Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Feb 1954

Vol. 144 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Bill, 1953 —Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Smith)

I move that this Bill be now read a Second Time. Last August, I announced that the Government, with a view to encouraging and expediting projects of a building or constructional character, intended introducing legislation to provide for a two-thirds remission of rates for a period of seven years on the valuation of certain types of new and enlarged buildings. I said that the concession would apply to buildings where the work of erection or enlargement was begun and completed within the period of three years from 27th July last. Part II of the Bill implements that promise. It will extend rate remission which, since 1940, has been more or less confined to dwellings and farm buildings, to such buildings as hotels, offices, factories and shops where the work of building, erecting or enlarging them is begun and completed within the prescribed period of three years.

The remission in the case of new buildings, will be on two-thirds of the valuation and will last for seven years. This means that in the case of a new building which is valued at £90, the rates will be assessed on £30 for seven years.

In the case of an existing building, the remission will be on two-thirds of the total increase in valuation following revision. Thus, a building, the valuation of which is increased from £60 to £90, will be rated at £70 for seven years. Where a building is enlarged during the prescribed period and in the revised valuation following that enlargement earlier improvements or additions are taken into account the remission will also apply to those earlier improvements and additions. In the case I have quoted of a valuation increased from £60 to £90, if only £10 of the increase is due to enlargements carried out during the prescribed period and £20 is due to earlier improvements or additions, or simply to an increase due to the fact that the existing valuation was out of date, the remission will be on two-thirds of the total increase in valuation.

There are certain exceptions to the rate remission provisions. These are set out in Section 3 of the Bill. The remission will not apply to cottages or houses erected or provided under the Labourers Acts or the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. Where, however, such dwellings have been sold by a local authority, the occupier will be entitled to the remission if he enlarges or improves the dwelling within the prescribed period without assistance under the Housing Acts or the Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts. The Housing Acts and the Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts have their own provisions for rate remission and consequently building work carried out under these Acts, including houses erected or reconstructed by private persons and public utility societies, will not be entitled to remission under this Bill.

Where the houses concerned are extended or improved within the prescribed period, without the benefit of a further grant or rate remission under these Acts, the occupier will be entitled to remission under this Bill. Other exceptions are new or improved farm buildings which get the benefit of the seven years' deferment of valuation under the 1852 Valuation Act, and buildings which get remission of rates under the Undeveloped Areas Act, 1952. Finally, the rate remission will not apply where work of a trivial nature of alteration, extension, repair or renewal is carried out on an existing building. The Commissioner of Valuation will be empowered to decide whether the work is of a trivial nature and there is provision for appeal by aggrieved persons against such determinations.

Part III and the Schedule to the Bill relate to Buncrana Urban District. In the year 1950, the urban council requested a revision of all rateable hereditaments in the urban district. As a result of the revision carried out, the total valuation of the urban district at 1st March, 1951, was £11,445 as compared with £7,563 on 1st March, 1950. The provisions in Part III and the Schedule are designed to bring the valuation of the urban district for county demand purposes back to what it is estimated it would have been if no general revision had occurred and only normal increases had taken place. In the year 1963-64 the county demand will be based on £11,520; from then on, the ordinary basis of calculation of the county demand will apply.

Part IV provides a link up between the provisions of the Local Government (Remission of Rates) Acts, 1940 to 1952, and Part II of this Bill. Under those Acts, two-thirds remission of rates for five years was provided in respect of certain dwelling houses— mainly houses provided without State assistance. The Acts expired on 31st March, 1953, and the remission provided thereunder does not, therefore, apply to work completed after that date. Part IV of the Bill will provide for the extension of the Acts to 31st March, 1954, so as to cover cases where work was commenced on dwelling houses before 27th July, 1953. Where work is commenced on or after 27th July, 1953, and completed within the prescribed period, the rates remission granted under Part II of the Bill will apply.

Mr. O'Higgins

This Bill, in order to be considered by the House, must be related to the circumstances which made it necessary. As Deputies realise, for some years there has been a very definite public grievance with regard to the archaic nature of our valuation laws, and with regard to the administration of these laws. It has been for some time back common opinion in the country that increases in valuation have been a very definite tax on initiative. This complaint has applied particularly to persons engaged in business anxious to develop their buildings, to extend their businesses and incidentally to provide employment. For that reason, the Fine Gael Party some time ago decided to initiate a legislative proposal designed to bring a measure of relief in relation to unfair increases in valuation and the Valuation Bill of 1953 was introduced in this House on 10th June, 1953.

It is unnecessary to go in detail into what was proposed to be done by that Bill, except to say that that Bill, had it been accepted by the House, would have ensured that no person owning a business premises, no farmer improving his farm buildings and no labourer improving his cottage would find his improvements taxed as a result of a visit from the valuation office. That Fine Gael Bill provided that the valuation of no building could be increased unless improvements were carried out to it and that any such increase in valuation, following improvements, would not take effect for a period of seven years, so that the owner of any building contemplating the expenditure of money on improving it would know that, for a period of seven years, he would not be taxed and would have that period to meet the expenditure involved of a capital kind in improving his buildings.

That Bill introduced by this Party in June of last year was met in the month of August by a few panicky announcements from the Custom House—assurances, directed to the people of South Galway, that the Government would do something about valuations. I am sorry if I am being unfairly kind to the Minister—they were not about valuations but about remissions of rates. The Minister has referred to that announcement made last August which he says foretold the introduction of this Bill. Deputies realise that the Fine Gael Valuation Bill was discussed and debated in this House in the autumn session and was defeated by the votes of two Deputies in Dáil Éireann, and accordingly, upon the defeat of the Fine Gael proposal, the Minister comes to the House now with this document entitled the Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Bill, 1953. I think it is fair to describe the Minister's Bill as a half-baked proposal introduced in a half-baked manner and carrying out a half-baked kind of policy. It is called a Temporary Reduction of Valuation Bill. In the ministerial announcement last August there was no reference to a reduction in valuation. People were told that they would get a certain remission of rates but in the title of this Bill the words "Reduction of Valuation" appear, because, of course, the Fine Gael Party introduced and had defeated by the Fianna Fáil Party a Valuation Bill a few months ago and that is why the term "Valuation" appears in this Bill. But, of course, that is the only possible reference to valuations in the entire Bill.

