Private Deputies' Business. - Poor Law Valuations—Motion. – Dáil Éireann (14th Dáil) – Wednesday, 4 Mar 1953

Private Deputies' Business. - Poor Law Valuations—Motion.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That the Dáil is of opinion that a commission should be established to inquire into the methods by which rateable valuations are fixed and tomake recommendations for the removal of anomalies and injustices and the reform of the system of poor law valuations and that pending the report of the commission no increase should be made in the valuation of buildings because of improvements or extension.—(Deputy Cogan.)

Mr. A. Byrne

Last week, when this motion was under discussion, I indicated that I was supporting it. I drew the attention of the Minister and of the House generally to the fact that, when the proprietor of a business firm makes the slightest alteration in his premises, whether the alteration brings him new business or not, the valuation commissioners increase his valuation. I suggest, as other members of the House have suggested, that the commissioners should not revalue such improvements until a period of from five to seven years at least have elapsed.

The businessman who takes his courage in his hands and carries out improvements of that sort is entitled to some consideration. In many cases he has had to go to the bank and borrow money at the high rate of interest of 6 per cent. in order to be able to do so. I hold that such a person should get every encouragement from our public representatives, municipal as well as Government. Such a man is providing employment for those in the building trade who at the moment are so badly in need of it. I stated in the House some weeks ago that the present position in Dublin is that we have 500 carpenters and 500 painters idle and from 200 to 300 bricklayers unemployed. Those men are thinking of going back to England to get decent employment there.

I hold that a good deal of that employment is at their own doors at the moment if only business firms in this city and the country generally got a word of encouragement from the Government and our public representatives to embark on alterations and extensions. What is deterring them is the fear that a valuation will be put on the improvements that will be much greater than is anticipated and with no increase in business resulting from theirexpenditure. I suggest that they should get special encouragement by way of a remission of rates on the new portion of their premises for a period of from five to seven years.

Take the case of a firm which, because it was Government policy, buys in very costly machinery. It has to be laid on concrete foundations. The owner finds that he has to repair the roof or put on a new one in order to protect this new machinery. I say, without fear of contradiction, that what a person in that position fears most is that his valuation will be at least doubled. That is why we see so many houses in Dublin with old broken-down roofs. That applies to business premises, shops and private houses, even to some of the fine old houses of the Georgian period. You will find the roofs of many of them patched, and patched badly. On the other hand, if the owners felt that by clearing off the old roof and putting on a decent one the valuation would not be increased, I guarantee we would have hundreds of slaters employed in Dublin City within the next few weeks doing this very valuable work of protecting good rateable property. Instead we see these grand old houses falling into decay until, in the end, many of them will have to be condemned. The owners find that it is better for them to keep on drawing all they can out of such property rather than repair it, because they know that it will be condemned in a very short time. On the other hand, if a couple of hundred pounds were spent on a roof or in making some other part of a house habitable it would be quite good for another 25 years.

I am asking that some encouragement be given to people with houses or other property to improve. Apart altogether from the employment which would be given to those in the building trade, employment which is so urgently required, the extensions and alterations to houses and business premises in the city would be of the utmost importance from the point of view of extending the life of those buildings.

I am asking the Government to reconsider the whole position. I am not asking for a revaluation. Whatthat would mean is adding on something or taking on something extra. For that reason, I should not like to see a revaluation of the city started. If that were to be undertaken, it would mean that the valuation of premises in the city and country would be increased. All that I am asking is that a person who adds a kitchenette to his premises or builds an additional room will get some assurance that his valuation will not be increased for a certain period— until such time as he has had an opportunity of getting back some of the money spent in carrying out the alterations.

Take the case of a person who has a small premises. His windows may be four by four and perhaps he would like to enlarge them to six by six, ten by ten or 12 by 12, but he will not carry out the improvements because he is afaid that if he does his valuation will be increased, while there has been no increase in the volume of his business. I put it to the Minister that he himself has a great interest in Dublin City and I am sure would like to do something for it. I am sure he would not like to do anything that would deter owners from going ahead with necessary improvement. I ask him to consider the case of our housing schemes carried out by public utility societies, the houses being occupied mostly by young married couples, young men who are known as white collar workers.

