Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Dec 1953

Vol. 143 No. 8

Private Members' Business. - Revision of Valuations—Motion.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the imposition and revision of valuations should be suspended pending the introduction of proposals for legislation to put the system on a more equitable basis, and it further urges that such legislation should be enacted without delay.—(Deputies Finan and Donnellan.)

Mr. Rooney

Last night when I was speaking on this motion put down by Deputy Finan concerning the proposal in relation to the revision of valuations, I was pointing out that the motion is well justified and it is overdue. We tried last night to obtain from the Minister for External Affairs his views on this matter but he stayed as mute as a mouse in spite of the fact that he was prodded by Deputy Finan into making a few remarksconcerning this particular problem. The Minister last night complained that I had no views in particular to express on this subject but I would remind the Minister that he had got the opportunity from the mover of this motion to let us have his views. Possibly, he is going to tell us that the Government propose to introduce a Valuation Bill which may meet the terms of this motion and which may have the effect of meeting the terms of the Fine Gael Bill which was voted out of the House by the Government a month ago.

This motion is wider in scope than that Bill. It is designed in a particular way to bring advantages to larger sections of the community who are hit by a property tax in the form of rates. We have the situation at the present time that people who wish to improve their property, renovate their premises and maintain them, are being taxed by having their valuations increased. As we know, it is on these increased valuations that their rates are payable, that their income-tax is calculated and that their E.S.B. charges are made. These are some of the difficulties which are being caused by the present system, the basis of which is the Valuation Act of 1852.

During the Galway by-election, the Taoiseach was forced to concede that there is an injustice so far as valuations are concerned. His only token towards an alleviation of that problem was the promise that the introduction of legislation would be considered. The present Government have had long enough to consider the introduction of legislation relating to a matter of this nature. I believe that such legislation should be passed during the present term so that when the time comes for striking the new rate after the 31st March there will be a new basis on which to calculate the rates payable instead of the present system.

The new basis should be such that it will encourage people to renovate their property, to improve it and to maintain it. There are cases, for instance, of people living in villages and even on farms who want to replace a thatched roof by a tiled or a slated roof. When they make that improvement,because the thatched roof is no longer safe or capable of keeping the house dry, the valuation officer must, under the present system, immediately revalue that house on the basis of its present letting value. The fact, of course, that the thatched roof has been replaced enhances the value of the house, and hence a higher valuation applies.

One factor which determines the letting value of a house in a particular area is the need for housing there— the demand for the tenancy of houses. Where letting value is taken as a basis for calculating valuations, particularly in villages or towns, we find that, with so many people looking for the shelter of homes of their own, the letting value is artificially boosted. That aspect, however, is not considered when the letting value of the occupation of a house is being considered.

I hope that this motion will be accepted. I know that there is a large measure of support for it from every side of the House. When the Fine Gael Valuation Bill was before the House over a month ago, many Government Deputies expressed themselves as being in sympathy with the change proposed in the present system. There were, of course, some Deputies who indicated that they were opposed to the advantages which that Bill was designed to bring about. There were many Government Deputies who took part in the debate on that Bill, and made a good case for it, though, in the end, they said they were going to vote against it, and they did.

This motion is designed to cover some aspects of valuation which were contained in that Bill. It is also designed to embrace a larger number of persons and categories of property, particularly agricultural buildings, farm dwellings, business premises and the ordinary dwelling-house. That is why I hope it will be accepted by the House. I hope, too, that we will hear what the Minister has to say on it. The Minister for Finance did speak on the Fine Gael Bill, but his views on this question of valuations were not helpful. He tried to throw cold water on that Bill, but in spite of his attitudethe fact remains that there is a need for revision.

This motion should, I suggest, hasten the day when the Government will introduce new legislation to supplant the system that we have operating at the present time. It is 100 years old. It was not designed at that time to meet present-day requirements. At different times, over the last 30 years, legislation of various types has been introduced to replace outmoded legislation, but nothing of a positive and effective kind has been done to repeal the Valuation Act of 1852. Demands are being made on the ratepayers at the present time to make contributions for the purpose of providing amenities and facilities of various kinds, including different types of reliefs, particularly home assistance. All these contributions mean a big increase in the rates. Therefore, I submit that we should not have a valuation system in operation which is based on an Act that was passed in 1852. That Act was not designed to fix valuations which would result in the collection of rates to be used for the many purposes to which rates are applied at the present time. The rates which are now being collected from the people, under the present valuation system, are meeting needs which, I suggest, should be met from the general taxation fund. The general taxpayers, in many cases, should be required to contribute towards the provision of benefits which, in fact, are being financed at the moment from the rates.

