If one were to judge by the very bored expressions of the Deputies supporting the Minister on this measure during his statement, one would say that the measure had been approved by the Party with reluctance. The Minister made a fairly long statement with regard to the case for this measure. The case would appear to have been put up by experts, and it is on a par with most of what can be read in connection with reports of commissions upon questions of valuation during the last 30 or 40 years. It may, however, be of interest to the House to know that this question of revaluation was considered in Northern Ireland as early as 1923. It was submitted to a departmental commission—not perhaps the most favourable kind of commission that might consider it, because it was composed principally of officials of the various Departments of State in the service of the Northern Government. They brought in a report giving, to the best of their judgment and opinion the steps that should be taken to deal with those anomalies that have been mentioned by the Minister, those cases in which there were revised and unrevised valuations, and various other things, but there was one point they stressed more than another, that they had at that time in Northern Ireland reached the peak of local as well as national taxation. It was refreshing to read that coming from a number of officials. If it had come from a number of business people, or from persons who were taxed, whether they like it or not, it might not have the same force. There were other commissions dealing with the same subject, until eventually a Bill was introduced in the Northern Parliament for revaluation, and the case made for it there was that it was by no means a voluntary action on the part of the Government, that, as far as they were concerned, if they had their choice they would not introduce it. There were good reasons, they thought, for coming to that decision.
It would appear, if one were closely to examine and analyse the statement of the Minister in connection with this case, that he indicted the Valuation Office. The revised valuations are wrong, the unrevised valuations are wrong, everything would appear to be wrong, notwithstanding the fact that he has said that something like four per cent. of the valuations fall for consideration every year. If that has gone on for a period of something like 80 years, at least half the valuations must have come under consideration during that period. Perhaps much less than half of the original valuations made in 1852 or 1855 stand at the old figure. The case to be made for this Bill is of importance, but it should be flanked by proofs of injustice, of such a character, and such number, as would warrant the revaluation of the country. This is an unexpected measure. That point is as important as the one made by the Minister, that the natural or regular revision of valuations should take place. If, over a period of 40 or 50 years, property comes on the market and is purchased, according to the lease, the valuation, and the condition of the property, and if people buy it with their eyes open, it is nonsense to say that those who bought it, no matter how much it has increased in value, have not paid a fair share. They bought it in the open market at the highest price at which it could be bought, and it is those from whom they bought have escaped, by reason of the low valuation put on such property.
Now, this measure proposes to deal with any inequality, and to tax those who paid the full price, whereas the persons who got the advantage have possibly left the country or gone to some other place. There are two questions involved in this measure, (1) the case for the Bill; (2), whether this is the time for it. The overriding decision of all is: Are the proposals in the Bill to deal with re-valuation equitable? Is the Bill itself an equitable Bill? Is it fair to the people? Will its passage do more harm than good, in so far as the general condition of employment in the country is concerned? My impression, for what it is worth, is that this measure is likely to have a very unsettling effect upon business and employment, generally. Looking over the returns of the national income it is quite clear that our national income has declined, and has been declining for some years. The revenue from our external investments has fallen, and is likely to fall. I do not make that as a mere prophetic statement, but, rather, having regard to the trend of events and, if I might add, following a speech I read recently which was made by some member of the Ministry on the subject.
The sums of money employed, either in purchasing Saving Certificates or lodged in the post office, show considerable contraction during the last twelve months. The general report amongst business people is that at Christmas, 1938, business was not up to the usual standard, and that there has been no improvement since that date. The number of persons engaged in agricultural employment has diminished in the last few years. It is in such circumstances that we have to consider this measure, because, if we are to interpret what the Minister stated, there is no doubt whatever but the re-valuation of this country is going to be increased by anything from 30 to 75 per cent. over the present quotation.
I do not at all subscribe to the thesis of the Minister, that big valuations are an advantage to a municipality or a local authority, or that they add to their credit. What stands to the credit of a local authority is its efficient management, the fact that it meets its liabilities when they arise, and that its business is done according to the accepted canons of public administration. One could multiply the valuation of any given place by the stroke of a pen, but that does not add to the wealth of the local authority. It might be misleading, and, in these matters of credit and credit worthiness, anything which tends to mislead is always looked upon with suspicion. According to the terms of the section in this measure dealing with valuations, which the Minister told us are the same as those embodied in the original Valuation Act, the cadastre has to be considered according to the net annual value. But there is more than that in it. There is one particular clause of Section 19 which states that should a person be in occupation of premises, at a higher rent than would be paid for it by any other person, the rent being paid is to be regarded as the net annual rent.
In other words, there are four houses together let at £20 a year; one man wants a house and he is prepared to pay £30 for it and he goes into it at £30. According to this measure the net annual value of that house is £10 more than any of the others. If we are to have an equitable consideration of this matter we have got to consider whether it is the individual that we are going to value or the house. If it be the house, then the net annual value of the house is what should be considered and not what some particular person would pay for it.
