Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 14 Dec 1978

Vol. 90 No. 9

Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill, 1977: Committee and Final Stages.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

The explanatory memorandum on section 1 clearly states that:

Use of a hall for one or more particular sports or games will not of itself make a premises a community hall.

It would be most unfair, particularly in rural Ireland where there are a number of halls used for table tennis, badminton, playing cards at night, if such halls were not exempted under the Bill. There is also the question of farm buildings. Farm buildings prior to the given date in the Bill are exempt. Does that mean that poultry houses, piggeries and that type of buildings which were built prior to that date or since then are exempt under the particular section?

In the manifesto no reason was given as far as community halls were concerned but the exemption is provided for in this Bill. The definition of community hall is outlined in section 1. It is a fairly open interpretation. The one limit is that if a community hall is used as a registered club and is licensed for the sale of alcohol it would not be exempt. In normal circumstances a community hall is exempt from rates under the provisions of this Bill.

My question was with regard to farm buildings.

With regard to farm buildings the position is that entitlement to rates relief for a farm building will depend on its being described as such in the valuation lists by the Commissioner of Valuation. The present Bill simply extends existing reliefs for farm buildings to pre-1959 farm buildings and does not define farm buildings in any new way. It is not for a Minister to say whether certain marginal types of agricultural premises, such as intensive rearing units and hatcheries, should qualify for exemption from rates. This is a matter for the Commissioner of Valuation, who must ask himself whether these premises are farm, outhouse or office buildings within the meaning of the 1852 Act. If he decides they are they would not be rated, and if he decides they are not, they will be rated in full. This is a matter for the Commissioner of Valuation to a great extent.

Did I hear the Minister right when he said "marginal farm activities" in relation to poultry houses or intensive rearing units? Surely the word "marginal" would be inappropriate there? It would have to be completely agricultural.

It is for the Commissioner of Valuation to decide that. The Minister would have no function in this regard, neither would the rating authority.

Would the Minister agree that a building used for the rearing of pigs, whether intensively or haphazardly, cannot be other than a farm building?

The Senator probably knows from his legal experience that this is a matter for the Commissioner of Valuation in the first instance.

I never reared pigs.

If the person concerned is not satisfied he has a right to appeal to the courts.

Can the Minister tell us what is the policy of the commissioner at the moment with regard to valuing such buildings?

I cannot speak for the commissioner.

I am not asking him to speak for the commissioner. Can he tell us what the commissioner is doing?

He is merely carrying out his duties.

No matter how we define the word "agriculture", we must admit that poultry rearing or piggeries come under the scope of agriculture. If it is not in the Bill that these buildings would be exempt it should be. If my memory serves me right, I think that was conveyed in the manifesto, but I am not sure.

I would not like to express an opinion on this matter because there are some court cases at this moment awaiting hearing and a decision. The fact is that some of these enterprises could be regarded as industrial enterprises rather than agricultural enterprises.

I thought what was before the courts was a question of income tax. I did not think there was a question of rates, but I am prepared to accept the word of the Minister of State.

Rating, too.

What is the position of ball alleys under this Bill? From my reading of it they are not exempt. They are a form of entertainment and can be compared with community halls. I cannot understand why they are not exempt. While I understand the position the Minister finds himself in with regard to piggeries and intensive farmyard enterprises. I would like to hear him say that, from the point of view of intensive farming, he would like to see those buildings exempt, irrespective of what the Valuation Office say. As he knows many small farmers do not have any way of making a living from the land except by intensive farmyard enterprises. There can be no way that that can be regarded as an industrial enterprise. As I said, from my reading of the Bill, ball alleys do not seem to be exempt.

As regards ball alleys, this is a matter for the local authorities to decide. If any person disputes the decision of the local authority or the rating authority, it is open for him to appeal to the Commissioner of Valuation. If he is not satisfied, he can appeal to the courts. I would not like to comment on various intensive farm enterprises because, as I said, this is a matter which is coming up shortly before the courts.

I have just one more question to the Minister. A mixed hereditament is defined as a:

hereditament which consists wholly or partly of a building which is used partly as a dwelling to a significant extent and partly for another or other purposes to such an extent;

presumably also to a significant extent. The question arises here, who is to determine whether the extent of private user or non-private user is significant?

This is a matter for the local authority to decide. In the event of a dispute it is referred to the District Court. All appeals are covered in section 7 of the Bill.

The District Court can then decide whether the non-domestic part is significant.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move the following amendment:

In subsection (1), page 5, to delete lines 40 to 49 and substitute the following:

"(ii) In any other case a sum equal to such portion of the building valuation as may be appropriated by a rating authority in respect of that part of the hereditament as is used for other than domestic purposes provided that the rated occupier if dissatisfied with such apportionment may not later than one month from the date of such apportionment make application to a justice of the District Court who may thereupon confirm or alter such apportionment as he may think fit."

This takes up a point I raised yesterday when speaking on the Second Stage with regard to section 2. This section provides that in the case of a finding by the local authority that there is a significant non-domestic user in regard to what would otherwise be a domestic premises, one-third of the rates shall then not be subject to any allowance. I was making the point to the Minister that to fix an arbitrary proportion of one-third could work an injustice on many people in this position who are using some part of their houses for non-domestic purposes. I take the point that such a person, if aggrieved, can always appeal to the District Court, but I think this has put a clumsy and expensive procedure in train to solve something which should not require that. Most people would be guided by the views of the local authority as to the proportion that should be attributed to the non-domestic user. What we are seeking in the amendment is to exchange the fixed proportion of one-third provided for in the Bill for a discretionary power to the local authority to fix the proportion having regard to the particular case. That would be altogether more fair and equitable.

I gave the instance of the different types of user. You could have a person repairing a few shoes in the front room of his house, perhaps a handicapped person supplementing his income. You could have a person doing an intensive shoe repair business in his house. Again you could have a hairdresser accommodating a few neighbours, or a hairdresser doing a fairly intensive business. You could have a doctor having a surgery in the house, a doctor in the prime of his professional life carrying on a large practice, or a retired doctor seeing a few old friends, so to speak, in the surgery part of his house. I think it is unfair that the proportion for rating purposes should be one-third. There should be room for discretion and the discretion should be with the local authority.

We put down this amendment to give that discretion and provided for an appeal to the District Court if the rated occupier is dissatisfied with the apportionment by the rating authority of the valuation as between the business and domestic user. The drafting of the amendment was rather rushed and it may not be drafted entirely satisfactorily, but it does enable me to make the point. I suggest that the arbitary apportionment fixed by the Bill can work fairly in many cases. I would say in the great majority of cases. However, it is much better to give a discretion to the local authority. The rated occupier can go to the county manager and argue his case and they can hammer out an agreed solution. At the moment it is a third or the District Court. That is too harsh and is going to work an injustice on many people. People will be faced with the alternative of accepting the third or going to the District Court, an unknown procedure and place, that people by definition want to keep away from and there are also the financial implications of going to court, particularly when the party on the other side will be the State or local authority. People do not feel like taking on somebody for whom the court has no financial terrors. Consequently, most people will accept the one-third apportionment, even though it will be an injustice. I would urge the Minister to accept the amendment or at least the spirit of the amendment.

The amendment envisages two changes from the section as drafted. First, it would drop the one-third/£18 formula and require an individual apportionment to be made in every case. Secondly, the amendment would make the rating authority, rather than the Valuation Office, responsible for carrying out the apportionment. I oppose this amendment on a number of grounds. The one-third/ £18 formula is useful because it allows relief to be given immediately and without question in every case. It need not be final if either the rated occupier or the rating authority think it is inappropriate. They may have the valuation referred to the Valuation Office for a special apportionment. The Senator will appreciate that there are an estimated 35,000 mixed properties in the country, which is a significant figure. It would take a considerable time to carry out a special apportionment of all these properties and this could hold up the collection of rates unduly and create a certain amount of uncertainty.

As regards the proposal to have rating authorities rather than the Valuation Office carry out apportionments, I dealt with that point in my reply to the Second Stage debate. The Valuation Office are experts in this field and we thought it best to avail of their expertise. I also mentioned yesterday that in cases where a room in a house is used for a non-domestic purpose, but which is of an insignificant nature, it is open to the council or to the local authority to use their discretion there, having regard to the nature of the business. They must also bear in mind the reports submitted to them from the local investigation officer. The majority of local authorities will have to act reasonably in this respect. If I thought otherwise. I would take action.

Could I put two points which arise from that? If, in practice, this turns out to be unsatisfactory and the machinery provided is not working well and there is patent injustice being caused to householders by virtue of this, would the Minister undertake to look at this with a view possibly to amending the Bill to meet any injustices that may manifest themselves in the operation of the Bill?

I shall keep it under continuous review.

The Minister of State says it is a question for the Valuation Office to fix the rating and valuation of the premises—I agree that that is the law—and that it will be appropriate to give the local authority discretion here. as suggested in the amendment. In effect, have not the local authorities got the discretion by implication because they will be the people who will decide whether the non-domestic use is significant? For example, if a hairdresser is carrying on a small business in a room and the local authority decide that it is insignificant and that the total use of the premises is domestic, is there any danger of a conflict between the local authority's decision and the Commissioner of Valuation? Admittedly he cannot revise the valuation unless it is listed by the local authority for revision, but if there was some way in which he came into the picture, can the Minister see any conflict there? Will the local authority be deciding what is domestic or what is non-domestic? For example, washing hair is a domestic procedure. Does it become non-domestic if you are paid for it?

That conflict is most unlikely to arise because, as the Senator said, the Valuation Office will not step in unless they are notified by the rating authority or the local authority. I am certain that the officers in the rates office have acted, and will act, in a reasonable manner in this respect. We must bear in mind also the fact that the £18 formula worked well last year in connection with the 25 per cent rates remission introduced by the former Government and it has worked reasonably well over the last year.

It has worked well collecting revenue. I have raised this point because several people have come to me and said how well it has worked.

It depends on how you look at it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

On this section we have the question of community halls. Do I take it from what the Minister said under section 1 that community halls, unless where intoxicating liquor is available, will be exempt from rates? In most small towns in rural Ireland there are 20 to 30 people who go to the halls at night to play badminton, table tennis or cards. A big percentage of these halls are controlled by the local community, under the chairmanship of a local clergyman. Do I take it that this type of hall will be called a community hall and will qualify for the relief of rates?

I cannot speak for a specific case in the context of this Bill. Generally speaking, community halls are exempt. As I said previously, if a community hall has a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor it is definitely out. An occasional licence may not necessarily rule out that premises from derating. A lot depends on what business is carried on in the community hall. Playing cards and anything of a community or recreational nature being carried out in a community hall would not mean that it would be rated. If the owners of a community hall have a grievance they have the right of appeal.

My understanding is that if the halls or such premises are used by voluntary organisations for the social good of the community and not for profit-making to any degree they are and should be exempt.

If there is a dispute, whether it is a community hall or not, who makes the decision? Is it the local authority?

The local authority in the first instance and, on appeal, the District Court will decide.

I take it that it is the local authority that decides whether it is a community hall or not? If that is the case I am happy; that is a fair enough decision. I can see it from the Minister's point of view that there are a number of privately owned dance halls which might be called community halls. We will get a better decision from the local authority.

I am a little puzzled. What happens in the case of a community hall that has a licence to sell beer? Will that hall be subject to this? What is the position about community halls in cities which have been built with the assistance of corporations?

Generally speaking, a community hall which is licensed to sell alcohol is not exempt. A community hall which is primarily run on a profit-making basis for the purpose of making profits for a club or otherwise is not exempt. That is the general position.

If it is non-profit making and has a beer licence?

It is not exempt.

What about halls or institutions of that kind which are registered as friendly societies and have licences, should they be exempt from rates?

Much as I would like to I could not express a view in relation to particular cases without having full details of the cases. If the Senator has any case in mind and brings it to the notice of the rating authority they will be sympathetically disposed, if they can be.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

The allowance is made irrespective of whether the premises is domestic or mixed?

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

This is the section of which I expressed grave criticism on Second Stage. I am unhappy that the Government have not tried to fulfil what I believed was a promise to flatdwellers. I believe the Government promised that the benefit of rates relief would transfer to tenants in private furnished accommodation. The reality is that this is not happening in a large number of cases. This Bill, which is retrospectively providing a legislative framework for the decisions already taken by the Government, does not remedy that situation. That is a major defect in the Bill. I tried hard last night to devise a possible amendment and I was caught between the difficulty of it being a financial change which would not be admissible or, alternatively, just the sheer difficulty of the wording of section 5 which is obviously catering for a complex situation but is certainly one of the most difficult and complex sections, running over four pages of the Bill.

