Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Dec 1926

Vol. 17 No. 6

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1926.—SECOND STAGE.

When it was arranged to take the Second Reading of this Bill to-day I was under the impression that I could have it circulated amongst Deputies much earlier than, in fact, has been the case. There was an unavoidable delay at the printers. Before proceeding with the statement I would like to say that I have done everything possible in this Bill to eliminate all controversial matters, and, accordingly, although the Bill is an extremely urgent one—as it will amongst other things insure considerable economies in the preparation of local budgets if passed in time—I am quite prepared, if Deputies are anxious or apprehensive, to postpone the Second Reading for another day or two. However, I do not think that will be necessary, so if nobody has any objection, I had better go ahead with the statement on the Bill.

The Local Government Act of 1925 made changes in the machinery and practice of local government so far-reaching and fundamental as in fact to amount to a new system. Every day its advantages, both as regards simplification of procedure and economy, are becoming clearer. Like all such comprehensive measures, when put into operation, it is found to require amending. Formulæ suited to one particular district or one particular set of circumstances, are found not to be suited to others; legal phraseology is found to be construed in some cases more, in others less, widely than was originally intended; measures thought to be perfect at the time have turned out to be capable of improvement when put to the test of application.

It would be possible, if all these points were to be dealt with, to bring in a Bill of considerable importance to deal with them. However, as the time of the Oireachtas is limited, and there are a great number of urgent measures ready for submission to the Dáil, I have decided to confine myself in this Bill to matters which I expect will be noncontroversial, raising no new principles, and merely improving the working of the legal machinery which has already secured the sanction of the Oireachtas.

The most important amendments in the new Bill are those comprised in Sections 6 and 7. They deal with the question of rating and demand notes. Sub-section (1) (e) of Section 27 of the Principal Act was inserted at a late stage to give effect to the views expressed by a Senator that for purposes of control ratepayers should be given an opportunity of knowing the amount of their expenditure on the upkeep of roads as compared with the cost of other services. In the attempt to meet his wishes the sub-section was drafted which, when put into operation, was found to entail much more work on the rating authorities than was originally anticipated. Under Section 27 (1) (e) of the Principal Act the actual amount required from each ratepayer for roads must be shown on the demand note. This causes greatly increased applotment expenses, while its purpose will be met equally well by showing the rate in the pound for roads as a separate item. Moreover, in order to show the rate in the pound on agricultural land for any purpose an apportionment of the agricultural grant must be made which is purely mathematical and has no foundation in fact.

The Bill provides that only the rate in the pound for roads on "other hereditaments" need be shown, and prescribes a new method of rate-estimating which will best enable this to be done. It contemplates an extension of the system whereby rates for other special services will be shown separately as well as the rate for roads. As the matter is complicated and does not lend itself to explanation except by way of examples involving numerous arithmetical calculations, I am circulating amongst Deputies a paper demonstrating in this way the working of the old rating system and that proposed under the Bill.

In order that a saving in time, trouble and money may be effected next year it is necessary that this Bill should become law before the applotment of the rate for that year is begun, and for that reason I have done my best to avoid all controversial matters or anything likely to delay the Bill in its passage through the Oireachtas.

The following other matters are dealt with in the Bill:—(I.) Uncertainty in the distribution of duties between the Board of Health and the County Council (Sections 10 and 15); (II.) Difficulties caused by the prohibition on borrowing by Boards of Health (Section II., 1); (III.) Possible injustice arising out of the areas of charge for labourers cottages expenses (Schedule 1); (IV.) Amending of section giving partial remission of rates. The Bill deals with these matters as follows:—(1) The Board of Health is to have two sets of duties administered in different areas— (a) In the county health district it is to have all the functions of the rural district councils except such as relate to roads or other public works; (b) in the county health district and adjoining urban districts it is to administer the following enactments:—The Public Health (Prevention and Treatment of Disease) (Ireland) Act, 1917; The Midwives (Ireland) Act, 1918; The Public Health (Medical Treatment of School Children) (Ireland) Act, 1919; The Blind Persons Act, 1920; (c) Tuberculosis prevention will be administered in the same way as the enactments mentioned under (b) unless the Minister otherwise directs. Such a direction might be necessary where a joint scheme is required.

