Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Fleming. This amendment is at odds with the intention of section 15, which provides a discretionary power to the commissioner in exceptional circumstances in the interests of maintaining a correct, equitable and uniform valuation list. The proposed amendment would result in limiting this discretion by limiting the period within which the function could be exercised. This could have the unintended consequence, which I am sure the Deputy is not endeavouring to achieve, of creating an unfavourable situation for ratepayers by telling the valuation commissioner that he or she must use that element of discretion within a certain period of time.

The second part of the amendment is also problematic. Where the commissioner exercises this discretionary power, is it essential that it is exercised according to the timelines and other existing provisions in section 28 of the 2001 Act, as amended, including the period 40 days to make representations to the revision manager. Ample time must be provided to research the case details and applicable grounds, which may include a physical inspection of the property. An adequate period of time to consider representations must be allowed. Accordingly, I am not minded to accept this amendment.

Section 29A envisages a situation where the revision manager has concluded that no material change of circumstances arises and I wish to draw the attention of the Deputy to the fact that there is already an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal from that decision under section 28 of the Valuation Act 2001. Where the commissioner does exercise his or her discretion to direct the revision manager, there is an appeal from the decision of the revision manager under the new section 34. The proposed amendments would result in a separate appeal from a decision of the commissioner not to exercise his or her discretion.

It is important to note that this entire provision is intended to be an exception and remedy deficiencies in the existing material change of circumstance provisions, where the circumstances warrant this between revaluations, and not to provide a back-door appeal system. References have been made to bypassed filling stations and similar scenarios for which no provision currently exists. Furthermore, under the existing legislation the commissioner can only act in a manner consistent with the decision of the Valuation Tribunal or the higher courts. We are now broadening the situations in which the commissioner can act.

I should also point out to the committee that as a public official the commissioner is subject to the principles of administrative law in whether and how he or she exercises the discretion and must also have due regard to fair procedures and natural and constitutional justice. In summary, we have put in place enough avenues of appeal to have a fair system without a need for these amendments.