Mr. Burke

In listening to some of the Fine Gael speeches on this and other matters, I was rubbing my eyes to know was it the same Party which was speaking now as was in office a few years ago from 1948 to 1951. I was just thinking about the Minister for Finance who during that term of office whispered to the valuation officers to go around County Dublin without any bill and get all the business premises revalued. According to him, they were not paying enough.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is not true.

General MacEoin

Where is the evidence?

Mr. Burke

During that time I had to put down questions about it.

Mr. O. Flanagan

You did, after telling the Fianna Fáil rate collectors to do it. On a point of order, is it in order for a Deputy to accuse deliberately an ex-Minister of an action of which he was not guilty?

An Ceann Comhairle

Statements of that kind are made across the floor of the House every day. They are the current coin of an Assembly of this kind. The Chair has no means of determining whether such statements are correct and does not propose to try.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I want to deny that accusation, which is quite untrue.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Burke must be allowed to go on.

Mr. Burke

I can understand the anxiety of Deputy Flanagan. I think he was an Independent at the time when that happened and he is trying to clear his conscience that he was not associated directly with Fine Gael at that time.

General MacEoin

I was directly associated with it, and it is incorrect that Fine Gael gave any such instruction.

Mr. Burke

During those three years business houses in County Dublin were revalued and during that time revaluation was carried out with the blessing of the Party in power at that period. A number of people were very badly hit but the Government then did not like to bring in any legislation about valuation. They were just playing the same old game as they were playing all along, and that is doing things in an insidious, underhanded way, trying to get something out of the people without coming to the House and without telling people what they are going to do.

General MacEoin

You are judging your neighbour as you are leading your own life.

Mr. Burke

In my constituency every business house was revalued.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not discussing the administration of the inter-Party Government. There is a motion before the House and I would suggest that the Deputy come to it and discuss it.

Mr. Burke

On the motion now before the House I want to say just a few words. We all want to see the law administered as fairly as possible and see justice done. We are here as a collective body of responsible Deputies to see that all members of the community get a fair deal so far as we are concerned. That is our duty but I do not think the method adopted by the mover of this motion is going to bring us to the point that we want to reach regarding the revaluation of property. I do feel that this is a very important matter. I believe that the people best fitted to do this job in a thorough manner—and they have all the information at their disposal—are the Government. I believe that the motion we are now discussing is only a kind of piecemeal motion meaning nothing.

Take for example the motion before the House, and if we examine it thoroughly, it is only going to shift the responsibility from one section to another. It would be a different matter if we had a motion covering every section of the ratepayers. I am fully convinced this method is not meeting the position at all and will not meet it. The Fine Gael Party's Bill did not meet the position either.

The Minister for Local Government intimated some time ago what he was trying to do regarding certain valuations and that will be faithfully carried out. I realise that a number of points made here about revaluing property directly a man improves his property in any way, had some substance. I realise there is an injustice there, because it is discouraging people from improving their property. Then it is a question of how you can be fair to all sections of the people in dealing with this matter. Are we approaching it properly, in a cool way, and in a way which would be just to every section of the people paying rates? To do that, I believe, requires much consideration,and much information will have to be given and many details worked out.

While I have no doubt of the honesty of the Deputy in bringing this motion forward I do feel conscientiously it is not going to achieve what we all desire should be done and that is to give fair play to all ratepayers of all stations in life, no matter where they are, in cities, in towns, or in the country.

This is a very touchy problem. We now have certain ratepayers who have new houses which are valued fairly highly. They are kicking against that and there is a problem there, too. What are you going to do with people who have old properties falling into decay? Are you going to put the man in the good business centre in the same category as the man in a very bad centre? There are various aspects of all these things that have to be considered. I am not going to say any more on the matter now, but I firmly believe that this motion is not meeting all that we desire should be done as regards valuation of the property.

Mr. Blowick

I cannot say I was impressed by the contribution made by the Deputy who has just sat down. It is quite obvious that he never read the motion. He was speaking for just eight minutes by the clock on something that was not before the House at all. He said that the motion was not fair. What is unfair about it?

Mr. Burke

I said the motion was not meeting the whole problem of valuation.

Mr. Blowick

You have made your speech and if you have forgotten anything in that speech I am afraid you will have to wait until the next chance you get.

Mr. Burke

I would be delighted to follow you any time.

Mr. Blowick

The Deputy said that the motion is unfair. In what way is it unfair? It is proposed to suspend the imposition and revision of valuations on all classes of land and buildings in town and country. What is unfair about that? The Deputy seemsto be very solicitous about wasting the time of the House. He would not have wasted so much time if he had read the motion before speaking to it, instead of wandering all over the place and speaking about everything under the sun except the subject under discussion.

