I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The objects of the Bill are mainly fourfold. In the first place it is designed to provide a general and uniform legislative procedure governing borrowing by local authorities. Secondly, it proposes to improve the land acquisition powers of local authorities for certain purposes. Thirdly, it will clarify the position in relation to land acquisition and borrowing by a local authority where the one proposal covers a number of purposes, as, for example, the provision of office accommodation. And lastly, it will enable county councils to increase their contributions to the County Councils General Council, should they desire to do so.
Part I of the Bill contains the usual provisions for citation, interpretation, and the laying of regulations before the Oireachtas. The definition of "appropriate Minister" has been drafted with the intention that control of borrowing, lending or compulsory land acquisition will be exercised by the Minister dealing with the matter to which the particular transaction relates. Borrowing by most local authorities is at present controlled by the Minister for Local Government: the major exception is borrowing by health authorities, which is subject to the approval of the Minister for Health. The Bill proposes to disperse this control to some extent but the dispersal is perhaps more apparent than real, since very few loans are raised for purposes for which other Ministers are responsible. It will, however, make for better administration if the Minister responsible for the service for which the loan is needed is also the sanctioning authority for the loan.
A difficulty arises in relation to what may be called mixed projects, that is, proposals involving more than one Minister. An example is a building designed to accommodate a county council and its various staffs —roads, housing, sanitary services, health, public assistance, and so on. The Bill contains certain provisions to overcome the legal problems created by such a proposal, but the immediate question of which Minister should be the responsible authority for land acquisition and loan for such a project is dealt with by Section 2. The general aim is that the Minister with the greater or greatest interest should be the appropriate Minister, and this aim is embodied in paragraph (b). It is felt, however, that this simple rule may give rise to difficulties in certain cases, and I shall introduce an amendment on the Committee Stage to clarify the position further.
Part II of the Bill proposes to substitute a few simple statutory provisions relating to borrowing and lending for the numerous, various and complex enactments, spread over more than sixty statutes, dealing with this aspect of local authorities functions. It is also proposed to remove the remaining statutory limitations on borrowing, in the realisation that the effective control of local indebtedness must be exercised by Ministers in the light of national economic and social policies. Statutory limits have never proved either effective or useful, and have already been discarded for a wide range of services.
The Bill provides for the making of general regulations relating to borrowing. It also introduces a number of new provisions which should prove of value. Among these may be mentioned the power to de-control certain borrowings by Ministerial directions. Local authorities are also being empowered to borrow on behalf of other local authorities. Contributions towards loan charges which is the form taken by Exchequer assistance to local authority housing and some other services, may moreover, under the Bill, be paid direct by the Department concerned to the lenders. Since the lenders are in the majority of cases the Commissioners of Public Works, this provision should enable a greatly simplified procedure to be introduced in the transactions at present affecting the repayment of loans and the subsidising of such repayments.
Part III of the Bill contains provisions relating to land acquisition, office premises, and the County Councils General Council.
As regards land acquisition, there are at present two main procedures governing the compulsory purchase of land by local authorities. Land required for housing, health, public assistance, and mental hospitals purposes may be secured by means of a compulsory purchase or compulsory acquisition order made by the local authority concerned, and confirmed by the appropriate Minister. This procedure superseded for the purposes mentioned the older provisional order procedure which involved a petition, to the Minister asking him to make a provisional order, the holding of an inquiry, the making of a provisional order, further objections by interested parties, and then confirmation of his own order by the Minister. This older procedure still applies to the acquisition of land for roads, sanitary services and certain other purposes.
The Bill proposes to standardise for the purposes mentioned the compulsory purchase order procedure operated under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. It is clearly desirable that a uniform code of land acquisition procedure should be available for all local authorities, for most, if not all, of their powers and duties. With that in mind Section 10 of the Bill can be regarded as merely an interim measure. It is necessary, however, for several reasons to introduce it now rather than await the preparation of more comprehensive proposals.
One of the reasons for the urgency, I may say, is the anxiety of Dublin Corporation to get ahead with their civic offices project. Section 11 of the Bill also has a bearing on this matter: it will clarify the position in relation to land acquisition for office purposes. The next section although expressed in general terms is related primarily to the land acquisition portion of the Bill, in that one of the principal matters ancillary to an agreement between local authorities may be the acquisition of land.
Section 13 is intended to rectify something of an anomaly in relation to the General Council of County Councils. This body is, as Deputies are aware, supported by annual contributions from member county councils. The upper limit to contributions, fixed at £10 in 1902 was raised to £20 in 1925 and has remained at this figure through all the vicissitudes of the intervening years. It is high time that the limit was readjusted, and this the Bill proposes to do.
Deputies will appreciate from what I have said that the Bill is almost wholly procedural or technical; it is concerned with the machinery rather than the substance of local government. Its aim is to improve that machinery, and in the belief that it will facilitate local authorities in the discharge of their business, I commend it to the House.