The major problem is that since 1 January it is clear from the survevs carried out by the flatdwellers and local Labour Party branches, that in private furnished rented accommodation—I am not talking about local authority or fixed rent-controlled accommodation; I am talking about the vulnerable people in flatland in Dublin, particularly people in the Rathmines area and other similar areas—they are not getting the benefit of the abolition of the rates by having their rents reduced. I should like to make further reference to the survey carried out by the National Flatdwellers' Association. It is worth looking, in some detail, at the results of that survey in a typical area of the kind we are talking about, in Grove Park, Rathmines. The following is the quotation from the survey:

The survey was carried out during the week of February 28 to March 7 1978 in Grove Park, Rathmines, Dublin 6. Sixty-seven of a total of 99 rated houses in Grove Park are now known to be let in flats. Full details on rents and conditions were obtained for 51 houses and 469 tenants. Incomplete information was obtained on a further 16 houses where the surveyors failed to gain access. In six cases a person believed to be the landlord claimed that the house was not let in flats. There was one case where the tenant refused to give any information on rents charged, etc. There was nobody at home in nine houses surveyed.

Survey Findings.

None of the 469 tenants in 51 houses for which complete information is available received rent reductions owing to rates abolition. According to the Rates Department, the total rates bill for 67 houses was £17,219 in 1977. The average rates bill was £257 per house. The average house let in flats in Grove Park contained five flats and nine tenants. Since January 1 1978 each of the 600 tenants in Grove Park is legally entitled to an average rent reduction of £28.50 from 1978 owing to the rates abolition.

I appreciate that the survey was carried on relatively early, in March 1978. There were subsequent small sample surveys done by a number of Labour branches and they came up with the same kind of depressing picture, either that the tenants were not aware at all that they should have been able to avail of a rent reduction or they had moved in May, June or July 1978, and did not know whether the rent they were being offered included the reduction for the abolition of rates and were in no position to bargain. They just had to accept the accommodation at the rent offered because of the shortage, the imbalance between the flatdwellers and the sellers' market that the landlords are in.

This is a very serious problem. If this rates abolition is to have the kind of social benefit that was being argued for it last night it must transfer to those who should be getting the benefit. It must result in automatic and enforced rent reductions for tenants in the private rented accommodation. The problem, as I see it, with section 5 is firstly that it is a very elaborate calculation—I can understand the reasons for that—but subsection (5) provides:

An allowance required by this section to be made by a landlord shall be a debt due and owing by the landlord to the tenant concerned, and in default of being made to such tenant by way of set-off or otherwise may be recovered by that tenant or by his personal representative as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.

The Bill is saying: "We will leave it up to the tenant". The tenant has to fight for his rights and has a right of access to the court to pursue his rights. That is not a just remedy. As I mentioned last night in another context, we do not have any system of civil legal aid and advice. Therefore, the provision in a Bill of this sort of access to the court to pursue a simple contract debt is like telling the tenants that they can go to the Shelbourne Hotel. They cannot get access to the court because they cannot get private lawyers to take the case for them because they cannot afford it and they cannot get the free legal aid centres to take the case for them because they are inundated with work.

In the Coolock Community Law Centre there is a two month waiting list before any case will be taken. We are in an area where people are not accustomed to going into court to enforce their rights against landlords. Unfortunately, we do not have the kind of system of legal aid or lawyers particularly concerned to provide that kind of service. This is one of the aspects why tenants have not their rights secured and flatdwellers, particularly in Dublin, are so vulnerable and at risk. I should like to ask the Minister why he did not seek in this section to secure that the benefit of the rates abolition would be transferred by way of a rent reduction to flatdwellers in private rented accommodation. There are a number of different ways in which he could do it. He could do it by providing that it would be an offence for a landlord not to pass on the benefit. The landlord is obliged in part of the section which states:

Where a landlord receives a notice given to him pursuant to the requirements of subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, he shall, not later than ten days after receipt of the notice, give to each tenant of any dwelling of which the hereditament to which the apportioned valuation relates is partly comprised a copy of the notice.

Is there any enforcement of that? Is there any sanction to enforce it? Is there any sanction to enforce the more important thing, that he passes on the benefit of the rates abolition through a reduction of rent to the tenant? This is an extremely important section. It is denying the kind of protection to flatdwellers which the abolition of rates should be giving. If there was a way to amend it at this stage it should be amended and strengthened.

I raised this also on Second Stage. I did not know it was as serious as I have now learned from Senator Robinson who is concerned about the people in the Rathmines area. I was satisfied it was happening because last year these tenants got no benefit. Ninety per cent of the tenants referred to by Senator Robinson are young boys and girls from rural Ireland on a nominal enough income in the city and paying a substantial rent for their flats. There is no point in telling these people that the cost of living has dropped for them by the reduction of rates, because they did not get a reduction of rates.

The same situation exists all over not alone for the reasons Senator Robinson outlined, that they cannot go to court. but because they are genuinely afraid to go to court, as I have said on Second Stage. The landlord will get them out of the house by some means or another and unless the Department of the Environment—the corporation in this case or the local authorities throughout rural Ireland—move these people will not get any relief. I heard recently of landlords maintaining that they are entitled to the rates relief because the cost of repairs, and materials for repairs, and wages, have gone up so much. They said it was their intention to keep this unless something is done by the Department, or the local authorities. There is no point in telling these unfortunate people to go to court.

The position is that tenants who moved in or became tenants after 1 January 1978 after rates were abolished cannot claim a reduction as rates did not form a cost-element in the letting after 1 January 1978. Senator Robinson spoke about properties in Dublin embodying multiple lettings. In most of these cases the valuation of the total property will not have been apportioned into the various units of letting. Section 5 provides the machinery for this and this machinery will come into operation only on the passing of this Bill but its effect will be retrospective, which is a very interesting point. Senator Robinson mentioned other matters in relation to section 5 but the position is that until such time as the Bill is enacted, including section 5 which is fundamental, it will not be possible for the tenants to take any action whatsoever. On enactment they will have an action in the courts.

I appreciate the Senator's apprehension about the tenants' problem in getting competent lawyers to handle such cases for them but if the situation is nearly as bad as the Senator suggests I am sure it will not be long until some lawyers become very competent and interested in this field. I am also sure that if the law is being flouted to the extent the Senator mentioned lawyers will become experts in this field. I hope that if the position is really serious that will be the case eventually.

This section places an obligation on landlords who before 1 January 1978 paid the rates on buildings occupied by their tenants, and who benefit by an allowance granted under the Bill, to make to the tenant a corresponding allowance in the rent. This section does not apply to small dwellings within the meaning of the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928, whether owned privately or by a local authority; these are dealt with by sections 6 and 18. Subsection (1), in addition to the above, specifies the amount of the allowance to which a tenant is entitled. Two situations are covered in subsection (1). The first is where the tenant was in occupation immediately before 1 January 1977. Here the tenant is entitled in 1977 to an allowance equal to that by which landlord benefited as a result of the 25 per cent relief of domestic rates. For 1978, and subsequent years, he is entitled to four times this allowance.

The second situation arises where a tenant has come into occupation of a dwelling some time during 1977. Here no allowance is due to the tenant in 1977, since only the reduced rates were a cost factor in providing the accommodation in that year. However, for 1978 and subsequent years the tenant is entitled to an allowance equal to the three-quarters rates which influenced his rent for 1977.

These illustrations assume that the dwelling comprises the whole of the premises or which the rating authority have made a rates allowance. Where this is not so, subsection (1) allows landlord and tenant to agree on an appropriate portion of the above amounts as the size of the allowance to which the tenant is entitled. Failing agreement between landlord and tenant on this apportionment, the provisions of subsections (2) to (4) can be availed of.

Subsection (2) provides that where a rented dwelling is not separately valued, the landlord or the tenant concerned may apply to the rating authority to have the valuation apportioned for the purposes of this section. The rating authority must notify landlord and tenant of their decision and indicate that this may be appealed to the Commissioner of Valuation. The landlord is then obliged to publicise this to the tenants of other dwellings which may be affected; that is those forming part of the same valuation complex.

Subsection (3) provides for the coming into force of apportionments under subsection (2). If no appeal is taken, an apportionment becomes operative at the end of the 30 day period within which appeals may be taken. If an appeal is taken, the apportionment comes into force on the day after the Commissioner's decision or on the appeal being withdrawn. The coming into force of a decision refers to the stage at which the decision is absolutely final and beyond the reach of any possible revision. Decisions, when they come into force, will, of course have retrospective effect in 1978 and, where appropriate, 1977.

Subsection (4) spells out the amount of the allowance due to a tenant whose valuation has been apportioned under subsection (2). The formulae involved apply in exactly the same way to an apportioned valuation as do the rules of subsection (1) to a dwelling which comprises the whole of a valuation. Subsection (5) provides for the recovery by a tenant from a landlord of any allowance due under this section as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction. This section is a long and complex one but that was unavoidable. It is the best solution I could find to the problem. I shall keep this matter under continuous review and do my best as far as possible within my competence and laws available to me, to make sure that the provisions of section 5 are enforced. If a better way of dealing with this problem is brought to my notice, or if in the immediate future something better comes up, I will deal with the situation in the light of experience gained, and of additional information which may be made available to me.

I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply on this point, though I appreciate that he has replied at length but he has not answered my basic criticism about the fundamental flaw of the section. I asked whether there was any sanction obliging the landlord to give to each tenant in the dwelling the notice relating to the allocation of the apportionment of the rent from the rating authority. The problem with the section is that there are no sanctions and Dublin Corporation does not have power to prosecute landlords for failure to pass on the benefit of the abolition of rates to the tenants.

The Minister is admitting that section 5 is an unreal way of trying to seek enforcement and protection of rights. The problem is not that there are not lawyers who might have a knowledge of the field, it is that the whole system militates against a tenant in rented accommodation being able to go into a court to pursue a claim against a landlord. This is because the amount of the claim will not be large, about £30 or £40 which is not large in terms of claims that come before the courts. The matter is very important to the kind of person Senator Reynolds was describing, a single person coming from the country on low wages, an elderly person or a single mother with her child. There are a lot of single mothers in Rathmines in private rented accommodation because they cannot get any other accommodation. This is a significant amount for them but if they go into a solicitor's office, more times than not, the solicitor would know that he would be at a substantial loss in taking the time to issue District Court proceedings, attending the District Court, waiting until the matter came up, pursuing the claim, and then getting back to his office. He could lose a day's work. He will not get any substantial fee because it is not a situation where he could charge one. If the tenant is successful the fees would be borne by the landlord but the solicitor knows how long he could be chasing the landlord for his fees.

This is a situation where a tenant dare not bring a landlord to court for the reasons Senator Reynolds mentioned. It is an unrealistic situation for the vast majority of tenants. They are already very vulnerable and are afraid that the tenancy could be terminated. They cannot get other accommodation in the area. They cannot get Corporation accommodation because there is a long waiting list. If we had a full-time community law centre in Rathmines, like the Coolock community law centre, only fully funded by the State, if the recommendations of the Pringle Report which were submitted to the Government a year ago today—this is the anniversary of the submission of the recommendations of that report drawing attention to the urgency of those recommendations—with lawyers paid by the State, serving the community in flatland, then it might be more equal. The Minister said he would like suggestions and I should like to know if he would accept an amendment on Report Stage to impose sanctions, not just to say that the landlord shall pass on the relief to the tenant but providing a sanction for failure to do so.

One of the problems in Rathmines is that a small proportion of these private landlords are registered, and one gets a denial—it was revealed in the survey of the National Flatdwellers Association—that the house is let in flats. There is no follow up or monitoring of the situation or authority ensuring that landlords, if they have let the premises in flats, register and pass on this notice of the apportionment of the rates relief to the tenants by a rent reduction. In this section we are not taking any appropriate steps to see that that would happen. The suggestion that tenants can pursue his rights in the matter as a simple contract debt in the courts is not a remedy. As a lawyer I am sorry to say that, but under our present system that is no remedy for those people. It is not a remedy that they could dare avail of in the majority of cases. Taking proceedings in a court is not something they feel confident enough to do. They do not like solicitors or getting involved in courts of law. What they need is the concern by the State and the Minister to ensure that the benefit of rates abolition is passed on to those who are most vulnerable in circumstances, who are paying very high rents, and are in need of an enforcement by the State of their rights, and not to be told that they can hire a lawyer to take their landlord to court. They do not do it in other situations where they might. Tenants have a lot of reasons why they might bring their landlords to court but they do not do it for obvious reasons.

Therefore the framework set up here is legal gobbledegook as it is set out. It is not achieving what should be the primary objective: the automatic passing on of the relief through abolition of rates to the tenant through rent reduction. The Minister should consider bringing in an amendment on Report Stage. Is it possible to build in not only a sanction for failing to do that but a requirement that landlords register for the purposes of availing of the rates relief? Why is that not part of the structure of this Bill? Would it not be a much better approach to say that any landlord who wished to benefit from the rates relief would have to ensure that he was registered before he could do so? I realise this would create a further necessity for a very complex apportionment to the tenants —they could not be the victims of the fact that the landlord had not registered. There should be an obligation to register and there should be an obligation to pass on the benefit of the abolition of rates.

