Vol. 310 No. 6
I understand that amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43 are related and may be taken together.
These amendments have the common purpose of changing the expression "rate" in certain instances to "rate in the pound". This reflects more accurately the wording implied in section 10 (4) (c) of the City and County Management Act, 1955, to which the present section refers. Strictly speaking, "rate" on its own refers to the tax, whereas "rate in the pound" is the device used to impose the tax.
Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 are cognate.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 15, subsection (2) (b), line 45, after "rate", to insert "in the pound".
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 16, subsection (3) (d), line 33, after "rates", to insert "in the pound".
(Cavan-Monaghan): I wish to inform the House that my Party are opposed to section 10 and will oppose it all the way. Since local government was first introduced there was a sort of partnership between the elected representatives and, in later years, between the county managers and the Custom House. As a result, we found that local authority councils worked very well in the interests of the people whom they were elected to serve. Ministers for Local Government had a supervisory role in regard to the actions and business of local councils. They had the power to remove members of councils from office if they refused to carry out their statutory functions. The record shows that it was rarely necessary for a Minister to invoke that statutory power.
Except for one famous occasion.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It happened more than once. It was invariably invoked if the council did not strike sufficient rates to enable them to discharge their statutory functions in the year ahead. The occasions on which it was found necessary since the foundation of the State for Minister to use their statutory powers to remove members of councils from office could be counted on the fingers of one hand.
The whole scene will be changed if section 10 becomes law. It will spell the end of local government as we know it. The members of local authorities will become rubber stamps. They will have no functions to perform. They will simply be told by the Minister how much finance to raise for a specific year. In telling them how much finance they can raise, he will be telling them what they can do and will be limiting their discretion and powers. As a matter of fact, he may not even tell them what rate they can strike or what estimate they can agree upon. In fact, he has not done that this year. We find that the regulations provide that local authorities should strike a rate to provide finance for the following year between 23 November and 31 December. That was the normal procedure with councils. The preparation of a rate and of an estimate is a complicated business which usually takes the councils a couple of meetings to fulfil. A number of councils have estimates committees which sit on occasions with the help of professional people such as county managers, county secretaries, county engineers and so on. We get some sort of an idea what will happen if section 10 becomes law. In anticipation of section 10, we find that last year and this year the Minister for the Environment withheld from councils information about his intentions in regard to their estimates for the coming year until the very last minute. We are in the dying days of 1978 and we find that no county council, as far as I know, have yet held an estimates meeting. They have not done so because they have been instructed by the Minister for the Environment not to do so. Cavan County Council had fixed their estimates meeting for the 19th of this month but I understand they have postponed it until the New Year. Though I cannot say with certainty that it has been postponed on the direction of the Minister, I understand that is so. Up to the end of this year councils did not know the kind of programmes they will have, which schemes they will be putting into operation, how much money they will have to spend, how many men they will be able to employ and how many they will be forced to let go.
That is a sample of the procedures that will be adopted by the Minister if the House is foolish enough to pass section 10. That is bad enough, but we know that the Minister last year directed that local authority estimates would be confined to an increase of 11 per cent on the previous year, and the result is that many councils are very scarce of cash to carry out the programmes laid down for this year. It is only shame and fear of public reaction that have prevented local authorities from dismissing workmen who were being kept on on overdrafts—nobody seems to know where the money is coming from but there seems to have been a direction: "Do not let any men go until after Christmas".
This is an extraordinary section. The sidenote states: "Power of limitation with regard to local authority finance", and subsection (1) states:
The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by a direction given to a local authority in writing require the authority, in relation to a local financial year specified in the direction, to limit in such manner as is specified in the direction all or any one or more of the amounts required by section 9 (1) of the Act of 1955 to be shown in the authority's estimate of expenses for the local financial year so specified.
