I have a motion, No. 13, which reads as follows:—"That the Dáil is of opinion that the incidence of local rating on agricultural land is unjust and needs immediate revision." I put that motion down at this particular juncture because at this time we are considering and overhauling the machinery of Local Government. It seems to me when a process of that nature is proceeding, we should also enquire into this very vital matter, which is of more importance to the agricultural community than is the working of the machinery of Local Government. In order that I might make the matter clear, I wish to explain that the unit of administration is the county in most cases, that the supreme local authority is the county council, that yearly it receives estimates from subsidiary bodies such as the district councils, the boards of guardians, or boards of health, and the whole sum is then found by the county council by striking a rate on the valuation of the county. The rate is struck under two heads. One is what is called agricultural land, and the other is what is known as other hereditaments, such as farm buildings, railway buildings and towns not inside urban areas. In 1898 the British Government considered this question in regard to Ireland—it was considered in respect to England in 1896—and after sifting the reasons very carefully, it was agreed by the British Government that in respect of rating the central authority should bear the burden of half the ratings which, in the ordinary run, would be placed on agricultural land. That means that 50 per cent. of the rates on agricultural land should be remitted and payments should come from the Central Fund to the Local Taxation Account, and therefrom to the local authorities. In order to find the amount which would be given in Ireland they fixed a standard year. I am sorry that Deputy Redmond is not here because I wanted to point out to him that he and those with him who represented the country at that time were very remiss in not seeing that they gave us the same terms as were given in England.
ALLOCATION OF TIME OF THE DAIL. - RATING ON AGRICULTURAL LAND.
He was not there then.
There were others before him. The Act of 1898 took the amount of rates which were paid in Ireland for a standard year, that is the twelve months preceding the 30th September, for Poor Rate, and the twelve months preceding the 30th June for the County Cess. These two amounts were added together, and then it was decreed by law that in future half of that amount should be paid annually from the Central Fund in relief of what is known as agricultural land. That is known now as the Agricultural Grant. It was really a sop to the landlords at the time, because there was practically no purchased land at that time, and half the rates were paid by the landlords and half by the tenants. I want to give a concrete reason for the act of the Government at the time. You can visualise a holding of agricultural land valued at £20, and you know that an agricultural holding valued area, £20 is scarcely an economic proposition. Another property in the same area, which might consist of a publichouse, a grocery shop, or a drapery store, might be rated at the same amount, and the contribution which such property would pay to local utilities would be practically the same as that paid by a poor farmer on this uneconomic holding. We contend that we should have got the benefit of the Act passed by the English House of Commons in favour of the English tenants, namely, that half the rating attributable to agricultural land in any year should be remitted from the Central Fund. The position here is that half the rating of the standard year is remitted, and by reason of democratic institutions in this country our rates have gone up so high that the preference we obtained by reason of this preferential relief for the standard year is of no value. We ask the Government to give us what was the intention of the people who passed the Act of 1898, and to give us in relief what it was intended we should have got, and not take from us what is due to us.
I wish to second the motion. I would like to say that this is now probably a matter of the most vital importance to the agricultural industry, and I think that the representations that are being made to the Government here to-day in regard to rates should receive their most careful consideration. I believe that in the course of time the incidence of local rates and the reason for this incidence have been lost sight of, and that these have been taken as a matter of course by those who pay, no matter what amounts they are assessed. It should be remembered that farmers and others who pay local rates, also pay ordinary taxes, such as income tax and other direct and indirect taxes. My contention is that this local rate is an additional tax on one particular section of the community, namely, the farming community. It grew by gradual and slow degrees. In all probability, when the local rates started it was a matter of very minor importance. I do not intend to go into the history of the Poor Law, but if you go back about 100 years you will find that the amount collected locally for the purposes of Poor Law was very small, in spite of the fact that the amount of relief given was considerably greater than that given now. Then came the cost of the roads. The history of that is, that at one time the landowners who were at that time the only men of property in the country, were called upon to do a certain amount of work on the roads, and they had either to go themselves or send their workers or horses. Gradually that work was commuted, and those landowners were called on to pay rates. This rate was at one time a minor thing, but now it has become very important, and is an enormous demand on the resources of those who live on the land.
