I move the amendment to my name—
"In page 6 to delete lines 49 to 68 inclusive, and in page 7 to delete lines 1 to 3 inclusive."
This amendment desires to delete the greater part of sub-section (6) of Section 11. It is unfortunate, I think, that special attention was not drawn, either by the Minister or any Deputy, to the effect and the purpose of this provision. It will be remembered that in the principal Act of 1925 certain provision was made regarding exemptions from the full rating of buildings erected over certain years. It will also be remembered that the provision in question was inserted in the Seanad on the Report Stage in the Seanad after the Bill had passed all its stages in the Dáil. When the Bill, with this new provision, came down from the Seanad to the Dáil the exemption provision, as it finally was inserted in the Bill, was agreed to by a small majority. Now there has been inserted into this Bill a provision for further exemption of new buildings from rates: an extension of the period of exemption for all buildings that come under the provisions of the principal Act, and an extension of the period during which new buildings may be built for the purpose of obtaining an exemption. Under the principal Act, which is now sought to be amended, certain buildings were to be exempted compulsorily by the local authorities from two-thirds of the rates for a certain period. Under the 1916 Dublin Reconstruction Act there was an extension of the period of exemption from rates for four years. Under the later Act, the Dublin Reconstruction Act of 1924, there was an extension of three years, but then it provided that any other buildings anywhere, except houses built under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts and under the recent Housing Acts, were to be exempted for the years from 1926 to 1933. A new building, or a building which had undergone considerable reconstruction, was a building which had been reconstructed or built in the years 1920 to 1927. The proposal in the Bill is to do two things: to extend the period of building so that new buildings under the Bill would be buildings erected up to 1930, extending the period by three years. The second provision is that the years of exemption shall be for seven years after the completion of the building. Under that provision a new building is a building which is not a workman's house or a house built under the provisions of recent Housing Acts, State assisted, and, of course, occupied by the less fortunate section of the community. All other buildings than those are to be exempted from two-thirds of their rates for a period which may include the years 1930 to 1937.
Now it would have been better, perhaps, had we been able to have examples of the effect upon rates generally on all the counties and towns in the country of the principal Acts. We might then have been able to form some estimate of the cost to the remainder of the ratepayers of this proposed amendment. The Minister replied to part of the question I put to him a few minutes ago. He told us that for the City of Dublin there had been 64 ratings, valued at £100 or over, which had been exempted, or, as one may say, in respect of which the rates had been reduced by two-thirds, and that the valuation of these 64 premises was £31,000. I cannot say exactly what the rates for the City of Dublin are at the present time. I take it that, at a rough estimate, they are 16/- in the £. I am not quick enough to make a mental calculation as to the cost of these exemption in respect of this £31,000 worth of valuations, but it would probably be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £15,000 or £16,000 a year. The period of that gift of other people's money that we are making is to be extended, and we have had no suggestion of justification from the Minister for such an extension of these free gifts. Let it be borne in mind by the House that the same principle that was introduced into the original Bill of retrospective action is introduced again in this Bill. You have buildings that have been erected any time within the last few years on the understanding that their rates would be reduced for a certain period. That was the Act, and whether we like it or not it was accepted, but now it is proposed that the proprietors of those buildings should have a further gift by exemption from two-thirds of their rates for another period which may vary in time and may even extend to three or four years beyond what was originally proposed.
Now it is quite difficult for me to understand why this should be provided for. The case was made in the original Bill that it was necessary to make some exemption of this kind to encourage building, but we are proposing to make this present at the expense of the remainder of the ratepayers to buildings which have already been erected. Is that going to encourage new buildings? I cannot understand how that argument could be made and applied even now or in the original Act. This sum of £15,000 or £16,000 which has been presented to the proprietors of these sixty-four ratings is, of course, borne by the remainder of the ratepayers: artisans, clerks, civil servants and others who are engaged in endeavouring to pay off the charges upon highly-priced and highly-rated houses. It is they who are going to bear the cost of this exemption, and we are now asked to extend this gift to the wealthier portion of the population, because that is what it means. This does not apply only to the City of Dublin. We have not the figures, and one cannot say how it applies to the County Dublin and the townships, but we know, as a matter of fact, that there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction at the cost entailed upon the rates, generally, by this exemption that was included in the original Act. I speak now for the townships and the County of Dublin as well as for the city, and I know that similar complaints were made in respect to Cork and other towns, and also, I have no doubt, in respect to county areas throughout the country.
It certainly is not desirable, unless there are some very strong reasons adduced which I cannot conceive, that we should allow this further exemption to be made. We are repeating and extending the procedure of the last Act when we said to the ratepayers of Cork, Waterford, Limerick, Dublin, Dun Laoghaire, and the rest of the country: "We are imposing certain charges upon you out of general legislation for the general good. We know you are grumbling at the imposition, but it is for the general good, and, therefore, you must bear it, but we are going to add to that another obligatory charge: we are going to make it impossible for you to collect rates from the proprietors of those new buildings, at least to the extent of two-thirds of what they would otherwise be required to pay." We are imposing upon the local authorities this obligation, that they are to make a free gift to some of their ratepayers—to a select few of their ratepayers. Now I think it is unjustifiable that we should take that action, not for the general good, not for a general service which all citizens are going to benefit by, but solely and wholly for the benefit of these few people who have deemed it to be their interest, convenience or advantage to put up new premises. It is entirely unnecessary, because these new premises in many cases have already been put up; they are already built, and why we should be asked to compel a local authority to remit rates to the proprietors of these buildings I cannot understand. I wait with interest to hear what justification the Minister can put forward for inserting this provision in the Bill. I beg to move the amendment.