Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 23 Oct 1953

Vol. 142 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Valuation Bill, 1953—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Briscoe

I will not delay the House very long. I just want to sum up. The Government has made an announcement with regard to relief in certain types of cases, resulting in remission of rates arising on valuations on new buildings, business premises and factory buildings, and also on reconstruction of ordinary premises, including dwelling-houses. In my opinion, that will satisfy the situation for the present, until such time as the Government can conclude its survey and can come into the House with a comprehensive Bill for the purpose of revaluing the whole country, with particular consideration for the City of Dublin.

I want also to say that the Private Bill that has been introduced would, if it were accepted, only cause a great deal of controversy and misunderstanding,winding up possibly in a great number of cases having to go to the law courts for decision. I hope that the Bill which I envisage the Government will be bringing in will be simple, that it will be a measure permitting of understanding by everybody of its contents, which will avoid costly litigation, trying to sort out and settle differences between rating authorities and occupiers of premises.

On the last occasion when this was discussed, on Wednesday evening, I said that as far as the City of Dublin is concerned the whole situation has changed. Areas which were on the outskirts in non-built-up areas had structures and buildings on a valuation basis in accordance with the then situation of those premises. To-day they are the centre of an extended city area and should in many cases be revalued for higher ratepaying so as to bring about a more equitable position between occupiers of business premises, factories and houses, than exists at present.

No one can say—and I think Deputy Morrissey, who will follow me, will agree—that the present distribution of the burden is on an equitable basis. He himself would be the first, I am sure, to agree that there are certain buildings undervalued and others overvalued and that some proper basis should be laid down. I say to the Minister that when he is considering the Bill which I hope he will bring in with regard to the reconstruction of premises, there should be a formula. Possibly where additions are made the additions should be in relation to the extra cubic capacity added as compared with the whole structure to which it is added, and the increased valuation or the increased rates payable should bear some relation to the original figure and not as presently applied, where sometimes the Valuation Office appears to be taking an opportunity to clap on to a building a penal increase rather than a just increase.

As I say, I am not impressed by the Private Bill which is being brought in. There is some suggestion that the announcement by the Government wasa panic announcement resulting from the introduction of this Bill. I can assure those who are promoting this Bill that I myself was one of those who had been discussing this for some considerable time. I think Deputy Alfred Byrne himself knows that this matter was discussed by us in the corporation many months before this Bill was introduced. We all felt that we had to find ways and means of bringing about relief of unemployment by making it possible and attractive to people to build new properties or improve existing ones.

In conclusion, I cannot get away from the statement made by Deputy O'Higgins that this particular need only came to his notice as a result of the impact on the ratepayers resulting from the introduction of the rules and regulations in connection with the hygiene part of the previous Health Act. I say again that if any Cabinet agreed to bring in new regulations they should have known then what the results would be by way of additional imposts on people who would have to fulfil directions in making premises suitable for the sale of food and so forth. They should have known and should have made the announcement then and there that is now suggested in this particular Private Members' Bill.

Mr. Morrissey

I thought Deputy O'Higgins, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, made fairly clear its contents and what it purported to do, but in view of Deputy Briscoe's speech it seems that he must not have got it fully across. This is a simple Bill, which proposes, first, that existing premises, where there are no improvements, alterations or additions carried out, shall not be increased beyond their present valuation. A great number of people outside the House, and I think a great many members of the House, are not aware, or were not aware up to now, that the valuation of a premises, even though that valuation has been standing for 30, 40 or 50 years, can be increased, can—as has happened, and I can give examples—be doubled or more than doubled, without the owner of thosepremises spending a shilling on them by way of improvement or reconstruction or addition to them. In fact, without the revaluation which Deputy Briscoe talks about, it is well known and ought to be well known to Deputies from various parts of the country and from cities outside Dublin that there is a process of revaluation going on all the time.

Mr. Briscoe

But not in the city?

Mr. Morrissey

I can assure the Deputy that there is, and I will give him the names of the citizens here who are concerned in the last 12 months. There were several citizens of this city who had their valuations increased by anything from 25 to 100 per cent. without any structural alterations.

Mr. Briscoe

Public-houses, probably, that were given new leases.

Mr. Morrissey

No. I will give the Deputies the names and particulars.

Mr. Briscoe

Do not give us the names. Give us the business. Public-houses getting new leases.

Mr. Morrissey

If it were, I would say so. I will give the names and addresses of the premises and full details to the Deputy if he wishes.

Mr. Briscoe

Give us an instance of the type of business without mentioning the names here.

Mr. Morrissey

You do not understand the Bill and I am trying to explain it to you. If you do not want to know anything about it yourself, please let me make my case for the other people who may want to know.

Mr. Briscoe

Give us an instance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Morrissey is entitled to make his speech.

Mr. Morrissey

I have given Deputy Briscoe a very fair offer. I am prepared to give him the names and addresses, and indeed there are colleagues of his sitting behind him who can give him that information too.There is no use trying to say that that is not so. The first operative section of this Bill—Section 2, I think—says in effect that where there are no improvements carried out, no alterations, no additions, the existing valuation shall not be increased. That is all it says and I do not think any member of the House will find fault with that. I know the Minister has something in mind. I know the reason he had the biggest gallery of officers seen for a long time here on Wednesday night, and I will deal with that when I come to it and the reason for it.

The next section is where improvements or additions or structural alterations to the premises are carried out and the premises are revalued. The section says that they shall be revalued only in respect of the actual improvements carried out to the premises and that the valuation people will not take the opportunity to revalue the whole of the premises, and that when they are revalued in respect of the new work that additional revaluation shall not become operative for a period of seven years.

The next point is that dealing with farm buildings as distinct from farm dwelling-houses. It is admitted that where a farmer erects a new farm building, whether a piggery or a barn or whatever it may be, that is already covered in one of the old Acts. But he is not covered where he builds an addition to an existing farm building or where he improves it or puts an additional storey on it or a new roof on it. Not only are the valuation people entitled to come in and revalue those farm buildings in respect of those improvements but they actually have done and are doing it. That is, of course, incontrovertible.

That deals with the three main points in this Bill. I would like to correct a misapprehension of Deputy Norton's. Deputy Norton, speaking on Wednesday night, said that the only thing in the Bill with which he found fault was that it had not a section in it to cover ordinary dwelling-houses where there was an addition to or an improvement in an ordinary dwelling-house. That is not necessarybecause that case is already covered under the Remission of Rates Act and we are dealing here only with premises which are not covered and which are suffering.

Deputy Briscoe's sole contribution and his solution for the problem in the City of Dublin, he says, is that the whole of the City of Dublin should be revalued and the valuations brought up to and in accordance with present day standards of value. How many Deputies in the City of Dublin are prepared to subscribe to that solution of Deputy Briscoe's? Do we not all know what would happen if the whole City of Dublin were revalued to-morrow? The whole city from the smallest house to the largest premises would be revalued upwards and very much upwards. There is no question whatever about that. That is not the solution. That would not remove the anomalies which Deputy Briscoe says exist to-day in respect of valuations in the city.

Let us look at this in a sensible way and try to see how absolutely absurdly we are all acting in relation to this matter. In the interests of public health we are exhorting people from dairymen to shopkeepers to improve their houses in respect of the dairying industry, to modernise them at very considerable cost. They are doing that as far as they can afford it but instead of getting any incentive to do so or being encouraged to do so, immediately a man does that he is revalued and he is penalised heavily for carrying out something which he is told is in the national interest and in the interest of public health and pure food. That is one side of it.

