Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Nov 1953

Vol. 142 No. 9

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

Mr. Rooney

When the debate on this Bill was adjourned on Thursday last, I was pointing out to the House the advantages which it is designed to bring. We have had prolonged debateon this measure up to the present time.

We have had opposition to the Bill from the Fianna Fáil Party, although it is a progressive measure, designed particularly to reform legislation, the Valuation Act of 1852, which is now 101 years old. That Act was designed to achieve certain purposes and it has a detrimental effect on progress where various sections of the community are involved. We have opposition to it from the Fianna Fáil Party because it was introduced by three Deputies of the Fine Gael Party, Deputies Sweetman, Morrissey and O'Higgins.

The reforms proposed in it are long overdue, but the Fianna Fáil Party will probably use their strength in the House, even though they are weak in the country, to prevent the Bill becoming law, although there are many sections of the community awaiting the benefits which the Bill proposes to give. The tenants of dwelling-houses, the staffs of factories, the workers in shops, proprietors of business premises and farmers who wish to construct farm buildings—all these different interests will get advantage from this Bill, but we have heard from the Fianna Fáil Deputies that they intend to steamroll the Bill. They have said that they intend to bring in a comprehensive measure, but I would ask when we can expect that comprehensive measure and when the people for whom the reforms in this Bill are designed will get the advantage of it. Will we get in that comprehensive Bill, promised during the Galway by-election, the benefits this Bill is designed to give? If not, we ought to be told by Fianna Fáil speakers at this stage. I challenge them to examine this Bill and to point out the aspects of it which they propose to delete or the sections to which they are opposed.

Mr. Cunningham

There are only three sections worth talking about in it.

Mr. Rooney

All that the Fianna Fáil Party have done up to the present is to pay lip-service to those people who are carrying the heavy burden imposed upon them by increased valuationsand then to end their contribution by saying that they intend to oppose the Bill. Some of them have said that they decided it was class legislation.

Mr. Cunningham

Deputy Norton said that.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

What did he say?

Mr. Cunningham

It was class distinction.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

Are those his actual words?

Mr. Cunningham

He said it did not benefit the tenants of labourers' cottages.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Rooney is in possession. Deputy Cunningham and Deputy Mac Fheórais can discuss it elsewhere.

Mr. Rooney

I have already quoted a statement made by Deputy Norton which shows very clearly that he appreciates the advantages contained in the Bill.

Mr. Cunningham

And the disadvantages.

Mr. Rooney

He did not point out any disadvantages.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

Every Bill has its disadvantages and shortcomings until it reaches Committee Stage.

Major de Valera

Until.

Mr. Rooney

I hope that before the debate concludes we will hear from the Fianna Fáil Deputies, not an expression of pious sympathy with the owners of property obliged to pay increased rates on valuations that are stepped up, but reasons why they propose to steamroll the Bill. It does not deserve that treatment. It deserves a better approach from the Fianna Fáil Party. The Taoiseach has already recognised the advantages which it will bring and, though it was put on the books last June by the Fine Gael Party, we had the Taoiseach in August goingdown to Galway during the by-election and saying that he proposed at a future date to implement legislation of this nature.

We have a situation at present in which a person who decides to preserve his property by carrying out certain repairs, renovations and alterations finds that, when these are carried out, his valuation is increased. If he did not carry out this work, the premises would probably fall into disrepair. The consequence is that the owner of that property, whether a dwelling-house, a farm building, a shop or a factory, is penalised because he tries to keep it in good repair, instead of allowing it to fall into disrepair and to collapse. That is the very great weakness in the Valuation Act of 1852.

I am satisfied that this legislation is urgently needed and I hope the Fianna Fáil Party will change their mind and accept the Bill for what it is worth. If they think they can do better, let them add to the advantages the Bill proposes to confer. In saying that they intended to oppose the Bill, Fianna Fáil Deputies made a very good case for it, because they could not contribute to the debate without pointing out the many difficulties under which owners of property are labouring at present.

For that reason, I feel that this Bill should be unanimously accepted. I am sure that the various sections and classes which it proposes to benefit will await very anxiously the reform of the Act of 1852 which is causing such great hardship at present. It is a tax on enterprise and it retards progress. People who are progressive, who wish to improve their businesses and to give greater employment, are prevented from doing so by the threat that if they do alter, renovate and improve premises—without carrying out certain additions and only improving—they are liable to this increased tax.