We must take into account in this matter of net annual value what change has taken place in this country during the last 20 years. Twenty or 25 years ago it was possible to acquire a house at a rent without much difficulty. The majority of the houses were let at rents. Since that period, quite a different situation has arisen and people now have to buy their houses or negotiate in connection with the sale of a house. They are not usually held at a rental. They are purchased either through an insurance company, building society, a bank, or cash down, as the case may be. In any case, the old system which was in operation in the country generally pre-war has been modified to a very considerable extent during the last few years. In that connection, we cannot ignore that there is a special reference in this White Paper to what is called bricks and mortar. Presumably, the intention was to include everything which goes towards the building of a house. It would appear from some recent correspondence between the Manager of the City of Dublin and his committees that one of the objections that were raised by people who were asked to underwrite a loan for the Corporation was that the cost of building in the city was 40 per cent. over what it was in England.
Let us examine that. I find that for the last two years, 1937 and 1938, there was collected in customs duty on cement and other items of building requisites of one kind or another over £120,000. I find on looking up the Estimates or the Appropriation Accounts, as the case may be, that there was a sum of over £440,000 paid, I think it was last year, either as subsidies or as part of the loan charges of the local authority. It is quite clear, according to that, that if the cost of building construction is to be considered in relation not only to the cost of the materials but also to the taxes that have been imposed on them or, alternatively, or along with that, if the money that has to be put up by the State in order to get those houses built has to be considered as an annual value, we are not going to get an equitable figure in connection with the value of the property.
Let us take building construction for the year 1937. Building construction and new constructional work on buildings cost £4,200,000. It was £500,000 for the previous year and in that there was £124,000 customs duties on cement, cement blocks, clay pipes, tiles, asbestos, builders' metal works, glass, bolts, iron, paints and distempers, woods and manufactures thereof and, along with that, a sum of £441,000 was paid as the Government's contribution towards the loan charges of local authorities in constructing houses for the working classes. I wonder if it is proposed, in connection with the administration of this particular Bill, that these items and corresponding items, which inflate the cost of building construction, are going to be deducted when they are making an equitable and correct cadastre for the future or are we to take it that in order to get prospective lenders to local authorities we have got to swell our valuations and place them beyond what they are worth? I submit that in connection with that particular clause in this measure the House is entitled and the country is entitled to a more detailed and lucid explanation of what is meant before it should pass.
We are warned in connection with the Report of the Banking Commission that we have got to be careful about the balance of payments, which includes, amongst other things, our adverse balance and so on. Very many people profess to know nothing whatever about those things. A very large number say they know nothing about finance, that it frightens them. Some say they know nothing about currency and so on. The fact of the matter is that they need not know anything about it at all to understand what is meant by the balance of payments. The position we are in in this country is that there is now almost general agreement amongst all the people in it that if we are to prosper we must export agricultural goods or some goods, that we must sell in foreign markets. Those banal things we used to hear of, self-sufficiency and independence of foreign markets have all gone by the board. We have got to get money in from some source, either for the goods we sell or on the investments we have outside. As our investments outside are diminishing, it is all the more important that our exports should increase. One of the things that is going to operate against increasing our exports is the cost of production. The cost incidental to the marketing of our production and everything which militates against economic production in the country are going to prevent us getting in that money which we must have if we are going to import the things we cannot do without and which no prohibition, quotas, licences, or tariffs, have prevented from coming into this country.
Let us examine the sums of money which have had to be provided during the last few years for the Government's contribution towards rates throughout the country—"Government bounty in lieu of rates," is the description which appears in our Estimates—in essence what it means is the sum of money due and paid by the Government on property which they are in occupation of to the various local authorities in whose area that property is situate. The sum paid in respect of that sort of property in 1930-31 was £78,000 and the sum provided in the Estimate of last year is £115,000. There is a very considerable rise in that expenditure and that is one of the matters which, I am quite sure, the members of the Banking Commission had in mind when they drew attention to the rising costs of local as well as national administration.
In one of the clauses of this measure it transpires that it is open to the Commissioner of Valuation not to bother his head about valuing Government property. It is some time ago since I read it, and the Minister can correct me if I am making any mistake. How it is proposed in future to deal with Government bounty in lieu of rates puzzles me if the Government property is not valued the same as anybody else's.
There is one peculiarity about this measure from A to Z, that it seems to provide every possible security and facility for the Government and its various departments to get whatever information they want, to impose penalties if they do not get it, and to let them out of any difficulties into which they wish to put other people, while, at the same time, imposing penalties in respect of individuals if they do not give information when asked, and other things of that sort. One of the recommendations for this measure, according to what we have heard this evening, is that in the valuation the cities and towns will unquestionably go up in valuation, and that, in consequence of that rise in valuation, the weight of taxation falling upon farmers will be much less.