How many hundreds of thousands of pounds have we spent over the years, and particularly in recent years, in trying to encourage the tourist industry in this country? Has not the present Government and every other Government, members of county councils, the Tourist Association which had its annual meeting yesterday, the Tourist Board, Fogra Fáilte which got £250,000 last year for publicity—has not everybody been exhorting every shopkeeper, restaurantkeeper, hotel keeper and guest-house keeper in this country to improve their premises and to provide to the fullest possible extent modern amenities so that we can take the fullest advantage of what is undoubtedly a very valuable portion of our economic life, the tourist industry? But what happened? Somebody in Dún Laoghaire, Cobh, Crosshaven, or Bundoran or Kilkee or somewhere like that decides they will turn over a large private house and keep a number of guests. Suppose they do not even spend 1/- on it. Suppose it does not require any additional outlay to enable them to keep guests. The mere fact that they turn it into a guest-house brings their valuation up automatically.

Supposing somebody has an old-fashioned bad hotel, out-of date, with possibly one bathroom, if there is even one, with probably not a wash-hand basin in one room in the house, and probably one lavatory for the whole house, and they decide—in many cases by going into debt in the bank if they can get the money in the bank—to try to carry out improvements and to have either a guest-house or a hotel to which we can without any shame and with a certain amount of pride invite foreigners to come and stay and spend their money.

The very minute he puts a porch in front of the door, the very minute he puts in a bathroom, the very minute he puts in a second lavatory, the very minute he puts in a wash-hand basin in the cloakroom, down come the valuation people and that man, whom we are exhorting to do all this in the national interest as well as in his own interest, is penalised and has to pay through the nose for the work he has done. Is it not crazy? But, to make it still more crazy, we now announce —mark you, I agree with it—that we will give every facility we can afford to people who cater for tourists, we will give them loans to carry out the type of improvements to which I have referred. But, immediately they carry out those improvements, they will be penalised. There is not a Deputy here—I do not care from what part of the country he comes—who does notknow as well as I do that there are great numbers of people, not merely business people, hotel proprietors or guest-house owners, but ordinary people who would like to improve their houses and their premises, and would improve them, but they are afraid to do so because of the penalty.

Deputy Briscoe challenged me a while ago because of something I said. Let me give him a case now, not entirely on a par with what I was talking about but one of which I have personal knowledge. A few years ago the back wall of an old, small licensed premises in this city was condemned by the corporation. The owner was told he would have to rebuild the back wall. He proceeded to do so. His house was so small he could not put an additional lavatory inside the four walls and he decided to take advantage of the fact that the back wall was being re-erected to do what we see all over the country, namely, put a small abutment jutting out from the back wall. What happened? His valuation, before the corporation compelled him to build the back wall, was £70. When the back wall was built it was exactly doubled. His valuation to-day is £140.

Let me deal with a particular aspect of all this. Remember, this is why the Minister for Finance is sitting over there and not the Minister for Local Government. Remember that when the valuation of a house is increased that does not mean only an increase in the rates. Remember, so far as a licensed premises is concerned, it means an increase in the rates; it means an increase in the licence duty; it means, if the owner is on a valuation charge from the E.S.B., an increase in his E.S.B. charges. Above all, do not forget, and this is the reason why we had the big gallery here on Wednesday evening and the reason why we have some prominent officers out of the Minister's Department here to-day and the reason why we have the Minister himself here——

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think it is usual to refer to officials.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not referring to officials.

Mr. MacEntee

I must protest. The Deputy is a former Minister and he knows the statement he has made is grossly improper and he has made that statement with the utmost deliberation.

Mr. O'Higgins

That is nonsense.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not require any lessons from the Minister for Finance in good taste, good conduct or good manners. May I say, with respect to the Chair, that the Chair's interference is only called for if I name an official? I have not named an official. I am not naming any official.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has mentioned officials.

Mr. Morrissey

I mentioned the word "officials".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy mentioned officials on two occasions.

Mr. Morrissey

If the Chair says that is disorderly, I withdraw. May I be allowed to say, in fairness to myself, that there was no thought further from my mind than any disrespect to the officials, and I think the officials themselves probably know that? The Minister knows quite well the point I intend to make. Do not forget that when the valuation goes up the famous five-fourths, which the present Minister for Finance was responsible for putting on the Statute Book of this country, comes into operation and one pays one's income-tax on one's house, not on the full valuation but on five-fourths of the valuation. Therefore, one's rates go up; one's income-tax goes up; one's licence duty goes up and, if one is on a valuation charge, one's E.S.B. charges go up. That is the reason why we have the Minister for Finance sitting over there and not the Minister for Local Government. All that has been a cause of very great hardship on many citizens. It has been a complete deterrent in great numbers of cases against people carrying out improvements to their property and, incidentally, giving useful employment. Not a shopkeeper to-day will replace his old three-pane or four-pane windowwith modern plate glass because his valuation will be increased.

These are statements of fact. They cannot be challenged. They cannot be controverted. I am not blaming the Valuation Office. I am not blaming the rate collectors. I am not blaming the local authorities. The law is there and they must carry out the law. That is their duty. It is our duty, I submit, if we see that the law in its administration is causing hardship and retarding necessary and essential improvements, to change that law.

I do not want to labour this but, putting it mildly, it is absurd to talk about the tourist trade, about improving our hotels, our guest-houses and our amenities in the holiday resorts, to tell the people at Tourist Association annual meetings and through the Tourist Board and Fogra Fáilte that we are prepared to give them every encouragement when, in fact, we are penalising them for carrying out what are admitted to be improvements, not only in their own interests and for their own benefit but in the interests of and for the benefit of the country as a whole ultimately.

I do not presume for one moment to know any more about this matter than any other member of this House. Every statement I have made so far could be made by any other member of this House from his own experience in his own part of the country. There is no question about that.

The administration of this valuation code, particularly in relation to what we are trying to cover in this Bill, would be harsh even in normal times and would place a very heavy burden on very many people. With the very high level of rates to-day, when rates are running from 25/- to 35/-, and in extreme cases to 40/- in the £, and when the whole tendency, despite anything that can be done by the local authorities or their officials, is towards ever-increasing rates, surely that is something likely to place an intolerable burden on our people. In any case there can be no question whatever that it is a complete deterrent against improvement.

Deputy Norton has already dealt with one very important aspect. From the point of view of providing work, additional work could be provided in this country almost immediately if this fear were removed from the minds of our people, and an important employment potential would be created throughout the country. There is no doubt that in the improvement of these business houses, private dwelling, farm buildings, and so on, we are and would be creating a very valuable national asset apart altogether from increasing the market value of the citizen's property.

I listened to Deputy Briscoe talking about the Bill which the Government propose to introduce. So far as I am personally concerned, I do not give a hoot who gives this relief, if it is given. I would prefer to hear the Government saying here and now: "Very well, we will take over this Bill or we will introduce a measure that will give the reliefs that you are talking about here." I and my colleagues, Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Sweetman, would be prepared to withdraw the Bill immediately.

Mr. MacEntee

Are you ashamed of it now?

Mr. Morrissey

On Friday morning, even the Minister for Finance ought not to make such a stupid remark as that.

Mr. O. Flanagan

He should be a good judge of shame.

Mr. MacEntee

You have got the lawyers' opinion on it now.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not know what the lawyers and the publicans did for the Minister for Finance but, irrespective of the subject being debated in this House, he must have a contemptuous crack either at publicans or lawyers.

Mr. MacEntee

No. At the amateur lawyers who drafted this Bill. The experienced lawyers have probably told you what it means.