The Minister for Agriculture, in introducing the Bill for the relief of rates, stated: "This grant, as Deputies know, is an annual grant paid by the Treasury to county councils for the purpose of giving relief to rates payable out of agricultural land." It does not say there, but I think the implication is that the agricultural grant is a direct grant in relief of the rates payable by farmers. Deputy Wilson has shown that that is not so. The agricultural grant of 1898 was a direct grant in aid of the landlords, and the landlords after 1898 had their incomes increased by the actual amount of the grant. I think that is not understood. I think it was thought that the agricultural grant was a direct grant in aid of the farmers. It was not. Apparently that grant was given to the landlords because under the 1898 Act they lost a great deal of their local power. They lost control over the county councils. I think it will be found if the records of the British House of Commons are gone over, that Mr. Arthur Balfour did not deny that such was the case. In fact, I think he stated that such was the case.
Take the local rates. I live in a county that has not been at all one of the highest local rated counties, a county that has been from the point of view of local administration, perhaps one of the best managed in Ireland. I would like to say in spite of that, we are of opinion that the rates we are asked to pay, and in particular what the farming community are asked to pay, are intolerable. I will give you an instance of the rates that had to be paid in one of the lowest-rated unions in the county. The rate for 1914 was 1/10 in the £; 1917, 2/2; 1919, 3/9; 1920, 4/4; 1923, 5/10, and 1924, 5/-.
That has been a steadily increasing rate. It has steadily increased from 1/10d. in 1914 to 5/- in 1924. I would like to call your attention to the fact that, that although it was 3/9d. in 1919, the year at which everything was at the highest price, the rate has still continued to increase and now it is 5/-, and there is no apparent possibility of anything like a reasonable reduction. The state of affairs is this: You may have a man farming, say, twenty acres; if it is fairly good land you may take the valuation as £1 an acre. That farmer has to pay say, a 10/- rate, which is not an uncommon rate in various parts of Ireland. That means that he has to pay £10 a year in rates, allowing for the benefit of the agricultural grant, and he has to pay the ordinary rate on the value of his house. Roughly he has to pay £10 a year. You will find in a town a trader or an occupier of a shop valued at £20 has to pay £10 a year also. It is quite possible that the occupier of the shop valued at £20 may be making an income of £1,000 a year and the occupier of the 20 acre farm would be making not more than £40; still you ask the man with the 20 acres of land to pay the same rate as the man who is probably making an income of £1,000.
In addition to that there were other grants, grants in aid of local institutions, which have not been kept up in the correct proportion. There is a grant of 4/- for each inmate of an asylum. That grant was made at a time when the average cost of the upkeep of an inmate was £20 a year. Now, I believe, the average cost is something like £60 a year. Still the grant paid by the Government in aid of the asylum inmate is 4/- a week. If that capitation grant was kept up in proportion to the cost of the upkeep of inmates in the asylum, it now should be about 11/6d. a week instead of 4/-. I have a letter from a constituent of mine; this is a quotation from it:—
"Local rates amount to a second income tax on farmers. It is really a tax on the letting value of the land. I paid last year £45 6s. 7d. in rates. My assessed income under Schedule A and Schedule B would be £152. I, therefore, paid one-third of my income in local rates. Any Clare or Dublin farmer may pay more than half his income in rates."
The local rates bear no relation to a man's ability to pay. A man may be making no profit whatever on his farm; still he is called upon to pay this local rate. That is very inequitable and very unfair, and I think it is time that a change should be made. I think it should be recognised that the greater portion of the burden of the upkeep of local institutions should not be placed on the shoulders of the agriculturists, and that some relief should be given. We acknowledge that the Minister is giving relief under this Bill, but it is only temporary relief— a relief that will eventually have to be paid out of the pockets of the ratepayers. What is wanted is some form of permanent relief. The tendency has been too common in recent times to throw the expense of any local work which is being done, or any new works which are being carried out, on the local rates. It is a convenient and a handy way of meeting the expenses. We think a stop should be put to that, and some effort should be made to make the incidence of local rates fairer than it is, so that a man will pay local rates just as he has to pay ordinary taxation, in accordance with his ability to bear them. That being the case, the Minister will stand up probably and say: "What suggestions have you to make?" That is a favourite form of query on his part. To start with, we say it is not our duty always to make suggestions. We criticise; we show that things are wrong, and it is his duty, as Minister for Agriculture, and the duty of the Government, to come forward with constructive suggestions; that is what the Government is for. But there are some suggestions which I will make, constructive or otherwise, Government or no Government. One is the demand which we have been making for a long time, that the expenses of the upkeep of trunk and main roads should be borne by the national Exchequer. It is not necessary for me to emphasise that; it has been stated over and over again. You have the small farmer, or the large farmer, preferably the small farmer; he will be tilling his fields by the side of the road, and he has to bear the dust and grime and smoke of the big motor cars and the lorries working for the trader or the people living in the town. He has to pay for the roads over which the motor cars and the lorries pass. The unfortunate little farmer with his horse and car, or his donkey and car, which do not injure roads at all—in fact, they improve the conditions of the roads— has to pay. It is an actual fact, that the iron-shod cars, despite what has been said to the contrary, instead of injuring the roads, very often improve the surface of them; yet the owners have to pay for keeping up the roads. Is that fair or equitable? It is time a change was made; it is time the national Exchequer took over the maintenance of the trunk roads. A second suggestion that we make is, that the asylum services should be borne by the national Exchequer, and a third suggestion is that local boards might be rationed. They might be told that so much is the limit of the paying capacity of the ratepayers in this district. You may make the rate 3s. in the £, but that must be a definite limit, and beyond it you cannot go.