Mr. Burke

I am sorry if anything I said has hurt you.

Mr. Blowick

Not a bit. The Deputy reminded me of a kitten on a kitchen floor with a ball of yarn that finishes up by covering the floor with tangled thread. Without commenting on the Deputy's personal appearance, I am afraid I could not call him a kitten. I would love to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Blowick might now come to the motion.

Mr. Burke

Deputy Blowick was a member of the Government that increased the valuations all over the country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Burke has already spoken. He should allow Deputy Blowick to speak.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Is it in order for Deputy Burke to accuse Deputy Blowick of being a member of a Government that gave orders to increase valuations all over the country, when that is untrue and well-known to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to be untrue?

Mr. Blowick

The Ceann Comhairle gave a ruling on that a few moments ago and, seeing that Deputy Burke made the charge, I propose to deal with it. The Minister for Finance at any time has no statutory power under the Valuation Acts to give the commissioners such direction as Deputy Burke has accused Deputy McGilligan while Minister for Finance of giving to the commissioner. If Deputy Burke had taken the trouble to hunt up the 1852 Valuation of Ireland Act he would have found that the Minister has no authority to give such a direction. The real truth of the matter for Deputy Burke's benefit, is that while we were in power there were three campaigns launchedagainst us. One was for the farmers not to have anything to do with the Land Reclamation Act, that it was a trick of the inter-Party Government to increase valuations. That I deny vehemently. The second was that every Fianna Fáil rate collector was instructed from Fianna Fáil headquarters——

Mr. Burke

On a point of order.

Mr. Blowick

Sit down and take your medicine.

Mr. Burke

On a point of order. I do not mind a Deputy attacking a man in the House when he can defend himself but this insidious, low propaganda of Deputy Blowick——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is not a point of order.

Mr. Burke

It is a point of order. The Deputy is accusing Fianna Fáil rate collectors. What about the Blue-shirt rate collectors?

Mr. Blowick

Fianna Fáil rate collectors all over the country made raids on everybody in order to increase the valuations, to have the valuations revised. They were perfectly within the law in so doing. It is to suspend that law, an iniquitous one in my opinion, that we of Clann na Talmhan have this motion before the House.

Mr. Burke

Why did not you do it when you were Minister?

Mr. Blowick

You will never be a Minister, or God help Ireland the day you are.

Mr. Burke

You made a very poor job of it.

Mr. Blowick

Bad and all as I was, and I admit my faults, which were numerous, I confidently assert that I made a better job of the administration of the Department of Lands for three and a half years than you ever did or any of your Fianna Fáil Ministers did.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are discussing a motion on valuations. The Deputy should relate his remarks to that.

Mr. Burke

Let the man sing his own praises.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Burke should cease interrupting.

Mr. Blowick

The motion is simple. We wished it to be debated in the House without heat or contention or political bias. It asks for nothing more or less than the suspension of the imposition and revision of valuations pending legislation. Deputy Burke has suggested a commission to go into the whole thing. We thought of a commission but our experience of commissions is that they sit for seven years and hear a lot of evidence, that it takes seven years more to furnish the findings, that it takes the Government another seven years to give the findings legislative effect, if they ever come to the Dáil. They seldom reach the Statute Book. For that reason we have made a simple request to suspend the imposition and revision of valuations. That is a very simple thing to do.

I think it was the Minister for Finance who, by way of interjection, last night, asked what are the county councils going to do for rates. That question does not arise because the motion does not seek to halt the payment of rates. What it seeks to do is to halt the revision of valuations that is going on all over the country, very unjustly in many cases, the reason being that the whole system of valuation is based on a code which is now over 100 years old.

To show that that code is manifestly unjust and that it was rotten from the beginning, two years after the Act went into operation it was necessary to set up a commission of inquiry into certain charges that were made about the method of determining valuations, particularly on land. Some of the valuers, in the year 1854 or 1855, gave evidence before the commission that they valued land that was half a mile away from the steps of a side-car, that they valued it without even seeing it. They admitted on oath that they valued land that was hidden by a fold of the hills, that they never even went into it, whereas their specific directions from Griffith were that they were to test the soil, amongst other things. Letters were pouring into the Valuation Office in Dublin at the time to theeffect that the valuers were tampered with by landowners and houseowners. At that time valuations did not matter very much from a ratepaying point of view because rates were small and the county cess was a very small thing, but it is on record that some of the valuers were tampered with and some of them yielded to giving false valuations so as to increase the valuation of certain small estates so that the owner would qualify for certain honours, one of them being membership of the grand jury of a particular county.

