Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I agree with previous speakers, particularly Deputy Denis Naughten’s point on the valuation Bill which is being dealt with by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin. It is important that the Minister’s Department feed into it. He referred to the concept of flexibility. I have spoken to county managers, many of whom do not want flexibility in the area of rates because they believe they would be under pressure from councillors, Deputies or Ministers as a result. It is important, however, that there be a rate-setting mechanism that meets people's requirements and that is practical and pragmatic. While the Minister has reiterated that it is not an issue for today, it is important to realise, while having a rate set on a premises based on square footage, that turnover could vary year in and year out. Such a model is not fair, sustainable or practical.

Deputy Denis Naughten has pointed out that 5% of businesses in Roscommon pay 50% of the rates. Local authority management has used this as a mechanism not to reduce rates, with the argument being that the ones that will benefit will be the larger firms which can easily pay. There should be a tiered mechanism for rates. It is important that the Department feed into the valuation Bill with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. If the issue comes up on the floor of the House when we are dealing with that legislation, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform will probably be reluctant to take any amendments on it.

I know the Minister does not like to get involved with independent bodies, but some decisions taken on the breakdown of different local electoral areas, to the man on the ground, have no pragmatic basis. In some cases, there is not even a mathematical basis to the divisions. It may be no harm to look at this in an objective way in order that when the next revision of local authority boundaries happens, the same mistakes will not be repeated.

It is my understanding - the Minister can correct me - that the local area authority will set the rate and that the moneys raised will go into the county pot. The kernel of the issue is vacant properties. In Greystones, for example, there is a limited number of commercial units. Accordingly, owing to high demand, if one were empty, it would not be for long. Today it was pointed out to me by the president of Arklow Chamber of Commerce that there was not the same demand in that town. The local authority in Arklow will, therefore, pitch a zero rate for a vacant property. In Greystones the local authority might be anxious for the premises to be occupied, as there is a demand for it. Accordingly, it could pitch the rate at 50% or 100% for a vacant property.

The difficulty arises when it comes to the moneys raised in this manner going into the county pot. If the rate were zero in Arklow, pressure would come on councillors in Greystones in asking why the moneys raised by way of a 50% rate in that town should go into the county pot. Is there merit in subdividing the moneys based on empty premises that come from a local electoral area? Should Greystones, in the example I have just used, get back the moneys raised on empty premises to be put into its own area pot as opposed to a wider county pot? Accordingly, if councillors in Arklow, Wicklow or Baltinglass decide to have a zero rate, they should get back zero moneys. The danger in all of the money going into the county pot is that the lowest common denominator might win out and there would be pressure in the Greystones area to set the rate at zero.

See this speech in context