I am going to ask the question which Deputy Heffernan put into my mouth. What are his suggestions. He made two. I do not think he meant them seriously. In fact he started by saying that he made them in order to anticipate any possible questions that I might ask. He felt it his duty to make them in view of that appalling possibility.
The Agricultural Grant was fixed in 1898 both for England and Ireland. It was fixed at a definite sum. It is a definite sum here, and it is a definite sum in England, unless it has been changed by the English Parliament during the past year. I know the English Parliament have given relief to the agricultural rates in England, but I am not quite sure if that relief has been given by way of an addition to the Agricultural Grant. From 1898 up to a few years ago it was a fixed sum. It was fixed in 1898 in England, and it was half the standard rate for that year. It was fixed in Ireland at the same time at half the standard rate at that time, which was £599,000. That sum was given in relief of rates paid out of agricultural land. Whether they were paid by the landlord or the farmer does not matter twopence for the purpose of our discussion now. The fact is that the farmer is now liable for the rates. He gets £599,000, and he thereby gets the benefit of the Agricultural Grant. The point Deputy Heffernan made, that this benefit was not passed on by the landlord to the farmer, is not valid, in view of the fact that fair rent courts have been operating and that practically, though not altogether, three-fourths of the farmers have purchased their lands and have had the requisite reductions fixed, not by reference to what rates they were paying or anything like that, but in accordance with the value of their holdings. The position at the present date is that £599,000 is being paid in relief of agricultural rates and hence in relief of the farmer, to make up to the farmer for services such as water, light, heat, sanitation, etc., which are not supplied to him by local bodies and which are supplied to the people of the towns. That is the position. It does not matter what was said in the English Parliament when this Bill was being introduced; it does not matter what Lord Balfour or anybody else said; that was the real reason. It may have been pointed out that landlords at that time were entitled to some relief, but the obvious reason to everybody was that agriculturists should not be asked to pay for services they were not getting. I agree with Deputy Wilson and Deputy Heffernan, apart altogether from the position of the farmers—whether they are at the moment making fortunes or not making any profits at all—that they should not be asked, as a business proposition, to pay for services they are not getting. The point is, whether this £599,000 they are getting now in relief of local rates is a sufficient set-off for the fact that they are not getting the benefit of services like water, light, heat, sanitation, etc., which dwellers in urban districts and in county boroughs are getting. My answer to this question as to whether this £599,000 is sufficient and does actually make up for the cost of these services, is that I do not know. I go further and say that Deputy Wilson and Deputy Heffernan do not know either, and I doubt if any Deputy in the House knows.
It is an extremely intricate question and it does demand and require, I agree, immediate examination. To say whether at the present moment, having regard to the increase of rates, having regard to all that has occurred since 1898, £600,000—it is not worth while fighting about the odd thousand —is sufficient to make up to the farmer for those services he is not receiving, to say whether that is the exact sum or that it should be, as Deputy Heffernan I think suggests, half the actual rate, would be difficult. It would require extremely close examination of the intricacies and details of local administration. I agree with Deputy Heffernan that the examination should be made and made as soon as possible. It is a matter really for the Ministry of Local Government and the Ministry of Agriculture. The Minister for Local Government suggested to me some time ago that an examination should be made. I agreed and I think the most effective way to make that examination would be by the departments concerned—that is, if we want to do business and if we want to get results, instead of having full dress debates in the Dáil.
