We have five amendments. They have been circulated. Perhaps, before we start the Committee Stage, the Leader of the House might wish to state if it is agreed to sit after the normal hour of five o'clock.
Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Bill, 1970: Committee and Final Stages.
We should finish before six o'clock. It should not take that long.
Section I agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
To add to the section the following new subsection:
making bodies formed for cultural, educational, sporting or social purposes shall be indefinite."
This amendment is designed to cover the type of activity to which I referred in my Second Reading speech, which I endeavoured to keep as brief as possible. Apparently, I truncated it so much that the Minister misunderstood half of what I said. I hope that does not mean that I shall have to go into these amendments at great length.
This amendment, if accepted, and I can see no objection to it, would allow non-profit making bodies formed for cultural, educational, sporting or social purposes to qualify for the two-thirds rates remission over a period of seven years either in respect of the building of clubhouses or assembly halls or the reconstruction, modernisation or extension of these buildings. The amendment stipulates that they would be non-profit making bodies. I am sure that all Members of the House realise from the wording of the amendment the type of organisation that is in mind, the local guild of Muintir na Tíre, the local GAA club, the local hurling club or some local association attached to a religious community and operated for the benefit of the people.
Marriage bureaux and places of that nature.
It is a worthwhile amendment and I ask the Minister to accept it. I am aware that he has said this will be done in the phasing out period but in this amendment the word "indefinite" is used and that would meet that particular section of the, Act which would be a permanent piece of legislation and there would be no need to come back again. For that reason, I would press the Minister to accept the amendment.
I must point out to the Senator that we are dealing with the Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Acts and this Bill provides for exemption of rates on a temporary basis. The proposed amendment would cut across the whole tenor of the legislation by providing for relief of rates on a permanent basis for the specific type of buildings mentioned.
I did not hear what the Minister said.
That is regrettable. I was making the distinction that we are dealing with the Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Acts and that the Acts operated up to now provided only for temporary remission of rates whereas the amendment now proposed provides for remission on a permanent basis for the type of buildings the Senator has in mind.
I would remind the Senator that there is provision under existing permanent legislation exempting from rates the occupiers of buildings used for public or charitable purposes. Therefore, it is possible that in the case of many of the buildings which the amendment seeks to relieve, the occupiers are already exempt from rates. The decision in regard to the granting of exemption is a matter for the commissioner of valuation. The amendment also attempts to change the character of the Bill by making this special provision in relation to special types of buildings. Remissions under the Temporary Reduction of Valuation Code have always been of the omnibus kind. Perhaps, then, the Senator will agree to withdraw the amendment on the grounds that some of these cases are already covered and that some may be covered in legislation which I shall be introducing later. I am being reasonable in this.
The Minister's attitude hardly suggests that he is being reasonable. I would have thought that if one were to be deemed to be reasonable it would have to be the one withdrawing the amendment or accepting it. The Minister is making much play of the fact that this is a temporary reduction in valuation Bill. Obviously, he would be much better briefed on these matters than I but, perhaps, he has to hand the 1966 Act in this regard. I am speaking now from memory but, as far as I can recall, it was section 3 of that Act that allowed this provision to continue indefinitely in relation to farm outhouses and offices. If that is the case, surely the fact that this Bill is of a temporary nature does not enter into it since one of its predecessors allowed for permanent continuation in certain circumstances?
I admit that when I looked at this Bill originally I thought it would be wrong to think of something being done in a permanent way in the Bill because of its temporary nature but when I realised that the provision in relation to farm outhouses has been continued in a permanent way and that this is the easiest legislative vehicle for providing for some permanence in relation to some aspects of buildings, I considered that these amendments were fair. This is a social amendment. It is an attempt to help communities in rural Ireland who are to a large extent dependent for social activities on the parish hall. I can assure the Minister that the commissioner of valuation has not wiped out the valuations in regard to very many of the buildings I have in mind. If he had done so, the long arguments we had some months ago in relation to the Rates Relief Bill in regard to these matters need not have taken place.
