When I saw on the Order Paper that the Seanad had sent up a recommendation to this House on the subject that I had the privilege of bringing before the Dáil on previous occasions, to have it again considered, it greatly added to my appreciation of the Seanad, and while I had very high appreciation of the Seanad before then, this added considerably to it. I am afraid that the discussions that took place, even the recent one in the Dáil, have not helped to make clear to Deputies what exactly this clause means. Prior to the inclusion of this clause in the Finance Bill, for a great many years it has been the privilege of those who own houses and live in them to deduct one-sixth of the income tax payable. That deduction was originally agreed to for the purpose of meeting the cost of repairs on houses. The cost of repairs in the days when this privilege was first accorded was very much less than the cost of repairs to-day, so, consequently, if the argument was good a number of years ago, the position is greatly strengthened by the increased cost of repairs to-day. Now this clause, as incorporated in the Finance Bill, means that if a person owing a house sets it, and agrees to pay for the whole of the repairs, he is at liberty to deduct one-sixth of the income tax. If the owner lives in the house, and pays for the repairs, he is not at liberty to deduct one-sixth. That is what the clause means. If a man owns a house and sets it, provided he undertakes to pay for the repairs, he is at liberty to deduct one-sixth, but if he lives in the house which he owns and pays for the repairs, he cannot deduct one-sixth. I have heard of absurdities in the making of laws, in which I myself have very little experience, but this appears to me to be one of the most extraordinary clauses I ever heard of. I am afraid this clause was not understood by the Dáil, otherwise the Dáil would be of the unanimous opinion which the Seanad appears to have been on this proposal.
The President has pointed out that valuation varies. It does vary, as we all know, but to try to make comparisons between city valuations and country valuations is impossible. Valuers consider all the circumstances of the case when making a valuation. The circumstances in a city are quite different from the circumstances in the country, and, consequently, the basis of valuation in the city is quite different from the basis of valuation in the country, and to try to make comparisons between these two valuations, made on different basis, is to try to do the impossible, because there is no comparison. The President has pointed out the differences there are in valuations, and we are all agreed that there are valuations which ought to be revised. But, if you want to revise old and inaccurate valuations, do not do it by taxing everybody who owns his house. Do it by altering your valuation, which is the proper businesslike way of doing it. With regard to the City of Dublin —and no one knows the City of Dublin better than the President—it cannot be said, for the purpose of supporting his argument, that there are old valuations there, because, as we all know, house in the City of Dublin were valued as recently as 1916. The President said in that connection, when the matter was before the Dáil, that the value of property had increased very much since 1916. I agree; but I think the President will also agree that house property stands at a very inflated value at the moment. I have heard him say on more than one occasion that house property was too costly. Does he propose, when house property is in an inflated state, that a valuation should take place? I would say that the proper value, the mean value, of house property would be somewhere about its value in 1916, and I would strongly oppose any further valuation upon a later basis, because it would be on an inflation, which will, we hope, last only for a limited period. This is a question that ought to be explored much more than it has been. There is a principle underlying this proposition which I would like to urge, and that is that this rebate has been an encouragement, in the past, to people to own their own houses. That encouragement will be done away with under this clause, and that will be a disadvantage, not alone to the private owner, but also to the public authority. Public authorities to-day, almost without exception, are endeavouring to sell houses that they have erected, and are trying to get the tenants to become owners of their houses. Up to the present, where they have succeeded in selling houses, one of the inducements has been that a tenant who becomes an owner would get a reduction of one-sixth in the income tax. Now that incentive is to be done away with, and I want to lay stress on the fact that to encourage people to own their houses is to encourage, what Deputy Wilson very properly called, a civic spirit.
We encourage people to become better citizens because in owing their own houses they have to pay local rates and other charges, and when they have to do so, they take an interest in and try to keep down as low as possible these rates and charges, whereas, as is the case with many houses in Dublin where they are set at a rental including taxes, they take no interest in civic affairs, because whether the taxes go up or down the rent they have to pay is the same. There is only one other point I wish to mention, and that is that the Minister for Finance, whose absence we all deplore, when discussing this matter previously said that the subject had been considered in Great Britain where the one-sixth is allowed while it is refused here, thus adding another burden to taxpayers of the Free State. We asked the Minister, why, if it was so advantageous to the Government to do away with the one-sixth, it had not been done away with in Great Britain. He admitted they had considered the question and found that the revenue that they would receive from it was not worth the injury and trouble it would cause. I am quite satisfied that what has been true of Great Britain will also be true of the Free State, and that in refusing to give this rebate we will do away with the few attractions we have at present to induce people to own their own houses, and furthermore it will cause, I am sure, amongst householders all over the country a considerable amount of inconvenience. Possibly I might explain one point which may not be clear to some Deputies. In valuations, particularly in rural districts, there are many cases where the land and house are valued together and in such cases there is no rebate of one-sixth. The modern system is to value the land separately from the house. Where the house is separately valued from the land and where the owner occupies the house, he is entitled under the clause, as it stood formerly, to that deduction of one-sixth, but under the Finance Bill, as now proposed, he is no longer entitled to that. I do not know if I would be in order to move a direct negative, that we agree with the recommendation of the Seanad, but if I am in order I would move it.