When a man in that position goes into a new house he has to make a deposit of £50, £100 and, in some cases, £200. It represents perhaps his life's savings. The balance of the money which he requires for the purchase of the house has to be borrowed at a high rate of interest. If he goes to the bank he has to pay 6 per cent. for it, whereas the charge a couple of years ago was 4 per cent. and 4½ per cent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What has this to do with the motion?

Mr. MacEntee

The time for the motion is getting short.

Mr. A. Byrne

I am just giving anexample of what happens to that man in the way of having his costs increased. His house is no different from any other terrace house in the locality. It is just a good, ordinary working-class house. But what happens in his case is that the valuation commissioners go in and put a valuation of £21, £23 or £24 on that house, whereas the valuation for houses of the same kind in the locality is £18. £18 is the average valuation of that type of house in Dublin City.

In Philipsburgh Avenue there was a new corporation house-purchase scheme. Grants were made to the £10- a week worker who is able to look after himself. The valuation of these houses is £21. In the same neighbourhood the valuation of the same type of house is only £18. It is only a difference of £3, but why add that £3 a year to the white-collar worker, the good clerical worker, the bus driver or mechanic? Instead, he should be given the benefit of the doubt and the valuation should be reduced to £18 or £16 so as to give him an opportunity of paying his way, having regard to the fact that he has saved the municipality some money by building his own house instead of looking for a house under the Housing of the Working Classes Act which the Government is doing so much to put into operation.

I put it to the House that it should unanimously press the Minister in respect of this matter, if he requires pressing. Something tells me that he will not require much pressing. I know his interest in Dublin. I know his interest in the Rathmines area. In the Rathmines area, above all other areas, good houses are going into decay for want of repairs, a new roof or a new wall. I believe that something will be done, with the aid of my colleagues, to encourage the people to undertake these repairs.

I join in the appeal that has been made and I would ask the Government to give some encouragement to people who have money to spend, at some risk, to add to their premises or to build new ones.

Mr. MacEntee

There has been a good deal of merit in the speecheswe have heard so far in this debate, with one exception and the one exception, I regret to say, is the speech we have just listened to. Deputy Alfred Byrne, I gather, is supporting this motion because it would give work now to a number of carpenters and bricklayers in the City of Dublin. When I hear Deputy Alfred Byrne address himself to questions in this House with that sort of approach I cannot forbear recalling and reminding the House that there was a proposal initiated by the Fianna Fáil Government in 1946 which would be coming to fruition just now and which would give employment to every man who is at present unemployed in the Dublin building trade, that was the Dublin Castle reconstruction scheme which was killed by our predecessors in 1948, which was killed unanimously and vehemently by every member of our predecessors in Government in 1948.

Mr. O'Higgins

On a point of order. Does this arise on this motion? Is it relevant to the motion we are discussing?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has been speaking for one minute and the Chair is waiting to hear the Minister——

Mr. O'Higgins

May I give notice to the Minister that if he continues in this strain I will draw the attention of the Chair to the matter?

Mr. MacEntee

I know you will continue to interrupt. You are not prepared to listen to reasonable argument. You are prepared to listen to the sort of tripe that has just been dished out to us.

Mr. A. Byrne

You will give us the cow heel.

Mr. MacEntee

I was showing how invalid was Deputy Alfred Byrne's argument in this connection and how insincere it was. I was showing to the House that if there is unemployment in the building trade in Dublin, it is not due to the existing system of valuations or to the existing remissions in relief of rates.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister is saying "if." Is the Minister doubting that there is unemployment?

Mr. MacEntee

That is the point in Deputy Alfred Byrne's argument to which I was addressing myself.

Mr. O'Higgins

Is the Minister doubting that there is unemployment?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister.

Mr. MacEntee

Let us leave that.

Mr. O'Higgins

Do not leave it until you finish.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is in possesion.

Mr. MacEntee

Since Deputy O'Higgins, Junior, does not wish these skeletons in the Coalition cupboard to be unveiled and brought out in the public view, I will leave it. I will leave that aspect of Deputy Byrne's argument and I will come to another one.

Mr. O'Higgins

This is talk from the senile delinquent.

Mr. MacEntee

I will come to another argument, equally invalid and equally nonsensical. There is something to be said for the investigation which Deputy Cogan asks the House to favour but the things that are to be said in favour of that motion are not the things which Deputy Alfred Byrne has said. There are much more cogent arguments. Deputy Cogan produced many of them himself. Deputy Murphy produced some and I am sure when Deputy Cogan comes to wind up he will reinforce what he has already said in support of this motion. But, I am referring to this weaker brother who has come to Deputy Cogan's rescue. I am referring to Deputy Alfred Byrne.