What does the Bill propose to do? For the next two and a half years any person who enlarges or improves his building other than in a trivial way, whatever that may mean, is told that the increase in valuation which will follow his improvements will only affect him to the extent of one-third for a period of seven years from the date of the new valuation.

Mr. Briscoe

Six or seven.

Mr. O'Higgins

Well, the six following financial years. That I take it would be seven years altogether.

Mr. Briscoe

That is right.

Mr. O'Higgins

In other words under the Minister's Bill there is a two-thirds reduction in the rates following upon an increase in valuation, and that is limited to work done in the next three years and operates for a period of seven years. That is fair enough if it meant what it would have meant in the Fine Gael Bill defeated by the Fianna Fáil Party a few months ago, but unfortunately it does not mean what it appears to mean in the Title to this Bill, because the Minister's Bill is careful to define the limited extent to which the relief in respect of the increase in valuation is confined. It only applies to rating purposes; in other words, it is merely a remission of rates and nothing else. A businessman down the country who at the moment has a small shop or a small factory or a small building employing a small number of people and who desires or contemplates the extension of his premises for the purpose of increasing or developing his business has to bear this in mind, that under the Minister's Bill, while he will obtain for the next seven years a two-thirds reduction in the local rates attributable to any increase in valuation, he still will have to pay the full income-tax attributable to the increase in valuation.

The Fine Gael Bill very carefully provided that the increase in valuation itself would not come into operation for seven years, so that there would not be either an increase in rates or an increase in income-tax or any of the incidentals that normally follow from increasing valuation. The Minister's Bill does not do that. Accordingly, such a person desiring to extend his business and improve his business buildings knows that from the Minister he will merely get a remission in rates, but will be bound to pay every penny of the increased income-tax that will follow an increase in his valuation. That is a very serious and, I think, a very unjust tax on initiative in this country. It is so serious that it will prevent, in my opinion, much of the development that could take place under a judicial modification of our valuation laws. It certainly will prevent the kind of building development that would take place if this House had accepted the Fine Gael Bill introduced a few months ago.

I mentioned that example merely of the owner of a small factory or a small shop down the country.

Mr. Allen

Or a large factory.

Mr. O'Higgins

Or a large shop. It does not much matter; but the comparison from the Minister's point of view between the two Bills becomes particularly odious when one considers what would happen in respect of licensed premises under the Minister's Bill. The owner of any licensed house who contemplates improving or enlarging his premises knows at the moment that if he does so his valuation will be increased. He knows also that the increase in his valuation will mean that he will have to pay first of all more rates, secondly more income-tax, thirdly, higher excise duty, and fourthly, possibly an increase in other outgoings attributable to his licensed premises.

The Fine Gael Bill would have ensured that for a period of seven years he would have to pay nothing by way of an increase and he would have been encouraged into expending money in the way of improving his buildings. Now, the Minister comes along with this Bill which is nothing but a political measure designed for political purposes and intended to cod the people of this country. The Minister comes along telling the owner of such a licensed house that he is going to get a temporary reduction in his valuation. Of course he will if he carries out improvements or enlargements of his buildings, but what does that mean? It merely means that in the six financial years after the increase in valuation the amount of rates attributable to him will only be increased by one-third of the value of the improvement assessed by the Valuation Office, but he will have to pay every penny of the increase in income-tax, he will have to pay every penny of the increase in excise duty. If he has his premises insured, as most of them would have, and if the insurance is, as a lot of them are, attributable to the valuation of the premises his premiums will increase. If his E.S.B. bill is based on the valuation of his premises, that will increase and such a man will, accordingly, find that under the Minister's present Bill he will get a very, very small relief indeed. So small is the relief, I fear the Bill will not achieve what the Minister expressed its intention to be, namely, the encouragement of persons to spend money and provide employment by way of improving or enlarging their buildings.

The Bill in relation to Buncrana enshrines a progressive increase in the valuations in Buncrana. It was somewhat regrettable that the Fianna Fáil Deputy representing Buncrana did not vote for the Fine Gael measure a few months ago. It is regrettable that Fianna Fáil Deputies as a whole did not vote for it because, had they done so, that measure would now be law and, if it were the law now, everyone in Buncrana would be relieved to learn that no such general revaluation as had taken place there could take place again unless, of course, improvements or enlargements were carried out to buildings.

The Minister now in relation to Buncrana proposes in effect that the total amount to be collected from Buncrana will be a sum starting at roughly £8,500, which he says would have been the increase in relation to normal increases if the revaluation of 1950 had not taken place, and the Schedule to his Bill goes on to provide that this sum of £8,550 will increase each year until it reaches £11,500 in ten years' time. I do not know whether that will appeal to the people of Buncrana as a very worthwhile effort towards meeting the appalling position in which they find themselves. They certainly became in 1950, because of the laws that we hoped to change, hostages to fortune and I fear they will not be very thankful to the Minister for providing now for a statutory notice to them that the amount they will have to pay in the way of rates will progressively increase over the next ten years.

I said at the outset this was a half-baked proposal; it is neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. It is nothing but a weak Fianna Fáil effort to answer the proposal we introduced some months ago. We do not intend to oppose it because we feel that even a half-baked half-loaf is better than no bread. To the extent that a slight remission in rates is given, we accept it. We hope, however, that at some time in the near future it will be possible for the House to reform our valuation laws, laws based on a Victorian Statute of over 100 years ago, laws that are immersed in and enshrined with all the outmoded notions of that particular era.

We are providing now in a limited way for a very small modification of those laws and in a very insignificant way we are trying to remedy some of the grievances that exist. It is a pity the Government had not the strength or the courage when introducing this Bill to fight the issue with the Department of Finance. It is a pity that once again a worthwhile relief has been frittered away because of the advice given and influence exercised by the Department of Finance. The mountain has been in labour: what a little mouse has been produced by way of remission of rates in respect of improvements over the next three years, a remission limited to two-thirds of the increase in rates! That will not satisfy the people who are at the moment extremely concerned because of increases in valuations.

I give notice to the Minister that we on this side of the House propose to introduce amendments on the next stage designed to give this Bill some realism and to ensure that the limited increase in valuation proposed in this Bill will apply for all general purposes to income charges and other charges of that kind. We will also deal by way of amendment with the unsatisfactory exclusions under the Bill in relation to labourers' cottages. I take it, though it is not clear under sub-section (3) of Section 3, paragraph (d), that it is the intention of the Minister that the benefit of this Bill should apply to labourers' cottages which are the subject of a purchase agreement. I should imagine that intention is implicit in the provision of paragraph (d) of Section 3 but I am not satisfied that that purpose will be achieved, because the very cumbersome provisions of the Labourers Acts applying to cottage purchase seem to make it clear that the local authority exercises effective ownership until the terminable annuities are eventually discharged and the payment period expires. I give notice that is also a matter with which we hope to deal by way of amendment.

