I should like to bring the debate strictly back within the limits of the proposal definitely before the Dáil, and, in doing so, I desire to say that one word has been used by the majority of the speakers that I think is not wholly applicable to the proposal that has come down in the amendment—that word is "retrospective." The Minister for Justice built the whole of his case, impliedly, upon the just use of that word, and I venture to say the use of that word in respect of this particular proposal is not just. It is not just for this reason: that the application of the benefits will not be applications in respect of past years. It will only apply in respect of future years, but will apply in respect of past buildings; the benefit itself is not retrospective benefit.
DEBATE RESUMED.
It is.
I did not interrupt the Deputy during his speech, and I hope he will allow me to go ahead with mine without interruption. Take the case the Minister for Justice used —the famous beet illustration. He said that the Government proposed to give a certain bonus in respect of acreage devoted in future to beet. And then he asked the question, "Why?" Because that benefit is being given in respect of acreage devoted in the future to beet, and the same benefit is to be conferred—these are his words— on those who grew beet last year or the year before. Now that is exactly what the Government is going to do in respect to beet. It will not confer that benefit, it is perfectly true, in respect of the actual amount of beet that was grown last year, but it will not preclude the person who started to grow beet two years ago from the benefits for the growing of beet in subsequent years.
It will say to the grower of beet next year, or the year after: "No matter whether you start to-day or started four years ago, the benefits that are now available will be available impartially for all." That is not retrospective benefit, and it could not accurately be so called. Bring the application of that particular instance down to another matter and then it will be seen exactly why the proposal from the Seanad is a just and fair proposal to place before this Dáil. Come to the case of Balbriggan. If the Minister for Justice were to succeed in overthrowing the amendment from the Dáil the result would be that Balbriggan would not be able to benefit from any rebate in rates. Consider this: Supposing in the same county another factory were to be established for exactly the same purpose and that factory were to be established to-morrow, and supposing you built exactly the same amount of buildings and put exactly the same amount of cost into the erection of that new factory, that new factory would, by virtue of being built to-morrow, be able to claim against the Balbriggan factory on a certain benefit amounting to two-thirds of the rates paid by the Balbriggan one.
What percentage of the cost of production do the rates represent?
I am not in a position to answer these mathematical questions that are suddenly hurled at me. If the Deputy has an answer to his conundrum I am perfectly willing to wait now and hear it. The Deputy will work out his answer. The point I am putting is this: The Minister for Justice stated that the proposal was one of abstract justice. That plea was supported by Deputy Professor Magennis, who said that we had no time for such abstract justice, we had no money for it. I put forward this to the Dáil, that we are not concerned with the question of abstract justice. If the proposal were to do what is impossible to do, and that is to give back moneys in respect of past years' rates, then it might be possible to say that a question of abstract justice was involved. What is involved is a question of absolute justice in respect of future years, and I give the Balbriggan instance again. If a new factory of the same kind, and of the same cost as Balbriggan, were to be erected, the existing factory at Balbriggan would be handicapped in its future operations to the extent of two-thirds the amount of rates that it pays, and consequently the new factory would be able to compete against it with that amount of advantage.
No new factory has been built since 1920 in Balbriggan.
Very well, I make a present of that to Deputy Johnson.
What is the Deputy talking about then?
Take any particular instance, any factory that has been built between 1920 and 1925. The Deputy will not deny that there have been businesses erected in that period. Otherwise his opposition to the amendment amounts to nothing. Take any particular one, and supposing a competitor to that particular one were to be created within the next twelve months, why should that competitor be equipped with this additional advantage over its rival, having regard to the fact that the rival built at a time when building costs were higher than they are to-day, as though that were not in itself quite a sufficient handicap? That is why I say that when the Minister talks about abstract justice his words might be true if they applied in respect of returns and rebates for past years. But having regard to the fact that they only apply to remission for future years, it is not a question of abstract justice, but a question of absolute justice, and the illustration he chose from the sugar beet industry is an absolute proof of that, because the Government themselves intend to do in respect of sugar beet exactly what the Seanad's amendment proposes to do in respect of buildings, that is to say, the Government next year, in giving certain benefits to persons who put acreage under sugar beet, will not preclude from benefit persons because of the fact that they started to grow sugar beet in 1920. They will say: "No matter when you began the business, in the application of that business, year by year, for future years you will all be exactly the same, and we will not give benefits to one that we withhold from another, and so put one in a position of having an unfair trade advantage over another." It is for that reason that I am supporting the Seanad's amendment, and why I think the Dáil would be well advised to accept the Seanad's proposal and reject its own proposal that has come up before it from Committee. There is only one matter that I would like to add, and it is to answer the question of the Minister for Justice. He says: "What is the consideration?" Well, if it be true, as I have suggested that it is true, that we are not talking about abstract justice, but we are talking about absolute justice in respect of future trading, then the question of consideration is one that does not arise.
It was admitted that this remission took the form of a grant, and was in effect a grant. The Minister's question was: Was there a consideration for that grant?
I agree. Then the question of consideration arises in one particular case in respect of buildings that are to be built, but in so far as it applies to other buildings so as to place them all on the same level, and to give them absolute and impartial justice in respect of future trading, then I say that the question of consideration does not arise. Questions of consideration are never involved in matters of justice and equity. It would be a very extraordinary and remarkable thing if one were to hear a judge being asked to make a decision, that when a certain judgement was asked from him on grounds of equity he were to turn round and reply: "Yes, but what is the consideration?" No, the question of consideration does not apply, and I suggest that the effect of the word "retrospective" also does not apply, that the benefit is not retrospective benefit, that the benefit is one for the future, and is of a kind calculated to put people who built during the past four years on the same basis as those who will build in the future as a matter of justice, in order that it shall not be said that one person shall by the State be given a trading advantage over another person, or one corporation be given a trading advantage over another corporation, seeing that both of them incurred risks during one common period of high risks in undertaking operations of this kind.
I desire to support the Seanad amendment. I find an overwhelming argument for that in the feeling that the legislation proposed here is legislation that should have been enacted before this. I remember the time in July, 1922, when hostilities in Dublin had ceased, our motto was that O'Connell Street must be rebuilt inside 12 months, but unfortunately I suppose we never got sufficiently focussed on that question, or had energy enough to bring that desirable state of affairs about. The idea was that O'Connell Street should be rebuilt within 12 months as a very effective way of getting back to normal, and I feel that if legislation along these lines had been possible to give facilities for new buildings a couple of years ago, the effect would have been very good. Looking at matters as from to-day, and looking forward with the idea in our minds that buildings recently built should receive more benefit from the relaxation of rates, I think we must be all convinced that legislation such as this should have been passed a couple of years ago, and that consideration of that ought to make us give any relief we can to those people who did actually build during those years. There is a natural lag in legislation, and while that is not an argument for all legislation being retrospective, in some sense I feel that in view of the particular circumstances in the building trade, and the particular general circumstances of the last two years, we should not enact legislation dealing with the building trade now that would not take into consideration the last couple of years, and give some relief to those people who gave employment and spent money on building at that particular time.
