Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Nov 1978

Vol. 309 No. 9

Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill, 1977: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge upon the Revenue. Amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Quinn has been ruled out of order on the same grounds.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, subsection (1), between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following definition:

"‘manager' means a manager within the meaning of section 1 of the Act of 1955;".

This amendment inserts a definition of the word "manager" which occurs in section 10 (3). This was overlooked when the Bill was drafted. The new definition simply relies on the definition of "manager" set out in section 1 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955 for the purposes of the Management Acts generally.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 in the name of Deputy Quinn has been ruled out of order.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, subsection (1), line 20, to insert ", or as part of," after "being used as" in the definition of "secondary school".

This amendment amplifies the definition of "secondary school" to make it clear that rates relief will extend to structures which may be valued separately from the main school complex but which nonetheless form part of the school. In practice it has been found that secondary schools often consist of more than one hereditament. This arises particularly in the case of pavilions, gymnasia and other outlying facilities. The amendment will allow full relief of rates to a hereditament even where it forms part of the total school complex.

If buildings are on a separate site are they rateable?

If buildings on a separate site form part of a school complex they still qualify for relief.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 in the name of Deputy Quinn have been ruled out of order.

Question proposed: "That section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

(Cavan-Monaghan): There are a number of points which I should like to raise on section 1, which is the definition section. Before coming to these points, I should like to say that it is practically impossible to put down an amendment which would be meaningful or which would seek to improve the Bill because it would be ruled out of order as imposing a charge on the Exchequer. The Chair has already ruled out of order a number of amendments in the name of Deputy Quinn for the reason that they seek to impose a charge on the Exchequer. For that reason we have to go through the Bill section by section and make our case without putting down amendments.

The first matter I want to raise is on the definition of "community hall". The section reads:

"community hall", subject to subsection (4) of this section, means any hereditament, other than a hereditament exempted from rating under either section 63 of the Act of 1838 or section 2 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1854, or the premises of a club for the time being registered under the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act, 1904, which consists wholly or partly of a hall or similar building, is not mainly used for profit or gain and is occupied by a person who ordinarily uses it, or ordinarily permits it to be used, for purposes which both involve participation by inhabitants of the locality generally and are recreational or otherwise of a social nature;

What is the position of a property which is used by a voluntary community credit union for a few hours a week and as a community information centre for a few hours a week? What is the position of a building that is used for non-profit-making social purposes?

"Community hall" means a premises consisting wholly or partly of a hall or a similar building which is not mainly used for profit or gain but for purposes which both involve participation by inhabitants of the locality generally and are recreational or otherwise of a social nature. This definition is qualified in two ways by subsection (4) of section 1: (a) a rating authority or a District Court, on appeal, are not permitted to grant a premises community hall status solely on the grounds that it is used for sporting purposes; (b) the fact that a premises is normally used by persons of a particular age group—for example, a youth club or an old folks social centre or a particular religious denomination—will not count against its being a community hall. It must be open to the public.

Deputy Fitzpatrick asked about a credit union held in a community hall. It would be up to the local authority to decide if that comes within the definition of "community hall". When I said they were to determine the use being made of it, that it is not used for profit and is open to all denominations of the public——

(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not think it has to be used by all denominations of the public. Subsection (4) reads:

(a) The fact that a hall is used or is designed for use for one or more particular sports or games shall not be a ground on which a rating authority or a Justice of the District Court may determine a hereditament to be a community hall.

The fact that it is designed for the use of games or sport alone will not qualify it.

(b) a premises shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Act as not being a community hall by reason only of the fact that it is only or is ordinarily used by persons of either a particular age group or a particular religious denomination.

Under the definition on page 3, I am asking about a hall in Bantry. I got a letter from Bantry Credit Union which read:

Arising out of the Local Government Financial Provisions Bill a small point has arisen on which I would like your advice.

As I understand it, community halls will be exempt from rates.

What is the position of a property which is used for a voluntary community Credit Union? The specific case I have in mind relates to Bantry Credit Union. They own a premises at Main St., Bantry. In 1977 they qualified for a 25 per cent remission. In the 1978 year they were again assessed for the full rates.

In 1977 every hereditament qualified for a 25 per cent remission. It was not confined to private houses or domestic premises alone.

The offices are open to the public for two hours on Friday nights for Credit Union business. The other use of the building relates to the Bantry Community Information Centre which has the use of the building for a number of days in the week.

There is a specific case. While I would not expect the Minister to give a definite decision in relation to it, I would like to have his views on whether he thinks that building would meet the criteria laid down for a community hall.

