Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Apr 1963

Vol. 56 No. 9

Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Bill, 1963— Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

This Bill proposes to continue for three further years from 1st April, 1963, the period in which the buildings may be erected, enlarged or reconstructed in order to qualify for the rates remission under the Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Act, 1954. It also proposes to extend for the same period of three years the time in which farm buildings may be constructed or improved in order to qualify for the twenty year remission of rates under the amending Act of 1960.

The Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Act, 1954, provided for the granting of a two-thirds remission of rates for seven years on the valuation of new buildings and on the increased valuation of existing buildings that were enlarged or improved, where the work on the erection, enlargement or improvement was completed not later than the 26th July, 1956. This completion date was extended up to the 31st March, 1963, by amending Acts passed in 1956 and 1960. The rates remission so provided applies to all buildings, such as factories, offices, shops, houses, etc., which do not qualify for a remission under any other Act. Local government legislation granting rates remission has been operative for over 40 years and is an accepted and effective form of encouragement of constructional development. It is considered that the existing concessions in this regard should now be continued for a further three year period, and this is proposed by Section 1 of the Bill.

Under Section 14 of the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852, an exemption from rates for seven years was given in respect of the erection, enlargement or improvement of farm outhouses and outoffice buildings. In view of the steps being taken by many farmers to effect necessary improvements in their farm buildings, particularly in connection with the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme, it was felt that there was a case for making a further concession in relation to the rating of these buildings. Accordingly, Section 2 of the Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Act, 1960, extended the period of rate remission under the 1852 Act from seven to twenty years in respect of farm buildings erected, enlarged or improved between the 1st April, 1960, and the 31st March, 1963. The numbers and amounts of the grants paid under the Department of Agriculture farm buildings scheme have increased since this extended rates remission was introduced and construction work on farm buildings is now proceeding at a high level. It is considered, therefore, that the period for the completion of such buildings to qualify for the twenty year remission of rates should be extended up to the 31st March, 1966. Provision to extend the period accordingly is made in Section 2 of the Bill.

The provisions of the Bill relate to one aspect of the law on rating which, in turn, is only one facet of the complex structure of local government finance. The whole question of local taxation and finance is being methodically reviewed at present and it is possible that the examination may, in due course, result in substantial changes in rating law, both generally and especially in regard to remissions of and exemptions from rates. The completion of the investigations and the consideration of the findings will necessarily take some time. In the interim, it would, I think, be undesirable to make any drastic alteration in existing rating practices. The present Bill proposes to maintain the existing position in relation to an important body of rates remissions for a limited period within which the general issue of such rating concessions can be examined. Accordingly, I recommend the Bill to the House.

I should like to say in the first instance that I am very pleased that the Government have introduced this Bill in this House following the recent discussion here on Senator Hayes' motion. It is not a very important Bill, and is not a contentious Bill. It is the type of Bill that can well be introduced in this House; I hope this is only a beginning and that it is an indication of Government policy on this House.

As the Minister said, this is largely a Bill to continue existing legislation and existing reliefs granted under various Acts in the past. Clause (b) of subsection (1) is really only continuing a relief that had also been given in the past and it is necessary because the grant for water and sewerage is now given under the Sanitary Services Act, 1962, instead of the Housing Acts.

The Bill in itself is not of very great importance but the Minister's statement to the effect that the Government have local government finance and taxation under consideration is of great importance. A complete overhaul of the system of the valuation of premises and the levying and raising of rates is long overdue. It is long past time that local authorities should be relieved of a lot of the expenditure which is thrust upon them at the present time. When local government was first introduced in this country, I think at the end of the last century, local bodies had considerable control over the expenditure of money. They had the power to decide in a lot of cases what schemes they would proceed with, what schemes they would not proceed with and what they would spend money on. Therefore, I suppose it was reasonable that the money for these schemes and projects should be provided locally, but we have come a long way from that. At the present time a county council is nothing more than a council to put Government policy into operation. The county council must pay the fiddler but it has no opportunity of calling the tune and county councils should not be called upon to provide the money for a lot of things such as health and the maintenance of major roads.