It is striking to notice that in the survey of the 51 houses in Grove Park there were 469 flatdwellers living in those houses. That is a fairly typical pattern in these areas. The rates relief is a very significant factor for the landlords concerned if they are able to absorb it all themselves. I note that the Minister has made the point that this section will be retrospective to 1 January 1978. I would like to ask him what active steps his Department will take to ensure that with all the defects, that it results in rent reductions for the tenants who should have been getting this relief since 1 January. How is it going to be enforced? Who is going to be monitoring it? Who is going to be spending time ensuring that this is the case?

I should like to add my voice to those of the Senators who have already spoken on section 5. While many people have gained considerably from this aspect, nevertheless there are genuine fears as have been expressed by Senator Robinson. I share those fears to a large degree. While there are many responsible landlords in the city, there are very many irresponsible landlords who, as Senator Robinson rightly pointed out, are not meeting their obligations for very many reasons. In relation to allowances paid by landlords to tenants there is no definition of a tenant. What is a tenant? A landlord, a lawyer and a Minister will have different definitions of a tenant. The landlord will have his own definition of a tenant. In very many cases in the first instance there was a friendly approach and then a strong-armed approach to the people who were occupying flats of one type or another. These happen in many ways. The landlord can say he did not know you were there because someone else had the tenancy. People have been glad to get accommodation over the years because of the situation in the city.

We have a housing problem in the city and there are housing problems in every city. The large-scale demolition in the city brought about immense problems and many houses were turned into flats. As Senator Robinson rightly pointed out, many of the people who turned dwellings into flats and have a large number of people in them have failed to register. They do not want to know about that aspect. They want to keep that as quiet as possible. They do not want to be involved in accountancy. There are people in flats for a considerable period of years who are told by the landlords that they are not tenants at all. In order to maintain themselves, they sign new tenancy agreements. They have no lease or agreement because somebody else had it and this is going back over a period of years. So justice has not been done to a section of people who are in accommodation for a number of years. They have not got and will not get the rebates that they should have got. They were panicked into situations by a landlord saying he wanted to regularise the situation and give tenants a good deal. They have signed agreements as and from the period when the landlord has no further responsibility within the legislation for making any sort of rebate to the tenants.

These genuine fears must be expressed from all sides of the House in relation to some landlords. They use every type of device including strong arm tactics with tenants. These are the facts of life. These are the facts that the Minister has to grapple with to ensure that justice is done to this section of the community who are the weakest section. They cannot afford to purchase their own homes and have taken up accommodation. They were glad to get it and get shelter. Now they find themselves in the hands of unscrupulous landlords. I hope that the Minister will have a look at the situation and see that where a person can prove to the Minister's satisfaction that he has had the tenancy of a house for a period of years he will get the rebate he is entitled to. The fact that the landlord has used this device, either by strong arm methods or otherwise, or to get tenants to sign new agreements so that he can wash his hands of responsibility, is a very real fear. It is a fear that must be expressed and one that the Minister must take into consideration. The Minister must seek to rectify the situation of landlords being unscrupulous towards people that we and the law might regard as tenants but that the landlord does not. The Minister should define what exactly he means by a tenant because lawyers would have one definition and landlords another.

This is the longest and most complicated section in the Bill. The nitty-gritty of the section is that to a percentage of our population, not alone in Dublin city but in every town throughout the country, we want to give relief. If one of these tenants comes to the Minister or to any Member of the Seanad and says: "what relief am I going to get out of this"?, can any of us, from the Minister down, satisfy himself that these people are going to get the relief that they are entitled to? We could not live with ourselves if we did not do something to protect this type of person. Some of them are very poor people. There are other tenants who can afford to take action and, I am sure, who will take action if they are not getting the relief that they are entitled to. But, there are a big number of tenants who are not going to get this relief and every one of us knows that. There will have to be something done to give the local authority or the corporation the power to protect these people. These are people who cannot protect themselves. They have not got the money and they have a fear of going to court. They know well what is going to happen to the landlord.

What is a tenant? To us the definition of a tenant is a person who occupies a house and who pays the rent weekly, monthly or yearly. Some landlords have no tenant agreements. Some of them have and they change them periodically. They are not registered anywhere and there is no way that the tenant is going to be protected under this Bill. The Minister will have to do something to tighten this up.

The fact that in section 3 provision is made for certain parts of farmland buildings and community halls is an example of discrimination against flatdwellers. If a way can be found to deal with living off the rates of portions of farmland buildings and so on, there must be a way of dealing with the problem of unscrupulous landlords to make sure that tenants who are, by necessity, forced into situations of signing new agreements and so on have their just rights under the Bill the same as the people in the farming community.

It is not as simple as all that. I am not a city dweller but I am aware that in every city and large town in the country there is exploitation of flatdwellers to a large degree. The practicality of finding satisfactory machinery to remedy that injustice is altogether a different matter. I do not envy the Minister or his Department in endeavouring to find that remedy. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senators Robinson, Reynolds and Dowling, but the problem is there.

How can the Minister take the necessary steps to implement section 5 when we know that there are exploiters? It is the gombeen position of extracting the maximum amount of rent from these people who are in the vulnerable and unfortunate position that they have to avail of whatever accommodation they can get. I do not see that the Minister can go very much further than provide the legal provision. How can the Minister enforce it? I would be glad if he could offer an explanation as to how he and his Department would enforce that section. It is complex and its implementation is the problem.

How are we going to get a charter of human rights if situations like this cannot be dealt with?

Senator Reynolds asked how many people we are talking about when we talk about tenants in private rented accommodation. Would the Minister accept that in the Dublin area we are probably talking about in excess of 130,000 tenants in private rented accommodation? This is the figure the National Flatdwellers Association have given.

We are speaking in terms of 130,000 people, not tenants. There would be families involved.

Yes. We could be talking about, say, 30,000 people who are in a situation where the rent is passed on, but we could be talking about in excess of 100,000 people who still are not getting the benefit and who under this section will not get the benefit for themselves and their families. That number of people in a family context will not benefit from the passing on of the relief on the abolition of rates. That is the kind of failure rate that these surveys are showing. We genuinely do not believe that this section is going to change that position. This section is leaving tenants and flatdwellers with their common law rights to enforce contract debts in the courts against their landlords. They will not thank the Minister. That is not really the kind of enforcement of the situation and monitoring and even policing of the situation that is required.

It is a very serious problem and while I emphasise the Dublin situation I am well aware that there is a problem in other areas where there is a housing shortage. That shortage is acute in certain parts of the city where people want to remain in that part and have to avail of very expensive private rented accommodation and very bad facilities. The landlords are not registered or not accountable to anybody. The number of people involved in that situation is very substantial indeed. We are rightly concerned about it. Unfortunately and regrettably this section is not going to improve the matter. I would ask the Minister to respond to the requests that have been made by a number of Senators to see whether it is possible, at this stage, to introduce an amendment which would ensure enforcement of the apportionment of the rebates or rent relief that is intended.

I should like to ask the Minister if he would consider having a publicity campaign to indicate in simple language to the flatdwellers or tenants exactly how they stand under the Bill. If you tell a guy who is in a flat that, "for the purpose of subsection (1) (d) (ii) (a) of this section the allowance which is appropriate shall be the sum determined by the formula

the normal guy will not know what all that is about.

I would ask the Minister to have some type of publicity campaign in the simplest possible language, directed to the tenants and the landlords, in which the question of tenancy would be clearly defined so that the people will know exactly what their rights are and will know what rebate they are entitled to. Would the Minister indicate if he is prepared to formulate some type of publicity scheme from his Department either by newspaper advertisements, television or by some sort of booklet? People do not know their rights in many cases.

Senator Dowling referred to rent control generally and the landlord and tenant relationship. This is really a matter for legislation by the Department of Justice and not for the Department of the Environment. Naturally, I am concerned about the fact that tenants have rights. It should be seen that they have rights and their rights should be capable of being implemented. Section 5 of this Bill should be given a chance. Apart from what the Department of Justice are doing in relation to the review of the landlord and tenant relationship, I am also keeping this matter under continuous review having regard to this Bill.

Senator Robinson and Senator Dowling suggested that a great number of landlords are bad landlords who wish to deny tenants their legal rights. I would not like to accept this suggestion in a general manner.

The problem is in particular areas where we have multi-dwelling flats and a great housing shortage. It is a very real problem in those areas.

It can be. Landlords often provide much needed accommodation and should not be condemned generally as a class. Only time will tell whether they are guilty of the behaviour referred to by the Senators. Senator Robinson knows that the field of landlord and tenant relations is, generally speaking, a branch of civil law. The present section has to be fitted into this context. If a tenant suffers by any failure of a landlord to comply with the requirements of section 5, he has the right of redress to the courts. The revision of the legal system or the arrangements for the discharge of justice are matters far outside the scope of this Bill. It has also been suggested that this section is unreal because people may be slow to go to court. All sensible people will weigh the trouble involved against the extent of the loss they believe they are suffering. Time will tell how effective this section is. It will work very well indeed. Once it is seen to work tenants will quickly use their own rights under the Bill and a few cases will quickly settle any bad landlords.

I mentioned quite recently a figure of 230,000 persons who would be tenants in uncontrolled dwellings. These are persons, not families. If we take the controlled tenancies out of this, the figure would be far less. Any determined tenant can pursue the landlord under the provisions of section 5 of this Bill. Solicitors and lawyers are most understanding and give their time generously in dealing with numerous cases which are not profit-making.

Why do we not apply this to the health service? I am sure there are compassionate doctors too.

I refer to the way in which solicitors and lawyers handle cases under the Road Traffic Acts where the remuneration accruing to them is very little having regard to the amount of time which they put into the preparation of a case.

If it is against an insurance company they will get their costs.

I think they will put in the same amount of effort into defending the tenants should there be an approach by tenants under section 5 of this Bill. A certain amount of fear will be instilled in the landlords when the Bill has been enacted. I am concerned about the position of the tenants in relation to landlords. The provisions in section 5 of this Bill are the best way to deal with the problem at the moment. I strongly suggest that section 5 be given a chance to operate. Senator Robinson mentioned about a survey that was carried out in January or February of this year.

At the end of February.

A survey carried out after the enactment of this Bill would be more appropriate with the necessary publicity attaching to it as suggested by Senator Dowling. I would not be prepared, at this stage, to accept any amendment or reconsider the provisions of this section on Report Stage. The section should be given a chance. It is the best solution at the moment and again I would strongly recommend that it be given a chance.

I do not want to hold up the House on this but I asked if there was any sanction at all requiring a landlord to pass on the notice to the tenant. It says "shall" but there is no sanction.

There is just a legal obligation.

I might have been misunderstood. I did not indicate that all landlords were bad landlords. I think I clarified that. I disagree with the Minister in relation to his opening remarks about this being a matter for the Department of Justice. The rights under this Bill are the responsibility of the Minister. In relation to what is available to tenants under this Bill, it is in this Bill that that protection should be included. I have no objection to giving section 5 a fair chance and a fair trial. In relation to the rights under the Bill, the Minister specified that the tenant would need to be a person who, for the purpose of this Bill, has been paying rent to a landlord and the landlord has been accepting it over a period. This would give rights to the individual that he has not got at the moment. Unless the Minister is going to embark on some type of publicity campaign and is going to keep the suggestions that have been made here in the forefront of his mind, many people are going to suffer under section 5. They are the people who should be getting the concessions. Again I ask the Minister if he will embark on a publicity campaign to ensure that people know exactly their rights in the simplest possible terms.

If the Minister embarks on a publicity campaign he should put in the advertisement the names of the legal people who are available to do this type of work.

The Minister made reference to the fact that the survey carried out by the National Flatdwellers Association was carried out in the last week of February and beginning of March and, therefore, early in 1978. I also referred to some surveys carried out later but on a much smaller scale by branches of the Labour Party. The Minister is the person with the resources. Will the Minister undertake a full scale survey, particularly in areas like Rathmines where there is a high number of people in private rented accommodation, and will that survey be accompanied by the publicity of their rights that Senator Dowling was referring to? This is the very minimum.

I am not satisfied at all that this section is the way in which the Minister and his Department should approach this problem. I do not think he can pass it off by saying that tenants' rights are a matter for the Department of Justice. The rights of benefiting from the abolition of rates are a matter for the Minister and his Department. They are a matter for this Bill and there should be proper enforcement. But if there is not effective machinery for enforcement in this section then the very least the Minister can do is have a full scale survey of the flatland areas in Dublin. I would suggest that this would give very good employment, particularly to young people as it would be a way of giving them the experience of carrying out the survey. The Minister cannot really criticise a survey done by a voluntary body unless he is prepared now to carry out a survey of how the abolition of rates is being or, as many of us would maintain, is not being transferred to the tenants in private accommodation.

Tenants will be informed of their rights under this section as far as possible. I will see what can be done to do this. I will also arrange for the necessary publicity as regards the provisions of section 5 of this Bill when it is enacted into law. As regards carrying out a survey, this would be a matter entirely for the rating authorities concerned. I would have no objection to them carrying out such a survey or to any publicity campaign. I would do anything to help this situation. These are the proper authorities to carry out the survey, and I shall make suggestions to the local authorities, including the councils and the county borough corporations, on this matter.

