Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Feb 1939

Vol. 74 No. 8

Valuation Bill, 1938—Second Stage (resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Browne

I do not think the time has arrived for the introduction of a Bill such as this. One reason why I think so is that the rates to-day are four times greater than they were ten years ago, the cost of living has doubled and incomes have been reduced by half. When I say that incomes have been reduced by half, I want to emphasise the fact that the capital of the farming community has been reduced to so low a figure that the greater part of their land is not being utilised as it should be. As regards tillage, they have neither the stock nor the capital to make use of their land. There is another reason that I would urge against this Bill. In the rural and urban areas a big number of new houses have been built principally on borrowed money, loans or grants. That money is now going to be recovered from the people in the form of increased rates. It is really putting a premium on people who improved their houses and who have little gardens attached to them. In the rural towns we have a big number of houses that were improved. The occupiers were in much the same position as the people I have been referring to. The money had to be borrowed to carry out the improvements, or they may have got a grant or a loan.

This Bill will react on such people in four ways. In the first place it will increase their rates; in the second, their licence duty; in the third, their income-tax, and, lastly, it will mean an increase in the ground rent electricity rate. An increase in valuations will mean an increase in rates. If the valuation of licensed premises is increased, the licence duty will be increased. There will also be an increase in income-tax as well as an increase in the ground rent when the electricity bill is presented to a house-holder. In the rural towns the electricity is supplied on a ground rent charge based on the valuations plus a unit charge. If the valuation of a house is £4, the ground rent payable for the whole year may work out at 9d. a week. If the valuation is doubled, it means that the ground rent charge is going to be doubled whether the occupier burns electricity or not.

A big number of houses have been built in the Gaeltacht areas. As Deputies know, the houses and the accommodation there are very poor. The valuation on the old houses averaged from 5/- to 10/- a year. Many of them have been replaced by new houses on which I expect the valuation will be £2 or £3 a year. Take it that the rates are 16/- or 17/- in the £, if the valuations on these new houses are doubled, it will bring the rates on them up to £5 a year as against the small amount that had to be paid in the old days when the rates were based on a valuation of say 10/- a year. The result will be to tax these poor people very heavily. I do not know how they are going to meet the demands to be made on them under this Bill. They live in mountain areas and have to eke out an existence from the bit of land attached to their homes. The remainder of the land they hold is of very little use. Difficulty will be experienced, too, in collecting increased demands from the people in the urban areas. As far as one can judge many of them are unable to pay their present rents or rates. If these are doubled what is the position going to be, especially when so many of them find it impossible to get employment.

I was glad to see that both agricultural land and the property of the railways are exempt from the provisions of the Bill. That surely is an admission that agricultural land is not able to bear any further taxation. I have observed that people up and down the country are passing resolutions protesting against this measure. The people in those resolutions declare that they cannot afford to pay the increased taxation foreshadowed. I have here a resolution passed by the Mayo County Council which I propose to read to the House.

"That we, the members of the Mayo County Council register an emphatic protest against the enactment of the proposed Bill for raising the valuation on all houses, buildings, shops and factories. When we consider the excellent manner in which the people of Mayo have discharged their responsibilities in the matter of the payment of their rates, notwithstanding the adverse circumstances with which they have had to contend in recent years; we consider that any proposal calculated to increase the burdens on them is iniquitous. We call on our representatives in the Oireachtas, irrespective of Party affiliations, to unite in vehement opposition to a Bill that if enacted would place increased responsibilities on the shoulders of the people already staggering under the burdens that at present they have to bear."

That resolution has come from the premier body in the County Mayo. The members of it have a good idea of the demands that farmers have to meet. They know that they are not in a position to meet any further demands.

In the bigger towns we have a number of people who had to borrow money from different sources to buy out the houses they occupy. At the time of their purchase the valuations on them were at a certain figure. In many cases these houses were purchased on bank loans to be repaid in from ten to fifteen years. If many of those people are finding it difficult to meet their repayment obligations to the banks, or other sources, what is their position going to be if their valuations are increased? They will not be able to bear the burden.

I submit to the House that this is not an opportune time for the introduction of a Bill such as this. At this time the people were not looking forward to increased demands being made on them. In fact, their hopes were in the other direction. We have inspectors and engineers going around the country at the present time. They will not be very welcome people when they come to the little towns and the big towns to do the work foreshadowed in this measure. I appeal to the Minister to make an inquiry into the condition of the people before he proceeds further with a measure such as this, a measure which proposes to place additional burdens on the people.

Mr. Moore

I suppose the Fine Gael Party know their own business better than any outsider, but, at the same time, I cannot help remarking that it is a pity they have decided to make this Bill a Party measure. In my opinion, the question of national valuation is a very big question that deserves objective criticism and objective examination. There could be a very serious discussion on the principle and its application. But, of course, directly it was decided to make this a Party measure—it was decided by the Opposition that it was to be treated as a Party measure—you open the way for all the bunk about the Bill affecting every phase of life, every class of people, increasing the cost of living, and even affecting unemployment. That sort of thing, to my mind, is not worthy of a measure of this kind.

Listening to the speeches that have been delivered, it looks to me as if there was no particular desire to treat the Bill on its merits. There was a sentence in Deputy Cosgrave's statement which I took to be the official reply to the case made for the Bill. The sentence is almost too flippant to be so regarded, but yet it is the only sentence in the speech in which the arguments laid down in the White Paper are dealt with. The sentence is this: "As things are, we can settle between ourselves that if somebody is not paying enough he can salve his conscience by realising that somebody else is paying too much." That is an extraordinarily flippant sentence to be, as I say, uttered as the official reply to the arguments for the Bill. Would Deputy Cosgrave, if he were head of the Government, make that statement? If he were even a member of the Government, would he make that statement, that a person who is not paying enough can salve his conscience by realising that somebody else is paying too much? What about the person who is paying too much? Does Deputy Cosgrave not acknowledge any responsibility to him?

When we are told that there are big anomalies and big injustices in the present system of valuation, is that the way that big question should be dealt with? Deputy Cosgrave was supported by Deputy O'Sullivan in a speech that was even more flippant. I must say of Deputy O'Sullivan that he seemed thoroughly to enjoy his own speech. Though he quoted Section 14 of the White Paper, not for a moment did he deal with the arguments in Section 14. He referred to the "aesthetic" and "mathematical" niceties of the Bill. He referred, in what one might call a sneering tone, to the case that is made in the White Paper that there are at the present time big anomalies and big injustices as between one taxpayer and one ratepayer and another. Deputy O'Sullivan devoted practically the whole of his speech to the question: Is the Bill demanded by the local authorities? It seems to me that the Government, in a big question of this kind, should not wait for any demand; if they are conscious of big anomalies and big injustices, it is their job to put those things right, and if that is not the duty of the Government, I do not know what their duty is. If the position was, with regard to injustices of that kind between one citizen and another, that the Government said: "Do not bother about those things; the persons concerned can salve their consciences"—to use Deputy Cosgrave's statement, "in a particular way"—then that Government would be taking a very irresponsible view of their duties.

Curiously enough, Deputy O'Sullivan, as he made the case that the local authorities do not want the Bill, forecast that the local authorities will make the fullest use of it, when it is passed, for the purpose of squandermania. It does not look to me—and I challenged the Deputy on the point— that the two things go together. It is an extraordinary thing, if the local bodies feel so much that this Bill is not wanted, that they feel at the same time that, when it is passed, they will not be able to resist the temptation to plunge into squandermania. Deputy O'Sullivan dwelt at considerable length on what he said almost inevitably would happen, on the inevitability of extravagance on the part of local authorities. One can almost see him visualising the Kerry County Council digging new lakes in Killarney or broadening the Kenmare River or perhaps trying their hand at draining Bantry Bay, he was so confident that the increased valuations, which he seems to expect from this Bill, would give the chance for extravagant expenditure.

But is it true that local authorities generally are keen to increase taxation and squander the ratepayers' money? It seems to me a big injustice to local authorities to make the allegation. It is the boast of most local authorities, it is the proudest thing they can accomplish, whenever they are able, to reduce the rates. It is very rarely it happens, and in that connection I would remark that the statement repeated throughout the debate that increased valuation has always been followed by increased taxation is a fatuous statement. I submit that statement could not be tested, and for this reason: that in our generation both central and local governments have always been faced with increased expenditure regardless of valuation. When the demand for increased services was made, taxation had to be increased. There has never been any test, and the person who says that increased valuation has always been followed by increased expenditure has no way of supporting his argument by evidence. It has not been possible to test that point.

General Mulcahy

At any rate, he is right; there always has been an increase.

Mr. Moore

How could he be right in view of this fact, that regardless of valuation, there has been increased taxation both centrally and locally in practically every country?

General Mulcahy

And still I say he is right.

Mr. Moore

If the Deputy wants to make a point of that, and if that is his approach to the Valuation Bill, I submit he is not treating it with the seriousness it deserves, and with the seriousness that the Deputy's own position requires of him.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy got a bad headline from the Minister.

Mr. Moore

Deputy Mulcahy can attack the Minister on whatever bad headline he may have given, but in regard to the Valuation Bill, to talk in that way and repeat a statement of that kind is not contributing to the criticism that such a Bill deserves. I submit it is not at all fair to local authorities to assert that they are always eager to go out on extravagant expenditure or increase taxation. I do not know whether this Bill is going to lead to increased valuations or not, but I should like to hear some reply to the arguments in that White Paper that there are the most serious anomalies existing, and the most serious injustices. I should like to hear some suggestion as to how the Government can deal with them otherwise than by a Bill of this kind.