When the Minister does come to introduce a Bill to deal with local government finance and taxation, I hope he will attack it in a realistic manner in keeping with conditions prevailing in 1963. There is no doubt whatever that the Valuation Act of, I think, 1852 badly needs overhaul. Premises are now valued and people are made liable for rates and to some extent for income tax under an Act passed more than 100 years ago. One of the methods which are supposed to be used in valuing premises is their letting value but I think a lot of people, including the Commissioner of Valuation, have long since given up attempting to value premises on the lines laid down in the Valuation Act and are simply doing the best they can. I know it is a very big problem and that a lot of thinking, a lot of planning, is needed to give us a proper valuation code, but it certainly is long overdue.

The present system is unjust and inequitable. If a person with one premises in a town keeps quiet and does nothing about it, his valuation may be £20 but because his neighbour makes some minor improvements to his premises and draws the attention of the Commissioner of Valuation to them his may be increased to £60. That is not fair, just or equitable but there it is and the problem will have to be tackled at some time, sooner or later.

To give an example of the type of absurdity to which I refer, the Minister replied to a question in the Dáil on valuation increases put down by Deputy Ryan. It is very short and I think I can read it:

Mr. Ryan asked the Minister for Finance whether it is the practice of the Valuation Commissioners to increase the valuation of a house which has central heating installed; if so, if he will indicate why, and under what authority; and whether he will introduce legislation to prevent such increases being made, having regard to the fact that they discourage modernisation.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. O'Malley): It is the duty of the Commissioner of Valuation to ensure that the valuation in regard to buildings is made on an estimate of their net annual value, as stipulated in Section 11, Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852. I am informed by the Commissioner that he would regard the installation of central heating as a factor enhancing the value of a building, so that the valuation made would normally be higher by reason of the central heating.

I do not propose to introduce legislation as suggested by the Deputy, not do I accept that such valuation increases discourage modernisation any more than increases arising from other improvements which must be taken account of in a system of taxation on property values.

A person who owns a house in the country built 30 or 40 years ago decides for his own comfort and convenience or because he is suffering from rheumatism or because the house is damp that he wants to instal central heating and under the law as it stands at present his valuation is increased from, say, £20 to £30 and he becomes liable for an additional £25 in rates a year. I say that is not reasonable. I say it discourages improvement and I would say that it is bad economy. This is a damp country where a lot of people do, in fact, suffer from rheumatism and central heating of private houses and, indeed, of all buildings should be encouraged so I think the Minister might very well have included a provision in this amending Bill exempting central heating from valuation.

There is another little absurdity to which I should like to refer and which I think could be amended on this Bill. Perhaps the Minister dealt with that in the Dáil today. I do not know. This Bill provides, as the Minister has told us, that new houses will be exempt from valuation for a certain number of years, and if a house is reconstructed or improved the reconstruction or improvement is also exempt. If a man has a house with a poor law valuation of, let us say, £10, and because of old age, dampness or bad foundations it really is not possible to reconstruct it, if the owner wants to build a new house on the site of the old house, and he proceeds to build the new house from the ground up, as I understand it, if the valuation of the new house is £20 the individual will get exemption only in respect of the difference between the old and the new valuation: in other words, on the second £10. He will have to pay his full rates on the first £10 and get exemption only on the second £10. I am told there are cases where that has actually happened. If that is so, I respectfully suggest to the Minister that the position should be remedied.