I leave that point. I would suggest ito Deputy Wilson and Deputy Heffernan and the other Deputies, that they would be on firmer ground if, pending such an inquiry, they concentrated their attention on the question as to whether they could not bring down all rates. They could consider the question, for instance, whether three million pounds in the rural districts is not too high a rate on the farmer or house-owner or shop-owner or anybody else, whether in view of the fact that our revenue does not meet our expenditure, it would not be more like business if we could make the necessary changes in local administration by mere reorganisation, apart altogether from economies. That is a side of the matter that has to be dealt with and is being dealt with—whether by mere reorganisation you could not do as effective work for two million five hundred thousand pounds as you are doing with three millions at present. That is the real question. It is a practical question, in all the circumstances, and it is a question that I agree should be tackled immediately.
A DEPUTY
Cut the pensioners 25 per cent.
Mr. HOGAN
That is another question. You will never get to business if you mix up one issue with another. There are three issues here. Firstly there is the issue whether the incidence of local taxation is fair or unfair Secondly, there is the issue whether reorganisation of the local authorities would not give us the same services at 25 per cent. less. Thirdly, there is the issue as to what economies you could make in salaries and other matters of local taxation without changing or reorganising local administration at all. The second is the most fruitful source at the moment, while admitting that the first should be inquired into. Three or four Royal Commissions have sat in England to inquire into the matter. They went into it very fully but they have not arrived at any very definite conclusions. It is quite obvious that it is an extremely difficult and intricate problem. With regard to the reorganisation of local authorities, it does seem to me doubtful that the most efficient way of administering services like main roads and asylums—the two services which the Deputy mentions— is for twenty-six authorities to be charged with the work in the Free State.
Whether nationalisation is the right solution, or whether you should have six, seven or any number less than twenty-six authorities dealing with this service, is a question I am not prepared to answer at the moment. It is a matter for inquiry whether the most efficient way of dealing with what is a really national service is by getting twenty-six authorities to deal with it. That is the question that has to be tackled. Deputies are not on very strong grounds when they suggest, as this Motion suggests, to leave things as they are, spend a sum of over £3,000,000 on this service, and relieve the farmers to the tune of £1,200,000 instead of £600,000. That means that you transfer that £600,000 on to taxation. I agree with Deputies Heffernan and Wilson that the farmer is in fact paying most of the taxation indirectly —paying the greater portion of it. That is the cold fact. We must face the situation as we find it. At a time like this, when taxation is extremely high, nobody with any sense of responsibility who looks at the whole situation, could suggest with any degree of confidence that taxation should be increased. I do not think the most practicable thing to do is to suggest that farmers should be relieved simply by giving a grant out of the Treasury of £600,000 or £700,000, or £800,000, and leaving the present system as it stands. I repeat again that the right way to deal with the matter is to concentrate immediately on the question of whether the services as they stand could not be run for far less than they are costing, while admitting that the question of the incidence of local taxation should be gone into in order to find out whether or not farmers are paying for what they are not getting, such as water, light, heat, and things of that kind.
As £770,000 was the Agricultural Grant for Ireland, is the fact that we receive only £599,000 due to the division that has been made between Northern Ireland and the Free State?
Mr. HOGAN
Yes.
There is an aspect of this question that I would like to call attention to. I am prepared to support the Motion as it stands, but I would be better pleased if the words "agricultural land" were left out, and the incidence of local rating was stated to be unjust and needs immediate revision. I hope, if the inquiry which the Minister suggests is set up, that it will deal with the general question of rating and the incidence of rating.
Mr. HOGAN
Rates are on property.
I suggest that the right and proper basis of rating should be on the value of the land, and not on the buildings. Deputy Wilson will think that I am going contrary to his argument in this. In effect I would probably arrive at the same conclusion. It would mean, of course, that those large areas of land which have not many buildings on them would be obliged to pay a higher proportion of rates than the more crowded and poorer land. It would affect also, however, the rating in the towns. Notwithstanding the argument used by competent people in dealing with this question, that all taxation is, in fact, upon income, and that this is the only way to levy a rate commensurate to a person's income, and that a town shopkeeper may have a shop by which he is able to earn an income very much higher than the farmer, though his valuation is only the same, the effect of the present incidence of local taxation is to keep the country towns in the slummy state they are. There is no encouragement—there is a natural discouragement—to property holders in the towns to improve their holdings. A man having a shop in the country, earning plenty of money in a kind of rookery, who could well afford to turn it into a decent habitation, and improve the general aspect of the town, will not do it, because it would simply mean raising his annual charges without making any more money out of it. The incidence of local rating at present tends to prevent that development, and we ought to transfer the burden to the site rather than keep it upon the shop.