In addition, the Minister excludes from the provisions of this Bill every farmer who decides to improve existing or build new farm buildings. On the occasion on which the Fine Gael Bill was debated here, we had a discussion in relation to the effect of Section 14 of the Valuation Act of 1852. We are satisfied that over the years a number of farmers improving or enlarging their buildings have had their valuations increased. That is a view which was not accepted by the Minister when the last Bill was being discussed and he provides specifically in this Bill that the erection, enlargement or improvement of a farm building will not qualify for the remission contained in this Bill. That is a matter which we hope to deal with by way of amendment.

May I say finally that we accept the Bill? We think it is a very small effort on the Government's part to deal with a very grave and serious problem. We know that a number of Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party desire to see a general revaluation carried out, particularly in the City of Dublin. That is a point of view upon which different opinions may be held. But, until such a very large step is taken, there will remain very serious grievances amongst the people in regard to the effect of the valuation law, effecting of course increases in rates. We do not think that this is any serious step to deal with these grievances, but, in so far as it goes a few inches forward, we are not going to raise any obstacle. We do regret, however, that the Minister did not take the stride forward that we proposed in our Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

It is really amazing how easy it is for some Deputies to bring into a simple Bill an approach which has for its purpose only the creation of confusion. This is, in my opinion, a very simple Bill designed for a very specific purpose. The Deputy who has just spoken tried to relate it to a Bill introduced by Fine Gael and debated in this House last Session which had as its basis quite a different approach. It was made clear by those of us who spoke from these benches that we wanted to see valuation applied generally with distinct and clear equity and we expressed ourselves as not being too happy about the situation which confronts us to-day because of the manner in which valuation is applied arising from a very old Act. We have suggested that within a reasonable space of time, after the people who are concerned with the technical details have had an opportunity of making a survey or examination, we should be able to discuss and consider and come to conclusions about what Deputy O'Higgins said was a general revaluation. We are all in agreement with that.

What is the purpose of this Bill? This Bill is designed primarily to try to encourage additional constructional operations on the part of private enterprise in order that more people will find employment. It is designed in the form of giving some concession. Deputy O'Higgins related this Bill, first of all, to his own Bill which purported to be a cure for the evils in the present valuation system. In discussing it further, he related it almost entirely to one particular class of business, the licensed trade. We are concerned with the general situation. If we can get people in small, medium, and, in some cases, large businesses, to add to their present premises, to reconstruct their present premises, or to put up new business premises, then by doing so within a certain period they will be given a concession. The policy to-day is to try to create employment by every means possible. and, particularly, by assistance from the State. The State says here, "If you put up a new building, for a period of years from the time the building is complete you will have a remission of rates equal to two-thirds of the amount that the building will be valued at." The same applies to additions to existing premises. There will be a two-thirds remission of the additional rates arising from this addition on the basis of the new valuation.

Speaking for myself and the City of Dublin, I am pleased that there is this approach, and it is a limited approach. I have, however, one criticism and one suggestion to make. I believe it will encourage people to do certain work now so that they will benefit very substantially by a remission of rates arising from the new building. As I say, Deputy O'Higgins tried to confuse the issue. He has tried to make it appear that this is the Fianna Fáil cure for all the grievances that exist in connection with the present valuation system, and he knows that that is not the correct view at all. I suppose on the eve of by-elections it is good policy to advance arguments that will create confusion.

I say that this Bill, when passed, will give an impetus to building. I was very amused at Deputy O'Higgins itemising the disastrous consequences which will fall on the shoulders of a publican who, as a result of this Bill, attempts to reconstruct or add to his premises. The Deputy tried to set off as against the remission of rates the increased charges which would follow from other operations. He told us that one of the things which would be brought about by the valuation would be an increase in insurance. I do not know the figures, but I notice that Deputy O'Higgins was particularly careful not to give us one single example of figures in relation to this terrible disaster of the increase in income-tax resulting from the increased valuation arising from an addition to a premises. He could have easily given us that in figures. We do know the present rates in the £ a person has to pay on property. When a person estimates roughly what his increased valuation will be, he can estimate approximately what the increased payment by him will be, and he can reduce it in accordance with the terms of this Bill and say: "All I will have to pay of that will be one-third for that number of years." I suppose we will have an opportunity of discussing this matter in other places in the next few weeks, but I am satisfied and I think the Minister will agree that this is a limited matter, limited entirely to a specific case to encourage people to do works to-day which they may not be inclined to do because of the cost of rates on their shoulders. We will see what will happen. There is only one fault I have to find and I would ask the Minister to consider it. I think the prescribed period is not long enough. I think the year 1956 should be extended to 1958 because in the case of a new building of some size, the acquiring of a site, preparing of a site and the actual construction itself will not in my opinion be completed in the prescribed period if it has not been started already. I have experience of such with regard to local authority work and hospital work and if you put on, say, a wing to a hospital, or put in —as we have done in Baggot Street— a new outdoor dispensary, the building has taken up to the present some four years and it is not yet finished. I do not know whether this Bill is like a contract in that it provides for the extension of the lost period if force majeure arises, if there is a strike or something happens that the building operations are interrupted for a lengthy period.

I would ask the Minister to explain, perhaps, why he has limited the prescribed period to a few years and what objections there could be to extending that to 1958, which would give approximately five years from the time of preparing a building site to the completion of operations and consequently before the building was qualified.

I have no other fault to find with the Bill. I am not pretending for one moment to be accepting or swallowing it as an alternative or cure-all for the present valuation system or the inadequacies which exist. I explained when the Fine Gael Bill was being discussed in this House that obviously in the City of Dublin we will have to do something about changing valuations, which are high valuations in what we will call places no longer actually first-class districts, having been first-class districts when they were originally valued. We have other areas where in the minds of some, in the middle of what have now become newly-built-up areas there are premises with the old valuations, and there should be some easily understandable method of applying valuation so that people will know more or less what their commitments are going to be before they enter into a commitment on building or reconstruction or adding to their present premises. I will appeal to the Minister to consider whether he will be prepared to amend Section 3: "‘the prescribed period' means the period 27th day of July, 1953, and ending on 26th day of July, 1956"— amend that to read "26th July, 1958".