It is noticeable that for the first time, as far as I know, the Minister for Finance is being introduced. He is to monitor, and be seen to monitor and to have a statutory role in monitoring the activities of local authorities. The Minister for the Environment is to be given power, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to direct local authorities to limit the amounts required under the 1955 Act. We all know that the Department of Finance are very far removed from the local scene, particularly in regard to such things as local improvement schemes and other requirements of small rural communities.
Local improvement schemes are done by grants. They have nothing to do with rates.
(Cavan-Monaghan): We know that local money has been and is being raised for them.
They did not do it in the last four and a half years. During that time they did not raise much for them.
They certainly will not next year.
(Cavan-Monaghan): We all know local authorities can and do raise money to supplement the Department grants for such schemes, and we also know that under both a Fianna Fáil Government and the National Coalition Government such things as local improvement schemes were removed entirely from the Book of Estimates but had to be put back under pressure in the budget.
In a budget brought in by the National Coalition.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I said under both Governments.
Not under Fianna Fáil.
Just after coming in I had to make money available immediately to local authorities.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Will the Minister and the Minister of State stake their reputations that Fianna Fáil never removed the local improvement schemes from the Book of Estimates, that they did not reduce the amount allocated by £500,000 and then increase it again in the budget?
I was referring to the present Government.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am speaking about a Fianna Fáil Government.
The debate will proceed in an orderly manner, not by this form of crossfire.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Expenditure of that sort is not guaranteed now that the Department of Finance has been introduced. Subsection (2) states:
(2) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by a direction given in writing to a local authority which is a rating authority, and so given before the adoption by the authority of an estimate of expenses relating to the local financial year specified in the direction, require that as regards that local financial year—
(a) the aggregate of the rates required by section 10 (4) (c) of the Act of 1955 to be determined by the authority shall be limited by reference to an amount or in such other manner as may be so specified,
(b) any rate which is so required to be determined shall not exceed a limit specified in the direction in relation thereto by reference to an amount or to such other matter as may be so specified.
If that is not tantamount to taking away all control from local authorities, I do not know what it is. I know Deputy Callanan does not agree, but he will agree that if local authorities are not allowed to provide money they cannot have authority. This was not spelled out in the portion of the Fianna Fáil manifesto which promised abolition of rates on private houses. We know that a big amount of finance is still being raised locally because farmers with valuations of more than £20 are still paying rates as well as owners of business premises. Subsection (3) states:
In case the Minister gives a direction under this section the following provisions shall apply:
(a) it shall be the duty of the local authority concerned to comply with the direction,
They have not got any direction yet for 1979.
They will get it.
(Cavan-Monaghan): They do not know whether they will be allowed to spend any money next year and that decent man, the Minister for the Environment is not in a position to tell them because he is here now while his colleagues are over in Government Buildings deciding, among other things, how much money they will give him for this year.
There is not a government meeting at the moment, but how does the Deputy know this is how the matter is dealt with?
Chirac has told them what they must do.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Paragraph (b) reads:
in case the direction is a direction referred to in subsection (2) of this section,
(i) the direction may authorise the authority, for the purpose of complying with the direction, to amend the demand of the commissioners of a town in relation to the local financial year specified in the direction and made under section 26 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1946,
In other words, the town commissioners are to be ignored totally. In the old days if a local authority failed to provide a proper estimate, the estimate that the Minister of the day considered adequate to enable them to discharge their statutory functions, an inspector was sent down to inquire into the situation and after an inquiry a decision would be taken as to whether to remove the authority from office. But that will not happen any more. Under this section the Minister will tell a county council what rate to strike and if they fail to strike that rate there will not be an inquiry as to whether they were right or wrong. Consequently, they will not be removed from office but they will be ignored and treated with the greatest contempt because the rate that will become the rate for that year will be the one that the Minister told them to strike. In these circumstances I do not know how any self-respecting person will be willing to serve on local authorities. In the event of the Minister striking a rate, although the body who failed to strike the rate will be allowed continue in existence, their only function will be to talk but they will not be listened to. I say this because paragraph (c) provides that:
in case the direction is a direction referred to in subsection (1) of this section and, notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, the requirement of that paragraph is not complied with by the authority, the adoption by the authority of an estimate of expenses for the local financial year so specified shall not be thereby invalidated but such estimate shall be construed as if for any amount therein contained which is not in accordance with the requirements of the direction there were substituted the maximum amount permissible having regard to the limit specified in the direction or in case more than one limit is so specified, the relevant limit so specified,
Paragraph (d) of the same subsection provides that:
(d) in case the direction is a direction referred to in the said subsection (2) and, notwithstanding the said paragraph (a), the requirement of that paragraph is not complied with by the authority, the determination of the rate or rates to which the direction relates shall not be thereby invalidated but such determination shall have effect as if for the amount of such rate, or of the aggregate of such rates, or of each of such rates, as the case may require, there were substituted therefor an amount equal to the maximum amount permissible having regard to the limit specified in the direction, or in the case more than one limit is so specified, the relevant limit so specified.