It is not a local authority function. It is a matter for the Department to finalise this. I do not think passing the buck to a local authority is a way to deal with it. If money is available, the local authorities would have no objection to carrying out any type of survey.

It is open to local authorities to make money available within their resources.

Within the 10 per cent?

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 21; Níl, 18.

  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Cassidy, Eileen.
  • Conroy, Richard.
  • Cranitch, Mícheál.
  • de Brún, Séamus.
  • Donnelly, Michael Patrick.
  • Dowling, Joseph.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Goulding, Lady.
  • Hanafin, Des.
  • Herbert, Anthony.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Honan, Tras.
  • Kiely, Rory.
  • Lambert, C. Gordon.
  • Lanigan, Michael.
  • McGowan, Patrick.
  • O'Toole, Martin J.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, William.
  • Whitaker, Thomas Kenneth.

Níl

  • Blennerhassett, John.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Butler, Pierce.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Cooney, Patrick Mark.
  • FitzGerald, Alexis.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Harte, John.
  • Howard, Michael.
  • Lynch, Gerard.
  • McAuliffe, Timothy.
  • McCartin, John Joseph.
  • Markey, Bernard.
  • Molony, David.
  • Murphy, John A.
  • Reynolds, Patrick Joseph.
  • Robinson, Mary T.W.
  • Staunton, Myles.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and Brennan; Níl, Senators Burke and Harte.
Question declared carried.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

On section 7 there are some queries to the Minister. I presume the allowance under paragraph (i) of subsection (1) (a) is the allowance made where a hereditament is divided as between domestic and non-domestic. The provision is not later than the expiration of the period of two months beginning on the day on which the rate for such year is made. The day for the making of the rate is often very obscure, and it is not publicly or well known, and the time begins to run from that date. I wonder is this provision meaningless in effect because, by the time the rates demand note is issued to a person for that person to see whether an allowance is made to him or not, in many cases I suspect the period of two months would have very nearly elapsed anyway. The rate has to be made in December and the appeal has to be two months from that date, there is no mechanism being built into this to ensure that the rate demand note, which will inform the person whether he will get the allowance or not, will be in his hands before the end of two months. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten me on that point.

There are two matters involved. First, there is the determination of the rates which is made by a resolution of the council. Secondly, there is the making of the rate which is also made by a resolution of the council at a later date when the various rateable properties have been applotted. Public notice is given before the final step is taken. I will give an undertaking to circularise councils, local authorities and rating authorities to ensure that maximum publicity is given as regards the making of rates.

Can the Minister enlighten me as to what is the latest date for the making of the rate for the calendar year 1979? What is the latest date for making the rate for that year?

There is no time limit. The rates must be worked out and calculated and when the rate books and the demand notes are ready the rates meeting is held. There is no fixed date for it.

Can I take it from what the Minister said that there will be no substantial interval between the making of the rate and the issue of demand notes?

It depends on how quickly the rating authorities get to work immediately after the rate is struck. The rates should be determined as early as possible and the final meeting should be held as soon as possible afterwards. The demand notices should be sent out as soon as possible as well.

I agree with the Minister that that is the desirable thing, but I have a recollection of rate demand notes coming out quite late in the spring. My recollection again is that that would be a considerable time after the rate has been formally made. The point I was making is that the person who would be adversely affected by not getting an allowance will not know that until the rate demand note is in his hand. He will not be notified in advance, I take it. He will only know when he gets his rate demand note and sees there is no allowance or only a partial allowance given. It is only then he knows he may have to appeal to the District Court, but if more than two months have elapsed from the date of the making of the rate his appeal is lost.

There is a reduction in the rates generally before an election.

Generally speaking, the rate is not made until the demand note is ready to go out. There is no significant delay at that stage. There is sometimes a delay between the date of the actual striking of the rate and the making of the rate. Ratepayers should get their demand notes as early as possible in the year for numerous reasons. I intend to circularise the authorities.

Would the Minister arrange for a circular to direct the authorities? By statute they have to give formal notice of the making of the rate. That is a formal requirement. That appears in the small print and nobody looks at it. It is another official notice.

Could the Minister arrange for the local authorities this year to change the lay-out of the notice so that it will attract some attention, and incorporate in the notice a statement to the effect that people should look at the rate demand notes to see have they been given the allowances under the Act, and if they have not, inform them of their rights that will be given by section 7. People should be informed publicly that they have these rights. Every man is presumed to know the law and that is the way the maxim has to be, but the actuality of it is that the ordinary ratepayer will not know of his right of appeal to the District Court. Will the Minister be able to arrange that a circular will ask local authorities to publicise the effect of this section in a fairly graphic way?

Yes, I will include in the circular a recommendation to the rating authorities that they should give it as much publicity as possible. I will also ask them to include the rights of ratepayers as regards appeals.

The next matter that will arise from this is the right to appeal to the District Court against failure to make the allowance. Will this be retrospective in respect of people who have not got the allowance for the financial year 1978? What will their position be?

It is retrospective.

Will the decision of the District Court be final or will there be further appeals?

There could be further appeals on a point of law.

Can there be an appeal to the Circuit Court on the facts under the appellate jurisdiction of the Circuit Court?

Yes, that is true.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Section 9 will be making a refund to the local authority in respect of the allowances. Could the Minister give some indication of the mechanics of making this refund, bearing in mind that some of these allowances may be appealed and the appeals allowed? Consequently, the final figure may not be obtainable for some time and a substantial amount of money could be withheld or perhaps owing to the local authorities? Could the Minister give us any indication as to the timetable or the mechanics for the payment of this money? Many local authorities are left a long time waiting for what is due to them from the Central Exchequer with consequent liability for interest on overdrafts that may have to be run to maintain services.

Generally 100 per cent of the grant will be paid within the year. There may be a very small carryover for various reasons. There is a provision in this section also, as the Senator knows, to ensure that a rating authority will not get a grant in respect of a property which would not be rateable, such as premises which are not rented by reason of the fact that the owner could not get a tenant at a suitable rent, and so on. Normally the rating authority would not be in a position to make rates on those premises.

I am a bit puzzled because the previous section, section 8, provides for the collection of the rates by the rating authority where there is a dispute. This is rather unusual in that, if you like, it is heads I win, tails you lose. Section 8 provides that the rates have to be paid even in a case where there is a dispute and then, if the dispute is resolved in favour of the ratepayer, a refund is made. There is no provision for interest or anything else to compensate the ratepayer for being out of pocket. wrongly as it might subsequently be held. This is in contrast to the income tax code if where a person overpays he can have it refunded with interest in respect of the over-payment in certain situations. That is extremely harsh. It is a novel section, a totally new principle.

There will be nothing penal or unfair about the deductions which will be made under section 9 (2) of the Bill. In practice they will be based on the refunds made in the years preceding the year and I would like to inform the Senator and the House that discussions have taken place in practice to ensure that this operates fairly between the rating authorities and my Department. We make sure that there is fair play all around.

Fair play for the Exchequer and fair play for the finances of the local authority, but not fair play for the ratepayer. He pays the money. He finds subsequently that he was entitled to a refund. He then gets a refund and that could be quite a time afterwards. The local authority have his money all the time without interest, in effect money they were never entitled to have. The Exchequer will not have to give the money back until the end of the year, and the local authority will not have been out of the money. In other words, the ratepayer will be financing the local authority for the benefit of the Exchequer. This is wrong.

There is not as much involved as the Senator would suggest. My experience is that generally in such a situation a ratepayer will hold out to the last.

He will have a six-day notice and a knock on the door.

It would be unusual for a person in such a situation to get a six-day notice because the local authority would be reasonable where there is a genuine doubt about the facts.

I appreciate that there will be a benign approach, but there could be a situation where there might be a squeeze for money. Money might happen to be scarce and it might be difficult to fill departmental estimates. The squeeze might happen to come down the line and it might happen fairly soon, too.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."

This is the section of which I was very critical on Second Stage and which the Labour Party believes is an unnecessary and very crude denuding of the autonomy of local authorities. It will give rise to great bitterness and great resentment, not just from Labour councillors or, indeed. Opposition councillors but from all councillors in local authorities in a very short time when they realise the very tight and controlled framework within which they must now operate. The fact that the control will be exercised effectively not by the Minister for the Environment but more by the Minister for Finance and in reality the Department of Finance is a dangerous centralising of fiscal power at local level.

The section provides that the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by a direction given to a local authority in writing, require the authority, in relation to a local financial year specified in the direction, to limit in such manner as is specified in the direction all or any one or more of the amounts required by section 9 (1) of the Act of 1955 to be shown in the authority's estimate of expenses for the local financial year so specified. It goes on to say that the Minister may, again with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by a direction given in writing to a local authority which is a rating authority, and so given before the adoption by the authority of an estimate of expenses relating to the local financial year specified in the direction, give a direction in relation to the rate in the £ that may be struck. We have seen an example of just how this is going to operate.

The Minister has issued a written directive and he has directed that the estimates must provide for a maximum of a 10 per cent increase on last year. This is a much tighter percentage than the local authorities themselves would view as the minimum required to maintain the existing services to the local community. We heard evidence of that on Second Stage from various Senators who are members of local authorities.

The Labour group believe that this power of limitation of the Minister by binding directives, which are absolutely binding on the authority and which will affect the rate even if the local authority tried to have a different level, is not necessary. Because rates have been abolished on private dwellings it is not necessary that there be this centralising of the real financial control and that the parameters be set by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance.

The point was made by one Senator on Second Stage, and I think by the Minister, that there must be concern for those who will continue to pay rates, businesses and those who will be liable for rates. But this concern would be just as acute, probably more acute, in the mind of the councillors in the local authority. They are not going to penalise or put an unbearable level of rates on their local business community for the simple and logical reason that they would drive away the local businesses, or put them to the wall and create local redundancies or unemployment. They would be that much more concerned, one can argue, than the Minister and the Department of Finance would be to see that rates were kept at the lowest level possible that would enable the existing services to the community to be maintained, and perhaps give some possibility of some new initiatives and new services or improvement of services to be offered by the local authority.

This is very serious and in the Seanad we have an obligation to point out exactly what is happening. It is a very real change in the power structure at local government level and we should understand that. It is a very substantial centralising of power to the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance—as I read that it means power to the Department of Finance itself—and it is going to remove from local authorities both the primary power and primary responsibility in assessing what rate will be struck for that area and the kinds of services that will be maintained and the provision of services to the people in that local area.

It is going against a very deeply felt desire and need of our people. It is going against the desire for more participation, more influence and decision-making, for more devolved power and responsibility. I do not think it is appreciated yet just what this Bill means for local authority autonomy. Criticism has been made but I do not think it has really penetrated. The year that this Bill has been going through the Houses of the Oireachtas, because it was ordered to be printed a year ago today, has begun to alert councillors to what is proposed in this section and what will be their reality from now on. Each year there will be a written directive from the Minister telling them just precisely what they can do. Surely this undermines totally the most important reserved function of a local authority. Surely this can create enormous stress and strain in a local authority where there is a global directive from the Minister and where both the population size and the particular needs of a local area may be very different from the policy from the centre of ensuring that there be, as for this coming year, the maximum of a 10 per cent increase on the estimates from the year before. This kind of centralised control is not a necessary follow-on from the abolition of rates from private dwellings.

If this section and section 11 were removed from the Bill the situation would be much better for the balance of power between the exercise of functions by the local authorities and the responsibility of the Minister and his Department and the Department of Finance. For years to come this Bill will be looked back on and people will say, "We never appreciated just what exactly was being done by this section. Now we know deeply and seriously that there is no real flexibility, no real autonomy left to local authorities." This may have a bad effect on elections to local authorities themselves. I do not know whether it will have penetrated sufficiently to affect the coming local elections in June, but the local elections after that may be substantially affected. People may not bother to be concerned to put themselves forward and be elected to a local authority which does not have the financial power and basic autonomy which local authorities had and which this section will now deprive them of.

This is the most important section in the Bill. The public generally and the Houses of the Oireachtas do not seem to have been sufficiently conscious of what is happening here today. We do not seem to realise that this section, if passed, brings to an end any effective powers or authority that were held by local elected representatives. In the past sometimes it was difficult enough to convince people, although we usually had a high percentage poll in local elections, of the importance of local government. There was always a hard core of people who firmly believed that the retention of the powers at local level to provide essential services, to collect and levy rates for the purposes which we did in the past, was an important power to hold at local authority level.

We always felt happy at local authority level that, even if this year we did not raise sufficient rates, we did not provide all the services we would like to, we had the power to do this next year if things improved a little. Then we could collect more rates, provide more services and if we saw opportunities in the tourist or industrial area, we could provide for whatever services we wished—a new road here and there, extra amenity schemes and so on. We can do these things regardless of whether they are sanctioned by the central authority. We now have the power at local authority level, in the end, to levy whatever amount of rates we wish and to provide whatever services we think are necessary. If this section is passed that power will no longer exist.

