Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Mar 1925

Vol. 10 No. 10

DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1924—FROM THE SEANAD.

Amendment No. 1 (to the Title) postponed.
Amendment No. 2—In Section 1, page 4, line 18, after the word "gulley" the words "footway, pavement," inserted.

I beg to move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendment No. 2."

This is merely to include the words "footway, pavement" in the definition of a road. It does not make any material difference.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 3:—In Section 1, page 4, line 18, after the word "wall" the words "(where such fence, railing or wall was erected by or was liable to be maintained by the County Council or Grand Jury)" inserted.

I beg to move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3."

This is a provision to ensure that no fence, railing or wall will have to be maintained at the public expense unless put up by the local authority itself. It is to prevent the anomaly of private property being preserved at the public expense.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 4:—In Section 1, page 5, line 10, all from and including the words "the day" to the word "Act" in line 12, deleted, and the words and figures "the 1st day of October, 1925," substituted therefor.

I beg to move:—

That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4.

This is the first of a series of amendments that are rather important. Amendment 9 is the most important of them. The amendments were necessitated by the fact that the Bill did not get through as early as I anticipated. As a result we will not be in a position to put the Bill into operation by the beginning of the financial year. It would create great difficulty and many anomalies would arise if we were to try to put the public health provisions of the Bill into operation in the middle of a financial period. It would lead to great difficulty in accounting and in the general administration of the Bill. That does not apply to the road provisions. The county council at the present time is the unit of administration for roads. Its power is limited to some extent by the powers of the rural district council, but in the main the county council is the administrative unit. Accordingly we can put the road provisions into operation by the 1st April. The only administrative act that will have to be performed under the road portions of the Bill before putting it into operation is that I will have to make a main road declaration to declare what roads are main roads throughout the country. I have already prepared that declaration and it will be easy to put it into operation by the 1st April.

With regard to the public health provisions, we have a much more difficult situation to deal with. When the rural district councils are abolished we will have to see what is to be done with the various officials, what duties will be transferred to the board of health, county council, etc. We will have to take some time to consider the matter, and accordingly I propose that the public health portions do not come into operation until 1st October—that is the beginning of the second half of the financial year. In the meanwhile we will have no re-election of rural district councils. It would be ridiculous to elect rural district councillors for six months. In fact, I expect we would have great difficulty in getting anyone to go forward. At the same time, we will have to preserve the rural district council area as an administrative unit, otherwise we would have great difficulty in trying to set up a board of health area as the administrative unit straight away without giving full consideration to the matter. Those amendments, therefore, are intended to provide that the road provisions will come into operation on the 1st April, and that the public health provisions will come into operation on the 1st October, before which we will have time to consider the whole position. It is merely a matter of machinery. It is somewhat complicated, and I thought it well to explain it fully on the first amendment, as there are several other amendments to follow which are consequential.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 5.—In Section 3 (1), page 5, line 22, the word "From" deleted and the word "On" substituted therefor.
Amendment 6.—In Section 3 (1), page 5, line 22, all from and including the words "such date" to the words "this Act" in line 24, deleted, and the words "the appointed day" substituted therefor.
Amendment 7.—In Section 5 (2), page 6, line 28 the word "from" deleted and the word "on" substituted therefor.

I beg to move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 5, 6 and 7." There are several of these amendments running through the Bill. They are legal amendments, the object of which is to insert the word "on" instead of "from" to ensure that the actual day will be included. If we left the word "from" in a doubt would arise as to whether it was inclusive or not.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 8.—In Section 7, page 6, line 47, the words "are now" deleted and the words "were immediately before the passing of this Act" substituted therefor.

I beg to move:—

That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 9:—Before Section 8 but included in Part I. a new section inserted as follows:—
(1) No elections of rural district councillors shall be held after the passing of this Act.
(2) On the day which shall be prescribed by the Minister for the holding of the next statutory election of county councillors after the passing of this Act, all rural district councils shall cease to function and the property and the several powers and duties of every rural district council shall be transferred to the council of the county in which the rural district was situate and shall be vested in and exercised and performed by such county council until the appointed day.
(3) In the case of the council of a county to which for the time being no county scheme relates or to which a joint county scheme for such county and an adjoining county borough relates, the powers and duties transferred by this section to such council shall until the appointed day be exercised and performed by a board established for the purpose in the like manner as a board of public health would be established in that county under this Act after the appointed day.
(4) In the case of the council of a county to which a county scheme (other than a joint scheme for such county and an adjoining county borough) relates the powers and duties transferred by this section to such council shall until the appointed day be exercised and performed by the body to whom under such county scheme is entrusted the administration of the relief of the poor in the area in which the rural district was situate.
(5) The Minister may by order do all such things and make all such regulations as in his opinion shall be necessary for the proper preservation and management of the property and the performance and exercise of the powers and duties transferred by this section and generally for giving full effect to this section during the period between the date on which the rural district councils shall cease to function under this section and the appointed day.

I beg to move:—

That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9.

This is the principal amendment, which I explained rather fully on a previous amendment. It sets out the whole of the provisions with regard to putting the Bill into operation in April and October.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 10:—In Section 8 (1), page 6, line 50, the word "from" deleted and the word "on" substituted therefor.
Amendment 11:—In Section 14, page 8, line 61, the word "from" deleted and the word "on" substituted therefor.

I beg to move:—

That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 10 and 11.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 12:—Before Section 15 a new section inserted as follows:
Where immediately before the appointed day the provisions of any statute or portion of a statute are in force in a rural district or part of a rural district by virtue of an order or resolution of the council of that rural district adopting such provisions, such provisions shall after the appointed day continue to be in force in the same area but subject and without prejudice to any rescission, alteration or extension of the adoption of those provisions duly made by a competent authority after the appointed day, and the expenses of the administration of such statute or portion of a statue in such area shall be charged on such area.

I beg to move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 12." This is more or less a machinery amendment also. A great number of those adoptive Acts can only be applied to the whole of a sanitary area. At the present time the sanitary district is the rural district. When a sanitary district becomes the whole county—the board of health area —it will mean that a number of those Acts will have to be adopted for part of the sanitary area, as the rural district for which they have been adopted will only be part of the new sanitary area. Accordingly it is necessary to have power to have those Acts adopted in part of the sanitary area and that is the object of the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 13.—In Section 16, page 9, the following words added at the end of the section:—"provided that this section shall not be deemed to confer on the Minister any power in addition to the powers otherwise conferred on him by law."

I beg to move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 13." The principle of this amendment was mooted in the Dáil, or, at least, put down on the Order Paper by Deputy Darrell Figgis. It is merely to ensure that this section, which sets out the powers of the Minister should be merely declaratory and should give no new powers. I accepted this amendment in the Seanad and would have accepted it in the Dáil if it had come forward.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 14.—Before Section 17 a new section inserted as follows:—
"It shall be the duty of a coroner to hold an inquest in respect of every death occurring or dead body lying in his district in respect of which there is any reasonable cause to believe that the death may have been due to some cause other than common illness."

I beg to move:—"That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in amendment 14." I do not propose to ask the Dáil to agree to this amendment. It deals with the duties of coroners. I am not taking up an attitude one way or another, for or against the amendment per se. It is a matter with which I am not concerned. It is rather one for the Department of Justice, because I have no control over the duties of coroners. Accordingly I am asking the Dáil not to agree to the insertion of the amendment.

I would like to know if that is the only argument in favour of rejecting the amendment—whether it is not at present the duty of the Coroner to hold an inquest. I understand it is his duty.

I agree with the Minister in asking that this amendment be not accepted by the Dáil. It did not come specifically under my notice before. It is an attempt to interfere with the discretion of the Coroner as to the cases that call for the holding of an inquest and to impose a statutory duty in the matter. In fact, inquests are, in my opinion, invariably held when the information put before the Coroner is that there is any reason whatever to suspect that death was the result of anything but natural causes. I never had any single case brought to my notice which would call for the insertion in this or any other Bill of a provision of that nature. I have had no case brought to my notice of a Coroner refusing to, or omitting to, hold an inquest when there was any reason to believe that death was from other than natural causes, or where there was any reason to suspect violence or foul play.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 15.—In Section 19, page 10, after sub-section (3) a new sub-section inserted as follows:—
"Provided that nothing in this Act shall prejudicially affect the right of any local authority to whom additional duties have been transferred under this Act from obtaining such recoupment from the local taxation account or otherwise for salaries and other expenditure as was hitherto payable in connection with such duties."

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendment 15."

The object of the amendment is to secure that the subvention to the local authorities will continue. The sub-section is practically unnecessary, but we thought it was just as well to put it in.

A question arises as to whether we ought to pass this amendment in its present form. The amendment takes the form of a new sub-section, which begins with the words "provided that." I am only familiar with legal phraseology from my experience in the Dáil, but it seems to me that that would be very incomplete and, if not ungrammatical, at least unaesthetic. If there is no need for this amendment, I would suggest that we ought not to pass it in its present form. There are three sub-sections relating to salaries, and so on, and this amendment starts with the words "provided that nothing in this Act shall prejudicially affect the right..." I am only questioning the propriety of putting those two words "provided that" at the beginning of a new sub-section. I have no other objection, but I suggest that this is not a usual form in drafting.

If Deputy Johnson agrees, I would be willing to accept the deletion of those two words "provided that." The sub-section would then read: "Nothing in this Act..."

Does that mean that the Minister is prepared to accept an amendment to his motion, that we do not agree with the Seanad amendment but suggest an alteration?

I am prepared to accept Deputy Johnson's version. I will accept the amendment, as it came back from the Seanad, with the deletion of those two words.

That raises a question of procedure. The Minister has moved that the Committee agree with the Seanad amendment No. 15. The suggestion now is that we do not agree with the Seanad amendment but are prepared to submit to the Seanad a proposition that, if they alter their amendment in the way suggested, we will agree with it. Am I to understand, A Chinn Comhairle, that that is the right procedure?

No. We can take this amendment and amend it, and then send a message to the Seanad saying: "Dáil Eireann has agreed with amendment No. 15, with the deletion of the words `provided that'." There is a very important difference between that procedure and the procedure Deputy Johnson suggests. We would, under the procedure I have indicated, insert the sub-section, with the omission of the two words "provided that," and the Bill would become law in that form eventually. But if we simply made no amendment, but suggested to the Seanad that they should make the amendment, the position would be as it is, namely, that the words "provided that" would be in the Bill.

That is the point. The Minister suggests that there is no necessity for this amendment, and, therefore, a message from the Dáil that it is our desire to insert the sub-section rather creates a wrong impression. The position is that we are prepared to assent, for peace sake, to the Seanad proposition, but we do not think it is necessary. I prefer that position to the other.

Motion made and question put—"That the Committee agree with amendment 15 from the Seanad, with the deletion of the words `provided that.' "

Agreed.

Amendment 16.—In Section 19, sub-section (5), page 10, line 56, the word "medical" deleted.

Amendment 17.—In Section 19, sub-section (5), page 10, line 56, after the word "required" the following words inserted: "on matters affecting the health of his county or district."

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 16 and 17."

The words suggested were considered better than the words which originally appeared.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 18:—In Section 19, sub-section (6), page 10, line 62, the words "performance of his duties" deleted and the words "service of one or more local authorities" substituted therefor.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendment 18."

I think we had some discussion on a similar matter in the Dáil. Where a medical officer is appointed to a small county, there might not be sufficient work for him in that county or under a particular local authority and, accordingly, provision is made so that he can carry out his duties under one or more local authority. It would be very hard to get this medical officer of health accepted in some of the smaller counties if there was not an opportunity given to have his services paid for by one or other of the adjoining counties as well.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 19:—Before Section 20 a new section inserted as follows:
At least one of the sanitary officers appointed by any sanitary authority under the provisions of Section 11 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, shall be a duly qualified veterinary surgeon and the duties assigned to such officer shall include inspection and examination of meat, inspection of cattle in dairies and other similar duties.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendment 19."

The object of this section is to ensure that at least one veterinary surgeon will be appointed as sanitary officer in each county health district. There are various sanitary duties to be carried out under the different Public Health Acts, the Dairies and Cowsheds Order and statues of that kind, and some of these duties can only be carried out properly by veterinary surgeons. The inspection of meat is a highly technical duty, and even a fully qualified doctor has not adequate training or experience to perform that duty. The lesions of tuberculosis take a different form in different animals, and it takes an experienced man to be able to discover them and to know in each case what portion of the carcase should be destroyed and what portions should be kept for human consumption. That is very technical work and, if we are going to have our public health administration brought to a high standard in this country, it is necessary that we should have one highly-skilled officer of this kind in every county health area. It will not lead to any new appointments, because there are such officers practically in every county at the present time. It was considered a good thing to have it stated definitely in the Bill that it is our policy to encourage this inspection of meat, inspection of dairies and cowsheds, and inspection of milk throughout the country. Accordingly, I ask the Dáil to agree with this amendment.

I do not object to the Minister's proposal, but I would like to have some assurance that the appointment of one duly qualified veterinary surgeon, as one of the sanitary officers, does not mean that he will be responsible for the full duties of inspection of dairies and cowsheds, meat shops, abattoirs, and all the rest —that you are not, by appointing such a veterinary surgeon, relieving the other sanitary officers of responsibility in regard to such inspections. Otherwise, I think it would be found that the inspection would be less complete than hitherto, rather than more complete. The veterinary surgeon will not be a full-time officer, I take it. He will act rather as a court of appeal or a referee when the occasion arises. If the other sanitary officers do not consider it part of their duty to look after such questions as relate to animal inspection, believing, as they may, without the insertion of some safeguard, that the duty appertaining to such function is the responsibility of this veterinary surgeon, then he will not act at all because he will probably wait until he is called upon. The appointment of a veterinary surgeon should not relieve those other officers of their duty to inspect abattoirs, dairies, cowsheds, and other such places, but they should continue to discharge that duty as heretofore.

There is no intention, by this amendment, to do away with any of the duties that sub-sanitary officers were required to perform, although the whole scheme is rather vague at the present time. There have been proposals to the effect that this veterinary surgeon should be a whole-time officer and that he should perform these duties in connection with other duties, under the Diseases of Animals Act, for the Department of Agriculture. The entire matter has not been definitely decided upon yet. For the present, and for a considerable time to come, the ordinary sub-sanitary officers will continue to do the routine work. It is only in exceptional cases, where they consider that a veterinary surgeon is required, that he will be called in. I am anxious to have this power in the Bill, although at the moment I cannot say exactly what definite shape our policy with regard to veterinary surgeons will take. We can go so far, however, as to have it definitely provided in this Bill that we should have a veterinary surgeon in every county. As I have said, there are certain duties in connection with sanitation that a veterinary surgeon can perform, which nobody else can. For some considerable time to come, there will be very little change made in the present administration of these public services.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 20.—In section 21 (1), page 11, line 16, the word "from" deleted and the word "on" substituted therefor.
Amendment 21.—In section 21 (1), page 11, line 16, the words "appointed day" deleted and the words and figures "1st day of April, 1925," substituted therefor.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendments 20 and 21."

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 22.—Before Section 22 a new section inserted as follows:—
(1) If at any time after the appointed day the council of any county or urban district by resolution passed after such notice as is hereinafter mentioned declares any road which is not a public road, but over which a public right of way for foot passengers, animals and vehicles exists and which connects two public roads and is not less than eleven feet wide in the clear, to be a public road, such road shall for all purposes be a public road.
(2) Not less than one month before passing any such resolution as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section, the council shall publish in at least two newspapers circulating in their county or district notice of their intention to consider the passing of such resolution.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendment 22."

This was a provision inserted by the Seanad, giving power to have certain roads made public roads. We are safeguarded against having all sorts of private paths and boreens made public roads and kept at the public expense by the provision that such roads must be at least eleven feet wide in the clear. It is also provided that those roads must connect two main roads, so that there will be no danger of cul de sacs or unimportant bye-roads of that kind being put on at the public expense. There are certain counties where there are a great number of those eleven-feet roads that are quite important from the point of view of transit. At the present time, there is no way of making them public roads and they are maintained in very poor condition. This amendment will give the necessary power to have those roads made public roads.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 23.—In Section 22, page 12, line 1, the word "from" deleted and the word "on" substituted therefor.
Amendment 24.—In Section 22, page 12, line 1, the words "appointed day" deleted and the words and figures "1st day of April, 1925," substituted therefor.
Amendment 25.—In Section 23 (1), page 12, line 28, the word "from" deleted and the word "on" substituted therefor.
Amendment 26.—In Section 23 (1), page 12, line 28, the words "appointed day" deleted and the words and figures "1st day of April, 1925," substituted therefor.
Amendment 27.—In Section 23 (1), page 12, line 43, after the word "but" the words "such expenses" inserted.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27."

