Section 1 indicates that the Act of 1852 means the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, and that the Act of 1860 means the Annual Revision of Rateable Property (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1860. It is proposed in this Bill to amend for the first time those two pieces of legislation which are more than 100 years old. On more than one occasion during the Second Stage debate the Minister said that in this legislation he is proposing to give effect to the intention of the legislation in terms of those two Acts which had been frustrated by court decisions. Is the Minister serious in bringing before the House at this stage a Bill to give effect to what was the intention of the legislators of so long ago? He is proposing to put himself in the position of interpreting what the intentions of the legislators at that time were. The courts have a very important function in this matter. They have rules clearly in regard to plant and equipment of the kind the Minister is proposing to include for the purposes of valuation cover in this legislation, and it is a very retrograde step for any Minister to bring in legislation that would frustrate court decisions. Court decisions have a very important bearing on the rates to be paid on business properties particularly and on industrial property and that is what the Minister is proposing to do in order to give effect to the intentions of the legislators of about 120 years ago.
Valuation Bill, 1985: Commitee Stage.
The Deputy's contribution would be more in keeping with section 7.
I am dealing with section 1.
Section 1 is purely a definition section.
I do not propose to read the section but it refers to the two Acts I have mentioned.
But the Chair fails to see the relevancy of the Deputy's contribution to section 1.
I wish to put a proposal to the Minister at this stage.
That would be appropriate when we are dealing with the amendments perhaps but not on the definition section.
The purpose of this section is to amend two Acts, one of which is 133 years old and the other 125 years old, so as to give effect to the intentions of the legislators at that time, legislators who had little enough in common with the legislators of today. The Minister has acknowledged that the reason for the amending legislation relates also to court decisions frustrating the intentions of those legislators. I propose that the Minister withdraw the legislation and think again about the very serious impact it would have on the industrial base of the nation in terms of the extra costs it would involve and to think also about how ridiculous it would be to ignore those factors simply to give effect to the intentions of legislators of so many years ago. Those legislators could not have had any knowledge of the industrial processes.
We are dealing with the definition section. The Deputy may deal with these other matters as we proceed through the various sections.
I accept that we are on the definition section but I suggest that you address yourself to the definition and purpose of the Act of 1860 because then you will realise the importance and the relevance of what I am saying. When those Acts of 1852 and 1860 were introduced there were no industrial processes of the kind that are at issue at this stage. There was little or no agri-food industry, particularly in the dairy sector, but the food industry will be seriously affected if this Bill is passed. Neither was there at that time any chemical industry and neither were there VAT rates that might have been included in that earlier legislation.
If I might interrupt the Deputy——
You seem to have an inclination and a preference in that respect.
That is not the case, but I must bring the Deputy back to order on the Bill. Sections 2 to 7 deal with the Acts to which the Deputy is referring but we are dealing now solely with the definition of the Bill. You have tabled amendments to various sections and you will have an opportunity when those sections are reached to make the kind of contribution you are attempting to make now.
Those sections to which you refer, and section 3 in particular, refer to amendments being proposed today——
That is what we are here for.
I am saying that amendments to legislation which has no relevance to the reality of industrial activity in the nation have no place in the context of a new base for legislation.
The Deputy is not proceeding correctly either. This is Committee Stage and there are amendments to various sections of the Bill.
I am aware of that. We will deal with the details as we go through the various sections, but it is clear that anyone who considers the base of this legislation will realise that the two Acts that are proposed to be amended have no relevance to reality. It would be a great mistake to place such an unacceptable burden on such essential elements of our economy as the manufacturing sector, the processing sector, the chemical industry, the various agri-food industries and so on merely to amend Acts of so many years ago. For that reason I am pleading with the Minister to take back the legislation and to subject it to a much more considered examination in the light of what he is proposing. If today's needs are such that a different approach is required the Minister should delete some of the existing legislation, but he should have regard to the penalties of the kind he is proposing here because such penalties would cripple the manufacturing industry at a time when we need most to encourage that sector. I am asking the Minister formally to withdraw the legislation and to give us all time for more serious reflection.
We are dealing only with section 1.
I wish to add my voice in support of Deputy O'Kennedy's appeal to the Minister. The Bill is totally ill-defined. It was presented to the various people concerned in what can be described only as a sleight of hand manner. The definition bears no relation to what is being attempted in the Bill. If the Minister received bad advice in relation to bringing a Bill of this kind before the House, he should not hesitate to face reality now and withdraw it because its enactment would result in tremendous damage to the economy. I am not making that point in any political way. The explanatory memorandum which accompanied the Bill was totally misleading and it was only when one sought the guidance of professional people, as I did, that one realised what the Bill was all about. On 2 July the Commissioner of Valuation, in dealing with an appeal, was interpreting this Bill as if it was already an Act of Parliament. He was taking it for granted that the Bill would be enacted. That is not the way we should do business in this House. We should not bring in legislation at the end of a session and endeavour to rush it through in one hour and a half. Has the Minister realised what the implications of this Bill would be in terms of energy costs? Such items as pylons and conduits are being introduced into the categories of fixed property. This brings in Bord Telecom and means that the consumer will pay at the end of the day. Is the Minister not aware that we are already 50 per cent out of line in terms of energy costs? That is a question I shall take the opportunity to deal with later.
The Chair would prefer if the Deputy would wait until the appropriate time to deal with such matters.
If the bureaucrats are to have their way and if legislation is to be introduced in this rushed fashion at the end of the session, we might as well pack up and go home. The Minister should disregard the advice he has been given up to now in relation to this Bill and have the commonsense to withdraw it before he causes enormous damage to our diminishing industrial base.
As the Deputy knows well, our industrial base is expanding.