Deputy O'Higgins apparently sees all kinds of mysterious subways in this Bill and he quoted paragraph (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 3. I am not a legal gentleman. I am not trained in legal methods but it is quite clear to me that that does not preclude what was previously a cottage under the Labourers Acts, if it is now, or ever comes, within the period, into the private ownership of the occupant from qualifying.

Mr. O'Higgins

Did I not say that was clearly the intention?

Mr. Briscoe

If it is the intention, and if it reads that way why start off a hare that it could be something else?

Mr. O'Higgins

The Deputy does not understand.

Mr. Briscoe

I understand this. I can get two legal gentlemen—and I say this without any offence to the legal gentlemen present—and they will both give me a different argument or a different interpretation on the same set of words and both will fight for their point of view and only one can be correct. In this case here there can be only one correct meaning of that paragraph.

In conclusion I want the Minister to agree to recognise that in the City of Dublin it can be difficult to complete a certain type of structure in the period specified and that he should extend that period from the beginning of operations up to their ending to the year 1958. With regard to the general situation we are all studying and we are all hoping that some other people are studying so that in a reasonably short space of time the question of valuation generally will be reconsidered and some modern method adopted which will be understood by everybody and will have the result of a more equitable distribution of the burden of rates.

Mr. Hickey

I think everybody will welcome this Bill because at the time of the previous Valuation Bill we accepted and supported the principle of that Bill and were prepared to put down certain amendments to make it all we wished it to be and there is no reason why we should not do the same with this Bill. But like Deputy Briscoe I think there is a great need for a general overhaul of the whole system of valuation. I am not going into it now except to say that there is great need for a revision of the whole system.

Mr. Briscoe

That is no reason why we should stop this benefit.

Mr. Hickey

I am inclined to agree with Deputy Briscoe that the period is rather short because the object behind this Bill is mainly to give employment and to encourage people to give employment. Even if the period were to be extended to ten years it would not be any great concession. I think the Minister could consider that aspect of it. As far as we are concerned, we welcome the Bill.

Mr. MacCarthy

Deputy Briscoe has asked for an extension of the effective period of the measure. I would like to support him on that and I would like to go in the other direction as well with the view to giving some little advantage to those who with all the difficulties confronting them faced reconstruction of their premises before there was any talk at all of the introduction of this measure. I wonder why July has been decided on. I thought at least that the rating year would be the period covered in the Bill and I would prefer if it were from January of 1953—that any works commenced in January, 1953, and which would not have been completed until perhaps later in that year or perhaps taking a further period for completion would qualify. The people generally who are affected by this valuation— and I would call it an iniquitous system to put such heavy taxation in various ways on people who reconstruct their premises—feel that a fair thing or a reasonable thing would not be objected to. Generally speaking, the people who came to me and I am sure to other public representatives from time to time said: "Why not, at any rate, give us some number of years to recover?" Let it be five or six years to recover at least portion of the expense to which they have gone in providing these improvements which are of general advantage.

I think the Minister has not gone far enough to meet that point of view. An extension of the number of years would only be equitable for those people. However, he has approached the measure in a certain way and we have only to ask him to consider these points. Deputy O'Higgins mentioned that the Fine Gael measure was responsible for all this. I would ask Deputy O'Higgins to read the records of the annual Municipal Congress which was held in Arklow a few years ago and there he will see a decision on this matter which was brought to the attention of the present Minister by deputation the following spring. I do not know the exact dates but I was at the congress. I presided and I know what happened. I was on the deputation. Consequently, this question was before the Minister and his Department and it has been under consideration. Pronouncements were made in that regard in the meantime both to the municipal authorities and otherwise and the Bill has now come along.

We welcome the Bill. Deputy O'Higgins says it is a political measure but it has come really from the consideration of this matter by the Congress of Municipal Authorities which has representatives from all Parties. There is no use trying to pin politics on every improvement which is of advantage to the people and the country. Even though politics is necessary in the scheme of things, there are higher motives which inspire members of this House and Ministers to bring in these measures.

I would ask the Minister, if he can do so at this stage, to reconsider the points which have been put to him and to improve the measure to the advantage of those who have to reconstruct their houses. With regard to labourers' cottages, surely the tenant stands much in the same relation to his cottage and his little plot of ground as the farmer who pays annuities to his land. The farmer pays annuities to the Land Commission. The labourer pays rent or annuities after the leasing of his cottage to the local authority. The difference is not a very big one. They should have the same advantage in that regard. I am sure nobody has any doubts but that they are being included in this measure.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy MacCarthy raised the question of extending the period for which this Bill will run. I want to pose this question. Why, since we have the means of so doing, have we not abolished the system whereby people are taxed for improving their houses, businesses or land? It seems a most ridiculous system to follow. I can thoroughly understand why such a system was initiated a long time ago in this country, but I cannot understand why, now that we have got the management of our own affairs in our own hands, we allow that impost to be placed on the backs of our people?

Mr. Hickey

It is one means of getting money.

Mr. Blowick

Every Government in every country under the sun must find the funds to administer the necessary affairs. Surely, it is a most iniquitous system whereby a person who improves his house, out-offices, business premises or land is plastered at once with a fresh impost of taxation while the sluggard living next door and allowing his place to fall into ruins gets away with it and actually gets a remission of taxation? That is an appalling system. Deputy O'Higgins mentioned that the Act which made this possible was imposed on this country 100 years ago but there were Acts before the 1852 Act which had the very same basis for levying taxation on the people.

The Bill is a disappointing one. There is nothing really in it to oppose. There is nothing in it upon which to congratulate the Minister. I am puzzled to know what class of person will benefit under this Bill—one out of every thousand.

Mr. Briscoe

It will encourage somebody to build new premises.

Mr. Blowick

There is very little encouragement in it. If a person sinks money in order to build a new premises or improve an old one he is at once plastered with taxation for doing so. The policy of the present Government is to ensure that any business a person is already doing will be slashed in half or crushed altogether. Most of the people who build new houses get a remission of rates for seven years provided they get a grant. The things which have been urged on every Government by T.D.s from all sides of the House and which have pressed so hard on the people have not been removed in this Bill. Part 3 of the Bill relates to Buncrana in Donegal. Section 3 of the Bill consists principally of eight paragraphs telling all and sundry the different types of premises that will benefit, including labourers' cottages.