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 28.—In Section 23 (1), page 12, line 45, after paragraph (d) a new paragraph (e) inserted as follows:—
"(e) in every demand note for rates the portion of the sum demanded which is to be raised for the purpose of construction and maintenance of roads shall be shown as a separate item."

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 28." When debating this section in the Seanad, it was suggested that it would be a good thing to show on every demand note how much of the rate to be raised was to be expended on the upkeep of roads. There is a general endeavour in the country at the present time to find out definitely what is the cost of maintenance of our roads. The people who have to pay the rates are very anxious to see what portion of their rate is being expended on roads and what portion on other services. Accordingly this amendment was proposed in the Seanad, and I ask the Dáil to agree to it.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 29.—In Section 26 (2), page 13, line 16, the words "appointed day" deleted and the words and figures "1st day of April, 1925," substituted therefor.

I beg to move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 29." It is consequential.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 30.—In Section 26 (2), page 13, line 18, after the word "county" the words "county or other borough or urban district" inserted.

I beg to move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 30." This amendment puts the county boroughs and urban districts in the same position as the rural parts of the county as regards repayment of loans for roads. If this were not inserted, there would be no means of pooling the resources of the urban districts and county boroughs for the purpose of paying off loans. We have agreed to accept this amendment.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 31.—In Section 26 (2), page 13, line 19, after the word "road" the words "(other than a loan borrowed for the purposes of the `Bridges (Ireland) Acts, 1813-1875')" inserted.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 31."

This amendment is to ensure that money borrowed under the Bridges Acts will not be treated in the same way as ordinary expenses for the maintenance of roads. Loans under the Bridges Acts are in a category by themselves, and the repayments of them have been charged partly on county districts and partly on urban districts. In many cases the county districts have paid off a large proportion of the loan, and it would not be fair to redistribute the charge again over the county and county borough districts, as if no previous payments had been made. It is to prevent an injustice of that kind that the present amendment is necessary.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 32:—Before Section 27 a new section inserted as follows:
Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to repeal or amend or otherwise prejudice or affect the Bridges (Ireland) Acts, 1813-1875.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 32." This is consequential.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 33:—In section 27 (1), page 13, line 40, after the word "in" the words "on to" inserted.
Amendment 34:—In Section 27 (4), page 14, line 12, after the word "through" the words "or drain on to" inserted.

I beg to move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 33 and 34." At present it is possible to make drains through lands by the side of a road, but there is no power to drain water on to land. The result often is that roads are allowed to remain waterlogged because there is no power to drain water on to the land. There is no intention to allow large masses of water to be drained on to a person's land, as it is only to cases of a small supply of water trickling through a gully on the side of a road that this applies. If there is any damage resulting there is provision for compensation to be paid to the owners.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 35.—In Section 27 (4), page 14, line 12, the word "or" deleted and the word "and" substituted therefor.

I beg to move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 35." This is merely a drafting amendment.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 36.—In Section 27, sub-section (4), page 14, line 13, all after the word "powers" deleted to the end of the sub-section and the following words substituted therefor: "and for the value of any gravel, stone, sand and other material taken under such powers, regard being had in determining such value to the demand for such materials for purposes other than the repair of roads, and due allowance being made for the cost of digging for, quarrying and raising such material and preparing the same for use."

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 36." This is a rather important amendment. In the Seanad it was agreed that material raised for the maintenance of roads should be paid for. Heretofore the practice has been that no money could be paid for any material utilised for the upkeep and repair of roads unless it has been used for general purposes. There was a very strong amendment proposed which, in my opinion, would have led to a serious increase in the cost of upkeep and the maintenance of roads. I did not accept that amendment as originally proposed, as I considered that it would have imposed too great a burden on the public and led to great difficulties in maintaining our roads even at their present standard. I agreed to accept an amendment in a form considerably diluted as compared with the original. This amendment, while providing that every man will be compensated for material which is taken from him to maintain the public road, ensures that he will only get the market value of that material, and also that the district justice, in arriving at the amount of compensation, will take into consideration the expense which the county council, or the county surveyor, has gone to in raising the material, stripping the quarry, and doing all other necessary work. I believe that in a great many cases this section will make very little difference, because the district justice will hold in the majority of cases that the amount of money expended on labour in producing the material will be greater than the value of the material itself. Accordingly, except in cases where stone, gravel, or other material is actually of intrinsic value and would be saleable apart from the work on the roads, there will be no compensation for material raised for the upkeep of roads.

I hope that the Dáil will not agree with this amendment. I think that the Bill in the form in which it left the Dáil in respect of this provision was much sounder and safer for the public. The proposition, notwithstanding the modification in the original form, which the Minister said would have imposed a very heavy burden on the road-making authority, will still impose a heavy burden if this section is allowed to remain and to be taken full advantage of by owners of the land under which the material lies. I take it that in respect to such material as stone, sand, gravel and the like, the existence of such material is not due to the action of the owner of the land. The value has not been created by him in any way and the working of it is not an expense to him. There was a proposition for amply compensating the owner of land for any damage he would sustain, but it did not provide him with an opportunity of making profit out of the needs of the public for road material. I think this proposition is retrogressive. It is handing over not merely the public requirements or, at least, not merely the benefit that would accrue to the public, from their need for stone or gravel, to the owner of the land, but it is inviting him to take advantage of this section so that a claim for compensation may be put forward for material for which he has no use, which is not his, and which is not of value by virtue of anything he has done. It is practically handing to a private individual what should be, and is in fact, a national property. While the section says that due allowance is to be made for the cost of quarrying and raising such materials, that is to say, that due allowance is to be made for the giving of value to the material, that value is not there until it is found that the public authority requires it, and there is to be some compensation paid to the owner of the land for something which he has not lost. I hope that the Dáil will not agree to this amendment.

I do not think that Deputy Johnson is on very strong ground here, but I admit that he would be if the amendment came back as originally proposed. I think that the amendment, as drafted now, amply safeguards all the rights of the public which Deputy Johnson has mentioned. Heretofore, in appraising the value of material of this kind, it was done by three householders and they naturally took great interest in the preservation of the rights of property owners. The result was when they granted compensation, although it was only up to a certain standard, they took into account the value of the material. We have changed that, and instead of the three householders we have the district justice, who will assess compensation on much more rigid lines. I think that this fact had a considerable effect on the Cathaoirleach in the Seanad when he decided by a casting vote in favour of this amendment.

In his capacity as a judge, he had several of these cases coming before him, and realised that in the old days these householders were very liberal in the value they put on the surface damage done to the land. We will not have that position any longer. Henceforth it will be done by a district justice, and we are safeguarding the public in every way. If the material is of no value, except in so far as that value has arisen from the fact that it is being used for road material, the district justice will take that into consideration and will grant very little compensation for the material. If, on the other hand, the material were of value and that it was not being used on the roads in that district at all, it is only right then that the owner of the material should be compensated for it. Accordingly, I ask the Committee to agree with the amendment.

I suggest that it is rather a matter of principle that is involved in this. The Minister has explained that under the law hitherto the compensation to be assessed was upon the loss sustained by the damage done to the surface of the land, and that loss was assessed by three neighbours. I suggest that there was very good ground for that kind of proposition. Let us bear in mind that they were dealing with the damage done to the land owner's property—to the surface of the land which he had an interest in and a right to by virtue of the actual value created by him and those who had gone before him in that land. But, in this case, while we are altering the authority which is going to make the assessment from three neighbours to a district justice, let us not do a great deal more than that under cover of a method of procedure. We are altering the practice of the past, or, rather, it is suggested in this amendment that we should do so by imposing upon the district justice the duty of ascertaining the value of the stone or sand that is taken away, and of the loss sustained by the removal of that sand or stone. That is a very different thing, and it is not merely a change in the tribunal, but it is a change in the principle on which the compensation has to be paid. Hitherto it has been for damage and loss actually sustained by the owner, but now it is proposed to value the mineral—the stone—and pay him for that. If we are going to do that, let us do it quite clearly and with our eyes open. It is a much more serious matter than to facilitate the district justice in arriving at his assessment. I, at least, will ask the Committee not to support this amendment.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 9.

  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean.
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Liam Mag Aonghusa.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Risteárd O Conaill.
  • Séamus N. O Dóláin.
  • Padraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Séamus O Leadáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Pádraic O Máille.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Andrew O Shaughnessy.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
  • William A. Redmond.

Níl

  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Tellers—Tá: Séamus O Dóláin and Liam Mag Aonghusa; Níl: Domhnall O Muirgheasa and Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
Motion declared carried.
Amendment 37:—In Section 27 (5), page 14, line 22, after the word "Court" the words "whose determination shall be final" deleted and the words "with a right of appeal by either party to the Circuit Court" substituted therefor.

I move:—

That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 37.

I think it is only proper that either party should have the right of appeal, and accordingly I ask the Committee to agree with the Seanad in this amendment.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 38:—In Section 27, before sub-section (6) a new sub-section inserted as follows:—
A Justice of the District Court when making any order (including the refusal of an application) under this section may at his discretion order the costs, to an amount not exceeding three guineas, incurred in relation to the proceedings by any party thereto to be paid by any other party thereto.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 38."

This amendment provides for the payment of costs in cases of litigation which take place under this section. There is not very much to be gained by a party going to court if he wins his case and if his costs amount to a very considerable sum. In order to prevent vexatious litigation of that kind, it has been considered desirable to allow the payment of costs to the party who succeeds in the case.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 39:—In Section 27 (6), page 14, line 25, the word "or" deleted before the word "pleasure" and the words "or recreation" inserted after the word "pleasure."

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 39." This is not a very important amendment. It does not add very much, however, to the original section, but it may be just as well to have it.

I think it adds a great deal to the original section, and although it does not say so, it is really inserted for the purpose of protecting golf links from the possibility of being invaded by roadmakers. I think it is very possible that sand would be found in and required from under golf links, and I do not think there ought to be special legislation for their protection as compared with, say, farming property. If there were a larger number of farmer Deputies present that might have a higher appeal, but certainly we ought not to put in these words "or recreation," the intention of which is quite clearly to safeguard golf links from being affected in the search for stone, gravel, or sand. Somebody suggested that golf is not a recreation, that it is a labour, but I dare say that the people who will have the interpretation of the law will be the kind of people who believe that golf is recreation. In view of the large number of golf links, the area they cover, and the kind of land they consist of, I think that they ought not be immune in the same way as demesne or pleasure grounds, as was originally intended. I think there is very much more in the amendment than appears on the surface, and we ought not to accept it.

It never occurred to me that there was such a sinister idea at the back of this amendment as the protection of golf links. I am sure you, A Chinn Comhairle, would have a very great objection to having it passed if such were the intention. This amendment covers all kinds of recreation grounds, including racing, hurling, football and other grounds. Of all grounds, I think those which would be least damaged by the taking of sand are golf links, for it would have the effect of making good bunkers if they were placed in a proper position in the course. I think it would be less harmful to golf links than any other grounds. I do not think that what the Deputy has suggested was the intention of the Senator who proposed the amendment. Accordingly, I ask the Committee to accept the amendment.

Does not the Minister see that he is depriving a rural authority of the power to take sand, gravel or stone from golf links? If he will say that this is not intended, and insert "with the exception of golf links other forms of recreation," then we might consent to the amendment, but it is obvious, to my mind, that the protection of golf links is the purpose of the amendment. The people who will be loudest in their complaints about the bad roads will be the people who will drive their motor cars to the golf links. I do not think that they should be specially protected as is proposed in the amendment. "Other grounds" would probably cover all those places that should be protected in the matter, and we should not specifically add the words "or recreation."

In spite of what the Deputy has said, I am still in favour of this amendment. I really do not see how he reads into it that it is particularly for the purpose of protecting golf links. Of course it will protect golf links as well as any other kind of recreation grounds, but that is only one of many kinds of recreation grounds which it will protect, such as polo, cricket, football.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 40:—In Section 28 (4), page 14, line 54, the words "such amount" deleted and the following words substituted therefor: "in appropriate cases the amount of any loss or expense occasioned by disturbance of the occupier by such removal, and such amounts."

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment." The object of the amendment is to ensure that if under the provisions of Section 28 a man's house is taken down the occupier of that house will be able to get compensation for disturbance. It is only equitable that if the owner is able to get compensation the occupier should also get it. I do not think that there will be any opposition to this amendment.

I would like to be quite sure that this does effect that purpose. I was hoping that this section would be amended with the object of securing what the Minister says it has affected already. Section 28, sub-section (4), states:—"Where the Minister makes an order under this section for the removal of a building ... the council... shall pay to every person having an interest in the land upon which such building or structure is situate, by way of compensation for such removal;" and then "in appropriate cases the amount of any loss or expense occasioned by disturbance of the occupier by such removal, and such amounts"—whether the words "appropriate cases" suggest and ensure that it will be the occupier who is to get such amounts is a little doubtful. It seems to me that it is the owner of the interest in the land that is to obtain the compensation, and not the occupier. I would like to hear some views on that point.

The intention of the amendment is to secure what Deputy Johnson is anxious to secure—that the occupier would be protected. I wonder if the amendment were amended to read, "in appropriate cases to the occupier the amount of any loss or expense occasioned by disturbance of the occupier by such removal, and such amounts." That would certainly ensure that it is the occupier who is to benefit, but I do not think that there is any doubt about it as it stands.

That would do.

The proposal is to insert after the word "cases" the words "to the occupier," and leave the rest as it is?

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 41:—In Section 28 (4) page 14, lines 57-58, the words, "by the Reference Committee appointed for the purposes of that Act" deleted.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment." This is more or less a drafting amendment. Legislation will be introduced shortly for the purpose of this Reference Committee, so that there is no necessity to mention it here.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 42:—In Section 28, page 15, line 3, before sub-section (6) a new sub-section inserted as follows:—
Where an order of the Minister under this section for the removal of a portion of a building or structure is duly complied with within the time specified in that behalf therein the council on whose application such order was made shall pay all costs and expenses reasonably incurred in so complying with such order.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment."

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 43:—In Section 28 (7), page 15, line 19, after the word "may" the words "in any case in which the owner or occupier cannot be found" inserted.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment." It is to ensure that the occupier will get due notice in all cases where the owner or occupier cannot be found when he is written to under the section.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 44:—In Section 29 (6), page 16, line 59, the words "incurred in so complying with said order" deleted and the words "which the District Justice shall consider reasonable" substituted therefor.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment." This would prevent the making of extravagant claims under this section, and I think it is an improvement to the section.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendments 45, 46 and 47.—In Section 29 (8), page 17, line 9, after the words "hedge" the words "or tree" inserted.
In Section 29 (8), page 17, line 12, after the word "hedge" the words "or tree" inserted.
In Section 29 (9), page 17, line 14, after the word "hedge" the words "or tree" inserted.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in these amendments."

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 48.—In Section 29, page 17, line 23, before sub-section (11) a new sub-section inserted as follows:—
"A Justice of the District Court when making any order (including the refusal of an application) under this section may at his discretion order the costs, to an amount not exceeding three guineas, incurred in relation to the proceedings by any party thereto to be paid by any other party thereto."

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment." It is the same as amendment 38.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 49.—Before Section 30 a new section inserted as follows:—
(1) In this section the word "animal" means all cattle and swine and also any horse, ass, mule, sheep or goat and the young of any such animal.
(2) Every person who habitually permits any animal belonging to him or in his charge to wander or stray on a road shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to the following penalties, that is to say:—
(a) In the case of a first offence a fine not exceeding one pound for every animal in respect of which the offence is committed, or where the offence is committed more than one hour after sunset and more than one hour before sunrise, a fine not exceeding two pounds for every such animal, and
(b) in the case of a second or any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding five pounds for every animal in respect of which the offence is committed, or where the offence is committed more than one hour after sunset and more than one hour before sunrise, a fine not exceeding ten pounds for every such animal.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment." This has to do with animals straying on roads. At present anyone motoring or driving through the country experiences great inconvenience and runs considerable risks with the different kinds of animals—a regular menagerie—that are to be found on the roads—sheep, goats and cattle, all classes of four-footed animals. Under the present code there is a certain machinery for dealing with such cases. The animals can be impounded, but the procedure is a very complicated one and in practice it has not been very satisfactory. It is a rather difficult problem to deal with because in certain times of the year animals are in the habit of straying, irrespective of what control is exercised over them or how well they are fenced in. In hot weather cattle are inclined to break out of bounds, and it is very difficult to control them. It was accordingly considered proper, in trying to define methods for dealing with this nuisance, not to impose a special penalty for animals occasionally straying on roads, because there is no possible way of preventing them at times from breaking out of bounds. But where it becomes a habitual practice to leave animals straying on the public highways to the danger of the public it is considered highly desirable that some means should be found to deal with the nuisance and accordingly this amendment was proposed in the Seanad. I believe it deals with the situation as fully and as favourably as possible, and I accordingly ask the Dáil to agree to it.

