asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware of the very serious hardships imposed on small farmers in County Mayo, whose valuations were considerably increased as a result of the revaluation of their turbary holdings, carried out last year; and if he will take immediate steps to have such cases reviewed and a reduction of the rates assessments made.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Turbary Valuations.
I am not aware of the serious hardships to which the Deputy refers. As he should know from previous references in the House to the matter of turbary valuations, such valuations are fixed on the basis of the net profits from the letting of turf banks or from sale of turf therefrom. They cannot, therefore, be regarded as imposing a hardship on the owners of the turbaries any more than a higher income-tax assessment can be so regarded in the case of a person whose income has increased. If the owners of turbaries in County Mayo, the valuations of which were increased on the 1st March, 1947, felt aggrieved at the valuations, they could have appealed against them within the statutory period (1st to 28th March, 1947). As no appeals were received, the valuations cannot be reopened in so far as they affect the current rating year. Further, it is open to every ratepayer on or before the 15th June in any year to claim revision of his valuation on the ground that it is excessive. No such claim, however, in respect of a turbary valuation in County Mayo was received by the 15th June this year.
Is the Minister aware that most of those farmers whose valuations have been increased excessively from £2 10s. 0d. to £7 10s. 0d. were very small turbary owners with plots of only two or three acres who, in response to the appeals made by the Taoiseach, the Government and this House, were patriotic enough to help to provide fuel for the nation when it was confronted with a very grave crisis? Having done that, they are now faced with an excessive increase in their valuations although they received no notice beforehand that such a thing would be done.
The Deputy is now making a speech and not asking a supplementary question.
I maintain that it is nothing more or less than deliberate robbery.
Under what Act is this increase in valuation made?
Under the main Valuation Acts. The Deputy was here on several occasions when the matter was debated.
I am asking the Minister to state what Act it is.
I have told the Deputy.
The Minister knows that it is under an Act passed in the British House of Commons in Queen Victoria's time.
The Deputy is not asking a supplementary question now.
Now that there is a proposal to remove the statue of Queen Victoria from Leinster Lawn they might roll up that Act and put it in her hand when she is going.
We will be issuing a stamp for the anniversary of the Act in a year or two.