Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all Senators for their contributions. I thank Senators Quinn and Barrett for proposing this amendment. I will begin by reading the formal response. An occupier already has the right under section 27 of the Valuation Act 2001 to seek a review or a revision of the rateable value of his or her property. A rating authority may also apply to the valuation commissioner for a revision of a valuation, as may another interest holder in the subject property or an occupier of another property that appears on the valuation list. The legislation currently provides for the maintenance of valuation lists by way of the revision process and revaluation. Revision is the mechanism whereby physical changes to rateable properties are reflected in the valuation lists, while revaluation takes account of economic factors or the relative change in values between property locations and-or other uses over time.

As I said earlier, the revision process is by its nature an ongoing one, whereas revaluation is periodic. The legislation provides for regular interventions to take place no sooner than five years and no later than ten years. It cannot take 15 years. It will happen after five to ten years, as opposed to 15 years. Changes in the value of an existing property arising from structural alterations, the subdivision of a property into two or more separate properties or the amalgamation of that property with one or more rateable properties are provided for in section 28 in the Valuation Act 2001. This is the revision process.

I do not want to be disingenuous. I take the point that this does not encompass all of what Senator Quinn has raised in his amendment. Changes in value arising from economic factors are captured using the revaluation process. I made the point on Committee Stage that the Valuation Bill cannot address all the issues and challenges. Obviously, some issues are valuation issues, some are commercial rates issues and some fall within the remit of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the local authorities. Our job in a valuation sense is to attach a value to the building.

While some of the suggestions are interesting, they could have unintended consequences. I will give an example that relates to South Dublin County Council, which was mentioned by my colleague, Senator Keane. Obviously, there has been a significant change in value. One would imagine the same thing applies to all properties in that rating authority area. If we were to revalue all of South Dublin County Council, the actual rate in euro could end up increasing. If we reduce our valuation due to economic circumstances, it will end up transferring to the existing business. The Senator is right. We could reduce the valuation to try to get somebody into an empty unit, but the pie would stay the same for South Dublin County Council. Ultimately, an existing rate payer would end up paying more. Every time somebody wins, somebody else loses. That is the balancing act we are trying to perfect.

As I said in response to the previous amendment, this Government's efforts to get rid of back rates under the Local Government Act have been a help. Until quite recently, if someone tried to occupy the properties in Tallaght mentioned by Senator Keane, not only would they have had to pay the rates, they could have been left with the back rates from the previous occupier as well. That has been repealed since 24 March last.

We do not have a role in the area about which my colleague, Senator Sheahan, asked. I am not placed to answer the Senator's question other than by clarifying that this area is not covered by this legislation. I imagine it is a matter for the local authority. I can raise it with my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. It is an important point to raise. It is clear that this is an issue of concern for Senators, Deputies and the Government. I just do not feel we are best placed to deal with it in the context of the Valuation Bill. I will certainly pass on to my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, the concerns of Senators on all sides about what happens when there is a sudden change in the viability or profitability of a business.

I would like to make a final point. I think Senators used the same example I used, which relates to what happens when a filling station is bypassed. It is important to note that I introduced a new amendment on Committee Stage - it was amendment No. 45 at the time - to include a new section 29A in the Valuation Act 2001. This measure will give the commissioner additional authority to address anomalies on the valuation list. It provides for exceptional circumstances where a decision by a revision manager not to change a valuation could lead to inequity. That could happen if one were operating a busy filling station that was bypassed and, all of sudden, people were not passing one's business any more. There are extra provisions in this legislation that have not previously existed.