Those two paragraphs mean that a direction is given to the local authority, be it Dublin Corporation, Cork Corporation or any other local authority as to what rate they are to strike, as to how much money they are to provide for all their services, non-statutory as well as statutory. If the authority do not comply with that direction they will be totally ignored and the rate will be struck from the Custom House. As I see it this is the end of local government as we know it but in addition it is treating with the utmost contempt those decent men and women who, in a voluntary capacity, offer their services to local communities.
The Minister will say that he is not imposing any limit on local authorities, that they have discretion in regard to spending the money he will give them. But this is the same as giving a man 50 pence and telling him to spend it either on a breakfast or on a tea.
And telling him not to spend it all at once.
What is more important is that the money is being given in the early part of the year and that it will continue to flow into the local authority.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister should ask some of the councillors how much money is flowing into them.
It would be interesting to know, too, how much money they were not able to spend.
Deputy Fitzpatrick on the section.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Therefore, local authorities are to be ignored. They will go through the formality of striking a rate but in effect the rate will be struck by the Minister.
I will not be telling them what rate to strike nor will I be striking the rate.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister will have an opportunity of intervening in this Debate and I hope that he will avail of that opportunity and that he will be able to convince the people that the effect of this section will not be the taking away of the function from local authorities of the striking of the rates.
I shall do that and, in addition, I shall give some examples.
(Cavan-Monaghan): There was always a very good relationship between the manager and local authorities. If local government as we know it is to survive, there must be that partnership between the county manager and the local authority, but under this Bill the county manager is to become the tachograph, the spy in the cab, in so far as the local authorities are concerned. The Minister is fighting the tachograph in regard to the lorries of this country.
It is the wrong Department.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister has a hand in it. He is not familiar with it but it concerns his Department.
Deputy Fitzpatrick on the section.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am very much on the section.
The tachograph is not for my Department.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The next part of the section that I am coming to constitutes the county manager, the tachograph, or as lorry-drivers call it, the spy in the cab. Section 10(3) (e) says:
(e) it shall be the duty of the manager—
(i) before the adoption by the authority of an estimate of expenses relating to the local financial year specified in the direction, to prepare for the authority a statement indicating the effect of the direction in relation to such estimate,
There is not going to be any talk between the county manager and his concillors as to what would be a reasonable amount to spend this year, what schemes to proceed with, what amenities are to be provided, how much will be spent on by-roads and secondary roads, how much is to be spent on house repairs and that sort of thing. That is not going to be the sort of consultation or discussion that will take place between the manager and the authority. No, the manager will introduce the estimates meeting—if they are foolish enough to hold one any more—"Gentlemen, I have received a notification from the Minister for the Environment that this is what the rate in the £ cannot exceed this year". The Minister was cheeseparing a few minutes ago and saying that he will not be telling them what rate to strike and he will not strike the rate, but he will be very sure to say, "This far shalt thou go and no further. This is the rate which you cannot exceed."
