I do not think that the recommendation of the Seanad goes far enough, and I am not over-fond of it for that reason; but because, if it were accepted, it would give some relief and might be regarded as the thin edge of the wedge to do what could be described as belatedly righting a wrong, I would be disposed to accept this recommendation. I put down amendments to several Finance Bills year after year in order to get rid of what I called, when this five-fourths of the valuation was originally devised, as the Revenue Commissioners' nightmare. I always called it so. I understand that the Minister makes the case now that his justification is that the revenue would lose too much if this were accepted. That was not the excuse given here on another occasion; that was not the reason put forward in justification of the five-fourths when it was proposed or when my amendments were put down to the Finance Bills.
I did everything I could to persuade the then Minister for Finance to revert to the old system. There was a certain amount of irony in the situation for me because, when I went through my own constituency in the course of elections, it was put up against me that I had never criticised this imposition of five-fourths in the House. The actual position was that on several occasions I put down amendments dealing with the Revenue Commissioners' nightmare and divided the House on them. For that reason alone I have a personal interest in the Revenue Commissioners' nightmare.
The original excuse given for the five-fourths was not the one proffered by the Minister to-night. Now he cannot afford to lose money. On an earlier occasion it was stated that the system of valuation was out of date. One reason advanced here was that the Griffith's valuation had so outrun its time that there were inequalities in the various houses valued all over the country; that new houses were valued higher than old houses, and a lot of people, to use the current phrase, were getting away with something. The Revenue Commissioners' justification for all their taxes is that somebody is getting away with something; that they have in their pockets what should be in the pockets of the Revenue Commissioners. I understand the Minister's justification for his present attitude is that somebody is getting away with something and the revenue of the State cannot afford to lose it.
As regards the first proposition, that these people who purchased their houses are getting away with something, I will recall the Minister's mind to the position after the last war when most people, being entirely unwilling to purchase houses, were forced under the conditions then existing to buy the houses which they only wanted to rent. I would say that of the people who have purchased houses since the last war, 80 per cent. of them did not purchase the houses by way of investment of their money but as a necessity, because they had to get a roof over their heads and they had to pay any price demanded in view of the scarcity of houses at that time. That very significant fact is entirely overlooked in connection with the position of people who live in houses they have purchased. They purchased those houses, not because they wanted to invest their money but because they could not get the houses to rent.
As regards the question whether or not the revenue can afford to do without the money that will be raised by this particular method, I think the Minister can hardly have had the matter properly examined. Viewed as a mathematical proposition, taking every house with a valuation of £20 and under as being liable for full income-tax, I suppose a substantial amount of money would be lost, but the vast majority of people living in houses with a valuation of £20 and under are married men with families and they would only have to pay, if they would have to pay anything, a very small sum indeed in income tax and they are the class of people who are deserving of the most consideration. The few pounds they have to pay to the Revenue Commissioners would mean a very great deal to their exchequers, particularly in present circumstances, but I very much doubt if the loss to the Exchequer by granting this exemption, or whatever you may wish to call it, would be anything like the figure the Minister has stated.
We must face the fact that the Minister has no intention of accepting this recommendation, but I am glad of the opportunity to renew the protest I made when the Revenue Commissioners' nightmare was introduced as the statute law of this country, a protest which I repeated until I got tired of it and no one seemed to take any notice of that protest.