Would the Minister quote an exception? So far as I could understand the meaning of words, Deputy Allen was against the Bill. I am reminded that there is another distinguished exception and I make the Minister a present of him—Deputy Corry, With the exception of Deputy Moore and Deputy Corry, every Deputy, irrespective of Party, was joined on a common platform of opposition and linked together by a common bond of fear of the consequences of this Bill regarding his constituents. Deputy Moore, having given us that little lecture on parliamentary behaviour—that we should not oppose a taxing Bill because it is a great national instrument — proceeded to quote from one individual who gave evidence at the Banking Commission to the effect that credit was jeopardised because speeches were made at times pointing out the possibility of bankruptcy in the offing. When the Deputy was giving that particular quotation, I wondered to whom he was referring, because I remember very distinguished Deputies making speeches not only in the Dáil but at every cross roads in the country telling all and sundry that the country was going headlong into a bog of bankruptcy, and that the financial outlook for this country was as black as night. Consequently, I think the Deputy's little lecture might be given in a more appropriate atmosphere if it had been given in his own Party rooms, instead of to other Deputies in this House who do not belong to his own Party.
The Deputy spoke at great length as to the enormous injustices that were going to be rectified by this great instrument, this new Bill. The Deputy has represented one constituency for a very considerable number of years, and he must know it intimately. In spite of those grave injustices and inequalities, and with his very deep knowledge of one county here on the flank of Dublin, he was in the same position as his Minister—he was not prepared to give even one example of those appalling injustices and inequalities. Quite glibly he slipped over the fact that, if there were grave injustices in the past or at the present moment, the people suffering under those grave injustices must be blessed with the patience of Job, because they never utilised the ordinary power that is there for an individual to ask to have the injustices removed and his premises revalued. Those people, suffering under crushing injustices, if we are to believe the Deputy, must have been functioning under the most inhuman public boards, because none of the public boards in those counties in which the people are suffering from such grave injustices ever utilised the ordinary machinery, which was there all the time, to ask to have the injustices removed. The Deputy was in the position of a man doing his job. It was his job to support the Bill, and in supporting the Bill he did not worry what tosh he slung on to another bundle of tosh once he put in so many minutes by the face of the clock.
On occasions like this, I want to say frankly that my sympathies are always with any Minister for Finance. It is the function of a Minister for Finance to be the collector for his colleagues. When his colleagues go around the country collecting golden keys and silver trowels, and being feted and banqueted, there is scarcely a body of people from Cork to Donegal who would ever get up a reasonable pretext for a banquet for any Minister for Finance. He has always got to take the kicks, while the others lower "the bubbly". He is merely doing his job, and the only real defence for a Bill such as this is a defence which the Minister could not or dare not make, namely, that he is merely doing his job; that it is his function to devise ways and means of getting more money out of the pockets of the people to satisfy the demands of his colleagues. He could not make that case, but that is the only honest case which could be made for a Bill of this kind. The Minister knows, probably as well as I or anybody else, that taxation at the present moment, both local and central, has reached what should be considered the peak point, what fair-minded people should consider the peak point, and that every possible effort should be made to prevent its going above that point.
The people of this country have been wonderfully patient in the way they have borne one burden after another, but the fact that they have been patient should not encourage anybody to keep piling it on. In most countries which went into the Great War, when they were anxious to pay tribute to the soldiers who represented them in the fight, when they wanted to pay tribute to the soldiers who made sacrifices in an uncomplaining manner, an institution grew up, a shrine where all people pay homage, a shrine to the unknown soldier, not homage or tribute to any particular individual but a tribute to him as representative of millions of other gallant men. We have no such institution in this country, but in front of the Department of Finance we could, with an equally strong case, build up such an institution to the unknown taxpayer, and every one of us could join in paying tribute to that unknown individual, representing all, for the uncomplaining way in which he has borne the burdens of years gone by. In my opinion he is the greatest hero of them all—the man who has the courage, as things are, to build and found a home, with everybody apparently busy in endeavours to place new burdens on him, not only now but in the future, new and continuing burdens. He is the greatest hero of all.
We had the Minister, in his introductory statement, pointing out that this Bill was really seriously required, because we had no general revaluation in this country for 80 years, and that there were all kinds of anomalies, inequalities, and injustices, but his main case seemed to be based on the fact that it was 80 years since we had a revaluation in the country. That particular argument at least cuts both ways. If we have got along without it for 80 years, and if we have done very well without it for 80 years, why select a moment like this—when taxes are at their peak point, when people are getting seriously alarmed and seri- ously perturbed with regard to the tendency for every tax to go up and up, and for no tax ever to go down—to place further burdens on the people, or at all events to forge an instrument which may have the result of placing further burdens on the people?