There has been a great deal of talk about the necessity for encouraging farmers to improve their buildings. Everybody agrees on that, but how? Surely, it might have been suggested prior to this that the principle of valuation ought to be suspended? Why did the Deputies opposite wait for this Bill to be introduced to ask that the principle of valuation should be suspended in the case of farm buildings? Surely, we can deal with that in a separate way? If the principle of valuation should be suspended as a means of encouraging farmers to improve their buildings, we can deal with that at any time. Deputies can put down a resolution on that subject at any time in the next seven years, and it can be dealt with on its merits.

At present the principle of valuation, I understand, is in operation. Deputy Hughes suggested that it was not in operation, that rate collectors have been ignoring their statutory duties and have not been reporting improvements to farm buildings. He gave that as a reason why the present Bill should not be passed. That is a curious way of helping farmers, that local rate collectors should be encouraged to ignore their statutory duty and not to report improvements on farm buildings. Surely, we ought to have a more direct and honest method of helping farmers than that. I doubt very much if what Deputy Hughes stated is applicable to the country in general. It may be the case in his county, to some extent, but it is certainly not generally true of other counties. Remember, if farmers are to be helped in that way, this Bill will not be operating for at at least seven years, probably for ten years, in rural areas. It is a rather strange proposal, put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, that seven years or ten years hence the principle of valuation should be suspended in the case of improvements to farm buildings. That is put forward as a means of helping the farmers. If they do not require any more immediate help than that they must be in a stronger position than we thought. I think that is an example of the very strained effort there has been to make a case against this Bill.

I am really curious to know what it is that actuated the Opposition to decide to make the Bill a Party measure and to oppose it. There are curious political implications in the opposition. There is the implication, for instance, that the present Government is not likely to be removed for seven or ten years—a rather extraordinary implication and not a very healthy sign, in my opinion. Again and again, it has been said that the Minister's sole purpose in introducing the Bill was to enable him to increase taxation, both local and central. One Deputy—I think it was Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney—went so far as to say that he was preparing the way for a withdrawal of the agricultural grant. Well, that is intended either to imply that the present Minister for Finance and the present Government will be in power seven or ten years hence, or it is a very considerable bouquet to throw at the Minister to suggest that he is so anxious to pave the way for his successors to carry out that policy.

Then, it would look as if, on their own premises, Deputies opposite were running away from derating. Last year they toured the country and they told the farmers that it was quite wrong that they should have to pay rates on agricultural land, that it was right that the urban community should take over these charges, or that they should, at least, be made national charges. Now, on their own premises, the valuations of urban property are going to be considerably increased. On their own premises again, the rates on such property are going to be much more substantial and consequently the rates on farmers should be a great deal less. Yet, Deputies protest against that and apparently consider that their attitude here is quite consistent with the principle of derating that they have advocated so strenuously throughout the country. I think the two things are rather inconsistent and I should like to hear somebody say how they can plead that urban dwellers are not in a position to bear anything in the way of increased charges and, at the same time, how they can tell the farmers that urban dwellers should bear the expense of derating agricultural land. I think that there is a very big discrepancy between these two arguments and I should like to hear it explained.

It looked, at times, as if Deputies had made a very extraordinary discovery in pleading that the person of enterprise, the person who had extended his buildings, who had improved his business, should not be penalised. It looked as if they had made a discovery by which the poor, the lazy and the inefficient should pay the cost of government, local and national. It is a very regrettable thing —it is one of the bad features of valuation—that those who do show enterprise, those who do extend their businesses and improve their buildings, have to pay increased charges, but I should like to know what is the remedy for that? Income-tax has been described as the fairest of all taxes, but the same argument applies to income-tax. It is the industrious and the successful who pay income-tax. The inefficient and the lazy generally have nothing to tax. When Deputies make use of that argument, they should have some alternative in their minds.

One learned Deputy seemed to enjoy very much his own wit when making remarks of this kind: "There is no market for cathedrals of late days; there are no tenants lining up at house agents looking for cathedrals." As I read the Bill, cathedrals and churches are excluded from its provisions. It looks as if that Deputy had simply decided to make a speech on the Bill without bothering to read it. The same Deputy, I think it was, who made the case that there was an altogether new situation during the past 20 years. I think that is one of the very big reasons why a new valuation is so urgent. There is undoubtedly a new situation, an entirely new situation in our generation, a situation that was not even thought of 30 years ago, a situation in which, in the big centres at least, it is very hard to get houses to rent. Consequently the valuation of houses that are available for renting are very considerably increased. It seems to me that that alone would create a need for a new valuation, instead of being regarded or used as a reason why valuation should not be proceeded with at the present time.

Deputy Norton similarly dwelt on that situation to-day, and, when I ventured to interrupt him, and to ask him when did he hope that that situation would change, he could not attempt to give an estimate. As far as we can see, there will be no change for a very long time. Surely, it would be a very grave neglect of duty on the part of the Government to ignore that situation. It comes curiously, indeed, from Deputy Norton that he should invite the Government to ignore that situation—a situation where there is a very great scarcity of houses, particularly houses bringing big rents—that he should tell them not to pay any attention to it, and that he should say there is no need for this Bill. It comes curiously from a Labour leader that he should say that that is not a situation that should cause any anxiety, and that we have more important things to look after. Again, I think in his case he had not thought out the need for the Bill, and that he is mistaken in his approach to it.

The Bill is very carefully constructed, and a very strong case has been made for it. It is regrettable that there should be so many prophecies of increased taxation and of all sorts of evils arising from it. During the debate, there were a great many references to the report of the Banking Commission. Deputy Cosgrave used what I considered to be a laborious argument, but one that everybody would be prepared to sympathise with if put forward on its merits. He said that the question of the balance of payments was causing anxiety and would be likely to cause anxiety in the future, that it was essential, for that reason, we should encourage exports, that, in order to encourage exports, farmers should be encouraged to improve their buildings, that in order that they might be encouraged to improve their buildings it was desirable that improvements to buildings should not be revalued or subject to increased taxation. As I said before, that is a thing we can debate at any time. The principle is legally in operation at the moment, and it has not been brought to our notice as a thing deserving remedy. There is plenty of time within the next seven or ten years to consider whether that would be a useful method of encouraging farmers to improve their business. We can consider that matter at any time within the next seven or ten years, but, even if it were so decided, it would, I think, be desirable to proceed with the valuation of all immovable property. We have to remember that we are largely governed by statistics at the present time, and it is not at all in accord with the importance we give to statistics generally that we should have on this matter figures which are out of date by half a century, figures which at the present time have really no meaning.

Revaluation will not commit us in any way to taxing farmers or to taxing anybody. The question of valuation can be entirely separated from that of charges arising from valuation. We ought to be able to trust ourselves, in spite of all these prophecies regarding the action of local authorities. We ought to reject that argument and say that we can trust ourselves to create and apportion charges that are according to our means, irrespective of any figures bearing on valuation. When Deputies quote the Banking Commission, I would remind them that a witness before that Commission, Mr. Sherlock, was questioned as to why the credit of Dublin was not as good as the credit of Belfast or cities in England which basically were in no better position than Dublin. Mr. Sherlock replied: "You have only got to go over to the Oireachtas and you will hear speeches threatening pending bankruptcy and things like that."

That was a pretty serious charge. You had the City Manager of Dublin telling the Banking Commission that certain Deputies were really preventing him from being able to get money to proceed with housing and other schemes. Surely, Deputies might be warned by that statement and not indulge in prophecies that the country is about to break down, that this Bill will mean that both central and local charges will rise to an intolerable extent and that the country will be in a tragic position. The Bill before us deserves more serious consideration and I suggest that until we have heard some definite contradiction of the case made for the Bill in the White Paper, until a really serious case is made against the Bill, we should not refuse to pass it.

Deputy Costello pleaded for a scientific system of valuation. He did not give us any indication of what he meant by a scientific system of valuation. If he had, we might be able to say that this Bill should be amended so as to be made more scientific. "Scientific" is rather a vague word and the bulk of us were, I think, wondering whether the Deputy had anything in mind when he used it or whether it was only a word. I think that it was only a word and until I hear more about that "scientific system", I shall be content to vote for the Bill before us.

Dr. O'Higgins

In the opening and closing portion of his speech, Deputy Moore thought well to lecture the political Opposition for having treated this Bill as, what he described as, a Party measure. I would remind Deputy Moore that Opposition Deputies have their responsibilities as well as Government Deputies and that they face up to those responsibilities just as seriously as Government Deputies do. There is a responsibility on every Deputy in a Parliament to criticise to the full every measure introduced by any Government and, particularly, a measure that appears to carry within it new taxing possibilities. The Deputy told us that because we did that we were treating this as a Party measure. I wonder where Deputy Moore was for the last three weeks. There have been, I think, 27 speeches on this Bill since the Minister introduced it. With the exception of Deputy Moore himself, every speaker was in opposition to the Bill. From this Party, from the Labour Party, from Independent members of the House and even from the Government Party, speeches were delivered in opposition to the Bill. Are members of Deputy Moore's Party joining with us in making this a Party measure? If ever there is evidence that a Bill is not a Party measure, it is when you have all Parties joining either to support or condemn. In this particular case, so far as this House has been vocal, with the exception of the distinguished Deputy himself, every Deputy who has spoken has been opposed to the Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

That is quite untrue.