Seeing that Deputy Johnson is going to support the Motion, and that the Minister agrees with it. I am in a very happy position.
Mr. HOGAN
Agrees with what?
With the motion, because that is what he said. I want to disabuse the Minister's mind, however, about the information he has. The Bill which regulated the agricultural rating in England was passed in 1896, and provided that half of the expenditure of any year, as long as the Act was in operation, was to be taken off agricultural land. The Act was to continue for five years. It was again renewed for another five years, and the Commission on Agriculture, in its Report as to the present position, says: "In England, where the system of local rating is essentially the same as in An Saorstát, this fact has been recognised by the Government, and approximately 75 per cent. of the rating on agricultural lands is borne by the general taxpayer." I do not ask for 75 per cent. I ask for half of the expenditure of the local bodies in any year to come off agricultural land. That will give an opportunity to those in charge of the Central Fund to put the screw on. It will give the authorities in Dublin an opportunity of refusing to sanction abnormal expenditure. £599,000 was half the expenditure in 1897. To-day, according to the Minister, the amount which agricultural land contributes is £2,315,000, plus the £599,000 allotted to it. Therefore, the increase is in the neighbourhood of £2,000,000. Had agriculturists here been legislated for in the same way as in England, we would have got half of that increase off our rates. That is the position. The Minister may doubt it, but he will find if he reads the Act again that that is so.
Mr. HOGAN
On a point of explanation, we are at cross-purposes. The Deputy is right in saying that relief was first given in England in 1896 and it was one-half of the amount which had been raised in respect of agricultural land in the year preceding the Act. As to the Bill brought in in England last year for the relief of agricultural land, I will take the Deputy's word about the 75 per cent. It does not matter whether that is by way of increasing the agricultural grant or not. Up to two years ago, at any rate, the rate in England was the same as in Ireland, and it was an amount fixed at the time the Act was passed.
My information is not the same.
Mr. HOGAN
I am quoting the section for you.
I read the Act, and it said half the rates of any year. I will have to examine it again. I think I have made a case for this motion, and that there is no reason why we should be asked to carry a burden which has increased to the enormous extent I have indicated. It is the result, perhaps, of democratic government. We heard a lot about the grand jury system and how disastrous it was to be represented by those people. But if we have to judge democratic institutions by the results achieved under local government, then I say we had better go back to the grand juries.
Mr. HOGAN
And have no elections.
And have no elections. Of course we admit that the remedy is better administration. I did not direct attention very much to that particular aspect of the question, because there is a Bill before the Dáil which deals with the question of administration. I want to get this question of the incidence of taxation also brought under review, and if I have achieved that purpose, by bringing before the minds of Deputies the perilous position in which the agricultural industry is placed by reason of the incompetence of the local authorities, then I have done a good day's work. I hope I have convinced the Dáil that this motion is justified and that it will be supported.
I do not understand what the resolution means. I understood it at first to mean that the whole country should be re-valued, and I want to put it to the Deputy that he cannot have a re-valuation of the entire country. If it means that you are going to put a tax on the Central Fund of one and a half millions you will want to get another Central Fund besides the one you have.
The resolution does not mean, as the President suggested, a re-valuation of land. I think you would gain very little from a re-valuation of land alone. It means a changing of the incidence of taxation. Deputies who have spoken in favour of the motion put the case of a valuation of £20 or £25 on land as compared with a big business in a town valued at from £20 to £25.
I will buy that business from you if you will give it to me.