Deputy Alfred Byrne has said, among other things, as justification for refraining from making any valuations upon any improvements, that he knows or has known of a man who bought expensive machinery, going into business under the protection of a tariff, laid that machinery down on expensive concrete foundations and yet will not take steps to put a weatherproof roof over the machinery. Does anybody believe that such a man exists outside a mental hospital? Does anybody believe that a man who bought expensivemachinery in order to make profits, under the protection of the Government which is anxious to develop the industrial economy of this country, is going to allow that machinery to be subject to all the vicissitudes of weather simply because, if he happens to put a weatherproof roof over it his valuation may possibly be increased? I do not know of any man who would be so foolish, and I am perfectly certain that the person to whom Deputy Alfred Byrne has referred is a mere chimera of his own imagination.

The next misstatement which Deputy Alfred Byrne made was this: He said that if this person were to put a watertight roof over this expensive machinery which he had taken the trouble to put down on costly concrete foundations, the valuation commissioners would come in and up would go his valuation. Deputy Alfred Byrne is a member of the Dublin Corporation of long standing. I think he was for eight or nine years Lord Mayor of the city. He has been an alderman, certainly, for as long as I can remember. Does not Deputy Alfred Byrne know that the valuation commissioner does not come in of his own initiative, that he is called in? He is called in by the Dublin Corporation of which Deputy Alfred Byrne is a member, or perhaps he may be brought in by some fellow-ratepayer who feels that, because the new premises are undervalued, the general body of fellow-ratepayers are not being fairly treated. Is not that how the commissioner of valuation comes in? Is not that why the valuation goes up—because the Dublin Corporation, of which Deputy Byrne is such a shining light and for whose actions he is responsible with every other member of the corporation, requires the commisioner of valuation to make a revaluation of any premises which have undergone structural alteration?

Mr. A. Byrne

We are asking you to change the law.

Mr. O'Higgins

He may come to the motion before he sits down.

Mr. MacEntee

I am dealing with Deputy Byrne's speech and I am showingthat Deputy Byrne, as usual, wants to ride two horses at the same time, wants to have it both ways, wants to straddle this way and that.

Mr. O'Higgins

Get off Tulyar and come to the motion.

Mr. MacEntee

Do not ask me to be profane, because there are limits to the provocation which I can endure without retaliating in kind on Deputy O'Higgins. I want to address myself to this motion because the time is very limited. I want to come now to the case which was made for the motion and, if I am permitted by the courtesy of Deputy O'Higgins, to state my attitude in regard to the motion.

The debate on this motion has served a very useful purpose in focussing attention on the many anomalies and inequities which have developed as a result of continuing to operate on a general valuation which was made almost 100 years ago. So far as I am aware, no other State, at least no State which would claim to be well-ordered and progressive, raises virtually the whole of its local taxation and an appreciable part of its national taxation on a basis so anachronistic as our valuation in fact is. With this obsolete method of valuation for deriving income from property we are bound to have inequalities of treatment and substantial inequities as between individual property owners and occupiers and the general body of their fellow-citizens.

I pointed this out when in 1938 I introduced a Bill in this House to provide for a general revaluation of the property of this country. It was pointed out, however, very much earlier than that. It was pointed out more than 50 years ago that the anomalies and inequalities which existed even at that time could not be remedied unless there were a general revaluation of property in this country. There was a commission set up to investigate the problems of local taxation in Ireland, and in 1902 the then commissioner of valuation gave it as his considered opinion that these evils, which are not, admittedly, so apparent or so widespread or so gross as theyare now, could not be cured until we had a general revaluation of the country.

When I brought in the Valuation Bill in 1938 I stated this in regard to the position as it existed then and as it exists to-day—I am quoting from Volume 74, columns 257 and 258 of the Official Report:—

"It is a position which creates inequities not merely as between one ratepayer and another or one taxpayer and another, but as between whole classes of ratepayers, as between whole classes of taxpayers, as between direct taxpayers and indirect taxpayers, as between urban ratepayers and rural ratepayers, as between the wealthy municipalities and the rest of the country and as between the wealtier inhabitants of those municipalities and their less fortunate fellow citizens. The present cadastre of valuation, in short, is an anachronism, an indefensible anachronism, which by reason of the injustices and anomalies that derive from it, is injurious to the credit of our public authorities, and tends to impede all social progress."