Mr. Morrissey

That is just the dirty remark one would expect from the Minister for Finance. The Deputy who drafted this Bill is not an amateur lawyer; he is a fully qualified member of the Irish Bar. The Minister ought to be ashamed of himself in letting his personal little bitter spite draw a remark like that from him. I hope, on reflection, the Minister will see the shame in that and will have the decency to apologise.

Mr. O. Flanagan

The Minister will not say anything against the traders of Talbot Street.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Morrissey

It is a great pity that we cannot discuss even a Bill like this, dealing with a subject which all Deputies on all sides of the House want to see remedied, without having dirty personal remarks made. It is a pity that even in the cool calm of a Friday morning that cannot be done.

Mr. MacEntee

I want to ask the Chair has anything I said here this morning justly warranted the epithet "dirty"?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No, except that the interruption was completely out of order.

Mr. MacEntee

That may be so, Sir, but I am drawing your attention to the fact that several times—of course I know Deputy Morrissey is concerned to blacken my character—several times the Deputy, quite without warrant, has used the adjective "dirty" to stigmatise my interruption which, if you like, may have been disorderly but certainly was not dirty.

Mr. Morrissey

Fortunately for the occupant of the Chair, perhaps unfortunately for the Minister for Finance, the occupant of the Chair is the judge of order, not of good taste or of good manners.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair feels, however, that the word "dirty" should not be used.

Mr. Morrissey

It is not an unparliamentary expression, Sir. TheMinister for Finance used an expression about Deputy O'Higgins that he should have been made to withdraw.

Mr. MacEntee

I did not know who drafted the Bill. Now I know.

Mr. Morrissey

Do not take that dirty, cheap way out of it.

Mr. MacEntee

I was rather surprised when I read the Bill to think that Deputy O'Higgins's name would be associated with it.

Mr. Morrissey

Do not make it worse. May I assure the Minister that I am not trying to blacken his character? I have never tried to do that with any Minister.

Mr. O. Flanagan

That would be impossible in the Minister's case.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not saying any such thing. I may be accused of a lot of things inside this House and outside but I do not think anyone would accuse me of bitterness or of blackening a man's character.

Mr. MacEntee

Except by calling him dirty.

Mr. Morrissey

If the Minister asks for it he knows me long enough to know he will get it, and there are other adjectives I could use in lieu of "dirty".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think we should get back to the Valuation Bill.

Mr. Morrissey

It was not I who departed from it. I want to get back to the Valuation Bill. I hope that when the Minister rises to speak, if he does rise to speak on it, he will speak on the Bill and what is in it and will make a case, if he can make a case, against it. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the statements which I have made or which have been made by Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, I invite him, in his own Party room or his ministerial office, to ask any of his colleagues, either from Dublin, Cork, Waterford or Limerick or, indeed,from any other part of the country whether the statements I have made are true or not. I have sufficient faith in their knowledge of what is happening in the country to be perfectly satisfied that they will tell him the same thing.

If I wanted to play the usual game I could prolong this debate for quite a long time. I could have come here this morning fully furnished, not with one example but perhaps with 500 examples. I suppose I am in a position to get more information on matters concerning valuation than the average Deputy. There are other Deputies who can get as much and maybe even more than I can but I could illustrate what I have been saying with example after example from all parts of the country as well as from this city.

When I was interrupted by the Minister I was saying that if the Minister was prepared to give an undertaking that the proposed Government measure would contain, amongst other things, the bare essential safeguards which are in this Bill, we would be quite ready to withdraw the Bill. We cannot withdraw this Bill unless we get some sort of statement to that effect from the Minister or until such time as we see the Government Bill. So far as statements regarding the Government's intentions in regard to this matter have been made by the Taoiseach or by the Minister for Local Government, their proposals will not go even half way to meet the points which we think it is essential, in fairness to the citizens, to meet.

I want to assure the Minister—he probably will not believe me but it is true—that I am not concerned as to who brings the changes about. I do not care two hoots who gets the credit for it, if it is done. I am prepared and my colleagues who are associated with me in the preparation and moving of this Bill are prepared to discuss the matter either in the House or with the Minister and any of his colleagues outside the House. I do not mind. All that I and my colleagues are concerned with is to get what we think is bare justice in relation to the operation of the existingvaluation laws. So that there cannot be any doubt left in anybody's mind and that nobody can at least successfully twist or misrepresent what I have said so far I want to reiterate what I said. In anything which I have said or anything which my colleague, Deputy O'Higgins, has said, or in this Bill, there is no reflection, nor is there any reflection intended, against either the Valuation Office or its personnel or any local authority or any rate collector. What I say is that they are only doing their duty carrying out the law as we allowed the law to remain, and they cannot change their actions, their efforts and their line in relation to valuations until such time as we change the law. All we are asking, and we are entitled to ask it, is that the House would consider this private Bill on its merits. All I ask the Minister to do is to consider it on its merits and to speak to it, either for it or against it, on its merits.

I think that any member or members of this House who go to the trouble, whether it is little or not, of preparing and presenting to this House a private Bill whether it is well-drafted or otherwise dealing with a matter which affects so many citizens are to be commended rather than to be abused. I am not so sure that this would not be a better House if we had more private Bills introduced by private members from any side of the House dealing with matters of which perhaps they have more knowledge even than the members of the Government because very often by force of circumstances they are closer down to what is really happening than any Minister can be. That is the position in a nutshell. We only ask to have this Bill dealt with on its merits for itself and if it is given effect to either through this Bill or through a Bill introduced by the Government we will be perfectly satisfied.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Morrissey is one of those Deputies who thinks that, when he is short of arguments, bluster will enable him to bulldoze those who venture to criticise proposals with which he is associated. He is the one Deputy in this House who, makinga pretence to be courteous, to be well-mannered, to choose his words carefully, invariably, whenever a thrust gets home, loses his temper and begins to behave like a bully and a braggart in a low-class den. That is why, when I referred to the defects in this Bill which must be obvious even to the laymen who have studied it and when I ventured to point out to him the slippery ground upon which he is treading by reason of the bad drafting of this Bill, he applied to me the epithet "dirty." I fling that epithet back in his face. There is no dirt associated with me or with my name——

Mr. Morrissey

It is a matter of opinion.

Mr. MacEntee

——but that cannot be said of those who habitually couple that epithet with me and my personality. It is a good thing that in winding up his speech Deputy Morrissey should have seen fit and should have felt compelled to withdraw the innuendo which was quite clearly associated with his reference to the number of officials who attend here in the officials' gallery when business which the Government consider may be of importance is before the House.

Mr. O'Higgins

Is this in order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not desirable to refer to officials in this House and it has not been customary to do so.

Mr. MacEntee

Let me say that it was on my insistence, because I am carrying responsibility for them, that these officials are here. They come in the discharge of their duty.

Mr. O'Higgins

Is it in order for the Minister to proceed?

Mr. MacEntee

I am taking on myself the responsibility——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have pointed out that it is not desirable to refer to officials in this House.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister is proceeding to make a case for persons in the officials' gallery of this House——

Mr. MacEntee

The innuendo was definitely conveyed in Deputy Morrissey's reference to the presence of these officials in the officials' gallery of the House that they had some personal interest in the matter.

Mr. O'Higgins

Nonsense!

Mr. Morrissey

On a point of order, this is a very important matter and I want, as far as I can, on behalf of every member of this House, to see that no wrong precedent is established. I ask a ruling from the Chair here and now for the record as to whether it is out of order for any member of the House to refer to officials, not to an official but to officials or the number of officials in the House. I ask this for the record as I do not want a precedent established by the Minister here now. If it is going to be a precedent it is a completely new precedent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Morrissey is aware that it would be completely out of order to refer to officials by name in this House and even to refer to officials so that they might be recognised from the reference. It has been considered desirable not to mention officials in this House, and it has not been customary to do so.