The fact is, there are very big businesses in provincial towns with a valuation of £20 or £25. We want the Government seriously to take into consideration the position now and what it was when the existing incidence of taxation was agreed to. At that time the upkeep of county roads cost about 2/6 a perch. At the present time the upkeep of the same road is costing more than £1 a perch. The present incidence of taxation was fixed to meet a system of traffic that has disappeared. It is replaced by modern traffic. I heard it stated in the Dáil the other evening that railways were obsolete institutions. No wonder! Hitherto the business community had to have their merchandise carried by railways and had to pay the railways. Nowadays merchandise is carried over the roads of the country and the public have to pay for the upkeep of the roads. The public are providing the roads where railway companies provided railways. The business people would be very foolish indeed if they did not take advantage of the system that provides roads for them to use, and that other people pay for. They have free access to the roads and have only to pay for the petrol, and for the wear and tear of lorries. It is up to the Government to meet that situation, and to realise that it is one the people of this country will not continue to tolerate. The sooner the representatives of the rural areas and also the Government realise that a change is needed the better.
Tell us what the resolution means when passed.
It means that land is being charged too much. The occupier of land is charged too much in proportion to the benefit he derives from national services. He is unfairly discriminated against, and the present incidence of taxation, having regard to modern developments, is unjust towards him.
Assuming we pass this resolution, what follows?
Nothing. It is an expression of opinion.
Who is it proposed shall bear the one million pounds? Is it proposed that taxation be so changed that the country districts pay one million less and the towns one million more? As it stands, that is the meaning of the resolution.
I thought I made it plain that half the expenditure in any year should be contributed towards the relief of agricultural land from the Central Fund.
I suggest that that does not follow. There are other elements to be taken into account besides those mentioned. For example, if Deputy Gorey's statement is correct, a higher tax must be put on motors. I take it that is what he means.
I did not suggest motors. I think petrol would be the right thing.
No useful purpose would be gained by passing the motion in this form. I suggest that the Deputy should withdraw the motion, and that he should adopt some other means of achieving the object he has in mind. He achieves nothing by this motion. Even if it is passed and we are asked afterwards what we have done, all we can say is: "We can do nothing."
As I said from the beginning. I wanted this particular aspect of the question considered with other portions of Local Government machinery when the Commission is set up to deal with that question.
Taking the motion as it stands, the Dáil would prejudice itself by passing it. If there is a case for stating that the incidence of local taxation on land is unjust, surely a mere reiteration of the history of the last 30 or 40 years is not proof of that. A mineral water manufacturer, a boot manufacturer, or any other manufacturer, might ask what is the reason for passing that motion? Was the Government right in 1898 in stipulating that it would give £600,000 in relief of rating on agricultural land? These are questions that are not resolved by the mere passing of a resolution in the absence of the particulars that are necessary. I suggest that the Deputy should withdraw this motion and, if he likes, put down one suggesting that a Commission should enquire into Local Government, and that amongst the terms of reference should be one as to the incidence of rating. Having had that inquiry, and having got evidence, we have something to go on. When you say that the incidence of agricultural rating is unjust, I suggest that mere statement is not proof of that.
I suggest that it would meet our views if the Minister promised to set up a Commission. I do not see why we should put down a motion.
The Deputy realises that I am very busy. I am kept so day and night, even on holidays and Sundays, and I find it impossible to touch the business at present. I have not had an opportunity of consulting the Minister for Local Government even about the Bill he introduced. I did not read through more than the headings in it. I suggest to the Deputy to leave the matter over. I do not see any opportunity of dealing with it this week, or next week, but possibly the week after next I will be able to see the Minister for Local Government and Health and the Minister for Agriculture and Lands on the question.
Might I give a short explanation of what my intentions were. My intentions were to prove that the incidence of taxation on local rates bears no relation to the ability of the payers to pay. That is as far as the farmers were concerned.
I am afraid that this discussion is getting very irregular.
It is out of order, but we are trying to arrive at some point which would meet the views of the Deputies opposite.
The farmer has to pay out of proportion to his ability. I think possibly the same thing may apply to certain holdings in the towns, but we are dealing with it largely from the agricultural point of view. I think if we had an expression of sympathy from the President that he would have the matter considered by a committee or commission at the earliest possible moment it would satisfy us.
I have not had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the two Ministers concerned, but if I were dealing with the Deputy's statement in regard to a house with a valuation of £20, I would say I know of no house in the City of Dublin with that valuation paying £10 in rates.
We are not dealing with houses in Dublin.
Because really the case comes to this: by passing a resolution there is absolutely nothing done, absolutely nothing. Let the Deputy put me a question in a fortnight's time on the matter raised, and I will see if it is possible to meet him.
That is accepted.
The motion is withdrawn.