It is wrong for anybody to suggest that the county council, or any local authority, can juggle the figures, change the situation and still do whatever they wish. The local authorities in every area are tied to the services they are given. In my county, where valuations are not increasing, last year the local authority required 14 per cent to provide the same services as the previous year. Another local authority might get that extra 4 per cent through newly valued buildings and factories and so on, but in an area like County Leitrim that is not available and we had to do with 11 per cent. There was no place we could cut expenditure except off our roads. We have watched a steady deterioration since in the services we provide. In addition we had other charges which came in during the year which had to be further deducted. For instance there were increased wages which were not budgeted for and which had to be further deducted from our road fund. The result has been a steady deterioration in the services we are giving and the one area where we are forced to put on the pressure is on our roads. It is obvious 10 per cent is not sufficient.

The local authorities, through this legislation, have lost whatever effective power they had to influence the development of their areas. It has been said that this Bill was necessary to protect the interests of other sections. In the past if any accusation could be levelled against county councils it was that they neglected to give many essential services and sometimes neglected to develop those services because they had too much concern for the people who were obliged to pay rates. The one thing local authorities, who have always been very close to the people at local level, and were always the first to react to any pressure that came as a result of any injustice, would not do was to penalise any section of ratepayers in order to improve services or provide new ones. Even if they failed in the past, they always looked to the day when things would improve, perhaps when it would be necessary, and they would have this power.

In the immediate future I do not see what functions local authorities will have. In this year and next year their sole function will be to supervise spending by the manager in the services they have been given, to supervise the day-to-day running of the county council. Years ago this function was taken over by the county manager. I never complained about that, although many older councillors did, because I did not see that as a serious taking away of the powers of local authorities. But this is the end of local government as we know it. This means that local authorities have no function except to pass pious resolutions which will be sent to the Ministers for Finance and for the Environment and wait for the reply to come back denying them the right to do this, that or the other, and refusing them the money. It does not take into consideration that a 10 per cent limit will be imposed any year, or less if a Minister decides, while no limit can be imposed on the bodies which make demands on the county councils, such as committees of agriculture, drainage boards, the Board of Works charges, all the things which could increase expenditure by 20 to 25 per cent. This has not been looked at. It is unfortunate that the Government found themselves in the position where they realised that local authorities were going to run short of cash.

If the sole purpose of this Bill was to give relief on rates there was no need for this section. In the past when a Government gave relief on rates they did so, and the local authority struck their rate and passed the demand note on to the Minister for Finance, which could have been done in this case, and allow the local authorities to carry on as they did in the past, and leave them the discretion they enjoyed up to now to levy whatever rate they thought necessary. With the passing of this Bill local authorities will find themselves in a situation where they are purely bodies who will give advice to the county manager on the day-to-day working of the authority.

The primary function of the local authorities is to promote the development of their areas and to provide essential services. That has disappeared. They will be tied to the services they have been given in the past. There is no question that any of the services which local authorities provided last year can be eliminated in this year's budget. We must continue to give these services. In rural areas where county councils have, over the years, extended their mileage of roads, declared a certain quota of roads public every year, and which demanded increased cost of maintenance, must all stop from now on. It is futile for county councils to carry on this because there will not be any money to carry out maintenance.

In most counties in the west there is a credit squeeze at the moment. It is obvious it is going to continue. The roads have started to deteriorate and it is obvious in every area that this is happening, particularly in Leitrim where because of inflation any improvement in services must come directly out of our existing valuation. We do not have new factories and new buildings coming into the rating net. We will have a steady erosion of the services and facilities we provide and we will not have the power even to put a light outside a church gate or an extension in a town or village. That is the position we find ourselves in. It is most regrettable that local authorities do not seem to have noticed what is happening. The public will not be conscious of it until the debate starts leading up to the local elections. Suddenly they will ask themselves: "What is local government about? They will find that whatever it was about at the last election, there is a lot less involved today.

At a time when we are talking about power being taken away from Parliament, we should be more careful than ever to ensure that the local community have a say in the running of their own affairs as far as possible. It was a healthy situation where local authorities had the right to levy whatever rates they thought were necessary and to provide services. It is said that this Bill is to protect people from their own elected representatives. It is the most dishonest approach I have ever seen. It is an effort to compel local authorities to cut back on their services to enable Fianna Fáil to pay for the promises they made in the last elections and people will think it is the local authorities that are at fault, not the Government. As the election gets under way and as people start to think seriously about the question of local government in the next few months I hope people will be made conscious of all this and that unlike much legislation that has been passed we will in the future see legislation brought in to repeal the wrong that has been done here in the interest of "protecting people from their local elected representatives". It is disgraceful.

I want to add my voice to the debate on this section which is the deathknell of local authorities. I agree with Senator Robinson when she said the effect may not be found in this year's local elections. Possibly a number of councillors will say to themselves: "We will contest again to see if this is going to be changed." I cannot see how any of the political parties, or independent candidates, are going to offer themselves as candidates when they discover what little power they will have.

I have been a member of a local authority for 35 or 36 years and when I came in to the local authority the Managerial Act came in too. Prior to that local authorities had the powers of appointing staff and allocating houses. This power has all dwindled away from them. After that they were left with the county managerial system and the only appointment they had left was of rate collectors. That appointment was taken from them, for good or bad reasons. The powers of a local authority are continuing to dwindle all the time. It will be difficult to get young people to offer themselves as candidates in local elections. It may not happen next year but certainly the following local elections will present a desperate situation.

Roads are becoming a serious problem. We had an experience recently at a county council meeting where one member of the county council, who was a member of the Government party, had a motion to have a few bushes cut along a road so that a bus could collect school children. The county engineer said he had not the money to do it. We got 11 per cent last year and we have a shortfall on it. We are getting 10 per cent this year and we are going to have a greater shortfall. Because of potholes, it is dangerous to drive a car on some of our roads.

Our housing programme is going to drop since the Minister's announcement. The officials of the council which I represent had prepared estimates, and their problem is now where are they going to cut back.

On an earlier section somebody suggested that a survey should be carried out in an area to see what the population living there was. The Minister suggested that the county council or the corporation might do that. Senator Dowling who is from Dublin asked a simple question: where are they going to get the money? That is the situation in every area. Normally county councils had money for the purchase of sites for advanced factories which they ultimately sold to the IDA. They will not have any money for this type of development now. The money is not there and the situation is worsening.

This morning I received a note from the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland. With the permission of the Chair I would like to read some of it to the House:

At the Annual Conference of the Association held in Sligo in September last, eleven Motions (from Tralee, Passage West, Fermoy, Thurles, Nenagh, Enniscorthy, Clonakilty, Athlone, Limerick, Midleton and Cobh) dealing with the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill, 1977, were discussed and passed. The Motions, together with a report on the discussions which took place thereon, have already been submitted to the Minister, but it has decided that this further submission be made by the Executive Committee in support thereof.

Whilst the Association welcomed the removal of rates from domestic dwellings, etc., the provision of Sections 10, 11 and 13 of the Bill were strongly opposed.

SECTION 10.

(Section 10 empowers the Minister to direct local authorities to limit the amounts to be provided in the estimate of expenses for a particular year, and in the case of rating authorities, in their rate in the £. It shall be the duty of local authorities to comply with the direction, and if they purport to exceed the limit specified in the Minister's direction the Manager shall be empowered and it shall be his duty to amend the relevant estimate so as to make it consistent with the Minister's direction.)

The Association is very concerned that, despite assurances given by the Minister, as expressed in his speech at the Conference Dinner last year in the following terms:

I want to emphasise that no diminution of the standing of either county or urban authorities will result from the decision to abolish rates.

their powers and functions will be seriously reduced. To take the current year as a guide-line, the Minister has used his powers under the Bill to limit the increase in expenditure and the increase in rates to 11%. Having regard to the diminishing value of the pound with such control there is little, if any, room for improving existing services not to mind providing for expansion. The limit is especially hard on urban areas where the rate in the £ for 1977 was relatively low. The impact of the 11% limitation was very serious in the case of a number of Councils owing to there being no limit fixed to the increase in the county demand. In many instances this increase exceeded 11%. In one case it was as much as 30% and in another 40%.

That letter came from the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland and that is the situation as far as local authorities are concerned, and I think something should be done about it.

I would like to refute the allegations made, especially by Senator McCartin, in relation to the Government's alleged dishonesty behind the Bill. I was a member of the Dublin local authority who at one time got a Government guarantee and an assurance that money would be forthcoming, but when the corporation went to the bank they were told that they were not a good risk and would not get any money, despite the guarantee. Is that the type of dishonesty Senator McCartin refers to? That was dishonesty all right from a Government point of view in relation to the financing of local authorities in the distant past. Senator McCartin is a member of the party that was a party to this despicable type of approach to local authorities.

Having listened to many Senators concerned about a lack of candidates for the local elections, it is a laugh. We are probably the most underpaid outfit in the country and there is a clamour for every seat in the Seanad. I do not think there would be any scarcity of candidates for local elections. Maybe some of the people who go forward will do a better job than we are doing on the local authorities. So far as local representatives are concerned, and the striking of the rate, this has been a rat race over the years. We have seen pressure groups, packed galleries and protest meetings of all types. Every device was used to reduce the rates. At rates meetings the aim always was that there should be a reduction in the rates and every gimmick was thought up to apply pressures to attain that end. Now members of councils and local authorities can plan in advance and be assured that there will be an increase in next year's rates to meet the developing situation.

Subsection (2) (b) reads:

Any rate which is so required to be determined shall not exceed a limit specified in the direction...

If I were Dublin City Manager I would order a complete revaluation of Dublin City so that every house that has installed central heating would have the rateable valuation increased and every dwelling that had structural alterations carried out would have the rateable valuation increased. We would get a very substantial increase in this way because the amount given by the Minister is based on the rateable valuation. I take it that the increase of 10 per cent is in relation to the rate struck on the pound. With a greater rateable valuation we would get substantially more.

The ever changing situation of local politics, local authority problems and local authority involvment, brings about new changes, new demands and new thinking in relation to local authority financing. A positive step has been taken and I do not think it should be condemned as being dishonest because when we examine the situation after a reasonable period we will see how effective the change has been. As a member of a local authority I cannot see any great difference in my position before and after the restrictions that have been mentioned come about. One function which is being taken from the local authorities is the striking of the rates.

This gives the council more time to devote their attention to the real problems which are often overlooked and set aside because of pressures that have been applied by the various protest pressure groups. Nobody want to pay rates. There is a big change taking place, particularly in cities like Dublin. Most of our development is in another local authority area. This is a completely new ball game. We build industrial estates in another local authority area. We house our people in another local authority area. These new problems must be met with new measures, thoughts and initiatives. Any changes that take place must be discussed in the light of the every evolving situation that is creating new problems, ensuring the council at the same time that they can plan for the future, is something they could not do in the past.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

I had completed my contribution on this section, and perhaps at a later stage I will have something further to add.

It is rather extraordinary that we had a Senator from the other side attacking this Bill in the manner she did. That Senator may be an expert in many fields but she is not an expert in local government. As a person who has lived a long time with local government, I could not see our Minister bringing in a section that would damage or take away the powers of our local representatives. It would be political suicide for any politician—and I think our Ministers are politicians—to underestimate the power of county councillors, members of corporations, urban councillors or town commissioners. That is the reason why section 10 is not as wrong as we are told and the concern of the other side of the House is political.

I am a member of a local committee and I learned from a man the other day, when we were discussing this Bill, that he is a member of 11 committees. He has no notion of coming up here, or to the other House but he is absolutely committed to the local community. That is the main role of local representatives. It is not power, it is that they serve. This is the way I see them. I am speaking from the experience of having worked with them.

In reply to the many Senators who spoke on section 10, I should like to mention some of the considerations which justify the powers of control which the Minister is now taking under it in relation to local authority rate poundages. Before domestic derating the State's contribution to the total rates income of local authorities was about 25 per cent. That was through the agricultural grant only. With full derating of domestic and certain other property Exchequer participation in the total amount levied through the rating system has increased to over 60 per cent. This represented a liability of nearly £120 million in 1978 and will cost even more in the coming year. I estimate that figure to be approximately £133 million.

If no limit applied to rate poundages of local authorities the Exchequer would have to meet, without question, through the domestic rate grant and the agricultural grant any demand which local authorities individually or collectively choose to formulate. This would not be a fair situation. Local authorities' services would be alone in having an unquestioned and unlimited claim on Exchequer resources. Other services, equally vital to the country's well-being, would not have this privilege. A major purpose of the limit on rate poundages is to ensure a fair alignment of local government needs with those of other sectors. The limit affords protection in two other ways. It protects remaining ratepayers against excessive increases in rates. This must be clearly acknowledged by everybody. It also protects responsible local authorities from the pressure which would be caused if only a few authorities began to resort to unreasonable rate increases in a free for all situation. In the context of derating of domestic dwellings and other hereditaments we could have a free for all situation.