Whatever other differences have emerged between me and those who have spoken in support of Deputy Cogan's motion, there is at any rate general agreement that the present valuation is an anachronism which by reason of the injustices and anomalies that derive from it, is injurious to the credit of our public authorities, and tends to impede all social progress. I went on to say later:—

"The principle underlying rating is that in each area the cost of the local services should be divided among the ratepayers in proportion to the net annual value of the property occupied by them. If there is to be an equitable distribution of the burden, the ratio of distribution should be a ratio of the values actually existing, and not a ratio of the values as they existed or would have existed in the last century or in 1913. Now, not merely are the valuations in the present cadastre on the whole too low; but the relations which the valuations of theseveral hereditaments of which it is comprised bear to the true net rental values of the properties concerned are not, in fact, uniform and consistent with each other. Accordingly the cadastre is bad from the point of view of relativity as well, which means that it is unsatisfactory for the purposes of local rates."

To that extent I accept wholeheartedly what Deputy Cogan has stated in his motion, but I cannot go further. I cannot go to the extent that he would ask us to go, and that is to say that, pending the report of the commission which he would propose to set up, no increase should be made in the valuation of buildings because of improvements or extensions. I cannot do that for the simple reason that, in general, it may be stated that all valuation is based on improvements at least so far as buildings go. For instance, when a house is erected on a virgin site it is an improvement and an extension, or when a tenement is pulled down and, say, a hotel is erected in its stead, that also is an improvement. If it were decided that improvements of new buildings should not be valued at all, whether they were shops, cinemas, dwellings, hotels or similar structures, that they would bear no rates but would enjoy, while bearing no rates, all the public services, the House will realise that the ultimate result would be that the whole burden of maintaining local services would be shifted from the new and valuable property on to the old, decaying and deteriorating property and ultimately we should have a general collapse of the whole structure of valuation from which the income of local authorities is derived and we would have this old property becoming, because it was carrying an increasing burden of rates, more and more uneconomic. In short, this old property and the district in which it was situated would soon be converted into a slum.

Take some of the anomalies that would be created if that portion of Deputy Cogan's motion were to be accepted. If we were to refrain from valuing improvements or extensions at their full value as rent-rendering property,a person could add a shop to a dwellinghouse, a restaurant to a service garage, a ballroom, a bedroom or a billiard-room to his residence and he would be called upon to pay nothing in respect of these extensions, some of which he might have carried out for his own comfort and convenience and others of which he might have carried out with a reasonable certainty in his own mind that he would derive a handsome profit from them.

Deputy Cogan in the course of his remarks referred to the fact that there was a certain distinction as between direct and indirect taxation. He mentioned, among other things, that he was not in favour of making all taxation indirect in form and that he would have a fair balance as between direct and indirect. Indirect taxation may be said to be a tax upon expenditure. Direct taxation may be said to be a tax upon income. Rates combine in the one entity the two forms of taxation, indirect taxation upon expenditure and direct taxation upon a notional or assumed income which is derived or would be derivable in certain circumstances from property. The rates are based upon the valuation in which again there is inherent this idea of income derivable from property because, if I can state it not in the great terms of the provisions in the Valuation Act but in a popular way, the valuation is required by law to be based on the rent which a willing tenant would pay to a willing landlord, the tenant paying the rent, rates, taxes and other outgoings necessary to maintain the property in a proper state of repair.

That idea of rent which is derived, or, if the property were let, would be derived from it forms what I may describe as the income concept in this idea of rates. Therefore, it constitutes what might be said to be the direct element of taxation in the payment. Similarly, it can be assumed that if a person is in such circumstances that he can occupy a property from which that rent might be derivable in certain circumstances or is in fact derived his income must be commensurate with the expenditure and the commitment which he undertakes in the form of rent. In that way rating based uponvaluation is a form of tax upon a notional income. It is true that the person may be living beyond his means and may be occupying a house the rent of which is not commensurate with the income which he in fact enjoys. If that is so he is guilty of extravagance and I do not see that there is any merit in allowing a person who is inhabiting a house, the rent of which is more than he can reasonably afford or be expected to pay, to go free. The best thing to do with him is to tax him according to what the income derivable from the property might properly be assumed to be and compel him to look for a cheaper house.