I wish it were expanding but the Minister's attempt to apply the provisions of this Bill to the dairying industry, for instance, is a clear indication that he does not know the reality of economic life today. The Minister's problem is that he does not know what is happening around him. He listens to people who are seeking a sleight of hand way to bring in more revenue and that is what the Bill is all about. It has nothing to do with amending other Acts. It is designed in an effort to make up the shortfalls in terms of Building on Reality.
The Bill has nothing to do with Exchequer revenue.
The Minister does not know what he is talking about.
We are dealing with section 1 which is the definition section.
The Deputy should endeavour to base his remarks on something that is proposed in the Bill.
I am talking about something that is in the Bill but the Minister's problem is that he is not aware of what the Bill contains. I know only too well what the effects of this legislation would be.
Once again the Chair would point out that we are dealing with section 1.
I am prepared to talk about what is in the Bill.
The Deputy may speak on the various sections as we proceed through the Bill.
The manner in which the Bill was introduced was a con job but those efforts will not succeed. The Minister's attitude indicates that he genuinely is not aware of the Bill's provisions.
There is no need for any Member to lose his temper in his approach to this Bill. I would have been anxious to hear from the Minister whether in relation to amending the ancient valuation Acts he has entered into consultation with those connected with the Institute of Valuers. One would have expected that a Bill of this kind would have been regarded as part of major legislation. Regarding the definition section particularly, there are grounds for grave concern in relation to this whole question of valuation. Will the passing of this Bill signal the end of legislation in regard to amending the Valuation Acts?
I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy but he is embarking on a Second Stage contribution when we are dealing with section 1 in Committee.
I mentioned that I was dealing with the definition section. Even in relation to that very important aspect of the legislation, one would have expected the Minister to make much greater attempts to obtain professional advice and guidance from those engaged in the everyday activities of the profession of valuers.
I appreciate that the Deputy referred to the definition section but he is proceeding beyond what is contained in that section.
It is to be regretted that the Minister did not avail of this opportunity to update the existing appeals procedure under the Valuation Acts. The Bill presented a golden opportunity in that regard. I speak as one who is very much concerned in this area, being a Fellow of the Institute of Valuers. Consequently I have a special interest in all legislation dealing with the Valuation Acts. I was surprised that the Minister did not avail of the opportunity of this legislation to deal with the appeals procedure on the basis of the information and the advice that would have been forthcoming from those in the profession.
The appeals procedure has no relevance to the Bill.
This Bill was circulated in the middle of March last. We discussed Second Stage on 21 May, 29 May and July 2. Deputy O'Kennedy was not in the House on the first of those occasions but I understand he was here on May 29.
The Minister was not here then.
I was unable to be present on that day. Neither was Deputy O'Kennedy here on July 2 when the Second Stage was concluded without a division being challenged. Deputy Reynolds comes here now and suggests that the Bill was introduced in a sleight of hand manner and that there is an attempt by the bureaucrats to rush it through in one hour and 30 minutes. All we have ordered for today is Committee Stage.
The Minister wants all Stages today.
Committee Stage is all that is ordered for today.
The Minister should not be deceitful about this. He was seeking all Stages today.
These suggestions from Deputy Reynolds indicate either a basic lack of concern with veracity or a degree of cynical opportunism based on his having smelled something in the air. I am inclined to that latter explanation.
The business community know what is going on. There is a cynicism in this Bill so far as they are concerned.
The Deputy knows that is not the case. On Committee Stage I am prepared to consider the amendments that have been tabled by the Opposition. These amendments were tabled this morning, and after Deputy O'Malley's amendments had been tabled, to a Bill that was circulated in the middle of March last.
Is it in order to submit amendments at any time before the Committee Stage? In pursuance of that order, the Minister who is now making this point has not submitted amendments during the course of the debate here on many occasions. In view of that, would the Minister not acknowledge that this cheap little point he is now making would be better left unsaid? The Minister brought in amendments as we were on our feet here.
I may be anticipating you, Sir, in saying that that was certainly not a point of order. Deputy O'Kennedy adverted to the fact that we now have certain industrial processes that did not exist in 1852 and 1860. Of course he is perfectly right. It is for that very reason that we have this Bill to amend those Acts. If Deputy O'Kennedy were to reflect a little about it he would come to the conclusion I arrived at quite some time ago, that what has been wrong in the intervening period is that we have not had more Bills to amend the provisions of the 1852 and 1860 Acts. Part of the reason that difficulties now arise is that it is only now — and I am glad to be the one taking the initiative to clarify the matter by way of appropriate amendments of those Acts — that the provisions of those Acts are being amended.
Deputy O'Kennedy asks: How do I know the intention of the legislator in 1852 and 1860? For a lawyer that strikes me as being a very disingenuous question. It is part of the stock-in-trade of lawyers that, in looking at legislation, they have regard to what was the intention of the legislator. I am not the first person from whom Deputy O'Kennedy has heard a reference to that notion.
Deputy O'Kennedy also said that this Bill did not constitute the way to go about a new base for valuation. I must say I entirely agree with him. I made it clear in my concluding remarks on Second Stage that in this Bill I am not talking about bringing about a new basis for valuation.
A number of Members reproached me for not carrying out a complete revision of the valuation system. As I said during the course of Second Stage, I think they are right but that is not the purpose of this Bill. This Bill has nothing to do with fundamentally changing the basis on which we carry out valuations.
I cannot believe my ears, that there is no fundamental change.
Deputies on the other side of the House should restrain their theatrical expressions of surprise.
In relation to what Deputy O.J. Flanagan said, I think my remark about this not being the basis for a new system of valuation applies to what he said: it is not. If there is feeling in the House — as I suspect there is — that we need to take a fundamental look at the valuation system, then this Bill will not be the end of the amendments to the valuation system. It is true also that this Bill does not change the existing appeals procedure. That is not the function of the Bill nor was it the intention of the Government in bringing it forward. If there is a strong and sustainable body of opinion that that is required I am perfectly happy to receive views as to how that might be done. I have an open mind on that matter.