This is true but in the main, however, I do not wish to accept the amendment.
That is being more honest.
The Bill does deal with temporary remissions since 1954 and the Senator is right in saying that the 1966 Act provided for permanent remission in regard to farm buildings but, generally, the Bill dealt with concessions of a temporary nature and required legislation every three years to re-enact and continue it. At this particular time I do not think I would be justified in accepting the amendment.
Is it the Minister's intention to introduce new permanent legislation?
Yes.
Is it his intention to include these types of buildings?
The Senator will appreciate that it would not be possible for me to predetermine which type of buildings we would include in the permanent legislation, because the review that is being carried out at the moment is not complete and I am not yet aware of all that would be required before making that decision.
I do not think Deputy Boland will press this amendment in full, but the Minister should take note of the purpose of the amendment. While Senator Boland has not consulted with me about the amendments, this amendment, in my view, is designed to assist rural communities in the upkeep of buildings for sporting, social and cultural functions. There should be reliefs for such buildings. Either we accept the depopulation of the country of we support the existing population. We must take a stand on either side. I do not know which would be the correct one but this amendment would help to support the community as it exists at the moment. Therefore, the Minister should have due regard to the fact that this is the main purpose of the amendment. The Minister may be right in not accepting the amendment but if he wants to provide amenities in rural Ireland he should accept it. I shall not press the Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 2:
To add to the section the following new subsection:
"( ) The provisions of this section shall not apply to owner occupied residential business premises."
This amendment is intended to provide owner occupied residential business premises with two-thirds rate remission over seven years. This would also apply to any reconstruction or extension work they carried out in order to compete with new competition and improve their business. While a proportion of this group may be quite wealthy and may derive a good living from their business, most small shopkeepers in the country are finding it increasingly difficult to carry on business with the pressure of competition from large combines. The small concession which has been allowed up till now should be continued. I would remind the Minister as I so often had to remind him when we were dealing with the Housing Bill that these concessions are not State concessions. They are concessions afforded by the local authority concerned. To refer to it as "State aid" is wrong.
The Senator was in favour of supermarkets a minute ago.
If Senator Honan had been listening carefully, he would know that at no time did I argue in favour of supermarkets. All I said was that I wondered if it was good economics to stop buildings being constructed which would have a high valuation because the revenue they produced could be used by the local authority to build more houses in the area.
I reject this amendment for more or less the same reasons as I rejected the previous amendment because here again a particular type of building is being isolated and given a special concession. I am asking the House to accept that by putting forward this Bill I want to phase out once and for all this omnibus remission which has existed under these Acts and introduce my own legislation giving specific remission for specific cases. It is possible that the type of building mentioned in this particular amendment might be the type of building we would be keen to grant a special concession for. I do not want to go into a long discussion on the merits of the amendment because if it is the Senator's intention to exempt small shopkeepers he must accept it is a rather limited and unsatisfactory method of defining this section of the community. As I said in relation to a similar amendment in the Dáil, there is nothing to stop the owner of a supermarket, as the only requirement is to reside on the premises, from residing on the premises and obtaining remission for the supermarket. For the same reason as I rejected the Senator's previous amendment I must reject this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3.
To add to the section the following new subsection:
"( ) The provisions of this section shall not apply to residential dwellings of 1,250 to 1,500 square feet in floor area."
This amendment provides that people who have been deprived, by the passing of the Housing Bill, of State grants, supplementary grants and exemption from stamp duty should not be deprived of rates remission spread over the first seven years of occupancy. Certain people will be obliged to purchase a house over 1,250 square feet because of the very size of their family. If a family wanted to take in an aged or infirm relative, this would necessitate the provision of a separate bedroom which consequently would increase the floor area available for use by the rest of the family. I feel they should at least be given rates remission although I can anticipate the Minister's answer.