Deputy Figgis has emphasised a point which must be very obvious, that is, that we are providing relief in the future for houses that were built—retrospectively, if you like. In the matter of that relief I do not think it is right to say that the giving of relief in this particular way is taking money out of the pockets of the ratepayers. At any rate, that is painting the picture in a light which is really not quite correct. As I understand it, the houses that have been built during the last four years have got a certain valuation, and compared house to house with those already existing, their valuation, I understand, is about one-and-a-half times the valuation of houses of that particular type in the immediate vicinity previously built. Houses that have been built during the last four years are paying rates at a valuation half as great again as the houses standing around them of the same value have been paying, and the relief that we are giving——
Two-thirds?
Two-thirds. And in estimating what you are getting for the two-thirds you have to consider that you have already got one-half as much as an equivalent building would have brought you in during whatever year up to the present rates have been paid on it, and that you are giving that relief, or you should be giving that relief, to houses built during that particular time, that would have been given if this particular legislation had been passed a couple of years ago. From another point of view it is not taking money out of other people's pockets, because you have to take into consideration that even during a period of very considerable difficulty, and very considerable want of confidence from the point of view of spending money, the persons who put up these houses have increased the valuation of their own areas, and the places are more valuable now, and will be more valuable in the future, than they would have been if these houses had not been put up. On the general question of giving a certain amount of relief for new buildings, we have seen that when railway companies desire to develop a particular suburban area they give free railway passes in respect of all new houses erected in these areas for a particular period of years. As far as I know, legislation has recently been introduced into Italy giving very great relief for all new buildings, with very great stimulation to building.
As from a certain date, but not retrospective.
Well I hope the point I have made that this legislation should have been passed a couple of years ago will not be lost on the Dáil. We do require a very definite stimulation of our building industry, and we will require to stimulate it more and more during the next two or three years in order to take the industry from the very dull state in which it is at present, and bring the machinery to the very necessary work of giving us a greatly increased number of homes for our people. The main point I wish to make is that relief for houses built previously should really be given, because this legislation should have been passed a couple of years ago.
I desire to support the Seanad amendment, and I am very strongly of opinion that this House should give that amendment its approval. I think those who listened to Deputy Figgis will realise, and he put it very clearly, that this is not a matter in respect of which any claim can be made for generosity, provided the Dáil approves of the Seanad amendment. It is a matter of absolute justice, a matter regarding which the Dáil should not hesitate for a moment to give its approval I do not think that even if the State were generous it could be held blameworthy in the matter. In particular the owners of houses that were destroyed and who rebuilt them need generosity from the State, for they were the sufferers throughout this matter for the whole body of the public.
Deputy Magennis used very strong arguments against this amendment. I suppose he was enthused by the applause he received from the opposite benches. All his arguments, like the arguments of the Minister for Justice, were, in my opinion, directed more against the whole spirit of the amendment giving a remission of taxation to those who built houses. The State cannot afford to be unjust. When I say unjust, I mean unjust to those who took chances in the years that have passed. I think it would be a decided injustice —and I do not think that even the Minister who has spoken against the amendment, or even Deputy Magennis, would agree to it—to exclude those who displayed their courage by taking chances, notwithstanding the disabilities that existed in the matter of building. They put up property, whatever the motives underlying their action may have been. There are very few of those, I am afraid, who were moved by altruistic motives. But those who did build will now be placed in the very disadvantageous position that they will have to compete with those whom Deputy Magennis termed bad eggs. I think Father O'Flanagan used a different word the other evening.
Those who waited until they saw the clouds had drifted past somewhat before they erected their premises, will now, under this enactment, get the advantage of the remission of two-thirds of the rates. That may not seem a great deal, but industry is to-day in such a sluggish condition that it will mean a very considerable advantage to those firms to get the remission. The larger they are, the bigger the advantage, because the bigger the rateable value of the premises will be. It will be a big advantage for those people against their competitors, who, perhaps, were better citizens and better friends of the State. They were, incidentally, the friends of the ratepayers and of the working classes engaged in the building trades, when they erected buildings in the years that have passed. I think it is merely an appeal to the cupidity of people, and particularly of those who are representatives on public boards, to ask them to do this injustice, for it is an injustice, to those who took their courage in their hands when the atmosphere was not favourable to prospects of the kind, and built the houses that are to-day in use, and gave the advantage to those who waited.
I think it is putting too big a burden on those people and it is imposing on them unfair competition. They built the houses in the past, and now you are giving remission of rates to those who build from now on. I think those who built in the years that have passed should be placed on an equal footing and should be given a remission of rates. I do not think the Deputies should be a party to what is really an act of injustice. The country can well afford to be as generous to those who built in the difficult years, and especially to those whose houses were destroyed and who were really the unlucky ones. By the destruction of their houses they were placed in the position of suffering for the whole body of citizens in this country.
I am very much indebted to Deputy McCullough for drawing my attention to what must have been due to my want of clearness. I did not, and I do not intend to, call anyone a bad egg. I did refer to the O.B.E., which is jocosely interpreted to mean, by Englishmen, the Order of the Bad Egg. I gave as a parallel that whereas in England the individual is rewarded for conspicuous services with the O.B.E., we might, perhaps, if the Constitution allowed us, give those who built houses in the difficult period the Order of the O.G.E., or the Order of the Good Egg.
There have been some extraordinary principles advocated here to-day. The most extraordinary was, I think, that it is incumbent on the legislative authority to impose upon a local authority the obligation of equalising the burden upon an industry by a variation in the rates according to the amount of capital, and the cost of the establishment of an industry in the particular area in which it would be set up. Certain industrial companies started to build, say, in April, 1920, instead of January, 1920, and because they finished within the period 1920-25, when prices would be higher than in the period 1925-28, or 1930, 1933 or 1940, the suggestion is that the rates must be used as an equalising factor. The local authorities must come to the aid of those companies by equalising the effect of the variation in currency rates.
We are asked that the local authority should come along to the aid of the manufacturer who happened to invest at a time when prices were high, so as to meet the competition of those who waited and who were able to purchase necessaries for their establishment at a time of low prices. That is a proposition which, I think, is a most extraordinary one to come from anyone in business. It is put forward here, and I would like to re-emphasise that this proposal was not in the Bill which left the Dáil. So far as the charge of injustice that Deputy McCullough made is concerned, he, as a member of the Dáil, has to bear part of the responsibility for allowing to go from the House a measure which would perpetuate an injustice. Apparently he is only now awaking to the fact that this injustice has been law and that it is now intended to remedy this injustice in so far as it affects those persons who started to put up buildings in 1920 and finished in 1923. The injustice that began before 1920 must continue. The injustice may continue after 1933, but between these times the Deputy——
On a point of order, that is not the argument. The argument is that an injustice is caused by making a reduction in favour of those who built after a certain date and not giving them the same advantage to those who started before that date. If you do away with the whole amendment there will be no injustice.