Mr. Burke

Then you are back to my point of view.

Mr. Blowick

God forbid that I would go back to your point of view. If I found myself there I could not guarantee what could happen. We want to put a halt to the revision of valuations as based on such a rotten system as that. It is a constant puzzle to me how the system has lingered on for 100 years through the British Government and Irish Governments and still remains the basis on which valuations are determined. I could speak for two hours on all the injustices that have arisen out of it. I could tell the House how, in the congested areas, it has resulted in terrific injustice to small landowners who might otherwise have qualified for enlargement from the Congested Districts Board or the Land Commission.

In my native county I know a whole stripe of country on one estate where there are people with land of £16 valuation who had not two arable acres and who, because they were over £10 valuation, could not qualify for an addition of land when land was being divided in the locality by the Land Commission. That is one of the injustices. I will not speak of the fact that these people are being taxed year in and year out to pay rates on false valuations.

Now we come to the valuation of house property. Houses were valued according to one standard only, the letting value. The paragon across the House, Deputy Burke, may answer thisquestion: How is the letting value of a house in rural Ireland to be determined? A house in my part of the country has no letting value. Unfortunately, under the rule of the present Government, houses are being vacated. Houses that once housed happy families are now being vacated and the people are flying from the country. One would not get 1/- a year if one let these houses. Yet, when the reviser comes down to value the house next door to such a vacated house the letting value is assessed on the basis of the valuation that the reviser places on it. What is just or fair in that system? I cannot see anything either just or fair in it. That may have been a useful yardstick by which to value dwelling-houses in days gone by, but it has long since outlived its usefulness. A century brings many changes. Even in the case of towns and cities where dwelling-houses are very much in demand it is not a correct yardstick.

Mr. Burke

Will the Deputy's motion settle that?

Mr. Blowick

It will. Did the Deputy read the motion?

Mr. Burke

I read it.

Mr. Blowick

Would somebody get a copy of the motion and take the Deputy and spell out the motion word by word for him and explain it to him?

Mr. Burke

The Deputy is making the case on a different point altogether.

Mr. Blowick

All our motion asks is that Dáil Éireann should suspend the imposition and revision of valuations pending the introduction of legislation to put the system on a more equitable basis by introducing legislation to deal with the whole matter without delay. Deputy Burke adverted to the Valuation Bill that the Government proposes to introduce, but that Bill will give relief to very few because it deals with only one point and it does not go to the root of the problem at all. Deputy Burke was in this House before I was. There was a Valuation Bill introduced in 1938. As far as I can recollect it went as far as the Committee Stagewhen suddenly the bottom fell out of it. It is now stuck into a pigeon-hole somewhere and an inspector of the Department of Health would be required to deal with it because of all the dust that has accumulated on it.

What happened to that Bill? I went to the trouble of looking up the debates on that Bill. The purpose of it was to increase the valuation of every farmer and householder in the country. I admit it would have the effect of lowering the valuation in relation to the fellow who sat in the ashes from one end of the year to the other and allowed bushes and furze to overrun the land. In his case his land would be devalued, but in the case of the man who was up and doing and who believed in keeping his place tidy and improving his outoffices, there would be no easement under the Fianna Fáil Bill introduced in 1938. Will Deputy Burke deny that? These things are on record.

Mr. Killilea

Are you in favour of revaluation?

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Killilea was here at that time. What became of that Bill? Why do not Deputy Burke and Deputy Killilea table a motion that the Valuation Bill of 1938 be taken out and dusted and put before the House? That might be more useful work than interrupting Deputies on this side of the House who are trying to bring the Government to a sense of its responsibility.

Mr. Killilea

Who are trying to cod the people.

Mr. Blowick

Deputy Burke introduced a note here which will do immense damage in my opinion all over the country. We want a suspension of valuations until legislation is introduced to deal with the whole problem. We want no more and no less. That would put an end to the activities of some of the rate collectors for whom, apparently, Deputy Burke is now disowning all responsibility. Remember, it is the statutory duty of a rate collector to furnish particulars of a new building or an improved building so that a revision of valuation may be carried out. Does Deputy Burke nothold that it is an injustice for an hotel keeper to have his valuation revised to his detriment merely because he repairs a leaking roof? That man did not increase the cubic capacity of his hotel by one cubic inch. He merely took off the roof, put in new timber and replaced the old slates. He may have done a little renovation in the individual rooms in the line of papering or painting them but three weeks after he had repaired that faulty roof his valuation was increased by £50. Is that justice? Is it right that immediately a man carries out repairs he is penalised under the law?