That might be considered certainly.
In the meantime the issues and the problems to be addressed by this Bill must be dealt with and we shall come to them on the sections. To conclude this discussion we have had — and I thank you, Sir, for your indulgence in allowing me to reply to things that were really out of order — it is not a question of sleight-of-hand. I have given the House adequate opportunity on Second Stage and intend doing so on Committee Stage, as much time as the House likes, to tease out these issues that have been raised, most of which I am bound to say — as I did on Second Stage when we had far less acrimony and a good deal more analysis — I felt I had dealt with on Second Stage.
On section 1, I note that the Minister did not deal in detail with the basic question I put to him when on Second Stage he said that the purpose of this legislation was to give effect to the intention of the legislators of 1852 and 1860. I want to quote from what the Minister said on Second Stage.
The Deputy can quote on the particular section but not on the definitions section.
Section 1 refers to the Acts of 1852 and 1860——
It deals with definitions of those Acts.
A definition of these Acts. According to the Minister apparently the purpose of this legislation is to implement the intention — perhaps I might have your attention, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for a moment as distinct from an exchange there. I might have your attention, Sir, as I make my point. In replying to Second Stage the Minister said that the purpose of this Bill was to give effect to the intentions of the legislators of 1852 and 1860 and here I might quote from Volume 360, column 236, of the Official Report of 2 July 1985, when the Minister said:
It is not for me to criticise the courts but the local authorities have lost ground as a result of a number of court decisions which did not fit in with the intentions of the legislators.
Those of 1852 and 1860. Is the Minister seriously asking us to amend legislation here simply to give effect to the intentions of the legislators of 1852 and 1860 when processes of the kind about which we are talking never existed?
I might give some other extracts from what the Minister had to say in the same column:
I wish to emphasise the point that our purpose in this Bill is not to extend the valuation base but to put beyond doubt a number of matters that have become the subject of challenge in the courts and to restore the valuation base to the level that was intended in the legislation.
If there was an acknowledgement that we are dealing with nonsense legislation that is it. The Minister's purpose in this Bill is to restore the valuation base to the level that was intended in those two Acts. That a nonsense to bring before any House of Parliament in 1985, 130 years later. And, if we were in any doubt the Minister continued to say:
It stabilises the law as it was intended to be without expanding the base and it gives more certainty to the law.
Of 1852 and 1860. In the light of that, is the Minister seriously asking us to continue with the Bill before the House? Neither Deputy Reynolds nor I was here the last day. I might say that perhaps what we were about will have more lasting benefit to this nation than what the Minister was about here the last day. When I saw those two statements of the Minister on the record as being the purpose of this Bill I could not believe it. We are wasting the time of the House to give effect to the intentions of the legislators — and mind you they were then a different type of legislator — of 1852 and 1860 in respect of activities which did not exist. Is the Minister still insisting that that is his purpose?
If the Deputy wants to haul out the green flag he should do it openly.
Is the Minister still saying that the basic purpose of this Bill is to give effect to those two Acts mentioned in section 1? Is that what he is telling us? Or will he now admit that that is nonsense and that he would like to withdraw from the record what he said in concluding on Second Stage.
Not at all.
The general principle of the Bill was agreed on Second Stage. We are now on Committee Stage and we are still on the definitions.
We are on the definition of the very Acts about which I am talking. Will the Minister now affirm to the House that the main purpose of this Bill is to give to the intentions of the legislators of 1852 and 1860 when the processes we are concerned about in manufacturing industry did not exist? If that is the purpose, I am asking if he will withdraw those remarks.
Surely, Deputy, you will agree that ——
If that is the purpose, we should withdraw the Bill.
—— the sections to which you are referring are being dealt with in sections following on section No. 1. We are trying to get agreement on the definition.
The Chair will appreciate that the purpose of section 1 in stating these Acts, the Act of 1852 and the Act of 1860, is to lay down as clearly as possible that what we are doing is giving effect to the intention of the legislators in those two Acts. That is what I object to. That is what any sane legislator in 1985 would object to.
We will deal with that in the different sections.
Is that the valid purpose of this legislation?
We are dealing with the definition section.
The purpose of this Bill is to amend certain of the provisions of the Acts of 1852 and 1860 so that the valuation base will be what it was required to be ——
What it was required to be?
—— and that it will cover, broadly speaking, what it was intended to cover by those Acts. I take Deputy O'Kennedy's point that we are now dealing not just with processes but with types of premises that did not exist at the time the 1852 and 1860 Acts were passed. When introducing Second Stage I mentioned car parks as an example. They did not have car parks in those days but it is clear from the terms of the two Acts and the practice that has been based on those Acts over the years that car parks are the kinds of hereditaments that would be rated. The intention of this Bill is to make that perfectly clear so that there is no room for the kind of doubt that has given rise to numbers of court decisions in recent years that have taken things out that should be in the valuation base.
That should be?
That is the purpose of this Bill.
Who says?
No amount of waffling by Deputy O'Kennedy will cover that up. It is not my intention to cover it up. Were it not my intention to clarify the application of those two Acts as amended to our valuation base to date we would not have this Bill in the first place. We need this Bill to clarify a certain number of matters and put them beyond doubt.
Can I just inquire as to a procedural point? Does the position still obtain that it is agreed that all Stages of this Bill be passed by 5.30 p.m. this evening?
It does not.
That has been changed?
That has been changed, yes.
Is there any agreement as to any part of it being finished by 5.30 p.m. today?
That is admirable. That was not the situation as I understood it when I put down my amendments yesterday.
We were doing some work this morning.