The section continued:
(ii) in case the direction is not complied with, as soon as may be to certify in writing to the Minister the extent by which any limit specified in the direction is exceeded, and
That will be step two. The county manager will tell them what the Minister's direction is, the maximum rate that may be struck and if that is exceeded, back to the Custom House again, he will report that the council have disobeyed the great man's order.
Paragraph (iii) states:
(iii) where the provisions of paragraph (d) of this subsection apply, as soon as may be to amend the relevant estimate of expenses adopted by the authority so as to make it consistent with the direction (which amendment the manager is hereby authorised to make).
The one power that the local authority members had up to date was to strike the rate. It had been drilled into them down the years that they were to strike the rate. Here the manager strikes the rate on the direction of the Minister. He is the agent, the local authority tachograph for the Minister. The section concludes:
(4) This section shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of November, 1977.
The Minister—although he was very slow to bring this Bill into the House and those responsible for processing Bills were very slow to put it on the Order Paper or seek or get time for it—is operating as if it was law. In one way we should be glad that we did have the opportunity of seeing how this section will work when it becomes law, because we have had the benefit of the Minister for the last year confining the expenditure of local authorities in 1978 to an increase of 11 per cent on the previous year right across the board, without any individual attention or assessment.
We had a discussion here yesterday on the effect of another section of this Bill which will freeze valuations of houses at a portion of their total valuation, having regard to the remission of rates to which the hereditaments are entitled. In the course of that discussion we pointed out to the Minister that this would work a great hardship on some local authority areas because they had reached saturation stage for building, there were no more building sites and any new building that would be coming in would be coming in outside the local authority concerned. The result would be a serious loss in revenue in certain local authority areas. The Minister said, "That will not happen because I will look at these right across the board and we will make special provision for certain cases." We know the provision that he made last year. He blanketed the 11 per cent ceiling right across the country from Passage West to Buncrana without any individual assessment or any look at all. Of course he did not impose the 11 per cent. No Minister for the Environment in control of local authorities acting freely on his own discretion would do such a thing. The Minister for Finance imposed it.
I do not know what amount will be imposed this year. We did have from the Minister recently in this House that the consideration is to be a budgetary consideration. The test will be not what local authority A requires to carry out their functions reasonably. The test will be what the national Exchequer can afford and that will be divided up on a percentage basis between all the local authorities without any regard to the special requirements of any of them. That was not the method adopted by the Minister's predecessors, the Ministers for Local Government, when they were seeing to it that the local authorities struck a rate sufficient to carry out their functions. The question then was not, "What is the capacity of the ratepayer to pay?" It was not what the capacity of the farmer, the local authority tenant or the occupier of a house to pay. His approach then was: what was a reassonable amount to enable a local authority to carry out their duties and responsibilities during the year?"
Now, out of the mouth of the Minister for the Environment, that will not be the test any longer. It will be the budgetary considerations and it does not matter if the Government act in a stupid manner and spend money here and there on all sorts of irresponsible schemes to get themselves into power. If it is necessary to cut back on expenditure to repay that we will have a blanket cutback over the whole country and local authorities will be left with one hand as long as the other with nothing in the kitty. The Minister may laugh and he may try to cover it up but we have not yet reached the end of 1978 and many local authorities are not in a position to keep on the men they have on their pay rolls.
Would the Deputy name even one?
Sorry, Minister, Deputy Fitzpatrick is now making a Second Stage speech. The Chair cannot allow this to continue. The Deputy cannot continue making a Second Stage speech. He must get back to the section. He is covering the whole field. He did all that on the Second Stage. Deputy Fitzpatrick on the section, please.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Could I have the guidance of the Chair? Could the Chair please tell me what is relevant on the section?
The Chair will tell the Deputy the procedure down the years on Committee is that we teased out sections and parts of sections and we did not go into long speeches, which are only allowable on Second Stage. Deputy Fitzpatrick and every other Deputy will have to respect that.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I would like the Chair to tell me where and in what respect I have been out of order.
