I move:—
That the Bill be received for final consideration.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - DAIL RESUMES.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
That the Bill do now pass.
Might I say a word on a matter that has not been touched on during the whole course of the debate? It refers to the system of the valuation of property in Dublin. I heard of a case within the last three weeks in which a shopkeeper spent £10 on corrugated iron for the purpose of repairing a shed in a back yard. An official from the Valuation Department came along, and wrote up the improvements to the property to such an extent that the valuation was increased by £100 a year. I think before such a system of valuation could be put into effect or a tax levied on property for the sake of £10 repairs, that the actual cost of repairs which resulted in a business man's premises being increased in value by £100 should be taken into consideration.
I say that actions like that do prevent the owners of business premises in Dublin getting done the alterations and the improvements that they require. I would suggest to the Minister that, before a man's business premises are valued by such an increased sum as this I have mentioned, he should be notified that the authorities are about to increase it, and that the first he should hear of the increase in valuation should not be a demand notice from the local council for the increased rate. Under the present system an official goes in as if he was almost a secret service man to look around and see the improvements that are made, and no notice whatever that they are going to increase the valuation, so as to afford the man an opportunity of appealing to the court, is given; the rate is struck, and when he receives his rate note then he is informed that he may appeal to the Courts for a remission of rates not on the current demand but on next year's demand. I hold that such a method of increasing the valuation is altogether wrong. If a man considers it advisable to repair his premises and if the cost of the repairs is only £10, I think it is not fair that the valuation of his house should increase by £100, involving a permanent increase in his rent at the present rates of £75 to £80 a year—all this simply because he spent £10 in repairs.
I am aware that there are many owners of business premises in Dublin who would rebuild their shops and shop fronts and give considerable employment if it was not for the fear that the moment they touch a brick or a piece of board in the premises some authority may come down upon them practically treble their valuation and put a permanently increased rent on the premises. I would ask the Minister to consider the point I have made and to give the citizens who make these alterations some opportunity of appearing before some Department and giving reasons why, because of repairs, their valuations should not be increased by such an enormous sum as in the case of this house which I have mentioned.
This is the first time I have heard of a case in which an expenditure of £10 entailed an increase in valuation of £100; and I hesitate to credit such an extraordinary increase in valuation as that. There are two courses open to a person whose premises have been revalued. One is to apply to the valuation office for a revision of that valuation; and the second one is, if he does not wish to take the first, to apply to the Courts. I have never heard in my lifetime of an increase on the valuation of ten times the amount expended in repairs by reason of such repairs.
I had personal experience of this matter many years ago, and the person affected had an opportunity of meeting the Valuation Officer and of going into the matter with him. There was a subsequent re-valuation in connection with the Budget, I think, of 1909; and every opportunity was afforded to the person affected to put his case, and place the Valuation Officer in possession of all the facts. I hesitate to believe that the increase in valuation mentioned by Deputy Byrne could have been as a result of an expenditure of £10, from the fact that Dublin has been re-valued within ten or twelve years. Were it to have occurred in Cork or Waterford, or a place which has not been re-valued for a great number of years, then different circumstances would have come into play. But in the case of the City of Dublin I cannot understand it.
The point I want to make is this: that the first the man hears of his valuation being increased by such a sum is the demand notice from the local Council for the rates on the increased amount, and that even if he goes to the courts he has only an opportunity of getting the valuation brought back to the normal amount for the next year, and not for the year in which the valuation was raised. I do not want to be caught in making a statement which is not correct. I say that the cost of corrugated iron to repair the shed was £10. The labour probably was another £10. I do not want to be caught in an inaccurate statement.
Question: "That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
This is a Money Bill for the purposes of Article 35 of the Constitution.