I am glad that people thought about it again because I regarded this Bill when I became aware of the full significance of it, as potentially very damaging. I am glad that it has now been agreed to give it full and proper consideration. I presume that the subsequent parts of the Committee Stage will be taken in the autumn, and not before the summer recess?
I am prepared to wait until the other sections of the Bill to show clearly to the House and to the Minister that fundamental changes are being brought in, despite what the Minister said in his opening statement. Later on in the sections of the Bill we will show that quite clearly.
I thank the Minister for having second thoughts and the Government for changing their minds this morning in allowing this to go through without the guillotine at 5.30 this evening which was the intention up until a few hours ago. The Government have been converted on the road to Damascus and I hope they will remain converted.
I would make it clear beyond any shadow of doubt——
On section 1, Minister.
——that is not a question of having second thoughts. During the Second Stage debate I had wondered what were the views of the Opposition on the Bill because it was not very easy to discern them. Having concluded Second Stage it seemed that the Opposition had at least cause to reflect. It was not until this morning that I received the amendments that Deputy O'Malley and Deputy O'Kennedy put down, amendments which have the intention of devoiding the Bill of all meaning. Since that was their intention it is not appropriate parliamentary procedure to go through it in an hour and a half.
The Deputies opposite——
——might want to be illuminated about it so that when we pass the Bill——
——they can be happy in their minds that we will have done what I said I intended to do during Second Stage.
If we convert the Minister properly on the road, we will be happy.
On the definition section, with great respect to Deputy O'Kennedy and Deputy Reynolds, it is most regrettable that there is not a serious measure of co-operation between the Minister and the Opposition——
You are right.
——in relation to a vitally important matter. I am glad to hear from the Minister, and I do not intend to make a speech——
Thanks, Deputy.
I will just express my appreciation of the Minister's commitment to consider more detailed legislation in relation to the whole question of valuations at a later stage. I assure the Minister that those in the profession, apart from those in the public service, are prepared to give their advice and assistance and the benefit of their long experience to the Minister. Many of them can be very helpful to the Minister and can be extremely constructive. Not alone are they familiar with——
Deputy——
——all the Acts passed but——
The Deputy is proceeding to make a Second Stage contribution.
It is not my intention——
Your intention or otherwise, you are doing it.
The Minister referred to the fact that this legislation did not update or attempt to update the existing appeals procedures under the Valuation Acts. If he is aware of dissatisfaction I am sure the Minister will be prepared to give it serious consideration. I am glad that the Minister has taken serious note of what I have said. Members of the profession have expressed dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of the Circuit Court procedures in the determination of rateable valuation appeals. As a valuer, I have often admired——
Deputy, I have to interrupt. The Deputy is still proceeding on to a Second Stage speech. We are trying to deal with section 1. I would be grateful for the Deputy's co-operation.
I will do as the Chair wishes. I am sure that I will be able to get in on some of the amendments.
This is probably the main section in the Bill because this is the section which says that these new categories of property which are not mentioned in the 1852 and 1860 Acts shall now be deemed to be rateable hereditaments in addition to those specified in section 12 of the 1852 Act. Those are the ones mentioned in the schedule in section 3 which in turn refers to the new schedule in section 8 which is a new schedule to the 1860 Act. Therefore, this is a section that imposes the charge to rates on all this new property, or what I would call new property. The Minister seems to suggest that it is simply putting back what was there already before a court decision which, to paraphrase him, did not take account of the intention of the Legislature in 1852 and 1860. If there is doubt about what the intention of the Legislature was at any given time, whether in 1852, 1860 or 1984 for that matter, the place to interpret the Legislature's intentions is not in the Department of Finance but in the courts of this country.
Hear, hear.
The courts and the courts alone are charged with deciding what was the intention of the Legislature. It is no easy task for them when they are dealing with chip fabricating electronic factories, for example, to decide the extent to which these are liable as rateable hereditaments in terms of legislation passed in 1852 when industry in this country was entirely different in nature from what it is today. Through no fault of their own people in the middle of the 19th century could not even begin to conceive of what might be a rateable hereditament in terms of industrial activity or plant at that time. The courts here have interpreted what the intention of the Legislature was, and it is not for the Minister for Finance or the Department of Finance or the Commissioner of Valuation to come along and say, as they do in their explanatory memorandum in a slightly arrogant fashion, or for the Minister in his speech to say in what I suggest was a slightly arrogant fashion although he may not have intended it that way: "The courts misinterpreted the intention of the Legislature and we are putting them right. We are putting it back to what it should have been, what we believe the Legislature intended in 1852 in respect of an amount of modern industrial plant."
That is completely the wrong approach and it is being done — and it nearly succeeded — for the purpose of putting it across to this House that this was some minor loophole that needed to be cleaned up, just a little difficulty that needed to be smoothed over, and needed just the routine of going through the legislation for the purpose of putting it all right again and putting it back as it was before those silly courts who do not understand these things changed it a bit. We have heard that story before. On 27 June last year we were told that emergency legislation was necessitated by a court decision "in order to close a legal loophole".
It was the same.
I stood up here and questioned whether it was just closing what was described as a legal loophole or whether it was a legal loophole at all, and whether it was not the intention of the Legislature to do what the courts had decided, which clearly it was. I went on then to show that the Bill in question, which ran to six or seven pages, went away beyond any question of simply closing a single alleged loophole that existed as a result of the failure of the Minister for Communications and the Department of Communications successfully to prosecute a citizen or business.
Here we have the same technique being used. It is an old trick of the Civil Service. I have seen it previously several times. A classic case of it was the Air Transport Bill last year and we have it again here. You get a nice, slightly bureaucratic Minister who takes advice on these matters, and if he has not some commercial experience, he is inclined not to stand back from the thing and say, "Lads, have sense." Here we are getting under the guise of another closing of an alleged loophole — which it is not — a blanket redefinition of the entirety of industrial plant, and that has terribly serious consequences. The CII have given an estimate——
Which they admit to be badly based.
