Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Fleming for his amendment. I am approaching committee stage here in the same way I approach committee stage in the Seanad whereby if there are issues to be teased out we will endeavour to tease them out and I will be constructive in my responses. I think Deputy Fleming will know that from my responses to some of his amendments during the course of this debate.

I am not in a position to accept this amendment. If the intent of the amendment is to ensure that changes to the physical circumstances are taken into account, I can assure Deputy Fleming that this is already adequately provided for in the legislation. I think the Deputy accepts that. In fact, the definition of material change of circumstances in the Valuation Act 2001 includes a change in value caused by structural alterations, the total or partial destruction of a property, the sub-division of a property, the amalgamation of one or more properties or the exemption of a property from rates. The Bill, as passed by the Seanad, includes an additional circumstance whereby a property either becomes licensed or ceases to be licensed under the Licensing Act 1833-2011. However, if Deputy Fleming's intention is to widen the MCC to include economic factors this proposed amendment, in my view, would undermine the fundamental tenet of the valuation rating system as it currently applies to both the revaluation of entire local authorities and to the revision of the valuation of individual properties. The amendment would apply in both directions and would introduce a level of instability in relation to local authority funding and uncertainty and unpredictability for rate payers such as prevailed in the late 1980s.

As the Deputy is aware, there are two processes. Revaluation reflects the economic conditions at a point in time and the changes that have occurred in the circumstances since the revaluation was last undertaken. Revision is the second process and that provides for the maintenance of the valuation list between revaluations and takes account of new properties and the structural alterations which I outlined earlier. The revision process by its nature is ongoing, whereas revaluation, as we are all aware, is periodic. I do not think it would be sensible to mix these two processes as this amendment would attempt to do, and to provide for some kind of rolling revaluation by adding a new and very broad qualifying condition to what is regarded as a material change of circumstances.

To qualify for a revision there must be what is known as the material change of circumstances. That is defined as the erection or construction of a new property, a change in value caused by structural alteration, the total or partial destruction of the property, the sub-division of the property, the amalgamation of one or more properties or the exemption of the property from rates.

The MMC provisions determine whether a property can be revised as distinct from determining how a property should be valued. The objective of these provisions is to give certainty to both rate payers and local authorities as to the circumstances in which a revision can take place and to avoid repeated and possible frivolous attempts to change a valuation. It does bring stability to a system. As public representatives, I am sure we can all appreciate the importance of stability of funding for our local government structures. If one were to accept this amendment one would arrive at a scenario where the system would be in a constant state of change and instability in terms of the funding base of local authorities.