I would like the Minister to give us some idea of how this will work. I think that it is an impossible section and that for the sake of our good sense it ought not to be agreed to. I have no doubt that it will be easy to get the Dáil to accept the proposition that animals straying on roads cause a nuisance to motorists and others. Let us see what the section proposes. It proposes to impose a fine, for the first offence not exceeding £1 for every animal, and for subsequent offences a fine not exceeding £5 for every animal. But what is the offence? The offence is "habitually permitting." There is no definition of what is habitual in this case. You will have to prove, I suggest, that say, Deputy Hogan runs his goats out habitually on to the road, and somebody will have the discretion in deciding whether ten times per month constitutes a habit, or are we to take a five years' period, or what period are we to take before a habit can be said to prevail? The offence is not, bear in mind, the allowing of an animal on to the road; the offence is "habitually permitting," and until the Minister can enlighten us as to what is meant by this phrase and how it will be defined I think the House would do well to hesitate long before allowing it to go out that they have sanctioned an amendment of this kind, coming from a lawyer-led Chamber. which is impossible of completing and carrying through. Unless the word "habitual" has some meaning in law that it has not to the dictionary or to the ordinary man in the street the amendment seems to me to be quite impossible and one that would throw upon the Justice and the police the obligation of counting the number of times an offence is committed, or at least counting the number of times the animal is allowed to wander, and deciding whether that constitutes a habit, and then for that habitual commission a fine will be incurred. Perhaps the Minister could help us in this matter.

It is extremely difficult to try to legislate for all possible cases, and you have to rely to some extent on the discretion of Justices, who will be adjudicating in cases of this kind. It would be very difficult to lay down hard and fast rules as to what would be habitual. In certain circumstances the straying of a beast on the road on ten particular occasions might be held to be habitual, and in other circumstances it might not. I mean it would be a question of fact for the Justices to decide in all these cases, and I myself would not care to see too stringent an enforcement of this particular section. All that is required is to have some provision where a person allows himself to become a perfect nuisance or who goes in for making a practice of continuing to allow animals to stray on the road to the danger of the public, giving us some power for dealing with that individual. At the present time we have very limited powers, no matter how constantly he may offend in that particular way. There are some people who make a practice of keeping their stock continually on the roads, and it is only right that the public should be protected against people of that kind. It is a matter for the Justices in each case to take all the facts into consideration. There are certain parts of the country where I am aware animals straying on the road would be very little nuisance and would do very little injury; in other places they would be a great danger. There are places where people should exercise a very much greater degree of care and vigilance in keeping their stock off the roads than is necessary in other places. It is all a question of fact for the District Justice to decide, and it would be absolutely impossible to try to lay down a hard-and-fast rule in general legislation of this kind.

The Minister may have a very clear idea in his own mind as to what does constitute an offence, but for the protection of the public against possibly an officious policeman or complaining neighbours, surely we require to be a little more definite in legislating if the law at present does not contain sufficient safeguards for the public. To say that a certain person is in the habit of allowing his cattle to stray on the roads is one thing; to prove it before the Court is another. What kind of evidence will be brought forward to the Justice to show that such-and-such a person "habitually permits"? Who is to be the witness to prove the day and date and the succession of days and dates? Is there to be any record taken of the number of days on which complaints have been made? There is no provision in this for a warning or a succession of warnings that such-and-such an animal belonging to such-and-such a person was straying, and that a number of warnings of that kind would constitute habitual permission, but, as I see it, we are going either to impose on the District Justice an impossible task or we are going to lead to all kinds of trouble between the Civic Guard and the farmer, or the cottier or labourer, who has a goat, and his neighbours. Complaints about habitual permission will raise a question as to whether on such-and-such a date, such-and-such an animal was permitted by the will of the owner, or whether that animal broke through unknown to the owner. You will have, I think, to provide for some kind of notice being given and the recording of the facts before you can allege habitual permission. I think that the enforcement of such a section will either be impossible or that it will impose a discretion upon the Justice to accept the word of a policeman who will accept the word of neighbours, who may be friendly or unfriendly to the alleged offender, but there will be no record, no direct evidence of any satisfactory kind to constitute habit unless you define what is meant by "habitual." It seems to me that the section in its present form without some definition of the term, "habitually permit," is unworkable and rather foolish.

I think this particular section that is proposed to be inserted in the Bill seems to be in the nature of a police direction rather than a section in an Act of Parliament dealing with matters affecting local government. I do think the expressions used here are very indefinite. We all know that in the country beasts are put out on the side of the road to graze; often they are put there deliberately and habitually. I presume that the Minister is directing his efforts to stopping that practice. On the other hand, as Deputy Johnson says, it would be almost impossible to define cases where an injustice would not be done by calling a man an habitual trespasser on the roads. Possibly he would not be an habitual trespasser, and he would not have deliberately put his cattle or horses to graze on the roadside. The whole thing strikes me as being more in keeping with ordinary police road regulations.

The Minister puts forward his claim for this section really on the basis of road traffic. Anybody conversant to any extent with the use of roads knows that the chief danger is constituted by animals sleeping on the roads. They are really a menace to public safety. Apart from donkeys, there are often found on the roads dogs and hens and animals of other descriptions that are not mentioned in the Bill. To me it would seem to be easier and better if the police authorities in every district got authority to deal with this matter. We should not include in this Bill a section which could really be made the means of doing great injustice to people who would not be trespassers.

I do not think there is any great need for this section. As a matter of fact, under the existing law the Gárda Síochána have ample powers for dealing with all animals wandering on the roads. They can prosecute the owners and get them fined. It is well to bear in mind the fact that at present throughout the country oftentimes cattle go on the roads——

Without permission.

Certainly not with permission; but they do go against the intention of the owner. In many places during the past three or four years fences were thrown down. They have not yet been made up. It is actually and physically impossible for the owners of the land to have the fences put in proper repair. I know cases where splendid fences were thrown down and they have not been repaired. In some cases the owners have not been compensated for the destruction. In many cases, even if they had compensation awarded, it would be actually impossible for them to restore the fences. This amendment is vexatious, I submit; it is really unnecessary and the Minister should drop it.

This amendment represents the best effort we have been able to make in order to deal with this problem. In the Seanad the amendment was introduced in a different form. There was considerable objection to the amendment as originally drafted. It would have been a serious matter for any owner of livestock who permitted animals to stray even once or twice on the road, if the original amendment had been put through. It was in order to obviate the possibility of any seriousness of that sort and any possible injustice, that the words "habitually stray" were inserted. I do believe there are a great many cases in the country where it would not be difficult for a man with ordinary common-sense to come to the decision that particular animals were habitually straying on the roads. I know there are people in the country who keep their stock on the roads all the time. You only require to pass by their holdings a few times to be quite certain of the fact that their stock were habitually straying.

Could not these animals be impounded?

Has the Minister given any consideration as to whether this is the kind of matter with which the Bill deals at all?

This is a Local Government Bill.

But has this particular matter anything to do with local government?

This has to deal with the roads.

Is it any different from the case of a drunken man on the roads?

I was about to make a suggestion to the Minister. I do not think the use of the word "habitual," as introduced, is objectionable. I know there is an Act which enables a person to be branded as an habitual drunkard. I do not remember the exact terms of that Act. I think a certain number of preliminary warning prosecutions were necessary.

A man could be prosecuted and warned.

As I say, a certain number of preliminary warning prosecutions were necessary before he arrived at that status. I was going to suggest to the Minister that perhaps some phrasing of the same kind might be devised in this connection. In the ordinary way under existing law, after a certain number of prosecutions, a person could be registered as an habitual offender, and he might be made liable to the more severe penalties which are proposed to be embodied in this section. Otherwise, the matter is somewhat vague. It may be said that it is not a very difficult matter to decide whether a particular person is in the habit of allowing his stock to trespass on the road; but it would be more satisfactory if some definite procedure were laid down by which the person could be registered as an habitual offender, and he would then be liable for the rather heavy penalties prescribed here. I suggest that three, five, or six prosecutions under the law as it stands would be the proper preliminary course.

I was going to suggest something not quite as difficult, perhaps, and something that might be a little more inclining towards the Minister's view. I suggest that instead of a certain number of prosecutions for offences having to be proved before the magistrate before the term "habitual" would be applied, warning notices might be issued by the police authorities and served upon the offender. A duplicate notice could be inserted in the official record. A certain number of those warning notices having been issued, then the person might be considered an habitual offender. But to leave to the alleged offender the right to have such a warning notice cancelled because he might easily prove that it was not a deliberate offence and that the cattle had actually strayed, is a different matter. I am sure the present proposition is not workable and it would be likely to do a great deal of injustice.

As against the Deputy's suggestion I would like to point out that at the present time it is not legal to have stock trespassing on the public road. That would be an appropriate matter for an ordinary police prosecution, because it would be considered a nuisance. Starting from that it seems scarcely the correct thing to say that a dog should have half-a-dozen bites before it could be dealt with, and that until it is caught having the half-a-dozen bites there could be no penalty carried out on the dog and that the dog would be liable for no punitive consequences. I would prefer my own suggestion to Deputy Johnson's, which is rather calculated to promote the view in the public mind, and in the mind of people with tendencies such as we are trying to cover here, that unless and until they are caught so many times and are formally warned by the police, no serious consequences may be expected. That would be a wrong view and a mistaken course, and it might have the result of leading to an intensification of the very abuse that you are attempting to counter. Poor people living on the roadside might take the view that it would be all right to leave stock on the roads without fear of prosecution until the police had warned them so many times.

As a matter of fact, in some parts of the country we know perfectly well that people have asses about the place, and there is no other spot except the roadside on which those asses can graze. I fancy that is not any justification in this case. I do think the section is a little bit out of place. It is really a police regulation.

I must admit that a good deal of the opposition to this section is rather well justified. It was a very difficult section to draft. It is not always a wise thing to bring in a section of this kind at such a late stage of the Bill. The Minister for Justice and Deputy Johnson made suggestions in regard to amending this amendment, but at this stage I think it would be serious to endeavour to introduce an amendment of that importance. On the whole, in view of the opinion expressed by the Ceann Comhairle and several Deputies, I think it would be better to leave this amendment out of the present Bill. Accordingly, I would ask the Committee for leave to withdraw the motion for agreement. Perhaps when we are bringing in a Bill dealing with roads, or something of that kind, an amendment of this sort might fit in. I move:—"That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in the amendment."

I only expressed the opinion that this section would appear to be more suitable to another Bill than to the Local Government Bill.

Question—"That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in the amendment"—put and agreed to.
Amendment 50.—In Section 31 (1), page 18, line 23, the word "nature" deleted and the word "standard" substituted therefor.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment." It is merely a drafting amendment.

Can the Minister justify that change? It seems to me there is no other form which would be better and more in keeping with the intention than what was originally in the Bill. "The Minister may make regulations prescribing the nature and quality of the material." To alter that to "standard and quality" would scarcely be desirable. I think we ought not to accept the amendment.

It was inserted in the Seanad because some Senators feared that I would be insisting, for instance, on the use of concrete roads through the country, or something of that kind. They thought "standard" a safer word than "nature." I agree with Deputy Johnson that "nature" would be a better word. However, I leave it to the Committee to decide the question.

It is a matter rather for a dictionary than anything else. I would suggest that Deputies familiar with the use of words should express their views.

Perhaps the Committee would allow the Minister to amend the expression to "nature, standard and quality"? I think the word "standard" is really necessary, although I do not think it quite covers the meaning of the word "nature."

Is not the essence of the Seanad amendment to delete the word "nature"?

I think it is.

Would the Minister say what the nature of the Seanad amendment is?

I think they were afraid that the word "nature" would give me power to prescribe very costly methods of maintenance, by the use of concrete or something of that kind. It was fear of that rather than anything else that suggested the amendment. I prefer the word "nature" myself. The President's suggestion is a good one, but I do not know how they would regard it in the Seanad.

Would not that mean to disagree with the Seanad amendment—to leave in the word "nature" and insert after the word "nature" the word "standard," so that the paragraph would read, "nature, standard and quality of the materials," whereas what the Seanad wants is "standard and quality," leaving out "nature"?

I do not think it is sufficient.

I am only considering whether that would meet them or not. I think not to accept the amendment to delete the word "nature" would certainly be to disagree.

I think it would, really.

You would have to send a Message to the Seanad in this form:—"Seanad amendment disagreed with, but the word `standard' inserted after the word `nature'." It is a new thing altogether. I think it is disagreeing with their amendment.

On the whole, I think it would be better to agree with the amendment as it came from the Seanad, and accordingly I ask the Committee to agree with it.

Question: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendment 50"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 21; Níl, 16.

  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mag Aonghusa.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Risteárd O Conaill.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Séamus O Leadáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Pádraic O Máille.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.

Níl

  • Sir James Craig.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • Darrell Figgis.
  • John Good.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Domhnal O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
  • Liam Thrift.
Tellers:—Tá: Séamus O Dóláin and Liam Mag Aonghusa. Níl: Domhnall O Muirgheasa and Tomás de Nógla.
Question declared carried.
Amendment 51:—In section 31, page 18, line 41, before sub-section (2) a new sub-section inserted as follows:—
"The Minister shall have power to prescribe, by regulations made under this section, conditions under which any such sign as hereinbefore mentioned may be erected on land adjoining a public road, without the consent of the owner or occupier when erection on such adjoining land, and not on any part of the road itself is reasonably necessary or desirable for the purposes of any such sign."

I beg to move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendment 51." A case of this kind could very rarely happen, but, in case it does happen, it is a good thing that we should have the powers given by the sub-section.

Question put and agreed to.

took the Chair.

Amendment 52:—In Section 31 (3), page 18, line 52, the word "nature" deleted and the word "standard" substituted therefor.

I beg to move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendment 52."

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 53:—In Section 33 (3), page 19, line 39, after the word "may" the words "on the request of the County Council" inserted.

I beg to move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendment 53." I am accepting this amendment, as I do not think it will make very much difference one way or the other. Direct labour schemes are put on exactly the same footing as contracts under the new Councils Order, and this will not make any difference.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 54:—In Section 33 (3), page 19, line 43, after the word "time" the words "on the like request" inserted.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 54."

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 55:—Before Section 35 a new section inserted as follows:
The Minister may, by an order made under and in accordance with sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Roads Act, 1920, prohibit or restrict the driving of vehicles of any specified class on any specified highway at any speed greater than the speed specified in such order, and all the provisions of the said sub-section shall apply to every such order.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 55." When the Bill was going through the Dáil there was a very strong consensus of opinion that powers should be taken to limit the speed of certain vehicles on highways. The present code is a rather complicated one. It was not very easy to draft a section that would meet all the circumstances of the case and at the same time not lead to overlapping of existing statutes. In the Seanad an amendment on somewhat similar lines was proposed and I agreed to accept the principle of that. On the Report Stage I brought in the section which now gives us ample powers to restrict the speed of mechanically propelled vehicles of different weights. Accordingly, I ask the Dáil to agree to this.

Is this a Local Government matter? Just for information I would like to know from the Minister whether this should not come in under police regulations. Possibly he will give us some information as to whether the laying down of a certain speed is not a police rather than a Local Government regulation.

All those regulations are made under the Roads Act. The question of speed in this particular case is not approached from the standpoint of the speed of the individual, but from the standpoint of the safeguarding of the road and the preventing of undue damage and destruction to the surface. It is with that object the amendment is inserted and not so much with the object of preventing danger to the public, although that would come under the heading of roads also.

I suppose this is not the new Motor Bill?

I would like to ask the Minister if he has not already powers, whether he has in mind in the powers sought for in this section the power to regulate the speed according to the width and breadth of the wheel. I understand that is really the important consideration. I take it within the terms of this section the "specified class" would refer to weight as well as breadth of wheel, and it would be the speed of such a vehicle that would be in question.