If the people have been patient and tolerant, and have been restrained from anything in the nature of noisy demonstrations against high-pressure taxes, we should not presume on their patience being unlimited, and we should not do anything to provoke widespread and general complaints, particularly if the only case that could be made for precipitating such a situation is the case that a thing was not done for 80 years and, therefore, should be done now, or because a thing is done every ten years in Great Britain, that we must keep in step, and must obviously do it every ten years, too.
There is no parallel between the two countries, fortunately in some ways, unfortunately in others. Great Britain is a country highly industrialised. If you visit any village in Great Britain, and visit it again after five years, it is completely changed, either by big industries coming in, or some pre-existing big industry going out. The real values, aside from valuation of premises, change over there from day to day, or certainly from year to year, because places that were merely tiny cross-road villages at one date would be comparatively large and prosperous towns five years later. There is apparently a very sound case in a country subject to such violent changes for a periodical revaluation. But the idea of suggesting that, merely because we live near that country, under entirely dissimilar conditions, we must do likewise, is not arguable. Everyone knows that, more or less, our Civil Service grew directly out of the British Civil Service, and that kind of headline, that what is done over there must necessarily be right, is the Civil Service mind. It is the Civil Service mind that has dictated this Bill. It is not the gravity or the number of injustices. If there are injustices, many or few, there is machinery at the disposal of this State to rectify them, and to remove anomalies. It is an extraordinary thing that that machinery has been either deliberately ignored or, if it has not been invoked, it is at least reasonably evident that the injustices, in fact, are not there.
What do the alleged injustices amount to? That myself and, say, another person, own premises, that my valuation is £20, and the valuation of his premises, which are three times as good as mine, only £20, and, therefore, I am suffering under an immense injustice. How is it proposed to meet the injustice? By putting my valuation up to £30, and his valuation up to £60? My injustice is relieved or removed by putting an extra £10 penalty on my back for the purposes of income-tax directly, and potentially for paying higher rates, and I have the satisfaction of knowing that, if I am carrying more, my neighbour is carrying three times as much. It is very little satisfaction, if I have to curtail the amount of money for the household at the end of the week, to know that the other man's wife is suffering three times as hard.
We had different points of view expressed here with regard to the position of farmers under the Bill. We had Deputy Moore's political reminder of the fact that this Party had advocated the complete removal of rates off agricultural land, and that in this Bill agricultural land is specifically ruled out. I agree with those who regretted that particular point. When we advocated that policy, as we still advocate it, and when a commission was appointed as a result of that advocacy to inquire into the question of the advisability of removing rates off agricultural land, it was because we believed that the pressure of the rates at present on agricultural land was too heavy, and too severe an overhead burden on the land itself. But, at least, there was always in my recollection a demand for reducing the rates on agricultural land. Now, apparently, the group or class of people to be ruled out of the possibility of a reduction are those who, all the time, have been demanding a reduction, and that, even the Minister for Agriculture in the present Government admitted, time and again in this House, and outside it, had a fair case either for removal or for a reduction, if the money could be found.
But the people, who, according to this side of the House were unable to bear the burden of rates, and according to the Government side had a fair case for getting the rates removed, are the one class of people specifically picked out, not even to have their case considered, with this exception, that while the rates on land cannot go down, at all events under this Bill, the rates on their houses and buildings are likely to go up. Assuming I am correct in saying that the rates are likely to go up on every piece of immovable property in city, town and country that comes for investigation under this Bill, the valuations will go up. We will leave the rates out for the present. The White Paper circulated with the Bill is clearly indicative that that is the result expected. The Minister's statement, and Deputy Moore's substantiation of that statement, to the effect that public authorities would have more facilities for borrowing to a greater extent, after revaluation is effected are clearly indicative of the fact that the result that is calculated is that the valuation of premises will go up.
In addition, we have our own experience, within this State and outside of it, that every place and every time where there was a revaluation carried out, the valuation of premises went up. The odd case where the valuation of a premises ever went down, if it is not non-existent, is certainly just as rare as a white blackbird. It is not a thing unknown. It is a thing seen, perhaps, once in a life-time.