I do not know whether this is strictly relevant to this Bill, but it is certainly a question of valuation and I think it could be dealt with here. As we know, under the Housing Acts supplementary grants are now payable to farmers with a valuation not exceeding £50. It can very often happen that the valuation of the land of the farm might be £45, and the valuation of the dwellinghouse on the farm might be £7, making a total valuation of £52, and thereby making it impossible for the farmer to get a supplementary grant, or to qualify for a loan under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. If that farmer builds a new house from the ground up it means that he, at any rate, considers that the old house is beyond repair and not fit to live in. I think the valuation of £7 on the house should be disregarded in testing whether or not he is eligible for a supplementary grant or a loan.

I welcome the Bill is so far as it extends the desirable reliefs which are in force at the moment, but I regret that the Minister did not avail of it to make good some of the defects I have mentioned. I certainly hope the Minister will overhaul local government taxation and financing and the system of valuation.

Like Senator Fitzpatrick I am very pleased that this Bill has been introduced here as it is one of the first Bills introduced here during the present session. Any Bill of this nature which reduces the burden on the ratepayer must be wholeheartedly welcomed not only in this House but in the other House and by all members of local authorities. Not only does it reduce the burden on the ratepayer but also by giving concessions it gives an incentive to people to improve their farms, their business houses, their shops and their private houses.

This is the second Bill that has been introduced here by the Minister within the past year which has given concessions to the ratepayers. We had the Bill dealing with revision of rates on agricultural land last July, and we have this Bill which is an extension of the 1954 and 1960 Acts. This is general Government policy and we hope it will continue because, as has already been stated here, valuations which are based on a very old Act can be hurtful to certain sections of the community.

While, I was glad to hear in the Minister's statement that the system of valuation is being revised, until that revision comes along the only possible way in which the Government can ease the burden of the rates is by bringing in temporary Bills of this nature dealing with valuation to encourage the improvement and erection of buildings. I have little else to add except to say that I am sure the local authorities and the other House will welcome the Bill as a help to the ratepayers.

I wish to join with the two previous speakers in welcoming the provisions of this Bill. Senator Fitzpatrick raised a point in connection with central heating. I appreciate that we are not now discussing the change in the valuation structure but that we are discussing the continuation of grants for the remission of valuation on certain buildings erected with the aid of State grants. In subsection (b) of Section 1 the Minister is providing for remission in the case of water supply and private sewerage facilities. I suppose that is a satisfactory method of dealing with enlargements and improvements and the resulting assessment of valuation.

I am quite sure that the new difficulty which has arisen because of central heating being taken into account by the Commissioner of Valuation when assessing the value of a house should be tackled now. I feel that the provision of a central heating system in any house is more than a desirable amenity. It is more or less a necessity in modern times, particularly because of the shortage of domestic help. It merely replaces in part the provision of open fires and an open heating system, and provides a continuous warming effect with satisfactory results to the construction of the house.

The point I am trying to make is that a house equipped with a central heating plant is likely to have a longer life by many years than a house which is not fitted with such a plant. That in itself should influence the Minister to take into account that a building of that kind will not call for replacement as quickly as a building which has not been fitted with a central heating plant. I know that in this Bill the Minister cannot make provision for the elimination of the factors which evidently are taken into account by the Commissioner of Valuation when striking a valuation for a house in which central heating has been installed.

I would suggest that the Minister examine the possibility of including the provision of central heating in the category of improvement, or enlargement, as the case may—I suppose "improvement" is the correct word to use—for the purposes of qualifying for remission of valuation for the limited period that applies in regard to other improvements such as sanitary services and reconstruction generally. The statement made recently in reply to a Dáil question—it was referred to here by Senator Fitzpatrick —had some repercussions already. Quite a number of people in recent years have been making arrangements for the provision of central heating plants not so much in new houses as in order houses because the central heating plant is more necessary in old houses with a view to keeping them habitable and keeping them in that state of repair necessary for ordinary use.

