Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Jul 1924

Vol. 3 No. 14

SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RATES ON AGRICULTURAL LAND) BILL, 1924 (THIRD STAGE).

Question—"That consideration of the title of the Bill be postponed"— put and agreed.
Question—"That Clause 1, Clause 2, Clause 3 and Clause 4 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed.

I move:—

Immediately before Section 5 to insert a new section 5 as follows:—

Any ratepayer in a county may, during the hours that the office of the county council is open, on payment of a fee of one shilling, inspect any books or returns of the county council, showing the rates which have been paid in the county.

It often happens in a county that there is a large amount of unpaid rates, and I think it is only reasonable that any ratepayer, especially a ratepayer who had paid his rates, should have an opportunity of knowing who has or who has not paid his rates.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You propose to do that by letting him know those who have paid their rates and not those who have not paid them?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Of course the one would tell the other.

Should the privilege not be confined to the ratepayer who has paid his rates?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

He might like to see if somebody else has paid them for him.

I beg to support the motion. From my experience of local administration I think that if you could get lists of defaulters published it would be a very good thing. I remember I was very anxious for the proper administration of asylums, and I had a list prepared in the case of a particular asylum of the people who had allowed their friends to be detained at the public expense; but when it came to a question of publishing the list the committee, who had a number of their own friends in the asylum, refused to have the list published. If you could go further even than this amendment and publish the list of defaulting ratepayers it would be a great thing.

I agree with the remarks made by Senator Brown. It would be hardly fair that a ratepayer who has not paid his rates should take up the time of the officers of the county council examining the books and so forth in order to see who has paid his rates. In recent times there was a disposition on the part of some people to say that they will meet their financial responsibilities if other people meet theirs; and in order to see how many people are meeting their responsibilities and in order to enable him to decide as to whether he would or would not pay his rates a man may sport a shilling to have a look at the books. I hardly think that we should facilitate him in that way. I certainly would support the amendment if words were inserted to the effect that the right should be confined to the ratepayer who has paid his rates. But I do not think that the right should be extended indiscriminately to people who have not paid.

I think it is right to limit the right for another reason. I hope nothing of the kind is likely to occur, and I am not going to make prophecies, but a no-rate agitation may possibly arise, and if it did it is possible that a clause of this kind, unless properly safeguarded, might play into the hands of agitators of this kind at some future time. I think that should be guarded against.

There is one further reason which would make this amendment advisable. In the case of an agricultural show an exhibitor may put down his valuation incorrectly, that is to say, he may put down his valuation as the valuation of one of his farms only, and thereby obtain access to a class which is confined say to farmers of another valuation. That is a difficulty we very often meet with. I speak as a member of the committee of an agricultural show when I say that in the case of a farmer who has entered in virtue of having only one particular farm within the qualification for that particular class it is very often difficult to ascertain whether such an exhibitor has more than one farm in the county.

May I point out that as the law stands I think any ratepayer at present may inspect the rate-books without paying a fee. Twenty-one days, I think, before the date of the audit is the usual time. The period may be changed. While I have no objection, and there does not appear to be any objection, on the merits, to confining the right to ratepayers who have paid their rates or to inserting the words "on payment of a fee," at the same time will that be taken as repealing the law under which any ratepayer may, during a certain time, inspect the books without payment of a fee, and whether he has paid his rates or not? This particular amendment merely extends the time. Instead of giving the ratepayers the right of inspecting the rate-books at certain times prescribed, under this amendment any ratepayer may go in at any time. I am told by the Local Government Department that as things stand very few ratepayers ever exercise their right in the matter. I do not think that Senators need be afraid that any ratepayers will take advantage of this clause. The real value of this clause is the it gives to the fact that well-off people who are not paying their rates may be caught out by their neighbours who are.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Are you supporting the amendment. Mr. Hogan?

I am not. It is a matter for the Seanad. I merely wish to point out to the Seanad that if they accept that amendment they limit the existing powers of the ratepayers.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Are you now talking of the original amendment on the Order Paper?

No, the amendment suggested by two or three Senators.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

To insert the words "who has himself paid his rates"?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

But even as it stands would it not be inconsistent with an existing provision which gives unlimited power to any ratepayer, as I understand you?