Mr. Briscoe

In possession of the local authority.

Mr. Blowick

Yes, labourers' cottages come in but houses built under the Gaeltacht Acts do not benefit.

Mr. Briscoe

They have separate subsidies—separate grants.

Mr. Blowick

Agreed. They have grants.

Mr. Smith

And a remission of rates for 20 years.

Mr. Blowick

It is not for 20 years.

Mr. Smith

It is.

Mr. Blowick

It is for seven years.

Mr. Smith

For 20 years.

Mr. Blowick

Twenty years in the case of Gaeltacht houses and seven in respect of houses outside the Gaeltacht.

Mr. Smith

The Deputy mentioned the Gaeltacht first. It is 20 years in respect of the Gaeltacht and seven for others.

Mr. Blowick

I introduced that.

Mr. Smith

The Deputy thought he would get away with that.

Mr. Blowick

Section 3 of the Bill in eight paragraphs tells us what could be done and what shall be done. I want to repeat what I said on former occasions in this House that we should have a whole revision of valuations. This Bill is merely a very small plug in a very large hole. That is the way I see it. It makes provision for very few people in the towns and cities.

Mr. Smith

Deputy Hickey will not be satisfied with that. He does not want any valuation at all.

Mr. Hickey

I never said any such thing. There is a Valuation Bill in the Custom House.

Mr. Blowick

I am thinking principally of the valuations on farm out-offices, business houses and other such buildings in our towns and cities. The whole system should have been examined by the Minister having put his hand to the question at all. There is a very big gap in our valuation legislation which has to be filled in. This Bill has been brought in for the benefit of a certain few people who will be building. I have just been asking myself, having read the Bill, how many people will benefit and I can say that I do not know that there are half a dozen in my county.

Mr. Smith

There are so many people benefiting already as a result of the thoughtful and useful legislation that has been enacted through this Party that there are very few left to cover now.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister must be fast asleep if he thinks that is the case or if he thinks that the legislation of 1852, 1939 or that passed in the 1820's satisfies the people.

Mr. Smith

Will you support a General Revaluation Bill if introduced?

Mr. Blowick

If the Minister produces it and gives me a few hours in which to study it, I will soon tell him.

Mr. Smith

It is not so long since it was here.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister cannot ask me a question like that. I have made it quite clear on many occasions and no later than last November, what my views on valuation are. Deputies on all sides of the House, including members of the Minister's own Party, of the Labour Party, Fine Gael, Independent Deputies and ourselves are in full agreement that something should be done to remove the present injustice in this regard.

Mr. Briscoe

We must know what to do. We must study it first.

Mr. Blowick

If the Deputy has not started studying it by this time he has no business talking about it now.

Mr. Briscoe

I have studied it.

Mr. Blowick

I have studied it for years.

Mr. Hickey

It might be a good idea to reintroduce the 1938 Valuation Bill.

Mr. Smith

You did not want any valuation at all.

Mr. Blowick

I might tell Deputy Hickey that the dust has accumulated on that corpse of a Valuation Bill and I do not think Deputies across the way will ever pull it out of the cupboard in which it has been hidden since 1938.

Mr. Smith

If we got an assurance that if we introduced such legislation you would support it you would be surprised what we might do.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister should amend the Bill on the next stage to bring it into line with the suggestions put forward by myself and some other members of this Party on the motion which was before the House on this subject in November last. The injustice in regard to the valuation of out-offices and farm buildings should be removed in order to give agriculture, the principal industry of this country, a chance. It is not possible for anyone but the Minister to introduce amendments along the lines I have suggested. Standing Orders would not permit it; accordingly I ask the Minister to amend this Bill.

Let me take this opportunity to remind the Minister of what has been happening in regard to revision of valuations particularly in towns. It is bad enough in some cases in the rural areas but in the towns it is absolutely oppressive. I am not blaming the officials in the Valuation Office or the Commissioner of Valuation because they must administer the law as it stands. The Commissioner of Valuation has not the power to introduce legislation and it is the duty of the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Finance to amend legislation that becomes out of date or out-moded as the country progresses.

This Bill is a very poor attempt at grappling with the problem, because in rural Ireland there will not be six people in every county who will benefit, and I do not know of anybody in my county who will benefit. There may be a few hundred in the City of Dublin and in other cities.

Mr. Briscoe

A few thousand, we hope.

Mr. Blowick

No. Deputy Briscoe is very optimistic if he thinks it is going to involve a complete pulling down of the city and its rebuilding. I want to ask the Minister again to bring in amendments as he is the only one who can do it.

Mr. Smith

It will be no bother to me.

Mr. Blowick

I do not want the Minister to treat my suggestions in a frivolous way. Surely a motion that was supported by half this House and which would have been supported by more than half if the Whips were taken off, should not be treated in that frivolous way by the Minister. Surely the Minister must have constituents who must have brought home to him the importance of this problem. The survival and success of our principal industry is at stake. At the present time if the farmer has out-offices or farm buildings erected the valuation officer is on top of him and he is actually punished for making improvements.

Mr. Smith

He does not have to pay for them for seven years.

Mr. Blowick

In the old days, under English rule, if the landlord did not actually evict the tenant for improving his holding he doubled or trebled the rent. That is the system that has been handed down by the old enemy of this country, to kill initiative and to prevent people from advancing themselves and improving the country. If this system were given full rein in an undeveloped country after hundreds of years of occupation, there would be nothing but mud huts and hovels all over the place because nobody would dare to improve them. The Minister could amend this Bill by bringing in a few amendments along the lines I have suggested on several occasions in regard to the problem of rates.

Mr. Cogan

I want to express briefly my approval of this Bill. It is not a far-reaching measure and it does not claim to be. It claims to bring into line those who have been left out by previous legislation. There is quite a number of people who improve their property and secure remission of rates for a period of years. There are quite a number also who have not been affected by this remission of valuation and it is the intention of the Bill to bring those people into line with that reform. Deputy Blowick was very severe on the Minister. No doubt the Minister has improved as a result of the lecture which he has received, but I think the Deputy was talking a lot of hot air. He asked: "Why tax improvements?". Is it not a fact that initiative in every country is taxed to a considerable extent? Income-tax is a tax, if you like, on initiative and enterprise.