With rates rising annually as they are, and with the prospect that they will be increased very substantially now under the Health Bill which is on the Statute Book, those people will be discouraged from trying to preserve their property and carrying out thesealterations and repairs. I wish to conclude by congratulating Deputies Sweetman, Morrissey and O'Higgins on introducing this private members' Bill, and I hope it will be accepted unanimously.

Mr. Cogan

The introduction of this Bill dealing with valuations marks a very striking change in the attitude of the Fine Gael Party as compared with their attitude last March when I introduced a motion dealing with this whole question. Last March I submitted to the House that it was desirable to have a thorough investigation of the whole system of valuations with a view to remedying the anomalies and injustices that undoubtedly exist under the present system. Not only did the Fine Gael Party offer every type of obstruction and opposition to that motion, but Deputy Sweetman came into the House and arrogantly ordered one of the Front Bench members of Fine Gael to refrain from supporting the motion. The Deputy in question, Deputy Dockrell, had sufficient "gumption" to ignore this very impertinent order, and he spoke, and spoke very well, in favour of the motion proposed by me.

What was the proposal I put before the House last March? Simply that the present system of valuation, as originated 100 years ago under the Valuation Act of 1852, contained many absurdities and injustices and for that reason deserved most careful investigation with a view to having it amended. The Fine Gael Party refused to accept that motion and put up every form of opposition to it. Now they come forward hurriedly with a Bill which, in effect, perpetuates most of the absurdities and injustices that I complained about. For a long time Deputies on all sides of the House have been making the complaint that where a ratepayer improves his property, he incurs the liability of having his valuation revised and increased—in other words, he incurs a penalty, for doing work of improvement. Under the Health Acts, various regulations were made which compelled property owners to improve their property. Having carried outthese improvements, they found that their valuations were revised and increased.

The situation which will ensue if this Bill comes into effect is that those who have suffered increases in their valuations for the past three or four years since the termination of the war by reason of improving their property, will have these increased valuations stabilised. Those who have managed to escape the vigilance of the Commissioners of Valuation or rather the officers of the local authority, will be confirmed in the immunity which they have secured. In other words, we shall have the valuation increased on business premises at one side of a street where the owner was progressive and improved that property—it will be perhaps doubled or trebled as it has been in some cases—whilst the valuation of the property of a man who is competing with him in business will not be increased. By this Bill, these two valuations will be permanently confirmed. I think that that is not reasonable, progressive or reformative legislation. It is a haphazard proposal hurriedly conceived in the immature minds of some of the younger members of the Fine Gael Party.

Deputies on all sides of the House have been complaining about the penalty that is imposed upon ratepayers who improve their property— the penalty of increased valuations and increased rates. If one reads this Bill, one will find that the striking feature of it is that it only provides for an increase in rates when an improvement is carried out. The man who does not improve his property is to be exempt from any increase in the rateable valuation of that property under this Bill while the man who improves it will, after a short period of years, face a very substantial increase. In other words, this Bill seeks to give relief to the man who does not carry out any improvement after the passing of the Bill and imposes a penalty on the man who does carry out such improvement. That is a striking contradiction of the policy which has been advocated by Deputies on all sides of the House.

I think that the Deputies who have brought forward this Bill would havebeen well advised if they had accepted the terms of the motion which I brought forward last March and if they had gone into this matter with a little bit more care and diligence and examined it in all its aspects. Valuation is a very complex question. It is a matter which cannot be dealt with in a haphazard way. As a matter of fact, anything pertaining to the levying and collection of taxation bristles with difficulties. I realised and acknowledged that fact when I was introducing the motion last March.

It is not one of the things that you can rush into rapidly without undue consideration. There are a great many anomalies and injustices in the existing system. For example, there is in this Bill no relief given in regard to the improvement of dwelling-houses.

I think we would be well advised to re-examine this whole matter and find out if there is some more equitable basis upon which valuations can be made and on which the contributions to the local administration could be fixed. I believe that if you want to establish justice as between one ratepayer and another you must, if you are logical, revise all valuations on exactly the same basis. In fact you must revalue all property and base that revaluation on something that is fair and equitable.

We all know, of course, that there is a general feeling of uneasiness in regard to revaluation on the ground that it would result in a general increase in all valuations. That, I think, is the objection to it and I suppose there is reasonable ground for it. As we know, valuations are fixed upon the earning capacity of property to a great extent, or are supposed to be fixed at any rate. They are based on the letting value which is supposed to represent the earning capacity of the property. We all know that it is very hard to say that that basis is altogether fair or accurate, but at least if the valuations were all carried out at the same time that would have the effect of being somewhat fairer than when they are carried out piecemeal, when you have property valued perhaps in 1860 or 1870 or 1880, when the value,of course, was very different from what it is now, valued again in 1952.