Dr. O'Higgins

Would the Minister quote an exception? So far as I could understand the meaning of words, Deputy Allen was against the Bill. I am reminded that there is another distinguished exception and I make the Minister a present of him—Deputy Corry, With the exception of Deputy Moore and Deputy Corry, every Deputy, irrespective of Party, was joined on a common platform of opposition and linked together by a common bond of fear of the consequences of this Bill regarding his constituents. Deputy Moore, having given us that little lecture on parliamentary behaviour—that we should not oppose a taxing Bill because it is a great national instrument — proceeded to quote from one individual who gave evidence at the Banking Commission to the effect that credit was jeopardised because speeches were made at times pointing out the possibility of bankruptcy in the offing. When the Deputy was giving that particular quotation, I wondered to whom he was referring, because I remember very distinguished Deputies making speeches not only in the Dáil but at every cross roads in the country telling all and sundry that the country was going headlong into a bog of bankruptcy, and that the financial outlook for this country was as black as night. Consequently, I think the Deputy's little lecture might be given in a more appropriate atmosphere if it had been given in his own Party rooms, instead of to other Deputies in this House who do not belong to his own Party.

The Deputy spoke at great length as to the enormous injustices that were going to be rectified by this great instrument, this new Bill. The Deputy has represented one constituency for a very considerable number of years, and he must know it intimately. In spite of those grave injustices and inequalities, and with his very deep knowledge of one county here on the flank of Dublin, he was in the same position as his Minister—he was not prepared to give even one example of those appalling injustices and inequalities. Quite glibly he slipped over the fact that, if there were grave injustices in the past or at the present moment, the people suffering under those grave injustices must be blessed with the patience of Job, because they never utilised the ordinary power that is there for an individual to ask to have the injustices removed and his premises revalued. Those people, suffering under crushing injustices, if we are to believe the Deputy, must have been functioning under the most inhuman public boards, because none of the public boards in those counties in which the people are suffering from such grave injustices ever utilised the ordinary machinery, which was there all the time, to ask to have the injustices removed. The Deputy was in the position of a man doing his job. It was his job to support the Bill, and in supporting the Bill he did not worry what tosh he slung on to another bundle of tosh once he put in so many minutes by the face of the clock.

On occasions like this, I want to say frankly that my sympathies are always with any Minister for Finance. It is the function of a Minister for Finance to be the collector for his colleagues. When his colleagues go around the country collecting golden keys and silver trowels, and being feted and banqueted, there is scarcely a body of people from Cork to Donegal who would ever get up a reasonable pretext for a banquet for any Minister for Finance. He has always got to take the kicks, while the others lower "the bubbly". He is merely doing his job, and the only real defence for a Bill such as this is a defence which the Minister could not or dare not make, namely, that he is merely doing his job; that it is his function to devise ways and means of getting more money out of the pockets of the people to satisfy the demands of his colleagues. He could not make that case, but that is the only honest case which could be made for a Bill of this kind. The Minister knows, probably as well as I or anybody else, that taxation at the present moment, both local and central, has reached what should be considered the peak point, what fair-minded people should consider the peak point, and that every possible effort should be made to prevent its going above that point.

The people of this country have been wonderfully patient in the way they have borne one burden after another, but the fact that they have been patient should not encourage anybody to keep piling it on. In most countries which went into the Great War, when they were anxious to pay tribute to the soldiers who represented them in the fight, when they wanted to pay tribute to the soldiers who made sacrifices in an uncomplaining manner, an institution grew up, a shrine where all people pay homage, a shrine to the unknown soldier, not homage or tribute to any particular individual but a tribute to him as representative of millions of other gallant men. We have no such institution in this country, but in front of the Department of Finance we could, with an equally strong case, build up such an institution to the unknown taxpayer, and every one of us could join in paying tribute to that unknown individual, representing all, for the uncomplaining way in which he has borne the burdens of years gone by. In my opinion he is the greatest hero of them all—the man who has the courage, as things are, to build and found a home, with everybody apparently busy in endeavours to place new burdens on him, not only now but in the future, new and continuing burdens. He is the greatest hero of all.

We had the Minister, in his introductory statement, pointing out that this Bill was really seriously required, because we had no general revaluation in this country for 80 years, and that there were all kinds of anomalies, inequalities, and injustices, but his main case seemed to be based on the fact that it was 80 years since we had a revaluation in the country. That particular argument at least cuts both ways. If we have got along without it for 80 years, and if we have done very well without it for 80 years, why select a moment like this—when taxes are at their peak point, when people are getting seriously alarmed and seri- ously perturbed with regard to the tendency for every tax to go up and up, and for no tax ever to go down—to place further burdens on the people, or at all events to forge an instrument which may have the result of placing further burdens on the people?

If the people have been patient and tolerant, and have been restrained from anything in the nature of noisy demonstrations against high-pressure taxes, we should not presume on their patience being unlimited, and we should not do anything to provoke widespread and general complaints, particularly if the only case that could be made for precipitating such a situation is the case that a thing was not done for 80 years and, therefore, should be done now, or because a thing is done every ten years in Great Britain, that we must keep in step, and must obviously do it every ten years, too.

There is no parallel between the two countries, fortunately in some ways, unfortunately in others. Great Britain is a country highly industrialised. If you visit any village in Great Britain, and visit it again after five years, it is completely changed, either by big industries coming in, or some pre-existing big industry going out. The real values, aside from valuation of premises, change over there from day to day, or certainly from year to year, because places that were merely tiny cross-road villages at one date would be comparatively large and prosperous towns five years later. There is apparently a very sound case in a country subject to such violent changes for a periodical revaluation. But the idea of suggesting that, merely because we live near that country, under entirely dissimilar conditions, we must do likewise, is not arguable. Everyone knows that, more or less, our Civil Service grew directly out of the British Civil Service, and that kind of headline, that what is done over there must necessarily be right, is the Civil Service mind. It is the Civil Service mind that has dictated this Bill. It is not the gravity or the number of injustices. If there are injustices, many or few, there is machinery at the disposal of this State to rectify them, and to remove anomalies. It is an extraordinary thing that that machinery has been either deliberately ignored or, if it has not been invoked, it is at least reasonably evident that the injustices, in fact, are not there.

What do the alleged injustices amount to? That myself and, say, another person, own premises, that my valuation is £20, and the valuation of his premises, which are three times as good as mine, only £20, and, therefore, I am suffering under an immense injustice. How is it proposed to meet the injustice? By putting my valuation up to £30, and his valuation up to £60? My injustice is relieved or removed by putting an extra £10 penalty on my back for the purposes of income-tax directly, and potentially for paying higher rates, and I have the satisfaction of knowing that, if I am carrying more, my neighbour is carrying three times as much. It is very little satisfaction, if I have to curtail the amount of money for the household at the end of the week, to know that the other man's wife is suffering three times as hard.

We had different points of view expressed here with regard to the position of farmers under the Bill. We had Deputy Moore's political reminder of the fact that this Party had advocated the complete removal of rates off agricultural land, and that in this Bill agricultural land is specifically ruled out. I agree with those who regretted that particular point. When we advocated that policy, as we still advocate it, and when a commission was appointed as a result of that advocacy to inquire into the question of the advisability of removing rates off agricultural land, it was because we believed that the pressure of the rates at present on agricultural land was too heavy, and too severe an overhead burden on the land itself. But, at least, there was always in my recollection a demand for reducing the rates on agricultural land. Now, apparently, the group or class of people to be ruled out of the possibility of a reduction are those who, all the time, have been demanding a reduction, and that, even the Minister for Agriculture in the present Government admitted, time and again in this House, and outside it, had a fair case either for removal or for a reduction, if the money could be found.

But the people, who, according to this side of the House were unable to bear the burden of rates, and according to the Government side had a fair case for getting the rates removed, are the one class of people specifically picked out, not even to have their case considered, with this exception, that while the rates on land cannot go down, at all events under this Bill, the rates on their houses and buildings are likely to go up. Assuming I am correct in saying that the rates are likely to go up on every piece of immovable property in city, town and country that comes for investigation under this Bill, the valuations will go up. We will leave the rates out for the present. The White Paper circulated with the Bill is clearly indicative that that is the result expected. The Minister's statement, and Deputy Moore's substantiation of that statement, to the effect that public authorities would have more facilities for borrowing to a greater extent, after revaluation is effected are clearly indicative of the fact that the result that is calculated is that the valuation of premises will go up.

In addition, we have our own experience, within this State and outside of it, that every place and every time where there was a revaluation carried out, the valuation of premises went up. The odd case where the valuation of a premises ever went down, if it is not non-existent, is certainly just as rare as a white blackbird. It is not a thing unknown. It is a thing seen, perhaps, once in a life-time.

In addition, we had the Minister's Budget anticipation of two years ago where he assessed income-tax on houses on that Fianna Fáil fraction of five-fourths and, for that abnormal fraction and that new extortion from the people, the justification and the defence and the explanation were based entirely on the fact that a revaluation was overdue and that that was, as it were, in anticipation of a revaluation.