After a certain date, the date being 1st April, 1920. The Deputy has not taken the responsibility of voting against the Seanad amendment in toto. My own inclination would be to support him if he did. I am just as cowardly as he is in this matter, because I am not prepared to take the responsibility of saying to the building trades of the country that this inducement on future building should not be given in face of the statement made on the authority of the President and the Minister for Local Government, that such an inducement is required. They tell us that such an inducement for future building is necessary.
Until 1927.
I am not prepared, in face of that statement, to say: "No, I am not going to assist in making this gift to future builders," but so far as past building is concerned I am objecting to making this grant. The position under this amendment from the Seanad should be restated. There are certain buildings which were detroyed in 1916 and the reconstruction of which has taken place. I am speaking at the moment of Dublin. These buildings, though probably in many cases greatly improved and though they would be subject to revaluation on a much higher valuation than the pre-1916 valuation, are under the law exempt from revaluation until 1929. Now, the amendment of the Seanad proposes that when the valuation is brought up-to-date, in 1929, the occupier for the four succeeding years shall be only required to pay one-third of the rates. That is as it affects the reconstruction in O'Connell Street, of the damage done in 1916. Then we have the damage done in 1920. The new buildings are exempt from revaluation until 1930; they are paying on the old valuation. It is now proposed by this amendment to reduce the amount payable in rates to one-third of the new valuation for the three years succeeding 1930. That is in respect of Dublin damage in 1916 and 1920. Then we have other buildings which are not affected by either of these enactments, valued in the ordinary way. The amendment of the Seanad proposes that the occupiers shall pay only one-third of the rates from 1926 until 1933, a period of seven years, and that that remission is to apply to all premises built since 1920. The proposal does not affect specifically and solely buildings erected on sites where damage had been done, owing to the conflicts either during the British regime or during the civil war. Most of the arguments that have any validity have been used on the assumption that we were dealing only in this with reconstructed premises where there had been destruction owing to the civil strife. There has been no proposal from the Seanad or from the Ministry to make this exemption applicable to such premises and possibly for the very good reason that the awards that were made were made on the cost of reconstruction at recent prices. That is the reason that the Ministry has not proposed such an amendment as the Seanad has sent forward, to affect these premises which were reconstructed in the circumstances I have touched upon.
Deputy Good has told us that the number of dwelling-houses effected by this amendment of the Seanad is comparatively small, negligible almost, but people are talking as though you were penalising the occupiers of these houses and these people who took risks and built houses which at the time did not seem to be profitable. I think Deputy Good's contribution on that point has helped to clear some of the misconceptions. I repeat that the effect of the amendment of the Seanad is to relieve of rates factories that had been built within this period, factories which were not built out of any desire to stimulate industry or building, not out of any altruistic motive whatever, but for the profitable investment of surplus monies derived out of high profits made during the period of the war.
Exactly for the same reason that future building will be undertaken.
There has been no proposal from Deputy Figgis or any other Deputy that other classes of manufacturers or industrialists whose business did not require a large expenditure on building but required a large expenditure on machinery, for instance, should be relieved of anything because of the fact that they invested at the time of the high cost of machinery. Only buildings are to be relieved under this amendment.
I do think that is not a fair instance to give because there is no benefit to be conferred in the future on machinery. If there was it would be right to mention that particular instance so as to place the two on a parity.
The proposal is to insert in a Local Government Bill, a Bill dealing with the administration of local affairs, an amendment which is foreign to the purpose of the Bill, making a fiscal change affecting one very small section of the community. So far as factories are concerned, there have been a few factories built during this period, built not with a view to serving the public interest, not with a view to stimulating the building industry, but for the benefit of the manufacturers, who own these factories. The buildings which are mainly affected and the persons who are mainly beneficiaries under this section are the proprietors of banks, who have been confessedly making very heavy profits during these years out of other people's losses, and the proprietors of multiple shops and distributors of that kind. That is the kind of person and the kind of institution which is mainly getting the benefit of this section. Deputy Good spent a good deal of time to show us, taking the illustration of a tobacco factory, that under this section local authorities are going to benefit, that nothing is being taken from the local authority. Deputy Mulcahy also made a contribution to that effect, that nothing has been taken from the local authority.
If on a tobacco factory that was built last year, or the year before, rates have to be paid to the Dublin Corporation to the extent of £200, and by this enactment they were reduced to £65 or £70, or whatever the amount may be, you may not be taking the money from the local authority but you are preventing it going into their coffers, which is very nearly the same thing. Then we have the argument that by passing this enactment, so far as the future is concerned, you are likely to stimulate building. I have admitted, on the authority of the information at the disposal of the Minister, that it requires this kind of stimulus to induce future building.
Up to 1927, not 1930.
I will deal with that in a minute or two. What was the procedure adopted by the President a few months ago when we were dealing with the Housing Facilities Act? We introduced a clause at his instigation enabling local authorities to remit rates for a period of years, and when they wanted to stimulate building, generally to add to the area of valuation. We are not doing anything of that kind in this instance. We are not suggesting to the local authorities that they may, if they wish, remit taxation on new banks, factories and shops. We are telling them that they must, which is entirely different. Are we to be the judges whether a local authority in such and such a place ought to encourage the building of this, that or the other structure, or that if they allowed such building to be erected in the past they must remit rates?
That is what we are doing up to 1930.
The Minister intervenes and speaks of doing it up to 1930. Why are these years fixed? The argument of justice has been adduced. Why are you going to be just up to 1930, or for three or more years? Why do you then become unjust?
Because the cost of building should be cheaper then.
Should be.
And we hope, with Deputy Johnson's assistance that it will be.
If it is not, then again the local authority is to be called upon to adjust the burden on the manufacturer. It is the local authorities that are to be the equalising force, and rates are to be used to enable the profits of manufacturers to be regularly five, six or seven per cent. The Minister for Finance may have a view upon that. I cannot refrain from following Deputy Good into his pet subject of bricklayers. Bricklayers, poor bricklayers, are receiving £4 2s. 6d. a week in Dublin and £3 13s. 4d. in Manchester. Is it Deputy Good's desire that Manchester bricklayers should have their wages raised to £4 2s. 6d. because they are competing with Dublin bricklayers? As Deputy Magennis pointed out, there is 9/2 in the difference in the rate for a bricklayer who works a full week, and he also suggested, and I think it could easily be substantiated, that £3 13s. 4d. in Manchester would purchase more commodities of a similar quality there than £4 2s. 6d. would in Dublin. The poor bricklayer is always brought forward in an argument on these matters. I took some trouble recently to get some figures. The President told us that houses were built at a cost of £750 each. The bricklaying cost, however, the wages of the skilled operator, who gets £4 2s. 6d. a week, amount only to £30 out of the £750.
How much do the total wages cost amount to?
