When speaking last week, I indicated that, in my opinion, the motion before the House comes at an opportune time. From every portion of the land at the moment, we hear strong complaints about the increasing burden of rates. I do not think that at any time for a long period have people generally been more alarmed about the position than they are at present. I asked the Minister to-day if he could state in respect of the past ten years the average rate in the £ in all county council areas, in all county boroughs and in all urban districts and he gave me a complete list of figures which shows that, in the county council areas, since 1941, rates have risen from 13/- in the £ to 23/-; in the urban districts, from 19/1 to 29/11; and in the county boroughs, from 22/5 to 30/4. If we average these three figures, we find that the average rate for this State to-day is 27/9 in the £, as compared with 8/4 in 1932.
While some Deputies may say that there have been many changes in the world since 1932 and perhaps in the extent of local services generally, it is significant to compare the average rate of 27/9 in the £ for the Twenty-Six Counties of the Irish Republic, with the average rate in the six excluded counties, which is 12/- in the £. I have made inquiries with a view to finding out if there has been any substantial increase in the valuation of the Six County area and I have found that there has been only a very slight increase in the total valuation of the Six County area.
It is true that there has been a substantial increase in the valuation of property other than land in the Six Counties, but the total poor law valuation of the Six County area has only slightly increased as compared with 1935. As we know, agricultural land has been completely struck off the list of rateable valuations in that area, and thus we find that the figure of 12/- in the £ in the Six County area is a figure comparable with the figure of 27/9 in the Republic of Ireland. I made investigations to find out what rates were payable in some centres on the other side of the water and I find that in Edinburgh, which is a very well run city, the rate is 8/6 in the £, while the rateable valuation has not very substantially increased as compared with the pre-war years. We find, therefore, a rather extraordinary position arising here, a position which ought to be remedied.
I want to make it clear, as there seems to be some misunderstanding, that this motion is not only a motion to secure the derating of agricultural land but a motion to secure that a ceiling be fixed to rates on other rateable property. I believe that the time has come when such a ceiling should be fixed, and, even if the House does not agree to the complete derating of agricultural land, it should at least agree to the fixing of a statutory limit beyond which rates may not be increased. There are people who say that local authorities cannot keep down the rates. They can, by the exercise of rigid economy, bring about various reductions. We have to face the fact that all the efforts of local authorities to reduce the rate burden may be completely frustrated by measures taken by the Government to increase the liabilities of the local authorities and thereby force them to increase their rates.
I want to establish, first, the important fact that rates have increased enormously and are still showing a tendency to increase. I want to establish the fact that rates in this State are higher than in adjoining States and to establish the fact that the rate burden is an excessive and crushing one. I will give a figure submitted to me by a farmer in this State, and in this connection I may mention that I have received hundreds of letters from ratepayers in urban and rural areas. This farmer says that the rate he paid on his farm in 1914 was £27 and that the rate he is paying now in 1949 is £120 That is a typical instance of the manner in which rates have increased.
There is also the very important consideration that the whole basis on which rates are assessed is entirely antiquated and inequitable. As we know, the Griffith valuation was taken in 1852 and was based, so far as agricultural valuations were concerned, upon the value of the crops grown in that area. A holding on which wheat was grown extensively in that year was valued at a very high figure, because in that year wheat commanded a high price. The result is that there is great inequality as between valuations in one area and another. In portions of my constituency, the valuations of some low-lying portions of land adjoining the sea coast are excessively high, probably because wheat was grown in these areas when the valuations were taken. I have a letter from a woman in County Limerick, and——