Vol. 58 No. 11
I move: That the Committee disagree with the Seanad in the following recommendation:—
Section 3, sub-section (8). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
(8) This section shall not apply to tenements and rateable hereditaments valued after the 31st day of December, 1922, and accordingly tax under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall be assessed and charged on such tenements and rateable hereditaments as if this section had not been enacted.
Why is it proposed to reject this recommendation?
For reasons which have been explained at great length both on the Financial Resolutions and on the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill.
In the course of the discussion in the Seanad mention was made of the case of the town of Ennis which some Senator stated had been revalued in recent years and maintained that it was unfair to include it. Has the Minister made any inquiries as to that?
In fact, it was not revalued. There had been periodical revisions of valuations in the town of Ennis, which is quite different, as the Deputy is well aware from a revaluation. However, it does not arise on this.
Will the Minister tell the House, if he excludes the town of Waterford from this five-fourths provision on the ground that the valuation made in 1922 fairly represents the income valuation of the property——
It does not.
Let me finish my question—on what ground, in equity, does he include other individual houses through Saorstát Eireann that have been valued at that date or subsequent thereto? Is it for some other reason that the Minister has excluded the town of Waterford? As far as human ingenuity can understand what the Minister says in reference to this matter, no valid reason can be discovered why he should differentiate between houses in Waterford valued in 1922 and houses in Dublin, Mayo, Donegal or Cork, valued in 1922. Will the Minister be good enough to tell the House why he makes this differentiation?
It does not arise on this.
Surely, the Minister will observe the bland and pleasant atmosphere introduced here by his Parliamentary Secretary after the mild correction which I administered to him. Let him get up and tell us briefly why he makes a differentiation between houses in Waterford and houses elsewhere in Saorstát Eireann.
Of course, the House is aware that the Committee can only consider the recommendation from the Seanad, and that no Schedule or other section of the Bill can be debated now.
So that Deputy Dillon is, as usual, disorderly.
I would like to ask the Minister if he considers that the Commissioners of Valuation are doing their work on a proper basis, and why houses valued this year will be assessed on five-fourths. If they are not working on a proper basis, why is he financing them? Last year the Minister informed the House that valuations were not made on a proper basis, that an allowance for repairs had been given in making the valuations and, therefore, should not be allowed subsequently in assessing the income tax. This year, he made the further case that the valuations were not high enough. The Commissioners of Valuation, however, are making valuations every day, and the Revenue Commissioners, according to this section, will make assessments for income tax, not on the valuation made by the Commissioners of Valuation, perhaps, at this moment, but on five-fourths of that valuation. Why does the Minister not supply them with a proper formula for an up-to-date basis for valuation? Of course, we all know the reason.
I find on looking at the Bill, that the sub-section referred to in this recommendation is sub-section (8) of Section 3, and that the borough of Waterford is therein mentioned. Deputy Dillon's remarks were, therefore, quite in order.
Thank you, Sir.
I think he only referred to it as an argument in support of what the Seanad had done.
The Deputy was, as I have said, in order. I had not adverted to the fact that Waterford is specifically referred to in that sub-section.
This Bill comes from the Seanad with a recommendation which enshrines a demand for a definite bit of equitable treatment for certain people in the country, and the Minister is driven back, in face of this demand for a simple bit of equity, into the silence which characterised his treatment of the whole Committee Stage of the Finance Bill. In other words, he finds himself driven by this one small ghost into a position in which he is surrounded by the ghosts of all the demands for equity that faced him here on the Committee Stage. The Minister is afraid to surrender to the demand, because then he would be driven back to facing all the demands for equity that, in various ways, were made here by different Deputies on the Committee Stage. We are treated simply to the statement that he cannot accept it and that the people must pay.
Surely the Minister is going to reply?
What could he say to that?
Nothing.
The Minister is not anxious to take up any more time than is necessary. Would the Chair be good enough to inform the House what the procedure is in discussing a recommendation of this kind?
As has already been stated, the matter before the House is a recommendation from the Seanad, but, naturally, that might be considered in relation to this sub-section affected.
It does not purport to amend the sub-section. The recommendation is to insert a new sub-section. There is no reference in this to sub-section (8).
Then reference to the whole section would be permissible. I shall now put the question.