It is because of all those things and all those signs, that I assume that the result will be an increased valuation on every premises and any premises that come under the survey. We had it in Dublin; we had it in Waterford; we had it in Ennis. The people ever the Border, in the North of Ireland, had a revaluation and the result in every case and every place where there was a revaluation was for the valuations to go up. The next result was for the rates to keep in step with the new valuation. I agree that it is not imperative, when a valuation goes up, that the out-goings for rates must necessarily go up. If we were like children, working with a pencil and slate, we could show that if the valuation is £X and the rates are 20/- in the £, if you make the valuation twice £X the rates then will only be 10/- in the £. Life is not as simple as that and human nature is not controlled and human weaknesses, too, by the slate and the pencil. At all events, experience is worth something, and experience should have taught us that when a rate has been for years, we will say, 10/- or 12/- in the £ and the valuation is doubled, there may be a drop for the moment or there may be a stationary period, but it will not be many years until, based on the new valuation, the rates are back again to the old figure. Very useful work may be done out of that but you have not increased the financial value of the people by doubling the valuation of their premises. Nevertheless, you will be extracting twice as much from them.

With regard to the premises of farmers, it has been the position in rural Ireland that the amount of the valuation placed on the farm and out-offices, as compared with the amount of the valuation placed on the farm itself, that that on the house and out-offices was practically insignificant and I believe it would be still insignificant in a joint survey. But, if the residence of the farmer is to stand alone as an isolated building, and if the headline set for the impartial examiner that is carrying out the survey is to be the net rental of those premises, and if the new valuation is to be the net rental of the farmer's residence, I do not know in rural Ireland where they can get sufficient samples. The only samples of houses let in rural Ireland are the labourers' cottages all around and that will be a standard to build up from. With tariffs and increased costs of one kind and another, the average weekly rent of a labourer's cottage at the moment is in the neighbourhood of 2/6. If you have 15 to 20 labourers' cottages in a townland, with a rental of 2/6 a week each, that is £6 or £7 a year, and the farmer's house is, we will say, twice as good as a labourer's cottage, the valuation placed on that house must, according to the headline set in the Bill, be £14 for the house alone and the new valuation set on the cottage will apparently be the annual rent.

I do not know if the position of rural Ireland has been fully considered before it was included in this Bill. It strikes me that there a number of very grave injustices that will arise and, even assuming that the case made is a sound case, that there are some injustices at the moment, which it is hoped to remove, you will not be doing any good by removing some injustices if you replace them by thousands of other injustices and by revaluing labourers' cottages and farm-houses just after a period, as the Minister for Local Government told us, of intense building, and intense building at the peak point of cost, when the cost of the building was increased by a number of factors, internal and external, by an increase in the price of the raw materials, by tariffs on these materials coming in and by the increased price of the home material as a result of the tariff. Those new houses can only be set at a rental arrived at by working back from the gross cost of the house.

Now, on a rental, inflated because of a number of accidental conditions, we are to have the valuation increased because of that figure, that is, we are increasing the valuation because of a number of accidental and, possibly, purely passive factors. We are getting very near the point where you are taxing people, or propose to tax people, on taxes already paid. Those tariffs on incoming raw materials are taxes. There is a subsidy paid towards the building of every house; that is met by taxes. We have paid our taxes on the raw material. We have paid the subsidy out of the taxes and now, on those taxes, we will pay further taxes because it is the gross cost of the building that decides the rental and the valuation is to be based on the rental and the rates will depend on the valuation.

There has been a matter referred to by other speakers which, I presume, the Minister will make some attempt to clear up when he is closing this debate, that is the reference to gardens, as distinct from farms Gardens around a house are to be taxed separately with the house, or as a common unit with the house. I do not know how exactly in rural Ireland you would discriminate between a garden proper, a lawn and an agricultural field in front of or behind the house. There are houses here and there where attempts have been made to turn out the place in a better style than, let us say, 50 years ago. A little piece of land around the house had been turned into a shrubbery, or has some kind of fancy hedge around it. Heretofore, that house stood in its nakedness in the middle of a field, with the cattle, sheep and goats grazing up against the front door. Now, a little ornamental plot is in most cases enclosed, with perhaps a little wicket gate leading into it. If that is to increase the valuation, and, consequently, the rates, and if people are to be driven back to old slovenly standards, if they are to be taxed, in addition to everything else, for cleanliness and tidiness, I think we are going in the wrong direction.

Cleanliness, tidiness and neatness, and more cleanliness, more tidiness and more neatness are what is wanted in both city and country, and far from putting penalties on the back of the exemplary person who has set a headline in that respect, I would say that you should consider the advisability of giving relief to people who have devoted portion of their land, not only to beautifying their own houses, but the appearance of the countryside generally. That particular portion of land devoted to the ornamental garden is not productive; it is not profit-making. It is a part of the land available for profit and for production which has been freely and voluntarily surrendered in the interests of neatness, tidiness and beauty. A relief should be given in such cases rather than to make that an instrument for further taxation, or a possible instrument of further taxation.

In cities and in urban towns, I believe there is very real, very general, and very genuine alarm at this Bill. So much has already been said that I did not intend to speak. This is the third or fourth day of the debate, and I have listened to many speeches. I saw that everything that could be said had been said, and I had no intention of speaking, but I was inundated with such volumes of correspondence, most of it from people I had never met or seen, putting it up to me, as a Deputy representing two counties, that strong opposition must be given to this Bill, and that they were entitled to have their feelings and sentiments voiced in Parliament. It was the volume of demand from people who do not belong to my particular political persuasion as well as from those who do, that made it imperative that their demands should be expressed here. In rural Ireland, in the village, the town and the urban centre, there is alarm and uneasiness. No one living in any of those areas can see any result but the one—further demand, higher rates—and that at a time when they are going through, in many towns, perhaps as difficult a time as ever they went through, with business slipping away by reason of greater transport facilities, with the buses taking their customers and bringing them up to the bigger stores in the city, or the larger towns, and with the same problem down there as is up here, of the person attempting either to repay the building cost of a house, or to repay the purchase price of a house, by the instalment, hire purchase system.

There are hundreds of thousands of people now dwelling in houses which they are purchasing on the instalment system. They are not the wealthy people. They are the comparatively poor people, living out of small salaries or wages, and people living out of a small salary or out of a constant wage are people who lay out every penny of their income from week to week or month to month. So much provision is made for rent; so much for fuel and light; so much for provisions; so much for the other purposes of the family; and so much for meeting rates and taxes. For the amount which the Minister or any public body is going to get out of these unfortunate people by increasing their valuations and their rate demand, is it considered how gravely the family economy will be upset? The whole equilibrium of the household of humble people living out of a fixed salary or wage could well be upset by an extra demand of 1/- or 2/- a month, and not a week. The housewife in such places lays out the money, and the better the household, the more accurately the monthly income or weekly wage is laid out. It is laid out to the odd ounce of tobacco; it is laid out to the last sixpence.

If, through State interference, there is a new burden placed on them, even to the extent of as much as 1/- in the month, it may very well cause a very serious upset in the economy of such a household. The new charge cannot be offset by any reduction in any of the other fixed charges. Every penny, every sixpence and every shilling has already been laid out, and there is only one field for economy. That is, in the money allowed for provisioning the family. If they have to economise to the extent of 1/-, 2/- or 3/- a month, there is that much less to be expended on food, or perhaps on some little comfort, some modest article that such people might regard as a luxury.

If the Bill is as outlined by the Minister and as outlined by Deputy Moore, not a Bill to increase revenue and not a Bill to increase rates, but merely a Bill to remove certain inequalities and anomalies that exist here and there; if that is the only reason for the Bill, I think there is no excuse or justification for going on with a Bill which is causing consternation in five out of every six homesteads in the country. I suggest that the real reason is the one I stated at the beginning, that it is imperative to get more money, that it is absolutely essential, because of the demands of others on the Minister, that every possible expedient and every possible device be utilised in order to extract more money from the people. That may be, but at least the people are entitled to know what is being done and why it is being done, and, above all, Deputies in this House are entitled to know, before they vote for a Bill, the reasons they are voting for it and what the result of that Bill is going to be. Deputy Moore may call it Party prejudice or anything else, but I think it is high time Deputies of all Parties in this House refused to vote for any Bill, no matter how plausible a case is made, if they are expected to vote in blinkers, as they are on this occasion.

Mr. O'Reilly

I agree with Deputy O'Higgins that it is his duty, as a member of the Opposition, of course, to be extremely critical when a question of taxation arises. I suppose I must also agree that it is his privilege to exaggerate somewhat the principles of any measure of that nature when it comes before a House such as this. I do not know that it is proper to state, as one Deputy has already stated, that this is not a Bill to revalue, but a Bill to increase taxation. As far as I can see, it certainly will increase taxation in certain cases, in certain areas, certain towns and certain houses, and that it will decrease taxation in others. I do not know much about the City of Dublin, but I am sure that there are parts of the City of Dublin paying, say, in local taxation huge sums that they really should not be paying and that there are portions of the city paying much smaller sums than they should really be paying. Great changes have taken place, much the same as down the country. I see towns in which there were three or four or five people who were industrially-minded, who speculated some money in the setting up of industries there and created a population in that town, and I see other towns, that about 40 or even 30 years ago were just as prosperous, and possibly more prosperous, rapidly decaying. The prosperity of the last kind of town I mentioned was due to its being, perhaps, the terminus of a railway; people came in and stopped in the town before fairs, stayed there the night before, took the train and that sort of thing, and gave an added value to the town and to its business houses. Transport has its effect also.