In days gone by when the landlord class largely governed this country a tenant who improved his land was compensated by his landlord by having his rent increased. If he gave his house a coat of whitewash or kept it snugly thatched, put in doors or windows, his rent was raised. Indeed, he was looked upon as a dangerous kind of individual by the landlord class, as a man who was up and doing and I have no doubt at all that the first opportunity was taken to evict him and throw him out on the roadside to teach him a lesson. We still have that system with us to-day and that is the system from which we want to cut adrift under the terms of this motion and bring the House to a realisation of what the system should be. Deputy Burke apparently is opposed to our doing that.

Mr. Burke

No. I am opposed to the method.

Mr. Blowick

What is wrong?

Mr. Burke

The Deputy has no method. He is not practical about it. That is where I differ from him.

Mr. Blowick

What is wrong in suspending the revision of valuations? This House could pass a very short Bill preventing revisions of valuation on buildings or land very simply and very quickly. In other words, valuations should be left as they are at the moment until this House deals with the entire matter through fresh legislation. That is the gist of our argument.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

Would that exclude any type of alteration?

Mr. Blowick

People could go on with their building and there would be no revision of valuation.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

If premises were altered would there not have to be a revision?

Mr. Blowick

No. Everything should remain as it is until this House passes legislation dealing with the position. Surely that is within our competence and, if it is not, we should get out. Surely we ought to be able to frame that legislation and pass it inside a period of six months. The country would not go to the dogs in six months if someone put up a new cowhouse or a new roof on his back kitchen.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

What is meant by imposition? Would that relate to a new house?

Mr. Blowick

The imposition that the new valuation will bring about. I think it is quite clear.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

It does not apply to valuations on brand-new houses?

Mr. Blowick

No. It only relates to the revision of existing valuations. I challenge Deputy Burke to vote against this motion. It does not propose that one ratepayer will withhold one penny of his rates. It is simply a motion for the purpose of suspending the machinery of revision until suitable legislation is passed dealing with the whole problem.

Mr. Killilea

What would the Deputy call suitable legislation?

Mr. Blowick

We will discuss that when the Government introduces the Bill. If it is not suitable I will quickly say so. We will cross that bridge when we come to it, and not a moment sooner. I commend this motion to the House, and I ask those Deputies who have gone to the trouble of reading it and digesting it to signify their approval of it.

It was our intention to put the motion in a very calm, quiet way, not in any contentious way, before the House, and it asks for nothing more or less than the suspension of revision— nothing more or less than that.

Mr. Burke

It is as clear as mud now.

Mr. Blowick

I want to make it quite clear that it does not deprive any local authority of one penny of rates that would be coming to it. That is what we want; and in case that perhaps some warped mind or some person would try to read into the motion some words or intentions that are not there I want to make quite clear what was the intention behind it, in any case. I am giving it to the House and ask the Government to agree to it. One simple Bill of three sections would give effect to the motion if the House so agrees. I will go further and ask the Government to leave it to a free vote of the House. That is not so extravagant a demand to make, that the Government will just leave it to a free vote of the House. I ask for nothing more or less than that, and I think it does not need any more words to commend it to the decent Deputies of the House who have read it and given it their full attention. I think it is a motion that ought to command the whole-hearted attention and support of those who have the ratepayers' interests at heart. That is all I have to say on the subject.

Mr. Lehane

I would like to support this motion. I believe that it is very important that we should have increased agricultural production in this country at the moment, but we find ourselves in the position that if we are going to increase and develop agricultural production we must build certain facilities in the farmyard, and every time you build a cow stall, a piggery or a house for the utilisation of poultry you find that you have your valuation increased.

Every encouragement should be given to the people in rural Ireland who are developing the primary industry in this country, which is agriculture, and who are creating increased production by building houses for the production of more pigs, poultry orcattle, and the local authority should look on that as something desirable and not as something that greater taxation is going to be imposed upon. We all know that the real source of wealth in this country is the amount of money we can produce from agricultural products.

If we are going to put embargoes on agricultural production as we are doing at the moment and to prevent people from building factories for producing pigs, chickens, cows and calves we are doing something that is against the interest of the general welfare of the country. I would suggest to the Minister that this is a very reasonable resolution. It is something that this House should adopt and applaud, because if the Minister for Finance does not get immediate direct payment for the buildings that will probably be created if this deterrent is removed the Minister can be quite satisfied that the regular production and prosperity which will accure from the extra production that will be created by the buildings established through rural Ireland will have the effect of in the last analysis producing wealth within the country from which the Minister for Finance will get his fair reasonable percentage of profit when it is spent one way or the other.