Because of the complexity of this problem this House would be very foolish to rush into a piecemeal type of legislation such as this is. We would be foolish to confirm the high valuations that have been fixed in recent years upon certain business premises while leaving, perhaps, rival traders in the same street or district at a much lower valuation. It would be unfair to provide, as in this Bill, that the only people who could have their valuations increased are those who improve their property. If this Bill were enacted in some ways it would become a gold mine, so to speak, for the legal profession. The various sections are so loosely drawn that it would lead to endless litigation. It is hard to know whether the definition of business premises can be clearly ascertained. If a solicitor's office or a barrister's consulting rooms are business premises, then I think there would be need for some extension of these premises if this Bill were to become law, because, as I see it, it will lead to a great deal of litigation and court proceedings to define exactly what business premises are. It does seem very wrong to withhold the very limited benefits provided in this Bill from a man who has improved or enlarged his dwelling-house.

I think the House would be well advised to await the legislation promised by the Government. I hope that in introducing this legislation they will have every aspect of this problem very carefully considered and that, while removing some anomalies and injustices, they will not create perhaps even greater injustices and anomalies. Therefore, I think the House should reject this Bill. I have no doubt that a better Bill will be forthcoming with the backing of the Government, the problem having been carefully examined in all its aspects by those qualified to examine it.

I have never been favourable to the system under which valuations are fixed. I should like to see the whole matter thoroughly examined and the legislation carefully sifted with a viewto having it improved. It is true that it is not contemplated that there shall be any revisions of valuations as far as agricultural land is concerned. But even there the manner in which the valuations were fixed 100 years ago created a good deal of injustice. People who had been growing wheat extensively at that time found that the valuation on their land was fixed at a very much higher level than on those who were engaged in stock raising or some other type of agricultural activity. These injustices are very apparent to anyone who travels the country. In certain districts you will find that the land valuations are very much higher than in other districts. But I think that farmers as a body would, very rightly, have a strong objection to any interference with the valuation system as it applies to land. They would have a strong objection to any revision.

If there is a revision in regard to buildings, it should be carefully planned and carried out on an equitable basis. Over the last few years, because of the extensive building programme which has been carried out, the demolition of old buildings and the provision of new dwelling-houses both by private enterprise and local authorities, there are a great many people living in dwelling-houses which are assessed on a very high valuation as compared with older buildings which were valued prior to the last war or to the 1914 war. This is a matter which requires careful consideration and I should like to see if there were a general revaluation of buildings an upper limit fixed so that the total valuation of the entire State, if you like, would not be increased.

In fact, there would be an ironing out of inequalities and injustices, but in a general increase that could not be done. If legislation could be framed to carry out such an operation, I think it would meet the wishes of everyone. There are people who say it does not really matter very much whether valuations are increased or not, and that an increase in valuation of buildings will automatically effect a reduction in rates in the £ and that if the valuation of all dwellings is doubled in a county,city or town the rates in the £ in that county, city or town will be automatically halved.

There is a certain amount of truth in that, but I think the psychological effect of the halving of the rates in the town would have a general tendency to drive up the rates to 25/- or 30/- in the £ as they are at present. In addition to that, of course, increased valuations affect not only the rates but also electricity charges, income-tax and licensing duties in licensed premises and so on. There would be a very considerable increase on the burden of the ratepayers even if all valuations were increased. Because of the complexity of this question and of the many difficulties and anomalies that exist, I think we should not enact a Bill which in its vital clauses confirms and stabilises practically all those anomalies and injustices. We have variations as between one ratepayer and another of, perhaps, £40 or £50 in the valuation of premises which are equal in their capacity, floor space and, perhaps, in the facilities which they provide for business. I think it would be wrong to perpetuate for all time that situation by passing such a Bill as this.

Mr. Allen

This Bill has been introduced as a Valuation Bill by some Deputies in the Opposition. It is noticeable that two of the sponsors of this Bill are legal gentlemen, one of whom has a knowledge of valuation. They ask the House to accept this as a Valuation Bill because they are serving the best interests of this country by bringing it in. I assume that in framing a Bill members of the Opposition would, like members on this side of the House, do so in a responsible manner. We have not heard from the Opposition whether or not they accept the fundamental principle on which rateable valuations are based in this country. We should have liked to have heard Deputy Sweetman, as a member of a local authority, state whether or not he accepted the present principle on which the rateable valuation of property is based. I think that is fundamental to any Valuation Bill that sets out to effect the rateablevaluation of property, whether land or buildings. If Deputy Sweetman and the other Opposition Deputies accept that principle, they must also accept that if the value, letting or otherwise, of property deteriorates the owner of that property is entitled to have a revaluation and have the property assessed on a lower value. If the property improves it has a higher letting value. If the principle of valuation which has operated for the past 100 years is accepted in future and is to be the basis of valuation, then Section 2 of the Bill should not be put into effect.