I do know quite well that it is possible for Deputies, who believe it is correct, to scare people, especially ratepayers down the country in the rural areas—to scare them with the threat of higher rates. The rates are extremely high, and, unfortunately, they had to be high, because when we took over control as a Government here we found a very unfortunate situation. The people in almost all cases were houseless, and the labouring classes had not had any houses built for them for many years. I am not saying that from any particular political motive. The Ministers in the last Government, either the Minister for Local Government or other Ministers, possibly were engaged in repairing roads, but certainly there were very few houses built. Very many houses had to be built during the last five or six years, and very many more houses will have to be built in the next few years. Those houses cannot be built without an appeal to the local ratepayers, and consequently it seems to be fruitful to talk a lot now about the desperate situation that will arise when these rates are increased, and this Bill is called, not a revaluation Bill, but a Bill to increase taxation. In quite a number of resolutions that I read, that appeared without any doubt whatsoever.

Now, I also agree with Deputy O'Higgins that the Minister for Finance has not as happy a position as Ministers in other Departments. He has to collect money and to be very severe on the collector, and he has to pay out money and be very severe also. He must be exact in collecting it and he must be exact in paying it. Hence he is a target for a great number of people, but this measure is going to take seven years to be carried out, and I wonder does the Opposition believe that this particular Minister will be the then Minister for Finance or that this particular Government will be the Government? Do not they all agree that there is a principle involved, and the principle is to try to get those who can afford it to pay more and to try to get a reduction in the case of those who have to pay when they really cannot pay?

General Mulcahy

Why was the 24 per cent., or the 25 per cent., slapped on all round?

Mr. O'Reilly

On which?

General Mulcahy

On the Schedule A people, whether they were suffering injustice or not. Why was it slapped on?

Mr. MacEntee

Because they were paying less than their share.

Mr. O'Reilly

I think Deputy Mulcahy will agree that there is nothing wrong with the principle.

General Mulcahy

The principle of what?

Mr. O'Reilly

Of revaluation. There is nothing wrong with it. Of course, if I were asked to criticise the thing I am not so sure that the method of revaluation might be all that one would desire, and I am not so sure that it is not possible to improve it. Therefore, I think it can be agreed that the principle is right, and that some questions might be raised and some doubts expressed as to the methods that are going to be adopted. It is not easy to adopt methods for a revaluation Bill, and it is incumbent that such a thing should be done. As I said we are living in an age of change. Very many things have to be done that were not even contemplated three or four or five years ago. Towns are rapidly changing in value and it is essential that some steps be taken to see that the burden that is carried by people is equal to what they can bear to some extent. That has not been the case up to the present.

General Mulcahy

It has not.

Mr. O'Reilly

It has not, and it has not been the case for some years. Griffith's Poor Law Valuation and the valuation of houses operates to a very large extent on the value of land and the other valuations on the value of houses, and the time is ripe for some form of revaluation. I should like to go a step further and see that there was a revaluation of land also. It is a sort of stocktaking, and all countries do this sort of thing. There is not anything unusual in it or anything to frighten people about it. I believe that it is essential that it should be done. Now, for example, take the valuation of any of the older type of houses in Dublin, houses that a few years ago were of great value, in which important people resided. If you took those houses, say, by the weight of the bricks or the weight of the stones in them they would be extremely valuable, whereas the new style of house is the one that is needed to-day. Domestic servants have to get higher wages; they are scarcer; modern conveniences are demanded, and hence a new style of house is wanted. Motor cars take people outside the cities and towns, and the result is that these houses are possibly of less value, so far as poor law valuation is concerned, than the older houses that are rapidly turning into tenements. So that I cannot understand what is the great objection to the principle, if there is an objection, and I believe there is.

The real matter that I should like to hear a good deal about is, what method and what standard are you going to apply. When you satisfy yourself on that, you come back to the other side of it, and that is, that you hand that valuation over to the local authority. A good many Deputies on the Opposition side, and possibly on this side, and I myself would agree, believe that many of these local councils, when they feel the pinch or a little pressed, will rub their hands and say: "That is a nice, juicy, fat poor law valuation." I am quite sure that if the valuation is increased all round —I do not believe it will be, only in certain instances—but suppose it is, is it not the duty of the Government to introduce legislation, and legislation can be introduced to prevent an excessive exaction of local rates?

General Mulcahy

It is the other way round.

Mr. O'Reilly

Is it not possible that legislation will be introduced to follow this up, and not leave the situation as it is at present?

Mr. MacEntee

Quite right.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy must have been asleep for six years.

Mr. O'Reilly

I imagine, whether my imagination runs away with me or not, that you cannot have this thing just by itself.

Mr. Keating

You imagined at one time that you were going to reduce taxation by £2,000,000 per year.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. O'Reilly

Of course we cannot talk now except about local taxes. It is quite possible that some of us might have thought that and might have believed that.

Mr. Keating

You preached it, whether you thought it or not.

Mr. O'Reilly

But we were faced with the appalling situation that in every county there were thousands of people without a home or a house. That was the first difficulty.

Mr. Coburn

I do not know how we lived then. We must have lived in the fields like beasts. You did not do much, anyhow. I can tell your history. I am sick listening to the like of you.

Mr. O'Reilly

I can say this much, that we did not build the houses for fun. If that hurts Deputy Coburn——

Mr. Coburn

It does not hurt a bit, but I do not like to hear you talking nonsense.

Mr. O'Reilly

These houses were built and they could not be built for nothing. The result is that there is an increase in local rates. It was only an hour ago that I heard Deputy Coburn say what a great thing it was to do it. I heard a lot of Deputies approve of the building of houses, but the difficulty is that they cannot be built for nothing. So far as this Bill is concerned, I honestly do not see anything to be afraid of, but as I said, one might reasonably question the method of assessment or the standard of valuation that is going to be adopted.

Mr. O'Neill

I think it was Deputy Moore accused us on this side of the House of making a Party measure of this Bill. As a matter of fact, I do not think there was ever a Bill brought into this House which received such an amount of public comment outside, nor was there ever a Bill which received such universal condemnation from all classes as this Bill has received. In fact, if there was any independence or any freedom of thought left on the Fianna Fáil Benches, not alone would they not be able to get three members to stand up in favour of the Bill but the whole of the 77 Deputies, if they followed the exhortations of those whom they represent here, would have come out unanimously and vehemently against the Bill. Everywhere up and down the country, at every council and committee meeting, in fact in some Fianna Fáil clubs, the opinion has been expressed universally that this is a very dangerous Bill. I am of that opinion myself, apart from the opinion of those whom I represent here. This is a very dangerous Bill, one of the most dangerous which has come before the House for a long time. In fact, it is a much more dangerous Bill than the A.R.P. Estimate or the Army Estimate which we considered last week, which was described as "Aiken robbing the poor"—A.R.P. This Bill has got another name which I shall give it later. I want to emphasise that this Bill is being shoved through the House not alone against the wishes of the representatives of the people in the House, but contrary to the expressed will of the people themselves. I think that is a very grave step for any Minister to take at this particular time.

My particular protest against this Bill is made in the interests of what I call the small town, the little national unit in the country which is fast disappearing and which is going to be hardest hit by this Bill. In the County Cork we have 16 towns of a population of over 1,500. These towns are going to feel the brunt of this Bill, and are going to feel it severely, particularly at a time when they are unable to stand up against it and when they can do nothing else but protest that they will not be able to resist the exactions that the Bill will make upon them.

The Minister told us that this Bill has been expressly brought in to remove inequalities in the present valuations, particularly with regard to the devaluation of money. The Minister at one time had a great penchant for bringing in Bills for removing doubts. If this Bill is going to remove inequalities, it has removed any doubts from my mind as to the ultimate end of the Bill. It is, of course, a Bill to increase taxation, increase it very severely, and increase it in such a way that it is going to make the increase progressive. The increase in local rating will be by geometrical progression in future, on a scale that has not been heard of in the past. The White Paper attached to the Bill showed us exactly what to expect.

The whole feeling underlying that explanatory White Paper is that this is a Bill to wipe out anomalies and to wipe out irregularities and that as money is less valuable now more taxes should be paid. I want to point out that whenever valuation has been increased it was followed ultimately and very shortly by an increase in taxation. That experience ought to be worth something to the public. Then we know that the Minister for Finance is needy and greedy. We know that he is up against finding large sums of money for national and local purposes. We have that tendency of his already expressed in the very cute move he made with regard to the five-fourths valuation in connection with the schedule of income-tax. At that time by one stroke of the pen he increased the valuation of the country by 25 per cent. Is not that enough to show what this Bill means in the mind of the Minister?