The Deputy said that the 25 per cent applied to more than the domestic side. It did not. If, for instance, part of the premises is used for credit union purposes and the remainder is used for the general activities of the local community, it could be defined as a mixed hereditament and the qualifying area would be derated. If the main use of the hall is for community activities and it is utilised rarely for the credit union, as its main use is for community purposes, it would qualify as a community hall.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Credit union purposes would appear to be community purposes because I understand that credit unions are not profit making organisations and serve the community at large. The fact that the hall is used as a credit union premises should not disqualify it. Whatever the position was in 1977, this building appears to have qualified for the 25 per cent remission but in the following year was again assessed for the full rates.

Credit union activities are only one specific community activity. The hall must be available for other community activities to qualify.

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is used for a few hours each week by the credit union and is used as an information centre for the remainder of the week.

If its main use is for other community activities, and if it is available for that purpose, then it would qualify.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Perhaps the Minister would make inquiries about this between now and Report Stage?

(Cavan-Monaghan): The definition of “domestic hereditament” means “any hereditament which consists wholly or partly of premises used as a dwelling and is not a mixed hereditament”. The definition uses the phrase “wholly or partly”. If it is used only partly as a dwelling, it must be used for some other purpose. Yet it might not be a mixed hereditament. How would that come about?

It refers only to a situation where, say, a house and 100 acres of land form one hereditament. The whole hereditament is regarded as domestic, but section 2 sees to it that only the building's valuation, and certain small land valuations, attract domestic rates relief.

(Cavan-Monaghan): This puzzles me. “Domestic hereditament” means “any hereditament which consists wholly or partly of premises used as a dwelling”...I can understand that. The part I am concerned with is “and which is not a mixed hereditament”.

Which is not partly used for commercial purposes, such as a business premises and a domestic site in one building.

(Cavan-Monaghan): What does the definition visualise the remainder will be used as?

Land could be in the one rating——

(Cavan-Monaghan): I think I follow it now.

Section 1 (1) states:

"farm building" means any farm, outhouse or office building completed before the 1st day of March, 1959, and as a consequence of the erection of which section 14 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, fell to be applied;

The Minister has introduced a number of amendments inserting or removing commas but I notice he has not interfered with the comma following "farm". In my opinion the definition of farm building includes a farm. Is that the intention?

This is the way it is stated in the 1852 Act and "farm" is meant to be an adjective.

(Cavan-Monaghan): This might be a matter for the professors but I think it should state that “farm building” means any farm out office or office building completed before a certain date.

The word "farm" is meant to qualify "out office" and "office building".

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is used as an adjective?

(Cavan-Monaghan): In regard to the definition of “lodgings” section 1 (1) states:

"lodgings" shall not be construed as including accommodation provided in premises registered under the Tourist Traffic Acts, 1939 to 1975;

Section 1 (3) states:

For the purposes of this Act a hereditament shall not be regarded as being other than—

(a) a domestic hereditament, by reason only of the fact that

(i) the hereditament is used to provide lodgings,

The effect of that definition and of subsection (3) is to enact that a guest house which is not registered under the Tourist Traffic Acts is a domestic dwelling and qualifies for rate relief under this Act, notwithstanding the fact that there may be paying guests. I do not object to that. It follows that a registered guest house under the Tourist Traffic Acts is regarded as a business and does not qualify for rate exemption. Am I correct in that?

(Cavan-Monaghan): This is worth considering. The effect of this enactment and the granting of rates relief to unregistered guest houses while it is not granted to registered guest houses will mean that more and more guest houses will become unregistered or will not register under the Tourist Traffic Acts, 1939 to 1975. That is a move in the wrong direction. Guest houses registered under the Tourist Traffic Acts, subject to a certain limit in size, should be entitled to rate exemption in the same way as unregistered guest houses. If we allow this section to stand we will discourage people from registering because in so doing they will lose rates relief. That is not in the interests of the tourist industry.

Tourism is one of our major industries. It reached an all-time high in 1969 and an all-time low in 1972, but it has developed very much since. It is desirable that people who provide tourist accommodation should be encouraged to register and enjoy the benefits entailed. In this way they will be subject to inspection and this will lead to better standards in guest houses. I feel very strongly about this and the Fine Gael spokesman on Tourism and Transport also has some thoughts on this matter. The effect of what we are doing here is to discourage the registration of tourist accommodation and encourage non-registration.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Business suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Barr
Roinn