There is a case theoretically for revaluation, because naturally conditions have changed substantially since the time the Griffith valuation was made, and naturally the question has come up for consideration since the change of Government. But it is a very big and a costly job, and would occupy a very considerable period in carrying out. The argument that influenced the Government very much against seriously considering putting it in hands has been this, that agricultural conditions were very much disturbed during the war, and in fact economic conditions generally are in a rather abnormal condition. It is felt that general re-valuation should only be undertaken after there has been some years of as great a degree of agricultural normality as possible.
It would have been, for instance, obviously absurd to have carried out revaluation, say, in 1920 or 1921. Everything that would have been done then would soon have been very much more out of date than the Griffith valuation is even at the present time. And while, of course, things are not so very abnormal as they were, say, in 1920, nevertheless it is felt that some time should be allowed to elapse after reaching normal conditions before we would undertake this enormous task. I am speaking from memory now, but I think the Estimate made, after some little consideration by the Government, was that revaluation would cost three-quarters of a million, and would occupy eight or nine years or some period like that. The undertaking of a task like that is very big and should only be entered upon when it is felt with reasonable certainty that the result would be something that would have validity for a good period after the work is carried out.
It is very difficult for anyone to say how revaluation would affect the various areas. There are areas where one can say with reasonable certainty the valuation would be reduced. It is possible that some of the areas that Deputy O'Connell has in mind would have their valuation increased. On the other hand I think there are areas on the seaboard, where possibly what Deputy MacEntee said is right, that the allowance for having seaweed was greater than would be made now.
I am speaking personally when I say I met cases where the valuation is rather high on the sea coast as compared with land one mile or half a mile inland. I do not think that whatever revaluation would do it would go any distance towards solving the difficulties of the agricultural community. I think most probably what you would find as a result of revaluation would be that one patch had its valuation reduced by 25 per cent. and another patch had its valuation increased by 25 per cent. I am speaking relatively. Probably the whole nominal valuation would be substantially increased. But coming to relative figures, you would only have perhaps a decrease of 25 per cent., or it may be that on some of the wheat lands which were very highly valued the decrease would be a little larger and would give some relief to individuals, but it would not have a great effect on the whole agricultural position. Rates are important, but they are not so all-important as to cause a relatively minor change in the rating burden to be a solution of the difficulties of the agricultural community.