I cannot swear that it is right. I have not seen the detail of the evidence with which they support it but I have not seen anyone disprove it either. Their estimate is that industrial undertakings in this country last year paid £80 million in rates. That is not denied by the Minister as far as I am aware. Their great fear is that, on the basis of this Bill and how they have been advised by valuers and others who deal with these questions on a day to day basis, that bill of £80 million will be doubled approximately.
That is not fact.
More than that maybe.
I do not think they are suggesting that it will be precisely doubled. They are saying it might be less than doubled or a little more than doubled because it is not easy to pin down exactly what it will be. Whichever way it goes, it seems that there will be a drastic increase in the rates burden to be borne by industry, and we know that is happening at a time when so many industries are under pressure, when it is almost a daily occurrence to read of the closure of more and more firms, and when we have been through the last 12 or 18 months, probably the most difficult time of all in terms of problems for manufacturing industry, and have seen more closures than we have ever seen in any comparable period in the history of this State.
That is not true either.
Oh, for Heaven's sake.
I do not want to get into arguments with the Minister, but it is difficult not to be provoked by his blanket denials of the fairly bland and general statements I have made about the situation today. I could describe it in far more vivid and perhaps more accurate terms in much more detail. The Minister should be a little more aware of the reality of what is going on around him. Many of his critics and many people outside this House criticise the Minister because, they say, he is a bit out of touch. If they were here today to hear what he has been saying, I think we would have to agree that they have grounds for it. To suggest that the last 18 months in this country have not been the worst in terms of industrial closures and business problems generally is positively and obviously ridiculous.
This is being done under the old guise that has been used to put things across this House before now, that this is simply rectifying some kind of errors that have arisen as a result of legal decisions. That is one I suggest the House should not fall for again. Let us be thankful that it did not fall for this in June 1984. The Minister for Communications does not even suggest now that the Bill which he has introduced and which is part of the way through Committee Stage is just trying to close legal loopholes, because the reality has been flushed out into the open. We will have to do the same in relation to this. There is no question that this section expands greatly the definition of rateable hereditaments. It makes two new sets or lists of property rateable hereditaments and, therefore, subject to rates. The two of them are set out in section 3 and 8. It says that they shall be rateable hereditaments in addition to those specified in section 12 of the 1852 Act. In other words, it is a new list. They are all additional.
I do not see how the Minister can argue that it is simply a clarification of the intention of the Legislature in 1852. It is not. There are things clearly included under these definitions which could not conceivably have existed in 1852. I have no objection, nor should anyone have an objection, to a reasonable updating; but if the reasonable updating has the effect of including huge areas of property that were never included up to now, then the Minister should have the decency to say so and let the House debate it on that basis rather than on the basis that it is clarifying the intentions of the Legislature and rectifying the errors made by the Supreme Court — which is in effect what the Minister is saying. It is a very different matter then.
If a Bill were introduced into this House which had approximately the effect of doubling the rateable valuations and the rateability of agricultural land there would be an outcry. There would be 100 Deputies screaming that it was all wrong. In economic terms, is this any less significant if it has the effect, which it probably has, if not of doubling the charge to rates, at least of increasing it very substantially? Even if the CII's estimate of a doubling is wrong and it is only a 50 per cent increase, it is still an extra imposition of £40 million a year, which to many industries which are there only by the skin of their teeth is the kind of additional imposition that will bring them down, put them under and put God knows how many thousands out of work, as if such things did not matter.
One of the additional hereditaments which is described in clear language rather than the vague language used in other categories is as follows:
All cables, pipelines and conduits (whether underground, on the surface or overhead), and including all pylons, supports and other constructions which pertain to them.
We are dealing with section 2. That is section 3.
Section 2 makes that a rateable hereditament chargeable to rates.
The Deputy should stay with section 2 and deal with section 3 in due course.
Section 2 states that it shall be chargeable to rates. It becomes a hereditament or a tenement. Does the Minister realise the significance of that? This is one of the clearer provisions and it is easier to talk about it. Every electricity pylon and pole, every telegraph pole in the country is rateable. They never were before. Also the gas pipeline from Cork to Dublin——
There is an amendment on section 3 dealing with that aspect. We are still dealing with section 2. Stay with section 2, please.
The effect of section 2 is to impose charges on a huge variety of things that have not previously been charged. In deference to your wishes I will certainly talk about this in more detail on the following section and others. I want to convey to people who might not feel it to be the case that the effect of the Bill when one studies the small print is quite frightening. It is well beyond anything one would be led to believe by the Minister's introductory speech or by the explanatory memorandum. There has been a tendency in recent times to have very short explanatory memoranda with Bills. I regret to say that at their best several of those explanatory memoranda are misleading. I do not say this simply because of the example we have here but because this sort of thing has happened three or four times in the past year or two. Explanatory memoranda are supposed to be neutral statements from the permanent Civil Service of the effect of a Bill but they are not. In this case the explanatory memorandum begins as follows:
1. The Purpose of the Bill is—
(i) to provide for the continued rating of
.lb (a) industrial plant deemed rateable prior to recent Court decisions, and
(b) other property not specifically referred to in existing legislation. .le
That could not but give the impression that there is nothing new and it is intended to convey to Deputies and others outside the House that there is nothing new. It is not true. There is a considerably expanded definition of what is a rateable hereditament. One is entitled to object to that sort of statement being used. In the last resort the Minister has to take responsibility because it was published from his Department and is not accurate. I do not think anyone would contest that. It is a serious matter that in order to facilitate the passage of Bills through this House explanatory memoranda which are less than accurate are provided to Members. It did not happen in the past and the fact that it has happened during the past year or two is a matter of regret. It means that each explanatory memorandum is looked at with a certain scepticism, not necessarily as a source of assistance but rather as, perhaps, a trap. It is a pity that is so. If the Minister wants to make a political commentary on a Bill he can make a speech about it or issue a memorandum under his own name, but if something comes out under the name of the Department of Finance or any other Department it should be accurate down to the very last comma. It should not be open to the objections to which this explanatory memorandum is open.
