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.