Section II. of the Principal Act prohibited borrowing by the Board of Health. It was intended that borrowing for Board of Health purposes should be done by the County Council, who would themselves repay the loan and hand over the borrowed moneys to the Board when required. This system has proved unworkable for the following reasons:—(1) It is difficult to provide the lender with legal security. Borrowing by a rural sanitary authority under Section 237 of the Act of 1878 is on the security of the "District Fund." The county council borrowing is on the security of rates. (2) Where some of the revenue from an undertaking has to be applied in relief of loan repayment the revenue receipt and repayment must be made by the same body or the accounting becomes complicated. (3) The demand of the Board on the county council does not give a correct idea of the cost of administration. (4) Loans accounts must be kept by both bodies, thus duplicating work. The Bill, therefore, enables borrowing for Board of Health purposes directly by the Board, while preserving county council control by requiring a consenting resolution.

At present the repayment of loans for existing rural district schemes under the Labourers Acts is charged on the rural district. All other Labourers Act expenses are charged on the health district. Thus, a rural district ratepayer may be required to pay, not only the cost of an existing scheme in his district, but also a share of a new scheme. The Bill makes these expenses "special expenses," for which particular areas of charge can be fixed in each case. Sections 8 and 9 deal with minor points of difficulty arising from the new superannuation code in Part IV. of the Principal Act. Section 10 makes the county the area of charge for the pensions of the ex-union and rural district officials. This is already the case (under Section 82 (3) of the Principal Act for rural district county officials removed from office on the abolition of the rural district councils. It is obviously right that the same rule should apply to officials of boards of guardians who were removed on amalgamation. It is thought advisable for simplification that the rule should also apply to the few pensions of officials of these bodies who were removed prior to the abolition.

Section 11 extends the exemption from rates on new buildings to buildings completed after 1st April, 1927, but before 1st April, 1930. However, the valuation, instead of being reduced by two-thirds, is not to be reduced under the section to an amount less than that in force immediately prior to erection, or structural alteration of the building. This section also introduces general amendments to Section 69 of the Principal Act, which have been found necessary in practice.

The principles behind these amendments are shortly as follows:—(1) The valuation of the new building is to be separated from the remainder of the hereditament by the Commissioner of Valuation. (2) In future a rating authority is not to have power to decide whether a building is or is not a new building. That power has been abused, and it is considered that the Commissioner is the proper deciding authority. The decision can be given when a revaluation is made. Existing decisions of rating authorities are to stand. The section works these principles out in detail. That briefly covers the whole ground of the amending Bill. As I say, it is limited in scope, and it will be necessary to keep it limited if we are to get it through the Oireachtas in time for the striking of next year's rate.

I take advantage of the Second Reading of this Bill to criticise the methods of the Department of Local Government. In this Bill we have headings dealing with boards of health and county councils, etc., on which this matter can be raised. In the Constitution provision was made for the appointment by Ministers of advisory councils to consult with them with regard to administration and to new departures. I want to know if these councils have ever been called into existence and, if so, have they been consulted. At present county councils are being called upon to appoint a new class of officer—a county medical officer of health—for which there was no demand from the county councils.

The Dáil passed the Act last year.

That does not arise under this Bill.

I know it does not. I was trying to get it in somehow.

The Deputy will hear more about it later on.

We have the old superannuated officers to be paid and we have an ever-increasing body of new ones. Is there any urgent reason why this should be rushed at this time when the country is least able to bear it?

Is it the amending Bill?

Yes. I refer you to the different sub-sections. I would ask the Minister to take into consideration the circumstances of the country and not run the councils into any unnecessary appointments.

I think it is a well-known fact that at the present time there is very little waste of money or of the rates collected by the present elected representatives of the people.

They are going to be sacked.

Surely a Bill like this could wait over for a couple of days more so that Deputies might have an opportunity of reading it before being asked to pass its Second Reading. It is not a question of urgency. There is plenty of time, between this and April, when the new rates will be struck, to have this Bill considered. The Bill means a large amendment of the principal Acts, which certainly should involve a great deal of consideration by Deputies, and particularly by the men elected on the county councils or the boards of health.