Mr. Morrissey

With respect, that was not the question put. It was not the point I am trying to make. I did not refer to officials by name, but what I am trying to combat now is the Minister for Finance putting the Chair and the House in the position of creating a new precedent that would be entirely wrong.

Mr. Davin

On a further point of order, is it not obvious that the Minister's consent had to be given to the presence of so many distinguished civil servants and it is due to the importance of the discussion of the Bill and what it contains?

Mr. MacEntee

That is what I have already stated. It is a great pity that Deputy Davin was not here to pointout that fact to Deputy Morrissey when Deputy Morrissey was quite obviously trying to create a degree of prejudice in the minds of the public by suggesting that there was, shall we say, a cohort of officials here necessary to sustain the Minister. The officers here in the gallery listening to this debate are my officers, who are here——

Mr. O'Higgins

They are the people's officers.

Mr. MacEntee

——who are here on my instructions or at may request in order——

Mr. Morrissey

Anything but the Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

——and are listening to the debate in order that if by any accident (but it would be an accident) Deputy Morrissey or any Deputy supporting this Bill might make a point of substance that point of substance could be heard by them and examined by them and could if necessary be the subject of subsequent action.

Mr. O'Higgins

How very clever.

Mr. MacEntee

That is why they are here. Deputy Morrissey apparently does not think it is in the public interest that the discussion in this House, the debate on measures like this, should be followed with close attention by the civil servants who are responsible for giving advice to the Government in relation to many technical matters, but would rather that this thing should be done, as many important discussions on many important matters were carried out in the counsels of the Coalition, as if it were a schoolboy debating society.

Mr. Morrissey

When is the Minister coming to the Bill? This has all, of course, very little to do with it.

Mr. O'Higgins

Is this cheap posturing in order?

Mr. MacEntee

Having disposed of Deputy Morrissey's personal reference to me, having disposed of his reference to the fact that a number of officersare present in the House listening to this debate, may I get back to this Bill?

When he was introducing this Bill, Deputy O'Higgins said that it is part of Fine Gael policy. I could describe this as a half-baked measure from the half-baked policy of a half-baked Party. The Deputy devoted the greater part of his introductory remarks to pointing out how seriously and how gravely rates press upon the general body of the citizens. We had long dissertations about the position of the farmer, the position of the businessman and the position of those shopkeepers who were compelled, under regulations issued in 1950 by the then Minister for Health, to carry out improvements in their premises in order to ensure that they would be licensed for the sale of food and food-stuffs. We had all that—but we had not a word about the effect of this Bill upon the general body of ratepayers who do not own their houses, who are not in a position to provide themselves with bathrooms or with any of the other amenities to which Deputy Morrissey refers but who are simply to go on paying, year after year, rates which are unduly high because certain better-off sections of the population escape, for one reason or another, their due responsibility for paying their fair share of the rates—the responsibility which was originally envisaged when the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, was being enacted. What is the purpose of this Bill?

The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the better-off classes in this country will be better-off still and that the burden of the reliefs which they secure will be piled upon the workers and salaried classes and those others who are not engaged in business and who have not premises which can be adapted for a business use of one kind or another. I have now, I suppose, been a member of this House for 26 years and, in all my experience, I have never seen a more blatant piece of class legislation, produced in the guise of providing reliefs for a section of the citizens, than this measure represents—and that is the measure which has received the endorsement,through its leader in this House, Deputy Norton, of the Labour Party.

Few people reading Section 2 of this Bill would grasp the fact that its primary purpose is to deprive the local authority of the only machinery which exists at the moment of ensuring that the rates levied by them on all owners or occupiers of premises will be adjusted to the capacity of the individual concerned to pay. That is the primary purpose of this Bill and that is the purpose for which it has been introduced. It is quite true that the local authorities may not avail of the machinery to which I have referred and that the poorer ratepayers in general suffer on that account, but that is no reason for depriving them of any hope of relief.

I want to say this to those people who are thinking that there is some social purpose to be served by the enactment of this measure—even if it were possible to enact it in its present form. I do not know whether my words will carry any weight with Deputy Davin or Deputy O'Leary, but certainly they ought to carry weight with Deputy Corish because he knows well what is involved. The first effect of the enactment of Section 2 would be to increase further the existing poundage rates in the administrative area of any local authority in which this Bill became effective to any significant extent. I say that, because one way in which local authorities can secure an increased revenue, without increasing the general poundage rates, is to ensure that premises which, in social justice to everybody, require to be revalued would be revalued so that the rates would be levied on them in accordance with the existing law.

I want to repeat that the first result of the operation of Section 2, if this Bill were to be enacted, in any area in which the Bill became effective to any significant extent, would be to increase the general poundage rates.

Mr. O'Higgins

Is the Minister serious?

Mr. MacEntee

Certainly.

Mr. O'Higgins

Glory be to God!

Mr. MacEntee

Few people, reading Section 2, would be aware of that fact. The effect would flow even in the case where no additional employment had been given by the reconstruction or improvement or alteration of a premises.

Mr. Davin

That is a good one, anyway.

Mr. MacEntee

The whole tone of Deputy Morrissey's speech, the whole justification advanced for this Bill is that if the Bill becomes law the reconstruction, improvement and enlargement of business premises will be encouraged.

Mr. Davin

How could you reconstruct a building without giving employment?

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister can do these things.

Mr. MacEntee

If Deputy Davin will give me his close attention for a little while he will understand. I am pointing out the effect of Section 2 of the Bill. I do not know whether or not Deputy Davin has read Section 2.

Mr. Sweetman

From what the Minister has just said, I doubt if the Minister has read it.

Mr. Davin

I am listening to the Minister, anyway.

Mr. MacEntee

Section 2 reads as follows:—

"Save and except in the case of the improvement or enlargement of any building or the erection of a new building, the valuation of a tenement shall not be increased."

Has Deputy Davin now grasped my point that you cannot increase the valuation of any premises or of any piece of property such as a mine or a quarry unless there has been an improvement or enlargement of the building or the erection of a new building?

Mr. O'Higgins

Does the Minister say a mine or a quarry?

Mr. MacEntee

What does all that mean? Deputy Morrissey gave us some hint when he talked about buildingsbeing taken over and converted into hotels. There need not be a penny spent on a structural alteration to a hotel. A wine licence could be procured and, in due course, a hotel licence could be procured and there would not be any increase in the valuation of the building, nor would there be any increase in the licence duty which would normally be attached to a building which was being used as a hotel and which had a hotel licence to sell beer and spirits. The whole community would be deprived of the increment in revenue which would accrue to it if the law were permitted to operate as it is at present and were not, shall we say, shackled by the introduction of Section 2.

A building in Fitzwilliam Street, Fitzwilliam Square or Merrion Square, used at present as a residence and rated accordingly, could be converted, without one penny piece being spent on a pot of paint, not to speak of carrying out any structural alteration, into an office building, in which every floor might be let at a rent of hundreds of pounds per annum and the citizens of Dublin would get no benefit from the change of user. At present if that happens in the City of Dublin, these hereditaments cease to be valued as residences and are valued as business premises, but if Section 2 is passed that will no longer be the case. If I were some of the Deputies opposite, I might say that there must have been an awful amount of property jobbing to make this section attractive to a great number of people, as we are told it is.