The effects of this measure are going to fall heaviest upon the small towns in the country. Farmers are nominally exempt. Some of the cities have been already revalued. But the depressed and small town is going to be hit hard. These small towns are already fast disappearing. Their business is decreasing and their population already is going down at an alarming rate; something must be done to keep up the rates of revenue to the normal level. Last night we had a speech from a Cork Deputy instancing the position of two local towns in his constituency. The valuation of these towns is in actual fact going down. He knows the position. Of course the valuation will go down because there is nothing to put up the real value of the two towns he represents. The Deputy might extend that to the town from which I come and to nine or ten other towns in County Cork. The valuation of all these towns will come down because the buildings, houses, stores, warehouses and other hereditaments have ceased to have any value at all—that is if the valuation is assessed on the money or earning power of the buildings. These towns are decrepit. Now if the valuation of these towns goes down the social service demands which are increasing will have to be met. That means that more rates must be paid by the survivors in these unfortunate areas. In the last ten years a whole town has disappeared off the face of the earth from the County Cork. Does not the Minister know it? We have 16 small towns in County Cork and the population of these 16 towns has decreased in the last ten years by 2,100. That is equal to the population of one small town. These 2,100 people who have gone out of these 16 towns are the best of the people. The people left behind are the people who did not have their bus fares to get out in time. The condition of these towns is a problem that calls for the attention of the Government.

I have often referred to the unreal atmosphere under which people in Dublin are living. I would like if the Minister would leave the rich and wealthy atmosphere of Dublin and go down and look into the condition of the West Cork towns. Indeed, he might look into the condition of all the towns in the South and West of Ireland. I invite the Minister to pass down by Arklow, examine the position of the towns all along the Eastern and Southern coast, and wind up in Ballydehob. I would invite him to go to these towns and see how the people manage to live or exist. Then he would have some idea of the real condition of the people who live in these small communities. If he did so, he would come to realise the unreal atmosphere in which the people live here in Dublin as compared with the actual conditions of the rest of the country.

Mr. T. Kelly

These Cork people have concentrated in Dublin, a lot of them have set up here in Dublin.

Mr. O'Neill

If they did, it was by the pure force of ability and brains. It was certainly through no love extended to them by the Dublin people. These urbanised towns to which I refer have suffered in particular from one disadvantage, and that is with regard to the rates raised for poor law relief. The ordinary urban town has no control whatsoever over the making of the rate for poor law purposes. The county council simply puts a demand before that body and says, "We want £2,500 or £3,000, and you must give us that." The little urban town has to provide that sum—indeed, a larger sum, because there is the cost of collecting it, and the deficiencies, if any, have got to be made up out of the town rate to meet this demand of the county council. The town commissioners or urban councillors have no voice whatever in the spending of that money. There is there a great anomaly with regard to the rates raised for county purposes by the county authorities, and that is a matter on which the Minister should introduce legislation so as to give fair play to the urban authorities and relieve them in this respect.

I think it was Deputy Moore a while ago who told us that we should not be talking about local bodies increasing the rates; that these local bodies did not increase the rates for love of extracting the money from the people. No, I agree, but these local bodies are being pushed by Government policy. Under new legislation fresh demands are made upon them, and owing to a certain atmosphere that has been created by the Government and to meet demands for social services and other expenses over which they have no control, the local bodies have no choice in the matter. The worst of it is that this sort of thing is going to continue. The general tendency is for all taxation to go up, and it is going up at a time when the productivity of this country has gone down. That is the time when taxation has shown a frightful increase. In 1931-1932 this country was producing £67,000,000 worth of agricultural produce. That produce is down to-day to £41,000,000 and less. In 1931 the national taxation was £22,000,000, and this has gone up now to the present figure of £30,000,000. The general tendency is for productivity to go down and taxation to go up. We have been told that agricultural productivity is going down because we are paying more attention to the industrial outlook. I believe it is now becoming clear that even in regard to the industrial outlook we are in a very critical condition. A lot of the props keeping up the industrial side of our production are showing signs of decay. There is every appearance that there is going to be a collapse. I think the scandal revealed to us this morning in the Press with regard to bacon and pig prices is a forerunner of many others. We have heard this evening how the oil refinery in Dublin has been closed down——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is not the Deputy wandering from the Bill?

Mr. O'Neill

I am trying to prove that this Bill is going to increase taxation. I am urging the Minister to have the Bill postponed. The Bill is creating uncertainty and a feeling of instability in the minds of the people. I think I am quite entitled to make that case. The outlook in the country is uncertain. We have just emerged from an economic war which has cost this country £50,000,000. We are trying to put agriculture on a sound basis and we are endeavouring to bring about stability in the country. This Bill is to take seven years to implement or put into operation.

Now, if we are to have seven more years of uncertainty and instability following the seven years of the economic war, I put it to the Minister what does he think will be the effect on the country? Nobody will invest money in land or go into real estate while all this uncertainty continues. There cannot be prosperity when the state of business is precarious and productivity of every kind is on the decline. I put it to the Minister that this is the most inopportune time. I urge him that it should be postponed until stabilised conditions are produced in the country. In addition to all the other things against the Bill there is the fact that we will have to pay for this valuation. The Cork County Council will have to pay £11,000 and not only that but the revision each year will cost the county £1,700. This annual revision is going to become a general tax on the small poor towns to the bad financial position of which I have been referring. This annual revision will cost the unfortunate people in these towns 3d. in the £ in their rates, plus the 2½d. tax for the original revaluation. I say this is a very inopportune time to bring in this Bill. I am thoroughly against it, and I think that every member of the House who has any regard for the feelings of the people he represents must be as much against it as I am. It is said that there is no freedom of opinion left here. We are accused of making this a Party matter. We are doing nothing of the kind. We do not regard it as a Party matter, but as one of very grave national concern.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy should not try to be funny.

Mr. O'Neill

The Minister knows quite well that this Bill is going to do nothing except to extract more money from the people at a time when they can badly afford it. I think I did understand the Minister to say that he intends to introduce later, arising out of this measure, legislation to deal with Electricity Supply Board charges and publicans' licences. In view of the fact that the Electricity Supply Board is referred to in a section of the Bill, I think I will be in order in referring to that body. The Electricity Supply Board came into some of the small towns in the country and took over the local undertakings which had certain easements in the matter of valuations. The Electricity Supply Board increased those easements in value, in some cases to the extent of practically three times the amount of the original valuation. I have a case in mind where a local undertaking had an easement valuation of £60. After some reconstruction work had been carried out by the Electricity Supply Board, when they took over, the valuation was increased to £165. But the position is that the Electricity Supply Board are not paying rates on the £165. They are paying on the original valuation of £60. The county council, or other outside rating authority, come to the local council and say that they want rates on that valuation of £165. They are told that they cannot get it, because the Electricity Supply Board have gone into court and, as a result, are only obliged, they maintain, to pay on the original valuation no matter what it may be. The Electricity Supply Board, this big semi-Government corporation, get away with that so that the balance of rates due must be made up by the local poor people. The people in these depressed towns must pay up because the Electricity Supply Board will not do it.

As I have said, this Bill is going to fall heaviest on the small towns. The farmer is not going to get away with it so far as his lawn or garden is concerned. They are to be valued separately and will not enjoy the exemption provided for the remainder of his agricultural land. Is there any Deputy in this House who knows what a "lawn" is? I do not know. I have heard the description "lawn" applied to a 30-acre field in front of a farmer's house. It is a very serious thing if land of that kind is to become subject to the provisions of this Bill, and if what is described as a "lawn" is to be valued separately. The same thing is to apply to a bit of ground where a few apple trees are put down on the advice of the local horticultural instructor. We are told, too, that the labourers' cottages will be valued separately as well as the homes of the poor people in the Gaeltacht who were given special facilities under the Gaeltacht (Housing) Act.

It seems to me that, under this Bill, there is going to be a kind of rake-off between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government— to get back, by means of these increased valuations, a share of the money provided for housing schemes. The money that they have already given by way of grants to encourage house building is now to be taken back through the operation of this Bill. If time permitted there are many other aspects of the Bill that I would like to deal with. I would appeal to the Minister to give special consideration to the small towns. Most of them are in an extremely precarious financial position at the present time, and if the Minister insists on putting this Bill into operation it will have the effect of practically blowing them out of existence altogether. Cork County has lost 2,100 of its urban population in the last ten years, and 12,000 off the land. In view of that, how can you expect the towns to progress? The potentialities that would make this valuation worth while at another time are becoming less and less.

The time, as I have said, is inopportune for a measure such as this. The country is poor and things are in an uncertain state. This measure is going to cause more uncertainty and do great damage, especially amongst people likely to invest money in any form of real estate. The members of the Minister's Party should, by this time, have become alive to the strong public feeling that has been aroused against this Bill. They must be aware that resolutions have been passed by Fianna Fáil cummain in all parts of the country expressing strong and vehement opposition to the Bill.

Colonel Ryan

I have not heard one word in favour of this Bill in any part of the country. Deputy Moore was the only member on the opposite side who gave unqualified support to it. Deputy O'Reilly also spoke, and he gave it a sort of approval. He did not seem to like some parts of it. I suppose, in view of the fact that it has been introduced by a member of the Government, he had to try to support it. We have been told from the opposite side that the Bill will not have the effect of increasing valuations. I am convinced from my reading of the explanatory statement that that is the very purpose it will serve. In paragraph (8) of that statement I find this:—

"Owing to the increase in the value of property in terms of money which has taken place since the middle of the last century, and particularly since 1913, not being fairly represented therein, the values in the cadastre are for the most part too low to represent the present net annual letting values."

