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.