Mr. Sweetman

That is a really dirty little remark.

Mr. MacEntee

What is the justification——

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister for innuendo.

Mr. MacEntee

——for any responsible body of Deputies——

Mr. O'Higgins

These innuendoes by the Minister should not be made. His performance is scandalous.

Mr. MacEntee

——bringing in a proposal of this sort which would enable people to get away with that sort of thing at the expense, let me tell you, of the men and women who are living in slums and tenements, of the men and women living in corporation houses, of the men and women living in middle-class houses in the centre of the city who would have to pay their full rates in order that these people, who would have had the resources and the capital to buy property in Fitzwilliam Street, Merrion Square and other places which were formerly residential and are rapidly being converted into business premises——

Mr. Sweetman

Will the Minister quote one house that has been converted into a business premises without alteration?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Sweetman

There is no such place. I was looking for them and failed to find them.

Mr. MacEntee

If the Deputy will go along to 28 Merrion Square, of which I have close and intimate knowledge, he will see one, and I will let him know what the rent is.

Mr. Sweetman

There was no alteration at all done to it?

Mr. MacEntee

No alteration, except the alteration carried out at the expense of the tenant.

Mr. Sweetman

That is an alteration that takes it out of this section.

Mr. MacEntee

No. There need not be any alteration carried out.

Mr. Sweetman

There was an alteration, in fact, carried out and therefore it would not be within Section 2.

Mr. MacEntee

There need not have been any alteration carried out—none whatever. Some people would not desire the alteration to be carried out.

Mr. Sweetman

There never hasbeen one of these houses taken over without alteration, and the Minister knows it.

Mr. MacEntee

I can tell the Deputy there was.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister has just told me that there was not.

Mr. MacEntee

Preceding tenants occupied these premises as offices without having any structural alteration done to them whatever. There is what is involved in Section 2.

Mr. Sweetman

That is not true.

Mr. MacEntee

"Save and except"—I do not know what "save and except" means.

Mr. Sweetman

I suggest that the Minister find out from somebody competent to advise him.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know what "save and except" means, save and except the interpretation I am going to put on it.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister says that, whether you improve or do not improve, there can be no increase in valuation.

Mr. MacEntee

"Save and except in the case of the improvement or enlargement of any building or the erection of a new building the valuation of a tenement shall not be increased." That presupposes that, in order that the valuation of a tenement may be increased, reading Section 2, there must be an enlargement or improvement, but if there is no enlargement or improvement, irrespective of the user of the premises, the valuation shall not be increased.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister now understands the section.

Mr. MacEntee

I am a layman and I do not want to get too deeply involved in these matters. I refer to the drafting of the Bill and I should like to consider how Section 2 is going to be read and construed in the light of Section 11 of the Valuation Act of1852. It is important that we should go back to that, because Section 2 of this Bill is completely inconsistent with the whole valuation code in this country.

Mr. O'Higgins

It is intended to be.

Mr. MacEntee

And, in fact, if I might say so, represents almost an attempt partially to repeal the valuation code by a sidewind.

Mr. O'Higgins

It is intended to reform the code.

Mr. MacEntee

Come out into the open now.

Mr. O'Higgins

Does the Minister think it shocking?

Mr. MacEntee

Come out into the open. What is it intended to do?

Mr. O'Higgins

To reform the valuation code.

Mr. MacEntee

I am giving way to the Deputy to explain what Section 2 is intended to do.

Mr. O'Higgins

Since the Minister gives way to me and since he is apparently only beginning to understand the section although he criticised its drafting, it is intended to reform the valuation code.

Mr. MacEntee

To what extent?

Mr. O'Higgins

By providing that only in the event of improvement or enlargement can the valuation of a building be increased.

Mr. MacEntee

I say that any proposal which would nullify the fundamental principle around which the corpus of law has developed would constitute virtually a repeal of the whole body of law.

Mr. O'Higgins

So what?

Mr. MacEntee

Except that up to this the Deputies opposite have not said that. Let us see what it is that is proposed now that we have got an admission from Deputy O'Higgins that the real purpose of Section 2 is tonullify the fundamental principle upon which the whole valuation code of this country is based.

Mr. O'Higgins

I do not think I said that.

Mr. Sweetman

Nonsense!

Mr. MacEntee

Let us see what in fact, that principle is. We know now what the intention is. Section 11 of the Valuation Act of 1852 lays this down:—

"And such valuation in regard to houses and buildings"

whether they are business premises or not—

"shall be made upon an estimate of the net annual value thereof"

—I hope Deputy O'Leary will follow me in this——

Mr. O'Leary

It is hard to follow you.

Mr. MacEntee

"that is to say, the rent for which, one year with another, the same building might in its actual state be reasonably expected to let from year to year."

Mark that, and let us turn back to these buildings in Fitzwilliam Square or Merrion Square. At the present moment it is almost impossible to get any person to rent a house in Fitzwilliam Square, Merrion Square or any of these places which were formerly exclusive residential districts in this city and use it as a private dwelling-house. In these circumstances the letting value of such houses as single residences is abnormally low and the valuation is abnormally low. The valuation at the present moment may be to the order of £100 or £120, and the citizens of Dublin will get out of such a building something to the order, based on the existing rate poundage, of £170, £180 or perhaps £200. But convert these premises without using a pot of paint——

Mr. Sweetman

That is not possible.

Mr. MacEntee

——from a residence and let them be let as business offices,then their letting value soars at once. Under Section 11, of course, the valuation would be correspondingly increased and the citizens of Dublin would directly benefit by that fact, because, as I have said, the nature of the user of the premises is changed.

Section 2 of this Bill—make no mistake about it—is intended to prevent that benefit flowing to the general body of the citizens of Dublin. The benefit under the section would be confined either to the person who was the original landlord of the premises or the occupier. The original landlord of the premises will benefit if he lets these premises because he will be able to say to his prospective tenant: "The valuation of your share of these premises will be to the order of £20, £30 or £40." That is what he will be able to say if Section 2 of the Bill goes through. If not, then when the tenancy is being negotiated the incoming tenant has to ask himself: "What are these premises likely to be valued at if there is a revaluation even if I do not spend anything on them?" Of course, he knows at once there is likely to be a substantial increase in the valuation and that correspondingly the amount which he will pay to the landlord will be less. So that the effect of the section, with regard to premises which are not reconstructed or are not new buildings, is to deprive the citizens and the local authority concerned of the benefits which would naturally flow to them under the existing law in order that the property owner or the occupier of the property may correspondingly benefit.

Mr. Sweetman

Did you ever see anybody going into a new office without your famous pot of paint being used? You know that is nonsense.

Mr. MacEntee

I have been in offices in this city—I do not want the Deputy to imagine that this is a dirty crack of mine—many of them inhabited by lawyers, that I do not think ever had a pot of paint since they were erected 150 years ago.

Mr. Sweetman

They are always painted before being occupied for the first time.

Mr. MacEntee

I have been in some of these offices and to judge by the quantity of documents encumbered by dust, I would say that there is a highly profitable business associated with them.

Mr. Sweetman

Did the Minister ever go into an office occupied for the first time and not find that some paint had been used?

Mr. MacEntee

I am still trying to deal with Deputy O'Higgins's speech. When he was introducing the Bill, he pointed to the fact that a rate collector can ask for a revaluation if he feels that a tenement is undervalued. That is true. That is the existing law. The purpose of this Bill is to deprive the local authority or the rate collector of the right to ask for a revaluation. That is the purpose of Section 2. Let Deputies ask themselves why it is that the law does lay on the rate collector the duty of asking for a revaluation on any premises which he feels are undervalued. Is the object not quite clear? Is it not to ensure that a ratepayer will pay what is reasonably and properly due from him, in justice, for the services which every local authority affords? That is the sole purpose of it. If a rate collector feels that premises are undervalued, he then knows that the amount of rates which the occupier of these premises pays is not what he should pay, having regard to what everybody else is called upon to pay. That is why that power is given to him.