Some Senators claim that costs such as wages and materials have outstripped the 11 per cent increase in rate poundages allowed for 1978. I do not accept this claim. The overall rate of price increases for 1978 will work out well below the 11 per cent allowed in rate poundage increases. Secondly, the average income increase which local authorities derive from rates and rate-linked State grants in 1978 will work out at considerably more than 11 per cent. As a matter of fact, 14 per cent would be more appropriate in the case of the vast majority of rating authorities. In all local authorities had a record amount of £550 million available to them in 1978 for their current and capital services, an increase of more than £100 million on the previous year. The 11 per cent formula gave them a boost of £25 million in 1977 income from rates and from rates-linked State grants.

Far from being short money in 1978 local authorities had £100 million more than in 1977 between current and capital moneys. I could list approximately 16 rating authorities who did not need the full 11 per cent allowable in 1978.

Nobody is better qualified than local councillors to know the needs of their own area. That is true in one way but the reality of the situation is that their knowledge, efforts and plans must fit in broadly with national plans and policies and finances in a reasonable way. The upper limit on rates increases achieves this balance. Within the ceiling of a fixed rate increase local councils will still have full discretion to decide their programmes and priorities. That is as it should be. Many councils will be in a position, as a result of increasing valuations in their districts, to realise an increase of up to 17 per cent. In the case of Dublin Corporation the 10 per cent increase, if fully availed of, will yield an increase of at least 15 per cent, and probably more, in income from rates and from the domestic rate grant.

The increase in the city manager's estimate for Dublin represents but a mere fraction this year over and above last year's, taking into account the 10 per cent increase allowable this year. Allegations have been made that the powers of members of the local authorities are being denuded and that local government autonomy has now gone forever. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I stated previously it is clear, if any Member wishes to study the booklet published by the Department of Local Government—now the Department of the Environment—in 1975 regarding the reserved functions of local authorities, that no real functions are being taken away from elected members under this Bill. I have been associated with local authority finance far longer than I would like to remember, since 1952, and as far as I can recall there was always a situation whereby councillors fought with each other to see who would gain most credit in the eyes of the public and the local press, for reducing the rate in the pound.

The manifesto bit them.

The only time I ever heard of criticism about a fixed level of increase in one year over another was during the past twelve months. In previous years the cry went out from all councillors: "We are the great defenders of the ratepayers and we must cut down the rate, we must keep it down to this very minimum." That is what I always heard from public representatives. This is the first year we hear of councillors fighting to increase the rates. In previous years the fight was the other way, to cut down the rates in the pound. The elected representatives were then seen to be the great defenders of the ratepayers. It is amazing that when domestic dwellings and other properties are derated we have responsible people saying that the system we want to work is wrong and that they are fighting for a substantial increase in rates, that they are fighting against the small businessman, against the farmer, against the PAYE worker and the ordinary taxpayer. That is a very shoddy and inexperienced view on the part of the Opposition, to say the very least of it.

The reality of the situation is that this section is necessary. It is of vital importance and fundamental to the Bill. If local authorities now or in the future are to plan and programme their works in the same way that the Government must do so they must face up to the reality of the situation. We must remember that there is a limit to what the taxpayer can pay. There is also a limit as to what ratepayers can pay. We must bear all these things in mind in considering section 10.

In this discussion on section 10 I have never heard so many red herrings introduced into a subject which is crystal clear, the future role and powers of local authorities. We are discussing a change from a situation in which those local authorities had power to levy and collect rates to carry out whatever developments they thought necessary within the area of their jurisdiction. We are talking about a situation where that power has been taken away. It has been represented on the other side of the House that this was necessary by some means in order to relieve domestic ratepayers of the obligation to pay rates. This section has nothing to do with that. In the past it was quite simple for any Government to give relief of rates to any section, as they did for farmers. The county council prepared its estimates, struck its rate and gave the demand note to the county manager.

The central authority are aware, of course, that they have created a situation in which county councils will find themselves in an impossible position. The central authority promised to make money available to relieve domestic ratepayers and the implication was that they would find the money by some other means. The other means by which they will get the money is by reducing the level of services available in the counties. This argument has developed into a debate between people elected at central level—those in the Dáil and Seanad—and local elected representatives. What we are saying here is that we have been forced to introduce legislation to curb the powers of local authorities because they cannot be trusted. We have been told by elected representatives that county councillors were subject to pressures, and pressure groups, deputations and so on. Have we not seen that kind of pressure being brought to bear on every elected representative in this House and the other House? Do these pressures not exist in Dublin just as well as they do in Carrick-on-Shannon, in Galway, Castlebar or any other area where responsibility is discharged and decisions made. That is a ridiculous argument to make. The argument being made is that one cannot trust elected representatives of the people; that one can trust them when they are in Dublin but one cannot trust them in their local community. On the other hand, the Minister said that in the past councillors sought to keep down the rate. That is the very argument I made. Is that not a good reason for eliminating this section from the Bill? Is that not a good reason to leave the county councillors to the electorate to decide whether they are discharging their responsibilities or not?

The purpose of this section was to cloud the issue so that the services of local authorities would be cut down to pay for the promises the Government made to get into office. I admit that some local authorities found themselves in a better position than others when the 10 per cent was imposed. Some local authorities had an increase in the rateable valuations in their counties. In County Leitrim in the nine years 1968 to 1977, we had only an increase from £150,000 to £158,000 in the gross valuation. From 1976 to 1977 we had just less than £2,000 of an increase in the gross valuation in our county.

That is an indication of the situation that exists whereby the counties in the west who have a slow economic growth, where not so much industrial development has taken place, where not too many new buildings are being valued, find themselves totally dependent on the 10 per cent the Minister will allow us to raise. In other countries—and I believe the Netherlands is one case—where central authority has decided to finance local authorities they made allowances for imbalances between the regions for these different situations.

With his majority in the other House, and his feeling of security in power for the moment, I know the Minister is not prepared to change this Bill, the most important piece of legislation introduced in the life of this Government. It is important in that it changes the whole system of local authority. It eliminates the situation of the elected representatives having any effective power or control, any ability to carry out any development, to offer any increased services or do anything to change the course of development in their local areas. The Bill is important from that point of view. It has not anything to do with relief in rates. I would ask the Minister to take into consideration—I know he has his mind made up about the other situation—the position in the western counties where we have not an increase in valuations or as many farmers coming into the net. We know these farmers are being brought into the net in other counties where the valuations are bigger. They are intended by some means, of course, to make up and pay for the relief on domestic rates. We could say that farmers who are finding it difficult enough with valuations of £55 and over are being forced to pay to relieve rates on the millionaires houses in the suburbs in our towns and cities.

The Minister should take into consideration the special position of counties like Leitrim where we will have a definite cut back in the level of services we have been giving. We are forced each year to take on more roads.

On a point of order, I should like to ask a question. How much of an increase in rates was there in County Leitrim from 1972 to 1978?

That is not a point of order.

I am making a case for the counties in the west and I want the Minister to take those into consideration. The Minister can quote figures and, of course, with the rate of inflation we have been having over the years, figures are always impressive but when one converts the services we have been giving over the years one will find a decrease in the actual amount of services we have given in our county. The same applies to many counties in the west.

I believed that the three main political parties would be leaning towards the idea of participation in industrial democracy and so on in the sense of involving people. The section seems to be contrary to that concept. It seems to be a contradiction of what we all believe should be the situation, that there should be a hiving off of certain responsibilities and more autonomy for local bodies. As a result of the Minister taking so much control and power in this situation he must consider a lot of things. Eventually local government will have to involved in the creation of jobs, they will have to be involved in the war on waste and will have to deal with the question of free collective bargaining because we do not have a national pay agreement. Where will the money come from? Who will decide the wages? Will it be decided by ministerial order that they cannot meet their commitments to pay industrial workers, road workers or those who cut and trim hedges?

The section means that the normal careful, conscious decisions made at local government level before will have to be curtailed. They will be dealt with in accordance with the arbitrary wish of the Minister who makes a decision to introduce a limit. Therefore, no initiatives can be taken.

In the European Community we are struggling to hold on to our own self-sufficiency and trying to avoid as much as we can letting people dictate to us, but at home where it is possible for us to remove that tone of dictatorship or taking of arbitrary decisions we are not adopting the proper procedures. This will have a terrible effect on people. In anything relating to local government we should be considering decentralisation to the maximum. In the long run cooperatives have to go to the local council to see what they can get. When we start to take on a greater role at central authority it is not compatible with the other things we say are good for the nation such as a greater involvement by people and the democratisation of institutions. We cannot, on the one hand, say we are going to make sure a certain institution is democratised to the fullest extent by putting people on the board of State companies and so on and encouraging this in the private sector and then pass a provision like section 10. In an area where we can let go a little and create a little extra local democracy that is needed to meet the various demands on local government we are taking it entirely onto ourselves by saying: "Thus far and no further." In other words, everybody else can expand, develop and grow but local authorities must only grow in accordance with the wishes of the Minister. That does not seem to be very democratic.

It does not matter what was said in the past or who falsified something or might have misled people. That is irrelevant. The fact is that this section threatens democracy in the sense that we know it. There is a concept here that there should be a hiving off from the central position to a more participating way by all the community. Frankly, I cannot see why it is necessary that the section should remain.

I am speaking because I was prodded to do so. A Senator from the west can hardly sit in the House and accept criticism of this Bill. The very foundations of survival in the west are at stake in the introduction of this Bill. I take exception to Senator McCartin opposing the Bill in so far as Leitrim is the one county that must be developed. The day we break from relating the development in County Leitrim to what we can pay in the £ in rates will be a great day for County Leitrim. I think Senator McCartin should have accepted this Bill as a good measure for County Leitrim.

All of us realise that any county in the west that is under-developed with regard to sewerage, housing, forestry, employment and tourism was depending on the amount in the £ that they would get. People in County Leitrim have had a difficult period over the last 50 years. Nobody knows that better than Senator McCartin and I think the Senator is talking with his tongue in his cheek. This Bill certainly benefits County Leitrim, County Donegal and the west. The move away from relating the input from the ratepayers is a basic and fundamental one that is very necessary if we are serious about regional development and want to partake of regional development from the European fund. The same can be said of the west. This is a major step. It gives parity and allows development in counties where, in fact, that development is not related to what they contribute towards the cost.

Senators on the opposite side of the House should bear in mind that in opposing section 10 we are not opposing the Bill. This Bill can exist quite fully without section 10. The Minister made the comment that there were a number of instances where the 11 per cent ceiling last year was not needed by many local authorities. If it were not needed that would be justification for the continuation of the old system. In other words, local authorities could be dependent on the use of good judgment to determine the proper priority of spending. Therefore, if the 11 per cent ceiling was not required in a number of instances, that is one answer to the contention that the Minister is really implying in the section that local authorities are not to be trusted.

Down through the years there have been many instances in local authority expenditure where 100 per cent subvention has existed. Yet, we have not seen in those cases that the sky was the limit. Local authorities will always be dependent on good judgment and a sense of responsibility to determine the figure which would warrant 100 per cent subvention. That is another reason why what the Minister is contending, that local authorities cannot be trusted, has absolutely no foundation.

The enforcement of a percentage ceiling generally has disadvantages. It places some authorities at a considerable disadvantage towards others. There is no local authority which can say: "We have the same level of expenditure, the same level of requirements in local authority services, as any other local authority." They all have different demands, different needs and different services. Therefore, they should all be treated in a separate fashion. To impose a general ceiling is condemning what could be the most efficient local authority.

Since this section refers to section 9 of the City and County Management Act, 1955 it will do us no harm to go briefly over that section 9 and see that what stood for many years is now being uprooted by the Minister in section 10 and the effects it will have on local authorities in striking the rate. Section 9 (1) states:

...there shall be prepared——

On a point of order, section 9 has been agreed to.

Section 9 of the 1955 Act.

Section 9 of the 1955 Act which is referred to in section 10 of the existing Act. Section 9 (1) of the City and County Management Act, 1955 states:

...there shall be prepared ... an estimate showing the amount estimated as necessary to meet the expenses and provide for the liabilities and requirements of a local authority...

The important word there is "necessary". Who is to determine now what is the necessary level of expenditure for any local authority? The county manager must act, if he is drawing up the estimate, under the dictates of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Environment. Are they, therefore, to determine what is the necessary level of expenditure rather than the county manager or is it to be local council estimates committees? In other words, are they no longer to be given the authority to determine what is the necessary level of expenditure to meet their expenses? I would like the Minister to answer that question.

Section 9 (2) states:

The manager shall...furnish such information, assistance and advice to the committee as is required by them in the performance of their functions.

What will be the situation in future? I have seen both in 1977 and this year where the Minister sent a directive to a county manager as a result of which the county manager is most reluctant to give any information or advice, because he is not in a position to do so, which will enable the councillors to compare what his estimate for the ensuing year will be with the outgoing expenditure for the current year. The county managers are naturally reluctant to prepare and submit to the countil any figures which will show a balance with what they themselves estimate as being the requirements to meet the ongoing expenditures and the ensuing year's expenditures also.

Section 9 (3) states:

Where the manager considers that an estimate of expenses...would, if adopted, seriously prejudice the efficient or economical performance of the functions of the local authority, the manager shall prepare a separate report specifying the provision which, in his opinion, is necessary.