The Chair has already told Deputy Fitzpatrick that he is making a Second Stage speech. The Chair must be the judge of that.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I have gone through section 10, paragraph by paragraph, and told the House what the effect of each paragraph is. I respectfully suggest that that is in order. I am also telling the House what the position of a local authority will be if this section becomes law, how their authority will be restricted and how their independence will be gone. I am pointing out that they will not be able to carry on. If that is not relevant in regard to this particular section I honestly do not know what is.
The Chair has already stated very firmly that the Deputy is making a Second Stage speech and I am repeating that. That is the Chair's decision on it, so the Deputy will have to deal with the points in the section.
(Cavan-Monaghan): We will have a look at that. Subsection (1) provides that the Minister for the Environment may give a direction to a local authority limiting the amount of money that a local authority may raise by rates for the ensuing year. The effect of that will be to take away from local authorities the power they have always enjoyed to raise a reasonable amount of money to carry out reasonable schemes in their areas. This is the first time, as far as I know, that the Minister for Finance has been written into a local authority Bill in regard to rates. The effect of that will be to take away all authority, discretion and independence from local authorities. Another effect of it will be that the right sort of people will cease to offer themselves at elections for membership of local authorities. The result of this is that the power of local authorities will deteriorate.
Subsection (2) goes on to give to the Minister for the Environment authority to give other directions to the local authorities in regard to rates and estimates and to spell that out in greater detail. Subsection (3) states that in case the Minister gives a direction under this section it shall be the duty of the local authorities to comply with the direction. They cannot tease the matter out with the Minister and they cannot have any discussion about it. Paragraph (b) goes on to state that in case the direction is one referred to in subsection (2) of the section certain things will happen. Paragraphs (c) and (d) alarm me because if a county council strike a rate which exceeds the permitted limit they will not be consulted why they did that. The Minister for the Environment will not send down an inspector to check up on the local position and see if there are any exceptional circumstances which would justify a higher rate. The rate they have struck will simply be ignored and the permitted limit will become the rate.
This subsection is the worst part of this objectionable section because there is no consultation. It is beyond me how we can have local government without consultation between the manager and the council and between the manager and the Custom House. It is hard to know when the direction will come down. It will probably be some time after the beginning of the year for which the finance is required. Once that direction comes down that is the ceiling. If the ceiling is exceeded the excess is ignored and the ceiling becomes the rate. That is very objectionable.
I have pointed out in detail the obligations which will be placed on county managers to instruct the county councils at the beginning of the estimates meetings: "This is what you can do. This is the maximum you can have". If they exceed that amount the manager has to report them to the Minister for the Environment and he has to change the rate. If this is not an insulting section that will discourage all self-respecting citizens from offering themselves as members of local authorities I do not know what it is. The Minister obviously wants to retain those county councils as talking shops to allow them to be used for political purposes but their duties as self-respecting members of local authorities are gone. When this section is fully understood it will have a very bad effect on local government at a time when it should be extended rather than killed off. This party will oppose the section tooth and nail.
I congratulate Deputy Fitzpatrick on speaking for 50 minutes on one section.
The Chair has already referred to that. The Chair will not allow it to continue.
I have been a Member of this House for five years and I have never heard anyone, even a Minister, speak for more than 20 minutes at a time on Committee Stage. Deputy Fitzpatrick has gone through the sections very well and dealt with them in detail but I still do not know the policy of the other side of the House on this Bill. They removed health charges from rates and started the removal of rates on houses. They would not vote against the complete removal of rates on houses because they say they agree with it.
The question is who pays the piper. I had certain views about taking health charges off the rates because I felt that local authorities would not have as much say. I had the same reservations about the removal of rates but I was in a minority. Both sides of the House want to remove rates and the Coalition started that removal by taking away a certain amount. Then there were crocodile tears on this side of the House about people who still have to pay rates. We cannot have it both ways.