Mr. Blowick

Is it the system in the United States, for instance, to tax initiative and improvements?

Mr. Cogan

The man who remains idle, and who makes no progress in the world, evades and escapes income-tax to a great extent. The same is true of property tax. I think it is the desire of every Deputy that direct taxation should be equal and that its burdens should not press unduly on any particular individual or section of the community. I think, also, we all desire that, as far as possible, initiative should be encouraged and for that reason we have remissions of rates for a certain period under the various Housing Acts. We also have those remissions under the Undeveloped Areas Act and under a number of other measures designed to improve the conditions of the country. It is the intention of the Government and I am sure it is the unanimous desire of the House to ensure that any sections of the community who have been left out of previous legislation will be brought in under this Bill and that anybody doing useful improvement works, giving employment and helping to build up the nation will get a measure of relief for a period of years.

Deputy Briscoe made a strong case for extending the period to which this Bill applies beyond three years. I should like to endorse that appeal. While three years may be a sufficient period in regard to small works it is a very short period when you are dealing with a large constructional work. We all know the length of time it takes to acquire a site, to draft plans and so forth, and we are all only too well aware of the various delays that may occur. I quite appreciate that it is desirable to have a time limit because I assume that the purpose of this Bill is to speed up building work. By setting a limit of a certain number of years, I expect that people will be encouraged to undertake the work immediately. That is what everybody desires in order to give the maximum employment at the earliest date.

Deputy O'Higgins expressed the point of view that this Bill is simply an answer to the measure brought in by the Fine Gael Party a few months ago. The main difference between this Bill and the Bill brought in by the Fine Gael Party a few months ago is that this Bill is brought in by a Government in office. The other Bill was brought in by an Opposition Party—a Party out of office. Naturally, a Party that is out of office will try to be very generous to everybody but a Government has the responsibility of facing every financial difficulty that may arise. Deputy O'Higgins said, in connection with this Bill, that a mountain had been in labour and had brought forth a mouse. The Fine Gael Party was in labour for three and a half years and they did not even bring forth a mouse. Nothing resulted, in the matter of a revision of valuations, during the period of office of the Coalition Government. During that time I pressed for some relief in this matter but I did not get much sympathy from the Coalition Minister for Finance who seemed to think that the ratepayers generally—and the farmer ratepayers in particular—were getting away with murder. Anyhow, we have got this Bill and it is a relief to a considerable number of people. It is an encouragement to them to go ahead and carry out works of improvement and to give employment. For these reasons I think the House should have no hesitation in giving this Bill wholehearted approval.

Mr. McMenamin

This Bill is of some concern to me. I do not know what caused the conception of it at all. It is rather a thing of rags and tatters than a Bill. Apparently it is meant to cover up sore spots here and there, leaving the main problem still unsolved. Anybody who knows anything of what is going on from day to day is very well aware that all the main reconstruction work has taken place in this country in the past six years and that all that property lies under the burden imposed upon it. What kind of a burden was that? It was stated in this House—and it was not contradicted—that the present basis of assessing valuations in the Valuation Office is on the letting value of the property at the time of the making of the valuation. We all know that there was a run on property and for the possession of property in the past six or seven years and that ridiculous rents were offered and paid for property during that period—rents that will never again be offered in our lifetime, I believe: certainly, they would not be offered to-day, or anything approaching them. Take, for example, the entire licensed property of this country—to which considerable improvements have been made within the past six years. Bear in mind the period in which the valuations were imposed on that property. Assume that they were valued at the letting value on the date on which the improvements were carried out—on the basis of the rents they would then command. What are they worth to-day, would anybody tell me? Would they go 50 per cent. of the letting value of five or six years ago—even 50 per cent.? These houses throughout the country, and the owners thereof, are now going to be saddled in perpetuity with this valuation, and the liabilities attaching thereto, unless something is done about it. For that reason, it is difficult to understand why, as a matter of justice and equity, a major Bill has not been put before the House. I want to make that protest on behalf of those people who are caught in that net now and have no remedy.

What does all this talk mean about giving two-thirds relief in valuation from July last to 1956? Has all this thing not now become absolutely stagnant in this country? I should like to see the man who to-day, or within the next three years, will venture on a major improvement of his property in view of existing conditions of trade and prospects of trade not only in this country but throughout the world. Whether they are right or whether they are wrong, it is the general opinion of economists throughout the world that we are on the eve of a recession, whatever the extent of that recession may be.

The only matter on which I want an explanation from the Minister is this. I think the Minister should explain the Schedule to this Bill. The heading reads: "Relevant Local Financial Years and Appropriate Amounts." The Schedule then begins with the local financial year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955, and deals with each of the local financial years up to the local financial year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, and it specifies the amounts for the respective years. Is that the valuation on which the town will be rated during those years?

Mr. Smith

For county-at-large purposes.

Mr. McMenamin

The valuation in 1955 will be £8,550 and in 1964 it will be £11,520.

Mr. Smith

It will be rated on the full valuation but the county demand will be based upon the valuation set out in the Schedule.

Mr. McMenamin

You are not going to defend £11,520 in 1964 when the present valuation, the new increased valuation, is less than that by some £60?

Mr. Smith

I will make a fair effort if you give me time.

Mr. McMenamin

The whole thing is giving small doses until you get the people acclimatised, making them believe that they will get something. It is well known in medicine that if you start by taking small doses the body builds up a resistance and can take larger doses. These people will be led to believe that they will get something.

Mr. Smith

They are actually getting something.

Mr. McMenamin

They are, in small doses, and will get a big dose when they are acclimatised. Does the Minister think that that is playing cricket with these people?

Mr Smith

I do.

Mr. McMenamin

The Minister must have a very small estimate of their intelligence, which I have not.

Mr. Smith

I thought you were going to say a small conscience.

Mr. McMenamin

These people are as intelligent as anybody in this House.

Mr. Smith

That is what I was thinking.

Mr. McMenamin

I would like to know what they think of this attempt to pull wool across their eyes.

Mr. Cunningham

Did you ask them?

Mr. McMenamin

If the Minister were going to do anything for the town of Buncrana he should do it in a decent and fair way.

Mr. Cunningham

What would you suggest?

Mr. McMenamin

Deputy Cunningham has a great habit of interrupting.

Mr. Cunningham

No.