As Deputy O'Malley has been indicating, it is very clear that the Minister unintentionally — the alternative is unthinkable — misled this House or the Department of Finance misled the House and are now belatedly recognising that this Bill should not be pushed through as originally intended. I will give some examples of misrepresentation. It may be innocent but it is certainly misrepresentation of the purpose of the Bill before us. The explanatory memorandum states:
1. The Purpose of the Bill is—
(i) to provide for the continued rating of
(a) industrial plant deemed rateable prior to recent Court decisions...
It is quite clear that the legislation of 1852 and 1860 which the Minister is amending never deemed as rateable some of the matters now being affected by section 2. In 1852 and 1860 there was no rating of industrial plant which the Minister now proposes should be included in section 2. In the light of that, how can the Minister allow an explanatory memorandum to go out to the public and to legislators saying that the purpose of this Bill is to provide for the continued rating of industrial plant deemed rateable prior to recent court decisions?
Is the Minister saying that industrial plant of a kind that will now be covered by virtue of the effect of section 2 — they are covered in the schedules in sections 3 and 8 — were even remotely in the minds of the legislators of 1852 and 1860? It is clear that this was not the case because the Bill mentions cables, pipelines, conduit pipes, pylons, supports and other constructions which pertain to them. The Bill also mentions mills and buildings used for the containment of substances or for transmission of a substance or electric current. These were not even remotely contemplated by the legislators in 1852 or 1860. However, the Minister said that the only purpose of this Bill is to provide for the continued rating of industrial plant deemed rateable prior to recent court decisions. That is a total misrepresentation.
It is a fact.
It is misrepresentation. In introducing this legislation the Minister said it was only of a technical nature and that we were merely concerned with technical adjustments. Clearly that is a misrepresentation, although I do not want to go so far as to say that it is deliberate or fraudulent. However, it is clear that it is misrepresentation on a grand scale. Legislation which was introduced as a technical adjustment is turning out to be something entirely different.
On Second Stage, the Minister went on to say that the main purpose of this Bill was to clarify and re-inforce some provisions in rating valuation law. Is the Minister seriously asking the House to accept that what he said in any way accurately describes the effect of section 2? Section 2 will add schedules to be covered as rateable hereditaments under sections 3 and 8 that could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be called clarification of existing legislation or simply reinforcing existing provisions. These matters were never included in the original provisions. They are not there to be clarified or to be reinforced. They are obviously major changes by way of additional hereditaments which had never been rateable. The commissioners and the Department of Finance might have wished them to be rateable but the courts held in upwards of 40 decisions that this kind of property was not rateable under the law. Therefore, who deemed them to be rateble?
The rating authorities.
Yes, as such intention was conveyed to them by the Department of Finance. Now, fortunately, as Deputy O'Malley pointed out, we have the courts to tell us what the law means as distinct from what the Minister and his officials would like it to mean. For that reason, I am asking the Minister to delete this section. The Minister's speech and the Explanatory Memorandum totally misrepresented the position. Listen to this for a misrepresentation from the explanatory memorandum:
The purpose of the Bill is not to extend the type of properties to be valued and rated but rather to preserve the traditional valuation base.
That is a distortion of the truth because the traditional valuation base did not extend to pipelines—
It extended to gas pipelines.
The Minister should check on the law. It is the easement over which the pipeline exists which is covered, not the pipeline. The Minister does not even know that much. These provisions fly totally in the face of his statement that the purpose is not to extend the type of properties to be valued and rated but rather to preserve the traditional valuation base. Where, in the traditional valuation base, is there any reference in the law to the containment of a substance or the transmission of a substance or electric current. It is not there and the Minister says that this is maintaining the traditional base. Where is there any reference under existing law to cables, pipelines and conduits, including pylons, supports and other constructions pertaining to them? Where is there any reference to any plant which moves or is moved mechanically other than a telescopic container which certainly did not exist in 1852 or 1860?
We are being asked to consider legislation on the basis of misrepresentation in the Minister's speech, in the Explanatory Memorandum and in his reply to Second Stage. I am not sure that the Minister understood the extent to which he misrepresented matters. How, on that basis, can he ask us to deal with this legislation as simply clarification and maintaining an existing base when it includes as definitions of rateable property and hereditaments items which were never included?
I would like to re-echo what Deputy O'Malley said in relation to the courts. It is not acceptable, even for legislators whose decisions and laws are reviewable by the courts, that any Minister would come in here and say that, in view of court interpretation — and the implication seems to be that the courts' interpretations were wrong——
No, read what I said.
——of legislation which had a different intention over 130 years ago, he proposes to correct the position and to ensure that the interpretations given by the court can now be avoided and that we can put on it the intention that suits us. I find this totally unacceptable. I wish the Minister would make up his mind. If he came here and openly said that the purpose of this legislation was to raise extra revenue by extending the valuation base to matters that have never been covered under law——
That would be misleading, because that is not the intention.
——pylons, conduit pipes, reservoirs in which certain substances are contained and in which certain processes go on, and if he said that that would be an extra cost on industry, at least we would know what we were being asked to consider. But that is not what the Minister said. He said many different things trying to justify the indefensible position he is in, and we are trying to bring the debate back to reality.
The Deputy should deal with section 2. He has made the point that he does not agree with the way the Bill was introduced, but he should now deal with section 2 as it is in the Bill before us.