Might I ask if the Minister is prepared to accept representations from the public bodies functioning in a certain area as to what should be the speed in that particular area? I think that is a very important thing, because the speed that might suit one area might not suit another.

Most local authorities have that power at the present time.

Not all.

They have the power of preventing vehicles of a certain weight from travelling at more than a certain speed over certain roads. This section will give all that power both to the central authority and the local body.

This seems to be rather an omnibus Bill than a Local Government one. It seems to be trying to settle the affairs of the universe. With regard to the speed of motors, obviously there should be some central authority that would deal with the matter as it affects the roads and as regards the traffic, but if everybody is going to tinker with the regulations where are we going to be? If you are going to have a separate set of regulations for every road in the country it is going to be difficult for motorists to know on what roads they can travel at all. I think this is quite unnecessary. The Minister already said he has all the powers that are necessary.

He ought to use them.

Here is a section which is going to measure up the weight of the motor and is going to measure up the strength of the road, and by an arithmetical proposition they are going to arrive at the speed that a motor can travel over the road. I think the Minister is out for abstruse calculations rather than anything else. I say this section will never become operative. It is out of place in a Local Government Bill, and it is rather premature, because the only question before the House to-day, or that will come before it in the near future, is the question of the road traffic. I think, also, the claim is that the main road should be under a central authority, another authority altogether, but I do not think this section is going to do any good, and it is certainly going to be difficult to work and irritating in operation.

I hope the Minister will not press this, because I think, as Deputy Hewat said, it is a very unnecessary section to put into the Local Government Bill. I want to repeat what I said on a previous occasion, that it was absolutely necessary that we should have some legislation with regard to motor traffic, and I pointed out what I want to point out again—that practically everyone who uses a motor car breaks the law every time he goes out on the open road. It is not a good thing to have laws that every one of us will be breaking every day. I make that statement perfectly clearly, because I do not believe that any person going out on a free open road in a motor car keeps within the time limit of 20 miles. It is necessary that there should be some legislation on this point, and also on other matters referred to before to which I need not refer now. The amendment as put down here would seem to leave it so that in one part of the country they would allow a motor load to be carried which they would not allow in another part of the country, and in that way there would be a tremendous amount of confusion involved. I think, as Deputy Hewat says, this is a matter for another Act of Parliament rather than a Local Government Act.

I quite agree with this amendment, because from experience I think local authorities should have some say in the speed at which vehicles travel over the roads. What may be good enough perhaps for roads in a remote rural district is not good enough for roads passing through a town or an urban district. People dealing with urban districts should be in a position to control the speed of vehicles over the roads. Otherwise gas mains, water mains, and such things inserted in those roads would be damaged by the speed of heavy vehicles passing over places where those are laid down. I am speaking from personal experience in this matter, and I think the insertion of the amendment is going to do what local anthorities have been trying to do for themselves for a considerable time, and which in some instances they have failed to do.

I am rather surprised at the line taken by Deputy Hewat in saying that this is not a proper place for a section of this kind. Perhaps the most important functions I have to perform as Minister for Local Government are those in connection with roads. Certainly at the present time it is one of the most pressing problems that I have to consider. Formerly the old Local Government Board made all regulations with regard to the weights and speeds of vehicles on roads, and I have still the very same authority. At the present time, as I mentioned before, local authorities have considerable authority in deciding what class of motor vehicles can go over roads in their particular area. This only gives power to regulate the speed of particular vehicles over particular roads. There is no danger of there being any haphazard regulations drawn up, or having a system of regulations in the country that are not uniform, because before the local authority puts such regulations into operation, they have to get the consent of the Central Department. This is one of the most pressing problems we have to deal with. We have numerous roads in the country altogether unsuited for the kind of traffic going over them. We have roads on which hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of damage is done by vehicles of seven, eight or ten tons which were never intended to go over such roads at all. If we have not power to limit the traffic on those particular roads, we may as well close down Local Government altogether, as far as it deals with roads. I look upon this as one of the most important provisions in the Bill, and I was very glad this amendment was brought forward in the Seanad. The same principle was mooted here in the Dáil, but we had not time to have the amendment drafted in proper legal shape. That has been done now, and I recommend this amendment to the Dáil with the very greatest good-will, and I consider it is one of the best amendments put forward in the Seanad.

I do not disagree with the Minister that the powers to prevent motor vehicles over a certain weight going over certain roads should be exercised by the local authorities. There are roads which are not in a fit state to carry heavy traffic, and such traffic is not only a danger to the roads but to the motorists who go over them. But this amendment goes a great deal further than that; in fact, it does not deal with that proposition at all. It is going to regulate the speed at which a motor shall travel on certain roads, if it is a certain weight. I think the Minister himself has admitted that the local authorities have already the power to regulate traffic, and this in so far as it deals with that question is more or less a work of supererogation. Where I object to it is this, that it may lead to a lot of regulations as regards speed. If you want to prohibit motors over a certain weight going over the roads of any district, I am not in the least opposed to it, but I do say to vary the speed at which motors over a certain weight should go over certain roads is complicating an issue which has to be fought out in the near future. Personally, I maintain that the main roads in the Saorstát should be capable of dealing with the ordinary traffic. If the roads are not good enough, prevent motors of over a certain weight travelling on them, but do not attempt to do it in this complicated way of regulating the speed, because, in my judgment, the speed has very little to do with it. The damage which a motor vehicle may do to a road does not lie so much in its weight as in its wheel base. If you have a broad wheel base it will do less damage going over a road than if you have a narrow wheel base. There is no use in saying that a heavy vehicle does not do more damage or does not wear a road quicker than a light vehicle, but I do not think there is the difference that is suggested here.

The speed at which motor vehicles travel makes all the difference in regard to the damage done to roads. A vehicle going at a slow speed does not do as much damage as if it went at a high speed. A traction engine with three or four waggons, for instance, if it is allowed to go at a speed of 5 or 6 miles an hour through a town, is going to shake everything laid down in the roads and may cause damage that will cost the urban district hundreds of pounds to repair. Therefore, I say, speed is the question that applies to this matter, and I agree with the Minister that this is a very proper provision to have in the Bill. I hope the House will accept it.

I think the Minister for Defence is obsessed with the thought of Dundalk or some other town of that sort. But these are specific regulations that apply over the whole area of the Saorstát. This will mean that all the roads will have to be watched by the Civic Guards to see what motor traffic is going over them and the speed and the weight of the traffic. It is going to be a very complicated process. I agree with the Minister for Defence when he says that in a town, city or village there ought to be regulation of speed beyond a certain point, not because of the weight but because of the congestion and general amenities of the place. If you pick out one particular place this may be perfectly applicable to it, but remember this goes over the whole country.

I am not concerned with the town of Dundalk more than any other town. I am concerned with the county town and with the City of Dublin as much as the town of Dundalk in this matter. I think if Deputy Hewat asked the opinion of the people who have to look after the upkeep of the roads in Dublin he would find them all of the same opinion. The police are sure they want fuller powers to deal very stringent in this matter and I am with the traffic of Dublin as they would like to deal with it.

Question put and declared carried.
Amendment 56.—In Section 36, page 20, line 3, the words "permanent officer" deleted and the words "officer (other than a temporary officer)" substituted therefor.

This is a mere drafting amendment. I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the amendment."

Are you sure it is quite a drafting amendment? We are eliminating the word "permanent" and I gather from that that an officer who is not actually on the permanent staff, but who may be giving his full time to the service of the local authority, would come under the pension scheme. "Permanent" there is the important word.

It ought to be "temporary officer." I think this is only an inverse way of saying that.

There are officials of local authorities who are not actually temporary officials and who are not on the permanent staff. If you remove the word "permanent" you apply the pension provision.

It is too subtle for me.

Would the Minister tell us what is the object of removing the word "permanent"?

It was done in the Seanad. I do not think the proposer had a precise idea himself of what the object was.

Is there any virtue in the amendment at all?

I do not see any virtue in it one way or the other.

If there is no virtue in it, I suggest that you leave it as it was in the original Bill.

I think it was Senator Brown moved the amendment. The view he held was that the word "permanent" was very difficult to get interpreted in the courts, and that the other was a more easily interpreted phrase. That was the object of having it inserted.

I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly, but this is an important matter. There are officials—and if Senator Brown were a member of a local authority he would know the truth of what I state—who are full time officials and yet are not on the permanent staff. Consequently if you eliminate the word "permanent" you will apply the pensions scheme to these officials, a scheme to which they are not entitled at all.

I do not think the word "permanent" has got anything to do with whether the official is a full-time official or not. The word "permanent" refers to the period during which the person shall be employed, but it does not speak of the nature of his employment, whether it be full time or otherwise. I do not think that point is of very great consequence. If I might do so, I would suggest that the reason why this amendment—that the words "permanent officer" should be deleted and the word "officer" substituted—was moved was to bring this section into line with the subsequent section. If Deputies will look at Section 37 they will see that the designation is "officer" and that it is not "permanent officer." I have never heard the term "permanent officer" used in any of these Acts in regard to pensions. It must be a new term. Therefore I think it would be better to stick to the term recognised in law, namely, "officer."

I think there is a distinct difference between the two, although it seems to be splitting words. In a local government body, or in any body organised on these lines, there is what is known as the permanent staff. A person goes in under a certain scale and with certain rights for the future. There may be attached to such a body people who got in in the first place temporarily and who became permanent, but who never achieved the position of being what is known as on the permanent staff. I do not think the amendment means more than is on the face of it, but it may imply more. In connection with a body on which I have been a representative there was a certain branch business which had a permanent staff. It had a regular staff recognised as permanent, but there were other persons required from time to time, and in one instance the manager, who wanted a typist, put his name down on the wages-sheet as a checker. We found on examination that there were on the time-sheets a number of people as checkers, who had nothing really to do with checking. In that way there may be a difference and dispute as to rights for pensions. I presume that the Minister will have a final say in the matter. I simply want to point out that there is a difference between the phrase "permanent" and people who are whole-time and not part-time officials.

I think the form of the amendment is better, and more likely to save trouble and litigation. This is a definition clause, which explains what a pensionable officer is. If we are doubtful here as to what a "permanent officer" means we would require to put in a definition of "permanent officer." If we have not such definition, the question would immediately arise whether such-and-such a person, unless he had a contract in writing, held office for life, and there may be a dispute as to whether he was a permanent officer. I think it is clearly the intention of the Dáil that he would be an officer, holding office not temporarily but permanently and pensionable.

It is a term well known among local authorities. A question arises almost at every meeting as to whether such-and-such an officer should be put on the permanent staff.

It is not in the Act of Parliament.

It is clearly understood in the Local Government Act as to what class of officer it applies. When a man comes up for a pension the Minutes will show whether he is pensionable or not. With all respect to Deputy Johnson, if you eliminate the word "permanent," it will make the application of this clause a very vague one, and instead of limiting the amount of litigation it will increase it. If Deputy Johnson had the experience which some of us have on local authorities, I do not think that he would raise this question in regard to permanent officers.

I think if Deputy Good will read this proposed amendment carefully he will see that the words "permanent officer" are proposed to be deleted, and in substitution therefor the word "officer," and, in brackets, the words "other than temporary officer" are to be inserted. Deputy Good says that he knows what a permanent officer is. I would like him to tell us, and to give us a definition of "permanent officer," and if his definition coincides with the intention of the Dáil in this section which refers to an officer not of a temporary character, I am sure we will then insert "permanent." If Deputy Good will tell us what "permanent" means over and above "other than temporary," I am sure we will be pleased.

"Permanent" means a man who gets a pension. When he is on the permanent staff he becomes a pensionable officer, but until he does he does not become pensionable.

I think Deputy Good will find out, if he tries to recollect the various things that happen on public boards, that the fact of a Board calling a man "permanent" does not entitle him to a pension. Generally it is a man who is subject to the sanction of the Local Government Department who is looked on as permanent.

If "permanent officer" means a person who is entitled to a pension what is the use of having the section at all? You first of all call him a "permanent officer" and say that he is entitled to pension, and then by this section you proceed to give him a pension.

What this section is intended to do is to bring in a number of officials and make them pensionable although in other Acts they are not pensionable. We were told when the Bill was introduced that it was not intended that it should give pensions to those who already had not pensions.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 57.—In Section 36, page 20, line 18, after the word "periodically" the following words inserted:—
"Provided that for the purposes of this paragraph the period of service of such a person shall be deemed to be continuous, notwithstanding that at any time between the 1st day of January, 1919, and the 6th day of December, 1921, such service was interrupted for a period of not more than six months owing to the committee or joint committee in whose service such person then was having ceased to administer the said Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899."

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 57."

As the period in question is a small one, I consider that a break of six months should not be taken into consideration in depriving a man of his pension if he has rights under the section.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 58.—In Section 36, page 20, lines 19-21 inclusive deleted.

I move:—"That the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 58."

This is an amendment dealing with solicitors. In future under this Bill no solicitor will become pensionable. Solicitors were made pensionable for the first time under Section 8 of the 1919 Act. It is a very bad policy to interfere with the existing rights of any individual. We have maintained that principle all through, and the Treaty between this country and Great Britain specifically took notice of that principle. Accordingly I have all along tried to stand up for the existing rights of individuals, as, apart from a particular office, the office of solicitor as a pensionable officer will be abolished under this Bill. Those individuals who already have rights under the 1919 Act should certainly be protected. The amendment depriving solicitors of their rights was inserted in the Seanad. I opposed the amendment strenuously in the Seanad and cannot ask the Dáil to agree to it. After all, people may have their own views about solicitors and other people, but that is no reason why they should be treated worse than other individuals.

I desire to support the Minister in the attitude he has adopted towards this amendment from the Seanad. As he stated, this Bill does not propose to confer any pensions upon solicitors to any councils in the future. The Bill actually repeals Section 8 of the Act of 1919, which did so in regard to certain existing solicitors. What was the position of solicitors prior to the introduction of this Bill? Prior to its introduction solicitors to local authorities were made pensionable officers by Section 8 of the Act of 1919. That meant, provided they did not lose their position through incapacity or misconduct, if they were dismissed, or if they had to retire for other reasons, they became pensionable. Solicitors were not alone in this respect, as various other classes were also included in that Act. In that section compounders of medicines were included. It was not proposed in the Seanad that they should be interfered with. The proposal made in the Seanad seems to have been based largely upon misunderstanding and upon misapprehension of what is contained in the Bill.

As I said before, the intention of the Bill is not to confer any future pensions. It merely, as far as the section goes, preserves existing legal rights which are enjoyed by persons who were solicitors to various local bodies at the time of the passing of the Act of 1919. It may, and I am sure will, be said that as these solicitors were not whole-time officers they should not be pensionable. I admit that that is quite arguable, but it is not the point we have to deal with. We must face the fact that the Act of 1919 did make them pensionable. Are we going now to take away those vested interests which certain solicitors —very few in number—who were solicitors to the various local bodies at the passing of the 1919 Act, enjoyed? The speeches delivered in the Seanad in regard to this amendment make rather amusing reading, because the proposer of the amendment in his opening statement said he wondered why an exception should be made in the case of solicitors. That is the very thing the amendment has done. It has made an exception of solicitors. It seeks to do away with their existing rights. It is not the proposal in the Bill. The district councils having been abolished, there will, in future, be no solicitors to them. That being so, the question will not arise. It will not arise even in regard to solicitors to other bodies, because this Bill does not provide for pensions for future appointments. This Bill, by this section, merely carries on the existing law in regard to the rights of existing solicitors. I do not think that is an immoderate demand to make on the Dáil, or the country, in view of the fact that every other class has been dealt with in this way.

Supposing for a moment that this was deleted, as proposed by the Seanad amendment, what remedy would solicitors have to obtain their legal rights? It is proposed in a subsequent section, Section 37, that any officer of ten years' standing shall, within a certain time, be entitled to contract himself out of this Bill and go for his remedy under the Act of 1919. That is all very well. The term "officer," which we have been discusing, is a rather nebulous one, and, as far as I can ascertain, it is questionable whether it would cover solicitors. Even if it did it would mean that they would have to be officers of ten years' standing. That would mean that solicitors appointed between the years 1915 and 1919, prior to the 1919 Act, but not appointed ten years, would have no right whatever to the pension, to which they would be entitled under the 1919 Act. That being so, I am confident the Dáil will agree that—merely because a certain class of people pursuing a certain profession may not be popular in everyone's view—they should not be deprived of rights to which they are as much entitled as other classes, such as compounders of medicines, who are mentioned in the section and who are not interfered with by the Seanad. I hope, therefore, that the Dáil will disagree with the Seanad.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 59.—In Section 36, page 20, line 27, after the word "fees" the words "except franchise fees" inserted.