I am speaking of bricklaying. The Deputy did not choose a carpenter, slater, painter, plumber or plasterer.
The bricklayer is typical of the others.
I am telling the Deputy that skilled bricklayers' wages for building a house costing £750 amount to £30.
I tell the Deputy in return that the total cost of wages amount to more than half £750.
I have no doubt that is so. It has always been round about 50 per cent. of the total cost. The bricklayer is a poor man who has always thrown at him his own bricks. It is, we are told, the Dublin bricklayer who is responsible for the high cost of building. The Waterford bricklayer is paid 3½d per hour less than the Dublin bricklayer, and the Wexford bricklayer from 3½d. to 4d. per hour less. Has the building trade been so active and prosperous in Waterford and Wexford, as compared with Dublin, to enable the argument to be brought forward that if you bring the wages of bricklayers in Dublin down to the Waterford and Wexford rates there would be nothing to complain of?
It would bring down the cost of living.
However, this is the argument adopted in favour of the proposition, that it is necessary to stimulate building by reducing the valuation for a period ending 1933. The President has touched upon the question of the difference of the years of 1927, 1928, and 1930. The Vice-President had been impressed by the argument respecting the period. I am not very definitely bound to the longer period or to the shorter period, but I put it this way to the President for his consideration. Dealing with the proposition that building must be stimulated by this offer, suppose some industrial organisation begins thinking about building on the date that this Bill becomes law. It will be, say, six months before its plans are passed and everything ready to begin. That possibly is not the longest time to give. It is a fair time to allow to elapse between the moment the stimulus begins to act and the cutting of the first sod.
It would not be much longer.
Let us say four or five months. It may be possible that the active operations of this section would not begin immediately, and would take a month or two, but under the President's proposition you are going to crowd all the activities of the building trade into one or two years. Is that desirable? Of course, if the President maintains that it is desirable so to call upon the resources of the building trade, to carry on at full speed even more than it can conveniently carry on during that period, his argument is sound. I suggest, however, that it is worth considering whether the period of stimulus ought not to extend rather longer than two years from date. From that point of view I think there is something to be said in favour of the year 1930 as against 1927. One would have expected in having an amendment of this kind brought forward from the Seanad, supported so strongly as it has been by the President, that we should have heard either in the Seanad or here, some of the figures and facts relating to the effect of the section on rates. You may not know that you may be taking a leap in the dark in respect to the future, but in respect to retroactive effects, as Deputy Figgis has called them—retrospective, as I would call them——
I did not say "retrospective," and I say deliberately, much less "retroactive."
Deputy Figgis used the word "retroactive" two or three times before. I say we are looking back to 1920 in this matter, and if that is not "retrospective" I am using the word in the wrong sense. We are dealing with buildings erected in that period and with their valuation. We ought to have adduced the number, character, and valuation of these buildings. We should have some idea of the cost upon the local authority of this proposal in respect of buildings erected up to date. We have had nothing of the kind. We only know from observation that the bulk of the persons to be affected are banks, cinema proprietors and multiple shop owners.
Do we know that?
We do, from observation. It is the only fact that we can go on. We have had no other facts brought before us. It is obvious to all. I have stressed the point, and the argument put forward by several Deputies is, that people spent their money, who were good citizens, as Deputy McCullough said, by building during a period of higher prices, ought not to be prejudiced in favour of those people who waited and spent their money at periods of lower prices, and that, as a matter of justice, the local authorities should be called upon to make the levelling required in the interests of persons who invested their money at a time of high prices. I think the local authority should not be called upon to come to the aid of the investor in such circumstances. If the local authority is to be called upon it should be applicable to the other class of manufacturer who had to invest his money on capital expenditure of other kinds. In neither case do I believe this to be a good principle.
If there is to be any remission of that kind let Deputies produce it for the consideration of the Minister for Finance to deal with in his next Finance Bill. It is there that an equalisation proposal ought to be made and not in a local Government Bill of this kind. If it is suggested that there might be variations made in respect of schedules and incomes earned and unearned or losses sustained by virtue of the fact that the income tax payers and the companies concerned had to undertake abnormal expenditure during these years, put these proposals before the Minister for Finance, and let it be done under the authority of the Executive Council as a whole, and at the expense of the State. Do not throw it upon the local authorities, so that we can wash our hands of it and say, "You are the people who suffer. We do not mind." The President told us in his opening speech that he had so arranged, or, at least he did not say so but allowed us to infer, that he had made such arrangements that this amendment sent down by the Seanad would pass.
No.
The organiser of victory had been mobilised and Deputies, apparently, have changed their opinion. Instead of using all his influence to induce people to vote he is using all his influence to induce them not to vote. He has advised those people who voted for the amendment to the Seanad amendment kindly to stay away to-day.
No, not a single one.
The thanks that are to be given to the localities and to the small ratepayers for the response to the President's appeal is to impose upon them a larger burden of rates for the next three years than they would have to bear if this section did not pass.
I am afraid I must dispute that. I am not putting anything on after 1927.
Even two years might be called a few years. The President is quite wrong, of course, because this amendment, as a whole, deals with the period up to 1933. I say to the Dáil that the case for this amendment as a whole has not been made. The Seanad amendment as a whole has not been proved to my satisfaction to be either equitable or just. In face of the President's statement that something is required to stimulate building in future——
1927.
In future. Something is required to stimulate building from now to 1927, in the President's words, and he has no other machinery. He cannot induce the Minister for Finance to stimulate it out of his National Budget, but proposes to ask the local authorities to do it. I am not going to take the responsibility of refusing that, but, in so far as past buildings are concerned, buildings out of which the owners have been making profits, I refuse to agree to the proposition that they should be exempt because buildings cost more money two years ago than they would to-day. The case for fixing April 1, 1920, has not been made. I do not know why. No explanation has been given why that date has been fixed. The only suggestion was that prices were at their peak at that time. They were very nearly at their peak in 1919. People who built in 1919 or in January or February, 1920, are not going to get any benefit.
Has the Deputy ever heard a saying that has achieved an amount of fame and notoriety in Ireland, that sometime, and somewhere, and by someone a beginning has to be made? There must be some date stated.
1925.
As Deputy Magennis points out, a date has been stated which the Dáil has accepted. Is the argument adduced in favour of the proposal, which Deputy Figgis has supported, that because costs were highest in 1920, and, as Deputy Good states, they are 25 per cent. lower now, then at some date previous to the peak they were higher than they are now?
There is a considerable range between 25 per cent. less than the peak and the peak, and for some time anterior to April, 1920, prices were higher than they are to-day. It is suggested that we should have a sliding scale, that as prices come down for building costs, the dates should recede, so that there will be an equivalent; that the cost of building in 1919 was the same as it was in 1925, and between that date and this date we will have an equalization through the medium of rating. Unless Deputy Good and Deputy Figgis argue thus they have no case. And they have not argued thus. No justification has been given for making the date April, 1920. I cannot refrain from quoting from the Ministry of Local Government when they told every local authority and every member of a local authority, inferentially, in the year 1923, that
all new works not urgently required should be rejected or postponed until a substantial improvement is effected in the condition of existing works. No new works other than those vitally necessary should be undertaken during the present period of financial stringency.
