by virtue of this Bill but if he has a £20 valuation in the urban district of Naas and a £55 valuation outside that urban district he still has a £75 valuation in the County of Kildare and will enjoy agricultural rates relief. I am not objecting to that.
Only on the £55.
(Cavan-Monaghan): No. If he has a valuation of £75 this year in the county area of County Kildare he is penalised but if he has a valuation of £20 in the urban district of Naas and £55 outside he does not. I have no objection to that because any relief is better than none but it is absurd in the extreme. As Deputy D'Arcy pointed out this year a man can have a valuation of £200 provided it is in four different counties and will enjoy rates relief but if he has a valuation of £200 in one county he will be penalised. This is absurd and shows the complete and utter absurdity of the rating system which the Minister comes here to defend. That is unjustifiable.
I would like to ask about the amendment which is allowing the Minister to prevent the aggregation of valuations from one county to another. Is it possible to construe the amendment as allowing the Minister to reduce the threshold under section 15 (3) of the Finance Act 1974 by order? On my first reading I must say I did not get the full import of the amendment and it is only now that I realise there is a possible alternative interpretation. Section 1 (2) provides that:
A rating authority (within the meaning of the Local Government Act, 1946) shall not apply the Act aforesaid to a person, as respects a local financial year, if the valuation of all the tenements of agricultural land in respect of which he is rated equals or exceeds the amount standing specified, on the first day of that year, in section 15 (3) of the Finance Act, 1974.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that it will not be possible to use this procedure to reduce the amount specified.
The Act is designed to give £38.5 million relief and, if the aggregate comes to £75 or more within a rating year, the authority may not apply the Act—in other words, may not apply the relief. The Act gives supplementary and primary reliefs but it may not be applied by a single rating authority if the aggregate of a person's rated holdings comes to £75 or more.
What if the holdings are in bordering counties?
Take the case of a farmer with a valuation of £80 who is in Peamount Sanatorium, a married man with a wife and children attending secondary school who do not qualify for higher education grants. That man qualifies for no benefit under the Health Acts. He will get no benefit from rates relief. A neighbour with a holding valued at £40 in Offaly, another valued at £40 in Tipperary and a third holding valued at £40 in Wexford will be entitled to full rates relief in each of the three counties. There will be no aggregation. I believe relief should be given to the farmer I mentioned who is ill in Peamount Sanatorium. For him there will be no right of appeal. He will have to pay. Surely there is a question mark over a rating system which permits that kind of thing to happen. The Minister has been involved in politics for many years. I am astonished at our passing a Bill like this.
Most of the arguments are in favour of a national aggregation of all the holdings. This would place an additional burden on the amount available and would mean less relief for all. If rates cause severe hardship, as would appear to be the case in the instance Deputy Enright gave, the county manager at his own discretion can give a waiver.
I am aware of that but I have never known a county manager to grant a waiver except to someone in a local authority house or someone who could prove destitution.
The Deputy may not have known as many county managers as I have.
If there is a waiver one year the rates are carried forward into the next year.
I have had personal experience of one case in which the circumstances were such that the rates were waived. They do not have to be carried forward and I have known cases where they were not carried forward.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is the Minister saying he has known a county manager to write off the rates under the hardship clause where the value of the land was £80?
I cannot say specifically £80 but I have known a case where the valuation was approaching £80 and I have witnessed the rates being waived.
Sir, I move to report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.