There is no point in the Minister or the Government or the Opposition or the universities telling us to increase production if at the same time the Government, by reason of not accepting this resolution, are putting every deterrent they possibly can against encouraging increased production and trying to keep the people in rural Ireland back in the stage when they had to reap with a reaping hook and expected to pay wages on that basis.

I was amused the other night when Deputy Peadar Cowan was annoyed that we had combine harvesters in Cork and in Kildare, but Deputy Peadar Cowan is a progressive legal man and he has not the slightest intention of throwing typewriters or comptometers out of his office, and he has not the slightest intention of driving up to Leinster House in a cab driven by a cabby. If he was consistenthe would not have a typewriter in his house and he would not drive up to Leinster House in a taxi.

The point I want to make is this— that if we are seriously concerned in having increased production and if we believe, as I believe and everybody in rural Ireland must believe, that we want better premises and greater facilities for increased and satisfactory production, but if we are going to have at the same time an increased rate demand and an increased valuation because we are trying to do what this House is demanding of us to do— that is to give increased production— if, when we are doing that we are going to get plastered with increased taxation and increased valuation, we are going on the wrong lines. I will support this motion and recommend it to the House, and I would suggest to the members of the House that by supporting this motion they will at the same time support increased agricultural production and will be removing a force that is at the moment impeding increased agricultural production.

Acting-Minister for Finance (Mr. Aiken)

The Deputies who have spoken in favour of this motion have failed to make very clear what their alternatives are to the rating system as a means of providing income for the local authorities.

So far as the Central Government is concerned, the valuation on land and buildings is of very little importance as they get very little out of it. The authorities who benefit from the imposition of rates and the increased valuation of premises are the local authorities—the county councils, the corporations, the city and town councils. This motion seeks to prevent the imposition of new valuations on new premises as well as on improved premises. If such a motion had been passed say, ten or 20 years ago, many local authorities all over the country would not have been receiving even half the rates they are getting at the present time. How, then, would they carry on by putting all the rates on old houses and on land?

The whole basis of the valuation code and of the rates derived from the valuation poundage was that each ratepayershould contribute according to the anual letting value of his property. The valuation that was made in 1852 has, through the passage of time, become obsolete, completely obsolete. The system under which up-to-date valuations are operated in many countries, would have been working here were it not for certain events which occurred. The valuation code sets out to be reasonably fair to all ratepayers. It asks the man with very valuable premises, the value of which has largely been derived from the movements of population, to pay on a big valuation and to contribute accordingly to the cost of running the city, the county council or the local town. The code as it is operated makes a great distinction between a large house or a fair-sized house on the side of a mountain or on a by-road and a large-sized or medium-sized house on the side of the main road convenient to a town.

We attempted in 1938 to have all premises in the country revalued so that the anomalies and inequities that had been created through the passage of time—the change in the habits of the population, the change in the lines of traffic, the change from the old coach stations to the modern railway stations and again to the modern bus stations —would be rectified by having all these things taken into account and the rates more equitably distributed amongst all the ratepayers of the various administrative areas of local authorities. There was grave and vigorous opposition to the Bill which the present Minister for Finance introduced in 1938.

Something like the suggestion which is being made here was made to the previous Administration. If Deputies will look up previous debates on this matter they will see that the Minister for Finance quoted what his predecessor had said in relation to a request for the suspension of revaluation. Deputy McGilligan, who was then Minister for Finance, when asked to suspend revaluation said:—

"Many premises in addition to those referred to are subject to regulations which may necessitatealterations involving an increase in valuation. I regret that I cannot see my way to introduce proposals for the necessary legislation."

Mr. Donnellan

What was the date of that?

Mr. Aiken

The 6th December, 1950. It was not because Deputy McGilligan, the then Minister for Finance wanted to impose burdens upon any particular section of ratepayers that he refused to introduce legislation. Perhaps some of those who were associated with him can explain why he did refuse. He stated himself why he refused in the answer to that question. It is ridiculous to say now that the former Minister for Finance was just on the point of introducing such legislation. I have heard that story very often in the last couple of years: "We were just going to do that." We know that to revalue the country or to make any alteration in the system of valuation is a very complicated business. We know that even a good system of valuation, when it gets out of date, can have some of the consequences that Deputies on many sides of the House have brought to the attention of the House from time to time.

This Government would be anxious to bring the valuation system up to date. We proposed in 1938 that the Dáil should so decide and so instruct the valuation commissioners. We confined these proposals to the revaluation of premises. We did not then suggest, as Deputy Blowick said we did to-night, that all the land in the country should be revalued. That would be a very big day's work. We confined it to the revaluation of premises and hereditaments other than agricultural land. The Minister for Finance, speaking on the 4th March of this year, referred to the obsolete valuations that exist at the present time. I will quote what he said:—

"The Fianna Fáil Party were convinced long ago that a revaluation of the country was indispensable to the future orderly progress of our people. We held in 1938 that such a revaluation would lay the foundation for a new, efficient and a pro-sizegressive system of local government here."