New works might have been undertaken but for the advice of the Government in this matter. Work is now to be stimulated by a reduction in the annual charge for rates. So be it. I am accepting that proposition as from now onwards, but if people, despite the advice of the Government, erected new buildings—eliminating houses and including, almost wholly, buildings of the type that we have mentioned: banks, multiple shops, cinemas and insurance companies' establishments—no case has been made for relieving them of two-thirds of the valuation for a period of years until 1933 which could not be made to relieve them of the same amount of rates perpetually. I ask the House to stand by the amendment that was carried in Committee and to reject the President's motion.
There is some slight error with regard to the period of peak prices. It was said that 1920 was the time of peak prices. That is not so. The time of peak prices was before 1920 when timber and building materials were hardly procurable. We had and timber in 1920. Previous to that they could hardly be procured at all. They could be procured at a reasonable price in 1920 as compared with other years. We heard the word "justice" used to-day. It is strange that it took the Seanad to discover injustice in this Bill. It was strange that the wise men in the Dáil—and we have wise men—did not see this. Factories have been mentioned and the only case made has been made for them, obviously for the reason that they are of public benefit. I take it that if a case has been made for a factory we ought to leave it at that. Factories, no doubt, are a public benefit when they are working. If we are to adopt this principle of asking somebody else to carry our load we ought to confine it to factories.
In this amendment we are asking somebody else to carry our load. The builders went out a few years ago as a matter of pure speculation in many instances. We have seen estates built on, between here and Dalkey, and those speculators who thought it good business to build are going to be relieved of rates. I suggest that it is not factories that are in men's minds when they are making this case. I suggest that only to a small extent does the question of factories arise.
The estates the Deputy mentioned between Dublin and Dalkey do not come within this Bill.
Very well. I disagree with the principle of the whole section. It amounts to this: we want somebody else to carry our load. The person living in a house built any time prior to 1920 is a fool or is in a better position to carry our load than we are ourselves. That is not playing the game. It is asking one section of the community to subsidise another and to carry its load. I disagree with the whole section and with this amendment from the Seanad, and I think it ought not to be sanctioned. It has no element of justice in it. The word I would apply to it would be a different word altogether. I will vote against the amendment.
As far as I can follow the arguments put forward against the Seanad amendment, they have reference to the areas from which the speakers come. I should like to speak from the local or parochial point of view also on this matter. As you are all aware, the City of Cork was burned down in 1921. Naturally, an amount of unemployment was caused thereby. A reconstruction committee was formed to rebuild the city as quickly as possible. Every effort was made, when the compensation claims were paid, to get the work carried out. Deputation after deputation came up here to the Government to try and push on the work on behalf of the unemployed who were walking the streets of Cork. Nothing could be done. All honour to the men who, at that particular period, stepped into the breach and put up buildings to give badly-needed employment. Those people are carrying on business, I am sorry to state, at a considerable loss, in consequence of the bad state of trade in the city. Is it not an awful state of affairs to think that in that city since then you have huts which were erected by people who were large shop owners, and that these people are paying no rates whatever to the Corporation of Cork or to the Commissioner? That is why I say that the men who had the pluck and the courage to step into the breach and to put up their buildings should not be penalised for having put them up, when the men who are going to build next week will be partially exempt as they have been exempt since the destruction of the property. I say it is grossly unfair.
I notice that Deputy Johnson said that he is afraid if this amendment is passed all the building will be crowded into the period in which exemption is given. In Cork at that time we thought it would be necessary to import men to cope with all the building. Unfortunately, not half the available men were employed. Some of the buildings are up now and others are in progress. Surely if some of those people put up their building when there was a danger that it might be demolished again, they should not be penalised by being made pay a rate at a certain valuation from which people who build next week are to get an exemption? I say that is unfair.
We have listened to a torrent of eloquence for and against this amendment. Unfortunately, I feel myself unable to support this amendment, and I do not think it would be right for me to give a silent vote. It is with very great regret I find myself unable to support it. Deputy Gorey made a remark with which I agree, that it is a wonder it did not occur to the framers of the Bill to deal with this point before it was introduced. It was left to the Seanad to discover it. That seems to me to be a reflection on the intelligence of the Dáil. No doubt, there is some explanation which, perhaps, if it is worth while, we may get later on. I am totally opposed to the principle. While it may be quite right—and no doubt is—to encourage building in the future in every possible way, I cannot see that it is just or equitable to introduce a retrospective clause. Why should it be confined to one sort of industry? Why should it not extend to all? In the years mentioned many people did patriotic things, besides engaging in building. They expended money in other ways and they are not claiming, nor would they think of claiming, a remission of rates. Why should the people who built, because they thought it was a good thing for their own business, get remission of rates? They may have been animated by patriotic feelings, but still they would hardly have built if they thought they would be at a loss. In those years there were many people who bought land at a very high rate—far too high a rate. Are they going to get a remission of rates, because that land is not now the value it was then? The question does not bear examination. In the year 1919 many farmers lost money through the season being wet, although it was not as bad a season as last season. But wages were high and they suffered heavy losses. Are they to be reimbursed for those losses by remission of rates? The thing is ridiculous. One could enlarge on this subject, but it all comes to this: Is it right to go back and give a remission of rates for a certain period of years to one set of people and not to all? I say it is not. I regret that I cannot see that it would be just or equitable to support any such recommendation, even though it bears the impress of the President, whom I respect as everybody else does. On point of principle, I cannot vote for this amendment. It may be just and right to give every inducement to people to build in the time to come, but it would be unfair, in my opinion, to go back and extend the same concession to those who have built.
I voted against this amendment on the last occasion, and I desire now to explain why I am going to vote for it on this occasion. Unfortunately, I have been absent from the Dáil for some time. When I came back last Wednesday, the debate on this amendment was proceeding and I only heard the argument against it. To-day I have heard from the President, Deputy Good and Deputy Figgis, arguments in favour of it, with which I am in complete accord. From the genuine labour point of view, it is much better to encourage people to build than to prevent them. This amendment gives a certain amount of encouragement to people to build. We have had a lot of patriots in the country from 1898 and we have patriots amongst the farming community. They were so patrotic since 1920 that they refused to till their land in order to give employment. Now we find Deputy Wolfe suggesting that they should be subsidised for the service they rendered to the State; I suppose he means by placing so many people on the Labour Exchange. Since 1920 a very dark cloud passed over this country. People who gave employment by building, at a time when they did not know whether or not the place they had built would be blown up, deserve some recognition. Why are you going to deprive the man who built since 1920 of the remission of two-thirds of his rate and grant that facility to the man who starts to build in 1925, when law in the country is well established?