I move:—"That the Committee disagree with the Seanad in this amendment."

The amendment was intended to cover the cases of county secretaries, but it actually affects the clerks of urban councils and collectors of poor rate. The amendment is quite ineffective, because county secretaries can always opt out under the Bill and have their rights under the pervious superannuation law. The amendment is unjust also, because it assumes that the average clerk of an urban council receives an enormous increase in his salary owing to the unions being abolished. That is not the case. Of course, in compiling the sum to be granted to him as superannuation, the amount received as expenses, as distinct from fees, will not be taken into account, and it would be a very unjust thing to deprive those officers of these existing rights, just in the same way as solicitors—rights that have been accepted by the Government up to the present time.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 60.—In section 37 (1), page 20, line 42, after the word "writing," the words "within four months after the passing of this Act" inserted, and in line 44, the words "within three months after the passing of this Act" deleted.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendment 60."

The object of this amendment is to give the officers of local authorities four months instead of three months to make up their minds as to whether they are going to opt out or not. The original amendment, I think, proposed six months, and, to compromise, I agreed to take four months. It is an important matter from the point of view of officers employed by local authorities that they should have fair time to make up their minds as to whether they are going to come in under the present superannuation provisions or whether they are going to opt out and rely on their rights under the old Acts. Accordingly, I think it was only reasonable to agree to four months instead of three months.

I very gladly support this amendment, and I am pleased to know that the Minister has been persuaded by the Seanad to do what he was unwilling to do when the matter was put forward by some Deputies here.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 61.—In Section 37 (1), page 20, line 45, after the word "of" the word "all" inserted.

I move: —"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 61."

Under the Bill, as it stands, an officer of the local authority, opting out under the present superannuation code, opts out of all the sections in the Bill. Accordingly, an officer, by opting out, will be considered as opting out of all the sections, except those mentioned in amendment 62, that is to say, with the exception of Sections 37, 40, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49 and 50. This is a very necessary amendment, and I ask the Committee to agree with it.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 62.—In Section 37 (1), page 20, line 46, after the word "Act" where it secondly occurs the following words and figures inserted —"with the exception of Sections 37, 40, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49 and 50."

I move: —"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 62." This amendment is consequential.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 63. — In Section 37 (2), page 20, line 48, after the word "not" the word "wholly" inserted.
Amendment 64. — In Section 37 (2), page 20, line 51, after the word "Act" the words "with the exception of the sections specified in sub-section (1) of this section" inserted.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 63 and 64." These are consequential amendments.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 65. — In Section 38 (1) page 20, line 62, the word "may" deleted and the word "shall" substituted therefor.

I move: —"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 65."

In practice this amendment will practically make no difference.

Again, I have to congratulate the Minister on having changed his mind, or, at all events, on the fact that the Seanad found him in a more yielding mood than Deputies did when the Dáil was dealing with this matter. I hold the very strong view indeed that this clause should be mandatory and not permissive, but I was told, when the matter was under discussion here, that there was great difficulty in the drafting of any measure of this sort, and that, as a matter of fact, it had never been the custom to make anything mandatory, apparently, in this country.

There is a point that arises in connection with this and some of the other amendments on which I would like to have some information from the Minister. What I want to know is: what will be the position of technical instructors who are either receiving pensions now or who are allowed pensions, if the local authority that appointed them ceases to carry out its schemes of technical instruction or if it decides not to carry out any such schemes in the future? What, I want to know, will be the position of these pensioned officers in such a case as that?

I believe they would be regarded as being removed.

But would their pensions continue?

If they had got pensions, I suppose so.

The point is, if the local authority decides to abandon its technical instruction schemes, what will happen to these pensioned officers?

They would continue to be paid, of course.

They would be provided for under Section 44.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 66. — In Section 38 (1), page 20, line 65, the word "twenty" deleted and the word "twenty-five" substituted therefor.

I move: —"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 66."

Under the Bill the age at which an officer of a local authority can retire on the grounds of old age is 65. The period which was formerly the retiring age was 60. We have added on another five years. The number of years which an officer had to serve before he became pensionable was 20, and in the Seanad it was considered desirable that the two things should be made to agree, and if the age was increased from 60 to 65 the period of service should be increased from 20 to 25. It was originally proposed that the period should be 30 years, but I agreed to accept the compromise of 25.

Would not the effect of this amendment be rather to encourage men over 65, whose competence is doubtful, to hold on for that five years? Notwithstanding their growing incompetence they cannot be pensionable until that time. It seems to me that the effect of the amendment is that a man must not enter the service after 40 years, instead of 45 as previously. I think the amendment is retrogressive rather than advantageous and that it is a pity that we should be asked to accept it.

I think it will make very little difference. An officer can always retire on the grounds of incapacity or old age. As a general rule if a man passes 65 he can go out on these grounds. I do not think any case such as is suggested by Deputy Johnson will arise where a man will hold on from 65 to 70 in order to entitle him to go out on pension on the grounds of old age.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 67. — In Section 38 (2), page 21, line 7, the word "may" deleted and the word "shall" substituted therefor.
Amendment 68. — In Section 38 (3), page 21, line 20, the word "may" deleted and the word "shall" substituted therefor.

I move: —"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 67 and 68."

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 69. — In Section 38, page 21, line 65, after sub-section (6) a new sub-section inserted as follows: —
The provision of a gratuity by a local body under this section shall be a purpose for which such local body may borrow in accordance with the enactments relating to borrowing by such local body.

I move: —"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 69."

This amendment will enable the payment of a gratuity to be spread over a number of years, just the same as a pension. It would be a considerable relief to the local authority to be able to do this, as they are placed in a serious predicament by having to pay large gratuities at one particular time. It is much better to give them power to extend the payment of a gratuity by borrowing over a period of years.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 70. — In Section 39 (1), page 22, line 5, after the word "compensation" the words "or superannuation" inserted.
Amendment 71. — In Section 39 (1), page 22, line 6, after the word "compensation" the words "or superannuation" inserted.
Amendment 72. — In Section 39 (2), page 22, line 10, after the word "compensation" the words "or superannuation" inserted.
Amendment 73. — In Section 39 (2), page 22, line 11, after the word "compensation" the words "or superannuation" inserted.

I move: —"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 70, 71, 72 and 73." These amendments are purely drafting.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 74. — In Section 44 (1), page 23, line 16, all words after the word "councils" deleted down to and including the word "be" in line 17.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 74."

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 75.—In Section 44, page 23, line 21, sub-section (2) deleted and a new sub-section substituted therefor as follows:—
"Any sum payable under this part of this Act by a local body in respect of an allowance or gratuity granted to a person who was previously an officer or employee of that local body or of a committee thereof or of a joint committee of that and any other local body shall (subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 68 of this Act) be raised by means of the same rate and be paid out of the same fund and be charged on the same area as the salary or wages of such person would have been raised by means of and paid out of and charged upon if he had continued to hold the same office or employment under the said local body, committee or joint committee as the case may be, and such sum shall not be reckoned for the purpose of any enactment limiting the amount of such rate."

I move: —"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 75."

It gives power to raise a rate to pay pensions out of the same funds as officers of committees are paid out of.

I suppose that would be taken to include allowances in lieu both of basic salary, as well as cost of living bonus, although the cost of living bonus is paid at present direct by the Government to technical instruction officials?

Would the Minister tell us whether he has consulted the Minister for Finance with regard to this amendment and its implications?

The Deputy may take that for granted, I think.

In the answer to a previous question, the Minister, I understood, said that the point I raised was covered by Section 44, but I think it only comes up in the same way as before. Supposing a local authority decides to abandon its technical instruction scheme, what will happen the pensions? Will there be a legal liability on the local authority to continue to strike a rate?

I am afraid I cannot go into that point here. It would probably lead to rather lengthy legal proceedings to try to deal with hypothetical questions of that kind on the spur of the moment.

It is an important consideration as to what would happen in such a case. The Bill certainly ought to provide for it.

The officer would be paid in exactly the same way as if the committee had gone on. That is the object of the section. I do not know what the implications would be exactly, or how chargeability would be distributed any further than that. There would be no change in the rating.

Could the Minister tell me is it proposed in the case of these pensions that it shall be open to a local authority to strike excess rates to meet the pensions, or to make pensions payable out of the proceeds of the rate normally struck?

They can do either.

This raises a question which I think has not had the consideration it deserves. These pensioners created under the Bill are to be paid by the local authorities in the future, but there are certain difficulties, as Deputy Thrift has pointed out, and possibly amongst them the unwillingness of the local authorities to pay these pensions, because the local authorities at present pay something less than 25 per cent. of the salaries of these officials, but when they become pensioners the whole pensions have to be paid by the local authority. As I have pointed out many times since the introduction of the Bill, the throwing of such liability on local authorities would simply have the effect of killing technical education as at present carried out.

But that particular aspect of the question does not worry the Minister to any extent, and the Minister for Education, who should be concerned in a matter of this kind, has not been in the Dáil owing to duties elsewhere to give the attention to it that it deserves, and as the Bill stands it will create an immense number of new pensioners. Not that I object to these particular teachers becoming pensioners, but I object to the way in which it is sought to derive the pensions, because while teachers in other branches of education are very properly given pensions these pensions come out of State funds, while here the teachers under the same Department of Education are given pensions out of funds provided by local authorities. That to my mind is a wholly wrong principle. The whole of this question of pensions should have been thought out and put on a proper basis, and a teacher in one branch of education should not be in receipt of a pension from one source and another in receipt of a pension from quite a different source. The whole question of pensions to teachers should have been put on one basis and paid by one authority. I am quite satisfied that the Minister in his efforts to make these technical instruction teachers pensionable officers will do, as I said, a serious injustice to the work of technical education, and I believe, from what I know of this Bill, that it will create a considerable amount of difficulty both for himself and for local authorities, because local authorities are not at all inclined to see eye to eye with him as to having all this new responsibility, and he will find that there will be considerably greater difficulty in the way of giving these pensions under this Bill than he anticipates.

I want to support the view that Deputy Good has expressed. The absence of the Minister for Education and the evidence that is contained in this section regarding the pensions of technical instruction officers and so on — the evidence of the Bill that there has not yet been any attempt to co-ordinate systems of education — possibly is due to the fact that the Minister for Education has not yet got into proper possession of the educational system. After all, this question of the technical instruction officers has not been altered for the worse by the Seanad amendment. Deputy Good has expressed his views regarding the harm that would be done to technical education by the Bill through relieving the Central Fund from any responsibility in respect of pensions for technical instruction officers and throwing that responsibility upon the local authorities. Quite obviously it will do harm to technical instruction in view of the attitude that local authorities in some parts of the country have taken up, in some respects perhaps inevitably, in view of their poverty, but in other cases out of mere meanness. They will starve technical education through having thrown upon them the responsibility for these pensions, which are justly payable to these officers. I cannot see that the Seanad amendment worsens their position. The Minister took the Bill to the Seanad, having refused to amend it as it ought to have been amended, but I do not think that the Seanad amendment is making it any worse than it was when it left this House, the Minister having refused these amendments, using that word in the literal sense. There is just a possibility perhaps that the Seanad amendment does improve the position from the point of view that Deputy Good and I have expressed, but Deputy Thrift and all of us are in the unfortunate position that we cannot now amend the Bill in the direction we would like and that we have simply to discuss this amendment from the Seanad as to whether we should accept it or not. I am afraid that the position of technical instruction officers and technical instruction committees will not be bettered by anything we can do at this stage.

I had considerable difficulty from the start over this amendment. Probably if I had known all the difficulties that were in store for me I would have been more anxious in trying to ameliorate the position of these officers. But the present amendment is not concerned with these officers at all and makes no change in regard to the payment of their pensions. It merely rectifies an oversight in the Bill in Section 44, which only provided for the payment of pensions of officers of these committees and left out of consideration how the pensions of other officers were to be paid. This sub-section provides that the pensions of all officers are to be paid from the same rate as their salaries would have continued to be paid had they remained. That is the object of the section. It is more a matter of drafting than anything else. It is absolutely necessary if the Bill is to be properly administered, and technical officers really do not come into it at all.

Has the Minister consulted with the Minister for Education as to the effect of the clause in dealing with technical instruction?

The Minister for Education has expressed himself satisfied with what has been done. Further than that I cannot go.

Had the Minister, I ask, a discussion with the Minister for Education, in view of the discussions on this Bill as to the effect of this particular clause on technical instruction?

These words were inserted at the request of the Minister for Education.

Was he then responsible for technical instruction?

Well, I am surprised at him.

Question put and declared carried.
Amendment 76. — In Section 45, page 23, line 43, before sub-section (2), a new sub-section inserted as follows: —
This part of this Act shall apply to any officer of a local body who before the sixth day of December, 1922, resigned his office under such local body for the purpose of taking up any employment under the control of Dáil Eireann, as if such officer had resigned such office after attaining the age of sixty-five years, and having at least twenty years' service, but if such officer is or has been appointed to a permanent situation in the Civil Service of the Government of Saorstát Eireann any allowance granted to him by virtue of this section shall not be payable to such officer during the period when he holds such situation.

I do not ask the Dáil to accept this amendment. I could not say how many persons its actual terms would affect; it might affect a very large number or it might affect only one or two. First of all the person merely must resign for the purpose of taking up employment; he may not have taken it up at all. The employment may not have any possible connection with the employment he resigned. In the other provisions it is necessary that the officer should take up employment of exactly the same kind as he had left. This introduces a principle quite different from that embodied in the section, and I do not know exactly where it would lead us if we followed it out to its logical conclusion. I know that there is a good deal of influence behind the amendment, and I suppose there will be a bit of a fight on it, but I ask the Dáil very strongly not to agree to it as it might lead us into very great difficulties later.

Question —"That the Committee disagree with the Seanad in the amendment"— put and agreed to.
Amendment 77. — In Section 46 a new sub-section added as follows:—
"No allowance granted under this part of this Act shall be capable of being taken in execution or otherwise alienated by process of law for the payment of any debts or liablities of the person to whom such an allowance was granted."

This amendment was knocked out in the Dáil and was reinserted in the Seanad. There, I said that I had no particular view on the matter. I had an open mind on it, and I told the Seanad that. I think I expressed the same opinion here. I am still of the same opinion. I am not particular whether the provision is reinserted or left out.

When this matter was under discussion before — I do not know whether it is necessary to debate it again — it was pointed out that there did not seem to be any reason why an official who was in receipt of a pension should get protection under the Bill which was denied to an ordinary individual. That is, if an official incurred certain liabilities and if it was necessary to attach his pension to discharge these liabilities, one could not see any reason why he should be defended from that particular liability which he himself incurred. That was the reason that led the Dáil to decide it was unwise to legislate for a particular section and to free a particular section from a liability personally incurred and for which the ordinary citizen would be liable.

Does the Minister accept the amendment?

I move formally that the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment.

I agree with Deputy Good that it is stultifying ourselves to agree with an amendment the principle of which has been before this House already and which has already been decided upon. When it went to the Seanad, this provision was put back in the Bill, but the Minister himself is not able to give us any reason why it should be put back, and there does not seem, on the face of it, any reason. I take the view that the Dáil in these circumstances would stultify itself in going back, without good cause, on what it has already done, and I am rather surprised that the Minister should, under the circumstances, move that the House accept the amendment. I think the Minister, in doing that, should justify his action to the Dáil. All that he has said is that he has an open mind on the matter. If he moved the rejection of the amendment, that would be in consonance with what the Dáil has already done. I certainly would oppose the acceptance of this amendment, because no reason has been shown why the Dáil should reverse the decision that it has already come to except that the Seanad sent the amendment back for reconsideration. We have not been able to give it any reconsideration, and there has been no argument put forward for having it reconsidered. Under these circumstances it would seem to be absolutely inconsistent for us to do anything but to reject it. Then on the face of it, is there any reason for putting a man in the possession of an income in the position of saying to all and sundry, "Yes, I owe you money, but I am not going to pay it"? It seems to me to be an almost unheard-of action for a responsible House to take.