Mr. O'Leary

Is it only the rate collector can do that?

Mr. MacEntee

It is not merely the rate collector can do that. If I am engaged in business in a street and I think that my valuation appears to be high by comparison with that of other premises, say, in the same street—I am quoting a case that might occur to one most readily—then I can ask for a revaluation of my own premises. So far so good. That may operate to my ultimate benefit but, if it does not operate to my ultimate benefit, if, instead of securing a reduction, thevaluation goes up, then I know that as far as I am concerned I am paying more in rates than some of my competitors in the same street. I can then ask the commissioners to revalue their premises, the purpose being to secure a fair adjustment of the burden as between myself and my competitors. If Section 2 of the Bill were passed, it would not be possible to do that unless it was clear and manifest that your competitor had had his premises enlarged or reconstructed. It may not in the normal course be necessary to ask to have premises revalued in these circumstances because the rate collector would have noticed the fact and would have asked that they should be revalued.

Let us get down to the point of fundamental principle underlying revaluation. The assumption underlying it is a very simple one. I think it is one which most people will say, by and large, is a reasonable one, that is to say that a man's income and his ability to meet social charges, communal charges, charges imposed for the services which he enjoys in the community in which he lives, are reflected in the value of the premises which he occupies, either as a residence or for business purposes. That is the basis of valuation. Therefore the Commissioner of Valuation in valuing premises is compelled to have regard to the letting value, the rent which a willing tenant would pay to a willing landlord, certain charges having been met. That is the sole basis.

I think it is a reasonable assumption that if a man is paying £150 or £200 for a residence he can assume a heavier share of the local burdens than the man who can only afford to live, say, in a house the annual value of which would be £30. Similarly, if for the purpose of his business a man occupies premises the annual letting value of which is £1,000 or £2,000, is it not reasonable to assume that that business is in a better position to bear its share of the local rates than a business the owner of which can only afford to pay a rent of £100, and that the occupier of premises which are valuedat £2,000 avails of the local services to a much greater extent than the occupier of premises which are valued at, say, £100?

By and large, that is the assumption which the valuation code works. That is why we have so many things related to the valuation of the premises which a man occupies, not merely the rates but, as has been pointed out by Deputy Morrissey, the licence duties of various kinds, income-tax under Schedule A, and the valuation element in the E.S.B.'s tariff. All these things are related to one single supposition, viz., that a man's ability to pay, and a man's user of local services are related to the size and the value of the premises which he occupies. If you abolish that principle —it has been the subject of a great deal of investigation—you cannot find any other which will be an adequate substitute for it, any other which will enable so many financial operations to be settled in a way which is simple and which, taking it by and large, is equitable as between one local tax-payer and another. To destroy that principle, we have it now admitted by Deputy O'Higgins, is the primary purpose of Section 2 of this Bill.

Mr. O'Higgins

It is not. That is three times the Minister has deliberately misconstrued what I said.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy will have an opportunity of replying.

Mr. O'Higgins

I must be protected.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is not giving way unless it is a point of order.

Mr. O'Higgins

Surely I am entitled to protection against the Minister's attributing to me something I did not say? I said the purpose of this was to reform the law.

Mr. MacEntee

You said it was to prevent the free operation of Section 11 of the Act of 1852.

Mr. Sweetman

That is not what the Minister said a few seconds ago.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not letting theDeputy get away with that. We have it on the admission of the mover of the Bill. I said something to-day at which Deputy Morrissey took umbrage when he asked the Government to take this ridiculous Bill over and to try to put it in some sort of form for reasonable consideration by the Legislature of this country. Will Deputy O'Higgins, when replying, tell me how Section 2 of this Bill can be construed having regard to the Valuation Act of 1852 and the cases decided thereunder?

Mr. O'Higgins

Without the slightest difficulty. I hope the Minister will remain to learn something.

Mr. MacEntee

Now let us consider some of the other anomalies that would flow from Section 2 of this Bill. I could spend quite a long time on Section 2.

Mr. Sweetman

We would love you to do it, but let it be more sensible than what you have said so far.

Mr. MacEntee

Section 2 provides:—

"Save and except in the case of the improvement or enlargement of any building or the erection of a new building the valuation of a tenement shall not be increased."

Mr. O'Leary

Everybody wants to improve his premises.

Mr. MacEntee

I want to enlarge a little on what that means. When the word "tenement" is used, the ordinary uninstructed reader, the man in the street, would think that that in the valuation code would connote a tenement house or at worst a slum. He would not realise that any unit of irremovable property is a tenement for the purpose of valuation and that, consequently, tenement as used here could cover fishing rights, rights of quarrying or mining, tolls at fairs, easements in the laying of gas mains, wayleaves and a dozen other things and that all these are covered by Section 2 of this proposed Bill——

Mr. Davin

Who is pulling your leg?

Mr. MacEntee

——and that you cannot erect a building in connection withan easement of a gas main or if you increased the tolls at fairs you would not erect a building, or if you were to secure an increase in the value of fishing rights you would not be erecting a building. All these things would be covered by Section 2 as it stands.

Mr. O'Higgins

How would you increase the value of fishing rights?

Mr. MacEntee

This is a blanket provision which would cover all those manifold matters, would ensure that a person who owned a fishing right or a valuable quarry or mine the value of which increased according to the output and the income derived from it would get away scot free at the expense of the farmer, of the agricultural worker, of the urban worker and the small man in the town and city. That is what would flow from Section 2.

Mr. O'Leary

You are rambling a long way away from it.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not.

Mr. Davin

He thinks he is at a students' debating society.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Davin is always very concerned in this House about the banks. He is always a'gin the banks. Has Deputy Davin thought of what would follow from Section 3?

Mr. O'Leary

Could we take them over under that section?

Mr. MacEntee

I hope the Deputy is giving a great deal of consideration to this. Under Section 3 a bank could enlarge, reconstruct, adorn, ornament, gild with bullion gold the whole of its frontage in O'Connell Street and would not be called upon to pay an extra penny piece.

Mr. Sweetman

They might employ somebody. Instead of sitting down in O'Connell Street, the people might be employed.

Mr. MacEntee

At present, if a bank carries out any improvement of premises or enlarges or reconstructs or rebuilds, then these premises are revalued and to the extent to which the free letting value of those premisesis increased the citizens of Dublin or Cork or wherever the premises happen to be situated will benefit.

Mr. Davin

Will they ever let?

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Davin, who is against the banks, gets up here and talks about these extortioners saying they are wringing money out of the people who borrow. These people, according to Deputy Davin, if he follows Deputy Norton, are going to receive a free gift not at the expense of Deputy Davin but at the expense of the general body of the taxpayers in the City of Dublin.

Mr. Davin

Will they ever let?

Mr. MacEntee

Is there any reason in that? It does not matter whether they will or will not. It is what the letting value would be.

Mr. Davin

According to the Minister's elastic imagination.

Mr. MacEntee

Now, Deputy, do not get as cross with me as Deputy Morrissey.

Mr. Davin

I am not. This is a good circus performance.

Mr. MacEntee

I know I am getting under the Deputy's skin. The next time the Deputy talks about banks, and if he votes for this Bill—I do not think he will—let him not delude himself, I will take an early opportunity of reminding him.