According to Section 2 of the Bill, the present valuation which was put on 100 years ago must be the valuation for all time. The value of property, irrespective of its use, may have doubled in the past 20 or 25 years. It may never have been revalued for the past 100 years and its present-day letting value may be ten times greater. What Deputy Sweetman says in effect to the ratepayers of Kildare is that, irrespective of the income A may have from a premises in the best town in Kildare, the valuation of that premises to-day, which is the valuation put on it in 1852 or 1853, must remain the valuation for all time on that premises.

In effect, he tells the ratepayers of the County Kildare: "We do not care two hoots about you but A must be allowed at your expense to get away with it and not pay his fair rates for the premises he occupies." That is what Deputy Sweetman set out to do as a member of a local authority who are deeply concerned and must always be deeply concerned with the rateable valuation whether in a county, town or city. He asks the House seriously to accept this Bill. Section 2 of the Bill undermines the whole principle of rateable valuation as applied to lands and buildings for the past 100 years and that is what Deputy Sweetman asks us to accept in all seriousness.

Deputy Davin accepted, as did Deputy Norton, the principle of the Bill. He wanted an assurance from the sponsors of the Bill that if the cottiers, the people who occupy labourers' cottages, purchased a cottage and added a room to it they wouldnot come under Section 3 of the Bill and that there could be no increase in their valuation. He had doubts in his mind. Deputy Davin is no greenhorn in the matter of legislation passing through this House. He knows quite well that what Deputy Sweetman is asking him to accept is that if an agricultural labourer improves his house he would pay the increased valuation on that house but that the valuation of a trader, who has increased the value of his business in probably the best part of a town in the last 20 or 30 years and is on the same valuation as existed 100 years ago, must remain. The workers about whom Deputy Davin is so concerned must pay the increased valuation if they add a room to their cottages but the people who occupy the best portion of the town must not be asked to pay anything unless they add to or improve their houses in the future. Do those two gentlemen ask that they pay no rates for those improvements for seven years?

I think that is stretching the thing a bit too far. It surprised me that the Labour Party should have swallowed this Bill, hook, line and sinker. They have accepted the principle of it, and all they want is an assurance from Deputy Sweetman and the sponsors of the Bill that it will not affect cottiers. Deputy Davin and Deputy Norton know well, of course, that it will affect cottiers, and that it will not affect businessmen with premises in the best centres of our towns in all the provinces, because their valuations, according to Section 2 of the Bill, must remain as they are at the moment and dare not be altered at any time in the future. That, in effect, is what this Bill asks.

The members of local authorities are deeply concerned to see that all property within their areas are carrying up-to-date valuations. The member of a local authority who refuses to accept that principle should no longer continue to be a member because he is not accepting the law as it is to-day. We oftentimes see members of local authorities criticising the valuation department of the Commissioners of Valuation when some premises in theirareas are revalued. We know, of course, that people whose valuations have been increased very often go to those members with their grievances and abuse them because of the fact that their valuations have been increased. Some of these members of local authorities cannot take that abuse. I want to say that, in my opinion, they should not be members of local authorities at all if they are not prepared to accept their full responsibilities as such.

During the 3½ years that the members of the Opposition were the Government of this country there were increases in valuations and rightly so. I imagine that this Bill arises out of the annoyance and abuse that many of them got during that period, due to the operation of the Valuation Acts. We all know well that many of the original valuations bear no relation whatever to present-day letting values. Deputy Sweetman knows that well, and the discussion on this Bill has shown that there is a need to bring valuations up to present-day letting values. An increase in valuation should not take place, I believe, until there has been a complete revaluation of a whole county or town. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government are deeply concerned to see that that is done and that there is a true value operating in respect of all property.

A good deal of the friction that arises at present is due to the fact that you have the valuation of premises increased here and there without a whole town say, being revalued at the same time. I think that a revaluation for a whole town would be the fairest way of getting valuations brought up to date. If there has been anything wrong since this State was set up, I believe, it was due to this that successive Governments did not provide the machinery for the Valuation Office to enable it to keep the valuations of all property up to date—that adequate staff and valuers were not available to enable valuations to be kept up to the present day actual value of property in the country. I think it is an accurate statement to make that 70 or 80 per cent. of the houses, buildings, shops,offices and warehouses that we have in the country at the present time are carrying the valuations that were put on them originally, away back in 1852 and 1853. I believe that the key to all valuations is the present day letting value of all property, and, as I have said, valuations to-day bear no relation whatever to present day letting values.