Section 2 says:
For the purposes of the Act of 1852, property falling within any of the categories of fixed property specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1852 (inserted by this Act) shall be deemed to be rateable hereditaments in addition to those specified in section 12 of that Act.
In effect, this Bill extends the schedule in section 12 of that Act by including two further Schedules in sections 3 and 8. This is a major extension of the property covered under the 1852 or the 1860 Acts.
I will not go into this in detail but under section 3 all constructions affixed to lands or tenements, other than buildings, were not included in the original Act and are now being taken in. "All lands developed for any purpose other than agriculture, horticulture, forestry or sport, irrespective of whether or not such land is surfaced, and including any constructions affixed thereto which pertain to the development," were not included but are now being taken in. "All cables, pipelines and conduits, (whether underground, on the surface or overhead) and including all pylons, supports and other constructions which pertain to them" were not included, but they are being taken in. That will have an enormous impact on the supply and cost of gas to the manufacturing sector. It will mean extra costs to the ESB who, in turn, will pass them on to their customers in the manufacturing sector. This will have a major impact on the ESB and Bord Gais Eireann. "All fixed moorings, piers and docks" were not originally included but are now included. The fishing industry will be affected by this and we will debate this further later. "Plant falling within any of the categories of plant specified in the schedule to the Annual Revision of Rateable Property (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1860 (inserted by the Valuation Act, 1985)" is now included.
Under the schedule in section 8 other categories of plant never contemplated by the legislators of 130 years ago are now included. "All constructions affixed to the premises comprising a mill, manufactory or building (whether on or below the ground)"— that brings us into a new area of what is liable to rateable valuation —"and used for the containment of a substance or for the transmission of a substance or electric current." We are into a range of property which was never legally rateable but now is. "All fixed furnaces, boilers, ovens and kilns" were never legally rateable but now will be if this Bill is passed. "All ponds and reservoirs" are now included too. Yet this Minister asks us to accept this Bill as a technical piece of legislation and to accept the statement in the explanatory memorandum that the purpose of the Bill is not to extend the type of properties to be valued but rather to preserve the traditional valuation base. As far as I can, I want to insist that the Minister takes back this legislation and the explanatory memorandum and the next time he brings it before this House he should have it properly and accurately described in the House and in the explanatory memorandum.
I would not wish to attribute to the Minister the intent to deliberately mislead, because that would be going too far; but he must have given this legislation a very cursory examination if he was able to describe it as simply clarifying and reinforcing some provisions in the rating valuation law and as a technical piece of legislation reinforcing what is already there. He should take into account what Deputy Flanagan said, because I agree that the appeals procedure on valuation is totally and utterly inadequate and unsuitable in this day and age. I say this having some experience of the law. Judges in a rushed Circuit Court session cannot give a proper hearing to major valuation issues. Unless you provide special judges——
That does not arise on section 2.
I am mentioning this as an obvious case. Judging by the Minister's reaction in shifting and turning away impatiently——
The Deputy is searching for lines that have been given to him by other people in the House because he would never have thought of them himself.
Order.
Do I have to remind the Minister that I have been practising as a barrister for approximately 25 years and a considerable portion of that time, before I came into this House, was spent on the circuit? I appeared in these cases and know directly of court procedure. Speaking from experience which the Minister does not have, I am saying that this system is inadequate. I support what Deputy Flanagan said.
That does not arise on this section.
The Minister has a lot of work ahead of him and perhaps he would take this legislation with him and if he comes back to this House with an accurate explanatory memorandum we will give him a fair run.
There are a number of points I want to make in reply to what Deputies said, and in particular to the unsubstantiated claim that there is anything misleading in the way the Bill has been presented or in the explanatory memorandum, although how they have hung it on section 2, I am at a loss to understand.
Read section 2.
I wrote it.
That explains it.
It has been claimed that the explanatory memorandum is misleading on the grounds that paragraph 1 does not present the whole picture. Deputy O'Malley claims it is misleading to say that the purpose of this Bill is not to extend the type of property to be valued and rated but rather to preserve the traditional valuation base. That is the purpose of the Bill. There is nothing misleading in saying that. I refer Deputy O'Malley to paragraph 6 of the explanatory memorandum which indicates what is provided for in section 3 and indicates in relation to the property which is to be subject to valuation that "Many such properties have been already valued but it is considered necessary to put the matter beyond dispute, particularly as some of the items were either non-existent or of little practical significance when the Valuation Acts were passed in the last century."
How does the Minister reconcile that with his statements?
That, I think, makes it very clear.
They are contradictory.
They are not contradictory.
They are not at all contradictory. In fact, the one is complementary to the other. Section 2 provides that the categories of fixed property specified in the schedule to be inserted in the Act of 1852 by section 3 of this Bill shall be deemed to be rateable hereditaments, in addition to those specified in section 12 of that Act. I do not know whether it is in order for me to do so, but I would certainly ask Deputies to refer to section 12 of the 1852 Act and while they are at it, to have a look also at section 13 of that Act. I shall read it, if I may.
The Chair is of opinion that we must keep to section 2. That section provides for the insertion of a new section in the Act of 1852. That is what is in order and that is what the section is about. It deals with the schedule and, of course, the schedule specifies what is in that schedule. The new schedule is what we are now discussing.
On a point of order, surely it would be in order for the Minister to read section 12 of the 1852 Act in view of the fact that the change which it is proposed to make in section 2 is in order to clarify that section?
If that were the Coalition handler, I would agree.
May I express an opinion? I think the Minister is quite right in endeavouring to make the comparison between the various sections of the 1852 Act and the new legislation which is now being brought in.
Of course, the Minister can compare the schedule with the previous one.
