Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Jun 1959

Vol. 51 No. 3

Public Business. - Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1959—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

The purpose of this Bill is to extend the duration of the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1953, for a further period of three years commencing on the 1st April, 1959. The 1953 Act provided for the making by county councils of the following allowances by way of abatement of rates to occupiers of agricultural land holdings in rural areas—(a) a primary allowance of three-fifths of the general rate in the £ on the land valuation up to £20; (b) an employment allowance of £17 for each adult workman at work on the holding during the whole of the preceding calendar year, subject to the limitation that the total of the employment allowance shall not exceed the produce of the general rate in the £ on the valuation over £20. The 1953 Act applied to the financial years 1953/54 to 1955/56. An amending Act in 1956 continued the allowances on the same basis for a further period of three years up to 31st March, 1959. The effect of this Bill will be to continue the allowances for the next three years.

Legislation dealing with the relief of rates on agricultural land dates back for more than 60 years. The agricultural grant was first given under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898. The grant has been given each year since, but the basis of its distribution and the amount of the grant were altered on a number of occasions. Prior to 1946 the amount of the grant was always a sum fixed by each successive Act. Under the 1946 Act, it was provided that the grant would be the sum needed to give relief on the following basis:—(1) a primary allowance of three-fifths of the general rate in the £ on the land valuation up to £20; (2) a supplementary allowance of one-fifth of the general rate in the £ on the land valuation over £20; (3) an employment allowance calculated at the rate of 10/- in the £ on the land valuation over £20, subject to the limitation that the allowance should not exceed £6 10 0 for each adult workman at work on the holding during the whole of the preceding calendar year. The agricultural grant was continued on this basis until the passing of the 1953 Act, which increased the employment allowance, abolished the supplementary allowance, and established the method of distribution which is being continued by this Bill.

The amount of the agricultural grant has increased from £1,870,000 in 1945/46—the last year in which the amount of the grant was fixed in advance—to £4,647,000 in 1952/53— the year prior to the last revision of the method of distribution—and to £5,519,075 in 1958/59. In that year the agricultural grant afforded farmers relief to the extent of 44 per cent. of the rate levy on agricultural land.

The total payable in 1958/59 was divided as follows:—Primary Allowance, £4,278,595; Employment Allowance, £1,224,988; amount paid to certain municipal authorities, £15,492, giving a total of £5,519,075.

The employment allowance is given to rated occupiers in respect of a workman who was at work on the holding during the whole of the calendar year prior to the financial year in which the claim for the allowance was made, and who was otherwise qualified under the Acts. There is also provision that if two or more men are successively at work on a holding, or are employed in such a way that at all times during the calendar year there is one man at work, such workmen may be regarded as one man at work for the purposes of the employment allowance. It is also provided that every doubt, question and dispute in relation to employment allowance claims shall be determined by the local authority, whose determination shall be final and conclusive.

The present Bill embodies no new principle. As I have said already, its object is to continue until 31st March, 1962, the system provided for in the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1953.

Professor Hayes

This Bill, as the Minister has said, does not seem to involve any new principle. It is merely a continuing Bill and I see no reason why it should not be passed.

Mr. O'Quigley

There is just one question I should like to ask the Minister. He has said that "every doubt, question and dispute in relation to employment allowance claims shall be determined by the local authority whose determination shall be final and conclusive." As I understand the position, there is, not unnaturally I suppose, a difference of treatment as between one local authority and another in regard to the determination of these disputes. I am wondering whether the Minister is aware of that situation, or if he has in contemplation laying down any kind of rules or issuing any memoranda for the guidance of local authorities which would give some degree of uniformity in relation to these disputes, so that people in one county would not feel aggrieved as compared with people in another county.

Mr. Blaney

This question of broken time is one to which I am fully alive and I have on several occasions, both by way of reply to Parliamentary Questions and on the occasion of the introduction of the Bill and its passage through the Dáil, given, as clearly and as precisely as I can, the view that we, in the Department of Local Government, have on this matter. While still adhering to what has been said, that the local authority will be the final arbiter in any dispute arising on the determination of a claim in relation to an employment allowance, we know that there is a difficulty, in that when a workman leaves, it is not possible to press a button and get a replacement. Where the delay in replacement is possibly the cause of the break, I think I have made it clear, and I have said it on several occasions in the past, that that undoubtedly should be taken by the local authority as a fair and justifiable reason and should not debar that person from making a claim.

The other position that may obtain also is the question of a workman going off ill. If he says he is ill, I think it would be quite easy to establish that he is, in fact, ill by the procedure of finding out if he is drawing the sickness benefit from the Department of Social Welfare to which he is entitled. That would be fairly good and substantial evidence that, in fact, the illness is genuine and that his absence is due to that cause.

However, generally speaking, as I say, we are quite open to give, in any way we can, a lead to the local authorities who, I might say, in their defence, seem to have had a fear of our local government auditors coming along and possibly surcharging them because, as they read the law, if they give these concessions, they are in fact doing something illegal. I am not aware of any such surcharges having been made, but I know from talks I have had with various Deputies and Senators that that fear of the auditor does exist, or at least is alleged to exist, in the minds of some of these people who are being very strict in their interpretation of the law.

As I said, I am not aware of surcharges having been made, despite the fears that have been expressed by these people in our local authorities. While the fears may be there, if what I have said in the Dáil and here does not now allay those fears to a sufficient degree to give some sort of reasonable approach in this matter, then I do not know what would relieve the situation, other than the passing of some new legislation to take over the determination of claims by the Department. That, I should think, would be fraught with many dangers and would, in fact, be an interference with the autonomy of the local authority in a matter of this kind.

We have no evidence that surcharges are being made. Our views in the Department have been expressed both by myself and by my predecessors on a number of occasions. Where there is a break and where there is reasonable cause for it—it is not the fault of the farmer; nobody is trying to dodge; and nobody is trying to claim something to which he is not entitled—a uniformly reasonable approach by the local authority in deciding such claims should be adopted. In fact, that approach is being adopted in many counties. There may be a few counties in which there is overscrupulousness and a fear of the auditor possibly. Perhaps, what I have said now will remove those fears and this scrupulousness. If anybody has any other suggestions which would help in remedying the situation, I shall be happy to hear them and if there is any particular case I shall be glad to be informed of it.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.