It would, so far as the fee is concerned, but the power is not unlimited so far as the time is concerned.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

So then, surely, it is wrongly drafted. I am not aware of its existence, but if there is an existing provision which enables any ratepayer without payment of a fee to inspect these books, then this would be inconsistent with that provision, and you are repealing an existing provision and substituting this in its place.

My suggestion is that the amendment should read like this: "Any ratepayer may in a county during the hours that the office of the county council is open inspect any books or returns of the county council showing the rates which have been paid in the county." I am leaving out the words "on payment of a fee of one shilling." You will then be extending the existing rights of ratepayers. You will be allowing them to inspect the books at any time instead of during the 21 days.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Might that not become a very serious abuse? Supposing there was an agitation in a particular county against paying rates, half a dozen men could go in and take possession of the whole office for the whole day and say they were searching the rate-books.

I am not at all certain that the county council have these things. When the warrant is issued to the rate collector he is responsible for the lodgment of the total amount of his warrant. I do not think that the county council have any individual record of what rates have been collected. They look to the rate collector to discharge his warrant. I do not know that you would find anything in the county council office. If you go to the rate collector you may get the information.

The county council gets a return from the bank which is the treasurer, I think every seven days, and the collector is bound to send in returns at the end of the week of what he has collected. I do not think the difficulty suggested by Senator Sir John Keane will occur, so I am not sure that the Minister is not right as to the right of a ratepayer to inspect books during a certain period. I think it is confined to 21 days after or before a certain date. If he would allow me to look into this before report, then if the matter is raised on report I think we might make some useful amendment.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think the present amendment should not be inserted without further consideration, but some provision of the kind is desirable if it could be dove-tailed in with the existing law.

If you ask me my opinion, I am quite clear, and Senator Brown, who knows the law very much better, is of the same opinion, that there is a provision at present under which any ratepayer has the right to inspect the books for a given period. All this amendment does, if you take out the words "on payment of a fee of one shilling," is that it extends that time. I do not anticipate any dangers from inspection of the books, or any danger of people taking possession of the county offices. I believe, on the contrary, the more publicity the better, and the more people who inspect the books the better.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think the object of the Senator who moved the amendment, if I understand it, was to put some restraint on these powers, to give the power, but at the same time to make them pay something for it, so that mere idle curiosity would not prompt them to go and inspect the books, and that if a man wants to see the books he should pay a shilling for the privilege of doing so. I think that was the object of the Senator. I may be quite wrong, but I do not think the object was to extend the existing facilities.

I wish to extend the existing facilities, and the time, but the reason I put in the payment of one shilling was to prevent anyone coming to the offices out of mere curiosity, and wasting the time of the officials.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The difficulty of the amendment as it stands if these words are left in is——

I have no objection to striking out the words "on payment of a fee of one shilling."

I would be quite willing to accept the amendment without these words.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

"Any ratepayer in a county may during the hours that the office of the county council is open inspect any books or returns of the county council showing the rates which have been paid in the county." That, as I understand, would effect a change in the existing law. The existing law limits the power of the ratepayer to a certain period, and if that power is to be enlarged by this amendment there should be some re-reference saying "notwithstanding anything in any previous Act" to show that this is an amendment of the existing law, otherwise the two clauses will come up, and the court will say: "We do not know which is the law; you have two provisions dealing with the subject and they do not agree; which is in force?"

I think the Senator and the Minister would be well advised to accept the offer of Senator Brown to try and re-draft something for the Report Stage. We will not be the worse but we may be a great deal the better. I doubt very much if the words are quite clear. I do not know whether "any ratepayers" means every ratepayer in the county whether he is paying rates or not in the county. It might mean any ratepayer in Ireland.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

If it is not the intention to limit the existing rights I think the House ought to be very well advised before they extend it.

I do not think the rate-books are available for inspection under the existing law. The accounts are available, but I do not think the rate-books are there. They are taken in for examination every two or three weeks but I do not think they are there for inspection.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Would it not be worth while to accept Senator Brown's offer to look into the thing, and then a suggestion can be made on the Report Stage, and if the Minister does not like it it can be discussed.

Amendment held over for Report.

Clause 5 put and agreed to.

The Title put and agreed to.

Barr
Roinn