I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, line 19, after "case" to insert ",other than owner occupied residential business premises,".
The Title of this Bill is rather deceptive. Actually, it is a rather revolutionary Bill. In effect, it means virtually the termination of reduction in valuation.
There are two aspects of the Bill, the first being the question of abolition. It proposes the abolition of rating reliefs available over a wide range of building projects such as factories, hotels, office blocks, and supermarkets but also non-grant-aided domestic housing and private business premises, the proprietors of which may often be of very modest means and ineligible for any other form of relief of rates. The reason offered is that the need for this type of concession to the building industry, which has been in operation in one form or another for nearly 50 years, no longer exists. Whether we accept this reasoning or not the concession is surely desirable in the case of the small trader, especially under present circumstances, in the era of supermarkets and intensive competition and high taxation. Remission of two-thirds of the rates for seven years on the valuation of new buildings or on the increase in the valuation of existing buildings which have been enlarged or improved must have, in conjunction with the recent cement strike, a serious effect on the construction industry.
The second aspect of the Bill is the phasing out. For those who may not have applied for building permission before 9 December, 1969 there will be a final and reduced rating concession until 31 March, 1972. For work completed by 31 March, 1970 there will be six years remission of rates. For work completed by 31 March, 1971 there will be five years remission and for work completed by 31 March, 1972 there will be four years remission.
It is obvious that the reduced concessions can apply only to a very small quantity of work, already in the pipe line, so to speak, at the end of 1969. This Bill does not interfere with existing concessions for new or improved housing under the 1960 Housing Act or the Housing (Gaeltacht) Act. Grant-aided housing is unaffected by this measure except in so far as the size of the grants for housing under another Bill has been reduced. Neither does it affect total remission for an indefinite period on new or improved farm buildings which has been in operation in principle for over 100 years under section 14 of the Valuation Act, 1852.
The Minister, in his Second Reading speech, raised the point that it did not seem necessary or perhaps even just that rate remissions should be continued at the expense of the ordinary ratepayers for large concerns such as hotels, insurance offices, banks and so on. Admittedly, he has a point there. But I do not think that justifies the global wiping out of this concession which has existed for about 50 years, particularly at this time. It is particularly onerous considered in conjunction with recent housing legislation. Take domestic housing. It was mentioned by the Minister for Finance when he was discussing the Housing Bill during the by-election that alterations in the size of the houses in the Bill, which now provides for smaller houses, would mean that those who did not get housing grants would suffer a loss, between stamp duty concession, grant and rates remission, of about £1,000 per house. I cannot offhand say how much of that amount would be represented by rates remission.
If we are building 7,000 or 8,000 grant-aided houses per year it has been pointed out that under the new housing legislation being introduced, about 20 per cent of those who formerly qualified for grants would not now get grants. That is on the basis that they would continue to opt for the same size of house as heretofore. I admit that with the pressure of the question of grants, the stamp duty and rates remission they would probably be forced to build smaller that obtained previously, it system that obtained previously, it would mean that between 1,500 and 1,600 people trying to build their own houses would lose approximately £1,000 per person. Persons who will be cut out under the Housing Bill represent 20 per cent of the annual building rate. That section will lose about £1,000 per house. The figure will probably fall because people will probably opt to go into smaller houses even though they may not wish to do so if they have large families. The loss involved to them in all would be about £1,000 per house.
I have, therefore, submitted an amendment in which I provided in effect that these rates remissions would continue for owner-occupied residential business premises. It is difficult to frame an amendment covering all the classes for which one would like to retain and continue rates abatement. I am not particularly worried about the big combine building a bank or insurance building in any of our towns; the matter of rates remission will not cause them extreme difficulty; but I am concerned about the small shopkeeper and the man trying to build his own house who, perhaps, has a large family and feels he will have difficulty in living in a smaller grant-aided house, even allowing for the possibility under that Bill that he might be able to build an enlargeable type of house. There is no understanding that if he does enlarge it within the 15 year period he will get a second grant.
It is difficult to formulate all the categories one would like to include specifically. Therefore, in a general way I put down this category which covers the small shopkeeper who lives over his shop or at the back of his shop. Some of them may be well off but usually that type of trader is in the middle income group and sometimes lower and to him a rating concession is a very important matter.
The general pattern in regard to rates has always been that any time the Department could, by way of legislation, unload anything on to the rates, they happily did so. Our rates now amount to about £40 million a year. Therefore, I am rather unimpressed by the concern of the Minister which might be implied in his termination of rates relief.
In general, the small town dweller, the small trader, who wishes to improve his premises—and he must do it nowadays if he is to compete against supermarkets—will no longer enjoy the rates relief he previously enjoyed. This would be very onerous for him. I am, therefore, asking the Minister to accept this amendment in respect of the small trader who happens to live on his own premises. It was the only way I could think of classifying and segregating the small trader from the more opulent and well-to-do business man. I took cognisance of the Minister's remarks that it might be unfair to continue giving rates relief to very well-off sections of the community at the expense of those who are less privileged. Here I am making a plea for the underprivileged sections of our society that this Bill should not completely terminate reductions in valuation.