As it has come to notice that the provision of that type of amenity is liable to cause an increase in valuation and, perhaps, a substantial increase, householders who intend to instal these plants will be completely discouraged and this type of activity will come to a standstill. I appreciate that in a Bill of this kind the Minister could not delete that type of amenity from the provisions of the Valuation Acts because we are not dealing with that, but I do suggest that it might be possible for the Minister to regard the provision of central heating as a type of improvement similar to private sewerage facilities or water facilities and enable him to give what would be equal to an interim remission for a period of 7 or 10 years, as the case may be, as he gives in respect of water and sewerage. Long before that period will elapse we hope that there will be a general reassessment in the general basis of local taxation and, of course, of valuation and that, when that takes place, an opportunity will then be provided to argue the fact that it is unjust or inequitable, as the case may be, and that central heating in a house should be a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of increase in valuation.

Businessmen often complain that, when they carry out improvements to their premises, they are forced to pay much higher rates. Many of them do not seem to realise that under the 1954 Act, which was introduced by the present Government, they can enjoy two-thirds remission for seven years of that increase. The Minister is to be congratulated for introducing this Bill today and so stimulating building for the next three years. The 20 years' rate remission for agriculture is one of the many hidden benefits that Irish farmers are enjoying in this country today. It is an excellent way to encourage the improvement and erection of new buildings. In many parts of rural Ireland, byres, piggeries and other farm buildings are not in as good a condition as we would like and now with this rate remission extended for three more years, coupled with £6 per cow grant for byres, there is no excuse for many of our farmers not improving their byres. I feel that this section will be of particular interest to farmers engaged in the pig industry.

It is now generally agreed that if farmers are to survive in this highly competitive industry that new measures must be adopted. The approach to the pig industry in future will be based on a more scientific and technical basis and it is generally admitted that proper housing is most important in that respect. In different parts of the country today people who have pigs are erecting, with the help of substantial grants announced last year, large piggeries and so are in a position to breed and fatten pigs on a more economical basis. With this extra incentive they can erect these piggeries and enjoy rate free remission for 20 years. I feel that will go a long way to encourage others to adopt similar procedure.

I hope, in conclusion, that many Irish farmers will not make the same mistake they made some years ago when money was made available and the £12 per cow grant was given to them for the erecting of byres. After the money was spent, many farmers found that this grant was not then available and were disappointed.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am afraid I have allowed the Senator ample scope to deal with agricultural matters. He must return to the Valuation Bill now.

I hope that they will not make the same mistake.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator will not be permitted to say it. I repeat it.

I was going to say——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I know what the Senator was going to say and the Senator will not be in order to say it and will, consequently, refrain from saying it.

It is a pity the Leas-Chathaoirleach is not so sharp on other members of the House, particularly his own.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator will resume his seat.

I congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this measure. There have been complaints from farmers, business people and others about the revaluation of property over the past number of years, and particularly the farming community, were complaining that when they carried out improvements on their premises that their valuation was increased. For that reason, I think that this a very generous gesture on behalf of the Minister in bringing in legislation that will relieve the farming community of the danger of increased valuation if they improved their outhouses and outbuildings.

Something has been said here about central heating valuations and all that. As far as I understand it, the Bill does not propose to make any changes in that side at all so far as dwelling-houses are concerned. I may be wrong but that is what I imagine to be the case.

It was completely out of order for Senator Fitzpatrick to discuss it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair is the sole arbiter of order and Senator McGlinchey will find that out to his cost if he persists in this disorderly conduct.

I have nothing further to add except again to thank the Minister for having introduced this measure which will encourage rural communities to improve their premises without having the danger of having increased valuation imposed when they have done it.

I should like to say that arising out of the references to improvements in property which I presume includes houses, that any improvement will cause a rise in the valuation, I surely think this is a very unjust thing. A rise in valuation of course means a rise in the rates which you will have to pay. There does not seem to be any sense at all in asking people to keep their premises in order and appealing to them to beautify the districts in which they live and telling them to enter Tidy Town competitions and things of that kind. Central heating has been referred to as another matter likely to raise the valuation of property. Again, this is surely ridiculous? It is trying to hold back progress. We have been talking about clean air Bills and air pollution. The installation of central heating will do away with smoke and all the damage smoke causes. I think it would be just as stupid to put up your valuation if you had a very good turf stack in the back garden as it would to tax you for having central heating in your house.