Mr. Sweetman

Before he gave the example of the bank was the Minister advised as to the case of the Hibernian Bank against the Commissioners of Valuation in respect of Mohill, County Leitrim? If he was he would not have said what he did.

Mr. MacEntee

That has nothing to do with the matter. In these cases, the premises are revalued and the valuation must be based on a fair letting value. I do not want to go into the whole valuation code and all its refinements. One would have thought that Deputy Norton, if he has not read the Bill, would at least have read the Long Title to the Bill. Inthe course of his speech, it began to dawn on me that he had not taken the trouble to read the Long Title of the Bill. The reason I say that is because Deputy Norton began by bewailing the fact that the owners of dwelling-houses would not benefit under the Bill. That is quite true. No owner of a dwelling-house would benefit by any provision of this Bill——

Mr. O'Higgins

What about subsection (2)?

Mr. MacEntee

——unless the owner of the dwelling-house converted the dwelling-house into a business premises. Then, undoubtedly, he would, but if he continued to live in the house and used it as a residence he would not benefit at all because Section 3 of this Bill applies only to business premises, "any building used for the purpose of any business enlarged or improved". In these cases increased valuation shall not have effect for the period of seven years. Section 3 deliberately excludes dwelling-houses wholly and completely.

Mr. O'Higgins

Because they are covered already by the existing law.

Mr. MacEntee

No, they are not covered already. Dwelling-houses are valued——

Mr. O'Higgins

And get remission of rates.

Mr. MacEntee

——at their full letting value having due regard to the existing position.

Mr. O'Higgins

Does the Minister suggest that there is not a remission of rates for dwelling-houses?

Mr. MacEntee

This Bill does not deal with the remission of rates. The guile behind this Bill is that on the plea it is going to secure a remission of rates it is going to confer a great deal of benefit upon certain interests in this country that, socially, are not entitled to them. It is going to confer those benefits at the expense of the general body of the poorer sections in this country. That is the guile behind it. The Bill does not deal with the remission of rates.

Mr. O'Higgins

It deals with the valuation code.

Mr. MacEntee

It deals with the rating code which is administered by the Minister for Local Government, which is something quite different.

The Deputy's Party seeks to bring in, as I have said before, the most blatant example of class legislation that I have seen in this House. I think the remission of rates was a smoke-screen to cover the real purpose of this Bill. Let me get back to the purpose of the Bill. Deputy Norton quite properly said there was nothing in this Bill covering private houses.

Mr. O'Higgins

They are covered already.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy says they are covered already.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister only learned that the other night.

Mr. MacEntee

If I were to concede to the owners and occupiers of business premises the same concession in regard to rates as has been given to the owners or occupiers of dwelling-houses—you get them if you are a tenant as well as the owner— why did not the Deputies whose names are associated with this Bill bring in a Bill which would deal simpliciterwith this question of rates? Why did they go further? Why did they not deal with the remission of rates in the plain, straightforward fashion in which the remission of rates has been granted to the owners and occupiers of private dwelling-houses?

Mr. O'Higgins

Do not forget Section 2.

Mr. MacEntee

Why did they not do that? The Minister for Local Government is bringing in a simple Bill in relation to the improvement and enlargement of premises. Why does not the Deputy follow his example?

Mr. Sweetman

Follow the example of the Minister for Local Government? We started this and not the Minister.

Mr. MacEntee

The reason isbecause, as I have said before, the remission of rates is a smoke-screen to cover the other purposes behind this Bill. Deputy Davin was saying that the owners of dwelling-houses would not benefit under the Bill. Deputy Norton must be well aware of the fact that if a cinema is enlarged and improved it becomes more effective as a place for patrons. If the cinema happens to be in Dublin it will be saved a very substantial amount in rates which otherwise would accrue due under the existing valuation code and at the expense of those owners of dwelling-houses about whom Deputy Norton is so greatly concerned.

Deputy Norton, having tumbled to what the situation was, said that we could amend it on Committee Stage, that we could give to the owner of a dwelling-house exactly the same concession that we extended to the owners of the cinema, a bank or a mansion which is converted from its original use as a dwelling-house. Owners of dwelling-houses could be given the same sort of concession. Could they? If any member of the Labour Party is going to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill on the assumption that he will be able to amend it in order to give effect to Deputy Norton's proposal, I would suggest that he read the Long Title of the Bill. The Bill is entitled an Act to amend the Valuation Acts so as to provide certain reliefs in respect of increased valuations resulting from improvements to business premises and to certain farm buildings and outhouses, and also to amend the law relating to revision of valuations generally. Has Deputy Norton noted how narrowly that Long Title is drawn? The owners "in respect of increased valuations resulting from improvements to business premises"?

Mr. Sweetman

And also to amend the law generally.

Mr. MacEntee

A general omnibus phrase is of no effect.

Mr. Sweetman

It means nothing?

Mr. MacEntee

So far as the Long Title is concerned, it is designed to ruleout, to exclude, from the benefits of this Bill the owners and occupiers of dwelling-houses, so that—let Deputy Norton not be deceived or Deputy Davin either—if they go into the Lobby in support of the Second Reading of this Bill they are going in to do as I have said, to benefit a few big people at the expense of smaller people.

Deputy O'Higgins was hard put to find some justification for this Bill. He tried to excuse its introduction on the grounds that when the Coalition Government—I am going to paraphrase Deputy O'Higgins's excuse because I would not like to burden the House by reading several passages from his speech relating to this matter—he tried to justify the introduction of this Bill in the form in which it had been introduced on the grounds that when the Coalition Government—the inter-Party Government, as he called it—introduced its proper food hygiene regulations in 1950, it did not appreciate what the consequences of them would be. That, in fact, is what the Deputy said. The Deputy here alleged that they did not know, when they introduced these regulations, what, as I have said, the consequences would be. They did not, in fact, know what they were doing. That was not unique in the history of the Coalition Government. They did many things, the consequences of which they did not foresee.

Let us see what the attitude of the Coalition Government was, in fact, to this question of an increase in the valuation of premises arising from the structural alterations which, in many cases, were found to be necessary to meet the requirements of the food hygiene regulations. A question on that matter was addressed to my predecessor on the 6th December, 1950.

Mr. O'Higgins

That was before the regulations came into effect. Try to find a better one.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Kinane asked the then Minister for Finance:—

"If he will take steps, if necessary by the introduction of proposals for legislation, to ensure that the poor law valuation of premises, which willhave to be altered to comply with the requirements of the food hygiene regulations, will not be increased."

That is the question which was put to my predecessor on the 6th December, 1950, and my predecessor turned him down flat, regretting that he could not see his way to introduce proposals for the necessary legislation.

Mr. O. Flanagan

What did he say? Give the reply.

Mr. MacEntee

If Deputy Flanagan wants to hang, and I use the word advisedly, on Deputy McGilligan's words, here they are:—

"Legislation would be required to give effect to what the Deputy has in mind and as many premises, in addition to those referred to in the Deputy's question, are subject to regulations which may necessitate alterations involving an increase in valuation, I regret that I cannot see my way to introduce proposals for the necessary legislation."

Mr. O'Leary

That is three years ago.

Mr. MacEntee

Now the ardent followers of Deputy McGilligan who were turned down flat by him in December, 1950, are coming along and are so concerned about the hardships which the Coalition Minister for Finance, they allege, imposed on those who deal in foodstuffs and commodities in the City of Dublin, that they want the valuation code to be virtually suspended in order to give them some relief. But I have shown, and I think I have shown conclusively, that there is a great deal more behind this Bill than appears on the surface.