I do not know whether Deputy Hewat is referring to the proposition in the amendment as being new or unheard-of. If that is what he means, I think he is quite wrong. I understand that the proposition in this amendment is a general rule in regard to State pensions or has been so. I think if you will consider for a moment, there is at least one good reason for the insertion of such a provision. People might be tempted to enter into obligations on the strength of their coming pensions. They would make commitments on the assumption that at some time they were going to get pensions and these pensions would by then be of no avail for the period for which the pensions had been granted. There have been, I think, many pensions granted. I believe that all State pensions to soldiers are under this category, and I think one very good reason is that you should not encourage people to enter into debt or obligations or to allow trades people to give out credit in the expectation that they will come along in a year's time when such and such a person becomes pensionable and that that pension can, perhaps, be garnisheed. I think there is a good, sound principle at the back of this proposition. I believe it is a pretty well established practice and that, therefore, the amendment might well be supported.

Deputy Johnson supports the Minister in this amendment. I must confess it is putting the House in a peculiar position to say that they are going to eat their own previous decision on this matter.

Mr. O'CONNELL

If we do not eat it, the Seanad will have to eat theirs.

We know that in the cases that Deputy Johnson has referred to — cases where army pensions have been given — a great many of them have been commuted by payment of a lump sum at the request of the recipients. Under those circumstances, according to Deputy Johnson, notwithstanding that the pensions have been commuted, the men have still a claim for the continuation of pensions if this were put into operation. In other words, it would be quite impossible to advance any money on the pension if this stands as it is, and that would be detrimental to the men themselves. I take it Deputy Johnson means that a man might commute his pension and have nothing to live on. I think any court that was deciding that matter would have difficulty in dealing with it.

At all events, it would certainly allow a person who entered into a liability on the faith of his pension to be placed in the very happy position of saying that he could repudiate it altogether.

I am of opinion that we ought not accept this amendment of the Seanad. This matter was gone into before the Bill was sent up to the Seanad, and I see no reason for its acceptance, and I do not think any evidence has been brought forward that should induce us now to alter the decision we came to formerly. I do not see why we should decide to make an exception in favour of those people and thus allow them escape paying their just debts. I say there is no argument brought forward that ought induce us to agree to this amendment.

Will the Minister give us his views on the subject and tell us why it is he has changed his opinion?

My view is this. I introduced a Bill, and in its original form it contained the provision that was deleted in the Dáil and subsequently inserted in the Seanad. It is an old recognised principle in pensioning officers of local authorities — and I think officers of the Central Government — that they should be protected in this particular way, so that they could not alienate their pension, and possibly by so doing become again a burden on the State that has already provided for them. I have not any strong views on it one way or another. I allowed the Dáil a free vote on it. It was again brought up in the Seanad, and I took the same attitude there on it. I propose to agree with the Seanad, because it was the original form of the Bill. I have formed absolutely no bias for or against it in my mind. I am quite satisfied with whatever view is taken. The proper line, however, is to stand by the Bill as it was originally introduced.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 14.

  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.

Níl

  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
  • Dhrisceóil.
  • John Good.
  • William Hewat.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mag Aonghusa.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • William A. Redmond.
  • Liam Thrift.
Tellers — Tá: Séamus O Dóláin and Tomás de Nógla; Níl: Seoirse de Bhulbh and William Hewat.
Question declared lost.
Amendment 78. — In Section 51, page 25, line 37, a new sub-section added as follows:—
"No person shall be eligible to be nominated for election to a county council or to serve as a member of such body who is not a local government elector or ratepayer in the county electoral area for which he seeks nomination."

I agree in principle with this amendment. I think a person seeking election in a county electoral area should be registered as a local government voter for that particular area. If he is a local government elector he must occupy premises as distinct from being a mere lodger in furnished rooms. I think the purpose of the amendment would be met by this form which I propose to offer for the consideration of the Dáil, instead of the one on the Paper: —

To delete all words after the words "no person shall be" and substitute the words "qualified to be elected a member of a county council for a county electoral area unless he is either —

(a) registered as a local government elector in so much of the Register of local government electors as relates to such county electoral area, or

(b) the owner of property held by freehold, leasehold, or other tenure within such county electoral area.

It makes no change in the franchise arrangement, but it merely requires that the person who is elected as a member of a county council for a county electoral area must be registered as a local government elector in such area or be the owner of such property with the same qualifications as he has at the present time as an ordinary local government elector.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 79. — In Section 52 (6), page 26, line 6, after the word "section" the words "or otherwise by law," be inserted.

I move: —"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment."

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 80. — In section 53, page 26, line 12, a new sub-section added as follows: —
"The amount of any expenses incurred under the Public Health and Local Government (Conferences) Act, 1885, by any local authority other than a sanitary authority shall be paid and charged as part of the general expenses of such local authority in the performance of its duties."

I move: —"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment."

At present, under the Local Government (Conferences) Act, no expenses can be paid in respect of members of any council unless it is a sanitary council. Under the present arrangement it will be necessary for members of bodies other than sanitary bodies to attend such conferences, and this will enable such persons to be paid expenses although they are not members of a sanitary authority.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 81. — In Section 54 (2), page 26, lines 21-22, the words "before the defendant can rely on the fact" deleted and the words "the onus of proof shall lie on the defendant" substituted therefor.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment." It is merely a drafting amendment.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 82. — In Section 54 (2), page 26, lines 23-24, the words "it shall be necessary for him to prove the same to the satisfaction of the court" deleted.

I move: —"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment."

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 83. —In Section 54, page 26, line 26, a new sub-section added as follows: —
"If any person is, after the passing of this Act, convicted of acting as a member of a local authority when disqualified, he shall be disqualified for a period of ten years from the date of such conviction for being elected or appointed to any paid office under or in the gift of any local authority."

I move: —"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in this amendment."

It provides that a person who is convicted of acting as a member of a local authority when disqualified shall be disqualified for a period of ten years from the period of such conviction for being elected or appointed to any paid office. It is only right, I think, that a person who is convicted of acting as a member of a local authority when disqualified, and who thereby proves himself as unfit, should be disqualified for a period of at least ten years. It is only proper that a provision of this kind should be inserted.

Is not this rather a peculiar clause?

It is a peculiar Bill.

Yes, very peculiar. Sometimes people become disqualified through a technical reason. They are hardly aware themselves that they are disqualified. It very often might mean, perhaps, that a decision of the court would have to be taken as to whether or not they are disqualified. I do not think that this is a very suitable addition. I am not conversant with what exactly is meant to be got at. I would suggest to the Minister that a man might be quite innocent, and might be disqualified without being aware of the fact. Under this proposed sub-section you are attaching a penalty to him, and that penalty would hardly be warranted if the man did not know he was disqualified.

If the Deputy reads the section, it would not be necessary for him to make that statement, because it sets out: —

If any person knowingly acts as a member of a local authority when disqualified, or knowingly votes when prohibited by or under any enactment, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds for each such offence, without prejudice to any other disqualification or penalty therefor.

That makes it obvious that unless the person knowingly acts he cannot be convicted.

I apologise to the Minister. I thought this was a complete section.

Even so, I would suggest that to keep this in consonance with the other parts of the section that the Minister has read the word "knowingly" ought to be inserted before "acting," so that it would read "convicted of knowingly acting." That is not a very happy phrase, but it should be here as well as in other parts of the section, because it does not say here that he acts knowingly or unknowingly, but merely that he acts.

I was going to suggest that the word "such" should be put before "person," to make it read, "If any such person," so as to connect this with the previous part of the section.

I do not think that is necessary, because it says, "If any person is, after the passing of this Act, convicted of acting." He cannot be convicted of acting unless he is convicted of acting knowingly.

Does the Minister accept the word "such"? I am not quite clear that "any person" would mean the person referred to in the previous part of the section. To my mind, there is nothing to connect this amendment with the previous part of the section.

Is not the word "convicted" the key-word?

I think "such" should be inserted. It appears to me that without inserting something to connect the person mentioned here with the person mentioned previously in the section that the difficulty Deputy Hewat mentions may arise. If the word "such" were put in, I think it would make the thing absolutely clear.

I do not think there is any necessity. The fact of this being a sub-section of the other section makes it quite clear what it is intended to refer to.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 84. — In Section 57 (1), page 27, line 7, the words "lunatic asylum" deleted and the words "mental hospital" substituted therefor.

I beg to move: —"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendment 84." There was an amendment proposed or suggested in the Dáil on these lines, but, through some omission, we forgot to have it inserted. The amendment was proposed in the Seanad, and I agreed to it.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 85. — In section 57 (3), page 27, line 27, after the word "section" the letter "(a)" inserted in brackets, and in line 13, after the word "period" the following words inserted: "and (b) a member shall be deemed not to have attended any meeting at which he proposes or votes for a political resolution."

I beg to move: —"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 85." This provides that no person shall be deemed to have attended any meeting of a local authority for the purposes of this section, if he proposes or votes for a political resolution. The object is to try, as far as possible, to prevent political resolutions being proposed and debated at meetings of local authorities. Under this section in the ordinary way a person will not be considered as having attended a meeting unless he attends for a period at least of three hours, I think. This will prevent such a member being paid travelling expenses, and it is hoped it may impose some small check on the discussion of political resolutions at meetings of local authorities. So far as it goes, I think it is to be commended, and I ask the Dáil to agree to it.

I hope the Dáil will not agree to be as short-sighted and foolish in voting for the amendment as the Seanad has been in suggesting it. This kind of proposal, while its object is no doubt very commendable — to try and prevent local authorities acting beyond their sphere — is going to do probably much more than was intended, and to do it in a very bad way. What is a political resolution? Is the Minister going to put in a definition clause to tell us what a political resolution is? Is a resolution in favour of increasing the rate a political resolution? "Municipal politics" is a very common phrase, and it has a definite meaning. Are we going to penalise people for voting for a resolution dealing with municipal political affairs? If a proposal comes forward, let us say, to express dissatisfaction with the decision of the Minister for Local Government in a matter affecting local government, affecting the particular area which the local authority administers, is that a political resolution? Certainly it is. Are you going to penalise a public authority for passing a resolution dealing with political affairs within its own jurisdiction? The Minister cannot accept this amendment and retain a reputation for commonsense unless he defines "political resolution." There is no proposal to define "political resolution," and I ask the Dáil not to accept this amendment.

Like Deputy Johnson, I oppose this amendment, not that I have countenanced political resolutions being brought forward at public boards. As a matter of fact, I think that we have had too much politics in local bodies for some time past. At the same time, I consider that the Dáil would be making itself absolutely ridiculous if it accepted an amendment such as this. As Deputy Johnson has asked: Who is to decide what is a political resolution? I can imagine public bodies objecting to a cut in old age pensions. Such a resolution would be a political resolution to a certain extent, at any rate. I think that a public body having the interests of the poor at heart has a right to protest against any decrease in the pensions paid to old people. To my mind, this is a sort of miniature Treason Bill, and God knows we have heard enough of Treason Bills for the last month. The Dáil would be placing itself in an absolutely ridiculous position if it were to accept the amendment. I wonder at the Seanad, with so many legal minds in evidence there, sending such an amendment back to this House.

I think there is a little misinterpretation of this particular amendment. It is proposed in this case to allow a certain amount of expenditure under the section, and now by the amendment it is proposed not to deem the attendance at a meeting at which a person moves or votes for a political resolution as entitling him to be paid for attendance. The principle is right, but this amendment is unhappily worded, perhaps not clearly worded. I think anybody who has had experience of doing business at local authorities must have been occasionally very much annoyed by discussions of political matters. It would certainly be a great thing if in the representation of local authorities and in the elections that take place for local authorities political considerations were excluded. In my experience I came across people who, in the ordinary way, might never get elected on a popular vote, but who were, nevertheless, regarded by all sections of the representative bodies to which I belonged as excellent administrators and as valuable acquisitions on the boards. I am positively certain that Deputy Corish, in his office as Mayor of Wexford, would rejoice at some person giving him assistance in solving the housing problem, even though, perhaps, that person might be inclined to support an empire in China against a republic in China. The real question at issue is how best to do the business. I think that while the principle is a good one it ought to have got a place somewhere else in the Bill than here—some such suggestion as that extraneous matters should, if discussed, be placed at the end of the agenda and only be taken up when all the business of the council is attended to or something of that sort. I am positive that there are people so anxious to make sacrifices and to show the public that they would not take any expenses, that they would table political resolutions at every meeting and vote for them, so that they could not be accused of taking expenses. Perhaps the Minister might, on recommendation, not press this amendment.

I am certainly in agreement with the President. We are all of opinion that the business of the councils throughout the country is not improved by long discussions of political resolutions of some kind, whether they relate to the affairs of China or CzechoSlovakia or Saorstát Eireann. It is a very difficult thing to find a remedy for defects, and I am half inclined to think that this amendment would not be very effective, and it may, perhaps, result in creating a state of affairs such as the President referred to, where a gentleman who wants cheap notoriety, not paid very high expenses, will sacrifice his little honorarium in order to masquerade before the public as a hero. Accordingly, I am not very much in favour of pressing the amendment, and will leave it open to the vote of the Dáil, so that Deputies may take whatever course they like.

I entirely agree with the general proposition that it is undesirable for local authorities to interest themselves, as a common practice, in affairs of State which are not matters of local administration. The trouble is that there has been very loose thinking generally throughout the country as to the meaning of the term "political." There is generally present in the minds of the people that use the term an idea that it is something degrading because it is political. I would suggest that the Minister could use all the influence that is necessary to induce the local authorities to keep themselves out of affairs which are outside the local authorities business, which do not impinge on local government by suggestions regarding their procedure and agenda, but to put this kind of amendment into an Act of Parliament seems to me to be just about fit for a debating society.

It seems to me that this savours very much of a kind of grandmotherly legislation. I think after the expression of Deputies on the matter that this amendment might be dealt with unanimously as not being agreed to, and I am sure the good sense of the Seanad will see that the objections to it have outweighed anything that may have been in their minds as a benefit when they had the matter before them.

Question—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the amendment"—put and negatived.
Amendment 86.—In Section 59, page 28, line 7, before sub-section (4) two new sub-sections inserted as follows:—
"The council of any county may arrange with the council of any urban district in such county or of any county borough adjoining such county for the use of all or any of the purposes of the said Acts by the whole or some specified part of the county of any part of the building or of the library facilities of any public library situate in such urban district or county borough on such terms as may be agreed upon between the council of the urban district or county borough in which such library is situate and the council of such county.
(5) The powers given by the last preceding sub-section shall be without prejudice and in addition to, not in derogation from, the powers given by Section 3 of the Public Libraries (Ireland) Act, 1894 (as amended or extended by any other enactment, including this section), by Section 4 of the said Act and by the next succeeding sub-section of this section."

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 86."

I think this is a very good amendment, and I commend it to the Dáil.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendments 87 and 88.—In Section 59, page 28, sub-section (6) deleted.
Before Section 60 a new section inserted as follows:
The powers of a library authority under the Public Libraries (Ireland) Acts, 1855-1920, shall include power to incur expenditure out of the library rate on the provision of public lectures and exhibition (whether admission to such lectures or exhibitions is free or subject to such charges and conditions as the library authority may determine) and libraries in schools.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments 87 and 88."

These two hang together. We inserted an amendment in the Dáil providing that under the new library code the local authorities should have power to spend money on lectures and on exhibitions, as well as providing for library facilities. If that amendment was left in the present section it would not apply to the city of Dublin, as Section 60 is one of those sections under the present Bill which is excluded from operating in the city and county of Dublin. But as this provision would be particularly applicable to the City of Dublin, I think it well to take it out of that section and put it in in another place where it will apply.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 89.—Before Section 60 a new section inserted as follows:—
(1) The council of any county, county or other borough or urban district, or the commissioners of any town may, either alone or jointly or in combination with any one or more other such councils or commissioners, advertise and may expend money in advertising, by the insertion of advertisements in newspapers or by means of posters, placards or otherwise as they think fit, the advantages and amenities as a health or pleasure resort of such county or any part thereof, borough, district or town, or, in the case of joint or combined advertisements of an area comprising the whole or any parts of the respective counties, boroughs, districts and towns of the several councils or commissioners so joining or combining.
(2) The council of any county, county or other borough or urban district or the commissioners of any town may with the approval of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health pay such annual or other contribution as they think fit to the funds of any association—
(a) formed for the purpose of advertising the advantages and amenities of places in Saorstát Eireann or any part thereof as health or pleasure resorts, and
(b) approved by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and
(c) required by that Minister as a condition of his approval to have its accounts audited by an auditor of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.
Provided always that every contribution made under this sub-section to the funds of any such association shall be expended by such association in accordance with a scheme approved by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and not otherwise.
(3) The expenses incurred under this section—
(a) in the case of the council of a county, shall be defrayed out of the county funds and raised by means of the poor rate as a county at large charge, and
(b) in the case of the council of a county or other borough or of an urban district, shall be defrayed out of any rate or fund applicable to the purposes of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts, 1878 to 1919, in like manner as if they had been incurred for the purposes of those Acts, and
(c) in the case of the commissioners of a town, shall be raised by means of the rate levied by them under Section 60 of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, but shall be excluded in ascertaining any limit imposed by law upon such rate.
(4) The amount of the rate raised by the council of any county or county borough for the purposes of this section shall not exceed one penny in the pound, and the amount of the rate raised for the purposes of this section by the council of any borough, other than a county borough, or of any urban district or by the commissioners of any town together with the amount of the rate raised for the said purposes by the council of the county in which such borough, district or town is situate, shall not exceed three pence in the pound.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 89."

