The Bill was introduced to the House as a measure to produce great and important changes. Not only was it alleged that the measure was good and beneficial in itself but it was also suggested that it had been the basis for urging the Government to make an announcement that they were soon to deal with the valuation question themselves. So certain was the chief Opposition on that point that they said they had examined the relative dates and could make a case on that point; but very soon, because of the defects of the measure not only in itself and in what it proposed to do but in the way it would interfere with existing legislation in a detrimental way, the sponsors of the Bill were inclined to make apologies for it and to offer towithdraw it if the Government would take over the problem. Now this valuation question, owing to certain inequalities and injustices which came to my knowledge as head of the public health administration in one of the cities in this State, has made this a very burning question for me for some years past; and surely it is in the knowledge of most of us that at the annual meeting of the Municipal Authorities Association of Ireland in Arklow a couple of years ago this question was discussed very fully.
As the members of the House know, when the records of these annual meetings are prepared and published the chief contents are brought to the Minister for Local Government for his information and attention, and that was done in this case. This problem has been under examination for some time in Government circles, and the public discussion of the matter and the further impetus that was given to it by public representatives here in Dublin brought an announcement from the Government that they had the problem under examination, and that in due course they were providing legislation in a comprehensive way to deal with it, and not in a partial or haphazard fashion.
If there has been any rush in this case, to my mind the defects of the Bill which has been introduced show that there must have been some rush on the part of those who submitted that measure to the House. It is a very important question for the country, and dealing with it in a partial or haphazard way is not going to solve it. We have people in every walk of life affected by it in my experience such as the humble dweller who, in one case that I will cite, when his son was getting married put an improved window on his dwelling, tidied up and plastered the house to make it a substantial dwelling—a humble one indeed —in the suburbs of a southern city that I represent. The result was that the valuation of that dwelling, even though no extra space had been taken in, the main structure had not been in any way altered except just for an improvement of the outside of the buildingby the insertion of a bigger and better window, was increased by approximately 50 per cent To my mind nothing worse could have happened in the old landlord days than a thing like that. If a reasonable increase, a small increase, had been put on nobody would have cavilled at it, but an increase of practically 50 per cent.!
Another case I will cite is that of a skilled family of about eight members who had carried on for a number of years the manufacture of iron gates and things of that kind, ornamental iron work of various kinds. In the expansion of buildings and in the improvement of schools and churches and other things there was an improvement in the business of that firm, and when I called attention to it I was told that that building had last been valued away back in the late 80's or something like that, and that was the only excuse given for it.
There was another instance where a shopkeeper—and the Bill now introduced proposes to deal with these problems—had a shop which was divided downstairs into a number of small rooms or apartments. In order to give more space to his customers and a better appearance to the shop he removed some of those partitions and put standards instead to support the building, and his valuation went up 100 per cent., although it only meant a few coats of paint on decoration and the removal of some partition walls.
Now I am making a case not for this Bill but a case for what is to follow, a case for the deficiencies of the Bill and the cases which should be dealt with. Our rate collectors were castigated here because they reported these matters. It is in the terms of their appointment that they have to do it under penalty, consequently if they see any improvement of that kind or anything relating in their minds to what should be increased valuation they report it to the local authority. The local authority was mentioned last night, and I want here and now to absolve the local representatives from any responsibility in administering that system. The public authority inthis case is the city or county manager. And that is not the worst aspect of the case. The matter is reported to them, an inspection is made of the premises, and the result is that the owners are for some time awaiting the result of that examination. The first they see of it in most cases, in the county or the city that I represent at any rate, is when the blue books come down to the local authority from the valuation offices, the demand notes are prepared and sent out. It is then that the owner of the property sees the new bill he has to face.
He has a certain time to appeal but he has to pay the demand that is made on him there and then, either in two moieties or in one moiety, as the case may be. He can appeal, but within 21 days or something of that sort; but whatever the end of his appeal may be, there and then he had to pay up to the following March on the new valuation set on his property. If he succeeds in his appeal he might get relief in the following year.
The principal result of that kind of system is that they are so disgusted with the whole procedure that they let it go by default. Very often people go to the courts. On one occasion I remember that half a page of the Examinerwas given over to court actions in connection with the assessment of valuations. Wherever any kind of considerable relief was given by the court, costs were given against the valuation authorities. Where the change was small, no costs were given. Why should people be put to all that expense and annoyance just because they improved their property, gave employment and gave better business facilities to the public? Why should this assessment be made against them in the way it is being done? That is what I object to. We actually had to bring a motion to the Cork Corporation asking the manager that, immediately he was notified that there was an increase in valuation, he would notify the affected parties there and then so that they would have an opportunity of appealing before the assessment became effective. To my mind, it is high time that this whole problem was dealt with.
Even though a man goes to the trouble and expense of improving his business premises and making them serviceable, the valuation is on the present day letting value of the property. A man who improves his dwelling-house is doing a public service. The work that he carries out may prevent a charge on the public purse and save a public authority from having to provide a house for him. By reason of his public service, an imposition is placed upon him and his family who succeed him.
Take, for instance, the matter of farm buildings and, perhaps, particularly farm buildings in rather remote districts. Some of the farm buildings are tumble-down buildings that would need to be improved. If you go in and say to the owner that he will get a grant if he improves them he will reply: "I will, but what will my valuation be when the work is carried out?" The whole matter is a vicious circle and needs to be remedied but this Bill does not supply that remedy.
People may say that the rates will come down if the assessments go up, but the same amount of money is being collected for the public services, regardless of the valuations. The only effect would be that some system might be devised whereby these public charges would be more equitably distributed amongst the population. One of my great objections at the present time in this connection is that things are too haphazard. One house in a particular street is picked out. You question it, and you find that it was last valued maybe 50, 60 or 70 years ago. Other houses in the same street are not touched or affected at all. I think it is iniquitous that that can happen in respect of property where no structural alterations have taken place and where no new buildings have been erected. It is a brake on progress and initiative and it is a deterrent to the giving of employment. It has been responsible for the fact that there are derelict eyesores in our towns and cities. The owners are afraid to touch their property even though these eyesores are a shame and a disgrace to our community. The imposition will be sosevere that the owners are not prepared to face it. One of the reasons why we have so many derelict sites and so many eyesores in the way of houses and buildings in our cities and towns is that when a man left a building he would not reconstruct it because of the imposition that would be placed upon him. He would go into a local authority house, or somewhere else, and leave the building an eyesore. If the owner took off the roof he would not have to pay any rates on the property. Such a person should be made remove the erection completely or else put it into serviceable condition and he should not have burdens placed upon him for so doing.
I have very hard feelings about this whole matter. I have made representations and I am glad to see that they are having some effect and that the Government are tackling the matter. However, the measure before the House is simply dealing with the matter in a piecemeal way—just as is happening now with certain properties. That, in itself, is objectionable. Furthermore, there are some matters in this measure which would make confusion worse confounded. For that reason, though I feel very keenly on this question, I am sorry that I do not find myself in a position to agree to this measure which is now submitted for our approval.