The Minister for Finance is concerned in this matter. When money has to be provided by the Exchequer it is necessary to have an estimate of how much will be required. The Minister for the Environment must now provide a large percentage of the money for running local authorities. That is agreed by all. How is he to do it? He must ask the Minister for Finance for a certain amount of money. The only people now paying rates are businessmen or farmers with a valuation in excess of £50. When the Minister is providing the money he must have some control.
(Cavan-Monaghan): There are still many ratepayers.
What is the alternative?
We will not go into policy at this stage. We have been dealing with this for over an hour and I will very soon put the question. Nothing relevant is being said at the moment.
(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order, if the Government want to introduce a guillotine let them do so. The only way the Chair can put a question against the wishes of Members who wish to speak is by the introduction of a guillotine by the Government.
The Chair has to decide when a Deputy is making a Second Stage speech. He has to decide when there is obstruction, repetition or when a Deputy is not relevant. If relevant points are raised which have not previously been raised, the Chair must and will allow it. The Chair cannot allow a Second Stage debate on Committee Stage.
Section 10 refers to restrictions and I am speaking on that subject. What is the policy of the Opposition?
(Cavan-Monaghan): I will tell the Deputy.
The Deputy did not tell us in a speech which lasted almost an hour. He pointed out all the faults in the present set-up but did not tell us what his party would do. Deputy Fitzpatrick is an excellent speaker and a good friend of mine, but I like to be candid and practical in my speeches. There must be some idea at the beginning of the year as to the amount of money which will be needed by the Department from the Exchequer. Any Minister must fight his case within the Government to get money from the Minister for Finance, who must be involved in this. It is not practical to claim the Minister should not have a say in this or that. Where is the money to come from?
I was present in the House yesterday while very long speeches were being made and I could not make my contribution. Usually I do not speak for more than five minutes. I would be happy to get an answer, although I hope it will not take an hour.
I have not yet spoken this morning. I accept that Committee Stage might be more illuminating if more questions were asked and specifically answered.
That is what Committee Stage is all about. Questions on relevant matters should be answered without long speeches being made.
Since both parties on this side of the House have been specifically asked what their policy is in this regard, I would point out that our primary function on Committee Stage is to ensure in so far as it is possible that good legislation is made. We have other forums for publishing policy and my party's policies have been published.
Despite the attempts by the Minister and the Minister of State, and implicitly in the interventon by Deputy Callanan, to talk about this Bill as abolishing rates on domestic dwellings, that is not what the Bill is about. This Bill concerns the nature of local taxation in our society. The abolition of rates on domestic dwellings is already a fact. The Bill goes far beyond the question of rates on any kind of property, whether agricultural land or domestic dwellings. It is the concern with that which motivates us throughout the entire Bill and specifically on section 10, on which we may relevantly spend much time.
It has been suggested that the Minister must have some controls on this, otherwise there would be a free-for-all. It is suggested that this Minister is in the same position as the Minister for Agriculture who must get money from the Minister for Finance and, therefore, there must be some explicit reference in the Bill to the Minister for Finance. I am not aware that the Minister for Agriculture has throughout the country a structure of public representation of people who, in the context of agriculture, seek election once every few years, and get a specific mandate from the public, operate a structure of local government which effectively dates from 1894, and pre-dates the very antecedents of this House, a structure which is an older form of democracy here and initially undertook a far wider range of services than this House aspired to undertake when it came into existence in 1918 with the formation of the first Dáil and effectively in 1922 with independence. Over the years we have seen the steady and slow erosion of the reserved functions of local authority members as the drift of power has been from the local area to the centre for all sorts of reasons. It is my considered view that a local authority member now effectively only has two residual powers that are his otherwise uniquely and this section proposes to take one of them away. The two powers are the reserved function of striking the rate with all the sanctions that were implicit in it and the possibility of being abolished, as we know has happened in the past, but nevertheless it is a reserved function. The other one which is not relevant to this question is the question of making the development plan.