Mr. Davin

Is it not time to change an Act that is 101 years old?

Mr. MacEntee

I agree, and this House has already accepted that principle because it gave a Second Reading to the Valuation Bill of 1938. I regret, however, that the Deputy was not as wise then as he is to-day because the Deputy who is clamouring to-day for an amendment of the existing valuation law, in fact for a general revision of the general valuation of this country, was one of the Deputies who opposed the 1938 Bill.

Mr. O'Higgins

But you had a majority then?

Mr. MacEntee

I warned Deputies then of what the consequences of any such ill-judged action would be. Now, there is not a local authority in this State whose finances are such that it can raise the revenue it requires without imposing undue burdens on a vast number of citizens; which can raise the revenue it requires to enable it to meet the cost of the public services. That is due to one fact, that it is working on obsolete valuations. If the Bill of 1938 had been passed by this House, and if the general valuation of premises which it envisaged had been undertaken, the local authorities would be in a much better position to give the services which the ratepayers are demanding of them, and to give them, I would say, without imposing any unique hardship on any element in the community.

Mr. Sweetman

What the Minister means is that the rates the people would have to pay would be higher.

Mr. MacEntee

The immediate effect of the passing of that Valuation Bill would have been to have reduced very considerably the poundage rates in every urban area. That would have meant this, that the general body of the ratepayers—let me emphasise this again—by reason of a reduction in the poundage rates, would have benefited very considerably under that Bill.

Mr. Sweetman

Nonsense.

Mr. MacEntee

Under this Bill. the very opposite is going to occur. Under this Bill, as I have already shown—I have dealt with it at some length even though I have been continuously interrupted——

Mr. O'Leary

You are going to talk it out to 2 o'clock.

Mr. MacEntee

No. I am going to dispose of it if allowed to continue without interruption. I was going to say that the general effect of this Bill, as I have already emphasised, in any area in which it could become substantially operated, would be to increasethe poundage rates and thereby increase the burden on the general body of ratepayers for the benefit, as I have said, of a privileged few.

I come now to Section 4. I want to emphasise this, that there is nothing in Section 4 that is not already fully covered by the existing law and practice. While the foundation for the existing practice is to be found in Section 14 of the Act of 1852, it has been interpreted for a great number of years in the light of two other statutes, in the light of the provisions of the Land Improvement Act of 1847 and the Land Improvement (Ireland) Act of 1866.

Mr. Sweetman

They do not deal with farm buildings.

Mr. MacEntee

They give a lead and in consequence of that if a farm building is erected or if a farm building is improved or enlarged, the new valuation is not entered in the valuation lists for seven years. Every Deputy knows that. Every Deputy is aware that that principle could not be challenged in the courts and has not been challenged in the courts. Therefore, Section 4 of this Bill, should it become an Act, is wholly unnecessary but it has been put in as a piece of window dressing to pretend to the farmers that this Bill was going to confer some real benefit on them. It is going to do nothing of the sort.

There is no farmer in this country, so far as I am aware—and I think if there were I should very quickly hear of it—whose buildings, if they are new buildings, have been rated. They have been valued certainly but the valuations have not been entered into the valuation lists. Therefore, the buildings have not fallen to be rated until a period of seven years has elapsed.

Mr. Cafferky

I would like to say to the Minister that to my knowledge new houses built in the last 12 months have been revalued actually before the tenants went to live in them.

Mr. MacEntee

Are they farm houses?

Mr. Cafferky

In a farming area.

An Ceann Comhairle

There have been enough interruptions. The Minister should be allowed to speak.

Mr. Cafferky

That is not an interruption. That is information for the Minister and his officials.

Mr. MacEntee

Are they farm buildings?

Mr. Cafferky

They are five-roomed farm bungalows.

Mr. MacEntee

They are dwelling-houses but they are not farm buildings.

Mr. Sweetman

Might I ask the Minister a question?

Mr. MacEntee

I cannot go on interminably dealing with interruptions.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister should be allowed to make his statement.

Mr. Davin

He is enjoying this.

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps he is but the Deputy should not afford him enjoyment.

Mr. MacEntee

It is quite clear Deputy Sweetman wants to head me off.

Mr. Sweetman

I want to ask a very simple question.

Mr. MacEntee

According to this Bill: "Where a person engaged in farming erects outhouses or farm buildings or enlarges or improves existing outhouses or farm buildings ...the following section shall apply". What point is there in this when that position is already fully covered? If farm buildings are erected or enlarged or if an outhouse is erected, enlarged or improved it will be valued but it will not be entered in the valuation lists for seven years. Therefore it does not fall to be rated for a period of seven years.

Mr. Sweetman

I am afraid that is not so.

Mr. MacEntee

That is the position.

Mr. Sweetman

It is not the position.

Mr. MacEntee

Then what is the purpose of Section 4? The existing law and also existing practice already cover that. They have never been challenged in the courts. No ratepayer has ever gone and said he was aggrieved by the practice of the Commissioners of Valuation for not entering in the valuation lists. What is the purpose, therefore, of Section 4? The purpose of Section 4, let me repeat, is merely a bait, a trick to delude the farming community of this country into the belief that this Bill, which has a far different purpose, is going to confer any substantial benefit on them.

Mr. O'Leary

They are hoping you will do something for them.

Mr. MacEntee

In the light of that position and in view of what I have already said as to what the general effect of this Bill would be if it were to become operative, those who are concerned about the conditions of the farmers should refuse to give a Second Reading to it.

Mr. Davin

What are you going to do?

Mr. MacEntee

I have gone to the trouble of showing the defects in this Bill, and spent a great deal of time, fruitfully I hope, pointing out to Deputy Davin what the general effect of this Bill would be on the people and what the general reaction of this Bill would be on the section of the population with whom Deputy Davin is as sincerely concerned as I am. Therefore, I hope Deputy Davin will do what I intend to do. I am going to vote against the Bill for the very sound reasons which I have given.

As Deputy Briscoe pointed out this morning, this Bill will confer no really substantial benefit upon the general mass of the people. It may confer benefits upon a certain section of the community. One thing it will do, as the Bill is drafted at present, having regard to the valuation code generally, it will give a great deal of employment to the lawyers. For instance, can Deputy Sweetman tell me how the courts are going to construe this new concept of suitability?

Mr. Sweetman

They will take a more realistic view of the Bill than you have taken this morning.

Mr. MacEntee

I would like to know what guide the courts will have because this is something entirely new.

Mr. O'Higgins

It is not new. It was introduced by the Minister himself 14 years ago in the Minister's own Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

I have not introduced anything. My great regret is that the Bill of 1938 did not become law, but as it did not become law I introduced nothing. Let the Deputy be aware of that.

Mr. O'Higgins

As Minister for Local Government the Deputy introduced the Act of 1940.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. MacEntee

In relation to the question of suitability how are the courts going to interpret this Bill? What concept of suitability doesDeputy O'Higgins visualise them forming in relation to this matter? I just cannot see that concept being generally applied. It does not make sense. The only thing it will mean is that the courts will have to spend a great deal of their time, if this Bill becomes law, trying to interpret what the Legislature means by the term "suitability."

Mr. Sweetman

Might I ask the Minister this question? Did the Minister receive the deputation from Macra na Feirme which was to interview either himself or his colleague, the Minister for Local Government—I am not sure which—because they would have given the Minister many instances which need to be covered under Section 4 where the practice is not as the Minister said?

Mr. O. Flanagan

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 27th October, 1953.