Similarly, if a man is occupying a business premises the rates upon which are greater than the profits which he derives from his occupation of the premises, there is no merit and there is no advantage in permitting him to continue in his occupation of these premises because, if one does that, the man concerned will speedily find himself faced with insolvency.

There are many points which I would like to deal with on this motion. There are one or two matters that I should refer to because they relate more to the administrative side of the Valuation Office than to the general principles underlying this motion. Deputy M.P. Murphy made a very cogent speech. It was a very valuable speech and a well-informed contribution to the debate. I am only sorry that Deputy Murphy was not here to make that speech in the year 1938 when his colleagues in the Labour Party were fighting the Valuation Bill of that year tooth and nail.

Mr. O'Higgins

They did not fight it as hard as the Fianna Fáil Party did.

Mr. MacEntee

That was during the period when Deputy O'Higgins, Junior, was in the nursery. If he listens to me now he will learn something about the past history of Dáil Éireann and the past transactions of this House.

Mr. O. Flanagan

What a teacher!

Mr. O'Higgins

Tell us what happened to the Valuation Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

If he listens, the lessons will equip him so that he may better acquit himself in debates in future than he has done heretofore. I was congratulating Deputy Murphy on his cogent, lucid and well-informed contribution, and I was regretting the fact that he was not here in the year 1938 when his colleagues in the Labour Party, led by that primitive musclebound Tory, Deputy Norton, were fighting tooth and nail against the Valuation Bill which I was then endeavouring to put through the Oireachtas and which, if I had succeeded, would have remedied many of the anomalies and many of the inequalities that exist to-day. What I want to say is——

Mr. O'Higgins

You do not know what you want to say. You could not get that Valuation Bill through the Fianna Fáil Party even.

Mr. MacEntee

Whatever I want to say I am entitled to say it without continued interruptions from Deputy O'Higgins.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is entitled to speak without interruption. May I remind the Minister that this debate must conclude at 10.55 p.m.?

Mr. MacEntee

In that event I will not deal with the submissions made by Deputy Murphy to-night. I will reserve them until the Estimate for the Valuation Office comes before the House, when I will take the opportunity of dealing with them and will content myself with stating my view in regard to this motion. As I have indicated, the Fianna Fáil Party were convinced long ago that a revaluation of the country was indispensable to the future orderly progress of our people. We held in 1938 that such a revaluation would lay the foundation for a new, efficient and a progressive system of local government here.

We would welcome, if we thought the House was in favour of it, the opportunity of reintroducing the ValuationBill of 1938 and of making it law. We would welcome it but, as we have already seen here to-night from Deputy Alfred Byrne, he is like the Labour Party in that he battens upon public disaffection and public discontent. He does not want to have these things remedied. He wants to have these things remain so that he may stand up and complain and growl about them in this House. Consequently, I am afraid in present circumstances and in the present Dáil it might not be possible to put through a Revaluation Bill.

I have already explained why we cannot suspend valuing improvements and extensions, but I would undertake to bring to the notice of the Minister for Local Government, who is the Minister primarily concerned with rating, the speeches which have been made in the House in support of Deputy Cogan's motion, and I feel that, as soon as circumstances permit, it might be possible for the Minister for Local Government—I must allow him to speak for himself—to ask the House to set up a commission or a committee to inquire into the various anomalies, the various inequities, and the various defects of our present rating system, particularly those which arise from our out-of-date valuations, and to suggest what changes might be made in the existing law on the assumption, however, that rates were in future to be levied upon equitable and up-to-date valuations. I would hope that, perhaps, having gone to that extent to meet Deputy Cogan he would accept that.

Mr. Cogan

I am glad the Minister has indicated that he is favourable to the main proposal of this motion, to set up an investigation into this whole question of rateable valuations. I stated at the very outset, when introducing this motion, that I did not regard it as a simple question or one that was of easy solution. I indicated that, like all other questions involving contributions which the citizen must make in the way of taxation, it is very complex and any alteration or change in the basis of the system must be very carefully considered from every angle.