I believe that, if the Dáil were foolish enough to pass this Bill, it would be found to be unworkable and would create absolute chaos in the country. You would have most unfair things happening under it. I am more than surprised that Deputies who like to be regarded as responsible Deputies should seek to pass into law legislation that would put a burden on all other sections of the community in the interests of a small minority. It would probably put that burden on the less well-off sections of the community.

That is what is being attempted in Section 3. In Section 2, the promoters of the Bill are trying to prevent property, that has a greater value now than it had when originally valued, carrying its true share of the rates levied in the various local authority areas. That is what I see set out in the Bill. I wonder did the promoters of this Bill ever stop to think of what the consequences of Section 2 of it would be if it became part of the permanent legislation of this country? I am sure there are hundreds and thousands of pieces of property— houses, offices and shops—which were improved in the period between the two world wars, and they were never sent forward for revaluation.

Mr. A. Byrne

Not in Dublin. If a person only put a door on a toilet in Dublin the improvement is revalued the following week.

Mr. Allen

From what we hear, there is a good part of Dublin undervalued and we have reason to believe that that is true. I do not know whether the Deputy is aware of that or not. Under Section 3 of the Bill, the proposal in it is that any enlargement or improvement of premises will rank to be free of extra rates for the next seven years. Supposing I own ashop down the country and I make an addition to it; that addition will be revalued but the new valuation will not come into operation in respect of that portion for seven years. According to Section 2 of this Bill, the original portion of that building could not be increased in valuation at all. The people who will improve their premises will be free of all extra rates and extra valuation for seven years, which, I think, is most unjust. There is some justification for giving relief to people who are prepared to spend money in improving their premises, etc., and giving extra employment.

A principle has been enshrined here in legislation all down the years that where a man built a new dwelling-house he got relief in rates to the extent of two-thirds of the valuation for seven years. In future, the Government proposes introducing a Bill which will bring the same principle into operation in respect of any other type of building, but I think it would be most unfair to give total relief from rates. It is most unfair, also, that the existing portion of the building should not rank for revaluation.

In regard to the erection, enlargement or improvement of outhouses on farms, Deputy Sweetman knows well that the Valuation Act of 1852 provides that where outhouses are erected or improved they rank for relief of rates for a period of years. The sponsors of this Bill should have taken their time and considered its ramifications. One of them at least—there may be others—as a member of the local authority should be concerned not to do anything that would adversely affect that local authority or affect the local rate of their county or town. It is most injurious to local authorities that their valuations should be affected in that way, and to stabilise all valuations at their present level is an outrageous suggestion. It cuts straight across the fundamental principle of rateable value. We are setting out to abandon in all respects the system which has been in operation for the past 100 years or more. Deputy Sweetman, or some of the other Deputies promoting or supporting this Bill, willgo on to suggest that a more equitable way of raising taxation is a poll tax. That is the next suggestion that must be put into operation, a poll tax on the people of the country, a tax per head, irrespective of their means. That would appear to be the intention and I am sure it is just the thin edge of the wedge in that direction. It would be very unjust because it has always been accepted down the years that people paid rates according to the value of the property they occupied. They pay income-tax on the same basis, according to the income they have, whether it is large or small, and every kind of taxation should operate on the same principle. However, in Section 2 of this Bill, it is sought to prevent that system from operating any longer.

I have always believed we should have up-to-date valuation and it should be revised every 20 or 25 years especially according to changes in money values. All improvements that have been brought in during that time or any changes in money value that have occurred over the years should be brought up to date. It would be far better for the whole system of local government and the system of valuation of property in this country because an up-to-date value on property is all important from other directions besides its levying value for local authorities. If there is a low valuation on a farm of a couple of hundred acres, right away the public will say it is of little value. The system is a recognised yardstick by which the value of property, houses, shops, offices, land, and so on, are measured and it is generally accepted as its full value. That is why the true rateable value of house property and so on, should be brought up to date. I hope the Dáil will reject this Bill in no uncertain manner because I believe it will injure the best interests of the country.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Allen must feel himself in a pretty bad jam on an occasion like this because although he has spoken for ten or 15 minutes against this Bill he has made a very poor case.

Mr. Allen

Let us hear yours.