That was the greatest disregard of all that the manager and the Department had to the proper functioning of any local authority. That section saw that the temptation confronting councillors in all local authorities was to underestimate rather than to strike a rate which would present an increase which they felt would be prejudicial to their own reelection chances. Where does section 10 leave that subsection (3) of the 1955 Act? Will we ever again have a county manager who will come and say the rate that is being struck is not adequate? These are instances which, comparing section 9 of the 1955 Act and this section 10, highlight what has been done. The Minister no longer trusts county councillors. The fact that the greater number of county councillors are members of the Minister's own party leaves something to be answered. I wonder if he has any feedback from them as to whether they believe they can be trusted or not trusted to strike a reasonable rate?

They can be trusted.

If so, why is the Minister taking the authority away from them, under section 10?

I want to support the comments made by Senator McGowan. The Bill is a very good one. Section 10 has been challenged now, as have other sections. The Bill is to the advantage and development of local government generally and particularly local government in the west. The question has been asked by the previous speaker whether the Minister trusts local representatives. That is an unreasonable question. Any Minister in any Government would trust local representatives, because it is through local governments that legislation is often channelled to the central Government.

I am not a local representative. I am a newcomer to this House to all intents and purposes. I am here since 1977. A greater allocation of finance has now been made available to the two counties in the constituency which I represent—Roscommon and Leitrim. A greater financial allocation has been made available by the Department in question than has ever been made before. There are in train, at the moment, schemes to the extent of £2 million for sewerage and other ancillary schemes in Roscommon. I have never known of any such substantial allocation of finance in my time in Roscommon. It is the greatest allocation of financial commitment to the administration of local government affairs that I have known in my time. I want to compliment the Minister and the Department.

I would like to congratulate Senator Robinson and the members of the Fine Gael Party who have spoken. They certainly have cleared the air. It would appear that there will be a division on this issue, and rightly so if they so decide. It means that the Members of the Labour Party and Fine Gael Party who have spoken, judging from their comments, want the rates reintroduced.

No, that is not true.

This is what this situation is about.

Read the section.

They want the rates reintroduced. There are no half measures in this situation. If they want the rates reintroduced they should come forward and say so. Having listened to the comments and, indeed, the comments of the other councillors, that is what Fine Gael and Labour want to see happening at the moment. They want to see the reintroduction of rates and, if so, put it to a vote.

That is an uncalled for statement. We are discussing this section. This section means simply, and the Minister has admitted it, that there are 16 rating authorities in the country that can carry on with the 11 per cent. Naturally for the basis of the Minister's argument he has 16 picked out. They can carry on for many reasons: because of increased valuations, and increased development within the area. I do not know how many are left, but whatever number is left must not be able to carry on with the 11 per cent. It is that simple. That is what it is all about.

We can mention some of the places that I know of in County Leitrim, County Roscommon, County Mayo, I would not be too sure about County Sligo but, whatever the difference is, the Minister must admit that the balance cannot carry on with 11 per cent. As the Minister has said, no member of any local authority wants to increase rates any further than it will take to keep the services going and to keep the area serviced with development for advance factories with infrastructure and everything else you can think of. It is that simple, and there is no point in Senator Dowling getting up and trying to pull a red herring across the trail because a red herring is not there. I say to the Minister there may be an easier way. It can be solved by giving an extra grant to these areas based on last year's figure. I am sure County Kerry is in the very same situation. I do not know, but I am sure it is.

There are counties and areas finding it utterly impossible to carry on. Some have increased staff over the past year on the suggestion of the Minister's Department. They find, within that area, that there is less work to be done but possibly, more money to be spent. This is the Minister's argument. He talks in terms of a £500 million increase but he forgets the calculation of inflation. It means, with the extra staff in the county, there is less work to be done and I suggest something should be done about it.

With regard to section 10 the Minister is quite capable of making a just allocation to all local authorities. Senator Reynolds mentioned the fact that the Minister might be able to make further grants available to local authorities. In the 1978 allocation to Leitrim County Council, the Minister did that because he increased one very important scheme, the local improvement scheme, from £108,000 in the previous year to £175,000 in 1978. With regard to remarks made previously on section 10, as a member of Leitrim County Council I do not think we got an allocation when we, as a local authority, were responsible for striking a rate of more than 10 per cent for either of the two years in which we struck the rate. Senator Reynolds and Senator McCartin will bear me out in that because, as far as I remember, the last rates that Leitrim County Council struck was, in fact, an increase of something like 8 per cent on the previous year.

I am intervening because of Senator Dowling's contribution and the fact that he anticipated that there might be a vote and that some of us might be voting in a particular way. If we did, he would interpret a vote of ours as being in favour of the restoration of rates. I have no doubt that if a vote is taken on this section, I will vote in a particular way. The main reason I will be doing that is to preserve what remaining power rests with local authorities and which is likely to be removed with the passing of this section in the Bill. Some Senators said earlier that the Minister could have his Bill but that it was not essential that he should have this section in it. The Minister earlier in the debate said that the main reason was to ensure that unreasonable demands would not be made by members of local authorities now. Local authorities and their members have acted responsibly over the years and they have rendered an excellent service. They have always displayed good judgment. The Minister can have the safeguards he is seeking by some means other than ensuring that he is reducing the remaining authority of members of the local councils.

I am, in common with many of the members of the Seanad, a member of a local authority. As I said, I know they have at all times acted responsibly in this and in any other field. I feel that the Minister could find the safeguards he is seeking without, at the same time, diminishing or taking away another part of their authority.

The Minister also referred to a booklet published by the Department of Local Government in 1975 which outlined the authority that members of local councils had. Some of us are aware that where members of a local authority tried to make an issue all the booklet indicated was their power, and if a county manager indicated that that was not the case there was a High Court case to back him on it. Gradually, over the years, the power and authority of local councillors steadily diminished, and that is a regrettable situation. It happened because people who could have opposed it and expressed reservations when these removals of powers were taking place failed to do so. The power to raise and to levy rates is the last remaining major function that is available to members of local authorities. Do we take it now that we are reducing them to the level of a talking shop? I have always regarded them as people of good judgment and common sense. An example of that is the fact that I, and the majority of my colleagues, are here with their support. However, it is not necessary for the Minister to press on to have that section included. He can get the safeguards he requires without eroding further the authority of local representatives. If the Minister insists, I will oppose him and vote against it.

I intervene because of statements made on the other side of the House. No doubt it is one of the democratic rights of Opposition Senators to put forward a defence in their own right.

It was mentioned by Senator Reynolds that only 16 local authorities failed to reach the maximum of 11 per cent. That is not quite correct. Sixteen local authorities did not reach the 11 per cent target but the other authorities worked within the 11 per cent last year. It is my experience that estimates presented by county managers have from time to time been padded. This will eliminate any padding of estimates in the future. As a result of that padding, a sizeable amount of the ratepayers' money went into what is known as a capital reserve. I am sure most councillors here never knew in their own county that there was such a package known as the capital reserves sources of that particular local authority. I can assure you, we in Mayo did not know it was there until we got a bit longer in the tooth and when we delved into the financial assets of our local authority we found that. This will limit the padding of estimates.

The Minister quite frankly said that we had, last year, £100 million of an increase in our expenditure. Nobody denied the services. There is no need for panic about the devolution of the county council or local authorities. There is no way that is going to happen. As the Minister said, I would not like to see the day when the grass roots of a local authority would not have a say in the running of their own county. I do not think that is on the cards. It was never envisaged.

Senator McCartin spoke about pressures on public representatives. The point about section 10 is that much of the pressure on local councillors will be coming, from now on, from people who are not liable for rates. This is one of the principal reasons why protection must be given under this Bill.

The Minister does not trust them.

I do trust them. Senator McCartin and others who complained about section 10 really want the upper limit of 11 per cent or 10 per cent for 1979 increased. In the western counties, the agricultural grant fully relieves almost 100 per cent of farmers. This helps to redress the balance against the counties where farms are bigger. I never suggested that councillors could not be trusted. They are rightly concerned with the needs of their own areas. The Minister's directive on the upper limit enables a balance to be struck between local and central needs and resources. The provision of the main capital services on which development depends does not directly affect rates. These are largely capital services such as water, sewerage schemes and housing schemes. Only the unsubsidised part of the loan charges falls on the rates. The principal road works are financed now by way of direct State grants.

Senator Markey stated that the local authorities did not overdo it in the past. The fact is, of course, that the amounts available to local authorities are now fixed. Local authorities are free to spend the amount allocated. Before now, they had to comply with certain requirements within the Public Bodies Order. There is no evidence available to me or my Department that local authorities could not carry on within the limit of 11 per cent which was fixed for 1978. I am confident that local authorities will be able to carry on their programme for 1979 within the context of the 10 per cent limit imposed on them. It is, of course, entirely a matter for the elected members of the local authority to decide on their priorities.

I noted with interest a report in the Evening Press dated 12 November 1978 where it was stated that Dublin County Council expenditure for 1979 will remain within the Government's rate increase limit of 10 per cent. The manager emphasised that no shortfall in public services for the county is anticipated. He stated that the local authority will be taking on additional employees to cater for increased activity in various departments as a result of the 10 per cent increase.

That is another reason why the Minister should let them do their own thing.

I agree with the Senator's high esteem for local authorities and councillors. I also believe they will act responsibly and settle their budgets within the limit. The limits fixed are a result of budgetary considerations by the Government, and responsible local authorities will recognise this and act accordingly. Senator Howard stated that no real powers should be taken away from the local authorities. No real powers are being taken away from the elected members of local authorities.

Why did the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland pass a resolution?

The Senator should examine the yellow booklet published by the former Minister for Local Government, Deputy Tully, which set out clearly the reserved functions of members of local authorities.

Surely the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland should know.

It is clear from an examination of that document that 99.9 per cent of the reserved functions of members of local authorities still remain with them, and will remain with them after the passing of this Bill. Under the terms of section 10, elected members of local authorities are free to select their own priorities and to direct their managers as to how the money should be spent. This is clear in section 10. Section 10 of the Bill is fundamental, and if Senators vote against section 10 they are voting against the abolition of rates on domestic dwellings and other property. There is no doubt about that.

The Minister must be worried. It is becoming obvious that there are many defects in the Bill.

Why not vote against it?

We are trying to improve the Bill.

The manager has a duty to advise elected representatives under section 9 of the 1955 Act. Responsible members of councils always took his advice. If they did not, they directed him to do otherwise. Section 9 (3) provides:

Where the manager considers that an estimate of expenses prepared by the estimates committee of a local authority (whether by reference to the whole of the estimate or to any part or parts thereof) would, if adopted, seriously prejudice the efficient or economical performance of the functions of the local authority, the manager shall prepare a separate report specifying the provision which in his opinion is necessary.

I have every reason to believe that councillors, elected members, will act responsibly when this Bill is enacted. Section 10 is fundamental to the provisions of this Bill. We offer no apologies to the people for relieving domestic ratepayers of payment of their rates, and other property owners as well.

We started it.

We have no objection to that.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 18.

  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Cassidy, Eileen.
  • Conroy, Richard.
  • Cranitch, Micheál.
  • de Brún, Séamus.
  • Donnelly, Michael Patrick.
  • Dowling, Joseph.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Goulding, Lady.
  • Hanafin, Des.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Herbert, Anthony.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Honan, Tras.
  • Kiely, Rory.
  • Lanigan, Michael.
  • McGlinchey, Bernard.
  • McGowan, Patrick.
  • O'Toole, Martin J.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, William.
  • Whitaker, Thomas Kenneth.

Níl

  • Blennerhassett, John.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Butler, Pierce.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Cooney, Patrick Mark.
  • FitzGerald, Alexis.
  • Harte, John.
  • Howard, Michael.
  • Hussey, Gemma.
  • Lynch, Gerard.
  • McAuliffe, Timothy.
  • McCartin, John Joseph.
  • Markey, Bernard.
  • Molony, David.
  • Murphy, John A.
  • Reynolds, Patrick Joseph.
  • Robinson, Mary T.W.
  • Staunton, Myles.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and Brennan; Níl, Senators Burke and Harte.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."

This can be a rather dangerous section because it actually means that, if a local authority require money, say, in the month of June or July after the estimates are over, for some emergency or some development, for example, if a factory was coming to an area and money was required for development, or for some emergency such as flooding, there is no way they can get the money without getting the sanction of the Minister. This is interference again by the Minister. There is a very big danger that the county manager and his officials could over-estimate in some part of the estimate in order to provide himself with a surplus of money which would be transferred, say, from roads or general purposes into another section. When I say that, I do not mean there is anything wrong with it, but the danger is that, in the event of an emergency, there is no way that the county council can get the money. They would have power to transfer money from one area to another, say from general purposes to roads, and for that reason it is a rather dangerous section.