I am one Deputy who would like to hear what the Minister has to quote with reference to the 1852 Act. I feel that my knowledge would be immensely improved by that. I have been in court on numerous occasions but, nevertheless, I should like to hear the comparison now.
Everybody is from the courts today.
I do not intend to read all of section 12 of the 1852 Act which is rather a long section. If the Deputies are prepared to agree, I can leave out those sections which appear to be less directly relevant to section 2.
Just the part that is relevant.
I quote as follows:
For the Purposes of this Act the following Hereditaments shall be deemed to be the rateable Hereditaments; viz. all Lands, Buildings, and opened Mines, all Commons and Rights of Common, and all other Profits to be had or received or taken out of any Lands;
I am omitting a piece here. It goes on:
...all Rights of Fishery; all Canals, Navigations, and Rights of Navigation; all Railways and Tramroads; all Rights of Way and other Rights or Easements over Land——
Easements, exactly.
——and the Tolls levied in respect of such Rights and Easements, and all other Tolls:
Yes.
It then goes on to exclude turf bogs and turf banks which do not seem directly relevant to our discussion at the moment. It continues on:
...and no Mines hereafter to be opened shall be deemed rateable until Seven Years after the same shall have been opened;
Section 13 of the 1852 Act reads as follows:
For the Purposes of such Valuation all Mills and Buildings erected for manufacturing or other Purposes, together with the Water Power thereof, shall be included in such Valuation, provided that the Water Power of any Mill or Manufactory be only valued so far as it may be actually used, and that such Valuation shall not extend to or include the Value of any Machinery contained within such Mill or Manufactory.
That is the basis from which we are beginning.
Does the Minister not acknowledge that this quotation shoots down his case?
The Deputy should let the Minister proceed with his case.
Deputy O'Kennedy has, along with Deputy O'Malley, ignored to a substantial extent——
Deputy O'Kennedy should really show a little patience.
Patience is one thing, accuracy is another.
——a great deal of the body of practice that has been built up on the basis of those two sections of the 1852 Act. I have referred indirectly, as I intend to do, since section 2 of this Bill mentions the schedule to be inserted by section 3, to certain of the items covered thereby in section 2.
Am I right in assuming that this is the traditional valuation base?
I intend to explain to the House just what is already included——
What Deputy Flanaghan has just heard is all about rights and easements.
——in the traditional valuation base.
Can we express our gratitude to the Minister for having read out sections 12 and 13 which confirmed precisely what we said? Sections 3 and 8 of this Bill are considerable additions to that.
Deputy O'Malley could best express his gratitude to the Minister by doing him the courtesy of remaining silent when he is speaking.
Yes, particularly since the best has yet to come. As far as the categories of fixed property are concerned, the intention here is to use the broad term "all constructions" in place of the word "buildings" in the 1852 Act to include property such as grain storage bins and oil storage tanks which have hitherto been valued and rated. I do not intend to talk about No. 2 in the schedule. We can come to that on the section. Reference to authority therein for valuing cables, pipelines and conduits are references to things which have traditionally been valued as easements.
Easements. Does the Minister realise that he is making nonsense of his own case, giving the most persuasive arguments against it?
Deputy, please. The Deputy should remain silent.
The Minister does not know what he is at.
The Deputies are making an error in speaking about the Bill which is before us as if none of the things had ever before been valued, which is not the case. I intend, in spite of their interruptions, to point out to them the fact that the things that are mentioned here have traditionally been part of the valuation base. Piers and docks, for example, referred to in the schedule in section 3 of this Bill have traditionally been valued, although they are not specifically mentioned in the legislation. They are mentioned here specifically in order to make the position clear. This, as I have said right from the beginning, is part of the purpose of this Bill, to add clarity to the law in order to put a certain number of matters and a certain number of types of property which have been traditionally part of the valuation base beyond dispute, so that there is no further argument about whether they are properly valued and rated.
In relation to No. 5 in the schedule, that covers a number of types of plant further referred to in the schedule in section 8. What we are talking about here, as I have said from the beginning, is clarifying the position to remove doubt so that there is no further argument, either in court or anywhere else, as to whether certain things are properly the subject of valuation and therefore rateable.
Deputy O'Malley has made a number of remarks about who has the right to interpret legislation. If the Deputy reads my remarks made on Second Stage, I have adverted to the fact that the courts have decided that certain properties are not properly valuable or rateable. I do not agree with that and it certainly was not the intention of the legislation that that should be the case. Of course, interpretation of legislation is a matter which, under our Constitution, is given to the courts. Equally, the interpretation and clarification of legislation must surely be a matter for legislators, otherwise why are we here? Again, I come back to the point that what this Bill sets out to do is to put a number of matters beyond dispute. In certain instances the law and practice have not been clear and unambiguous and it is only in those cases that a doubt can arise where a court is called upon to give its opinion. This Bill intends to remove that area of uncertainty.
Will the Minister please report progress?
I report progress.
The Minister has given a disgraceful speech.
The Deputy is getting very difficult. I ask him to conform to the rules of the House.
May I ask the Minister——
If the Deputy was a junior Deputy——
Both Deputy O'Malley and I——
The Deputy is out of order. He must resume his seat.
The Minister has given the most persuasive reason for taking this Bill out of the House.
Order. The Deputy must resume his seat. Recently he has been the most disorderly person in the House.
I am just suggesting to the Minister that he take away this Bill.
The Deputy will have plenty of time to do that later on and then he will be in order.
It is embarrassing to hear the Minister contradict himself so often.
I have not contradicted myself.
What does the Chair suggest we do while we are waiting for the Minister?
Be silent.
The fault is that the clocks in the rest of the House are different from the clock in the Chamber.
The Minister is the person in charge of the Office of Public Works.
You, Sir, are in charge of the House.
I am not responsible for the manual handling of the clocks.
Neither am I.