This is rather an important amendment. It is intended to facilitate the development of tourist traffic, by enabling local authorities to combine and strike a rate for advertising the attractions and scenery in their localities. This is one of the things in which we are a little backward in this country at present. Without giving power to local authorities to combine for the purposes of advertising, it would be impossible for them to undertake any comprehensive scheme likely to induce visitors to come to our various resorts and places of scenic attraction, and spend the money which visitors spend in all countries which offer attractions in the way of scenery or sport. I believe this is a good amendment, and I have great pleasure in recommending it to the Committee.

What about Deputy Johnson's golf links?

I would like to know if Deputy Hewat is favourable to the restriction to 3d. in the £ in this section? That amount will not provide a large sum for advertising Deputy Hewat's golf links at all the railway stations in England and Scotland. The surroundings of golf links are not very productive rating areas, and I suggest that the limit of 3d. in the £ is going to militate against the successful operation of this section.

Would the Minister tell us what 3d. in the £ would yield? I think it would yield a considerable sum.

It would yield £13,000 or £14,000 in Dublin. In the counties 1d. in the £ would yield about £2,000.

We strike a rate of 1d. in the £ for the purposes of technical instruction, and in some cases 2d.

I think the amount this rate would yield would be very considerable. I presume power would be given to erect direction posts, which are very necessary at present in country districts.

That is already provided for. With regard to this rate, it is only 1d. in the £ in the case of a council of any county or county borough. That would amount to a considerable sum.

I hope the advertisements will be in English.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 90.—Before Section 61 a new section inserted as follows:—
(1) In this section the expression "new building" means either—
(a) a building, the erection of which was or shall have been begun and completed during the period from the 1st day of April, 1920, to the 1st day of April, 1927, or
(b) a building, the structure of which has been substantially enlarged or improved and such enlargement or improvement was or shall have been begun and completed during the period aforesaid:
The expression "exemption year" means —
(i) in relation to any new building which is exempt from revaluation under the provisions of section 7 of the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916—any of the local financial years between the 1st day of April, 1929, and the 31st day of March, 1933;
(ii) in relation to any new building which is exempt from revaluation under the provisions of Section 8 of the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1924—any of the local financial years between the 1st day of April, 1930, and the 31st day of March, 1933.
(iii) In relation to any other new building—any of the local financial years between the 1st day of April, 1926, and the 31st day of March, 1933.
(2) For the purposes of the assessment and levying of any rate raised by a local authority for the service of any exemption year, and subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of this section, the valuation of every new building under the Valuation Acts shall be deemed to have been reduced by two-thirds.
(3) The preceding sub-section shall not have effect in the case of any house erected under the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1921, the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1919, or the Housing (Building Facilities) Act, 1924, the rates leviable in respect of which have been remitted in part under the provisions of Section 7 of that Act.
(4) If any doubt, dispute or question shall arise as to whether a building is a new building within the meaning of this section, such doubt, dispute or question shall be determined by the Minister, whose decision shall be final.

I move:—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 90."

This is a rather important amendment, and it is intended to encourage housing and building in the cities. It provides for the remission of rates under various circumstances. It applies both to actual building and to substantial reconstruction. (Sub-clause (i) quoted). The reason there is a change made in this particular case is because houses built under this particular Act (Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916) have already exemption up to the year 1929, and, accordingly, it was not necessary to give them exemption under this Bill until their exemption under that Act ceased. (Sub-clause (ii) quoted). Under that Act of 1924 buildings have got concessions up to the year 1930, and it is accordingly only after 1930 that they will get concessions under this Bill. (Sub-clause (iii) and sub-section 2 quoted). It is considered that this reduction of two-thirds is not excessive, when there is taken into consideration the great difficulty we have in stimulating building. (Sub-section (3) quoted). As the primary object is to stimulate and encourage building, it is not intended that the Bill shall apply to buildings constructed by local authorities. It is no inducement to a local authority to build houses to promise a reduction in rates. It is to their interest to have the rates maintained. (Sub-section 4 quoted). Finally, I may say that I believe this to be a very good amendment, and I hope it will lead to a considerable improvement in building during the next few years.

I have an amendment which I propose to insert in this Seanad amendment. It is as follows:—

To insert a new sub-section before sub-section (4)—

(4) "The rateable valuation of any building for the purpose of ascertaining the limit imposed by any Statute on the amount of borrowing by a local authority shall not be deemed to be reduced by virtue of this section."

It would not be a wise thing to lower the borrowing powers of a council by reason of the fact that we were giving this concession to builders. It is, therefore, necessary to insert this amendment as a safeguard.

The case the Minister has made in favour of this amendment is that it is intended to stimulate building. I think I have heard from the Ministerial benches that "it is not the water that has passed that turns the wheel." I cannot understand how you are going to stimulate building by remitting rates upon premises built since 1920. Presumably, it is intended, as a result of the passing of this section, to remit two-thirds of the rates upon such premises as have been built all over the country by the banking companies, by big combines, such as the tobacco combine, and by some of the big multiple shopkeepers that have come over. That is the kind of building, for the most part, that has been erected within the last four years. I cannot understand the case in favour of remitting two-thirds of the valuation for rating purposes of such buildings as tobacco factories, newspaper offices, corner shops, and banks up and down the country. I cannot understand how it can be urged that the remission of those rates now is going to stimulate the building of new banks, new corner shops, new newspaper offices, new tobacco factories, and new cinemas. That is the kind of premises that has been put up in recent years, and it is proposed now to take money out of the pocket of the local authorities and hand it over for eight or nine years to the proprietors of these establishments, leaving the remaining ratepayers to bear the burden which they thought they were being relieved of when these new buildings were being erected. There is probably a good case to be made for remission of rates to encourage building in areas which have been destroyed or, perhaps, in a general way. I am not arguing in respect of that. I am arguing against the proposition contained in this proposal, to remit two-thirds of the rates upon the kind of establishment that has been built since April, 1920. These premises were built, in the main, by wealthy firms. They were built with the knowledge that the rates would have to be paid, and now we are asked to come along voluntarily, like wealthy patrons, and say: "We are very much obliged to you for enhancing the beauty of our town or city or defacing it (as the case may be) and for that service, which you have rendered us, we are going to hand you back two-thirds of what you thought you were entitled to pay, and we are going to make the poorer people —the poorer householders and the poorer shopkeepers—bear what we are relieving you of the obligation to pay."

I cannot understand why the Minister, in his anxiety to encourage building in the future, should deprive the prospective builder of some of the resources which he at present enjoys. Because if so many pounds have been paid by such and such a bank in rates for their new building at the corner of the main street, and if two-thirds of that is to be remitted to the bank, then that two-thirds, or whatever sum it may be, has to be made up by the poorer ratepayers of the district, and they, to that extent, are less able to start rebuilding, and so the stimulus will have to take another form. I certainly oppose that part of the section, and unless there are conclusive arguments in favour of it—which I cannot imagine—I will ask the House to divide on this issue.

I would like to know if the Local Government Department have a record of the number of houses that were built since 1920. I think they have no such record. Is the Minister aware that local bodies have already struck a rate on the valuation of those premises? As far as I can see, this amendment would, if accepted, be an unwarranted interference with local authorities. We all know that we will have affidavits from the various householders down the country applying for the remission of rates on houses built since 1916. There is no way of finding out whether a house was built and finished in 1920, 1919, or 1918. I think this amendment, if accepted, will cause a lot of trouble.

I would like to refer to a matter of importance to the local authorities. The houses burned since 1920, either by the British, during the Black and Tan war, or during the civil war were, in many cases, very old. Handsome compensation in some cases was paid to the owners. The people built very fine houses instead of the old ones. In this section they are getting further facilities at the expense of the poorer ratepayers in the town. I think this is an amendment which should not be accepted at all. I do not see any good reason why it should be accepted, and I do not see why any further burdens should be imposed on the local authorities.

The case is admitted on behalf of new buildings— that is to say, buildings which would be started from date, up to the 1st April, 1927. That case, I presume, is admitted.

We admit the principle in the case of dwellinghouses.

Dwellinghouses are admitted, but no others. I would like to know if the Deputy has carefully considered that. If a miracle were to happen in the morning and the Deputy were to find himself in possession of £20,000 or £30,000, and a proposition were put up to him to start a cement factory or some other kind of a factory in Wexford, one of the first things he would consider would be the cost of the institution and what relation it would bear to an existing institution of the same kind owned by some manufacturer or industrialist. After that, he would see what would be the valuation of the particular buildings he was going to erect. The examination of these two factors would almost convince him that the best place for his £20,000 or £30,000 would be in his pocket or in an existing undertaking. No one will deny that the cost of building is at present out of all relation to what it was pre-war, and if the advantage is only to be given to dwellinghouses, there will be very little inducement to manufacturers or industrialists. A person considering the construction of a factory or workshop to-day or the extension of his business is not in the position that he would be in in 1914. The cost is probably three times what it was then, and there is little use in Deputies hoping for the development of the country and expressing surprise at plutocrats or capitalists or people having money not considering the idea of development if, at the same time, they refuse to consider a proposition like this.

I said it was agreed to give remission of rates in favour of dwellinghouses. What is the reason of that? There is only one reason, and that is that the cost of providing dwellinghouses at present is out of all proportion to what it was for thirty or forty years previous to 1916. For that reason we propose to give some advantage to persons who will put up dwellinghouses. Factories, workshops, business houses and other buildings like that may not be as immediately necessary as housing, but they bear a very close relation to the economic needs of the country. Continuous complaints were made by persons who had the heart and the courage to build during the very bad period that, on revaluation, those premises were assessed at a rate far higher than that at which equivalent accommodation would be assessed in 1914.

I want to make one point clear— that the basis of valuation is the same as that of 1914. The increased cost of building does not enter into the valuation of premises. A person considering the extension of his premises now has to bear in mind that the increased valuation on the building is not on the same basis as that of 1914, because of the increased rates, and that very increase hampers and prevents many of these people from either increasing their present accommodation or from rebuilding or reconstructing. For the last two or three years these complaints were coming in in various numbers, and they were carefully considered. This appears to me to be one of the best and fairest methods of dealing with them. In the year 1916, when a considerable portion of the city of Dublin was destroyed, the annual valuation of the destroyed area was about £32,000. There was no objection from anybody I know of, to let the old valuation stand for a certain number of years. In the same way, when the Dublin Reconstruction Act came along, the old valuation stood for a certain number of years. In Cork, building was not commenced until an undertaking was given that facilities of much the same character would be afforded. Is not that a sufficient point for consideration? I think that the Deputies opposite and Deputy Good will admit that the building trade has not been a brilliant success for the last six or seven years. It requires a stimulus, and in considering what is best in the form of a stimulus one seeks for something which will spread the burden, as it were, so that it will bear as lightly as possible upon the remainder of the people. How does this press heavily? What will be its effect? Take even the retrospective clauses as they stand. I suppose during the last hundred years there has never been less building done than in the last ten years. We are going back five years. I do not know what is the intention of going back to 1920, but I understand that the peak-building was at that time, and the people who built then cannot realise their money to-day. Those who had the courage to order the building of dwelling-houses or to extend their business premises at that time have paid heavily since. Are they in a position to realise? From the information we have, they are not in a position to do so, and they have a cause for complaint, inasmuch as they built at a time when the cost of building was higher than it is now, and as we are relieving other people, why not relieve those who bore the brunt and heat of the day? They paid for the cost of building at twenty or thirty per cent. higher than it is now, and they have a right to consideration. There are not many of them.

Let us take the ordinary person mentioned by Deputy Morrissey whose house has been destroyed. He says that some of these people have been handsomely compensated. Some of them have been more than handsomely compensated. Some who were almost insolvent have been made wealthy, but that is not the case with all of them. The amounts generally have not been sufficient to compensate them for the loss sustained. I know of such a case. I know a man in the City of Dublin who got an award of £2,200. That seems a large sum. It was more than he paid for his house, but the lowest tender he received for rebuilding was £3,300. You may say that he gets a new house. I admit it. But he has to pay £1,100, and he has to pay on an increased valuation of 25 per cent. It is not proposed to interfere with the new valuation. It is on the new valuation that the reduction will take place. I think it would not be a very inexact estimate to say that on a house valued at £20 a year the new valuation would likely be £25. The reduction there is not in the nature of two-thirds, because the new rate will be assessed on one-third of £25, and not one-third of £20. In a recent case that came under my notice the valuation had increased by more than three hundred per cent. In that particular case the person would be simply paying the same rate as before. If there is a good case for dwellinghouses there is equally a good case for business men, or combines, or monopolies which give employment at this time and put down a huge amount to construct factories. We like to see people doing that. It is good for the country. It is one of these things which create a sense of public confidence, because people see the men working. There is a case for business premises, and the person who seeks to extend his present building and who is not afraid to build, just when he has either to part with his capital or to borrow money, will be to some extent helped by the reduction that there will be in the rates.

I have listened with great attention to what the President has said. He asked us was it generally agreed that the principle was a good one, and our answer was "yes," so far as dwellinghouses were concerned. I could understand his argument if there had been no discrimination at all so far as the amendment was concerned, but according to its terms any houses built by a local authority under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, 1890 to 1921, are exempt. The Minister for Local Government said that he was prompted to leave these out as it would be no inducement to local authorities to build houses if these houses were exempt from the rates. In 1922, I think, the Government created a stimulus in building, to their credit be it said, and gave a certain amount of money to local authorities. The majority of these houses have been purchased by artisans and other middle-class people, for want of a better word, and they have been valued higher than houses of the same accommodation in their own particular area, and these houses are not exempt from rates. I do not think it ought to be necessary for me to stand up here and to make a case for these people. I say that they ought to be placed, at least, in the same position as people who control banks and who are building banks in practically every town in the Free State.

I would like to ask the Minister why there is discrimination against these people. It is different to the case where a local authority builds a house and rents it week by week. The other houses have been sold to the tenants, who are in most cases workers who cannot afford to pay rates on a high valuation. A sort of promise was given by the Local Government Department at that particular time that these houses would be rated at the same level as houses in the same locality and with the same accommodation. That promise was not carried out.

I would like, at any rate, to say that a house of the same character and in the same neighbourhood is not a fair parallel to put up.

I said of the same accommodation.

The case I would admit is this: that for a house of the same accommodation built in 1914, valued at, say, X£ the annual valuation would be the same as that of a house built in 1922 with the same accommodation and of the same letting value. That is the information given me by the Valuation Office.

It is not carried out.

Then I would advise the Deputy to advise his friends to appeal.

I think the President will agree that private individuals who have purchased houses from the councils are entitled to the same consideration as people who are building banks or factories.

I will deal with that.

There is no provision in this amendment to deal with them. Some of these people have paid £400 or £500 for their houses. Others are paying on the hire purchase system. They are paying a certain amount weekly, plus rates. Immediately the agreement was entered into and that they became weekly purchasers they became responsible for repairs. The majority of these people will be paying for 25 years, while the local authority will have paid back the money they borrowed to build the houses in 15 years. I have a case in mind where a local authority will make a clear profit of £200 in 15 years and in the next ten years a profit of £4,000, so that they will not be losing much by permitting the rates to be remitted by two-thirds or by one-third. I would ask the Minister to permit of these people entering into such an arrangement. They ought not to be discriminated against when people who are building banks and factories, and who are better able to afford it, are receiving consideration.