From the point of view of the women in the house, fires and all that cause a terrific amount of work. I think every housewife would welcome central heating both from the point of view of easing her housework and giving a more healthy atmosphere inside and outside the house. It seems to me like raising your valuation because you put wallpaper on the walls instead of painting them. If central heating does, in fact, cause a rise in valuation, I think the Minister should have another look at it, because very shortly we shall all be moving towards central heating. If the rates go up very much further we shall have to sell the house, never mind central heating.

I think we all support the extension of these concessions. What interested me particularly in the Minister's statement was that he foreshadowed substantial changes in the rating law. There is no doubt that working on the 1852 legislation is not very satisfactory. It seems to me that we need to go a good deal further than a change in the rating law. Rating law is only the first stage. We need an entire change in our rating practice. The present rating practice, as you, Sir, pointed out from the floor of the House earlier in the debate, is completely haphazard. What happens if you put up a new house or a new factory building? The Commissioner of Valuation values as of, at the present time, on the basis of net annual letting value, which is completely fictitious. The valuation as it is fixed at the present time is probably fair. What happens if you do nothing with your factory, your old factory? What happens if you do nothing with your old house? It is very unlikely that there will be any change in value; so that your old original value will remain as it was fixed, possibly ten, twenty or one hundred years ago— certainly fifty years ago. It will remain as it was fixed then. An artificial value then and an even more artificial value now.

What happens if you improve your factory or your house? The Commissioner of Valuation comes in and assesses a new value on the basis of your improvements. I can think of a case of a house which was valued a good many years ago at £17—a good substantial house—and that valuation is probably not a very realistic value now. The owner of that house improved it because when he moved into it the roof was falling in and he had to put on a new roof. He had to make some improvements to the house but, in fact, he decreased it in size. When the Commissioner of Valuation came along he increased the valuation of that house from £17 to £45. If the owner had done nothing to his house and had not improved it, no change in valuation would have been made, so that by the improvement he was penalised later on the rates which he had to contribute and on his Schedule A income tax.

It is perfectly true that under the Bill and under the principal Act and earlier Acts there are concessions—the concessions under the 1954 Act of two-thirds remission and under the 1960 Act of 20 years' remission in the case of farm buildings. But they are only concessions and they do not alter the principle of valuation in the long run, because eventually the time of the concessions runs out and the new valuation comes in and the owner must pay on the basis of the new valuation. He is ultimately penalised for making his repairs. It seems to me that the only solution in the long run is a complete revaluation of the entire country on the basis of a true valuation as of now or at the time the valuation was made. That would have to be followed up by annual reviews every five or ten years or some other such period of time. The valuation cannot continue to be haphazard as it is at the present time.

I would ask the Minister, when he is replying, to elaborate on the point which was made about substantial changes in the rating law and what changes are likely to be made in rating practice. I appreciate that he cannot give us a firm answer on this but all I would like to know, perhaps not the findings of any commission he may set up are likely to be—he obviously cannot do that—is how soon he is putting his inquiries into force and how soon he expects to get some answer, because this is a very vital problem and one which is holding up a certain amount of industrial development and is also I think a discouragement rather than an encouragement to householders and to factory owners to repair and improve their premises.

The interest displayed in my passing reference to a possible revision of the taxing code on a local basis is encouraging, though not new. So far as answering the Senator's question as to what, in any precise form, we intend to do about the whole basis of local taxation, I am afraid I cannot oblige by giving any clear indication at this stage for the very good reason, which I think will be appreciated, that at this stage the matter which is fraught with difficulty, requires a very widespread and intensive examination. It has been under very real scrutiny for the past couple of years.

