asked the Minister for Local Government the current system of rates relief enjoyed by the owners of office buildings; and if he is prepared to introduce amending legislation to abolish this particular relief.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rates Relief on Office Buildings.
33.
Office buildings in common with other buildings which do not qualify for relief under any other code, come within the scope of the Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Acts, 1954 to 1966, which provided for a remission of two-thirds of the rates for seven years on the valuation of new buildings erected, or on any increase in the valuation of buildings which have been reconstructed, within the period prescribed by statute. The period prescribed in the 1966 Act expired on the 31st March, 1969 and the action to be taken in respect of buildings completed after that date is being considered.
Would the Minister not concede that a rather ridiculous situation exists whereby the State gives and has given substantial relief to private office block speculators and simultaneously rents those premises from such speculators at quite exorbitant rents for Government purposes?
Would the Deputy repeat the last part of the question?
Simultaneously renting such premises from such speculators at exorbitant rents for Government purposes.
That has nothing to do with the question.
It is known as a double subsidy, if the Minister is not aware of it.
The question deals with rates relief and the supplementary has nothing to do with rates.
Will the Minister agree that it was not the purpose of the Act to give these special concessions to speculators? The Act was meant to help working people who were purchasing their own houses, to give them some concession which the Minister is now giving to foreigners who are building office blocks.
On the contrary, if the Deputy would listen to the reply he would find that this is not in existence at all at present. The Deputy does not listen to the answers. He makes up the answers as well as the questions.
(Interruptions.)
Would the Minister not agree that it was in existence up to March, 1969? And is the Minister not considering extending it now?
March 1969 is past.
The Minister did not say it was abolished.
March 1969 was eight months ago.
Is the Minister saying that this concession is not now in existence?
It is not. Shall I read the reply again?
May I inquire when the Minister is likely to finish his consideration of this momentous matter?
Comparatively soon.
March 1971?
There is no hurry about granting rates relief to office buildings as far as I am concerned.
I am glad to hear that.