It is unfortunate that there are not many members from the other side, unlike Deputy Callanan, whose presence is welcome but who are members of local authorities and who have been members of local authorities for many years and who have far greater experience than either myself or Deputy Fitzpatrick and who know very well what the implications of section 10 are. They are noticeable by their absence today but they are the people who will be voting in favour of the abolition of this power. They are people who will come in here when the Division Bell eventually goes and they will vote for this and they know very well what the implications of it are. The question has been asked, and legitimately asked, if central Government takes on to itself a greater degree of responsibility for direct financing of local expenditure surely it is reasonable that central Government must have some kind of sanction on the amount of money that is raised. That is the core of the argument.
I do not agree with this but it is a fact of life now.
That is the kind of reasonable question anybody would ask. The provisions in this Bill would be somewhat acceptable if the members of local authorities were not public representatives. If we were talking about the financing of local tourism where people are either appointed or nominated but who are certainly not elected, who are certainly not accountable to the ballot box, then such a provision would be reasonable. If we were talking about any such regional body whether it is a development association or any other structure like that which is there to assist the Minister at central Government level in the performance of his or her duties, then some kind of Ministerial sanction over the amount of money expended by such a body would be reasonable and indeed proper and subject to the right kind of democratic control which this House must exercise. But that is not the case with local democracy and that is not the case with local government such as it remains here. We are dealing, as Deputy Fitzpatrick said at the outset, with people who are specifically elected.
We could go on at considerable length about that but I want to ask a number of questions first for clarification so that I fully understand the provisions and all the implications of the provisions of this Bill. First of all, in the very first line of section 10 which would be line 29 it is stated that the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by a ...and so on. Why must that clause be drafted into the section? There may be a very good reason for it. I do not know. But my reading of it is that the reality of it will be that it will not be by the consent of the Minister for Finance once this clause is here. It will be by the direction of some principal officer in the Department of Finance who has no understanding of the position of the local authority. That is my first question and that clause occurs a number of times and I would welcome clarification from the Minister on that point.
I would like clarification from the Minister on another point which I feel I may not properly be reading or which is open to two interpretations. It is on page 16, subsection 3 (b). In the case of a local authority which has a subsidiary local authority, in other words, a town commissioner, and a demand from a town commissioner comes in which is in excess of the percentage increase which would be agreed by the Minister, the draft legislation goes on to say in paragraph (c) at lines 25, 26 and 27;
...of the direction there were substituted the maximum amount permissible having regard to the limit specified in the direction or in case more than one limit is so specified, the relevant limit so specified.
Is that drafted in such a clear way that it can only relate to a situation where a local authority has a subsidiary body within it or, alternatively, could it be interpreted in some other way at some future date by an official in either the Department of Finance or in the Department of the Environment?
What exactly is the point?
The point I am trying to make is, could that section be interpreted in other ways. I am not sure that I fully understand the section myself. As I understand it now, if the Minister for the Environment sets a limit for a local authority percentage increase the position is quite clear. But if, say, in county Galway, Tuam Town Commissioners come in with a demand which would in itself be in excess of the percentage limit what would be the position there?
It has nothing to do with town commissioners.
The words "the commissioners of a town" occur on line 5 page 16.
That is in a different paragraph.
Yes. I am relating one to the other but it is all in the same section. Does the direction of limits concern itself only with the overall amount that a local authority would strike? In other words does it mean only the town commissioners plus Galway county council, or could it possibly be interpreted, in lines 26 and 27 where the Minister has power to specify a limit or limits, that he could actually specify certain amounts of a local authority's rate to be limited and not other parts? In other words can the Minister intervene directly in the breakdown of the specific budget of a local authority? Perhaps we should get answers to those questions first.
Deputy Fitzpatrick, at the outset of his contribution if I remember correctly, said that a person or anyone would be mad to vote in favour of this section. I think that is the expression he used. Quite obviously he and his party are going to vote against this section. What voting against this section in effect means is that there should be absolutely no limit on rates; there should be a free-for-all, the sky the limit and it should be open to any local authority to strike a rate at whatever level they decide. What he is saying, in effect, is that he is satisfied that the domestic sector, community halls, schools, and farm outhouses have had their rates removed from them.