I have pretty carefully considered that aspect of the case, and I turned it down for two reasons. Under the scheme adopted in 1922 for building houses, the Government put up two-thirds of the price of each house. That was a pretty considerable sum. At the same time the local authority actually assessed 1/- in the £ on the rates in aid of the same scheme. Mark what has happened. Two-thirds of the cost of the houses was put up by the State, and the local authority, in 1922 or 1923, put 1/- in the £ on the rates. I could not justify giving an advantage of that sort to these people. I suppose the Deputy will admit that I have still a little conscience left.

Sometimes.

I was considering the remainder of the ratepayers in that district. Let us see the cost to the State of house "A" built in 1914, and house "B" built in 1922. House "A" was assessed at 1s. in the £ in 1922, and the Government put up two-thirds of the price. If I am asked to include house "B" in the list of houses in which one-third of the rates is to be abated until 1927, bearing in mind what was done in the case of "A," I could not.

But if house "B" shows a profit of almost £200, or if there is a profit after 15 years of £400, surely that would justify some consideration.

The Deputy means there is a profit of £200 to the local authority.

It is £200 yearly on a scheme of 18 houses, and the local authority will have paid back the amount of money they borrowed from the bank in 15 years. In the following ten years they will have a clear profit of £4,000 out of the houses.

I suppose it is a case where local conditions vary. I know what happens in Dublin, and I know that I would not be justified in the case of Dublin. I understand there was a good case made by a friend and colleague of the Deputy in the Seanad.

It struck me, however, that he lost sight of the fact that the citizens of Dublin had contributed that 1s. in the £, and that the Government put up two-thirds of the cost. As matters stand, there was an indebtedness to the Corporation, and that was the sole and the only reason for excluding these dwellings.

The President has used the argument that certain things cost a certain amount in 1914; and cost a certain amount now. The case I have in mind is a particular class of house with the same accommodation in Wexford. The rent would be about 5s. weekly, but the rent of the houses that I am speaking about would be 10s., plus cost of repairs, plus rates. It is an abnormal situation.

Are the circumstances the same? Is the house that is 5s. ever to become the property of the occupier?

Is the 10s. house to become the property of the occupier?

There is a difference in the two cases.

I admit there is some difference. The difference is not an outlandish one. Surely, the people I am speaking of would be entitled to some consideration if banks and factories get it. Very few people in the country have bought their houses, and as an encouragement for people in small circumstances to do so, and for local authorities to build houses, I think some concessions should be given. I do not think that is an unreasonable request.

resumed the Chair.

The objection I have is to the retrospective clauses.

Do not let us get away on the retrospective clauses. No money will be handed back. It is only in respect of the years to come that that will apply.

Notwithstanding that, my objection remains. I have in mind a town in my constituency where in the last two years very large buildings have been put up by the banks, and very fine houses built as a result of compensation awards. I am just thinking what the local authority is going to lose and how the other ratepayers are going to make good the loss. As far as I am concerned, I am in agreement with the principle, and am prepared to agree that it should apply to buildings henceforward. I object very strongly to making it retrospective.

While I am on that matter I desire to know from the Minister what is to be the position of people who were awarded compensation for rebuilding, some of them as far back as two years ago, and who have not yet made any attempt to rebuild their houses. They are, so to speak, sitting tight and leaving their compensation awards there. I want to know what their position will be if the Minister agrees that this principle should only apply from this forward. Are they going to get the benefit of it, while the person who built last year is not? Of course, I see that the President can make a point out of that. As far as I am concerned, I do not want the people who, having got their compensation awards, sat tight and did not start building, to get the advantage of this. I would like to make it perfectly clear that in all other cases I am in agreement with the principle and I say it should apply to all buildings. It should be supported as far as dwellinghouses and factories are concerned, but I am absolutely against making it retrospective.

As regards people who were awarded compensation, there are two classes. One class came under what is known as the Shaw or Wood-Renton Commission. They, as far as I know, can hold their money as long as they like without building. The insertion of this particular clause induces them to build. It induces them for this reason: that if they begin to build during the present month of March and the house, let us say, is completed in May of next year, and is occupied in that month, it will not appear on the rate books until the year 1927. There are only six years to run for these people to get the benefit of this clause. People have to live somewhere, and I put it that there is an advantage to be gained by doing this. This is an inducement—a bait, if that be not an objectionable word—which is offered to these people to start building now. We believe that some such inducement as this must be given in order to enable them to start building. Much the same thing prevails with regard to decrees got by a number of people in the courts. Up to the present moment, I think, very few of these people have started building yet. We hear of awards being given every day to people whose places were burned down, but very few of the recipients of these awards have started to build. It is hoped, by reason of this particular section, to induce a number of these people, who have been given awards, to start work now in the building season. Even if there are cases in which unusual sums have been granted, and, as far as I know, these apply much more to the Wood-Renton Commission than the other, we cannot help that, and we cannot discriminate. To take out certain houses for certain reasons would be a costly, a vexatious, and a difficult operation. A number of banks, as some Deputy mentioned, have been built all over the country, but the number, I should say, is relatively small.

Can the President say how many?

I should say that there would not be more than one in each county.

I can tell the President that two banks have been built in one small town.

They are not all as rich as the Deputy's constituency.

Six banks have been built in the County Wexford in the bad times.

I hope we will hear no more complaints from the Deputy as to bad times in the Co. Wexford.

The unfortunate thing is that all the money is locked up in the banks.

Banking institutions, in my view, require a little Christian charity in them.

That is what they are working for, I am sure.

We are showing them a little Christian charity now, and we hope they will respond.

The President has made the case that certain firms were courageous and wealthy.

Not all wealthy.

Wealthy and courageous. If they were not wealthy and did build, and that they required it, they should get some acknowledgment from the State, some testimonial in the form of a remission of two-thirds of their rates over a period of six years because of the courage they exhibited in spending their money in building. There are other business men who are equally courageous, not so wealthy, but who nevertheless stuck to their business when it would have paid them better not to go on. They kept on their business, and many of them ran it into debt. They kept all their work going on, but they did not advertise it, and they are not getting any subsidy or any testimonial from the Government. If there is a case for the banks, which are big concerns—most of them are British combines—is there no case for the home-grown business man who stuck to his business equally courageously and lost money on it, to grant him a subsidy in the form of a remission of two-thirds of his rates over a six years' period? I say that this proposition is very much like favouring the wealthy man and the strong at the expense of the weak. The value of the proposition could be easily proved if it simply meant what the Minister, in introducing it, suggested it meant: to stimulate building from this time forward. It might be worth the cost to pay this subsidy to these wealthy firms for the work they have already done in their own business interests.

They may have been courageous; they may have thought it was a good thing to do to carry on this business during the time that other people were not building. All honour to them for that. But if you are giving them honour, give them honour, but do not give them subsidies. The honour goes if they are going to be paid for it.

In reply to the question put by Deputy Nally, I may say that this Bill will not operate until 1926. Therefore, the case of those local authorities that have already struck a rate for the present year does not apply at all. I think that Deputy Johnson and Deputy Corish have, perhaps, a rather limited view of what the stimulus to building should be, by saying that we should limit the Bill exclusively to buildings carried out from this forward. That, after all, is a question of confidence. If people have confidence in the future of the State and believe that eventually we will come to have very prosperous conditions here, that it will be a good place to start business in and settle down in, then we will have buildings. One of the first considerations these people will have to take into account is: what is the attitude of the Government going to be towards the man who takes risks and is interested in the development of the State? I think it is a very good policy and will have its effects—to take into consideration the fact that men have taken their courage into their two hands and have built houses at a time when it was a very risky thing to do that.

Is the Minister speaking of houses now?

I am taking any kind of a structure: a house, a factory, or any building. I believe the fact that men have come forward at a serious stage in our history and have built these houses should be taken into consideration. It will have a good effect on the men who come after them and who can say: "If we are not doing too well under present conditions the Government will take that into consideration at a future date, and we will not be let down." If people perform their duties under difficult circumstances and there is no further notice taken of them—if we allow them to shift for themselves, then, in my opinion you will get no one to take risks in the interests of the country. As regards Deputy Morrissey's point about people not building who received compensation, I think there are very few people who have been compensated who would admit that they got too much for what they lost.

As the President pointed out, it is one thing to build a house and another thing to sell it. The cost of building is always greater than it appears. It is a difficult thing to put up a house at present at anything like a reasonable cost when you take into consideration all the various factors that have to be dealt with. It must also be remembered that the actual compensation given to people who lost their houses does not by any means compensate them for all the consequential loss they were at. I believe there are very few people, even those who did very well under the Shaw and other Commissions, who would not prefer to have been left alone, instead of having to travel to other countries and hunt about from post to pillar to get compensation. In many cases they have suffered very heavy financial loss by being put out of their homes, and I think it would be very unfair to penalise those who have been the victims of fortune already, because we might consider they did reasonably well under the compensation received from the Shaw or other Commissions.

Would the Minister deal, as the Minister for Local Government, with the point I have raised about the houses that have been purchased?

I think the houses built by local authorities are in a different position. In the case of retrospective building in the ordinary sense of the word, a concession is given to the man who actually built. The object is to encourage building, and even though a man has built before this, yet the concession is given and the encouragement is given to the man who has already built. Under the local authorities, the people who actually built——

That is not the point at all. I accept the Minister's argument so far as the houses built by the local authorities are concerned, but I think some consideration should be given to the man who has purchased a house built by a local authority, and who is paying a much higher rent for that house than the rent that prevails in the particular locality, and who is also paying rates. I want to know why the Minister discriminates against that man in favour of the banks, factories, and the rest.

Because that man is not responsible for building the house.

I see. It is only the builders then who are considered.

They run the risk.

Putting down the poor again.

Will the Minister say what would be the position with regard to the large number of houses built for British ex-Service men within the last three or four years, if this amendment is passed?

They are in the same position. They are not excluded from the benefit of the Act.

I am not at all clear—in fact, I am in an absolute fog—as to the exact grounds on which we are to accept this amendment from the Seanad. The Minister for Local Government recommended it upon one ground, and the President upon another totally different. I am most anxious to believe in both of them, and to accept the authority of both of them if I can. The Minister for Local Government just now said that the great aim of the Government at the present time is to restore confidence, and to perpetuate confidence, a most commendable policy; but will they restore the confidence of the investing public in this State if they proceed to do an act of absolute folly with their eyes open? By all means give a fillip to building, and above all to the building of factories or other establishments that are to house new industries, and to provide for the extension of existing industries. Give every inducement to that form of expansion. It is worth paying for, as the President said. I echo that cordially, but if we are to proceed to give subsidies by a remission of rates to those who built some years back, on what principle are we to justify that? We are to take it out of the ratepayers' pockets—for it comes to that, when we diminish the takings of the local authorities' rates—in order to express our sense of the noble conduct and the courageous enterprise of those who at a difficult period of our history erected new buildings.

The President who puts that forward as a reason is the same President who proposed a resolution against divorce only a few weeks ago. How are those two positions to be reconciled? A man who a few years ago believed that A.B. was the one woman on earth for him selected her to be his wife. Very good. That was a courageous enterprise. After a few years he discovers that he needs a subsidy. He could get a subsidy by removing that wife and taking another who has more money. We will not allow him to do it, although it would make a great extension of his business, and this accession of capital would enable him to relieve unemployment considerably; but no, we take a firm stand on principle. These other people thought that it was worth while to put their capital into big buildings. Though the expense of building was at the peak, they took these risks. Everyone who is in business knows that, and the Business Deputies will tell you that, I suppose.

They are only antiques.

Everyone in business takes risks. In fact, in these competitive days it is a case of warfare, almost cut-throat warfare. The man who is not prepared to take risks must be prepared to go out of business, or be in a small way of business. I cannot understand why these firms are to get a subsidy. It has not been shown that they have lost by their enterprise. If they had, I could understand a subsidy of some sort being given to them to carry them over their difficulties, put them on a firmer basis, and allow them to extend, where there are full grounds or adequate reasons for rectifying their shaky position. That happened, as we know, in the case of the sugar beet industry in England. The British Government came to the rescue of the two existing factories, one in particular when it was losing, because the Government had reason to suppose that, if assistance were given to tide it over the difficult moments, all would be well. But no one has put forward the contention here—I do not know what argument was used in the Seanad—that these big factories and new banking houses have been at a loss.

That case has not been made nor attempted to be made. Anybody who motors around the country is aware that there is scarcely a single town of any decent population—I mean decent in point of numbers, for they are all decent in other respects—where it is worth while and where bank branches have not been built in recent years. There is no use in repeating the oft told tale—we had it here on Friday last—as to the kind of operations of these banks. They are taking away capital, lending it for colonial enterprises and subsidising other nations that compete with us, and to show our marked approval for the great things they are doing for us, we are to reduce the rates for them to the extent of two-thirds. We certainly are, in the language of the Minister for Finance, making our own precedents. We are asking the world to look on in admiration. It is magnificent, but it is not finance. It is certainly not government. I am quite at one with the Minister for Local Government in advocating the acceptance of the amendment so far as regards the future.

There is nothing to be said in favour of the retrospect, or if there is, it must be said with regard to a great many other things to which the principle equally well applies. I wonder is the President prepared to commit himself to that—that would be a huge commitment—that in the case of every farmer who bought expensive machinery, every farmer who broke up new tillage ground, every man who started an enterprise, even on a small scale, the Government should pass an Act to force local authorities to come to his relief to show their appreciation of his courage, his enterprise and his devotion. There would be no limit to that. As a matter of fact, what is this but subsidising the capitalist at the expense of those who are less able to afford assistance? We are already over-taxed; everybody is admitting that now. The Minister for Finance, I think, has almost said something very like that. We are overrated; national taxation and local taxation are both far in excess of our resources, and this is the moment we select to deplete the coffers of the local authorities with regard to sources of income that they already possess, and ought to be permitted to continue to possess.

The Deputy probably does not understand the meaning of the section. He does not understand the difference between the farmer buying machinery and the farmer who builds a house. A farmer buying machinery does not increase his valuation.

Well, I will take the house precedent.

That is what I was hoping the Deputy would do. If the Deputy takes a house he will find that if the house has been built within the last few years the valuation has been increased. All new houses, no matter where built, have increased valuations. The Deputy will probably see, if he ponders on it, that there is no parallel between that case and that of the farmer who buys machinery.

The President gave as an answer to one of the Deputies who spoke from the opposite side of the House that a building of recent years and a building of to-day as dwellinghouses would be rated at pretty much the same figure if the letting value were the same. It is the letting value in that case, I might reply, that determines the valuation. The valuation authorities take into account, in order to arrive at its proper valuation, what the house would be likely to let for. These other buildings, of course, are on a different basis.

I am not committed for my case to any parallel that I have made. I frankly accept the correction of the President with regard to the farmer who buys implements; it is not quite the same thing as putting his money into bricks and mortar. But, as a matter of fact, when he puts his money into bricks and mortar there is an asset there for the whole world, whereas machinery is a perishable thing that can be destroyed, can be stolen, can be taken out of the country altogether. It is movable. It is not, as the French call it, immobile; The masonry is there, and becomes part of nature, practically, so long as it exists. But my point is that we must not subsidise people after date as a reward for things they have done in the way of enterprise. If they gain by it they are so much to the good and they are rewarded for their courage and enterprise; if they lose by it, why that is the moment when the State might come to the rescue. Such an act on the part of the State might inspire other people with confidence to come in and invest capital in this land where these things are done. But again I contend that case was not made for these people; consequently in this amendment there are two things mixed that are on a different basis altogether: the houses already in being, and the houses that are to be built.

The Deputy made another mistake in his parallel, and it was that in considering the valuation to-day and in 1914 he is not considering an equitable case. He could consider it if he considered it in relation to the City of Dublin, or, possibly in twelve months time, the City of Waterford or Belfast, but, in any other case, all the valuations in the country, and in most of the cities, date back to the time of the Griffith's valuation.

Deputy Magennis asked a question as to whether the people who built houses within the last four or five years, had lost anything. I would like to answer that question by saying that about a fortnight ago I saw a statement in the "Irish Independent" that at a meeting—a dinner I think it was—the representative of one of the three new tobacco factories—a representative of Messrs. John Player & Sons—expressed great pleasure at the good work that was done in the erection of their factory. He went on to say—and I hope Deputy Good will take note of this—that he was very pleased at the quality of the work done, the output of the men employed, and, I presume, of the work of the contractor; he was entirely satisfied with the value the firm got. I do not want the President or the Minister for Local Government to make him more pleased than he is or he might die of joy.

It was an after-dinner speech.

I do not think it was an after-dinner speech or he might have had more to say.

Progress ordered to be reported.

Top
Share