The Economic Research Institute took this matter up some considerable time ago and an interim report was prepared by a Professor Walker. Further reports are awaited. In addition, I indicated in the Dáil very recently, and indeed, on many other occasions that my Department and other interested Departments are also considering simultaneously, this whole problem. It is a difficult problem and one in which all of us, probably, have our own very distinct views. What the overall complete investigation being carried out by the Economic Research Institute, together with our own Departmental inquiries and considerations, will be is something I would not even attempt to forecast at this moment. Nor would I like it to be understood that I can promise that we will be in a position to indicate even in the near future what the outcome will be because these considerations are still going on and just how long more they may take I cannot say. However, the House can be quite satisfied and secure in the knowledge that, in so far as the Government, and my Department in particular, are concerned, we are fully alive to the fact that the whole system, possibly, requires revision. It is on that wide front that we are approaching the matter and not merely picking out the obvious faults that all of us can see and making piecemeal proposals to remedy these situations.

I hope that I shall have the opportunity of being able to do my part, as Minister for Local Government, in whatever steps may be found best to remedy this whole local taxation system. More than that I should prefer not to say. I do not intend to go further than that just now. I should say that the references to the valuation system as it is applied are not really very relevant to this discussion. It is not within the realm of my jurisdiction really and I am afraid I cannot talk very authoritatively on the points made, in particular with reference to increasing valuations because of central heating installations.

Central heating has been taken up, I think, by most of the speakers. It has been lauded for what it is: of great benefit and advantage and as being almost an essential rather than merely a luxury. That may be so. I am not going all the way with those who say it is the very thing we want, that it is an essential and is so very good for our health. Candidly, I cannot stand the thing. That is neither here nor there. There are others like me. The majority, perhaps, would like to have it and would prefer it to the trouble of open fire-heating which we have had traditionally down the years. In so far as central heating is concerned and within the framework of the existing Valuation Act, as I see it, it may seem strange that a valuation should be increased where it is installed but, neverthless, I think that within the Acts and within the law the valuation people have kept within their terms of reference. Central heating, as an improvement, must enter into their calculations when valuations come to be revised.

I am not saying that I agree with that, but I am saying that it was not really within my authority, nor is it something that it would be for me to correct in this particular way. It might well be said that if we allow other improvements and give exemptions we should do so in so far as central heating is concerned.

While central heating may yet become an essential part of probably every dwelling in the land, that stage has not yet been reached. It is true that if we want a new roof on a house we have to have it and we are providing grants from public funds to encourage improved roofing and improved housing generally, but we are not giving grants, nor do we think we are called upon yet—nor would we be able financially to do so in all the circumstances—to enable people to put in central heating. I think probably the people who instal central heating at the moment or who can afford to purchase houses with central heating laid on are probably better able to carry that additional burden that is reflected in the rate of that particular house than would be the general ratepayers and taxpayers in the country. That will be a changing situation I have no doubt and the whole approach may change in the future but I do not think we have reached that stage yet. Therefore, the question of exemption in order to encourage this particular practice, which might have its advocates, is not a very real approach at the present juncture.

The question of these exemptions applying to particular farm buildings and to pig farms and any other such matter, would, so far as I am aware, be answered by saying that such buildings would be exempted and would get the concession as outlined here in this Bill and which will operate for the next three years as it has done for the past three years as we know. The purpose would be the erection of any farm house or out office building and in that way I think it comes within the realm of the old Act of 1852 to which our later Acts have reference. In that regard while pig farming could be possibly said to exist on the holding that might not be described in the normal commonly accepted sense as a farm, nevertheless, it would in all earnestness be a farm building and as such would be entitled to the concession as we intend it to operate for all farm buildings.