I assume the Deputy is satisfied with that, but he is not satisfied that some protection should be made available to those who will continue to pay rates. Farmers and business people should not have any protection. We on this side of the House gave an undertaking on derating and fulfilled that undertaking. We also gave a definite undertaking that the remaining rate paying sector would not be asked to carry an extra burden as a result of that, and we are abiding by that as well. Less than 12 months ago we spent many hours discussing the Agricultural (Rates Relief) Grant Bill and every Deputy of the Labour and the Fine Gael Parties spoke and voted against it. At that time we were giving a lower subsidy to the farming side. Fine Gael opposed it tooth and nail because we were increasing the rate on the farmer. Today Deputy Fitzpatrick wishes to increase the rate as if the sky was the limit and less than 12 months ago did not want it increased.
That is not what was said.
The Deputy advocates that local authorities should be allowed do as they wish, and he opposes the fact that I will set an upper limit. I do not direct any local authority as to the rate they should strike; I just set an upper limit in relation to how far they can go.
With regard to the 11 per cent, which was the limit set last year, 16 local authorities did not require to go as far as that limit. Some of these local authorities were in the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, one in Castleblaney and one in Clones, which is not too far from where Deputy Fitzpatrick was born. Now we have Deputy Fitzpatrick telling us for one hour that there should be no upper limit, that it should be whatever a local authority decide. I hope that Deputy Fitzpatrick's candidates in the local election next June, when canvassing in Clones and Castleblaney where the upper limit of 11 per cent was not required, will tell the people that the council did not strike a high enough rate last year. I trust that the Fine Gael candidates will make it clear that there should be no limit in relation to the rate that the local authority can strike, and that they feel it is wrong of me as Minister for the Environment to set an upper limit. If Deputy Fitzpatrick and his candidates fail to tell this to the people, I will ensure that Fianna Fáil candidates will remind the people of what has been said here this morning.
Are we still on the section?
I will also ensure that the ratepayers—the business people and the commercial sector—will be reminded. It will be made clear to them that the Fine Gael and the Labour Parties voted against setting an upper limit.
Are we still on the section?
The Minister on the section.
We are talking about setting an upper limit and the rate that will be struck. We already had the experience of the Labour Party voting against——
The Minister on the section.
It is not on the section.
The Chair's difficulty here is that I am being asked if this is a Second Stage debate. One Deputy has already spoken for an hour in a Second Stage manner. The Minister on the section.
Let me further recall that they called a vote against the derating——
(Cavan-Monaghan): On a point of order.
Minister, please. Deputy Fitzpatrick on a point of order.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The question now being debated is that section 10 stand part of the Bill. I respectfully submit that the effect of section 10 is relevant.
That is not a point of order. What the Chair is trying to ensure is that we have a Committee Stage debate and not a Second Stage debate from either side of the House. The Minister on the section.
Will the Minister accept a question?
No, not at this stage. Surely it is my right to reply to the points made. I will answer the questions the Deputy asked during the course of his contribution and if the Deputy asks a further question afterwards I will answer it. The Labour Party voted against derating.
Are we on section 10 or not? Will the Chair correct that side of the House?
The Minister on section 10.
Now the two parties will vote against setting an upper limit. They wish to vote in favour of no upper limit and let the ratepayers go to hell.
We want to preserve local democracy, which is being slowly buried in every section of this Bill.
Why did the Opposition not say they were against derating from the start and be honest with the people?
The Minister on section 10, please.
It is only right to have an upper limit without interfering with what rate will be struck apart from setting an upper limit. It is the Government's right to do this through the Minister for Finance. With the consent of the Minister for Finance the necessary direction will go out to each local authority. There is nothing unusual about the consent of the Minister for Finance being involved. When Deputy Quinn is here for a while he will notice that practically every Bill that goes through this House which involves money requires the consent of the Minister for Finance who is the keeper of the finances. The section deals with the upper limit and the parties across the floor will vote against it.
