Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This amendment seeks to clarify and outline what has always been the view of the Valuation Office, and one presumes of this House when passing legislation in 2001 on the Valuation Bill, regarding an exclusion from valuation of any constructions which are designed or used primarily to induce a process of change as opposed to storage. I make the point that if there is a storage container down at Dublin port, that storage container is rateable, regardless of what is stored in it, whether construction material or anything else. Therefore, is it appropriate that if that storage container gets stuck onto another property or piece of machinery, it no longer is rateable?

We are not attempting to overturn High Court decisions. It is the job of the courts to interpret the law of the land and the job of these Houses to make the law of the land. Therefore, it is incorrect to say we are seeking to overturn a High Court decision, although I understand what is being suggested by Members.

It is rarely I disagree with Senator Barrett, but I must disagree with regard to the idea of giving the taxpayer a break. While this is not a crime, I will use the analogy to say this is not a victimless crime. It is a case of one taxpayer versus another. The base remains the same, so one taxpayer wins and the other does not. Some of the court decisions this legislation has dealt with concerned geographical issues I know Senator Byrne and others would be well aware of, in regard to motorways and the like. When such a company wins, another ratepayer in certain counties must pay.

This is not about being on the side of the taxpayer. The job of Government, and of the Oireachtas, is to be on the side of the taxpayer in an overarching sense, but it is not our job to be on the side of a specific taxpayer or set of taxpayers. What this amendment tries to do is to clarify and reinstate the position, as was always intended by this House in the passage of various valuation Bills.