In regard to this question that was raised in regard to an anomaly that exists in the exemption of new house valuations, I want to make it clear that where an old house has been pulled down and immediately a new house is erected on the same site, it had been impossible up to 1962 to get remission on the full valuation of that new house. Since the Housing Act of 1962 was passed that defect, as it were, has been remedied and the remission of rates granted under the Housing Acts will apply, and has applied, from the passage of that Act in 1962 to the full valuation of the new house even though it may have been built on the site of an old house. Prior to 1962, if the old house having been pulled down the site on which it was immediately built upon and the old valuation was not removed from the valuation lists, then the situation has arisen to my knowledge as well as those who have spoken here that only the additional valuation created by the new house over and above what was there on an old house has been getting this remission. In the few cases in which it has arisen it has been difficult, I admit, for those affected to understand or accept or comprehend, but the fact is, and it has been the law up to 1962, that in the 1962 Act we have remedied that situation and got over it and it no longer should arise in the future. The law is now there to enable it to be got over. I am sure in all cases it will be got over. In so far as what went before is concerned, I cannot give any great assistance at this particular time.

A remark was made on the possibility of removing certain charges from the rates. This is a very wide question. That major roads could be taken away entirely from them is mentioned specifically as an instance of what could be done. This is something we would all like to see if it were financially possible. It may well be it will in the future and if it should be certainly the Minister for Local Government, whether it be I or somebody else, would be behind it, from the point of view of local government at any rate. For the moment it is a matter of general concern, general principle, and is not really something that we can do anything useful about here, other than express our opinion on it.

I am glad that the House generally has welcomed this particular measure, which is, as I say, making no real change other than to extend the time within which certain benefits enjoyed for the past years will continue in regard to new buildings which may be erected in the next three years. I believe that that assistance and that encouragement is something that is necessary and useful. In particular, I think the 20 year remission to the farming community is not only an encouragement to this particular category of our people but is also probably one of the few ways in which we can try and help them in their everyday lives and reduce the impact of increasing costs on those who cannot in the ordinary sense recoup themselves for additional expenditure by merely asking for a raise in pay because there is no boss around to give it to them, or refuse them for that matter. It has that in it as well as encouraging in a very direct way the improvement of farmsteads. According to the NFA who approached us quite a few years ago on this, a national survey which they had carried out indicated that farm buildings left a great deal to be desired and that a a great deal needed to be done before the most productive methods of turning out agricultural produce could be employed. They sought a complete wiping out of valuation and taxes on farm buildings. They proposed a 25 year remission and in 1960, as Senators know, subsequent to that discussion with those people and with other interested farming groups, we brought in a remission for 20 years. That exempts all buildings built in the next three years as well as all farm buildings completed within the past three years. All in all that is of very great significance to those people.

Without casting any aspersions or reflections on any other group in the community, I would say that this benefit is well deserved by this section because of their difficulties in passing on increasing costs. This is a way of helping them to improve production methods and to relieve them of the impact of increased taxes because they have improved their way of working. The Bill has nothing new in it really except extensions. I am glad of the welcome the House has given it and I know it will not create any difficulties as far as acceptance is concerned.

May I say to the Minister, through you, Sir, that I had not new luxury houses in mind when I spoke of central heating but old inefficiently heated houses where people were considering putting in central heating.

The ESB warm home plan.

Perhaps the Minister might answer that question on the Committee Stage.

Originally I had visualised taking the next Stage on April 24th but I find that difficulties are created because of the Minister's engagements with other Bills in the Dáil on that date and, therefore, I would ask the indulgence of the House and seek general agreement to take the remaining Stages now.

If the Minister is engaged in the Dáil he will be engaged in providing business in the Dáil for us and I am afraid that neither Senator Miss Davidson nor anyone else will have an opportunity on the Bill to bring up any of the general matters discussed on the Second Stage. As this merely provides an extension of things which are already in law the Committee Stage will not be a very long business so, therefore, I am prepared to agree.

Questions put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Barr
Roinn