In addition, we had the Minister's Budget anticipation of two years ago where he assessed income-tax on houses on that Fianna Fáil fraction of five-fourths and, for that abnormal fraction and that new extortion from the people, the justification and the defence and the explanation were based entirely on the fact that a revaluation was overdue and that that was, as it were, in anticipation of a revaluation.
It is because of all those things and all those signs, that I assume that the result will be an increased valuation on every premises and any premises that come under the survey. We had it in Dublin; we had it in Waterford; we had it in Ennis. The people ever the Border, in the North of Ireland, had a revaluation and the result in every case and every place where there was a revaluation was for the valuations to go up. The next result was for the rates to keep in step with the new valuation. I agree that it is not imperative, when a valuation goes up, that the out-goings for rates must necessarily go up. If we were like children, working with a pencil and slate, we could show that if the valuation is £X and the rates are 20/- in the £, if you make the valuation twice £X the rates then will only be 10/- in the £. Life is not as simple as that and human nature is not controlled and human weaknesses, too, by the slate and the pencil. At all events, experience is worth something, and experience should have taught us that when a rate has been for years, we will say, 10/- or 12/- in the £ and the valuation is doubled, there may be a drop for the moment or there may be a stationary period, but it will not be many years until, based on the new valuation, the rates are back again to the old figure. Very useful work may be done out of that but you have not increased the financial value of the people by doubling the valuation of their premises. Nevertheless, you will be extracting twice as much from them.
With regard to the premises of farmers, it has been the position in rural Ireland that the amount of the valuation placed on the farm and out-offices, as compared with the amount of the valuation placed on the farm itself, that that on the house and out-offices was practically insignificant and I believe it would be still insignificant in a joint survey. But, if the residence of the farmer is to stand alone as an isolated building, and if the headline set for the impartial examiner that is carrying out the survey is to be the net rental of those premises, and if the new valuation is to be the net rental of the farmer's residence, I do not know in rural Ireland where they can get sufficient samples. The only samples of houses let in rural Ireland are the labourers' cottages all around and that will be a standard to build up from. With tariffs and increased costs of one kind and another, the average weekly rent of a labourer's cottage at the moment is in the neighbourhood of 2/6. If you have 15 to 20 labourers' cottages in a townland, with a rental of 2/6 a week each, that is £6 or £7 a year, and the farmer's house is, we will say, twice as good as a labourer's cottage, the valuation placed on that house must, according to the headline set in the Bill, be £14 for the house alone and the new valuation set on the cottage will apparently be the annual rent.
I do not know if the position of rural Ireland has been fully considered before it was included in this Bill. It strikes me that there a number of very grave injustices that will arise and, even assuming that the case made is a sound case, that there are some injustices at the moment, which it is hoped to remove, you will not be doing any good by removing some injustices if you replace them by thousands of other injustices and by revaluing labourers' cottages and farm-houses just after a period, as the Minister for Local Government told us, of intense building, and intense building at the peak point of cost, when the cost of the building was increased by a number of factors, internal and external, by an increase in the price of the raw materials, by tariffs on these materials coming in and by the increased price of the home material as a result of the tariff. Those new houses can only be set at a rental arrived at by working back from the gross cost of the house.
Now, on a rental, inflated because of a number of accidental conditions, we are to have the valuation increased because of that figure, that is, we are increasing the valuation because of a number of accidental and, possibly, purely passive factors. We are getting very near the point where you are taxing people, or propose to tax people, on taxes already paid. Those tariffs on incoming raw materials are taxes. There is a subsidy paid towards the building of every house; that is met by taxes. We have paid our taxes on the raw material. We have paid the subsidy out of the taxes and now, on those taxes, we will pay further taxes because it is the gross cost of the building that decides the rental and the valuation is to be based on the rental and the rates will depend on the valuation.
There has been a matter referred to by other speakers which, I presume, the Minister will make some attempt to clear up when he is closing this debate, that is the reference to gardens, as distinct from farms Gardens around a house are to be taxed separately with the house, or as a common unit with the house. I do not know how exactly in rural Ireland you would discriminate between a garden proper, a lawn and an agricultural field in front of or behind the house. There are houses here and there where attempts have been made to turn out the place in a better style than, let us say, 50 years ago. A little piece of land around the house had been turned into a shrubbery, or has some kind of fancy hedge around it. Heretofore, that house stood in its nakedness in the middle of a field, with the cattle, sheep and goats grazing up against the front door. Now, a little ornamental plot is in most cases enclosed, with perhaps a little wicket gate leading into it. If that is to increase the valuation, and, consequently, the rates, and if people are to be driven back to old slovenly standards, if they are to be taxed, in addition to everything else, for cleanliness and tidiness, I think we are going in the wrong direction.