Mr. McMenamin

I do not interrupt Deputy Cunningham. He will have an opportunity of making a speech if he wants to. Is it fair to these people to land them in the mess?

Mr. Smith

I did not land them in the mess; they did it themselves.

Mr. McMenamin

These people regard the present burden as intolerable and the Minister, by coming to the House to give relief, admits that it is intolerable. As the years proceed, this injustice will continue.

Mr. Smith

That is not a proper interpretation of what I think. I would like to hear what the Deputy thinks and then I will tell him what I think.

Mr. McMenamin

You are gradually increasing the burden on these people. They will find it hard to exist because of world competition. As Deputy Blowick has said, nobody can do anything to this Bill but the Minister. If he is going to do anything for the town of Buncrana he should do something decent and give them equitable treatment and not attempt to lead them up the garden path, making believe that he is doing something for them. There are four or five little textile industries in that town which are keeping the town alive. If this proposal had been made four years ago when there was a buyers' market it could have been borne more easily than it can be now having regard to the future that is facing the world and the enormous competition that will arise, particularly in the textile industry. The House would be prepared to support the Minister in a generous act. When he is reducing the figure to £8,550, he should make it a basic figure that will be continuous until such time as the House deems it prudent to have general revaluation of the country and then let them take what the public generally get.

Mr. Cunningham

There are one or two points in connection with this Bill that I would stress. In my view the period should be extended beyond three years. Three years is a rather short period in the matter of erecting a building or repairing premises. If the work is of any magnitude, more than three years will have elapsed by the time plans are drawn, tenders are invited and the actual work undertaken and completed. I would also suggest that the Bill should be made retrospective to 1st January instead of the 27th July.

I wish to deal at length with the question of the reduction of valuations in Buncrana so as to enable the county-at-large charge to be based, not on the present valuation of Buncrana, but on the figures laid down in the Schedule to this Bill.

I strongly object to the interpretation of this Bill expressed by the other Donegal Deputy who has just spoken. He does not understand the position in Buncrana. His statement that the Minister was leading the people of Buncrana up the garden path by giving them medicine in small doses, is not correct. The figure of £8,500 is somewhat higher than the valuation of the town of Buncrana in 1950 but had there been no 100 per cent. revision of valuations in that town the valuation of £7,000 odd, obtaining in 1950, would have increased since then as a result of the erection of new houses and reconstructions. Deputy McMenamin cannot see that in the next ten years, even had there been no 100 per cent. revision, the valuation of the town of Buncrana would have increased to some extent year by year. That does not mean that I agree with the figures given in the Schedule. I think the Minister is taking for granted that in the natural course of reconstruction and building the valuation would increase by about £300 per annum. After all, Buncrana is not a large town. I do not think the valuation there or in any town of its kind would increase by £300 per year. I suggest that the figure of £8,000 odd should stand and that to it per year be added the natural increase which will take place. From the year 1950 to 1955 or 1956, if the natural increase in valuation were £50 that could be added to the basic figure of £8,550. If it is more, add more to it. That should be the procedure, rather than to guess at a figure, as is done in the case of these figures for the years from 1956 to 1964.

Again, I wonder if the reduction will apply to the financial year beginning on 1st April next. I am very anxious on that point, as it would be to the advantage of the ratepayers there that they should get immediate benefit. I do not know whether it is possible that a measure such as this could be made retrospective—but if it could I would go so far as to suggest that that should be done. All this has been due, as the Minister says, to an action taken by those people themselves in seeking 100 per cent. revision of valuations—and getting it, of course, with a heart and a half—but that action taken by them should not result in the whole town being penalised over the last four years. I think that this increase in valuation has meant a very large extra contribution to the county council over those four years.

I am very grateful and thankful to the Minister. So are the people of Buncrana, despite what Deputy McMenamin says. They are of the same opinion as myself, that it is something to their benefit—and very great benefit at that. However, now that the Minister has admitted that an action taken by a certain number of the urban councillors at that time led to hardships in the town and now that the Minister has admitted by this part of the Bill that there was a genuine grievance, it should be clear that, if the payment by the ratepayers of Buncrana is unfair now it was unfair in 1950, and the unfair part of the payments since 1950 should be refunded in some way. One way in which those people could get the benefit would be by freezing the £8,500 figure for the next four years. I can assure the Minister that Part III of the Bill is appreciated in the town of Buncrana. I hope that the points I have mentioned will be considered by him so that some of the injustices of the past may be remedied. I cannot figure out how it was decided that those increases should go from £8,000 odd in 1950 up to £11,000 odd, and I do not think that the natural increase would amount to those figures. I suggest again that the £8,550 be taken as basic and that the natural increase be added, except for a four-year period to compensate for the four-year period since 1950.

Mr. Smith

I would like to assure Deputy McMenamin that it was very far indeed from my mind to lead the ratepayers of Buncrana, as he put it, up the garden or down the garden.

Mr. McMenamin

Leaving them now at the foot of the garden.

Mr. Smith

I found the position as Deputy Cunningham has stated it. It was the result of their own direct actions. There was just one question on which I had sympathy for them, the fact that as a result of the new valuation—which was £11,400 odd as against £7,000 odd—they were going to be paying on that new valuation the county demand, while other urban councils in the county, such as Bundoran and Letterkenny, were getting through on the old figures. Deputy Cunningham, who has shown a keen interest in this matter for a long time, has been after me very strongly on this question. I must say I was very reluctant indeed to meet the situation, even in the limited way that we propose to meet it here. We are meeting it in so far as the county demand is concerned. In doing so we feel that the ratepayers of Buncrana will have no objection to paying on the increased valuation of their own town for their own local services.

Deputy Cunningham has posed the question, why or how did we arrive at the figure mentioned in the Schedule, on which the county demand will be based in the coming year? It will take effect for the year 1954-55. That was a matter that puzzled me and my officials also, when we came to consider how it would be dealt with here. The valuation of the town of Buncrana before the increase was £7,563. If you were to fix that figure in this Bill as the valuation on which the county demand would be paid, you would be doing an injustice to the other urban areas, because their valuations were progressively increasing according as new buildings were erected and old buildings were repaired. This is how we reached the conclusions that are set out here. In fact, it was my own suggestion. I asked the officials to proceed on the basis of the way in which the valuation had moved in Buncrana and the other urban areas for, say, five years prior to revaluation and to take then an average of those five years. In Buncrana, for the five years prior to 1950, the valuation increases in that town were: £450, £332, £287 and £330. The average of these four figures is £330. The new valuation came into existence on the 1st March, 1951, and if you take four times £330 and add it to £7,653 you will find that in the year 1954-55 the valuation would have been £8,000 odd and it is on that basis that the county demand will be made that year, progressively increasing by £330 until finally——

Mr. Cunningham

There is a post-war period.