It would be only natural for the Senator to anticipate my answer as it is only a short while since we discussed an identical amendment on the Housing Bill. For the same reasons I gave then I cannot accept this amendment now. If I were to accept the amendment, I would defeat the whole purpose for which the Housing Bill was introduced. The whole purpose of the Housing Bill is to concentrate our resources on houses of a more modest size.
The amendment on the Housing Bill allowed for rates remission over nine years.
The principle involved is the same. It will grant remissions to people no longer getting the grant.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 5:
Before section 4 to insert the following new section:
"( ) (1) In the case of a revision in the rateable valuation of a tenement consisting of or including an owner occupied dwelling house, flat or maisonette of 1,250 to 1,500 square feet in floor area, as the case may be, such amount of the revised valuation as is attributable to the erection of the house, flat or maisonette shall, in each of the nine successive local financial years following the local financial year in which the house, flat or maisonette is completed, be deemed to be reduced for rating purposes by the proportion of such amount specified in the column of the Table to this section opposite the number of the year in the first column of the Table.
(2) In this section "rating purposes" in relation to a tenement means the following (and no other) purposes, that is to say, the purpose of the assessment and levying of any rate raised by a local authority for the service of the local financial year in which the tenement is first rated on the increased valuation referred to in subsection (1) of this section or for the service of any of the next following eight local financial years.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) of this section every computation for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts of the annual value of such tenement shall be made in like manner as if the full valuation were in force for the purposes of county rate or municipal rate, as the case may be, in relation to that year.
(4) In every case in which reconstruction, conversion, extension, or essential repairs of a dwelling as defined in this section takes place, the valuation of the tenement, consisting of or including such dwelling, shall not on any valuation or revision of the valuation thereof coming into force within seven years after the completion of the relevant works, be increased on account of any increase in the value of such tenement arising from the relevant works.
TABLE
Reduction in valuation of house, flat or maisonette used as an owner occupied dwelling, and being, in floor area, of 1,250 to 1,500 square feet.
|
Number of Year |
Proportion of Valuation |
|
First |
Nine-tenths |
|
Second |
Eight-tenths |
|
Third |
Seven-tenths |
|
Fourth |
Six-tenths |
|
Fifth |
Five-tenths |
|
Sixth |
Four-tenths |
|
Seventh |
Three-tenths |
|
Eighth |
Two-tenths |
|
Ninth |
One-tenth |
This amendment provides for remission of rates for people in houses having an area of 1,250 to 1,500 square feet. The purpose is to allow for remissions to be spread over the nine-year period in one-tenths rather than two-thirds in seven years. It also includes the important provision that where reconstruction or essential repairs are carried out on a dwelling the valuation would not be increased for the first seven years after that extension or modernisation had been carried out. I regard this suggestion as fair. Any person who carries out essential repairs should not have to pay increased rates immediately because a higher valuation is placed on the property. This amendment would ensure that the increased valuation would not be immediately put on the premises.
The House will appreciate that there is no possibility of my accepting this amendment, for the same reason I gave in regard to previous amendments. I should like to explain to the Senator that, where a reconstruction grant is paid for carrying out certain repairs to a house and consequent on that work the valuation is increased, the remission of rates will apply for the seven years on the increased valuation because of the reconstruction or addition. If a reconstruction grant is paid, the remission will apply.
At present what happens is that the valuation is not increased for a seven-year period.
If the valuation is increased there is a remission on that part of the total valuation——
In other words, what is to be continued is that, where a grant is given for reconstruction and if there is a revaluation because of that, two-thirds remission of the rates based on that increased valuation for seven years will apply. If that is the case, surely it is taking one specific item and continuing it in existence while other aspects are disregarded? Apparently it is only in the reconstruction and extension provision that this remission will apply.
Yes, there will be total remission for seven years.
In other words, if there is an increase in valuation because of the extension it is just ignored for the first seven years? I must admit that I am disappointed with the attitude the Minister has displayed on these amendments. I am afraid he is in the stranglehold of the Custom House. I hope he will endeavour not to let this happen.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments, received for final consideration and passed.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 28th July, 1970.