I have already dealt with the major points raised by Deputies during their contributions to the debate. I should like to dispel the suggestion made by Opposition speakers that local authorities had been squeezed for money during the current year. They never had more money than they have had in the current year. The £530 million available to them this year for current capital services represents an increase of £100 million on the previous year. The cash flow and rate collection figures of local authorities are benefiting substantially from the fact that the State is now the biggest ratepayer.
Deputy Quinn asked me to elaborate on the reference in my Second Reading speech to the possibility of a global rather than an individual system of valuation being applied to domestic property. This is a matter for the Minister for Finance, who is responsible for the valuation system. The matter of future valuations is at present being examined by him. One way or another, local authorities will be fairly treated in this regard. They will be given full value for the purpose of the grant which they will be getting from the State for all new domestic property built in their areas.
Deputy Mitchell, referring to this matter, suggested that the only reason for the continuance of valuations is to keep the way open for the reimposition of rates. This is nonsense. The need for valuations of new domestic properties is to allow local authorities to claim an increased amount from the domestic rate grants and to ensure that no extra burden will fall on non-domestic property as a result of new reliefs. It has nothing to do with reimposing rates on domestic property. Deputy Mitchell wants to reimpose rates on houses of five bedrooms. The fact that a person lives in a five-bedroomed house does not mean that he is rich. You could have instances of widows and people on fixed incomes living in such houses. These people may have had large families. He appears to be suggesting that they should be forced out of their homes because they were once well-off or had large families. I do not see any justice in this suggestion.
Deputy Mitchell wants me to reimpose rates on rented accommodation. He wants rates to be a cost factor in the provision of rented accommodation but not in the provision of owner-occupied accommodation. I fail to see what benefit this would confer on tenants of rented accommodation on whose behalf Deputy Mitchell is concerned.
Deputy Mitchell also referred to the position of small shopkeepers. The small shopkeeper does not pay domestic rates. He pays rates only on the part of his premises used as a shop or a business and gets full relief on his living accommodation.
Deputy Quinn was concerned that local authorities had not been advised of the upper limit to be applied this year. There is no need for him to be concerned, because the period specified for holding estimates meetings does not start until 23 November.