In the Third Schedule there is set out the different sections of the Principal Act that are to be amended, and in some cases questions of superannuations and such matters arise, and I hold that these things could not be fairly or adequately dealt with at the present.

What about the Committee Stage?

On Second Reading debates we are told that we should reserve our speeches for the Committee Stage, and in the Committee we are told that we should make our speeches on the Second Reading Stage. There are many amendments proposed by this Bill which should not be allowed to pass without criticism. The Minister for Local Government has a whole organisation behind him, but the men representing the people have to act in accordance with the legislation as it exists. It is necessary that the people should know the class of legislation that is being forced down their necks. They should be given an opportunity of approving or disapproving by resolution of the different bodies. If the Act of 1925, which did away with district councils, was first put to the country, it would not have got the reception in this House that it did get. The poor are suffering to-day owing to the amalgamation of unions that took place under that Act. We are asked now to accept something else that will entail more suffering on the part of the poor. Deputy Gorey was right in taking advantage of the provisions of this Bill to criticise the action of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. You have county hospitals, but very often over twenty or thirty miles of district, you have no convenience for taking patients to hospital. There are no district hospitals, and the result is that very often a patient may be lying suffering for three, four or five days before being sent to hospital. If an amendment were introduced into this Bill to the effect that an advisory committee should be appointed in the different districts where a district hospital does not exist, with a view to providing proper treatment for the poor in those districts, I think the House would appreciate such action. To my mind this Bill will only go a little further in causing more suffering to the poor who can least bear it. The Minister claims that this Bill was one of urgency. That claim is made for every Bill that the Government wishes to rush through.

The Pensions Amendment Bill apparently is not urgent.

Surely we should be given until some day next week to consider this Bill so as to have an opportunity of reading it properly and then the Minister might get the good wishes of the House much quicker than if he insists on the Second Reading this evening. I certainly shall object to a Second Reading this evening if only on the ground that I had not time to read the Bill through. The Minister himself said at the opening of his statement that he was prepared to postpone the Second Reading for a time if it was desired. I hope he may do so, and I desire to make it clear that my speech now is not to be taken as my speech on Second Reading.

There does not appear to be any great opposition to the Bill. Deputy Gorey has availed of it to get in a kind of side-blow at a provision that was enacted in the Principal Act. I suppose such a discussion is out of order, but as you, sir, have listened to him in patience I suppose you will tolerate me just making a brief reply. I consider that the provision for county medical officers of health was probably the most valuable one in the Act of 1925, as at the present time there are thousands of pounds, I might say, going to waste on public health services on the preventive side owing to the fact that there is no co-ordinating centre to get the best results out of the money that is being expended. Until we have this officer in the various counties, that money will be money badly spent, and for that reason alone county councils, in the interests of economy and of the public health of their various districts, should be vieing with one another to have this officer appointed. His salary will not amount to a fraction of a penny in the £. I do not think it is necessary to deal with any of the points raised by Deputy Lyons. I think it is scarcely treating the matter seriously.

resumed the Chair.

I presume I am in order in speaking on each section of the Bill. There is something I want to say in regard to the last statement of the Minister.

When speaking, was the Minister concluding the debate?

The Minister has concluded the debate.

It is well understood that the mover of a motion on the Reading of a Bill will conclude the debate.

Then I presume I am not in order in moving that the Bill be not read a second time.

As the Minister has concluded the debate, I am afraid that you are too late.

The point I wanted to make was that I wanted to ask the Minister to postpone the Second Reading to give Deputies an opportunity of reading the Bill.

That should have been raised early in the discussion and not at the end.

I am sorry that you did not occupy the Chair at the time.

I am sure the Chair was well occupied at the time.

Question—"That the Bill be read a Second Time"—put and declared carried.

I would ask the Minister to give plenty of time before the Committee Stage of this Bill, which is really a complicated one, is taken.

Would Thursday week suit?

I object to Thursday week. Thursday is the day on which meetings of the county council are held, and for that reason some Deputies could not be present. I would ask the Minister to make it Friday week.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 9th December.
Top
Share