I appreciate the difficulties which theMinister has indicated in regard to any stay on the operations of the valuation commissioners. In introducing the motion, I did not suggest that such a stay should be of a permanent nature. I realise that in a matter of this kind one has to await the decision of the commission of inquiry. All I asked was there might be a stay pending the result of that commission's investigation. I would like to suggest that the commission be set up at an early date and that its report be forthcoming as soon as possible so that this whole question might be solved in an equitable way. I realise that to put any stay on the operations of the valuation commissioners would involve legislation and I feel that if we are to have legislation at all we might as well have comprehensive legislation recommended by a commission designed to solve this problem in the interests of the community generally.

I do not subscribe to the view that a general revaluation is the only thing that is required. I do not subscribe to the view that a general revaluation, if it comes about, should imply or carry with it a general increase in valuations. The total valuation of this State is in or around £12,000,000. I would not favour any legislation which would tend to increase that total valuation. I am in favour, however, of legislation which would tend to put valuations on a fair and equitable basis and which would have the effect of giving the proper incentive to work of development and improvement of existing property.

I know that this whole question of valuations is one about which there has been a great deal of controversy and about which many suggestions have been put forward. I remember reading the views of Henry George on this question in which he suggested there should be no valuation whatever upon property created by the community but that the valuation should be placed entirely upon the building sites. I can see the great merit in that suggestion but I can also see very many difficulties in putting it into operation. It is because I realise not only the advantages of having this whole question ironed out but also because I see thedifficulties that lie ahead, that I have suggested that the matter should be fairly and thoroughly investigated. It is for that purpose that I tabled this motion and I hope this investigation will be carried out.

I would like to underline some points which were made in support of the motion by some of the speakers. I would like particularly to underline the very useful point made by Deputy Dockrell. I must say Deputy Dockrell spoke in favour of the motion although he had been forbidden by his Party Whip to second it.

Mr. Sweetman

That is perfectly true. I am not like the Minister. I admit it when it is true. The Minister refuses to admit that it was true that he told Deputy Burke——

Captain Cowan

On a point of order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has only five minutes to reply.

Captain Cowan

On a point of order. Deputy Sweetman has just said that he admitted directing a Deputy in this House not to second a motion.

Mr. Sweetman

"Told" is the word.

Captain Cowan

I want you to take serious notice of that matter. Nobody has a right to direct Deputies what they are to do in this House and neither Deputy Sweetman nor anybody else dare presume to exercise such powers on Deputies.

Mr. Sweetman

If the Deputy will cease being disorderly the House can get on with its business.

Mr. Cogan

I have sympathy with Deputy Sweetman. There are in every army some misguided sergeant majors who never know where their troops are located or in what direction they are firing. That happened to Deputy Sweetman on several occasions last week. Deputy Dockrell said—and this is an important point which the Minister should consider—that it does not always happen when an owner of rateable property improves that property,that he does so in order to increase his income. There are very many cases in which owners of rateable property improve the property from a community motive or a social motive, in order to make conditions better for their employees or, in the case of shopkeepers, in order to improve conditions for their customers.

It often happens that improvements are carried out by farmers solely with a desire to make the country a little brighter than it is. I think there is a very strong case for giving a remission of rates for a considerable period at any rate to these people. That is one point that will have to be considered by this commission, that it is not always in order to increase his income that a property owner improves his property. I think it is a good thing to see citizens anxious to improve the appearance of their property and to make the country generally brighter. I would ask that the commission be set up at the earliest possible moment and that instructions be given to it to bring in a report as early as possible consistent with the depth and complexity of this problem.

If you have a properly constituted commission which can get down to its work quickly, I am certain that recommendations will be made upon which legislation, which will remove the anomalies and injustices that exist, can be based, and thus pave the way for a more equitable system of taxation, a system upon which the burden can be more equitably distributed over the entire community.

I want again to stress the point that if there is to be a revaluation of rateable property, it should not be based upon the assumption that it will lead to an increase in the individual valuations of each citizen or the total valuation of the State. There are foundations upon which valuations can be fixed other than the rental, the annual income or the annual letting value. I think that in Britain a system has been devised whereby valuations are based on a percentage of the actual market value. There are many other systems which might be considered but the main object should be to ensure, first of all, that the burden is equitablydistributed over all sections of the community and, secondly, to ensure that no deterrent is put on any individual citizen who wants to improve his property and to give employment.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 4 Mar 1953