Mr. Blowick

At the outset let me say that this Bill does not meet the situation at all. It does not go as far as I would like to see a Bill of this nature going. It certainly does not go as far as the motions which the Clann na Talmhan Party put down on two previous occasions in this House to try to ease the present unjust burden of taxation placed on the ratepayers, both urban and rural, land owners and house owners. Even though the Bill does not go far enough, it is certainly a step in the right direction and it is a big improvement on the "just sit still and do nothing" policy that Deputy Allen seems to be supporting on the other side of the House.

I intend to speak particularly on the general principle of this Bill and on certain regrettable omissions from it. It must be admitted by everybody that the whole system of rating both of land and buildings—and when I say buildings I am including the country areas, the cities and towns—is far from being just. When going into the question of valuation of land we know that in evidence given 90 years ago before the select committee who examined this whole question, some of the valuers admitted on oath that most of the valuations of land were done from the seat of a side-car and you had valuers at half a mile distance who never stood on the land that was being valued. We were always saying that nothing was being done by successive British Governments but nothing has been done by our own Governments since that time. Evidence was also given under oath before that select committee that the valuers, or evaluators as they were called at the time, actually took bribes of money from people who wanted their valuations increased. It seems there was some question that membership of a Grand Jury depended on the poor law valuation of the land you owned and it was an advantage to have a poor law valuation of more than £200 on land. That is there for anybody to read in the evidence given, not by one witness but by at least three, before the select committee. It is proof enough about the valuation at that time. I do not say all the valuers were wrong—the majority under Griffith's Valuationwere honest, decent men who did the job as well as they could—but some people escaped and there were valuers who admitted on oath that they valued land which they only saw half a mile away from the steps of a side-car. It occurred in Clare, in my own county of Mayo and in several other counties. That in itself is proof that something should be done about the valuation of this country.

I had some shocking experiences during the time I was Minister for Lands. I found the valuation was completely lopsided. Some areas were valued out of all proportion to the quality or area of the land, or its crop bearing capacity or its stock bearing capacity. I will not dwell further on land, as this Bill does not include it, but I hope to have something to say in the future on this particular matter.

There is another important aspect which I would like to deal with briefly —the question of farm buildings on agricultural holdings. I might repeat what I said here in 1946 and on later occasions, that it is unjust and wrong to rate farm buildings when they are used in connection with the work of the farm by a man who makes his living solely from agriculture. A tax on out-offices is something like that of walking into a factory and putting a tax on the machinery turning out finished industrial goods. A farmer does not build out-offices in order to roam through them or just to look at them, or to beautify the farmyard. He builds them because they are necessary. Those who know anything about this know that at least in Connacht and on the western seaboard from Donegal to Kerry there are not 20 holdings which have sufficient out-offices—all through fear of the valuation reviser increasing the rates on the farm. After a lot of research some years ago, I quoted here on this very question that the loss to crops alone, because the farmsteads have not sufficient out-office accommodation, must be close on £7,000,000 a year and the loss to agricultural tools, implements and machines must reach £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 a year, because the average farmer is afraid to put up sufficient out-offices to house the machines and crops.

No matter what Government is in power, every Deputy is clamouring for more production and asking the farmers to produce more. I believe that in a few years we could increase production appreciably by cutting out the loss and waste because the average farmer does not house his crops properly. All that can be done if we take the valuation off farm buildings completely. Then we would soon see the crops saved that at present must go down. Deputies from rural areas, even if they have not land themselves, must have seen threshing operations carried out and then the machines pulled in and after a wet night starting again in the morning. They must have noticed the damage done to all the grain that comes from the upper portion of the stock where the butts of the sheaves are wet, no matter how well thatched in the ordinary way. That means six cwt. to seven cwt., perhaps half a ton, of wheat lost because it is not properly housed in a shed, and that has to be laid aside for stock. That occurred during the emergency when it lessened considerably the amount of millable wheat which went into the mills.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be discussing the whole question of agriculture on the Valuation Bill.

Mr. Blowick

I am criticising the Bill for its omissions. I understand that on the Second Reading it is permissible to discuss and elaborate on the points one would like to see in a Bill, provided one keeps within the general structure of the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A discussion on agriculture would not be too relevant.

Mr. Blowick

I am not discussing agriculture, but the fact that the building of out-offices on the farmsteads has been prohibited or frowned upon by the Government because of the valuation regulations. Furthermore, in England that is not the case; in France that is not the case; in in Italy and Germany, and at least in Holland it is not the case. I do not know of other countries, but in thoseI mention farm buildings can be built ad lib.by the farmer without any danger of penalty.

