Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Following on from what Deputy Creed had to say, I have tried at all Stages of the Bill thus far to be as constructive as I can in teasing out all of these issues. In my view, we made considerable progress on this matter during Committee and Report Stages in the Seanad. However, I am happy to tease them out further today.

Deputy Fleming referenced his concern for my parliamentary colleagues. What my parliamentary colleagues are effectively doing with this Bill is taking the opportunity to do a number of things which Fianna Fáil, during passage of the previous valuations Bill, chose not to do, including rectifying the anomaly with sports club bars which Fianna Fáil voted down on the last occasion it was in government and my party was in opposition. We are also addressing the issue of child care, which I will explain later, and modernising our valuation structure so that the target of having revaluation of all premises in the country for the first time in 150 years is not just aspirational. We are already seeing momentum in this regard.

I do not believe the valuation Bill is the place to create a kind of hierarchal view of societal good. It is not for the Valuation Office to decide which businesses or business activities are more important than others. That is ultimately what we are talking about. I have been consistent in my approach, as has the Cabinet in its acceptance of amendments throughout this. The differentiation is whether it is a business and whether the business endeavours to make a profit. If the business makes a profit, it is rateable. If it does not endeavour to make a profit, it is not rateable. That is how I approach this at the starting point.

It is important to say that child care facilities that only provide the ECCE year exclusively, even if they are established for profit, are exempt. They can be ECCE-only and for-profit and still be exempt in recognition of the fact they are providing the State service, as Deputy Creed rightly suggests. However, I believe there is a very different category involving community child care facilities that are not businesses and that do not endeavour to make a profit, including quite a number of large operators, which is important. I did look at the issue of the ECCE part, and I debated this extensively in the Seanad. I considered whether we could, as Deputy Creed suggested, do what is done with sports clubs. However, I do not think this is comparable, for a number of reasons. For example, this is a revaluation that can stick for five to ten years but the number of children can vary and children move. I do not mean to be flippant with that remark as we are talking about physical spaces and how we define the physical space is not that clear. I would be happy to hear the views of members and would be happy to continue to tease this out.

The bottom line is that for every single person and business we exempt, somebody else pays. We all have to be responsible on this. If I go ahead and exempt all of these people, the committee members and I may go back to our main street and say "Sorry" to the guys running the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker because their rates have gone up because we have decided that other businesses are more important in the service they provide. That is not a value judgment that I believe is best placed for the valuation Bill. There are other ways and many other policy instruments whereby the Government can decide it wishes to support, for example, nursing home care or child care, and there are more works and schemes underway at an interdepartmental committee. Private hospitals, as Deputy Fleming knows, pay rates whereas public hospitals do not. Some private schools pay rates whereas public schools do not. Again, I believe we are quite consistent in this regard.

The other issue that played on my mind in regard to exempting the community not-for-profits was the fact there seemed to be a number of inconsistencies around the country, where it could be seen that some counties had not charged rates to the community crèche but then had done so a couple of miles up the road. This is to provide clarity once and for all that the not-for-profits are exempt. I believe that clarity is welcome to the not-for-profit sector.

I will go through the official note in response to each of the amendments. Page 8 and page 14 of Schedule 4 to the Valuation Act already provide that a hospital or premises used for the care of elderly, handicapped or disabled persons are exempt from rates as long as they are used by a body which is not-for-profit where the expenses incurred are defrayed wholly or mainly out of moneys provided by the Exchequer. The Bill as passed by the Seanad introduces a new exemption for the providers of early childhood care and education where occupied by a not-for-profit body. In addition, the Bill clarifies that, in regard to premises used for the care of the elderly, handicapped or disabled persons, defrayal by the Exchequer does not include income from what is known as the fair deal scheme.

The common theme in all of these exemptions is that the occupier of the premises does not operate for profit. I believe we would find ourselves in quite a peculiar scenario if Deputies were to arrive at a suggestion that those who set up to provide health care for the elderly or the disabled, or provide any other such societal service, for a profit should be exempt from rates. It is for that reason that I believe the exemptions or the tweaking of exemptions we have made in this Bill to date have been very carefully done.

Although I know Deputy Fleming disagrees with the premise of this, the rates pie in every county stays the same. For everybody we exempt, somebody else picks up a greater slice. I had to have very compelling arguments. I thought there was a compelling anomaly in regard to the sports that we could rectify and there was also a compelling anomaly in regard to not-for-profit child care. However, for the reasons I have outlined, I am not prepared to accept these amendments.