Mr. Smith

Well, post-war or otherwise, the position is that it was a practical difficulty that had to be met, and, as far as I could see, the only sensible way in which it could be met is the way which is set out here. As I have said, I have figures relating to the increases that have taken place in the other urban areas in the county, and they more or less work out along the same lines. Deputy Cunningham has suggested that we should take the figure that was mentioned here of £8,000 odd, and then allow increases to take place as improvements and extensions might take place in the town of Buncrana, but remember the Valuation Office has already revalued the town of Buncrana at the town's request. Surely, the Valuation Office should not be expected to stay in Buncrana and set up headquarters there to meet its particular views.

I am saying much more on this than I had intended to say because I had not the slightest desire to lead anyone up or down the garden. This is a genuine effort on my part to deal with a matter that should not, in the ordinary way, be dealt with in a measure like this. Deputy O'Higgins referred to the Title of the Bill and was apparently attributing some ulterior or mysterious motives, but, as a matter of fact, the Title of the Bill was so decided by the draftsman because of the fact that we wanted to bring in Buncrana, and for no other reason.

Mr. Cunningham

While on that, and the suggestion about the four years, may I say that for three years they have paid the higher rate?

Mr. Smith

Like most people who pay reluctantly, but I am afraid I can do nothing about that. It is hard to recover what you have parted with.

Mr. S. Collins

And it is particularly hard to recover it from a Government Department.

Mr. Smith

It does not happen to be a Government Department that is concerned here but a county council.

Mr. S. Collins

Under your aegis.

Mr. Smith

Some would like to think that it would be more generous, but it may not part with it either. One would think from the discussion which we have had here that this should be a Revaluation Bill. Deputies on the other side have expressed the opinion, not only in the course of the discussion on this Bill, but on other occasions that we wanted such a measure. I remember when a Revaluation Bill was introduced in the Dáil some years ago. As far as my memory serves me there was no evidence of any enthusiastic reception for it, not only on the other side of the House but, indeed, on our own side. A general election intervened and the measure never was resurrected. You meet people every other day in the week who tell you of the necessity for some revision of the whole valuation code. It is all very well for people to talk like that until you present them with a document, and then you find that they will have all sorts of qualifications, conditions, objections and so on.

This measure is designed to meet a situation which most people are aware has existed in many parts of the country. There were people who carried out improvements to business and other premises, people who had been carrying out improvements over a long number of years. The fact of their having carried out these improvements had not been discovered by the rating authority, but when carrying out some additional improvements it was found that all this improvement work which had been done by people, maybe over a period of ten or 15 years, was then coming to an end. Public men on all sides of the House who saw the effect that that was likely to have, that it was a desirable sort of development, have said that perhaps it would be a good thing to give a form of relief to such people so as to encourage them to engage in that work. I do not know if you could prevent the Valuation Office from carrying out a revision of valuation following the erection of a building or the reconstruction of an old building. Even if you could do that I do not think it would be desirable to do it because the Valuation Office must keep in line as best it can with its work. Therefore, all you can effectively do is to provide remissions. Now, whether the remission is to be a complete remission or whether it is to be what is set out here—all these are questions that have to be decided by the Government, and decided having regard to their effect upon the general ratepayers all over the country.

The provision which has been criticised here by Deputy Briscoe, and some others, that the time up to the year 1956 is too short a period inside which the work must be completed, is designed to ensure that those who want to take advantage of this measure will do so as quickly as possible—that the period will be as short as possible so as to give benefits in the way of employment. I do not know, and it may be right, that in many cases, where fairly big enterprises are involved, that the period will be too short. I would not have any objection to considering the whole question of the duration of the period of work if I could find a way of providing that it would not be a temptation to those engaged on a smaller type of improvement to drag it out too long.

Mr. Briscoe

Why not give an extended period?

Mr. Smith

I have no objection to considering it. I merely wanted to give Deputies who raised the point an idea why this period was first mentioned. If I could see a way of extending the period for those about to engage in fairly large building effort, while at the same time limiting it in the case of those with a more limited type of programme, I would be inclined to consider it.

Mr. S. Collins

Would the Minister consider giving himself a limited discretion in the matter?

Mr. Briscoe

Within the next 18 months—Deputy Cowan and Deputy Byrne will understand this quite clearly—we will have concluded our draft town plan, and, immediately after, whole areas which have been held up in the matter of reconstruction and building will be free for people to go ahead on the basis of private enterprise. That will only give an encouragement in respect of about six months and it just cannot be done. So far as I understand the problem in the City of Dublin, 1958 is the earliest time it will have any benefit.

Mr. S. Collins

If the Minister took limited discretion to himself and dealt with each case on its merits, he would have power to extend it.

Mr. Smith

It will always be possible for whatever Minister is responsible to introduce a measure continuing and extending these provisions. I am merely telling Deputies the purpose the Minister and his advisers had in mind in mentioning this date.

Captain Cowan

It was clearly for the purpose of encouraging the quick carrying out of work to give employment?

Mr. Smith

That is right. We can consider the other point which has been made, and, if an acceptable way out can be found, maybe we could go so far as to meet the point of view which has been put forward. Some Deputy urged that we should go back at least to 1st January, but in all such measures as this, there is always the point that a date has to be fixed and a line drawn. If we go back to 1st January, we will be asked why not go back to 1st December and why not go back even 12 months, two years and so on. The decision to fix 27th July, was made having regard to the requests that have been made in relation to some retrospective effect in this provision, I do not think there is any chance at all of our going back any further.

Mr. Briscoe

This date in July is fixed because it was the date of the announcement?

Mr. Smith

That is right.

Mr. Briscoe

The rating year—going back to March 31st—would meet everybody.

Mr. Smith

The Housing Acts are a fairly good comparison and if any new provision is contained in a Housing Bill, it always takes effect as from the date on which the Bill is introduced. If there is any improvement in the provisions of a previous Act, the date mentioned is the date of the publication of the new proposals. I do not think there is any chance of my agreeing to go back any further.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 16th February.