I certainly fail to see why the Dáil should go against the amendment of the Seanad, that is to make it retrospective since 1921. I would be in favour of holding up the whole section. If an amendment had been put forward to reject the whole section I would be in favour of it. We are told that we would be penalising the local authorities, who will not be able to collect or get in the amount of the rates they have been getting of late years, and so will not be able to give so much employment as heretofore. That is a point that some Deputies raised. To my mind, by giving facilities to people to build either business premises, whether wholesale or retail, or any other such buildings, you will be encouraging them to give more employment, and by this means you will have far more people employed than might be dismissed by the local authorities owing to lack of funds caused by this amendment. Deputy Gorey spoke about makers of potato kishes. I would like to remind Deputy Gorey that if he is familiar with manufacturers of potato kishes I am not.
Has not a potato-kish maker as much right as a builder?
A potato-kish manufacturer is a tradesman. Deputy Gorey, in the coursing field, I am sure has often seen two greyhounds slipped. We have seen two Ministers here, one going one way and one going the other way—
And one Deputy going two ways is more marvellous than two Ministers going opposite ways.
Not when that one Deputy has been convinced that the way he is going now is the true way.
The hare has changed his course.
Yes, and he is going now in the right direction. As far as my vote is concerned I intend to vote in favour of the amendment simply for the purpose of encouraging people to give employment to the large number of people who are unemployed at present and to keep them from looking for the dole at the Labour Exchange. I am sorry to say that a great many of these have been knocked off lately. I think if the Dáil accepts this amendment about the remission of rates it is as equitable to have that amendment apply to houses built since 1921 as to houses built from 1925 onwards. That will not mean anything extra. It will not mean handing back money from the local authorities to the people who have paid it. The rates that have been paid are somewhat similar to the water that has flown under the bridge, never again to return. That is quite true. It can never again be returned to those who paid it. I think the Dáil will be doing right and justice and assisting employment by encouraging the people who, in the slack times through which we have passed, erected those buildings. Consequently I am going to support this amendment.
took the Chair.
I agree with Deputy Lyons, although I have a clearer conscience than he has, because I did not vote on this amendment when it was before the Dáil previously. In the building of houses that are so necessary and which entail so much employment every encouragement should be given. Some of the arguments that I have heard to-day remind me very forcibly of an old saying in the country that eaten bread is soon forgotten. When the people in the country were not in employment in 1920 or 1921, and when it was dangerous to start building, I say that those people who had the courage to come along then and start building operations should not now be forgotten. Every inducement that could be held out to the builder or the capitalist to invest his money in the erection of houses which would give employment, should be held out to him. Stress has been laid on the need for an incentive to builders. I think the Government should show some gratitude to those people who in those dark days came out and gave employment and so relieved the economic pressure. Furthermore, they relieved the houseless people, and people are now living in those houses who would be in the slums or homeless altogether if these houses had not been built. Then, again, you had factories built in Dublin. You had factories built in Cork, and at the present moment factories are in course of construction there, thanks to the judicious way in which the Minister for Finance handled his Budget last year. I refer to the boot factory that is being built. I am in favour of making this clause retrospective, because I think that, after all, the men who spent their money would feel that they had an incentive to do the same in the future if the representatives of the people now show them that they were grateful to those who in very dark days ventured to serve them. I will vote for the amendment.
I move that the question be now put.
I want to say a few words.
DEPUTIES
Vote, vote.
Deputy Egan claims to move that the question be now put. Has Deputy Connor Hogan anything to say against my accepting that?
I do not agree
Has the Deputy any point to make against the acceptance of Deputy Egan's motion?
Yes, because a case has not been put forward for the landed interests.
I accept Deputy Egan's motion.
May I suggest that although Deputy Davin is not here, and I have not had an opportunity of consulting him, I think Deputy Davin would not object in any way to forego his claim for private members' time as a whole for to-day, and that the discussion might now continue until 4 o'clock.
And that the question be put before 4 o'clock?
Yes.
If Deputy Davin were agreeable so that the matter could go into private members' time—it was arranged to begin at 3 o'clock—I would allow Deputy Connor Hogan to speak, but if at 3 o'clock Deputy Davin claims his right I would be—
I think I may say without any hesitation that Deputy Davin will accept that proposition.
Will Deputy Egan yield on that point?
Certainly.
The President's motion is in a sense unprecedented. The Dáil on Wednesday accepted Deputy Johnson's amendment in place of the amendment that had come from the Seanad. To-day, on the Report Stage, we are asked to change our vote of two days ago, reverting to the original proposition. It is rather unprecedented and I was rather unaware that the rules of the Dáil permitted such a thing.
The Deputy is under a misapprehension. It is not unprecedented. It is done very frequently. A decision is come to in Committee. That decision is reported to the Dáil. The Dáil may reverse the decision. In fact the usefulness of the Report Stage comes in precisely there. Decisions come to in Committee may be reversed afterwards without any special notice or the support of any special number of Deputies.
In seeking permission to speak I asked that the Dáil should not accept this amendment. On the motion that the question be put I said that the case had not in reality been put forward for the landed interests and I am deputed to do it. We have always put forward the claim, and we have always stood for the contention that the land is unjustly rated, and that the incidence of local taxation is unfair to the landed interests. Yet what are we asked to do now in the proposal before An Dáil?
Land will still continue to bear the same valuation but not necessarily to bear the same rates, because the rates will be advanced. Yet buildings which have been erected — factories, cinemas, theatres, shops, even garages—since April 1st, 1920, will benefit by this proposed section. Any building which has been substantially enlarged or improved will likewise benefit. That is not a fair proposition to put up to the agricultural community. I accept in a large measure what Deputy Gorey says about factories. I do protest, however, against the proposal that buildings erected for pleasure and to make profit out of the inclinations of some people should benefit, and that the working people shall have to make good the difference.
The case was made by Deputy Good that it was more advantageous to a local authority to have a factory erected than to have a cabbage garden. If the proposal before the Dáil were accepted that would be a doubtful question. The matter does not really end with the erection of the factory. Large charges have to be borne by the local authority. Roads have to be constructed, mains have to be laid for water, gas and electricity. All these things are very costly. The question is, whether the one-third of the rates that will be paid will meet all that expenditure. It is very doubtful. I have no figures to go into the matter, but from what we know as to the cost of making roads and carrying out services which local authorities are bound by law to provide, it is questionable whether the local authority will benefit. At some time, which we can yet scarcely visualise, the local authority may benefit, but, I submit, it will not benefit immediately.
The case put up by Deputy Figgis as to the retroactive side of it has been in a large measure met by the Minister for Justice. Deputy Good, I submit, let himself down when he said that buildings being erected at present cost 25 per cent. less. It is true that the Deputy made a great point in favour of the retroactive part of this. On the other hand, he demolished the idea that the principle should be extended. As a matter of fact he put forward what I conceive to be a great argument against the insertion of the section at all. If the cost of building is down 25 per cent. now as compared with any time within the past five years, it is not a reasonable inference that the cost will continue to fall, and that the need for this concession will, in a large measure, disappear.
