John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will try to respond to as many questions as I can. A lot of the questions raised and a lot of what Deputy Scanlon and others spoke about relate to the valuations legislation. On small vacant premises, section 8 provides that a premises, for example, a small shop, above which, or at the back of, the owners are living will not be subject to a minimum rate being paid, even if the premises is vacant. Tubbercurry in County Sligo and Callan in County Kilkenny are two of the towns mentioned by the Minister for Rural and Community Development, Deputy Ring. He is right that they are similar in the sense that they have suffered a lot and that there are vacancies. It is important that Government policy in one area does not contradict Government policy in another. It is easy to say but difficult to enforce it, particularly when it comes to the funding of local authorities because each authority is a law unto itself in its jurisdiction. The points made about vacancies in town centres were well made and I agree with them.

One of the main new provisions included in the legislation will allow councillors at municipal district level to operate the variation scheme. In response to the points made by Rural Independents, if councillors in west Cork were to decide that they wanted to target the rural pub for a reduced rate or councillors in south Sligo wanted to target the main street in Tubbercurry or Ballymote or other similar towns, in keeping with the intention of the legislation, they would be able to do so. This independent action has not been provided for previously.

Section 5 which was mentioned by Deputy Ó Broin is merely a restatement of the provision included in the 1978 legislation.

It is a mechanism to ensure that local authorities do not continually increase the rate that is struck annually and do not become too reliant on the commercial sector for their funding. It has been used in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 to varying amounts. There is also the issue, which is a strange one but it is true, that unauthorised developments are not exempt from rates.

It is a matter for the Valuation Office which does the valuations. There is no automatic exemption because something does not have planning permission. A commercial development already has an unfair advantage if it does not have planning permission.

Deputy Cassells, Deputy Casey and most of the speakers supported the thrust of the Bill, which is essentially a contradiction in itself in that it is aiming to do an awful lot in an area in which we have not had substantial legislation for a long time. While I accept that some of the provisions may seem modest nature, the Bill allows for flexibility, whether it is through the waiver mechanism or the local variation and alleviation scheme, for which it provides, and this is something that we have never done before. I fully acknowledge that the centre of towns and villages throughout the country have been greatly affected, even though it varies, and even then within counties. Some towns are doing better than others for whatever reason. There is also the substantial effect of the online shopping sector. I do not believe that the rates legislation will be able to solve that particular conundrum.

I am certainly open to the request of numerous speakers to have a broader discussion on the valuation element, the actual rates, and the future policy direction of rates legislation. Several Deputies spoke about having a vision for our market towns, although this is not solely confined to market towns and includes some of the larger urban centres.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan mentioned that for commercial reasons some premises have been kept vacant in towns throughout the country, and in some instances in some very substantial towns. The Deputy named her own town and I could name a couple of others where similar situations have happened. That is one matter that the removal of the 100% rebate would be able to target specifically throughout the country.

Deputy Aylward raised the issue of local authorities pursuing rates bills while appeals have not yet been decided by the Valuation Office. I have not been able to get an answer yet but I will endeavour to get one because that is a very fair question to raise where serious letters are arriving from local authorities while appeals still have not been concluded by the Valuation Office.

Most of the speakers expressed support. There is a balance here - Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned this in her contribution - between ensuring that local authorities can be funded while having an appropriate modern system of commercial rates. The Deputy raised the concerns of forecourt operators not being able to take class actions. This is effectively a competition law matter, and I received those emails as well. When it comes to businesses, competition law is very strict as to the appeals that can be heard. I can understand some of the frustrations in this regard.

It is not the case that there is a uniform approach throughout the country whereby valuation is based solely on the size of the premises. It is not. It is based upon a number of factors, although size is a crucial one.

I emphasise that the alleviation scheme mechanism has the potential to allow councillors to have a say in the example given by Deputy Ó Cuív of a pub that built a function room in the 1970s or 1980s that is empty nearly all of the time now except for funerals and political clinics. If local authority councillors wish to target such premises with alleviation measures, they are free to do so.

Several Deputies spoke of trying to ensure an equitable mechanism is provided for the repayment of rates that are due, along with the payment of rates that have just fallen to be paid. Central to this Bill, along with the abolition of the two moieties, is giving the presumption of help to the business owner who wants to engage with the local authority.

I completely disagree with Deputy Cassells's suggestion - I do not believe he was necessarily serious about it - that we should take the collection of rates from local authorities and give it to the Revenue Commissioners. The Revenue Commissioners are by definition bound by the rules and laws under which they operate. Local authorities are best placed to use some sort of discretion, and to my knowledge they have that facility. Deputy Scanlon mentioned bringing people in to discuss arrears and difficulties that businesses find themselves in, something I have done too.

Deputy Pringle made a comment that is in the realm of fake news. He spoke about multinational companies being exempt from rates altogether. That does not exist. There is no provision for multinational companies being exempt from rates altogether.

I agree with most of what Deputies Michael Collins and Michael Healy-Rae said, even though a lot of what they said was about the Minister, Deputy Ross, and not about this legislation. They should be supporting this Bill, based on the arguments they made tonight, because it allows for alleviation measures for those villages that they spoke about in south Kerry and west Cork.

Deputy Troy raised the issue of commitment and asked if I would give a commitment that this Bill will be completed as soon as possible. I absolutely do give that commitment. There is a whole amount of legislation relating to Brexit, but it is my intention that this Bill will be finalised at the earliest opportunity. The Business Committee of the House will have a say on that, but we intend to have it completed as soon as possible.

See this speech in context