We hold that to-day.

Mr. O'Higgins

Why did you not continue with the 1938 Bill?

Mr. Aiken

There was very great opposition to it in 1938.

Mr. O'Higgins

You had a complete majority in the House.

Mr. Aiken

We had, but the war broke out before the Bill was put through.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Do not give us that excuse again.

Mr. Aiken

Will the Deputy support it now if we bring it in?

Mr. O. Flanagan

We will consider it when we see it.

Mr. Aiken

Will the Deputy support it?

Mr. Blowick

Bring it in and we will let you know.

Mr. Aiken

I am putting a question in which the people of the country are interested: Do they want a revaluation? We know that Deputy Blowick suggested a revaluation of land.

Mr. Blowick

I did not suggest any such thing.

Mr. Aiken

It is on the record.

Mr. Blowick

I did not. I said that the 1938 Bill proposed a revaluation of land.

Mr. Aiken

But it did not.

Mr. Blowick

Of course it did.

Mr. Aiken

What the Deputy said is on the record.

Mr. Blowick

Do not accuse me of saying what I did not say. You are not going to get away with that.

Mr. Aiken

The Deputy should cool off for a bit. The Deputy complained to-night about the high valuaion on certain parcels of land and stated that there should be a revaluation of them.

Mr. Blowick

I said no such thing. On a point of order. This is the second time the Minister said that. I thought it was a rule of the House that when a Deputy or a Minister refuted a statement the refutation had to be accepted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it the Minister is accepting the Deputy's denial?

Mr. Aiken

I took down what he said.

Mr. Blowick

I am afraid you gave it a little twist in taking it down.

Mr. Aiken

He described how he found in a certain district that owing to the high valuations put on certain parcels of land they were brought above the £10 standard of the Land Commission.

Mr. Blowick

You are making pigs' feeding of what I said. Why did you not listen to what I was saying?

Mr. Aiken

Whether it was pigs' feeding or pigs' cheeks, the Deputy described at great length and with some heat the predicament he was in owing to the high valuations placed on certain parcels of land in 1852 and suggested that there should be a revaluation of the land.

Mr. Blowick

Again on a point of order. The Minister evidently is not accepting my word. Is this to be a precedent for the future, that we can refuse to accept the statement of a Deputy? It has been the rule up to this for a Minister or a Deputy to accept such a statement.

Mr. Aiken

I described what the Deputy said. We all heard it.

Mr. Blowick

I did not say it. You will not get away with it.

Mr. Aiken

The Deputy is running away from what he said. It is on the record.

Mr. Blowick

That is not on the record. When it is printed it will prove that you are wrong.

Mr. Aiken

Keep quiet.

Mr. Blowick

Poor fellow, I am sure you are bored stiff.

Mr. Aiken

We had no clear suggestion as to what should be substituted for the present system of valuation. Deputy Finan suggested that if there were an addition made to a house or premises the valuation should not be on the increased letting value as provided for in the present code but should be on the increase of income which it produced. I take it that Deputy Blowick and Deputy Finan consulted all their colleagues in regard to that and that they understand exactly where it would lead to. You could have several systems of taxation in order that a town council or a county council should get sufficient to pay its way, to maintain its roads and look after the health services, etc.

In certain parts of the world they have very small taxes on property but they have taxes on consumption, corresponding to our tax say, on cigarettes. I do not know that I have ever heard a tax on the income suggested. It would be a very intricate system to work. After all, when a valuer goes to a premises he has his measuring tape, he sees the district in which it is situated, whether it is near a main road or far away from it, and he puts on a certain amount for the size of the premises and the situation of it. It is a plain straightforward piece of work. When the valuation commissioner gives his decision, if the owner is aggrieved he can go to the court and the court has a very simple question to decide. The court will know the size of the premises and have an idea of its construction and its location. The court can decide that the valuation fixed was too high and the courts have sometimes so decided. But it is a straightforward and easy job compared with inquiring into a man's income. It is difficult to decide the additional income-producing capacity of an addition made to a shop or an hotel. It is easier to take the measurements and decide what a shop in that locality will rent for owing to the additional income which the addition would bring in.

Mr. Finan

Are you defending thepresent system because it is easier to operate?

Mr. Aiken

I am only pointing out some of the difficulties in applying the income-tax code. There are many grievances about the income-tax code also. The Minister for Finance made this declaration to the House: That he was prepared to inquire into the anomalies, inequities and defects in the present system. Indeed, I myself would like to see a commission, representing all sections of the community, set up to consider all the suggestions that have been made, including those by Deputy Finan and Deputy Lehane.