What does that mean but that every bit of property will be valued, and that the valuations will be raised? If this Bill is not going to increase taxation it will certainly, in my opinion, raise valuations. In that paragraph it is further stated: "Although it has been, from the outset, the practice of the Valuation Office, with the approval of the courts, to endeavour to secure rating equity by valuing the comparatively small number of properties which came before it for revision every year on the same basis as that upon which the mass of the properties stood valued in the rating area concerned, this practice has not been successful in preserving relativity between by far the greater number of such values."

It is quite clear to me from what is set out in that paragraph, as I think it must be to anybody who reads it, that this Bill will not only increase valuations, but will also lead to an increase in taxation. If the Minister thinks that the money value is not fairly represented at the moment, is he not well aware that since 1913 the rates have risen nearly threefold? You would think that that should equalise things as far as the money value of houses was concerned; that, with the added 25 per cent. for the purpose of income-tax. That should fairly equal things so far as the people are concerned.

The Minister tells us that this is purely to remedy the inequalities. I think it is going to create more inequalities that ever, especially in rural Ireland. We have been told about towns not being as well off as they were, and many causes are suggested, such as railway termini closing down, and other things of that sort. If that is the case, then the houses in these towns ought to have their valuations reduced. If they are taken in terms of stone, bricks, mortar, slates, or any of the things that form the house, then all the houses in these towns, where the people are becoming poorer, are going to have their valuations raised, it would seem.

Take the case of the farmers. We are going to have the valuations on farm buildings considered, and they are to be based on their letting value. I wonder what is the letting value of a big farmer's house, with all the sheds and other buildings around it, when the land is taken away from it? I wonder has it any letting value? I doubt if you could find anybody to rent a farmer's house, with a lot of outbuildings; perhaps in one case out of every 20 you might get a person so inclined. I believe that in many cases the revaluation of such buildings is going to cause greater inequalities. I admit that so far as land values in rural Ireland are concerned, there is some inequality, but if this proposed valuation scheme is carried out, there will be many more added.

In many cases the house was valued at a low rate and the land was subject to a high valuation, but, setting one against the other, the valuation was fairly normal. In the present case a house valued at a medium rate and with highly valued land attached is likely to have its valuation raised, and that will be especially so in the case of an industrious man, the type of man who, during and after the war, made money and put that money into buildings, in the way of cattle sheds or a new house or by way of improvements in his old house. That man, I believe, is going to suffer considerably because of his hard work and industry, and I think that is unfair.

If the Minister were right, he would withdraw this Bill. It is significant that the Minister has left land and railways out of this Bill. Land and railways are at the moment supposed to be the two least paying propositions in this country. The railways are not paying and, definitely, land is not paying. He has brought in every bit of immovable property. Apparently he is not anxious to withdraw the Bill and, seeing that he is not prepared to do so, there are a few points that I would like him to consider. First of all, there is the matter of the labourers' cottages and the labourers' houses built in the towns, and especially the old labourers' cottages which are now being bought out. After their purchase the individuals who occupy them will have to pay the rates. If the cottages are valued on the basis the Minister speaks of, not alone will the valuation be quadrupled, but the rates will be quadrupled as well. The same thing will apply to the houses in towns.

If the Minister is anxious to do away with inequalities he should give the right to the farmers to apply for a revaluation of their land. The farmer has never had that right. The Minister declares that this Bill is not for the purpose of collecting more money or raising valuations. If it is not, then he should at least allow the farmers some means by which they could have their valuations reconsidered and assessed on a reasonable basis. The basis on which many of them were assessed under Griffith's valuation was the basis of growing wheat, with a differentiation where the land was adjacent to a market town.

That valuation has turned out more irregularities than any other system of valuation in the State. At the time that valuation was made there was a great deal of land in Ireland under wheat. There were good wheat-growing areas and bad wheat-growing areas, but the land was all assessed on the same basis, and there is, therefore, terrible inequality so far as land valuation is concerned.

I think the Minister should amend the Bill in order to give farmers a chance of applying for a revision of their valuations. Under previous Bills they were given no such opportunity, and something should be done in that direction now. There is another important point. In many parts of the country, and especially in my county, we have had this year thousands of acres flooded, and they were of no use to the owners. There should be some consideration given to the owners of flooded land. There could not be a beast put on it for at least six months I might say that the lands were of no use to some of those people since last June. I am sure the same applies to other counties. The important point is that some of that land is very highly valued. There is some of it in the Golden Vale, and it is very highly valued, possibly the highest valued in the country, and the fact is that it was almost useless this year. The Minister should make an effort to give these people some means of redress.

I think that everything that could be said on this Bill has been said. The Minister should endeavour to see that his word is kept, that this Bill will not raise valuations or mean an increase of rates. Somebody on the other side of the House suggested that the Minister might bring in another Bill in order to make sure of that. I suggest that if valuations are increased, and it seems to me they must be under this measure, the Minister should bring in another Bill to ensure that the rates are not proportionately increased.

Mr. Hickey

I have no desire to cover the ground that has been covered by speakers during the last few hours, but there is one thing I should like to point out to the Minister. We consider that it is very unfair that the buildings occupied in Cork City by the Electricity Supply Board should be exempt from rates. We have quite a number of buildings occupied by the board there, and they are benefited by all the social services, and we think it very unfair that they should be exempt from rating. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.

Mr. Brodrick

For a few weeks this Bill has been before the House, and by this time the Government should know the trend of public opinion on the measure. But apparently the Government, at the present time, takes very little notice of public opinion. I would not intervene in this debate were it not that since the Bill was circulated, and since it appeared in the Press, I have had numerous communications from various districts, from different individuals, and I have also had interviews, as to the possibilities of this Bill. From every side I have had complaints. Reading over the papers for the last few days, you can see that there were protest meetings of different local bodies, such as boards of health and county councils. Even the Mayo County Council, whose chairman is a prominent member of the Fianna Fáil Party, have protested against this Bill. Very prominent public bodies, including the Dáil-Cheanntair, have protested, and they have asked the Fianna Fáil Deputies not to support the Bill. I should like to know on what basis valuation in the past took place.

From the time the Free State was established, even up to 1937 and 1938, many buildings were erected each year, and as soon as they were erected they were valued. I should like to know from the Minister what is the basis of valuation for buildings, or is it related to any particular year? That is not a point on which I am clear. I have seen houses, each of which had the same accommodation, but although there was five or six years' difference between the times these houses were built, each house bears the same valuation. Yet, there was certainly a great difference in the cost of erection during that period. It would be interesting to know whether the valuation of a house in 1938 was based on the building costs of 1937, or whether a house valued in 1937 was based on the building costs of 1936. Building costs in 1937 increased by almost 20 per cent. as compared with those in 1936. Although the Conditions of Employment Act applied to some part of 1936, it came into full operation in 1937, and the effect of it was to increase building costs by at least 20 per cent. Then you had a number of tariffs on articles used in the building trade. I think I would not be far wrong in saying that the net effect of the Conditions of Employment Act, and the tariffs on building materials, was to send building costs up by at least 25 per cent. Is that the basis upon which the valuation of this country will be started? If so, I think it is a false basis.

I should like to know whether, under this Valuation Bill, we have to go back a certain number of years and say that the value of a building was a certain figure at that time—say ten years ago. Take the case of the ordinary artisan earning from £3 15s. to £4 15s. per week or the labourer earning say £2 10s. per week, whose house was erected as a result of loans raised by a local authority. He knew where he stood at that time. He knew what he was going to pay on the instalment system. He knew what it was going to cost him per week, what the valuation of his house would be and also the rates. Now, he is faced with the position that the valuation of that house is going to be increased. I say that there is no object behind the Bill other than to increase taxation and to get in more revenue. The artisan or the labourer took that house at 8/- or 10/- a week, with rates in addition. He is now faced with an increase in valuation which will certainly also mean an increase in rates. Inside the last few years in a county in the West of Ireland which I know very well the rates have increased from 8/6 to 15/- in the £. I am afraid that that tendency will continue and that increased valuations will also mean increased rates.

Another matter we have to remember is that the more valuable a building is, the higher the valuation will be. A house built in brick or stone is much more valuable than a house built of concrete. The result of that is that a house built of materials produced within the country will have to bear more taxation than a house built out of materials that are imported. As I say, a house built with brick or stone is much more costly than a house built of concrete, and the taxation of these houses will therefore be higher than the houses built of imported material. An ordinary hut roofed with galvanised iron may provide the same accommodation as a house built of stone but its valuation would be only about £5 against a valuation of about £15 for the house built of stone. The better the building the more employment provided and the more money spent in employment the higher the taxation.

That, in a sense, means that you are putting a tax on efficiency, because the fellow who gets away with a jerrybuilt house will have a lower taxation to pay than the man who erects a proper house. The occupiers of houses in our small towns have been taxed up to the hilt. In fact, many of them have been driven out of business owing to high taxation. A Bill such as this has been in operation in Northern Ireland for some time, and the Government need only look at the returns from Belfast alone to see the number of business premises that have been closed for no other reason than that they were unable to carry on owing to the high taxation imposed there under the new Act.

I think that the Minister might give public opinion in this country a chance. Public bodies throughout the country have been voicing their protests for the last fortnight against this Bill. While undoubtedly revenue has to come from some source, this Bill will impose a great injustice on certain people who are least able to bear it. Take the small farmers throughout the country who have spent every halfpenny they can afford in the reconstruction of their houses, or in making some addition to their houses so as to qualify for the £30 grant. Now they are going to be taxed for having made these improvements. Similarly, a man who got a loan for the building of a pig house or the erection of hen houses, in order to increase production and efficiency in this country, is going to be taxed for his enterprise. It is the industrious person who will be taxed under this Bill. Some Deputy stated here this evening that you can get nothing out of the poor man or the lazy man. That is certainly a fact, but I think it most unfair to increase taxation on the industrious man.