I have heard of very few failures amongst those firms in the past four or five years. If they have weathered the storm until this, can we not look forward with a great degree of certainty to their being able to weather it in future? The point has been made that old-established firms benefit by having a lower valuation. I submit that that is hardly a good argument. I ask any business man whether, if he had his choice, he would take an old concern or a modern one, even with the disadvantage of a higher valuation. I submit that he would take the newly-built premises with modern equipment even with the penalty of a higher valuation. I will put this question to Deputy Figgis: What percentage of the cost of production do the rates on any building represent? I submit that they represent a very small percentage, that it is so infinitesimal that it might be regarded as negligible. Deputy Figgis emphasised the fact that the old-established firm had a manifest advantage over a competitor starting in business with this handicap of a high valuation. I asked him from what did he draw that conclusion, but he failed to answer me. He asked me how would I explain the conundrum. I have now got some figures about certain firms in Dublin which come within the scope of this section, if adopted by the Dáil. I find, from Thom's Directory, that the valuation of Clery's is £2,880; Switzer's, £1,330; Arnott's, £2,850, and on some isolated premises £260; Pim's, £2,300; Todd Burns, £550. These are comparative figures for business houses in Dublin.
When were they built?
Mr. HOGAN
Clery's was only built within the last few years. It is less than three years since it was opened, yet the valuation is only £2,880. Pim's, perhaps, was built 50 or 60 years ago, and yet its valuation is £2,300.
Dublin was revalued in 1914. That does not apply to any other place in the Saorstát, with the exception of Waterford, and the new valuation has not come into force there.
Mr. HOGAN
I agree. Although these premises were revalued in 1914, I put it to the President, if he were investing his money in a business premises, whether he would buy Clery's, with a valuation of £2,880, or Pim's, with a valuation of £2,300. Which is the better concern? I am not speaking now so much with reference to the amount of business done in these concerns, but I ask, which of them, as a building, has the greater possibilities and the greater potentialities? Take the case of Messrs. Guinness. The valuation of their premises is put down at £12,314. In the newspapers the other day I saw that the stock market was expecting a dividend of something like 30 per cent on the capital of this firm. What is the capital of Messrs. Guinness, and, I put it to Deputy Figgis, what is their output? I leave it to him to ascertain that point. How much, I ask, will the rates on a valuation of £12,000 odd represent? What will the percentage for overhead charges and the cost of production be on the price of a pint? Why, the profits of Messrs. Guinness run into millions, and yet these are people who, if they have enlarged their premises since 1920, or have built new premises, will benefit automatically under this proposed section. I am not grudging that to them as a matter of ethics, but I am putting forward the argument that, taking their case as an example, this is hardly a fair proposition to put before the Dáil.
Then you are not anxious for the encouragement of trade?
I am a tee-totaller. The position is much the same down the country. Very few factories have been built down the country, but by those engaged in the retail and distributive trade there have been very great extensions of their business premises. The men who control these trades deal in the commodities which the agricultural population either require or sell, and these are a class of people who will benefit by this proposed section. The effect of this, if it is passed, will be that you will narrow and restrict the incidence of local taxation and you will do that at the expense of the poorer classes. You let off the rich and the well-to-do, the bigmonied people, and I think I might go so far as to say that, by this, you will give a fillip and a new lease of life to the profiteers.
This amendment, if accepted, will put the rich and the well-to-do in a more privileged and favoured position than they occupy at present, and it will operate against the poor peasantry in the Saorstát. I would ask the Dáil to remember this fact, that the man who has a publichouse in a local village in the country also uses the licensed premises as his place of residence, the valuation of which may be anything from ten to fifteen pounds a year. There are very few of these houses which would be valued at more than fifteen pounds a year. Consider, then, the case of a poor, wretched farmer living two or three miles away from that village. He may be feeding two or three cows, and the valuation on his land is perhaps fifteen pounds a year. He is rated, in addition, on the house in which he lives, which may be either a hovel or a comparatively decent house. The publican in the village, to whom I referred, may have a turnover in his trade from ten to fifty times greater than that of the poor peasant, and yet he only pays the local authority pretty much the same amount of rates as the poor farmer. There is just the difference of the agricultural grant, which is very, very small at the present time.
I put it to Deputies who represent agricultural constituencies, whether they are prepared to stand over the proposition that business men who have made large profits out of their business, profits so large that they have been able to extend their premises, should get this remission in the rates which are rightly due on their premises to the local authority. I maintain that the proposition is one which cannot be sustained, because it is manifestly unjust. I am rather surprised at the attitude that Deputy Lyons has taken up on this. He stated to-day that he will vote in favour of the President's amendment, while he was of a different opinion a few days ago.
I said to-day that I would vote in favour of the amendment because I have been convinced by the arguments which I have heard to-day put forward in support of it. As Deputies know, I came here the last day after having been absent for a very long time, and then I only heard the arguments against the amendment.
I understood Deputy Lyons to say that the remission of these rates would help on building, but let me point out to him what the President's amendment proposes to do as contrasted with Deputy Johnson's. Deputy Johnson's amendment proposes that this section shall operate in the case of houses built between 1925 and 1930, while the President's amendment is that it shall only operate as from 1920 to 1927. In other words, that the section shall only apply for two years more. I cannot understand Deputy Lyons's attitude on this matter when it is considered that Deputy Johnson's amendment would encourage building for the next five years, while the President's only proposes to give assistance during the next two years. Does Deputy Lyons think that it is better only to encourage building for two years rather than for five years? Which, I ask, would be the better proposition for the tradesman and the labourer? Obviously, of course, Deputy Johnson's would, and yet Deputy Lyons says that he is in favour, of the President's amendment.
The Minister for Local Government told us a few days ago that we should be just and equitable. It is curious how, sub-consciously, the Minister can be influenced in his language in his dual professional role as barrister and politician. Certainly, we need to be just, but scarcely I think in the sense that he desires us. He has not put forward any case as to why we should accept this proposal. I have a distinct hostility to the idea which underlies all these doles and subsidies. They are not just to the local authority, and in the higher sense they are scarcely just to the State. I pointed out on the last day that there was something in the nature of pauperism about this. It contains the principle of pauperism, and I submit it is a very dangerous precedent for us to adopt. I see no reason why, if a man down the country decides to extend his business, he should be helped by the remission of rates that are justly due to the local authority, and at the expense, too, of the agricultural community. To give relief of the kind proposed in the case of a man who wants to have up-to-date business premises, is not fair to the proprietors of older establishments. These latter would be handicapped of course by having inferior business premises when competing against men with modernly equipped business houses. It is unfair, I say, that one class of competitor should be subsidised at the expense of another competitor, and that is really what the President's amendment amounts to.
