(Cavan): The introduction of this Bill acknowledges that there is a problem to be dealt with. It seems to me to acknowledge that the present system of rating and local taxation is unfair and inequitable. Few people can seriously dispute that proposition. The present system of raising the necessary finances to finance local government was introduced or worked out during the last century and in my opinion, it is now completely unsuited to modern requirements. At the time when it was decided to raise the national revenue to finance such local projects as health, main roads, housing and other matters of a local nature, an argument could be put up that only owners of property were possessors of any considerable amount of wealth. At that time the ownership of a house or of land meant that the owner was a person of some substance and could afford to contribute generously to the local exchequer. That state of affairs no longer exists. The whole pattern of wealth and income has changed. It is now an undisputed fact that there are very many people occupying houses and occupying land who are unable to meet the demands of the rate collector.
It can often happen that a man in a country town occupying a small business premises finds himself in open competition with large business concerns and yet that man's poor law valuation may be, say, £30. As a result he is required to contribute the sum of, say, £100 per year or more towards the county council or urban council demand. That is unfair and unjust and the Government in continuing to finance such projects as health, main roads, housing and other matters of that sort, out of taxation raised from occupiers of property are completely out of touch with modern requirements and are failing in their duty to move with the times.
During the last general election, my Party strongly urged that there should be rethinking and a new approach to local taxation. They urged that the present system was out of date and unfair and imposed hardships on the occupiers of property. The Taoiseach, speaking in the last days of that election campaign, in late March or early April, 1965, seemed to accept our argument, seemed to accept as a fact that the present system was unjust and outdated. He promised to do something about it, to have it investigated, and to introduce a new system. I am, I think, fairly summarising now a speech made at Navan. I am somewhat disappointed, therefore, to find that the Minister here this evening does not appear to promise any such comprehensive review of the existing system. He speaks of remissions and exemptions. He appears to be determined to deal with the matter piecemeal. That is what his Bill suggests.
Section I extends for a further period of three years remission of rates in respect of new houses and other buildings. In that regard I approve of the measure, but there is no display of fresh thinking and no hint of any new approach. Indeed, the suggestion seems to be that we are satisfied to continue the present unsatisfactory system, a system we inherited from another country and from another century.
I am glad the Minister in section 2 has yielded to the suggestion that farm outoffices and outbuildings, as distinct from farm residences, should be permanently exempt from rates. I understand that is what this section means. That is a move in the right direction, but again the Minister is dealing with the matter piecemeal.
Is the Minister, I wonder, aware of the hardship imposed on small farmers throughout the country who provide better living accommodation for themselves and their families? Many of these farmers—I know them—have been living in houses totally inadequate for their requirements, certainly totally inadequate in the light of modern conditions. A farmer may decide, with the help of his family who are out working, to provide a little more comfort for himself, his wife and his family. He builds a new house consisting of three bedrooms, a bathroom, a kitchen, and perhaps another room or two. He may even reconstruct his old house to provide the same kind of accommodation. Now, the valuation on the old house was, perhaps, 30/-, £2 or £3. No sooner has he built his new house, or reconstructed his old house, than it is revalued. I am not speaking extravagantly when I say that £7, £8 or even £10 can be put on that house, situated at the end of a lane. With rates as they are at present—60/- and 70/- in the £—that farmer finds himself confronted with a bill from the rate collector for £30 or £40. That is an undue hardship on that farmer.
It is no use his going to the Commissioner of Valuation because he will tell him that the regulations are there; the law is such and such and he has to enforce the law. There is nothing he can do about it: so much per foot is charged in one part of the country and so much per foot in another. There is no use in the farmer appealing to the Circuit Court because, the Circuit Court judge, if he approaches the matter in the light of the law, cannot reduce the valuation. Circuit Court judges are, however, humane men and they try to approach these matters in a sympathetic way. Sometimes by stretching a point by way of comparisons, or something like that, they may reduce the valuation a little. But really their hands are tied and as often as not nothing can be done.
In my opinion, this demand for rates is unfair because those rates may go towards surfacing tarred roads a mile and a half from the farmer's residence. They may go to provide public water and sewerage which he may never enjoy. They may go to provide a regional water supply scheme which will not come within reach of his house during his lifetime. At the same time, the provision of pumps in his immediate neighbourhood is suspended pending the coming into operation of a regional water supply scheme. That is unfair to that farmer, and I am not speaking exclusively on behalf of the farming community, although the case I have mentioned demonstrates the unfairness and inequity of this better than anything else.
The same thing applies to a working man on a moderate income who is progressive enough to build a house on the outskirts of a town. That house can be valued at £13, £14, £15 or even £20; one would not want to have an elaborate building to have a valuation of £15 to £20 placed on it. There again he finds himself confronted with a demand for £45, £60 or even £75 rates when the remission goes. That does not encourage people to provide houses for themselves. I would go further and say it is not an equitable way of financing services such as the maintenance of main roads, the provision of health services or the provision of houses which, as I say, should be national charges.
Therefore, while we are glad to see in section 1 of the Bill a continuation of the remission of rates in respect of houses that will be built up to 1969, and while I am very glad to see that farm outoffices are to be permanently exempt from rates, I am very disappointed that we had not some assurance from the Minister that this is the last time a temporary measure of this sort would be introduced into the House and that the Government had immediate plans, in accordance with the Taoiseach's promise, to tackle this question of local taxation and to put it on a more equitable basis in keeping with the distribution of wealth in the second half of the present century, and to discontinue the unsatisfactory and unfair system taken over from another country and another century.