Cleanliness, tidiness and neatness, and more cleanliness, more tidiness and more neatness are what is wanted in both city and country, and far from putting penalties on the back of the exemplary person who has set a headline in that respect, I would say that you should consider the advisability of giving relief to people who have devoted portion of their land, not only to beautifying their own houses, but the appearance of the countryside generally. That particular portion of land devoted to the ornamental garden is not productive; it is not profit-making. It is a part of the land available for profit and for production which has been freely and voluntarily surrendered in the interests of neatness, tidiness and beauty. A relief should be given in such cases rather than to make that an instrument for further taxation, or a possible instrument of further taxation.
In cities and in urban towns, I believe there is very real, very general, and very genuine alarm at this Bill. So much has already been said that I did not intend to speak. This is the third or fourth day of the debate, and I have listened to many speeches. I saw that everything that could be said had been said, and I had no intention of speaking, but I was inundated with such volumes of correspondence, most of it from people I had never met or seen, putting it up to me, as a Deputy representing two counties, that strong opposition must be given to this Bill, and that they were entitled to have their feelings and sentiments voiced in Parliament. It was the volume of demand from people who do not belong to my particular political persuasion as well as from those who do, that made it imperative that their demands should be expressed here. In rural Ireland, in the village, the town and the urban centre, there is alarm and uneasiness. No one living in any of those areas can see any result but the one—further demand, higher rates—and that at a time when they are going through, in many towns, perhaps as difficult a time as ever they went through, with business slipping away by reason of greater transport facilities, with the buses taking their customers and bringing them up to the bigger stores in the city, or the larger towns, and with the same problem down there as is up here, of the person attempting either to repay the building cost of a house, or to repay the purchase price of a house, by the instalment, hire purchase system.
There are hundreds of thousands of people now dwelling in houses which they are purchasing on the instalment system. They are not the wealthy people. They are the comparatively poor people, living out of small salaries or wages, and people living out of a small salary or out of a constant wage are people who lay out every penny of their income from week to week or month to month. So much provision is made for rent; so much for fuel and light; so much for provisions; so much for the other purposes of the family; and so much for meeting rates and taxes. For the amount which the Minister or any public body is going to get out of these unfortunate people by increasing their valuations and their rate demand, is it considered how gravely the family economy will be upset? The whole equilibrium of the household of humble people living out of a fixed salary or wage could well be upset by an extra demand of 1/- or 2/- a month, and not a week. The housewife in such places lays out the money, and the better the household, the more accurately the monthly income or weekly wage is laid out. It is laid out to the odd ounce of tobacco; it is laid out to the last sixpence.
If, through State interference, there is a new burden placed on them, even to the extent of as much as 1/- in the month, it may very well cause a very serious upset in the economy of such a household. The new charge cannot be offset by any reduction in any of the other fixed charges. Every penny, every sixpence and every shilling has already been laid out, and there is only one field for economy. That is, in the money allowed for provisioning the family. If they have to economise to the extent of 1/-, 2/- or 3/- a month, there is that much less to be expended on food, or perhaps on some little comfort, some modest article that such people might regard as a luxury.
If the Bill is as outlined by the Minister and as outlined by Deputy Moore, not a Bill to increase revenue and not a Bill to increase rates, but merely a Bill to remove certain inequalities and anomalies that exist here and there; if that is the only reason for the Bill, I think there is no excuse or justification for going on with a Bill which is causing consternation in five out of every six homesteads in the country. I suggest that the real reason is the one I stated at the beginning, that it is imperative to get more money, that it is absolutely essential, because of the demands of others on the Minister, that every possible expedient and every possible device be utilised in order to extract more money from the people. That may be, but at least the people are entitled to know what is being done and why it is being done, and, above all, Deputies in this House are entitled to know, before they vote for a Bill, the reasons they are voting for it and what the result of that Bill is going to be. Deputy Moore may call it Party prejudice or anything else, but I think it is high time Deputies of all Parties in this House refused to vote for any Bill, no matter how plausible a case is made, if they are expected to vote in blinkers, as they are on this occasion.