As far as I can see, Deputy Lehane has a completely different system from either the present system or Deputy Finan's. He seems to be suggesting the single tax system. The single tax system has attracted a number of people from time to time, but as far as I know it has never been put fully into operation in any part of the world. In certain parts of Australia it was operated to a very slight extent but they never applied the full-blooded Henry George site value idea.

His idea was that we should have a tax on all land no matter what building was on it or what improvement had been made, that it should be on the unimproved site value. For example, an acre of land in the centre of Dublin would carry the same valuation whether it had been improved by the erection of property on it or not. A vacant site of 100 square yards somewhere in a town would carry the same tax whether it had a house of 1,000 cubic feet on it or nothing. His idea was to force all property owners to improve their holdings, because whether improved or not they would bear the same tax. He was very keen that every little bit of improved value created by the community—if they put in a bus station or a new road or sewerage—would accrue to the local community. That seems to be Deputy Lehane's idea. I do not know of any place where it has been fully worked out.

In our valuation code, of course, a certain element of the valuation depends on the location. A two-storeyhouse on 1,000 square feet will carry a higher valuation close to a good town on a main road with sewerage, electric light and water than it will if it is in a remote district.

Deputy Rooney made a suggestion that he has been using in certain parts of the wilds of County Dublin, that is, that the valuation commissioners had power to increase the valuation on land. It might be all right to say that in the wilds of North County Dublin, but it is not true. It has been pointed out to Deputy Rooney 1,000 times that it is not true. He forgot himself last night and repeated it here. The Parliamentary Secretary wants to let this debate come to an end, and I do not want to proceed any further, but I want to say that Deputy Rooney's suggestion is completely without foundation. There is no power in the hands of the valuation commissioners to revalue land, unless we were to give it according to certain suggestions that were made here to-night.

General MacEoin

If the Commissioners of Valuation come down upon a farm of land because there was some improvement carried out on it they can increase the value of the land?

Mr. Aiken

They cannot.

General MacEoin

If I reclaim a bog that has 1/- valuation on it and the county council then takes it over and increases the rent of the bog by £5, the Commissioners of Valuation can increase the valuation of that bog— and that is land.

Mr. Aiken

The moment the bog ceases to be used and sold to the county council, the valuation comes off again. That is not land—it is an industrial process.

General MacEoin

It is an increase in the valuation of land.

Mr. Aiken

It is not land. It is bog being worked industrially.

Mr. O. Flanagan

May I ask the Minister if the Government have proposals to introduce at an early date in regard to valuation, since the Taoiseach promised in Ballinasloe, inmy hearing, that the Government proposed to do that?

Mr. Aiken

The Deputy knows that there is a First Reading on the Order Paper of a Remission of Rates Bill which will give the same relief of rates to improvements during the next three years as farmers have on new buildings.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Finan, to conclude.

Mr. Finan

If the Minister had intended to go on, perhaps he would have explained the Government's attitude towards the motion.

He has left me in a rather difficult predicament. He has not indicated whether he intends to accept the motion or reject it. I feel that the debate will impel the Government to deal with this very serious position. I am glad that nobody denied that grievances exist and I am happy that nobody attempted to defend the present system. While I am quite prepared to admit that my solution might not be the ideal one, I think the Government should take up this question from all aspects and give it their earliest sympathetic consideration.

As I indicated last night, the motion was not brought forward to get the support of any particular Party. I wanted it discussed dispassionately and in a fair-minded way and I think that has been done. I am quite satisfied that the Minister, in so far as he went, treated the subject in a very proper manner. I will be satisfied if the debate induces the Government to give their earliest consideration to this matter. I believe every Deputy feels it is a subject about which there are various complaints and serious complaints. I think it is forgotten—and the Minister forgot—that in many cases where improvements are effected, particularly in rural dwellings, the net letting value does not enter into the consideration at all. Where houses have been in families for generations, the letting value is never considered, nor will it be affected by this present legislation in the same way as houses which are improved to increase their letting value.

Houses are being improved to provide greater amenities for the occupants. As I said last night, they are being improved to provide decent sleeping accommodation for the family. I have no hesitation in saying that the operation of the present system is an offence against morality. A man may be able to provide for his family while they are juveniles, but he feels his position very keenly if he has adult sons and daughters for whom he can provide no proper and suitable sleeping accommodation.

I hope the Government will give this matter the most earnest and sympathetic consideration and remove what is obviously an anachronism in our legislation.

Question put and declared negatived.