In conclusion, I would ask the Minister to reconsider the Bill having regard to the position of the country at present. Every industry in this country is taxed up to the hilt. Agriculturists, businessmen and other classes are fully taxed. Owing to the hard times they have gone through, many of our people are unable to meet their ordinary debts. The time is very inopportune for such a Bill and it is not right that the people should be harassed in such a manner.

Mr. Coburn

Strong objection has been taken to this Bill in the country. So far as I can see, there has been no demand on the part of the people for the Bill. The people are of opinion that, since the advent of Fianna Fáil to power, they have been taxed almost out of existence and it is well known that the people who pay most of the taxes are not supporters of Fianna Fáil. Therefore, you can, with great comfort to yourselves, increase taxation, fortified in the belief that it is your political opponents who will have to pay the major share of these increased taxes. According to Deputy O'Reilly, there was nothing in this country until Fianna Fáil came into power. Until this Government attained office, we went without any clothes and we had to lie out in the fields, according to Deputy O'Reilly. However, we, on this side of the House, are of opinion that there is absolutely no necessity for this Bill.

The Minister may try to convince the House and country that his aim in introducing this Bill is to remove anomalies as well as to remove injustices as between the valuations placed on different hereditaments. I, for one, do not take that view, because I believe that the Minister is introducing this Bill to get more money. It is not for fun he is introducing the Bill. The cost of preparing for the operation of the Act and the cost of operating it will be very heavy, and the Minister will see that he will recover these expenses by increased taxation. Certain increases in other charges will emerge when the Bill comes into operation. These do not appear on the face of the Bill, but the people will get a rude awakening when the measure comes into force. Everybody knows that people now pay their electricity accounts on valuation. The cost of one's electricity supply is based on the valuation of his house. If valuations are increased as a result of this Bill, the consumers of electricity will have to pay more for their supply.

Mr. MacEntee

I have already pointed out to the House that that is not true.

General Mulcahy

It would be well to say it a few times more so that we should be sure.

Mr. Coburn

I see nothing in the Bill to convince me that it will not have the effect of increasing electricity charges if it is allowed to go through in its present form. Everybody knows that the E.S.B. at the present time is making plenty of money, and I am of opinion that, instead of increasing electricity charges, the time has arrived when they should be reduced. If this Bill is passed, we shall have to pay increased charges and these charges will fall on thousands of poor working people.

Mr. MacEntee

There is nothing in the statute law of this country which compels the Electricity Supply Board to base its charges for electricity on valuation.

Mr. Coburn

May I ask the Minister to repeat that statement in a louder voice, so that I may hear him and understand what he is saying? It is not the first time the Minister contradicted what I said. In regard to the increase in the allowances of Deputies, he said I was not telling the truth, but if I had been in the House when he said that, I would have made him apologise. If he wants to contradict me now, I want him to speak audibly so that I can deal with his statement. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the charges for electricity being increased.

Mr. MacEntee

There is nothing to suggest, either, that the charges will be increased.

Mr. Coburn

Is that not a natural corollary to the passing of the Bill? The vintners and licensed grocers will have their licence duties increased, because these are based on their valuations. Surely, these men all over the country are not talking nonsense. They are passing resolutions protesting against this Bill, and these resolutions are not confined to the political opponents of the Government; they have the hearty support of the Government's political friends. Outside the House, there is much more agreement amongst the people than there appears to be here between Deputies sitting on these benches and on the Government Benches. These people seem to work in harmony in the country more than their representatives do here.

Income-tax will also be increased as a result of this Bill. It is quite the thing to take all you can from income-tax payers but, as one who is not in a position to pay income tax, I say that income-tax payers are a great asset to any country and the sooner Fianna Fáil get rid of their present mentality the better. The income-tax payers are the people who are earning the money by the exercise of their brains and by hard work and they are the people who keep the Government going, no matter what Government is in power. If this Bill is passed the burden will be increased on income-tax payers. I know decent craftsmen who were assessed for income-tax in previous years and who have been idle for from seven to ten weeks this year. Yet, they have now to pay income-tax on their earnings of the previous year, because they exceeded a certain amount.

I am one of those who think that the country is taxed at the moment as much as it can bear. As this Bill is for the purpose of exacting more money from the people, I should oppose it even if it were designed to provide more employment by the State because I believe that every time a Government attempts to solve the unemployment question they increase, instead of decreasing, unemployment. It would be far better to leave the money with the private citizen. He would use it to greater advantage than the Government can. It would be well if the Government would realise in regard to the solution of the unemployment problem that they can make no progress by present methods. The Bill is going to exact more money from the tax-payers and, as an excuse for it, we are told that it will provide employment.

That is no use, because we have the experience of the past six or seven or eight years that, notwithstanding all the millions which have been expended in providing employment in this country, unemployment at the moment is as great as it was prior to the spending of that money. If you were to spend millions more, you would find that you would be as far off a solution of that problem as you were before you started. That is one of my fixed ideas, and all the experience I have had has made me hold more to those ideas than ever.

I think that, to use an old saying, the Minister should let the hare sit, or in other words, let things remain as they are. We have got on very well for the past 60 or 80 years under the old valuation laws. This country has not changed very much, and, in my opinion, the present is a most inopportune time to introduce a Bill of this nature. Everybody knows that, all over the country, business men of all descriptions are finding it exceedingly difficult to carry on. Everyone who has any connection with public affairs at the present time, or who keeps in touch with public opinion, knows that that is so. In many cases, were it not for the facilities given by the banks, a very sorry tale could be told by the business men of many of our small towns. I am speaking now on behalf of both the large and small towns in the constituency I represent. They have been very severely hit as a result of the Border. The Border question is one which has very much affected the towns immediately adjoining the Border. I know streets in the capital town of Louth where, 20 or 30 years ago, there were houses in which very successful businesses were carried on—the valuation in those years was just—but to-day some of those houses which were once the pride of those streets are a home for flies, cobwebs and spiders. There is no doubt about that.

What used to be one of the finest buildings in one of the streets there is to-day used as a broken-down bicycle shop. I suppose the house is valued at probably £30 or £40, and it is not earning 30 pence. What is the use of talking about valuation in a case of that sort, or about increasing one and decreasing another? Everybody knows that at the present time it is almost impossible to carry on business with all the increased charges which have been heaped on the business men of this country.

I hold the view very strongly that the go-ahead man who improves his property should, instead of having the valuation on that property increased, get a recognition of his efforts by having it decreased, because that man is an asset to the country. He gives added employment in the reconstruction and renovation of his premises, instead of keeping the money in the bank. It is more of that type of man we want in this country, and they deserve all the support they can get from the Government, instead of this move in the wrong direction by increasing their valuation. For that reason alone I think the Government are very ill-advised in introducing a Bill of this nature at this particular period. I do not think a Bill of this kind could have been introduced at a worse period than at the present time, because things are not going well. I am not a pessimist; I am not one of those who are always making the poor mouth. I should like to give the Government every credit for any good they have done for the country, but you cannot get over hard facts. I know the condition of affairs which exists at the moment. It is no hearsay that the business men in our towns, both large and small, are finding it exceedingly difficult to carry on their business at the present time, and they are not in a position to bear any further burdens. It goes without saying that this Bill will impose additional burdens on them by raising their valuations, and by the other increased costs which will be incurred as a result of the passing of this Bill. I think the Government would be well advised to hasten slowly in so far as legislation of this kind is concerned.

Again, it is a well-known fact that there are hundreds if not thousands of people who have built their own houses through the medium of the Small Dwellings Act during the past few years, and the valuation of those houses will be raised if this Bill is passed. The people who live in those houses are not millionaires. They are artisans earning something like £3 10s. to £4 per week. They incur a very big liability by the erection of those houses, and are finding it sufficiently difficult to find the money for the payment of the annuities due on those houses each year. Some of those annuities, whether paid monthly, or quarterly or half-yearly, work out at the rate of anything from £1 to 25/- a week, exclusive of rates. Now those people will be called upon to pay increased rates as a result of the valuation of those houses being increased. That will impose upon them a burden for which they are not prepared, a burden for which they had made no preparation or contribution or allowance. I think it is most unfair and unjust on the part of the Government to increase the valuation of those houses built through the sacrifices made by that class of people who, anxious to own their houses, have denied themselves many of the comforts of which they could have partaken. The only reward they are going to get from the Government now is that they will have their valuations increased. There are many other matters in connection with this Bill upon which one would like to speak. It is sufficient to say that it is a Bill which is not popular in the country. It is a Bill, which has not, in my opinion, the support of any considerable section of the people. Above all and beyond all, it is a Bill the primary object of which is to extract more money from the ratepayers of this country, who at the present moment are in a very bad position to pay any more taxes. For those reasons, I think it is only right and proper that the Government should think twice before they pass a Bill of this nature which would place such impossible burdens upon the people of this State. I move the Adjournment.

Debate adjourned until Wednesday next.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Wednesday, 1st March, 1939, at 3 p.m.