asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware that owners of property destroyed in O'Connell Street, who have erected temporary premises, have been assessed by Commissioners of Valuation 33 per cent. higher than their old premises; and to ask if he will take steps to remedy this injustice.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. [ ORAL ANSWERS. ] - O'CONNELL STREET PROPERTY.
This question should have been addressed to the Minister for Finance, but I may say that a Bill to deal with the question of the destroyed premises is in draft.
Arising out of the reply. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would take steps to withdraw this 33 per cent. increased valuation on a wooden hut erected in O'Connell Street, and not put the person assessed into the position of having to go to Court? I think the Minister will agree that it is rather an unjust valuation to put on a wooden hut.
That question should be addressed to the Minister for Finance.
I would like to ask the Minister for Finance whether it is intended that the owner of this wooden hut will be put to the inconvenience and expense of going to Court to get the valuation reconsidered, or whether he will take that responsibility?
I cannot answer that question offhand, because I did not see the question on the Order Paper until now. This matter has been under consideration in my office for some time; not this particular item dealing with O'Connell Street, but the general question of re-valuation where premises have been destroyed, either through the operations in the Anglo-Irish war or the operations which have taken place since the Truce. I have made arrangements to see the Commissioner of Valuation to consider how best the matter can be dealt with. I can give no undertaking, but I do say there is present in the minds of all the parties considering this question the importance of dealing with this in an equitable manner.
Is the Minister aware that under the old Reconstruction Act there is a provision in operation which prevents the valuation being increased to anything further than what it was in the days before the premises were destroyed? I would like to know whether the Minister's Department will consider the advisability of giving the same treatment to the residents in Upper O'Connell Street as were given by the British Government to residents in Lower O'Connell Street.
The question is much more complicated than the Deputy appears to realise. First of all, if one were to undertake the arrangement that was come to after the destruction of premises in O'Connell Street in 1916, one would have to bear in mind the fact that Dublin had been recently revalued, and that a revaluation or a re-assessment of new premises bore scarcely the same relation to a newly-valued city as, say, the re-assessment of valuation in Cork, which would be a re-assessment on a modern basis compared with an old valuation which was in operation for some fifty, sixty, or seventy years. If one were to take the headline that was taken in the case of 1916 in the destroyed area, the people affected in the City of Cork might reasonably object to that, and I know there was a clause passed in an Act in 1916 dealing with revaluation, and pointing out that the old valuation should prevail for twelve years. I know that. It is on that account, and on account of the obvious injustice to people, that we are considering the matter. It is scarcely fair to ask us if we have considered every phase of a matter of that sort when the matter is still under consideration. We are considering it and taking into account all the elements of the case, and there are more elements in the case than the Deputy has mentioned.
Arising out of the answer given by the Minister for Local Government, would it be too much to ask that when a question is addressed inadvertently to the wrong Department, it would be sent to the proper quarters? Sometimes, if the question were not addressed to the proper Department, it might be held up 48 hours, and it might be very important.
When it is noticed that a question is addressed to the wrong Department, it is sent to the right Department. A question which calls for serious consideration very often, of course, cannot be answered in 48 hours. Any delays that occur will be the very shortest possible.