Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I return to the three issues I mentioned earlier, namely, valuation, notification and budgetary impacts. On the issue of valuation, which may be more for Dr. Walsh, what he seems to have said in the course of the meeting is that Revenue will again recommend the fee. I do not know how it is calculated but, if I remember correctly, it was sort of an average within the electoral district. My concern in that regard, which I wish to put on the record, is that this led to a significant number of people having incorrect valuations. It would be better to recommend that people consult the property price register than to recommend a figure. That would provide a more accurate representation of what valuations are, and they could be directly comparable and verifiable. The experience I have had is that, in recommending a figure, the Revenue misled many people. There was no property price register at the time. For new homes in particular, which will be very difficult for Revenue to estimate, there is a need to refer people to the property price register rather than recommending a rate.

My second point is also for Dr. Walsh, although Ms Walshe responded on it previously. The notification period does not relate to revaluation; it relates to the process each year whereby councils must notify Revenue by a date in September in order that they can operationalise that change or variation in LPT. That forces councils into having two budget days. It is like the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform delivering a national budget two months after the Minister for Finance does so or deciding to increase or reduce taxes and then, two months later, deciding how to spend that money. If at all possible, Revenue needs to consider that because it reduces local authority accountability because the decision to reduce or increase taxes and the decision to spend the income are completely separate. That is not good for local democracy. There is no certainty at that point in respect of what the Department will do in the context of its other funding streams. As such, decisions are being made in a vacuum.

I return to the overall budgetary impact. When the interdepartmental group was meeting and discussing these issues, the decision to retain 100% was described as a cost-neutral one. It may be cost neutral for the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage but it cannot be cost neutral in the context of the Local Government Fund. Did the interdepartmental group put a figure on how much that decision to retain 100% would cost the Local Government Fund? If less funding is going in, that is a known quantity. How much will it be and by how much will the Local Government Fund need to be topped up? No matter whether that is done by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage or the Department of Finance as part of an overall budget, we should know the figure.