The point appears to me to be this, that you have, as I know, in many streets in many towns in Ireland, a number of persons whose houses were blown up during the Black-and-Tan régime, as it was generally called. I know of two cases in a particular town where they were blown up as official reprisals. I went down there in 1922 and I asked the people, in these two cases, who were friends of the Treaty, and who stood for the stability of the State, and tried to help the State in functioning, for God's sake to try and relieve unemployment by going on with their buildings. I did that in a good many other towns in Kerry as well. These people did what I asked. Other people held their money in their hands because they were anxious that unemployment should continue in order that it might hamper the Government in its work, and in order that they might try to create chaos. The one set of persons went along and built their houses at the greater cost of something like 25 per cent., I would say an addition of about £400 on a £2,500 house. The other men drew their rate of interest and they will now build and get the benefit of this particular section. The man who took his courage in both hands—and it did take some courage down there—and expended a greater amount of money than he would have to expend if he waited to build until now, is not going to get any benefit from this section. That is how it appears to me. I do not need to philosophise whether retrospective legislation is good or bad. The things I have mentioned are the things that faced me, and that is where I stand. It is not fair that a man who did the decent thing a couple of years ago, and relieved unemployment in this particular area, so far as he could, should not get the same fair crack of the whip as the other man who held back until now gets.
The case just made by the Minister for Fisheries, to my mind, stands out head and shoulders over other matters which would be covered by this amendment. I can quite see the case, as he put it forward, so far as destroyed buildings are concerned in certain areas, and I will admit— and I think our party will admit—that these are cases which should receive special attention and consideration from the Government, and we are willing to support the Government so far as these are concerned. But we are not willing that this Bill should be amended so that the application of the section should benefit people other than those, and especially people like the big combines that came into this country in recent years.
Deputy Daly, in the course of his statement, said that a red herring was being deliberately drawn across the track of men who intended to build houses. I do not know how Deputy Daly or anyone else could make such a statement, because Deputy Johnson already proposed an amendment, the acceptance of which will act as an incentive to anybody who will build a house in the next five years. Anybody who built a house or a factory since 1920 did it with his eyes open, and I have yet to learn that the great combine of John Player & Son is sufficiently philanthropic to come over to Dublin and build a factory in order to provide employment for Irish workers. One of the reasons they came over was to make more profit than they were making out of the sale of their cigarettes in Ireland.
Did they give employment?
They did give employment, but factories of that kind were built because the owners came over in consequence of certain regulations that had been made by the Minister of Finance which prevented them, prior to their arrival here, selling their cigarettes at the same price as formerly. They did give employment, and they gave that employment irrespective of whether this amendment is put in or not, and they would continue to give employment whether this amendment is put in or not, and I feel certain that they made no representation to the Government to the effect that they were not making a profit and that they should receive a subsidy from the local authorities, because that is what it means.
Deputy Good has tried to educate this House as to what retrospective means, and he tried to get some people to believe that some of us thought that the retrospective clauses of this amendment meant that the local authorities would have to pay back rates collected in the past three or four years. None of us understood it in that light. We realise that rates once collected cannot be paid back. But estimates for the last three or four months have been prepared, and have been based on the new estimated valuation in consequence of certain buildings and factories erected in certain towns, and interference with these estimates would now be a very serious thing so far as the public authorities are concerned. If the valuation is to be altered—of course the valuation itself will not be altered— but the income from the valuation—it will materially affect every ratepayer in the district because when you have a certain valuation for two or three years and estimates are prepared on that valuation, as has been done all over the country, it means now that the ratepayers will have to make up the difference in consequence of those people being remitted two-thirds of their rates.
I do not think that the President has made any better case to-day than he did on Wednesday last, and I cannot see, for a moment, what he said to-day that so affected Deputy Lyons's mind. I do not think that Deputy Lyons heard many of the arguments here to-day for or against this amendment, yet he has changed his mind.
I have heard all the arguments to-day and it must be Deputy Corish who was absent. I have not left the chamber for five minutes to-day.
If Deputy Corish means that I spoke to Deputy Lyons I may say that I did not speak to him, directly or indirectly.
I had not anything like that in my mind.
I explained on the last day I did not hear the President speak but I did hear his arguments to-day.
I must congratulate the President. Deputy Michael Egan certainly made a special case for Cork, and I would agree that Cork should receive special consideration, but not in the way suggested in this amendment. Certainly the people in Cork, when their houses were destroyed, suffered a certain amount of consequential damage for which they were not compensated. I do think these people should receive special consideration from the Government, but I object to the retrospective clauses in this amendment. I am as anxious, and my party is as anxious, as anybody to offer some incentive to people to build. But persons who built in the past built with their eyes open knowing all the circumstances that prevailed and I have yet to learn that they are at any loss for having built.
Tá géarghá le tithe sa tir. Ní mór 40,000 tigh nua ar a luíod igcóir muintir na hEireann. Isé ar dtuairim gur ceart don Rialtas cabhrú leis nn daoine atá toilteanach chun tithe do sholáthar, ach cad 'na thaobh go dtabharfimís airgead do dhaoine atá tar éis tithe do thógaint cheana féin? Na daoine go mbeadh ortha an t-airgead san do dhíol cad a gheobhdís dá bhárr agus na tithe gur 'na gcóir a tabharfaí é ann cheana? Do chualamair cainnt i dtaobh na honóra ba cheart a thabhairt do dhaoine a dhin monarchana agus siopaí do thógaint le ceithre bliana anuas. Ní har mhaithe le n-a gcomharsain a thógadar iad ach ar mhaithe leo féin agus chun a ngnó féin do chur chun cinn. Isé mo thuairim-se ná beadh ann ach dícéille airgead do dhíol leo súd i dtaobh rud do dhéanamh ná raibh ann ach gnáth-ghnó. Nílim róshásta leis an leasú a thairg Tomás Mac Eoin. Cé gur ceart cabhrú le daoine a thógfidh tithe i rith an chúpla bliain seo chughainn, nuair a bheidh géar-ghá le hobair, ní fheicim-se cad 'na thaobh go dtabharfaí congnamh do dhaoine ná tosnóidh ar thithe do dhéanamh go ceann trí no ceathair de bhlianta.
I move:—"That the Question be now put."
The amendment is: "To delete the figures ‘1925' and ‘1930,' and to substitute therefor the figures ‘1920' and ‘1927' respectively."
Tá
- Seamus Breathnach.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John Daly.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Ui Dhrisceóil.
- Michael Egan.
- Darrell Figgis.
- John Good.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Criostóir. O Broin.
- Sean O Bruadair.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Seamús O Doláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraic O Maille.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Liam Thrift.
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Connor Hogan.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mac Aonghusa.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O-Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Donchadh O Guaire.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- O hUigín, Caoimhghin.
- Patrick J. Egan.
That is the only amendment. The question, therefore is: "That the Report, as amended, be agreed to."
I take it that it is not intended to take up Deputy Davin's motion until Wednesday?
I suppose Deputy Davin will agree to leave it over until Wednesday?
I agree to that.
The Dáil adjourned at 3.45 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, March 18th.