When I speak too loudly, I am accused by Deputy Davin of bothering him, so I am trying by a better type of elocution to fill his poor empty belfry with very good ideas regarding valuation in this country. As I said, it might be better to have a revaluation of the country and even then I think it would be right to say that there should not be any such thing as penalising people by increasing their valuations because they were prepared to invest money in their business.
That applies in particular to the licensed trade because not alone are the rates increased but, unfortunately, in addition, their licence duty is increased very substantially. Where there is £1 of an increase in valuation on a licensed house, the licence duty increases by 50 per cent. Therefore you will see that the people who have most reason to grumble in regard to valuations are the licensed traders. They have a double grievance if their valuation is increased.
If we are going to have an alteration of valuation and a comprehensive survey, I would think it should be done after very full consideration and study of the conditions obtaining in the country. Any Bill of its kind should also legislate for a reduction in valuationwhere a reduction is found necessary. I feel that certainly applies in the case of labourers' cottages. If we were to have general revaluation, I feel that many of the workers' houses should be considered for reductions in valuation.
The Government has promised—and I think I can speak with sufficient authority on this—that a Bill will be introduced in a very short time which will meet a long-felt want. We are going to have a two-thirds remission of rates for seven years. I believe that is the type of Bill this House should welcome and I do not see any great reason for panic legislation. If we had to carry on for many years under the present code there is no reason why another month or two would cause us great heartburn. The question of valuation is a very ticklish one which must be handled very carefully so that all sections of the community will be dealt with fairly. The remission of rates for seven years will not alone be fair to the people who will benefit but will also be of immense value to entice moneyed people to improve their business premises. Let us hope that it will increase their business when they have the courage to invest money in it and give good employment by so doing.
The principal objection to this Bill is that it does not in any way help those who are labouring under grievances—people who may have neglected in the past to appeal against the valuation of the Valuation Commissioners, people who for one reason or another found they were not financially in a position to go into court and fight the Valuation Commissioners there. It gives them no redress whatsoever. I believe that any Bill of this kind should have that as one of the very particular things in it. People of that kind with a grievance look forward always to obtaining redress some day. This Bill gives them no scope for any redress.
Needless to say, everybody whose valuation is increased will say they have been harshly dealt with. I can appreciate that. I know the law is there for them, but very often it isnot possible for them to take advantage of it. They may come to the conclusion that after spending money in law they are back to where they started. In addition to having to pay a higher rate, they will have a higher bill to pay to solicitor or counsel if brought into court.
We all feel that the valuations in the country need to be reconsidered. The valuation of land cannot be touched—and it is a very good thing that it cannot. I suppose it is only right to reconsider it where people by reconstruction or by building new houses are obtaining large volumes of business as a result of their enterprise. On the one hand they suffer but on the other hand they gain. As I said this evening on another Bill, what they lose on the swings they make up on the roundabouts. We must agree that the question of valuations in general must be the concern of every Government. It is very unpopular for any Government to have a general revaluation of the country. That was proposed some years ago and if it had been carried out there would have been less grumbling about valuation than there is to day, and we would have many more people taking advantage of reconstruction grants, building grants and loans. At present, they are to a great extent afraid to carry out improvements, because of the danger of revision of the valuation of premises, farmhouses or homes.
We know the rates are not what they used to be 40 or 50 years ago. We know that every £ of valuation means a substantial reduction in the net income of the people concerned. There is hardly anyone optimistic enough to think that there will be any great reduction in rates in the future. The tendency all over the country, with the high cost of roads, water supplies and other things, is for the rates to continue to soar. People are not content now as they were 40 years ago to bring water three or four miles in an old can or go to a well a mile and a half away, perhaps through a few fields. The tendency is to seek more regional water supplies, other amenities of life, better roads and so on.All these things mean higher rates, and in their own way they have a serious connection with the valuation of the places concerned. When the rates were low—I myself remember when they were 5/- or 6/- in the £— valuations were not the great concern they are to-day. Now, as the rate gets higher so also greater becomes the concern of people with high valuations.
Some Dublin Deputies talked about the high valuations in Dublin. The people of Dublin have not much to grumble about, so far as the amenities of life are concerned. In the rural areas, people on substantially high valuations are denied the amenities of life enjoyed by our people in the cities and towns.