Might I say, for the information of some Deputies not familiar with the subject, that this legacy was handed down to us, of increasing valuation on farm buildings and on houses, as a relic of the days when the landlord penalised the tenant for improving his land or buildings, by increasing the rent, even though it did not cost the landlord one penny, but perhaps the sweated labour of the tenant himself. One must realise that this is a legacy from those days, and if for no other reason it is high time to scrap it.

I have been speaking about the agricultural side of the whole question of rating and I would like to deal now with cases brought to my notice in towns about valuation on buildings. Let me quote one case. A certain hotel owner somewhere in the province of Connacht did nothing more than take the slates off a leaking roof on portion of his hotel, he did not increase the cubic content of that particular area by one cubic inch, he put new timber on and then put back the slates; even the inside was not plastered. Yet his valuation was increased by £50 in one stroke. That is positively unjust. I am sure the officials who have to administer that particular statute must know in their hearts that they are doing a grave injustice. Apart from those blistered by such regulations, these officials must think we are a pretty sleepy crowd up here, whose job it is to change legislation when we find it is faulty or unjust, not to have tackled this problem long ago.

While I would like to see this Bill embracing a lot more than it does, it is a step in the right direction and it is more than significant that the first promise we got from the Government side of the House that anything would be done about valuation was shortly after this Bill was introduced. Clann na Talmhan is supporting this Bill, though it does not go as far as we would like it to go. The attitude of some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies shows that they want to cling on to the old system, just 100 years old. Itis a stick-in-the-mud policy clinging to something that, on the sworn testimony of so many valuers, has been absolutely rotten from the foundation up. I have listened to Deputy Allen, who wants to cling on to a system that he knows in his heart must be unjust. The present system of fixing the valuation on new houses and of revising the valuation on new buildings is completely unjust. While this Bill does not go the whole hog, at least it is a step in the right direction.

The Minister for Finance did not give the House any idea of the scope of the Bill he proposes to introduce, if that Bill ever reaches this House; I have my doubts on that point. I have painful memories of a Bill that was introduced in 1938 and it was stillborn. I recommend this measure to the House despite all that has been said against it by Deputies on the Government Benches. I hope that even now it will have a more favourable reception than some Bills have had in the past.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I have considerable sympathy with any Bill introduced for the purpose of focusing attention on the existent anomalies in the valuation system. In fairness to Deputy Allen I should, perhaps, say in passing that he did not suggest we should do nothing. He said it was not right that premises valued in 1852 should 100 years later carry the same valuation.

This is a very complex problem. It is very large in its dimensions. I think the people who have promoted this Bill would be the first to agree that this measure does not attempt to solve the problem as a whole. The fundamental difficulty, as far as the man in the street is concerned, is that in practice he can have no recourse to the courts after the valuation officer has revalued his premises. Deputy Allen, I think, can hardly be serious when he suggests that the letting value of premises should be the guide to the rateable valuation. I know that is the guide in law but I find it very hard to believe that Deputy Allen accepts that premise.

There is hardly a house in even the most remote parts of this country thatwould not be worth £20 per annum for letting purposes. Is it suggested we should continue in operation a system under which the valuation authorities are entitled to assess a rate of £20 per annum on that house? I am talking now from the point of view of the man in the street who carries out some improvement to his premises to the tune of £10 or £15 and then finds that that improvement involves a revaluation of his whole premises. The injustice from his point of view lies in the fact that his neighbour down the street, over the bridge or across the townland who has never bothered his head about improving his premises continues to get away with the valuation imposed 100 years ago while his valuation is doubled or trebled overnight. When that happens, he rushes down to Deputy Sweetman or myself with 10/6 in his hand——

Mr. Sweetman

We are lucky if he has the 10/6.

Mr. S. Flanagan

In the country we have to knock off 6d. for luck. We tell him that nothing can be done about it. We tell him that he may mount an appeal to the court but the court will say that under the laws in operation at the moment the valuation authorities have been very lenient. These premises, if let, might fetch £50 per annum and, in that case, the court will tell him he has no grievance.

I do not agree that this Bill meets the situation. Indeed, I do not think it was intended to meet the situation. For once in our lives, we should get together here. This matter should not be used as a political football. The services rendered are yearly becoming greater and more expensive. The demands made on local authorities are growing every year. The average rate at the present time is over 30/- in the £. In some cases, it is almost 40/- in the £. That means that the nominal valuation is already antediluvian. We seem to overlook that fact.