This section is necessary because without it local authorities could circumvent the controls provided by section 10 simply by authorising excess expenditure as the year went on. This would result in commitments building up for the following year's rate, related not to planned expenditure for that year but to money already spent in the previous year. If this were to happen in an uncontrolled way, limitation of rate poundages by the Minister would be made particularly difficult and invidious as regards these local authorities who would not have resorted to the excess expenditure. A major purpose of this section is to ensure a fair and orderly use of the power to incur excess expenditure as between all local authorities. This is necessary to avoid any unfair preemption of rating resources by local authorities who show less restraint than others in resorting to excess expenditure.

As a matter of policy I would hope to be able to rely mainly on general sanctions under this section. For instance in the present year I issued a general authorisation of any excess expenditure financed from increased income or from savings on other programmes. Any reasonable proposal submitted to my Department will be dealt with as a matter of urgency, because increased expenditure under section 11 of the 1955 Act was always regarded as a serious situation. In the cases outlined by Senator Reynolds, in the case of an industry, for example, or an emergency situation, I would envisage that a sanction under this section could be conveyed in advance by phone if there were postal delays. I see nothing at all exceptional or unusual about this section.

This is unusual about it. There seems to be some fear in the Minister's mind that local authorities will go on a spending spree. I would love if I could get that out of his mind and out of the minds of the officials of his Department. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is easy enough for the Minister to tell us that if you have an emergency or if something happens you should get in touch with his Department of Finance and you will get it. I do not want to cast any reflection on the Department of the Environment or any other Department, but when it comes from the Department of the Environment it will have to be cleared by the Department of Finance. If an industry was coming into an area the industrialist would have moved off long before sanction would come from the Department of the Environment. There will be an over-estimation by some local authorities. For that reason the Minister should have another look at the section.

I wonder is Senator Reynolds really serious when he indicates that managers would be able to pad certain sections of the estimates and keep money aside and then spend it at a later stage and that when we cut out fiddling with the estimates we will really do business. I would not subscribe to the suggestion that they should be able to fiddle, that managers or even public representatives should be able to fiddle.

On a point of order, I did not use the word "fiddle".

The Senator implied it.

I did not even imply it. I made myself quite clear. I would prefer if the Senator would withdraw that.

The Senator implied that managers would be able to pad the estimates in such a way that they would have a reserve they could use in any way they wanted——

I did not use the words "fiddle" or "pad".

——that there could be an over-estimation, that managers would be able to pad the estimates in such a way that they would be able to utilise this money later. This would be a fraudulent type of approach where they endeavoured to con councillors into believing they required a certain amount of money for a particular service knowing there would be an excess set aside for use for another purpose which they did not disclose at the estimates meeting. The estimates meeting is the place where they should disclose the entire projection for the coming year. I wonder is Senator Reynolds really in earnest about this? There must be a safety valve to every situation. That safety valve must be in the Department to meet emergency situations. Where better can they be met than in the Department? We know we are able to get additional money so we are not tied really to the 10 per cent. Additional money can be forthcoming. We were told a few moments ago we were voting because it was tied to a particular limit. Now we know there is this safety valve and that in emergencies additional finance can be made available. Does Senator Reynolds not trust the Minister? He accused the Minister previously of not trusting members of local authorities. The Minister will administer this in the best interests of the nation and of the local authorities. He gave an undertaking that there would be no delay in an emergency in meeting the problem. whether it is in relation to factory development, site development, or whatever it may be. If any local authority service requires additional finance, if the proper case is made, I am sure moneys will be forthcoming. A safety valve is necessary and desirable. The Minister has put the case very well, and he is a man who can be trusted.

Everybody in the House probably does not know Senator Dowling as well as I know him. I did not use the words "fiddling" or "padding" and I in no way implied them. I want to say this for the information of the House. It has very often happened in estimates—and I am sure Senator Dowling will admit this—prepared here by central government, prepared by a local authority, that there was either an underestimate or an over-estimate. That can happen. I said that, in the event of an emergency, there was a danger that the estimate could be inflated in one section in order to have money in the event of an emergency. I did not use the word "fiddling". I cast no reflection on anybody. Nor did I say earlier on to the Minister that I did not trust him. I certainly did not say that, and there is no point in Senator Dowling trying to put words into my mouth or to misconstrue what I said.

The occasion may never arise where the county manager has to act in any surreptitious manner. He might well be forthcoming and tell his councillors in the preparation of the estimates that, rather than going through this process of having to write up to the Minister looking for approval for over-expenditure, which happens maybe nine years out of ten, he is providing a little extra money under a particular heading. The heading has to be specified in the estimate to be covered under section 11 of the 1955 Act. The manager can be quite open and above board in the whole preparation of the estimates. County managers have had to tell local authorities in the course of the year that they just cannot write up to the Department looking for over-expenditure because they would probably be refused. Rather than going through that humiliating procedure, they would probably provide a bit of padding in the preparation of the estimates and take all the councillors into their confidence. There is nothing surreptitious about that. Senator Reynolds' point is that perhaps we are going a little bit too far in this second restriction on local authorities.

I consider section 11 every bit as fundamental to this Bill as section 10. I can assure Senators that the section will work satisfactorily. The principle of section 10 worked fairly well in 1978. With good will at local level, and in my Department, there will be no need for concern or anxiety. This section is necessary because, without it, local authorities could circumvent the controls provided by section 10 simply by authorising excess expenditure as the year went on. This would result in commitments building up for the following year's rates, related not to planned expenditure for that year, but to money already spent in the previous year.

I can assure Senators that there will be no undue delay on the part of my Department in considering any request coming up from any local authority, or any manager, for sanction for additional expenditure under section 11 of this Bill. We will treat this with extreme urgency in the Department. Councillors would not request additional expenditure under section 11 of the Act except in an emergency or an urgent situation. This will be treated with the utmost urgency in my Department and by me. I see no cause whatsoever for alarm in relation to the provisions of section 11 of this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

Heretofore a local authority had a reserved function to strike a rate. If a local authority refuse to strike a rate under this section, the county manager has the power to strike the rate. It could be a dangerous section in so far as more power is given to the county manager than to the combined public representatives. For instance, if a county council of 20, 30, 40 or 60 people do not agree to the estimate, the county manager has the power to overrule them. It is a dangerous section which could have an awful effect on local authorities.

It is a wise and necessary section. The Department and the Minister are aware that councillors can play politics with the rates. There is a temptation for councillors to give the impression by refusing to strike a rate that they are actually opposing payment of rates by those who find it difficult to pay rates. This section is a safeguard and it will cut out local politics in the striking of rates. If the members of local authorities do not face up to their responsibility to strike rates, their county managers are obliged to strike rates. I have been a member of a local authority for a long time and I see it as being necessary. At two council meetings in my own county prominent members of the local authority proposed that the rate should not be struck for no other reason than parochial advantage. It was a ridiculous suggestion, and for that reason the section is necessary.

The withdrawal of this reserved function from the members of local authorities merely adds to the restrictions imposed on them by section 10. Local authorities will feel that their authority is being diminished by section 10 and may therefore feel obliged, not tempted or politically inclined, to express reservations and objections in what has always been regarded as the most democratic way possible at local authority meetings. The difficulty about this section is that it is merely a consequence of the restriction imposed by section 10.

I support the view put forward by Deputy McGowan for very obvious reasons. We know that there have been difficulties in striking rates in certain areas and that there have been disagreements. We know that council and local government meetings have been adjourned because agreement could not be reached on the striking of rates. This was due more to political differences and the publicising of certain matters than genuine interest in the ratepayers or in the rates. If councillors are aware of the overriding power that the manager will strike a rate, they are motivated to do the right thing in the interest of the people, in the interest of local government and in the interest of the central government, because that is what it is all about in the long run.

I support this section. I was a member of a local authority that would not strike a rate on one occasion and we know the consequences. We have a situation where the rate must be struck but for political reasons a group of people who decide to sabotage a meeting or to disrupt the affairs of an authority for political reasons create a serious situation. If a rate is not struck the public services are at risk and the jobs of the workers are at risk. What about the water supply, the lighting service, the fire service, the sewerage service and refuse disposal? Unless a rate is struck and moneys made available for these services, both the services and the workers suffer. We are aware of the consequences. The section is desirable and necessary when it is related to section 10. As the striking of rates is necessary I fail to see why one member should be opposed to this section. Section 10 has already been agreed to. The agreement on section 10 ends the risks involved in the non-striking of rates reinforces the Minister's desire to ensure that this section is agreed to.

Subsection (2) of this section makes it clear that the powers of elected representatives to prepare and adopt estimates and to strike rates are not touched by the present provision. The reserved function exercised by local authorities under section 10 (4) of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955 are exempted from the application of the present section. Councillors will be required to hold estimates meetings and to strike a rate in the pound just as before. I think there is a misunderstanding as regards the distinction between the striking of a rate and the making of a rate. We know that councillors must meet to strike a rate. They may meet on numerous occasions to strike a rate. We also know that councillors must also meet for the making of the rate when the applotment work has been done and when the rate has been fixed for each hereditament in the county or within the rating district. What subsection (1) removes from the range of reserved functions is the endorsement of the rate book which normally takes place some months after the estimates meeting at which the rate is struck. It is difficult to see why the involvement of elected members should be required in this process. The rate in the pound has already been struck and cannot be varied. Neither can the valuations to which the rate in the pound must be applied. The applotment and bidding of the rates is properly an administrative function, and this section simply recognises that fact under the old provision whereby the making of the rate was a reserved function. Rating authorities were required by Article 62 of the Public Bodies Order, 1946, to endorse the rate book at a meeting specially held for the purpose. On the coming into operation of section 13, the Minister would amend the Public Bodies Order to remove this requirement. He would ensure, however, that appropriate provision is made to preserve the existing right of the public to inspect the rate book for at least 14 days before the rate is finally made. The various enactments mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are those under which the making of the rate is treated as a reserved function.

Senator Dowling said he was a member of a local authority who failed to strike a rate. Since the foundation of the State few local authorities have failed to strike a rate. I cannot see what we are protecting with this section. If a local authority refused to strike a rate, which could happen more frequently than heretofore, the day of co-operation between the manager and the local authority would be gone. It is a dangerous situation and something should be done about it, even at the next stage.

Senator Reynolds' statement that few local authorities have failed to strike a rate may be true. The local authorities who failed to strike a rate on one occasion subsequently struck a rate because they knew that the meeting would be reconvened and that it was necessary and obligatory to strike a rate. With that knowledge they will be more inclined to do their duty in the first instance in the interest of the people who elected them.

The striking of a rate is not affected by section 13 of this Bill.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 17.

  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Cassidy, Eileen.
  • Conroy, Richard.
  • Cranitch, Mícheál.
  • de Brún, Séamus.
  • Donnelly, Michael Patrick.
  • Dowling, Joseph.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Goulding, Lady.
  • Hanafin, Des.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Herbert, Anthony.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Honan, Tras.
  • Kiely, Rory.
  • Lanigan, Michael.
  • McGlinchey, Bernard.
  • McGowan, Patrick.
  • O'Toole, Martin J.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, William.
  • Whitaker, Thomas Kenneth.

Níl

  • Blennerhassett, John.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Butler, Pierce.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • FitzGerald, Alexis.
  • Harte, John.
  • Howard, Michael.
  • Lynch, Gerard.
  • McAuliffe, Timothy.
  • McCartin, John Joseph.
  • Markey, Bernard.
  • Molony, David.
  • Murphy, John A.
  • O'Brien, Andy.
  • Reynolds, Patrick Joseph.
  • Robinson, Mary T.W.
  • Staunton, Myles.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and Brennan; Níl, Senators Burke and Harte.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."

The challenging of section 13 is not reasonable. It appears that the opposition to this Bill is not genuine but obstructive. If this is all we can expect from Fine Gael and the Labour Party in this House, what can we expect from their members of councils?

This section has been deliberately inserted to provide for a delay in the adoption of the preparation of estimates of expenses, as has been experienced this year. It was also the case at the end of 1977. Subsection (2) reads:

...it shall be lawful for the authority to expend money or to incur liability in that local financial year for any particular purpose in respect of which money was expended...in the immediately preceding local financial year;

What happens in an emergency situation, say, in the month of January under a particular heading, in respect of which heading there was no provision made in the preceding financial year? Is the county manager in a position to have any moneys expended pending the adoption of an estimate? If moneys were not provided for pollution in 1978, and, if, in January or February of 1979, pending preparation and adoption of an estimate the expenditure under that heading is required, what can the manager do?

The Senator read part of subsection (2). Subsection (2) states that where an estimate of expenses is not adopted until some time into the local financial year to which it relates a local authority will still have authority to incur expenditure in the intervening period. Under section 11 (2) of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, the authority for revenue expenditure by a local authority in a particular local financial year derives from the estimate of expenses actually adopted for that year. In the absence of an estimate of expenses, the subsection authorises expenditure by a local authority in the intervening period of up to one-half of the amount provided in the relevant programme group of the previous year's estimate. The subsection is similar in structure to the corresponding provision for expenditure by Government Departments which is set out in section 2 of the Central Fund Act, 1965.

What happens if there is not a relevant programme?

There should be no problem as far as local authorities are concerned.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 15 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Barr
Roinn