Surely we ought to get together and try to hammer out a system under which the burden will be fairly and equitably distributed. If we do that, we will do a good day's work. If this matter is made a political platform,nothing will ever be done. The matter is too dangerous in itself and we are dealing with things which are too vital to so many people. One of the reasons why nothing has ever been done so far is because it is dynamite, but if we could get a fund of goodwill from both sides of the House something far-reaching might be done.

I have considerable sympathy with Deputy Blowick's point of view. I think he made a good point when he said that excessive valuations on farm buildings are a damper on agricultural production. In my constituency there is fairly good land valued at £1 per acre. Almost equally good land less than 20 miles away is valued at 7/- per acre. This is a very important matter from the point of view of landholders. When they apply to the Land Commision for an increase in their holdings the first thing they are told is that their valuation is so much. It may be £10 on ten acres of land. If they are asked if their land is an economic holding they will certainly be told it is not.

There are many factors involved in valuation. One's electricity is measured on valuation, and that is another reason why one may be afraid to put up decent out-offices, because there is the danger that not merely the out-offices but the entire premises will be revalued. Income-tax is based on the valuation of the property.

I have tried to discuss this problem dispassionately and from the point of view of the man in the street and not that of a lawyer or a Deputy. The problems I have outlined are those that the man in the street will present to you day after day. It is very difficult to find an answer to them. It is very difficult to explain to people who confront you with a rate demand note for £12 to £14 in respect of premises for which they paid £3 or £4 in rates the previous year that there is nothing that can be done about it. The increase in the valuation was due entirely to the fact that they carried out some improvement to the property. It is very difficult to explain, particularly when there has not been any comparable improvement in the services rendered for the rates.

I appeal, therefore, to all sections of the House not to put the question of valuation on a political basis. The problem is grave and complex. The rates which will be demanded in future will be greater than those demanded at present. The tendency is towards increased interference, if you like, increased services, if you like, by local and central authorities. We should try to ensure that the people who are asked to pay for these services will pay on a fair basis, according to the value of the property, but not according to the letting value of the property.

Machinery should be devised whereby the court would have real power over the valuation authorities. We are all human. Everybody's difficulties cannot be solved overnight. No matter what may be done, many people will be dissatisfied with the results. The best we can do is to approach the problem in a fair-minded way. We should give the courts real power over the decisions of the Valuation Office. Then we should try to see that the individual will have protection of the courts.

Perhaps somebody may say that I am advocating something which will have the effect of creating more business for my profession. Perhaps I am. For once in a lifetime we might try not to be small-minded. If we are big-minded enough about the problem we can tackle and solve it. While I do not think that this Bill meets the case, it has focussed attention on a very important problem. For that reason we should be grateful to those who introduced it.

Mr. A. Byrne

The sponsors of this Bill are to be congratulated. A very reasonable discussion has taken place on the Bill. I earnestly appeal to my colleagues to allow this Bill to go through and, if they desire to introduce another measure at a later stage, they can do so. If this Bill goes through, there will be a certain amount of consequential employment of people who are anxiously awaiting employment.

There are certain business premises in Dublin doing a certain type of trade which in the normal way will not increase. If the owners of thepremises enlarge the shop front the valuation will be increased by 50 per cent. Is there anybody in the House who stands for that?

People who want to improve their premises ought to be allowed to do so without an increase in rates in respect of the improvements for a period of, say, seven years. It would be laudable to encourage people to speculate and to improve their premises. I guarantee that if a proposal is made to have a general increase in valuation or if a Bill is introduced to review valuations all over the country, in nine out of ten cases revalued, the valuation will be increased. That will mean further taxation on people who are struggling to carry on business. I have never known a valuation to be reduced.

If the owner of a licensed premises improves the wash-house or adds toilet accommodation, the Valuation Commissioners immediately increase his valuation by 25, 33 or 50 per cent. The licence fee is based on the valuation. An increase in valuation, therefore, means an increase all round. Many business people refrain from carrying out improvements because of the danger of revaluation.

Some five or six years ago, someone had the happy idea of bringing in a Valuation Bill. It got a First Reading. There was such an outcry of indignation about it that the Government at the time dropped it like a hot potato.

Another grievance, especially in the City of Dublin, arises from the fact that the Valuation Commissioners can go into premises, without notifying the owner, for the purpose of revaluation. In one or two cases that came to my notice last year the owners of the premises knew nothing about the revaluation until they got the demand notice from the corporation showing an increase in the rates of 25 to 30 per cent. These people got a great shock. Notice of intention to inspect premises for the purpose of revaluation should be given to the owners so that the owner's solicitors may defend the case and argue against the proposed revaluation.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.